What he did to win was to clarify by simplifying. By simplifying he not only made it clear to those in power, including a good portion of the public, but he simultaneously reduced that same issue of complexity from being used against him. If he has enough savvy to keep it clear and simple (certainly not easy to do), he has only the medical world to worry about (they go by entirely different concerns).
He also has to worry about the corporate world, especially the elites of Silicon Valley, who see through
purported naive realism as merely a conveniate prop.
That his mission ahead is ne’er impossible, in spite absolute Republican advantage, because in his case, it will be extremely difficult to reverse the hostility, the excusionism he has run with.
There will be political aftershocks many years to come, and indeed he will use repressive techniques, when his other side again reemerges after the honeymoon.
Silicon Valley is entirely supported by two fundamental things: Entertainment and Surveillance (both high-tech industries). Trump is an avid supporter of both. The corporations favor him strongly. They are not an issue (although having that known is).
Bravura aside, and I am sure we all have a touch for that, I would not allow myself to be drawn down to the level of those unfortunates, Turd, who get drawn into ‘movements’.
If you could draw a parellel with a wide margin,what all movements share is negative values of defiance, based not on reasonable assessment, but on enjubilating the feelings of s brother hood, a feeling they had not come across in their primary years, and now, they are making it up big time. They need mass appeal, approval from their comrades in arms.
Retroactively, the three conflicted powers of the twentieth century were socialism, capitalism, and the vast appeal of emotional elitism, has been sustained, the pronouncement of the end of history did not nullify the survival of this scepter.
This is the crux of the dilemma, and since social nationalism as displayed in it’s wilsonian get up has never been resolved by the two world wars: Here we are again. Inconclusively, residing in a waning U.S., the true to form Marxists can not at this time, their cause and effect not in perfect alliance, what really is left?
Compromise? Take a little from both, and blend them in a palatable tableau as did Obama tried? Nope, this staged bofionery is the last frontier, the image where the world can yet see unexplored territory, the Wild West, the place of uncharted terrain.
The enigma of cults, of mass participation, a participation mystique, where some kind of stability is achieved through a mass rite of mutual flagellation: where no one particular can be blamed, because that’s tantamount to blaming ones’ self.
Adhesion through perplexity and paradox.
Can there be found any historical antecedents to this phenomena? One needn’t scratch their head too long.
Is this a sign of red neck bravura, or something entirely different? Not that this difference is not implicit in a deep level search for identification of values.
Why Hillary lost: Because they voted for the lesser loser…(neither of whom should have been running)…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyBMhmK79tg[/youtube]
Why Hillary lost is a simple thing to answer- she was a terrible candidate. She had numerous catastrophic flaws, and now that the campaign is over and Democrats aren’t obligated to lie for her, they’re largely admitting this. Trump had his issues too for sure, but enough people thought HIllary was worse and that’s it.
The far more interesting question is why didn’t we all know she was going to lose? Remember, Trump didn’t pull out a last minute victory on the 8th at 9PM. Everything that was said about the race was wrong, for a good portion of the race. Why? Well, of course you can get a big clue by looking on YouTube for the reactions of any given media outlet as they watched the results came in.
I don’t think that Trump is a fascist. Anymore than I think that you are.
But I suspect that, unlike you, Trump is not an objectivist. He just played one because no one runs for president without having to convince millions of voters that he is principled. And that, in fact, he shares the same principles as they do.
So, will Trump play ball with the folks who own and operate the global economy and the military industrial complex – or will he actually try to shake things up?
Is he really no longer a liberal or a libertine when it comes to many “social issues”?
Will he really delight the evangelicals?
Care to make a friendly wager? 
I’m sorry you lost, and I’m you can dry your tears in time. But I’m not going to indulge you’re “Let’s pretend I was right all along” masturbation. I think it’s obvious he will do somethings that will delight evangelicals, and will do some other things they won’t like. The only question that actually matters is if he will please them more than Clinton would have, and all he has to do is appoint a Supreme Court Justice for that to be true.
Because most people knew that Trump was an intentional setup who was supposed to give Hillary a good run but then lose. I saw an opening for him to win and warned of it. But I was still surprised that they allowed it. Some games are higher than others, so it isn’t easy to predict.
Not entirely warranted to say and admit he won. After his “win”, after all the votes were counted she is just 2% ahead in popular vote, which is of historical record.
So why the hoopla?
The electoral collage is way disfunctional. It was created as a temporary stop gap program to avoid regional statistical inconsistencies, right after the civil war, in the carpetbagger era.
Trump saw flaw with this as part of the rugged system scenario. So is not the hyperbolic inconsistencies , the very thing which formed the idea if the electoral college’s creation undoing it’s own rationale, in Trump’s very words?
This is classic words of hypocracy, and it may be obvious, but not to lackeys who gave been severely indoctrinated.
The big question is not, that the populace could swallow this line, but how in the world could they develop trust and admiration for him? Or is not that a requisite virtue ant miracle for a POTUS?
No wonder Calexit movements are beginning to have credibility. This is Watergate+,and it is far larger in EFFECT, then anything Clinton MAY have done.
The FBI , is, as likely to be complicit. This is larger then it is presently surmised, and it seems to be snowballing.
Yes, please. Fuck right off- I’ll help you pack. It’s funny how in the face of losing election, whining Dems are coming up with all these strategies to guarentee they never win again.
Well maybe a show of solidarity in the face of repressive techniques are not such a bad thing, after all.
There aren’t any repressive techniques, you’re just whining because you didn’t get the result you wanted. But yes, please, keep whining about how unfair elections are and threatening to pack up your shit and go every time something doesn’t go your way. The electorate plainly loves that.
Well his allusion to Brexit makes my whining a legitimate tit for tat, don’t you think? Or have you become blinded as well by his brilliant rhetoric, as to see this only as a unilateral burden?
This is not whining, but a substantial critique of matters at hand, the devolution of political foresight and fairness into presently accepted practice of nearsighted, slanted and plainly false pronouncements.
The supposedly loosing side is supposed to meekly accept this, and frankly just shrivel away into the same ignorance.
May as well lay down and declare a one party system, and from now on dispense of the popular vote, in favor of a college of electors, who in time, god fearing as they are, soon are won’t to elect a regent.
You still live in a republic?
You have ways to make your personal desires known to your representatives.
What has changed in this election?
So we’re in agreement that you’re whining.
Oh.
An acceptance that some great injustice was done hinges on two assumptions:
A.) Hillary Clinton was not fucking horrible in every way, and
B.) The election results show that Americans didn’t get what they wanted, the winner didn’t win, or whatever.
Neither of these assumptions have any merit. Trump won fair and square, and no matter his flaws, he was not all that worse (and I say he was better) than the alternative.
You’re simply whining because you didn’t get your way.
I mean, you can’t even coherently express your problem with the results, so I’m not expecting much out of this exchange, I just thought you should know nobody is gonna take it seriously.
Okay, but what the hell does that have to do with the point that I raised with you above?!
I didn’t lose to him, Clinton did. Though I should point out that Clinton may well have actually gotten more votes.
No, my point always – always – revolves around distinguishing the manner in which winning and losing as a fact [in the world of either/or] is different from winning and losing as a value judgment [in the world of is/ought].
You’re argument seems to be that conservative candidates ought to defeat liberal candidates because conservative candidates reflect the manner in which you view the world around us. And the manner in which you view the world around us is the manner in which all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to view the world.
Right?
After all, how can they remain “one of us” if they don’t?
Hell, that’s what makes you an objectivist!!
You appear [to me] to be but one more arrogant and self-righteous rendition of this:
1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the ideal
3] I have access to the ideal because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational
Somehow fusing God and Reason here “in your head”.
Yes, but are you actually convinced that he will do what he does because from the bottom of his heart he knows that it is the right thing to do? The Christian thing to do? Do you really believe this?
Or, instead, will his aim always be more in the general direction of being reelected in 2020?
What is astonishing is how the evangelicals could have voted for a man whose actual life could not possibly have been further removed from the life of Jesus Christ!!
Besides, Clinton spilled the beans when she came right out and told the folks on Wall Street there were two of her: the public persona and real Hillary. Their Hillary.
But not Trump?
Right, and this has absolutely nothing to do with justices that embody political prejudices rooted subjectively in dasein. With justices arguing about issues embedded in conflicting goods. With justices acting out the interest of those own and operate the capitalist political economy.
It’s all about the original intent of the wholly principled Founding Fathers.
The irony being that, with respect to the economy and to foreign policy, folks like Clinton and Trump are basically nihilists. When push comes to shove it all revolves around “show me the money”.
It’s just that with respect to the “value voter” issues, the conservatives will now run the show. And here there is more room for actual moral convictions.
And that becomes the true danger of objectivism. Yeah, now the liberals are screwed. But that can change. As it has so many times over the course of American history.
You tell me: Did Trump in fact really mean what he said to the evangelicals on the campaign trail?
That’s what we are about to find out.
I don’t address the points you make, remember? You’re impossible to reason with. I didn’t forget this. I treat you like a toy for my own amusement when you speak to me, and nothing more. I thought I clearly explained this months ago. If you want people to engage you in a thoughtful way and treat you with respect, consider changing your approach to rhetoric.
Note to others:
Judge for yourself what this says about him. About his refusal to engage in an actual substantive discussion. About his reconfiguring the exchange into mere huffing and puffing. Into making me the argument.
Satyr puts me in the dungeon. Turd puts me on ignore. Fixed Cross packs up and leaves.
More often than not though – sigh – it’s this sort of intellectual glop.
The objectivist “mind”!
On the other hand, who wants to be made a fool of, right?
Dammit! Did iambiguous objectively post another post??!!
My mind can’t handle him saying it’s only a subjective posted message!! The confusion sets in!!
Iambiguous must be god!! It’s not a magic trick, it’s not violence instead of reason…
Iambiguous is so smart that he can actually post a message without actually posting a message!!!
We need to get the word out !!!
ILP is too small a venue for omnipotence !!