Taleb nails it. Again.

[spyguy]

Basically, self appointed technocrats who talk the talk whllst having an index linked pension.

' What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for. '

https://medium.com/@nntaleb/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577#.3p63cn4m3

 

' But the problem is the one-eyed following the blind: these self-described members of the “intelligentsia” can’t find a coconut in Coconut Island, meaning they aren’t intelligent enough to define intelligence hence fall into circularities — but their main skill is capacity to pass exams written by people like them. '

 

[zugzwang]

Intellectuals.

A scholastic, hermitic, anti-empiric, Platonic-Aristotelian clique more interested in sounding smart than being sound.

[Futuroid]

Yeah, take Trump for example. Plenty of skin (not sure it's in the game though).

A real man of the people from honest working stock. 

Or perhaps Trump is a figurehead and his advisors are the ones doing the work... even his book - "The Art of the Deal" - was written by someone else.

"Bread and circuses" remember? This is the circus, I wonder if you'll get any bread?

 

[spyguy]

Its less that Trump won, more that the the pols and pundits and media were all wrong.

Trumps not the message.

[Futuroid]

4 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Its less that Trump won, more that the the pols and pundits and media were all wrong.

Trumps not the message.

We knew polls were +/-5%. Brexit showed that some people are reluctant to admit to a vote they may perceive as being "not politically correct".

Trump is the official Republican party candidate! It's not like he is a supporter of communism. Just more of the same, and in five years time all the ordinary Joes wearing baseball caps will wonder what happened. Just like many blacks did about Obama. He will have a cabinet full of familiar political faces with the same guys pulling the levers behind the scenes who operated George W. Bush, etc.

Trump will be a bit richer, the 99% a little poorer, the 1% a lot richer and game goes on.

If the USA had voted Bernie Sanders in there might have been genuine change. But he was too radical to even get the ticket!

[Errol]

24 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

Trump is the official Republican party candidate! 

Only very reluctantly. Nearly all the Republican party disowned him! It's like he's been running as an independent or third party most of the time.

Only at the very end did a few Republicans try and get back into his good books.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Errol

[Futuroid]

4 minutes ago, Errol said:

Only very reluctantly. Nearly all the Republican party disowned him! It's like he's been running as an independent or third party most of the time.

Only at the very end did a few Republicans try and get back into his good books.

So you mean he won't fill his cabinet with prominent Republicans?

Is he going to abandon Capitalism? Is he going to abandon fractional reserve banking?

The only wall he is talking about is with Mexico when really he should be reforming Wall Street! 

Fill yer boots.

[spyguy]

33 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

We knew polls were +/-5%. Brexit showed that some people are reluctant to admit to a vote they may perceive as being "not politically correct".

Trump is the official Republican party candidate! It's not like he is a supporter of communism. Just more of the same, and in five years time all the ordinary Joes wearing baseball caps will wonder what happened. Just like many blacks did about Obama. He will have a cabinet full of familiar political faces with the same guys pulling the levers behind the scenes who operated George W. Bush, etc.

Trump will be a bit richer, the 99% a little poorer, the 1% a lot richer and game goes on.

If the USA had voted Bernie Sanders in there might have been genuine change. But he was too radical to even get the ticket!

Trump won by more than a -/+5% margin.

For the media/pols/commentators/political machines to be that far out ..... just goes to show. People know sh1t.

[Errol]

5 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

So you mean he won't fill his cabinet with prominent Republicans?

The only wall he is talking about is with Mexico when really he should be reforming Wall Street! 

As to the first bit: Yes, obviously he will put Republicans in. But presumably he's going to make them crawl first. He's not an idiot and understands how the system works.

The second bit: Trump has mentioned 'the bankers' and various issues of Wall Street on numerous occasions throughout his speeches. He has numerous reforms planned. Hopefully he will do at least 50% of them.

[onlyme2]

8 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

So you mean he won't fill his cabinet with prominent Republicans?

Is he going to abandon Capitalism? Is he going to abandon fractional reserve banking?

The only wall he is talking about is with Mexico when really he should be reforming Wall Street! 

Fill yer boots.

Including auditing the FED.

He has won this almost despite the republican party.

Maybe he really is going to go through with it. But like May, proof will be in the pudding.

 

 

[Futuroid]

9 minutes ago, spyguy said:

Trump won by more than a -/+5% margin

Clinton is still on course to win the popular vote (i.e. more individuals voted for her than for Trump). The US operate a variation on FPTP which is an "electoral college" system.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president

[macfarlan]

2 hours ago, zugzwang said:

Intellectuals.

A scholastic, hermitic, anti-empiric, Platonic-Aristotelian clique more interested in sounding smart than being sound.

Irony?

[spyguy]

2 minutes ago, Errol said:

As to the first bit: Yes, obviously he will put Republicans in. But presumably he's going to make them crawl first. He's not an idiot and understands how the system works.

The second bit: Trump has mentioned 'the bankers' and various issues of Wall Street on numerous occasions throughout his speeches. He has numerous reforms planned. Hopefully he will do at least 50% of them.

I dont think Trump knows how that system works - politics, Rep Party etc.

He has his system. which is knows how to work. Not sure itll scale though.

Maybe he'll retire to a hands of Pres, leaving the grunt to the VP.

[spyguy]

2 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

Clinton is still on course to win the popular vote (i.e. more individuals voted for her than for Trump). The US operate a variation on FPTP which is an "electoral college" system.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president

Seats count, not heads.

Bit like saying Clinton won the moral vote. Or the Martian vote. It does not count!

[Futuroid]

9 minutes ago, Errol said:

As to the first bit: Yes, obviously he will put Republicans in. But presumably he's going to make them crawl first. He's not an idiot and understands how the system works.

The second bit: Trump has mentioned 'the bankers' and various issues of Wall Street on numerous occasions throughout his speeches. He has numerous reforms planned. Hopefully he will do at least 50% of them.

I think those two things cancel each other out.

Now there is a Republican senate and a Republican president. Nothing takes people's minds off being poor like a good 'ole war.

I only hope the Canadian immigration department has a big overtime budget. 

[Futuroid]

Just now, spyguy said:

Seats count, not heads.

Bit like saying Clinton won the moral vote. Or the Martian vote. It does not count!

I love the smell of democracy in the morning.

The point is, he doesn't even have a popular mandate. The polls were of people's individual voting intentions.

[spyguy]

4 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

I love the smell of democracy in the morning.

The point is, he doesn't even have a popular mandate. The polls were of people's individual voting intentions.

In which case Labour should not have won any of the 2002-2005 UK elections.
Each country has a its rules.

Us's is the college seats.

[spyguy]

Beside, I listened to a LibDem Peer lecturing people on UK democracy on the radio.

Some people have strange ideas about democracy.

[Futuroid]

2 minutes ago, spyguy said:

In which case Labour should not have won any of the 2002-2005 UK elections.
Each country has a its rules.

Us's is the college seats.

Of course.

But the polls dude. They weren't wrong. The polls are based on people's voting intentions and the overall vote only shows a 1-2% majority for Clinton. Well within the +/-5% I mentioned.

Tell you what though. This morning, I'm glad I'm not any of the following:

• An American Muslim.
• An American Woman.
• An American of Latin American descent.
• A member of the US Secret Service.

[SirGaz]

3 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

Of course.

But the polls dude. They weren't wrong. The polls are based on people's voting intentions and the overall vote only shows a 1-2% majority for Clinton. Well within the +/-5% I mentioned.

Tell you what though. This morning, I'm glad I'm not any of the following:

• An American Muslim.
• An American Woman.
• An American of Latin American descent.
• A member of the US Secret Service.

Shouldn't this garbage be in the SJW thread in off topic?

[Sour Mash]

25 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

I love the smell of democracy in the morning.

The point is, he doesn't even have a popular mandate. The polls were of people's individual voting intentions.

Gore won the popular vote against Shrub ... didn't make a shred of difference.  It's the electoral college that counts, those are the rules.  If the people don't like that, maybe they need to look for change to the voting system.

 

You wouldn't be moaning if Hillary had won the college and Trump had won the popular vote.

 

[Sour Mash]

17 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

Of course.

But the polls dude. They weren't wrong. The polls are based on people's voting intentions and the overall vote only shows a 1-2% majority for Clinton. Well within the +/-5% I mentioned.

Tell you what though. This morning, I'm glad I'm not any of the following:

• An American Muslim.
• An American Woman.
• An American of Latin American descent.
• A member of the US Secret Service.

 

I suspect we will see

* A tougher line against the likes of Saudi Arabia and their promotion of Salafism/Wahabism.

* Stricter immigration criteria/checks for citizens of countries where such philosophies are common.

* Stronger border security with Mexico and tougher penalties for illegal Mexican immigrants who are caught in the USA.

* Less blaming/ baiting of Russia, an attempt to normalise relations.

* Non stop whining from entitled 'liberals' who simply can't accept that other people have different opinions to them.

* Non stop blaming of Trump for everything that goes wrong from here on in, by the media (as with Brexit here).

[Futuroid]

5 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

Gore won the popular vote against Shrub ... didn't make a shred of difference.  It's the electoral college that counts, those are the rules.  If the people don't like that, maybe they need to look for change to the voting system.

I know they are the rules. I was just pointing out why the polls appeared to be out of whack.

I'm not fussed by who wins to be honest. As I said, it won't make much difference.

I found Clinton and Trump to be equally distasteful and an indictment of USA's political system.

[stormymonday_2011]

46 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

I love the smell of democracy in the morning.

The point is, he doesn't even have a popular mandate. The polls were of people's individual voting intentions.

America is a federal constitutional Republic not a direct Parliamentary democracy.

The founding fathers wrote the constitution specifically to ensure that power was split between executive, legislature and judiciary.

It was never intended to be a winner take all system based on a single popular vote particularly when it came to the Presidency.

It was also designed to ensure that the most populous US states could not railroad decisions over the smaller federal states 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

If Congress and Senate chose the President then Trump would still win because the Republicans control both houses. 

 

Edited November 9, 2016 by stormymonday_2011

[kenzdawg]

Trump is firstly an economic nationalist. If you want an idea of the future look to Herbert Hoover, and he will likely be as unsuccessful. A Trump supporter said it last night on the BBC's radio coverage that the reality of globalisation for most working Americans has merely been wage arbitrage at their expense. The deflationary effect on consumer prices has been largely offset by inflation in asset prices (as no one here needs to be told). So superficially at least Trump's argument makes sense, the problem comes when you ask who is going to buy all the goods made by the "jobs brought home" when the trade barriers are in place? This will only become apparent when the dollar stops being the dominant reserve currency. I think the post-Trump world will be one of discrete, non-comumicating trade blocks that will be not unlike the era of Empire, with great power rivalry and localised colonial wars.