Donald Trump IMMEDIATELY shifted tone upon becoming POTUS-elect, "crooked Hillary" to "Secretary Clinton"
It was all fake. In 2008 he was singing her praises, called her a "great Senator", a "wonderful woman", "very smart woman", "very nice person", and Bill Clinton a great President.
He'll dump most of those signature campaign promises the same way.
A lot angry white people will be after his ass then.
Donald Trump IMMEDIATELY shifted tone upon becoming POTUS-elect, "crooked Hillary" to "Secretary Clinton"
It was all fake. In 2008 he was singing her praises, called her a "great Senator", a "wonderful woman", "very smart woman", "very nice person", and Bill Clinton a great President.
He'll dump most of those signature campaign promises the same way.
Indeed.
Quite likely he'll face a serious primary challenge in 2020, IMO.
It'll be the right vs. Trump dynamic that will characterize american politics for the next 4/8 years.
Donald Trump IMMEDIATELY shifted tone upon becoming POTUS-elect, "crooked Hillary" to "Secretary Clinton"
It was all fake. In 2008 he was singing her praises, called her a "great Senator", a "wonderful woman", "very smart woman", "very nice person", and Bill Clinton a great President.
He'll dump most of those signature campaign promises the same way.
Indeed.
Quite likely he'll face a serious primary challenge in 2020, IMO.
It'll be the right vs. Trump dynamic that will characterize american politics for the next 4/8 years.
I doubt it, unless Cruz tries again, unlikely against an incumbent president Trump's base within the GOP primary voters is too strong for any serious challenge. Most likely the 2020 election will be Trump v Warren
Donald Trump IMMEDIATELY shifted tone upon becoming POTUS-elect, "crooked Hillary" to "Secretary Clinton"
It was all fake. In 2008 he was singing her praises, called her a "great Senator", a "wonderful woman", "very smart woman", "very nice person", and Bill Clinton a great President.
He'll dump most of those signature campaign promises the same way.
A lot angry white people will be after his ass then.
Donald Trump IMMEDIATELY shifted tone upon becoming POTUS-elect, "crooked Hillary" to "Secretary Clinton"
It was all fake. In 2008 he was singing her praises, called her a "great Senator", a "wonderful woman", "very smart woman", "very nice person", and Bill Clinton a great President.
He'll dump most of those signature campaign promises the same way.
Indeed.
Quite likely he'll face a serious primary challenge in 2020, IMO.
It'll be the right vs. Trump dynamic that will characterize american politics for the next 4/8 years.
I doubt it, unless Cruz tries again, unlikely against an incumbent president Trump's base within the GOP primary voters is too strong for any serious challenge. Most likely the 2020 election will be Trump v Warren
Perhaps we should look back at the threads of 4 years ago to see what people were predicting for now.
Donald Trump IMMEDIATELY shifted tone upon becoming POTUS-elect, "crooked Hillary" to "Secretary Clinton"
It was all fake. In 2008 he was singing her praises, called her a "great Senator", a "wonderful woman", "very smart woman", "very nice person", and Bill Clinton a great President.
He'll dump most of those signature campaign promises the same way.
Indeed.
Quite likely he'll face a serious primary challenge in 2020, IMO.
It'll be the right vs. Trump dynamic that will characterize american politics for the next 4/8 years.
I doubt it, unless Cruz tries again, unlikely against an incumbent president Trump's base within the GOP primary voters is too strong for any serious challenge. Most likely the 2020 election will be Trump v Warren
Perhaps we should look back at the threads of 4 years ago to see what people were predicting for now.
I think I can guess what nobody was predicting.
Lesicester City winning the Premier League & President Trump double
New Hampshire says the vote is now 100% in according to New York Times !
Should be called already. Since the potential absentee vote there is essentially a DEM bias coin flip no chance whatsoever of late absentee ballots flipping it.
Yes many people voted for him, doesn't mean they were right to. They just ignored that he was is an awful person. People vote for people that will do them harm all the time.
Yes many people voted for him, doesn't mean they were right to. They just ignored that he was is an awful person.
I never blame people on how they voted, even if I think they made the wrong choice. Its democracy. It is up to the candidates to sell themselves and their policies and the establishment to provide attractive and sensible candidates.
I also don't have a stomp at "the people" if I don't get the choice I preferred, has happened plenty of times in my lifetime.
In this election, we got a giant douche and a turd sandwich....the DNC tried to fix it for Clinton vs Sanders and the RNC establishment candidates had the wrong polices / personalities, and the establishment of both parties had manage to alienate significant numbers of Americans over a long period of time.
Donald Trump IMMEDIATELY shifted tone upon becoming POTUS-elect, "crooked Hillary" to "Secretary Clinton"
It was all fake. In 2008 he was singing her praises, called her a "great Senator", a "wonderful woman", "very smart woman", "very nice person", and Bill Clinton a great President.
He'll dump most of those signature campaign promises the same way.
Indeed.
Quite likely he'll face a serious primary challenge in 2020, IMO.
It'll be the right vs. Trump dynamic that will characterize american politics for the next 4/8 years.
I doubt it, unless Cruz tries again, unlikely against an incumbent president Trump's base within the GOP primary voters is too strong for any serious challenge. Most likely the 2020 election will be Trump v Warren
Perhaps we should look back at the threads of 4 years ago to see what people were predicting for now.
I think I can guess what nobody was predicting.
The Democratic Party is moving left after the defeat of Clinton centrism and will almost certainly pick a left liberal, if not Warren then someone in similar vein. In retrospect after the defeat of the moderate Romney in 2012 the GOP picking a populist conservative in the form of Trump was not that surprising and historically if a party has been out of the White House for 8 years it normally wins the election. Goodnight
Donald Trump IMMEDIATELY shifted tone upon becoming POTUS-elect, "crooked Hillary" to "Secretary Clinton"
It was all fake. In 2008 he was singing her praises, called her a "great Senator", a "wonderful woman", "very smart woman", "very nice person", and Bill Clinton a great President.
He'll dump most of those signature campaign promises the same way.
A lot angry white people will be after his ass then.
Donald Trump IMMEDIATELY shifted tone upon becoming POTUS-elect, "crooked Hillary" to "Secretary Clinton"
It was all fake. In 2008 he was singing her praises, called her a "great Senator", a "wonderful woman", "very smart woman", "very nice person", and Bill Clinton a great President.
He'll dump most of those signature campaign promises the same way.
A lot angry white people will be after his ass then.
Yes many people voted for him, doesn't mean they were right to. They just ignored that he was is an awful person.
I never blame people on how they voted, even if I think they made the wrong choice. Its democracy. It is up to the candidates to sell themselves and their policies and the establishment to provide attractive and sensible candidates.
I also don't have a stomp at "the people" if I don't get the choice I preferred, has happened plenty of times in my lifetime.
In this election, we got a giant douche and a turd sandwich....the DNC tried to fix it for Clinton vs Sanders and the RNC establishment candidates had the wrong polices / personalities, and the establishment of both parties had manage to alienate significant numbers of Americans over a long period of time.
Oh don't get me wrong I'm not blaming them. But that woman is allowed to say she thinks trump is bigoted even if many of his voters (and most aren't) are not.
Donald Trump IMMEDIATELY shifted tone upon becoming POTUS-elect, "crooked Hillary" to "Secretary Clinton"
It was all fake. In 2008 he was singing her praises, called her a "great Senator", a "wonderful woman", "very smart woman", "very nice person", and Bill Clinton a great President.
He'll dump most of those signature campaign promises the same way.
A lot angry white people will be after his ass then.
Donald Trump IMMEDIATELY shifted tone upon becoming POTUS-elect, "crooked Hillary" to "Secretary Clinton"
It was all fake. In 2008 he was singing her praises, called her a "great Senator", a "wonderful woman", "very smart woman", "very nice person", and Bill Clinton a great President.
He'll dump most of those signature campaign promises the same way.
A lot angry white people will be after his ass then.
Well I've heard there was a secret chord That David played and it pleased the Lord But you don't really care for music, do you? Well it goes like this: The fourth, the fifth, the minor fall and the major lift The baffled king composing Hallelujah
It takes weeks to count the votes? I guess there isn't urgency to do it given they have a month to appoint their electors, but it still seems like a loooong time.
It takes weeks to count the votes? I guess there isn't urgency to do it given they have a month to appoint their electors, but it still seems like a loooong time.
Yes. At the moment California is Clinton 61.5%, Trump 33.2%. If the rest of the votes go the same way as the votes already counted, it'll put Clinton on 63.12 million votes altogether and Trump on 61.50 million votes, a Clinton lead of 1.62 million votes. But there are also more votes to come from states like Washington and Oregon. Washington is currently on 60% declared and Oregon 86%.
Well I've heard there was a secret chord That David played and it pleased the Lord But you don't really care for music, do you? Well it goes like this: The fourth, the fifth, the minor fall and the major lift The baffled king composing Hallelujah
Yes many people voted for him, doesn't mean they were right to. They just ignored that he was is an awful person. People vote for people that will do them harm all the time.
Yes many people voted for him, doesn't mean they were right to. They just ignored that he was is an awful person. People vote for people that will do them harm all the time.
Or maybe they just thought him the least awful person. Maybe in politics, appearing corrupt is, er, Top Trumps over appearing racist, sexist, vulgar and crass. Maybe this is what this election has taught us?
Greatly saddened by the death of Leonard Cohen, tempered slightly by the fact that I did at least get to see him perform live. I have never known such a wave of affection - no, let's call it what it was, love - for an artist at a concert as I witnessed that night. An open-air concert, in a downpour. And nobody minded a bit. Because Leonard Cohen was performing. For them.
I'm not certain that's a pandora's box we can close - especially not when our ability to sort and manipulate atoms appears to be moving down the same cost/ease curve as everything else.
The asteroid problem also suggests that keeping some around and functional has some utility.
I agree (*) with your first paragraph. It is hard to uninvent something that has been invented, especially when the cost of ownership is reducing.
As for your second paragraph: AIUI the nuke-the-asteroid approach is frowned upon nowadays - there is a danger you'll just have two or three large chunks heading in on even more unpredictable trajectories. Instead, it is easier and safer to send up a rocket with a 'pusher' that will apply a small force to the asteroid. If it's far enough out, you only need a small delta-V to make it miss Earth completely. Even better, if it has enough fuel you can fire it multiple times.
In fact, this is one of the reasons behind the recent land-on-asteroid missions, such as Hayabosa.
(*) Better than 'indeed' ?
Glad to be corrected on that front.
Now... do you think we can convince Trump to resurrect Project Orion?
well, it would certainly send the environmentalists nuts!
"This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. ..."
"That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. ..."
"Journalists increasingly don’t even believe in the possibility of reasoned disagreement, and as such ascribe cynical motives to those who think about things a different way. We see this in the ongoing veneration of “facts,” the ones peddled by explainer websites and data journalists who believe themselves to be curiously post-ideological."
"This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. ..."
"That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. ..."
"Journalists increasingly don’t even believe in the possibility of reasoned disagreement, and as such ascribe cynical motives to those who think about things a different way. We see this in the ongoing veneration of “facts,” the ones peddled by explainer websites and data journalists who believe themselves to be curiously post-ideological."
It is the difference between the old media and the new media. In the old media facts, accuracy and consistency matter, in the new media they do not. Trump won the new media, just as Leave did. Tens of thousands of alt.right activists will fanatically spam everyone with garbage for free. Putins troll factories have been a very shrewd investment too, they have won him Syria, the Donbass and Crimea.
"This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. ..."
"That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. ..."
"Journalists increasingly don’t even believe in the possibility of reasoned disagreement, and as such ascribe cynical motives to those who think about things a different way. We see this in the ongoing veneration of “facts,” the ones peddled by explainer websites and data journalists who believe themselves to be curiously post-ideological."
It is the difference between the old media and the new media. In the old media facts, accuracy and consistency matter, in the new media they do not. Trump won the new media, just as Leave did.
Tens of thousands of alt.right activists will fanatically spam everyone with garbage. Putins troll factories have been a very shrewd investment. They have won him Syria, the Donbass and Crimea.
Didn't the "old media" predict the election for Clinton? So much for accuracy
"This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. ..."
"That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. ..."
"Journalists increasingly don’t even believe in the possibility of reasoned disagreement, and as such ascribe cynical motives to those who think about things a different way. We see this in the ongoing veneration of “facts,” the ones peddled by explainer websites and data journalists who believe themselves to be curiously post-ideological."
It is the difference between the old media and the new media. In the old media facts, accuracy and consistency matter, in the new media they do not. Trump won the new media, just as Leave did.
Tens of thousands of alt.right activists will fanatically spam everyone with garbage. Putins troll factories have been a very shrewd investment. They have won him Syria, the Donbass and Crimea.
Didn't the "old media" predict the election for Clinton? So much for accuracy
No one can be accurate about the future!
But the tinfoil hatters were even more inaccurate, remember how it was all going to be rigged?
"This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. ..."
"That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. ..."
"Journalists increasingly don’t even believe in the possibility of reasoned disagreement, and as such ascribe cynical motives to those who think about things a different way. We see this in the ongoing veneration of “facts,” the ones peddled by explainer websites and data journalists who believe themselves to be curiously post-ideological."
It is the difference between the old media and the new media. In the old media facts, accuracy and consistency matter, in the new media they do not. Trump won the new media, just as Leave did.
Tens of thousands of alt.right activists will fanatically spam everyone with garbage. Putins troll factories have been a very shrewd investment. They have won him Syria, the Donbass and Crimea.
Didn't the "old media" predict the election for Clinton? So much for accuracy
No one can be accurate about the future!
But the tinfoil hatters were even more inaccurate, remember how it was all going to be rigged?
Yeah, but they were so assured in their predictions! They hugely misread the mood in the country.
And it was rigged.. Trump would have won the popular vote otherwise
"This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. ..."
"That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. ..."
"Journalists increasingly don’t even believe in the possibility of reasoned disagreement, and as such ascribe cynical motives to those who think about things a different way. We see this in the ongoing veneration of “facts,” the ones peddled by explainer websites and data journalists who believe themselves to be curiously post-ideological."
It is the difference between the old media and the new media. In the old media facts, accuracy and consistency matter, in the new media they do not. Trump won the new media, just as Leave did.
Tens of thousands of alt.right activists will fanatically spam everyone with garbage. Putins troll factories have been a very shrewd investment. They have won him Syria, the Donbass and Crimea.
Didn't the "old media" predict the election for Clinton? So much for accuracy
No one can be accurate about the future!
But the tinfoil hatters were even more inaccurate, remember how it was all going to be rigged?
Yeah, but they were so assured in their predictions! They hugely misread the mood in the country.
And it was rigged.. Trump would have won the electoral vote otherwise
I don't think they misread things that much, they were predicting a narrow Clinton victory, while it was a narrow loss. I was not the only one predicting that Trump would win in the Midwest and Clinton in the Sunbelt. There was a lot of concern that AA turnout would be down.
"This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. ..."
"That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. ..."
"Journalists increasingly don’t even believe in the possibility of reasoned disagreement, and as such ascribe cynical motives to those who think about things a different way. We see this in the ongoing veneration of “facts,” the ones peddled by explainer websites and data journalists who believe themselves to be curiously post-ideological."
It is the difference between the old media and the new media. In the old media facts, accuracy and consistency matter, in the new media they do not. Trump won the new media, just as Leave did.
Tens of thousands of alt.right activists will fanatically spam everyone with garbage. Putins troll factories have been a very shrewd investment. They have won him Syria, the Donbass and Crimea.
Didn't the "old media" predict the election for Clinton? So much for accuracy
No one can be accurate about the future!
But the tinfoil hatters were even more inaccurate, remember how it was all going to be rigged?
Yeah, but they were so assured in their predictions! They hugely misread the mood in the country.
And it was rigged.. Trump would have won the electoral vote otherwise
I don't think they misread things that much, they were predicting a narrow Clinton victory, while it was a narrow loss. I was not the only one predicting that Trump would win in the Midwest and Clinton in the Sunbelt.
I suspect you were in a small minority! And Clinton didn't exactly win in the Sunbelt, not any more than Obama did anyway.
I do feel somewhat sorry for her staffers, they must have been confident in victory.. and now what do they do (as someone facing the end of my contract.. I know how they feel!)
Donald Trump IMMEDIATELY shifted tone upon becoming POTUS-elect, "crooked Hillary" to "Secretary Clinton"
It was all fake. In 2008 he was singing her praises, called her a "great Senator", a "wonderful woman", "very smart woman", "very nice person", and Bill Clinton a great President.
He'll dump most of those signature campaign promises the same way.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
Pretty likely to see that.
One thing unusual about Trump as a Republican is his lack of interest in the socially conservative Christian agenda. He doesn't care much either way. Unfortunately this probably means letting the likes of Pence run riot over abortion etc.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
Pretty likely to see that.
One thing unusual about Trump as a Republican is his lack of interest in the socially conservative Christian agenda. He doesn't care much either way. Unfortunately this probably means letting the likes of Pence run riot over abortion etc.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
Pretty likely to see that.
One thing unusual about Trump as a Republican is his lack of interest in the socially conservative Christian agenda. He doesn't care much either way. Unfortunately this probably means letting the likes of Pence run riot over abortion etc.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
That does look likely.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
Pretty likely to see that.
One thing unusual about Trump as a Republican is his lack of interest in the socially conservative Christian agenda. He doesn't care much either way. Unfortunately this probably means letting the likes of Pence run riot over abortion etc.
I think his view is it should be a state issue.
It'll be a SCOTUS decision. Trump gets one guaranteed appointment and looking at the Justice's ages is likely to get two more on top. It'll be a very conservative bench in four years time.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
That does look likely.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
That does look likely.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
I would disagree over trade. Trump will have a tarrif war with China and other emerging markets. Scrapping TPP, TTIP and NAFTA are all very likely. Trump is only interested in the domestic agenda in the red states,
I personally think that this is one of the more important things about this election. It might be overstating it to say the power of big money in US politics has been broken but it has certainly suffered a major reverse. Interesting too that it is the republican candidate who took a much higher percentage in small donations than the Democrat. For me, this sums up where the Democrats have gone wrong for some time and Clinton was the epitome of that.
Edit. On reflection there are very strong parallels with Blair and his pursuit of big money contributions to keep Labour afloat while the grassroots died.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
Pretty likely to see that.
One thing unusual about Trump as a Republican is his lack of interest in the socially conservative Christian agenda. He doesn't care much either way. Unfortunately this probably means letting the likes of Pence run riot over abortion etc.
I think his view is it should be a state issue.
It'll be a SCOTUS decision. Trump gets one guaranteed appointment and looking at the Justice's ages is likely to get two more on top. It'll be a very conservative bench in four years time.
Yeah, timing couldn't be better for the Supreme Court, especially since Congress managed to block Obama appointing someone (I honestly thought someone had been appointed in the interim!)
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
That does look likely.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
I would disagree over trade. Trump will have a tarrif war with China and other emerging markets. Scrapping TPP, TTIP and NAFTA are all very likely. Trump is only interested in the domestic agenda in the red states,
A politician who puts his own voters first. Can we have one too ?
I personally think that this is one of the more important things about this election. It might be overstating it to say the power of big money in US politics has been broken but it has certainly suffered a major reverse. Interesting too that it is the republican candidate who took a much higher percentage in small donations than the Democrat. For me, this sums up where the Democrats have gone wrong for some time and Clinton was the epitome of that.
If he was clever he'd push for campaign finance reform. For starters it'd drive the liberals nuts!
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
That does look likely.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
I would disagree over trade. Trump will have a tarrif war with China and other emerging markets. Scrapping TPP, TTIP and NAFTA are all very likely. Trump is only interested in the domestic agenda in the red states,
A politician who puts his own voters first. Can we have one too ?
I personally think that this is one of the more important things about this election. It might be overstating it to say the power of big money in US politics has been broken but it has certainly suffered a major reverse. Interesting too that it is the republican candidate who took a much higher percentage in small donations than the Democrat. For me, this sums up where the Democrats have gone wrong for some time and Clinton was the epitome of that.
If he was clever he'd push for campaign finance reform. For starters it'd drive the liberals nuts!
Yes but that would just be a bonus. Money is the poison in American politics veins and radical campaign finance would be a great step forward.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
That does look likely.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
I would disagree over trade. Trump will have a tarrif war with China and other emerging markets. Scrapping TPP, TTIP and NAFTA are all very likely. Trump is only interested in the domestic agenda in the red states,
A politician who puts his own voters first. Can we have one too ?
I think that the whole world is moving against free trade agreements, via populist movements of both right and left. Hard Brexit and Trumpism have killed off the emerging international trade deals.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
That does look likely.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
I would disagree over trade. Trump will have a tarrif war with China and other emerging markets. Scrapping TPP, TTIP and NAFTA are all very likely. Trump is only interested in the domestic agenda in the red states,
I'd imagine existing agreements will stay in place. Those that haven't been ratified will wither and die. China owns a huge chunk of American debt, so that may complicate things; while tariffs will just push prices up in America. The Chinese will happily put tariffs on American imports.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
That does look likely.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
I would disagree over trade. Trump will have a tarrif war with China and other emerging markets. Scrapping TPP, TTIP and NAFTA are all very likely. Trump is only interested in the domestic agenda in the red states,
A politician who puts his own voters first. Can we have one too ?
I think that the whole world is moving against free trade agreements, via populist movements of both right and left. Hard Brexit and Trumpism have killed off the emerging international trade deals.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
That does look likely.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
I would disagree over trade. Trump will have a tarrif war with China and other emerging markets. Scrapping TPP, TTIP and NAFTA are all very likely. Trump is only interested in the domestic agenda in the red states,
I'd imagine existing agreements will stay in place. Those that haven't been ratified will wither and die. China owns a huge chunk of American debt, so that may complicate things; while tariffs will just push prices up in America. The Chinese will happily put tariffs on American imports.
Sooner or later China was going to stop buying up American government debt, and perhaps even start selling it.
It seems to be happening already:
Bloomberg - Emerging Markets Extend Post-Trump Slump as Bond Rout Deepens http://bloom.bg/2g1KfZO
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
That does look likely.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
I would disagree over trade. Trump will have a tarrif war with China and other emerging markets. Scrapping TPP, TTIP and NAFTA are all very likely. Trump is only interested in the domestic agenda in the red states,
I'd imagine existing agreements will stay in place. Those that haven't been ratified will wither and die. China owns a huge chunk of American debt, so that may complicate things; while tariffs will just push prices up in America. The Chinese will happily put tariffs on American imports.
But America is a net gainer from that given the huge trade deficit. I will be amazed if Trump does not impose heavy tariffs on China. That country has grown fast on a free ride into a very rich market for a long time and it has not been in the US's interests in terms of trade, employment or strategic power. Whether China has already grown to the point that it can generate its own growth will be interesting to see.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
That does look likely.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
I would disagree over trade. Trump will have a tarrif war with China and other emerging markets. Scrapping TPP, TTIP and NAFTA are all very likely. Trump is only interested in the domestic agenda in the red states,
A politician who puts his own voters first. Can we have one too ?
I think that the whole world is moving against free trade agreements, via populist movements of both right and left. Hard Brexit and Trumpism have killed off the emerging international trade deals.
so what ? If free trade isnt delivering the goods why do youexpect people to vote for it ?
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
That does look likely.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
I would disagree over trade. Trump will have a tarrif war with China and other emerging markets. Scrapping TPP, TTIP and NAFTA are all very likely. Trump is only interested in the domestic agenda in the red states,
I'd imagine existing agreements will stay in place. Those that haven't been ratified will wither and die. China owns a huge chunk of American debt, so that may complicate things; while tariffs will just push prices up in America. The Chinese will happily put tariffs on American imports.
But America is a net gainer from that given the huge trade deficit. I will be amazed if Trump does not impose heavy tariffs on China. That country has grown fast on a free ride into a very rich market for a long time and it has not been in the US's interests in terms of trade, employment or strategic power. Whether China has already grown to the point that it can generate its own growth will be interesting to see.
So which side do we choose? We will have to go for one or the other now we're leaving the EU.
I personally think that this is one of the more important things about this election. It might be overstating it to say the power of big money in US politics has been broken but it has certainly suffered a major reverse. Interesting too that it is the republican candidate who took a much higher percentage in small donations than the Democrat. For me, this sums up where the Democrats have gone wrong for some time and Clinton was the epitome of that.
If he was clever he'd push for campaign finance reform. For starters it'd drive the liberals nuts!
Campaign finance reform would outrage the GOP establishment and was in any case also a Clinton policy.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
That does look likely.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
I would disagree over trade. Trump will have a tarrif war with China and other emerging markets. Scrapping TPP, TTIP and NAFTA are all very likely. Trump is only interested in the domestic agenda in the red states,
I'd imagine existing agreements will stay in place. Those that haven't been ratified will wither and die. China owns a huge chunk of American debt, so that may complicate things; while tariffs will just push prices up in America. The Chinese will happily put tariffs on American imports.
Sooner or later China was going to stop buying up American government debt, and perhaps even start selling it.
It seems to be happening already:
Bloomberg - Emerging Markets Extend Post-Trump Slump as Bond Rout Deepens http://bloom.bg/2g1KfZO
Chinese financial institutions continue to buy USD denominated assets whether it's Treasury bills or hard assets (the latter becoming increasingly relevant). In broad terms their view is that those offer security against the domestic slowdown and debt default/extend and pretend.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
That does look likely.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
I would disagree over trade. Trump will have a tarrif war with China and other emerging markets. Scrapping TPP, TTIP and NAFTA are all very likely. Trump is only interested in the domestic agenda in the red states,
I'd imagine existing agreements will stay in place. Those that haven't been ratified will wither and die. China owns a huge chunk of American debt, so that may complicate things; while tariffs will just push prices up in America. The Chinese will happily put tariffs on American imports.
But America is a net gainer from that given the huge trade deficit. I will be amazed if Trump does not impose heavy tariffs on China. That country has grown fast on a free ride into a very rich market for a long time and it has not been in the US's interests in terms of trade, employment or strategic power. Whether China has already grown to the point that it can generate its own growth will be interesting to see.
So which side do we choose? We will have to go for one or the other now we're leaving the EU.
If we can we should probably go with the US as they are our largest single export market but that may not be a choice open to us because they may well not be interested. I think that Trump's election is going to be a turning point in trade liberalisation. The idea we all gain from free trade is pretty much dead. It is demonstrably not so for large chunks of our own population.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
That does look likely.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
I would disagree over trade. Trump will have a tarrif war with China and other emerging markets. Scrapping TPP, TTIP and NAFTA are all very likely. Trump is only interested in the domestic agenda in the red states,
A politician who puts his own voters first. Can we have one too ?
I think that the whole world is moving against free trade agreements, via populist movements of both right and left. Hard Brexit and Trumpism have killed off the emerging international trade deals.
so what ? If free trade isnt delivering the goods why do youexpect people to vote for it ?
It literally is delivering the goods. Wasn't Brexit a vote for free trade?
Donald Trump IMMEDIATELY shifted tone upon becoming POTUS-elect, "crooked Hillary" to "Secretary Clinton"
It was all fake. In 2008 he was singing her praises, called her a "great Senator", a "wonderful woman", "very smart woman", "very nice person", and Bill Clinton a great President.
He'll dump most of those signature campaign promises the same way.
Indeed.
Quite likely he'll face a serious primary challenge in 2020, IMO.
It'll be the right vs. Trump dynamic that will characterize american politics for the next 4/8 years.
If I was Trump and I wanted to show senate and congressional Republicans who was in charge ten I'd nominate Merrick Garland for SCOTUS as that would show the President is in charge.
I personally think that this is one of the more important things about this election. It might be overstating it to say the power of big money in US politics has been broken but it has certainly suffered a major reverse. Interesting too that it is the republican candidate who took a much higher percentage in small donations than the Democrat. For me, this sums up where the Democrats have gone wrong for some time and Clinton was the epitome of that.
If he was clever he'd push for campaign finance reform. For starters it'd drive the liberals nuts!
Campaign finance reform would outrage the GOP establishment and was in any case also a Clinton policy.
It would outrage the GOP establishment? That isn't a reason for Trump not wanting to do it!
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
That does look likely.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
I would disagree over trade. Trump will have a tarrif war with China and other emerging markets. Scrapping TPP, TTIP and NAFTA are all very likely. Trump is only interested in the domestic agenda in the red states,
I'd imagine existing agreements will stay in place. Those that haven't been ratified will wither and die. China owns a huge chunk of American debt, so that may complicate things; while tariffs will just push prices up in America. The Chinese will happily put tariffs on American imports.
But America is a net gainer from that given the huge trade deficit. I will be amazed if Trump does not impose heavy tariffs on China. That country has grown fast on a free ride into a very rich market for a long time and it has not been in the US's interests in terms of trade, employment or strategic power. Whether China has already grown to the point that it can generate its own growth will be interesting to see.
So which side do we choose? We will have to go for one or the other now we're leaving the EU.
If we can we should probably go with the US as they are our largest single export market but that may not be a choice open to us because they may well not be interested. I think that Trump's election is going to be a turning point in trade liberalisation. The idea we all gain from free trade is pretty much dead. It is demonstrably not so for large chunks of our own population.
I thought established wisdom was that Free Trade benefits the hegemon nation most.
That was us in C19, the US in C20 and probably China in C21.
Everyone else is in for a bit of a kicking if they agree too much too soon.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
That does look likely.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
I would disagree over trade. Trump will have a tarrif war with China and other emerging markets. Scrapping TPP, TTIP and NAFTA are all very likely. Trump is only interested in the domestic agenda in the red states,
I'd imagine existing agreements will stay in place. Those that haven't been ratified will wither and die. China owns a huge chunk of American debt, so that may complicate things; while tariffs will just push prices up in America. The Chinese will happily put tariffs on American imports.
But America is a net gainer from that given the huge trade deficit. I will be amazed if Trump does not impose heavy tariffs on China. That country has grown fast on a free ride into a very rich market for a long time and it has not been in the US's interests in terms of trade, employment or strategic power. Whether China has already grown to the point that it can generate its own growth will be interesting to see.
So which side do we choose? We will have to go for one or the other now we're leaving the EU.
If we can we should probably go with the US as they are our largest single export market but that may not be a choice open to us because they may well not be interested. I think that Trump's election is going to be a turning point in trade liberalisation. The idea we all gain from free trade is pretty much dead. It is demonstrably not so for large chunks of our own population.
It depends. What jobs will less free trade create? Which prices will it lower? For the UK alone less free trade is a huge problem. It would be less of one if we were in the single market, of course. That is actually our largest export market.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
That does look likely.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
I would disagree over trade. Trump will have a tarrif war with China and other emerging markets. Scrapping TPP, TTIP and NAFTA are all very likely. Trump is only interested in the domestic agenda in the red states,
A politician who puts his own voters first. Can we have one too ?
I think that the whole world is moving against free trade agreements, via populist movements of both right and left. Hard Brexit and Trumpism have killed off the emerging international trade deals.
so what ? If free trade isnt delivering the goods why do youexpect people to vote for it ?
It literally is delivering the goods. Wasn't Brexit a vote for free trade?
Brexit was a vote for many things. Some voted for free trade others voted for less. It depends on your standpoint.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
Pretty likely to see that.
One thing unusual about Trump as a Republican is his lack of interest in the socially conservative Christian agenda. He doesn't care much either way. Unfortunately this probably means letting the likes of Pence run riot over abortion etc.
I think his view is it should be a state issue.
It'll be a SCOTUS decision. Trump gets one guaranteed appointment and looking at the Justice's ages is likely to get two more on top. It'll be a very conservative bench in four years time.
Yeah, timing couldn't be better for the Supreme Court, especially since Congress managed to block Obama appointing someone (I honestly thought someone had been appointed in the interim!)
Saying 'managed' is a bit grand. They simply refused to hold hearings. No special magic required.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
That does look likely.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
I would disagree over trade. Trump will have a tarrif war with China and other emerging markets. Scrapping TPP, TTIP and NAFTA are all very likely. Trump is only interested in the domestic agenda in the red states,
I'd imagine existing agreements will stay in place. Those that haven't been ratified will wither and die. China owns a huge chunk of American debt, so that may complicate things; while tariffs will just push prices up in America. The Chinese will happily put tariffs on American imports.
But America is a net gainer from that given the huge trade deficit. I will be amazed if Trump does not impose heavy tariffs on China. That country has grown fast on a free ride into a very rich market for a long time and it has not been in the US's interests in terms of trade, employment or strategic power. Whether China has already grown to the point that it can generate its own growth will be interesting to see.
So which side do we choose? We will have to go for one or the other now we're leaving the EU.
If we can we should probably go with the US as they are our largest single export market but that may not be a choice open to us because they may well not be interested. I think that Trump's election is going to be a turning point in trade liberalisation. The idea we all gain from free trade is pretty much dead. It is demonstrably not so for large chunks of our own population.
It depends. What jobs will less free trade create? Which prices will it lower?
what's the point in having a cheaper TV if your taxes have to go up to cover the social costs of the unemployed and underpaid ?
you're looking at unit price rather than total acquisition cost
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
That does look likely.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
I would disagree over trade. Trump will have a tarrif war with China and other emerging markets. Scrapping TPP, TTIP and NAFTA are all very likely. Trump is only interested in the domestic agenda in the red states,
I'd imagine existing agreements will stay in place. Those that haven't been ratified will wither and die. China owns a huge chunk of American debt, so that may complicate things; while tariffs will just push prices up in America. The Chinese will happily put tariffs on American imports.
But America is a net gainer from that given the huge trade deficit. I will be amazed if Trump does not impose heavy tariffs on China. That country has grown fast on a free ride into a very rich market for a long time and it has not been in the US's interests in terms of trade, employment or strategic power. Whether China has already grown to the point that it can generate its own growth will be interesting to see.
So which side do we choose? We will have to go for one or the other now we're leaving the EU.
If we can we should probably go with the US as they are our largest single export market but that may not be a choice open to us because they may well not be interested. I think that Trump's election is going to be a turning point in trade liberalisation. The idea we all gain from free trade is pretty much dead. It is demonstrably not so for large chunks of our own population.
So instead of Brexit heralding in the era of a muscular Britain negotiating trade deals with all, it actually means protectionism.
Just thinking, it's looking likely American women will lose abortion rights under Trump.
Pretty likely to see that.
One thing unusual about Trump as a Republican is his lack of interest in the socially conservative Christian agenda. He doesn't care much either way. Unfortunately this probably means letting the likes of Pence run riot over abortion etc.
I think his view is it should be a state issue.
It'll be a SCOTUS decision. Trump gets one guaranteed appointment and looking at the Justice's ages is likely to get two more on top. It'll be a very conservative bench in four years time.
Yeah, timing couldn't be better for the Supreme Court, especially since Congress managed to block Obama appointing someone (I honestly thought someone had been appointed in the interim!)
Saying 'managed' is a bit grand. They simply refused to hold hearings. No special magic required.
I would have thought an almighty fuss would have been kicked up about it.... perhaps it was?
Comments
Rudy Rivas – Verified account @RudyABC15
NEW: 310,000 early ballots left to be processed in Maricopa County. County will continue counting tomorrow morning.
What's taking him so long.
Quite likely he'll face a serious primary challenge in 2020, IMO.
It'll be the right vs. Trump dynamic that will characterize american politics for the next 4/8 years.
I'd actually gain if that state got overturned (It won't be)
I think I can guess what nobody was predicting.
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/796866134968516608
'Just catching up with Question Time.'
Dear oh dear...'
American woman even more ridiculous than the SNP rent-a-gob.
LOL
https://twitter.com/sarahchurchwell/status/796873058321649664
And...bit racist...what about Latino and Asian women who voted for him?
https://twitter.com/sarahchurchwell/status/796878689216692224
Should be called already. Since the potential absentee vote there is essentially a DEM bias coin flip no chance whatsoever of late absentee ballots flipping it.
I also don't have a stomp at "the people" if I don't get the choice I preferred, has happened plenty of times in my lifetime.
In this election, we got a giant douche and a turd sandwich....the DNC tried to fix it for Clinton vs Sanders and the RNC establishment candidates had the wrong polices / personalities, and the establishment of both parties had manage to alienate significant numbers of Americans over a long period of time.
But people might think it is if Trump starts catching on Clinton as they count.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kjfNRolnTI
That David played and it pleased the Lord
But you don't really care for music, do you?
Well it goes like this:
The fourth, the fifth, the minor fall and the major lift
The baffled king composing Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah
Hallelujah...
https://twitter.com/CASOSvote/status/796885789502124032
RIP.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/commentary-the-unbearable-smugness-of-the-press-presidential-election-2016/
"This is all symptomatic of modern journalism’s great moral and intellectual failing: its unbearable smugness. ..."
"That’s the fantasy, the idea that if we mock them enough, call them racist enough, they’ll eventually shut up and get in line. ..."
"Journalists increasingly don’t even believe in the possibility of reasoned disagreement, and as such ascribe cynical motives to those who think about things a different way. We see this in the ongoing veneration of “facts,” the ones peddled by explainer websites and data journalists who believe themselves to be curiously post-ideological."
And Peter Thiel, who bankrupted Gawker, will apparently head the transition team.
But the tinfoil hatters were even more inaccurate, remember how it was all going to be rigged?
And it was rigged.. Trump would have won the popular vote otherwise
I do feel somewhat sorry for her staffers, they must have been confident in victory.. and now what do they do (as someone facing the end of my contract.. I know how they feel!)
One thing unusual about Trump as a Republican is his lack of interest in the socially conservative Christian agenda. He doesn't care much either way. Unfortunately this probably means letting the likes of Pence run riot over abortion etc.
It's a double-sided thing, really.
Trump will do little or nothing trade-wise and is unlikely to have any effect on incomes and living standards, so he'll focus on social issues to keep his supporters happy. That will prove to be hugely divisive, of course.
I personally think that this is one of the more important things about this election. It might be overstating it to say the power of big money in US politics has been broken but it has certainly suffered a major reverse. Interesting too that it is the republican candidate who took a much higher percentage in small donations than the Democrat. For me, this sums up where the Democrats have gone wrong for some time and Clinton was the epitome of that.
Edit. On reflection there are very strong parallels with Blair and his pursuit of big money contributions to keep Labour afloat while the grassroots died.
Genuine question about the timing as it happened just then!
It seems to be happening already:
Bloomberg - Emerging Markets Extend Post-Trump Slump as Bond Rout Deepens http://bloom.bg/2g1KfZO
That was us in C19, the US in C20 and probably China in C21.
Everyone else is in for a bit of a kicking if they agree too much too soon.
you're looking at unit price rather than total acquisition cost
(As I see @SouthamObserver has also noted.)