US General Election 2016

{{And so the repercussions of this election begin in earnest-

'Israel has approved hundreds of new settlement homes in occupied East Jerusalem....Jerusalem Deputy Mayor Meir Turgeman told AFP: "Now we can finally build."....Jerusalem's City Hall approved construction permits for 566 new homes in the East Jerusalem settlements of Pisgat Zeev, Ramat Shlomo and Ramot.
Mr Turgeman said: "I was told to wait until Trump takes office because he has no problem with building in Jerusalem. "The rules of the game have changed with Donald Trump's arrival as president. We no longer have our hands tied as in the time of Barack Obama."- BBC

edit add- and the WH have confirmed Trump will NOT be ever releasing his tax details. So obviously he has stuff to hide. Americans better hope it ain't vodka flavoured! }}}}}}

he needs impeaching asap.

bungobaggins wrote:Looks like a good crowd to me:

From the vantage point of the platform that the inauguration occurs on you can't see most of the gaps in the crowd that were visible from the top of the Washington Monument. Certainly, there were still a lot of people present, but insisting (as Trump's press secretary did yesterday) that it was the largest inauguration crowd ever is blatantly untrue.

And by the way, since when does crowd size matter all of a sudden to the left? They didn't report on Trumps and even Bernies big crowds, and didn't let anyone know about Hillarys events that would tend to have pathetic turnout.

I mean, it doesn't really matter (I'm sure some people take it as a validation of something, but I'm not sure what exactly [EDIT: see below I guess]), but to me the resultant controversy seems to be yet another indication of Trump's inability to let any slight (real or perceived) slide, or to act Presidential. Not that I was expecting Trump to change on that front just because he was in office but it's still disappointing.

Bluebottle wrote:Because it shows off his lack of democratic foundation for his thoughts, ideas and policies. Basically, he lucked into a electoral college win, with the largest popular vote deficit in history, after running a campaign completely devoid of policy. (Aside from the "We will build a wall/ban muslims/jail my political opponent" kind.)

Alas, our democracy does not turn determine election winners based on the size of the crowds they attract.

And I gotta take issue with the "largest popular vote deficit in history" claim. Trump had the largest popular vote deficit of the five people who have won Presidential elections due to election inversions, whereas there have been ~100 major party Presidential candidates in US history. So neglecting to include the italicized part makes it sound like Trump was one of the worst-performing Presidential candidates ever, which is not even remotely true. And even if you limit the comparison to the other four election inversions, Trump's victory is still not the biggest inversion. His margin of defeat in the popular vote by percentage points ranks only third out of five; the only reason the raw number is larger is because the size of the electorate is much larger than it was in the 19th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

EDIT: though to be fair, there were a number of factors present in the 1824 and 1876 elections that make them hard to compare directly.

bungobaggins wrote:Lucked into an electoral college win? Oh, man you were not paying attention to all the work he put into those battleground states. He campaigned a lot in the rust belt, and those are the states he flipped. He earned his electoral college victory, the only victory that matters! You don't even get a participation trophy for the popular vote!

You guys just are so mad and you hate him so much that you'll never view him as a legitimate president! There's really no use discussing this with any of you!

When I have ever said that I don't view Trump as a legitimate President?

{{Oh he is definitely legitimate- thats one of the most worrying things about it all! }}}

Eldorion wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:Because it shows off his lack of democratic foundation for his thoughts, ideas and policies. Basically, he lucked into a electoral college win, with the largest popular vote deficit in history, after running a campaign completely devoid of policy. (Aside from the "We will build a wall/ban muslims/jail my political opponent" kind.)

Alas, our democracy does not turn determine election winners based on the size of the crowds they attract.

Obviously. My claim would rather be that it is symptomatic of the fact that the democratic support for Trump's policies, now that he has actually start lining them out, is even lower than his popular vote deficit might have implied.

Although, nothing functions in a vacuum. Trump getting 4,1% of the vote in the District of Columbia might have played a role too.

Eldorion wrote:And I gotta take issue with the "largest popular vote deficit in history" claim. Trump had the largest popular vote deficit of the five people who have won Presidential elections due to election inversions, whereas there have been ~100 major party Presidential candidates in US history. So neglecting to include the italicized part makes it sound like Trump was one of the worst-performing Presidential candidates ever, which is not even remotely true. And even if you limit the comparison to the other four election inversions, Trump's victory is still not the biggest inversion. His margin of defeat in the popular vote by percentage points ranks only third out of five; the only reason the raw number is larger is because the size of the electorate is much larger than it was in the 19th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

EDIT: though to be fair, there were a number of factors present in the 1824 and 1876 elections that make them hard to compare directly.

I was aware of those elections, although as far as I remember the statistic I saw didn't count them outright because of the special circumstances related to them. I can try to look back for it.

Eldorion wrote:

bungobaggins wrote:And by the way, since when does crowd size matter all of a sudden to the left? They didn't report on Trumps and even Bernies big crowds, and didn't let anyone know about Hillarys events that would tend to have pathetic turnout.

I mean, it doesn't really matter (I'm sure some people take it as a validation of something, but I'm not sure what exactly [EDIT: see below I guess]), but to me the resultant controversy seems to be yet another indication of Trump's inability to let any slight (real or perceived) slide, or to act Presidential. Not that I was expecting Trump to change on that front just because he was in office but it's still disappointing.

I did address this in a separate post. It's all about perception and very consciously done to keep up an alternative narrative, imo. The size of the crowd doesn't matter in itself per se, but it can be seen as indicative of certain things. Which are all up for debate, of course.

People who didn't support Trump obviously don't like his policies, but what really is annoying is the way he insists on redefining the truth. Obama's crowds were obviously largely, which is pretty meaningless to everyone except Trump, who is driven so crazy by it that he refuses to recognize the simple photographic proof.

And he doesn't recognize that the Russians attempted to interfere with the election, despite the fact that the overwhelming professional opinion is that they did, and even though non of the professionals claim it actually would have changed the result.

He's too bone-headed to accept that the world is not exactly the way it should be to support his grandiose view of himself. To many people, that's much worse than any of his policies. It suggests he isn't functioning in the real world.

If he'd just be a decent human being with a different view of how things should be done, there would be no protest.

Bluebottle wrote:I was aware of those elections, although as far as I remember the statistic I saw didn't count them outright because of the special circumstances related to them. I can try to look back for it.

I don't think that actually helps the argument that Trump had "the largest popular vote deficit in history", though. John Quincy Adams' defeat in the popular vote was significantly larger than Trump's but on top of that, the fact that Adams won the election because of backroom dealing with Congress rather than the ordinary functioning of the electoral college makes his victory far more of an affront of the idea of democracy. You can argue either way regarding the election of 1876 I suppose. That it ended with a special commission to determine the outcome of the votes in several states is not especially democratic, but the reason for the dispute had to do with race-based voter suppression around the end of Reconstruction. Though if you take this argument to its logical conclusion, then the democratic credentials of every Presidential election before the passage of the Voting Rights Act is in question, and the idea that Trump's victory was particularly undemocratic is even shakier.

Setting aside more fundamental questions about the nature of pre-Civil Rights Era US politics, I would also argue that the outcome of the 2000 election was far more worrying than the outcome of the 2016 election, even though the popular vote margin was smaller, since the dispute over the Florida recount was entirely partisan and the recount was ultimately stopped by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision where the Justices divided on ideological lines (making it somewhat reminiscent of 1876 though not as bad IMO). In comparison -- even though I'm no fan of the electoral college or the fact that election inversions are possible at all -- Trump's victory came as a result of the EC functioning in the normal fashion according to the rules that everyone knew in advance, without any of the blips or after the fact disputes over results that we have seen in some previous elections (Jill Stein notwithstanding).

Bluebottle wrote:I did address this in a separate post. It's all about perception and very consciously done to keep up an alternative narrative, imo. The size of the crowd doesn't matter in itself per se, but it can be seen as indicative of certain things. Which are all up for debate, of course.

I would not be surprised if this is part of Trump and his team's motivation, but I think that (as halfy also mentioned) Trump's ego and knee-jerk reaction to the idea that he could ever be mistaken about anything is at least as significant a part of it.

And yet despite anything we say about Trump, I think Tomi Lahren's experience shows rabble rousers on both sides. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the ugly side of protestors, though I suppose if I was black, mexican or muslim I'd feel pretty bitter about how the pendulum has swung.

http://www.tmz.com/2017/01/22/tomi-lahren-donald-trump-inauguration-turnout

This is the blog I was following during the election where the writer, Scott Adams (creator of Dilbert, trained hypnotist, and student of persuasion) predicted a Trump win early on. Here he's provided a timeline of his blog posts reacting to and predicting news events pertaining to the election, with relevant news stories included in the timeline.

I had a lot of fun reading Scott's posts and following him on Twitter and watching his Periscope sessions during the campaign. You can read these, or not, but there's a lot of interesting information about persuasion here, and Scott provides a very unique view of the entire campaign and election. He's currently working on a book about the election and persuasion that he says is due out in October.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156127863361/a-look-back-at-my-trump-predictions

{{{Cheers Bungo- Ill take a gander at that when I have a chance.

Watched the WH Press briefing today- an odd mix of competence and incompetence- much better once they got off the side show of crowd numbers (though that was a mess of the press guys own making) and quite a few things that worrying he seemingly didn't seem to know-like if Trump was going to cancel the executive order Obama signed giving rights to LGBT folks- and quite a lot dropped it seems (for the better but doesn't maybe look good to those who put him in power) particularly the stupid 'contract with America' in which Trump pledged to do dumb  things like declare China a currency manipulator on day 1.
Also could have done without the whiny bit where he just went on about how hard and demoralising it is to see nothing but negative slant press day after day- yeah welcome to Obamas world- if Trump is annoyed the press seems to be trying to delegitamise him he should be glad some millionaire nutjob isn't out there trying to prove he isn't even American and shouldn't even be president! And he doesn't have to suffer all the racist shit Obama did. Was a bit hard to take the self pity and whining given the shit, and often thinly veiled racism, Obama faced when he got in. What short memories they have! }}

I'm really loving go through those Scott Adams posts, Bungo! He clearly has a much clearer view of the man than is filtered through the media.

Early on this snippet struck me:

For starters, the visceral reaction that makes so many people dislike Trump has a lot to do with his New York style. I grew up in upstate New York and his style registers with me in a completely different way than it does with my California friends who can’t stand him. What I see is bluntness, honesty, some risk-taking, and a competitive nature. I don’t hate any of that. In fact, I kind of like it.

I have blogged about making the transition from my New York personality to my California personality. New Yorkers tend to say whatever they think is true to whoever is standing nearby. Not much filter. Californians say what they think will make you feel good. The California way would feel like lying if it were not so well-meaning.

I certainly understand that Trump comes off as arrogant, obnoxious, and lots of other bad stuff. But over time, and compared to the liars on stage with him, you might get hooked on hearing his honest opinions. That’s how the New York style works. At first you hate it because it seems so harsh. In time you start to appreciate the honesty. And when you realize the harshness is not a signal of real evil – just a style – you tend to get over it. He won’t win over all of his haters, but I predict that his New York style will grow on people more than you would expect. You could say his style is his biggest problem, but it might be self-solving with time and exposure. He is getting both.

I definitely got this feeling from people who like Trump.

Can't wait to see what he says about the crowd-size thing.

Ack! doesn't come up to the present. I shall have to wait. *sigh*

Trump finally showed some real class by honoring rather than disparaging his political opponents. This is the first time since the inaugural that anything he's done has given me hope that he can act presidential.

https://www.yahoo.com/style/donald-trump-led-standing-ovation-192931386.html

{{I saw that live as it happened Halfy- and watching it again I still have the same dilemma I did the first time- I honestly cant work decide if its genuine or if he is mocking her and just rubbing it in publicly. }}}

{{Well based on his previous behaviour he has the characterisitcs of a bully (a common trait in top business folk) he makes his actions more ambiguous than they should be by his own words and deeds. Only a short while ago he was leading thousands of his supporters in cries of "Lock her up!" and has called her a criminal, dubbed her Crooked Hilary and encouraged any foreign powers who had dirt on her to publish it- which Russia duly did. His actions are those of a man who did anything it takes to blacken her name and reputation. As it seems is often the case with Trump his words and his actions don't add up but contradict.
Which Trump speaking is the real one? The one who wanted her jailed or the one who has the utmost respect for her and is honoured by her very presence? You tell me.
Also might be a cultural thing- but the way Trump applauds, that slower clap- you do that in the UK it is taken as mocking the person you're applauding, not praising them. }}}

It looked sincere to me. And the audience gave very sincere applause - if he can keep this up there's a chance of the two parties finally working together. Not sure how much hope I have of this actually happening, but up until this point I had no hope (and much of my anger was towards democrats who clearly have been planning retribution for all the political blockage they got from republicans over the last 8 years).

{{{Well Ive never said he was stupid- he is cunning which is just a specialised sort of smart. If he had wanted to mock her this is a win/win for him- she has to stand there and smile politely as everyone applauds her failure whilst the man who demonized her leads the applause.
He gets to both know how much he is rubbing it in and how much that must hurt Hilary and come out the statesman from it at the same time for respecting and honouring his opponent.
But I have seen little convince me that Trump has real respect, or any at all in fact, for Hillary.

At best this was genuine, in the sense it was a genuine political move to bridge divides between the two parties, with Hilary just the means. The respect and honour bit- I don't buy that at all after what he has done to get elected. I see no evidence of any respect there. }}}

At least he's showing respect even if he doesn't feel it. That's presidential behavior.

{{True. Its certainly some sort of step in that direction. Though if she comes out on the attack against him at some point he will probably instantly default to the Crooked Hilary line on Twitter without bating an eye! }}}

yep.

AP wrote: WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Donald Trump moved to advance construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines Tuesday, a pair of projects that were blocked by the Obama administration due in part to environmental concerns. Both orders are subject to renegotiations of the agreements.

Trump also signed a notice requiring the materials for the pipelines to be constructed in the United States, though it was unclear how he planned to enforce the measure.

I know people say Trump is throwing raw meat to his conservative base with choices like this, but I can't think of many issues more likely to energize and unite the progressive activist communities with the libertarian and State's Rights movements in opposition, at least in the West.
It would be ironic if the legacy of of the Trump administration is to push the country farther to the left like Nixon did.