Donald Trump wins 2016 US presidential election

axj

Dagobah Resident
I think this thread has shown that it is important to stay open to different perspectives, instead of believing that what the majority of the group thinks at any given time is "the truth". When you are convinced about something and do not question it, you limit your perception of objective reality. That happens even if your belief or conviction is based on the current consensus of the network.
 

bjorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
That's assuming that people who disagreed with you did so because they simply follow what the 'popular' consensus of the forum and don't think for themselves.

I got another theory why people disagreed with you. Maybe it is because they had legitimate fears about Trump.


I only start noticing the guy in a more positive way during the second debate and I clearly showed that.

He chanced from an anti-immigrant, pro torture candidate. To a more anti-establishment person.

That chanced everything and it all happened within a few months, makes me wonder why people did support him before his anti-establishment stance.
 

goyacobol

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
bjorn said:
That's assuming that people who disagreed with you did so because they simply follow what the 'popular' consensus of the forum and don't think for themselves.

I got another theory why people disagreed with you. Maybe it is because they had legitimate fears about Trump.


I only start noticing the guy in a more positive way during the second debate and I clearly showed that.

He chanced from an anti-immigrant, pro torture candidate. To a more anti-establishment person.

That chanced[changed?] everything and it all happened within a few months, makes me wonder why people did support him before his anti-establishment stance.
Are you replying to 7777? Just want to clarify in case someone else missed part of the thread.
 

axj

Dagobah Resident
bjorn said:
That's assuming that people who disagreed with you did so because they simply follow what the 'popular' consensus of the forum and don't think for themselves.

I got another theory why people disagreed with you. Maybe it is because they had legitimate fears about Trump.

I only start noticing the guy in a more positive way during the second debate and I clearly showed that.

He chanced from an anti-immigrant, pro torture candidate. To a more anti-establishment person.

That chanced everything and it all happened within a few months, makes me wonder why people did support him before his anti-establishment stance.
Just because you were not aware of or ignored his anti-establishment stance doesn't mean it wasn't there before the second debate. Even in the Republican primaries he openly talked about the corruption in politics, how Hillary owed him a favor because of a donation, that the Iraq war was a mistake, that he wants to get along with Russia, etc.

The consensus here was that Trump is an overt fascist and many refused to even see the possibility that this may not be the case. When I questioned that, I was told that I'm wrong because the group consensus is different, that I have a lot to learn about ponerology, etc.

I think this is a dynamic that the group should be aware of and that should not be encouraged, since it limits our ability to see objective truth. Whatever the group consensus is, treat it as a working hypothesis, which it is.
 

goyacobol

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
7777 said:
Laura said:
Don't know if this has been posted before, but it is definitely a MUST SEE. He's been consistent through the years.


https://youtu.be/OCabT_O0YSM
Yes it was posted before, in May:

7777 said:
Anyway, personally I find there is more to like than to dislike about Trump. I don't agree with everything he says or does, but he has been consistent in some of his messages for over 30 years, as this compilation of clips of Trump speaking on his presidential aspirations shows:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuiW_Jagl4U "This is why Donald Trump deserves to be president!"
7777,

I think we are all challenged using this "virtual" form of communication. I was a computer programmer and still find it awkward sometimes. This is such huge fast moving source of information that we all sometimes feel lost in the shuffle. But on the other hand this maybe the greatest "experiment" ever for learning and growing. I do see that we might be drawing closer together in what we see and that encourages me.

If we all try to catch up with each other eventually maybe we will get better at it. So, anyway thanks for your posts and I hope you will eventually find your input reaches those who might find them useful. :)
 

angelburst29

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Niall said:
angelburst29 said:
New York Times: We blew it on Trump
http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/new-york-times-we-blew-it-on-trump/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow&sr_share=twitter
Interesting. At least they acknowledge that they were spectacularly wrong. Over in London, the other Leading Liberal Newspaper of Record in the Western Hemisphere, The Guardian, has been totally unapologetic, ranting about racists and bigging up the riots. However, they too seem to sense that they're toast as far as future readership is concerned; for some weeks they've been running banners with appeals for donations from the public. I've noticed that since the day after Trump's election, they've placed such banners far more prominently on their site, including front and center on the homepage!
NYT Almost Admits it Failed in its Election Coverage
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201611131047378598-nyt-says-blew-election-coverage/

The New York Times is taking this loss hard.

The paper, which endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, sent a letter to readers November 11 in which it promised to "rededicate" itself to its journalistic mission and asked subscribers to remain loyal.

Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and editor Dean Baquet certainly seemed to be sounding a reflective note in the letter, admitting, “After such an erratic and unpredictable election there are inevitable questions: Did Donald Trump’s sheer unconventionality lead us and other news outlets to underestimate his support among American voters? What forces and strains in America drove this divisive election and outcome?”

One might wonder whether that last question should have been asked during the campaign, not after. They continued: "As we reflect on this week's momentous result … we aim to rededicate ourselves to the fundamental mission of Times journalism. That is to report America and the world honestly, without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences …"

Not that the paper would admit that it hadn’t been doing that, of course. "We believe we reported on both candidates fairly during the presidential campaign," Sulzberger and Baquet said. "You can rely on The New York Times to bring the same fairness, the same level of scrutiny, the same independence to our coverage of the new president and his team." (Copy of letter.)

If New York Post columnist and former New York Times reporter Michael Goodwin is to be believed, that level of fairness and independence ain’t much.

"Had the paper actually been fair to both candidates, it wouldn't need to rededicate itself to honest reporting," he wrote Friday. "And it wouldn't have been totally blindsided by Trump's victory. Instead, because it demonized Trump from start to finish, it failed to realize he was onto something. And because the paper decided that Trump’s supporters were a rabble of racist rednecks and homophobes, it didn’t have a clue about what was happening in the lives of the Americans who elected the new president."

The Times also sent a note to its staff the same day, asking employees to reflect on the paper’s vision “to cover the news without fear or favor” and insisting that journalists approach the new Trump administration without bias.

"We will cover his policies and his agenda fairly. We will bring expert analysis and thoughtful commentary to the changes we see in government, and to their ramifications on the ground. We will look within and beyond Washington to explore the roots of the anger that has roiled red and blue America. If many Americans no longer seem to understand each other, let’s make it our job to interpret and explain," Sulzberger exhorted staff.

Such efforts might have been very useful during the campaign.

In its endorsement of Clinton, the Times wrote "In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate – our choice, Hillary Clinton – has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway."

Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, a major donor to the US presidential campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, is the biggest single shareholder in the company that owns the New York Times, Republican candidate Donald Trump told supporters on Friday.
Major Clinton Donor Carlos Slim Largest New York Times Shareholder - Trump
https://sputniknews.com/politics/201610141046349365-new-york-times-shareholder/

Oct. 14, 2016 - On Thursday, the Times published an article about two women who accuse Trump of sexual misconduct in 1981 and 2005.

The New York real estate mogul called those and other newly publicized allegations of inappropriate actions toward women false and said he would sue the Times for libel.
"The largest shareholder at the Times [company] is Carlos Slim. Slim, as you know, comes from Mexico," Trump said at a campaign rally in the state of North Carolina. "He has given millions of dollars to the Clintons and their initiatives."

Trump, who at campaign stops routinely mocks the US media and has made disparaging remarks about Mexican immigrants, went on to say that New York Times reporters "are not journalists, they are corporate lobbyists for Carlos Slim and for Hillary Clinton."

Slim, who Forbes magazine ranked as the world's second-richest man in 2015, owns a nearly 17 percent stake in the New York Times Co., making him its largest individual shareholder.

However, Slim owns Class A shares, whereas the Sulzberger family of New York controls the company and its flagship newspaper through its 90 percent ownership of Class B stock. A member of the family, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., is chairman of the Times company and the newspaper’s publisher.
 

goyacobol

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
I would like to thank Laura for giving us some sessions to think about and how they may relate to the election while self-remembering how we got here.

The two links to her recent posts on this topic here:

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,43060.msg685048.html#msg685048

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,43060.msg685053.html#msg685053

I think we are learning how to think without so much "anticipation" which has always been difficult for me to do while just "observing".

And I think Joe decribes one of the best ways to think about non-anticipation that I have found yet (in a very common sense approach) here:

https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic said:
All very true and important I think. We are probably the only people on the planet that have our particular perspective and it is founded in the idea of staying 'open' hedging out bets, so to speak, but betting only on thing going a bit crazy with nothing much anyone can do about it other than watch it happen and give every thing its due, as it truly is. It's non attachment basically, to any particular outcome, while gathering as much objective data as possible to be in a position to explain things to whoever is listening at the point where nothing makes any sense to anyone anymore. Despite the fact that that means we have to live with a lot of uncertainty, which can be scary, it is a far better position than, as Luc says, being fully attached to or identified with one particular ideology or outcome. Because when things fall apart completely, people in that position have the most to lose and will be the most disorientated and traumatized. So in effect, by dealing now with the uncertainty involved in the most likely scenario of it ALL coming apart at the seams, we are kind of 'paying in advance' in the sense of preparing ourselves for that eventuality.
And thanks to all for trying to be as objective as possible observing without anticipation. It really does seem like a "super effort".
 

bjorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
[quote author= axj]Just because you were not aware of or ignored his anti-establishment stance doesn't mean it wasn't there before the second debate. Even in the Republican primaries he openly talked about the corruption in politics, how Hillary owed him a favor because of a donation, that the Iraq war was a mistake, that he wants to get along with Russia, etc.[/quote]

Yes before the second debate he also had some anti-establishment talk, Just like Bernie Sanders. Though it wasn't his main focus at all times. To me it became only more apparent during the second debate that he actually might be serious. Because he had a lot of crazies moments I didn't ignore. And just because he speaks out against the establishment doesn't immediately mean his intention are good either. History is full of 'revolutions' such like that of leaders who rise up just so they can install another regime for another set of psychopaths.


[quote author= axj]The consensus here was that Trump is an overt fascist and many refused to even see the possibility that this may not be the case.[/quote]

That wasn't always the 'Consensus' It chanced and swifted with new information. At some point and did remain the 'consensus' for many was that Trump isn't controlled opposition and he might do some good.

Than some pointed out that the possibility that Hillary was designed to fail to make Trump popular. That's when I though something else was going on and I agreed he might be the next Hitler. Some thought the same others didn't. It's a discussion meant to figure out what is going on. And Trump sure was a mystery during this whole progress. Because like shared, he had plenty of crazy moments.


[quote author= axj]I think this is a dynamic that the group should be aware of and that should not be encouraged, since it limits our ability to see objective truth. Whatever the group consensus is, treat it as a working hypothesis, which it is.[/quote]

I don't feel others encourage or put pressure to agree with them. People heavily disagreeing is just that.


[quote author= axj]When I questioned that, I was told that I'm wrong because the group consensus is different, that I have a lot to learn about ponerology, etc.[/quote]

I think you do, I surely have blind spots myself. But those pointed out to you do still apply I think.

I remember telling you Trump did incite violence during rallies. And you responded that it didn't happened all the time so why bother basically.

If you don't get how dangerous that can be I think you have indeed more to learn about ponerology.

I also remember sharing that poem with you of Trump telling a story about vicious snake being metaphor for immigrants. And if my memory serves me well you didn't responded on that. If you ignore things like that, to me that's a red flag for a mind that might be ponerized in a way. Or just doesn't realize how dangerous that can be.


I don't see any point with this ''See I told you Trump isn't a fascist so everything that others said to me doesn't apply''

I think some things do apply. Feel free to disagree ofcourse.


- I rather continue on from now trying to see what is going on and what might happen next.
 

axj

Dagobah Resident
bjorn said:
Yes before the second debate he also had some anti-establishment talk, Just like Bernie Sanders. Though it wasn't his main focus at all times.
Is it his main focus at all times now? What's the difference between then and now?

bjorn said:
To me it became only more apparent during the second debate that he actually might be serious. Because he had a lot of crazies moments I didn't ignore. And just because he speaks out against the establishment doesn't immediately mean his intention are good either. History is full of 'revolutions' such like that of leaders who rise up just so they can install another regime for another set of psychopaths.
In other words, you ignored his anti-establishment stance because of some "crazies moments" he had. Whether or not his intentions are or were good is something that we need to stay open towards and consider all possibilities instead of seeing some parallels to Hitler and deciding that this is the only possible outcome.

bjorn said:
axj]The consensus here was that Trump is an overt fascist and many refused to even see the possibility that this may not be the case.[/quote] That wasn't always the 'Consensus' It chanced and swifted with new information. At some point and did remain the 'consensus' for many was that Trump isn't controlled opposition and he might do some good. [/quote] Until about August the consensus was that he is an overt fascist. It gradually changed after that. That was also when our discussion took place. [quote author=bjorn said:
axj]When I questioned that said:
If you don't get how dangerous that can be I think you have indeed more to learn about ponerology.
I doubt that you still see him as dangerous as you did back then. You pretend that nobody had more information or better insight than you, so whatever your opinion was at that time could have been the only possible one. In other words, back then the only objective way to see Trump was as a dangerous man, according to you.
 

Ruth

The Living Force
axj said:
bjorn said:
Yes before the second debate he also had some anti-establishment talk, Just like Bernie Sanders. Though it wasn't his main focus at all times.
Is it his main focus at all times now? What's the difference between then and now?
Has anyone considered that people's thoughts on particular candidates is a direct reflection of what the media tells you (and doesn't tell you), and is actually meant to color your attitudes/thoughts on them, and even vector public opinion? His 'focus' is what the media (in all it's glory) tells you it is, at precisely the time it tells you. It's pretty much a circus and it takes a great deal of digging to get any truth, if there is any in the first place (a fact that many Democratic voters seem to have ignored). Maybe the media's function is distraction and vectoring rather than reporting facts?

It works until people figure out that the system, which is at the very basis of their democracy, has been corrupted. And in the case of Donald Trump as the new POTUS, I think they have. What he does or chooses to do will be up to him, as well as the way in which he does it. Something that is 'rotten to the core' will not take lightly to being overthrown.
 

goyacobol

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
In our back and forth "discussions" sharing our opinions and thoughts we should keep in mind:

8 Aug 1998 said:
A: All that happens in the arena of your political
undertakings is merely window dressing for purposes of
preoccupying the body politic.
 

JEEP

The Living Force
I've never posted anything to FB before, but after a conversation w/ my daughter, I'm going to try to post to her's (apparently I have to be 'friended' first). This is what I put together:

A woman's reply on the Sayer Ji FB page:

Sheri Novax Nakken - A WOMAN'S VIEW ON TRUMP ...


Someone asked a woman how she could vote for Trump, a “misogynist, a racist and a bigot!!!!!”

Here is her answer:

Because I use my head to research and find out what candidates really are, not what the media wants me to think.

Because Donald Trump has more women in executive and managerial positions than any comparable company, which tells me he is not a misogynist.

Because he pays these women the same or more than their male counterparts, which tells me he looks for capacity and skills in people, not color, gender or race.

Because he fought the West Palm Beach City Council to be able to open his newly purchased club, so he could include blacks and Jews as members, who had been banned until then. This tells me he is not a racist.

Because he has raised wonderful children who have turned out to be outstanding, hard working and compassionate adults. He must be doing something right.

Because his economic plans makes sense, are conservative in nature, and I vote based of what is best for my family, my friends and my country.

Because everybody, the left and the right are afraid of him, the media is trying to destroy his image, and even foreign governments are voicing their opinions, so he must be doing something right. Clean house maybe?

Because I want a Supreme Court that will uphold the Constitution, not behave as minions of the administration. I have had enough with judges who are more like political activists than law enforcers.

Because I fear for my family’s safety if the current trend of not confronting blatant terrorism continues which is a threat to our way of life.

Because I am fed up with the rampant corruption of this administration. Accountability in government is paramount, and as this administration has demonstrated, it is a foreign concept to them.

Because I am fed up with the political correctness gone wild, and because Trump is not afraid to say what everybody thinks but does not dare to say. A thug is a thug, regardless of color, and that's it.

Because it is about time someone puts America 's interests ahead of other countries.


Because I know he recognizes and embraces America 's exceptionalism, and will not tour the World apologizing for who we are. That tells me he is a patriot.

Because, unlike HRC, he has actually held a job, worked hard and achieved success.

And last, but not least, because I am more offended by what Hillary does than by what Trump says.

Mainstream media is now having to 'eat crow' for getting the outcome of this election so wrong. They have exposed themselves as being the establishment's giant propaganda machine purposely tasked to 'control the narrative' of what the average American was led to believe was the truth. They have been unelegantly and glaringly exposed as the shills they are. And they are still up to their same tricks by fanning the flames of the bogus, contrived and orchestrated 'color revolution' - brought to you by that master manipulator, George Soros.

A few decades ago Mainstream media was composed of 50 corporations. For some time now, this number has decreased to just six corporations. One example of how that manifests:


Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, a major donor to the US presidential campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, is the biggest single shareholder in the company that owns the New York Times, Republican candidate Donald Trump told supporters on Friday.

Major Clinton Donor Carlos Slim Largest New York Times Shareholder - Trump

https://sputniknews.com/politics/201610141046349365-new-york-times-shareholder/

Oct. 14, 2016 - On Thursday, the Times published an article about two women who accuse Trump of sexual misconduct in 1981 and 2005.

The New York real estate mogul called those and other newly publicized allegations of inappropriate actions toward women false and said he would sue the Times for libel.

"The largest shareholder at the Times [company] is Carlos Slim. Slim, as you know, comes from Mexico," Trump said at a campaign rally in the state of North Carolina. "He has given millions of dollars to the Clintons and their initiatives."

Trump, who at campaign stops routinely mocks the US media and has made disparaging remarks about Mexican immigrants, went on to say that New York Times reporters "are not journalists, they are corporate lobbyists for Carlos Slim and for Hillary Clinton."

Slim, who Forbes magazine ranked as the world's second-richest man in 2015, owns a nearly 17 percent stake in the New York Times Co., making him its largest individual shareholder.

However, Slim owns Class A shares, whereas the Sulzberger family of New York controls the company and its flagship newspaper through its 90 percent ownership of Class B stock. A member of the family, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., is chairman of the Times company and the newspaper’s publisher.

[BTW - if you missed all the "pay to play" revelations from Wikileaks involving HRC and the Clinton Foundation, now might be a good time to get up to speed on that.]

NYT Almost Admits it Failed in its Election Coverage

https://sputniknews.com/politics/201611131047378598-nyt-says-blew-election-coverage/

The New York Times is taking this loss hard.

The paper, which endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, sent a letter to readers November 11 in which it promised to "rededicate" itself to its journalistic mission and asked subscribers to remain loyal.

Yes, remain loyal so they can continue to dupe and mislead you as to what our reality actually is. You've fallen for it time and time again and they can count on all the non-critical thinkers to just keep on drinking the kool-aid. It's purple btw.

If you think for one second that these people have your best interests in mind, then you have not been paying attention to what's playing out right under your nose. Wake up and smell the coffee! We are on a runaway train headed for the abyss because the "narrative controllers" have succeeded in getting the vast majority to believe every blatant lie they have hurled at us. Not only have these lies been embraced, but the gullible continue to thrust out their hands to demand "more!" The PTB are only too happy to comply.

For those of you who are open to some real insight as to who Trump really is, please watch the following:

"This is why Donald Trump deserves to be president!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_2545030381&feature=iv&src_vid=BuiW_Jagl4U&v=ZJyIztXX3Bs

Trump deserves a chance - he doesn't deserve a free pass. He has declared himself to be a President for ALL the people and to put America first. Let's hold him to that
.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
I think that this election has been a good trial run for all of us to learn how to SEE the unseen and get our perception meters tuned - from several angles. So, no need to do the "I told you so" routine, though certainly pointing out that there were tendencies one way or another is a valid autopsy of the event we have been covering here. Learning how to collect data and observations in the midst of a heated propaganda is difficult at best, impossible for MOST people as all of us see in the news reports and behavior of many of social media.

So yes, let's analyze where we went off-track, but be excellent to each other!
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Now, ya'll taka a look at Peggy Noonan's piece for the WSJ:
https://www.sott.net/article/333682-The-Trump-election-and-what-comes-after-the-uprising

Sometimes there comes a crack in Time itself.
Sometimes the earth is torn by something blind... .
Call it the mores, call it God or Fate ...
That force exists and moves.
And when it moves
It will employ a hard and actual stone
To batter into bits an actual wall
And change the actual scheme of things.
—Stephen Vincent Benét, " John Brown's Body"*

Hand it to him, the hard and actual stone who changed the actual scheme.

There were actually many stones, some 60 million, but Donald Trump did it, battering not just the famous blue wall but a wall of elites and establishments and their expectations.

The moment for me that will never be forgotten:

I was in a busy network green room late on election night. We were scrolling down, noting margins in various battlegrounds, looking for something definitive. Then someone read aloud from his phone: "AP calls it — Donald Trump elected president of the United States." There was quiet for just a moment. I wrote in my notes "2:32 a.m., 11/9/16." Soon we went into the newsroom for a panel, and I said what I thought, again from my notes: "We have witnessed something epochal and grave. It is the beginning of a new era whose shape and form are not clear, whose personnel and exact direction are unknown. But something huge and incalculable has occurred. God bless our beloved country."

I am not one of those who knew how the evening would end. I saw Hillary Clinton winning for all the usual reasons. Now the usual reasons are pretty much out the window.

But some things should be said:

First, our democratic republic is vibrant and alive. It is not resigned. It is still capable of delivering a result so confounding it knocks you into the next room.

Nobody rigged this. Nobody hacked it. There weren't brawls at polling places, there was kindness and civility. At the 92nd Street Y I got to embrace three neighbors. All this in a highly charged, highly dramatic and divisive election. We did our democratic work and then went home. It all worked.

Second, Donald Trump said he had a movement and he did. This is how you know. His presidential campaign was bad — disorganized, unprofessional, chaotic, ad hoc. There was no state-of-the-art get-out-the-vote effort — his voters got themselves out. There was no high-class, high-tech identifying of supporters — they identified themselves. They weren't swayed by the barrage of brilliantly produced ads — those ads hardly materialized. This was not a triumph of modern campaign modes and ways. The people did this. As individuals within a movement.

It was a natural, self-driven eruption. Which makes it all the more impressive and moving. And it somehow makes it more beautiful that few saw it coming.

On the way home Wednesday morning I thought of my friend who runs the neighborhood shoe-repair shop. He is elderly, Italian-American, an immigrant. I had asked him last winter who would win the Republican nomination and he looked at me as if I were teasing. "Troomp!" he instructed. I realized at that moment: In America now only normal people can see the obvious. Everyone else is lost in a data-filled fog.

That was true right up to the end.

Those who come to this space know why I think what happened, happened. The unprotected people of America, who have to live with Washington's policies, rebelled against the protected, who make and defend those policies and who care little if at all about the unprotected. That broke bonds of loyalty and allegiance. Tuesday was in effect an uprising of the unprotected. It was part of the push-back against detached elites that is sweeping the West and was seen most recently in the Brexit vote.

But so much depends upon the immediate moment. Mr. Trump must move surely now. When you add up the votes of Mrs. Clinton, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson and others, you get roughly 52%. Between 47% and 48% voted for Mr. Trump. It was an enormous achievement but a close-run thing, and precarious.

The previous 16 months were, for the Trump campaign, the victory project. What has to begin now is the reassurance project. The Democratic Party is in shock but will soon recover. Mainstream media, tired and taken aback, will reorient soon. Having targeted Mr. Trump in the campaign, they won't be letting up now. Firing will quickly commence.

There is something I have seen very personally the past few days. The impolite way to put it is the left believed its own propaganda. The polite way is that having listened to Mr. Trump on the subjects of women and minorities, etc., they sincerely understand Mr. Trump and Trumpism to be an actual threat to their personal freedom. Trump supporters are overwhelmingly citizens of good will and patriotic intent who never deserved to be deplored as racist, sexist, thuggish. But some were not so benign or healthy.

The past few days I've heard from a young man who fears Jews will be targeted and told me of Muslim friends now nervous on the street. There was the beautiful lady with the blue-collar job who, when asked how she felt about the election, told me she is a lesbian bringing up two foreign-born adopted children and fears she will be targeted and her children somehow removed from her.

Many fear they will no longer be respected. They need to know things they rely on are still there. They don't understand what has happened, and are afraid. They need — and deserve — reassurance. Trump apparatus: Find a way.

The president-elect should make a handful of appointments quickly, briskly, with an initial emphasis on old hands and known quantities. Ideological foes need not be included but accomplished Washington figures, especially those from previous administrations, should be invited in. It is silly to worry that Mr. Trump's supporters will start to fear he's gone establishment. They believe in him, are beside themselves with joy, and will understand he's shoring up his position and communicating stability.

Third, there are former officials and true experts with esteemed backgrounds who need to be told: Help him.

They wouldn't advise him during the campaign because of the stigma he carried as a barbarian and likely loser. It might damage their stature. Better to watch him go down to defeat and continue their career as big brains in exile.

But that's over.

A Trump administration will be populated by three kinds of people: loyalists, opportunists and patriots.

The loyalists earned their way. "To the victor belong the spoils." Back a long shot for president, and you'll get a midlevel office in the Executive Office Building. The opportunists have a place in every administration — they spy an opening, have a friend who has a friend, wind up as undersecretary to the assistant secretary. That's life among the humans, especially the political humans.

It is the patriots who matter, many of whom kept away from Mr. Trump in the past. They are needed now. They have heft, wisdom, experience and insight.

Donald Trump doesn't know how to be president. He isn't a reader of the presidency. He's never held office. There's little reason to believe he knows how to do this.

The next president needs you. This is our country. Help him.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Laura said:
Now, ya'll taka a look at Peggy Noonan's piece for the WSJ:
https://www.sott.net/article/333682-The-Trump-election-and-what-comes-after-the-uprising
...
A Trump administration will be populated by three kinds of people: loyalists, opportunists and patriots.

The loyalists earned their way. "To the victor belong the spoils." Back a long shot for president, and you'll get a midlevel office in the Executive Office Building. The opportunists have a place in every administration — they spy an opening, have a friend who has a friend, wind up as undersecretary to the assistant secretary. That's life among the humans, especially the political humans.

It is the patriots who matter, many of whom kept away from Mr. Trump in the past. They are needed now. They have heft, wisdom, experience and insight.

Donald Trump doesn't know how to be president. He isn't a reader of the presidency. He's never held office. There's little reason to believe he knows how to do this.

The next president needs you. This is our country. Help him.
I thought a bit about the opportunists as well yesterday - I'm not sure if we can brush it off so easily as a necessary evil in politics. That may be true, but we know that power-hungry people who smell power and influence can quickly 'change' in order to get a piece of the cake, to the point of co-opting a party or movement, so I think it's important to watch out and distinguish the 'patriots' from the 'opportunists', which isn't always easy.

This seems especially important in Europe now. My guess is that the FN in France, the AFD in Germany, UKIP in GB etc. will see an influx of questionable characters, spellbinders and psychos who think they can get some office or even become leaders of these movements. These things are described in detail in Political Ponerology and we should keep this in mind IMO. I wrote a little about how this unfolded with the Green party in Germany here, which I think is really a textbook example of how this works.


ADDED: Fascinating article from the Wall Street Journal. Maybe real reconcilation and bridging the pointless ideological gaps (in other words, 'normal people') will prevail, after all? Oh my, such an epic 'wait and see' moment...
 
Top Bottom