Bermudashorts

To reply to your last sentence first. The reality is that Trump has been democratically elected and there is no point whinging about someone you cannot change. Accept it, wish him luck and be positive. Talking about recession and crisis, well it can be a self fulfilling prophecy.

As to the rest, stop kidding yourself that you are a critical thinker. Anyone can spout nonsense about what might happen in the future, you are not better at it than the next person just because you are pessimistic.

Many people would say that Republicans clean up Democrats mess, some would hold Clinton (Bill that is) responsible for the sub prime crisis that led to GFC but there you go. Just because you say the opposite doesn't make it fact. It is a different opinion only.

GarryP

US voters have massively screwed up and elected someone that from his own statements doesn't have a clue how global economics or politics works.

Accept reality and get ready for the sh*tstorm to come. Be realistic and don't expect things to miraculous turn out all sweetness and light. There is nothing positive about ignoring the real world - that just makes it far worse.

Oh, and the 'let's blame Bill Clinton for the subprime' is a far right talking point that's not borne out by the evidence. Remember bills come from the House and Senate; and the bills limiting regulation were drawn up by ...... republicans (now there's a surprise).

scrubbedexpat098

You're lecturing on accepting reality?

the troubadour

Well no because it has been sold under false pretences. People are angry and the libertarian speculation which defines freedom as individual autonomy and the right to starve is not exactly, most likely what the Trump movement had in mind.


So a brighter future with a big spending, low tax to business government. What could go wrong?
Back on track? What back to the fifties? Unlikely. Any concrete ideas, beyond far right libertarian as to how this will be achieved?


One positive note it just may activate people into direct act. Create a government of the people for the people.

the troubadour

Obama done well under the circumstances. Not brilliant but okay. The US as the world has had enough of neoliberal economics and libertarian policy.
Sick to the back teeth of greed and the rights attempts at moral justification for it.

Bermudashorts

I have accepted reality! The reality is that Trump has been elected. Predictions of the future on the other hand are not reality. By definition not a reality.

And if Clinton is not responsible for what happens when he was president then why would Trump be responsible for anything? If as you say, the president of the day doesn't get a say in things then you are throwing your toys around for nothing aren't you?

the troubadour

Yes indeed. The left lost its moral compass somewhere along the line as have decent Liberals. Somehow modern conservatives captured the moral philosophy of the time venturing ever further to the right and politics of greed. They are being seen for what they are but the stage has awhile to run. I fear the worst but in fact not to concerned about Trump with the expectation it will further the demise of libertarian politics. I mean Trump, a man of the people, get real.

Alfresco

Unfortunately/fortunately not, but you could bookmark it and ask one of the then mods to reopen the thread. It would be interesting to see who was right or wrong etc.

You may have to ask in Russian as BE may not be hosted in the US.

Yours truly,

Chicken Little.

(Tongue in cheek, of course)

GarryP

I know, we'll put a 5 year old in the position of president, after all we don't know they will screw up; that a prediction of the future and you shouldn't be so negative.

Suggest you look at the difference between financial regulation bills (that the president just gets to sign or veto) and things like international relations, wars, etc. that are the president's responsibility.

knockoff nige

That's exactly the problem, in America at least. AI can predict the winner of a reality vote in talent show. That's what the Presidency election turned out to be. Does that mean the best candidate won? Maybe for the talent show where talent is clearly on display for people to judge. But not for the presidency where candidates not only hold back in providing the substance of their policies, they are now subjected to verbal abuse from the candidate with the least substance.

The Trump campaign:

Tell us about your policies.

We've got the best policies, man they are so good. They have terrible policies.

For anyone believing Trump will be a good (never mind successful) president, you have not been paying attention. He's a failure at everything bar this election.

Beoz

Perhaps you should pay attention.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/donald-trump-will-lead-the-us-in-the-right-direction-we-should-take-note-20161110-gsmant.html

Some good some bad but that goes with the territory. Rather than believing the lack of detail the popular media sensationalise to get you all angry and interested.

morpeth

Many Americans felt that while Clinton may know more about how "politics works" that the politics of the last 16 years at least haven't worked for them. As far as international relations many feel looking at the world the Bush/Obama/Clinton approach hasn't worked.

As far as economics, also many feel the economy doesn't work for them. And Clinton's plans to add regulations and costs not exactly a solid plan to increase economic growth.

And much of the vote for Trump was also a protest against Republican party leaders.

Ignoring the real world for a lot of Americans is exactly why Clinton lost.

But beating Clinton will end up being easier for Trump than dealing with the US Senate.

Whether Trump's words in the campaign reflect what he will actually do, or be able to do while fighting the Congress, who knows.

astera

You must be living in some alternate reality It's more like 8 years of successful rebuilding after two terms of tragic Republican rule under the biggest moron to ever occupy the White House.

I agree, Trump single-handedly demolished the entire party and all its contenders, basically swiping them aside and claiming that whole part of the political scene all for himself.

I think _she_ is the reason why the party lost simply because she wasn't the best candidate, had quite a negative following even among Democrats, and the process by which she was selected seemed almost as twisted and suspicious as some of the things Trump was saying about the political system overall.

Unfortunately she went for it. This reminds me of the Republicans and how they lost out to Obama because they pushed the wrong guy into the spotlight. Had they nominated Ron Paul it would have probably gone the other way.

Pulaski

On the subject of revisiting things, this video was posted on another thread yesterday, it dates from eighteen months ago, just before the run up to the primary election campaign. The first 20 seconds is the funny bit.

For those unfamiliar with the people in the video, the guy in the suit is Bill Maher, a left-leaning TV presenter. His "panel" of left-leaning cronies is to his right, and the audience, knowing the reputation of Bill Maher, are mostly left-leaning too.

The guest, the woman with the blond hair, is Ann Coulter a conservative political journalist, and is very knowledgeable on her subject - she was clearly being bated on this TV show, but her response was undoubtedly "straight up". You only need to watch the first 20 seconds - I just love her confidence in giving her answer, and the hysterical laughter of the audience. I wonder how much they are laughin today!

Pulaski

Well you're living in Australia, so what do you know. President Obama's "program" lasted two years, the following six years the US has been coasting, granted coasting up hill, not down, as Obama had no ability to actually do anything as he and Congress have not been on the same page at all.