Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 342357 times)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11852
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3200 on: July 26, 2018, 07:33:38 AM »
I should address the other parts of the claim: I do think Trump is an Alpha male for several reasons (reminder: I am GOP #nevertrumper)

  • He's incredibly popular with the PUA community. Guys like Roosh V, etc., were in for Trump very early. These are the people who tried to build a brand in the early 2000's around teaching men to seduce women. (you might remember a reality show with a guy named Mystery that was about this) "Alpha" is a key signifier for this community, just as "beta" is an epithet. I think some of you object that Trump is not a true "alpha" because of the disastrous press conference in Helsinki. I'd argue that the whole construct of "alpha" is based on outmoded ideas of how people should interact that were born of a toxic masculine society from decades ago.
  • I've followed the writings of Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert) to try to understand the rise of Trump, and how he hijacked my political movement. Adams would certainly characterize Trump as an "Alpha" male
  • Superficially, you see all the trappings of the "Alpha" lifestyle, the golden elevator, the sons who hunt african mega-fauna, the romantic involvement with models and porn-stars
  • Most importantly is the way he uses language: Trump's way of speaking is entirely devoid of fact. What he says is simply unrelated to any verifiable reality. He does not use words as a tool to provide information, but he does use them to signal social hierarchy. I don't think he intentionally lies, I think he's simply lived a life (inherited wealth, business owner, entertainer) that has caused him to develop this tool for language use to build his business.

I figured that 'Alpha' male was supposed to mean a natural leader, someone who inspires the best in those who look towards him.  Someone who lives up to his promises and commitments, and engenders trust in those around him.  Someone who is physically and mentally attractive to women.  Someone who doesn't complain or whine, but instead quietly fixes problems. 

Trump exhibits none of those traits.  He has been able to fuck porn stars because he bought them with his daddy's money, not because he's attractive in any way.  He came to power by dividing a country (and by begging the Russians to fix things for him).  He lies constantly, to the point that it's questionable how tenuous his grip on reality really is.  He has abandoned and cheated on every wife he's had.  Whining is probably his greatest talent . . . and Trump bends the knee to lick Putin's boots at every instance.

I don't see how you could define that behaviour as 'Alpha' . . . or if you did, why anyone would want to be 'Alpha'.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8470
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3201 on: July 26, 2018, 07:39:27 AM »
I should address the other parts of the claim: I do think Trump is an Alpha male for several reasons (reminder: I am GOP #nevertrumper)

  • He's incredibly popular with the PUA community. Guys like Roosh V, etc., were in for Trump very early. These are the people who tried to build a brand in the early 2000's around teaching men to seduce women. (you might remember a reality show with a guy named Mystery that was about this) "Alpha" is a key signifier for this community, just as "beta" is an epithet. I think some of you object that Trump is not a true "alpha" because of the disastrous press conference in Helsinki. I'd argue that the whole construct of "alpha" is based on outmoded ideas of how people should interact that were born of a toxic masculine society from decades ago.
  • I've followed the writings of Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert) to try to understand the rise of Trump, and how he hijacked my political movement. Adams would certainly characterize Trump as an "Alpha" male
  • Superficially, you see all the trappings of the "Alpha" lifestyle, the golden elevator, the sons who hunt african mega-fauna, the romantic involvement with models and porn-stars
  • Most importantly is the way he uses language: Trump's way of speaking is entirely devoid of fact. What he says is simply unrelated to any verifiable reality. He does not use words as a tool to provide information, but he does use them to signal social hierarchy. I don't think he intentionally lies, I think he's simply lived a life (inherited wealth, business owner, entertainer) that has caused him to develop this tool for language use to build his business.

thanks for responding talltexan.  To be clear, my post above was not about your belief that DJT is an alpha male, but more a plea for members on all sides to avoid needlessly inflammatory terms like 'bootlicking beta c*ck".

On one hand I agree with you, in the sense that I think DJT certainly sees himself as an alpha male, and based on his own comments his personal image is of a brilliant, handsome, self-made billionaire in excellent health. A casual view of the facts show all of those adjectives come with big caveats (to say the least). Whether simply believing one is an alpha male is enough to actually be an alpha male is an interesting question. And then there's the question about whether we want to be led by a self-described alpha-male, particularly during a time of global peace and (at least until the today) expansion.

Whether DJT actually believes his own bluster --- at times I think he gets sucked into his own lies, and at other times he simply doesn't care and probably is baffled that other people do. In the entertainment & marketing  world - and in particular in realty TV and gaming there's a legally protected concept called "Puffery" where one can say general terms like "it's the greatest product ever produced" and have actual legal protection, but those kinds of statements just don't fly as honest in day-to-day conversation.  So when he makes blatantly false statements like having the 'biggest crowds ever" or that immigrants are 'horrible people - rapists - stealing your jobs'.... these were beyond the pale in US Politics until this last cycle, but frankly aren't in the world where DJT inhabited over the last four decades.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3202 on: July 26, 2018, 07:56:34 AM »
Just saw this sobering glimpse into the future this morning.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/opinion/trump-re-election-2020.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

It encapsulates a lot that Iíve worried about.
I too feel it was realistically assembled.

I think we've got a lot of fence sitters who have a very "meh" attitude and would be summed up in the voters in the article who said the things for them were fine.  If the Democrats do not get off the Trump attacks and instead start making a case for why the actual results and things that are happening and back away from Trump specifically and instead head down a path of "why are the Democrats better for YOU", this article paints a likely picture, of fence sitters keeping their feet in Trump's yard.

It is possible (thought November is still far away) that we'll have a preview of this article in the mid-terms.  The step backs yesterday of Trump's two biggest grenades, if sustained until the election, can create a lot of the same climate.  The economy will keep petering along so no real pain for voters, and fighting on the moral front is a losing battle as we've all seen.  Therefore the vast majority of voters will feel nothing to get their dander up and may back away from angry backlash at the voting booth.  I do feel it is too late for Democrats to pivot for the 2018 elections, and therefore we are in the situation the article presents where attacks on Trump are pointless and we'll see how many seats swing and it can be a harbinger of how 2020 can play out as the similarities are there.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3203 on: July 26, 2018, 08:14:56 AM »
Trump exhibits none of those traits.  He has been able to fuck porn stars because he bought them with his daddy's money, not because he's attractive in any way.  He came to power by dividing a country (and by begging the Russians to fix things for him).  He lies constantly, to the point that it's questionable how tenuous his grip on reality really is.  He has abandoned and cheated on every wife he's had.  Whining is probably his greatest talent . . . and Trump bends the knee to lick Putin's boots at every instance.
I'm personally working to try to understand the man himself and how anyone can beat him.

The Cohen tape offered what I felt was a very interesting glimpse into a Trump that has been hidden from us.  A Trump that is not in front of the camera and is not performing for an audience, in short the Trump that operate in the background and likely the Trump the porn stars and his wives likely see.  What I saw was a very calm and considering individual being confronted with a problem that he had to solve and very methodically talking it through.  He's having a conversation on the phone with someone else at the same time and both exchanges continue during the short audio clip that was released.  In short the bombast and bravado was not present.  Instead he appeared very differently.  It is therefore not beyond belief that Karen McDougal was truly attracted to this inner man, and not simply at him for his money.  Interviews with her do not seem to oppose that idea.  Stormy on the other hand spews contempt for ridicule for the man, but their two contexts are very different.  The latter was a one-night stand, someone who likely saw what we do, the other was 10 months of relations, one who likely got to see a lot more of the Trump on the Cohen tape.  McDougal does not seem angry as Stormy does, she appears remorseful of her decision to become involved with a married man, yet still shows that she cared for the man himself.

What I think this may have shown us is that every single action that we "see" (thorough the eyes of the camera or through the tweets) is far from irrational movements but instead a very calculated and orchestrated process.  It strengthens what I have seen since the start, that attacking the character of the man, his mannerisms, his language and such just sucks up time and that is right where he wants people because while they all flit around no real damage is being done.  His base has discounted this input from the beginning, this is never going to work with them.  Only doing the hard work or finding actual problems, as is done when he walks back statements like he did yesterday with Putin II and tough stance on Europe, will impact anything in a sustainable way. 

I am beginning to think about how "tenuous his grip on reality is" is actually a calculated act my an individual who has a very firm grasp on reality but is playing a part when we can see him, a part he has played for decades and therefore appears to be him.  Imagine if Meryl Streep or whoever else you feel is the best actor alive today had instead of playing different roles instead just played once character for decades.  How terrific would they be?  They'd get very, very good at it and having to live in that role and having to look at it from all directions would get very good at understanding how every facet of the character could be used to greatest effect.  The bombast, the lying to drive people to distraction, every little trait of the character is understood by a master craftsman.  This is how I think the Cohen tape may be the greatest gift we have ever been given.  Not because I feel it will lead to an indictment or an impeachment, but because instead it was a never-intended-to-be-seen-by-his-audience piece into who the real man may actually be, and therefore will wake up well meaning and talented people who can use that new knowledge to formulate a new strategy to come at him. 


partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2295
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3204 on: July 26, 2018, 08:15:50 AM »
Below is why Trump or someone like Trump has a real chance of being elected. Republicans are not doing grass-roots voter raising. However Republican-led legislatures have been very busy otherwise, in redrawing districts or defending those redrawn districts, and legislation to skew and suppress voting.
I live in North Carolina and our districts are so gerrymandered. Despite being ruled unconstitutional by the state supreme court, those districts were used in the 2016 election. And it still hasn't been corrected.

Up the pipeline in particular is legislation to approve needing to present an ID to be able to vote. FYI there is NO FEDERAL rule requiring showing an ID to vote. They are going to try to get the legislation approved by using misleading titles. Only AFTER does it pass, will they specify which Ids are acceptable. Republican legislature spend all their time churning out legislation that strips the (democratic) governor of his historic powers and oversight and instead give it to the (republican held) legislature. It's really disgusting and despite mass protests there's nothing it seems the voters can do.

Heck, if you can't win fairly, might as well mislead, cheat and suppress voting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/north-carolina-gop-pledges-to-defend-gerrymandered-congressional-map/2018/01/10/5fe99686-f64b-11e7-a9e3-ab18ce41436a_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.efa16bd73823
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/07/north-carolina-gops-plan-to-deceive-voters-about-its-radical-ballot-measures.html

And I think this has been brought up before, but we are no longer ranked as a full democracy but as a flawed democracy. One of the weighting of rankings is how open, transparent, and fair our election process is.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/america-democracy-rated-donald-trump-not-fully-democratic-us-president-report-the-economist-a8195121.html
« Last Edit: July 26, 2018, 08:23:31 AM by partgypsy »

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1773
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3205 on: July 26, 2018, 08:36:26 AM »
Just saw this sobering glimpse into the future this morning.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/opinion/trump-re-election-2020.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

It encapsulates a lot that Iíve worried about.
I too feel it was realistically assembled.

I think we've got a lot of fence sitters who have a very "meh" attitude and would be summed up in the voters in the article who said the things for them were fine.  If the Democrats do not get off the Trump attacks and instead start making a case for why the actual results and things that are happening and back away from Trump specifically and instead head down a path of "why are the Democrats better for YOU", this article paints a likely picture, of fence sitters keeping their feet in Trump's yard.

It is possible (thought November is still far away) that we'll have a preview of this article in the mid-terms.  The step backs yesterday of Trump's two biggest grenades, if sustained until the election, can create a lot of the same climate.  The economy will keep petering along so no real pain for voters, and fighting on the moral front is a losing battle as we've all seen.  Therefore the vast majority of voters will feel nothing to get their dander up and may back away from angry backlash at the voting booth.  I do feel it is too late for Democrats to pivot for the 2018 elections, and therefore we are in the situation the article presents where attacks on Trump are pointless and we'll see how many seats swing and it can be a harbinger of how 2020 can play out as the similarities are there.

I generally agree with this.  Trump just doing his daily clown show is more than enough to activate the base Dems, but if the actual Dem candidates RUN on constantly attacking Trump (and by extension his supporters), that will just activate the 'weak' Trump/GOP supporters.

Dems are lucky right now that Trump is such a personal disaster b/c they don't have much to sell policy-wise.  They do have a clear advantage in messaging on health care (and I personally think they should push hard for Medicare option for all).  The GOP tax cuts aren't super popular, but it's hard to actively run against tax cuts.  The economy is doing fine, relatively speaking.  Most voters don't vote on foreign policy, and the Dems are already conflicted about being for or against trade wars.  The Russia probe doesn't register high on most voters' interest scale.  And (much to my misery) the appalling environmental policy of this administration rarely activates any voters at all, historically.

So, Dems should run on health care, and maybe a vague idea of 'restoring checks and balances to government' without hammering Trump so much personally.  Dems should run on better pay/benefits/retirement security/student loan relief.  But they can only run on those latter things if they have actual coherent policies that could be put into practice and are simple conceptually.  Do they?

I also think the Dems could win if they coherently messaged anti-trust, anti-mega corp policies and stuck to that theme going forward, but most establishment politicians need big corp money too much to do that.  It might work with some of the fresher candidates.

But right now, it seems like the Dem base is mostly activated by Trump's immigration policies and Trump himself.  Maybe that will work, but I'm skeptical. I think immigration policy is an absolute loser in a general....it's far too easy for the GOP to  sell, 'liberals care more about Dreamers or immigrant kids than you and your kids'.  And slogans like "Abolish ICE" are absolutely moronic b/c they sound like Dems are saying "we want open borders and no border enforcement" even if that isn't what they mean. 

Identity politics issues are IMO also losers in a general election b/c the more voters are reminded of differences among our citizenry, rather than common goals and similarities, the more they tribalize.   Identify politics could work in specific races in a mid term...as we've seen in some of the special elections.  Will the Dems thread that needle, though? Questionable.

« Last Edit: July 26, 2018, 08:40:02 AM by wenchsenior »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8470
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3206 on: July 26, 2018, 08:53:45 AM »
Just saw this sobering glimpse into the future this morning.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/opinion/trump-re-election-2020.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

It encapsulates a lot that Iíve worried about.
I too feel it was realistically assembled.

I think we've got a lot of fence sitters who have a very "meh" attitude and would be summed up in the voters in the article who said the things for them were fine.  If the Democrats do not get off the Trump attacks and instead start making a case for why the actual results and things that are happening and back away from Trump specifically and instead head down a path of "why are the Democrats better for YOU", this article paints a likely picture, of fence sitters keeping their feet in Trump's yard.

It is possible (thought November is still far away) that we'll have a preview of this article in the mid-terms.  The step backs yesterday of Trump's two biggest grenades, if sustained until the election, can create a lot of the same climate.  The economy will keep petering along so no real pain for voters, and fighting on the moral front is a losing battle as we've all seen.  Therefore the vast majority of voters will feel nothing to get their dander up and may back away from angry backlash at the voting booth.  I do feel it is too late for Democrats to pivot for the 2018 elections, and therefore we are in the situation the article presents where attacks on Trump are pointless and we'll see how many seats swing and it can be a harbinger of how 2020 can play out as the similarities are there.

I generally agree with this.  Trump just doing his daily clown show is more than enough to activate the base Dems, but if the actual Dem candidates RUN on constantly attacking Trump (and by extension his supporters), that will just activate the 'weak' Trump/GOP supporters.

Dems are lucky right now that Trump is such a personal disaster b/c they don't have much to sell policy-wise.  They do have a clear advantage in messaging on health care (and I personally think they should push hard for Medicare option for all).  The GOP tax cuts aren't super popular, but it's hard to actively run against tax cuts.  The economy is doing fine, relatively speaking.  Most voters don't vote on foreign policy, and the Dems are already conflicted about being for or against trade wars.  The Russia probe doesn't register high on most voters' interest scale.  And (much to my misery) the appalling environmental policy of this administration rarely activates any voters at all, historically.

So, Dems should run on health care, and maybe a vague idea of 'restoring checks and balances to government' without hammering Trump so much personally.  Dems should run on better pay/benefits/retirement security/student loan relief.  But they can only run on those latter things if they have actual coherent policies that could be put into practice and are simple conceptually.  Do they?

I also think the Dems could win if they coherently messaged anti-trust, anti-mega corp policies and stuck to that theme going forward, but most establishment politicians need big corp money too much to do that.  It might work with some of the fresher candidates.

But right now, it seems like the Dem base is mostly activated by Trump's immigration policies and Trump himself.  Maybe that will work, but I'm skeptical. I think immigration policy is an absolute loser in a general....it's far too easy for the GOP to  sell, 'liberals care more about Dreamers or immigrant kids than you and your kids'.  And slogans like "Abolish ICE" are absolutely moronic b/c they sound like Dems are saying "we want open borders and no border enforcement" even if that isn't what they mean. 

Identity politics issues are IMO also losers in a general election b/c the more voters are reminded of differences among our citizenry, rather than common goals and similarities, the more they tribalize.   Identify politics could work in specific races in a mid term...as we've seen in some of the special elections.  Will the Dems thread that needle, though? Questionable.

The part of that article which seems a stretch to me is that we'll have another 2.5 years of a booming economy and no military engagements - that would set a modern record for the US.  That would blow past the 91-'01 expansion.

I'm also not convinced that it will be the 'fence sitters' who decide the 2020 election. I maintain what matters most is how many Dems turnout to vote.  As we've seen in the last 9 cycles, the GOP turns out in about the same numebrs every election, and in higher numbers than the other party, and are very loyal voters.  If more Dems show up to vote in 2020 than in 2016 I think it is a lock - but history shows turnout is often supressed when there's an incumbent running.

Regarding their platform and what issues the Dems ought to run on, I think whatever motivates people to the voting booth.  It's probably not running against tax cuts or how big a liar Trump is. Environmental concerns might motivate more of the younger demographic - which are exactly the sorts to sit out elections and most likley to favor the democrats. But none of those would be as useful as a coherent, realistic and optimistic series of policies which promised better lives over what the GOP has been offering.  So far that's been largely background discussions.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1773
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3207 on: July 26, 2018, 09:07:09 AM »
Just saw this sobering glimpse into the future this morning.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/opinion/trump-re-election-2020.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

It encapsulates a lot that Iíve worried about.
I too feel it was realistically assembled.

I think we've got a lot of fence sitters who have a very "meh" attitude and would be summed up in the voters in the article who said the things for them were fine.  If the Democrats do not get off the Trump attacks and instead start making a case for why the actual results and things that are happening and back away from Trump specifically and instead head down a path of "why are the Democrats better for YOU", this article paints a likely picture, of fence sitters keeping their feet in Trump's yard.

It is possible (thought November is still far away) that we'll have a preview of this article in the mid-terms.  The step backs yesterday of Trump's two biggest grenades, if sustained until the election, can create a lot of the same climate.  The economy will keep petering along so no real pain for voters, and fighting on the moral front is a losing battle as we've all seen.  Therefore the vast majority of voters will feel nothing to get their dander up and may back away from angry backlash at the voting booth.  I do feel it is too late for Democrats to pivot for the 2018 elections, and therefore we are in the situation the article presents where attacks on Trump are pointless and we'll see how many seats swing and it can be a harbinger of how 2020 can play out as the similarities are there.

I generally agree with this.  Trump just doing his daily clown show is more than enough to activate the base Dems, but if the actual Dem candidates RUN on constantly attacking Trump (and by extension his supporters), that will just activate the 'weak' Trump/GOP supporters.

Dems are lucky right now that Trump is such a personal disaster b/c they don't have much to sell policy-wise.  They do have a clear advantage in messaging on health care (and I personally think they should push hard for Medicare option for all).  The GOP tax cuts aren't super popular, but it's hard to actively run against tax cuts.  The economy is doing fine, relatively speaking.  Most voters don't vote on foreign policy, and the Dems are already conflicted about being for or against trade wars.  The Russia probe doesn't register high on most voters' interest scale.  And (much to my misery) the appalling environmental policy of this administration rarely activates any voters at all, historically.

So, Dems should run on health care, and maybe a vague idea of 'restoring checks and balances to government' without hammering Trump so much personally.  Dems should run on better pay/benefits/retirement security/student loan relief.  But they can only run on those latter things if they have actual coherent policies that could be put into practice and are simple conceptually.  Do they?

I also think the Dems could win if they coherently messaged anti-trust, anti-mega corp policies and stuck to that theme going forward, but most establishment politicians need big corp money too much to do that.  It might work with some of the fresher candidates.

But right now, it seems like the Dem base is mostly activated by Trump's immigration policies and Trump himself.  Maybe that will work, but I'm skeptical. I think immigration policy is an absolute loser in a general....it's far too easy for the GOP to  sell, 'liberals care more about Dreamers or immigrant kids than you and your kids'.  And slogans like "Abolish ICE" are absolutely moronic b/c they sound like Dems are saying "we want open borders and no border enforcement" even if that isn't what they mean. 

Identity politics issues are IMO also losers in a general election b/c the more voters are reminded of differences among our citizenry, rather than common goals and similarities, the more they tribalize.   Identify politics could work in specific races in a mid term...as we've seen in some of the special elections.  Will the Dems thread that needle, though? Questionable.

The part of that article which seems a stretch to me is that we'll have another 2.5 years of a booming economy and no military engagements - that would set a modern record for the US.  That would blow past the 91-'01 expansion.

I'm also not convinced that it will be the 'fence sitters' who decide the 2020 election. I maintain what matters most is how many Dems turnout to vote.  As we've seen in the last 9 cycles, the GOP turns out in about the same numebrs every election, and in higher numbers than the other party, and are very loyal voters.  If more Dems show up to vote in 2020 than in 2016 I think it is a lock - but history shows turnout is often supressed when there's an incumbent running.

Regarding their platform and what issues the Dems ought to run on, I think whatever motivates people to the voting booth.  It's probably not running against tax cuts or how big a liar Trump is. Environmental concerns might motivate more of the younger demographic - which are exactly the sorts to sit out elections and most likley to favor the democrats. But none of those would be as useful as a coherent, realistic and optimistic series of policies which promised better lives over what the GOP has been offering.  So far that's been largely background discussions.

+1

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3304
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3208 on: July 26, 2018, 09:25:56 AM »
Just saw this sobering glimpse into the future this morning.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/opinion/trump-re-election-2020.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

It encapsulates a lot that Iíve worried about.
I too feel it was realistically assembled.

I think we've got a lot of fence sitters who have a very "meh" attitude and would be summed up in the voters in the article who said the things for them were fine.  If the Democrats do not get off the Trump attacks and instead start making a case for why the actual results and things that are happening and back away from Trump specifically and instead head down a path of "why are the Democrats better for YOU", this article paints a likely picture, of fence sitters keeping their feet in Trump's yard.

It is possible (thought November is still far away) that we'll have a preview of this article in the mid-terms.  The step backs yesterday of Trump's two biggest grenades, if sustained until the election, can create a lot of the same climate.  The economy will keep petering along so no real pain for voters, and fighting on the moral front is a losing battle as we've all seen.  Therefore the vast majority of voters will feel nothing to get their dander up and may back away from angry backlash at the voting booth.  I do feel it is too late for Democrats to pivot for the 2018 elections, and therefore we are in the situation the article presents where attacks on Trump are pointless and we'll see how many seats swing and it can be a harbinger of how 2020 can play out as the similarities are there.

I generally agree with this.  Trump just doing his daily clown show is more than enough to activate the base Dems, but if the actual Dem candidates RUN on constantly attacking Trump (and by extension his supporters), that will just activate the 'weak' Trump/GOP supporters.

Dems are lucky right now that Trump is such a personal disaster b/c they don't have much to sell policy-wise.  They do have a clear advantage in messaging on health care (and I personally think they should push hard for Medicare option for all).  The GOP tax cuts aren't super popular, but it's hard to actively run against tax cuts.  The economy is doing fine, relatively speaking.  Most voters don't vote on foreign policy, and the Dems are already conflicted about being for or against trade wars.  The Russia probe doesn't register high on most voters' interest scale.  And (much to my misery) the appalling environmental policy of this administration rarely activates any voters at all, historically.

So, Dems should run on health care, and maybe a vague idea of 'restoring checks and balances to government' without hammering Trump so much personally.  Dems should run on better pay/benefits/retirement security/student loan relief.  But they can only run on those latter things if they have actual coherent policies that could be put into practice and are simple conceptually.  Do they?

I also think the Dems could win if they coherently messaged anti-trust, anti-mega corp policies and stuck to that theme going forward, but most establishment politicians need big corp money too much to do that.  It might work with some of the fresher candidates.

But right now, it seems like the Dem base is mostly activated by Trump's immigration policies and Trump himself.  Maybe that will work, but I'm skeptical. I think immigration policy is an absolute loser in a general....it's far too easy for the GOP to  sell, 'liberals care more about Dreamers or immigrant kids than you and your kids'.  And slogans like "Abolish ICE" are absolutely moronic b/c they sound like Dems are saying "we want open borders and no border enforcement" even if that isn't what they mean. 

Identity politics issues are IMO also losers in a general election b/c the more voters are reminded of differences among our citizenry, rather than common goals and similarities, the more they tribalize.   Identify politics could work in specific races in a mid term...as we've seen in some of the special elections.  Will the Dems thread that needle, though? Questionable.

The part of that article which seems a stretch to me is that we'll have another 2.5 years of a booming economy and no military engagements - that would set a modern record for the US.  That would blow past the 91-'01 expansion.



Yes, I agree with you on this. However, I don't think there needs to be a booming economy. Just a not-visibly-plunging-into-the-depths economy. And I think that's possible. Even a recession, as long as it wasn't a 2008-level one, might not shake voters up enough to hold their heads up and look around.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8470
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3209 on: July 26, 2018, 10:15:55 AM »
Just saw this sobering glimpse into the future this morning.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/opinion/trump-re-election-2020.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

It encapsulates a lot that Iíve worried about.
I too feel it was realistically assembled.

I think we've got a lot of fence sitters who have a very "meh" attitude and would be summed up in the voters in the article who said the things for them were fine.  If the Democrats do not get off the Trump attacks and instead start making a case for why the actual results and things that are happening and back away from Trump specifically and instead head down a path of "why are the Democrats better for YOU", this article paints a likely picture, of fence sitters keeping their feet in Trump's yard.

It is possible (thought November is still far away) that we'll have a preview of this article in the mid-terms.  The step backs yesterday of Trump's two biggest grenades, if sustained until the election, can create a lot of the same climate.  The economy will keep petering along so no real pain for voters, and fighting on the moral front is a losing battle as we've all seen.  Therefore the vast majority of voters will feel nothing to get their dander up and may back away from angry backlash at the voting booth.  I do feel it is too late for Democrats to pivot for the 2018 elections, and therefore we are in the situation the article presents where attacks on Trump are pointless and we'll see how many seats swing and it can be a harbinger of how 2020 can play out as the similarities are there.

I generally agree with this.  Trump just doing his daily clown show is more than enough to activate the base Dems, but if the actual Dem candidates RUN on constantly attacking Trump (and by extension his supporters), that will just activate the 'weak' Trump/GOP supporters.

Dems are lucky right now that Trump is such a personal disaster b/c they don't have much to sell policy-wise.  They do have a clear advantage in messaging on health care (and I personally think they should push hard for Medicare option for all).  The GOP tax cuts aren't super popular, but it's hard to actively run against tax cuts.  The economy is doing fine, relatively speaking.  Most voters don't vote on foreign policy, and the Dems are already conflicted about being for or against trade wars.  The Russia probe doesn't register high on most voters' interest scale.  And (much to my misery) the appalling environmental policy of this administration rarely activates any voters at all, historically.

So, Dems should run on health care, and maybe a vague idea of 'restoring checks and balances to government' without hammering Trump so much personally.  Dems should run on better pay/benefits/retirement security/student loan relief.  But they can only run on those latter things if they have actual coherent policies that could be put into practice and are simple conceptually.  Do they?

I also think the Dems could win if they coherently messaged anti-trust, anti-mega corp policies and stuck to that theme going forward, but most establishment politicians need big corp money too much to do that.  It might work with some of the fresher candidates.

But right now, it seems like the Dem base is mostly activated by Trump's immigration policies and Trump himself.  Maybe that will work, but I'm skeptical. I think immigration policy is an absolute loser in a general....it's far too easy for the GOP to  sell, 'liberals care more about Dreamers or immigrant kids than you and your kids'.  And slogans like "Abolish ICE" are absolutely moronic b/c they sound like Dems are saying "we want open borders and no border enforcement" even if that isn't what they mean. 

Identity politics issues are IMO also losers in a general election b/c the more voters are reminded of differences among our citizenry, rather than common goals and similarities, the more they tribalize.   Identify politics could work in specific races in a mid term...as we've seen in some of the special elections.  Will the Dems thread that needle, though? Questionable.

The part of that article which seems a stretch to me is that we'll have another 2.5 years of a booming economy and no military engagements - that would set a modern record for the US.  That would blow past the 91-'01 expansion.



Yes, I agree with you on this. However, I don't think there needs to be a booming economy. Just a not-visibly-plunging-into-the-depths economy. And I think that's possible. Even a recession, as long as it wasn't a 2008-level one, might not shake voters up enough to hold their heads up and look around.
As always, 'we shall see'.  I'm definitely not rooting for a recession - i never wish hardship on other regardless of how it affects me.  I just find the current state to be one of 'irrational exuberance' where people (including the article linked) are discussing sustained 3.x% growth going forward indefinitely. It possible 3%+ could happen, but we'd need an improbable combination of near-perfect conditions: no bubbles popping, no black-swan events, no massive natural disasters, no major conflicts in important regions, no sustained trade wars...

AS for whether we'll hit a slowdown or a gut-wrenching recession, the nature of cyclical markets is boom-then-bust, bull to bear. Our entire trading market favors huge runups followed by steep selloffs.  Like the '01 recession we may in time look back at the next recession and say "hey, that really wasn't that bad or pervasive', but group-think being what it is during the moment it feels awful, and even during a shallow recession that feeling will last for a year or more.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7205
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3210 on: July 26, 2018, 11:20:01 AM »
Like the '01 recession we may in time look back at the next recession and say "hey, that really wasn't that bad or pervasive'.

I think it's just as likely we look back on it and say "well, 50% market corrections once per century were obviously the fault of seriously flawed economic policies, I'm sure glad we've learned our lesson.

Similarly, for all of the folks prepping for WW3, I think the 100 year anniversary of V-day without another global conflict will be an opportunity to reevaluate the wisdom of their failed plans.  Maybe the world really is slowly getting better over time?

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3070
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3211 on: July 26, 2018, 11:30:01 AM »
Well, this should be interesting:
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/398902-gop-lawmakers-introduce-impeachment-resolution-against-rosenstein

The "Freedom Caucus" members of the House GOP  have introduced articles of impeachment... against Rod Rosenstein because they say he has a conflict of interest and has not produced documents fast enough.

The rest of the GOP recognizes this as a stupid move.

The Freedom Caucus proposal lowers the bar for impeachment. Lowering the bar only makes it easier to impeach Trump.

There's also the problem that it looks bad only a few months before the mid-terms. "Rosenstein didn't give up some documents -- impeach him and stop Mueller!" It could make the D voters more enthusiastic when they're already at least +7 in the polls.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/26/paul-ryan-comes-out-against-rosenstein-impeachment-push-led-by-house-conservatives.html


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8470
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3212 on: July 26, 2018, 11:32:18 AM »
Like the '01 recession we may in time look back at the next recession and say "hey, that really wasn't that bad or pervasive'.

I think it's just as likely we look back on it and say "well, 50% market corrections once per century were obviously the fault of seriously flawed economic policies, I'm sure glad we've learned our lesson.

Similarly, for all of the folks prepping for WW3, I think the 100 year anniversary of V-day without another global conflict will be an opportunity to reevaluate the wisdom of their failed plans.  Maybe the world really is slowly getting better over time?

Possibly.  I worry that the current crop of leaders discounts all the steps put in place after WWII to help prevent another massive conflict.  Just as de-regulation following a profitable boom time often exacerbates the next recession, I fear the latest protectionist, nationalistic policies will make future conflicts between developed nations more likely.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8470
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3213 on: July 26, 2018, 11:38:09 AM »
Well, this should be interesting:
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/398902-gop-lawmakers-introduce-impeachment-resolution-against-rosenstein

The "Freedom Caucus" members of the House GOP  have introduced articles of impeachment... against Rod Rosenstein because they say he has a conflict of interest and has not produced documents fast enough.

The rest of the GOP recognizes this as a stupid move.

The Freedom Caucus proposal lowers the bar for impeachment. Lowering the bar only makes it easier to impeach Trump.

There's also the problem that it looks bad only a few months before the mid-terms. "Rosenstein didn't give up some documents -- impeach him and stop Mueller!" It could make the D voters more enthusiastic when they're already at least +7 in the polls.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/07/26/paul-ryan-comes-out-against-rosenstein-impeachment-push-led-by-house-conservatives.html

The GOP couldn't repeal and replace teh ACA because of the Freedom Caucus. They couldn't get a large infrastructure deal going (despite substantial support for it among Ds) because of the Freedom Caucus. Now they've drawn a line in the sand are are using this impeachment issue as a loyalty pledge to DJT, even though it will make it much harder for moderate republicans during the midterms.
Its unlikely to make it out of committee, and even if it does it won't make it to the floor until September at the earliest - right when the campaign stretch hits. God help them if Mueller issues more indictments between now and then, it'll look like even more of a blatant coverup attempt.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7205
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3214 on: July 26, 2018, 11:58:56 AM »
Its unlikely to make it out of committee, and even if it does it won't make it to the floor until September at the earliest - right when the campaign stretch hits.

Today's reporting suggests they have eleven signatures on their proposal to impeach the Rod, not the 218 it would need to succeed.  They know it has no chance, and they didn't do it because they were serious about impeaching.

They did it because it will play well on Fox news.  Viewers will hear that trump is being impeached because of the Russia witch hunt, and Rosenstein is being impeached for supporting the Russia witch hunt, and they'll think it's only fair.  It's more whataboutism, just deceptive false equivalence to give supporters something to retort with when challenged on their candidates indefensible behavior.

They do the same thing with every new fuck up.  There is no desire to hold trump even minimally accountable.  They will continue to lie and deceive to protect a man who has shredded America's founding ideals, all in the name of retaining political power for themselves. 

The republican party used to be pro-America, albeit with a twisted vision of what that meant, but they at least wanted the country to succeed.  Trump, by contrast, will burn America to the ground if he thinks he can personally profit from the fire.

Metta

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3215 on: July 26, 2018, 12:22:13 PM »
Only now that we have an Alpha male as commander-in-chief.
Spoiler: show
There wouldn't have been any bootlicking of a beta c*ck like most of our previous Presidents were.

hiding parts of that for discretion's sake.
So, to be clear, as long as the GOP president is an alpha, the GOP will lick their boots and do whatever they say, even when it goes against everything the party has stood for for decades? That, right there, is a pretty damning indictment of the GOP.

Holy shit, I thought that remark was meant sarcastically/ironically... until I saw who posted it.

Talltexan, all I have to say is....

AHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

OMG. Trump is an alpha male? Have you SEEN the way he sucks up to Putin? Have you noticed how unbelievably fragile his ego is?

Trump is a man baby. He's a man baby's idea of an alpha male. If he hadn't been born into money, he'd never get anyone to have sex with him.

Good lord. The blindness...

I still think it was sarcasm. Maybe you are thinking of another Texan...

I'n not sure... I did go back and look at TallTexan's other posts just now, though. He seems far too reasonable to be this crazy, so yes, I am going to have to believe he's kidding.

Whew. I was shook. LOL

I apologize for being away from the discussion so long that my clarification of this partially sarcastic post was wanting.

I personally oppose Trump, and I think I have many other posts that express this. 

I think the sarcasm was hard to detect because it's pretty plain how much the GOP enables Trump. They do it because they're afraid of the plurality of GOP voters who nominated him and won him the White House. I am registered GOP, (you may have guessed that from my screen name) and--as I prepared for the 2018 primary season--all the research I did into Republican candidates made it clear that there was one issue they tried to win on: "I supported Donald Trump, and I started doing it before my opponent did."

In exchange for not sicking his voters on them, Trump and his associates are allowed a host of ethical breaches that were not seen since the Warren Harding administration. Scott Pruitt by himself (disclosure: I work for a public utility, so EPA really matters to us) was so corrupt that it was cartoonish, but he's hardly alone. When I share my concerns about these things with other republicans at work and home, however, all they tell me is that Trump has accomplished more in 500 days as President than Ronald Reagan did in his first term. It makes me feel as though Trump has bent reality in some way that was simply impossible for previous Presidents.

Thanks for responding here and in a measured, intelligent way. I live in the blue corner of a red state and I am deeply puzzled by what I am seeing. You would probably regard me as center-left but I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats in the past. Never have I thought to myself, "Well, of course corruption is happening, the Republicans/Democrats are the party of corruption." I have thought this about certain cities and local governments but never about the national parties.

Now I find myself easily thinking, "Lamar Alexander is part of the party that celebrates corruption." I think this even though I have thought of him in the past as someone who was trustworthy in office, but had a different viewpoint to mine. I thought of him as a good public servant who could be contacted with my concerns and would do his best for his constituents, even those he disagrees with. I no longer think this is true. When I trace my feelings to their source it is this tolerance for corruption.

The problem with corruption in Trump's administration is not so much that he is corrupt and surrounds himself with corruption, it is that the Republicans are not responding to it. By not responding to stop corruption when they hold both houses of Congress, they are aligning themselves with corruption in ways that will stain the party going forward. I don't understand why the Republicans would do this. Corruption is not part of any party's idea of good governance. (I recognize that some conservatives in National Review and Weekly Standard have called the Republicans on this matter but they do not seem to have any influence in the party anymore.)

I FIRE'd about a year and a half ago so I no longer see many of the people who were serious Trump supporters and I can't overhear what they think anymore. What is going on with this? Why are Republicans enabling corruption? Have they always been comfortable with corruption and I just never saw it?

shenlong55

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 351
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3216 on: July 26, 2018, 12:31:14 PM »
Only now that we have an Alpha male as commander-in-chief.
Spoiler: show
There wouldn't have been any bootlicking of a beta c*ck like most of our previous Presidents were.

hiding parts of that for discretion's sake.
So, to be clear, as long as the GOP president is an alpha, the GOP will lick their boots and do whatever they say, even when it goes against everything the party has stood for for decades? That, right there, is a pretty damning indictment of the GOP.

Holy shit, I thought that remark was meant sarcastically/ironically... until I saw who posted it.

Talltexan, all I have to say is....

AHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

OMG. Trump is an alpha male? Have you SEEN the way he sucks up to Putin? Have you noticed how unbelievably fragile his ego is?

Trump is a man baby. He's a man baby's idea of an alpha male. If he hadn't been born into money, he'd never get anyone to have sex with him.

Good lord. The blindness...

I still think it was sarcasm. Maybe you are thinking of another Texan...

I'n not sure... I did go back and look at TallTexan's other posts just now, though. He seems far too reasonable to be this crazy, so yes, I am going to have to believe he's kidding.

Whew. I was shook. LOL

I apologize for being away from the discussion so long that my clarification of this partially sarcastic post was wanting.

I personally oppose Trump, and I think I have many other posts that express this. 

I think the sarcasm was hard to detect because it's pretty plain how much the GOP enables Trump. They do it because they're afraid of the plurality of GOP voters who nominated him and won him the White House. I am registered GOP, (you may have guessed that from my screen name) and--as I prepared for the 2018 primary season--all the research I did into Republican candidates made it clear that there was one issue they tried to win on: "I supported Donald Trump, and I started doing it before my opponent did."

In exchange for not sicking his voters on them, Trump and his associates are allowed a host of ethical breaches that were not seen since the Warren Harding administration. Scott Pruitt by himself (disclosure: I work for a public utility, so EPA really matters to us) was so corrupt that it was cartoonish, but he's hardly alone. When I share my concerns about these things with other republicans at work and home, however, all they tell me is that Trump has accomplished more in 500 days as President than Ronald Reagan did in his first term. It makes me feel as though Trump has bent reality in some way that was simply impossible for previous Presidents.

Thanks for responding here and in a measured, intelligent way. I live in the blue corner of a red state and I am deeply puzzled by what I am seeing. You would probably regard me as center-left but I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats in the past. Never have I thought to myself, "Well, of course corruption is happening, the Republicans/Democrats are the party of corruption." I have thought this about certain cities and local governments but never about the national parties.

Now I find myself easily thinking, "Lamar Alexander is part of the party that celebrates corruption." I think this even though I have thought of him in the past as someone who was trustworthy in office, but had a different viewpoint to mine. I thought of him as a good public servant who could be contacted with my concerns and would do his best for his constituents, even those he disagrees with. I no longer think this is true. When I trace my feelings to their source it is this tolerance for corruption.

The problem with corruption in Trump's administration is not so much that he is corrupt and surrounds himself with corruption, it is that the Republicans are not responding to it. By not responding to stop corruption when they hold both houses of Congress, they are aligning themselves with corruption in ways that will stain the party going forward. I don't understand why the Republicans would do this. Corruption is not part of any party's idea of good governance. (I recognize that some conservatives in National Review and Weekly Standard have called the Republicans on this matter but they do not seem to have any influence in the party anymore.)

I FIRE'd about a year and a half ago so I no longer see many of the people who were serious Trump supporters and I can't overhear what they think anymore. What is going on with this? Why are Republicans enabling corruption? Have they always been comfortable with corruption and I just never saw it?

This article proposes an interesting answer to your question... https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/4/7/17205276/scott-pruitt-resigns-scandals-tribalism

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1930
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3217 on: July 26, 2018, 01:10:56 PM »
The vox article gets it right.

I would add that I think there's an extra sense of urgency by many GOP to do these things now just in case they are swept from power in November. Many of them have known all along what a maelstrom of corruption was around Trump and probably do not expect him to retain power or legitimacy long, so they feel they have to maximize the value of a very narrow time window.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8470
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3218 on: July 26, 2018, 01:53:16 PM »
The vox article gets it right.

I would add that I think there's an extra sense of urgency by many GOP to do these things now just in case they are swept from power in November. Many of them have known all along what a maelstrom of corruption was around Trump and probably do not expect him to retain power or legitimacy long, so they feel they have to maximize the value of a very narrow time window.

This is my read as well. It's echoed by statements I've heard from multiple Trump supporters - "but Gorshuch!"  "But the corporate tax cut!"
In their eyes, the appointment of a far-right-of-center (maybe two) to SCOTUS plus the reduction of the corporate taxes are big 'wins' - so they are willing to look the other way regarding Trump's moral character and the string of cabinet-level appointees who have been forced out due to corruption. Trump and his staff enriching themselves is met with a shrug - I actually had one republican say to me "what's a few million [in unlawful perks] when he's saving us billions?"

It's the ultimate "the ends justify the means" defense.

protostache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 869
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3219 on: July 26, 2018, 02:22:04 PM »
The vox article gets it right.

I would add that I think there's an extra sense of urgency by many GOP to do these things now just in case they are swept from power in November. Many of them have known all along what a maelstrom of corruption was around Trump and probably do not expect him to retain power or legitimacy long, so they feel they have to maximize the value of a very narrow time window.

This is my read as well. It's echoed by statements I've heard from multiple Trump supporters - "but Gorshuch!"  "But the corporate tax cut!"
In their eyes, the appointment of a far-right-of-center (maybe two) to SCOTUS plus the reduction of the corporate taxes are big 'wins' - so they are willing to look the other way regarding Trump's moral character and the string of cabinet-level appointees who have been forced out due to corruption. Trump and his staff enriching themselves is met with a shrug - I actually had one republican say to me "what's a few million [in unlawful perks] when he's saving us billions?"

It's the ultimate "the ends justify the means" defense.

This has been my impression as well. They're willing to overlook literally anything as long as they get control of SCOTUS, because that means they can block anything that any future progressive Congress and Executive are able to do. It also means they can unwind Roe, their base's perpetual bugaboo.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8470
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3220 on: July 27, 2018, 05:54:02 AM »
Mueller has  subpoenaed the CFO of Trump Organization, Allen Weisselberg.  Weisselberg has worked for the Trump family since the 1970s, starting as an accountant for Fred Trump.  He is reportedly one of DJT's closest confidants, and he has handled both his personal and business financials for decades.

It would be very interesting to be a fly on the wall during that grand jury hearing...

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3221 on: July 27, 2018, 06:25:29 AM »
Growth numbers for the quarter due out soon.  All speculation is they will be very good.  This will actually be a legitimate thing Trump can hang his hat on.  For all the crap he does to create his show he at least has not done anything to derail in the short term and he can properly claim that he may have even helped (I'm pretty sure he'll substitute something else for the word "may").  The Dems will have no valid argument and whimpering about the long term damage will fall on deaf ears for voters of any party and help with the mid-terms in favor of the red.  The Dems will need to get laser focused on something like we can still have progress with less drama as the most agitated attack they should mount on Trump's behavior. 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8470
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3222 on: July 27, 2018, 07:06:43 AM »
Growth numbers for the quarter due out soon.  All speculation is they will be very good.  This will actually be a legitimate thing Trump can hang his hat on.  For all the crap he does to create his show he at least has not done anything to derail in the short term and he can properly claim that he may have even helped (I'm pretty sure he'll substitute something else for the word "may").  The Dems will have no valid argument and whimpering about the long term damage will fall on deaf ears for voters of any party and help with the mid-terms in favor of the red.  The Dems will need to get laser focused on something like we can still have progress with less drama as the most agitated attack they should mount on Trump's behavior.

Really??!!  Any decent economist will tell you not to put too much stock on a single quarter's estimates. From everything I've heard, the expected 'bump' is more about companies stockpiling goods in anticipation of rising prices through a combination of trade spats and increasing interest rates.  In other words, it's both real and temporary, and ironically may depress growth in future quarters.
I don't doubt the WH will tout a favorable report, and the GOP will try to use it to their advantage to show their approach is 'working' - but there's plenty for the Dems to latch on to as well, starting with continued stagnation of wages even as the tax bill pushes more money to shareholders.

Or simple: The president takes too much credit when economic numebrs are good, and took much criticism when they are bad.

Nickyd£g

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 162
  • Location: Scotland, UK
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3223 on: July 27, 2018, 07:13:12 AM »
Just saw this sobering glimpse into the future this morning.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/opinion/trump-re-election-2020.html?smid=fb-nytopinion&smtyp=cur

It encapsulates a lot that Iíve worried about.

I saw that too and it made me sad. And I'm not American, or living there. But another 4 years (6, if he carries on or is allowed to carry on) of him and I truly believe the world will be a very different, more uglier, place.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3070
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3224 on: July 27, 2018, 08:29:24 AM »
Growth numbers for the quarter due out soon.  All speculation is they will be very good.  This will actually be a legitimate thing Trump can hang his hat on.  For all the crap he does to create his show he at least has not done anything to derail in the short term and he can properly claim that he may have even helped (I'm pretty sure he'll substitute something else for the word "may").  The Dems will have no valid argument and whimpering about the long term damage will fall on deaf ears for voters of any party and help with the mid-terms in favor of the red.  The Dems will need to get laser focused on something like we can still have progress with less drama as the most agitated attack they should mount on Trump's behavior.

Really??!!  Any decent economist will tell you not to put too much stock on a single quarter's estimates. From everything I've heard, the expected 'bump' is more about companies stockpiling goods in anticipation of rising prices through a combination of trade spats and increasing interest rates.  In other words, it's both real and temporary, and ironically may depress growth in future quarters.
I don't doubt the WH will tout a favorable report, and the GOP will try to use it to their advantage to show their approach is 'working' - but there's plenty for the Dems to latch on to as well, starting with continued stagnation of wages even as the tax bill pushes more money to shareholders.

Or simple: The president takes too much credit when economic numebrs are good, and took much criticism when they are bad.

At a time like this, it's important to look at the President's mouthpiece and sometimes advisor, Foxnews,

Quote from: foxnews.com
Trump touts roaring growth as economy expands at fastest quarterly pace in years

Whether that will make Trump voters more likely to vote (the economy is already great) can be debated. It will certainly make Trump voters more loyal and supportive of the greatest negotiator of all time.

As you noted, the long-term damage is already starting,

Quote from: reuters
Detroit automakers General Motors Co (GM.N), Ford Motor Co f.N and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV (FCA) (FCHA.MI)(FCAU.N) lowered their full-year profit forecasts on Wednesday due to escalating tariffs, hitting their stocks as investors bet that escalating trade disputes would hurt margins and sales.

Quote from: https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/whirlpool-shares-tank-as-tariffs-hit-profits
Home appliance manufacturer Whirlpoolís stock plummeted in trading Tuesday, one day after the company cut its full-year profit outlook, owing in part to the rising costs of steel and aluminum after tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump.

Etc., etc.

Dem enthusiasm won't falter much; there will still be a Dem flood this fall.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7205
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3225 on: July 27, 2018, 08:37:42 AM »
The 2017 GOP tax bill added a trillion dollars of stimulus to the stock market (note: not the economy).  That's bigger than TARP was, undertaken in 2008 at a moment of economic crisis when we desperately needed stimulus.  Doing it in 2017, at the moment of our greatest prosperity ever, seems moronic. 

So the stock market damn well better soar as a result, because we went deeply into debt to make sure it did.  Future generations will be paying through the nose to fund those corporate tax cuts.  Republicans did that on purpose, because they were trying to sabotage the federal budget in order to justify cutting medicare and social security.  They haven't exactly been secretive about this plan.

For all of their talk about "fiscal responsibility" the GOP has turned out to be not only the party of profligate spenders, but the party of spenders who are openly trying to handicap America's ability to respond to future economic crises.  They haven't made America great, they'e made America weak and vulnerable.  The temporary market bump as a result of all of this deficit spending is the tiniest silver lining on a truly shitty situation.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11852
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3226 on: July 27, 2018, 08:44:26 AM »
For all of their talk about "fiscal responsibility" the GOP has turned out to be not only the party of profligate spenders, but the party of spenders who are openly trying to handicap America's ability to respond to future economic crises.  They haven't made America great, they'e made America weak and vulnerable.  The temporary market bump as a result of all of this deficit spending is the tiniest silver lining on a truly shitty situation.

The GOP is the party of welfare and subsidy.  They just passed a farm bill which shelters farmers from the impact of Trump's tariffs by putting them all on the dole.

Republican conversion from 'fiscal conservatism only' to 'social conservatism only' would appear to be complete.


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8470
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3227 on: July 27, 2018, 09:04:58 AM »
The 2017 GOP tax bill added a trillion dollars of stimulus to the stock market (note: not the economy).  That's bigger than TARP was, undertaken in 2008 at a moment of economic crisis when we desperately needed stimulus.  Doing it in 2017, at the moment of our greatest prosperity ever, seems moronic. 

So the stock market damn well better soar as a result, because we went deeply into debt to make sure it did.  Future generations will be paying through the nose to fund those corporate tax cuts.  Republicans did that on purpose, because they were trying to sabotage the federal budget in order to justify cutting medicare and social security.  They haven't exactly been secretive about this plan.

For all of their talk about "fiscal responsibility" the GOP has turned out to be not only the party of profligate spenders, but the party of spenders who are openly trying to handicap America's ability to respond to future economic crises.  They haven't made America great, they'e made America weak and vulnerable.  The temporary market bump as a result of all of this deficit spending is the tiniest silver lining on a truly shitty situation.

GOP logic:
Bailouts for banks during the great recession (aka TARP), caused largely by a systemic lack of oversight: BAD! This prevents market forces from doing what they should!

Bailouts for farmers who are harmed by our own tariff spats: Needed! Otherwise market forces will bankrupt many of our patriotic farmers!

Response to deficits during a financial crisis under a Dem president: Horrible - we need to cut all non-military spending!

Response to deficits during an economic boom under a GOP president: Just a few % over GPD, what's the fuss?  But lets' cut non-military entitlement spending anyway, it's unsustainable now that we've cut taxes.

Approach to the 1990s crack epidemic centered around largely urban people of color: Zero tolerance - lock up first time offenders to send a message!

Approach to present opioid crisis centered on largely rural white people: We need assistance programs to fight this deadly addiction that's destroying families.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3070
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3228 on: July 27, 2018, 09:16:39 AM »
To be fair, many of the GOP leadership, including from farming states, are critical of the tariffs and the aid.

The GOP base (besides the farmers), on the other hand....

The aid could actually help Democrats in farming red-states because the farmers have taken a 20% pay cut, courtesy of Trump, and then put on welfare to make up for it. Not a proud place to be.

Meanwhile, Coke is raising prices due to tariffs.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/27/news/companies/coca-cola-prices-tariffs/index.html

Quote
Coca-Cola (CCE) has hiked prices on its carbonated drinks because the recently enacted 10% tariff on imported aluminum has made Coke cans more expensive to produce.

Inflation is about to heat up.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11852
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3229 on: July 27, 2018, 09:35:52 AM »
To be fair, many of the GOP leadership, including from farming states, are critical of the tariffs and the aid.

Bullshit.

They control all levels of government right now.  If they didn't want it to happen, it wouldn't happen.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8470
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3230 on: July 27, 2018, 09:52:46 AM »

Inflation is about to heat up.

There is a certain irony if this actually happens - the biggest conservative worry about QE and QE2 is that it would lead to horrible inflation, which never materialized.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3070
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3231 on: July 27, 2018, 09:58:42 AM »
To be fair, many of the GOP leadership, including from farming states, are critical of the tariffs and the aid.

Bullshit.

They control all levels of government right now.  If they didn't want it to happen, it wouldn't happen.

Well, ok, some of the GOP Congresslings are critical.

When your constituents are complaining about their pay cut, and the MAGA hats are coming off, it's difficult to be speaking in favor of the person that caused it.

That's not to say that the GOP Congresslings don't support him but some are indeed openly critical (and voting for somewhat useless resolutions*)

Quote from: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/398996-soybean-farmer-trumps-offered-12-billion-in-aid-to-farmers-hit-by-tariffs-is
"They've been taking the legs out from under America's farmers and ranchers," Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said to CBS News. "What the administration is offering them instead is $12 billion in gold-plated crutches. That's not what anybody wants."

Trump's actions are a hard pill to swallow for the pro-free trade, anti-Russia, party.



* https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-criticism-of-trump-is-all-talk-but-it-still-matters/

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1963
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3232 on: July 27, 2018, 10:05:15 AM »
I mean, we were all pretty sure this was the case, and that the meeting was not about restrictions on adopting little Russian babies, but I think if this has legs it could be interesting. His core base will likely be unswayed and say that he still won by a majority voting for him, and maybe even continue doubling down on support for Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/26/politics/michael-cohen-donald-trump-june-2016-meeting-knowledge/index.html

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11852
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3233 on: July 27, 2018, 10:10:05 AM »
To be fair, many of the GOP leadership, including from farming states, are critical of the tariffs and the aid.

Bullshit.

They control all levels of government right now.  If they didn't want it to happen, it wouldn't happen.

Well, ok, some of the GOP Congresslings are critical.

When your constituents are complaining about their pay cut, and the MAGA hats are coming off, it's difficult to be speaking in favor of the person that caused it.

That's not to say that the GOP Congresslings don't support him but some are indeed openly critical (and voting for somewhat useless resolutions*)

Quote from: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/398996-soybean-farmer-trumps-offered-12-billion-in-aid-to-farmers-hit-by-tariffs-is
"They've been taking the legs out from under America's farmers and ranchers," Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) said to CBS News. "What the administration is offering them instead is $12 billion in gold-plated crutches. That's not what anybody wants."

Trump's actions are a hard pill to swallow for the pro-free trade, anti-Russia, party.



* https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gop-criticism-of-trump-is-all-talk-but-it-still-matters/

When a single dissenting Republican opinion could derail Trump's crazy shenanigans but none of them do, that kinda tells you where their hearts really are.  It's total and utter bullshit to tell people how you don't support what Trump is doing . . . and then vote for it to happen.  They have backed every stupid policy that he has proposed, and done so wholeheartedly.

Do you really believe your neighbour who says he's morally against crime while he's at the end of your driveway, helping to load your stolen TV into his co-worker's car?  According to that article, your neighbour is taking a middle course . . . not picking sides in the crime debate.  What a load of horseshit.

cliffhanger

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 113
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3234 on: July 27, 2018, 10:31:21 AM »
When a single dissenting Republican opinion could derail Trump's crazy shenanigans but none of them do, that kinda tells you where their hearts really are.  It's total and utter bullshit to tell people how you don't support what Trump is doing . . . and then vote for it to happen.  They have backed every stupid policy that he has proposed, and done so wholeheartedly.

Do you really believe your neighbour who says he's morally against crime while he's at the end of your driveway, helping to load your stolen TV into his co-worker's car?  According to that article, your neighbour is taking a middle course . . . not picking sides in the crime debate.  What a load of horseshit.

Immigration reform, wall funding, ACA repeal. All pushed by Trump and failed to gain enough support from Republicans in congress. And that's just off the top of my head.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3070
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3235 on: July 27, 2018, 10:34:48 AM »
When a single dissenting Republican opinion could derail Trump's crazy shenanigans but none of them do, that kinda tells you where their hearts really are.  It's total and utter bullshit to tell people how you don't support what Trump is doing . . . and then vote for it to happen.  They have backed every stupid policy that he has proposed, and done so wholeheartedly.

Do you really believe your neighbour who says he's morally against crime while he's at the end of your driveway, helping to load your stolen TV into his co-worker's car?  According to that article, your neighbour is taking a middle course . . . not picking sides in the crime debate.  What a load of horseshit.

There's not an GOP open revolt yet and maybe there will never be. Perhaps they love the possibility of pushing through more pet causes (abortion restrictions, more tax cuts, more defense spending, harder stance on immigration) too much and they'll never curb his actions. I'm not sure how one can deny that there is a growing unease in the GOP leadership, though. GOP retirements are high and the polls look bad for the mid-terms. They've become the pro-Russian, anti-free trade, party. McCain probably has smoke coming out of his ears every time Trump compliments Putin.

So we have GOP Congresslings looking at a scale. One side has a leader eviscerating the GOP platform in many ways. The other side has a chance of getting some of those long-held policies and beliefs put into place before the Dems take back the House.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1963
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3236 on: July 27, 2018, 10:35:47 AM »
When a single dissenting Republican opinion could derail Trump's crazy shenanigans but none of them do, that kinda tells you where their hearts really are.  It's total and utter bullshit to tell people how you don't support what Trump is doing . . . and then vote for it to happen.  They have backed every stupid policy that he has proposed, and done so wholeheartedly.

Do you really believe your neighbour who says he's morally against crime while he's at the end of your driveway, helping to load your stolen TV into his co-worker's car?  According to that article, your neighbour is taking a middle course . . . not picking sides in the crime debate.  What a load of horseshit.

Immigration reform, wall funding, ACA repeal. All pushed by Trump and failed to gain enough support from Republicans in congress. And that's just off the top of my head.
to be fair, the ACA repeal failed because the right wing of the party thought the proposed repeal did not go far enough.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3070
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3237 on: July 27, 2018, 10:45:20 AM »
When a single dissenting Republican opinion could derail Trump's crazy shenanigans but none of them do, that kinda tells you where their hearts really are.  It's total and utter bullshit to tell people how you don't support what Trump is doing . . . and then vote for it to happen.  They have backed every stupid policy that he has proposed, and done so wholeheartedly.

Do you really believe your neighbour who says he's morally against crime while he's at the end of your driveway, helping to load your stolen TV into his co-worker's car?  According to that article, your neighbour is taking a middle course . . . not picking sides in the crime debate.  What a load of horseshit.

Immigration reform, wall funding, ACA repeal. All pushed by Trump and failed to gain enough support from Republicans in congress. And that's just off the top of my head.
to be fair, the ACA repeal failed because the right wing of the party thought the proposed repeal did not go far enough.

Is that why McCain did it? I thought he did it in such a dramatic fashion to piss off Trump.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1963
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3238 on: July 27, 2018, 10:49:17 AM »
When a single dissenting Republican opinion could derail Trump's crazy shenanigans but none of them do, that kinda tells you where their hearts really are.  It's total and utter bullshit to tell people how you don't support what Trump is doing . . . and then vote for it to happen.  They have backed every stupid policy that he has proposed, and done so wholeheartedly.

Do you really believe your neighbour who says he's morally against crime while he's at the end of your driveway, helping to load your stolen TV into his co-worker's car?  According to that article, your neighbour is taking a middle course . . . not picking sides in the crime debate.  What a load of horseshit.

Immigration reform, wall funding, ACA repeal. All pushed by Trump and failed to gain enough support from Republicans in congress. And that's just off the top of my head.
to be fair, the ACA repeal failed because the right wing of the party thought the proposed repeal did not go far enough.

Is that why McCain did it? I thought he did it in such a dramatic fashion to piss off Trump.

If they went far enough to get the right wing, then the moderates balked. If they went towards the moderates (aka McCain), the the Freedom Caucus wouldn't go along.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3070
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3239 on: July 27, 2018, 11:03:58 AM »
to be fair, the ACA repeal failed because the right wing of the party thought the proposed repeal did not go far enough.

Is that why McCain did it? I thought he did it in such a dramatic fashion to piss off Trump.

If they went far enough to get the right wing, then the moderates balked. If they went towards the moderates (aka McCain), the the Freedom Caucus wouldn't go along.

Ah, makes sense.

tralfamadorian

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 899
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3240 on: July 27, 2018, 11:45:14 AM »
They've become the pro-Russian, anti-free trade, party.

Your comment reminds me of this week's Fresh Air episode concerning pro-Putin evangelical and NRA conservatives in America.

caracarn

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Ohio
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3241 on: July 27, 2018, 01:15:03 PM »
Just because monarchies still exist doesnít mean that new government types wonít evolve.  I donít think representative democracies or socialism is the end of the evolutionary line of civilization structure.
Yes, as was said long ago, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.  A global government marks end times in Christianity so be careful where you think we are headed and how quickly we get there, unless you want to be there for the implosion.

Now that the slightly sarcastic comments are made, I find zero evidence other than what seems to be your hopeful belief that things can always evolve, that anything new will ever surface.  It is pretty difficult to find anything perceived as more fair than some democratic format where people feel they have input into how they are governed instead of having it thrust upon them.  The only evolution I have seen historically is more countries moving to democratic forms of government, which indicates if it is not the end form, then it seems to be far preferred to the others.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1930
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3242 on: July 27, 2018, 02:28:29 PM »
When a single dissenting Republican opinion could derail Trump's crazy shenanigans but none of them do, that kinda tells you where their hearts really are.  It's total and utter bullshit to tell people how you don't support what Trump is doing . . . and then vote for it to happen.  They have backed every stupid policy that he has proposed, and done so wholeheartedly.

Do you really believe your neighbour who says he's morally against crime while he's at the end of your driveway, helping to load your stolen TV into his co-worker's car?  According to that article, your neighbour is taking a middle course . . . not picking sides in the crime debate.  What a load of horseshit.

So we have GOP Congresslings looking at a scale. One side has a leader eviscerating the GOP platform in many ways. The other side has a chance of getting some of those long-held policies and beliefs put into place before the Dems take back the House.

This actually gets to the core of Trump's genius sale: he has sold the GOP some things they want (TCJA, conservative judges) in exchange for getting things he wants (access to power, prestige in order to build his business in ways previously unexplored because of the legal/ethical checks put into place after Harding's and Nixon's abuses. People claim he's not a good deal-maker, but they haven't been paying to attention to the sale that he's made.

Liberals are angry because both of these transactions make them worse off. GOP #nevertrumpers (reminder: I fit into this group) are angry to the extent that we think the price for Trump is simply too high, i.e. the long-term corrosion to our values caused by the ethical defilement is in excess of the value of the the tax cut and the judges.

The tariffs are justified as a bargaining chip rather than a long-term policy shift by mainstream GOP. Whether this is right remains to be seen.

PathtoFIRE

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Dallas
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3243 on: July 27, 2018, 02:42:15 PM »
Just because monarchies still exist doesnít mean that new government types wonít evolve.  I donít think representative democracies or socialism is the end of the evolutionary line of civilization structure.
Yes, as was said long ago, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.  A global government marks end times in Christianity so be careful where you think we are headed and how quickly we get there, unless you want to be there for the implosion.

Now that the slightly sarcastic comments are made, I find zero evidence other than what seems to be your hopeful belief that things can always evolve, that anything new will ever surface.  It is pretty difficult to find anything perceived as more fair than some democratic format where people feel they have input into how they are governed instead of having it thrust upon them.  The only evolution I have seen historically is more countries moving to democratic forms of government, which indicates if it is not the end form, then it seems to be far preferred to the others.

I too have trouble envisioning something beyond current democracies, but that's probably been true of nearly everyone in past times. But I'm reading Iain Banks' Culture series, and that raises the somewhat plausible (and optimistic) case for a society governed by benevolent artificial intelligence in conjunction with an essentially lawless and mostly anarchic structure.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1187
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3244 on: July 27, 2018, 03:44:36 PM »
Did you get to the end of Look to Windward yet?   That wasn't particularly benevolent, but of course it wasn't targeted at the Culture.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1963
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3245 on: July 27, 2018, 04:32:52 PM »
i think that in the current context, the question is how to structure a democracy that it is flexible enough to track changes in knowledge, technology and society, and still remain resilient to those who will try and manipulate government and other social structures for personal gain and power grabs? That is up to and including disregard for the structures of the host government. Our system of checks and balances is what our framers came up with, but it is obviously imperfect and does not always do what it is supposed to do. I think the experiments with ranked voting preferences are interesting. I personally think the "winner take all" structure of our election system leads to poor power dynamics in congress and that a parliamentary or other power sharing type of democratic system would be better (though still flawed). I think our framers got a lot right, but in historical context they were one of the first drafts of a modern democratic western government. We would be remiss to treat it as a perfect document (as evidenced by our many amendments).

partgypsy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2295
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3246 on: July 29, 2018, 06:34:21 PM »
Even the original framers knew they weren't going to get it perfectly right, by the phrase "in order to form a more perfect union", and the use of amendments. though they did enshrine in the Constitution ideas they thought were critical, like separation of church and state, freedom to assemble, freedom of the press, and extremely limited powers of corporations as well as foreign powers on our elections.

Kyle Schuant

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 495
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3247 on: July 30, 2018, 12:55:50 AM »

"CHAPTER LIII.óThat the People, deceived by a false show of Advantage, often desire what would be their Ruin; and that large Hopes and brave Promises easily move them. [...]

"In considering what courses it is easy, and what it is difficult to persuade a people to follow, this distinction may be drawn: Either what you would persuade them to, presents on the face of it a semblance of gain or loss, or it seems a spirited course or a base one. When any proposal submitted to the people holds out promise of advantage, or seems to them a spirited course to take, though loss lie hid behind, nay, though the ruin of their country be involved in it, they will always be easily led to adopt it; whereas it will always be difficult to persuade the adoption of such courses as wear the appearance of disgrace or loss, even though safety and advantage be bound up with them.[...]

"I say, then, that there is no readier way to bring about the ruin of a republic, when the power is in the hands of the people, than to suggest daring courses for their adoption. For wherever the people have a voice, such proposals will always be well received, nor will those persons who are opposed to them be able to apply any remedy."

- Machiavelli, Discourses
« Last Edit: July 30, 2018, 05:35:49 AM by Kyle Schuant »

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5721
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3248 on: July 30, 2018, 03:56:51 AM »

"CHAPTER LIII.óThat the People, deceived by a false show of Advantage, often desire what would be their Ruin; and that large Hopes and brave Promises easily move them. [...]

"In considering what courses it is easy, and what it is difficult to persuade a people to follow, this distinction may be drawn: Either what you would persuade them to, presents on the face of it a semblance of gain or loss, or it seems a spirited course or a base one. When any proposal submitted to the people holds out promise of advantage, or seems to them a spirited course to take, though loss lie hid behind, nay, though the ruin of their country be involved in it, they will always be easily led to adopt it; whereas it will always be difficult to persuade the adoption of such courses as wear the appearance of disgrace or loss, even though safety and advantage be bound up with them.[...]

"I say, then, that there is no readier way to bring about the ruin of a republic, when the power is in the hands of the people, than to suggest daring courses for their adoption. For wherever the people have a voice, such proposals will always be well received, nor will those persons who are opposed to them be able to apply any remedy."

- Machiavelli, Discourses

I'll bet there is a line in the constitution that specifically outlaws the use of size 2 font.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8470
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #3249 on: July 30, 2018, 05:49:44 PM »

"CHAPTER LIII.óThat the People, deceived by a false show of Advantage, often desire what would be their Ruin; and that large Hopes and brave Promises easily move them. [...]

"In considering what courses it is easy, and what it is difficult to persuade a people to follow, this distinction may be drawn: Either what you would persuade them to, presents on the face of it a semblance of gain or loss, or it seems a spirited course or a base one. When any proposal submitted to the people holds out promise of advantage, or seems to them a spirited course to take, though loss lie hid behind, nay, though the ruin of their country be involved in it, they will always be easily led to adopt it; whereas it will always be difficult to persuade the adoption of such courses as wear the appearance of disgrace or loss, even though safety and advantage be bound up with them.[...]

"I say, then, that there is no readier way to bring about the ruin of a republic, when the power is in the hands of the people, than to suggest daring courses for their adoption. For wherever the people have a voice, such proposals will always be well received, nor will those persons who are opposed to them be able to apply any remedy."

- Machiavelli, Discourses

I'll bet there is a line in the constitution that specifically outlaws the use of size 2 font.

All I hear is a high pitched buzzing....