Congratulations Americans

[Maneesh Godbole]

Well done selecting the right candidate.

[Bear Bibeault]

I have never been so shocked and appalled at the ability of the American people to vote against their own best interests. I mourn for our country and our way of life.

[Tim Cooke]

My Wife's Aunt lives in Texas and she voted Trump because she really hates Clinton. I wonder how prevelant that 'logic' is throughout the population that voted Trump?

[Henry Wong]

In a weird way, it kinda "justifies" or "proves" that democracy works.... both words are in quotes because I am not sure if either word is correct describing what I mean. Anyway, let me explain...


The DNC pretty much forced the candidate during the primary. Perhaps, it would have been the best candidate regardless, but we will never know. What we do know is that many potential candidates where prevented from running, a couple were blatantly forced to drop out due to funding and debating rules, and no potential candidate (including HRC herself) got much exposure during the primary debates. And worst of all, when the DNC got caught, the whole thing just reeked of corruption.

The GOP pretty much had a circus during the primary. They didn't limit the number of candidates (or so it seemed). They didn't limit the number of debates (or so it seemed). They fought among each other, often, about everything, and in the media for the world to see. And in the end, it looked like the GOP didn't even get the candidate that they wanted. This gave all the potential candidates a ridiculous amount of exposure, and additionally, showed the world everything about them.


So, like I said, in a weird way, the GOP trusted the democratic process more than the DNC did...

Henry

[Tim Holloway]

Henry Wong wrote:
So, like I said, in a weird way, the GOP trusted the democratic process more than the DNC did...
Henry

What's ironic about that is that conservative web pedants are always harping about the USA being a Democratice recoderanch. But Trump is nothing if not democratically-elected. All the Republican candidates favored by their elites washed out.

It's not uncommon for a presidential election to get much of its force from who people are voting against, rather than who they're voting for, but this campaign, the "vote-againsts" almost certainly outnumbered the "vote-fors" enormously.

Here's the real irony, however. What probably pushed Trump over Hillary in the end was that in addition to being one of an equally-matched set of ill-liked choices, Trump offered what's basically the modern version of the Luddite rebellion, and the outsourcing of American jobs was first instigated by his own party, even though both Clintons contributed considerably.

It will be interesting, in a train-over-the-cliff way to see if Trump repeals Obamacare, people with pre-existing medical conditions suddenly find themselves denied coverage again and medical premiums continue rise anyway, along with deductibles. A lot of people tend to forget that it was the growing medical insurance mess that was the original impetus for both the original 1990 Hillarycare and the realized Obamacare. Somewhere cause and effect got confused, probably because the cure didn't really cure the root problem and there was political hay to be made from that.

Anyway, now we have him. So be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

[Campbell Ritchie]

What was the turnout for the election? When we had the now notorious referendum in June, it had a very high proportion of people who hadn't voted for a long time coming out of the woodwork. Another case of democracy working as people didn't expect (or at least as the pollsters didn't expect).

[Jan de Boer]

I think it is a laugh, after having all this resistance towards him. I support Trumps views on Syria etcetera way over Clintons.

[fred rosenberger]

Tim Holloway wrote:It will be interesting, in a train-over-the-cliff way to see if Trump repeals Obamacare...

I never understand this statement, even from Trump himself.

How will he repeal it? As I understand the constitution, CONGRESS would have to repeal it. Yes, he gets to sign or veto it, but that's near the end of the process, not the beginning.

[Tim Holloway]

fred rosenberger wrote:

Tim Holloway wrote:It will be interesting, in a train-over-the-cliff way to see if Trump repeals Obamacare...

I never understand this statement, even from Trump himself.

How will he repeal it? As I understand the constitution, CONGRESS would have to repeal it. Yes, he gets to sign or veto it, but that's near the end of the process, not the beginning.

I think pretty much all the Republican presidential candidates have promised this, since the day Obamacare was first passed.

The President doesn't have as much power as is popularly ascribed to him, it's true. But he is the "cheerleader-in-chief" of the country. He can speak to Congress and urge them to do things like this. He can make public appearances and speak to the people, who may then annoy their congressional representatives. Congresscritters can get up and make a lot of noise, but few will carry the country. There are more congresscritters than cockroaches and outside their own little private club few care about their relative rank. The President, on the other hand, is a unique individual, so when he speaks, people listen.

AND, of course, he can determine whether it's worth Congress doing a thing, since he does have veto power.

Congress, incidentally, is going to have to change its behavior now. They cannot be the obstructive "loyal opposition" anymore because they're now the same party as the President. And they cannot pass absurd bills just for show because the President might not veto them.

[Tim Holloway]

Maneesh Godbole wrote:Well done selecting the right candidate.

Um, Maneesh, you do realize that one of Trump's main campaign planks was basically shutting down the offshoring of American work, don't you?

[Joe Ess]

Bear Bibeault wrote:vote against their own best interests.

So you know what is best for everyone?  Why bother with democracy then?

fred rosenberger wrote:I never understand this statement, even from Trump himself.

Both the House and Senate have Republican majorities, so it is possible from a legislative standpoint.  Trump has some options to alter the law himself.
The Affordable Care Act will probably collapse under its own weight if it is left alone, so I have a feeling that something will be coming down the pike soon.

[Henry Wong]

I predict the cement and concrete industry will boom over the next four years ...

Henry

[Tim Holloway]

I recently had my attention drawn to Business Insider thanks to Hurricane Matthew. BI has apparently been publishing BS about hurricanes as part of an anti-global-warming political agenda for some time. I'm afraid that that pretty much destroyed any credibility that their apparently respectable name might have engendered.

Matthew came within about 50 miles of me and we weathered it pretty well overall. Had it passed 20 miles further west than it did, things would have been much, much, worse. Hurricane Andrew destroyed the military hospital that my nephew was born in and tore the wind-sensing equipment off the roof of the National Hurricane Center. Even the lesser effects of Matthew can be seen everywhere I go on a daily basis. Most of the roadside debris has been hauled off now - much of it wasn't road side originally. But every 20 feet more or less I can pass a sawed-off tree canting towards the road. Sawed-off, because the missing part was projecting into the road.

Officially, in Duval County alone, 58 houses were destroyed, although some think that the tally includes a few houses left salvageable. Roofers have been doing a bang-up business.

So when Business Insider makes claims like hurricanes are being artificially overrated, you must pardon my contempt.

Nevertheless, it is true that the current state of medical coverage is reaching a boiling point. The idea of everyone gets insured was supposed to lower insurance costs by expanding the pool of insured, although some in the past have benefited from the "lemon-dropping" strategy that left others without affordable insurance. A bigger issue is that employers are contributing less and less to insurance, so when the insurance companies make the changes that they've been making, it's more noticeable.

The ACA didn't come out of nowhere. It came from a number of sources. One of which was the concept that insurance was provided by your employer, which, in turn, came from post-WW2 government regulations that made insurance a profitable perk for employers to provide. The problem is, the old employer-insurance arrangement only worked well when most people stayed with employers a long time and had little downtime between jobs. If you changed jobs, you could get nailed by the "pre-existing condition" exclusion (and boy, did I!) and if you were long-term unemployed - a common state for many post Y2K -  you had no insurance since COBRA is expensive and limited and personal insurance outside a group isn't cheap. Add rising (and often artificial) medical costs into the mix and you had a toxic brew.

It's worth noting that the ACA that the Republican Party is so dedicated to killing is essentially the alternative that they'd offered in place of a more complete plan. And this time, they actually don't have a concrete alternative on offer, just a promise to put a stake through that evil Obamacare.

But to me the most alarming failure of the current plan is that universal coverage was supposed to help drive down costs in the long run by making it affordable to get preventative maintenance and early treatment. Which, incidentally would cost more in the short run, since we've a lot of catching up to do. But since one of the worst aspects of the new insurance plans is ever-higher deductibles, that coverage is effectively not there. Who other than the affluent can get preventative maintenance when your deductible would buy a decent used car?

[Tim Holloway]

Henry Wong wrote:
I predict the cement and concrete industry will boom over the next four years ...

Henry

My wife bought stock in CEMEX. Which is a Mexican corporation and it's been a poor performer.

Oh wait that's right. Trump is going to make Mexico pay for that wall!  

[Campbell Ritchie]

Tim Holloway wrote:. . . making it affordable to get preventative maintenance and early treatment. Which, incidentally would cost more in the short run, since we've a lot of catching up to do. . . .

We had that naïve idea in Britain after WWII before the introduction of the National Health Service in 1948. Very few people had insurance at all and medical care was beyond many of the populace. It was thought that there was a backlog of ill‑health and once that backlog was treated . . .

Interestingly enough, the NHS was a triumph for the post‑war Labour Government despite its having been planned during the war by the wartime Tory Government.

[Jan de Boer]

Tim Cooke wrote:My Wife's Aunt lives in Texas and she voted Trump because she really hates Clinton. I wonder how prevelant that 'logic' is throughout the population that voted Trump?

How prevalent is that 'logic' throughout the population that voted for Clinton, because they hated Trump? Stop with this nonsense calling people who do not agree with you stupid. That is probably the reason why Trump got so popular in the first place.

[Stevens Miller]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:What was the turnout for the election?

Down a bit from previous highs. Global News says it was just over 50% (of the voting-age population). Wikipedia says it had been in the mid-to-high 50s for the previous three elections. Obama's '08 was a bit of a spike, probably due to increased minority participation. It has been much higher, exceeding 60% several times in the '50s and '60s.

[Tim Holloway]

Tim Cooke wrote:My Wife's Aunt lives in Texas and she voted Trump because she really hates Clinton. I wonder how prevelant that 'logic' is throughout the population that voted Trump?

I can double your statistical sample, at least. I know someone in Massachusetts.

Hillary has been the Anti-Christ of the Republican Party since 1990.

Of course plenty people voted for Hillary because Trump had set them off. You didn't have to be a SJW for that. Trump is an equal-opportunity offender.

As I said earlier, it's not uncommon for people to vote against rather than for, but I still think that this election elevated that approach to a whole new level.

Not everyone voted against, of course. I know some people who were pro-Trump before being pro-Trump was cool. Then again, they were also Birthers.

[Ahmed Bin S]

So people actually knew that Sanders fared MUCH better than Clinton in head to head with Trump, because a lot of the white working class who would never vote for Clinton would be happy to vote for Sanders.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/09/bernie-sanders-donald-trump/93530352/

And therefore, the sensible choice was, that Sanders should have been chosen as the nominee.

But the Democrat establishment spent months mocking Sanders and his supporters, because that's how establishment operates - mock people who are outside your circle.

And now, instead of acknowledging their own fault, they are going around trying to blame everyone but themselves - Russia, FBI, liberal journalists who criticise Clinton, blacks for not coming out in huge numbers, white working class for being so "stupid" ... I guess it's always easier to blame others for your own fault.

[Maneesh Godbole]

Tim Holloway wrote:
Um, Maneesh, you do realize that one of Trump's main campaign planks was basically shutting down the offshoring of American work, don't you?

Yup. Had heard/read about it. Dont think it will happen.
iPhones made in China. Dont see Apple changing it because Trump tells them to.
India is a HUGE market. 128 crore people. Ford, Chevorlet, Lee, Levis, Coke, Pepsi. Dont see them changing because Trump says so.

At the end of the day Money is king. Trump is a bu$ine$$man.

[Tim Moores]

Jan de Boer wrote:Stop with this nonsense calling people who do not agree with you stupid.

Careful now. This is a charged topic, so let's make an extra effort to be civil. So we don't call others opinions "nonsense", and let's also not put words into other people's mouth, especially not ones like "stupid".

Personally, I'd agree that a decision to vote for B because of a dislike of the person A is an emotional decision, not a rational one. While it is a valid decision, it is not a logical one.

[Tim Cooke]

Jan de Boer wrote:Stop with this nonsense calling people who do not agree with you stupid.

I did nothing of the sort. I simply relayed an observation and posed the question of whether my observation was representative of a broader pattern. You are also quite right to pose the opposite question of how prevalent that pattern is throughout the Clinton voters.

[Ahmed Bin S]

Tim Cooke wrote:

Jan de Boer wrote:Stop with this nonsense calling people who do not agree with you stupid.

I did nothing of the sort. I simply relayed an observation and posed the question of whether my observation was representative of a broader pattern. You are also quite right to pose the opposite question of how prevalent that pattern is throughout the Clinton voters.

I didn't read it as Jan saying that to you! I think he was making a general point.

[Ahmed Bin S]

Maneesh Godbole wrote:

Tim Holloway wrote:
Um, Maneesh, you do realize that one of Trump's main campaign planks was basically shutting down the offshoring of American work, don't you?

Yup. Had heard/read about it. Dont think it will happen.
iPhones made in China. Dont see Apple changing it because Trump tells them to.
India is a HUGE market. 128 crore people. Ford, Chevorlet, Lee, Levis, Coke, Pepsi. Dont see them changing because Trump says so.

At the end of the day Money is king. Trump is a bu$ine$$man.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-37787347

[Maneesh Godbole]

Ahmed Bin S wrote:

Maneesh Godbole wrote:

Tim Holloway wrote:
Um, Maneesh, you do realize that one of Trump's main campaign planks was basically shutting down the offshoring of American work, don't you?

Yup. Had heard/read about it. Dont think it will happen.
iPhones made in China. Dont see Apple changing it because Trump tells them to.
India is a HUGE market. 128 crore people. Ford, Chevorlet, Lee, Levis, Coke, Pepsi. Dont see them changing because Trump says so.

At the end of the day Money is king. Trump is a bu$ine$$man.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-37787347

I don't see whats the point of posting a link which is about Indians who cannot vote in US anyway.

[Ahmed Bin S]

Maneesh Godbole wrote:

I don't see whats the point of posting a link which is about Indians who cannot vote in US anyway.

By your logic, you should also not see the point of Tim's comment about Trump being against the offshoring of American work because those Indians affected by it are Indians who cannot vote in the US anyway,

[Campbell Ritchie]

Stevens Miller wrote:. . . [The turnout] has been much higher, exceeding 60% several times in the '50s and '60s.

60% hardly counts as high; we used to get about 80% for general elections (I think) in the 1960s here. It has been lower recently; for a local election a couple of years ago we had something like 12% here
But I think 50% counts as a low turnout.

[Maneesh Godbole]

Ahmed Bin S wrote:
By your logic, you should also not see the point of Tim's comment about Trump being against the offshoring of American work because those Indians affected by it are Indians who cannot vote in the US anyway,

Dont know how you arrived at the conclusion. My reply was crystal and I even offered my logic behind it.

[Tim Holloway]

Ahmed Bin S wrote:
And therefore, the sensible choice was, that Sanders should have been chosen as the nominee.

You underestimate the horror that people in the USA have for Socialism. From the moment we were born, we were taught that Socialism === Communism and that Communism, being an atheistic form of government is worship of Satan.

And that, more lately, it has been scientifically proven to be a failure as illustrated by the fall of the Soviet Union.


On the other hand, people are getting disillusioned with Capitalism in the USA, most especially the young ones. While Capitalism might have elevated the lifestyles of their grandparents, they're looking at limited opportunities and they don't like it. They're also, like many in the world, less inclined to be narrowly and strictly religious than their elders, so the whole atheist  thing doesn't ring such a visceral chord with them anyway.

Sanders, like Trump, offered a change, and would be a whole lot more predictable than Trump. But the time when someone like Bernie can carry a general election is not yet, and by the time it is, he'll be pretty old for the job.

[Henry Wong]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:60% hardly counts as high; we used to get about 80% for general elections (I think) in the 1960s here. It has been lower recently; for a local election a couple of years ago we had something like 12% here
But I think 50% counts as a low turnout.

I think the issue is more of the distribution, than of the total turnout. One of the TV news shows that I saw last night, had an interesting take -- and by "interesting", I mean the boiled down to a very simple sound bite didn't make it too much out of context...

The analyst mentioned that the "Starbucks" crowd, who traditionally votes, either came out the same as 4 years ago (or slightly less). On the other hand, the "Budweiser" crowd, who traditionally don't vote, came out dramatically to vote (and many for the first time).

Henry

[Tim Holloway]

Maneesh Godbole wrote:
Yup. Had heard/read about it. Dont think it will happen.
iPhones made in China. Dont see Apple changing it because Trump tells them to.
India is a HUGE market. 128 crore people. Ford, Chevorlet, Lee, Levis, Coke, Pepsi. Dont see them changing because Trump says so.

Go back and read what Trump said while campaigning. Apple in particular was a favorite target of his.

You need to distinguish selling goods and services to foreign countries and shipping jobs to foreign countries. Trump got himself elected in very large part by promising to bring jobs back to America, be it assembling iPhones or working as developers for Oracle or Microsoft or whatever.

Hillary Clinton outspent Trump significantly, but one dollar doesn't equal one vote in the USA (yet), and there are an awful lot of USA workers who have either already lost jobs to overseas workers or fear that they will, and those workers are voters and they made their voice heard.

For the last 30 years, US international trading regulations have meant that people in the US could buy things cheaper because they came from cheaper countries and trade barriers were low thanks to NAFTA, the impending TPP, and similar acts. Trump has also made it a significant campaign promise to rollback those acts, thereby removing or at least reducing the financial reward for buying offshore.

It's true that US corporations obtain significant revenue in offshore sales, and as a businessman, Trump should sympathise with that. Indeed, much of his own business has been built on foreign-made products. But again, here he has to look at voters, not dollars, The USA is big enough that if he really did build that wall, both physically and fiscally around the entire nation that the nation would survive, although it would lead to significant upheavals. Nor is the USA alone in that regard. China could do the same, and at least in theory, so could India - if not, it's only a matter of time as a rapidly-developing nation.

Yes, it would turn the whole world upside down. As the saying goes in financial markets, when the US gets a cold, the world catches pneumonia, though less true than it was 40 years ago. If barriers return, US corporations would just invent a new set of games, just as they have been gaming the current system.

But ultimately, Trump is just a symptom of a disease. If everyone's unemployed, who buys the cheap products? It's not solely offshoring that's killing jobs, but offshoring is an obvious target, and voters like obvious targets.

[Jan de Boer]

Ahmed Bin S wrote:

Tim Cooke wrote:

Jan de Boer wrote:Stop with this nonsense calling people who do not agree with you stupid.

I did nothing of the sort. I simply relayed an observation and posed the question of whether my observation was representative of a broader pattern. You are also quite right to pose the opposite question of how prevalent that pattern is throughout the Clinton voters.

I didn't read it as Jan saying that to you! I think he was making a general point.

Yes, please do not take anything personal, since I do not know any of you in person. The more you say that your own opinion is the good one and the other is bad, the more you will motivate others to vote against you, just for the sake of irritation. I can see it with Wilders here in the Netherlands, and my assumption is that the more Hillary brought in celebrities telling she was the good and Trump was the bad, the more people got defiant and went out to vote against her. It is a snobby attitude, you say you are better than these 'other people'. And these people got sick of being patronized and did exactly the opposite thing she wanted them to do.