The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.Here
and
Now
opinions
Trying to make sense of the Trump win
WASHINGTON©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
25 Comments
Login to comment
commanteer
If you are suggesting Russia influenced the elections, what evidence do you have of that?
Aly Rustom
What got Trump elected was the Democrats' treatment of Bernie Sanders. You reap what you sow.
A number of US intelligence agencies have said so in public including the NSA and the DIA.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/russian-hackers-influence-election-228543
sangetsu03
Remember the roasting that Obama gave Trump at the White House correspondents dinner in 2011? It is probably safe to say that dinner was the moment Trump decided to become president. As someone said in another thread, Trump can hold a grudge.
Any claim that Russia had any influence on the election is looney-babble, in articles written by hacks. That Russia likes Trump is only natural, as a Putin hates Obama, and always has. Putin and Trump are both extreme alpha males, and share mutual respect, if nothing else. Don't think that Trump and Putin are going to sip vodka together in Putin's dacha, but do expect a friendlier dialogue between America and Russia than before.
For all of his life Trump has been a person who gets what he wants, and who gets things done, regardless of the obstacles in his way. And if you ever doubted that fact, look at what happened yesterday. Trump'a victory was an amazing long shot, and many of those who cannot stand Trump cannot help but admire him now. Regardless of how he won, he did, in fact, win.
Trump will meet with Obama today, I suppose the Whitehouse kitchen has a tasty recipe for crow, and that Obama will be forced to at least three helpings.
Attilathehungry
I have to give Pres. Obama credit for how he is handling the situation. He is showing a lot more class and dignity that many Democrats. The problem with Hillary is that she is deeply corrupt and far too entrenched in the Washington insider system. Her and Bill are both symptoms of the greater problem.
Many member s of the Obama coalition simply stayed home. Trump was able to energize enough white voters in key states to get the victory. He also put to rest the theory that Hispanics are over concerned with immigration. The majority of hispanic americans are just like everyone else, and favor a system that follows the law and allows for controlled immigration over chaos.
qwertyjapan
The election is over so how about ending this hit pieces?
commanteer
This is why these truth.com sites are meaningless. This links rates Hillary's claim of 17 intelligence agencies agreeing that Russia was behind the links as....true??
Yet the very same page says that one person, James Clapper (a man who has lied under oath, and who is a Clinton crony) makes this claim. Not 17 agencies. Not even one of the agencies. And even what this liar said leaned closer to "maybe, we kinda think so but we can't prove it."
After all of the WMD Iraq war nonsense, one mumbling political hack is reason enough to start World War 3?? How far has the anti-war crowd fallen? Up is now officially down.
Aly Rustom
17 intelligence agencies all can't be wrong.
Clinton herself made this claim at one of the debates. If it was not true, Trump's fact checkers would have nailed her on it. Instead of doing that, Trump just denied knowing Putin.
What a whitewash.
Who said that this would start WW3?? Nothing more than hysterical alarmism.
turbotsat
zerohedge first debunked Hillary, then debunked a couple of Hillary's leashed 'fact-checkers', ABC and NYT, Oct. 20.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-20/fact-17-intelligence-agencies-confirmed-russia-behind-email-hacks-isn%E2%80%99t-actually%E2%80%A6a-f
Aly Rustom
I wouldn't quote zerohedge if I was you. Please find me a reliable source. I wouldn't trust their information about the weather, let alone ANYTHING else.
Please read below. There is more if you follow the link.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge
Moderator
Back on topic please.
MrBum
@sangetsu03
Remember when Trump led the charge in the birther movement? Trump couldn't handle some ribbing in response to his racist birtherism?
National security experts have made the claim that Russia was involved with the hacking. You think they don't have dirt on Trump too? What they do with it should worry everyone.
Suckering gullible alpha-male wannabes has been is main method of "success."
I agree with you there. I genuinely hope he doesn't screw things up, but what he showed during the campaign doesn't leave me hopeful.
I wouldn't be able to show my birther accuser the ropes, but Obama has more grace and class than most.
bass4funk
Again? Didn't we go through this nonsense already?
commanteer
I agree with you. That is, if by "hysterical alarmism" you mean "following Hillary's Russia policy to its logical conclusion." If you meant something else, then I'm afraid you are wrong.
Hicoway
Almost every aspect of the shocking (to many, but not all) win has been aired. I have personal insight. I ran a manufacturing company and had close interaction with working people. So did Trump with his construction workers. They want decent jobs, respect, and wage increases. They don’t have or care about “careers.” They don’t want job enrichment or enabling. These are aspirations of professional people.
Listening to Hillary’s concession speech, she spoke of enabling and careers of her supporters, and proffered zero words expressing recognition of the working half of America. Same with Obama’s speech. He gave examples of his constituency, all professionals. It’s interesting that they could be so clueless after holding the offices they did and having access to unlimited social data.
Hillary might have survived all her elitist oblivion, had it not been for the self- infliction by her “deplorable” bullet. She outed herself beyond reclamation.
Yes Mr. Trump objectifies women and has a sexual attraction to body parts. Most men do to one degree or another, it’s a natural consequence of testosterone; while many at the same time consider women to be equal intellectually and often wiser. He’s not a misogynist, or he wouldn’t have women running his company and campaign. He’s not a racist, nor an Islamophobe, that is totally evident by the way he interacts with Black people, and I am sure he would enjoy sex with Huma Mahmood Abedin as much as I would (I'm a White, agnostic American), if either of us had the opportunity and could get away with it. At the same time it makes perfect, objective sense to be wary of the propensity of many Islamic people to be inspired by Jihad rhetoric. That's been clearly demonstrated.
The biggest concern should be Trump’s narcissistic personality disorder. I so hope it does not preclude him listening enough to advisors. But it was evident to me from having read one of his books about success that he can take some advice.
Serrano
People fed up with corrupt politics?
Hicoway
Oh! I forgot about this, and it's huge! And it’s unfortunate that many readers will not grasp its significance. With regard to Trump taking advice. In his book on how to get rich, he very surprisingly attributes his success more to the teachings of Dr. Carl Jung than to anybody or anything else. (Surprising that he actually read the stuff.) Jung explained that 95% of who we are resides in our unconscious minds. That’s where our male animal ancestors chased after female body parts and postured like alpha apes, while females looked for the biggest peacock plume. Being aware and confident of this he could send vectors straight into the unconscious minds of the constituents without equivocating in fear that he might be wrong.
badsey3
Seems to me everyone has someone/something to blame for Trump winning. = That is called being a "sore loser"
theFu
Only the media and politicians are confused by the Trump win. Inside the center of the country, we are pissed at both of those groups. Only 7% of journalists in the USA claim to be republicans. 28% claim to be democrats and the rest claim to be independent according to the Washington Post.
We have callerID and don't answer calls from unknown numbers (polls). Shocker. I don't know how you accurately poll real voters anymore. It isn't over the internet or using a phone. Heck, only 38% of us showed up to vote on Tuesday.
Politics as usual just piss us off. We don't want to be told "what we want to hear", we want the truth. We don't like injustice. We do like justice. We hate separating out any group for special treatment. We know the world isn't fair, but want everyone to have an equal chance, with hard work, not handouts. We dislike loopholes, but don't think people who take advantage of those are bad.
Mr. Trump says things we don't like and takes the repercussions - that makes us believe he will tell the truth when things are bad. Stupid? Perhaps.
Politicians who are overly polished seem untrustworthy.
Aly Rustom
I'm sorry, I guess we disagree. Claiming that Hillary is going to start WW3 with Putin is Alex Jones Crazy Nonesense.
inkochi
Some interesting points in the article most of which are not new.
Trump sounded like an antipathy of himiself of the preceding 1 - 2 years in his acceptance speech. Whether he means it or not is not clear and may not even matter except that it is clear that he is capable of having those words come out of his mouth. I think there is still a lot about Trump that people do not know or have not seen, even yet.
Second, Hilary as first woman president! Sorry, but there is a bit of misogyny there, and people who say it miss one big point that maybe lots of people who voted for Trump did see: as woman president, anybody but Hilary. Talking about 'woman president' for better or for worse is still to talk about a stereotype and is actually similar to making degrading statements about women in general. I think that lots of people saw the individual behind that stereotype. It used to happen with Thatcher in Britain, Gillard and the recently resurrected Pauline Hanson in Australia - lots of people in those electorates did feel 'anybody but her' just the same as they could say 'anybody but him' about any male, including Trump.
The real soul searching needs to be done by the Democrat machine and also people who do polls and the media commentators who interpret them - so many of them got it so wrong. It became shockingly clear just how out of touch all those people have been and probably still are.
It is too early to tell. Personally I don't think that we have seen the end of this presidential race yet, another surprise in the offing.
Strangerland
Yes, except for one part - a few months ago he did say he would become more palatable after being elected. Maybe he was telling the truth.
There were definitely some people voting against her along misogynistic lines, but I think the problem was more Hillary the person, than Hillary the woman. Same as many people (namely Bernie supporters) were for changing the establishment, but were not for Trump to be the one to make that change. Many people would have been fine with a female president, but were not cool with Hillary.
Mirtika
Among the people I knew who voted for Trump, most had either terrorism or immigration as their main concerns (several lived in border states where illegal immigration is problematic). A few had a fear of religious liberty eroding as a concern. All couldn't stand Hillary, but have no objection to a female president. (I don't know a singler peson who has an objection to a female president, even my very conservative hubby who did vote Trump).
I didn't vote for the first time in my life. I despise Trump. I distrust and dislike HIllary. And none of the other candidates were remotely viable.
I'm a registered Dem. They didn't offer me a female candidate I could back with a clear spirit. Or a male one. Neither did the Libertarians (I'd have given them my vote had they offered one).
In 2020, I suggest the Dems look to someone much younger than Hill or Bernie and give us someone that doesn't make a good chunk of the country--independent, libertarian, green, dem, even swing Repubs--fall into deep nausea.
I look forward to having a female president in my lifetime. But not Hillary.
Wolfpack
Nicely put.
mukashiyokatta
The White House was Hillary's to lose -- and she managed to do just that