[AMV] Amerikaanse verkiezingen 2016 #222 Het wordt toch echt Trump.

quote:

Op zondag 25 december 2016 23:56 schreef hunter2011 het volgende:

quote:

Als de Amerikaanse president Barack Obama voor de derde keer als kandidaat mee had mogen doen aan de Amerikaanse verkiezingen, had hij Donald Trump verslagen met zijn campagne-boodschap uit 2008 van hoop en verandering. Dat stelde Obama maandag in een interview.

quote:

Op dinsdag 27 december 2016 11:25 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Obama is gewoon Trump aan het trollen. Wat een baas.

quote:

Op dinsdag 27 december 2016 11:04 schreef Refragmental het volgende:
Obama: ik had Trump verslagen

[..]

Ik vraag me dan af hoe dat dan zou werken.
Hope and change... ten opzichte van de 8 jaar Obama!
Dus dan runt hij in principe tegen zichzelf?

Beetje zoals de PvdA nu aan het roepen is dat bepaalde zaken moeten gebeuren... terwijl ze al 4 jaar de kans ervoor hebben gehad.

En mensen trappen er massaal in, getuige het feit dat steevast de VVD, CDA en PvdA tig zetels binnenslepen

twitter:

pewresearch twitterde op maandag 26-12-2016 om 15:59:01 Obama leaves office on a high note, but the public has mixed views of his accomplishments https://t.co/vqj1M7u6MO https://t.co/I1ocb2TAaR reageer retweet

twitter:

pewresearch twitterde op dinsdag 27-12-2016 om 00:02:56 Trump won all 27 middle-class areas won by GOP in 2008. Clinton lost in 18 of 30 middle-class areas Dems won in '08… https://t.co/Jd1TimbVQz reageer retweet

quote:

Op dinsdag 27 december 2016 11:30 schreef xpompompomx het volgende:

[..]

Obamagod is gewoon hard aan het trollen de laatste tijd. Benjamin kreeg er ook al flink van langs. Jammer dat de liefhebbers van trollen hier dat weer niet zien.

quote:

Op dinsdag 27 december 2016 11:04 schreef Refragmental het volgende:
Hope and change... ten opzichte van de 8 jaar Obama!

quote:

Op dinsdag 27 december 2016 11:25 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Obama is gewoon Trump aan het trollen. Wat een baas.

quote:

Op dinsdag 27 december 2016 11:25 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:
Obama is gewoon Trump aan het trollen. Wat een baas.

Bill Burr: Nothing Will Change With Trump As President - CONAN on TBS

quote:

Op dinsdag 27 december 2016 11:43 schreef KoosVogels het volgende:

[..]

Lullige is dat Obama ook daadwerkelijk aan het trollen is. Die roept dit gewoon om Trump een beetje te zieken. Hij weet immers dat dat makkelijk is.

Trump daarentegen loopt nooit te trollen. Die zit zich daadwerkelijk op te winden. Maar zijn maatschappelijk wat minder geslaagde achterban op FOK! is overduidelijk niet in staat om gedragingen te herkennen.

quote:

Op dinsdag 27 december 2016 12:05 schreef Nintex het volgende:

[..]

errmm Nee.

Obama en Bernie en Biden hebben nu alledrie in interviews geroepen dat ze gewonnen zouden hebben van Trump. Ze zijn vooral Hillary aan het na trappen.

Trump heeft Obama daarnaast al 'verslagen'. Ik hoor het Obama nog zeggen: "Mr. Trump will never be president"

en bij Jimmy Kimmel als reactie op een Trump tweet: "Well @realDonaldTrump At least I go out as a president /micdrop"

Obama heeft weinig te trollen. De Democrats hebben geen enkele macht meer. Congress, Senate en Presidency allemaal republikeins.

Bill Burr had de beste take (op 2 min):

Bill Burr: Nothing Will Change With Trump As President - CONAN on TBS

"You could never talk shit to 'em"

"One time I paid a 100 grand for breakfast, president Obama trashed me, 2 years later I had his job and his house"

quote:

Op dinsdag 27 december 2016 12:07 schreef hunter2011 het volgende:

[..]

Jij past precies in het plaatje van Clinton's achterban. Met je misplaatste arrogantie en neerbuigendheid.

Bill Burr - Trump Won Because Of Obama And SJWs

twitter:

thehill twitterde op dinsdag 27-12-2016 om 03:33:06 Obama on 2016: I have to be quiet for a while to process what happened https://t.co/0nOKUVYtbO https://t.co/PpyudIREbI reageer retweet

quote:

Expect 'revolution' in US foreign policy under Trump
British historian Niall Ferguson says scale of change still 'underestimated' by most

Niall Ferguson
Washington -- From immigration to trade, U.S. policy is in for a shakeup when Donald Trump takes office as president next month. But the biggest change, according to British historian Niall Ferguson, will be in how America deals with the rest of the world.

Ferguson, a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, sat down with the Nikkei Asian Review to discuss what the world can expect from President Trump and an administration that will "change U.S. foreign policy more than any administration has done in our lifetime."

Q: What is the main driver behind the Trump phenomenon?

A: Many people have jumped to the conclusion that populism is mainly about economics because populists focus on immigration, free trade and other similar issues. But there is a very noneconomic cultural component to it. Part of what people are reacting against is not just globalization but multiculturalism and a whole range of other ideas.

The cultural aspects are more important. What makes Trump popular and what made Brexit happen is a cultural backlash which has to do with immigration, but not only with immigration. It actually has to do with a whole complex of liberal ideas that members of the elite really like, cosmopolitan ideas about cultural relativism, feminism, all kinds of different liberal ideas that are profoundly unappealing to middle America, middle England, to people who perhaps didn't go to elite institutions to study and therefore don't feel the same enthusiasm for these ideas.

Q: Can you expand on the multicultural issue?

A: If one looks at polling data in the U.K and the U.S., it's very striking how populist voters, people who voted for Brexit or voted for Trump, expressed their dissatisfaction. It isn't just about employment. It isn't just about the economy generally. It's about the perception that, for example, policy has gone too far in giving advantages to minorities. It's about the sense of estrangement between middle America and the elite sissies on the coasts.

I cite often Charles Murray's book "Coming Apart." He argued there was a profound social polarization in America between elite, highly educated groups and a white working-class that felt not just economically but culturally alienated from the Obama presidency. And I think those issues can't be simplified with terms like racism. The reason the slogan "Make America Great Again" resonated with so many people was that they felt America had, in some measure, changed to their disadvantage. The Trump victory represented a relatively spontaneous backlash against this politically correct culture.

Q: Some experts have pointed out that global sentiment today is similar to what it was in the pre-World WarI or pre-WWII periods.

A: We need to avoid drawing comparisons with the 1930s because I don't think they are appropriate. Our economic situation is nothing so bad as in the 1930s, and the kind of movements that we see in Europe and the U.S. are not fascistic. There is a very important distinction to be drawn between populism and fascism. Populism is not militaristic. There are no Brexit supporters or Trump supporters in military uniform marching through the streets of Washington or London.

So we need to go further back in history to find a good analogy. It's much more helpful to look at the period after 1873, when a financial crisis led to a prolonged period of economic stagnation and deflation, which then triggered a populist backlash against free trade, large-scale immigration, powerful financial institutions and corrupt political elites. All of that happened in the 1870s and the 1880s in the U.S. and in Europe, and the resemblances are very close between that period and our own.

Q: What are the differences between now and the 1870s or 1880s?

A: The difference between our time and the late 19th century is that the international system is very different. So it matters a lot if the U.S. decides to turn away from free trade, free migration and international institutions, because since 1945 the international order has been based on a whole series of international institutions that the U.S. basically underwrote.

Populism in the late 19th century led to specific policies, such as tariffs on imports in many countries. It led to restrictions on immigration. For example, the U.S. in 1882 ended Chinese immigration. But it didn't totally change the international order because the international order in the late 19th century was based on empires.

Today, it's different. Populism challenges a whole international system based on collective security, international law, multilateral agreements and supranational agencies. The big question is how far the populist reaction against those things will change the international order and turn it back into something quite 19th century, in which great powers or empires essentially compete with one another through traditional power politics, diplomatic and military methods included.

Q: France and Germany are set to hold important elections in 2017. Do you think the situation is going to get worse?

A: I think "getting worse" is the wrong way to look at it. In many ways, Brexit and Trump were, in fact, improvements on a status quo that was failing. Clearly, things have to change in Europe. The Monetary Union has been a failure. One can't simply carry on pretending that it works, because the result is a permanent economic slump in southern Europe. The migration policy has been a disaster. They can't simply have open borders around the Mediterranean. So those things need to be changed. And I think Brexit may have sent the first of a series of signals to Europe's leaders to change their ways.

In history, nothing lasts forever. And the ideas and institutions of the Cold War have had a remarkably long life, considering that the Cold War ended 25 years ago. We probably need some new ideas at this point. So I think populism is, for all its kind of crudity and vulgarity, it's a healthy challenge to a status quo that was failing.

Q: Market participants welcome the tax cuts and infrastructure spending side of Trump's economic agenda, but they think his anti-free trade and anti-immigration policies will be disastrous for the U.S. economy. What is your view?

A: We got to be a little cautious here about the Keynesian elements in Trump's policy. I have my doubts about the benefits of deficit-financed infrastructure investment, especially when we're at full employment. As for trade wars, there's no upside there that I can see. If Trump decides to have a trade war with China by slapping on import duties on January 21, it's reasonable to think that the U.S. will suffer more than China.

What I do see though on the upside is a change in sentiment. The business [community] feels suddenly pleasantly surprised by Trump's victory, and they hear they're going to get tax cuts. You begin to see that Trump is generating a kind of mood swing comparable with the Reagan administration's first couple of years. If he can keep building that mood of confidence so that private sector investment goes up, then I think there's a chance we get out of the secular stagnation trap and into higher growth.

Q: Will Trump's foreign policy change how the U.S. acts as a superpower?

A: The scale of the change is still being underestimated by most people. I think this administration is going to change U.S. foreign policy more than any administration has done in our lifetime. Trump is repudiating the foreign policy of every president since Harry Truman. He is going to challenge fundamental assumptions about U.S. foreign policy, for example, that the U.S. should be primarily concerned with the defense of Western Europe and also East Asian allies against Russian aggression. I mean, that is clearly going to be challenged by those elements in the Trump administration that are openly pro-Russian.

Since 1972, the U.S. has basically had a good relationship with the People's Republic of China. I think Trump is challenging the very assumptions on which that good relationship has been based. I think a lot is in play here. It could also destabilize the Asia-Pacific region in ways that Trump's advisers may underestimate. Trump is going to change policy in the Middle East. He's going to get rid of Obama's pro-Iranian, anti-Arab, anti-Israeli strategy and go in exactly the opposite direction.

It will be a revolution in American foreign policy. And this is going to have a whole series of quite massive consequences. I think the very stability of NATO is going to be called into question by the pro-Russian stance of the new administration. I think the East-Asian order could become very disorderly if China reacts to Trump's opening gambits with naval action. This could escalate quite quickly. And if Trump is playing hardball on Taiwan, that plays right into the hands of the more nationalistic elements in Beijing.

Q: So will Trump likely take an isolationist approach in his foreign policy? Would that undermine U.S. power and influence?

A: It's a sort of mistake to call him an isolationist. I don't think those who advise him are isolationist at all. The key issue here is does Trump make the U.S. stronger or weaker? I think that if he is too impatient with the traditional institutions that we've talked about -- not only the alliances like NATO, but also the international institutions like the United Nations -- Trump may weaken the U.S. because American power has been partly magnified by a network of institutions and alliances.

On the other hand, if Trump succeeds in reviving the U.S. economy, increasing the growth rate significantly and challenging the assumptions of unfriendly powers, then he may actually succeed in making the position of the U.S. stronger.

The U.S. is on a course for relative decline already. Trump's people are going to try and halt and reverse America's relative decline. A lot is going to depend on how sophisticated his advisers can make his foreign policy. If you try and make foreign policy on the basis of the art of the deal, you are quickly going to discover that international relations is not like real estate.

Interviewed by Nikkei Washington Bureau Chief Hiroyuki Kotake

http://asia.nikkei.com/Po(...)y-under-Trump?page=1

quote:

Op dinsdag 27 december 2016 12:05 schreef Nintex het volgende:

[..]

errmm Nee.

Obama en Bernie en Biden hebben nu alledrie in interviews geroepen dat ze gewonnen zouden hebben van Trump. Ze zijn vooral Hillary aan het na trappen.

Trump heeft Obama daarnaast al 'verslagen'. Ik hoor het Obama nog zeggen: "Mr. Trump will never be president"

en bij Jimmy Kimmel als reactie op een Trump tweet: "Well @realDonaldTrump At least I go out as a president /micdrop"

Obama heeft weinig te trollen. De Democrats hebben geen enkele macht meer. Congress, Senate en Presidency allemaal republikeins.

Bill Burr had de beste take (op 2 min):

Bill Burr: Nothing Will Change With Trump As President - CONAN on TBS

"You could never talk shit to 'em"

"One time I paid a 100 grand for breakfast, president Obama trashed me, 2 years later I had his job and his house"

The World's Greatest Troll: the Humor of Donald Trump

quote:

The World's Greatest Troll: the Humor of Donald Trump

quote:

Netanyahu seeks to rally Israelis around him in anti-Obama assault

Benjamin Netanyahu has been unrelenting in his criticism of the Obama administration over what he condemned as its "shameful" decision not to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for a halt to Israeli settlement-building.

But with the clock ticking down on Barack Obama's presidency, a possibly more amenable Republican Donald Trump due to succeed him on Jan. 20 and a $38 billion U.S. military aid package to Israel a done deal, it's all a calculated risk for the four-term, right-wing Israeli prime minister.

Netanyahu, after what critics are calling a stinging defeat on the international stage, is already maneuvering to mine deep-seated feelings among many Israelis that their country and its policies toward the Palestinians are overly criticized in a world where deadlier conflicts rage.

He has tried to rally Israelis around him by portraying the anti-settlement resolution as a challenge to Israel's claimed sovereignty over all of Jerusalem.

That was hammered home with an unscheduled Hanukkah holiday visit to the Western Wall, one of Judaism's holiest sites, which is located in Jerusalem's Old City in the eastern sector captured along with the West Bank in a 1967 war.

That all of Jerusalem is their country's capital is a consensus view among Israelis, including those who otherwise have doubts about the wisdom of Netanyahu's support for settlements on the West Bank.

Palestinians claim eastern Jerusalem as their capital, and Washington has in the past accepted an international view that the city's status must be determined at future peace talks. Trump has promised to reverse decades of U.S. policy by moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.

"I did not plan to be here this evening but in light of the U.N. resolution I thought that there was no better place to light the second Hanukkah candle than the Western Wall," Netanyahu said during the event.

"I ask those same countries that wish us a Happy Hanukkah how they could vote for a U.N. resolution which says that this place, in which we are now celebrating Hanukkah, is occupied territory?"

Some 570,000 Israelis live in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which Palestinians want as part of a future state.

Disputing this, Israel cites biblical, historical and political links to the West Bank and Jerusalem, as well as security concerns.

Also on Sunday, an Israeli official said Netanyahu had ordered that until Trump takes office, cabinet ministers refrain from traveling to or meeting officials of countries that voted in favor of the U.N. resolution.

Speaking on MSNBC on Monday, Israel's ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer, accused the Obama administration of orchestrating Friday's U.N. vote behind the scenes, despite U.S. denials.

The diplomatic drama unfolded over the Christmas holiday, with twists and turns unusual even for the serpentine path followed by Netanyahu's relationship with a Democratic president who opposes settlement building.

On Thursday, Netanyahu successfully lobbied Egypt, which proposed the draft resolution, to withdraw it - enlisting the help of President-elect Trump to persuade Cairo to drop the bid.

But the Israeli leader was ultimately outmaneuvered at the United Nations, where New Zealand, Venezuela, Senegal and Malaysia, resubmitted the proposal a day later.

It passed 14-0, with an abstention from the United States, withholding Washington's traditional use of its veto to protect Israel at the world body in what was widely seen as a parting shot by Obama against Netanyahu and his settlement policy.

ACCELERATED CONSTRUCTION

A U.S. official said key to Washington's decision was concern that Israel would continue to accelerate settlement construction in occupied territory and put a two-state solution of the conflict with the Palestinians at risk.

The resolution adopted on Friday at the U.N. changes nothing on the ground between Israel and the Palestinians and likely will be all but ignored by the incoming Trump administration.

However, Israeli officials fear it could spur further Palestinian moves against Israel in international forums.

"The Obama administration made a shameful, underhanded move," Netanyahu said after the vote. It was some of the sharpest criticism he has voiced against Obama, who got off on the wrong foot with Israelis when he skipped their country during a Middle East visit after first taking office in 2009.

In a further display of anger, Netanyahu summoned the U.S. ambassador to meet him during a day of reprimands delivered at the Foreign Ministry to envoys of the 10 countries with embassies in Israel among the 14 that backed the resolution.

Netanyahu, who is vying with the ultranationalist Jewish Home Party in his governing coalition for right-wing voters, also took aim at what has become a favorite target - an Israeli media he has been painting as left-wing and unpatriotic.

"Leftist political parties and TV commentators have been rubbing their hands in glee over the anti-Israeli decision at the United Nations, almost like the Palestinian Authority and Hamas," Netanyahu wrote on his Facebook page.

But more trouble for the Israeli leader could be ahead at a planned 70-nation, French-hosted conference on Middle East peace due to convene in Paris on Jan. 15, five days before Obama hands over to Trump.

"(Netanyahu) fears there is a U.S.-French move brewing before January 20th, possibly a declarative step at the French peace convention," said an Israeli official who attended an Israeli security cabinet session on Sunday.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN14F0RY

quote:

Op dinsdag 27 december 2016 13:28 schreef hunter2011 het volgende:

[..]