Slashdot Mirror
Donald Trump Is Sworn In As the 45th US President (reuters.com)
Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th president of the United States on Friday, succeeding Barack Obama and taking control of a divided country in a transition of power that he has declared will lead to "America First" policies at home and abroad. Reuters reports: As scattered protests erupted elsewhere in Washington, Trump raised his right hand and put his left on a Bible used by Abraham Lincoln and repeated a 35-word oath of office from the U.S. Constitution, with U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts presiding.
he is literally just so crazy that it might work.
I'll echo Seth Myers in saying that I've been wrong about him so many times that, if this trend continues, he'll be a great president. He'll certainly be novel. I feel like the marble was just set in motion on our collective roulette wheel.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
As a European (from Finland, and a Hitchensian socialist and anti-theist), I've felt the policies of secretary of state Clinton on my daily life, and am convinced she's a warmonger. I haven't gotten that vibe from Trump. If anything, he won't meddle in middle eastern conflicts trying to change governments, and seems in good terms with the greatest nuclear power after the USA. So in terms of nuclear war, or regional wars, I think we'll be better off.
Again, I'm saying this as someone who's not a US citizen, nor do I share the American culture or history in any way. I'm looking out for the interests of my family and me, and am glad Hillary isn't president.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
It amazes me that people continue to believe Trump is impulsive. There's nothing impulsive about anything Trump does; it's all extremely calculated. If I didn't know better I was say the press were in collusion to spread that myth in order to make people underestimate Trump, but as usual Occam's razor applies and the press are just full of idiots.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Are you saying "Fuck..." as a leftist, knowing that the upcoming success of President Trump's economic and social policies will leave leftism in America ruined, possibly forever?
Are you saying "Fuck..." as a foreigner who wishes to illegally bypass America's border controls and immigration procedures?
Are you saying "Fuck..." as a foreign capitalist who will no longer be able to exploit imbalanced "fair trade" deals?
Are you saying "Fuck..." as a Democrat politician, knowing that your party is splintering and becoming increasing irrelevant at all levels of politics?
This is actually an incredibly positive and encouraging time for many Americans. There's actually a great chance that they'll see economic and social policies that will truly benefit them. This is the first time we've seen this in decades. America's future is now looking brighter than it has in a very long time.
Technically speaking, about 3 million more people voted for Hillary than Donald. It's just that, thanks to our electoral college system, those votes were divided up such that he won.
(Not saying his not a legitimate President because of that fact. We can argue about whether or not the electoral college should be changed going forward, but those were the rules going in and should be respected as such.)
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Trump is certainly *different* from previous Presidents and major candidates in important ways. Some good differences, some bad, and some with both good and bad aspects. We'll see what happens. I've been wrong when I predicted what Obama and Bush Jrs presidencies would be like, so I'm not going to try to predict Trump - we just have to wait and see.
Bad includes his seemingly impulsive Twitter comments to "fight back" against criticism. He probably should have ignored Meryl Streep, for example.
Good includes the fact that he's not dependent on campaign contributors like almost all major politicians are.
We'll just see where the roulette ball lands. I'll oppose any bad policies he proposes and support any good ones.
People have been wrong about how voters react to him, not really wrong about the man himself.
As far as what he'll actually do in office, we still don't really know. It's like getting in line for a roller coaster covered up with sheets. We don't even know if it's fully constructed yet.
For example, he wants tax cuts, larger military, and infrastructure spending. Together these will likely exasperate the budget deficit. He hopes he can grow the economy enough to expand tax revenue to pay for it all, BUT if the optimistic plan fails, what will he give up to keep the budget in line, or will he just blow the budget, setting us up for a crash without enough in the tank for an emergency stimulus?
The real test of a leader is not when their plans go right, but how they adjust when they fail.
On trade, what if trade-wars start and it becomes clear after a while those wars are hurting our economy? Will he back down, and double down?
And what will he do if Russia invades more territory? If he keeps ignoring it, we may get Soviet Union 2.0. Those were scary days with too many close calls; we don't want them back.
Add to that his ability to agitate countries and ethnic groups.
Spock impression: "This is a fascinating experiment in leadership. I just hope we can watch it from a safe distance, Captain."
Table-ized A.I.
When I take an objective look at the policies of President Trump, they differ significantly from those of Nazi Germany.
Trump doesn't bring in Nazi Germany's policies, definitely, but let's not kid ourselves here when he retweets people who are very open Nazi supporters. He may not be directly peddling their beliefs, but he sure as hell doesn't shy away from them either, and I'd have thought people who be a little more opposed to that. I'm German as well as American, and I still have a little chest in my attic that contains the Nazi papers for my grandmother, proving her "racial purity" and "ability to support the fatherland through childbirth". Next to that are the papers that notify her her husband was executed for "violations of peace and order", with his protesting. It serves as a nice reminder sometimes, what we were all collectively lucky enough to avoid. It's really not a sexy time period to have lived in, and I really would have thought that'd be more of a detriment to people who champion being against the Soviet Union and Russia, places with an absolutely awful record on human rights and standards of living. Ahhhh, but that's not a problem for people today either, eh?
isolationism and self-sufficiency
For the US, these don't really work. Think about it; what are our greatest industries? If you said agriculture, entertainment, and the dominance of the tech industry, you'd be correct. What use is a ridiculous surplus, movies, and a strong control of the industry if there's no use to sell them too? What exactly are we going to do with the ridiculous excess of corn we make every year if nobody wants to buy it?
The emphasis on greater border security, including the building of physical barriers, also backs up the idea that America won't be trying to expand its borders beyond where they are today. These are well-established borders, and have been for a very long time.
Fully agree. Once we collectively realized what asses we were to the Native Americans, thankfully, we (mostly) left behind our expansionist bullshit. I both think and hope we keep it that way. Fortunately, Obama was pretty in favor of border enforcement, as was Hillary Clinton, and virtually every other Democrat. The debate is about what we do with people who've lived in our own country for years but don't have our citizenship; it's probably worth noting that many people born, raised, and died in America also lack these papers or documents proving their citizenship except for maybe a birth certificate.
Actually enforcing long-standing immigration and border regulations is not "racism", as some people appear to incorrectly believe. These regulations apply to all people, regardless of race or other such attributes.
Not sure who this was aimed at, but Obama most definitely enforced immigration rules, and he even gets shit for that from some Democrats. If he let too many people stay, better ring up Bush, Bush Sr, or Reagan, because they all enforced their rules less than he did. (Regan even gave those criminal immigrants a permanent stay, clearly he must've been from Lithuania and only pretended to be an American and isn't really one)
Based on everything we've seen so far, President Trump's administration is actually putting the interests of all Americans first and foremost. This is the first time we've seen this in many decades.
The first comment I think you're flat out wrong. When you get past the Goldman-Sachs guy who wants to lower regulations on his industry, the EPA guy who wants to sue himself and then set precedent for stupid standards for his industry, and the president who wants to get insider deals for hiiiiiis industry, we can maybe start with Republicans & Trump repealing an act that will kill tens of thousands of people, or a guy who wants to concentrate on publicity stunts and shows focusing on his own glory i
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
I've noticed that putting a clown in the vice president position seems to be the standard M.O. of modern presidents to defend against assassination.
I'm not fans of either but Gore and Bush Senior were the only non-buffoons in that position in my lifetime.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
I'm not the OP, but I am saying "Fuck..." as a Canadian who wished to see the US continue to be healthy and have a positive relationship with the rest of the world.
Instead, I see its government being taken over by a President who has demonstrably and repeatedly lied, who continues to control his financial empire while preventing his countrymen from seeing what exactly comprises that empire, who is unapologetically and thoroughly indulging in nepotism.
I see an executive that is made up of the richest, most powerful people of any cabinet in history, who have no need to change the economic and social policies because they, more than anyone else, have benefitted from the existing policies and therefore see no need to alter them to allow anyone else access to wealth.
I see a government that refuses to use science or evidence as a basis for its decisions, but glorifies ignorance and mocks education.
I see more attention being given to racial/cultural differences within the U.S., at a time when it finally looked like you were going to start moving past that bullshit.
To be entirely honest, I think that historians will look back and see that this election marked the beginning of the decline of the American Empire, with its government completely captured by the plutocracy and sound decision-making giving way to bombast, uninformed emotionalism, and slavish attention to soundbites and Tweets.
Yea right. And Timothy McVeigh wasn't a right wing Militia member that blew up a building and killed an entire daycare's worth of kids.
There's plenty of nutjobs on both sides, what you are doing is attempting to make yourself feel better about your political choices by demonizing the other side. This dehumanizes them and allows you to make ridiculous statements like the above post. The people in charge like it when you do this because it divides people and allows the people in charge to pit the people against each other to their own benefit.
Those are my sentiments. For the first time I can remember, we've elected a President with no political experience, but a lot of business experience. Ross Perot got somewhat close in 1992 I suppose. It could spell doom, or, we might discover that most politicians are as full of shit as we always joked or suspected that they were, and things actually get better with a non-politician in charge. We'll see.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
I hear this argument every election. "I don't mind political opponents, but this time it's just too far."
Yet it always turns out that the speaker is simply trying to rationalize his/her dislike of political opponents, and does not want to admit it to himself/herself.
But, if you are to dislike some group, Trump supporters are an easy choice. I don't care so much about all the stuff you said (alot of it was overblown by media), but rather that it took about 14 seconds to realize that Trump was full of shit and about as trustworthy as Putin or Baghdad Bob. Anyone that believes that guy after having listened to him for more than 1 minute has more than earned the ridicule.
I am not mad at people like you because Clinton lost. I am unconcerned that we have different politics. And I don’t think less of people like you because you vote one way and I vote another. I think less of people like you because you watched an adult mock a disabled person in front of a crowd and still supported him. I think less of you because you saw a man spouting clear racism and backed him. I think less of you because you listened to him advocate for war crimes, and still thought he should run this country. I think less of people like you because you watched him equate a woman’s worth to her appearance and got on board. It isn’t your politics that I find repulsive. It is your personal willingness to support racism, sexism, and cruelty. You sided with a bully when it mattered and that is something I will never forget. So, no people like you and I won’t be “coming together” to move forward or whatever. Trump disgusts me, but it is the fact that he doesn’t disgust people like you that will stick with me long after this election.
I'm surprised that you still get don't get this, but the election proved one thing that myself and others have suspected or claimed for years and people like you don't want to admit. The only "issue" that matters for the vast majority of Americans, and I'd put it at about 80% of the electorate, is whether there is a D or an R next to their name. Some of my old friends who are women could not possibly have cared less about anything bad that Trump did on the campaign trail but completely flipped out over both and real and imaginary things related to Hillary. Trump bragged about grabbing women in the crotch? No problem. But Hillary was tied, barely, to Benghazi where a grand total of 4 Americans died and this was the single biggest American foreign policy disaster ever. People really don't care much about anything except whether a candidate has a D or an R next to their name. Pretty much everything else is negotiable. Congressional races prove this every election. Most Congressional districts regardless of who holds them are no longer competitive for members of the other party. Most of the people who aren't party tied voted for Trump in this election because he told people what they wanted to hear - namely that they were victims of powers and forces beyond their control and only he could stand up to those powers. Given the monopoly the Democrats have had on victimhood it's kind of funny that Trump outflanked them on this.
Risks of war?? Obama was, I think, the first two-term President who was at war fior every day of his two terms.
Note that Johnson was also at war every day of his Presidency, but he didn't have two complete terms. And it's possible that Roosevelt was at war more days total than Obama, but he had three and change terms to work with....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
You might be interested in reading "American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America", by Colin Woodard. The author argues that there are 11 distinct cultures in North America, which don't align neatly with state (or even national) boundaries, and that US politics is primarily a competition between two shifting coalitions of these 11 cultures, coalitions anchored in the Yankee culture (Democrats) and the Deep South culture (Republicans). One value that both of those cultures hold in common is authoritarianism, though of very different forms.
Yankeedom is built around and values a communitarian form of authoritarianism, derived largely from its Puritanical heritage. Even though the religious aspects of Yankee Puritanism have gone away, they've been replaced by a secular form of the same thing, which is the notion that while it's critical that the people as a whole have "independence", meaning they can form their own assemblies and regulate themselves, the individual should willingly subjugate his or her own will to that of the community. In Puritan days, this was severe; almost any form of disagreement with the community's religious and social values resulted in severe punishment. Individual freedom was not valued, and tolerance for alternative views was extremely low. Also, Yankeedom reveres education, and therefore the fruits of education, including progressiveness.
The Deep South is built around and values a hierarchical form of very strict authoritarianism, derived from that region's slaveholding culture, which enabled it to establish an essentially feudal model of lordly manors occupied by elegant idlers, supported by masses of lower classes. The southern planters placed tremendous value on "liberty" but it was the old Greek and Roman notion of liberty, which is available only to those at the top. The south took the "lower classes" notion a bit further than feudal lords with their serfs, but the southern class-based society wasn't just "planters" and "slaves", there was also a large underclass of what we might now call white trash, which was also expected to be subservient. What's perhaps odd about the old Deep Southern notions of hierarchy is that they were so deeply embedded in the society that although the underclasses chafed a bit, they also grew to expect a strong hierarchy and to respect their aristocratic leaders.
So, the two core cultures around which our political battles revolve are both authoritarians. Their allied cultures are less authoritarian, but it's the core cultures that hold the whip hand. In particular the left coast is very big on individual freedom and self-realization, but also has its roots in Yankeedom, including the trust in education and progress, which makes is a natural ally of the Yankee culture even though they disagree on individual freedom. Similarly, the far west culture is very libertarian but allies with the deep south because of its opposition to Yankeedom, rather than because it likes the southern authoritarianism.
Anyway, that's a flavor of what's in the book. You probably won't agree with all of it (I don't), but a lot of it makes a great deal of sense and I found that it really illuminates my understanding of the major political dynamics in the US, and has helped me understand why there is this strong streak of authoritarianism in a country that purportedly values freedom and independence.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I'm happy to see I'm not the only one who feels this way.
The stupidest calf chooses his own butcher...
I was amazed that the "Deeply Held Religious Beliefs" Crowd voted as a block for this being. :)
Guess those must not have been Too deep...
Grab the popcorn, this is going to be an interesting few years. :)
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
I voted against Ms. Clinton.
I think President Trump is a boob in every sense of that word. He has the political smarts of a 12 yr old boy.
He is a liar, and not just about trivial things. He was outraged by the electoral college in 2008 and 2012. Look at his tweets.
He is not a good man on any level I can come up with. Can't say he's a good businessman (multiple failed businesses, constant lawsuits), a good husband (4th wife now?), or even a good human being (record of preventing minorities from living in his buildings). Have doubts that all his religious talk is what he really believes too. "Biblically illiterate" seems to cover his knowledge about the faith he's parents passed on.
For Mr. Trump, there is 1 god - Mr. Trump. He cannot be elected as an atheist in the USA, so he pretended to be god-fearing for that reason. This doesn't bother me at all, but if all the religious crazies who elected him found out, well ...
He will do some good things for my family - H1b visa, ACA (which is NOT affordable for my family), and hopefully govt will be a little smaller, a little less expensive and a little less involved in my life when he leaves.
My LGBT friends are freaking out, which I understand. Hopefully, he won't touch anything related there.
Maybe NASA will get a mission it can actually achieve?
Nature will be screwed over so that businesses can profit.
Protectionism isn't a good thing, but meddling is usually bad too.
Our privacy is over. All humans are screwed on this - both online and around town.
I was born in the USA to a military family. Haven't traveled that much, but have been to 30 countries - mostly in Asia, but some in Europe, Africa, middle east and all across the Americas (N, S, C).
you didn't answer the question at all.
it may be the same way he mocks able-bodied folks, but WHY does he do it in that particular manner? If not to mock the particular physical disability that some folks have? (including the reporter in question)
it seems pretty clear that the jerking, arm-clutched-to-the-chest motion is the same thing that elementary school kids do to make fun of disabled people. surely you aren't claiming it to be purely coincidental that he chose that very specific physical action.
if your argument is that he mocks able-bodied and disabled folks in the same way, by pretending they all have a physical disability of the arm and hand that causes muscle spasms, then you aren't really helping the case.