That's a serious question.
I mean, they didn't vote for the candidate who said the most sensible things, not for the candidate who respected women or minorities ...

I believe many people wanted to vote for a candidate close to the workers, which is "funny" considering he's a republican billionaire. But Clinton was not more credible in this role.

But the worst is that Americans probably voted with fear and anger, for the candidate who just represented change.
I fear that we will have this kind of reactions in Europe too, and that we will have difficult years in the future. Let's hope for the best.
The fact that far-right (with ties with neo-nazi in Austria) Marine Lepen congratulated Trump is painful by itself.

Finally I would say that the choice of Clinton as Democratic candidate was very poor, considering her lack of popularity before the election.

Now, I wanted to return to New York one of these days, but if I remember well Trump wanted to ban the French from entering the US (??).

All the best

Uneducated and Fox viewers voted for Putin. We have said that over and over again, we were demonized and call all sorts of nasty names. Markets are taking all over the world. "Liberals" will be blamed in the United States of Russia but the only ones to blame are the Fox sheeple.

As I said in my thread I just started, Van Jones got it right when he called this "White-Lash". This was a large segment of the white race saying they don't want to share anything with other Americans, like African-Americans, Hispanics, Latinos, Asians, Muslims, LGBTQ's.

They cannot stop the demographic changes taking place, but they are going down fighting, and this may well be their last hurrah to hold on to the reins of power in this nation. By next election, the white participation rate will drop another 4%, and probably another 4% in 2024. So this may well be their last stand. Conservative whites, like a caged animal, are going down fighting.

I don't think this is a permanent re-alignment of the nation's politics. As I mentioned, the demgraphic changes over the next 3 to 4 POTUS election cycles are going to be more and more difficult for conservatives. But this was a perfect storm of a candidate who was able to whip up resentment of minorities and fear of a changing world, combined with a candidate on the other side that many just did not trust.

The Dems need to turn to 2018 and 2020 beginning tomorrow. They can't afford to wait 6 months to a year. They need to lay the groundwork for reversing this ASAP.

that is the big question. More a vote against the establishment then for something. Brexit is the same.

The United States and in fact the rest of the world is in serious trouble, without any exaggeration I think this could be the trigger for worldwide
catastrophe.

sebolino wrote:

I mean, they didn't vote for the candidate who said the most sensible things, not for the candidate who respected women or minorities ...

I believe you couldn't be more wrong. Personally, in all three of those categories he won my vote over Clinton. She has proven herself incapable of doing all three. Now Trump has a chance to put action to his words. If he doesn't, there's another election in four years.

Dutchy wrote:

that is the big question. More a vote against the establishment then for something. Brexit is the same.

Interestingly, the vote margin between Trump and Clinton (on current published figures) is far less than the margin for Brexit. There the vote was 52% - 48%. Yet on figures disclosed so far, Trump has 47.8% of the vote, while Clinton has 47.4% and that's on a smaller turn out. At this stage, more people appear to have not voted than the number of people who voted for either Trump or Bush. Far from suggesting a massive shift to Trump, it suggests a massive rejection of both of the major political parties, as you correctly suggest.

MSPNWA wrote:

sebolino wrote:

I mean, they didn't vote for the candidate who said the most sensible things, not for the candidate who respected women or minorities ...

I believe you couldn't be more wrong. Personally, in all three of those categories he won my vote over Clinton. She has proven herself incapable of doing all three. Now Trump has a chance to put action to his words. If he doesn't, there's another election in four years.

What would that "action" be? Building a wall? Deporting 11 million people and messing up the economy in the process? Spying on, indimidating and throwing Muslims out of the nation? Overturning LGBTQ marriage rights.

Why dont' you enumerate what you want to see? That would be instructive.

I didn't follow the actual election process until tonight nor have I made a single comment in the many threads about it here, since it is another country's election and is not very consequential to me. But I can tell you what US citizens voted for.

Good ol' Populism. You know, Latin American style: trade is bad and we need tariffs, we gotta protect our national industry, watch out for immigrants stealing your jobs, etc.

Trump took a card right out of Peron's 1946 campaign, and promised the "descamisados" that he would shake it all up. He got the US Descamisado vote in mass apparently, the vote of the lower education level industry worker.

You see similar trends in Europe. The ultimate irony, since Latin America now is moving away from populism in a domino wave since Argentina elected Macri, yet it is now the formerly non-populist 1st world that is catching the fire of the many promises populists make. Look at Britain and Brexit. So I hope the people that always looked down on populism as some sort of banana republic political phenomenon will be brave enough to also decry it when it is flourishing at home.

Speaking of brave, one special comment that maybe has not been made, but many of the people who vote are either cowards, have sinister duplicity, or have skewed morals. I mean it seems that yet again, and I have seen this in several European recent elections too, what people told the pollsters is different from what they did. I have no respect at all for those people. It is very simple really, you have three choices in a situation like that, when you are asked for your likely choice: 1) Answer the question honestly, 2) Decline to provide an answer (not participate in the poll), 3) LIE.

I would hope most people here agree that out of those three choices, two are completely acceptable and respectable, and one is not. If you chose the third option either you are simply a coward for not stating what you really intend to do, or duplicitous for purposefully trying to disrupt scientific collecting of data. Now it is possible and I admit this, that many people feel intimidated in giving their real answer out of fear of ridicule because some other people have in the past shown them little tolerance, and belittle those whose choices are different than theirs. But in that case you simply REFUSE to answer. You don't lie, it's easy. Now it is obvious that polls in most countries can no longer be trusted due to this effect. Don't be a coward or a hypocrite, be honest and participate or just decline to participate.

My two cents on this election and others of recent times.

Looks like the popular vote has narrowed to just 0.4% difference, and several of the states reflect that.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/

Effectively, Vladimir Putin and James Comey have decided the election for Trump. Just great.

Hillis wrote:

What would that "action" be? Building a wall? Deporting 11 million people and messing up the economy in the process? Spying on, indimidating and throwing Muslims out of the nation? Overturning LGBTQ marriage rights.

Why dont' you enumerate what you want to see? That would be instructive.

A general, absolute statement that's likely wrong deserves a general, opinionated answer.

Since you're asking these questions for me, yes, to all four. Go and listen to Clinton's 1995 State of the Union on immigration. A near carbon copy of Donald Trump's view. One got a standing ovation by both sides. The other was called a racist and a xenophobe. Wake up America. Have an independent mind. Stop accepting being told what to believe.

seb146 wrote:

Uneducated and Fox viewers voted for Putin. We have said that over and over again, we were demonized and call all sorts of nasty names. Markets are taking all over the world. "Liberals" will be blamed in the United States of Russia but the only ones to blame are the Fox sheeple.

You will never convince people that they are wrong and that you are right if you demonise people yourself. Describing people as "uneducated" and "sheeple" might be emotionally comforting but does nothing to address why people were dissatisfied with Clinton and even Trump too. More people did not vote at all than those who voted for either candidate. Did Fox tell people to stay at home? I don't think so.

I've not had this much fun in a long time. I can't wait to see how ya'll spin this now!!

Obama's legacy will be systematically dismantled. LOL.

Veetwo wrote:

I've not had this much fun in a long time. I can't wait to see how ya'll spin this now!!

Obama's legacy will be systematically dismantled. LOL.

Laugh now, because I think Obama's going to have the last laugh in the end.

Veetwo wrote:

I've not had this much fun in a long time. I can't wait to see how ya'll spin this now!!

Obama's legacy will be systematically dismantled. LOL.

I think it shows what kind of human being you are that you laugh at people who will be screwed over, like Hispanics, Muslims, women, LGBTQ's. Does the loss that they will incur really please you that much?

MSPNWA wrote:

Hillis wrote:

What would that "action" be? Building a wall? Deporting 11 million people and messing up the economy in the process? Spying on, indimidating and throwing Muslims out of the nation? Overturning LGBTQ marriage rights.

Why dont' you enumerate what you want to see? That would be instructive.

A general, absolute statement that's likely wrong deserves a general, opinionated answer.

Since you're asking these questions for me, yes, to all four. Go and listen to Clinton's 1995 State of the Union on immigration. A near carbon copy of Donald Trump's view. One got a standing ovation by both sides. The other was called a racist and a xenophobe. Wake up America. Have an independent mind. Stop accepting being told what to believe.

So, your objective isn't to help America, but hurt Americans. Do I understand you correctly?

If the US goes to shit internally, well, too bad, I didn't plan to go there and that won't change.

Now I'm really wondering what will happen with commerce. Trump is against trade deals, I'm a typical French in being against them too, so no worries there.

But if somehow many more protectionist measures are implemented, with retaliations to be expected, all bets are off. My company does 50% of its business in France, 50% in the rest of the world (literally everywhere including the USA) so it will get interesting I'm sure.

Aesma wrote:

, I'm a typical French in being against them too, so no worries there.

My company does 50% of its business in France, 50% in the rest of the world (literally everywhere including the USA) so it will get interesting I'm sure.

And may I ask how do you reconcile your employment with your trade philosophy? They would seem at first glance to clash at right angles.

MSPNWA wrote:

sebolino wrote:

I mean, they didn't vote for the candidate who said the most sensible things, not for the candidate who respected women or minorities ...

I believe you couldn't be more wrong. Personally, in all three of those categories he won my vote over Clinton. She has proven herself incapable of doing all three. Now Trump has a chance to put action to his words. If he doesn't, there's another election in four years.

I fully respect your opinion, but I strongly believe you've missed something if you think that all the BS Trump said during the debates are "sensible things", and that talking the way he did about Mexicans and Muslims (for example) is what one can call "respect".
I must admit he's very strong if he managed to make people believe that he's close to the blue collars.

Trump is going to help Putin destroy ISIS.

People voted for the guy who had a more credible, more "wholesome" appearance. Despite his intellectual flatulence, misoginy and racism, Trump was more of a "package".

Clinton just could not bring a credible message across. If you had to point out what she stands for, you were scratching your head before muttering something along "Wall Street". She's a thoroughbred Washington politician, she is a careerist, and she's entangled in too many interests which do not involve many voters.


David

Hillis wrote:

So, your objective isn't to help America, but hurt Americans. Do I understand you correctly?

Securing the border from foreign invasion, protecting American citizens by being very careful with immigrants from countries/religions/cultures that have terrorized us, and kicking out illegal aliens (who I remind you aren't Americans) is hurting Americans how?

Aesma wrote:

If the US goes to shit internally, well, too bad, I didn't plan to go there and that won't change.

Now I'm really wondering what will happen with commerce. Trump is against trade deals, I'm a typical French in being against them too, so no worries there.

But if somehow many more protectionist measures are implemented, with retaliations to be expected, all bets are off. My company does 50% of its business in France, 50% in the rest of the world (literally everywhere including the USA) so it will get interesting I'm sure.

I believe he said that he would put tarrifs for some countries (China for example, which is not a problem in my opinion).

MSPNWA wrote:

Hillis wrote:

So, your objective isn't to help America, but hurt Americans. Do I understand you correctly?

Securing the border from foreign invasion, protecting American citizens by being very careful with immigrants from countries/religions/cultures that have terrorized us, and kicking out illegal aliens (who I remind you aren't Americans) is hurting Americans how?

1. There is no foreign invasion. Illegal immigration has been going down and down. And you can't secure that long of a border.

2. It already takes 2 years for an immigrant from the Middle East to be allowed to settle here.

3. Kicking out 11 million people will cause serious damage to the U.S. economy. These are people who, believe or not, pay taxes, buy goods and services, and hold jobs that help economies. The jobs they are getting are ones Americans don't want in the first place, and even the President-Elect hires them because he knows the labor will be cheap.

Keep going. I want to see how deep a hole you can dig.

Derico wrote:

Aesma wrote:

, I'm a typical French in being against them too, so no worries there.

My company does 50% of its business in France, 50% in the rest of the world (literally everywhere including the USA) so it will get interesting I'm sure.

And may I ask how do you reconcile your employment with your trade philosophy? They would seem at first glance to clash at right angles.

WTO rules are fine by me.

sebolino wrote:

Aesma wrote:

If the US goes to shit internally, well, too bad, I didn't plan to go there and that won't change.

Now I'm really wondering what will happen with commerce. Trump is against trade deals, I'm a typical French in being against them too, so no worries there.

But if somehow many more protectionist measures are implemented, with retaliations to be expected, all bets are off. My company does 50% of its business in France, 50% in the rest of the world (literally everywhere including the USA) so it will get interesting I'm sure.

I believe he said that he would put tarrifs for some countries (China for example, which is not a problem in my opinion).

Tariffs and barriers are proven to ALWAYS hurt the one placing them in the long term.

Some short term barriers do work if it is to give local industries time to adjust, or because another country is really playing foul. But keep them long term and the benefits erode into costs. The affected party will find other markets. The one imposing the tariffs will see a drop in competitiveness.

Also I'm just an employee (and a relatively new one), I have no say in how my very large multinational company is run. One of the reasons it has expanded internationally is that French elections had an impact, with the previous French president favoring rival companies (his friends) over mine.

blacksoviet wrote:

Trump is going to help Putin destroy ISIS.

I don't know.

What I know is that today Putin has a smile on his face, reaching from the western border of Russia near Poland to Vladivostok on the Pacific Ocean. He can now do what he wants, more or less. Will be interesting to see how he will use this historic opportunity.

That being said, maybe it's even better if Russia becomes stronger again. Maybe it's better two have two super power nations, similar to how aviation has benefitted from the two large OEMs, instead of only one super power nation.

Hillis wrote:

Veetwo wrote:

I've not had this much fun in a long time. I can't wait to see how ya'll spin this now!!

Obama's legacy will be systematically dismantled. LOL.

I think it shows what kind of human being you are that you laugh at people who will be screwed over, like Hispanics, Muslims, women, LGBTQ's. Does the loss that they will incur really please you that much?

Obviously all those screwed people did not care enough to vote for Clinton, so there is no need for crocodile tears.

There is a highly probable long term problem Trump might leave for future generations - not only will the Republicans now gleefully fill the current empty SCOTUS seat, but there are another three seats which may need to be filled over the next four to eight years.

And that will dramatically change the balance of the court for a generation, as with no other seats likely to come up for the next 15 to 20 years the balance is likely to remain on the Republican side.

I am in shock as are most of the world probably, but only time will tell how this will work out.

Well, Americans wanted change and now they will get it. Of course we have to remember that Trump will not be a dictator and not eveybody likes him in his own party. So he will have a lot of things to deal with. He also needs a lot of help from much experienced politicians. But we all probably also know that he is a populist and he has said a lot of things that will not happen. In my opinion we will see a different kind of America in the future. It will not be a paradise, but it will be different thant Obama's America.

I have always been a fan of great success stories and achievements. This is one of them. Even though I am not supporting Trump I must say he did something that nobody thought would be possible. In the beginning he probably didn't think himself that he would actually become president, but he did. Americans have clearly voted for change and that needs to be respected.

One hour after the opening of the markets the French CAC40 was down -1,7%. Now it has recovered somewhat at -1,18%. Helped by my company which went from slightly in the red to +1% so I guess my fears were unwarranted.

blacksoviet wrote:

Trump is going to help Putin destroy ISIS.

They'll deny ISIS their own territory, so they'll move back into the ghettos throughout the world. The Trump game plan is going to increase Islamic discontent. This ISIS thing will continue as if it were a game of wack-a-mole.

Trump has no idea that he's fighting an ideology, he's back somewhere in whatever he thinks WW2 was like.

N14AZ wrote:

blacksoviet wrote:

Trump is going to help Putin destroy ISIS.

I don't know.

What I know is that today Putin has a smile on his face, reaching from the western border of Russia near Poland to Vladivostok on the Pacific Ocean. He can now do what he wants, more or less. Will be interesting to see how he will use this historic opportunity.

That being said, maybe it's even better if Russia becomes stronger again. Maybe it's better two have two super power nations, similar to how aviation has benefitted from the two large OEMs, instead of only one super power nation.

Trump is going to ally with Russia to try to contain China.

blacksoviet wrote:

Trump is going to help Putin destroy ISIS.

Putin doesn't care about ISIS, he only wants a Russian friendly Syrian government. The question now is how Putin is going to explore the diminished state of America in the world.

I think the single biggest problem for the world is that he will not conform to environmental protection. Full into oil, protections acts abolished, Paris agreement not ratified etc.

Let's hope America will not do this, they are the most polluting nation per capita in the world.

Dutchy wrote:

I think the single biggest problem for the world is that he will not conform to environmental protection. Full into oil, protections acts abolished, Paris agreement not ratified etc.

Let's hope America will not do this, they are the most polluting nation per capita in the world.

Protectionism can help in this matter. The EU should decide on a high carbon tax across the board. Products of that tax could replace national taxes on employment for example.

Congratulations to the whole Putin/Trump 2016 team. Well done.

/sarcasm off

Aesma wrote:

Protectionism can help in this matter. The EU should decide on a high carbon tax across the board. Products of that tax could replace national taxes on employment for example.

And then he'll add on additional tariffs & taxes on EU products. In the end everybody loses.

Credit where credit is due; the acceptance speech was a good one. Hillary really shouldn't have chickened out of a concession speech, but unsurprisingly the hubris was too great.

blacksoviet wrote:

Trump is going to ally with Russia to try to contain China.

I'm going to enjoy watching the bloodbath.

Dutchy wrote:

Putin doesn't care about ISIS

But hey, he's got a tremendous plan to defeat them and America is gonna win.....bigly.

Dutchy wrote:

The question now is how Putin is going to explore the diminished state of America in the world.

Dutchy wrote:

I think the single biggest problem for the world is that he will not conform to environmental protection. Full into oil, protections acts abolished, Paris agreement not ratified etc.

These two are what I'm really worrying about. I don't really care which candidate america chooses, but whatever they choose it has an effect on the rest of the world. An externality that non americans will also feel the effect of. Imagine if Trump chooses John Bolton as his secretary of state. That man makes Cheney look like a moderate.

Also, I wonder where they're gonna find all this money for the wall building. Trump said that it would cost 8 billion to build, but he's a tremendous businessman, right, so I'm sure it will come in under budget?

Adipasquale wrote:

Good post.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

Aesma wrote:

Protectionism can help in this matter. The EU should decide on a high carbon tax across the board. Products of that tax could replace national taxes on employment for example.

And then he'll add on additional tariffs & taxes on EU products. In the end everybody loses.

Well yes, but something needs to be done. I think Aesma has a point, shifting taxes from work to consumption and tax things more which hurt the environment.

The Dems really have nobody to blame but themselves. Everybody, myself included (though I did predict Trump could take WI and MI if he had a good night) was so cocksure Clinton would take PA, WI, and MI that they failed to put sufficient resources into those states, instead focusing on non-essential states such as AZ. The polls obviously underestimated the extent of working class white outrage with Clinton and the Dems, which probably helped lead to this false sense of confidence. I would really like to think that most of the working class whites who voted for Trump are not racists or xenophobes, but angry that their education level and way of life is consistently being mocked by establishment Dems, angry that Clinton referred to them as deplorables. Voting for Trump was their way of giving the finger to those people, and while voting for a (maybe) billionaire faux-populist is not going to solve their problems, I don't blame them. I probably would have done the same. I hope as a result of this, the Democratic party will take a hard look at their nominating process, as well as put a ton of effort into grooming a new generation of democratic leaders. Part of the problem is that none of the Democratic candidates this election cycle were very strong. O'Malley, Chafee, and Webb lacked name recognition and/or were complete jokes. Sanders for all there is to like about him was too extreme (although it would have been interesting to see how he would have done in the GE with working class voters with his form of populism), and Clinton's faults are well documented enough I don't need to go into them here. I can only hope that going forward, our nation can work to mend its wounds, that both sides can strive to better understand the other instead of demonizing one another, and that president-elect Trump will prove to be a better man than he has thus far shown, and at least show a small degree of reverence for the principles on which the United States was founded.

Edited for grammar

A carbon tax would act as a form of protectionism but it's not a tax on imports. It would apply to everything sold in the EU, that's the beauty of it.

With 96.08% reporting, Clinton now has a majority of the popular vote with 47.61% vs. Trump’s 47.58.
But of course with the absurd electoral system that still means a decisive Trump victory.

Hooray for democracy!

Americans voted for Trump simply because few people really like Clinton, which makes sense considering what a corrupt member of the elite she is, while many people like Trump and his big promises. Voting against somebody isn't as big of a motivator for people to go vote than voting for somebody.

Trump respects women just as much as they should be respected. He isn't planning to put the minorities into jails or concentration camps, so as far as I can see he respect their rights too. Being a member of a minority should never be a source of privilege to anybody like it so often is in our modern western world. I would have voted Trump mainly because I'm tired of white guilt losers and general SJW crowd complaining constantly about irrelevant matters. Once upon a time I cared about minorities and their rights, but thanks to these whiny clowns I don't care at all anymore.

Hopefully Trump's victory will be good for my country as he's more likely to get rid of the dumb anti-Russian sanctions, which would be very good for our economy. Trump's victory also makes it more likely that Finland won't be joining NATO either. Hopefully his victory will inspire similar victories in many EU countries, which is likely considering the fact we are going to witness a massive wave of terror in Europe soon when ISIS loses its areas and fighters return to Europe where countries like Finland and Germany welcome them with open arms.

So, the USA have elected a 70 years old apprentice who has less than two months Training before Training on the job starts. OK, his acceptance speech asn't so bad, but can he deliver what the third world part expect? Can he deliver to make the fly-over states great again? Can he polish up the rust belt?

He will have to perform miracles.

If he fails, the American People just Need three words: You Are Fired

Gee Pbijn, were to begin. Perhaps this statement of yours sums it all up:

Trump respects women just as much as they should be respected.

As for the sanctions, well I think Finland is hurting by Russian sanctions, not the EU ones. And what do you propose the EU does about the first annexation in Europe since Hitler?

pvjin wrote:

Americans voted for Trump simply because few people really like Clinton ... Voting against somebody isn't as big of a motivator for people to go vote than voting for somebody.

Strangely enough, an old aphorism has it that Parties don't win elections, Governments lose them. Quite often people will vote against a party rather than for another.

In this election it is difficult to say how many voted for or against either candidate. As the count continues, we see that the margin between the two candidates is very small (as I write Clinton has a small majority) and it remains to be seen what the final vote will be. Trump does appear to have secured a majority of the Electoral College and it is their vote that matters, not that of the people as a whole.

What is clear is that a significant minority of eligible voters were uninspired by either candidate, with only a little more than 50% of the electorate actually casting a vote. This is hardly a stunning endorsement of Trump who barely scraped 25% of the popular vote. However, he is President Elect and the world will grow accustomed to it. Same meat, different gravy.

pvjin wrote:

Americans voted for Trump simply because few people really like Clinton, which makes sense considering what a corrupt member of the elite she is, while many people like Trump and his big promises. Voting against somebody isn't as big of a motivator for people to go vote than voting for somebody.

In my opinion you are right that many people voted against Clinton who is far too much on the rich class side (and corruption maybe (??) ... if it was a reality she should be in jail, why isn't she locked ??), and people voted for Trump's BIG (and ridiculous) promises.
But voting against somebody (to protect your country and yourself) is a very big motivator. France 2002: Chirac 80% , Lepen (far far far right) 20%.
If the democratic candidate had been wisely chosen, I don't believe Trump could have won. I don't know if it's a debate in the US, but I also think the FBI changed the result with this emails (I open the case/Oh no I don't/Wait finally I will/ Oh no I don't) story.

I just updated my voting details for local and government elections in New Zealand.

I made damn well sure the envelope hit the bottom of the post box.