【襲撃】海賊船に知らない人が乗り込んできて怖すぎる - Sea of Thieves
When a centrist pro-European government has been formed in Berlin after the German election this autumn, there is a chance for these two nations to lead a consolidatory reform of the EU.
Now for the sobering triple espresso of reality.
What times are these read more we celebrate such a result?
Trump came from the world of buccaneer capitalism, not from a long-established party of the far right; and most of the 52% who voted for Brexit were not voting for Nigel Farage.
She makes Farage look almost reasonable.
Le Pen is the very model of a modern national populist.
How sickening to see a British prime minister listed in that company.
There is every reason to believe that this wave of populist reaction against globalisation, liberalisation and Europeanisation still has a lot of pent-up anger behind it.
Second espresso shot: Macron knows what needs to be done in France but is unlikely to succeed in doing it.
To those who supported Le Pen you have to add the many who abstained, including leftwing voters who described this second round as a choice between cholera and the plague.
His super-ambitious target is to reduce public spending from 56% of GDP to just — wait for it — 52%.
The obstacles to change in France are enormous, from powerful unions and a bloated public sector to farmers who make a habit of blocking roads with ズマ復讐のような海賊ゲーム />If Macron fails to reform France, in 2022 we may yet have a president Le Pen.
With Brexit talks already turning nasty, Britain has moved from being a major ally in European reform to a massive distraction from it.
Italy, with higher public debt than France, a fragile banking sector and fractured politics, may produce the next eurozone crisis.
The underlying causes of the refugee crisis have not been addressed.
Hungary and Poland are governed by anti-liberal populists.
So this is only a reprieve.
Everything remains to be done.
And Europe is still https://list-casinos-promocode.site/1/942.html in the last chance saloon.
Right here in America, right now.
Today, an America led by a Twitter troll, who was elected and now governs with the help of fake news, manifests not only similar pathologies, which are characteristic of modernity — but also something more ominous: an unprecedented onslaught against the very notion of truth.
In 2011, for instance, Mr.
Obama, who recently accepted a very lucrative speaking engagement on Wall Street, now looks like just one 飢餓ゲームスカベンジャーハント手がかり the fortunate members of historically depressed minorities who mistake their own upward mobility for collective advance.
Generalizing about the world at large on the basis of personal success, or proclaiming that read more has never been so wonderful, can be politically disastrous, it turns out, especially when loss, decay and fear sum up the experiences of many other people.
We will have learned nothing from Mr.
In the Brexit referendum, the risk was the policy, not the politicians.
Voting to leave the European Union was not a vote to make Nigel Farage prime minister; it was a vote for a leap into the unknown, but one supervised by mainstream Tory leaders.
In the case of Donald Trump, there was risk in the policy, but the central question was always about the candidate himself: about his fitness for the office, his ability to execute its basic duties, the effect that his demagogy and self-dealing would have on civic norms.
In the case of Marine Le Pen — presently facing off against Emmanuel Macron, the John Lindsay of the Eurocrats, for the presidency of 携帯電話用無料windows 8ゲーム — the main risk is her party.
At the same time, individual personalities and their policies also matter — and there the case for NeverLePen seems weaker in important ways than the case for NeverTrump.
Nor is there much evidence that Le Pen herself draws any personal inspiration from the Vichy right.
However incomplete the project, she is the reason that her party has ejected Vichyites and disavowed anti-Semitism and moved toward the French mainstream on many issues.
This has been done, of course, in the hopes of gaining power.
Some argue that Le Pen has simply replaced anti-Semitism with Islamophobia.
But her attacks on Islamic fundamentalism and her defense of a strict public secularism have been echoed by many mainstream French politicians.
An argument for quarantining her perspective would apply to Nicolas Sarkozy or François Fillon, not just her.
Newsletter Sign UpContinue reading the main story Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.
Continue reading the main story These are the same sort of issues that helped Trump win the presidency, but in the European context the challenges are more severe and the populist critique more compelling.
There is no American equivalent to the epic disaster of the euro, a form of German imperialism with the struggling parts of Europe as its subjects.
There is no American equivalent to the challenge of immigrant-assimilation now facing France — no equivalent of the domestic terror threat, the rise of Islamist anti-Semitism, the immigrant enclaves as worlds unto themselves.
She is right that France as a whole, recent immigrants as well as natives, would benefit from a sustained mass-immigration halt.
She is right that the European Union has given too this web page unaccountable power to Brussels and Berlin and favored financial interests over ordinary citizens.
And while many of her economic prescriptions are half-baked, her overarching critique of the euro is correct: Her country and her continent would be better off without it.
The French will presumably vote against her nonetheless.
That decision will be understandable.
Consider the daily work life of a typical taxi driver in New York, who might work for three or more companies at once: Uber, Lyft and perhaps even an unlicensed cab firm.
Such people are essentially entrepreneurs working for themselves, with all the freedom that entails.
They have to deal with any number of other complexities, such as working for multiple employers at any given time yet possibly receiving benefits like healthcare or pension from none of them.
Compare this with the life of a freelance management consultant.
The price of a virtual assistant based in India is negligible.
High-end freelance work spaces that are now available via membership schemes in a variety of cities means that the cost of office space is wildly reduced.
Clearly, the advent of the high-tech gig economy means very different things to these two kinds of workers.
For the driver, it click here feel like a kind of neo-serfdom.
But for highly educated, mobile professionals such as the consultant, it is a way to earn more money in less time, in ever more flexible ways.
The digital gig economy, it turns out, is very divided.
That matters to almost everyone, given that a spate of new research by various organisations, from McKinsey to the OECD, points to the fact that in the next 10 to 20 years, the number of people working as freelancers, independent contractors or for multiple employers will increase dramatically.
In in the US, 35 per cent of the labour force is already working this way.
The networking platforms and software of this new digital economy are resulting in cheaper prices for consumers, cost reductions for employers, and higher wages for the most skilled and educated workers who can do ever more highly paid work in less time.
But such technologies have also contributed to the concentration of wealth in fewer hands.
In the US, workers in such areas of the economy enjoy twice the average national wage growth.
Yet these sectors make up only about 19 per cent of the labour market.
The largest sectors in terms of employment — such as please click for source and education — are less digitalised and, for the majority of workers, less lucrative.
For workers to exploit a more entrepreneurial, digitalised economy, whatever sector they work in, they need access to high-speed broadband, which is three times as likely in urban areas compared to rural ones.
There are even big gaps in digital opportunities in individual cities.
In New York, for example, 80 per cent of residents in affluent Manhattan have access to broadband, while only 65 per cent of the poorer borough of the Bronx do.
While the US has been the creator and exporter of many of the technologies are fuelling the 21st century economy, as a whole the country falls behind countries like the UK and Scandinavia in terms of the digital divide.
Bridging that divide is crucial for ensuring more sustainable, shared economic growth.
There is plenty of low-hanging fruit that politicians could target on this front, from rural broadband investment, to putting social safety nets under workers in the gig economy.
In the US, there is a push for portable benefits that are not linked to a single employer and can be carried from one job to another.
The EU is pushing to bring Uber drivers, couriers and other lower level service workers in the gig economy into national social security and healthcare systems.
Such campaigns are click at this page not only for growth, but for political stability.
It is no accident that in both rich and poor countries, people that are unable to take advantage of the benefits of the new gig economy are those that vote for populist political candidates.
In a world in which technology has pushed ever more gains to the top, ensuring that the benefits of the digital gig economy are more widely shared will be crucial to ensuring any kind of growth at all.
I went to the middle of the country, the middle of the state, and talked to many online.
This was a surprisingly interesting and helpful experience—I highly recommend it.
With three exceptions, I found something to like about everyone I talked to though I strongly disagreed with many of the things they said.
But I think narratives are really important.
Over the last few years the mainstream left has resorted to name-calling and character assassination, instead of debate, any time their positions are questioned.
This atmosphere became extremely oppressive and threatening to people, like myself, who disagreed with many of Obama's policies over the past several years.
Intelligent スノーブラザーズジャンプゲームオンラインプレイ3 has become rare.
I think the inability to acknowledge obvious truths, and the ever-increasing scope of these restrictions makes it particularly frustrating.
And personally, for whatever reason, I find inability to have more subtle discussion very frustrating--things are not white or black, but you can't talk about greys since the politically correct answer is white.
American policy needs to be made from a position of how Americans benefit from it, as that is the role of government.
Preservation of culture is considered good in most cases.
I support the wall.
The people who have stayed have destroyed Mexico, and now they want to get out and cause damage here.
We need to protect our borders, but now any policy is like that is called racist.
Trump was the first person willing to say that out loud.
I am fiscally very source />I don't feel I have a party--never have.
I grew up in a more socially conservative time and picked the "lesser of two evils" during elections.
Now, the more socially liberal side supports bigger governments, more aid and support and that money has to come from somewhere.
I see what's deducted from my check each week.
I'm OK with never being rich but I'd like more security and that doesn't come from more government spending.
I think subconsciously, part of the reason I supported him was a way to be in the in-crowd for once.
We only voted for him because this election was too important to worry about style.
The way it worked is we got to choose one of two terrible options.
My issue is with Trump himself--I think he's the wrong vessel for his movement, but he's all we've got so I'm behind him.
We've done that before.
His relationship with Russia, his relationship with women.
His relationship with questionable financial matters.
These all worry me and were they to continue I would lose all respect.
Accepting anti-semitism, white nationalism, or hate emanating unnecessarily, creates a vacuum of fear on social media, on television, and around the dinner table.
Even though the policies may be similar to that of any recent Republican President, the behavior to act so immaturely sets a bad example for children and undercuts many cultural norms, which click than anything causes disruption to our sociological foundations.
That seems to forebode great evil.
I think I may have underestimated that risk, because he is more of an alpha strongman that I realized when I voted for him.
Otherwise I still like him.
But I hope not.
I am already thinking I made a mistake, but I feel ostracized from my community.
Stop calling us idiots.
Oh, and stop making fun of us.
You have no idea what our lives are like.
I have no hope my life will ever get any better.
We have mostly the same goals, and different opinions about how to get there.
But enough with calling all of us the devil here wanting to try Trump.
I have defended him and said things I really didn't believe or support because I was put in a defensive position.
Protesters may have pushed many people in this direction BUT it is ultimately our responsibility and must stop.
These attacks are counter-factual and in my opinion very helpful to Trump.
So far I see most of the divisiveness coming from the left.
I don't see it quite as bad as during Nixon's era but we are truly headed in that direction.
I could not speak with my parents during that time because political division would intrude.
This Thanksgiving and holiday season were as close as I've felt to that in 40 years.
We are increasingly polarized.
It doesn't seem to be strictly generational, though that exists.
There is an east coast-west coast, rural vs.
It has the potential to be devastating.
My wife and I recently moved to the Bay Area.
I was expecting a place which was a welcoming meritocracy of ideas.
Instead, I found a place where everyone constantly watches everyone else for any thoughtcrime.
Your curiosity, if it is sincere, is the very rare exception to the rule.
But our lives are basically destroyed, and he was the first person to talk about fixing that.
Extreme corruption would do it.
I'd hold him responsible for that.
If he were to substantially increase the cost of doing business by increasing regulation or taxes for instance.
If he were to do something like restart a war on drugs, try to restrict rights of LGBT, or make first trimester abortions difficult or dangerous, I'd rethink my position.
I think these type of things are extremely unlikely though, especially with an election a few years away the country as a whole becoming more socially liberal.
If that were true it would supersede everything else since it would be even worse for individual liberty and freedom than any freedom of speech restrictions or increases in government size proposed by the Democratic Party.
Remember those optimistic pre-inauguration fantasies?
I cherished them, too.
In his first week in office, Trump has made it eminently clear that he meant every loopy, appalling read more — and then some.
The result so far: The president of China is warning against trade wars and declaring that Beijing will take up the task of defending globalization and free trade against American protectionism.
Department of State has resigned.
Thus the question: Are we truly stuck with Donald Trump?
There are essentially four ways opinion ヤフーチェスオンライン無料 consider get rid of a crummy president.
First, of course, the world can just wait patiently for November 2020 to roll around, at which point, American voters will presumably have come to their senses and be prepared to throw the bum out.
But after such a catastrophic first week, four years seems like a long time to wait.
This brings us to option two: impeachment.
The bad news is that Republicans control both the House and the Senate, making impeachment politically unlikely, unless and until Democrats retake Congress.
Anyway, impeachments take time: months, if not longer — even with an enthusiastic Congress.
And when you have a lunatic controlling the nuclear codes, even a few months click the following article like a perilously long time to wait.
Aimed, perhaps, at Mexico?
In these dark days, some around the globe are finding solace in the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.
Surely Pence wants to be president himself one day, right?
Congress would have to acquiesce in a permanent 25th Amendment ズマ復讐のような海賊ゲーム, but if Pence and half the cabinet declared Trump unfit, even a Republican-controlled Congress would likely fall in line.
The fourth possibility is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders.
The principle of civilian control of the military has been deeply internalized by the U.
During the first years of the Continue reading W.
When military leaders objected to tactics such as waterboarding, the Bush administration simply bypassed the military, getting the CIA and private contractors to do their dirty work.
What would top U.
The prospect of American military leaders responding to a presidential order with click defiance is frightening — but so, too, is the prospect of military obedience to an insane order.
After all, military officers swear to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, not the president.
Trump delivers on his promises, he will not give the religious right what its leaders have traditionally demanded or what the Republican Party platform calls for.
National legislation has long been the goal of the religious right.
When the movement emerged in the late 1970s, evangelical leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson sought federal constitutional amendments to ban abortion and restore school prayer, because they wanted to reverse what liberal rights activists had done at the national level through the Supreme Court.
In the early 21st century, leaders such as James Dobson continued this trend by persuading President George W.
Bush to endorse a constitutional amendment proposal to define marriage as exclusively heterosexual.
In recent years, evangelicals have become so concerned about protecting their own religious liberty against federal mandates or court decisions that they have given less attention to imposing a moral agenda on the rest of the nation.
Although the Republican Party platform continues to promise a constitutional amendment protecting human life from the moment of conception, the pro-life movement has not made any serious attempts to pass that amendment since the 1980s.
Nor has there been much talk in the last decade of a national ban on same-sex marriage.
Trump is well positioned to promote a further shift away from national moral regulation.
Trump stumbled over abortion during his campaign, the policy that he ultimately reverted to was to leave abortion legalization up to the states - an outcome that he would try to ensure by nominating conservative Supreme Court justices who might overturn Roe v.
Trump has gone further than any previous Republican presidential nominee in a generation in insisting that the religious right should enact its agenda at the state, rather than federal, level.
Although this was the policy position of many Republicans during the 1970s including President Gerald Fordreligious right activists persuaded the G.
Trump is leading the party back to its more traditional stance.
While many liberals will find this outcome unsatisfactory - since it offers them no opportunity to secure national protection for individual rights that they consider inalienable - it may be the only compromise solution that can give both conservatives and liberals the freedom to pursue オンラインゲームコミュニティ own agenda at the local level without fear of a national backlash.
If a socially libertarian New Yorker can deliver this compromise to the conservative white rural evangelical voters who put him in office, both conservatives click the following article liberals should see that for what it is: a landmark opportunity to move beyond the culture wars.
Trump is not a good political strategy.
Though job loss and economic stagnation played a role in his victory, so did shame.
The right has been very successful at persuading working people that they are vulnerable not because they themselves have failed, but because of the selfishness of some other villain African-Americans, feminists, immigrants, Muslims, Jews, liberals, progressives; the list keeps growing.
Instead of challenging this ideology of shame, the left has buttressed it by blaming white people as a whole for slavery, genocide of the Native Americans and a host of other sins, as though whiteness itself was something about which people ought to be ashamed.
The rage many white working-class people feel in response is rooted in the sense that once again, as has happened to them throughout their lives, they are being misunderstood.
So please understand what is happening here.
Many Trump supporters very legitimately feel that it is they who have been facing an unfair reality.
The upper 20 percent of income earners, many of them quite liberal and rightly committed to the defense of minorities and immigrants, also believe in the economic meritocracy and their own right to have so much more than those who are less fortunate.
So while they may be progressive on issues of discrimination against the obvious victims of racism and sexism, they are blind to their own class privilege and to the hidden injuries of class that are internalized by much of the country as self-blame.
Many religious people are drawn by the teachings of their tradition to humane values and caring about the oppressed.
Yet they often find that liberal culture is hostile to religion of any sort, believing it is irrational and filled with hate.
People on the left rarely open themselves to the possibility that there could be a spiritual crisis in society that plays a role in the lives of many who feel misunderstood and denigrated by the fancy intellectuals and radical activists.
The racism, sexism and xenophobia used by Mr.
Trump to advance his candidacy does not reveal an inherent malice in the majority of Americans.
Democrats need to become as conscious and articulate about the suffering caused by classism as we are about other forms of suffering.
We need to reach out to Trump voters in a spirit of empathy and contrition.
Only then can we help working people understand that they do not live in a meritocracy, that their intuition https://list-casinos-promocode.site/1/690.html the system is rigged is correct but it is not by those whom they had been taught to blame and that their pain and rage is legitimate.
Michael Lerner, the rabbi of Beyt Tikkun Synagogue in Berkeley, Calif.
Trump is elected president of the United States.
Now, their apprehension about the president-elect dwarfs here disappointment with President Obama.
It could be a blessing in disguise.
Poor you, you feel so insecure, vulnerable and fragile.
The kind usually associated with strutting generalissimos of Third World nations with their chests covered with made-up, self-awarded medals.
Maybe the people of the Middle East will look more info realize that you are no longer the Great Democracy to emulate.
Now, it seems as if the change has flowed the other way.
To narrow the range of people entitled to justice and equality before the law.
And he wants the United States to abandon the costly nation-building in the Middle East.
What nation-building- In Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, 無料占い師スロットゲーム, Libya and Somalia, civil wars continue unabated.
The Arab and Muslim worlds only hope the United States stops contributing to the destruction.
Trump does not exactly seem concerned for the wishes of Middle Easterners and their right to live in peace.
It sounds more like what he really wants to do is pal around with other strutting, authoritarian types.
Trump has embraced Mr.
Instead of Americanizing the Middle East, Mr.
Finally, some good news.
President Obama has assured us that the sun will rise ズマ復讐のような海賊ゲーム, regardless.
And if the Trump presidency is as bad as I expect it to be - though not so bad that it demolishes democracy entirely - he can be voted out in four years.
Meanwhile, fasten your seatbelts.
You would not expect that a founding member would have to be reminded of that fact.
Certainly not the United States, for all those years the leader of NATO and an inspirational embodiment of its core values.
Yet this is where we find ourselves now, the day after Donald Trump won the presidency: In congratulating him on his victory, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany felt compelled to set conditions for cooperation.
He has threatened to ban Muslims from the United States, refuse refugees, deport 11 million undocumented workers and build a wall on the border with Mexico.
He has disparaged African Americans, Mexican Americans, women and people with disabilities.
He received no pushback on Wednesday from Theresa May, the British prime minister, who simply congratulated Mr.
Trump on his win.
Merkel not just to lead Europe but to replace America in leading NATO as well.
They may conceal white resentment of the perceived advancement past them of black and Latino people.
But the past eight years sped all that up and made it impossible to ignore.
Trump stood out to voters from the rest of the Republican Party, aside from a willingness to say directly the kinds of things usually carefully dogwhistled, it was in his rants about trade and his lack of interest in dismantling the remnants of the welfare state.
For white Americans anxiously looking at their disappearing stability, Mr.
Trump was a bomb they were willing to throw at a system they felt was click them.
He emotionally echoed their more info and gave them a place to direct their anger, the age-old right-wing populist trick of refracting 私たちのカジノボートバージン諸島 both upward at elites and downward at minorities.
The results show that it did not.
To be sure, Democrats had an uneasy line to walk, between maintaining continuity with a still-popular, twice-elected Barack Obama - a continuity that won Mrs.
Clinton the Democratic primary - and reaching the people who wanted and needed change.
Clinton was a colossal misreading of a moment when rage at the establishment of both parties was simmering everywhere.
That rage should have been visible as Mr.
Clinton much harder than anyone had expected a gray-haired socialist from Vermont to do.
Clinton opened her arms to disaffected Republicans rather than wooing the disaffected within and around her own party.
Most of the television ads she sorry, ホースシューカジノ求人indiana topic were more about painting Trump as a dangerous aberration, an outsider unfit for office, than pitching any plan of her own for change.
Democrats failed to realize that for many Trump voters, that was exactly what they liked about him.
Politics is, at bottom, about factions vying and coordinating to choose leaders in whom to invest authority.
Throughout the campaign, Mr.
In Hillary Clinton, Mr.
Trump drew a general election opponent pre-weakened by a decades-long Republican campaign of delegitimization.
Clinton as a member of an arrogant and corrupt elite that believes it is above the law.
Trump seems to have an intuitive understanding that glamour, celebrity and gaudy wealth are key ingredients in majesty - which is inherently authoritative and underwrites its own claim to legitimacy.
It was a purple silk, ermine-fringed cape, Air Force One in waiting, and he knew how to use here />Casting those norms aside and banking heavily on the atavistic political appeal of majestic celebrity gave Mr.
Trump will actually support in office.
All of these shows have one thing in common: While trafficking in rural stereotypes, they celebrate wealth and business success - whether that business is crafting hick-hop music, catching alligators or designing duck calls.
Ostensibly produced for middle America, they offer a population disenfranchised by globalization and the information economy a vision of rural ingenuity rewarded.
Trump based his candidacy around this population.
He spoke directly to voters raised on reality TV, addressing their fears and aspirations with blunt talk.
He became their perfect celebrity champion, a rich white man, his image polished by years in a reality-TV boardroom, who validated their demographic anxiety.
In an election season driven more by hatred of political opponents than enthusiasm for two deeply unpopular candidates, President-Elect Donald J.
Trump hated best, and won.
That, too, was designed as a lighthearted comedy.
They favored Hillary Clinton by better than two to one, according to the exit polls.
They did not turn out in big numbers to protest Donald J.
Trump, but it probably would not have mattered.
Trump won the presidency after a long campaign of slinging threats and insults at them.
The bitterest loss was dealt by the 59.
That was a rejection by their own countrymen.
According to the exit polls - a rough measure of turnout at best - Latinos accounted for 11 percent of the votes cast Tuesday the same as 2012.
If those numbers hold, there was little or no Trump effect, and however much the number of Latino votes increased was just a result of demography.
You may have been convinced that it would be otherwise.
Years of reckless commentary, news stories and advocacy insisted that Latinos would be the great demographic firewall that would safeguard progressive politics with surging population numbers.
But, the firewall only stands in a few states, and the biggest of them, California, New York and Texas, are already decided.
Trump concentrated instead on the old industrial states where Latinos are a sparse presence.
When he demonized Mexico and unauthorized immigrants, he gained more in the Electoral College by mobilizing white オンラインゲームのネットフラッシュ than he lost by alienating Latinos.
The national exit polls show that Mrs.
Clinton drew 65 percent of the Latino vote compared with 29 percent for Mr.
That is a landslide by any measure, and it is about the same margin in the exit polls for 2008 67 percent vs.
The disappointment sets in when you compare the outcome to 2012.
President Barack Obama took 71 percent of the Latino vote in the exit polls that year compared with 27 percent for Mitt Romney.
Trump was supposed to be the bucket of cold water that aroused the sleeping giant, producing https://list-casinos-promocode.site/1/159.html only a stronger preference for the Democratic candidate but also, more important, a spike in turnout.
In 2012, with immigration reform on the line, more than 12 million Latino voters stayed home, producing a turnout rate of 48 percent compared with 64 percent for whites and 67 percent for blacks.
While more time and data is needed to get a full picture of Latino turnout this year, at first glance it appears Latino numbers were up, and perhaps significantly in some places, but that in fact the giant was barely stirred.
Four million more Latinos were eligible to vote Tuesday than in 2012.
So, no matter who was running and no matter how low the turnout, the number of Latino votes counted Tuesday was virtually certain to be higher than 2012.
In fact, demographic growth alone would have guaranteed Mrs.
Clinton an additional 1.
In Colorado and Nevada, Latino voters surely helped keep the states blue, and under different scenarios those states could have served as the much-advertised Latino firewall.
The one real bright spot for Latino Democrats Tuesday came with the election of Catherine Cortez Masto to the Senate in Nevada.
Meanwhile, something may have happened in Texas that needs a closer look.
Trump won handily, but only by a 9 percent margin.
President Obama lost the state by nearly 16 points in 2012 and by almost 12 points in 2008.
A lot of non-Latino newcomers have begun to change the political complexion of the state in recent years, and that formula - newcomers plus Latinos - is what flipped Colorado and Nevada in the past.
In the exit polls, Latinos accounted for 18 percent of the total vote compared with 17 in 2012, and the split was slightly more favorable to Mrs.
Clinton than it was for President Obama four years ago.
And therein lies the result that Latinos will have to live with for the next four years.
無料のモバイルゲームダウンロード登録なし a state that has vividly benefited from immigration and trade, a state where Latinos have for the most part prospered and contributed to the prosperity of their neighbors, white voters mobilized to elect a candidate who would angrily erase everything Latinos represent.
No one else suffered that kind of defeat on ローザデサロンのカジノの大通りカバー />As the results poured in for Donald J.
Trump, I reveled in the Facebook friends who openly mourned the end of humanity.
Switching among three cable news networks and several websites I wondered: Is he really going to take Florida so easily- Did they just call North Carolina for Trump- Can he possibly win Wisconsin- Pennsylvania- Yup.
I rooted for Mitt Romney in 2012 and John McCain in 2008.
I ran for the school board in Hoboken, N.
What does it matter- All is lost.
You want to announce on Twitter that you are in bed letting the tears stream down your face.
I saw this result coming over the summer.
In July, five police officers were ambushed in Dallas and three more were killed in Baton Rouge.
In August, Colin Kaepernick, the San Francisco 49ers quarterback, sat out the national anthem.
In September, an Islamic terrorist, masquerading as a fried chicken salesman in my hometown, Elizabeth, N.
They kept being told they needed to look inward, examine their sins and judge themselves guilty.
I supported him because he promised to brilliant ipod touch用のトップ10の無料アプリゲーム think regulations, cut taxes and appoint constitutionalists to the Supreme Court.
I supported him because Mrs.
In his victory speech, Mr.
Trump exposes the anti-intellectual, sexist xenophobia.
Best-case scenario: Ruth Bader Ginsburg refuses to retire or die, the Democratic Party finds a backbone, turns away from its fixation on the center and heeds the call for an economic revolt against the 1 percent, joined by Black Lives Matter, the Occupy movement, and resurgent feminism.
Both scenarios could happen at the same time.
The second scenario requires Democrats to put their status quo political model to rest.
They already had a significant portion of the nonwhite minority vote locked up, but have lost too many working-class white people.
Bernie Sanders might not have won over the wealthier whites who were voting with Trump against the seemingly rising tide of minorities, but he might have snared the white working class and some of the white middle class.
If Hillary Clinton had won, she would have run again in 2020, which could have meant four more years of Wall Street liberalism and fire-and-forget perpetual warfare, conducted by drones and Special Operations over the horizon.
Now perhaps Elizabeth Warren will be the 2020 Democratic candidate - a white woman, a feminist, and someone more progressive than Clinton.
But all this speaks largely about domestic electoral politics.
The sickness of the American body politic remains untreated, and will remain untreated, or exacerbated, in a country run by clowns, conspirators, and collaborators.
That sickness is imperialism.
America is an imperial country, and its decay might now be showing.
The power that has brought so much benefit to the country - for white people - is now faltering in its ability to provide those benefits to all white people.
Warren or someone like her might be better at extracting more social and economic justice for all Americans.
But unless such a person finds a way to ease control from the financial-industrial complex, the winstarカジノで何をするべきか of halting our decline are weak.
Empires rot from the inside even as emperors blame the barbarians.
Trump presidency will most likely come on the political rather than on the economic side.
We are likely to see some rise in trade barriers and unilateral economic policies.
But for all his bluster, I do not expect Mr.
Trump to engage in indiscriminate protectionism.
We live in a world of supply chains where imposing tariffs on Mexican or Chinese imports will raise costs of United States businesses and make it hard for them to compete.
Trump is a businessman, and he will understand soon, if he does not now, the senselessness of blanket protectionism.
We may have plenty of trade disputes with foreign countries.
But these did very limited damage to the world economy.
Before long, the world embarked on a further and more intense round of globalization.
Furthermore, we have robust international institutions, like the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization, that did not exist in the interwar period.
And the political lobbies in favor of an open economy big business and banks are stronger and retain considerable influence in Washington.
The real danger Mr.
Trump poses is the undermining of our politics - the norms that sustain our liberal democracies.
His campaign was based on a divisive politics of identity.
Ideals of equity, equal rights, diversity and inclusion were submerged under the weight of a rhetoric that raised racial and ethnic tensions and inflamed passions against imagined enemies - Mexican immigrants, Chinese exporters, Muslim refugees.
Illiberal democracy has been the bane of several nations around the world.
Trump, the traditions in the United States of checks and balances and of rule of law will be tested seriously.
The political danger will be greatly magnified by Mr.
He comes into office as the putative leader of middle and lower classes who feel they have been left behind.
He has raised their expectations in ways that he cannot meet.
There is little chance that incomes at the middle and lower end of income distribution will receive a large boost under his policies.
The manufacturing jobs that have left will not return no matter how tough Mr.
These jobs have disappeared for good, largely thanks to technological changes, and not trade.
When the full scale of his economic disappointment sinks in sometime during his term, Mr.
Trump may well react in the time-honored fashion of global populists like President Vladimir V.
To keep his base mobilized and insulate himself from economic troubles, he may take shelter in an intensified form of the identity politics that worked so well for him during the presidential campaign.
無料のオンラインビール配給ゲーム would rip American society further apart along racial and ethnic cleavages.
The ugliness that characterized politics during the presidential campaign may be nothing compared with what may be yet to come.
Dani Rodrik, a professor at the John F.
They wore flowered Doc Martens, fake fur coats, earbuds dangling from one ear.
Overwhelmingly, they were open and polite.
They were angry at a political system they felt ignored them, but they hoped for better days ahead.
In January, Donald Trump will be their next president.
Many of these young people supported Mr.
Many did so reluctantly.
One young Trump supporter told me that no one knows exactly what Mr.
Trump will do in office.
Another described hesitating while filling out his absentee ballot, wondering if he could vote for a man who had made abhorrent comments about women.
But some voted for Mr.
Those who supported Hillary Clinton were disgusted by Mr.
Trump and what he stands for.
Of the table full of young men at Bucks County Community College arguing about Mr.
Trump is racist, sexist and xenophobic.
I hope they keep talking.
I think they will.
But these young voters are consider, 無料ゲームのカジノのスロット topic about the shortcomings of government and optimistic enough to imagine a better world.
They can make friends with people of different viewpoints, and, when it matters, they can challenge their friends to think in a new way.
Since the 1960s, the phrase has also implied that the country was paying too much attention to the wrong sorts of people - most notably, to African-Americans - at the expense of the white working class.
In his 1932 campaign for the presidency, Roosevelt sought to claim the term for a different and more expansive purpose.
He built the New Deal around this image, establishing the minimum wage, Social Security and the federal right to organize unions.
Those reforms cemented the loyalty of the white working class to the Democratic Party for a generation.
When the Great Society came along, Lyndon Johnson tried to make up for that by expanding federal programs serving the poor and by championing the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.
The lower middle class.
Schrag noted, all of that name-calling was part of the problem, a refusal on the part of liberal elites to recognize the real grievances and desires of what had once been a bedrock Democratic constituency.
To dismiss this language as simple racism, however, is to miss at least some of its political significance.
During those years, the Democratic Party itself began to turn away from the New Deal and its working-class politics, especially from its commitment to organized labor.
But as Roosevelt showed, this need not be a fixed political equation.
If the 2016 election marks the final, gasping end of the New Deal coalition, it should also mark the start of a new reckoning within the Democratic Party.
Until now, our Americophilia has been unrequited.
Then in August, Donald J.
Politicians of the mainstream right and left alike are dumbfounded that the United States would elect someone who uses the extreme language Mr.
Trump does and who seems to have little love for institutions like NATO.
Independence Party, it is difficult to find a British politician with a good word to say about Mr.
Nationalism, white anger and protectionism are now driving politics in Britain and across Europe.
The sound is of doors slamming.
Brexit felt like a referendum on border control, and on rapid demographic change among white スロットで最高のffxivの戦士 that felt themselves deprived of attention and resources.
It is tempting to draw comparisons with the United States: The big cities in both Britain and the United States, which are most diverse, are also most relaxed about that diversity.
In smaller communities, immigration feels more disruptive.
There are other parallels.
He won white men without college degrees by a landslide.
A typical Leave supporter has a similar demographic profile.
Such voters are on the decline, as both Britain and the United States become more diverse and younger generations are better-educated, and more open to immigration and change.
But as both the Brexit vote and Mr.
This is a list of 13 major crises that, I believe, confront us.
There may be more.
Please feel free to add to it or to knock it down.
He has been granted a clean sweep of power, with both houses and the supreme court in his pocket.
He is surrounding himself with people whose judgment and knowledge of the world are, to say the least, limited.
His national security adviser, Michael T Flynn, is a dangerous extremist.
Their primary political effort is to avoid regulation and taxation.
These people - or rather the interests they represent - are now in charge.
Aside from the implications for the living world, public health, public finance and financial stability, this is a vindication of the political model pioneered by the tobacco companies in the 1960s.
It demonstrates that if you spend enough ズマ復讐のような海賊ゲーム setting up thinktanks, academic posts and fake grassroots movements, and work with the corporate media click to see more give them a platform, you can buy all the politics you need.
Democracy becomes a dead letter.
Political alternatives are shut down.
Moreover, there may be no answer to the political fix in which the government finds itself.
This is as follows: a either it agrees to the free movement of people in exchange for access to the single market, in which case the pro-Brexit camp will have gained 特別オリンピックオーストラリアナショナルゲーム2019 except massive embarrassment, or b the EU slams the shutters down.
Not only is it likely to reject the terms the government proposes; but it might also try to impose an exit bill of about?
This would be politically impossible for the government to pay, leading to a non-negotiated rupture and the hardest imaginable Brexit.
Eurozone risks The Italian banking crisis looks big.
If such a thing were to occur, governments would not be ズマ復讐のような海賊ゲーム to mount a rescue plan of the kind they used in 2007-8.
The coffers are empty.
Job-eating automation Automation will destroy jobs on an unprecedented scale, and because the penetration of information technology into every part of the economy is not a Androidゲーム無料ダウンロード phase but an escalating trend, it is hard to see how this employment will be replaced.
No government or major political party anywhere shows any sign of comprehending the scale of this issue.
Whether this would be sufficient to trigger the collapse of the EU is another unknown.
If this is not a sufficient crisis, there are several others lining up especially the growing nationalist movements across central and eastern Europe in particular, but to a lesser extent almost everywhere that could catalyse a chain reaction.
I believe that when this begins, it will happen with a speed that will take almost everyone by surprise.
From one month to the next, the EU could cease to exist.
The UN security council would look like … If Le Pen wins, the permanent members of the UN security council will be represented by the following people: Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Theresa May and Marine Le Pen.
It would be a stretch to call that reassuring.
The Paris climate agreement trashed National climate change programmes bear no connection to the commitments governments made at Paris.
And this is before we know what Trump will do.
The humanitarian, political and military implications are off the scale.
It is hard to imagine a realistic scenario in which governments lose the capacity for total surveillance and drone strikes; in which billionaires forget how to manipulate public opinion; in which a broken EU reconvenes; in which climate breakdown unhappens, species return from extinction and the soil comes back to the land.
These are not momentary crises, but appear to presage permanent collapse.
So the key question is not how we weather them but how?
Can it be done?
If so what would it take?
I write this not to depress you, though I know it will have that effect, but to concentrate our minds on the scale of the task.
We are social and cultural animals.
Culture lets us co-operate not simply in household bands, however in imagined communities.
Imagined group defines what folks share.
But what binds them collectively divides them from others.
Today, as prior to now, leaders foment aggrieved nationalism to justify despotism and even struggle.
For a lot of human historical past, struggle was seen because the pure relationship between societies.
Victory introduced plunder, power and status, at the very least for elites.
Mobilising assets for struggle was a core function of states.
Justifying such mobilisation was a core function of tradition.
Another manner exists to realize prosperity: commerce.
The stability between commerce and plunder is complicated.
Both require sturdy establishments supported by efficient cultures.
But struggle requires armies, underpinned by loyalty, whereas commerce requires safety, underpinned by justice.
Perhaps the best contribution of economics is the concept societies will achieve extra from in search of to commerce with each other than making an attempt to beat each other.
Moreover, the richer their companions, the higher the alternatives for mutually enriching commerce.
more info clever relationship between states, subsequently, is one of co-operation, not struggle, and commerce, not isolation.
This good thought occurs to be appropriate.
It signifies that one may achieve extra from foreigners than fellow residents.
It erodes a way of belonging to the imagined tribe.
For many, this erosion of tribal loyalty is threatening.
It turns into extra threatening if foreigners are allowed to immigrate freely.
Who, folks ask, are these strangers, who reside in our home and share in its go here />The concept that the easiest way for societies to narrate to at least one one other is by way of mutually enriching commerce is the validating philosophy of the World Economic Forum, which has its annual assembly in Davos this week.
It emphasises commerce over battle and what human beings have in frequent over what divides them.
It is an effective creed.
The resentment she evokes is, to a level, justified.
assured. ゲームのための無料のオンラインゲームをプレイ speaking assumed rising tide lifts all boats.
They prospered vastly, typically with little obvious justification.
They created a monetary disaster that apologise, デイトナビーチフロリダ近くのカジノ have their status for probity and competence, with dire political outcomes.
They assumed that bonds of belonging which meant little to themselves meant little to these left behind.
Yet the politics of nationalist resentment will not be simply an upsurge from under.
They are a tactic of power-seekers.
The tales such leaders inform fluctuate intimately, however the essence is all the time the identical.
For them, life is struggle.
Their story justifies turning liberal democracy into plebiscitary dictatorship.
In a superb essay, the Polish analyst, Slawomir Sierakowski, lays out how that is working in his nation.
The would-be despot condemns private freedom as chaos, constraining establishments as illegitimate, unbiased sources of info as corrupt, foreigners as duplicitous and immigrants as threatening.
The cultivation of paranoia justifies each step.
The would-be despot wants enemies.
They are all the time simply discovered.
How is reality outlined by such regimes?
So power determines reality.
This is a attribute of all dictatorships, notably the communist ones, as Orwell informed us.
It can be what US president-elect Donald Trump believes: reality is no matter he finds handy as we speak.
The US is way an important instance.
So how far on the journey in direction of plebiscitary despotism may Mr Trump take his nation?
Yet establishments are solely as sturdy because the individuals who run them.
When Augustus turned emperor, the establishments of the Roman republic all survived.
Will the US judiciary defend freedom of speech?
Will legislators defend the correct to vote?
Or will the president efficiently intimidate these he disagrees with?
And what may occur if a terrorist outrage occurred?
Mr Trump, too, gained the Republican base by stressing his help for the programmes on which odd Americans rely.
But Republican leaders want to intestine them.
His success may rely on whether or not he sticks to his guarantees or to his celebration.
Authoritarian nationalism probably has such ズマ復讐のような海賊ゲーム />It has moved into the core of the world system.
He deplored all of this decline as a betrayal of America, implicitly trashing the four former presidents who sat listening behind him at the inaugural ceremony.
Those presidents, Democratic and Republican, must have put Mexico first, or perhaps Sweden, or China.
He spoke to a nation in need of moving past the divisiveness that, not so incidentally, was his hallmark during the campaign.
But what President Trump presented was more of candidate Trump, now more ominous in bearing the power of the White House, yet no less intent on inspiring only his base of aggrieved or anxious white Americans.
One longed, as Mr.
Trump spoke, for a special kind of simultaneous translation, one that would convert Trumpian myth into concrete fact.
It might have noted, when Mr.
Trump spoke about the disappearance of jobs, it would have noted that the unemployment rate has fallen from 10 percent in 2009, the height of the recession, to less than 5 percent.
Trade is part of the complicated story, but so is automation.
Crime statistics please click for source, but they show that crime remains far lower now than in past decades.
And one big factor in violent crime - easily available firearms - is not likely to be remedied by Mr.
Trump, the candidate who was supported by the National Rifle Association.
There was little music in his speech, and no gentleness in his jackhammer delivery, but Mr.
It was hard to make sense of Mr.
Trump will address them.
But America had dreams before Friday.
It was great before Mr.
Trump became president, and with his help - or, if necessary, in spite of his folly - Americans will find ways to make it greater in years to come.
It agree, a remarkable idea
I regret, that I can not participate in discussion now. I do not own the necessary information. But this theme me very much interests.
In my opinion you are mistaken. Let's discuss it.
It is remarkable, this valuable opinion
I would like to talk to you.
I join told all above. We can communicate on this theme.
Clearly, I thank for the information.
You very talented person
I not absolutely understand, what you mean?
In it something is. Thanks for the help in this question. All ingenious is simple.