Back

The Japanese Donald Trump?

#26
(2017-10-25, 7:02 am)cracky Wrote:
(2017-10-25, 6:01 am)phil321 Wrote: "Most people don't trust Trump". The stock market obviously does.

The stock market is not a person.

OK I'll rephrase to make it easier to understand:  the people who invest in the stock market obviously trust Trump.
Reply
#27
I didn't read the article; I don't like the combative style Breitbart regularly uses to portray issues and I am saddened to see that style permeating the media I do regularly consume.

(2017-10-25, 6:01 am)phil321 Wrote: I don't believe world leaders play golf with each other just for show if they actively dislike each other.  Having played golf myself it simply takes up too much time and is too much of a pain in the ass.

I'm not following how you got from Zgarbas saying "golf is a duty" to "they actively dislike each other".  People  absolutely play golf for work.  If these two both enjoy golfing as well, then that can be a very effective means to forming that much-needed working relationship.  Whatever their personal relationship may be, they will need a very good working relationship to effectively address the great many pressing issues our two nations cooperatively face.

(I agree it's a pretty lengthy proposition for a photo op... but as long as you're playing anyway, why not go for the photo op.) 

From that I don't think we can draw the conclusion that they are best buds.  Nor do I see how others in this thread draw the conclusion that the handshake situation means that Abe and Trump don't get along.  Handshakes are a weird thing and Trump clearly has a very firm (pun intended) opinion of how to perform a handshake, an opinion that diverges from the opinions of the circles he's currently running in.

But again, their personal relationship doesn't matter as long as they work together effectively.

(2017-10-25, 6:01 am)phil321 Wrote: "Most people don't trust Trump".  The stock market obviously does.

I am not sure what stock market performance has to do with the opinion of the average Japanese.  Or, for that matter, even the average American.  But I think Zgarbas' comment was more to do with the opinions of the Japanese.
Reply
#28
Am i feeding a troll? Because I feel a bit confused right now.

You understand that people who have jobs sometimes do boring or even unpleasant things for their social capital related to said jobs, yes?

Who even cares if two presidents like each other or not? That's not information that should matter. Presidents are not friends; they're allies.
Edited: 2017-10-25, 9:48 am
Reply
Thanksgiving Sale: 30% OFF Basic, Premium & Premium PLUS Subscriptions! (Nov 13 - 22)
JapanesePod101
#29
(2017-10-25, 7:51 am)satogaeru Wrote: I didn't read the article; I don't like the combative style Breitbart regularly uses to portray issues and I am saddened to see that style permeating the media I do regularly consume.

Most news sites do okay with international news that doesn't fall into their big narratives (I'm not trusting CNN to tell me what's happening in Russian politics, for instance), and I've pretty much given up on US national news in the US.
This was one of those cases where the coverage was better: the article is to the point, and without the usual aggressive tones that Breitbart articles have in their domestic and European coverage.

But yes, this is my problem with news media today. Formerly respectable news sources fill their papers and broadcasts with bait instead of journalism in an attempt to maintain profits in an increasingly unprofitable business.

I've been told to stick to services like the Associated Press and Reuters for factual reporting, but it's good to hear what the narratives are too, since that's what most people are exposed to.
Reply
#30
Unfortunately a lot of people apparently use Twitter as a legitimate news source.
Reply
#31
(2017-10-25, 11:53 am)phil321 Wrote: Unfortunately a lot of people apparently use Twitter as a legitimate news source.

{sarcastic mode=on}

Unfortunately, a lot of people apparently use the Wikipedia as a legitimate source of knowledge

{/sarcastic}


Obviously, it takes enormous amounts of critical thinking to process ANY of your inputs, from newspapers to TV to Twitter, to separate facts from opinion, informed opinion, biased opinion, blatantly wrong opinions and self-serving fabricated non-facts (i.e. lies). Probably even more so on Twitter, where it's so easy to fall pray to your biased cognitive bubble if you don't take enough care when choosing who you follow. But that doesn't automatically invalidate Twitter as a legitimate news source. For starters, almost every single mass media brand on the planet has a Twitter account.
Reply
#32
(2017-10-24, 9:23 pm)sholum Wrote:
Quote:Choosing each state's Electors is a two-part process. First, the political parties in each state choose slates of potential Electors sometime before the general election. Second, on Election Day, the voters in each state select their state's Electors by casting their ballots for President.

In other words, voting for the president is actually voting for which people will vote for president in your state (with each state having a number of electors available based on population). 
except that they don't relative to other states, and that's the problem. rural states like alabama have three times as much voting power per capita as populous coastal states like california. hence trump losing the popular vote yet winning the electoral college.
I agree that the democrats' failure to attack swing states and 'play the game' so to speak is their fault, but the electoral college is gerrymandered for rural states' advantage.

(2017-10-24, 9:23 pm)sholum Wrote: TLDR: Your elitism shone through with that last sentence.

(this was my creative conceit) 

celebrating ignorance by attacking the elite and educated members of society was the hallmark of the cultural revolution... so maybe you should be learning chinese my friend.
Edited: 2017-10-25, 11:41 pm
Reply
#33
I don't remember Democrats crying about Alabama before the election though. If anything, when they thought they have it in the bag, consensus was that electoral map favors Democrats.

As for the election system, look at senators for example, each state has 2, no matter the size or population. System was set as a compromise, many states would not join the union otherwise.

But, as history teaches, you can join, but you can't leave... at least not peacefully.


Btw, it is funny how you compare verbal attacks (if you can even call it that) with actual violence and persecution against some classes during Mao regime. Reminds me morons from Antifa with their "I disagree with you, hence you are a nazi, hence I can beat the crap out of you" logic.
Edited: 2017-10-26, 1:02 am
Reply
#34
(2017-10-25, 7:38 am)phil321 Wrote:
(2017-10-25, 7:02 am)cracky Wrote:
(2017-10-25, 6:01 am)phil321 Wrote: "Most people don't trust Trump". The stock market obviously does.

The stock market is not a person.

OK I'll rephrase to make it easier to understand:  the people who invest in the stock market obviously trust Trump.

It was easy to understand it just requires assumptions that not everybody shares.  

There's a lot more going on with their investing decisions than if they trust trump.  I don't see how it directly equates to trust in Trump over a multitude of other factors.
Edited: 2017-10-26, 2:27 am
Reply
#35
(2017-10-26, 2:26 am)cracky Wrote:
(2017-10-25, 7:38 am)phil321 Wrote:
(2017-10-25, 7:02 am)cracky Wrote:
(2017-10-25, 6:01 am)phil321 Wrote: "Most people don't trust Trump". The stock market obviously does.

The stock market is not a person.

OK I'll rephrase to make it easier to understand:  the people who invest in the stock market obviously trust Trump.

It was easy to understand it just requires assumptions that not everybody shares.  

There's a lot more going on with their investing decisions than if they trust trump.  I don't see how it directly equates to trust in Trump over a multitude of other factors.

Well I don't see where the other poster came up with that line "Most people don't trust Trump".  If that were true, Trump would not have won the election.  

On the other hand, not only did Trump win the election, the stock market really took off after Trump's victory.

There were people predicting [hoping, perhaps?] that the stock market would crash if Trump won, but as we know, the stock market has reached record highs.
Edited: 2017-10-26, 6:18 am
Reply
#36
(2017-10-26, 6:07 am)phil321 Wrote:
(2017-10-26, 2:26 am)cracky Wrote:
(2017-10-25, 7:38 am)phil321 Wrote:
(2017-10-25, 7:02 am)cracky Wrote:
(2017-10-25, 6:01 am)phil321 Wrote: "Most people don't trust Trump". The stock market obviously does.

The stock market is not a person.

OK I'll rephrase to make it easier to understand:  the people who invest in the stock market obviously trust Trump.

It was easy to understand it just requires assumptions that not everybody shares.  

There's a lot more going on with their investing decisions than if they trust trump.  I don't see how it directly equates to trust in Trump over a multitude of other factors.

Well I don't see where the other poster came up with that line "Most people don't trust Trump".  If that were true, Trump would not have won the election.  

On the other hand, not only did Trump win the election, the stock market really took off after Trump's victory.

When I say most people, I mean most people in the country I either come from or live in.
This is a thread about Japan. 
Therefore, most people would refer to most people in Japan. What with not everyone being in the US and all. Unfortunately, non-US citizens have no say in the US election. We can only worry and/or make fun of it after the deed is done. Though I dare say it would be true in the US as well. 

You can just google the numbers before throwing a non sequitur at people idk
Reply
#37
(2017-10-26, 6:25 am)Zgarbas Wrote:
(2017-10-26, 6:07 am)phil321 Wrote:
(2017-10-26, 2:26 am)cracky Wrote:
(2017-10-25, 7:38 am)phil321 Wrote:
(2017-10-25, 7:02 am)cracky Wrote: The stock market is not a person.

OK I'll rephrase to make it easier to understand:  the people who invest in the stock market obviously trust Trump.

It was easy to understand it just requires assumptions that not everybody shares.  

There's a lot more going on with their investing decisions than if they trust trump.  I don't see how it directly equates to trust in Trump over a multitude of other factors.

Well I don't see where the other poster came up with that line "Most people don't trust Trump".  If that were true, Trump would not have won the election.  

On the other hand, not only did Trump win the election, the stock market really took off after Trump's victory.

When I say most people, I mean most people in the country I either come from or live in.
This is a thread about Japan. 
Therefore, most people would refer to most people in Japan. What with not everyone being in the US and all. Unfortunately, non-US citizens have no say in the US election. We can only worry and/or make fun of it after the deed is done. Though I dare say it would be true in the US as well. 

You can just google the numbers before throwing a non sequitur at people idk

And these people trust Hillary more?  Wow.
Reply
#38
(2017-10-26, 6:48 am)phil321 Wrote:
(2017-10-26, 6:25 am)Zgarbas Wrote:
(2017-10-26, 6:07 am)phil321 Wrote:
(2017-10-26, 2:26 am)cracky Wrote:
(2017-10-25, 7:38 am)phil321 Wrote: OK I'll rephrase to make it easier to understand:  the people who invest in the stock market obviously trust Trump.

It was easy to understand it just requires assumptions that not everybody shares.  

There's a lot more going on with their investing decisions than if they trust trump.  I don't see how it directly equates to trust in Trump over a multitude of other factors.

Well I don't see where the other poster came up with that line "Most people don't trust Trump".  If that were true, Trump would not have won the election.  

On the other hand, not only did Trump win the election, the stock market really took off after Trump's victory.

When I say most people, I mean most people in the country I either come from or live in.
This is a thread about Japan. 
Therefore, most people would refer to most people in Japan. What with not everyone being in the US and all. Unfortunately, non-US citizens have no say in the US election. We can only worry and/or make fun of it after the deed is done. Though I dare say it would be true in the US as well. 

You can just google the numbers before throwing a non sequitur at people idk

And these people trust Hillary more?  Wow.

This is going to be the only reply I'm making to this thread because I'm convinced you are john555, and I'm convinced he was a troll. That being said, let's for arguments sake say that Clinton is untrustworthy. That doesn't make Trump  trustworthy by default.
Reply
#39
(2017-10-25, 11:30 pm)dtcamero Wrote: except that they don't relative to other states, and that's the problem. rural states like alabama have three times as much voting power per capita as populous coastal states like california. hence trump losing the popular vote yet winning the electoral college.

From the same government source:
Quote:Electoral votes are allocated among the states based on the Census. Every state is allocated a number of votes equal to the number of senators and representatives in its U.S. Congressional delegation—two votes for its senators in the U.S. Senate plus a number of votes equal to the number of its members in the U. S. House of Representatives.

So unless you want to spend all the money and effort required to expand the House above 435 seats (not that I'd mind having a better ratio of representatives to citizens), don't expect the concentration of the two extra seats (Senate analog) to be diminished in the electoral college any time soon.

Also, two votes by default. My god! Those dirty, conservative, Republican voting hicks run the whole country!
Let's just forget the fact that the presidency almost always switches between Democrat and Republican every eight years. And the fact that Trump will be hard pressed to be reelected if he doesn't straighten up and get some of his bigger promises accomplished in the next two years... Unless the Democrats decide to run an unlikable lizard again.

It's a fine system that addresses state representation (two seats by default) and democratic representation (further seats proportional to population). In the electoral college, the voice of the citizens (House analogs) has far more weight than the states' (Senate analogs). It prevents states like Alaska and North Dakota (both of which have the minimum three seats; you know, equal voting power to DC) from having absolutely zero influence in the presidential elections (as it is, the minimum state voting power is 0.55%).

And by the way, having those two seats gives Democrats multiple more votes as well, with the entirety of New England voting Democrat every time (several with tiny populations) as well as Hawaii (half of its voting power coming from the two default votes). And when you consider the tiny sizes of those states compared to the low-population, high-area states you're complaining about always voting for Republicans, it almost seems like the Republicans should be the ones complaining about unfair elector allocations instead. But they aren't (this time).

Actually, just for fun, I calculated the voting power of the New England states (total) compared to their population (populations were from 2010 census, so kinda outdated):
New England states have 4.6% of the population (in 2010)
And have 6.1% of the electors (now)
Them dirty Yankee Democrats run the whole country! It's not fair!
From the state view, California and New York (4% of total states) combined have a total of 15.6% of the votes!
Them dirty Yankee Dems are still at it! I want a revolution!

State representation matters, citizen representation matters. Having the electoral college addresses both of these, pure democratic voting addresses citizen representation (fine), but leaves the entire country beholden to a couple of cities. I would rhetorically ask which of those sounds better to you, but you're clearly on the side of ignoring the interests of me, my family, and my friends here in the South (and people with similar interests in the Midwest).

Is our voting system perfect? No. But it's not going to be fixed by abolishing the electoral college. We'd have far better luck getting rid of the stupid two party (that's basically one party) nonsense. Or getting rid of the first past the post tally in favor of something better, like having a first pick, second pick, and third pick on each ballot.

Quote:celebrating ignorance by attacking the elite and educated members of society was the hallmark of the cultural revolution... so maybe you should be learning chinese my friend.
Not sure what you're smoking, but it's clearly not good for you, buddy.
Reply
#40
(2017-10-26, 6:07 am)phil321 Wrote: On the other hand, not only did Trump win the election, the stock market really took off after Trump's victory.
This is a common misconception.  Try to find november 8 2016 on this chart.  The truth is that market has been on a tear for the better part of a decade (give or take a taper tantrum or soverign debt crisis).  This chart is also amusing.

(2017-10-26, 6:07 am)phil321 Wrote: There were people predicting [hoping, perhaps?] that the stock market would crash if Trump won, but as we know, the stock market has reached record highs.

Some people may have predicted a trump crash, but it certainly wasn't the consensus of people who care about financial markets.  As I recall, the outlook was short term gain followed by long term pain.  Consider this contemporaneous analysis from Goldman Sachs:

Goldman Sachs Wrote:First, Mr. Trump’s policies could boost growth in 2017 and 2018, but are likely to weigh on growth thereafter if trade and immigration restrictions are enacted, or if Fed policy turns more restrictive. Second, core inflation and the funds rate are likely to be higher for the next few years in almost all scenarios—which makes the recent reaction of nominal interest rates to the election result look logical. Third, the risks around our base case appear asymmetric. A larger fiscal package could boost growth moderately more in the near term, but a more adverse policy mix would likely lead to a significant slowdown, higher inflation and tighter policy in subsequent years.
Reply
#41
sholum Wrote: And the fact that Trump will be hard pressed to be reelected if he doesn't straighten up … unless the Democrats decide to run an unlikable lizard again.

That's pretty likely to happen. The Democratic National Committee is corrupt and will smother any grassroots candidate.

Trump is just way smarter and more media savvy than his rivals in his own party or the opposition party. If he desires to run for re-election, I expect he will win.
Reply
#42
(2017-10-26, 10:52 pm)fkb9g Wrote:
sholum Wrote: And the fact that Trump will be hard pressed to be reelected if he doesn't straighten up … unless the Democrats decide to run an unlikable lizard again.

That's pretty likely to happen. The Democratic National Committee is corrupt and will smother any grassroots candidate.

Trump is just way smarter and more media savvy than his rivals in his own party or the opposition party. If he desires to run for re-election, I expect he will win.

Yes, Trump will win again.
Reply
#43
(2017-10-27, 9:34 am)phil321 Wrote: Yes, Trump will win again.
Anything's possible, but there's a decent possibility he won't make it the the end of his first term and his approval ratings have only been getting worse.. I'll take the other side of that bet.
Reply
#44
(2017-10-27, 3:11 pm)yogert909 Wrote: his approval ratings have only been getting worse..

According to the same people who were certain that Hillary would win.
According to the same kinds of people who thought BRexit would fail.
According to the same kinds of people who thought Abe was losing power and might lose this last election.

I don't think I would bet on Trump getting elected again, but the press is trying to tell everyone a story that is at best only loosely based on the truth.
Reply
#45
(2017-10-27, 11:04 pm)tokyostyle Wrote:
(2017-10-27, 3:11 pm)yogert909 Wrote: his approval ratings have only been getting worse..

According to the same people who were certain that Hillary would win.
According to the same kinds of people who thought BRexit would fail.
According to the same kinds of people who thought Abe was losing power and might lose this last election.

I don't think I would bet on Trump getting elected again, but the press is trying to tell everyone a story that is at best only loosely based on the truth.

This

I'm very anti Trump but many of the attempts to de-legitimise him come off as people either burying their heads in the sand or being outright disingenuous.
Reply
#46
(2017-10-27, 3:11 pm)yogert909 Wrote:
(2017-10-27, 9:34 am)phil321 Wrote: Yes, Trump will win again.
Anything's possible, but there's a decent possibility he won't make it the the end of his first term and his approval ratings have only been getting worse..  I'll take the other side of that bet.

What's your support for thinking Trump won't make it to the end of his first term?  We know that the Trump haters would love to undo the results of the election, but how exactly would they do that?
Edited: 2017-10-28, 1:34 am
Reply
#47
There is no "Japanese Trump". Last I checked no ignorant, science denying, treasonous, draft dodging, sex offender who scapegoat minorities is in Japanese politics. There is still a concept of decency over there and any Japanese politician would resign if tapes came out about him/her molesting women and walking into the changing rooms of underage contestants.

I'm also pretty sure that, in the history of Japanese politics, no one shitty enough to lose the popular vote has won any major elections. And even ignoring his far-right authoritarian tendencies (his talk about forcing the military to torture and to kill civilians during the Republican debates makes Abe look liberal), I like to think the Japanese population is educated enough in general to not vote for someone who speaks/types at the 4th grade level and says retarded nonsense all of the time like "global warming is a hoax invented by China" and "Bill Gates can close up to the internet".

Lastly, Brietbart is not a legitimate news source. It's extreme right-wing propaganda and Steven Bannon is an actual white supremacist.

(2017-10-26, 6:07 am)phil321 Wrote: Well I don't see where the other poster came up with that line "Most people don't trust Trump".  If that were true, Trump would not have won the election.  
Most people do not trust Trump. That's a fact. Not only did he tell more lies by far than any other politician in the 2016 cycle, but approval ratings after taking office have been so low that he broke a 6 month record already.

It's a natural result when you consider that the American people did not pick him.

(2017-10-26, 12:53 pm)sholum Wrote: State representation matters, citizen representation matters. Having the electoral college addresses both of these, pure democratic voting addresses citizen representation (fine), but leaves the entire country beholden to a couple of cities. I would rhetorically ask which of those sounds better to you, but you're clearly on the side of ignoring the interests of me, my family, and my friends here in the South (and people with similar interests in the Midwest).
As it stands with the current system your vote is worth three times as much if you live in say Idaho compared to California or New York. Such a thing is inherently undemocratic. Every American's vote should be worth the same. Your location should not influence what your worth is. The electoral college was never designed to circumvent the will of the people, but that's how it's being used today and is how we ended up with undemocratic results in 2004 and 2016. If the interests of you, your family, and your friends in the south (who are all already favored by the system) is such that their votes should be worth more than others then I think they might have the wrong idea.
Edited: 2017-10-28, 3:12 am
Reply
#48
(2017-10-28, 1:26 am)phil321 Wrote:
(2017-10-27, 3:11 pm)yogert909 Wrote:
(2017-10-27, 9:34 am)phil321 Wrote: Yes, Trump will win again.
Anything's possible, but there's a decent possibility he won't make it the the end of his first term and his approval ratings have only been getting worse..  I'll take the other side of that bet.

What's your support for thinking Trump won't make it to the end of his first term?  We know that the Trump haters would love to undo the results of the election, but how exactly would they do that?

I think it's a pipe dream for many on the left BUT... here are a few scenarios.

GOP loses hard in the 2018 House elections and the House swings into Democratic control. Depending on how the Mueller investigation turns out, the results might give the Democrats the needed ammunition to start the impeachment process. If the GOP maintains the House after 2018, then it probably won't happen, even if the Muller investigation turns up some horrendous stuff. If the GOP impeached their party's own nomination, they'd be committing political suicide.

Another possibility is the 25th amendment which is the one about "unfit for office." Really its only ever used for the death of a president while in office. This possibility is about in the same realm of insanity as the right had about Obama starting a race war or using the military to confiscate their guns. As much as the left wants it, Narcissism IS NOT a valid reason to remove someone from office.

Both cases require the democrats to win big in 2018, which at that point, even if removing him from office fails (if they try), they still have some ability to restrict his actions to a certain degree. After all, the GOP was pretty successful at that during Obama's time in office.


Disclaimer: I don't like Trump and I'm progressive.
Reply
#49
(2017-10-28, 1:26 am)phil321 Wrote: We know that the Trump haters would love to undo the results of the election, but how exactly would they do that?

What about up to 15 years in jail?
Reply
#50
(2017-10-25, 11:30 pm)dtcamero Wrote: except that they don't relative to other states, and that's the problem. rural states like alabama have three times as much voting power per capita as populous coastal states like california. hence trump losing the popular vote yet winning the electoral college.

It's not three times as much. It's less than 20% more. Cali has 55 electoral votes, representing 39 million people. Alabama has 9 votes, representing 5 million people.

Electoral votes are basically allotted based on population numbers. The only discrepancy is that each state gets two extra votes, irrespective of size. Similarly, each state gets two Senators representing them in Congress. This is indeed meant to insure that large, coastal states don't dominate the federal government...therefor preserving the federal, constitutional republican model of government that makes the US unique (uniquely free and prosperous).

And yes, it is a check on democracy, because the founders of the US did not believe unchecked democracy was a good thing.

Besides, that's not the reason why Clinton lost. The state she lost, but was supposed to win, is Pennsylvania...which is the 6th largest state in the US, and isn't over-represented in the electoral college.
Reply