Here
and
Now

opinions

Trying to make sense of the Trump win

25 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2016.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

25 Comments
Login to comment

his refusal to criticize Russian President Vladimir Putin

The Kremlin won the election...

...more so than people realize.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The Kremlin won the election... ...more so than people realize.

If you are suggesting Russia influenced the elections, what evidence do you have of that?

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

What got Trump elected was the Democrats' treatment of Bernie Sanders. You reap what you sow.

If you are suggesting Russia influenced the elections, what evidence do you have of that?

A number of US intelligence agencies have said so in public including the NSA and the DIA.

Clinton said, "We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/

But several security firms have identified Russia as the perpetrators, and intelligence officials reportedly have high confidence that Moscow was involved.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/russian-hackers-influence-election-228543

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

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.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

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.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The election is over so how about ending this hit pieces?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/19/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-blames-russia-putin-wikileaks-rele/

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.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

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??

17 intelligence agencies all can't be wrong.

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.

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.

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."

What a whitewash.

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.

Who said that this would start WW3?? Nothing more than hysterical alarmism.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

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. ...

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

1 ( +2 / -1 )

zerohedge first debunked Hillary, then debunked a couple of Hillary's leashed 'fact-checkers', ABC and NYT, Oct. 20.

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.

Zero Hedge is a batshit insane Austrian school finance blog run by two pseudonymous founders who post articles under the name "Tyler Durden," after the character from Fight Club.[wp] It has accurately predicted 200 of the last 2 recessions.[citation NOT needed] Tyler claims to be a "believer in a sweeping conspiracy that casts the alumni of Goldman Sachs as a powerful cabal at the helm of U.S. policy, with the Treasury and the Federal Reserve colluding to preserve the status quo." While this is not an entirely unreasonable statement of the problem,[1] his solution actually mirrors the antagonist in Fight Club: Tyler wants, per Austrian school ideas, to lead a catastrophic market crash in order to destroy banking institutions and bring back "real" free market capitalism.[2] The site posts nearly indecipherable analyses of multiple seemingly unrelated subjects to point towards a consistent theme of economic collapse any day now. Tyler seems to repeat The Economic Collapse Blog's idea of posting blog articles many times a day and encouraging people to post it as far and wide as humanly possible. Tyler moves away from the format of long lists to write insanely dense volumes[3] filled with (often contradicting) jargon that makes one wonder if the writers even know what the words actually mean.[4] The site first appeared in early 2009, meaning that (given Tyler's habit of taking a shit on each and every positive data point), anyone listening to him from the beginning missed the entire 2009-2014 rally in the equities market. The only writer conclusively identified is Dan Ivandjiiski, who conducts public interviews on behalf of Zero Hedge.[5] The blog came online several days after he lost his job at Wexford Capital, a Connecticut-based hedge fund (run by a former Goldman trader). Later Colin Lokey joined Zero Hedge's writing team in 2015 and left in April 2016 publishing an article identifying the writing team as Dan Ivandjiiski, Tim Backshall, and himself. This is quite a bit less than the 40 or so writers Ivandjiiski claimed to be on staff in earlier years. Note that they chose the pen name from a nihilistic psychotic delusion.

Tyler has a habit of taking other people's research, sometimes adding a slant to it of economic doom if it isn't there already, and posting it on Zero Hedge.[12] This included a series of reports leaked from Merrill Lynch's chief economist David Rosenberg.[13] Lawyers were sent with takedown notices, and were not moved by his claims of censorship about publishing their copyrighted documents. Morgan Stanley had the same issue later, and is considering legal action in addition to demanding the material be taken down.[14]

Ironically, Zero Hedge has itself been accused of some of the manipulation it claims to expose. A company called Noble Investments Limited claims that a financial consultant paid Zero Hedge and a nut from Forbes to write a defamatory blog post about the company, which he then linked to immediately.

Accordingly, just fourteen minutes after the Dalrymple GFC Reptort was published on zerohedge.com, Weinberg published a fully formed blog entry, including pictures, in which he summarized and quoted from the report, and provided readers a link to Ivandjiiski’s blog entry on zerohedge.com where they could download the report. Weinberg did not acknowledge that zerohedge.com had “broken” the story fourteen minutes earlier or state anywhere in the blog that the link from which readers were invited to download the report pointed to Ivandjiiski’s blog entry on zerohedge.com.[21]

The law firm behind the suit describes Zero Hedge as "a portal for people to anonymously distribute derogatory information concerning public companies," giving the impression that Zero Hedge may well have arranged many such pay-to-defame schemes.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@sangetsu03

Remember the roasting that Obama gave Trump at the White House correspondents dinner in 2011?

Remember when Trump led the charge in the birther movement? Trump couldn't handle some ribbing in response to his racist birtherism?

Any claim that Russia had any influence on the election is looney-babble, in articles written by hacks.

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.

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.

Suckering gullible alpha-male wannabes has been is main method of "success."

Regardless of how he won, he did, in fact, win.

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.

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.

I wouldn't be able to show my birther accuser the ropes, but Obama has more grace and class than most.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The Kremlin won the election...

...more so than people realize.

Again? Didn't we go through this nonsense already?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Who said that this would start WW3?? Nothing more than hysterical alarmism.

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.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

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.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

People fed up with corrupt politics?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

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.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seems to me everyone has someone/something to blame for Trump winning. = That is called being a "sore loser"

2 ( +2 / -0 )

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.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

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.

I'm sorry, I guess we disagree. Claiming that Hillary is going to start WW3 with Putin is Alex Jones Crazy Nonesense.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

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.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trump sounded like an antipathy of himiself of the preceding 1 - 2 years in his acceptance speech.

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.

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.

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.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

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.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I look forward to having a female president in my lifetime. But not Hillary.

Nicely put.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The White House was Hillary's to lose -- and she managed to do just that

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites