261–270 of 1001 posts
bear in mind this paper is now owned by jeff bezos, and the actual results are still not in yet edit: bozos -> bezos
The race isn't even close. Trump won. Don't blame Jeff Bezos for this.
It is possible to view this as an isolated event or a trend. Coming on the heels of BREXIT this is a trend. The attempts at building an interconnected globalised world are beginning to fail. A bunch of elites decided to create their own trans-national utopia unchecked by borders and dismissed all criticism as racist or bigoted. The globalisation project has been rejected by a majority of the population. Whether it is…
I feel that the US will now, finally, focus on the US. It's time for that. Instead of their usual imperialistic attitude that involves enticing Europe to boycott Russia, taking out stability providing leaders in the middle east without much (after)thought (or the wrong kind of thought), providing weapons the the Free Syrian Army mercenaries that now fight for the better paying ISIS side (this is not stupidity, it's r…
There is a very good reason why big, powerful empires always have a big military, meddle and stick their noses into everyone's affairs.
Economic power doesn't come from thin air. It has a lot to do with political power, influence and domination.
Those are two sides of the same coin, they support and nurture each other.
You reach limits of growth when you just trade and build up your own economy.
Almost all foreign policy is dedicated to furthering self-serving goals. Often medium and long term, so not apparently visible. Often related to things the public know very little about. Just as often, completely misguided.
But there's always a reason.
It is possible to view this as an isolated event or a trend. Coming on the heels of BREXIT this is a trend. The attempts at building an interconnected globalised world are beginning to fail. A bunch of elites decided to create their own trans-national utopia unchecked by borders and dismissed all criticism as racist or bigoted. The globalisation project has been rejected by a majority of the population. Whether it is…
>Instead of patronising these people it's time we tried to understand their concerns and try to assuage them. I use to think this too, before this election. But it became clear to me that the "other side" is not interested in being assuaged. They are not interested in facts, or empathy, or calmly discussing how to face an uncertain and complex world. They are interested in control. Interested in hiring whatever stron…
Doesn't this describe the other side? "Deplorables," "ignorant ruralites," "uninformed -ist -phobes"? Is that attitude interested in empathy or calmly discussing things?
> Interested in hiring whatever strong-man seems most likely to make the bad people stop doing tbe bad things and make the good times happen
Isn't this exactly how Obama got elected? "Hope and change", and Obama's been practically worshipped as a savior ever since.
> The politics of fear won
I think fear had a lot to do with this result, but those fears are grounded in reality. One candidate acknowledged the problems that have arisen in the last decade, while the other did not. Time will tell how well he actually handles them.
It is possible to view this as an isolated event or a trend. Coming on the heels of BREXIT this is a trend. The attempts at building an interconnected globalised world are beginning to fail. A bunch of elites decided to create their own trans-national utopia unchecked by borders and dismissed all criticism as racist or bigoted. The globalisation project has been rejected by a majority of the population. Whether it is…
Globalization isn't the problem. Computerization is. Other countries are not taking "our" jobs. We simply don't need those jobs anymore. Taxes on foreign labor will only do one thing: subsidize robots. We're going to spend billions of dollars on a big wall, and I guarantee you we're not going to have a lot more jobs after that. (The wall itself is a pretty big project though.)
It's not A isn't / B is. Both globalization and automation of work are creating discontent.
It wouldn't be so bad if the president didn't have enormous power. And they aren't supposed to. But it's been growing so much over the years. Maybe now people will understand why its so important to limit it.
Such a watershed moment. A few things strike me: * A Republican just won without being very religious and being wishy-washy on abortion. * The loser out-spent the winner by huge amounts. Does money really buy elections? Maybe, but not this one. * The rich abandoned Republicans, but many poor and working-class abandoned Democrats. [1] 1: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/elections/e...
Regarding your first observation, I think that people who are very religious and anti-abortion expect their agenda to now be championed by the new administration. I have my doubts whether that will actually come to be.
More years spent getting caught up on intraspecies drama (bathroom use!) rather than working on big ideas.
It is possible to view this as an isolated event or a trend. Coming on the heels of BREXIT this is a trend. The attempts at building an interconnected globalised world are beginning to fail. A bunch of elites decided to create their own trans-national utopia unchecked by borders and dismissed all criticism as racist or bigoted. The globalisation project has been rejected by a majority of the population. Whether it is…
> Also people seem to care a LOT about immigration and preserving their culture I don't understand that part. Isn't US a sum of N cultures that decided to have a common culture? So why the newcomers can't do what the predecessors did?
Jeez, everybody is all bent out of shape on this. The Republican establishment hate Trump nearly as much as they hate Clinton so with Republicans controlling The House and The Senate how much "damage" is President Trump going to be able to do. The really interesting part of all this was reading Scott Adams blog who proposed the idea that Trump is a master persuader (probably this is just a fancy name for populist). H…
Probably a lot less than people think domestically -- I suspect he's going to find his hands tied nearly as much as Obama. (And the outbursts of frustration we're likely to see from him as result will probably be epic.) Foreign relations are going to be interesting for a while though, and the stock market is probably going to crash, if it hasn't already.
So as a European ... Clinton didn't spend enough time in the Upper Midwest expecting to carry those states, but Trump had an actual message for them (NAFTA, etc.) while Hillary didn't, and they don't care that he is racist and sexist, they want their jobs back, so the election was called by a 40+ white demo in an economically depressed region just like old Middle England called Brexit. About right?
It's the economy, stupid. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid
Obama had the "handicap" of being black and "a funny name" but has plenty charisma and was seen as an outsider. Trump has charisma (for some) and is an outsider. Clinton has no redeeming quality in the eye of the electorate, even many who voted for her did so to stop Trump, not because they believed in her.