Silicon Valley's oligarchs got a punch in the head – and that's actually good thing

Looking for silver linings from the Election of President Donald J Trump? There may not be many – but I might just have found one. A Republican trifecta (controlling the White House and both Houses) would be the big news today as it signals a "change election", and it hasn't happened since 1928. But Trump is Trump, so that isn …

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind'a

It's either a failure of the existing elites – such as the media and the current parties who have failed to heed people's concerns, or it's the fault of the people, who can then be vilified

Kind'a. It is the former, but the situation is significantly more complex.

In a country with real working and middle class in long term employment populism does not work. There is nothing for a populist to attract the vote. One can argue a populist cause, but everyone will evaluate the cause versus their future and tell him to f*** off.

This is no longer the case. There is no more working class in long term employment. There are dispossessed deplorables instead. The middle class is reduced to a fraction of its former self and is no longer in long term employment. THAT is the handywork of the elite you refer to. There is nobody beating the workforce mobility drum like the Wall Street and the City. It is a Wall Street and City religion. This changes the situation - you suddenly have huge social strata which has nothing better in the future. The only change they can experience is for worse. Are they going to be a rich fertile ground for a populist politician? Of course they will. This is what Trump, Farage and Co leveraged so effectively. This is also the background versus which the people who were first to congratulate them are working to achieve the same. Austrian Freedom Party - calls from Corinthia where the unemployment is 20%+ and a large portion of the population has joined the deplorables. Orban and Co - similar story. Le Pen draws most of her support from similar sources. And so on.

So actually, if we look at this election the only person right on the money was Bernie. Historically, only socialists have been successful in countering populism from the inside in open elections. All other populist successes (though we usually refer to them as nazi, fascist, etc) were destroyed by outside forces. Liberal bourgeoisie politics stood no chance. When the social situation becomes fertile for populism, bourgeoisie loses. So based on lessons from history Hillary was doomed from the start. The only choice Democrats ever had was Bernie.

So coming back to the elite vs the people. If we are to prevent repetitions of Trump, Farage, etc in the long run the only way is to take the next Silly Valley/Wall Stree/City oligarch sprouting about workforce agility, mobility, etc and allocate him a nice workforce mobile cubicle. At 6 feet under. Trumps will continue winning - until we are back to a point where the working class has future to aspire to.

[YetAnotherLocksmith]

Re: Kind'a

Indeed, kinda.

However accurate the rest of your post is (very accurate), you miss that in another ten years there simply won't be any jobs for those people to do. Literally the whole point of Uber is to get rid of their drivers. Mercedes Benz and Tesla both have self-driving vehicles, and so those millions of trucking jobs will soon disappear. Uber as a side gig is great, for some, but that'll vanish once there is a fleet of self-driving taxis that use tracking apps and location services to predict where to be for the best fares.

Literally, by the time this matters again, it won't matter at all. You can't bring those jobs back from China in any meaningful way, as I've tried to explain a thousand times with varying degrees of success. Not only are the wages lower, but the Chinese factories are now practically fully automated. Foxconn just laid off thousands of workers because the robots they are building are doing the jobs that the people who used to build the robots are now doing for, near as dammit, free, 24/7. Robots beat even slave wages - they don't need to sleep!

We are rapidly being replaced in most "bulk" jobs. Expensive speciality "knowledge workers" are also highly at risk from some gimp with a CS degree building an expert system over their lunch, too.

I'm in a job that literally cannot be outsourced, and cannot be completely de-skilled, though a lot of un- & underskilled people are flooding the market, and learning via YouTube and forums. So as everyone in the country tries to become a locksmith, the market saturates, and bingo, no-one needs to pay a locksmith again, because they are one or they know one. Likewise with basic IT skills being learned by lots of people, some will become highly skilled, but others will always use YouTube and StackOverflow and GitHub, and, well, you end up with hte Internet of Shit, and massive DDoS attacks run by toasters.

Back in my day, you had to craft the packets by hand before whistling them down the phone line yourself. Which reminds me - have you heard the one about the bugle player being replaced by a £20 electronic trumpet for Remembrance Day services? Because I heard it today...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Kind'a

@YetAnotherLocksmith

What you say is exactly my point. The current religious teachings of the Valley/Street/City on the god ordained workforce mobility specify that these people will somehow find new employment. We ALL KNOW IT IS F***ING BULL. Switching career aint' easy. The workforce of a whole industry switching career is practically impossible.

The issue at stake is the key religious tenet of the Valley: "Though shall disrupt".

There is a social cost to disruption. If the result of your disruption is that 30 millions just became dispossessed deplorables with no future, you will pay. Through your nose. So someone, somehow needs to ensure that the down payment on the Holy Disruption has been collected. We have been crediting the Valley for 4 decades. We now reap what we sow.

How we are going to deal with this in the long term - no idea. We have, however, to find a way to deal with it. Unless, of course, we all fancy watching only one TV show where flamboyant Trumpkin reality stars wear one inch of make up in flashy dresses while our sons and daughters kill each other with bows and arrows^*.

^{(*) Disclaimer - as I am a pessimist, my daughter is getting archery training}

[UncleZoot]

Re: Kind'a

(*) Disclaimer - as I am a pessimist, my daughter is getting archery training

Be pessimistic as possible, but once tasty animals dry up you'll be an herbivore.

Companies follow cheap labor all over the world. First it was Japan, then Siapan, followed by India, Pakistan, China and now Vietnam.

As long as you're connected by going to an Ivy League college, you get a seat on my board of directors, I get one you yours and we both get rich.

A lot of things have changed. Companies forgot about employees when the name of the department changed from Employment, to Personnel, to Human Resources. When the HR people start getting canned, they pay attention, not until then though.

You can create the best product in the world, but if the populace can't afford to purchase it's as useful as a chocolate house in the desert.

[cd]

Re: Kind'a

Have an upvote. I knew it was over when Bernie got shoved aside. He could have out-vox-popped Trump, but the cronies had to have it all their way. It is an egregious situation, but also amusing because of whom it will affect.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Kind'a

Agreed,

The best run-off ever would have been Bernie vs the Donald.

Unfortunately, Queen Hillary stamped her foot and said it was her turn to run the silent majority further into the ground.

And now look what happened....

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@AC... Re: Kind'a

The best run-off as you call it. Would have been Joe Biden vs Trump.

Had Joe run... you can bet your bottom dollar Comey would have indicted Hillary.

Joe stood a chance against Trump. Bernie? Not so much.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Kind'a

"the cronies had to have it all their way. "

This kind of post analysis is really hitting the nail on the head.

MOST people who voted for Trump did so because the politically correct crony elitists excreted Mrs. Clinton as THEIR candidate, for "more of the same for 4 more years". And the majority of Americans currently believe the the country is going the WRONG direction. The real question was HOW to stop the barge from hitting the rocks. Trump grabbed the opportunity like an entrepreneur, i.e. "find a need and meet it."

The not-so-convenient truth is that HEAVILY SOCIALIST POLICIES cause "the rich to get richer" and "the poor to get poorer". And don't forget 'quantitative easing' and all of that gummint money going to companies (in Silicon Valley) like 'Solyndra'. Those few elitists in "that club" benefit GREATLY from Obama-style administrations, and Clinton-style administrations.

And THAT is what it's REALLY about!

So when they go on about 'tech policy' and getting 'special class II status', it's about benefiting THEM at the expense of THE REST OF US.

Hopefully what Trump said ends up being policy: reduce the regulations and the tax burdens, and let the economy grow ITSELF by GETTNIG OUT OF THE WAY. Like in the 80's. NOT the 80's that the SAME media that HATES TRUMP would describe as corporations eating one another in a feeding frenzy, but the 80's where EVERYBODY'S LIFE IMPROVED, and the term "Yuppie" was coined - the YOUNG UPWARDLY MOBILE entrepreneur type who COULD move upwards because the BLOCKAGES [caused by gummint] had been REMOVED.

/me points out that MORE members of racial minorities became wealthy during the 80's than in ANY other time in history. I think that was pointed out in one of Rush Limbaugh's books, or it might have been something Prof. Walter Williams (of George Mason university) said on the radio. That's if anyone wants a source for that well-buried bit of info.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@CD ... Re: Kind'a

While I admire Sanders for being an honest man and one who truly believes in his Politics, they do not reflect the views of the majority of Americans. He would not have won the race. In fact none of the candidates running against Hillary have a chance. The DNC was rigged and everyone knew it.

You want to know what killed Hillary? (Besides herself that its...)

A guy on Fox news this morning is sitting in a diner. The reporter asked him about voting for Trump. He said he kept his political views to himself because he's in an union and the union rep told him and everyone else to vote for Hillary. (Think about that for a second.)

Hillary had a parade of stars telling people how they should vote. (Key word TELLING)

Hillary had Obama even stumping for her. Again Telling Americans how to vote.

Americans? We like to make our own decisions and when you tell me how I should vote, I'm going to tell you to pound sand.

The other thing... the little guy, the average joe... he's just getting by. Here we have Clinton who left the WH broke and made her money by giving speeches. Really? What could Bill or Hillary say that is worth 250K an hour, plus expenses? Again, the average joe, hates corruption. That's not the American way.

They want a fair fight.

Trump isn't a saint, but he's saying enough is enough and that we need to fix things.

Lets see what happens.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Kind'a

If we are to prevent repetitions of Trump, Farage, etc

The only people that want to do that are the hard left who, at the moment, have just realised their elitist politics are not what is wanted in a democracy.

[joeldillon]

Re: Kind'a

Literally half the country voted against both Farage and Trump respectively. Unless you think half of all voters are 'the hard left' this makes no sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Kind'a

The only people that want to do that are the hard left who, at the moment, have just realised their elitist politics are not what is wanted in a democracy.

No, I'm a left-centrist, and I'm embarrassed that so many could vote for Trump.

Voting for him means you are complicit in electing a vile, vulgar, racist, misogynist narcissistic bully who is the prime of example of what we DON'T want our kids to grow up to be.

Some Trump supporters were actively embracing the "deplorables" label, and that sounds about right.

They tend to be rural, less-educated whites (read "ignorant bumpkins")

You did hear the KKK is going to have a victory celebration for Trump, right?

It's also amazing that people believe Trump has their best interest at heart.

They do remember that the GOP is the party of business, capitalism, huge budget deficits and wage stagnation, right?

[bombastic bob]

Re: Kind'a

"They tend to be rural, less-educated"

'educated' is HIGHLY OVERRATED when Ivy league schools have organized "group primal scream" demonstrations on campus because they can't deal with a President Trump. [I guess their socialist indoctrinated world view got *snapped*. poor babies...]

President Trump. That sounds pretty good to me, right now!

I've been SO! DAMNED! SICK! AND! TIRED! of "the OBAKA" and his willing accomplices *FORNICATING* the country for the last 7+ years (and the Republicans elected to STOP him 'caving in' like that), starting with *OBAKA-"CARE"* and ending with *DOUBLED* *NATIONAL* *DEBT*. That's right, OBAKA and his policies *DOUBLED* the national debt. $20 TRILLION now. It makes one Senator's infamous commentary about "the Daffuzit" of $150B back in 1990 [while the economy was GROWING into a surplus, and would have, except for the Bush I tax cave-in] _completely_ pale by comparison. Bush I was a "caver". And we ended up with THE CLINTONS because of him.

Ronald Reagan's economic recovery WORKED. And so will Trump's because it's basically THE SAME. And the UK and the rest of the world WILL BENEFIT. And Brexit will work, too. Just give it enough time to 'kick in'. You'll see.

'deplorables'. yeah, I guess I'm a "deplorable" too. Only *ELITIST* *SNOBS* would even CONSIDER such a label.

[404]

Re: Kind'a

TL,DR: The 'silent majority' who work and manage to squeak by every week were tired of being told how fucked up they are. Trump is the 'Fuck You Bastards' President.

[Vendicar Decarian1]

Re: Kind'a

Title: "Silicon Valley's oligarchs got a punch in the head – and that's actually good thing"

How did they get punched in the head? This election is an irrelevancy to them. Tech policy was never discussed during the campaign. Trump stated no preferences regarding Tech policy and advocated no changes.

Orlowski is imagineering.

"Eventually that leads to the elites wishing they had a new electorate, rather than listening and leading. And ultimately, that leads to a Trump" - Orlowski

Trump is an Elitist. He claims to be a multi-billionaire.

So Orlowski's comment makes zero sense.

But making zero sense and fantasizing is exactly how people like Orlowski thinks.

[Mark 110]

That video . .

. . . is really unsettling. Is he really the leader of the free world? Eeeeeeeeeeek!!!!!

[LaeMing]

Re: That video . .

He is the leader of the bit of the world who vehemently likes to see itself as the free world.

[Eddy Ito]

Re: That video . .

has been edited for the amusement of some people. It's clearly not Trump's voice.

[Jason Bloomberg]

This is what Trump, Farage and Co leveraged so effectively.

According to exit polls, over 80% of those voting for Trump said it was a vote for "change" and that's understandable. It's even understandable that they don't really care who is leading them, or what their politics are, so long as they get change, and particularly when they don't believe they will be any worse off through that.

The peasants are usually thrown just enough scraps to keep them from rebelling but it seems 'the elite' had forgotten to do that in recent years.

There is little "shocking" about Trump's victory; it was entirely predictable. It is what that victory means which is the bigger worry.

[ecofeco]

Yet Trump is the very embodiment of status quo for the rich and fuck everyone else.

America has a stupid that can't be fixed.

[Malignant_Narcissism]

The rich got a hell of a lot richer under Obama's 8 years, so as you were saying?

[Mark 110]

As I said in another thread somewhere. All US presidents have the fortunes of the rich as their main priority. They could not become president without the support of the very rich to fund theiir campaigns. Those rich people are not gooing to fund a candidate that will make them poorer.

Hence Trumps campaign fo the working man vote including swathing tax cuts for the very rich.

[Keith Langmead]

"Hence Trumps campaign fo the working man vote including swathing tax cuts for the very rich."

It was an episode of West Wing that summed it up I think by suggesting that it's the downside to the American dream. Everyone thinks that one day their fortunes will change and they'll become rich, as such no one wants to cripple the rich as one day they want to be in that position themselves.

[bombastic bob]

"Hence Trumps campaign fo the working man vote including swathing tax cuts for the very rich."

Look: when you cut taxes on "THE RICH" you aren't cutting taxes on people who HAVE their money. Those crony "light cigars with $100 bills" 'old money' rich *ALREADY*! *HAVE*! *THEIR*! *WEALTH*! and aren't going to be AFFECTED by TAX RATES! Their 'income' is DEFERRED as "assets" that are NEVER! CASHED! IN! and so they DO! NOT! PAY! TAXES! under the current tax structure!!! So you could tax at 90% (like in the 1950's) and IT! WOULD! MAKE! NO! DIFFERENCE! TO! THEM!

However... if you are trying to BECOME RICH, that "high tax rate on the rich" is actually on *YOU*, the person trying to *GET* *AHEAD* by hard work, or running a business, or inventing things, or going to school for 1/4 of your life to become a DOCTOR, etc. etc. etc.

High tax RATES on "the rich" is really KEEP YOU IN YOUR ECONOMIC PLACE AND OUT OF THE RICH BOY CLUB gummint policies *DESIGNED* by the old-money crony-rich to WIDEN the divide between "the rich" and "the rest of us".

The ONLY FAIR taxation method would be a FLAT TAX where EVERYBODY pays the same percentage.

But think of this for a moment: without RICH PEOPLE having money to spend/invest [instead of sending it to the tax collection agency], WHO would hire YOU?

And THAT is why lowering tax rates on "the rich" (who are REALLY business owners and professionals working hard trying to BECOME 'the rich') will MAKE THE ECONOMY BETTER.

That whole "tax the rich at a higher percentage" is just a ginormous fornicating SOCIALIST LIE anyway. Don't believe it, it's TOTALLY WRONG.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@Mark 110 a little history lesson.

In the past, only men with property could vote. So the focus was always on property owners.

In the past, men made their fortunes and then went in to politics.

Take Andrew Mellon. He made his million(s) and then went on in to politics (Sec. of Treasury) and then on to being the Ambassador to the UK.

Even back then... the money raised to support candidates was nothing when compared to today.

Things were different back then and you didn't really have the career politicians.

(Note that you still had corruption and people gaming the system, But that's a different story.)

[Antron Argaiv]

Going by my 401k, I did get a whole lot richer in the 8 years Obama was in charge. It just about makes up for the whole lot poorer I got, thanks to the 2008 crash caused by Bush's financial policies.

[tom dial]

Entirely predictable?

I ask then, with due respect, why did hardly anyone, including Trump's political and polling staff, actually predict it?

Predicting something after it happens does not count.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Entirely predictable?

"why did hardly anyone, including Trump's political and polling staff, actually predict it?"

This has been a daily topic on talk radio for the last 3 months, particularly Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannity.

The short answer: The lame-stream media wanted to use polls and news stories to SHAPE the election the way THEY wanted it to go. They've been doing this for DECADES.

After all, when things are BAD, "when it bleeds, it leads". The lamestream media benefits from a CRAPSACK WORLD. Why would they want to do anything different than CREATING NEWS to report on?

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@tom dial ... Re: Entirely predictable?

Its simple really.

The polling guy stops someone after they leave the polling place and have voted.

A typical Trump voter will ignore them, or refuse to answer. (Its really none of their business)

A typical Clinton voter will overshare personal information.

So you have a random sampling, but you end up under reporting Trump supporters and over report Clinton supporters.

That simple?

[John H Woods]

Re: @IMG Entirely predictable?

"A typical Trump voter will ignore them, or refuse to answer. (Its really none of their business)

A typical Clinton voter will overshare personal information." --- IMG

Says someone whose politics I know from the name on the post (I'm not criticising that, I may be the same (or worse), but it's slightly ironic that you think it's only "the other side" who overshare).

I do wonder if there is an element of shame some people feel about the way they have voted, and that reflects on parties and people widely regarded as "nasty" performing better than polls predict.

[tom dial]

Re: @tom dial ... Entirely predictable?

@Ian: While I raised the question thinking of pre-election polls, this may be more or less true. I do not know of proper academic research that bears on this, but there is suspiciot, and has been for decades, that some error may come from systematic bias in the subset of respondents who answer untruthfully or refuse to answer. One of the fundamental requirements for a good survey was understood 50 years ago or more is that you pick a sample and do what it takes to interview everyone in the sample, making return visits as necessary. The more deviation there is from that the greater the likely error in addition to the customarily reported sampling error.

Whatever the cause, my impression is that it is worsening over time. The last three big failures that come to mind are the most recent UK general election, the BREXIT referendum, and the US election last Tuesday. On the other hand, Alan Lichtman of American University has predicted the last ten presidential elections based on a series of 13 T/F questions about the political/electoral environment - no need for costly interviews.

[lglethal]

A vote for change? And yet the people voted the republicans back into power in the house of representatives (just like 18 of the last 24 years including the last 6) and the senate (12 of the last 20 years including the last 2).

Does that really sound like votes for change? If people where voting for change I would have expected a glut of independent candidates being voted into congress. But there wasn't. There was absolutely no change, except to hand back power (and actually give more power) to the same people who have held power in congress for pretty much the whole time Obama was in power.

A vote for change? I don't believe that for a second...

[nijam]

> ...over 80% of those voting for Trump said it was a vote for "change"

They will get change. And then they will be worse off.

I wouldn't mind that, but unfortunately the rest of us will be worse off too, which I do mind.

[MSmith]

it wasn't much of a choice

You have to realize that lots of people don't approve of the way Trump behaves, but it is better to have a course, impolite person than Hillary Clinton.

Why is Hillary Clinton so bad? Well, I don't thing anyone has ever tried to put it all together. It is really hard to get information because the press here is so intent of portraying Hillary Clinton in a fantastic light. When you read past the headlines, things get a little grittier, however. This is the impression I get of Hillary Clinton from reading the news (not just the headlines). This is not a comprehensive list, just a summary of themes I have noticed. I'm sure some of it is not correct, since there is so much disinformation floating about. This is just the general impression you get from the continual scandals. After reading it, you can see why people would be willing to have President Trump.

Incompetence

Her record on Libya, Syria, Egypt, etc makes George Bush look like a foreign policy genius.

Unfortunately, those seem to be her greatest accomplishments. Everything else she owes to Bill. She got her first law job at the University because Bill got hired there. She got a job at the Rose Law firm when Bill became attorney general. She made partner when he was elected Governor...

This is s woman who had to use her Blackberry for e-mail because she doesn't know how to use a computer. A woman who had her maid print out classified documents because she doesn't know how to do it herself. A woman who sent unencrypted login and password information through the WiFi at Russian and Chinese government facilities and then didn't change her password for 4 years, allowing those governments to freely access her e-mail and probably the DNC and other hacked targets.

Political Dirty Tricks

The multitude of things her former campaign head did for her as head of the DNC seems unbelievable. Providing DNC offices and resources to her campaign but not to Sanders, collaborating with the media to support Clinton, not Sanders, modifying the voter records in Nevada, locking Sander's delegates out, getting the debate questions in advance, etc.

Disregard for the Rule of Law and Sense of Entitlement.

Setting up a private e-mail server to avoid complying with the Freedom of Information Act is bad enough. In doing so, she paid a State Department IT employee (who certainly knew about the FOIA requirements) from a charity to do the work because it could not be authorized by the government. She paid her staff from her charity. She paid for her daughter's wedding from her charity. She had her aide paid simultaneously by the State Department, her charity handling State Department clients, and a lobbing group that lobbies the State Department and claimed there was not even an appearance of a conflict of interest.

When the head of the FBI stated (essentially) "There is a long history of not holding the rich and powerful accountable for their crimes and I will not challenge that precedent", I believe he expected outrage and people to demand justice. I believe he was appalled when Democrats cheered, instead. The amount of perjury committed in the e-mail scandal just seems to be mind-boggling and it is difficult to tell what was the truth and what was perjury.

Corruption and selling out the country

Hillary Clinton's corruption appears to have no bounds. You see report after report of someone who needed the Secretary of State's approval for something and they (1) Donate to the Clinton charity and (2) Book Bill Clinton for a speech. This included selling the US's uranium deposits to a Russian Government controlled company after a $2.5 million deposit in the Clinton Foundation and $1 million to Bill Clinton (deposited in their joint account?).

The whole Clinton Foundation seemed to exist just to direct government aid money to Foundation donors. The aid sent to India, but diverted to a Clinton Foundation donor, is a good example. They took the money, bought expired HIV medications, water them down for good measure, and charged full price for them. The $9 billion in missing Hatian relief aid is another good example of this corruption. Where is it? No one knows. Bill isn't talking and says he doesn't have to.

When she left the State Department, the Obama administration audit found $6 billion missing. Yes, $6 billion. The State Department under Clinton was so poorly run that they have no idea where the money went. Should this go under incompetence, or corruption?

Poor Health

Passing out, then lying about it, then lying about that....

Suddenly developing slurred speech, then almost passing out....

Having journalists fired for even acknowledging that her health is an issue...

Supporters who suggest that she just has 'a leaky heart valve', nothing serious...

[tom dial]

Re: it wasn't much of a choice

Additional note: the "State Department IT employee" who maintained her private (illegal and insecure) server was a Schedule C political appointee hired at her behest, who had been her go-to guy for her unsuccessful 2008 presidential primary run. It is far from certain that he knew anything about the FOIA and fairly certain he knew little or nothing about federal information assurance requirements, as shown by exposure of RDP and VNC for systems in the clintonemail.com domain on the public internet.

[Trilkhai]

It wasn't illegal.

If you checked, you'd find that it was not only perfectly legal for the SoS to have a private server, it was the norm — both Colin Powell & Condoleeza Rice did the same thing even though we had a massive military presence in Afghanistan & Iraq. Also, while the governmental server was hacked, the private one remained untouched, likely due to security–by–obscurity.

FWIW I didn't support either Clinton or Trump.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: It wasn't illegal.

The previous SoS might have had personal e-mail addresses, but they only used it for minor things. They also had Government email addresses and used those to conduct important government business. General Colon Powell has said as much.

The other thing to remember is at the time General Powell was SoS the Government didn't have the IT infrastructure in place the way it did in 2009 and beyond.

in 2009, the only reason any and i repeat ANY Government Official would exclusively use a private email server would be hide/control what you're doing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: It wasn't illegal.

"If you checked, you'd find that it was not only perfectly legal for the SoS to have a private server, it was the norm — both Colin Powell & Condoleeza Rice did the same thing"

I don't believe that is true. Both may have used non-Gov email accounts, but I never heard that either set up their own email server.

"Also, while the governmental server was hacked, the private one remained untouched, likely due to security–by–obscurity." I believe a good many people are skeptical of claims that her server was not breached. Not knowing what they know, I wouldn't make a statement one way or the other - but I would be surprised if it hadn't been.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

@Trilkhai Re: It wasn't illegal.

Wow. Where did you pass the bar?

It was completely illegal.

Colin Powell and Rice had .gov email addresses. Clinton did not.

Clinton relied solely on a personal server. Powell rarely used it for official communications and never for handling classified material.

Lets also add that nether Rice or Powell routinely called their maid to handle classified docs and faxes for them.

Please actually learn the facts.

[tom dial]

Re: It wasn't illegal.

I did check. The reference is 44 USC Chapter 35, along with implementing standards issued by NIST around 2005 or 2006. The law imposes requirements on senior agency officials to ensure information security. As the head of a cabinet department Clinton was responsible to ensure information security within the Department of State, not undermine and subvert it.

Colin Powell used a personal email account during his tenure as Secretary of State, during a time that bridged passage of the above act, and before NIST completed the standards, during which the State Department systems were considerably less adequate than they were when Clinton took office in 2009. Condolezza Rice has stated that she avoided use of email.

The State Department non-classified network was, indeed, penetrated - in 2013, after Clinton left the position of Secretary of State. It is possible, although uncertain, that it would not have been if she had carried out her obligation to ensure that her CIO and his staff maintained DoS system and network security properly.

Given the known vulnerabilities of the clintonemail.com servers, the only operationally useful assumption about it is that everything that ever touched it was known to every significant national intelligence service in the world.

And FWIW, my vote also did not go to either Clinton or Trump.

[Steve Hersey]

Humor or blunder?

If you follow the "Let's Be Beastly to the Germans" link to Wikipedia, you'll find that the correct title actually reads, "Don't..." instead. Could be either The Register's characteristic sense of humor, or The Register's characteristic nonchalant proofreading...

[ecofeco]

What utter gibberish

Trump is also an elite who doesn't give a fuck about the average person. This is proven fact.

There is NO difference between him and Silly Valley.

[Preston Munchensonton]

Re: What utter gibberish

Ok, I'll bite. One significant difference between Trump and the various elites in Silicon Valley is that all levels of the US executive and legislative branches have lots of cozy relationships with the "wizards of the west". Trump may understand the political/crony game on a smaller level (based on his obvious crony capitalist dealings in NYC, Atlantic City, and Las Vegas), but he has no ties of significance to those in positions of Federal power. That makes his election even more astonishing.

[surname-you_mean_last_name]

Re: What utter gibberish

Good thing they're playing against each other, instead of as a team.

[FireWorks]

On the nose

Andrew, Your analysis hit the mark, like a kinetic energy transfer from the US electorates clenched fist to the nasal region of Silicone Valley. (icon because I miss-spelled Silicon on purpose because I think they're all boobs)

[Youngone]

Question?

The US has been a Democratic Republic for longer than almost anywhere, and has a population of more than 300 million but only has two credible political parties.

Am I the only one that finds this odd?

[Teiwaz]

Re: Question?

The US has been a Democratic Republic for longer than almost anywhere

- You mean apart from San Marino, The Netherlands, Switzerland and (for a short period) England?

- You are not alone in finding it odd, but the UK is stuck on much the same see-saw, with the Isles handed back and forth between Labour and Conservative for the last half century. While the Welsh and Scots have their own national parties thrown into the mix and Northern Ireland has it's own spectrum.

I suppose in the end, politics is too similar to War, in which it is always advisable to only fight on one front.

[Stoneshop]

Re: Question?

You mean apart from San Marino, The Netherlands, Switzerland and (for a short period) England?

Eh? Oh wait, the Dutch Republic, 1581-1795. Which turns out to be less than the age of the US as a democracy, as well as it having some differences with an actual democratic republic (it was close enough though if you squint a bit). And England's run as a republic was quite short, actually. 1649-1660; they did start earlier, but that was not what the original poster stated.

[A. Coatsworth]

Re: Question?

Very good question... the system has been honed thru the decades to make it impossible for a third party to prosper.

Although I personally doubt a system where the candidate with the most votes can actually *lose* the election, can be called "democracy" with a straight face.

[Preston Munchensonton]

Re: Question?

It's not a democracy. It's a democratic republic. Mob rule isn't preferred over protection of individual rights (except when it is, aka Patriot Act).

[Andrew Commons]

Re: Question?

However they do have other parties and even if they do not rate as credible they probably sucked up enough votes to impact the outcome of this election.

[tom dial]

Re: Question?

The fact the US has two major parties results from a number of factors.

1. The habit of electing from single member districts by plurality or majority for such offices as the legislature (whether state or federal) makes it difficult for third parties to establish themselves, especially as the existing parties steal their ideas, and with them their supporters.

2. The need to organize legislatures to function adequately tends to force coalitions at state or federal government levels that incorporate locally or regionally successful third parties.

3. Third parties often are forced out by legal manipulations by better established parties. Examples include onerous signature requirements for small party ballot inclusion as opposed to automatic inclusion for "major" parties, something that typically means the top two by voting numbers in the previous election.

4. Party affiliation tends to be passed down within families. Although that gets muddled due to "mixed marriages" and internal family dynamics, there remains a tendency for individuals to associate themselves with one of the national parties, maintaining their stability over time.

5. Population mobility lead spread of the main political parties during the rapid expansion that occurred in the 19th century. People took the names and general leanings with them to new places and adapted them to their new environment. One consequence of that was to give the national parties a broad population base.

6. The population expansion and diversification that came with immigration in the last half of the 19th and first quarter of the 20th century, along with a combination of party organization recruitment of and takeover by new Americans operated to inhibit growth of minor parties. Ethnic diversity also discouraged narrow ideologically based programs. This and the previous factor go quite a way to explaining the nearly total lack of meaningful content in US party platforms.

The interactive map at

https://www.washingtonpost.com/2016-election-results/us-presidential-race/

Suggests remarkable stability over a period of 12 years, and it probably extends further back.

As an aside, I know of no evidence that third party vote totals, in most places under 5%, had a meaningful impact on this election, although they likely did in 2000. Jill Stein probably drew around half of her roughly 1% share from Clinton, and Gary Johnson a similar fraction of his 3% - 5% from Trump. In Utah and Idaho, Evan McMullin collected most or all of his votes from Mormon coreligionists opposed to Trump, who still beat Clinton by 19%; the total of Trump and McMullin votes in Utah is similar to Republican votes in other statewide contests.

[Calleb III]

Re: Question?

This is the inevitable result of FPTP, colorfull explanation here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

[Naselus]

Re: Question?

Partially FPTP (which invariably devolves into a 2-party system, occasionally with a third minor party that only governs in coalition), but also due to the 'weak' affiliation system used by US parties. The big parties don't have firmly fixed positions, so any decent policy ideas can be quickly cribbed if a different party comes up with it... and since there's no membership fees or application requirements for joining a party, switching between them is easy.

[keithpeter]

Confused Brit

"Trump's victory, like Brexit, divides critics into two camps. It's either a failure of the existing elites – such as the media and the current parties who have failed to heed people's concerns, or it's the fault of the people, who can then be vilified."

Er - apparently most of the people who voted cast their vote for Mrs Clinton, Mr Trump came in a very close second. In the UK Referendum most of those who voted cast their vote to leave the EU, a good 4% ahead of those who cast their vote to Remain.

Could an American enlighten me as to how the Democrats are being elitist here? Sounds like more of a draw to me. So not like Brexit at all really.

Coat: not my election so out of here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Confused Brit

Simple, if your election is decided by a specific method such as the electoral college, then you cannot simply say that the winner of the popular vote would necessarily have won had the popular vote been the actual measure of voting.

The popular vote winner is a meaningless statistic, especially in a constitutional republic where the individual states have specific rights and responsibilities.

Clinton lost basically because she's a horrible, corrupt, venal, and thoroughly unlikeable fake. Get over it.

[Dick]

Re: Confused Brit

My bet is that under a popular vote system participation would be higher in states like California where one party has an overwhelming majority such that non-majority party voters feel a presidential vote is meaningless under the electoral college system. California has about 18 million registered voters, less than half voted for any presidential candidate.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Confused Brit

"California has about 18 million registered voters, less than half voted for any presidential candidate."

it means MY vote counts MORE [that's how I see it] when fewer people actually vote.

But yeah, the overwhelming lefty-socialist-demorat voting in this state NAUSEATES me. And I have to wonder if ILLEGAL ALIENS are voting in significant numbers in 'sanctuary cities'. It wasn't until after the 'amnesty' in the 1980's [one of Reagans BAD 'cave-ins' to THE LEFT, that was SUPPOSED to end up strengthening the border, but of course THAT never happened] that the near 50:50 balance in California started its RADICAL SLIDE to the LEFT. Something to think about...

[nijam]

Re: Confused Brit

> Clinton lost basically because she's a horrible, corrupt, venal, and thoroughly unlikeable fake

And the Donald is more horrible, more venal, more corrupt, and more thoroughly unlikable. So it isn't clear what your point is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Confused Brit

My theory is that of the 18 states won by Clinton, 8 of them are using Diebold voting equipment,

Not enough to create a Dem landslide, but perhaps just enough to surreptitiously insert an extra 200,000 blue votes or so (her current popular vote lead) without drawing too much attention.

Based on her history (receiving debate questions in advance, for example) and this campaign, that would be very true to form. Her early concession might even be a calculated or forced move to prevent voter fraud stories from becoming too widely publicized (or part of a deal).

Remember that vote rigging is an American tradition and the Clintons are as crooked as the day is long. Obama would most likely prefer to keep his spotless legacy. Exposure of Chicago style vote fraud in a national election would not help.

And Hillary did take an astounding 90% + of votes in places like Washington DC (Diebold). However, much of the rest of America voted her out and chose Trump. Looks as though the decentralized, indirect electoral vote system still works, particularly when poll watchers do their thing.

And as old Abe said "you can fool some of the people some of the time...."

[martinusher]

Re: Confused Brit

Election rules in the US are set by individual States which is why off year electoral races for the seemingly irrelevant Secretary of State positions are in fact extremely important. The Diebold scandal, such as it was, was perpetuated in what are colloquially known as "Red States" -- Republican dominated states. These states tend to use more restrictive voting rules -- reduced hours, reduced eligibility and so on.

BTW -- Capturing these positions wasn't a coincidence, its part of a winning strategy. That's what the Bernibros never really understood; we are where we are today because of a successful, ongoing strategy that's spanned decades, its nothing to do with individuals and specific elections. One other successful strategy has been district gerrymandering; since 2010 the House has a locked in Republican majority even though demographics should make many races competitive.

[johnkatos]

Re: Confused Brit

Diebold is a pro-republican zealot who supported G.W.Bush and stole Ohio from Al Gore.

[tom dial]

Re: Confused Brit

Fact Check: The claim that Diebold voting machines were used to steal Ohio from Gore appears likely to be untrue, as Diebold Election Systems Inc. was founded in 2002, two years after the Bush//Gore election.

I worked a number of elections in Cuyahoga County, Ohio in later years when Diebold machines actually were in use there, and it is my recollection that the machines were reasonably secure physically, and were delivered to voting locations with tamper evident seals over the access doors for the modem and internal electronics that were not to be removed for any reason, and if damaged were to be reported. I never encountered that, but assume that damage would have prevented putting the machine in service for the election. Other controls were generally adequate to prevent abuse in polling locations without collusion by both Democratic and Republican election judges.

There are no guarantees that the software could not be altered before the machines were sent to polling locations, or the stored votes changed after the election was completed, but it would pretty much have to be done at the board of elections between opening of the sealed bags with memory cards and inserting them into the systems that accumulated the vote totals.

[Ian Michael Gumby]

Re: Confused Brit

The votes are completely counted...

If you consider the delta... ~220K out of ~120million the difference between the two isn't that great.

And if you consider the number of illegals and convicted felons who also voted... Its a much closer race.

[ma1010]

Why Trump? People are just sick and tired.

Many, many people in America are sick and tired of the "usual suspects" running the government. With the usual Republicans and Democrats, there's really not a lot to choose between. The real key is who contributes the most, and that would be the big corporations who are the ones mostly pulling the strings of the marionettes in Washington. Many people in America are looking for something different, and Trump certainly is something different. He's rich enough that he won't be for sale to the highest bidder, which is a point in his favor and distinguishes him from most of the folks in Washington.

I am not familiar enough with British politics to have an opinion, but I've seen a fair number of people lodging similar complaints on social media about the Tories and New Labor being a bit Tweedledum and Tweedledee, so maybe our Rightpondian friends have similar problems?

Will Trump be a disaster? I don't think so. There's a LOT of inertia in Washington, regardless of which party officially controls Congress. And a lot of Republicans do not agree with Trump and may oppose him in Congress. And then there are the courts. So don't expect to see concentration camps for illegals or a "Great Wall of America" or other such nonsense. Also, please consider that we don't even know what he REALLY wants to do. Anyone who confuses campaign rhetoric with reality is naive, and I doubt we have too many of that sort reading El Reg. We don't know what he wants until after he takes office. Maybe we'll all regret him being elected then, but for now I have a "wait and see" attitude.

[joed]

Re: Why Trump? People are just sick and tired.

Quite correct. Many are tired of "usual suspect" and legitimizing another White House dynasty decided the vote for many (even if there was no other criticisms of the candidate).

[lglethal]

Re: Why Trump? People are just sick and tired.

As I mentioned above, everyone is saying people want change - yet they voted in the same congress critters that have been in charge for a bloody long time (number sin my previous post above). How is that a vote for change?

[Trilkhai]

Re: Why Trump? People are just sick and tired.

Many reasons, but here's some of the main ones:

1) Most of us learn in our 20s that no matter how enthusiastically we campaign for a third–party candidate, only the fringe that are passionate about the third party's main focus actually join in, and that our "protest vote" never actually induces change in the mainstream party.

2) During those same years of learning that voting for their 3rd party has little effect, people see the mainstream opposition do things they strongly disagree with and see that because of how things are set up, the only way to defeat the mainstream opposition is to vote for the mainstream ally.

3) As adults establish themselves, they tend to become increasingly focused on protecting what they have (long-term home, family, car, career) than on the kind of generalized ideals that third parties tend to represent, which strengthens the effect in #2.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Why Trump? People are just sick and tired.

As I mentioned above, everyone is saying people want change - yet they voted in the same congress critters that have been in charge for a bloody long time (number sin my previous post above). How is that a vote for change?

Indeed. And they didn't seem to "want change" four years ago when Obama was re-elected.

Since then, the economy has improved and more jobs have been created.

Two years from now, the GOP may loose some House seats. That's because people will be upset with President Trump and want "change".

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Why Trump? People are just sick and tired.

I too am in the "wait and see" camp. My biggest fear is his lack of experience. Will he be willing to "drink through the firehose" for the first year to get up-to-speed on what he's going to need to know to be his own man, or will he simply surround himself with self-serving influencers whispering in his ear?

His staff and cabinet appointments are critical. Let's see if truly is about change and appoints qualified people, or if he's going to be like every other politician and start by rewarding his friends.

[Antron Argaiv]

Re: Why Trump? People are just sick and tired.

I'm willing to wait and see with Trump. But he has three big (correctable) character flaws, which stand in the way of his being an effective President:

1. He's a bully. To put it more politely, he's a "Theory X" manager. He gives the orders, others carry them out, and woe betide any underling who tries to do anything but what Trump wants.

2. He's a narcissist. He knows he's right. He's not comfortable being told he's wrong.

3. He's not an educated man. Technical details bore him. This would be OK, if he was willing to hire experts and take their advice. See #1 and #2.

We'll leave his ethics out of the discussion for now. He's probably not any more or less ethical than any other random politician, but he hasn't covered his tracks as well as most.

[maccy]

Peter Thiel?

and Palmer Fuckey?

[Bloodbeastterror]

Adam Curtis HyperNormalisation

I watched this very long (166 minutes) film on the BBC yesterday and, as with most Curtis films, it's eye-opening as well as perhaps pushing the envelope, but it still raises very interesting questions regardless of its accuracy.

In summary, if I got his message (and I may not have), Trump is an irrelevance. His stance of saying whatever he thinks will annoy in order to impress, the "shooting from the hip", makes no difference to people who have been so overwhelmed by political lies over the past few decades that truth itself is irrelevant. A recurring theme is Libya - one moment Gadaffi is a tinpot dictator, then a world leader, then a terrorist mastermind, then America's best friend, and finally is hung out to dry as the scapegoat for Syrian (Russian) war crimes.

And all of it watched from above by the secretive and (IMO) evil people who manipulate the populace for political and power gain.

As I tried to post earlier today (my post disappeared, and maybe it was my poor computer skills rather than censorship - I'm open-minded) American activity can be understood easily (according to a Newsweek article I read many years ago) by looking at the American populace as children. The desire for immediate gratification (Iraq), shinies (iDevices) and no thought for the future (global warming) all point to an immature state of mind.

And as Irvine Walsh, the author of Trainspotting among amny other things, so interestingly commented this evening, this election smacks of the poor kids clustering in the playground round the school bully in the hope that he'll protect them. A forlorn hope, in my opinion - the global bullies are far far bigger than even the gigantic over-inflated ego of The Donald.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Adam Curtis HyperNormalisation

I remember watching Adam Curtis' "Power of Nightmares" and being mightily impressed. I hope to catch this one too (do you remember the title?).

Regarding the rest of it, if Trump is indeed leading a cultural revolution in Washington he can become much more than a schoolyard bully. The American people and his establishment supporters need to stay rallied behind him. He will need to stay honest, focused, straight, on message and get on with some serious house cleaning.

Given the last 30 years or so, the bar for improvement in Washington is dismally low, but I remain cautiously optimistic. Let's wait and see.

[101]

Re: Adam Curtis HyperNormalisation

No chance. The establishment will gobble him up like a testy trifle.

[Bloodbeastterror]

Re: Adam Curtis HyperNormalisation

"a testy trifle"

I'm guessing that you mistyped this, but in doing so you got it absolutely right... :-)

[Diogenes]

Re: Adam Curtis HyperNormalisation

So basically the Bismarck Theory ...

There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America.

[404]

Re: Adam Curtis HyperNormalisation

Americans as children? I can agree with you somewhat. However, I also believe they(we/me) are conditioned to remain in that state by design to create consumers. The lack of personal responsibility for their actions or inaction, everyone being a victim of something or other, always pointing fingers, the lack of any sense of US history, much less world history, all combines to create surface dwellers. Even American journalism schools teach that you should write your stories to a 3rd grade reading level.

I mean everybody isn't that way, there are always differences, but the overfuckinglywhelming majority of Americans are idIoTs.

[Jim84]

Doesn't create jobs or prosperity - a bit unfair

"People have begun to notice that Silicon Valley doesn't create jobs or prosperity – except for the oligarchs themselves."

Wrong - unearned rent is the real problem.

Yes it is true that San Francisco creates far fewer secondary jobs than previous rising industries, but that is largely due to restrictions on new housing in San Franciso. This is caused by NIMBYism, but when you look at it from a local perspective NIMBYs have a point when it comes to new housing being built. If your local government allows developers to build in your area, firstly they usually allow them to build ugly towers, and secondly the costs of more people in terms of more congestion on roads and more noise, will be born locally, while the benefits of being close to more people that you can economically match with will accrue to the whole city. The costs are born by a few people while the benefits accrue to everyone, so even though there is a net benefit to society, new housing does not get built. Everyone wants new housing and wails about high rents, but wants the new housing elsewhere.

What is the solution? 1. Land value taxes to encourage the building of new homes on land that is currently being held in the hope of its value increasing due to the government being forced to build new infrastructure nearby. See this piece in The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/04/housing-markets

2. A decent building code and understanding of what makes a city beautiful. See Alain de Botton's video essay on this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hy4QjmKzF1c

3. Technology to get us better transport than cars can manage (without forcing us to share transit with the horrid public). See Dan Ver Hoeve's excellent blog on Personal Rapid Transit:

http://openprtspecs.blogspot.com.au/2008/06/its-roads-stupid.html

[Anonymous Coward]

@Jim84 - Re: Doesn't create jobs or prosperity - a bit unfair

OK, you explained here what annoys the highly paid employees of tech startups/companies but I had to read it twice to find the paragraph where you explain how they create jobs or share prosperity. I still haven't found it so can you please highlight it for me ?

[Jim84]

Re: @Jim84 - Doesn't create jobs or prosperity - a bit unfair

Yeah sorry, I am not arguing that the tech industry is creating jobs and sharing prosperity, it isn't to a large degree. Just taking issue with the reg author's implication that the fault for this lies with the people who run tech firms in San Francisco, when in actual fact it is a political problem with knotty roots which will probably only be resolved by new technology such as a PRT (the conclusion of that Economist piece that I linked too) as I don't think Trump or Obama are actually very aware of this.

Normally when a growth industry comes to a city the highly paid jobs it creates in turn create a larger number of secondary jobs (e.g. your Amazon drone engineer wants to spend his decent earnings on a personal trainer). But when housing is restricted this allows landowners to collect economic rents. So the transaction that the drone engineer and personal trainer want to carry out (cash for training in the gym) is effectively taxed by the landowners (the personal trainer either pays a massive SF rent or is forced to commute for two hours). This cost/rent will be reflected in the personal trainer's fees, and in an elastic market higher prices mean demand and supply will equilibrate at lower demand (fewer jobs + tech industry earnings accruing to a small minority of rich landowners rather than the general population).

That Economist article explains this dynamic more clearly than I can manage, so I'd encourage you to read that.

[bombastic bob]

Re: Doesn't create jobs or prosperity - a bit unfair

"without forcing us to share transit with the horrid public"

uh, doesn't that sound a bit ELITIST? [yeah I dislike the few ASSHATS that smoke in public at the transit stop, or harass other people, but 99% of public transportation users are decent people who don't do those things]

I used to LIVE in Silicon Valley back in the 70's when it wasn't nearly as bad. I left at the earliest opportunity, never went back. Just 'ew'.

You proposed solutions sound like too much "gummint". what you fail to realize is that gummint cannot PROVIDE, it cannot IMPROVE, it cannot BENEFIT anyone without taking MORE from others in the process. It can only RESTRICT, or TAKE AWAY.

The purpose of government (in general) is to RESTRICT FREEDOM, primarily for an orderly society. This includes ECONOMIC freedom to spend YOUR money the way YOU want. Obviously better than ANARCHY, but you don't want it to grow into the HORRENDOUS OPPRESSIVE KAIJUU that it's become. It is the nature of governments, without something to stop them, to become such things, instead of what they were intended for in the beginning.

That's why "smaller government" was the theme of Trump's election, because THAT is what the people REALLY want. It's why Trump was elected, to STOP this kind of thing, i.e. "we don't need more gummint to solve problems CAUSED by big gummint".

Other than ALLOWING DEVELOPERS TO BUILD MORE HOUSES (i.e. REDUCING gummint restrictions and regulations), there's not much more gummint could do. [as part of that a smart city planner will REQUIRE that developers pay for infrastructure improvements to go along with that, and they generally DO, because then everybody wins, and THAT is when gummint-based solutions actually work, when they regulate JUST ENOUGH to make it work, and then stay the HELL out of the way for the rest of it]

[The JP]

I think we all agree on the problem, but what is the solution?

I think everyone agrees that the fall in good quality blue collar jobs is a problem, as is rising inequalities in wealth. I think everyone also agrees that advances in technology, such as automated vehicles, is going to make the issue more pronounced.

The real issue is what is the solution? I don't think Trump is the solution. Nor is attacking immigrants and minorities. Nor is attacks on new technology - smashing the weaving looms didn't stop the industrial revolution.

Do we need a new form of social contract? Do we need to weather the pain on this transition in the hope new jobs will appear in the post-AI world? That is what we should really be thinking about.

[bombastic bob]

Re: I think we all agree on the problem, but what is the solution?

what is the solution to the problems of economic inequality and loss of blue-collar jobs?

a) lower taxes

b) less regulation

c) more freedom (particularly ECONOMIC freedom), with responsibility

not anarchy of course. you have to have SOME regulation to stop outright exploitation and 'an unfair playing field'. After that, just let people do what they do, without PUNISHING achievement with CONFISCATORY tax rates, or regulating "the little guy" out of the game.

It worked in the 80's. It will work AGAIN in the '20-teens' under Trump.

[raving angry loony]

Trump Trifecta

The REAL "trifecta" is that in a few months, Trump and the Republicans who put him in power will control the Executive, Legislative, AND *Judicial* levels of their government. Once they get around to nominating and confirming the most regressive judges possible to their Supreme Court. So it's not just the Presidency and Congress (Senate and House). It's a REAL trifecta.

In other words, there will be very few limits to the crazy that Trump's crowd will be able to inflict, because Trump's crowd will be in control of every level of government.

A very, very scary thought.

[101]

Re: Trump Trifecta

Naw, the shadow corporate-military government will make quick work of Mr. Trump, the political rube.

They've already trimmed down some of his anti-Isamic comments (got him to take take some inflammatory tweets). If they get their way, he will be promoting global war and bankster-ism in no time at all.

[Trilkhai]

Re: Trump Trifecta

Unless Trump has just been spouting whatever random radical crap he thought might attract the frustrated working–class white voters, which seems like a serious possibility. His campaign basically was what we'd get if a charismatic older white guy watched Obama entrance left–wing voters in 2008, then decided to apply the same principle to the people that blindly believe whatever Fox News says...

[bombastic bob]

Re: Trump Trifecta

"A very, very scary thought."

To those who desire the same agenda as "the left", yes. It is their DOOM. I'm looking forward to it!

my only fear is that, over the next 2 years, this wonderful opportunity could be SQUANDERED. Again. Republo-crats (particularly RINOs) are pretty good at making THAT happen.

FYI - if 'regression' is going back to 'Original Intent' on the U.S. Constitution, I'll take 'regression' over 'progress' (over the cliff of socialism) *ANY* day.

[101]

The future is not ours to see

Pretty astute and persuasive commentary for a chip head.

Populism, however crude, may be on the rise.

Or, something else, worse. But, neither organized party wants to deal with it.

[far2much4me]

What Slicon Valley Has to Offer Trump

Silicon Valley is really in the hole with Trump. For the electoral college delegates, California is a winner-take-all state. Since California is also very much a Democrat Blue state, the Trump basically ignored the state since he had no chance to win anything. Since many of the Silicon Valley big wigs were very pro-Clinton, there is now absolutely nothing they have to offer Trump. They didn't support him in the vote, and can't deliver any meaningful support in the next election. I seriously doubt that Trump will ever lift a finger to do anything for Silicon Valley in particular, and California in general.

[thx1138v2]

The only thing we can say about Trump is that no one has any idea what he will do as president. He's has absolutely no track record in public office and political campaigns are exempt from truth-in-advertising laws so he could literally say anything that he thought would get him votes during the campaign.

Campaigning is, simply put, self promotion. Here's what he had to say about that: “I play to people’s fantasies,” Donald Trump wrote in his 1987 memoir, The Art of the Deal. “It’s ... a very effective form of promotion.”

I suspect it was the Never Hillary vote that won the election for him. For those with memories of the '90's Clinton administration, it was a vote against Hillary more than a vote for Trump. The sellout of the country's assets by the Clintons started back then and has continued ever since, the instances stated in the article only being the latest round. Interestingly, the final say of whether assets could be sold or transferred to a foreign country was with the Department of Commerce. The Department of Commerce being an office under the executive branch, during the Clinton administration that decision making authority was moved to the State Department. And, wa la, Hillary Clinton becomes the Secretary of State in the next Democratic party administration.

The change back in the day enabled the Clinton administration to arrange the sale of long range missile guidance technology to China over the objections of the CIA, DoD, and Commerce Department.

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/1998/june98/psrjune98.html

The same cast of characters were present in the Obama administration while Hillary was Secretary of State as when that technology transfer took place. Hillary Clinton of course, Leon Panetta was Whitehouse chief-of-staff who became SecDef at one point and head of the CIA at another time during the Obama administration, and Gary Locke was a Democratic campaign contribution bundler with family ties in China who became U.S. Ambassador to China under Hillary's State Department.

People who remember those things and all the other scandals from the Clinton administration are, I think, the ones who voted Never Hillary.

As far as Trump goes, we'll see, but I don't expect him to uphold many, if any, campaign promises.

[UNIX translator]

The peaceful transition of power is a hallmark of a democratic representative republic or a legitimate parliamentary democracy .

The liberal crime wave outta the US white-house , liberal policy's and thier failures and Hilary Clinton inc. have been wholly rejected by the American voters within the usual US electoral college voting parameters.

Silicon valley ,conservative GOP ,the wholly corrupt liberal media ,educators. pundits and political hacks ,elite globalists ,business , Hollywood ,and the democrats should all take note of populist BREXIT and the USEXIT that just happened and handed all them their azzess ☺