US election 2016

[Park Life 70]

I honestly think things just happen by accident.

[Alex 30566]

Good post actually.

Yep, well said, HF

[ChezGiven 0]

only 12% decided over the past week or in the last few days. This suggests that the recent revelations of the FBI reopening and then closing its investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails and Donald Trump's "locker room" talk and accusations of inappropriate sexual behavior did not have much impact on Americans as they went to the polls.

 

The economy remains the most important issue for majority of voters, but Americans were about evenly split on which candidate would better handle the economy.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/08/politics/first-exit-polls-2016/

12% is massive

[ChezGiven 0]

You would say that though

Let's see if Trump survives the first 12 months. If he does then it's convinced me. However, if he goes then I will concede to Parky. Basically it's a death bet.

[Meenzer 14112]

I also think it's worth not overstating the nature of the "movement" too much. A small shift in the other direction and you have President Romney four years ago, a small shift in the other direction and you have a Remain win, and so on - these things are often fairly finely balanced, and it's not as if the US/UK populations would have had a fundamentally different make-up if those had been the outcomes, you're still talking a broad split down the middle (like a lot of the time in modern-day US anyway). It's just the post-Brexit problem of a narrow victory in a polarised vote being spun into a blanket statement of uniform intent, and obviously any system that's a de facto referendum like a US presidential election is susceptible to negative rather than positive voting. Reading too much into people's thoughts is therefore perhaps to be avoided. But I have no idea really.

 

tl;dr version

 

[Rayvin 4964]

Also true. I suppose a lot of the people who've carried Trump here are voting along partisan lines, so this isn't a huge shift. The message is loud and clear mind you...

[Park Life 70]

Let's see if Trump survives the first 12 months. If he does then it's convinced me. However, if he goes then I will concede to Parky. Basically it's a death bet.

It'll depend on what he tries to do. But right now he is untouchable...Anything happens and there will be guns on the street.

 

Lucky for him TTIP is more or less nixed. But his campaign anti-globalist rhetoric might have other outcomes.

 

You know more about it than me but I think he'll try and get rid of Obamacare....The elite don't really like Obamacare so that might not be a red line...

 

Foreign policy is the one to look at. The Military industrial complex have tried to get Obama into Syria a couple of times and credit to him he's resisted.

 

However Syria is on the list.

 

And anybody who wants to know who the elite are well Trump has called some of them out in his campaign videos. (Even though they don't exist obviously).

Edited November 9, 2016 by Park Life

[Rayvin 4964]

Yeah I gather TTIP is dead in the water for sure now. Can't say I'm entirely displeased by that.

[toonotl 2455]

Globalists in crisis Nice pivot. You think the elite conspires but fails to win, not exactly a powerful elite if they don't control anything

 

Anyway as much as it was impossible for Obama to live up to his hype I think it will be equally impossible for Trump to live up to his reputation.

 

'Hilary the elephant packed her trunk

And said goodbye to the circus

Off she went with a Trumpety Trump

Trump Trump Trump!!'

No. No. No. The elites do control everything, but it's in the way a Scooby-Doo villain would.

 

There's clues: plastic-flags that blow in the moon wind, second shooters, steel beams that melt from jet fuel and sailboats who's masts never disappear under the horizon.

 

It's all there. All you need is to open your mind far enough to let your brain fall out.

[Renton 17876]

I'd prefer it if elected elites WERE controlling events nationally and globally.

 

The problem is they aren't.

 

They're throwing their hands up and saying "ah well, this is what you get from globalisation, we can't interfere in the delicate balance of the markets, let the chips fall where they may. Except this bank here and this car company there... here's a few billion for you. Feel free to lay off 100,000 people"

I'm completely fine with the concept of political elites, of which Trump is now the most powerful in the world. Often that's not what people are talking about though.

 

The truth is it's actually quite easy to describe the situation that led us to Trump using normal empirical methodology. But for these political elites, it's genuinely very difficult to address them, no matter how well intentioned they are (and I believe a lot are). All actions have consequences, all benefits have associated disbenefits. Look at Hollande as an example of a left approach that hasn't worked.

 

I believe parky is merely describing the process of global evolution, and mistakes it for something designed. It's not, it just is.

[Park Life 70]

No. No. No. The elites do control everything, but it's in the way a Scooby-Doo villain would.

 

There's clues: plastic-flags that blow in the moon wind, second shooters, steel beams that melt from jet fuel and sailboats who's masts never disappear under the horizon.

 

It's all there. All you need is to open your mind far enough to let your brain fall out.

You could have been a poet mate.

[Park Life 70]

I'm completely fine with the concept of political elites, of which Trump is now the most powerful in the world. Often that's not what people are talking about though.

 

The truth is it's actually quite easy to describe the situation that led us to Trump using normal empirical methodology. But for these political elites, it's genuinely very difficult to address them, no matter how well intentioned they are (and I believe a lot are). All actions have consequences, all benefits have associated disbenefits. Look at Hollande as an example of a left approach that hasn't worked.

 

I believe parky is merely describing the process of global evolution, and mistakes it for something designed. It's not, it just is.

I honestly can't dismiss that as a cogent counter argument. It might well be a flux in constant movement with appearances of design. In conspiracy circles counter to my positions on here I am actually the voice of reason.

[Meenzer 14112]

As a side note, looks like Clinton might well win the popular vote, like Gore did in 2000. Not that you can read too much into that if you assume people in safe states are far less inclined to vote, blablabla, but still.

[Rayvin 4964]

I'm completely fine with the concept of political elites, of which Trump is now the most powerful in the world. Often that's not what people are talking about though.

 

The truth is it's actually quite easy to describe the situation that led us to Trump using normal empirical methodology. But for these political elites, it's genuinely very difficult to address them, no matter how well intentioned they are (and I believe a lot are). All actions have consequences, all benefits have associated disbenefits. Look at Hollande as an example of a left approach that hasn't worked.

 

I believe parky is merely describing the process of global evolution, and mistakes it for something designed. It's not, it just is.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

 

For the third time now. Could you at least read it and tell me why you don't agree

[Alex 30566]

As a side note, looks like Clinton might well win the popular vote, like Gore did in 2000. Not that you can read too much into that if you assume people in safe states are far less inclined to vote, blablabla, but still.

Aye one of the US commentators on the BBC was suggesting that this morning. Can't see a valid argument why it isn't one person one vote anyway like. Seems the fairest way on doing it on a single issue. I've said that prior to this result too.

[Meenzer 14112]

Aye one of the US commentators on the BBC was suggesting that this morning. Can't see a valid argument why it isn't one person one vote anyway like. Seems the fairest way on doing it on a single issue. I've said that prior to this result too.

 

Yeah, imagine the Brexit vote had been constituency-based instead and you got a different result with each system. Actually, maybe don't.

 

Anyway, it's good to know there's always a local angle on these things: http://www.buchanobserver.co.uk/news/aberdeenshire-business-owner-wins-presidential-election-1-4282745

[Rayvin 4964]

Aye one of the US commentators on the BBC was suggesting that this morning. Can't see a valid argument why it isn't one person one vote anyway like. Seems the fairest way on doing it on a single issue. I've said that prior to this result too.

 

Probably because that would mean the establishment is more at risk of things like this. That's the only conceivable reason, surely. Just because they've been burned this time, doesn't mean it hasn't worked for them in the past.

[Renton 17876]

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/15/neoliberalism-ideology-problem-george-monbiot

 

For the third time now. Could you at least read it and tell me why you don't agree

I prefer to think for myself.

 

Okay, I will give it a read and see if I agree/disagree.

[Rayvin 4964]

I suspect you'll find that it broadly agrees with you, but that you're using different terms and have a slightly nuanced spin on it Which is what we've established here.

[Happy Face 29]

As a side note, looks like Clinton might well win the popular vote, like Gore did in 2000. Not that you can read too much into that if you assume people in safe states are far less inclined to vote, blablabla, but still.

 

It's disappointing places like New York and California didn't see bigger swings to third parties given how safe they were for Clinton.  Only 2-3% swings and huge majorities for Hilary.

 

Same swing as states like Pennsylvania where 3% to third parties handed the state to Trump.

 

There doesn't seem to be a tactical thought goes into it.

[Alex 30566]

Probably because that would mean the establishment is more at risk of things like this. That's the only conceivable reason, surely. Just because they've been burned this time, doesn't mean it hasn't worked for them in the past.

I think I heard it mentioned that it was the Founding Fathers who instituted it to give each state a say. It does seem a bit bizarre when you could have someone losing despte winning the popular vote by a huge margin (in theory at least) though. Although that could happen here but I think our system is unfair and undemocratic for that very reason.

[Rayvin 4964]

I think I heard it mentioned that it was the Founding Fathers who instituted it to give each state a say. It does seem a bit bizarre when you could have someone losing despte winning the popular vote by a huge margin (in theory at least) though. Although that could happen here but I think our system is unfair and undemocratic for that very reason.

 

Fair point then - seems highly unlikely that the Founding Fathers would have had it in place for any nefarious reason. I'd imagine it's explained somewhere - maybe it's to do with keeping the needs of less populated states in line with others.

[Happy Face 29]

Any conspiracy theories as to why Clinton hasn't conceded yet Parky?

 

Disgracefully ungracious behaviour.

 

Is she worried about choking on the words.

[Park Life 70]

Any conspiracy theories as to why Clinton hasn't conceded yet Parky?

 

Disgracefully ungracious behaviour.

 

Is she worried about choking on the words.

On the blower to the lone gunman.

 

Trump said she had called him and conceded. ??

 

He says it 22 secs in...

 

Edited November 9, 2016 by Park Life

[ewerk 26590]

only 12% decided over the past week or in the last few days. This suggests that the recent revelations of the FBI reopening and then closing its investigation into Hillary Clinton's emails and Donald Trump's "locker room" talk and accusations of inappropriate sexual behavior did not have much impact on Americans as they went to the polls.

 

The economy remains the most important issue for majority of voters, but Americans were about evenly split on which candidate would better handle the economy.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/08/politics/first-exit-polls-2016/

 

Look at how many voters who decided since September and over the last week went Trump compared to those who decided prior to that or in the last few days (since the FBI stated that they'd found nothing).