back to article Team Trump goes in to bat for Google and Facebook

Donald Trump's former policy chief Steve Bannon wanted to limit the power of Silicon Valley's plutocrats, but US trade negotiations have just thrown a protective arm around them. Bloomberg reports that negotiators are limiting attempts to give ordinary people more power to sue Google and Facebook over their responsibilities …

  1. alain williams Silver badge

    Trump will want to be re-elected

    in 3 years time; he knows who has the ability to form opinions and does not want to piss them off.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

      "does not want to piss them off"

      Way too late for that.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

      Trumps will want to be re-elected

      You forgot - this is a family affair. Even more of a family business than Bush or Kennedy before them. There are Ivanka and Kushner after him which are obviously being groomed as candidate heirs. More likely her by the way as Kushner will probably get marked in the ensuing "who rigged the last election" sh*t throwing contest.

      I know I will make most sane people gag on their cornflakes, but we should prepare for ~ 16 years of this. They will also have no safeguards and no stops - he is replacing federal circuit judges with a horrifying rate. If he keeps it up, 30%+ of the judges at the end of his first 4 years will be molded to the Koch Brother's requirements.

      If he manages a second term (or installs Ivanka) we are looking at >50% of the judiciary put into line. By that point Ruth and Stephen Breyer will kick the bucket and will be replaced by an UltraRight Droid of Trump's choosing too.

      So anything and everything the president will order will be left unchallenged. There will be no more Hawaiian incidents like the travel ban one.

      Be afraid, be very afraid.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

        Mr Coward sez:

        "Be afraid, be very afraid."

        Afraid? Afraid of what? Wounded liberals shrieking in the night? Sorry, I have better things to do than seriously consider the paranoid ravings of every anonymous coward that comes along.

        1. thegroucho
          Holmes

          Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

          @Big John

          'Big John' - that handle is certainly very brave and identifying ... sligtly less anonymous than an AC.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

            Handles are not for absolute identification. Everything I say is attributed to a single source: Me. Big John.

            Not so with an AC, who could post numerous times and appear to be a crowd. And there's no way to check and see what that poster said in the past, always fun to do when true posters start going over the line excessively.

            Try checking out the posts from amanfrommars1, for example. ;-/

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

              Handles are not for absolute identification. Everything I say is attributed to a single source: Me. Big John.

              Which should probably lose his promotion packet from whoever he is getting it.

              I thought Vladimir's gave you better training on running troll operations - post under multiple accounts, show some variety and most importantly, ensure that the accounts have credibility by posting something different from absolute drivel every time. Otherwise people -1 them and filter them out.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

            "Big" John. Always thought that was compensation. Yup, anon, my usual handle here is my NAME, don't want to be doxed by somebody who has enough time on their hands, living in mom's basement and all.....

        2. thegroucho
          Holmes

          Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

          One should be afraid of replacing one swamp for another.

          1. macjules Silver badge

            Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

            This weekend's swamp is in Florida, where Trump is entertaining Roman Abramovich and others. Incidentally Abramovich's gin palace also boasts a submarine, so could this be the first time that the Soviets managed to dock a submarine in America?

            1. Kiwi Silver badge
              Trollface

              Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

              so could this be the first time that the Soviets managed to dock a submarine in America?

              Oh I'm sure that a Soviet successfully "docks a submarine" any time Putin and chump have a meeting!

          2. Friendly Neighbourhood Coder Dan

            Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

            @thegroucho Better the swamp monster you know?

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

          Afraid? Afraid of what?

          The way the founding fathers had it set-up for the USA and the way ALL democracies are set-up is that the judicial is independent from the executive and legislative branches. Removing the judicial independence is the first step towards a dictatorship.

          A level of intervention in the judiciary's independence which is presently being executed in USA would cause a country to be put on the launch rails out of the Eu here (you can ask Poland on how is the view from the launchpad).

          Perfectly valid reasons to be afraid I am afraid. Especially when it is done in a country which holds half of the world's nuclear arsenal.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

            > "The way the founding fathers had it set-up for the USA and the way ALL democracies are set-up is that the judicial is independent from the executive and legislative branches. Removing the judicial independence is the first step towards a dictatorship."

            Sure, but that's not what Trump is doing. He is merely appointing judges, as is his remit. The left hates that these are not all good left-wing judges, like Obama appointed. Too bad losers, that's what elections are for, and you LOST. You don't get to characterize normal functions of a president as evil just because he's doing what his voters want and not what YOU want.

            Sometimes the left is so childishly pathetic I almost feel sorry for them. Almost.

            1. DougS Silver badge

              Appointing conservative judges

              I have no problem with appointing conservative judges, as you say that's one of the things an election is about, but appointing people that are declared unqualified by the ABA is taking things too far. There are more than enough highly qualified conservative judges that there's no idea to appoint nincompoops like Brett Talley - who has never even tried a case or argued a motion in a federal court! His only real qualification seems to be that he's really young so his lifetime appointment could mean the US is saddled with an incompetent judge for 50 years.

              I hope conservatives who cheer this "appoint them young to pack the courts forever" strategy will appreciate it when liberals inevitably do the same thing. What's next, appointing judges who lack a law degree?

            2. Kiwi Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

              You don't get to characterize normal functions of a president as evil just because he's doing what his voters want and not what YOU want.

              Given the reported significant drop in chumps popularity, I'd suggest he's NOT doing what his voters wanted.

              Sometimes the left is so childishly pathetic I almost feel sorry for them.

              May I suggest you look up the definition of the word "irony" and re-visit the behaviour of your beloved CMIC?

            3. MJI Silver badge

              Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

              The person who had the most votes lost, sounds a bit corrupt to me!

              Supporting orange buffoon is an instant proof of lack of brain power.

              1. TomG

                Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

                Apparently you don't understand the Electoral College. The President does not get elected by the people.

                1. DougS Silver badge

                  Hating on the electoral college

                  I don't understand why people keep bringing up that Trump lost the popular vote (except Trump, who's ego was bruised when he found out so he claims millions of fraudulent votes for Hillary were cast to put her over the top) Those who wanted Clinton can say it would have gone the other way if it was popular vote, but might come to regret it if were changed and the popular vote went against their favored candidate a few elections hence.

                  It isn't as if the electoral college came as a surprise, or at least it sure shouldn't have to anyone who lives in the US and pays even the slightest attention to elections. Granted, typically the popular vote and electoral college both go the same way, but in very close elections like this one (less than 100K votes swung in three states would have meant Clinton won) they don't have to go the same way.

                  Those who advocate for popular vote should realize what that would mean. One, all presidential election related ads would be run on national TV instead of local, costing local TV stations a ton of ad revenue. Two, campaigns would focus on the big cities in the big states and ignore the smaller ones. They'd have less incentive to pay attention to ag-heavy states like Iowa or rust belt states like Ohio, when there are more votes to be found in California, New York and Texas. Those states already have a larger voice than the smaller ones in congress by virtue of having more representatives in the house, this would give them a bigger voice in the executive branch as well. I suppose those who live in those states might think this is a good thing, but I'm not so sure.

            4. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

              Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

              " Too bad losers, that's what RIGGED elections are for, and you LOST."

              FTFY

          2. Adam 52 Silver badge

            Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

            "ALL democracies are set-up is that the judicial is independent from the executive and legislative branches. "

            Not England. In England the judiciary are inferior to the legislature and the executive and legislature have a significant overlap. That's before we even start on "Queen-in-council or Royal Prerogative". Maybe England isn't a democracy.

          3. JEDIDIAH
            Mushroom

            Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

            > A level of intervention in the judiciary's independence which is presently being executed in USA

            What kind of crack are you on exactly? The judiciary is giving Trump the two fingers every opportunity it can.

            1. Adam 52 Silver badge

              Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

              May I suggest you read four posts above yours for the explanation?

        4. JLV Silver badge

          Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

          > wounded liberals

          Oh come on. Trump's no Thatcher or Reagan.

          What's he achieved so far? Effin nada, aside from judiciary appointments.

          (Depending on your POV re Thatcher and Raegan's activities that's either a good or bad thing.)

          But Trump, while he hasn't done much actual law-passing, has been the laughing stock, even of his own party. His tweets read like a 12 yr olds', with all the corresponding political positive effects thereof abroad and to pass laws. Couldn't even understand his own Obamacare repeal repacements, apparently.

          Simplifying tax codes would be nice - theres so much admin overhead to all the loopholes that you could proably lower tax and still come up ahead. Is he gonna pass it? Hah!

          If I were a right of center economy-first business friendly conservative I'd be pissed. Except for the swamp-dwelling corporate lobbyists for big coal and telecoms (Pai's string pullers).

        5. Philipsz

          Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

          More like wounded liberals shrieking in their mom's basement while frantically clicking the downvote button of your post. XD

        6. Jim 59

          Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

          @Big John are you a bot ? You certainly post like one.

      2. Bernard M. Orwell Silver badge

        Re: Trump will want to be re-elected

        Wait. What? Ivanka Trump as POTUS?

        ...

        ...ffs.

  2. ST Silver badge
    Mushroom

    What did you expect?

    You got what you voted for.

    <EOM>

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What did you expect?

      Tut tut. No need to get flaming mad just because your side backed history's greatest bribe taker and went down to ignominious defeat thereby. It happens. And hey, there's always time for you to realize the world has not actually ended, and in fact seems to be getting a bit better. The East Asians think so, anyway.

      And there's always 2020. Wonder what sort of criminal will get the votes of the Left next time?

      1. Jamie Jones Silver badge

        Re: What did you expect?

        You right wingers are so tribal.

        You automatically think that anyone who criticises a republican is obviously as much of a democrat sychophant as you are a republican one.

        Most people on the left think for themselves. Plenty have called out the bullshit that Hillary has done.

        You'll probably be surprised to know that when someone attacks trump, responding about the failings of the democracs or hillary specifically will get you nods of agreement.

        I know you expect them to get upset, stick their fingers in their ears, shouting "LA LA LA I CAN'T HERE YOU. DEMOCRACTS ARE PERFECT. OUR LEADERS ARE GODS. YOUR LEADERS ARE CUCKS HAHAHA" but they don't generally work that way, they leave that to your side who are so easily fooled by the fox and trump bullshit that they hardly have to try.

        Remember Trump saying he loves the ignorant? And how he could shoot someone and his fans will still stick up for him... Just like Ray Moore.. A judge exposed for abuse of a 14 year old girl, and that conservative radio guy ... Something Rose replies "well at least he's not a homosexual" and all the right wing loons are out supporting him, and he'll probably be relected.

        I have total respect for normal people with conservative views, even though I largely disagree, but in America these days, they don't have a voice. The current republicans are the most fucked up people, with the most nuckle-dragging backwards moronic supporters anyone could ever imagine...

        1. JEDIDIAH
          Mushroom

          Re: What did you expect?

          > You right wingers are so tribal.

          >

          > You automatically think that anyone who criticises a republican is obviously as much of a democrat sychophant

          This sounds like very mundane kind of DMCA stuff and most of you are unhinged with hate over it. You aren't "merely criticizing" here. You're not even rationally looking at the situation to see if you should be getting hysterical.

          Your response is positively Pavlovian here.

          This nonsense is absurd to those of us that view ourselves as in the centre.

          Your hysterics really do distract from genuine issues and lowers the S/N to pretty much zero.

        2. bombastic bob Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: What did you expect?

          "You right wingers are so tribal."

          and THAT RANT got 31 UP votes?

          howler monkeys, indeed.

          icon, because, facepalm.

          /me observes that there's so little actual information in the article, I can't find anything to comment about, one way or another, without it all looking like "fake news" commentary.

          But if I had to make a comment, other than "let's wait and see when we get more information", is that STOPPING excessive lawsuits is a GOOD idea. There's way too much "tort" going on as it is.

        3. TomG

          Re: What did you expect?

          Spoken like a true Democrat.

      2. Chronos Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: What did you expect?

        East Asia? I thought it was Eurasia this month, and always had been?

        /me fully expects this to whoosh far overhead...

        1. ST Silver badge
          Happy

          Re: What did you expect?

          > I thought it was Eurasia this month, and always had been?

          Tsk, tsk. We've always been at war with Oceania.

      3. MJI Silver badge

        Re: What did you expect?

        Please tell your handler that we know you are a troll account, and Vlad needs to try harder

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What did you expect?

        Big John: Tut tut. No need to get flaming mad just because your side backed history's greatest bribe taker and went down to ignominious defeat thereby. It happens.

        Jamie Jones: You right wingers are so tribal.

        You automatically think that anyone who criticises a republican is obviously as much of a democrat sychophant as you are a republican one.

        Almost all Americans are overly tribal in their politics to the extent that any criticism of one tribe is taken as confirmation of membership of the other.

        As a conservative, Trump horrifies me. Handing massive tax cuts to the rich is not conservative. Populism is not conservatism. Following Trump does not make you a conservative. Pandering to religious extremists does not make you a conservative. Crony capitalism does not make you a conservative.

        Trump is hijacking the core values of conservatism and redefining them to make his form of "government" backed by a large chunk of the American right. Republicans have been power starved for so long that they are accepting his agenda (mostly; god bless John McCain et al).

        Big John: He is stealing your party, values and soul. Please wake up soon.

      5. Jim 59

        Re: What did you expect?

        Hi Big John, are you a bot ? You certainly sound like one.

        Perhaps El reg needs a third voting button.

      6. veti Silver badge

        Re: What did you expect?

        @Big John: "history's greatest bribe taker' has nothing on Trump. His bribes are just the greatest ever. They're beautiful bribes, bribes to make America grate again. Well, one American anyway.

        I'm old enough to remember what republicans were saying about Obama, before he was elected. So yes, I'm willing to concede that the losing side does make a lot of bullshit predictions. And if by "the East Asians' you mean the Chinese - which is statistically accurate, if nothing else, after all the modal 'East Asian' is Chinese - then sure, they would certainly concur that the Dear Leader is doing a fantastic job. He's basically walked back all America's claims to influence in the Pacific region, leaving the whole place to the Chinese.

        Maybe his goal is to hand over Hawaii to them. After all, that would retroactively justify all those 'birther' claims that he spent eight years banging on about. It'd be the ultimate "Fuck you" to Obama.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What did you expect?

      Sure did and no regrets. At least Trump is protecting Google and Facebook from European crap like this:

      Someone told Google to nuke links to mean reviews of disgraced telco True Telecom

      https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/11/23/true_telecom_google_links_removed/

      #Trump2020

    3. Haku

      Re: What did you expect?

      The president was voted by the people and for the people.

      Conclusion: Those people are idiots and will get what they deserve, unfortunately everyone else has to live with the consequences of those dumbass voters.

      .

      You can replace "The president" with "Brexit" and my statement still stands firm :(

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What did you expect?

        > Conclusion: Those people are idiots and will get what they deserve, unfortunately everyone else has to live with the consequences of those dumbass voters.

        LOL

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What did you expect?

        > The president was voted by the people and for the people.

        The People? They voted Hillary, but it's not the People but the Electoral College that picks the President

      3. Jedit
        Mushroom

        "everyone else has to live with the consequences"

        Only temporarily. (See post icon for details.)

      4. TomG

        Re: What did you expect?

        You are another person that does not understand the Electoral College. I repeat, the President IS NOT elected by the people.

  3. Rono666

    Leaders who needs them? Or you could lead yourself just a tip...

  4. LDS Silver badge
    Devil

    Maybe just a a way to sabotage NAFTA?

    Wasn't he keen on killing it?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Maybe just a a way to sabotage NAFTA?

      I think he mentioned re-negotiating NAFTA, and yes, It's all connected.

  5. Sgt_Oddball Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    possible disturbing epiphany

    If in the land of the free a company is recognised as a person, does that mean a company can stand for president?

    President Yahoo! Anyone?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "President Yahoo! Anyone?"

      You already got one. Just read Swift, not the Apple language. Nor the singer.

      1. DainB Bronze badge

        Re: "President Yahoo! Anyone?"

        Acute case of TDS ?

        1. Sgt_Oddball Silver badge
          Facepalm

          Re: "President Yahoo! Anyone?"

          In that instance it refers to the company Yahoo! Rather than the mild 50's insult of referring to someone as a Yahoo. As for TDS you're going to have to be more disruptive since TDS can be a host of different things.

          Unless you meant to imply jealousy on my part by implying that I own a small member in which case you've completely missed the point I was making.

          P.s. I considered a 'your mum' insult but consisting I don't know what was implied with TDS I felt it better to leave it than try and play at your level.

  6. Florida1920 Silver badge
    Mushroom

    Donald Jr vs Ivanka

    Donald Trump Jr. is positioning himself as the heir apparent on the Right. Ivanka seems to tip a little more Left, or at least what passes for Left in Trumpistan. We could see Trump vs Trump in '16 or '20. Personally, I'd like to see it turn into an epic battle, like the one at the end of Richard III, the 1995 time-shifted movie version starring Ian McKellen. Unfortunately, we have no venue as visually impressive as Battersea Power Station, so they'll have to shoot it (out) in Trump Tower (elections having been canceled by Executive Order). During TV Prime Time, of course.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Donald Jr vs Ivanka

      So you see Trump as Richard III? Not Richard Nixon? Getting kinda highbrow ain't ya? But you're right, Nixon is already taken by Hillary.

      Soooo, Trump as Richard III. Who plays the part of the dead princes? Hillary again? Or.. Bernie perhaps... or, both?

      Sorry, I'm just not seeing it. Now if Hillary had won, she'd be a perfect fit for King Lear. Especially now that she's wandering out into the wilderness, raving about plots against her, perpetrated by practically everyone. Spooky!

      Oh wait, if she'd won, she wouldn't do that until much later. Oh well, as long as it happens eventually, right? ;-/

      1. Florida1920 Silver badge

        Re: Donald Jr vs Ivanka

        So you see Trump as Richard III?
        Donald Junior, with the slicked-back hair, definitely. Vs Ivanka and what's-his-name her husband. We're talking The War of the Trumps, 2016 or 2020. Hillary is out of the picture. Basically, what I want is that epic final battle, Trump v Trump, in the lobby of Trump Tower, NYC. You gotta admit, it would get YUGE TV ratings. The best ever!

        The princes in the Tower? That's us, pal.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Donald Jr vs Ivanka

          Um, we've all been secretly murdered? Then why is the economy zooming? Who's doing that?

          1. PeterGriffin

            Re: Donald Jr vs Ivanka

            Piles of debt supplied by foreign governments buying US Treasury Bonds. The US Government has debts of up to $19.9 TRILLION. The US is bankrupt - anyone talking up "growth" is talking B$.

            1. Nolveys Silver badge

              Re: Donald Jr vs Ivanka

              anyone talking up "growth" is talking B$

              What if one also uses the word "malignant"?

              One thing that seems rarely spoken of regarding debt is how the monetary system is setup. When every dollar in existence represents an ever growing debt that can never be paid back you have to wonder where we are ultimately headed.

            2. bombastic bob Silver badge
              Mushroom

              Re: Donald Jr vs Ivanka

              "The US Government has debts of up to $19.9 TRILLION."

              which is TWICE what it was in 2009.

              Thanks, OBAKA.

      2. Captain DaFt

        Re: Donald Jr vs Ivanka

        So you see Trump as Richard III? Not Richard Nixon?

        Personally, I see Trump's first term as slightly better than Dubya's.

        People seem to forget just how ludicrous he was first term.

        (It was Dubya's second term that turned people from laughing at idiots in office, to being very afraid of them)

    2. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge

      Re: Donald Jr vs Ivanka

      Shouldn't this be

      Trumps vs Karhasians?

      After all both families get high on media exposure.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A good sign.

    Strange, but both this article and the Bloomberg one seem to be simple direct reporting, and not opinions disguised as such. Most encouraging. Hey, maybe the journalists are starting to get the message!

    1. Florida1920 Silver badge

      Re: A good sign.

      simple direct reporting, and not opinions disguised as such.
      You read The Reg for simple, direct reporting?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: A good sign.

        Okay, you got me. But at least the Bloomberg thing still counts, right?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: A good sign.

          Hahahahahaha.......

          No

  8. Trollslayer Silver badge
    Flame

    The US is rich

    In the same way that Trump is - ignore the debt.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The US is rich

      Is it in the same way people realise their own intelligence. Posting anon, because I also recognise my own intelligence, and it is much lower than I thought.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The US is rich

      Who is going to make the US pay its debts back? No one, under threat of force. Therefore the US is rich.

      1. Captain DaFt

        Re: The US is rich

        Who is going to make the US pay its debts back? No one, under threat of force. Therefore the US is rich.

        Ah, don't be silly, no force needed at all.

        From PeterGriffin's post: Piles of debt supplied by foreign governments buying US Treasury Bonds.

        If the US fails, then most World powers are left holding worthless paper, and lose trillions. Then one after the other fails as well.

        So if the US does go TITSUP (Totally Insolvent Territory Sinks, Unable to Pay), then everyone, except maybe Russia and Iran, will have to scramble to keep the US afloat or sink with them.

        (Where do you suppose the major banks got the idea from?)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The US is rich

          If everyone on the planet owes money then which planet do we all owe it to?

          Anyway, it's war before insolvency.

          You also missed off Venezuela.

  9. Carpet Deal 'em
    Facepalm

    Much ado about good things

    There's quite a few things to criticize Trump about, but all these histrionics are aimed at a policy that's four administrations and eleven years old at this point. If you'd click through to the Bloomberg article, you'd see what's being forwarded is little different than existing US safe harbor laws - and, lest you've forgotten, those have been long established as good for the free internet.

  10. Palpy
    Devil

    Trump dynasty? -- for my money?

    Not a chance in Hell.

    Trump Sr. has managed to insult and sabotage virtually everyone in the Republican leadership. They look forward to a Trump second term like they look forward to genital chancres. His first year is a shambles, and they're seeing long-time Republican leadership leaving in disgust. They see Trump torpedoes hitting their waterline just about weekly. They'll do everything they can to keep him off the ticket in 2020, assuming he hasn't been impeached by then. He's the Biggest Loser.

    Donald Jr. and Eric Trump are playing in the Upper Class Twit of the Year skit, West-Pondian remix. Neither have the wit to avoid urinating on their shoes -- look at the political gaffes and missteps they've made already, without even being in any real office. Jared Kushner is a deer in the headlights. He will be facing criminal charges before Mueller's work is done. Ivanka is, essentially, a Barbie doll. No depth, no savvy, no ability to think tactically or strategically.

    Barring extreme changes**, what will happen is what has happened over the last 6 election cycles or so: a progressive Democrat will win next, because folks are sick of stagnation under Trump, just like they were sick of it under Bush Jr. Then they'll become sick of stagnation under the Dem administration, and a Republican will win next. (Repubs will probably regain control of the Senate in 2022, assuming they lose it in 2018 or 2020, and probably the House). And the cycle will repeat.

    **Unless, extreme changes. The US Gini number is usually estimated at 0.40 to 0.45, depending on the calculation parameters used. In other words, the US suffers high economic inequality. The thing about that is, the higher a Gini number, the less stable a society. Usually.

    And clearly, US society is rumbling with instability. There were two anti-business-as-usual candidates in the last election. One of them won. And Bernie made a damned good show. People don't think the current situation is bearable. They want change, they want to be better off.

    But Trump's not going to reset the economic inequality index. He's not going to employ more out-of-work coal miners competing with a glut of cheap natural gas, nor is he going to stop industrial automation and the consequent job loss, nor is he going to change the outsourcing of US jobs. (Certainly not by leaving the negotiating tables, which is so far his preferred tactic.) And under Trump's version of the tax restructuring package, the Gini index will get worse. US residents will see greater and greater economic inequity, and society will become less stable.

    What historians notice about some societies with high Gini indices is that the only way they can reset economic inequality is through violence: either revolution or civil war. If that happens, then it's absolutely possible -- I'd say probable, given the abundance of willing American goose-stepping non-thinkers like Big John -- that a capitalist-fascist dictatorship will be the end result. Probably not headed by Trump, because he's a showman, not a strongman. And also because he's a coward. Certainly the American dictatorship will be headed by someone much more ruthless, and far more politically calculating.

    However, we older ones (62, myself) may skate along for the rest of our lives before The Violence and/or The Tyranny happens. Human social behavior is very complicated, and AFAIK, there is great uncertainty around how particular societies respond to inequities and inequalities. The Gini index is one thing, but controversy surrounds it and other indicators of societal instability. There are no clear and perfect prognostications when dealing with large complex societies.

    If The Tyranny comes, though, make sure you've got your passport ready. And don't leave it 'til too late.

  11. Tomato42 Silver badge

    So I guess that "Don't be Evil" is now just a joke at Google?

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    @Big John

    I think I might just know who you are. Let's say you may have prevoius Phorm

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Buttering up to Google, Facebook et al

    'Cause next election he won't have the Vladster to help him?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Buttering up to Google, Facebook et al

      Beware, Vlad the Emailer....

  14. JWLong

    Have a read on this

    https://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/little-rebellionquotation

  15. RobertLongshaft

    Funny isn't it

    Shrieking liberals never had any problem with Obama taking wall street money and appointing ultra left wing pseudo communists.

    They never had a problem with Hilary Clinton rigging the democratic primary and subverting democracy or her selling Uranium to the Russians in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton foundation.

    1. PapaD

      Re: Funny isn't it

      Actually, i think a lot of them had a problem with Clinton rigging the democratic primary - and i suspect a lot of democrats that were complicit in that are deeply regretting doing so, as Sanders would likely have stood a much better chance of winning than Hillary.

      Tbh, an election with two candidates unhappy with the status quo would have made for a much more interesting election.

    2. Tom 38 Silver badge

      Re: Funny isn't it

      selling Uranium to the Russians in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars to the Clinton foundation.

      How much do you think the Clinton Foundation had to bung the nine government agencies that signed off on the deal without any official intervention from Clinton?

    3. Tomato42 Silver badge

      Re: Funny isn't it

      > subverting democracy or her selling Uranium to the Russians

      wait a minute, aren't Russians now the "good guys" we have to "cooperate with"? And as such talking with them is part of normal diplomatic relations?

      or is hating Hillary for working with Russians and loving the orange turd for working with Russians part of the standard Republican doublethink?

      oh, and if Hillary really was responsible for the sale, can you tell me under which law could she veto the sale?

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The colony was better off with mad King George. Just look what a mess it is now.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019