The Many Faces of US Politics...

[seafoid]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trumps-point-man-on-financial-regulation-a-former-regulator-who-favors-a-light-touch-1478860201?mod=e2tw

...Paul Atkins served as a Republican member of the Securities and Exchange Commission from 2002 to 2008, where he spoke out against big fines for companies, arguing they punish shareholders. Now Mr. Atkins, 58 years old, is the member of the president-elect's transition team charged with recommending policies on financial regulation, according to current and former regulators briefed on the matter....


Light touch regulation coming for Wall Street then.

Crash guaranteed

Dimon of JPM said a while ago that a crash is expected every 7 to 10 years

[J70]

Dems didnt listen to their constituents, youre not listening to them, the DNC didnt listen to them, J70 isnt listening to them......if Trump does well, these people may be permanently lost to the Democratic Party

What am I not listening to?

The whole point of this subject is WHAT exactly IS their problem or complaint?

I already laid out what their grievances were, but you decided to go off on another tangent.....

And they were the most part bullshit, which is why I went off on the tangent of whether we should listen to illegitimate grievances.

Just because a demagogue was able to exploit them to an election win doesn't lend them credence.

The Irish American guy in the Eire pub said:

"Do you know why he'll win?". "Because people are tired of being talked down to."

http://www.independent.ie/life/echoes-of-the-rust-belt-on-irish-riviera-35207534.html

So questioning their complaints is talking down to them?

Accusing them of being sexist, rascist homophobic or Islamophibic without any justification is!

So we are going around in circles!

Nothing you've posted has justified supporting Trump on that basis.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-donald-trump-voters-20161113-story.html

You keep posting these articles quoting people on WHY they voted for Trump. They do not examine the accuracy of their reasons or complaints though. Which is what I'm on about.

Is there any data showing that illegal immigrants are driving up house prices or making up a majority of welfare recipients?

The woman who is pissed off because Obama lit up the White House in rainbow colours to celebrate full equality for gays? Are we supposed to roll back gay rights to make her and people like her feel better?

The people who think Trump is going bring back manufacturing jobs - is there any data to back up their expectations?

The ones who lament the increasing diversity - are they right?

[AZOffaly]

I think what he's saying is these concerns are concerns that are honestly held. And instead of telling them they are stupid concerns, the democrats should have tried to address them. Telling them they are redneck hicks didn't work out so well.

[muppet]

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/11/14/conspiracy-theorist-alex-jones-says-president-elect-trump-called-thank-his-audience/214424

Surely this isn't true.


......Conspiracy theorist radio host Alex Jones, who believes the government was involved in the 9/11 attacks, numerous school shootings, and the Oklahoma City bombing, says President-elect Donald Trump personally called him to "thank" Jones' audience for its support during the campaign. According to Jones, Trump said he plans to appear on Jones' radio show "in the next few weeks."...

[Declan]

If you want to get scared, follow the hashtag #rwds. It stands for "Right Wing Death Squad".

[J70]

I think what he's saying is these concerns are concerns that are honestly held. And instead of telling them they are stupid concerns, the democrats should have tried to address them. Telling them they are redneck hicks didn't work out so well.

How do you "address" the woman who doesn't like gay marriage or the White House celebration of it?

How do you address the concerns about illegal immigrants overwhelming the country's social services?

How do you address the people who think Obama is a foreign born Muslim or that the BLS is making up job statistics?

How do you address the Jade Helm people or those who think the Confederate flag is a righteous symbol or climate change is a hoax?

How do you do all that when have the other party and their nominee telling them their fears are well founded and doing all they can to foment and exploit them?

The "war on Christmas" will be starting in a week or two. What's the appropriate response to that?

[AZOffaly]

I think what he's saying is these concerns are concerns that are honestly held. And instead of telling them they are stupid concerns, the democrats should have tried to address them. Telling them they are redneck hicks didn't work out so well.

How do you "address" the woman who doesn't like gay marriage or the White House celebration of it?

How do you address the concerns about illegal immigrants overwhelming the country's social services?

How do you address the people who think Obama is a foreign born Muslim or that the BLS is making up job statistics?

How do you address the Jade Helm people or those who think the Confederate flag is a righteous symbol or climate change is a hoax?

How do you do all that when have the other party and their nominee telling them their fears are well founded and doing all they can to foment and exploit them?

The "war on Christmas" will be starting in a week or two. What's the appropriate response to that?

You talk to them. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean you ridicule them from a position where you believe they are too stupid to be taken seriously. You have to show them there is another way to protect them than banning all muslims, or building walls.

It's a very silly error to just discount the worries because you can't be bothered to try and talk to them. Show them the alternative view. Show them why they have nothing to fear. Obviously that wasn't done well enough.

[muppet]

If you want to get scared, follow the hashtag #rwds. It stands for "Right Wing Death Squad".

Similar to post-Brexit. But with M16s.

[AZOffaly]

And by the way, I'm not saying there are not some unreasonable, far right wing nut jobs that you cannot reason with, just like the pinko lefties that would have us all eating nuts and hugging trees. There is a large middle ground of reasonable people with genuine fears, and the people that talk to them, reasonably, would have a great chance of doing well. The more you discount their fears, the more you push them towards the right, and towards someone like a Trump.

I said before, I think Bernie Sanders would have won that election by a mile.

[muppet]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/12/trump-putin-alliance-sparks-diplomatic-crisis/

12 NOVEMBER 2016 • 10:00PM
Britain is facing a diplomatic crisis with the US over Donald Trump's plans to forge an alliance with Vladimir Putin and bolster the Syrian regime.

In a significant foreign policy split, officials admitted that Britain will have some "very difficult" conversations with the President-elect in coming months over his approach to Russia.

It comes after Mr Trump used his first interviews since winning the US election to indicate that he will withdraw support for rebels in Syria and thank Vladimir Putin for sending him a "beautiful" letter.

Mr Trump said that he will instead join forces with Russia and focus on defeating Isil. He has previously said it would be "nice" if the US and Russia could work together to "knock the hell out of Isil".

His views are in stark contrast with those of Theresa May, who has accused President Assad's regime of perpetrating "atrocious violence" and said that the long-term future of Syria must be "without Assad".

Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, has accused Russia of perpetrating war crimes over the deaths of hundreds of civilians.

The dramatic shift in US policy has prompted significant concern in the Foreign Office, and Britain will use the next three months before Mr Trump enters the White House to try to convince him of the importance of removing President Assad.

[Clov]

There's an old saying about elections that 'something beats nothing'. I think that was very true of this election. The Clinton campaign was too much focused on Trump and his shortcomings and did not have enough of a positive story to tell. It was a defensive campaign that gave the impression of someone scared to lose. Bernie would have offered an alternative vision and imo probably would have won.

[omaghjoe]

I think so too, I think that the sort of people who voted for Trump would have voted for Sanders

But then on the other hand Trump is a master at dismissing people...he would have played the Communist card till the hilt and it could well have stuck, on the other hand Sanders would have been in a better position to attack Trump's wealthy elitism than Clinton was.

Also people in America dont seem to vote on what will affect them, rather they vote on what their opinions are, Sanders was juxtaposed to this.

We will never know tho....

[whitey]

I think what he's saying is these concerns are concerns that are honestly held. And instead of telling them they are stupid concerns, the democrats should have tried to address them. Telling them they are redneck hicks didn't work out so well.

How do you "address" the woman who doesn't like gay marriage or the White House celebration of it?

How do you address the concerns about illegal immigrants overwhelming the country's social services?

How do you address the people who think Obama is a foreign born Muslim or that the BLS is making up job statistics?

How do you address the Jade Helm people or those who think the Confederate flag is a righteous symbol or climate change is a hoax?

How do you do all that when have the other party and their nominee telling them their fears are well founded and doing all they can to foment and exploit them?

The "war on Christmas" will be starting in a week or two. What's the appropriate response to that?

You talk to them. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean you ridicule them from a position where you believe they are too stupid to be taken seriously. You have to show them there is another way to protect them than banning all muslims, or building walls.

It's a very silly error to just discount the worries because you can't be bothered to try and talk to them. Show them the alternative view. Show them why they have nothing to fear. Obviously that wasn't done well enough.

And therein lies the problem.....J70 gave you the views of those on the extreme, but there are also dissenting voices that are much more moderate and reasonable and those people get dismissed and ridiculed in an equally odious manner.

[muppet]

There's an old saying about elections that 'something beats nothing'. I think that was very true of this election. The Clinton campaign was too much focused on Trump and his shortcomings and did not have enough of a positive story to tell. It was a defensive campaign that gave the impression of someone scared to lose. Bernie would have offered an alternative vision and imo probably would have won.

That is fair enough, I thought Hillary should have let others respond to Trump's taunts, on her behalf, and stick to policy in her comments.

However all of the analysis of Hillary's campaign completely ignores Trump's non-campaign. He truly offered nothing beyond a few easy answers and abuse.

[J70]

And by the way, I'm not saying there are not some unreasonable, far right wing nut jobs that you cannot reason with, just like the pinko lefties that would have us all eating nuts and hugging trees. There is a large middle ground of reasonable people with genuine fears, and the people that talk to them, reasonably, would have a great chance of doing well. The more you discount their fears, the more you push them towards the right, and towards someone like a Trump.

I said before, I think Bernie Sanders would have won that election by a mile.

It's all very well to say "talk" to them, but the US electorate is becoming extremely polarized and increasingly able to rely on partisan news (or more correctly, information) sources and commentary which omits any contrary opinion or viewpoint. That middle ground may be reasonable and polite, but the proportion who are swayable is probably not that big.

And again, you are assuming that gently explaining something, which may require a complex, nuanced answer, will drown out the noisy, simple, black and white, us against them, narrative coming from the other corner.

Climate change being a notable case in point.