Today's Trumpy Tantrum

stickyfiddle

HAL9000 said:

What's all this with King Donald of Trumpton continually attacking the press? Surely any politician needs to keep the press on side. 

Either he's remarkably stupid (which I doubt), or he's got another agenda such as wanting to get rid of press freedoms.

Aside from the 'alternative facts' thing and wanting people to only see his version of things as the truth (how Orwellian is that?), he comes across as a bully who can dish it out but can't take it. Controlling the press, I guess, would suit him very well.

 I have seen very little evidence to suggest he's not remarkably stupid. He certainly appears to be significantly less intelligent than he believes himself to be.

ICBM

HAL9000 said:

Either he's remarkably stupid (which I doubt), or he's got another agenda such as wanting to get rid of press freedoms.

Exactly that - or more accurately his crony Steve Bannon wants to destroy the traditional liberal (by American standards) press and replace it with his alt-right Breitbart model, in order to seize control of the direction of mainstream American thought.

hywelg

Maybe he admires Putins and wants to emulate his control of the media. 

AKA a megalomaniac.

Emp_Fab

The bigger issue, now that the initial shock is subsiding, is this; Trump is just one man - he is merely a symptom of the disease.  This isn't about Trump - it's about the 50% of Americans who wanted him there.  For so many people to feel so disenfranchised that they would vote for a spray-tanned moron over anyone else should be cause for alarm.  For the US to be so polarised and both camps be so entrenched indicates a failing of the previous administrations to try to reach out to all Americans.

The reason so many voted for a racist, misogynistic simpleton bully, be it a feeling of abandonment, baseless concerns fanned by media with their own agendas combined with poor education, feelings of disenfranchisement from the liberal 'elite'. whatever....  All of these things should have been addressed by previous administrations - but they weren't.  If anything, the politicians exemplified the partisan isolationist mentality rather than trying to heal the obvious and significant chasm in the electorate.  They've perpetuated the 'us v them', 'black v white', 'completely right v completely wrong' storyline, the media echoes it like some serialised game show and the punters are sucked into it.

Trump is just a bloke.  The real problem will still remain after he's gone.

digitalscream

Emp_Fab said:

 For the US to be so polarised and both camps be so entrenched indicates a failing of the previous administrations to try to reach out to all Americans.

I disagree; it's not just a US problem. Look at what's been going on here since...oh, about two elections ago. Look at France etc.

The cause of polarisation isn't the politicians - it's the Internet. Pre-1995 (or thereabouts), very few were this interested in politics. Perhaps it's because most people didn't have an audience...or, more accurately, most people didn't have direct access to an echo chamber of significant size. I tend to think of it like a particle accelerator - a relatively benign idea spins round and round in these echo chambers, gathering energy until it's turned into "THIS IS THE ONLY WAY IT SHOULD EVER BE FOR THE GOOD OF MANKIND SO ANYTHING ELSE IS HATEFUL AND NEEDS TO DIE!", and then it's let loose to collide with another, opposing echo chamber...and thus threads like this are born.

I don't even think it's disenfranchisement. Social media lets people believe that their voice is more important than one vote in 318 million, and that carries with it a deep dissatisfaction because that's all they have. That's astonishingly easy to exploit, as shown by Trump, Farage et al.

I firmly believe that it's impossible for any functioning government to reach out to everyone because of this - the polarisation and entrenchment is so great in the Western world right now that no compromise would ever satisfy anyone, and it's patently impossible to simultaneously make two people happy when their views are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive.

Emp_Fab

@digitalscream  Very astute post sir...  You have brought me around to your way of thinking.

digitalscream

Emp_Fab said:

@digitalscream  Very astute post sir...  You have brought me around to your way of thinking.

You stop that right now. This is a political discussion, ergo everybody else must be wrong.

Fretwired

digitalscream said:

Emp_Fab said:

 For the US to be so polarised and both camps be so entrenched indicates a failing of the previous administrations to try to reach out to all Americans.

The cause of polarisation isn't the politicians - it's the Internet.

I firmly believe that it's impossible for any functioning government to reach out to everyone because of this - the polarisation and entrenchment is so great in the Western world right now that no compromise would ever satisfy anyone, and it's patently impossible to simultaneously make two people happy when their views are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive.

Yes and no. In the UK and US politicians focus on the people who votes matter (sounds dumb but hang on a moment). In the UK's broken FPTP system this means politicians focus on a a small group number of marginal constituencies. A large chunk of the population have a worthless vote - the constituency of Hackney North and Stoke Newington has always returned a Labour MP since it was created in 1950, so if you support the Tories, the Lib Dems of the Green Party tough. Your vote is not worth anything so why bother voting.

The internet has actually made people better informed (or they think they're better informed). You can now read the UK's immigration figures online, you can see house prices in London your can read the opinions of minority parties like UKIP and on Facebook people can connect with other like-minded people who think the UK is a shitty place to live - too much inequality between the regions, too many low paid jobs, communities changed beyond recognition by immigration and globalisation, failing public services and a rich elite (politicians, bankers etc) in London who rule the country.

Brexit was the first time in a generation that everyone's vote meant something and many people took one look at a multimillionaire PM with a private education and no experience of how the working class live and they chose to ignore his advice and kick him where it hurts. And it was interesting than many of the leafy Tory shires chose to vote remain whilst the Labour heartlands voted to leave. You can gauge the resentment in this clip:



Trump saw Brexit and tapped into the new populism that's sweeping through Europe (it could be argued it actually started in the Middle East with the Arab Spring). Whole swathes of America that's been affected by globalisation, immigration, climate change legislation turned out and voted for Trump. They wanted change and Trump created a populist bandwagon that resonated with middle America.

As far as the UK is concerned it's time for change. The FPTP system needs to be scrapped and a full PR system implemented. We would probably end up like Germany with a coalition government made up of a number of different parties but that is much fairer than having the current Tory government in power with a mere 30% or the vote. It might be the only way you can get a balanced point of view to build a fairer society.

ICBM

Emp_Fab said:

This isn't about Trump - it's about the 50% of Americans who wanted him there.

25%.

Even discounting the fact that Hillary won the popular vote by a substantial margin, the real problem is that 45% of them didn't vote at all. A lot of that may have been an unwillingness to actually endorse her despite hating Trump, but they failed to realise that would play into his hands.

If you're faced with a choice of two evils you often can't really afford to take the high horse position and refuse to vote for either of them. What then tends to happen is that those with fewer scruples win.

Emp_Fab

Evilmags

If you keep on voting the lesser of two evils the evil in both choices just increases. The office of POTUS is too powerful and the balances and checks on it were weakened by Trump's two previous predessesors. 

The British version of Trump is Corbyn. Totally out of line with his party but resonating with his voters. 

Emp_Fab

Surely if you kept voting for the greater of two evils then the evil in both choices would increase ?

ICBM

Evilmags said:

If you keep on voting the lesser of two evils the evil in both choices just increases.

That is true, but if you don't vote then you usually end up with the greater of the two. It's a very difficult problem really, but I honestly think that you can't leave it up to the more motivated who will vote for the one you don't want. That's essentially how extremist minorities take over larger more moderate institutions, whether it's trade unions or countries.

Evilmags said:

The office of POTUS is too powerful and the balances and checks on it were weakened by Trump's two previous predessesors.

That's also true and unfortunately one of at least three ways Obama is to blame for this mess - this, by endorsing Hillary (which he should never have done), and I think by publicly ridiculing Trump at that press dinner a couple of years ago.

Evilmags said:

The British version of Trump is Corbyn. Totally out of line with his party but resonating with his voters. 

I agree with you there too. The difference is that Corbyn isn't the same sort of ruthless megalomanic - although power has undoubtedly gone to his head - and has proved inept as a leader… sadly, for those of us who are broadly left of centre, but probably a blessing for you .

holnrew

He invented a terror attack in Sweden, but at least he's not dishonest Hillary eh?

(I know I thought they were as bad as each other pre-election, I was wrong)

Fretwired

Evilmags said:

The British version of Trump is Corbyn. Totally out of line with his party but resonating with his voters. 

Don't buy that at all. Whatever you think of Corbyn he has principles he's stuck to since he entered parliament. Even Jacob Rees Mogg (the poshest man in parliament) sticks up for Corbyn in this regard. Corbyn's not a leader - simple as that. He comes across as a school  teacher (probably geography) and is seen as weak. Corbyn's not popular with the public, although all the negative press he gets doesn't help.

Trump is a leader and a loudmouth, but he has no political experience, unlike Corbyn. He doesn't understand that politics is about compromise and pragmatism. He dishes out orders like a dictator in a tin pot banana republic and is then bemused when he finds a court overturns his decisions. His reaction - he throws his toys out of the cot and takes to Twitter to rant. He is nothing like Corbyn.

digitalscream

Fretwired said:

Evilmags said:

The British version of Trump is Corbyn. Totally out of line with his party but resonating with his voters. 

Don't buy that at all. Whatever you think of Corbyn he has principles he's stuck to since he entered parliament. Even Jacob Rees Mogg (the poshest man in parliament) sticks up for Corbyn in this regard. Corbyn's not a leader - simple as that. He comes across as a school  teacher (probably geography) and is seen as weak. Corbyn's not popular with the public, although all the negative press he gets doesn't help.

Trump is a leader and a loudmouth, but he has no political experience, unlike Corbyn. He doesn't understand that politics is about compromise and pragmatism. He dishes out orders like a dictator in a tin pot banana republic and is then bemused when he finds a court overturns his decisions. His reaction - he throws his toys out of the cot and takes to Twitter to rant. He is nothing like Corbyn.

Much as I dislike Corbyn as a potential PM, I've got to agree with this.

Trump is exactly what we'd get if Farage was PM.

Fretwired

Farage is very Trump-like which is why they are friends. Farage as PM is a frightening thought ...

goldtop

digitalscream said:

Emp_Fab said:

 For the US to be so polarised and both camps be so entrenched indicates a failing of the previous administrations to try to reach out to all Americans.

I disagree; it's not just a US problem. Look at what's been going on here since...oh, about two elections ago. Look at France etc.

The cause of polarisation isn't the politicians - it's the Internet. Pre-1995 (or thereabouts), very few were this interested in politics. Perhaps it's because most people didn't have an audience...or, more accurately, most people didn't have direct access to an echo chamber of significant size. I tend to think of it like a particle accelerator - a relatively benign idea spins round and round in these echo chambers, gathering energy until it's turned into "THIS IS THE ONLY WAY IT SHOULD EVER BE FOR THE GOOD OF MANKIND SO ANYTHING ELSE IS HATEFUL AND NEEDS TO DIE!", and then it's let loose to collide with another, opposing echo chamber...and thus threads like this are born.

I don't even think it's disenfranchisement. Social media lets people believe that their voice is more important than one vote in 318 million, and that carries with it a deep dissatisfaction because that's all they have. That's astonishingly easy to exploit, as shown by Trump, Farage et al.

I firmly believe that it's impossible for any functioning government to reach out to everyone because of this - the polarisation and entrenchment is so great in the Western world right now that no compromise would ever satisfy anyone, and it's patently impossible to simultaneously make two people happy when their views are diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive.

Mercer/Bannon/Trump found out that you don't have to reach out to everyone. They were introduced to Cambridge Analytics' big-data work by Farage. CA worked out that social media makes it very easy to target voters according to their likes, and that a few likes allows them to work out who needs which message.

No more need to do focus-grouped TV campaigns to appeal to this or that group. So now voters (only those where it matters, of course) get political adverts on their feed based on the non-political stuff they view and do online. So if someone liked a gunshow posting on Facebook, then they will get adverts talking about the relevant amendment being under threat, etc. Social media now allows politicians to sell each voter a different story. Doesn't matter that the stories may be contradictory.

Customised snake oil, sold quietly and direct, and without the annoying interference of the media. Pollsters can't measure its influence, either.

I think I posted this before, but this article spells it out: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/how-our-likes-helped-trump-win

Evilmags

Obama must wish he had used some of his considerable political capital early on to kill off the Clintons for good. Both Romney (A Mormon ffs) and McCain scored better in total votes than Trump,  which tells you how bad a candidate Hillary was. A shrill SJW with a degree of self righteousness beyond your average guardian columnist is not going to win over middle America. 

In this election both candidates were so vile I'd have written Ron Paul on the ballot and had a strong drink.

ICBM

Evilmags said:

In this election both candidates were so vile I'd have written Ron Paul on the ballot and had a strong drink.

Is that different to any other US election?