The Money Mustache Community

Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: EscapeVelocity2020 on July 18, 2017, 12:38:13 AM

Title: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on July 18, 2017, 12:38:13 AM
The genesis thread about the Realistic Impacts of a Trump Presidency was pretty interesting, but ran its course. (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/what-are-the-realistic-impacts-of-a-trump-presidency/3100/)  I don't want to be mired in political, red/blue divisive squabbles - I can have those conversations with the in-laws :)  What I really want to know is, if Trump's most inner political circle is family because he does not view himself as a public servant (e.g. the Presidency was business motivated (maybe including dealing with Russia)), but collusion is never proven, then what comes next?  We are obviously way off the radar of what the founding fathers thought was possible or prepared for, but what if this is 'the new normal'?   

Interestingly, the stock market is going up because Trump promises everything to everybody every time he can.  It's good for him, good for business, and he's probably flummoxed why his approval rating isn't higher (hint Trump, not everyone is in the 0.1%).  Seasoned politicians are being jerked around by a 'non-political business guy', which is a little humorous if you take a step back (to the 1%), but then really not funny if you take another step back... 

In retrospect, future generations will rue the numerous short-sighted, profit and 'easy growth' oriented America-first policies.  I'd vouch that it hasn't become a problem yet - however, extrapolating 4 or 8 years...  What worries you?

(please don't post about healthcare, that has it's own ongoing thread (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/what-comes-after-the-aca/msg1368503/#msg1368503)).
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Financial.Velociraptor on July 18, 2017, 10:58:17 AM
I predict after 8 years, the Canadians will build a wall and ask us to pay for it.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: BlueMR2 on July 19, 2017, 05:24:04 AM
It's a messy system and certainly far from perfect, but I think the US government are not as fragile as some may think.  (I feel the same way about the US economy.)

This.  I really don't see any big changes.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on July 19, 2017, 12:38:59 PM
Interestingly, the stock market is going up because Trump promises everything to everybody every time he can.  It's good for him, good for business, and he's probably flummoxed why his approval rating isn't higher (hint Trump, not everyone is in the 0.1%). 

I'm not so sure that the stock market is going up because of Trump's empty promises. I think we simply overlooked how many people genuinely believed that communist Muslim Obama was a disaster for the economy. Now that he's no longer a threat, they're flooding the market with the cash/gold bullion that they had stuffed under a mattress/in a savings account. It's been funny to see my Dad (who is a lifelong Republican, voted for Trump, yet despises and distrusts him) beaming at the stock market rally since Trump was elected. I never heard a peep out of him about the constant run of record highs during the second half of Obama's presidency. Partisanship does funny things to your view of world events.

To your point, though, I expect that the gravy train that's been chugging steadily uphill since early 2009 will take a nosedive at some point in the next 3-1/2 years. Even staunch Trump supporters will start feeling the pinch in their wallets. It won't convince them that Trump isn't America's savior, but it will keep enough of them home in 2020 that the Dem nominee will secure a convincing victory. Meanwhile, America's institutions will weather the storm without permanent damage. It will be painful for the politically engaged to watch, but it will have minimal impact on my daily life.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: infogoon on July 19, 2017, 01:16:00 PM
Even staunch Trump supporters will start feeling the pinch in their wallets.

Most of the staunch Trump supporters I know don't have two nickels to rub together. A stock market crash would make them happy because "the globalists" are suffering.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on July 19, 2017, 02:06:40 PM
Even staunch Trump supporters will start feeling the pinch in their wallets.

Most of the staunch Trump supporters I know don't have two nickels to rub together. A stock market crash would make them happy because "the globalists" are suffering.

I don't know of any study that delves into the economic well-being of "staunch" Trump supporters vs. other Trump voters, but literally every analysis I've read finds that Trump supporters are, at worst, no worse off than the average American (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/the-average-trump-supporter-is-not-an-economic-loser/article32746323/):

Quote
Americans who voted for Mr. Trump appear to have higher incomes than average. One analysis earlier this year found that Trump voters have a median household income of $72,000 (U.S.), more than the $62,000 average U.S. household income and more than Clinton voters earn. Even among his low-education white voters, only 14 per cent earn less than $50,000 a year, according to one survey.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Sibley on July 19, 2017, 08:09:54 PM
Based on the last 6 months or so:

1. The US is going to continue to polarize, until we hit a point where we either snap back together, or break apart and form something new (ie, no more GOP or Democratic parties, hopefully not a civil war).
2. The rest of the world is going to basically ignore the US. We will slowly lose influence, moral right, goodwill, etc until someone else becomes the dominant world country. China is a possibility, but given their history of looking inward, I kinda doubt it. I'd think Europe is more likely. This seems to be starting already.
3. Scientific and education excellence will very clearly shift away from the US and towards other countries/regions.
4. Health care as we know it will end, for good or ill, and unfortunately the non-rich are going to be the losers. Of course, they might wake up and essentially revolt. There's way more of them than the rich, so while it would probably get messy, I think in the end we'll end up with single payer. It might take 50 years.

Other predictions, wider than the US & Trump:
5. Coal as an industry is dying. Nothing's going to bring it back.
6. Renewable/alternative energies are going to continue to increase, and costs will decrease. Over time, oil/gas will be pushed out. Transportation technologies will continue to advance and spread, until the combustion engine exists only in antique cars and museums.
7. We're going to lose access to antibiotics due to bacterial resistance. The death toll as a result is going to be horrible, and a lot of people who have fragile health, multiple health conditions, are disabled, etc will die from "minor" illnesses and infections that they aren't strong enough to fight. Infant & child mortality will increase. Vaccination will become an ever more important tool, because we won't be able to treat secondary infections, so preventing as much illness as possible will be critical. People who refuse or are not able to be vaccinated will have a much higher death rate. Eventually, we'll come up with something to replace antibiotics, but we will be much more careful in their use, with strict requirements to be prescribed the new medication/treatment, and strict supervision of adherence to it.
8. Climate change is going to kill a lot of people, drastically change the balance of power at local, regional, and world levels, and we're all going to get smart about not building in flood zones. There will also be a lot more flood zones.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: surfhb on July 19, 2017, 09:10:14 PM
Civil War?  That's hilarious.    People are too caught up in their smart phones to give 2 fucks what happens.

Take away their FB, Instagram and Snapchats and watch them lose their shit
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Wexler on July 19, 2017, 09:13:48 PM


I don't know of any study that delves into the economic well-being of "staunch" Trump supporters vs. other Trump voters, but literally every analysis I've read finds that Trump supporters are, at worst, no worse off than the average American (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/the-average-trump-supporter-is-not-an-economic-loser/article32746323/):



But we at MMM know better than most that above-average income level and having two nickels to rub together don't always go hand in hand.  Most Trump supporters, like most Americans, probably don't have anything saved for retirement or have even $1000 in cash available.  Without the generous public pensions available to a subset of these voters, they'd be even more screwed.  But don't expect them to thank the humble taxpayer for their windfalls. 
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on July 19, 2017, 09:19:07 PM
7. We're going to lose access to antibiotics due to bacterial resistance. The death toll as a result is going to be horrible, and a lot of people who have fragile health, multiple health conditions, are disabled, etc will die from "minor" illnesses and infections that they aren't strong enough to fight. Infant & child mortality will increase. Vaccination will become an ever more important tool, because we won't be able to treat secondary infections, so preventing as much illness as possible will be critical. People who refuse or are not able to be vaccinated will have a much higher death rate. Eventually, we'll come up with something to replace antibiotics, but we will be much more careful in their use, with strict requirements to be prescribed the new medication/treatment, and strict supervision of adherence to it.
I am somewhat more optimistic on this point than you:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/14/first-new-antibiotic-in-30-years-discovered-in-major-breakthroug/ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/14/first-new-antibiotic-in-30-years-discovered-in-major-breakthroug/)

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/604126/edible-crispr-could-replace-antibiotics/ (https://www.technologyreview.com/s/604126/edible-crispr-could-replace-antibiotics/)
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on July 20, 2017, 12:20:41 AM
Is this (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/07/20/trump-new-york-times-jeff-sessions/494298001/) going to be in the headlines tomorrow?  Seriously, how can anyone take the American public seriously if we are seen as supporting this President?  This is a unique time in history where the common person can showhow Americans have power over an out of touch government.  Protest, send email and letters to your government officials.  They are listening now more than ever!
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on July 20, 2017, 05:55:11 AM


I don't know of any study that delves into the economic well-being of "staunch" Trump supporters vs. other Trump voters, but literally every analysis I've read finds that Trump supporters are, at worst, no worse off than the average American (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/the-average-trump-supporter-is-not-an-economic-loser/article32746323/):



But we at MMM know better than most that above-average income level and having two nickels to rub together don't always go hand in hand.  Most Trump supporters, like most Americans, probably don't have anything saved for retirement or have even $1000 in cash available.  Without the generous public pensions available to a subset of these voters, they'd be even more screwed.  But don't expect them to thank the humble taxpayer for their windfalls.

Regardless of the veracity of your assumptions, there is no doubt that an economic downturn hurts more than just the subset of Americans with substantial stock market investments. Don't you think that the people with decent incomes, but who haven't saved "two nickels to rub together", have the most to lose during the next recession?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Leisured on July 20, 2017, 06:07:03 AM
We Australians have regarded America as great since the late nineteenth century. America will continue to be great in spite of President Trump.

I expect that the US State Dept will work around any attempted damage Trump will do. I suspect that the same thing happened under the Reagan administration, and Reagan, worthy man though he was, eventually did what the State Dept told him to do. In any first world country, the bureaucracy is greater than any one man, even the President.

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Gondolin on July 20, 2017, 06:42:03 AM
If the trend of the last 6 months continue, Trump will go down with Harding and Buchanan as one of the least effectual presidents. While this is good in the sense that various liberal doomsday scenarios will not come to pass, it is very bad because the world does not sit still while Trump sits around tweeting.

 Right now, the Trump administration's primary legacy is the slowness with which it is nominating people for gov't positions. This lack of leadership at the level of "real" getting-the-work-done gov't will leave much of the federal apparatus semi-paralyzed well into 2018.

Quote
I'd think Europe is more likely. This seems to be starting already.

Really? The failing EU and a bunch of historically fractious nation states less than 100 years removed from two brutal internal wars? I would argue that as historically colonized areas continue to recover, the global influence of the old colonial powers will continue to decline
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Wexler on July 20, 2017, 08:34:09 AM


I don't know of any study that delves into the economic well-being of "staunch" Trump supporters vs. other Trump voters, but literally every analysis I've read finds that Trump supporters are, at worst, no worse off than the average American (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-politics/the-average-trump-supporter-is-not-an-economic-loser/article32746323/):



But we at MMM know better than most that above-average income level and having two nickels to rub together don't always go hand in hand.  Most Trump supporters, like most Americans, probably don't have anything saved for retirement or have even $1000 in cash available.  Without the generous public pensions available to a subset of these voters, they'd be even more screwed.  But don't expect them to thank the humble taxpayer for their windfalls.

Regardless of the veracity of your assumptions, there is no doubt that an economic downturn hurts more than just the subset of Americans with substantial stock market investments. Don't you think that the people with decent incomes, but who haven't saved "two nickels to rub together", have the most to lose during the next recession?

I do! No-I totally agree with you that the combination of poor impulse control and a relatively luxurious standard of living during their working years will cause a world of hurt for these Trump supporters if anything threatens their income.  Frankly, I think that a lot of the grievance and anger we see from the retired Trump-voting contingent is that they didn't do the math on retirement and can't figure out why they aren't living as well as they used to on social security alone. So, it must be Obama's fault. 

But that's just speculation on my part.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: golden1 on July 20, 2017, 08:40:43 AM
I see things a bit differently long term.

One of the more fascinating things that has come out of the Trump presidency has been how our blue cities and states have reacted to it.  While Trump and his voters are becoming more insular in their world views and policies, and are trying to wall off the US from the world, blue states and cities are still looking outward and are being very public about it.  A very large percentage of the country, who happen to live in a very small land area, are still globalists and still want to be respected by other countries in the world, and with the technologies we now have, plus the economic reality that we succeed together or we all fail, it is possible to remain connected even if the federal government is hostile to the idea.

I am starting to wonder if the very idea of societies organized by geographic countries is outdated in a certain sense.  We might be on the verge of a different mode of government that is both hyper local and global at the same time.  These aren’t really fully formed ideas yet, obviously, but it is becoming fairly obvious with Trumps presidency plus other things in recent history that our particular government structure is just not working anymore.  People are getting things done, but not the way they used to, and other problems are seeming impossible to solve, at least in traditional ways.

Of course we still have this massive military at the federal level.  If Trump wanted to, he could send in the army and force the states to comply, but he likely won’t do that, and I am fairly certain he would be stopped (nothing is guaranteed). 

I guess I am trying to think forward about what the next form of government will be if this one goes down.  It seems naive to think that a government structure conceived 250 years ago still meets the needs of todays society, and perhaps we are just seeing the cracks in the egg.



Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Gondolin on July 20, 2017, 09:58:16 AM
Quote
I guess I am trying to think forward about what the next form of government will be if this one goes down.

I think we're light years from this sort of upheaval. I hate Trump but, one shitty President does not make for the end of the republic. He could *try* something really destructive but, he's already backed off a dozen minor gaffes due to advisor influence, nothing indicates that he'd have the will to order the military to fire on civilians over some domestic squabble.

Quote
  It seems naive to think that a government structure conceived 250 years ago still meets the needs of todays society, and perhaps we are just seeing the cracks in the egg.

What makes you say that? Many millions still live under King and Church monarchies. They're doing alright and the form of gov't had been around for over 2000 years!

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: v8rx7guy on July 20, 2017, 10:02:28 AM
This:
I don't want to be mired in political, red/blue divisive squabbles - I can have those conversations with the in-laws :) 

Followed by this:

What I really want to know is, if Trump's most inner political circle is family because he does not view himself as a public servant (e.g. the Presidency was business motivated (maybe including dealing with Russia)), but collusion is never proven, then what comes next?  We are obviously way off the radar of what the founding fathers thought was possible or prepared for, but what if this is 'the new normal'?   

Interestingly, the stock market is going up because Trump promises everything to everybody every time he can.  It's good for him, good for business, and he's probably flummoxed why his approval rating isn't higher (hint Trump, not everyone is in the 0.1%).  Seasoned politicians are being jerked around by a 'non-political business guy', which is a little humorous if you take a step back (to the 1%), but then really not funny if you take another step back... 

In retrospect, future generations will rue the numerous short-sighted, profit and 'easy growth' oriented America-first policies.  I'd vouch that it hasn't become a problem yet - however, extrapolating 4 or 8 years...  What worries you?


Is quite humorous.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: golden1 on July 20, 2017, 11:27:32 AM
Just because monarchies still exist doesn’t mean that new government types won’t evolve.  I don’t think representative democracies or socialism is the end of the evolutionary line of civilization structure. 
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: RangerOne on July 20, 2017, 02:55:28 PM
The stock market going up simply has very little to do with Trump because he hasn't done anything. No president would have in 6 months.

There were a few rallies in confidence because historically we know that a full Republican controlled government will hand out tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations and cut regulation, which can only help quarterly profits, so given our endless bull market this is little surprise and would have worked that way for any Republican President elected.

Unlike most presidents though, I think he may have a noticeable economic impact at some point for better or worse and if he does it will be because he did something with international trade. Imposing tariffs and renegotiating NAFTA could end a lot of different ways or never happen at all.

With regards to health care and other policy, Trump appears to be extremely hands off compared to recent Presidents. That can be good and bad. His preferred mode seems to be just pass whatever congress can get through and he only occasionally interjects with a campaign promise through executive order, see the immigration ban. Otherwise he is fine with whatever the house and senate can cook up. I can only speculate what the long term impact of his failing to fill numerous government posts will be. Probably a bottle neck of government action in many various areas. Some might see this as a good thing as it certainly lessens the ability of the executive branch and federal government in general to do things.

One area were Trump has stood apart is all his tough talk on illegal immigration actually appears to be having an effect as immigration is down. How much is due to him versus other factors is probably debatable but its down enough to where it probably isn't a coincidence.

I still have no love for this guy. His style sucks, he works entirely off emotional appeal and facts are just an inconvenience for him. I still don't buy into the argument that his persuasion tactics are all well thought out strategy. His commentary and actions strike me as impulsive though I will grant, he has an intuitive knack for deflecting any and all criticism especially from the media.

This doesn't surprise me since his career is built on a hate him or love him style of self promoting and media manipulation. Its something he is just great at either through practice or intuition. I don't believe that will translate fully into political negotiations because I am not convinced he has the underlying cold calculating though process to back up his ability to make an emotional appeal. Though I could easily be proved wrong in time, but I personally wouldn't bet on it.

 Either view of him is arguable since no one can be certain how his mind really works day to day, but I have personally yet to see a moment where he appears to be thinking critically and planning out his next move in a methodical way, its possible but he is a complete break from the mold of people who work that way at least as they tend to appear on the surface. 

I also still believe, based his families continued conflicts of interests, that a large motivation for his presidency is self enrichment. He is not alone in that camp, it is probably the number one thing politicians are accused of and occasionally crucified over, but given the size of his families business interests it is one of the most brazen examples of such conduct. Maybe someone like Dick Cheney was as bad, but Dick and Bush didn't have large families also playing roles in their cabinet and campaigns making similar gains.

I will be surprised if he gets a full wall built. I think we will see something partially done. Thats his easiest promise to deliver. I will be much more surprised if he manages to improve the conditions of the working class especially with regard to manufacturing and energy workers. The negotiations and planning for this would be at least as tricky as healthcare and Republicans seem to have no desire to help him beyond cutting regulations and taxes. I guess the first an real test of that is whether they do manage to renegotiate NAFTA.

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: RangerOne on July 20, 2017, 03:05:42 PM
Interestingly, the stock market is going up because Trump promises everything to everybody every time he can.  It's good for him, good for business, and he's probably flummoxed why his approval rating isn't higher (hint Trump, not everyone is in the 0.1%). 

I'm not so sure that the stock market is going up because of Trump's empty promises. I think we simply overlooked how many people genuinely believed that communist Muslim Obama was a disaster for the economy.

Except that narrative flies in the face of a fact you mention later. We had amazing rallies under Obama. Because of the financial bail outs and crazy free money from the Fed...

Keep the same economic conditions that the Fed and Obama allowed and add less regulation and taxes onto it and you are basically throwing fuel on a forest fire.

Obama and the fed layered on regulations, but they made government lending so cheap that they still achieved their intended effect of artificially re-inflating asset prices and the stock market to absorb all the bad debt in the system and regenerate all the wealth lost in the crash.

Now with some of those same lending policies in place we have the specter of a Republican controlled Fed Gov who may be willing to dump some of the wall street regulations keeping truly astronomical bubbles from inflating. How would this produce anything other than optimism and a bull-er bull market.

However in the mean time the Fed and ECB are finally signalling the rallying cry of the onset of a quantitative undwinding coupled with interest rate hikes, which are likely to send everything right back the other direction.  That is some seriously uncharted territory.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: RangerOne on July 20, 2017, 03:12:45 PM
I see things a bit differently long term.

One of the more fascinating things that has come out of the Trump presidency has been how our blue cities and states have reacted to it.  While Trump and his voters are becoming more insular in their world views and policies, and are trying to wall off the US from the world, blue states and cities are still looking outward and are being very public about it.  A very large percentage of the country, who happen to live in a very small land area, are still globalists and still want to be respected by other countries in the world, and with the technologies we now have, plus the economic reality that we succeed together or we all fail, it is possible to remain connected even if the federal government is hostile to the idea.

I am starting to wonder if the very idea of societies organized by geographic countries is outdated in a certain sense.  We might be on the verge of a different mode of government that is both hyper local and global at the same time.  These aren’t really fully formed ideas yet, obviously, but it is becoming fairly obvious with Trumps presidency plus other things in recent history that our particular government structure is just not working anymore.  People are getting things done, but not the way they used to, and other problems are seeming impossible to solve, at least in traditional ways.

Of course we still have this massive military at the federal level.  If Trump wanted to, he could send in the army and force the states to comply, but he likely won’t do that, and I am fairly certain he would be stopped (nothing is guaranteed). 

I guess I am trying to think forward about what the next form of government will be if this one goes down.  It seems naive to think that a government structure conceived 250 years ago still meets the needs of todays society, and perhaps we are just seeing the cracks in the egg.

Part of this is just the same pattern we saw under Obama but flipped. They are very different people and leaders but the visceral reaction of Red or Blue states to a Federal government threatening to make union wide policy shifts is the same or at least similar.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: RangerOne on July 20, 2017, 03:17:37 PM
Even staunch Trump supporters will start feeling the pinch in their wallets.

Most of the staunch Trump supporters I know don't have two nickels to rub together. A stock market crash would make them happy because "the globalists" are suffering.

I wouldn't mind seeing a crash because I want to see prices on certain assets go down. But the joke is on all of us if we think that a market crash is hurting globalists. For every rich person who lost it all in 2008, another one became even richer or didn't go to jail for losing rich peoples money or speculating with poor peoples pensions.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: RangerOne on July 20, 2017, 03:31:58 PM
Wow Sibley - how do you sleep at night with that mindset!  You honestly think about a US civil war and revolution?

I highly recommend the following post:
It's a messy system and certainly far from perfect, but I think the US government are not as fragile as some may think.  (I feel the same way about the US economy.)

Historically it would seem we tend to over blow our doomsday predictions and the things that hit us the hardest we rarely see coming.

But I will say from a partisan standpoint I am disheartened by complete climate change deniers at least when it comes to our leaders. I would much rather see the political discussion shift to what can or are we willing to afford to do about this. Than to stay on complete denial.

But translating science into policy is not black and white.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Sibley on July 20, 2017, 06:21:08 PM
Wow Sibley - how do you sleep at night with that mindset!  You honestly think about a US civil war and revolution?

I highly recommend the following post:
It's a messy system and certainly far from perfect, but I think the US government are not as fragile as some may think.  (I feel the same way about the US economy.)

Well first, OP asked for speculation and that's what came to mind. Will everything happen that way? Probably not. But it's not impossible. I thought it was impossible for Trump to win the election and clearly that happened. I'm actually fairly optimistic, with a side of realism. Also, I like history, and some of the most interesting historical times are times of great social and political change, which were not always, or even frequently, peaceful.

Re civil war and revolution - we'd have to have something pretty drastic happen to the internet. Because too many people are too absorbed in their digital worlds to look around. We had a good number of people wake up when Trump won the election and afterwards, including myself. But not everyone yet. However, if something happens to seriously hurt the lower classes in a real, direct way, we could be in trouble. (think French Revolution - it took a lot for the lower classes to revolt, but once they hit that point it got ugly, fast.)
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on July 20, 2017, 06:23:21 PM
It's worth reflecting on this diptych of what-if articles:

LOOKING back, it is easy to see clues that Donald Trump did not really want to serve a second term as president... (https://www.economist.com/news/world-if/21724905-forget-talk-impeachment-imagine-america-and-world-adjusting-four-more-years-suppose)

This Thursday marks 250 days since the Associated Press and other news organizations declared Hillary Clinton to be the “apparent winner” of last year’s presidential election... (https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/if-clinton-had-won/)

Through the lens I use, both of these articles implicitly suggest that the problem of who is president is one of the smaller problems the US political system is facing.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Leisured on July 21, 2017, 01:42:27 AM
I predict after 8 years, the Canadians will build a wall and ask us to pay for it.

Already thought of. Play the video. Nice sarcastic website.

https://www.americabutbetter.com/

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: NorthernBlitz on July 21, 2017, 04:37:07 AM
I think the rest of the Trump presidency will be like it has been.

Lots of terrible tweets.
Lots of news stories about how he's not a good president.
Not a lot of legislation passed.
More of the two parties trying to tear the country apart for the sake of political gain.

The he will win or lose the next election based on how the economy is doing in 2020. Particularly employment numbers and how people feel about job prospects for the future.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: infogoon on July 21, 2017, 09:40:12 AM
Do people think it's likely that he'll actually complete his first term? We're talking about an obese septuagenarian fast food addict who apparently never sleeps, working the most stressful job in the world. I think it's more likely he steps down for health reasons than it is that he gets impeached, but either one seems like a possibility (especially if the Dems manage to actually win a majority in 2018).
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on July 21, 2017, 09:41:54 AM
The stock market going up simply has very little to do with Trump because he hasn't done anything. No president would have in 6 months.

So you're saying that expectations and consumer sentiment have nothing to do stock market performance? Thanks for getting that out of the way in the first line - it saved me from having read your whole post(s).
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Fireball on July 21, 2017, 09:47:44 AM
The he will win or lose the next election based on how the economy is doing in 2020.

This.  No matter what, it eventually goes back to the economy. Always.  Especially in this case because a great economy is about the only positive note Trump can continually fall back on. "Look at the stock market! Lowest unemployment rate in 10 years!"  At least at this point, he doesn't have much else tangible.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: v8rx7guy on July 21, 2017, 10:12:15 AM
Do people think it's likely that he'll actually complete his first term? We're talking about an obese septuagenarian fast food addict who apparently never sleeps, working the most stressful job in the world. I think it's more likely he steps down for health reasons than it is that he gets impeached, but either one seems like a possibility (especially if the Dems manage to actually win a majority in 2018).

Yes
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: RangerOne on July 21, 2017, 03:02:27 PM
The stock market going up simply has very little to do with Trump because he hasn't done anything. No president would have in 6 months.

So you're saying that expectations and consumer sentiment have nothing to do stock market performance? Thanks for getting that out of the way in the first line - it saved me from having read your whole post(s).

Of course they have everything to do with short term stock trends. I am just saying that expectation leading to such speculation would be similar for any GOP president. I just don't think we should hand out blue ribbons to a president because his party gives the speculative community a woody.

It takes years after a presidents term to begin to even partially realize their economic impact. I find the stock markets speculation uninteresting.

Come back after the GOP has passed some tax reform, or after a trade deal has been renegotiated that improves job numbers, boost business earnings or hits a GDP growth target and we can talk about giving Trump a gold star.

Hell we still haven't seen the full economic impact of Obama's presidency as we are still seeing the upside of QE, if we think all or must of it has been an upside. Most home owners probably do. Shortly we may see what the downside of that choice is.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Jtrey17 on July 23, 2017, 07:05:31 PM
I predict after 8 years, the Canadians will build a wall and ask us to pay for it.

Haha!!
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Capt j-rod on July 23, 2017, 07:20:41 PM
I think this type of thread is an awesome reinforcement as to why our community does what they do. I love to watch and listen to "preppers". No matter what happens good or bad, not being upside down financially will be your best friend. We have the flexibility to go elsewhere or not do anything at all.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: StarBright on July 23, 2017, 07:51:25 PM

One of the more fascinating things that has come out of the Trump presidency has been how our blue cities and states have reacted to it.  While Trump and his voters are becoming more insular in their world views and policies, and are trying to wall off the US from the world, blue states and cities are still looking outward and are being very public about it.  A very large percentage of the country, who happen to live in a very small land area, are still globalists and still want to be respected by other countries in the world, and with the technologies we now have, plus the economic reality that we succeed together or we all fail, it is possible to remain connected even if the federal government is hostile to the idea.

I am starting to wonder if the very idea of societies organized by geographic countries is outdated in a certain sense.  We might be on the verge of a different mode of government that is both hyper local and global at the same time. ...>.

....

  It seems naive to think that a government structure conceived 250 years ago still meets the needs of todays society, and perhaps we are just seeing the cracks in the egg.

^Was just talking about this with my folks last week. I live near a rather small town that has signed up to meet the Paris Accord goals and the town is actively planning to go all in on renewables. I've been thinking about where this leaves the town in 15 years when compared to surrounding red areas. It is definitely food for thought.

On the other hand, maybe it just serves as the testing ground for the whole federal government. I have a lot of faith in individual states testing policy.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on July 23, 2017, 08:03:05 PM
I think one thing to always keep in mind is that the president of the USA is not a monarch. This lack of power gives me assurance. Say if Trump wants to do something batshit crazy, his inner circle can convince him otherwise. Or the senate could block it. Or the congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or the department being tasked could follow the order with negligence. Or the next general election.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: wenchsenior on July 24, 2017, 08:35:06 AM
I think one thing to always keep in mind is that the president of the USA is not a monarch. This lack of power gives me assurance. Say if Trump wants to do something batshit crazy, his inner circle can convince him otherwise. Or the senate could block it. Or the congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or the department being tasked could follow the order with negligence. Or the next general election.

While that is true, the problem is with how long the system can take to check the President.  We tend to worry about presidential war powers (e.g., Trump picks military beef with North Korea via twitter, and Seoul gets nuked in response), but I was listening to a podcast the other day where someone who studies presidential pardons noted that it is by far one of the most explicit legal allowances of presidential power. This person stated that it would actually be more explicitly allowable for Trump to hire assassins to e.g., kill senators blocking the health care vote and then pardon himself and said assassins (or do it proactively) than it was for e.g., Obama to use various executive workarounds to try to limit carbon emissions. Of course, in that case one has to assume that Congress would act to remove Trump from office.  But this commentator said that legally, Presidents really could kill someone and get away with it.

I had never heard it put in such stark terms before, and it was quite frightening to contemplate. I'm not sure this commentator was accurate, but it would be interesting to hear some legal experts discuss such a scenario.  Interesting in a bloody car crash kind of way.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on July 24, 2017, 09:29:18 PM
I think one thing to always keep in mind is that the president of the USA is not a monarch. This lack of power gives me assurance. Say if Trump wants to do something batshit crazy, his inner circle can convince him otherwise. Or the senate could block it. Or the congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or the department being tasked could follow the order with negligence. Or the next general election.

While that is true, the problem is with how long the system can take to check the President.  We tend to worry about presidential war powers (e.g., Trump picks military beef with North Korea via twitter, and Seoul gets nuked in response), but I was listening to a podcast the other day where someone who studies presidential pardons noted that it is by far one of the most explicit legal allowances of presidential power. This person stated that it would actually be more explicitly allowable for Trump to hire assassins to e.g., kill senators blocking the health care vote and then pardon himself and said assassins (or do it proactively) than it was for e.g., Obama to use various executive workarounds to try to limit carbon emissions. Of course, in that case one has to assume that Congress would act to remove Trump from office.  But this commentator said that legally, Presidents really could kill someone and get away with it.

I had never heard it put in such stark terms before, and it was quite frightening to contemplate. I'm not sure this commentator was accurate, but it would be interesting to hear some legal experts discuss such a scenario.  Interesting in a bloody car crash kind of way.

Bill Clinton did get away with multiple counts of rape. Pardon's were not involved though. Presidents seem to be able to get away with a lot without needing to invoke their own pardon powers. (Nixon being another one.)

At work the other day, we actually talked about what you were referring to. I contended that the next president would never throw the assassin president in jail. It would be horrible optics. They had a clever rejoinder. I forget it.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Lagom on July 24, 2017, 09:37:31 PM
Civil War?  That's hilarious.    People are too caught up in their smart phones to give 2 fucks what happens.

Take away their FB, Instagram and Snapchats and watch them lose their shit

Pretty much the plot of a modernized telling of 1984.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Grog on July 27, 2017, 05:36:26 AM
Just saw the speech given to the boy scout jamboree (teenager).

Woah. I had no idea trump was really that deranged. I just thought it was a front. But that speech left me literally speechless. He actually blatantly bragged in front of teenager. And what a mess of incoherent speech. No message and no direction at all.

Sent from my YD201 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: C-note on July 27, 2017, 06:46:37 AM
I think one thing to always keep in mind is that the president of the USA is not a monarch. This lack of power gives me assurance. Say if Trump wants to do something batshit crazy, his inner circle can convince him otherwise. Or the senate could block it. Or the congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or the department being tasked could follow the order with negligence. Or the next general election.

Personally, I'm not convinced his inner circle can convince him otherwise.  Yes, he can be held in check through the "checks and balances" system but his spur-of-the-moment tweets are troublesome. 

Although not within his presidential powers, I would not be surprised to read a DJT tweet declaring war on North Korea or contemplating declaring war on North Korea or any other threatening remark.  That's the batshit crazy stuff that nightmares are made of. 
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on July 27, 2017, 01:26:29 PM
I think one thing to always keep in mind is that the president of the USA is not a monarch. This lack of power gives me assurance. Say if Trump wants to do something batshit crazy, his inner circle can convince him otherwise. Or the senate could block it. Or the congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or the department being tasked could follow the order with negligence. Or the next general election.

Personally, I'm not convinced his inner circle can convince him otherwise.  Yes, he can be held in check through the "checks and balances" system but his spur-of-the-moment tweets are troublesome. 

Although not within his presidential powers, I would not be surprised to read a DJT tweet declaring war on North Korea or contemplating declaring war on North Korea or any other threatening remark.  That's the batshit crazy stuff that nightmares are made of.

Only congress can declare war.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: C-note on July 27, 2017, 04:00:06 PM
I think one thing to always keep in mind is that the president of the USA is not a monarch. This lack of power gives me assurance. Say if Trump wants to do something batshit crazy, his inner circle can convince him otherwise. Or the senate could block it. Or the congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or the department being tasked could follow the order with negligence. Or the next general election.

Personally, I'm not convinced his inner circle can convince him otherwise.  Yes, he can be held in check through the "checks and balances" system but his spur-of-the-moment tweets are troublesome. 

Although not within his presidential powers, I would not be surprised to read a DJT tweet declaring war on North Korea or contemplating declaring war on North Korea or any other threatening remark.  That's the batshit crazy stuff that nightmares are made of.

Only congress can declare war.

I know that and you know that and lots of others know that but not having the authority doesn't prevent him from tweeting it or a suggestive tweet.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on July 27, 2017, 11:08:34 PM
I think one thing to always keep in mind is that the president of the USA is not a monarch. This lack of power gives me assurance. Say if Trump wants to do something batshit crazy, his inner circle can convince him otherwise. Or the senate could block it. Or the congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or the department being tasked could follow the order with negligence. Or the next general election.

Personally, I'm not convinced his inner circle can convince him otherwise.  Yes, he can be held in check through the "checks and balances" system but his spur-of-the-moment tweets are troublesome. 

Although not within his presidential powers, I would not be surprised to read a DJT tweet declaring war on North Korea or contemplating declaring war on North Korea or any other threatening remark.  That's the batshit crazy stuff that nightmares are made of.

Only congress can declare war.

Correct. However, I think there is a high possibility that the current president would tweet and insult North Korea in the next 3.5 year. Next thing we know, they are bombing South Korea with nukes, artillery or both. Seoul is only 35 miles from the border, so it is within North Korea artillery range. Guess what, now we are getting dragged into war. So yes, while only congress can declare war, that does not mean we can avoid war.

No doubt we will crush North Korea if it comes to that, but it will be very costly in money and life.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Geoduck on July 28, 2017, 04:58:07 PM
So far the clown car show is exceeding expectations, second only to the show of distinction that is the GOP Congress.  You can't make this stuff up!!!!
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: aspiringnomad on July 29, 2017, 02:33:10 PM
So far the clown car show is exceeding expectations, second only to the show of distinction that is the GOP Congress.  You can't make this stuff up!!!!

Nope, you really couldn't make it up. If anyone in the future ever doubts that truth is stranger than fiction, a reading of the events of the past 6 months should disabuse them of that doubt. What a clown show this is.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: marty998 on July 29, 2017, 04:30:21 PM
So far the clown car show is exceeding expectations, second only to the show of distinction that is the GOP Congress.  You can't make this stuff up!!!!

Nope, you really couldn't make it up. If anyone in the future ever doubts that truth is stranger than fiction, a reading of the events of the past 6 months should disabuse them of that doubt. What a clown show this is.

All you need is for Scallamucci to do the Fandango now.

(Cue thunderbolts and lightning, that is all very very frightening...)
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: scottish on July 31, 2017, 05:13:38 PM
Breaking news - Scaremoochi (or whatever his name is) is OUT.   Shortest tenure ever!
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on July 31, 2017, 05:19:08 PM
Yeah......if anyone wanted to see how self-immolation looked like......they can watch the highlight reel for Sackamurci. Didn't even last long enough for me to learn to spell his name.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on July 31, 2017, 05:26:11 PM
Seriously, he's gone already? I was just starting to love The Mooch!
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: RangerOne on July 31, 2017, 06:12:43 PM
The Mooch was a riot, I miss him as well. That man had one hell of a 10 day run talking up a shit storm and getting him self divorced all while looking pretty bad ass in a pair of aviators.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Barbaebigode on July 31, 2017, 06:42:50 PM
Nobody knew hiring only the best people could be so complicated.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: dividendman on July 31, 2017, 06:59:25 PM
The fact that you Americans elected this clown show is the most disturbing thing of all.

Hopefully there will be no big emergencies that actually require a competent administration.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on July 31, 2017, 07:22:49 PM
^Like North Korea, Russia, China, Venezuela, or Poland? I'm sure they will keep everything on ice until the adults show up.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: C-note on July 31, 2017, 07:27:52 PM
The one-liners are the best!  My favorite so far - - - -

Build a wall?  Trump can't even build a cabinet.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Letj on July 31, 2017, 07:33:34 PM
The Mooch was a riot, I miss him as well. That man had one hell of a 10 day run talking up a shit storm and getting him self divorced all while looking pretty bad ass in a pair of aviators.

Lol. I suspect he was auditioning for a reality tv show.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: LaineyAZ on July 31, 2017, 07:40:25 PM
I think we're forgetting about the continuing packing of federal courts with right-wing judges.  And most frighteningly, the appointment of at least one more Supreme Court judge, possibly even 2 or 3, who will undoubtedly be right-wing. 
That's going to be affecting our laws for decades. 
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on July 31, 2017, 07:54:50 PM
I think we're forgetting about the continuing packing of federal courts with right-wing judges.  And most frighteningly, the appointment of at least one more Supreme Court judge, possibly even 2 or 3, who will undoubtedly be right-wing. 
That's going to be affecting our laws for decades.
I thought "packing" normally referred to irregular practices, especially FDR's during the Great Depression, rather than ordinary vacancies being filled.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kyle Schuant on July 31, 2017, 10:22:05 PM
the party in power typically does not get as much implemented as they want to, which should be comforting to the minority party. 
There's a cheap, fun and frustrating computer game called Democracy 3 (http://positech.co.uk/democracy3/). Playing it teaches you some important things.

It has a couple of concepts: political capital, which you get from having certain people in your Cabinet, people who broadly represent certain interest groups (like "commuters" or "families" or whatever), and putting in policies that favour those groups gives you more capital from them, but each policy costs political capital. So let's say you build roads, this helps the "motorist" group, so your capital from Bob in the Cabinet who represents motorists goes up from 4 to 4.5, but maybe the "commuter" representative Charlie is upset and his capital goes from 4 to 3.5, what about the people using trains, man? If he loses enough political capital, he actually resigns from Cabinet - "In good conscience, I can no longer support this government!" and you have to replace him, which also costs political capital.

It's an abstraction of letters to MPs and Senate ratification processes and lobby groups and all that.

And things cost different amounts of capital, so for example subsidising trains might cost 1, but building a national monorail system might cost 20.


Whatever you do will help some things and hurt others. For example, let's say you're worried about public health, and you trace all the causes and effects and realise smoking is a big contributor to poor health. Cool, just raise taxes on smokes! Great, the smoking rate has gone down, but what's this? Poverty is rising, why? You look and realise... some of the poor gave up smokes, but some are still smoking, even at the cost of not paying bills and buying food. "They're stupid and should be more responsible!" Yes, but... they're not being responsible, so poverty is now worse overall. Alright, you say, let's make food cheaper for them and raise the food stamps funding. Bugger, now that $50 billion you raised from tobacco tax, $30 billion of it has gone to food stamps, WTF, how am I ever going to balance the budget?!


So you quickly learn three things,

1. you can't do everything,
2. it's easier to do a bunch of small things than 1-2 big things, and
3. whatever you do, you'll piss someone off; sometimes you'll find yourself doing things you don't really like just to placate some group of idiots who currently are ready to string you up

A friend of mine is an academic and actually uses this game in his business class to help explain how the world works. It's rare for first-terms to get re-elected, he says, they need to play a few rounds to figure out this annoying thing... compromise.

Once you've played it a bit you start understanding why the big things aren't getting done as promised, and why some relatively trivial things are being presented as a big deal.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on August 01, 2017, 04:26:00 AM
I feel sorry for your friend who uses it as a learning lesson in his classes. When people describe the game in the abstract it does sound novel and informative but the actual implementation is shoddy and lacking diversity of viewpoint.

As one example of this among many, the game's economic model is closely described as Neo Keynesian. If you try to govern like a Keynesian, Austrian, Classical, or New School economist, you'll fail. There are other choices in the game's construction and how certain things affect another that I believe either don't accurately reflect reality or show a definite leaning in the developer's ideology.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Gondolin on August 01, 2017, 06:53:04 AM
Quote
show a definite leaning in the developer's ideology.

I don't think you're ever going to find an apolitical simulation of political interaction.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on August 01, 2017, 08:13:22 AM
Quote
show a definite leaning in the developer's ideology.

I don't think you're ever going to find an apolitical simulation of political interaction.

It is a game. With variables. You can make them adjustable. You could choose for them to be influenced through the player's actions or explicit settings. You could make them vary from one play through to the next within some defined range or with constraints. Other games in that genre do do this. Even Democracy 3 does do this but it 'walls off' these sections to me immutable. (Some mods do 'fix' this. You could make the game lean more to the socialist side or libertarian or Randian, etc... I'd like to have seen that configuration or automatic movement in the base game instead of just presupposed to be the correct setting.)
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: infogoon on August 01, 2017, 09:02:16 AM
One of the few groups that has supported Trump, although I suspect the support is more tepid than it is sometimes portrayed, is the military.

I wonder if anyone has thought through the consequences of moving General Kelly to Chief of Staff. What's going to happen when the President has another tantrum and fires a decorated career officer?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Fishindude on August 01, 2017, 09:17:11 AM
I don't want to be mired in political, red/blue divisive squabbles - I can have those conversations with the in-laws :) 

You can throw this line of thought out the window.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kyle Schuant on August 03, 2017, 06:27:27 AM
It is a game. With variables. You can make them adjustable.
You can adjust them. The game has a vibrant modding community.


You complain Keynesian doesn't work in the game, I found it did. So perhaps it's not the tool, it's the tradesman.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on August 03, 2017, 02:56:36 PM
It is a game. With variables. You can make them adjustable.
You can adjust them. The game has a vibrant modding community.


You complain Keynesian doesn't work in the game, I found it did. So perhaps it's not the tool, it's the tradesman.

Neo-keynesian does.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: scottish on August 03, 2017, 03:41:02 PM
Transcripts of President Trump's conversations with other heads of states have leaked.

With Mexico

Quote
“If you are going to say that Mexico is not going to pay for the wall, then I do not want to meet with you guys anymore because I cannot live with that,” Mr. Trump said.

With Australia

Quote
“Malcolm, why is this so important?” Mr. Trump said. “I do not understand. This is going to kill me. I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country.” Going along with the deal “puts me in a bad position.”

He added, “It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week.”

That's quite the negotiator you folks have elected!


Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on August 03, 2017, 04:11:07 PM
Transcripts of President Trump's conversations with other heads of states have leaked.

With Mexico

Quote
“If you are going to say that Mexico is not going to pay for the wall, then I do not want to meet with you guys anymore because I cannot live with that,” Mr. Trump said.

With Australia

Quote
“Malcolm, why is this so important?” Mr. Trump said. “I do not understand. This is going to kill me. I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country.” Going along with the deal “puts me in a bad position.”

He added, “It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week.”

That's quite the negotiator you folks have elected!

I just need to say this, though it has been said before.

Donald Trump is a narcissistic, incompetent idiot.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: nnls on August 06, 2017, 01:30:46 AM
Transcripts of President Trump's conversations with other heads of states have leaked.

With Mexico

Quote
“If you are going to say that Mexico is not going to pay for the wall, then I do not want to meet with you guys anymore because I cannot live with that,” Mr. Trump said.

With Australia

Quote
“Malcolm, why is this so important?” Mr. Trump said. “I do not understand. This is going to kill me. I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country.” Going along with the deal “puts me in a bad position.”

He added, “It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week.”

That's quite the negotiator you folks have elected!

I just need to say this, though it has been said before.

Donald Trump is a narcissistic, incompetent idiot.

I couldn't believe that anyone would say that and be serious, let alone one world leader to another.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Rural on August 06, 2017, 05:46:05 AM
I think one thing to always keep in mind is that the president of the USA is not a monarch. This lack of power gives me assurance. Say if Trump wants to do something batshit crazy, his inner circle can convince him otherwise. Or the senate could block it. Or the congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or the department being tasked could follow the order with negligence. Or the next general election.

Personally, I'm not convinced his inner circle can convince him otherwise.  Yes, he can be held in check through the "checks and balances" system but his spur-of-the-moment tweets are troublesome. 

Although not within his presidential powers, I would not be surprised to read a DJT tweet declaring war on North Korea or contemplating declaring war on North Korea or any other threatening remark.  That's the batshit crazy stuff that nightmares are made of.

Only congress can declare war.

Correct. However, I think there is a high possibility that the current president would tweet and insult North Korea in the next 3.5 year. Next thing we know, they are bombing South Korea with nukes, artillery or both. Seoul is only 35 miles from the border, so it is within North Korea artillery range. Guess what, now we are getting dragged into war. So yes, while only congress can declare war, that does not mean we can avoid war.

No doubt we will crush North Korea if it comes to that, but it will be very costly in money and life.


For what it's worth, we are at least sort of still at war in Korea. This may create some wiggle room for the executive branch.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on August 06, 2017, 08:13:15 AM
Transcripts of President Trump's conversations with other heads of states have leaked.

With Mexico

Quote
“If you are going to say that Mexico is not going to pay for the wall, then I do not want to meet with you guys anymore because I cannot live with that,” Mr. Trump said.

With Australia

Quote
“Malcolm, why is this so important?” Mr. Trump said. “I do not understand. This is going to kill me. I am the world’s greatest person that does not want to let people into the country.” Going along with the deal “puts me in a bad position.”

He added, “It makes me look so bad and I have only been here a week.”

That's quite the negotiator you folks have elected!

Hey hey... that is winning!

He was right last year when he said "we will have so much winning if I get elected, that you may get bored with winning"

One of the few groups that has supported Trump, although I suspect the support is more tepid than it is sometimes portrayed, is the military.

I wonder if anyone has thought through the consequences of moving General Kelly to Chief of Staff. What's going to happen when the President has another tantrum and fires a decorated career officer?

imo General Kelly is going to last 6 months or less. I will bet money on this. Good people, who dare to point out that the emperor is wrong, will not last long in this administration.

Kelly is supposed to bring in structure, and organization to the White house. The president is going to get tired of this quickly. He enjoys I can do whatever the hell I want to do, and will not like what his Chief of Staff is telling him. Just look how he treated the Attorney General.

What will happen when Kelly is fired? Not sure, but I have my popcorn ready! This has been better than watching Game of Thrones - very MMM since we do not have to pay for this show.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Gin1984 on August 06, 2017, 08:27:26 AM
If the Democrats put up a centrist candidate, I think the chances of a one-term Trump is quite possible. 

If the main effect of Trump is it pulls one or both parties to the center, that's a huge success in my book!  (with Trump-like emphasis on huge) :)
I find the statement funny because Clinton was the centralist candidate which is why some Bernie supporters did not come out to vote.  And many of those say unless we get a"real progressive" in the next presidential election from the Dems, they still won't vote.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: jim555 on August 06, 2017, 10:42:48 AM
Bring back the Mooch!  That guy is comedy gold.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: rocketpj on August 06, 2017, 05:28:51 PM
Well, I think we'll be seeing a lot of developments on the whole investigation/pardoning powers front.  I have zero doubt Trump will push the limits of his 'right' to issue pardons to the very extreme.  That will not help him (except maybe to stay out of jail), but he doesn't seem to have the strategic ability to just stonewall and shred until the investigation goes away.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Acastus on August 07, 2017, 01:39:23 PM
I have been thinking that Donald will lose all semblance of popularity when he fails to lower taxes. That is the only mission for his side, and it is the reason stocks have been flying. Not killing O-care was a pretty big ding, and he will not recover from that quickly. Some followers actually thought he would fix things, so when he disables it, they will get mad. The timing for this is early 2018. His followers will give him until then to do it.

My new speculation is The US will fail to raise the debt limit, and it will cascade into a modest recession. It should be no worse than 2002, but that was kind of grim, so it is bad enough. Government shut down will last much longer than the last 3 times we closed for business. Maybe for a month instead of the weekend. Seniors will be permanently cheesed off, since they will not get their checks. Timing - October 4.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Glenstache on August 13, 2017, 01:06:05 PM
I hope it is not more of this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2017/08/13/the-photo-from-charlottesville-that-will-define-this-moment-in-american-history/?utm_term=.4f3eb84213c5
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: aaahhrealmarcus on August 13, 2017, 04:25:40 PM
I hope it is not more of this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2017/08/13/the-photo-from-charlottesville-that-will-define-this-moment-in-american-history/?utm_term=.4f3eb84213c5

Yep. I was just thinking, the future of a full Trump presidency? Probably a lot more of this.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: egillespie on August 13, 2017, 05:28:38 PM
Seems irresponsible to blame Obama for Ferguson, Sanders for the baseball shooting or Trump for Charlottesville.

Politics sure can bring out the worst in people.  I hope one day humans will stop taking their identity and egos so seriously and just concentrate on their circle of control.

I can't wait for the Trump presidency to end, nor can I begin to predict what beholds.   
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on August 15, 2017, 11:01:59 PM
I started to draft up a little retort to the circle of influence and control post (spoiler alert - it's pretty smug or entitled to enjoy living in your circle and not care about what goes on for the rest of the world that throws all of their energy into aspiring to be you).

But what worries me most today about the idea of a full Trump Presidency is that we are not even actively talking about how crazy this is less that one year ago.  Our President is certifiably ignorant (evinced by everything he says in reaction to the difficult questions that demand answers way above his pay grade - except he happens to be President).  Honestly, the US is in that brilliant WTF moment at the apex of the rollercoaster.  Trump prolongs the thrill for a while I guess, but I much preferred the Obama climb as opposed to being this much closer to the thrilling, breathtaking fall.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Lagom on August 15, 2017, 11:38:35 PM
I started to draft up a little retort to the circle of influence and control post (spoiler alert - it's pretty smug or entitled to enjoy living in your circle and not care about what goes on for the rest of the world that throws all of their energy into aspiring to be you).

But what worries me most today about the idea of a full Trump Presidency is that we are not even actively talking about how crazy this is less that one year ago.  Our President is certifiably ignorant (evinced by everything he says in reaction to the difficult questions that demand answers way above his pay grade - except he happens to be President).  Honestly, the US is in that brilliant WTF moment at the apex of the rollercoaster.  Trump prolongs the thrill for a while I guess, but I much preferred the Obama climb as opposed to being this much closer to the thrilling, breathtaking fall.

If anything I see this as evidence of how little most Americans paid attention in the first place. Hence why my most fervent hope is that if nothing else, this disastrous presidency results in drastic curbs on presidential power looking forward.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on August 15, 2017, 11:44:17 PM
I have no major worries about the Trump presidency.  Ok, I can't mention health care.  I didn't vote for him, but he's ours now, so I don't want to see the country fail with him at the helm, so I'm not going to take the unpatriotic viewpoint I often see expressed online and in the media.  For now, I'm going to enjoy the Trump stock market ride up!  $$$$$$

With all the negative press and such along with the low approval rating, it's hard to imagine Trump ever gets re-elected, but that's over 3 years off, so a lot can happen in that amount of time.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on August 16, 2017, 06:46:39 AM
I have no major worries about the Trump presidency.  Ok, I can't mention health care.  I didn't vote for him, but he's ours now, so I don't want to see the country fail with him at the helm, so I'm not going to take the unpatriotic viewpoint I often see expressed online and in the media.  For now, I'm going to enjoy the Trump stock market ride up!  $$$$$$

With all the negative press and such along with the low approval rating, it's hard to imagine Trump ever gets re-elected, but that's over 3 years off, so a lot can happen in that amount of time.

1. I do not want to see the country fail either. Having said that, it is not unpatriotic to criticize the president when he is wrong.
2. It is over 3 years. A lot can happen. He can be impeached.
3. We will be lucky if we do not have full out wars with other countries considering he likes to insult other leaders. Now we have to worry about possibility of full blown riots here too. Yes stock market is up, but do you think it will stay up in the next 3 yr?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on August 16, 2017, 07:42:19 AM
I have no major worries about the Trump presidency.  Ok, I can't mention health care.  I didn't vote for him, but he's ours now, so I don't want to see the country fail with him at the helm, so I'm not going to take the unpatriotic viewpoint I often see expressed online and in the media.  For now, I'm going to enjoy the Trump stock market ride up!  $$$$$$

With all the negative press and such along with the low approval rating, it's hard to imagine Trump ever gets re-elected, but that's over 3 years off, so a lot can happen in that amount of time.

1. I do not want to see the country fail either. Having said that, it is not unpatriotic to criticize the president when he is wrong.
2. It is over 3 years. A lot can happen. He can be impeached.
3. We will be lucky if we do not have full out wars with other countries considering he likes to insult other leaders. Now we have to worry about possibility of full blown riots here too. Yes stock market is up, but do you think it will stay up in the next 3 yr?

I think you need to ground things to reality. It's seven months into the Trump administration. He's started zero wars thus far. Obama started one by this time. I think when you factor in the fact that one was a Peace Prize recipient, despite Trump's best efforts, he's doing better. In total, Obama started wars against five countries.

When Trump gets into his sixth war, I'll start caring about how he vocalizes his opinion towards other leaders. Until then, I'll treat it like everything else Trump says and does: a useless vapor in the wind.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: acroy on August 16, 2017, 08:12:33 AM
Seems irresponsible to blame Obama for Ferguson, Sanders for the baseball shooting or Trump for Charlottesville.

Politics sure can bring out the worst in people.  I hope one day humans will stop taking their identity and egos so seriously and just concentrate on their circle of control.


^^ Amen
Personally, I am enjoying it a lot. Looking forward to the next 3.5yrs. And the next 4yrs after that.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: caffeine on August 16, 2017, 08:32:43 AM
It is a game. With variables. You can make them adjustable.
You can adjust them. The game has a vibrant modding community.


You complain Keynesian doesn't work in the game, I found it did. So perhaps it's not the tool, it's the tradesman.

It seems to reward Austerity if you can get the populace to not revolt. I always make massive cuts when I first take office. It seems every nation's starting point is unsustainable.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on August 16, 2017, 08:34:49 AM

I think you need to ground things to reality. It's seven months into the Trump administration. He's started zero wars thus far. Obama started one by this time. I think when you factor in the fact that one was a Peace Prize recipient, despite Trump's best efforts, he's doing better. In total, Obama started wars against five countries.

When Trump gets into his sixth war, I'll start caring about how he vocalizes his opinion towards other leaders. Until then, I'll treat it like everything else Trump says and does: a useless vapor in the wind.
Can you elaborate on this?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Lagom on August 16, 2017, 08:36:23 AM
Seems irresponsible to blame Obama for Ferguson, Sanders for the baseball shooting or Trump for Charlottesville.

Politics sure can bring out the worst in people.  I hope one day humans will stop taking their identity and egos so seriously and just concentrate on their circle of control.


^^ Amen
Personally, I am enjoying it a lot. Looking forward to the next 3.5yrs. And the next 4yrs after that.

Out of curiosity, do you too believe that BLM and the KKK/neo-nazis are morally equivalent?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: scantee on August 16, 2017, 08:48:57 AM
Quote
I have been thinking that Donald will lose all semblance of popularity when he fails to lower taxes. That is the only mission for his side, and it is the reason stocks have been flying. Not killing O-care was a pretty big ding, and he will not recover from that quickly. Some followers actually thought he would fix things, so when he disables it, they will get mad. The timing for this is early 2018. His followers will give him until then to do it.
 

Yep. This is why Republicans are hanging on and not denouncing Trump's disgusting behavior and beliefs in stronger terms. They want their tax cuts and they will do anything to get them. And if they don't get them before the 2018 mid-term? They will do everything to minimize or get rid of Trump. Given the utter incompetence they showed with healthcare, it is getting harder and harder to see how they will get even a straightforward tax cut passed. They certainly can't get tax reform passed, which is difficult and much more complicated than a simple tax cut. A tax cut usually is politically easy, but with the never-ending Trump clown show on display they are losing the political capital for even that with each passing day.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on August 16, 2017, 09:15:04 AM

1. I do not want to see the country fail either. Having said that, it is not unpatriotic to criticize the president when he is wrong.
2. It is over 3 years. A lot can happen. He can be impeached.
3. We will be lucky if we do not have full out wars with other countries considering he likes to insult other leaders. Now we have to worry about possibility of full blown riots here too. Yes stock market is up, but do you think it will stay up in the next 3 yr?

Right, not all criticism is unpatriotic.  I don't mean to imply that. 
Impeachment is certainly a possibility for any president, although simply not getting re-elected seems more likely.
I'm not worried about Trump starting any wars on his own, but I'm more concerned about NK launching nukes at us and/or our allies.  But I'm not going to worry about things I can't control.
The stock market never stays up indefinitely, but I'm happy for the gains I've gotten to this point.  I could use a temporary dip so that I can buy some stocks on sale since I'm cash heavy, but I'm pretty confident of the long term growth absent any SHTF events.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: acroy on August 16, 2017, 09:47:20 AM
Out of curiosity, do you too believe that BLM and the KKK/neo-nazis are morally equivalent?

who says they are morally equivalent?

I do know KKK / neo-nazis discriminate. Bad.
I don't know if BLM discriminate. If they do, bad.

Of course they all have the right to peaceful assembly, etc etc etc
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: prognastat on August 16, 2017, 09:58:44 AM

I think you need to ground things to reality. It's seven months into the Trump administration. He's started zero wars thus far. Obama started one by this time. I think when you factor in the fact that one was a Peace Prize recipient, despite Trump's best efforts, he's doing better. In total, Obama started wars against five countries.

When Trump gets into his sixth war, I'll start caring about how he vocalizes his opinion towards other leaders. Until then, I'll treat it like everything else Trump says and does: a useless vapor in the wind.
Can you elaborate on this?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/politics/countries-obama-bombed/index.html

He was able to circumvent the requirement for congress' authorization to go to war by just tacking these conflicts on to the existing "war on terror" authorized under Bush rather than getting new authorizations for each new country he involved. I would assume though that any country that got bombed by the US either conventionally or through drone strikes on their sovereign territory would generally consider this an act of war.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on August 16, 2017, 10:01:21 AM
Right, not all criticism is unpatriotic.  I don't mean to imply that. 
Gotcha!

Impeachment is certainly a possibility for any president, although simply not getting re-elected seems more likely.
Agree

I'm not worried about Trump starting any wars on his own, but I'm more concerned about NK launching nukes at us and/or our allies.  But I'm not going to worry about things I can't control.
The stock market never stays up indefinitely, but I'm happy for the gains I've gotten to this point.  I could use a temporary dip so that I can buy some stocks on sale since I'm cash heavy, but I'm pretty confident of the long term growth absent any SHTF events.
Let me clarify, what I mean. Trump may not fire the first shot/missiles but he may still cause the war.

Just like what we seen regarding North Korea. We know NK like to spout off and threaten everyone. US (and everyone in the world) have always been the calm-cooler head and not engaging their craziness. Now US president is engaging them, and talking fire and fury, which is not helping defuse the situation imo. NK may now fire the first missile toward Guam just to prove their point since Trump threaten them (not necessarily hit Guam), and US may have to fire back to prove our point (fire and fury)....  and so on... and so on...

Same. I could use a dip to buy more stocks.

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: ncornilsen on August 16, 2017, 10:16:55 AM
Seems irresponsible to blame Obama for Ferguson, Sanders for the baseball shooting or Trump for Charlottesville.

Politics sure can bring out the worst in people.  I hope one day humans will stop taking their identity and egos so seriously and just concentrate on their circle of control.


^^ Amen
Personally, I am enjoying it a lot. Looking forward to the next 3.5yrs. And the next 4yrs after that.

Out of curiosity, do you too believe that BLM and the KKK/neo-nazis are morally equivalent?

Absolutely not. From the 10,000 foot view, BLM's aim is laudable - quit shooting blacks at a disproportionate rate when in police interactions. From the same view, excluding non-aryans is despicable.

The field levels a bit when you look at the actuality of what these groups are doing. By that I mean, the KKK people still being pieces of shit. The BLM folk are rioting and destroying things, and assaulting counter protestors and those they don't agree with every time a black person is killed in a police interaction, even when it's clearly justified. they have gone to the stance of promoting lawlessness, and the implied stance of expecting less of minorities. (which is a more incideous form of racism than overt racism, in my opinion.) So the effective aims BLM is doing is not a whole lot better.

That said, where is the moral outrage when communist/collectivists show up? no ideology has exterminated more people on this planet than that one.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Glenstache on August 16, 2017, 10:22:35 AM
Out of curiosity, do you too believe that BLM and the KKK/neo-nazis are morally equivalent?

who says they are morally equivalent?

I do know KKK / neo-nazis discriminate. Bad.
I don't know if BLM discriminate. If they do, bad.

Of course they all have the right to peaceful assembly, etc etc etc

In a slightly different direction based on the "God, Family, Country" in your signature line:
 From the Declaration of Independence:
Quote
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The white nationalists at the rally were espousing views directly contradictory to the founding principles of this nation. Period. Full stop. That is not only morally reprehensible, it is deeply unpatriotic in the context of our written, codified values and laws.

BLM wants to raise awareness of continued institutional racism and discrimination in our country. This is in full alignment with the founding principles of our country (which we, as a country, have been working pretty hard at fulfilling for 240+ years).

Both groups have the right to peaceably assemble. But, to give any semblance of cover to the white nationalists or some sort of "but look at this other group" false equivalency is to give a pass to the reprehensible points of view. Their point of view is, quite frankly, a cancer in our society that should be pushed back against with certainty and resolution. The fascists love false equivalency, and division, and all of the other related ways in which we do not put a united front against them. Those divisions are the only way a minority point of view can gain political power. The fascist experiment has been run before with dire, dire consequences. I can think of few things as patriotic as an American than pushing back against white nationalist fascists.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on August 16, 2017, 11:10:32 AM
Out of curiosity, do you too believe that BLM and the KKK/neo-nazis are morally equivalent?

I do know KKK / neo-nazis discriminate. Bad.
I don't know if BLM discriminate. If they do, bad.

If you, like #45, stop at "bad" you are making a moral equivalence.  It is completely shallow thinking.  Read acroy's post for more.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on August 16, 2017, 11:10:48 AM
Seems irresponsible to blame Obama for Ferguson, Sanders for the baseball shooting or Trump for Charlottesville.

Politics sure can bring out the worst in people.  I hope one day humans will stop taking their identity and egos so seriously and just concentrate on their circle of control.


^^ Amen
Personally, I am enjoying it a lot. Looking forward to the next 3.5yrs. And the next 4yrs after that.

Out of curiosity, do you too believe that BLM and the KKK/neo-nazis are morally equivalent?

Absolutely not. From the 10,000 foot view, BLM's aim is laudable - quit shooting blacks at a disproportionate rate when in police interactions. From the same view, excluding non-aryans is despicable.

The field levels a bit when you look at the actuality of what these groups are doing. By that I mean, the KKK people still being pieces of shit. The BLM folk are rioting and destroying things, and assaulting counter protestors and those they don't agree with every time a black person is killed in a police interaction, even when it's clearly justified. they have gone to the stance of promoting lawlessness, and the implied stance of expecting less of minorities. (which is a more incideous form of racism than overt racism, in my opinion.) So the effective aims BLM is doing is not a whole lot better.

That said, where is the moral outrage when communist/collectivists show up? no ideology has exterminated more people on this planet than that one.

Oh, FFS.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: acroy on August 16, 2017, 11:11:11 AM
In a slightly different direction based on the "God, Family, Country" in your signature line:
 From the Declaration of Independence:
Quote
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The white nationalists at the rally were espousing views directly contradictory to the founding principles of this nation. Period. Full stop. That is not only morally reprehensible, it is deeply unpatriotic in the context of our written, codified values and laws.

BLM wants to raise awareness of continued institutional racism and discrimination in our country. This is in full alignment with the founding principles of our country (which we, as a country, have been working pretty hard at fulfilling for 240+ years).

Both groups have the right to peaceably assemble. But, to give any semblance of cover to the white nationalists or some sort of "but look at this other group" false equivalency is to give a pass to the reprehensible points of view. Their point of view is, quite frankly, a cancer in our society that should be pushed back against with certainty and resolution. The fascists love false equivalency, and division, and all of the other related ways in which we do not put a united front against them. Those divisions are the only way a minority point of view can gain political power. The fascist experiment has been run before with dire, dire consequences. I can think of few things as patriotic as an American than pushing back against white nationalist fascists.
You and I agree on most of this, lecturing to the choir. I lined out above as the distinction is not necessary. No need to specify. It implies some other type of fascist would be ok, which I am sure you do not want to convey.

From what I can tell, BLM is a movement without a cause. See attached, from their website, 'systematically and intentionally targeted for demise." Then see who is performing the de-mising. If that's not an elephant in the room, I don't know what is. My area (DFW) is still recovering from last year when 5 cops were assassinated during a BLM protest. Talk about tension......

So let's quit calling out racial groups. It only adds to the fire, there's no upside. Let it whither & die.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on August 16, 2017, 11:51:07 AM
So let's quit calling out racial groups. It only adds to the fire, there's no upside. Let it whither & die.

Let's bury our heads in the sand about white supremacists who want to "ethnically cleanse" the country of anyone isn't straight, white and preferably male?  Get a grip.

"Looking the other way" led to the rise of Nazis in the first place.

You can pretend it's not happening, but that doesn't make it true.  Time to face reality head on.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on August 16, 2017, 01:18:16 PM

I think you need to ground things to reality. It's seven months into the Trump administration. He's started zero wars thus far. Obama started one by this time. I think when you factor in the fact that one was a Peace Prize recipient, despite Trump's best efforts, he's doing better. In total, Obama started wars against five countries.

When Trump gets into his sixth war, I'll start caring about how he vocalizes his opinion towards other leaders. Until then, I'll treat it like everything else Trump says and does: a useless vapor in the wind.
Can you elaborate on this?

Before I answer, I have to mention my premises. The USA typically only considers itself in a war if there is a declaration of war from congress. Her citizenry also considers that treaties that were never ratified by the government are treaties she is a part of. These two things, working in tandem, means that sometimes another country considers themselves at war with the USA while the USA considers itself a neutral observer in a conflict (the most famous example of this is with Japan before the second world war).

Personally, I consider it an war of war if a nation drop bombs on another country or violate their sovereign borders. Or if they participate in black ops against another state. Or if they send troops to fight another country's soldiers. Or if they start assassinating private citizens of another country without permission. Or if a nation self-declares and the USA intervenes to try and destroy it1. Or if the USA topples an existing government. All those, I would consider acts of war and an informal declaration of it.

I'm not saying my definition is right, merely that it is different and thus my list would be larger than some. Without further ado: Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria, and the Islamic State In The Levant (ISIL). That last one is controversial1.

1 This makes my definition very liberal. If the USA would have lost the revolutionary war, Britain would not have called 1776 a war. It would have called it a failed rebellion. But, with hindsight and the Americans wining, we do call it a war between two nations. My reasons for calling ISIL a nation is complex and not fitting with this thread.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on August 16, 2017, 02:37:46 PM

I think you need to ground things to reality. It's seven months into the Trump administration. He's started zero wars thus far. Obama started one by this time. I think when you factor in the fact that one was a Peace Prize recipient, despite Trump's best efforts, he's doing better. In total, Obama started wars against five countries.

When Trump gets into his sixth war, I'll start caring about how he vocalizes his opinion towards other leaders. Until then, I'll treat it like everything else Trump says and does: a useless vapor in the wind.
Can you elaborate on this?

Before I answer, I have to mention my premises. The USA typically only considers itself in a war if there is a declaration of war from congress. Her citizenry also considers that treaties that were never ratified by the government are treaties she is a part of. These two things, working in tandem, means that sometimes another country considers themselves at war with the USA while the USA considers itself a neutral observer in a conflict (the most famous example of this is with Japan before the second world war).

Personally, I consider it an war of war if a nation drop bombs on another country or violate their sovereign borders. Or if they participate in black ops against another state. Or if they send troops to fight another country's soldiers. Or if they start assassinating private citizens of another country without permission. Or if a nation self-declares and the USA intervenes to try and destroy it1. Or if the USA topples an existing government. All those, I would consider acts of war and an informal declaration of it.

I'm not saying my definition is right, merely that it is different and thus my list would be larger than some. Without further ado: Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria, and the Islamic State In The Levant (ISIL). That last one is controversial1.

1 This makes my definition very liberal. If the USA would have lost the revolutionary war, Britain would not have called 1776 a war. It would have called it a failed rebellion. But, with hindsight and the Americans wining, we do call it a war between two nations. My reasons for calling ISIL a nation is complex and not fitting with this thread.
Thank you for the explanation. I would tend to agree with your concept of being "at war" however based on this somewhat liberal definition wouldn't you agree that there is a spectrum of results that can come from war?

Even though we committed "acts of war" what were the repercussions? What were the opinions of the leaders of the countries we attacked? How about the citizens?

I see much more at stake with North Korea based on the strength of their military and the unpredictability of their leader.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Geoduck on August 16, 2017, 05:23:56 PM
Given recent comments by our "leader" I'd hope for this to end sooner than later.

But really, is anyone surprised?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: dividendman on August 16, 2017, 08:59:53 PM
Sigh, when Steve Bannon says better things than the President you know we're in trouble:

Quote
“Ethno-nationalism – it’s losers. It’s a fringe element,” Bannon said. “I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more.”

He added, “These guys are a collection of clowns.”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/steve-bannon-interview-white-supremacy/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/steve-bannon-interview-white-supremacy/index.html)
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on August 16, 2017, 09:57:26 PM
Sigh, when Steve Bannon says better things than the President you know we're in trouble:

Quote
“Ethno-nationalism – it’s losers. It’s a fringe element,” Bannon said. “I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more.”

He added, “These guys are a collection of clowns.”

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/steve-bannon-interview-white-supremacy/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/steve-bannon-interview-white-supremacy/index.html)
This is truly confusing. I haven't been following reality TV (i.e. the executive branch) well enough recently to even remotely grasp the political dynamics at play in Bannon's statements. Congratulations Trump et. al, you have overloaded everyone's OODA loop.

For those of us who never thought of Bannon as Goebbels, the content of his comment is not surprising; rather what is surprising is that he said it openly in an interview. Trump appreciates loyalty and (perhaps more importantly) not being outshone by his subordinates. Bannon is smart enough to know all of that so why would he cross that line?

Theory 1: Bannon didn't mean for it to be on the record (unlikely, he's better-hinged than the Mooch)

Theory 2: He wants to make the administration seem more competent by suggesting there is a broader strategy at play with the incessant Trump dog-whistling and cow-belling with respect to the (lack of) denunciation of hate groups (but this is too clever by half; if Bannon/Trump are playing 572 dimensional chess, no one else will given them credit for it, including Congressional Republicans whose support Trump needs to govern effectively)

Theory 3: He is trying to get fired (buy why?)

Theory 4: He is trying to run interference/distract the media to protect Trump (most plausible so far, even though he is contradicting Trump? Then again, Tillerson and Sessions are launching contradictions with impunity these days)
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on August 17, 2017, 07:28:54 AM
That said, where is the moral outrage when communist/collectivists show up? no ideology has exterminated more people on this planet than that one.

Feel free to provide links that show the last time a large group of communists/neo-communists (if that's a thing?) rallied together yelling racist phrases and claiming their race is superior, etc.  Oh and the last time they came together and one of their members committed an act of terrorism and killed someone.  Oh and the last time they beat someone with poles and clubs because of the color of his skin.

Seriously...there's no "moral outrage" because they don't do any of those things in 2017.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Mississippi Mudstache on August 17, 2017, 08:06:34 AM
Sigh, when Steve Bannon says better things than the President you know we're in trouble...

For those of us who never thought of Bannon as Goebbels, the content of his comment is not surprising; rather what is surprising is that he said it openly in an interview. Trump appreciates loyalty and (perhaps more importantly) not being outshone by his subordinates. Bannon is smart enough to know all of that so why would he cross that line?

My perspective: Steve Bannon called up Robert Kuttner from The American Prospect, a leftist publication, to discuss their similar views on international trade following an article from Kuttner (http://prospect.org/article/us-vs-north-korea-winner-china) that was critical of U.S. trade policy with China. Bannon felt obligated to insult the base that he helped coalesce (white nationalists) to ingratiate himself with Kuttner and to get his attention. Bannon's primary motivation seems to be his economic nationalism:

Quote from: Steve Bannon
To me, the economic war with China is everything. And we have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue to lose it, we're five years away, I think, ten years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we'll never be able to recover.

Bannon is in search of allies on the left to strengthen his coalition. He certainly doesn't seem to be making many friends among his fellow White House aides and advisers. Maybe he simply forgot to tell Kuttner that the conversation was off the record, or (more likely, I think) he made a strategic calculation to get his views about China distributed to a wider audience. Surely he didn't assume that one friendly conversation with Kuttner would suddenly turn him into an advocate given his track record at Breitbart.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on August 17, 2017, 08:17:27 AM

Theory 3: He is trying to get fired (buy why?)


Maybe he is tired working at the WH, so he thinks who give a **** anymore lol. He does not want to be known as the guy who quit so maybe getting fired is better alternative.

It has been a clown show, and I bet it reduce your overall age and quality of life working there.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on August 17, 2017, 08:25:21 AM

Theory 3: He is trying to get fired (buy why?)


Maybe he is tired working at the WH, so he thinks who give a **** anymore lol. He does not want to be known as the guy who quit so maybe getting fired is better alternative.

It has been a clown show, and I bet it reduce your overall age and quality of life working there.

Bannon already looked like he only had one or two horcruxes left before he joined the WH.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Glenstache on August 17, 2017, 09:54:29 AM

Theory 3: He is trying to get fired (buy why?)


Maybe he is tired working at the WH, so he thinks who give a **** anymore lol. He does not want to be known as the guy who quit so maybe getting fired is better alternative.

It has been a clown show, and I bet it reduce your overall age and quality of life working there.
Let's be honest. One of Bannon's long stated goals is to destroy the administrative state. The Trump Administration has been wildly successful at damaging institutions like the EPA, etc. I suspect that Bannon feels pretty pleased on the whole.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/steve-bannon-world-view/
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: rocketpj on August 17, 2017, 10:06:22 AM
Let me speculate about the best case scenario for a Full Trump Presidency.

Let's call him a full powered stress test for your constitution and democracy.  He has shown that he is quite willing to ignore every norm and use whatever means are available to further his own interests.  He will attack, demean and undermine every democratic norm, convention, system and barrier to protect himself.

So, chances are he will break anything that can be broken over the next 3.5 years (if he lasts that long), or possibly even 7.5 years.  At the end you can pretty much assume a small set of possible outcomes.
1.  Democracy is over and it is obvious, with at least 30% of the population in favour, 30% fighting it and demonized, and the rest terrified and/or looking for an exit.  This is the worst case.  Maybe elections are suspended or just so obviously rigged as to be pointless (where opposition is arrested, smeared and or harmed). 

2.  Democracy survives.  In this case, if current trends continue, so much damage will have been done domestically and abroad that there will be a huge appetite for reform.  International trade is in a tailspin, US markets are tanking, corporations are leaving, and unemployment is spiking.  Maybe the dollar is losing its position globally as well. 

In the second case, if the Democrats (or their replacements) can manage not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, there might be a wholesale set of reforms to the current, broken political system.  Campaign finance reform, a reform of electoral redistricting processes, maybe some halfway intelligent banking regulation etc. etc.  That can be a huge discussion.

Any halfway stable system will continue to function until its weaknesses overwhelm it, or in the case of human systems people find and use the weaknesses to their own gain.  Trump isn't breaking the system, he is exploiting its weaknesses, which have been built and expanded upon by both parties for decades.

So I guess we'll see if this is just a test to see if your democracy is strong enough to survive an egregiously self aggrandizing moron.  Despite your national mythology, that is not yet certain.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on August 17, 2017, 05:00:43 PM
That said, where is the moral outrage when communist/collectivists show up? no ideology has exterminated more people on this planet than that one.

Feel free to provide links that show the last time a large group of communists/neo-communists (if that's a thing?) rallied together yelling racist phrases and claiming their race is superior, etc.  Oh and the last time they came together and one of their members committed an act of terrorism and killed someone.  Oh and the last time they beat someone with poles and clubs because of the color of his skin.

Seriously...there's no "moral outrage" because they don't do any of those things in 2017.

Are you for real mate? Google "pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon". Or the Dallas cop shooting. Or the Milwaukee Rioters targetting white people in the streets to assault. Or Antifa beating people with bike locks, bats, and improvised flame throwers (though they're communists, not racists).
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Lagom on August 17, 2017, 06:10:09 PM
That said, where is the moral outrage when communist/collectivists show up? no ideology has exterminated more people on this planet than that one.

Feel free to provide links that show the last time a large group of communists/neo-communists (if that's a thing?) rallied together yelling racist phrases and claiming their race is superior, etc.  Oh and the last time they came together and one of their members committed an act of terrorism and killed someone.  Oh and the last time they beat someone with poles and clubs because of the color of his skin.

Seriously...there's no "moral outrage" because they don't do any of those things in 2017.

Are you for real mate? Google "pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon". Or the Dallas cop shooting. Or the Milwaukee Rioters targetting white people in the streets to assault. Or Antifa beating people with bike locks, bats, and improvised flame throwers (though they're communists, not racists).

Agreed, there are definitely some on the left that do indefensible things in the name of (so they think) fighting bigotry and and inequality and hatred and intolerance.  Then there are people who fight for bigotry and inequality and hatred and intolerance. Oh, and some of them also cross the line into intentional violence or other illegal behavior. Interesting how so many  maintain that there is no effective difference between those two groups...
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: JLee on August 17, 2017, 06:16:26 PM
I think one thing to always keep in mind is that the president of the USA is not a monarch. This lack of power gives me assurance. Say if Trump wants to do something batshit crazy, his inner circle can convince him otherwise. Or the senate could block it. Or the congress. Or the Supreme Court. Or the department being tasked could follow the order with negligence. Or the next general election.

Personally, I'm not convinced his inner circle can convince him otherwise.  Yes, he can be held in check through the "checks and balances" system but his spur-of-the-moment tweets are troublesome. 

Although not within his presidential powers, I would not be surprised to read a DJT tweet declaring war on North Korea or contemplating declaring war on North Korea or any other threatening remark.  That's the batshit crazy stuff that nightmares are made of.

Only congress can declare war.

Will North Korea care, if they see a tweet that says we've declared war?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on August 17, 2017, 06:26:11 PM
That said, where is the moral outrage when communist/collectivists show up? no ideology has exterminated more people on this planet than that one.

Feel free to provide links that show the last time a large group of communists/neo-communists (if that's a thing?) rallied together yelling racist phrases and claiming their race is superior, etc.  Oh and the last time they came together and one of their members committed an act of terrorism and killed someone.  Oh and the last time they beat someone with poles and clubs because of the color of his skin.

Seriously...there's no "moral outrage" because they don't do any of those things in 2017.

Are you for real mate? Google "pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon". Or the Dallas cop shooting. Or the Milwaukee Rioters targetting white people in the streets to assault. Or Antifa beating people with bike locks, bats, and improvised flame throwers (though they're communists, not racists).

Agreed, there are definitely some on the left that do indefensible things in the name of (so they think) fighting bigotry and and inequality and hatred and intolerance.  Then there are people who fight for bigotry and inequality and hatred and intolerance. Oh, and some of them also cross the line into intentional violence or other illegal behavior. Interesting how so many  maintain that there is no effective difference between those two groups...

Shooting people for being white is not someone fighting bigotry re: Micah Johnson or Gavin Eugen.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: JLee on August 17, 2017, 06:33:25 PM
That said, where is the moral outrage when communist/collectivists show up? no ideology has exterminated more people on this planet than that one.

Feel free to provide links that show the last time a large group of communists/neo-communists (if that's a thing?) rallied together yelling racist phrases and claiming their race is superior, etc.  Oh and the last time they came together and one of their members committed an act of terrorism and killed someone.  Oh and the last time they beat someone with poles and clubs because of the color of his skin.

Seriously...there's no "moral outrage" because they don't do any of those things in 2017.

Are you for real mate? Google "pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon". Or the Dallas cop shooting. Or the Milwaukee Rioters targetting white people in the streets to assault. Or Antifa beating people with bike locks, bats, and improvised flame throwers (though they're communists, not racists).

Agreed, there are definitely some on the left that do indefensible things in the name of (so they think) fighting bigotry and and inequality and hatred and intolerance.  Then there are people who fight for bigotry and inequality and hatred and intolerance. Oh, and some of them also cross the line into intentional violence or other illegal behavior. Interesting how so many  maintain that there is no effective difference between those two groups...

Shooting people for being white is not someone fighting bigotry re: Micah Johnson or Gavin Eugen.

Two things.

1)

Gavin Eugen's suicide note (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/baton_rouge_officer_shooting/article_9748d2c0-5daa-11e7-af6d-ab3966e08d70.html) explicitly stated that he felt his actions were necessary to promote change in policing:
Quote
Therefore I must bring the same destruction that bad cops continue to inflict upon my people, upon bad cops as well as good cops in hopes that the good cops (which are the majority) will be able to stand together to enact justice & punishment against bad cops b/c right now the police force & current judicial system is not doing so.

He was not "shooting people for being white."

2) What you're doing is minimalizing and normalizing Nazi behavior by drawing comparisons to extremists on the other side.  Whether you intend to or not, this comes across as "Nazis aren't that bad because there are other bad people too."

Think about that.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on August 17, 2017, 06:34:31 PM
Sigh, when Steve Bannon says better things than the President you know we're in trouble...

For those of us who never thought of Bannon as Goebbels, the content of his comment is not surprising; rather what is surprising is that he said it openly in an interview. Trump appreciates loyalty and (perhaps more importantly) not being outshone by his subordinates. Bannon is smart enough to know all of that so why would he cross that line?

My perspective: Steve Bannon called up Robert Kuttner from The American Prospect, a leftist publication, to discuss their similar views on international trade following an article from Kuttner (http://prospect.org/article/us-vs-north-korea-winner-china) that was critical of U.S. trade policy with China. Bannon felt obligated to insult the base that he helped coalesce (white nationalists) to ingratiate himself with Kuttner and to get his attention. Bannon's primary motivation seems to be his economic nationalism:

Quote from: Steve Bannon
To me, the economic war with China is everything. And we have to be maniacally focused on that. If we continue to lose it, we're five years away, I think, ten years at the most, of hitting an inflection point from which we'll never be able to recover.

Bannon is in search of allies on the left to strengthen his coalition. He certainly doesn't seem to be making many friends among his fellow White House aides and advisers. Maybe he simply forgot to tell Kuttner that the conversation was off the record, or (more likely, I think) he made a strategic calculation to get his views about China distributed to a wider audience. Surely he didn't assume that one friendly conversation with Kuttner would suddenly turn him into an advocate given his track record at Breitbart.
Thanks for that background on Kuttner, like I mentioned, I can't keep up with the shitshow anymore. That makes sense as much as anything and maybe Bannon thinks Trump is so distracted by...well...everything that he can go rogue in pursuit of his objectives.

One more possibility? (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp#/media/File:Marcel_Duchamp.jpg)
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on August 17, 2017, 07:52:30 PM
That said, where is the moral outrage when communist/collectivists show up? no ideology has exterminated more people on this planet than that one.

Feel free to provide links that show the last time a large group of communists/neo-communists (if that's a thing?) rallied together yelling racist phrases and claiming their race is superior, etc.  Oh and the last time they came together and one of their members committed an act of terrorism and killed someone.  Oh and the last time they beat someone with poles and clubs because of the color of his skin.

Seriously...there's no "moral outrage" because they don't do any of those things in 2017.

Are you for real mate? Google "pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon". Or the Dallas cop shooting. Or the Milwaukee Rioters targetting white people in the streets to assault. Or Antifa beating people with bike locks, bats, and improvised flame throwers (though they're communists, not racists).

Agreed, there are definitely some on the left that do indefensible things in the name of (so they think) fighting bigotry and and inequality and hatred and intolerance.  Then there are people who fight for bigotry and inequality and hatred and intolerance. Oh, and some of them also cross the line into intentional violence or other illegal behavior. Interesting how so many  maintain that there is no effective difference between those two groups...

Shooting people for being white is not someone fighting bigotry re: Micah Johnson or Gavin Eugen.

Two things.

1)

Gavin Eugen's suicide note (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/baton_rouge_officer_shooting/article_9748d2c0-5daa-11e7-af6d-ab3966e08d70.html) explicitly stated that he felt his actions were necessary to promote change in policing:
Quote
Therefore I must bring the same destruction that bad cops continue to inflict upon my people, upon bad cops as well as good cops in hopes that the good cops (which are the majority) will be able to stand together to enact justice & punishment against bad cops b/c right now the police force & current judicial system is not doing so.

He was not "shooting people for being white."

2) What you're doing is minimalizing and normalizing Nazi behavior by drawing comparisons to extremists on the other side.  Whether you intend to or not, this comes across as "Nazis aren't that bad because there are other bad people too."

Think about that.

To me, it sounds like you are the one diminishing violence.

1. Are you trying to say that Gavin Eugen going out to hunt police officers was justified because he thought killing them would promote change? I assume not but then I'm left wondering why you would even mention it. Also, he was a black separatist. That's why he thought he was justified in killing cops.

And another comment about the suicide note, you take the word of a murderer of cops to be genuine? As a bit of a life lesson, figuratively speaking when one guy is lying on the floor dead and another is standing, alive, with a gun in his hands, you shouldn't take the latter's words afterwards as gospel. You get grotesque distortions of the truth from them. (Think of the Martin/Zimmerman incident. I sure hope you wouldn't trust Zimmerman's recollection of the facts or his justification that he derived after the murder).

2. Did I say "it's ok when far-left individuals to assault people without merit"? Did I, similar to you just did, provide a rationale for why a Nazi wants to riot? Did I suggest like DarkandStormy that assault and battery is less bad if the people doing it think they are doing it for a good cause? No, it is bad to assault people who aren't assaulting you. Whether it is a white nationalists or Nazis or Communist doing it. I won't defend, like it sounds like some of you are doing, people attacking others first.

Besides being innately evil, what made the Nazis infamous is they actually annexed territories. Rounded up Jews. Gassed people with disabilities. That's why it was perfectly justifiable to make them a chapter in the history book. When a specific crowd of American Neo-Nazis contemplate rounding up black people to execute, drop a fucking daisy cutter on them! Had someone executed that Charlotteville driver in the street after killing that lady, I'd have ruled not guilty if I was put on a jury.

Assaulting or killing people who are not posing an imminent threat is wrong. Why you even think it is appropriate to mention that Eugen thought he had good reasons to do so is beyond me.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: JLee on August 17, 2017, 09:08:38 PM
That said, where is the moral outrage when communist/collectivists show up? no ideology has exterminated more people on this planet than that one.

Feel free to provide links that show the last time a large group of communists/neo-communists (if that's a thing?) rallied together yelling racist phrases and claiming their race is superior, etc.  Oh and the last time they came together and one of their members committed an act of terrorism and killed someone.  Oh and the last time they beat someone with poles and clubs because of the color of his skin.

Seriously...there's no "moral outrage" because they don't do any of those things in 2017.

Are you for real mate? Google "pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon". Or the Dallas cop shooting. Or the Milwaukee Rioters targetting white people in the streets to assault. Or Antifa beating people with bike locks, bats, and improvised flame throwers (though they're communists, not racists).

Agreed, there are definitely some on the left that do indefensible things in the name of (so they think) fighting bigotry and and inequality and hatred and intolerance.  Then there are people who fight for bigotry and inequality and hatred and intolerance. Oh, and some of them also cross the line into intentional violence or other illegal behavior. Interesting how so many  maintain that there is no effective difference between those two groups...

Shooting people for being white is not someone fighting bigotry re: Micah Johnson or Gavin Eugen.

Two things.

1)

Gavin Eugen's suicide note (http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/baton_rouge_officer_shooting/article_9748d2c0-5daa-11e7-af6d-ab3966e08d70.html) explicitly stated that he felt his actions were necessary to promote change in policing:
Quote
Therefore I must bring the same destruction that bad cops continue to inflict upon my people, upon bad cops as well as good cops in hopes that the good cops (which are the majority) will be able to stand together to enact justice & punishment against bad cops b/c right now the police force & current judicial system is not doing so.

He was not "shooting people for being white."

2) What you're doing is minimalizing and normalizing Nazi behavior by drawing comparisons to extremists on the other side.  Whether you intend to or not, this comes across as "Nazis aren't that bad because there are other bad people too."

Think about that.

To me, it sounds like you are the one diminishing violence.

1. Are you trying to say that Gavin Eugen going out to hunt police officers was justified because he thought killing them would promote change? I assume not but then I'm left wondering why you would even mention it. Also, he was a black separatist. That's why he thought he was justified in killing cops.

And another comment about the suicide note, you take the word of a murderer of cops to be genuine? As a bit of a life lesson, figuratively speaking when one guy is lying on the floor dead and another is standing, alive, with a gun in his hands, you shouldn't take the latter's words afterwards as gospel. You get grotesque distortions of the truth from them. (Think of the Martin/Zimmerman incident. I sure hope you wouldn't trust Zimmerman's recollection of the facts or his justification that he derived after the murder).

2. Did I say "it's ok when far-left individuals to assault people without merit"? Did I, similar to you just did, provide a rationale for why a Nazi wants to riot? Did I suggest like DarkandStormy that assault and battery is less bad if the people doing it think they are doing it for a good cause? No, it is bad to assault people who aren't assaulting you. Whether it is a white nationalists or Nazis or Communist doing it. I won't defend, like it sounds like some of you are doing, people attacking others first.

Besides being innately evil, what made the Nazis infamous is they actually annexed territories. Rounded up Jews. Gassed people with disabilities. That's why it was perfectly justifiable to make them a chapter in the history book. When a specific crowd of American Neo-Nazis contemplate rounding up black people to execute, drop a fucking daisy cutter on them! Had someone executed that Charlotteville driver in the street after killing that lady, I'd have ruled not guilty if I was put on a jury.

Assaulting or killing people who are not posing an imminent threat is wrong. Why you even think it is appropriate to mention that Eugen thought he had good reasons to do so is beyond me.

I wore a badge for years. I've stood at the funeral of a brother officer murdered in the line of duty.  These strike close to home for me - you can shove your "life lesson" elsewhere.

1) I was trying to say exactly what I said. Unless you have another source that claims Eugen was specifically targeting white people.  Evidence suggests he was targeting law enforcement - if you want to kill a bunch of white people, targeting ones with guns and radios is a bad plan.

Eugen was shooting people for being cops, not for being white.

2) Watch this. (https://news.vice.com/story/vice-news-tonight-full-episode-charlottesville-race-and-terror)
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: JLee on August 17, 2017, 09:58:31 PM
Ok, I had to go back to this.

Quote from: kayvent
To me, it sounds like you are the one diminishing violence.

1. Are you trying to say that Gavin Eugen going out to hunt police officers was justified because he thought killing them would promote change?
No.

Quote
I assume not
okay...

Quote
but then I'm left wondering why you would even mention it.
because he specifically stated his intentions. They were not "kill white people", as your post suggested.

Quote
Also, he was a black separatist. That's why he thought he was justified in killing cops.
Irrelevant since the claim was "shooting people for being white" - not "thought he was justified in killing cops"

Quote
And another comment about the suicide note, you take the word of a murderer of cops to be genuine?

I take his actions to be genuine. He killed three police officers and wounded three more.

Quote
As a bit of a life lesson, figuratively speaking when one guy is lying on the floor dead and another is standing, alive, with a gun in his hands, you shouldn't take the latter's words afterwards as gospel. You get grotesque distortions of the truth from them. (Think of the Martin/Zimmerman incident. I sure hope you wouldn't trust Zimmerman's recollection of the facts or his justification that he derived after the murder).
Gavin Eugene Long is dead. Three officers are dead, at his hands. Who's this "standing, alive, with a gun in his hands" whose words we shouldn't take as gospel?  It looks to me like he did exactly what his letter said he would do. What's your dispute here?

Quote
2. Did I say "it's ok when far-left individuals to assault people without merit"? Did I, similar to you just did, provide a rationale for why a Nazi wants to riot? Did I suggest like DarkandStormy that assault and battery is less bad if the people doing it think they are doing it for a good cause? No,
ok?

Quote
it is bad to assault people who aren't assaulting you. Whether it is a white nationalists or Nazis or Communist doing it. I won't defend, like it sounds like some of you are doing, people attacking others first.
I'm not sure who you're talking to here, because I certainly did not defend anyone attacking anyone else.

Quote
Besides being innately evil, what made the Nazis infamous is they actually annexed territories. Rounded up Jews. Gassed people with disabilities. That's why it was perfectly justifiable to make them a chapter in the history book. When a specific crowd of American Neo-Nazis contemplate rounding up black people to execute, drop a fucking daisy cutter on them!


In case you have not watched the Vice clip, I'll post some quotes here. These are high-level alt-right organizers at the Charlottesville protest.

Vice: We were asking whether white people were capable of violence.
Cantwell: I didn't say capable, of course we're capable, I'm carrying a pistol, I go to the gym all the time, I'm trying to make myself more capable of violence. I'm here to spread ideas and talk, in the hopes that somebody more capable will come along and do that. Someone like Donald Trump, who does not give his daughter to a Jew.
Vice: So Donald Trump but like more racist.
Cantwell: A lot more racist than Donald Trump. I don't think you could feel about race the way I do and watch that Kushner bastard walk around with that beautiful girl.

[...later...]

Other dude: And that's because this city is run by Jewish communists and criminal n*****s.
Vice: So you're the true non-violent protesters.
Cantwell: I'm not even saying we're non-violent. I'm saying that we did not aggress. We didn't initiate force against anybody. We are not non-violent. We'll fucking kill these people if we have to.

[...later...]

Vice: So what do you hope to get out of today, why, what does it mean to you?
Ray: Well, for one thing it means that we're showing to this parasitic class of anti-white vermin that this is our country, this country was built by our forefathers and was sustained by us, and will remain our country. I believe as you can see we are stepping off the internet in a big way. For instance, last night at the torch walk, there were hundreds and hundreds of us, people realize they're not atomized individuals, they're part of a larger whole, because we have been spreading our names, we have been organizing on the internet, so now they're coming out, and now as you can see we greatly outnumber the anti-white, anti-American filth, and, and some point, we will have enough power that we will clear them from the streets forever. That which is degenerate in white countries will be removed. [...] We're starting to unveil a little bit of our power level. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

[...later...]

Cantwell: I think that a lot more people are gonna die before we're done here, frankly.
Vice: Why?
Cantwell: Why, because people die every day, right? I mean.
Vice: Not, like, of a heart attack. I mean violent death.
Cantwell: Well, people die violent deaths all the time. Right, like this is part of the reason why we want an ethnostate, right. So, like, the blacks are killing each other in staggering numbers from coast to coast, we don't really wanna have a part of that anymore, and so the fact that they resist us when we say hey we want a homeland, is not shocking to me. These people want violence and the right is just meeting market demand.


Quote
Had someone executed that Charlotteville driver in the street after killing that lady, I'd have ruled not guilty if I was put on a jury.
Deadly force is justified when there's an imminent threat. Execution is not.

Quote
Assaulting or killing people who are not posing an imminent threat is wrong.
I agree. However, you literally just said that executing the Charlottesville driver would have been okay in your book.

Quote
Why you even think it is appropriate to mention that Eugen thought he had good reasons to do so is beyond me.
As noted earlier, because it disproves your claim that he was targeting white people.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on August 17, 2017, 10:05:42 PM
If someone just killed a person and is running over numerous other people, they are being an imminent threat. I am shocked you'd not concur that someone killing a neo-nazi running over people would not be justified.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: JLee on August 17, 2017, 10:08:56 PM
If someone just killed a person and is running over numerous other people, they are being an imminent threat. I am shocked you'd not concur that someone killing a neo-nazi running over people would not be justified.

You have moved the goal posts (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading) by adding "and is running over numerous other people." Your initial statement specifically stated "executed that Charlotteville driver in the street after killing that lady" - adding further information changes the entire situation, and your alleged shock at my disagreement is based on false pretenses.

The term "execute" means something very specific.  You don't "execute" someone in self-defense.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on August 17, 2017, 10:20:38 PM
If someone just killed a person and is running over numerous other people, they are being an imminent threat. I am shocked you'd not concur that someone killing a neo-nazi running over people would not be justified.

You have moved the goal posts (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading) by adding "and is running over numerous other people." Your initial statement specifically stated "executed that Charlotteville driver in the street after killing that lady" - adding further information changes the entire situation, and your alleged shock at my disagreement is based on false pretenses.

The term "execute" means something very specific.  You don't "execute" someone in self-defense.

The lady wasn't the last person ran over. As per my use of the word "execute", I'd retract the use of that particular word. I meant to use it as "consciously kill a person" and was ignorant that it can/does have a narrower connotation.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: JLee on August 17, 2017, 10:24:14 PM
If someone just killed a person and is running over numerous other people, they are being an imminent threat. I am shocked you'd not concur that someone killing a neo-nazi running over people would not be justified.

You have moved the goal posts (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/special-pleading) by adding "and is running over numerous other people." Your initial statement specifically stated "executed that Charlotteville driver in the street after killing that lady" - adding further information changes the entire situation, and your alleged shock at my disagreement is based on false pretenses.

The term "execute" means something very specific.  You don't "execute" someone in self-defense.

The lady wasn't the last person ran over. As per my use of the word "execute", I'd retract the use of that particular word. I meant to use it as "consciously kill a person" and was ignorant that it can/does have a narrower connotation.

In that case, our disagreements are likely due to phrasing/semantics and not due to differences in the underlying thought processes. I expect we are generally on the same page.

[MOD NOTE:  This exchange got flagged to me, but it's not clear to me what the two of you are arguing over.  It also seems to me, as you've finally concluded, you aren't actually disagreeing with each other.  Possibly, you've just become confused because you're not particularly concise with the communication skills.

That said, this discussion seems to be over ... and also a bit off topic.  Let's get back on to the (admittedly also off-topic) topic of discussion.

Thanks,
Toque.]
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: whatupjeffy on August 18, 2017, 12:51:43 AM
he provokes N.Korea and as my friend recently said, there would be a big "Anti-US" demonstration soon in S.Korea
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: dividendman on August 18, 2017, 09:59:40 AM
he provokes N.Korea and as my friend recently said, there would be a big "Anti-US" demonstration soon in S.Korea

Well, if South Korea becomes anti-US too, maybe they'll unite and then the treat will be solved that way! haha.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on August 18, 2017, 12:06:12 PM

Theory 3: He is trying to get fired (buy why?)


Maybe he is tired working at the WH, so he thinks who give a **** anymore lol. He does not want to be known as the guy who quit so maybe getting fired is better alternative.

It has been a clown show, and I bet it reduce your overall age and quality of life working there.

Bannon already looked like he only had one or two horcruxes left before he joined the WH.

Now that was some impressive speculating! 

Quote
WASHINGTON – Steve Bannon is leaving his post as senior adviser on Friday, according to the White House, ending a turbulent tenure for the hardline immigration and economic nationalist who clashed other advisers since the beginning of President Trump's term.

"White House Chief of Staff John Kelly and Steve Bannon have mutually agreed today would be Steve's last day. We are grateful for his service and wish him the best," said a statement from White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders.


Pretty much spot on, now I just wonder what the fallout is with CEO's, staff, and 'fellow' Republicans distancing themselves from the President.  Even the mother of the victim of the Charlottesville incident does not want to talk to President Trump. (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/18/544416033/charlottesville-victim-s-mother-says-she-will-not-take-trump-s-calls)
Quote
(Susan) Bro said she initially missed calls from the president, the first of which "looked like it actually came during the funeral" on Wednesday.

That day, Trump tweeted, "Memorial service today for beautiful and incredible Heather Heyer, a truly special young woman. She will be long remembered by all!"

Bro said that she received "three more frantic messages from press secretaries throughout the day and I didn't know why." She said she did not immediately respond because she was recovering from the funeral and focused on setting up her daughter's foundation.

It wasn't until Thursday, Bro said, that she heard Trump's comments that appear to equate the actions of the protesters and the white supremacist demonstrators.

"I'm not talking to the president now. I'm sorry. After what he said about my child," Bro said during the interview. "I saw an actual clip of him at a press conference equating the protesters like Miss Heyer with the KKK and the white supremacists. ... I'm not forgiving for that."
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on August 18, 2017, 01:05:32 PM
Bannon has been fired.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/politics/steve-bannon-white-house/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Gondolin on August 18, 2017, 01:55:52 PM
Quote
Bannon has been fired

Bannon was never cut out to govern or play politics. Now he can go back to doing what he is good at - railing from the outside at the corrupt Washington elite. I find it 6 months before he's denouncing trump for betraying his "drain the swamp" constituency.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on August 18, 2017, 02:01:28 PM
We should have a new thread "So Let's Speculate about who is going to get fired next..."
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: jim555 on August 18, 2017, 02:22:52 PM
We should have a new thread "So Let's Speculate about who is going to get fired next..."
Who is still left?  He is running out of people.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: dividendman on August 18, 2017, 02:51:34 PM
We should have a new thread "So Let's Speculate about who is going to get fired next..."
Who is still left?  He is running out of people.

Well, he could pick David Duke for chief strategist.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: golden1 on August 19, 2017, 06:09:26 AM
I would not put that past him.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on August 19, 2017, 11:29:44 AM
We should have a new thread "So Let's Speculate about who is going to get fired next..."
Who is still left?  He is running out of people.

Well, he could pick David Duke for chief strategist.

It would be a logical choice after Bannon.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on August 29, 2017, 09:35:32 PM
He made sure that everyone knows who is FLOTUS today - incase she was mistaken as one of the suffering peasants in Houston...
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: jim555 on August 29, 2017, 11:50:15 PM
He made sure that everyone knows who is FLOTUS today - incase she was mistaken as one of the suffering peasants in Houston...
She needs a hat to remind her that she really is FLOTUS, we can't believe it either.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on August 30, 2017, 11:53:37 AM
I wasn't particularly impressed by some media's coverage of FLOTUS shoes. Who the fuck cares what she is wearing! People are literally drowning in Texas. With that said, I find this particularly spot on for the situation now with Trump being in Texas.

(https://theintellectualist.co/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Screen-Shot-2017-08-29-at-1.17.03-PM.png?x75966)
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on August 30, 2017, 01:07:26 PM

Who cares what hats they are wearing?  People are always looking for something negative to say about their president.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Wexler on August 30, 2017, 01:08:54 PM

Who cares what hats they are wearing?  People are always looking for something negative to say about their president.

Indeed.  See the post directly above yours.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on August 30, 2017, 01:27:24 PM

Who cares what hats they are wearing?  People are always looking for something negative to say about their president.

Indeed.  See the post directly above yours.
Perfect timing.

Also the issue with the hat isn't that he's wearing it, it's that his campaign is selling it. For $40. And he wore multiple colors of the same hat in a short period as if he's modeling it.

Edit: The first comments were making fun of the FLOTUS hat, not his USA hat. I didn't put that together when I responded but the point remains, it's marketing. That's all he knows how to do.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on August 30, 2017, 01:29:32 PM

Who cares what hats they are wearing?  People are always looking for something negative to say about their president.

Indeed.  See the post directly above yours.
Perfect timing.

Also the issue with the hat isn't that he's wearing it, it's that his campaign is selling it. For $40. And he wore multiple colors of the same hat in a short period as if he's modeling it.


It almost makes one think he cares more about making money and his image than he does about the people of Houston.

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: infogoon on August 30, 2017, 02:39:16 PM
It almost makes one think he cares more about making money and his image than he does about the people of Houston.

Grifters gonna grift.

At least now he's moved on to vague complaints about tax rates, while the rain is still falling.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Cache_Stash on August 30, 2017, 02:41:12 PM
This forum looks like it has been around awhile.  Is there an equivalent Obama thread?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: infogoon on August 30, 2017, 02:48:12 PM
This forum looks like it has been around awhile.  Is there an equivalent Obama thread?

Search box is at the top of the page. Happy hunting!
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Cache_Stash on August 30, 2017, 04:49:17 PM
This forum looks like it has been around awhile.  Is there an equivalent Obama thread?

Search box is at the top of the page. Happy hunting!

Did that.  Only thread that comes up is this thread.  I think you're being disingenuous
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Lagom on August 30, 2017, 05:10:17 PM
This forum looks like it has been around awhile.  Is there an equivalent Obama thread?

Search box is at the top of the page. Happy hunting!

Did that.  Only thread that comes up is this thread.  I think you're being disingenuous

Indeed, we ARE the deep state. Tread lightly :O
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on August 30, 2017, 06:13:22 PM
This forum looks like it has been around awhile.  Is there an equivalent Obama thread?

Search box is at the top of the page. Happy hunting!

Did that.  Only thread that comes up is this thread.  I think you're being disingenuous

Obama was elected in 2008. MMM has only been around since 2011. You can do the Math I am sure ( :
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Cache_Stash on August 30, 2017, 06:14:30 PM
This forum looks like it has been around awhile.  Is there an equivalent Obama thread?

Search box is at the top of the page. Happy hunting!

Did that.  Only thread that comes up is this thread.  I think you're being disingenuous

Indeed, we ARE the deep state. Tread lightly :O

What does "Tread Lightly mean?"
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Cache_Stash on August 30, 2017, 06:15:14 PM
This forum looks like it has been around awhile.  Is there an equivalent Obama thread?

Search box is at the top of the page. Happy hunting!

Did that.  Only thread that comes up is this thread.  I think you're being disingenuous

Obama was elected in 2008. MMM has only been around since 2011. You can do the Math I am sure ( :

So the forum just ignored the other five years?  Just asking,
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on August 30, 2017, 06:28:49 PM
This forum looks like it has been around awhile.  Is there an equivalent Obama thread?

Search box is at the top of the page. Happy hunting!

Did that.  Only thread that comes up is this thread.  I think you're being disingenuous

Obama was elected in 2008. MMM has only been around since 2011. You can do the Math I am sure ( :

So the forum just ignored the other five years?  Just asking,

5 years does not make a full Obama Presidency (Read the forum topic). Why would one need to speculate about an Obama presidency 3 years into it? This is all incorrectly assuming everyone signed up in 2011 to discuss such topic. So to answer your question, no. 
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on August 30, 2017, 07:20:22 PM

Who cares what hats they are wearing?  People are always looking for something negative to say about their president.

1. I was not talking about his hat. Read again my post. I wrote about FLOTUS hat.
2. I care and a lot of other people. Do you read news lately? When you are the president and first lady, everyone is watching you. When bad things happen, everyone look for inspiration and leadership from the POTUS and FLOTUS.
3. I think it is absolutely within my right to criticize the president when he does something wrong. He is not an emperor like that guy in North Korea who can do no wrong.

Now since you mentioned about the president's hat, I had to google that. I did not realize this at the time I was posting about FLOTUS hat. I believe he was trying to model for the hat that he sells online so yeah that is absolutely an awful thing to do (and I have a few other words to describe this, but I probably get banned if I write them down).

Here we are facing one of the largest disaster this country ever seen, and he is wearing a hat that his organization sells. What is the motivation here? So he can make a few more bucks? Does he needs more money? Is there anything that is more important right now than people of Houston? Just as comparison, president Bush wore an FDNY jacket after 911. This president can not find a hat that say Texas, or Houston or whatever to show his support for the local folks?

Btw, has he donated for the flood victims? So many people who are not as wealthy as him has done that. And yes I do not know for sure, but I bet you if he did, he would be announcing it via official White House press release and twitter.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on August 30, 2017, 08:17:14 PM
This forum looks like it has been around awhile.  Is there an equivalent Obama thread?

Search box is at the top of the page. Happy hunting!

Did that.  Only thread that comes up is this thread.  I think you're being disingenuous

Obama was elected in 2008. MMM has only been around since 2011. You can do the Math I am sure ( :

So the forum just ignored the other five years?  Just asking,

What would there have been to talk about? In Barrack Omaha's first year the PPACA was passed then basically nothing happened. He chose to do basically nothing for large swaths of it. He'll be relegated as a footnote beside Coolidge.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on August 30, 2017, 09:06:08 PM
Trumps fly to Texas wearing an obviously brand new '45, USA' hat and 'FLOTUS' gear, have superficial talks with people doing the real work (awesome work governor Greg Abbott, Mayor Sylvester Turner), then disappear off the radar?  Do they think Houstonians live in Walt Disney World?  Is looking at a disaster area so much work that they need another vacation?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on August 31, 2017, 05:51:40 AM
This forum looks like it has been around awhile.  Is there an equivalent Obama thread?

Search box is at the top of the page. Happy hunting!

Did that.  Only thread that comes up is this thread.  I think you're being disingenuous

Obama was elected in 2008. MMM has only been around since 2011. You can do the Math I am sure ( :

So the forum just ignored the other five years?  Just asking,

What would there have been to talk about? In Barrack Omaha's first year the PPACA was passed then basically nothing happened. He chose to do basically nothing for large swaths of it. He'll be relegated as a footnote beside Coolidge.

Huh. That's funny, because I remember at the time how Republicans and conservatives were losing their minds over all the dictatorial overreach, how he was destroying our country, and how it would take decades to undo all the damage he had done destroying basically every industry in the United States.

Good to know that was all bullshit.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on August 31, 2017, 07:05:52 AM
This forum looks like it has been around awhile.  Is there an equivalent Obama thread?

Search box is at the top of the page. Happy hunting!

Did that.  Only thread that comes up is this thread.  I think you're being disingenuous

Obama was elected in 2008. MMM has only been around since 2011. You can do the Math I am sure ( :

So the forum just ignored the other five years?  Just asking,

What would there have been to talk about? In Barrack Omaha's first year the PPACA was passed then basically nothing happened. He chose to do basically nothing for large swaths of it. He'll be relegated as a footnote beside Coolidge.

Again key word is "speculate." If you think Obama did nothing after the ACA, you are indirectly insulting huge swaths of the population including veterans like myself who benefited from things like passage of the Post 9/11 GI Bill. And passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act to help combat pay discrimination against women. I could go on, but what's the point? You clearly see what you want to see.  And it's getting way off topic. Feel free to start your own thread discussing of all of Obama's "non" accomplishments. 
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on August 31, 2017, 08:19:48 AM
What would there have been to talk about? In Barrack Omaha's first year the PPACA was passed then basically nothing happened. He chose to do basically nothing for large swaths of it. He'll be relegated as a footnote beside Coolidge.
The fact that people feel this way reminds me of one of his better qualities - he was boring. Not as a person necessarily but as a politician he never caused a lot of fuss. Things happened. Maybe not as much as could've been done under different circumstances and maybe not all things I agreed with but I fear with the way we view politics now we may never elect a boring president again. I already hear people talking about who they want to run next and it's a bunch of celebrities. It's like if you don't already have some name recognition before the campaign you got no chance.

We complain that politicians make empty promises during the campaign and don't follow through but if they didn't, we wouldn't vote for them. Trump and frankly most politicians know that the way to get elected is to call the other guy an idiot and then describe how easy it will be to fix everything. This is exciting. Hell, even Obama did it during the campaign. Promises of radical change, a new world. But we don't need a new world, this one is freakin great. The perception of our citizens may not agree but within our community we are more aware than most of the opportunity available, even if you're making minimum wage you can get by and have most of our modern luxuries.

Point is a boring politician is a good politician. Slow incremental change is the only way we'll ever know what works and what doesn't. If we make sweeping changes every 4-8 years we'll never get a chance to see the results of our experiment, too many variables. I believe MMM once recommended we need more engineers, scientists and philosophers in politics. I couldn't agree more. Preferably boring ones.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on August 31, 2017, 09:22:01 AM
^Disagree on the minimum wage part.  Full-time work @ $10/hr is $20,000 pre-tax.  That is below the poverty line.  You can survive on that type of salary with some mustachianism, but you almost certainly won't have any "extra" money to invest or save for retirement.

Let's remember in January '09 we were in a free-fall recession with massive job losses, massive losses in the stock market, housing market, etc. etc.  Gays and lesbians could not legally marry or be "out" and serve in the military.  Osama bin Laden was still at large.  On and on.  #44 got a LOT done and turned around in 8 years.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Wexler on August 31, 2017, 09:45:22 AM
Sigh.  I haven't had to whip this one out in a while:

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Meanwhile, the reason people are speculating about Trump is the same reason we would breathlessly wonder if your neighbor's blowhard racist uncle could perform open heart surgery, but we wouldn't have the same concerns about a trained surgeon.  Most of us would have chosen the actual surgeon to do the surgery, but a huge swath of our country wanted the blowhard racist uncle (what the hell do those doctors know).  We are now just watching the residents and nurses running around the OR stalling or doing the work but pretending the blowhard uncle did it so he doesn't get pissed and take a dump in the chest cavity.

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on August 31, 2017, 09:50:29 AM

Who cares what hats they are wearing?  People are always looking for something negative to say about their president.

1. I was not talking about his hat. Read again my post. I wrote about FLOTUS hat.

No need to read your post again.  I didn't quote you and was not responding to a single post but rather commenting on the the various comments I've been reading here and elsewhere about the "hats" that they were wearing.   Instead of focusing on the serious news, they are just looking for something negative to say about the president.  I don't care about their hats.  There are much more serious issues at stake here than their fucking hats.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on August 31, 2017, 10:03:43 AM
What would there have been to talk about? In Barrack Omaha's first year the PPACA was passed then basically nothing happened. He chose to do basically nothing for large swaths of it. He'll be relegated as a footnote beside Coolidge.

Thank God is he it out of there now!
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on August 31, 2017, 10:14:15 AM
^Disagree on the minimum wage part.  Full-time work @ $10/hr is $20,000 pre-tax.  That is below the poverty line.  You can survive on that type of salary with some mustachianism, but you almost certainly won't have any "extra" money to invest or save for retirement.
I didn't mention actually saving for retirement but even so it is possible according to the math. I realize many people making minimum wage have other limitations such as taking care of others or lack of education but technically it is very possible. I've done the math and I could save about $3,000/year if I cut out restaurants/alcohol and left the rest of my spending in place. There are other things I could cut as well.

Don't want to get too far off topic, there are other threads discussing living on minimum wage.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on August 31, 2017, 10:33:09 AM
No need to read your post again.  I didn't quote you and was not responding to a single post but rather commenting on the the various comments I've been reading about here and elsewhere about the "hats" that they were wearing.   Instead of focusing on the serious news, they are just looking for something negative to say about the president.  I don't care about their hats.  There are much more serious issues at stake here than their fucking hats.
Again, the issue isn't about clothing. It's about abusing the position of the presidency for personal gain and the added sliminess due to the timing and getting extra photo opps after a natural disaster.

Your positions suggest you either aren't reading other people's comments or you aren't understanding them.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DoubleDown on August 31, 2017, 12:53:35 PM
The hat thing: Of course the media and others are going to jump on anything/everything they can. At the same time, it was decidedly weird and could be expected to generate commentary. Wearing a hat you're selling is bad form for POTUS, but what is to be expected of this Shiller-in-Chief (besides looking ridiculous on his head IMO). The FLOTUS hat looked great on her, but was self-centered -- was there any chance someone wouldn't realize who she was??? It reminded me of Mnuchin's wife, who caused a well-deserved social media shit-storm from her obnoxious flouting of wealth stepping off a government plane and then demeaning with an unprecedented level of privilege and obnoxiousness a citizen who called her out on it .
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on August 31, 2017, 12:59:50 PM
No need to read your post again.  I didn't quote you and was not responding to a single post but rather commenting on the the various comments I've been reading about here and elsewhere about the "hats" that they were wearing.   Instead of focusing on the serious news, they are just looking for something negative to say about the president.  I don't care about their hats.  There are much more serious issues at stake here than their fucking hats.
Again, the issue isn't about clothing.

Your positions suggest you either aren't reading other people's comments or you aren't understanding them.

I read them, but clearly my comments aren't being read or understood since I keep having to repeat them.  I don't care about the hats.  There are much more serious issues at stake.  There are a lot of people suffering, and people keep talking about hats, of all things.

The hat thing: Of course the media and others are going to jump on anything/everything they can.

Yes, keep talking about hats.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on August 31, 2017, 01:06:47 PM
I don't care about the hats.  There are much more serious issues at stake.  There are a lot of people suffering, and people keep talking about hats, of all things.

Like exploiting the tragedy of a natural disaster and using the position of POTUS to make a profit?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on August 31, 2017, 01:47:00 PM
I don't care about the hats.  There are much more serious issues at stake.  There are a lot of people suffering, and people keep talking about hats, of all things.

Like exploiting the tragedy of a natural disaster and using the position of POTUS to make a profit?

Or congratulating each other on a job well done when clearly there are thousands of people still need to be rescued...
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: ZiziPB on August 31, 2017, 02:00:00 PM
I don't care about the hats.  There are much more serious issues at stake.  There are a lot of people suffering, and people keep talking about hats, of all things.

Like exploiting the tragedy of a natural disaster and using the position of POTUS to make a profit?

Or congratulating each other on a job well done when clearly there are thousands of people still need to be rescued...

Or never actually mentioning the victims or expressing any sympathy for families of the people who lost their lives or the hundreds of thousands who lost their livelihoods...
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on August 31, 2017, 02:05:43 PM
All of the above sounds like red-meat dished out by the 24 hours outrage cycle. Slamming Trump over FEMA cuts or not appointing a FEMA chief is a legitimate gripe. Slamming Trump because his speech isn't somber enough strikes me as weird and BEC.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on August 31, 2017, 02:34:25 PM
^So more like:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/30/16228592/congress-fema-wall-harvey

Quote
Republicans in Congress are reportedly moving to slash funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency just as FEMA goes to work rebuilding Houston and the Texas coast from Hurricane Harvey.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/29/16214558/trump-federal-standards-infrastructure-projects

Quote
Trump rolled back federal standards to flood-proof infrastructure projects a few weeks before Harvey hit
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on August 31, 2017, 03:05:10 PM
All of the above sounds like red-meat dished out by the 24 hours outrage cycle. Slamming Trump over FEMA cuts or not appointing a FEMA chief is a legitimate gripe. Slamming Trump because his speech isn't somber enough strikes me as weird and BEC.

Any president who said what he did would have been slammed like hell for that, though.

Presidents' speeches at somber times get scrutinized closely. Because the president is in part supposed to be the one who we turn to for consolation and strength. Pretty much every president understands that. Except for this one, it seems.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on August 31, 2017, 03:14:16 PM
All of the above sounds like red-meat dished out by the 24 hours outrage cycle. Slamming Trump over FEMA cuts or not appointing a FEMA chief is a legitimate gripe. Slamming Trump because his speech isn't somber enough strikes me as weird and BEC.

Any president who said what he did would have been slammed like hell for that, though.

Presidents' speeches at somber times get scrutinized closely. Because the president is in part supposed to be the one who we turn to for consolation and strength. Pretty much every president understands that. Except for this one, it seems.

EXACTLY!!!

Just to be clear: Any president/head of state/prime minister etc etc who said what he did would have been slammed like hell for that, though.

This apply to pretty much any country in the world, except perhaps North Korea and a few other isolated places.

Got nothing to do with being Republican or Democrat or whatever party/believes you are in.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on August 31, 2017, 03:28:19 PM
All of the above sounds like red-meat dished out by the 24 hours outrage cycle. Slamming Trump over FEMA cuts or not appointing a FEMA chief is a legitimate gripe. Slamming Trump because his speech isn't somber enough strikes me as weird and BEC.

Any president who said what he did would have been slammed like hell for that, though.

Presidents' speeches at somber times get scrutinized closely. Because the president is in part supposed to be the one who we turn to for consolation and strength. Pretty much every president understands that. Except for this one, it seems.
Presidents shouldn't be healers-in-chief and I don't expect them to be. I expect them to execute laws, suppress rebellions, and bomb foreign armies, on a as needed basis.

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on August 31, 2017, 03:47:57 PM
All of the above sounds like red-meat dished out by the 24 hours outrage cycle. Slamming Trump over FEMA cuts or not appointing a FEMA chief is a legitimate gripe. Slamming Trump because his speech isn't somber enough strikes me as weird and BEC.

Any president who said what he did would have been slammed like hell for that, though.

Presidents' speeches at somber times get scrutinized closely. Because the president is in part supposed to be the one who we turn to for consolation and strength. Pretty much every president understands that. Except for this one, it seems.
Presidents shouldn't be healers-in-chief and I don't expect them to be. I expect them to execute laws, suppress rebellions, and bomb foreign armies, on a as needed basis.

Presidents have always been expected to be healers-in-chief. Whether you personally expect it or not.

After something like 9/11, it would be hard to argue such a role wasn't necessary. GW Bush did a good and important job of that. The nation needed it, and he delivered.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on August 31, 2017, 05:24:42 PM
All of the above sounds like red-meat dished out by the 24 hours outrage cycle. Slamming Trump over FEMA cuts or not appointing a FEMA chief is a legitimate gripe. Slamming Trump because his speech isn't somber enough strikes me as weird and BEC.

Any president who said what he did would have been slammed like hell for that, though.

Presidents' speeches at somber times get scrutinized closely. Because the president is in part supposed to be the one who we turn to for consolation and strength. Pretty much every president understands that. Except for this one, it seems.
Presidents shouldn't be healers-in-chief and I don't expect them to be. I expect them to execute laws, suppress rebellions, and bomb foreign armies, on a as needed basis.

Presidents have always been expected to be healers-in-chief. Whether you personally expect it or not.

After something like 9/11, it would be hard to argue such a role wasn't necessary. GW Bush did a good and important job of that. The nation needed it, and he delivered.

President Bush in New York, right after 9/11, giving an un-planned speech with the bullhorn while surveying the damage - that still gives me the chills. I thought he did exactly what the nation needed to hear. I am sure you can find it on youtube if do not know what I am talking about.

Compare that to what this president said in Houston...
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Lagom on August 31, 2017, 06:23:30 PM
It suspect a liberal praising GWB (Kris at least, not to speak for you sequoia since I'm not sure) broke a few brains. A lot of conservatives seem to think people are being disingenuous when they say they would rather have a third term of GWB than our current POTUS and/or that he was both way more effective and presidential than Trump. Spoiler alert: they're not.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on August 31, 2017, 06:55:42 PM
It suspect a liberal praising GWB (Kris at least, not to speak for you sequoia since I'm not sure) broke a few brains. A lot of conservatives seem to think people are being disingenuous when they say they would rather have a third term of GWB

Most probably couldn't care less what liberals think.  It's pretty much irrelevant, because, "spoiler alert", Bush is history, and we have more than 3 years left of President Trump.  Enjoy!
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on August 31, 2017, 08:15:30 PM

For those who were complaining about Trump making some small coin selling hats, how about this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/31/president-trump-is-pledging-1-million-personal-money-to-harvey-victims-wh.html

"President Trump has pledged $1 million of his personal money to aid victims of Hurricane Harvey in both Texas and Louisiana, the White House said Thursday."
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Gin1984 on August 31, 2017, 08:27:41 PM

For those who were complaining about Trump making some small coin selling hats, how about this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/31/president-trump-is-pledging-1-million-personal-money-to-harvey-victims-wh.html

"President Trump has pledged $1 million of his personal money to aid victims of Hurricane Harvey in both Texas and Louisiana, the White House said Thursday."
Given his history, I'll believe when the money is actually received by a charity, not when he has pledged it"
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Lagom on August 31, 2017, 08:49:24 PM
It suspect a liberal praising GWB (Kris at least, not to speak for you sequoia since I'm not sure) broke a few brains. A lot of conservatives seem to think people are being disingenuous when they say they would rather have a third term of GWB

Most probably couldn't care less what liberals think.  It's pretty much irrelevant, because, "spoiler alert", Bush is history, and we have more than 3 years left of President Trump.  Enjoy!

Please, you know very well that quite a few Trumpists claim the Democrats/liberal media, etc., are all so UNFAIR (wah wah) to Trump solely because they are incapable of agreeing with the actions of a "conservative" like him. Regardless, I'm also aware Trumpists relish annoying liberals more than probably anything else. I suspect you will very much enjoy the next three years at least, so grats. PS - I'm not a liberal.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on September 01, 2017, 12:19:01 AM

For those who were complaining about Trump making some small coin selling hats, how about this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/31/president-trump-is-pledging-1-million-personal-money-to-harvey-victims-wh.html

"President Trump has pledged $1 million of his personal money to aid victims of Hurricane Harvey in both Texas and Louisiana, the White House said Thursday."
Given his history, I'll believe when the money is actually received by a charity, not when he has pledged it"

Exactly. I had pledged 1 billion dollars. Does that count as charity? Can I get a tax write-off?

There is a different between pledge and give, in case there is confusion. I do not see anyone else announce it that I have pledge... lmao
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on September 01, 2017, 05:53:51 AM
It suspect a liberal praising GWB (Kris at least, not to speak for you sequoia since I'm not sure) broke a few brains. A lot of conservatives seem to think people are being disingenuous when they say they would rather have a third term of GWB

Most probably couldn't care less what liberals think.  It's pretty much irrelevant, because, "spoiler alert", Bush is history, and we have more than 3 years left of President Trump.  Enjoy!

Please, you know very well that quite a few Trumpists claim the Democrats/liberal media, etc., are all so UNFAIR (wah wah) to Trump solely because they are incapable of agreeing with the actions of a "conservative" like him. Regardless, I'm also aware Trumpists relish annoying liberals more than probably anything else. I suspect you will very much enjoy the next three years at least, so grats. PS - I'm not a liberal.

Yep. I can't believe how important "pissing off liberals" has become. At this point in his presidency those left still defending him would have a tough sell claiming it was because of policy. Seems like it's been whittled down to a mixture of staunch racist and/or folks who love seeing liberals get upset.

As far as Trump pledging money, great I hope he follows through. Although it's a drop in the bucket considering the proposed WH budget cuts drastically into disaster relief programs. $667 million from FEMA, $62 million from the national weather service, and $190 million from the National flood insurance program. 
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on September 01, 2017, 07:20:19 AM
It suspect a liberal praising GWB (Kris at least, not to speak for you sequoia since I'm not sure) broke a few brains. A lot of conservatives seem to think people are being disingenuous when they say they would rather have a third term of GWB

Most probably couldn't care less what liberals think.  It's pretty much irrelevant, because, "spoiler alert", Bush is history, and we have more than 3 years left of President Trump.  Enjoy!

Please, you know very well that quite a few Trumpists claim the Democrats/liberal media, etc., are all so UNFAIR (wah wah) to Trump solely because they are incapable of agreeing with the actions of a "conservative" like him. Regardless, I'm also aware Trumpists relish annoying liberals more than probably anything else. I suspect you will very much enjoy the next three years at least, so grats. PS - I'm not a liberal.

Literally all that Trump supporters care about is pissing off liberals. Trump could completely destroy the country, and they'd be fine with it as long as liberals were angry about it.

That's all anyone needs to know to understand a Trump supporter anymore. I wish I was exaggerating.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on September 01, 2017, 07:24:42 AM
It suspect a liberal praising GWB (Kris at least, not to speak for you sequoia since I'm not sure) broke a few brains. A lot of conservatives seem to think people are being disingenuous when they say they would rather have a third term of GWB

Most probably couldn't care less what liberals think.  It's pretty much irrelevant, because, "spoiler alert", Bush is history, and we have more than 3 years left of President Trump.  Enjoy!

Please, you know very well that quite a few Trumpists claim the Democrats/liberal media, etc., are all so UNFAIR (wah wah) to Trump solely because they are incapable of agreeing with the actions of a "conservative" like him. Regardless, I'm also aware Trumpists relish annoying liberals more than probably anything else. I suspect you will very much enjoy the next three years at least, so grats. PS - I'm not a liberal.

Literally all that Trump supporters care about is pissing off liberals. Trump could completely destroy the country, and they'd be fine with it as long as liberals were angry about it.

That's all anyone needs to know to understand a Trump supporter anymore. I wish I was exaggerating.

To be fair to Trump supporters, that's only a partial story.  A good number of them are simply hard core racists.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 01, 2017, 07:28:44 AM
All of the above sounds like red-meat dished out by the 24 hours outrage cycle. Slamming Trump over FEMA cuts or not appointing a FEMA chief is a legitimate gripe. Slamming Trump because his speech isn't somber enough strikes me as weird and BEC.

Any president who said what he did would have been slammed like hell for that, though.

Presidents' speeches at somber times get scrutinized closely. Because the president is in part supposed to be the one who we turn to for consolation and strength. Pretty much every president understands that. Except for this one, it seems.
Presidents shouldn't be healers-in-chief and I don't expect them to be. I expect them to execute laws, suppress rebellions, and bomb foreign armies, on a as needed basis.

Presidents have always been expected to be healers-in-chief. Whether you personally expect it or not.

After something like 9/11, it would be hard to argue such a role wasn't necessary. GW Bush did a good and important job of that. The nation needed it, and he delivered.

This isn't 9/11, it's a natural disaster. Throwing out national speeches every time a metro area has a disaster of some kind doesn't strengthen the office, it demeans the office and infantilizes the people. We didn't need any national speeches after Sandy Hook, Dylan Roof, Charlottesville, etc. either.

If we seriously need national healing every time the 24 hour news cycle finds another heart-tugging headline, the 19th century reactionaries are right and Enlightenment was a mistake.


Quote
That's all anyone needs to know to understand a Trump supporter anymore. I wish I was exaggerating.
You're obviously exaggerating because no one wants to see the nation destroyed, but, yeah, a lot of people just want to stick it to liberals. It's a hyper-partisan country.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on September 01, 2017, 07:31:28 AM
All of the above sounds like red-meat dished out by the 24 hours outrage cycle. Slamming Trump over FEMA cuts or not appointing a FEMA chief is a legitimate gripe. Slamming Trump because his speech isn't somber enough strikes me as weird and BEC.

Any president who said what he did would have been slammed like hell for that, though.

Presidents' speeches at somber times get scrutinized closely. Because the president is in part supposed to be the one who we turn to for consolation and strength. Pretty much every president understands that. Except for this one, it seems.
Presidents shouldn't be healers-in-chief and I don't expect them to be. I expect them to execute laws, suppress rebellions, and bomb foreign armies, on a as needed basis.

Presidents have always been expected to be healers-in-chief. Whether you personally expect it or not.

After something like 9/11, it would be hard to argue such a role wasn't necessary. GW Bush did a good and important job of that. The nation needed it, and he delivered.

This isn't 9/11, it's a natural disaster. Throwing out national speeches every time a metro area has a disaster of some kind doesn't strengthen the office, it demeans the office and infantilizes the people. We didn't need any national speeches after Sandy Hook, Dylan Roof, Charlottesville, etc. either.

If we seriously need national healing every time the 24 hour news cycle finds another heart-tugging headline, the 19th century reactionaries are right and Enlightenment was a mistake.


Quote
That's all anyone needs to know to understand a Trump supporter anymore. I wish I was exaggerating.
You're obviously exaggerating because no one wants to see the nation destroyed, but, yeah, a lot of people just want to stick it to liberals. It's a hyper-partisan country.

Sorry. I've had enough Trump supporters salivating and licking their lips as they tell me about the coming civil war and what will happen to me and mine to know better.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Gondolin on September 01, 2017, 09:36:21 AM
Question: Do any of the half dozen or so apparent trump supporters on this thread have any actual opinions or speculation on the direction of the trump presidency to share?

Threads of this ilk follow a depressingly predictable pattern. Namely, the thread starts with a bunch of the liberally minded wringing their hands over all the horrible damage trump will do to America (often to the point of hyperbole). Then, after a few pages, the trump supporters come out, eager not to provide alternative viewpoints but, to "drink liberal tears" by hijacking the thread with a bunch of illogical rhetoric.

So far the trump supporters on this thread have been playing to type - disingenuous, off topic comments about Obama, digressions about how Antifa is "just as bad" as white supremacists, complaints about the media, plus a healthy serving of "cry more, we won!" dick waggling.

I'll look back through the thread but, I'm struggling to recall any post that posits a positive outlook on the next 3 years.

So. Here's your chance to prove my preconceptions wrong. Trump supporters - any real speculation to share?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Gondolin on September 01, 2017, 09:52:32 AM
Wait, I found two positive takes.

GenXBiker said something to the effect of, "Didn't vote for him but, now we're stuck with him so no use worrying" and Acroy showed up to deliver his usual drive by "I love it because I got mine so screw everyone else."
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: StarBright on September 01, 2017, 10:45:01 AM

For those who were complaining about Trump making some small coin selling hats, how about this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/31/president-trump-is-pledging-1-million-personal-money-to-harvey-victims-wh.html

"President Trump has pledged $1 million of his personal money to aid victims of Hurricane Harvey in both Texas and Louisiana, the White House said Thursday."

That is lovely, but for what it is worth, he offered 5 million for Obama's birth certificate.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 01, 2017, 10:48:21 AM

For those who were complaining about Trump making some small coin selling hats, how about this?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/31/president-trump-is-pledging-1-million-personal-money-to-harvey-victims-wh.html

"President Trump has pledged $1 million of his personal money to aid victims of Hurricane Harvey in both Texas and Louisiana, the White House said Thursday."

That is lovely, but for what it is worth, he offered 5 million for Obama's birth certificate.

Obama's birth certificate is worth $4 million more than helping Harvey victims.

#TrumpMath
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: infogoon on September 01, 2017, 10:54:17 AM
I can't believe how important "pissing off liberals" has become.

It's pretty much the sole remaining plank in the Republican platform. It's sad to see a party sink so low.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on September 01, 2017, 11:33:30 AM
off topic comments about Obama, digressions about how Antifa is "just as bad"
Yeah, we just had two more of those off topic comments about Obama's birth certificate which have nothing to do with Trump donating $1,000,000 of his personal money to help Harvey victims.   That's probably about 1,000,000 times what those whiners are donating.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on September 01, 2017, 11:48:14 AM
Literally all that Trump supporters care about is pissing off liberals. Trump could completely destroy the country, and they'd be fine with it as long as liberals were angry about it.

That's all anyone needs to know to understand a Trump supporter anymore. I wish I was exaggerating.

I'm hearing the exact opposite.  The liberals gloat about anything negative as an excuse to criticize President Trump.  I remember during the election how giddy the liberals were getting when early indications were the stock market was going to drop - blaming it on Trump.  Then suddenly, the stock market takes off on a bull run, but they don't give him credit for that, only anything negative they can spin up.  Trump denounced racism and white supremacists, but most liberals just filtered that out of their minds as if they never heard it, and instead, twisted other comments he made.  Liberals are always looking for the negative, and never give credit for the positive things.  If something terrible happens, the liberals will be all too happy as they will have a chance to blame something else on President Trump.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 01, 2017, 11:50:28 AM
All of the above sounds like red-meat dished out by the 24 hours outrage cycle. Slamming Trump over FEMA cuts or not appointing a FEMA chief is a legitimate gripe. Slamming Trump because his speech isn't somber enough strikes me as weird and BEC.

Any president who said what he did would have been slammed like hell for that, though.

Presidents' speeches at somber times get scrutinized closely. Because the president is in part supposed to be the one who we turn to for consolation and strength. Pretty much every president understands that. Except for this one, it seems.
Presidents shouldn't be healers-in-chief and I don't expect them to be. I expect them to execute laws, suppress rebellions, and bomb foreign armies, on a as needed basis.

Presidents have always been expected to be healers-in-chief. Whether you personally expect it or not.

After something like 9/11, it would be hard to argue such a role wasn't necessary. GW Bush did a good and important job of that. The nation needed it, and he delivered.

This isn't 9/11, it's a natural disaster. Throwing out national speeches every time a metro area has a disaster of some kind doesn't strengthen the office, it demeans the office and infantilizes the people. We didn't need any national speeches after Sandy Hook, Dylan Roof, Charlottesville, etc. either.

If we seriously need national healing every time the 24 hour news cycle finds another heart-tugging headline, the 19th century reactionaries are right and Enlightenment was a mistake.


Quote
That's all anyone needs to know to understand a Trump supporter anymore. I wish I was exaggerating.
You're obviously exaggerating because no one wants to see the nation destroyed, but, yeah, a lot of people just want to stick it to liberals. It's a hyper-partisan country.

Sorry. I've had enough Trump supporters salivating and licking their lips as they tell me about the coming civil war and what will happen to me and mine to know better.

Sorry you have to deal with that crap. Wishing for a civil war is pants-on-head stupid. The whole point of functional democratic governments is to specifically avoid that.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on September 01, 2017, 11:51:11 AM
off topic comments about Obama, digressions about how Antifa is "just as bad"
Yeah, we just had two more of those off topic comments about Obama's birth certificate which have nothing to do with Trump donating $1,000,000 of his personal money to help Harvey victims.   That's probably about 1,000,000 times what those whiners are donating.

Trump does have a long history of lying about charitable donations:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html?utm_term=.4a17ddbd14c6 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html?utm_term=.4a17ddbd14c6) .  Given his history, is it reasonable to expect people to believe him this time?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on September 01, 2017, 12:07:48 PM
off topic comments about Obama, digressions about how Antifa is "just as bad"
Yeah, we just had two more of those off topic comments about Obama's birth certificate which have nothing to do with Trump donating $1,000,000 of his personal money to help Harvey victims.   That's probably about 1,000,000 times what those whiners are donating.

Trump does have a long history of lying about charitable donations:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html?utm_term=.4a17ddbd14c6 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html?utm_term=.4a17ddbd14c6) .  Given his history, is it reasonable to expect people to believe him this time?

Right. Because he doesn't have to. He can just say he's going to do it, and then do nothing. The people who already support him will point to his "pledge" and ignore the rest. The people who point out that he pledges stuff all the time and doesn't deliver don't matter, because Trump's supporters will just be happy that Trump has pissed off the liberals yet again. Because that is literally all they care about.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 01, 2017, 12:09:54 PM
I'm hearing the exact opposite.  The liberals gloat about anything negative as an excuse to criticize President Trump.  I remember during the election how giddy the liberals were getting when early indications were the stock market was going to drop - blaming it on Trump.  Then suddenly, the stock market takes off on a bull run, but they don't give him credit for that, only anything negative they can spin up.  Trump denounced racism and white supremacists, but most liberals just filtered that out of their minds as if they never heard it, and instead, twisted other comments he made.  Liberals are always looking for the negative, and never give credit for the positive things.  If something terrible happens, the liberals will be all too happy as they will have a chance to blame something else on President Trump.

So basically what Faux News did for 8 years of Obama?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on September 01, 2017, 12:13:21 PM
off topic comments about Obama, digressions about how Antifa is "just as bad"
Yeah, we just had two more of those off topic comments about Obama's birth certificate which have nothing to do with Trump donating $1,000,000 of his personal money to help Harvey victims.   That's probably about 1,000,000 times what those whiners are donating.
This is a thread about Trump. I think his offering 5 million for a birth certificate is on topic as it says something about his character. He views money as a weapon or a way to get what you want, even if it's not for sale.

Personally I don't think comments about Obama are necessarily off topic either as long as he comes up in the discussion. If someone brings him up just to say "Don't blame Trump, Obama was worse" then it's probably off topic.

To Gondolin's point it really would be nice if Trump supporters (or those who think he's not all that bad) would offer their reasoning rather than just deflecting criticisms and attacking the small points in a list of many grievances. I don't participate in these threads so that we can get together and hate on Trump, I really want to discuss what's going on and why it matters because this forum is the closest thing to intelligent discussion of current politics I can get.
 

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: StarBright on September 01, 2017, 12:32:51 PM
off topic comments about Obama, digressions about how Antifa is "just as bad"
Yeah, we just had two more of those off topic comments about Obama's birth certificate which have nothing to do with Trump donating $1,000,000 of his personal money to help Harvey victims.   That's probably about 1,000,000 times what those whiners are donating.

I certainly didn't mean to take anything off topic (and I don't think I did). I was simply responding to your question "how about this?"

It was not impressive to me. Not only does President Trump have a history of not following through on charitable pledges, but he offered more for Obama's birth certificate (according to Trump he upped the offer to 50 million) than to help out every day Americans in what is potentially one of the largest national disasters in our nation's history.

I thought it was an excellent demonstration of how his priorities seem out of line to many of us.

Just because someone will probably ask for proof - here's an article that quotes Trump as saying he offered 50 million:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/16/trump-said-hed-give-away-5-million-or-maybe-50-million-for-proof-obama-was-born-in-the-u-s-will-he-pay-it/?utm_term=.b8afe07c75b8
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on September 01, 2017, 12:57:28 PM
off topic comments about Obama, digressions about how Antifa is "just as bad"
Yeah, we just had two more of those off topic comments about Obama's birth certificate which have nothing to do with Trump donating $1,000,000 of his personal money to help Harvey victims.   That's probably about 1,000,000 times what those whiners are donating.

Nope nope... pledge... not donating...

Pledge is absolutely 1,000,000 times less than those whiners who are donating :)
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on September 01, 2017, 12:59:33 PM
Literally all that Trump supporters care about is pissing off liberals. Trump could completely destroy the country, and they'd be fine with it as long as liberals were angry about it.

That's all anyone needs to know to understand a Trump supporter anymore. I wish I was exaggerating.

I'm hearing the exact opposite.  The liberals gloat about anything negative as an excuse to criticize President Trump.  I remember during the election how giddy the liberals were getting when early indications were the stock market was going to drop - blaming it on Trump.  Then suddenly, the stock market takes off on a bull run, but they don't give him credit for that, only anything negative they can spin up.  Trump denounced racism and white supremacists, but most liberals just filtered that out of their minds as if they never heard it, and instead, twisted other comments he made.  Liberals are always looking for the negative, and never give credit for the positive things.  If something terrible happens, the liberals will be all too happy as they will have a chance to blame something else on President Trump.
My problem with this assessment is that there are millions of voices out there so who are these "liberals" you speak of? If some people on twitter say something asinine like blaming the president for what happens to the stock market then conservative media points to it and says "Aha!, liberals are wrong again." And yes, even some of the media gets caught up in saying stupid shit like this, but that doesn't mean everyone who has something negative to say about Trump is one of those people.

I do realize it happens on both sides. Trump supporters on Twitter commented "at least Trump went to Texas after the hurricane, where was Obama after Katrina?" A stupid thing to say obviously but who said it? Several hundred or even thousand people on twitter? It's irrelevant but people criticized Trump supporters for saying something stupid even though it was a handful of idiots, not the whole group.

If we point to the worst the other side has to offer like they're a representation of that group, then of course they look like idiots. On the other hand when the president is one of the people participating in this circus, well that means something.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: jim555 on September 01, 2017, 01:02:15 PM
Only 1 million?  I thought he was "really rich". 
Whenever he pledges something they find out later he didn't actually deliver.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Gondolin on September 01, 2017, 01:02:54 PM
Quote
Liberals are always looking for the negative, and never give credit for the positive things.

Listen, I agree with you that the 24 hour news cycle requires mountains to be made out of every molehill. Tons of inconsequential actions are now repackaged as major crisises. It's pathetic and makes it hard to tell when major events are actually happening (i could rant about this at length).


But! I'm here. I'm a liberal (mostly). I'm trying to give the trump administration credit for the positive things they've done. Please, what are the specific good things the administration has accomplished that you feel have been underreported or undervalued?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Gondolin on September 01, 2017, 01:08:38 PM
Quote
Several hundred or even thousand people on twitter

Ugh +1000. Buzz feed has made an entire new cottage industry of finding 10 people on Twitter with a dumb opinion and presenting it as representative of something.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 01, 2017, 01:14:34 PM
Only 1 million?  I thought he was "really rich". 
Whenever he pledges something they find out later he didn't actually deliver.

If his "net worth" is actually anywhere near accurate (and it's debatable that it is), $1 million represents 0.029% of his net worth.

I challenge everyone to take the Trump Challenge and donate 0.029% of your net worth to Harvey relief efforts.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on September 01, 2017, 01:33:21 PM
Literally all that Trump supporters care about is pissing off liberals. Trump could completely destroy the country, and they'd be fine with it as long as liberals were angry about it.

That's all anyone needs to know to understand a Trump supporter anymore. I wish I was exaggerating.

I'm hearing the exact opposite.  The liberals gloat about anything negative as an excuse to criticize President Trump.  I remember during the election how giddy the liberals were getting when early indications were the stock market was going to drop - blaming it on Trump.  Then suddenly, the stock market takes off on a bull run, but they don't give him credit for that, only anything negative they can spin up.  Trump denounced racism and white supremacists, but most liberals just filtered that out of their minds as if they never heard it, and instead, twisted other comments he made.  Liberals are always looking for the negative, and never give credit for the positive things.  If something terrible happens, the liberals will be all too happy as they will have a chance to blame something else on President Trump.

Trump has a 36% approval rating. The fact that you blame everything "anti-Trump" on liberals shows profound ignorance. Unless you think 64% of the country are liberals. The stock market was already on a bull run. Trying to attribute it's rise to a newly elected President is disingenuous. What policies did he enact within hours of becoming President that had  a direct impact on the market? The answer is none. And none sense. Looking at history markets tend to fall during election years. I would have expected it to fall (perhaps not as bad) if Clinton were elected.

As far as denouncing white supremacist, no, Trump did no such thing on his own accord. When left to speak for himself, he called white supremacist/Neo-Nazis "good people." Anyone that isn't racist (Dems and Repubs alike) denounced it in full force. Oh, but he read a pre-made statement in between. That didn't mean jack shit because he followed that up defending his original statement. 

You should stop trying to defend the indefensible. And blaming every bad thing Trump says or does on liberals "just not finding the positive." 
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on September 01, 2017, 02:10:51 PM
Only 1 million?  I thought he was "really rich". 
Whenever he pledges something they find out later he didn't actually deliver.

If his "net worth" is actually anywhere near accurate (and it's debatable that it is), $1 million represents 0.029% of his net worth.

I challenge everyone to take the Trump Challenge and donate 0.029% of your net worth to Harvey relief efforts.

A true Trump challenge would only involve pledging to donate 0.029%.  You don't actually have to give over the money.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Gin1984 on September 01, 2017, 02:19:07 PM
Only 1 million?  I thought he was "really rich". 
Whenever he pledges something they find out later he didn't actually deliver.

If his "net worth" is actually anywhere near accurate (and it's debatable that it is), $1 million represents 0.029% of his net worth.

I challenge everyone to take the Trump Challenge and donate 0.029% of your net worth to Harvey relief efforts.
Done, but I did round up, I hope that is ok. ;)
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 01, 2017, 02:34:23 PM
Only 1 million?  I thought he was "really rich". 
Whenever he pledges something they find out later he didn't actually deliver.

If his "net worth" is actually anywhere near accurate (and it's debatable that it is), $1 million represents 0.029% of his net worth.

I challenge everyone to take the Trump Challenge and donate 0.029% of your net worth to Harvey relief efforts.

A true Trump challenge would only involve pledging to donate 0.029%.  You don't actually have to give over the money.

True, true.  Just make a big public statement about pledging to give 0.029% of your net worth and then the actual donating part is kind of up to you.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on September 01, 2017, 03:07:18 PM
Only 1 million?  I thought he was "really rich". 
Whenever he pledges something they find out later he didn't actually deliver.

If his "net worth" is actually anywhere near accurate (and it's debatable that it is), $1 million represents 0.029% of his net worth.

I challenge everyone to take the Trump Challenge and donate 0.029% of your net worth to Harvey relief efforts.

A true Trump challenge would only involve pledging to donate 0.029%.  You don't actually have to give over the money.

True, true.  Just make a big public statement about pledging to give 0.029% of your net worth and then the actual donating part is kind of up to you.

I totally pledge this, too.

Man, look how much we're getting done! #maga
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on September 01, 2017, 10:12:38 PM
Quote
Several hundred or even thousand people on twitter

Ugh +1000. Buzz feed has made an entire new cottage industry of finding 10 people on Twitter with a dumb opinion and presenting it as representative of something.
+$1,000,000

I've also seen anal sex advertised on the walls of several hundred men's rooms, which are higher quality news sources than Twitter. I suppose one good thing about Trump is he's moved the Overton Window into a bathroom stall, situated approximately at crotch-level. Make America Gloryhole Again.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: marty998 on September 02, 2017, 03:32:02 AM
Have you guys bombed North Korea yet?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 02, 2017, 07:00:35 AM
Have you guys bombed North Korea yet?

Personally I think it's more likely the Chinese are going to Pyongyang than we are.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 02, 2017, 07:11:12 AM
https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-walks-back-trumps-promise-to-give-1-million-of-his-personal-money-to-harvey-victims-4691cf5e6dd6/

Lolololol

24 hours after pledging $1m of his own personal money, the White House is walking back that part of the pledge, leaving open the option the donation comes from the Trump Foundation.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on September 02, 2017, 07:27:41 AM
off topic comments about Obama, digressions about how Antifa is "just as bad"
Yeah, we just had two more of those off topic comments about Obama's birth certificate which have nothing to do with Trump donating $1,000,000 of his personal money to help Harvey victims.   That's probably about 1,000,000 times what those whiners are donating.

Trump does have a long history of lying about charitable donations:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html?utm_term=.4a17ddbd14c6 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-promised-millions-to-charity-we-found-less-than-10000-over-7-years/2016/06/28/cbab5d1a-37dd-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html?utm_term=.4a17ddbd14c6) .  Given his history, is it reasonable to expect people to believe him this time?

If only Trump's supporters could have predicted that he would lie about this charity as he has done so many times in the past.  Good thing this was completely unforeseeable, otherwise they might have come off looking like idiots.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on September 02, 2017, 12:10:46 PM
https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-walks-back-trumps-promise-to-give-1-million-of-his-personal-money-to-harvey-victims-4691cf5e6dd6/

Lolololol

24 hours after pledging $1m of his own personal money, the White House is walking back that part of the pledge, leaving open the option the donation comes from the Trump Foundation.

Fucking slimeball!!
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: paddedhat on September 02, 2017, 04:57:14 PM
https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-walks-back-trumps-promise-to-give-1-million-of-his-personal-money-to-harvey-victims-4691cf5e6dd6/

Lolololol

24 hours after pledging $1m of his own personal money, the White House is walking back that part of the pledge, leaving open the option the donation comes from the Trump Foundation.

Fucking slimeball!!

Oh, this episode is nothing compared to his infamous crashing of the HIV daycare center fundraiser event. Definitely a top ten on the  "Is there a more fucked up, egotistical scumbag on the planet?" list of Trump buffoonery.

 https://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/308289/trump-crashed-aids-charity-macarena/
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 02, 2017, 07:42:10 PM
https://twitter.com/ABC/status/904080965059870720

What. The. ****.  First off, why compare the Coast Guard to the media? Secondly, the media was on the ground reporting and many media members helped to save lives.

https://twitter.com/GlennThrush/status/904049309850710016

This man has a mental illness.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on September 02, 2017, 09:17:47 PM
Literally all that Trump supporters care about is pissing off liberals. Trump could completely destroy the country, and they'd be fine with it as long as liberals were angry about it.

That's all anyone needs to know to understand a Trump supporter anymore. I wish I was exaggerating.

I'm hearing the exact opposite.  The liberals gloat about anything negative as an excuse to criticize President Trump.  I remember during the election how giddy the liberals were getting when early indications were the stock market was going to drop - blaming it on Trump.  Then suddenly, the stock market takes off on a bull run, but they don't give him credit for that, only anything negative they can spin up.  Trump denounced racism and white supremacists, but most liberals just filtered that out of their minds as if they never heard it, and instead, twisted other comments he made.  Liberals are always looking for the negative, and never give credit for the positive things.  If something terrible happens, the liberals will be all too happy as they will have a chance to blame something else on President Trump.

Trump has a 36% approval rating. The fact that you blame everything "anti-Trump" on liberals shows profound ignorance. Unless you think 64% of the country are liberals.

While calling me ignorant, you showed true ignorance by engaging in a straw man argument, arguing against a point I never tried to make.  Of course it's easier to argue the straw man than against what I actually stated, so I'm not surprised.  Try going back and re-reading what I posted, and that should be obvious to you.  I never blamed "everything anti-Trump on liberals" nor did I speak to liberals as the only ones who disapprove.  Actually, I didn't even mention his approval rating.  Speaking about liberals always looking for something negative to say is not mutually exclusive to some independents and conservatives who may disapprove of Trump, such as for not passing health care reform or whatever else they are wanting done.  But thanks for the straw man laugh.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on September 02, 2017, 09:29:36 PM
The stock market was already on a bull run. Trying to attribute it's rise to a newly elected President is disingenuous. What policies did he enact within hours of becoming President that had  a direct impact on the market?

You missed the point on the stock market comment.  I wasn't implying whether he had impacted the market or not.  Re-read.  I said liberals were quick to blame Trump for a drop in the stocks/futures, but they didn't give him credit when stocks went up.  You can't have it both ways, yet that's how the liberals take it.  That was the point.

Also, one doesn't have to actually enact policy the moment of becoming president to impact the market.  It was known that Trump was the candidate the most voters trusted on the economy, who wanted to cut taxes, cut excessive government regulation, repeal Obamacare, create an infrastructure stimulus package, renegotiate trade deals, bring back jobs, etc.  And since most people did not expect him to win, Hillary winning was priced into the market, until Trump won.  So his plans regarding all those items lit a fire under the market before he ever took office.  And the market is still doing well, at near record highs.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on September 02, 2017, 09:33:16 PM
As far as denouncing white supremacist, no, Trump did no such thing on his own accord.

Actually, he spoke on it freely once he had all the facts.  This is the quote:

"Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."

It's no surprise that the mainstream media and liberals even complained about that with comments like, "he didn't say it fast enough."
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on September 02, 2017, 09:48:26 PM
https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-walks-back-trumps-promise-to-give-1-million-of-his-personal-money-to-harvey-victims-4691cf5e6dd6/

Lolololol

24 hours after pledging $1m of his own personal money, the White House is walking back that part of the pledge, leaving open the option the donation comes from the Trump Foundation.

Talk about a misleading headline.  There was no "walking back."  Someone asked the press secretary, and she responded:

“I haven’t had a chance to do that.”

So, she had no information on it, that's NOT walking back, simply because she didn't have an answer, but Trump did say he was personally going to give, which indicates he was going to finance it completely from his personal stach, not foundation money.  If he doesn't come through with his personal money, then I think we will hear about it, and there should be hell to pay.

Also, it looks like Trump is looking to provide nearly 8 BILLION dollars as a down payment in disaster funding for Harvey.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/01/politics/harvey-funding-white-house-congress/index.html

I'm sure there will be plenty of critical comments on that as well.

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on September 03, 2017, 05:39:45 AM

 I never blamed "everything anti-Trump on liberals" nor did I speak to liberals as the only ones who disapprove.

Um yeah you did. I bolded all groups/people on your post (Notice it's only liberals):
Quote
I'm hearing the exact opposite.  The liberals gloat about anything negative as an excuse to criticize President Trump.  I remember during the election how giddy the liberals were getting when early indications were the stock market was going to drop - blaming it on Trump.  Then suddenly, the stock market takes off on a bull run, but they don't give him credit for that, only anything negative they can spin up.  Trump denounced racism and white supremacists, but most liberals just filtered that out of their minds as if they never heard it, and instead, twisted other comments he made.  Liberals are always looking for the negative, and never give credit for the positive things.  If something terrible happens, the liberals will be all too happy as they will have a chance to blame something else on President Trump.

I wasn't implying whether he had impacted the market or not.  Re-read.  I said liberals were quick to blame Trump for a drop in the stocks/futures, but they didn't give him credit when stocks went up.  You can't have it both ways, yet that's how the liberals take it.

LMAO. You weren't implying Trump impacted the market but were blaming liberals for not giving him credit for impacting the market? FYI, there is no new healthcare, no tax reform, etc. There isn't a considerable increase in Trump promised jobs. There are literally no new Trump policies yet the market is doing well. Thanks Obama!

Actually, he spoke on it freely once he had all the facts.

Yes we know. He defended his original comments in which he stated that there were "very fine people on both sides" meaning there were fine counter-protesters and fine Neo-Nazis/White Supremacist. What you quoted was a scripted response handed to him and read by him. It was not a response of his own accord. Why would one need a scripted response when calling out racism? Pretty fucking easy to call out racism. You don't need to wait for facts to do that.



Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 03, 2017, 06:12:32 AM
https://twitter.com/WardDPatrick/status/904038749293727744

What a tool.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 03, 2017, 06:18:58 AM
https://thinkprogress.org/white-house-walks-back-trumps-promise-to-give-1-million-of-his-personal-money-to-harvey-victims-4691cf5e6dd6/

Lolololol

24 hours after pledging $1m of his own personal money, the White House is walking back that part of the pledge, leaving open the option the donation comes from the Trump Foundation.

Talk about a misleading headline.  There was no "walking back."  Someone asked the press secretary, and she responded:

“I haven’t had a chance to do that.”

So, she had no information on it, that's NOT walking back, simply because she didn't have an answer, but Trump did say he was personally going to give, which indicates he was going to finance it completely from his personal stach, not foundation money.  If he doesn't come through with his personal money, then I think we will hear about it, and there should be hell to pay.

Also, it looks like Trump is looking to provide nearly 8 BILLION dollars as a down payment in disaster funding for Harvey.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/01/politics/harvey-funding-white-house-congress/index.html

I'm sure there will be plenty of critical comments on that as well.

1) You have conveniently ignored that $1m represents 0.029% of his net worth. You have also ignored the dozens of "pledges" he's made to charity without ever following through on the donation. One such study found he personally has made one charitable donation since 2008. One.

2) SHS came out and said he's personally give his own money, then the next day she couldn't confirm it.  So either she went out of line on Thursday or Trump walked it back. Pick one.

3) Texas alone needs $125 billion to recover. Trump is also proposing massive cuts to FEMA and federal relief.

4) You cherry picked the one statement Trump made about white supremacists.  His first comment included "many sides" and then in his presser he said "very fine people on both sides." The man is unhined and delusional. It's easy for 60+% of the country to see. Think about that.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: former player on September 03, 2017, 06:32:36 AM

1) You have conveniently ignored that $1m represents 0.029% of his self-reportednet worth. You have also ignored the dozens of "pledges" he's made to charity without ever following through on the donation. One such study found he personally has made one charitable donation since 2008. One.

BIB: To be fair, if Trump has exaggerated his reported net worth then his $1m pledge could be a higher percentage of the actual net worth, which would make it more praiseworthy.  If and when he comes through with the actual donation, of course.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on September 05, 2017, 12:48:43 AM
Oh thank goodness the next generation has an explanation for what is going on...  makes as much and maybe even more sense than anything I've got - https://youtu.be/dq37f5LUJgc
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 05, 2017, 08:35:58 AM


 The man is unhined and delusional. It's easy for 60+% of the country to see. Think about that.

Hope you realize that national political discourse is entirely unhinged and delusional, and has been since at least the 90s.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on September 05, 2017, 08:37:46 AM


 The man is unhined and delusional. It's easy for 60+% of the country to see. Think about that.

Hope you realize that national political discourse is entirely unhinged and delusional, and has been since at least the 90s.

So your plan to fix the problem is to double down?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on September 05, 2017, 09:59:44 AM

 I never blamed "everything anti-Trump on liberals" nor did I speak to liberals as the only ones who disapprove.

Um yeah you did. I bolded all groups/people on your post (Notice it's only liberals):

Actually, no I didn't.  You need to re-read my previous statement, because it clearly went over your head.  Speaking about a group of people doesn't mean that another group of people might or might not give Trump a favorable approval rating.  They are NOT mutually exclusive, as I explained before.  I never spoke to approval ratings one way or another in the post that you responded to with the straw man.  I never said that "only liberals" would give Trump an unfavorable rating, let alone anyone else.  That's apples and oranges.  Like I said, straw man argument, because you had no argument for what I actually said is so common among liberals.

Quote
You weren't implying Trump impacted the market but were blaming liberals for not giving him credit for impacting the market?

Go back and re-read.  In my original comment, I said liberals can't have it both ways - blaming when the market is headed down while not giving credit when it goes up.   Pretty simple concept.  I like how you spun it around that I was saying he deserve the credit or blame. and totally missed that part where I was talking about the liberals' viewpoints, even though you later put the word in "bold" multiple times.  That looks like a contradiction on your part.  I was talking about liberals (this doesn't necessarily exclude some non-liberals from feeling the same way), which I normally wouldn't have to bother mentioning, but it appears that saying liberals, you always interpret to mean "all and only liberals, with out exception" or you think I'm talking about my own views despite saying liberal.  Welcome to the interwebs.  LOL

Quote
FYI, there is no new healthcare, no tax reform, etc.

Your reading comprehension is the worst, or you are playing dumb.  Which is it?  You asked how the stock market could go up so much when Trump was elected and hadn't implemented any policies yet.  I explained why that is the case, simply because of his agenda which was known before he ever got elected, and economic experts have said as much as well.

Fortunately, jobs have been added and the market has gone up ever since he was elected.  Of course, you liberals won't give him credit.  Tax cuts are yet to come, they just might be put off until 2018.  He's already cutting Obama regulations.  He has the authority to make changes - not everything has to be legislation that is signed into law, but I'm sure we'll see more of that happen.  Don't panic - the best days are ahead.  Keep riding the Trump stock market climb for now.

Quote
"very fine people on both sides" meaning there were fine counter-protesters and fine Neo-Nazis/White Supremacist.

He was speaking of the non-violent protesters that didn't want to see historical statues removed, who were also there protesting, who were not in the white supremacist or other groups.  When he said that there was blame on both sides, he was referring to the violence, which he actually went into in further detail.  He NEVER condoned racism of any sort.

I disagree about jumping the gun and calling someone racist without knowing the facts.  You shouldn't call someone a racist if you aren't certain of it.  Do you realize that some people were falsely accused as being protesters because someone thought they "looked like" a person photographed?  He and his family were threatened repeatedly. 

These days,  even the term "racist" is so loosely used, that you have to question the facts of the case if used out of context.  For example, some people say that if you want to lower taxes, you're racist.   If you want stronger sentencing for drug crimes, you're racist.  If you want to help your white children with homework, you're a dream hoarder, and that's racist.   It's ridiculous.  True racism should be called out, and it's a shame that so many have hijacked the term to take away the true meaning.  If someone is truly racist, they should keep it to themselves and not act out on it.

Trump indeed called out racism in his official response once he had all the facts.  The fact he condemned violence on both sides doesn't take away that fact that he said:

"Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."

Of course, that doesn't align with the liberals' narrative.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 05, 2017, 10:08:47 AM


 The man is unhined and delusional. It's easy for 60+% of the country to see. Think about that.

Hope you realize that national political discourse is entirely unhinged and delusional, and has been since at least the 90s.

So your plan to fix the problem is to double down?
I don't have any plans to fix discourse. I vote for a set of likely policy outcomes. My biggest problem is the withdrawal from TPP, but that was fait accompli by March 2016. We'll see what happens with North Korea, which is currently the biggest issue facing the nation, but that's the legacy of multiple Presidents from both parties, NOT Trump.

Really don't care about the income taxes or the donations or what hat he wore or Tayor Swift's dig at Kanye.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on September 05, 2017, 10:12:56 AM
Quote
"very fine people on both sides" meaning there were fine counter-protesters and fine Neo-Nazis/White Supremacist.

He was speaking of the non-violent protesters that didn't want to see historical statues removed, who were also there protesting, who were not in the white supremacist or other groups.

Could you list some of the names of these fine, upstanding non-violent protesters you're referring to who were marching with Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists but weren't part of their groups?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on September 05, 2017, 10:33:53 AM
1) You have conveniently ignored that $1m represents 0.029% of his net worth. You have also ignored the dozens of "pledges" he's made to charity without ever following through on the donation.

I didn't ignore that, but most of his net worth is tied up in real estate.  Do you expect him to sell of his business interests just to increase his donation?  He said he's donating $1M of his own money.

It sounds like Sanders didn't want to speak out of line when the question was asked, but she didn't walk it back saying that he was not going to donate his personal money. 

Actually those cuts to FEMA were MUCH smaller, less than 1% of the expected cost of Harvey.   And Trump is pushing for many times that much funding for Harley.

I didn't cherry pick, I posted his official statement once he had all the facts.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on September 05, 2017, 10:42:59 AM
Quote
"very fine people on both sides" meaning there were fine counter-protesters and fine Neo-Nazis/White Supremacist.

He was speaking of the non-violent protesters that didn't want to see historical statues removed, who were also there protesting, who were not in the white supremacist or other groups.

Could you list some of the names of these fine, upstanding non-violent protesters you're referring to who were marching with Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists but weren't part of their groups?

Why do you want their names?  So the far left can threaten them and their families?  And what if you target someone with the same name?  I don't condone that and have no desire to partake in it.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 05, 2017, 10:59:02 AM

"Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."

You are cherry picking the one time he condemned white supremacists/neo-Nazis/KKK in a formally written statement.  He contradicted himself a few days later at an informal press conference with no teleprompter.  He did not call out these groups solely the day of the protests, while other GOP members did because...wait for it...denouncing racism and Nazis is about the easiest thing he could possibly do.

"Waits for all the facts."

LMAO What a crock.  Look up the Central Park 5.  Look up Trump's horrendous response to that.

Quote
Trump in the October 9th debate: Now, to solve a problem, you have to be able to state what the problem is or at least say the name."

He still won't call out Nazis/KKK/white supremacy as the problem.

Quote
As president, Trump has also jumped the gun on international incidents, like in June when he labeled violence in the Philippines a "terrorist attack" just minutes before officials said it was the result of a suspected robbery.

"We are closely monitoring the situation and I will continue to give updates, anything happens, during this period of time," he said. "But is really pretty sad what is going on throughout the world with terror. Our thoughts and our prayers are with all of those affected."

Trump has also commented on terrorism that never actually happened. Speaking before a Florida crowd in February, Trump stressed the need to keep "our country safe" and, in a pitch about strict immigration policies due to terror concerns, he lamented "what's happening last night in Sweden."

"Sweden, who would believe this? Sweden," he said. "They took in large numbers. They're having problems like they never thought possible."

There was no terrorist attack in Sweden the night before Trump's speech.

Via - http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/15/politics/trump-delay-charlottesville-statement/index.html

Yes, he really seems like a "wait till we get all the facts" kind of guy.  *Rolls eyes.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on September 05, 2017, 11:00:05 AM
Quote
"very fine people on both sides" meaning there were fine counter-protesters and fine Neo-Nazis/White Supremacist.

He was speaking of the non-violent protesters that didn't want to see historical statues removed, who were also there protesting, who were not in the white supremacist or other groups.

Could you list some of the names of these fine, upstanding non-violent protesters you're referring to who were marching with Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists but weren't part of their groups?

Why do you want their names?  So the far left can threaten them and their families?  And what if you target someone with the same name?  I don't condone that and have no desire to partake in it.

I want their names because I don't believe the people you're referring to ever actually existed.  I think that at the first sign of swastikas and Klan hoods at a big rally any fine upstanding non-violent protester will pack up his/her stuff and head home.  By the time that violence broke out, there were no fine upstanding non-violent protesters standing with the group of Nazis and Klan members.  I don't believe that you're stupid . . . so suspect that you must know this too, despite your (and Trump's) professed belief in these peace unicorns.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: wenchsenior on September 05, 2017, 11:21:46 AM
Quote
"very fine people on both sides" meaning there were fine counter-protesters and fine Neo-Nazis/White Supremacist.

He was speaking of the non-violent protesters that didn't want to see historical statues removed, who were also there protesting, who were not in the white supremacist or other groups.

Could you list some of the names of these fine, upstanding non-violent protesters you're referring to who were marching with Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists but weren't part of their groups?

Why do you want their names?  So the far left can threaten them and their families?  And what if you target someone with the same name?  I don't condone that and have no desire to partake in it.


Your posts are intensely silly.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: golden1 on September 05, 2017, 11:33:56 AM
It really is amazing how there is nothing that Trump supporters can’t justify.  It’s like Jonestown on a national scale.  Historians are going to have a field day with this era. 
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on September 05, 2017, 05:38:11 PM

I was talking about liberals (this doesn't necessarily exclude some non-liberals from feeling the same way), which I normally wouldn't have to bother mentioning, but it appears that saying liberals, you always interpret to mean "all and only liberals, with out exception" or you think I'm talking about my own views despite saying liberal.

LMAO, yes when one says liberal it typically means liberal. It doesn't mean conservative, clowns or vampires. I see where the confusion is now. When you stated liberal over and over you didn't actually mean liberal. And thus threw a temper tantrum because I didn't understand that liberal doesn't actually mean liberal.

And telling me I should re-read was some sort of clue that what you wrote wasn't what you meant. On the bright side it makes sense why you support Trump now. ( :

Quote
Of course, you liberals won't give him credit.

Do ware wolfs count as liberals? Because then I agree with your assessment if they do. 
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on September 05, 2017, 06:24:18 PM

I was talking about liberals (this doesn't necessarily exclude some non-liberals from feeling the same way), which I normally wouldn't have to bother mentioning, but it appears that saying liberals, you always interpret to mean "all and only liberals, with out exception" or you think I'm talking about my own views despite saying liberal.

LMAO, yes when one says liberal it typically means liberal. It doesn't mean conservative, clowns or vampires.

LOL!!!  YOU are the one who brought up the point that there are "non-liberals" who disapproved of Trump.   I wasn't even talking about approval ratings!  You came up with that in your straw man argument, where you argued against a point that I never tried to make.  LOL!!!

Quote
I see where the confusion is now. When you stated liberal over and over you didn't actually mean liberal. And thus threw a temper tantrum because I didn't understand that liberal doesn't actually mean liberal.

LOL!!!   No, you still don't see.   You seriously need to go back and re-read a few more times.  I said liberal, but it was you that brought up non-liberals and approval ratings in your straw man argument.  LOL!!!

Quote
Do ware wolfs count as liberals?

"ware?"  LOL!!!   And once again, you are the one who brought up non-liberals.  I was speaking about liberals.  I have to laugh as I see you trying to put that on me!  Talk about a straw man and total twisting things around.   Reading comprehension isn't your strong point.  I think you're just upset that I called you out on your straw man argument.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on September 05, 2017, 06:40:35 PM

"Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."

You are cherry picking the one time he condemned white supremacists/neo-Nazis/KKK in a formally written statement.  He contradicted himself a few days later at an informal press conference with no teleprompter.

It's not cherry picking to quote his exact verbal statement condemning those groups.  Also, he never stated otherwise.  In fact, people did some digging and found he had called David Duke a biggot well before he ran for president.   Trump condemned violence on both sides, but that's not a contradiction of him condemning Nazi's, KKK, etc., as you are trying to spin it into.

The only time Trump specifically mentioned neo-Nazi's, white supremacists, KKK, was when he was condemning them as noted earlier.  I've never heard him speak favorably of any of them.  So his opinion and feelings on the matter should be clear.

Central Park 5 - Trump wasn't even president back then.  He holds himself to a higher standard now.  I know the left wing-nuts don't get it.


Quote
He still won't call out Nazis/KKK/white supremacy as the problem.

Wrong!  He did, and I provided his exact quote earlier in this thread.  I recommend going back and re-reading.

General comments on terrorism by foreign terrorists is not the same as calling out American citizens and groups of Americans by name before you have the facts.  Most people give Trump props for showing restraint from jumping to conclusions the way Obama did, and then making an official statement condemning the groups.  Liberals want to ignore that.

As for your comments on terrorism, are you seriously trying to downplay terrorism and the serious nature and threat it presents both here and abroad?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on September 05, 2017, 06:56:31 PM
Quote
"very fine people on both sides" meaning there were fine counter-protesters and fine Neo-Nazis/White Supremacist.

He was speaking of the non-violent protesters that didn't want to see historical statues removed, who were also there protesting, who were not in the white supremacist or other groups.

Could you list some of the names of these fine, upstanding non-violent protesters you're referring to who were marching with Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists but weren't part of their groups?

Why do you want their names?  So the far left can threaten them and their families?  And what if you target someone with the same name?  I don't condone that and have no desire to partake in it.

I want their names because I don't believe the people you're referring to ever actually existed.

Your posts are intensely silly.

You think?  You must not believe this story, then?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/us/charlottesville-doxxing.html
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on September 05, 2017, 07:06:07 PM
It really is amazing how there is nothing that Trump supporters can’t justify.  It’s like Jonestown on a national scale.  Historians are going to have a field day with this era.

So, it's better to be anti-American and spew hate about your president, huh?  You're right that history is biased and will be re-written as always.  But that's no excuse for being unpatriotic in the here and now.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Gondolin on September 05, 2017, 08:04:06 PM
Quote
But! I'm here. I'm a liberal (mostly). I'm trying to give the trump administration credit for the positive things they've done. Please, what are the specific good things the administration has accomplished that you feel have been underreported or undervalued?

Bueller? Bueller?



Also, criticizing the president is not unpatriotic. Unless you mean to imply that Jefferson was not a patriot because he criticized Washington and Adams? No one is impressed with your dime store chest-thumping.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on September 05, 2017, 08:06:24 PM
  I said liberal, but it was you that brought up non-liberals

Not according to your original statement.

I never blamed "everything anti-Trump on liberals" nor did I speak to liberals as the only ones who disapprove.

I'll give you props. You've trolled longer and arguably harder than anyone before you.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on September 05, 2017, 08:19:24 PM
Also, criticizing the president is not unpatriotic.
Spewing continuous hate is not just criticizing.  You clearly just brushed over my comments without actually reading and comprehending.

Quote
No one is impressed with your dime store chest-thumping.

Oh, brilliant words... or NOT.   LOL
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GenXbiker on September 05, 2017, 08:31:33 PM
  I said liberal, but it was you that brought up non-liberals

Not according to your original statement.

I never blamed "everything anti-Trump on liberals" nor did I speak to liberals as the only ones who disapprove.


My original statement was this one:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/so-let's-speculate-about-the-future-of-a-full-trump-presidency/msg1680892/#msg1680892

I clearly stated "liberals" repeatedly, and you even highlighted that in bold later.  Now, you're saying just the opposite, that I was speaking about non-liberals.  You can't even decide which part of the straw man argument that you want to stick with from one post to the next.  LOL

And if you continue down the order of posts from there, you will hit your straw man response here:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/so-let's-speculate-about-the-future-of-a-full-trump-presidency/msg1681039/#msg1681039

That's where you introduced approval ratings of non-liberals, when I had never mentioned non-liberals nor anything about approval ratings, hence, why you were using a straw man argument rather than arguing against what I actually stated.  You took the easy way, but sorry, I couldn't let that pass without calling you out on it.  LOL

Quote
I'll give you props. You've trolled longer and arguably harder than anyone before you.

You've been trolling a straw man and won't even admit it.  Pretty sad.  It's pointless to have a discussion with you - I've given you many chances to re-read and understand, but you haven't made any progress.   It's easy for me to continue the discussion because I've got the facts on my side and am not resorting to apples and oranges comparisons as you have.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: former player on September 06, 2017, 02:01:32 AM
I'm long FIREd and spend far too long on this forum.  I still value my time too much to bother trying to bring GenXbiker to their senses.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on September 06, 2017, 04:42:53 AM
I clearly stated "liberals" repeatedly

Yes I know. Yet you tried to argue liberals meant something other than liberals. Good job finally admitting it ( :

Quote
You've been trolling a straw man and won't even admit it. 

A straw-man would have taken place had I actually claimed you made some sort of statement about approval ratings. I made no such statement (feel free to direct quote me if I did). Approval ratings was brought up, yes by me, as a point to show it isn't only liberals who don't approve of Trump. And now that you have admitted you were only speaking about liberals, it "might" make more sense. I won't hold my breath. Good luck in your fight against liberals.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Gondolin on September 06, 2017, 05:12:34 AM
Quote
Oh, brilliant words... or NOT.   LO

I'll ask you one more time if you have any real speculation on the trump administration to share. Ya know, instead of getting into an increasingly shrill and illegible debate over the semantics of past posts.



Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 06, 2017, 07:27:29 AM
Literally all that Trump supporters care about is pissing off liberals. Trump could completely destroy the country, and they'd be fine with it as long as liberals were angry about it.

That's all anyone needs to know to understand a Trump supporter anymore. I wish I was exaggerating.

I'm hearing the exact opposite.  The liberals gloat about anything negative as an excuse to criticize President Trump.  I remember during the election how giddy the liberals were getting when early indications were the stock market was going to drop - blaming it on Trump.  Then suddenly, the stock market takes off on a bull run, but they don't give him credit for that, only anything negative they can spin up.  Trump denounced racism and white supremacists, but most liberals just filtered that out of their minds as if they never heard it, and instead, twisted other comments he made.  Liberals are always looking for the negative, and never give credit for the positive things.  If something terrible happens, the liberals will be all too happy as they will have a chance to blame something else on President Trump.
My problem with this assessment is that there are millions of voices out there so who are these "liberals" you speak of? If some people on twitter say something asinine like blaming the president for what happens to the stock market then conservative media points to it and says "Aha!, liberals are wrong again." And yes, even some of the media gets caught up in saying stupid shit like this, but that doesn't mean everyone who has something negative to say about Trump is one of those people.

I do realize it happens on both sides. Trump supporters on Twitter commented "at least Trump went to Texas after the hurricane, where was Obama after Katrina?" A stupid thing to say obviously but who said it? Several hundred or even thousand people on twitter? It's irrelevant but people criticized Trump supporters for saying something stupid even though it was a handful of idiots, not the whole group.

If we point to the worst the other side has to offer like they're a representation of that group, then of course they look like idiots. On the other hand when the president is one of the people participating in this circus, well that means something.

While I largely agree with the general idea behind this (we shouldn't judge entire movements by certain members, and the President should be above this fray), I find great humor in deranged political commentators denouncing the President for being deranged.

I follow Trump on Twitter, and I also have other social media where people share their political beliefs, and I'd categorize the vast majority of anti-Trump commentary as "frothing rage." They aren't any better than Trump. I'd certainly like Trump to be better than them, but "Pot calls kettle black" jokes are always funny, even if it's at national scale.

I am not concerned about Presidential character. It's overrated. Presidents are largely morally inferior people to the average person. They are better politicians and usually better leaders, which are more important attributes. Trump's biggest problem isn't his questionable moral character, it's that he cannot intellectually understand an issue and that he has limited self-control. He can only intuitively "get" an issue, which is tough to do at the Presidential level because every issue is so nuanced.

He obviously listens to his advisors and tries to instinctively path a middle ground, but he doesn't understand political optics very well. 
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 06, 2017, 08:08:10 AM
He obviously listens to his advisors and tries to instinctively path a middle ground, but he doesn't understand political optics very well.

No, he doesn't.  Many wanted him to stay in the Paris Accord (off the record or as "anonymous" sources, of course).

His entire agenda for seven months has been "Did Obama pass it/support it?"  If yes, repeal/end.

That's it.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on September 06, 2017, 08:46:36 AM
I am not concerned about Presidential character. It's overrated. Presidents are largely morally inferior people to the average person. They are better politicians and usually better leaders, which are more important attributes. Trump's biggest problem isn't his questionable moral character, it's that he cannot intellectually understand an issue and that he has limited self-control. He can only intuitively "get" an issue, which is tough to do at the Presidential level because every issue is so nuanced. 
So your opinion is, who cares what he is like as a person as long as he gets the job done...and you feel he's not doing so well in that department either.

While I can agree with the sentiment here I would point out that the president is more than a politician, he is a figurehead whether you like it or not. His character influences the way other countries view the US and also how citizens, especially young ones, view what is and isn't ok. If we hold our football players to a higher standard than the average citizen because they are "role models" shouldn't we hold our president to at least that standard?

And going a step further, I think some of the issues that people are so angry about go beyond his character. For example, he has a well documented history of not paying contractors who do work for him and if they try to fight back he bullies them using his legal resources until they settle out of court or give up. Even though it may be technically legal, it is stealing. I think we as citizens are well within reason to be angry at someone who steals from the very people he claims to be fighting for.

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 06, 2017, 10:05:07 AM
I am not concerned about Presidential character. It's overrated. Presidents are largely morally inferior people to the average person. They are better politicians and usually better leaders, which are more important attributes. Trump's biggest problem isn't his questionable moral character, it's that he cannot intellectually understand an issue and that he has limited self-control. He can only intuitively "get" an issue, which is tough to do at the Presidential level because every issue is so nuanced. 
So your opinion is, who cares what he is like as a person as long as he gets the job done...and you feel he's not doing so well in that department either.

While I can agree with the sentiment here I would point out that the president is more than a politician, he is a figurehead whether you like it or not. His character influences the way other countries view the US and also how citizens, especially young ones, view what is and isn't ok. If we hold our football players to a higher standard than the average citizen because they are "role models" shouldn't we hold our president to at least that standard?

And going a step further, I think some of the issues that people are so angry about go beyond his character. For example, he has a well documented history of not paying contractors who do work for him and if they try to fight back he bullies them using his legal resources until they settle out of court or give up. Even though it may be technically legal, it is stealing. I think we as citizens are well within reason to be angry at someone who steals from the very people he claims to be fighting for.
If it's technically legal, it's not stealing. Theft is a legally defined crime.

Don't see why it will make a deciding impact on whether he should be in the White House, either. It only matters to the extent it informs his overall negotiation mindset, and what deals are made in the political/FP arena. It's a business practice, even if it's a business practice I don't like.


EDIT: Like, if I want to kill TPP, reduce immigration, and put an anti-abortion advocate on the SC, why would I vote for Hillary just because Trump stiffed contractors? Contractors don't have enough weight to sway that kind of decision.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on September 06, 2017, 11:57:02 AM
I am not concerned about Presidential character. It's overrated. Presidents are largely morally inferior people to the average person. They are better politicians and usually better leaders, which are more important attributes. Trump's biggest problem isn't his questionable moral character, it's that he cannot intellectually understand an issue and that he has limited self-control. He can only intuitively "get" an issue, which is tough to do at the Presidential level because every issue is so nuanced. 
So your opinion is, who cares what he is like as a person as long as he gets the job done...and you feel he's not doing so well in that department either.

While I can agree with the sentiment here I would point out that the president is more than a politician, he is a figurehead whether you like it or not. His character influences the way other countries view the US and also how citizens, especially young ones, view what is and isn't ok. If we hold our football players to a higher standard than the average citizen because they are "role models" shouldn't we hold our president to at least that standard?

And going a step further, I think some of the issues that people are so angry about go beyond his character. For example, he has a well documented history of not paying contractors who do work for him and if they try to fight back he bullies them using his legal resources until they settle out of court or give up. Even though it may be technically legal, it is stealing. I think we as citizens are well within reason to be angry at someone who steals from the very people he claims to be fighting for.
If it's technically legal, it's not stealing. Theft is a legally defined crime.

Don't see why it will make a deciding impact on whether he should be in the White House, either. It only matters to the extent it informs his overall negotiation mindset, and what deals are made in the political/FP arena. It's a business practice, even if it's a business practice I don't like.


EDIT: Like, if I want to kill TPP, reduce immigration, and put an anti-abortion advocate on the SC, why would I vote for Hillary just because Trump stiffed contractors? Contractors don't have enough weight to sway that kind of decision.
Merriam Webster definition of steal:
 -to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice

Corrupt leaders steal from their citizens within the law quite often. I believe the evidence points to Trump being corrupt, and I am confident he would be doing much more harm right now if not for our system of checks and balances. I think these things matter because his negotiation mindset leans heavily on bullying and tricking people. That may have worked for him in real estate/marketing but now he's dealing with other countries on a world stage, not small business owners.

I never suggested that this one thing alone would override the other factors you mentioned and I only gave this as a single example. Also this discussion isn't about why we should have voted for Hillary, it's about the current situation.

Another example I would cite as to why I worry about his leadership would be the central park 5. He publicly called for the execution of a now proven innocent 15 year old child and even paid for an advertisement towards that end. Despite forensic evidence clearing the kid, he has not apologized and has even suggested that the forensic evidence is wrong, this shows:
-He is unwilling to admit fault or compromise which is an important trait for leaders and negotiators
-He thinks he is above the law
-He places emotion before reason and critical thinking
-He calls for extreme actions based on false claims
-And let's just call it like it is, if those kids were white he never would have gotten involved

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on September 06, 2017, 12:26:35 PM
Another thought regarding how other nations view us; I work with people in Canada, blue collar conservative types in manufacturing, and I make it a point to not talk politics during business meetings but almost every time I meet with someone they ask something along the lines of "What's going on down there? Who voted for Trump? Are people really that stupid?"

This is anecdotal but there's plenty of reason to think the world is laughing at us.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on September 06, 2017, 12:45:38 PM
And speaking of stealing and since this is a 'speculation' thread, I have been wondering why Trump (apparently against his own interests) suddenly decided now to tell Congress he is ending DACA.  Momentum was finally building for his signature tax reform and there was even chance to get infrastructure spending going, but instead this move seems to derail Congress yet again.  It's almost as though Trump wants the economy to implode.  Picking fights with North Korea, threatening to make ACA implode, being the only first world country that pulls out of the Paris Accord, picking fights over international trade...  So I speculate that Trump does want the economy to implode.  Either way, he can take credit for the record stock markets and unemployment (although he has no way to prove that his administration moved the needle compared to the trends already established before it took over) and if it implodes he can blame the Fed and a whole list of others for their failures.  But in this second case, he has much more political power to force others to 'help the American people' by doing his bidding.  It also makes for better opportunities for businesses (especially Real Estate) and makes the American public more dependent on Trump to 'speak for them'.  It's all just speculation, but anyone around Trump will candidly say that ultimately he only follows his own agenda.  So now I'm trying to figure out what his agenda is, certainly not a quest for popularity - ending DACA abruptly would be incredibly unpopular (http://www.businessinsider.com/tech-ceos-react-to-trumps-announcement-to-end-daca-2017-9). 
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on September 06, 2017, 12:53:30 PM
And speaking of stealing and since this is a 'speculation' thread, I have been wondering why Trump (apparently against his own interests) suddenly decided now to tell Congress he is ending DACA.  Momentum was finally building for his signature tax reform and there was even chance to get infrastructure spending going, but instead this move seems to derail Congress yet again.  It's almost as though Trump wants the economy to implode.  Picking fights with North Korea, threatening to make ACA implode, being the only first world country that pulls out of the Paris Accord, picking fights over international trade...  So I speculate that Trump does want the economy to implode.  Either way, he can take credit for the record stock markets and unemployment (although he has no way to prove that his administration moved the needle compared to the trends already established before it took over) and if it implodes he can blame the Fed and a whole list of others for their failures.  But in this second case, he has much more political power to force others to 'help the American people' by doing his bidding.  It also makes for better opportunities for businesses (especially Real Estate) and makes the American public more dependent on Trump to 'speak for them'.  It's all just speculation, but anyone around Trump will candidly say that ultimately he only follows his own agenda.  So now I'm trying to figure out what his agenda is, certainly not a quest for popularity - ending DACA abruptly would be incredibly unpopular (http://www.businessinsider.com/tech-ceos-react-to-trumps-announcement-to-end-daca-2017-9).

Two possibilities come to mind:

1) He's dumb.
2) He's dumb and crazy.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 06, 2017, 01:14:44 PM
Your summary of the Central Park case looks like a social media summary and not a legal summary to me. The accused were convicted by a jury of their peers and their convictions of upheld. The NYPD commission concluded that all the criminals were likely there and the chance of their actually being innocent almost impossible.

I wasn't coherent enough in the late 80s to judge anything about Trump's responses, but defendants should obviously get fair trials. Given that our current politicians ran their mouths so badly that Martin Shkreli's case had to run through well over 100 potential jurors, the same standard DQ'ing Trump DQs practically all current politicians. Maybe Rand Paul can stay? Obviously I'd prefer all politicians to shut their mouths about these kinds of cases, or everyone to shut their mouths about these cases, and just let the courts handle it. Not only to secure the rights of the defended, but so we don't get everyone pissed off when a jury returns a verdict not in line with public opinion.

I don't concern myself with the opinions of other nations. They have all picked far worse leaders. Jacques Chirac was incredibly corrupt. Macron is an empty suit. Schroder is more Russia friendly than Trump, to the point of white-washing their invasion of Ukraine. Merkel almost torched the entire European project over her refugee stance. Berlusconi doesn't need any detail, except that he's better than the comedian that is now a major political figure in Italy.

Several of these nations, like Greece, South Korea, and Spain, were military dictatorships until the 1970s or 1980s. I am not going to take lessons in democracy from nation's with a democracy younger than my father.


Still don't see any of these as strong in comparison to concrete policy issues. If you want single-payer, are you not going to vote for Bernie because Israel doesn't like him or because he stiffed his gardener?



Quote
I have been wondering why Trump (apparently against his own interests) suddenly decided now to tell Congress he is ending DACA.  Momentum was finally building for his signature tax reform and there was even chance to get infrastructure spending going, but instead this move seems to derail Congress yet again.  It's almost as though Trump wants the economy to implode.  Picking fights with North Korea, threatening to make ACA implode, being the only first world country that pulls out of the Paris Accord, picking fights over international trade...  So I speculate that Trump does want the economy to implode
Because he wants to use DACA as leverage to get funding for his wall. None of the items you mentioned will actually hurt asset prices in the near term. That's leaving aside that picking fights on international trade is what Presidents do, and HRC wanted to appoint a special Czar specifically FOR that issue.
And he's not picking fights with North Korea. North Korea is picking fights with us and our allies.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 06, 2017, 01:45:09 PM
Your summary of the Central Park case looks like a social media summary and not a legal summary to me. The accused were convicted by a jury of their peers and their convictions of upheld. The NYPD commission concluded that all the criminals were likely there and the chance of their actually being innocent almost impossible.

I wasn't coherent enough in the late 80s to judge anything about Trump's responses, but defendants should obviously get fair trials. Given that our current politicians ran their mouths so badly that Martin Shkreli's case had to run through well over 100 potential jurors, the same standard DQ'ing Trump DQs practically all current politicians. Maybe Rand Paul can stay? Obviously I'd prefer all politicians to shut their mouths about these kinds of cases, or everyone to shut their mouths about these cases, and just let the courts handle it. Not only to secure the rights of the defended, but so we don't get everyone pissed off when a jury returns a verdict not in line with public opinion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/18/opinion/why-trump-doubled-down-on-the-central-park-five.html

He spent $85,000 in ads promoting the idea that rapists should receive the death penalty.

Quote
Incredibly, 14 years after their sentences were vacated based on DNA evidence and the detailed and accurate confession of a serial rapist named Matias Reyes, Mr. Trump has doubled down.

“They admitted they were guilty,” he said in a statement to CNN this month. “The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous.”

Here, he cannot admit he was wrong.  DNA evidence - science has advanced since 1989 - cleared the Central Park 5.  A serial rapist confessed.  Yet, he's hung up on the confessions of teenagers - because, you know, false confessions never happen and witnesses are never coerced, right?

The dude is an idiot and a DB.  That's it.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on September 06, 2017, 02:25:23 PM
Your summary of the Central Park case looks like a social media summary and not a legal summary to me. The accused were convicted by a jury of their peers and their convictions of upheld. The NYPD commission concluded that all the criminals were likely there and the chance of their actually being innocent almost impossible.

I wasn't coherent enough in the late 80s to judge anything about Trump's responses, but defendants should obviously get fair trials. Given that our current politicians ran their mouths so badly that Martin Shkreli's case had to run through well over 100 potential jurors, the same standard DQ'ing Trump DQs practically all current politicians. Maybe Rand Paul can stay? Obviously I'd prefer all politicians to shut their mouths about these kinds of cases, or everyone to shut their mouths about these cases, and just let the courts handle it. Not only to secure the rights of the defended, but so we don't get everyone pissed off when a jury returns a verdict not in line with public opinion.

Ya, I shouldn't have said "proven innocent" but rather exonerated by DNA evidence and was likely coerced to confess by intimidation. I suspect they were all guilty of something. Regardless, you agree that he had no place being involved in the case and fed the mob mentality, I think that's just as bad even if they had been found guilty because he didn't know anything more than anyone else about the case.

Quote
I don't concern myself with the opinions of other nations. They have all picked far worse leaders. Jacques Chirac was incredibly corrupt. Macron is an empty suit. Schroder is more Russia friendly than Trump, to the point of white-washing their invasion of Ukraine. Merkel almost torched the entire European project over her refugee stance. Berlusconi doesn't need any detail, except that he's better than the comedian that is now a major political figure in Italy.

Several of these nations, like Greece, South Korea, and Spain, were military dictatorships until the 1970s or 1980s. I am not going to take lessons in democracy from nation's with a democracy younger than my father.
First, that's a pretty bold statement. But more importantly, it's irrelevant. "They did worse" doesn't mean their opinion doesn't matter. Good relations with other nations matter. Are you arguing this point?

Quote
Still don't see any of these as strong in comparison to concrete policy issues. If you want single-payer, are you not going to vote for Bernie because Israel doesn't like him or because he stiffed his gardener?
Sort of, but not for those reasons. I'm strongly in favor of single payer or a path in that direction but I was not a fan of Bernie on the whole due to inexperience in foreign affairs. Also your examples of "Israel doesn't like him or because he stiffed his gardener" severely downplays the things that Trump has done in the past.

But once again, that's not the point. This is not a discussion about justifying voting for Trump. It is a discussion about whether or not his character/morals are relevant in judging his fitness for office.

Edit: Your original statement was that you are not concerned about presidential character. You also suggested that being a politician and a leader are more important attributes than having good character. So do you think that character really doesn't matter at all or just that it is less important than the other characteristics.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on September 06, 2017, 07:12:02 PM
He obviously listens to his advisors and tries to instinctively path a middle ground, but he doesn't understand political optics very well.

No, he doesn't.  Many wanted him to stay in the Paris Accord (off the record or as "anonymous" sources, of course).

His entire agenda for seven months has been "Did Obama pass it/support it?"  If yes, repeal/end.

That's it.

The USA was never in the Paris Accord. Obama never sought out for congress to ratify it. I mentioned this earlier in the thread: it is frustrating that Americans simultaneously think (1) bombing a country or arming rebels isn't an act of war and (2) that the USA is a part of things that she never ratifies.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 07, 2017, 07:28:45 AM
The USA was never in the Paris Accord. Obama never sought out for congress to ratify it. I mentioned this earlier in the thread: it is frustrating that Americans simultaneously think (1) bombing a country or arming rebels isn't an act of war and (2) that the USA is a part of things that she never ratifies.

Quote
Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, no country was supposed to be able to give notice of its departure until November 4, 2019, which is three years to the day after the treaty entered force. And no one was supposed to be able to leave the agreement until November 4, 2020—which is, by the way, exactly one day after the next U.S. presidential election.

So...yeah...despite the efforts of this administration we're part of this agreement until 2020.

As to point 1) yes, you could say Congress hasn't "formally declared war" in over a decade, but both Bush and Obama (now joined by Trump) found ways around that to "authorize military force."  Even if it isn't the formal declaration of war, any bombing, gun fighting, etc. etc. is still warfare.  I fully acknowledge that as an American - and I am hopeful we will start withdrawing from the Middle East but it doesn't seem like that will be the case in the next few years.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 07, 2017, 08:41:45 AM
Your summary of the Central Park case looks like a social media summary and not a legal summary to me. The accused were convicted by a jury of their peers and their convictions of upheld. The NYPD commission concluded that all the criminals were likely there and the chance of their actually being innocent almost impossible.

I wasn't coherent enough in the late 80s to judge anything about Trump's responses, but defendants should obviously get fair trials. Given that our current politicians ran their mouths so badly that Martin Shkreli's case had to run through well over 100 potential jurors, the same standard DQ'ing Trump DQs practically all current politicians. Maybe Rand Paul can stay? Obviously I'd prefer all politicians to shut their mouths about these kinds of cases, or everyone to shut their mouths about these cases, and just let the courts handle it. Not only to secure the rights of the defended, but so we don't get everyone pissed off when a jury returns a verdict not in line with public opinion.

Ya, I shouldn't have said "proven innocent" but rather exonerated by DNA evidence and was likely coerced to confess by intimidation. I suspect they were all guilty of something. Regardless, you agree that he had no place being involved in the case and fed the mob mentality, I think that's just as bad even if they had been found guilty because he didn't know anything more than anyone else about the case.

Quote
I don't concern myself with the opinions of other nations. They have all picked far worse leaders. Jacques Chirac was incredibly corrupt. Macron is an empty suit. Schroder is more Russia friendly than Trump, to the point of white-washing their invasion of Ukraine. Merkel almost torched the entire European project over her refugee stance. Berlusconi doesn't need any detail, except that he's better than the comedian that is now a major political figure in Italy.

Several of these nations, like Greece, South Korea, and Spain, were military dictatorships until the 1970s or 1980s. I am not going to take lessons in democracy from nation's with a democracy younger than my father.
First, that's a pretty bold statement. But more importantly, it's irrelevant. "They did worse" doesn't mean their opinion doesn't matter. Good relations with other nations matter. Are you arguing this point?

Quote
Still don't see any of these as strong in comparison to concrete policy issues. If you want single-payer, are you not going to vote for Bernie because Israel doesn't like him or because he stiffed his gardener?
Sort of, but not for those reasons. I'm strongly in favor of single payer or a path in that direction but I was not a fan of Bernie on the whole due to inexperience in foreign affairs. Also your examples of "Israel doesn't like him or because he stiffed his gardener" severely downplays the things that Trump has done in the past.

But once again, that's not the point. This is not a discussion about justifying voting for Trump. It is a discussion about whether or not his character/morals are relevant in judging his fitness for office.

Edit: Your original statement was that you are not concerned about presidential character. You also suggested that being a politician and a leader are more important attributes than having good character. So do you think that character really doesn't matter at all or just that it is less important than the other characteristics.

On the primary point: I think the bar for moral character for the President is pretty low, and lower than people insist it must be. It's like a minimum requirement of 48" for a roller coaster: you're excluding some people, but everyone else can ride the coaster and it's not going to substantially affect the outcome.

The differences in policy outcomes between candidates depend more on their parties and other traits than their personal character, IMHO. Trump's not an exception, with the notable caveat that his brashness might get us involved in a war unnecessarily. BUT, I've never found that particularly convincing, and that's a separate issue from his infidelity, probable sexual assault, and business defaults.

This all is even less important in the US, which has a system of checks and balances, than more unitary systems. I can't judge what would work better in Britain, for instance.

So, doesn't matter at all? No, that's pretty far. Just far less important than other major policy issues.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: partgypsy on September 07, 2017, 10:40:52 AM
Your summary of the Central Park case looks like a social media summary and not a legal summary to me. The accused were convicted by a jury of their peers and their convictions of upheld. The NYPD commission concluded that all the criminals were likely there and the chance of their actually being innocent almost impossible.

I wasn't coherent enough in the late 80s to judge anything about Trump's responses, but defendants should obviously get fair trials. Given that our current politicians ran their mouths so badly that Martin Shkreli's case had to run through well over 100 potential jurors, the same standard DQ'ing Trump DQs practically all current politicians. Maybe Rand Paul can stay? Obviously I'd prefer all politicians to shut their mouths about these kinds of cases, or everyone to shut their mouths about these cases, and just let the courts handle it. Not only to secure the rights of the defended, but so we don't get everyone pissed off when a jury returns a verdict not in line with public opinion.

Ya, I shouldn't have said "proven innocent" but rather exonerated by DNA evidence and was likely coerced to confess by intimidation. I suspect they were all guilty of something. Regardless, you agree that he had no place being involved in the case and fed the mob mentality, I think that's just as bad even if they had been found guilty because he didn't know anything more than anyone else about the case.

Quote
I don't concern myself with the opinions of other nations. They have all picked far worse leaders. Jacques Chirac was incredibly corrupt. Macron is an empty suit. Schroder is more Russia friendly than Trump, to the point of white-washing their invasion of Ukraine. Merkel almost torched the entire European project over her refugee stance. Berlusconi doesn't need any detail, except that he's better than the comedian that is now a major political figure in Italy.

Several of these nations, like Greece, South Korea, and Spain, were military dictatorships until the 1970s or 1980s. I am not going to take lessons in democracy from nation's with a democracy younger than my father.
First, that's a pretty bold statement. But more importantly, it's irrelevant. "They did worse" doesn't mean their opinion doesn't matter. Good relations with other nations matter. Are you arguing this point?

Quote
Still don't see any of these as strong in comparison to concrete policy issues. If you want single-payer, are you not going to vote for Bernie because Israel doesn't like him or because he stiffed his gardener?
Sort of, but not for those reasons. I'm strongly in favor of single payer or a path in that direction but I was not a fan of Bernie on the whole due to inexperience in foreign affairs. Also your examples of "Israel doesn't like him or because he stiffed his gardener" severely downplays the things that Trump has done in the past.

But once again, that's not the point. This is not a discussion about justifying voting for Trump. It is a discussion about whether or not his character/morals are relevant in judging his fitness for office.

Edit: Your original statement was that you are not concerned about presidential character. You also suggested that being a politician and a leader are more important attributes than having good character. So do you think that character really doesn't matter at all or just that it is less important than the other characteristics.

On the primary point: I think the bar for moral character for the President is pretty low, and lower than people insist it must be. It's like a minimum requirement of 48" for a roller coaster: you're excluding some people, but everyone else can ride the coaster and it's not going to substantially affect the outcome.

The differences in policy outcomes between candidates depend more on their parties and other traits than their personal character, IMHO. Trump's not an exception, with the notable caveat that his brashness might get us involved in a war unnecessarily. BUT, I've never found that particularly convincing, and that's a separate issue from his infidelity, probable sexual assault, and business defaults.

This all is even less important in the US, which has a system of checks and balances, than more unitary systems. I can't judge what would work better in Britain, for instance.

So, doesn't matter at all? No, that's pretty far. Just far less important than other major policy issues.

I disagree. The president of the United States is the highest office that a public servant can hold. That person essentially, serves us the American people. On the other hand the office holds a great deal of influence and power and many temptations. You need someone of high moral character, to serve the United States over their own personal interests. I don't think Trump is capable of doing so. 
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on September 07, 2017, 05:18:52 PM
The USA was never in the Paris Accord. Obama never sought out for congress to ratify it. I mentioned this earlier in the thread: it is frustrating that Americans simultaneously think (1) bombing a country or arming rebels isn't an act of war and (2) that the USA is a part of things that she never ratifies.

Quote
Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, no country was supposed to be able to give notice of its departure until November 4, 2019, which is three years to the day after the treaty entered force. And no one was supposed to be able to leave the agreement until November 4, 2020—which is, by the way, exactly one day after the next U.S. presidential election.

So...yeah...despite the efforts of this administration we're part of this agreement until 2020.

The USA never ratified the Paris Accord. The USA isn't a part of things she doesn't join. If you compare her to other countries:

- Canada's Parliament ratified the Paris Accord (https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-formally-ratifies-paris-climate-accord/article32267242/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&)
- Spain ratified it (http://www.energynews.es/english/spanish-ratification-of-the-paris-agreement-published-in-the-boe/)
- The British Parliament ratified the Paris Accord (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/17/uk-boris-johnson-ratifies-paris-climate-agreement)
- The German parliament ratified it (http://www.dw.com/en/germany-ratifies-paris-climate-agreement/a-19570247)
- I believe the Mexican senate and president both ratified it
- The US never ratified it (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-trump-simply-withdraw-u-s-from-paris-climate-agreement/)

It frustrates me to no end that, for some reason, people seem to think the USA is a part of things it doesn't join. It's like the kid who wasn't invited to a party showing up or the guy who didn't make the basketball team in high school reflecting on his varsity career.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on September 07, 2017, 05:28:10 PM
The USA was never in the Paris Accord. Obama never sought out for congress to ratify it. I mentioned this earlier in the thread: it is frustrating that Americans simultaneously think (1) bombing a country or arming rebels isn't an act of war and (2) that the USA is a part of things that she never ratifies.

Quote
Under the terms of the Paris Agreement, no country was supposed to be able to give notice of its departure until November 4, 2019, which is three years to the day after the treaty entered force. And no one was supposed to be able to leave the agreement until November 4, 2020—which is, by the way, exactly one day after the next U.S. presidential election.

So...yeah...despite the efforts of this administration we're part of this agreement until 2020.

The USA never ratified the Paris Accord. The USA isn't a part of things she doesn't join. If you compare her to other countries:

- Canada's Parliament ratified the Paris Accord (https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-formally-ratifies-paris-climate-accord/article32267242/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&)
- Spain ratified it (http://www.energynews.es/english/spanish-ratification-of-the-paris-agreement-published-in-the-boe/)
- The British Parliament ratified the Paris Accord (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/17/uk-boris-johnson-ratifies-paris-climate-agreement)
- The German parliament ratified it (http://www.dw.com/en/germany-ratifies-paris-climate-agreement/a-19570247)
- I believe the Mexican senate and president both ratified it
- The US never ratified it (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/could-trump-simply-withdraw-u-s-from-paris-climate-agreement/)

It frustrates me to no end that, for some reason, people seem to think the USA is a part of things it doesn't join. It's like the kid who wasn't invited to a party showing up or the guy who didn't make the basketball team in high school reflecting on his varsity career.

Lol. It's not exactly like a kid who wasn't invited to a party showing up. It's more like a kid being invited to a party, eating all the food, and then saying they weren't there so they don't have to help pick up afterwards.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on September 07, 2017, 10:32:04 PM
...
It frustrates me to no end that, for some reason, people seem to think the USA is a part of things it doesn't join. It's like the kid who wasn't invited to a party showing up or the guy who didn't make the basketball team in high school reflecting on his varsity career.

I get what you're saying, but the 'frustrates me to know end' is a little hyperbolic and not helpful.  Had Hillary (and the popular vote) won the last election, the US would be 'in' the Paris Accord now and for the 'long haul'.  In general, the vast majority of the American public did believe in the science linking human activity (aka the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the Holocene) and climate change.  Sadly, Americans seem to be giving in to their lizard brains embracing the idea that maybe it is just a short term problem.  And surely the President can't be entirely wrong, and it sure is nice not having to hear about it anymore...  ugh...
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on September 08, 2017, 05:28:19 AM
...
It frustrates me to no end that, for some reason, people seem to think the USA is a part of things it doesn't join. It's like the kid who wasn't invited to a party showing up or the guy who didn't make the basketball team in high school reflecting on his varsity career.

I get what you're saying, but the 'frustrates me to know end' is a little hyperbolic and not helpful.  Had Hillary (and the popular vote) won the last election, the US would be 'in' the Paris Accord now and for the 'long haul'.  In general, the vast majority of the American public did believe in the science linking human activity (aka the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the Holocene) and climate change.  Sadly, Americans seem to be giving in to their lizard brains embracing the idea that maybe it is just a short term problem.  And surely the President can't be entirely wrong, and it sure is nice not having to hear about it anymore...  ugh...

Hillary would have sent the Paris Accord to congress and it would have been ratified......then they'd be in it.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on September 08, 2017, 08:03:31 AM
Hillary would have sent the Paris Accord to congress and it would have been ratified......then they'd be in it.

The Paris Accord mess is one that really get to me. Plenty of third world countries participate in this. Syria and Nicaragua is the other countries who is not participating.  Does US want to have the same standard as these two (no offense to anyone from these two countries)? Urgh...

Even North Korea with their crazy leader signed it...
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Lagom on September 08, 2017, 09:53:13 AM
Hillary would have sent the Paris Accord to congress and it would have been ratified......then they'd be in it.

The Paris Accord mess is one that really get to me. Plenty of third world countries participate in this. Syria and Nicaragua is the other countries who is not participating.  Does US want to have the same standard as these two (no offense to anyone from these two countries)? Urgh...

Even North Korea with their crazy leader signed it...

Nicaragua didn't sign only because they don't think it went far enough to curb fossil fuel usage:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-40135819

From the linked article:

"Nicaragua's reason for refusing the deal, though, is not because it wanted to burn more fossil fuels, but because the agreement did not go far enough.

The country already gets more than half of its energy from renewable resources, and plans to bump that up to 90% by 2020."
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on September 08, 2017, 12:30:24 PM
Hillary would have sent the Paris Accord to congress and it would have been ratified......then they'd be in it.

The Paris Accord mess is one that really get to me. Plenty of third world countries participate in this. Syria and Nicaragua is the other countries who is not participating.  Does US want to have the same standard as these two (no offense to anyone from these two countries)? Urgh...

Even North Korea with their crazy leader signed it...

Nicaragua didn't sign only because they don't think it went far enough to curb fossil fuel usage:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-40135819

From the linked article:

"Nicaragua's reason for refusing the deal, though, is not because it wanted to burn more fossil fuels, but because the agreement did not go far enough.

The country already gets more than half of its energy from renewable resources, and plans to bump that up to 90% by 2020."

Ah, thank you for the correction!
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on September 08, 2017, 02:26:03 PM
Hillary would have sent the Paris Accord to congress and it would have been ratified......then they'd be in it.

The Paris Accord mess is one that really get to me. Plenty of third world countries participate in this. Syria and Nicaragua is the other countries who is not participating.  Does US want to have the same standard as these two (no offense to anyone from these two countries)? Urgh...

Even North Korea with their crazy leader signed it...

Ahh yes, but we have a President who thinks climate change was invented by the Chinese. So to be fair, a lot of third world countries have smarter leaders.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Glenstache on September 08, 2017, 02:50:13 PM
Hillary would have sent the Paris Accord to congress and it would have been ratified......then they'd be in it.

The Paris Accord mess is one that really get to me. Plenty of third world countries participate in this. Syria and Nicaragua is the other countries who is not participating.  Does US want to have the same standard as these two (no offense to anyone from these two countries)? Urgh...

Even North Korea with their crazy leader signed it...

Ahh yes, but we have a President who thinks climate change was invented by the Chinese. So to be fair, a lot of third world countries have smarter leaders.

So... all we really need to do to move the needle is convince Alex Jones that hiding climate change is a conspiracy worth getting behind. That not letting the public know about the dangers of it is, in fact, a liberal conspiracy promoted by Nancy Pelosi. That would probably convince Trump.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: paddedhat on September 08, 2017, 05:35:36 PM
Hillary would have sent the Paris Accord to congress and it would have been ratified......then they'd be in it.

The Paris Accord mess is one that really get to me. Plenty of third world countries participate in this. Syria and Nicaragua is the other countries who is not participating.  Does US want to have the same standard as these two (no offense to anyone from these two countries)? Urgh...

Even North Korea with their crazy leader signed it...

Ahh yes, but we have a President who thinks climate change was invented by the Chinese. So to be fair, a lot of third world countries have smarter leaders.

So... all we really need to do to move the needle is convince Alex Jones that hiding climate change is a conspiracy worth getting behind. That not letting the public know about the dangers of it is, in fact, a liberal conspiracy promoted by Nancy Pelosi. That would probably convince Trump.

Probably best to have the propagandists at "Fox and Friends" spoon feed the idiot everything, while he is watching and deciding what to parrot, every morning. They could probably find an elementary level discussion of the topic, complete with shiny pictures. A few rounds of, "Climate Change for Children" and Cheeto Mossolini will be a believer.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on September 08, 2017, 06:37:12 PM
Hillary would have sent the Paris Accord to congress and it would have been ratified......then they'd be in it.

The Paris Accord mess is one that really get to me. Plenty of third world countries participate in this. Syria and Nicaragua is the other countries who is not participating.  Does US want to have the same standard as these two (no offense to anyone from these two countries)? Urgh...

Even North Korea with their crazy leader signed it...

Ahh yes, but we have a President who thinks climate change was invented by the Chinese. So to be fair, a lot of third world countries have smarter leaders.

So... all we really need to do to move the needle is convince Alex Jones that hiding climate change is a conspiracy worth getting behind. That not letting the public know about the dangers of it is, in fact, a liberal conspiracy promoted by Nancy Pelosi. That would probably convince Trump.

Probably best to have the propagandists at "Fox and Friends" spoon feed the idiot everything, while he is watching and deciding what to parrot, every morning. They could probably find an elementary level discussion of the topic, complete with shiny pictures. A few rounds of, "Climate Change for Children" and Cheeto Mossolini will be a believer.

How about Rush? Curious to see if anyone stays behind in Florida thinking Hurricane Irma is simply blown out of proportion by liberal propaganda.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on September 09, 2017, 09:31:38 PM
How about Rush? Curious to see if anyone stays behind in Florida thinking Hurricane Irma is simply blown out of proportion by liberal propaganda.
Lol, not Rush. He evacuated.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on September 10, 2017, 10:48:45 AM
"For security reasons" lol
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: bacchi on September 10, 2017, 12:52:33 PM
There's poetic justice in the world if the "liberal" hurricane demolishes his coastal studio.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on September 13, 2017, 03:21:50 PM
Sarah Sanders calls ESPN host Jemele Hill's anti-Trump tweets 'fireable offense'

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/13/media/jemele-hill-espn-white-house/index.html

imo calling white supremacist "some very fine people" is a fireable offense.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on September 14, 2017, 04:42:11 AM
Sarah Sanders calls ESPN host Jemele Hill's anti-Trump tweets 'fireable offense'

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/13/media/jemele-hill-espn-white-house/index.html

imo calling white supremacist "some very fine people" is a fireable offense.

I was thinking the same thing.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Gin1984 on September 14, 2017, 04:18:42 PM
So I was think about this thread.  And the last one that was similar.  You get a lot of worried/upset people here, saying all the bad things that Trump may do.  Yet, even when asked, I have not seen any poster who likes Trump post something (s)he thinks is good that Trump is doing.  I see a lot of but Clinton, but no, I like X. 
I mean, I don't like the fact that he is getting rid of the Dreamers, but to a Trump voter, would that not be a positive?  Why are we not hear from you would what you think a Full Trump Presidency looks looks like?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on September 14, 2017, 05:57:19 PM
So I was think about this thread.  And the last one that was similar.  You get a lot of worried/upset people here, saying all the bad things that Trump may do.  Yet, even when asked, I have not seen any poster who likes Trump post something (s)he thinks is good that Trump is doing.  I see a lot of but Clinton, but no, I like X. 
I mean, I don't like the fact that he is getting rid of the Dreamers, but to a Trump voter, would that not be a positive? Why are we not hear from you would what you think a Full Trump Presidency looks looks like?

The highlighted quote is why this conversation gets so muddled. DACA was going to die in a few weeks1. What Trump did was basically irrelevant as a result. Scratch that. When Trump reversed DACA, from my understanding he put a temporary 'deferred action from deportation' in place. Therefore, instead of DACA being revoked by a judge and dreamers being deported en masse2, they have some breathing room while congress sorts things out.

So this is why it is soo darn hard to talk about the positive for Trump sometimes. Whether you support him or not. His words are harsh to illegal immigrants. Except when he says he loves dreamers. His actions, in repealing DACA, implies he wants to deport them. Then his actions in putting an extension for deferred action implies he doesn't. He explicitly says congress should pass something like DACA or he'll make an executive order. He says he won't grant amnesty. Nancy Pelosi says she had dinner with Trump and he's on board with congress passing something basically like DACA. Trump denies such a compromise was reached.

This is why it is difficult for pro-Trump people to talk good about Trump. On singular topics the amount of dissonance is incredible. There is only one constant. Hillary Clinton would be systematically worst3 in every single area.

1 The rationale for this is that the executive branch can choose to not enforce a law. The complication was that DACA also gave dreamers work permits. Those who were challenging DACA in court were claiming that the latter clause was outside of the president's (Omaha's) authority and only congress could do that. Because of this, my understanding was that by-and-large it was presupposed that it would die in court.

2 Since they gave the government their information, it is a mundane task to deport them

3 This is not a typo
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on September 15, 2017, 02:10:59 AM
Sarah Sanders calls ESPN host Jemele Hill's anti-Trump tweets 'fireable offense'

http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/13/media/jemele-hill-espn-white-house/index.html

imo calling white supremacist "some very fine people" is a fireable offense.

I was thinking the same thing.

"We had a great meeting. Tim Scott's been a friend of mine for a long time. I've been a supporter of his — I was one of his earliest supporters. We had a great talk yesterday. I think especially in light of the advent of Antifa, if you look at what's going on there. You have some pretty bad dudes on the other side also, and essentially that's what I said. Now, because of what's happened since then with Antifa — you look at really what's happened since Charlottesville, a lot of people are saying and people have actually written, 'Gee, Trump might have a point.' I said, 'You've got some very bad people on the other side also,' which is true. But we had a great conversation. And he also has legislation, which I actually like very much, the concept of which I support, to get people going into certain areas and building and constructing and putting people to work. I told him yesterday that's a concept I can support very easily."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/14/politics/trump-antifa-charloteesville/index.html

This guy.... smh
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 15, 2017, 07:06:44 AM
So I was think about this thread.  And the last one that was similar.  You get a lot of worried/upset people here, saying all the bad things that Trump may do.  Yet, even when asked, I have not seen any poster who likes Trump post something (s)he thinks is good that Trump is doing.  I see a lot of but Clinton, but no, I like X. 
I mean, I don't like the fact that he is getting rid of the Dreamers, but to a Trump voter, would that not be a positive?  Why are we not hear from you would what you think a Full Trump Presidency looks looks like?

I think we have few MAGA-folk on this forum. I think I might know like one or two MAGA people in actual real-life, and my friend/social group is pretty right-leaning for suburban Illinois. MMM is a partly environmental movement that's going to turn a bit left.

You might get a fair number of libertarians here, because of the over-representation of finance/IT types. Libertarians that I know that like Trump like Trump because they don't like SJWs/antifa/whatever. They'll change their tune if the GOP ever gets their act together and starts passing stuff they don't like...libertarians tend to be against WHOEVER is in power, though, because whoever in power is almost certainly abusing it (from the libertarian perspective). 

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Wexler on September 15, 2017, 10:04:17 AM
Hillary Clinton would be systematically worst3 in every single area.

Citation needed.  From my view, the passing of the ACA was the single greatest boon to FIRE.  The election of Hillary Clinton would have put in place a veto pen that helped solidify its place in American life. It would have put in place a supreme court justice not dedicated to intellectual contortions to  nullifying the law. The election of Trump is a threat to the existence of the ACA and, therefore, a direct threat to my FIRE.  In this measure, Trump is systematically "worst", along with the rest of his dumpster-fire.

Most of the folks on the forum are pretty pro-ACA, being able to do the math that self-insuring after age 50 without guaranteed issue of insurance is a huge downside risk to anyone's stache.  I wonder how all of the repeal-and-replace supporters here plan on getting insurance without the ACA after FIRE.  Sucking on the public teat and making use of government healthcare through police and teacher retirement programs?  Just going to crossfit? 

So, again, just to repeat:  ACA alone was reason to vote for Clinton, without consideration of light treason, general buffoonery, nepotism (subgenre of suck: Jared Kushner), incompetence, grift, etc.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on September 15, 2017, 10:32:23 AM
Hillary Clinton would be systematically worst3 in every single area.

Apology for going off on a tangent.

Care to explain? I am truly curious. I am no fan of Hillary. Imo any US president will not pull out of Paris accord. Also I do not think any US president would call white supremacist "some very fine people".

I am not sure how HC or anyone who was running last year can be worst than this.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on September 15, 2017, 11:18:26 AM
Hillary Clinton would be systematically worst3 in every single area.

Apology for going off on a tangent.

Care to explain? I am truly curious. I am no fan of Hillary. Imo any US president will not pull out of Paris accord. Also I do not think any US president would call white supremacist "some very fine people".

I am not sure how HC or anyone who was running last year can be worst than this.
I'm curious as well. I'm also not a huge Hillary fan but I don't know if you say this because you're generally against the democratic platform and the way she has voted in the past or if you believe she is as corrupt as she has been portrayed by certain media outlets.

Remember this - however bad you think Trump is now, try and imagine someone like him who ran as a democrat and was using the same tactics he is today to further the democratic party's goals, all while making a mockery of the presidency, causing other governments to look down on us, and engaging in questionable business practices, nepotism, twitter fights, etc.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Samuel on September 15, 2017, 11:26:33 AM
The highlighted quote is why this conversation gets so muddled. DACA was going to die in a few weeks1. What Trump did was basically irrelevant as a result. Scratch that. When Trump reversed DACA, from my understanding he put a temporary 'deferred action from deportation' in place. Therefore, instead of DACA being revoked by a judge and dreamers being deported en masse2, they have some breathing room while congress sorts things out.

The art of politics is found in the subtle balancing of cajoling, convincing, leveraging, threatening, and overall selling of a policy objective. This is yet another example of Trump's political incompetence and lack of message discipline causing self-inflicted damage. There was an imminent legal threat to DACA (although from what I've read it was not at all a slam dunk case) that makes his action fairly reasonable. A competent politician with competent staff would have rolled this out in a way that played much, much better for him. It's not just liberals and the media refusing to give him the benefit of the doubt, it's an inability to devise a strategy and stick to it. When a politician lies and backtracks and waffles as much as he does it's not unreasonable to want to wait and see where he ends up at the end of the day.

If he successfully gets Congress to pass the Dream Act (and is willing to take the fire from his base who he promised the opposite) then he will get the rightful praise, from me at least. Somehow I'm skeptical.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: former player on September 15, 2017, 11:29:39 AM
Hillary Clinton would be systematically worst3 in every single area.

Apology for going off on a tangent.

Care to explain? I am truly curious. I am no fan of Hillary. Imo any US president will not pull out of Paris accord. Also I do not think any US president would call white supremacist "some very fine people".

I am not sure how HC or anyone who was running last year can be worst than this.
I'm curious as well. I'm also not a huge Hillary fan but I don't know if you say this because you're generally against the democratic platform and the way she has voted in the past or if you believe she is as corrupt as she has been portrayed by certain media outlets.

Remember this - however bad you think Trump is now, try and imagine someone like him who ran as a democrat and was using the same tactics he is today to further the democratic party's goals, all while making a mockery of the presidency, causing other governments to look down on us, and engaging in questionable business practices, nepotism, twitter fights, etc.
I suspect it's not actually about Hillary at all, it's just a feed from Trump's continued need to shore up his fragile ego by comparing himself favourably to her.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on September 15, 2017, 12:12:08 PM
Meanwhile...

Trump after today's attack in London-
“The travel ban into the United States should be far larger, tougher and more specific-but stupidly, that would not be politically correct!”

Trump after someone protesting a white supremacist rally is killed-
“you don’t make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don’t know the facts. And it’s a very, very important process to me and it’s an important statement. So I don’t want to go quickly, and just make a statement for the sake of making a political statement.”

I think it's safe to say the first quote here is proposing further bans on people from certain countries and most likely of a certain religion despite the fact that he doesn't yet know who was responsible for the attack in London.

Edit: If it turns out the attacker was from one of the countries he wants to ban, that is irrelevant. Please do not reply to point it out if that is the case.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Gin1984 on September 15, 2017, 01:18:44 PM
So I was think about this thread.  And the last one that was similar.  You get a lot of worried/upset people here, saying all the bad things that Trump may do.  Yet, even when asked, I have not seen any poster who likes Trump post something (s)he thinks is good that Trump is doing.  I see a lot of but Clinton, but no, I like X. 
I mean, I don't like the fact that he is getting rid of the Dreamers, but to a Trump voter, would that not be a positive? Why are we not hear from you would what you think a Full Trump Presidency looks looks like?

The highlighted quote is why this conversation gets so muddled. DACA was going to die in a few weeks1. What Trump did was basically irrelevant as a result. Scratch that. When Trump reversed DACA, from my understanding he put a temporary 'deferred action from deportation' in place. Therefore, instead of DACA being revoked by a judge and dreamers being deported en masse2, they have some breathing room while congress sorts things out.

So this is why it is soo darn hard to talk about the positive for Trump sometimes. Whether you support him or not. His words are harsh to illegal immigrants. Except when he says he loves dreamers. His actions, in repealing DACA, implies he wants to deport them. Then his actions in putting an extension for deferred action implies he doesn't. He explicitly says congress should pass something like DACA or he'll make an executive order. He says he won't grant amnesty. Nancy Pelosi says she had dinner with Trump and he's on board with congress passing something basically like DACA. Trump denies such a compromise was reached.

This is why it is difficult for pro-Trump people to talk good about Trump. On singular topics the amount of dissonance is incredible. There is only one constant. Hillary Clinton would be systematically worst3 in every single area.

1 The rationale for this is that the executive branch can choose to not enforce a law. The complication was that DACA also gave dreamers work permits. Those who were challenging DACA in court were claiming that the latter clause was outside of the president's (Omaha's) authority and only congress could do that. Because of this, my understanding was that by-and-large it was presupposed that it would die in court.

2 Since they gave the government their information, it is a mundane task to deport them

3 This is not a typo

DACA was not going to die in a few weeks, if you want to pretend to cite something, actually cite something.  There are legal arguements for this being constitutional.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: paddedhat on September 15, 2017, 04:04:56 PM
I listen to an expert on immigration law speaking on NPR today. It appears the Trump, until very recently, did not really understand what the DACA  act is really all about. Including the fact that it is limited to children who arrived here before 2007. Hardly a shock to learn that this moron has spent years commenting, twittering, babbling, and now ending a program that he never even bothered to actually educate himself on. Having an idiot like this as the accidental leader of the free world is almost too much to process.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on September 15, 2017, 07:31:44 PM
You humble me Wexler, sequoia, Dabnasty. I'll try to answer your inquiries as polite as possible.

From my view, the passing of the ACA was the single greatest boon to FIRE....The election of Trump is a threat to the existence of the ACA and, therefore, a direct threat to my FIRE. ....

Most of the folks on the forum are pretty pro-ACA, being able to do the math that self-insuring after age 50 without guaranteed issue of insurance is a huge downside risk to anyone's stache.  I wonder how all of the repeal-and-replace supporters here plan on getting insurance without the ACA after FIRE.

I respectively say this is a particularly poor example. The ethics of it in particular rub me the wrong way. I make 4x what my average peer makes. It's possible I make more than any parent at my daughter's school. Every once in awhile on these forums, people share their approximate incomes. I'm not sure where you fit in but I'm a pauper compared to many people on these forums. Attempting FIRE is a pretty bourgeoisie luxury that we can afford. The government does plenty of things to help us bourgeoisie already. I don't consider another advantage as a benefit. I consider it parasitic.

As per it helping us? I don't know one way or another. Wait a moment well I step away to do some calculations. From a Forbe's articles (https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2013/09/29/average-cost-of-obamacare-silver-plan-328-per-month/#17fb28724e3d) I got a calculator (http://www.kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/#state=&zip=&income-type=dollars&income=80000&employer-coverage=0&people=1&alternate-plan-family=individual&adult-count=1&adults%5B0%5D%5Bage%5D=25&adults%5B0%5D%5Btobacco%5D=0&child-count=0&child-tobacco=0) and used it to figure out how much a young adult male my age making my salary would pay in premiums. After financial help, the Bronze plan is 230$ per month. Multiplying that by 173 (http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/06/24/when-the-back-of-the-napkin-can-be-worth-millions/) gives us 39790$. I'm simulating a young man for ten years choosing to not get insurance if the ACA didn't exist and he didn't have a job that supplied insurance until he was 30. Let's invest that for 20 years at a 6% return after inflation. That's 127K. I'm going to guess that the average cost of insurance for someone 50-65 years without the ACA would be 766/month. (We'd I get this number? I fiddled with the above calculator and assumed if the ACA didn't exist there would be some insurance provider who would insure a 50-year old for 15-years at the rate they'd charge a 60-year old under the ACA.) Times 766/month by 12 months in a year times 15 years to get to medicare age and we come to 137K. Since this is a rough estimation, I'd consider the financial impact (for my American counterpart) a wash.

A lot of assumptions went into the above but considering Trump has not repealed the ACA and has made statements suggesting he'd prefer single payer (a suggestion that if made by a President Hillary Clinton would never occur due to Republican opposition), the premise that FIRE is harder under Trump than Clinton w.r.t. to the ACA is tenuous.

Hillary Clinton would be systematically worst3 in every single area.

Apology for going off on a tangent.

Care to explain? I am truly curious. I am no fan of Hillary. Imo any US president will not pull out of Paris accord. Also I do not think any US president would call white supremacist "some very fine people".

I am not sure how HC or anyone who was running last year can be worst than this.

Trump was, at best, misinformed and at worst a fool pandering to the alt-right & white supremacists. I am of the latter opinion but there is a construction for the former: Trump is an idiot and conflated people who are "pro Keeping Confederate Statues" with the people who organized the Charlottesville Protest.

This is an area I can say that Trump is better at than Hillary. I make the more generalized postulation below in response to Dabnasty. In the world a year ago, large subsections of the conservative movement denounced the alt-right. The #NeverTrump movement and Ben Shapiro being major detractors of it. Later, particularly around the time Robert Spencer did a Nazi salute while shouting "Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory" in November, many others joined in renouncing the alt-right. We saw the Alt-Lite/New-Life form (basically the Alt-Right but with an explicitly rejection of White Nationalism), people like the founder of Vice media Gavin McInnes, his Proud Boys and Rebel Media consciously make choices to not associate or intermix with any event related to the Alt-Right.

Now, in this world, because Donald Trump panders to the alt-right, no one likes them. It is well-understood that the only way someone can agree with the alt-right is if they are racist or ignorant of what the alt-right is. Also, people are starting to notice the violent sects in Antifa. Part of this I credit to Trump. When he threatens Berkeley's funding for letting Antifa have a heckler's veto. When he mentions correctly that some of the counter-protesters in Charlottesville were violent. It raises visibility on the issue.

Now, let's imagine an alternate world, one where Clinton had won. I'd posit that both the Alt-Right and violent groups on the left like BAHM and Antifa wouldn't be facing the scrutiny they are now under. Let's start right. Perhaps Robert Spencer and white nationalists wouldn't have been so brazen in their hatred; ergo less people would have disassociated from them. Let's go left. We know due to recent evidence that the Obaha Administration (not Barrack in particular) was already turning a blind eye to the "alt-left". I'd doubt a President Clinton would have threatened Berkley or condemned their violence (an interview got released a few hours ago with Clinton. Some headlines implies she rejects the notion that antifa is violent but I haven't read the transcript or watched the interview.)

I'm curious as well. I'm also not a huge Hillary fan but I don't know if you say this because you're generally against the democratic platform and the way she has voted in the past or if you believe she is as corrupt as she has been portrayed by certain media outlets.

Trump is a polarizing figure. Even Republicans won't support him. The attempted repeal of the ACA or the heat he got from them is over DACA is an example of this. History and subjective evaluation may prove me wrong but I think he won't really anything that is irreversibly destructive due to this trait. In other words, he's impotent.

Anything extreme Trump wants to do will be mutually blocked by Republicans and Democrats. After many things that happened with President Obaha (ex. conflicts, wall street bailouts, etc...), I don't trust Democrats to feign opposition to a Democratic president. The Republicans have proven their low-quality metal: they're willing to abandon their supposed principals, their base, and Trump to save themselves.

To restate this: if one has to choose between a horrible president that has their hands tied by both parties and a horrible president who will have half of congress on their side, the man with small hands is the better choice in every single measure in my opinion.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on September 15, 2017, 07:32:05 PM
.....
DACA was not going to die in a few weeks, if you want to pretend to cite something, actually cite something.  There are legal arguements for this being constitutional.

Will one example be sufficient? Texas was going to sue the United State if Trump didn't dump DACA by September 5th. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/29/politics/trump-daca-immigration-decision/index.html) Let's take Texas as being genuine since they did just that last year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Texas) against DAPA and won. Jeff Sessions, whose sole reason for being in the Trump administration is to fight against illegal immigration, would not have defended the DACA in court. In other words, it would have died in the lower courts.

(The only route DACA had to survive would be if Texas and the other states didn't sue or if Jeff Sessions decided to defend DACA vigorously all the way to the Supreme Court where Gorsuch accidentally delivers the deciding vote in favour of DACA)
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on September 15, 2017, 07:58:07 PM
Hillary Clinton would be systematically worst3 in every single area.

Apology for going off on a tangent.

Care to explain? I am truly curious. I am no fan of Hillary. Imo any US president will not pull out of Paris accord. Also I do not think any US president would call white supremacist "some very fine people".

I am not sure how HC or anyone who was running last year can be worst than this.
I'm curious as well. I'm also not a huge Hillary fan but I don't know if you say this because you're generally against the democratic platform and the way she has voted in the past or if you believe she is as corrupt as she has been portrayed by certain media outlets.

Remember this - however bad you think Trump is now, try and imagine someone like him who ran as a democrat and was using the same tactics he is today to further the democratic party's goals, all while making a mockery of the presidency, causing other governments to look down on us, and engaging in questionable business practices, nepotism, twitter fights, etc.

If I, use a personal email server out of my home to do business for the company that I work for, I would be fired on the spot. Chances are, I will not be able to get another job that is comparable (or very difficult to get another job) once my potential/future boss finds out what I did. Can you imagine going to an interview and being questioned about this? There is no justification for having email server at home - saying I dunno, I am dumb, etc is not an excuse. So imo HC should be disqualified to even run as President. That is why I am not a fan. Got nothing to do so and so being a Republican or Democrat.

Back to topic at hand :)

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Gin1984 on September 15, 2017, 08:01:59 PM
.....
DACA was not going to die in a few weeks, if you want to pretend to cite something, actually cite something.  There are legal arguements for this being constitutional.

Will one example be sufficient? Texas was going to sue the United State if Trump didn't dump DACA by September 5th. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/29/politics/trump-daca-immigration-decision/index.html) Let's take Texas as being genuine since they did just that last year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Texas) against DAPA and won. Jeff Sessions, whose sole reason for being in the Trump administration is to fight against illegal immigration, would not have defended the DACA in court. In other words, it would have died in the lower courts.

(The only route DACA had to survive would be if Texas and the other states didn't sue or if Jeff Sessions decided to defend DACA vigorously all the way to the Supreme Court where Gorsuch accidentally delivers the deciding vote in favour of DACA)
A state suing does not mean they will win and there is no way that they would have a verdict in a couple of weeks.  So, your example does not prove what you think it does.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on September 16, 2017, 03:52:03 AM
.....
DACA was not going to die in a few weeks, if you want to pretend to cite something, actually cite something.  There are legal arguements for this being constitutional.

Will one example be sufficient? Texas was going to sue the United State if Trump didn't dump DACA by September 5th. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/29/politics/trump-daca-immigration-decision/index.html) Let's take Texas as being genuine since they did just that last year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Texas) against DAPA and won. Jeff Sessions, whose sole reason for being in the Trump administration is to fight against illegal immigration, would not have defended the DACA in court. In other words, it would have died in the lower courts.

(The only route DACA had to survive would be if Texas and the other states didn't sue or if Jeff Sessions decided to defend DACA vigorously all the way to the Supreme Court where Gorsuch accidentally delivers the deciding vote in favour of DACA)
A state suing does not mean they will win and there is no way that they would have a verdict in a couple of weeks.  So, your example does not prove what you think it does.

Do you think the Trump administration, Jeff Sessions in particular, would defend DACA? When Texas sued over DAPA, they got a ruling in a matter of weeks. Is there some type of backlog in the lower courts that would impede them getting a courtroom any time soon?

I have to reiterate my previous statement. Unless you think Texas and other states were bluffing or that the Trump Administration would have defended DACA in court, there is no way DACA was going to live.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: calimom on September 16, 2017, 11:33:04 AM
I listen to an expert on immigration law speaking on NPR today. It appears the Trump, until very recently, did not really understand what the DACA  act is really all about. Including the fact that it is limited to children who arrived here before 2007. Hardly a shock to learn that this moron has spent years commenting, twittering, babbling, and now ending a program that he never even bothered to actually educate himself on. Having an idiot like this as the accidental leader of the free world is almost too much to process.

Pretty much this. 45 babbles and pontificates about immigration/the environment/the economy/international relations/race issues and many, many topics he doesn't have the first clue about. Instead of actually digging in and reading about something, being briefed by actual experts, he just emotionally reacts. His base loves it and applauds his ignorance (it reinforces their own ignorance) but it's pretty frightening to the rest of the population.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 18, 2017, 08:14:25 AM
.....
DACA was not going to die in a few weeks, if you want to pretend to cite something, actually cite something.  There are legal arguements for this being constitutional.

Will one example be sufficient? Texas was going to sue the United State if Trump didn't dump DACA by September 5th. (http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/29/politics/trump-daca-immigration-decision/index.html) Let's take Texas as being genuine since they did just that last year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Texas) against DAPA and won. Jeff Sessions, whose sole reason for being in the Trump administration is to fight against illegal immigration, would not have defended the DACA in court. In other words, it would have died in the lower courts.

(The only route DACA had to survive would be if Texas and the other states didn't sue or if Jeff Sessions decided to defend DACA vigorously all the way to the Supreme Court where Gorsuch accidentally delivers the deciding vote in favour of DACA)
A state suing does not mean they will win and there is no way that they would have a verdict in a couple of weeks.  So, your example does not prove what you think it does.

Do you think the Trump administration, Jeff Sessions in particular, would defend DACA? When Texas sued over DAPA, they got a ruling in a matter of weeks. Is there some type of backlog in the lower courts that would impede them getting a courtroom any time soon?

I have to reiterate my previous statement. Unless you think Texas and other states were bluffing or that the Trump Administration would have defended DACA in court, there is no way DACA was going to live.

DACA and DAPA were not going to live after Trump was elected President. The justices were already split 4-4 and Neil Gorsuch would probably vote against the program.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Wexler on September 18, 2017, 09:34:40 AM
Now, in this world, because Donald Trump panders to the alt-right, no one likes them. It is well-understood that the only way someone can agree with the alt-right is if they are racist or ignorant of what the alt-right is. Also, people are starting to notice the violent sects in Antifa. Part of this I credit to Trump. When he threatens Berkeley's funding for letting Antifa have a heckler's veto. When he mentions correctly that some of the counter-protesters in Charlottesville were violent. It raises visibility on the issue.

Now, let's imagine an alternate world, one where Clinton had won. I'd posit that both the Alt-Right and violent groups on the left like BAHM and Antifa wouldn't be facing the scrutiny they are now under. Let's start right. Perhaps Robert Spencer and white nationalists wouldn't have been so brazen in their hatred; ergo less people would have disassociated from them. Let's go left. We know due to recent evidence that the Obaha Administration (not Barrack in particular) was already turning a blind eye to the "alt-left". I'd doubt a President Clinton would have threatened Berkley or condemned their violence (an interview got released a few hours ago with Clinton. Some headlines implies she rejects the notion that antifa is violent but I haven't read the transcript or watched the interview.)


What did I just read?  Did Trump-justifying mental contortions just rip a hole in the space-time continuum and now someone is actually arguing that it's a GOOD thing that the president, with the power and responsibility of the office, panders to white supremacists because it draws negative attention to them? 

I'd rather the president not be a white supremacist panderer.  Full stop.  And, by the way, even the hand-waving raising awareness argument is BS.  Though there's more attention on the issue, the end result of that attention is that hate crimes against minorities are sharply up.

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on September 18, 2017, 07:58:15 PM
I'd rather the president not be a white supremacist panderer.  Full stop.

+1.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Lagom on September 18, 2017, 08:29:59 PM
"Still no charity money from leftover Trump inaugural funds":

https://apnews.com/0756ba7480444895b4fabc9a2f0909b3

You mean he promised to donate $$$ and then didn't??? I am SHOCKED, I tell you.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on September 19, 2017, 04:09:15 AM
What did I just read?  Did Trump-justifying mental contortions just rip a hole in the space-time continuum and now someone is actually arguing that it's a GOOD thing that the president, with the power and responsibility of the office, panders to white supremacists because it draws negative attention to them? 

I'd rather the president not be a white supremacist panderer.  Full stop.

I think you are slightly misreading my intent. I am not saying it is good to have a president that panders to hate groups. I am saying it is better to have a disliked president that panders to hate groups and gets flak for it than a president that panders to hate groups that has those views left largely uncriticized.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on September 19, 2017, 06:51:44 AM
What did I just read?  Did Trump-justifying mental contortions just rip a hole in the space-time continuum and now someone is actually arguing that it's a GOOD thing that the president, with the power and responsibility of the office, panders to white supremacists because it draws negative attention to them? 

I'd rather the president not be a white supremacist panderer.  Full stop.

I think you are slightly misreading my intent. I am not saying it is good to have a president that panders to hate groups. I am saying it is better to have a disliked president that panders to hate groups and gets flak for it than a president that panders to hate groups that has those views left largely uncriticized.

Ah, so you are glad we aren't living in Nazi Germany, during slavery, etc.  This is the kind of 'progress' that takes America back a century if it goes on long enough.  And with a full 4 (or heaven forbid 8) years of Trump, I fear that America could very well slip backwards as we become desensitized to just how shocking and outrageous this President acts and how pervasive his message has become.

I read a snippet of speculative fiction about a dystopian future full of Trump real estate and products and businesses...  With a family as large and now publicly entrenched as the Trumps, it might not end up being that unrealistic.   
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on September 19, 2017, 09:04:45 AM
What did I just read?  Did Trump-justifying mental contortions just rip a hole in the space-time continuum and now someone is actually arguing that it's a GOOD thing that the president, with the power and responsibility of the office, panders to white supremacists because it draws negative attention to them? 

I'd rather the president not be a white supremacist panderer.  Full stop.

I think you are slightly misreading my intent. I am not saying it is good to have a president that panders to hate groups. I am saying it is better to have a disliked president that panders to hate groups and gets flak for it than a president that panders to hate groups that has those views left largely uncriticized.
Have you considered how much groups like Antifa have grown since Trump won the election? Or that they primarily exist as a counter protest to white supremacists?

These groups are not equivalent. Not in terms of size, not in terms of violence, and definitely not in terms of motive. The last time we had this discussion the thread was shut down because it is an embarrassment to the forum when someone suggests otherwise.

Mind you, I acknowledge that their methods are misled because A) they are against free speech B) they use violence and C) they are only giving people on the right a reason to lean further right. You say their views are largely left uncriticized but I see lots of criticism of Antifa coming from both sides.

One last thing, here are some statistics on the number of people killed by extremists - By their nature cases of murder are outliers and typically I prefer to keep statistical outliers out of these conversations but the difference is enough that I think this is relevant.
Quote
Over the past 10 years (2007-2016), domestic extremists of all kinds have killed at least 372 people in the United States. Of those deaths, approximately 74% were at the hands of right-wing extremists, about 24% of the victims were killed by domestic Islamic extremists, and the remainder were killed by left-wing extremists.

https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/murder-and-extremism-in-the-united-states-in-2016 (https://www.adl.org/education/resources/reports/murder-and-extremism-in-the-united-states-in-2016)


Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: infogoon on September 21, 2017, 08:13:15 AM
This is yet another example of Trump's political incompetence and lack of message discipline causing self-inflicted damage.

I think the best description I've seen of the President is "someone who watched an episode of ER trying to perform surgery". He has absolutely no idea what he's doing, nor does he understand his role in the government. He thinks it's like his former life as the CEO of a family business, where everyone is required to do what he tells them and then he just hangs back and waits for things to show up on his desk for signature.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: partgypsy on September 21, 2017, 09:44:43 AM
infogoon I agree. I've been enjoying the "signing" memes. It's a way to poke in a kind manner, the emperor has no clothes.

https://twitter.com/TrumpDraws

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on September 21, 2017, 09:50:44 AM
This is yet another example of Trump's political incompetence and lack of message discipline causing self-inflicted damage.

I think the best description I've seen of the President is "someone who watched an episode of ER trying to perform surgery". He has absolutely no idea what he's doing, nor does he understand his role in the government. He thinks it's like his former life as the CEO of a family business, where everyone is required to do what he tells them and then he just hangs back and waits for things to show up on his desk for signature.

+1.

It amazes me to watch his speech at the UN, such as calling a crazy North Korean leader a Rocket Man among other things that he said. This is not third grade anymore. Calling anyone names gets you nothing, and yet he does not seems to understand this. NK is not going to just give up their nukes just because US president say something on twitter...

For a guy who is so self conscious of his own image (size of my hands, size of the crowd in my rallies, in my inauguration, blah blah), I am surprised he does not see it that the entire world is laughing at what he does.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: paddedhat on September 21, 2017, 01:26:54 PM

For a guy who is so self conscious of his own image (size of my hands, size of the crowd in my rallies, in my inauguration, blah blah), I am surprised he does not see it that the entire world is laughing at what he does.

When you suffer from the mental illness of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, you do not "see" much of anything other than what is needed to fuel your ego in the moment. He is surrounded by a whole cult of personality, who bites and slash at each other for the chance to be first in line to lather his ass. He walks away from the podium in cases like this, only to be showered with adulation by his minions. The opinion of the "entire world" isn't important if Fox and Friends congratulates him on his brilliant speech, and his lap dogs tell him how great he is.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: wenchsenior on September 21, 2017, 04:14:52 PM

For a guy who is so self conscious of his own image (size of my hands, size of the crowd in my rallies, in my inauguration, blah blah), I am surprised he does not see it that the entire world is laughing at what he does.

When you suffer from the mental illness of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, you do not "see" much of anything other than what is needed to fuel your ego in the moment. He is surrounded by a whole cult of personality, who bites and slash at each other for the chance to be first in line to lather his ass. He walks away from the podium in cases like this, only to be showered with adulation by his minions. The opinion of the "entire world" isn't important if Fox and Friends congratulates him on his brilliant speech, and his lap dogs tell him how great he is.

Yup. 

I have a close relationship with someone with NPD and it is GLARINGLY obvious that Trump has it. I mean, narcissism is a normal personality trait and it occurs on a spectrum, which is only considered disordered at the far ends of the spectrum. And most politicians and a lot of leaders score fairly high on the scale (presumably it is a trait that helps you have confidence to shrug off the criticism that comes with those positions). But the actual personality disorder is FAR more intense...in that case, the sufferer isn't really even dealing with realty.  They can't deal with any criticism, can't be wrong, are hypervigilant to perceived disrespect and slights, overreact to such, etc.  The NPD case I know deals with such situations by immediately rewriting reality in their head as they live it, so that it conforms to their ego needs.   And then, they proceed onward convinced of their version of events, until the next time they need to rewrite it. 

Trump lies constantly in blatant and obvious ways, with no attempt to rectify discrepancies with reality or his own previous statements.  It seems obvious that if people keep pointing out his lies, eventually he will stop doing it.  But he CAN'T stop doing it.  NPD sufferers really believe what they are saying in the moment nearly all of the time; they HAVE to, or the cognitive dissonance between their own inflated view of their awesome versus cold reality would send them into a breakdown.  Sometimes it DOES send them into a breakdown.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on September 21, 2017, 06:56:49 PM

For a guy who is so self conscious of his own image (size of my hands, size of the crowd in my rallies, in my inauguration, blah blah), I am surprised he does not see it that the entire world is laughing at what he does.

When you suffer from the mental illness of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, you do not "see" much of anything other than what is needed to fuel your ego in the moment. He is surrounded by a whole cult of personality, who bites and slash at each other for the chance to be first in line to lather his ass. He walks away from the podium in cases like this, only to be showered with adulation by his minions. The opinion of the "entire world" isn't important if Fox and Friends congratulates him on his brilliant speech, and his lap dogs tell him how great he is.

Yup. 

I have a close relationship with someone with NPD and it is GLARINGLY obvious that Trump has it. I mean, narcissism is a normal personality trait and it occurs on a spectrum, which is only considered disordered at the far ends of the spectrum. And most politicians and a lot of leaders score fairly high on the scale (presumably it is a trait that helps you have confidence to shrug off the criticism that comes with those positions). But the actual personality disorder is FAR more intense...in that case, the sufferer isn't really even dealing with realty.  They can't deal with any criticism, can't be wrong, are hypervigilant to perceived disrespect and slights, overreact to such, etc.  The NPD case I know deals with such situations by immediately rewriting reality in their head as they live it, so that it conforms to their ego needs.   And then, they proceed onward convinced of their version of events, until the next time they need to rewrite it. 

Trump lies constantly in blatant and obvious ways, with no attempt to rectify discrepancies with reality or his own previous statements.  It seems obvious that if people keep pointing out his lies, eventually he will stop doing it.  But he CAN'T stop doing it.  NPD sufferers really believe what they are saying in the moment nearly all of the time; they HAVE to, or the cognitive dissonance between their own inflated view of their awesome versus cold reality would send them into a breakdown.  Sometimes it DOES send them into a breakdown.

Truth. My first husband had NPD -- not nearly as bad or as blatant as Trump, but definitely not in the "normal" range of narcissism. He once tried to choke me because I said something he couldn't re-write fast enough. In the middle of the freeway. While he was driving. I'm lucky I wasn't killed, either by him cutting off my air supply, or by the resulting crash.

I made a (crazy, stupid) last-ditch attempt at marriage counseling after that. He told the therapist he wasn't sorry, because I drove him to it. And come to find out after the session, he actually rewrote the scene in his head so that the therapist agreed with him.

One difference, of course, is that Trump is rich, and has had a lifetime of people basically helping him to rewrite all the stories/scenes to make him feel like a big man. But you can sure as hell see the crazy come out whenever he gets too close to the edge of a narrative he doesn't like before turning his back on it and going back into his comfortable cocoon.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: former player on September 22, 2017, 04:55:48 AM
Trump has now started swapping twitter insults with Kim Jong In.

For fuck's sake, what good outcome does he think that's going to get?

And why the fuck can't the grown ups take the phone from his tiny little fingers, flush it down a White House toilet and sit on him until he fucking grows up?

Chances of getting to the end of 4 years without a nuclear winter not looking good at the moment.

Please, Mr Mueller, move as fast as you can.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: jim555 on September 22, 2017, 05:51:58 AM
Rocketman launched a weaponized old english insult scoring a direct hit for perfect usage!
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: NoStacheOhio on September 22, 2017, 06:05:19 AM
What did I just read?  Did Trump-justifying mental contortions just rip a hole in the space-time continuum and now someone is actually arguing that it's a GOOD thing that the president, with the power and responsibility of the office, panders to white supremacists because it draws negative attention to them? 

I'd rather the president not be a white supremacist panderer.  Full stop.

I think you are slightly misreading my intent. I am not saying it is good to have a president that panders to hate groups. I am saying it is better to have a disliked president that panders to hate groups and gets flak for it than a president that panders to hate groups that has those views left largely uncriticized.

Are you talking about a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton who doesn't go far enough, in your opinion, to condemn groups like Antifa, or a hypothetical world in which President Donald Trump has the full-throated support of the Republican party? If the former, that's still a false equivalence between groups that promote violence based on demographic factors and groups that oppose the first, sometimes violently.

Look, I'm generally against violence, regardless of the reason. Violently engaging white supremacists (or other oppressive groups) is proven to be counter-productive. It's also not the same as violent white supremacy.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 22, 2017, 08:21:13 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/21/tom-price-private-charter-plane-flights-242989

Remember when Trump railed against Obama for excess personal spending in his administration?

"Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price has taken at least 24 flights on private charter planes at taxpayers’ expense since early May, according to people with knowledge of his travel plans and a review of HHS documents."
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Sibley on September 22, 2017, 08:51:01 AM
Well, based on all the insults that Trump and North Korea have been trading lately, the US is going to drop a nuke on North Korea, then China and/or Russia are going to retaliate against the US. North Korea's been saber rattling for decades, it's Trump escalating things. Which makes the US the aggressor.  Of course, then the US will retaliate against China/Russia, leaving the US, China/Russia, and North Korea smoking pits.

I would advise our allies to stay out of that fight and emerge to be the dominate world power.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Glenstache on September 22, 2017, 09:02:12 AM
I will hand it to Kim. Dotard is likely to be an effective insult against Trump. In part because he will not know the word and be doubly incensed that Ivanka has to kindly, gently explain it to him.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on September 22, 2017, 09:19:37 AM
Well, based on all the insults that Trump and North Korea have been trading lately, the US is going to drop a nuke on North Korea, then China and/or Russia are going to retaliate against the US. North Korea's been saber rattling for decades, it's Trump escalating things. Which makes the US the aggressor.  Of course, then the US will retaliate against China/Russia, leaving the US, China/Russia, and North Korea smoking pits.

I would advise our allies to stay out of that fight and emerge to be the dominate world power.

The US being the aggressor is the norm though historically, isn't it?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: NoStacheOhio on September 22, 2017, 09:29:28 AM
Well, based on all the insults that Trump and North Korea have been trading lately, the US is going to drop a nuke on North Korea, then China and/or Russia are going to retaliate against the US. North Korea's been saber rattling for decades, it's Trump escalating things. Which makes the US the aggressor.  Of course, then the US will retaliate against China/Russia, leaving the US, China/Russia, and North Korea smoking pits.

I would advise our allies to stay out of that fight and emerge to be the dominate world power.

The US being the aggressor is the norm though historically, isn't it?

I'm not sure the sample size is large enough to have a norm. We were very clearly reluctant to enter WWI and WWII. Since then, we've done more than our fair share of aggression.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on September 22, 2017, 09:34:38 AM
Well, based on all the insults that Trump and North Korea have been trading lately, the US is going to drop a nuke on North Korea, then China and/or Russia are going to retaliate against the US. North Korea's been saber rattling for decades, it's Trump escalating things. Which makes the US the aggressor.  Of course, then the US will retaliate against China/Russia, leaving the US, China/Russia, and North Korea smoking pits.

I would advise our allies to stay out of that fight and emerge to be the dominate world power.

The US being the aggressor is the norm though historically, isn't it?

I'm not sure the sample size is large enough to have a norm. We were very clearly reluctant to enter WWI and WWII. Since then, we've done more than our fair share of aggression.

What kind of sample size do you want?  My understanding is that the only time the US has gone without war for five years was during the Great Depression.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Glenstache on September 22, 2017, 09:51:23 AM
Well, based on all the insults that Trump and North Korea have been trading lately, the US is going to drop a nuke on North Korea, then China and/or Russia are going to retaliate against the US. North Korea's been saber rattling for decades, it's Trump escalating things. Which makes the US the aggressor.  Of course, then the US will retaliate against China/Russia, leaving the US, China/Russia, and North Korea smoking pits.

I would advise our allies to stay out of that fight and emerge to be the dominate world power.

The US being the aggressor is the norm though historically, isn't it?

I'm not sure the sample size is large enough to have a norm. We were very clearly reluctant to enter WWI and WWII. Since then, we've done more than our fair share of aggression.

And also when we invaded Mexico, took Mexico City, and then "bought" the northern half of their country. I guess that could be considered a strongarm negotiation. Pretty ruthless suppression of indigenous peoples....
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: NoStacheOhio on September 22, 2017, 10:07:24 AM
What kind of sample size do you want?  My understanding is that the only time the US has gone without war for five years was during the Great Depression.

One war is only one war, regardless of duration. To me, it's sort of analogous to Presidential elections; they happen regularly, but it's still a small sample size statistically speaking, and they aren't easily comparable with one another.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 22, 2017, 10:31:43 AM
Well, based on all the insults that Trump and North Korea have been trading lately, the US is going to drop a nuke on North Korea, then China and/or Russia are going to retaliate against the US. North Korea's been saber rattling for decades, it's Trump escalating things. Which makes the US the aggressor.  Of course, then the US will retaliate against China/Russia, leaving the US, China/Russia, and North Korea smoking pits.

I would advise our allies to stay out of that fight and emerge to be the dominate world power.

The US being the aggressor is the norm though historically, isn't it?

I'm not sure the sample size is large enough to have a norm. We were very clearly reluctant to enter WWI and WWII. Since then, we've done more than our fair share of aggression.

And also when we invaded Mexico, took Mexico City, and then "bought" the northern half of their country. I guess that could be considered a strongarm negotiation. Pretty ruthless suppression of indigenous peoples....

Mexican-American war is probably the most obvious case of blatant American aggression. There was a legitimate border dispute, but the President was pushing to escalate it into full-blown war. Hell even General Grant said the only reason we were militarizing the dispute was to provoke the Mexicans into attacking us.

Any nation continually involved in conflict, like the US, is not an angel. It's not like you see Sweden and Switzerland getting involved in disputes elsewhere every year. Taking Trump's tweets as acts of aggression re: NK is stepping over a different line, IMO. NK has committed multiple acts of war against us and our allies over the past several decades, any of which would entitle us to blow the crap out of them.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Poundwise on September 22, 2017, 10:46:24 AM

And also when we invaded Mexico, took Mexico City, and then "bought" the northern half of their country. I guess that could be considered a strongarm negotiation. Pretty ruthless suppression of indigenous peoples....

Mexican-American war is probably the most obvious case of blatant American aggression. There was a legitimate border dispute, but the President was pushing to escalate it into full-blown war. Hell even General Grant said the only reason we were militarizing the dispute was to provoke the Mexicans into attacking us.


I'm just wandering blithely into the end of this discussion, but has anybody brought up the consideration that a lot of the horrible Mexicans and Guatemalans, etc. are often descended from indigenous peoples of the Americas? What is the natural right of the U.S. to forbid their crossing and recrossing of the borders? Though of course "might makes right". I mean, who are really the immigrants?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Just Joe on September 22, 2017, 12:30:08 PM
I haven't even read the whole thread but I promise I will - it dawned on me yesterday how the Trump presidency will likely play out:

Nothing will happen.

He MIGHT be forced to resign. As in behind closed doors it is revealed to him that the investigators have something very damning on him that could lead to criminal charges but for the good of the nation, the good of the political parties, and for the good of the Trump family name - it would be better for him to go home gracefully. Sort of a Nixon exit.

The reason I believe this is that George W. Bush and his team invaded a sovereign country under false premises that created a situation where half a million Iraqis were killed, a government (albeit an unfriendly one) was toppled, an economy was damaged, and all this gave rise to a terrorist situation (ISIS/ISIL) that led to problems for surrounding countries, gave rise to a level of hatred and distrust of our government that will take some time to dissipate, perhaps generations.

Yes Saddam Hussein was a bad, bad man but I haven't read anything that connects him or his people to the 9/11 attacks. He probably did need removal but by other means than an invasion. Same as Kim Jong-un. do it right and avoid the power vacuum that leads to compounding political and social problems or don't do it at all. The war deaths could be argued to be many times worse than the human rights abuses these dictators are accused of.

Nobody went to jail from the Bush group and to me that's amazing.

My amateur opinion that it was all about establishing a military and political (and corporate) foothold in the Middle East not subject to the Saudi or Israeli governments. Break the government, install a new one that is permissive and friendly to the American regional goals but then it got to be very messy with ISIS/ISIL. Unexpected outcomes and challenges. And all that oil is a bonus.

I'm sure that the ability to lean on (pressure) Iran is a motivator too.

This is no different than what has gone on for 100 years. Places all around the globe where our government has setup shop and put down the opposition. Sometimes they label it as a fight against terrorism, or a fight against communism or some other -ism.

Had the Russians done the same in Iraq in the 2000s would be hell to pay according to the very same American leadership that invaded Iraq.

Funny how upset DC got about Russia taking some of Ukraine's territory. And how DC did nothing about it either.

So, I don't expect anything to happen to Trump except perhaps a smack on the wrist and perhaps an asterisk next to his name in the history books. What he has done has great political value - its a tool that can be used against political rivals within DC - but nothing will happen.

Lets hope the rest of us fair as well b/c frankly the contest of egos between Trump and the fellow in North Korea worries me a fair amount. Both of them are unpredictable and neither of them care much about anyone but themselves.

I have a son that would benefit from an enlistment in the Navy like I did years ago. Right now I'm counseling against it b/c the future is too uncertain and it would destroy me knowing that he was hurt in a pointless military action as we have repeatedly seen in the past 50 years.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Just Joe on September 22, 2017, 12:44:08 PM
I forgot to add - I think the federal bureaucracy would protect us from Trump launching missiles on a whim in much the same way they supposedly protected us from Nixon.

However nothing protects us from Kim Jong-un's whims and Trump's mouth.

Trump could very well run his mouth until North Korea did something impulsive that our government might be motivated to violently respond to.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: NoStacheOhio on September 22, 2017, 01:04:44 PM
I forgot to add - I think the federal bureaucracy would protect us from Trump launching missiles on a whim in much the same way they supposedly protected us from Nixon.


There isn't really any bureaucracy between POTUS and a launch order. I think Mattis is obligated to say "yes, this order really came from the President," and that's about it.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: former player on September 22, 2017, 01:27:22 PM
I forgot to add - I think the federal bureaucracy would protect us from Trump launching missiles on a whim in much the same way they supposedly protected us from Nixon.


There isn't really any bureaucracy between POTUS and a launch order. I think Mattis is obligated to say "yes, this order really came from the President," and that's about it.
Yes, unless Mattis says "I don't recognise you as President" and then has Trump hauled off to the funny farm in a straight jacket the planet and everyone on it is fucked.

The difference between Bush's disastrous, illegal, murderous war in Iraq and Trump is that Bush was acting in a public capacity.  The activities which could get Trump indicted or impeached are all about his private benefit and so will have fewer people lining up to support them.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 22, 2017, 01:37:44 PM

And also when we invaded Mexico, took Mexico City, and then "bought" the northern half of their country. I guess that could be considered a strongarm negotiation. Pretty ruthless suppression of indigenous peoples....

Mexican-American war is probably the most obvious case of blatant American aggression. There was a legitimate border dispute, but the President was pushing to escalate it into full-blown war. Hell even General Grant said the only reason we were militarizing the dispute was to provoke the Mexicans into attacking us.


I'm just wandering blithely into the end of this discussion, but has anybody brought up the consideration that a lot of the horrible Mexicans and Guatemalans, etc. are often descended from indigenous peoples of the Americas? What is the natural right of the U.S. to forbid their crossing and recrossing of the borders? Though of course "might makes right". I mean, who are really the immigrants?

Depends on where you think rights come from...in current international relations, each nation has a government which has sovereignty over its chunk of land, and can do whatever it wants within its own borders. The people in Mexico and Guatemala aren't allowed in because the US government says they aren't, and the US government has sovereignty over the US territory.

The groups in Mexico and Guatemala aren't the same groups that were in the US in any case. There was a unique domestic Amerindian culture in the US from the 700s onward, so by the time the Europeans arrive in force, there's been almost 1,000 years of effective separation. There's some cultural exchange, but they are distinct civilizations.


Joe,
I don't see any reason to doubt the stated objective and method of operation in Iraq. Dubya is an idealist who thinks that civilizations are naturally democratic and have nothing more than a thin veneer of tyranny over said societies. Remove dictator, provide some support, get democracy.

This has been an American idea for a century, since Wilson's 14 points. I'd argue it's a total delusion and does not consider the considerable ethnic strife that exists in most nations, or religious strife, or other strife, none of which people necessarily want to solve democratically.

I wouldn't say that nothing will happen on Korea. But large-scale war is the exception, not the rule, so it's always better to bet on "no war" than "war." If we're considering personalities, I think Trump is too chicken to  start a fight.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on September 22, 2017, 07:40:09 PM
What did I just read?  Did Trump-justifying mental contortions just rip a hole in the space-time continuum and now someone is actually arguing that it's a GOOD thing that the president, with the power and responsibility of the office, panders to white supremacists because it draws negative attention to them? 

I'd rather the president not be a white supremacist panderer.  Full stop.

I think you are slightly misreading my intent. I am not saying it is good to have a president that panders to hate groups. I am saying it is better to have a disliked president that panders to hate groups and gets flak for it than a president that panders to hate groups that has those views left largely uncriticized.

Are you talking about a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton who doesn't go far enough, in your opinion, to condemn groups like Antifa, or a hypothetical world in which President Donald Trump has the full-throated support of the Republican party? If the former, that's still a false equivalence between groups that promote violence based on demographic factors and groups that oppose the first, sometimes violently.

Look, I'm generally against violence, regardless of the reason. Violently engaging white supremacists (or other oppressive groups) is proven to be counter-productive. It's also not the same as violent white supremacy.

Antifa does not oppose "groups that promote violence based on demographic factors". They oppose, violently, any group that isn't them.

Just last week, because of Antifa Berkeley had to spend 600K on security to protect an event with Ben Shapiro. A centre-right Orthodox Jew who's married to someone who isn't white. Someone who left Breitbart for its alt-right connections and routinely denounces the alt-right. In fact, Antifa has a strange habit of protesting, violently, Jews.

Antifa will routinely crash free speech rallies and assault people in mass (even when the organizers denounce white supremacists and have anti-white nationalists signs).
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on September 23, 2017, 01:00:17 PM
What did I just read?  Did Trump-justifying mental contortions just rip a hole in the space-time continuum and now someone is actually arguing that it's a GOOD thing that the president, with the power and responsibility of the office, panders to white supremacists because it draws negative attention to them? 

I'd rather the president not be a white supremacist panderer.  Full stop.

I think you are slightly misreading my intent. I am not saying it is good to have a president that panders to hate groups. I am saying it is better to have a disliked president that panders to hate groups and gets flak for it than a president that panders to hate groups that has those views left largely uncriticized.

Are you talking about a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton who doesn't go far enough, in your opinion, to condemn groups like Antifa, or a hypothetical world in which President Donald Trump has the full-throated support of the Republican party? If the former, that's still a false equivalence between groups that promote violence based on demographic factors and groups that oppose the first, sometimes violently.

Look, I'm generally against violence, regardless of the reason. Violently engaging white supremacists (or other oppressive groups) is proven to be counter-productive. It's also not the same as violent white supremacy.

Antifa does not oppose "groups that promote violence based on demographic factors". They oppose, violently, any group that isn't them.

Just last week, because of Antifa Berkeley had to spend 600K on security to protect an event with Ben Shapiro. A centre-right Orthodox Jew who's married to someone who isn't white. Someone who left Breitbart for its alt-right connections and routinely denounces the alt-right. In fact, Antifa has a strange habit of protesting, violently, Jews.

Antifa will routinely crash free speech rallies and assault people in mass (even when the organizers denounce white supremacists and have anti-white nationalists signs).

What are these rallies being crashed about?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on September 23, 2017, 01:16:21 PM
What did I just read?  Did Trump-justifying mental contortions just rip a hole in the space-time continuum and now someone is actually arguing that it's a GOOD thing that the president, with the power and responsibility of the office, panders to white supremacists because it draws negative attention to them? 

I'd rather the president not be a white supremacist panderer.  Full stop.

I think you are slightly misreading my intent. I am not saying it is good to have a president that panders to hate groups. I am saying it is better to have a disliked president that panders to hate groups and gets flak for it than a president that panders to hate groups that has those views left largely uncriticized.

Are you talking about a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton who doesn't go far enough, in your opinion, to condemn groups like Antifa, or a hypothetical world in which President Donald Trump has the full-throated support of the Republican party? If the former, that's still a false equivalence between groups that promote violence based on demographic factors and groups that oppose the first, sometimes violently.

Look, I'm generally against violence, regardless of the reason. Violently engaging white supremacists (or other oppressive groups) is proven to be counter-productive. It's also not the same as violent white supremacy.

Antifa does not oppose "groups that promote violence based on demographic factors". They oppose, violently, any group that isn't them.

Just last week, because of Antifa Berkeley had to spend 600K on security to protect an event with Ben Shapiro. A centre-right Orthodox Jew who's married to someone who isn't white. Someone who left Breitbart for its alt-right connections and routinely denounces the alt-right. In fact, Antifa has a strange habit of protesting, violently, Jews.

Antifa will routinely crash free speech rallies and assault people in mass (even when the organizers denounce white supremacists and have anti-white nationalists signs).

What are these rallies being crashed about?

All manners of things. In just the last month, the first example that comes to mind was the Boston Free Speech Rally by the Alt-lite (a group that intentionally split from the Alt-Right and denounces it for its white nationalists stances). The G20 riots the month before would be an example of them being violent against a non-violent groups.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on September 23, 2017, 01:32:32 PM
Alt-lite is the branch of the alt-right that believes overt racism is bad, while still pushing racist, sexist, and xenophobic ideology, correct?  Brietbart news is commonly described as alt-lite.  I can certainly see why this would be reason for clashes between Antifa and this group. . . not simply because the alt-lite isn't them.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on September 23, 2017, 01:39:33 PM
A quick search of news regarding the g20 violence seems to indicate that there were several extreme protesting groups and it's not clear if Antifa was the source of the violence.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on September 23, 2017, 03:10:49 PM
Meanwhile Supremacists rallied for their right to implement racial superiority in America, sporting Swastikas and carrying torches and Trump's response was 'there were fine people' on that side, and that 'both sides' were wrong. Meanwhile, when black athletes exercise their own First Amendment right in response to known police brutality issues in parts of this country, he calls them 'sons of bitches'.

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Wexler on September 23, 2017, 08:27:19 PM
Antifa does not oppose "groups that promote violence based on demographic factors". They oppose, violently, any group that isn't them.

Just last week, because of Antifa Berkeley had to spend 600K on security to protect an event with Ben Shapiro. A centre-right Orthodox Jew who's married to someone who isn't white. Someone who left Breitbart for its alt-right connections and routinely denounces the alt-right. In fact, Antifa has a strange habit of protesting, violently, Jews.

Antifa will routinely crash free speech rallies and assault people in mass (even when the organizers denounce white supremacists and have anti-white nationalists signs).



I appreciate your crusade to somehow make Antifa JUST AS BAD as white supremacists.  When you are trying to whitewash (no pun intended) some pretty slimy people like neo-nazis, it's really the only possible play to distract from their stances.  Like, I think trashing a Starbucks sucks, but I think wanting to put people in gas chambers because they are Jewish is several orders of magnitude worse.  But that's just me.  Now, you can point to the prettier members of the alt-lite who are ostensibly into free speech, just like I can point to the prettier members of Antifa who protected clergy from the violence of white supremacists.  However, on a crime-for-crime basis, white supremacists are ahead by a long shot.  And, on shittiness of ideology, white supremacists are also winning.

But even if you were to convince anyone that Antifa=neo-nazis, your argument is going to fall short because there isn't any evidence that Hillary  is aligned with them to any level approaching Trump's coziness with white supremacists. It's not clear that Antifa members voted for Hillary, campaigned for Hillary, or supported Hillary in any significant way. Antifa protests aren't hotbeds of I'mWithHer tshirts.  Compare and contrast with Charlottesville, where a bunch of white supremacists wore Trump tshirts, talked about how they loved Trump, etc.  Stormfront message boards are love fests for Trump. 

From the other side, Hillary hasn't praised Antifa, said some of them are fine people, etc.  None of her advisers are cozy with Antifa.  But-hey-look over there! Why, it's Stephen Miller.  Old friend and roommate of nazi dirtbag Richard Spencer.  So, a senior Trump adviser is tight with a nazi.  Trump himself plays footsie with them.

SO, once again, this isn't the better timeline.  If Hillary were president, she wouldn't be chuckling about "Antifa will be antifa!" from her pizza sex dungeon.  We have a president who panders to white supremacists.  That sucks.  You can't WHATABOUTHILLARY!! that away.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: partgypsy on September 23, 2017, 09:32:15 PM
What did I just read?  Did Trump-justifying mental contortions just rip a hole in the space-time continuum and now someone is actually arguing that it's a GOOD thing that the president, with the power and responsibility of the office, panders to white supremacists because it draws negative attention to them? 

I'd rather the president not be a white supremacist panderer.  Full stop.

I think you are slightly misreading my intent. I am not saying it is good to have a president that panders to hate groups. I am saying it is better to have a disliked president that panders to hate groups and gets flak for it than a president that panders to hate groups that has those views left largely uncriticized.

Are you talking about a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton who doesn't go far enough, in your opinion, to condemn groups like Antifa, or a hypothetical world in which President Donald Trump has the full-throated support of the Republican party? If the former, that's still a false equivalence between groups that promote violence based on demographic factors and groups that oppose the first, sometimes violently.

Look, I'm generally against violence, regardless of the reason. Violently engaging white supremacists (or other oppressive groups) is proven to be counter-productive. It's also not the same as violent white supremacy.

Antifa does not oppose "groups that promote violence based on demographic factors". They oppose, violently, any group that isn't them.

Just last week, because of Antifa Berkeley had to spend 600K on security to protect an event with Ben Shapiro. A centre-right Orthodox Jew who's married to someone who isn't white. Someone who left Breitbart for its alt-right connections and routinely denounces the alt-right. In fact, Antifa has a strange habit of protesting, violently, Jews.

Antifa will routinely crash free speech rallies and assault people in mass (even when the organizers denounce white supremacists and have anti-white nationalists signs).
The fact that you describe Ben Shapiro as "center right" makes me distrust anything you say as being accurate. 
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: kayvent on September 24, 2017, 06:02:55 AM
Antifa does not oppose "groups that promote violence based on demographic factors". They oppose, violently, any group that isn't them.

Just last week, because of Antifa Berkeley had to spend 600K on security to protect an event with Ben Shapiro. A centre-right Orthodox Jew who's married to someone who isn't white. Someone who left Breitbart for its alt-right connections and routinely denounces the alt-right. In fact, Antifa has a strange habit of protesting, violently, Jews.

Antifa will routinely crash free speech rallies and assault people in mass (even when the organizers denounce white supremacists and have anti-white nationalists signs).



I appreciate your crusade to somehow make Antifa JUST AS BAD as white supremacists.  When you are trying to whitewash (no pun intended) some pretty slimy people like neo-nazis, it's really the only possible play to distract from their stances.  Like, I think trashing a Starbucks sucks, but I think wanting to put people in gas chambers because they are Jewish is several orders of magnitude worse.  But that's just me.  Now, you can point to the prettier members of the alt-lite who are ostensibly into free speech, just like I can point to the prettier members of Antifa who protected clergy from the violence of white supremacists.  However, on a crime-for-crime basis, white supremacists are ahead by a long shot.  And, on shittiness of ideology, white supremacists are also winning.

But even if you were to convince anyone that Antifa=neo-nazis, your argument is going to fall short because there isn't any evidence that Hillary  is aligned with them to any level approaching Trump's coziness with white supremacists. It's not clear that Antifa members voted for Hillary, campaigned for Hillary, or supported Hillary in any significant way. Antifa protests aren't hotbeds of I'mWithHer tshirts.  Compare and contrast with Charlottesville, where a bunch of white supremacists wore Trump tshirts, talked about how they loved Trump, etc.  Stormfront message boards are love fests for Trump. 

From the other side, Hillary hasn't praised Antifa, said some of them are fine people, etc.  None of her advisers are cozy with Antifa.  But-hey-look over there! Why, it's Stephen Miller.  Old friend and roommate of nazi dirtbag Richard Spencer.  So, a senior Trump adviser is tight with a nazi.  Trump himself plays footsie with them.

SO, once again, this isn't the better timeline.  If Hillary were president, she wouldn't be chuckling about "Antifa will be antifa!" from her pizza sex dungeon.  We have a president who panders to white supremacists.  That sucks.  You can't WHATABOUTHILLARY!! that away.

I doubt Ben Shapiro or the other Jews that antifa of BAMN protests, violently, want to put Jews in gas chambers. Heck, even the white identitaries don't want that. I doubt the alt-lite, who expecitly left the alt-right because they disagreed with the racism in the alt-right, wants to gas some Jews.

This will be my last post in this thread. The fact I could point out that Ben Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew, gets protested and that gets ignored (and instead the rebuttal is that Antifa only protests people who want to gas Jews), shows this is not a productive conservation worth my time.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 24, 2017, 02:45:41 PM
Meanwhile Supremacists rallied for their right to implement racial superiority in America, sporting Swastikas and carrying torches and Trump's response was 'there were fine people' on that side, and that 'both sides' were wrong. Meanwhile, when black athletes exercise their own First Amendment right in response to known police brutality issues in parts of this country, he calls them 'sons of bitches'.

Dotard has spent more time and energy criticizing black athletes than white supremacists and Russian meddling. Guy is a joke.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Jim Fiction on September 24, 2017, 03:45:03 PM

I doubt Ben Shapiro or the other Jews that antifa of BAMN protests, violently, want to put Jews in gas chambers. Heck, even the white identitaries don't want that. I doubt the alt-lite, who expecitly left the alt-right because they disagreed with the racism in the alt-right, wants to gas some Jews.

This will be my last post in this thread. The fact I could point out that Ben Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew, gets protested and that gets ignored (and instead the rebuttal is that Antifa only protests people who want to gas Jews), shows this is not a productive conservation worth my time.

Shapiro gets protested because of his politics, not because he is Jewish. I suspect you know this, but are just trying to stir the pot.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: partgypsy on September 24, 2017, 08:22:26 PM
You are the only person trying to prop up a strawman argument "antifa only protests people who want to gas Jews". Antifa stands for anti fascists. That includes white supremacists, but also includes movements that are anti democratic and pro-elitist. You are the only one bringing up Shapiro's religious affiiliation (or who he's married to) which is irrelevant to the reason he is being protested. Just because there are people even to the right of him or even more of *ssholes  (white supremacists) doesn't mean his political beliefs are mainstream. But u probably already know that.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 25, 2017, 07:50:47 AM
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/823174199036542980?lang=en

Quote
Peaceful protests are a hallmark of our democracy. Even if I don't always agree, I recognize the rights of people to express their views.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 25, 2017, 08:04:57 AM
Antifa does not oppose "groups that promote violence based on demographic factors". They oppose, violently, any group that isn't them.

Just last week, because of Antifa Berkeley had to spend 600K on security to protect an event with Ben Shapiro. A centre-right Orthodox Jew who's married to someone who isn't white. Someone who left Breitbart for its alt-right connections and routinely denounces the alt-right. In fact, Antifa has a strange habit of protesting, violently, Jews.

Antifa will routinely crash free speech rallies and assault people in mass (even when the organizers denounce white supremacists and have anti-white nationalists signs).



I appreciate your crusade to somehow make Antifa JUST AS BAD as white supremacists.  When you are trying to whitewash (no pun intended) some pretty slimy people like neo-nazis, it's really the only possible play to distract from their stances.  Like, I think trashing a Starbucks sucks, but I think wanting to put people in gas chambers because they are Jewish is several orders of magnitude worse.  But that's just me.  Now, you can point to the prettier members of the alt-lite who are ostensibly into free speech, just like I can point to the prettier members of Antifa who protected clergy from the violence of white supremacists.  However, on a crime-for-crime basis, white supremacists are ahead by a long shot.  And, on shittiness of ideology, white supremacists are also winning.

But even if you were to convince anyone that Antifa=neo-nazis, your argument is going to fall short because there isn't any evidence that Hillary  is aligned with them to any level approaching Trump's coziness with white supremacists. It's not clear that Antifa members voted for Hillary, campaigned for Hillary, or supported Hillary in any significant way. Antifa protests aren't hotbeds of I'mWithHer tshirts.  Compare and contrast with Charlottesville, where a bunch of white supremacists wore Trump tshirts, talked about how they loved Trump, etc.  Stormfront message boards are love fests for Trump. 

From the other side, Hillary hasn't praised Antifa, said some of them are fine people, etc.  None of her advisers are cozy with Antifa.  But-hey-look over there! Why, it's Stephen Miller.  Old friend and roommate of nazi dirtbag Richard Spencer.  So, a senior Trump adviser is tight with a nazi.  Trump himself plays footsie with them.

SO, once again, this isn't the better timeline.  If Hillary were president, she wouldn't be chuckling about "Antifa will be antifa!" from her pizza sex dungeon.  We have a president who panders to white supremacists.  That sucks.  You can't WHATABOUTHILLARY!! that away.


You're mis-understanding the mainstream conservative position. The majority of conservatives are disgusted by white supremacy. It's seen as a huge mark against Trump to not denounce the Charlottesville protestors, and most of the other former GOP candidates did.

That said, here are the results for David Duke's senate campaign:
1990: 43%
1996: 11%
1999: 19%
2016: 3%

WS is a dying movement, and a rapidly dying movement, even among the most racist parts of the country.

Anti-Fa doesn't have the support of national Dem leaders (yet! Growth mindset!), but some local leaders have turned a blind eye to their activities. It's more worrying because it has far more room for growth than WS, although it's still quite small and pretty irrelevant right now.

I do intend to live longer than the next election cycle, though, so these groups are concerning.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on September 25, 2017, 08:09:01 AM
I appreciate your crusade to somehow make Antifa JUST AS BAD as white supremacists.  When you are trying to whitewash (no pun intended) some pretty slimy people like neo-nazis, it's really the only possible play to distract from their stances.  Like, I think trashing a Starbucks sucks, but I think wanting to put people in gas chambers because they are Jewish is several orders of magnitude worse.  But that's just me.  Now, you can point to the prettier members of the alt-lite who are ostensibly into free speech, just like I can point to the prettier members of Antifa who protected clergy from the violence of white supremacists.  However, on a crime-for-crime basis, white supremacists are ahead by a long shot.  And, on shittiness of ideology, white supremacists are also winning.

But even if you were to convince anyone that Antifa=neo-nazis, your argument is going to fall short because there isn't any evidence that Hillary  is aligned with them to any level approaching Trump's coziness with white supremacists. It's not clear that Antifa members voted for Hillary, campaigned for Hillary, or supported Hillary in any significant way. Antifa protests aren't hotbeds of I'mWithHer tshirts.  Compare and contrast with Charlottesville, where a bunch of white supremacists wore Trump tshirts, talked about how they loved Trump, etc.  Stormfront message boards are love fests for Trump. 

From the other side, Hillary hasn't praised Antifa, said some of them are fine people, etc.  None of her advisers are cozy with Antifa.  But-hey-look over there! Why, it's Stephen Miller.  Old friend and roommate of nazi dirtbag Richard Spencer.  So, a senior Trump adviser is tight with a nazi.  Trump himself plays footsie with them.

SO, once again, this isn't the better timeline.  If Hillary were president, she wouldn't be chuckling about "Antifa will be antifa!" from her pizza sex dungeon.  We have a president who panders to white supremacists.  That sucks.  You can't WHATABOUTHILLARY!! that away.
I doubt Ben Shapiro or the other Jews that antifa of BAMN protests, violently, want to put Jews in gas chambers. Heck, even the white identitaries don't want that. I doubt the alt-lite, who expecitly left the alt-right because they disagreed with the racism in the alt-right, wants to gas some Jews.

This will be my last post in this thread. The fact I could point out that Ben Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew, gets protested and that gets ignored (and instead the rebuttal is that Antifa only protests people who want to gas Jews), shows this is not a productive conservation worth my time.
Not what Wexler said at all. He was comparing the worst aspects of Antifa to the worst aspects of Nazis/white supremacists.

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Wexler on September 25, 2017, 09:30:10 AM
I appreciate your crusade to somehow make Antifa JUST AS BAD as white supremacists.  When you are trying to whitewash (no pun intended) some pretty slimy people like neo-nazis, it's really the only possible play to distract from their stances.  Like, I think trashing a Starbucks sucks, but I think wanting to put people in gas chambers because they are Jewish is several orders of magnitude worse.  But that's just me.  Now, you can point to the prettier members of the alt-lite who are ostensibly into free speech, just like I can point to the prettier members of Antifa who protected clergy from the violence of white supremacists.  However, on a crime-for-crime basis, white supremacists are ahead by a long shot.  And, on shittiness of ideology, white supremacists are also winning.

But even if you were to convince anyone that Antifa=neo-nazis, your argument is going to fall short because there isn't any evidence that Hillary  is aligned with them to any level approaching Trump's coziness with white supremacists. It's not clear that Antifa members voted for Hillary, campaigned for Hillary, or supported Hillary in any significant way. Antifa protests aren't hotbeds of I'mWithHer tshirts.  Compare and contrast with Charlottesville, where a bunch of white supremacists wore Trump tshirts, talked about how they loved Trump, etc.  Stormfront message boards are love fests for Trump. 

From the other side, Hillary hasn't praised Antifa, said some of them are fine people, etc.  None of her advisers are cozy with Antifa.  But-hey-look over there! Why, it's Stephen Miller.  Old friend and roommate of nazi dirtbag Richard Spencer.  So, a senior Trump adviser is tight with a nazi.  Trump himself plays footsie with them.

SO, once again, this isn't the better timeline.  If Hillary were president, she wouldn't be chuckling about "Antifa will be antifa!" from her pizza sex dungeon.  We have a president who panders to white supremacists.  That sucks.  You can't WHATABOUTHILLARY!! that away.
I doubt Ben Shapiro or the other Jews that antifa of BAMN protests, violently, want to put Jews in gas chambers. Heck, even the white identitaries don't want that. I doubt the alt-lite, who expecitly left the alt-right because they disagreed with the racism in the alt-right, wants to gas some Jews.

This will be my last post in this thread. The fact I could point out that Ben Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew, gets protested and that gets ignored (and instead the rebuttal is that Antifa only protests people who want to gas Jews), shows this is not a productive conservation worth my time.
Not what Wexler said at all. He was comparing the worst aspects of Antifa to the worst aspects of Nazis/white supremacists.

Yeah-I just think that the argument that "Neo-nazis are bad and trump is definitely pandering to them, but Hillary would STILL be worse because she panders to Antifa but no one calls her out on it" is bizarre. I think everyone here agrees that Antifa is bad.  They definitely don't do any favors to the causes they ostensibly support.  However, none of those causes are the advancement of the democratic party or any particular democratic candidate.  As a democrat, I don't take any responsibility for their bullshit.  I can't think of any democrat who has hired policy experts out of the antifa ranks.  I just don't see the tie to Hillary or mainstream democrats.  I just think that this white supremacist association is so deeply embarrassing to many Republicans that they are desperate for an equivalent WHATABOUT on the other side.   I don't think that Antifa is the equivalent foil to white supremacists that many Republicans would like it to be, for reasons that have been extensively discussed.  And, again, white supremacists fell in line for Trump.  They phone-banked for him, they wear his hats and t-shirts. 

 


Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Wexler on September 25, 2017, 04:05:34 PM
Another effect of the Trump presidency: A bunch of people became single-issue voters on the issue of email security for a few short months, but then totally dropped that issue on November 9, 2017.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/report-kushner-used-private-email-for-government-business.html

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: jim555 on September 25, 2017, 04:11:38 PM
Another effect of the Trump presidency: A bunch of people became single-issue voters on the issue of email security for a few short months, but then totally dropped that issue on November 9, 2017.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/report-kushner-used-private-email-for-government-business.html
Lock him up, lock him up! 
Crooked Kushner.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Inaya on September 25, 2017, 07:47:45 PM
Another effect of the Trump presidency: A bunch of people became single-issue voters on the issue of email security for a few short months, but then totally dropped that issue on November 9, 2017.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/report-kushner-used-private-email-for-government-business.html (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/report-kushner-used-private-email-for-government-business.html)
Lock him up, lock him up! 
Crooked Kushner.

But... but... but... an e-mail address isn't the same as an e-mail server. A server is BAD. God my eyes are going to get stuck in the back of my skull from rolling them so hard.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 26, 2017, 06:43:37 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/O0UjOJZ.jpg)
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: ncornilsen on September 26, 2017, 08:10:55 AM
Another effect of the Trump presidency: A bunch of people became single-issue voters on the issue of email security for a few short months, but then totally dropped that issue on November 9, 2017.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/report-kushner-used-private-email-for-government-business.html
Lock him up, lock him up! 
Crooked Kushner.

There seems to be some differences... but if he infact violated the law, yes... lock him up.

Given that Clinton handled 30,000+ emails on a private server, some of which (at some point) was classified, and didn't send them to her official email, and proceeded to purge them... and got no criminal penalties, I doubt Kushner will be punished in any way for 100 emails... most of which were sent TO him from others, most of which were news articles, and were forwarded to his official email per the procedures for handling work related emails.

Unfortunately, this will not be the silver bullet to stop Trump.

But for fucks sake, how, HOW do you lambast someone for an entire YEAR about this issue, and then immediately out of the gate, do the same thing?? It defies comprehension.   Is it that they don't get an official email until they take office, yet need email to conduct preparations? If so, then provide the official email address immediately upon election, or something.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DoubleDown on September 26, 2017, 08:42:07 AM
And don't forget Benghazi. Benghazi!! BENGHAZIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 26, 2017, 09:37:25 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/donald-trump-puerto-rico-visit/index.html?adkey=bn

Quote
Trump: I will go to Puerto Rico next Tuesday

More than 3 million Americans without power, utter devastation on the island...and #45 can't be bothered to go there until next Tuesday.  What a joke of a leader.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: former player on September 26, 2017, 09:56:42 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/donald-trump-puerto-rico-visit/index.html?adkey=bn

Quote
Trump: I will go to Puerto Rico next Tuesday

More than 3 million Americans without power, utter devastation on the island...and #45 can't be bothered to go there until next Tuesday.  What a joke of a leader.
Not only that, but at the same time his tweets have given the North Koreans the excuse to say that the USA has declared war on them and they will feel free to shoot down USA strategic bombers in international airspace.  Fuck.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: dividendman on September 26, 2017, 11:19:49 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/donald-trump-puerto-rico-visit/index.html?adkey=bn

Quote
Trump: I will go to Puerto Rico next Tuesday

More than 3 million Americans without power, utter devastation on the island...and #45 can't be bothered to go there until next Tuesday.  What a joke of a leader.
Not only that, but at the same time his tweets have given the North Koreans the excuse to say that the USA has declared war on them and they will feel free to shoot down USA strategic bombers in international airspace.  Fuck.

Trump is an idiot in a lot of ways, but I don't think calling the DPRK leader a crazy fuck and other names is one of them. Note that there is no peace treaty and all parties of the Korean war are technically still at war. Not only that, the DPRK has indicated many times that they are no longer abiding by the armistice agreement reached in 1953. On top of this, both sides have violated the conditions of the armistice agreement many, many, many times.

The DPRK has also killed many ROK military servicemen since the armistice agreement with the most egregious being the sinking of the Cheonan in 2010. The proper reaction would have been to militarily deal with the DPRK at that time (or before) but the Obama administration and the ROK had no real response to the blatant attack.

Appeasement, sanctions, food-aid, etc. all of failed to stop the progression of the DPRKs nuclear ambitions. Previous administrations completely failed and now the Trump administration is in the worst position possible since the DPRK has nukes that can go on missiles- calling the DPRK leader names isn't going to make the situation worse.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: ixtap on September 26, 2017, 11:22:46 AM
Actually, we never declared war on Korea in the 50's.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: dividendman on September 26, 2017, 11:48:51 AM
Actually, we never declared war on Korea in the 50's.

If by "we" you mean the United States individually, I agree.

If by "we" you mean the United Nations Command via Resolutions 82 and 83 of the UNSC I disagree. And the UN forces were under the command of the United States.

Also note that the ROK and USA have a Mutual Defense Treaty which obligates the parties to defend each other in the event of an attack. The DPRK has attacked the ROK several times to zero response.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: jim555 on September 26, 2017, 11:54:56 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/donald-trump-puerto-rico-visit/index.html?adkey=bn

Quote
Trump: I will go to Puerto Rico next Tuesday

More than 3 million Americans without power, utter devastation on the island...and #45 can't be bothered to go there until next Tuesday.  What a joke of a leader.
If it happened in Alabama he would be down on the next flight out.  Puerto Ricans are US citizens, but they are brown, so F them.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on September 26, 2017, 12:17:43 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/donald-trump-puerto-rico-visit/index.html?adkey=bn

Quote
Trump: I will go to Puerto Rico next Tuesday

More than 3 million Americans without power, utter devastation on the island...and #45 can't be bothered to go there until next Tuesday.  What a joke of a leader.
If it happened in Alabama he would be down on the next flight out.  Puerto Ricans are US citizens, but they are brown, so F them.

Yup. Not to mention the fact that he probably *just* learned that Puerto Ricans are US citizens. Like a couple days ago.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on September 26, 2017, 12:26:43 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/donald-trump-puerto-rico-visit/index.html?adkey=bn

Quote
Trump: I will go to Puerto Rico next Tuesday

More than 3 million Americans without power, utter devastation on the island...and #45 can't be bothered to go there until next Tuesday.  What a joke of a leader.
If it happened in Alabama he would be down on the next flight out.  Puerto Ricans are US citizens, but they are brown, so F them.

Yup. Not to mention the fact that he probably *just* learned that Puerto Ricans are US citizens. Like a couple days ago.

You're giving him a lot of credit for quick learning that doesn't appear to be supported by previous behaviour.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on September 26, 2017, 12:30:14 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/donald-trump-puerto-rico-visit/index.html?adkey=bn

Quote
Trump: I will go to Puerto Rico next Tuesday

More than 3 million Americans without power, utter devastation on the island...and #45 can't be bothered to go there until next Tuesday.  What a joke of a leader.
If it happened in Alabama he would be down on the next flight out.  Puerto Ricans are US citizens, but they are brown, so F them.

Yup. Not to mention the fact that he probably *just* learned that Puerto Ricans are US citizens. Like a couple days ago.

You're giving him a lot of credit for quick learning that doesn't appear to be supported by previous behaviour.

True. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if he *still* doesn't know PR is an American territory.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on September 26, 2017, 12:34:07 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/donald-trump-puerto-rico-visit/index.html?adkey=bn

Quote
Trump: I will go to Puerto Rico next Tuesday

More than 3 million Americans without power, utter devastation on the island...and #45 can't be bothered to go there until next Tuesday.  What a joke of a leader.
If it happened in Alabama he would be down on the next flight out.  Puerto Ricans are US citizens, but they are brown, so F them.
Yup. Not to mention the fact that he probably *just* learned that Puerto Ricans are US citizens. Like a couple days ago.
You're giving him a lot of credit for quick learning that doesn't appear to be supported by previous behaviour.
True. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if he *still* doesn't know PR is an American territory.
He'll get there and see an American flag. Then the wheels will start churning - "So that's why they wanted me to come here. Hmmm, this might be a good place for a resort now that all those houses are flattened."
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: ncornilsen on September 26, 2017, 01:10:30 PM
Uh, wait? I thought he was an asshole for showing up right after a disaster last time since it distracted from the rescue efforts?

Damned if you do... damned if you don't.


Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on September 26, 2017, 01:23:06 PM
Uh, wait? I thought he was an asshole for showing up right after a disaster last time since it distracted from the rescue efforts?

Damned if you do... damned if you don't.
I don't remember anyone complaining about him showing up too soon, I think the complaints were about the way he did it and the hats he marketed.

On the other hand I don't think his showing up next Tuesday is something worth complaining about. He does much more egregious things on a regular basis.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on September 26, 2017, 01:29:45 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/26/politics/donald-trump-puerto-rico-visit/index.html?adkey=bn

Quote
Trump: I will go to Puerto Rico next Tuesday

More than 3 million Americans without power, utter devastation on the island...and #45 can't be bothered to go there until next Tuesday.  What a joke of a leader.
If it happened in Alabama he would be down on the next flight out.  Puerto Ricans are US citizens, but they are brown, so F them.
Yup. Not to mention the fact that he probably *just* learned that Puerto Ricans are US citizens. Like a couple days ago.
You're giving him a lot of credit for quick learning that doesn't appear to be supported by previous behaviour.
True. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if he *still* doesn't know PR is an American territory.
He'll get there and see an American flag. Then the wheels will start churning - "So that's why they wanted me to come here. Hmmm, this might be a good place for a resort now that all those houses are flattened."

He had a golf course there. Then he filed for bankruptcy and stuck Puerto Rico with a $33 million bond that never got paid back.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 26, 2017, 01:46:35 PM
Uh, wait? I thought he was an asshole for showing up right after a disaster last time since it distracted from the rescue efforts?

Damned if you do... damned if you don't.

Strawmen arguments are fun.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Poundwise on September 26, 2017, 01:49:05 PM
Surveillance state, hello.

Quote
According to BuzzFeed, the new rule could also affect U.S. citizens who communicate with immigrants on social media by making their conversations the subject of government surveillance.

Quote
The rule filed last week, however, goes beyond would-be visitors to the U.S. and would also apply to those who have already obtained a green card or gone through the naturalization process.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/352421-dhs-planning-to-collect-social-media-info-on-all-immigrants
https://www.buzzfeed.com/adolfoflores/people-are-worried-about-dhs-plans-to-gather-social-media
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on September 26, 2017, 01:51:31 PM
Uh, wait? I thought he was an asshole for showing up right after a disaster last time since it distracted from the rescue efforts?

Damned if you do... damned if you don't.

Strawmen arguments are fun.

Yeah, they’re always easier than the real ones...
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on September 26, 2017, 02:37:15 PM
Uh, wait? I thought he was an asshole for showing up right after a disaster last time since it distracted from the rescue efforts?

Damned if you do... damned if you don't.
I don't remember anyone complaining about him showing up too soon, I think the complaints were about the way he did it and the hats he marketed.

On the other hand I don't think his showing up next Tuesday is something worth complaining about. He does much more egregious things on a regular basis.

The hat and how in the press conference he congratulated FEMA and others for job well done when in reality there were people still being rescued. I did not even think he met any people who were impacted by the hurricane/flood.

His staff tried to repair the damage by arranging the second visit - no more trying to sell hats, and this time he actually spent time with people who were impacted by the disaster.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 26, 2017, 02:51:40 PM
Surveillance state, hello.

Quote
According to BuzzFeed, the new rule could also affect U.S. citizens who communicate with immigrants on social media by making their conversations the subject of government surveillance.

Quote
The rule filed last week, however, goes beyond would-be visitors to the U.S. and would also apply to those who have already obtained a green card or gone through the naturalization process.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/352421-dhs-planning-to-collect-social-media-info-on-all-immigrants
https://www.buzzfeed.com/adolfoflores/people-are-worried-about-dhs-plans-to-gather-social-media

What country are we living?

Weren't #cult45 members up in arms about the NSA surveillance stories?  Where is their outrage now?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: paddedhat on September 26, 2017, 04:15:13 PM
Surveillance state, hello.

Quote
According to BuzzFeed, the new rule could also affect U.S. citizens who communicate with immigrants on social media by making their conversations the subject of government surveillance.

Quote
The rule filed last week, however, goes beyond would-be visitors to the U.S. and would also apply to those who have already obtained a green card or gone through the naturalization process.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/352421-dhs-planning-to-collect-social-media-info-on-all-immigrants
https://www.buzzfeed.com/adolfoflores/people-are-worried-about-dhs-plans-to-gather-social-media

What country are we living?

Weren't #cult45 members up in arms about the NSA surveillance stories?  Where is their outrage now?

Next up...........Watch the Trumptards ignore the half dozen key players in the White House, Ivanka, Kuchner, etc... who were just exposed for, wait for it..................... using private email for official government business. Hillary does it, and they call for a public lynching, I'm assuming they want the same thing for Dopey's posse, right?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: ixtap on September 26, 2017, 04:16:33 PM
I do not like the term Trumptards any more than libtards. Take the high road or we will never get out of this mess.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: jim555 on September 26, 2017, 04:20:32 PM
Didn't the election prove the high road doesn't work?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: ncornilsen on September 26, 2017, 05:13:15 PM
Surveillance state, hello.

Quote
According to BuzzFeed, the new rule could also affect U.S. citizens who communicate with immigrants on social media by making their conversations the subject of government surveillance.

Quote
The rule filed last week, however, goes beyond would-be visitors to the U.S. and would also apply to those who have already obtained a green card or gone through the naturalization process.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/352421-dhs-planning-to-collect-social-media-info-on-all-immigrants
https://www.buzzfeed.com/adolfoflores/people-are-worried-about-dhs-plans-to-gather-social-media

What country are we living?

Weren't #cult45 members up in arms about the NSA surveillance stories?  Where is their outrage now?

Next up...........Watch the Trumptards ignore the half dozen key players in the White House, Ivanka, Kuchner, etc... who were just exposed for, wait for it..................... using private email for official government business. Hillary does it, and they call for a public lynching, I'm assuming they want the same thing for Dopey's posse, right?

Hillary didn't go to jail... why should Kushner?

In all serious, I'm livid about this and want them to be prosecuted to the extent of whatever laws they broke.

Despite the difference in magitude and that no classified information was handled by Trump's staff's private email, and that they complied with the record's keeping requirement that they forward anything sent to a private email to thier official one (at least, so far it appears they complied), I can't beleive they would make that mistake after filling thier barn with the political hay they made off Clinton doing so. It's not the worst thing Trump/staff has done, but for fucks sake, it seems so easy to avoid.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: paddedhat on September 26, 2017, 05:54:32 PM
I do not like the term Trumptards any more than libtards. Take the high road or we will never get out of this mess.

Once you have spent time in the deep backwoods, way off the trail, and really mingled with the demographic I reference, come see me. The high road is over. High or low has fuck all nothing to do with getting us out of this mess.  we are being lead by a narcissistic psychopath who has millions of followers, who believe that he is a living god-king, that will magically make their world a wonderful place again. Trumptard is fairly polite, given the reality of the whole cesspool.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: ixtap on September 26, 2017, 05:56:30 PM
I do not like the term Trumptards any more than libtards. Take the high road or we will never get out of this mess.

Once you have spent time in the deep backwoods, way off the trail, and really mingled with the demographic I reference, come see me. The high road is over. High or low has fuck all nothing to do with getting us out of this mess.  we are being lead by a narcissistic psychopath who has millions of followers, who believe that he is a living god-king, that will magically make their world a wonderful place again. Trumptard is fairly polite, given the reality of the whole cesspool.

Unfortunately, I have been there. I am related to them, I went to high school with them, etc.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: paddedhat on September 26, 2017, 06:42:10 PM
I do not like the term Trumptards any more than libtards. Take the high road or we will never get out of this mess.

Once you have spent time in the deep backwoods, way off the trail, and really mingled with the demographic I reference, come see me. The high road is over. High or low has fuck all nothing to do with getting us out of this mess.  we are being lead by a narcissistic psychopath who has millions of followers, who believe that he is a living god-king, that will magically make their world a wonderful place again. Trumptard is fairly polite, given the reality of the whole cesspool.

Unfortunately, I have been there. I am related to them, I went to high school with them, etc.

I know the feeling. We spend our winters deep in very rural Florida. Being at a huge flea market during the election season was a lot like the bar scene from Star Wars, but a bit scarier. Dopey's comment about shooting somebody on Fifth Ave. and his followers wouldn't give a rat's ass, is straight up true.  Don't know how many here are well read when it comes to Native American History and the Plains Tribes, but the whole thing reminds me a bit of the Paiute medicine man, Wovoka and the Ghost Dance.

 As the great orange one pounds on the podium and screams,  "Put your MAGA hats on, listen to my nonsensical bullshit and believe! Follow me to a magical land where everybody who matters is white, women and minorities know there place, and coal mines, steel mills, and opportunity, abound for all of you real Americans!  I will roll back time to the 1950s. I will recreate the post war boom based on our dead and dying industrial past. Only I can save you from the dark hell you are living in, where a black was president, and queers lurk in you public restrooms. Only we, the pure ones, can MAGA!"
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Poundwise on September 27, 2017, 07:19:58 AM
I do not like the term Trumptards any more than libtards. Take the high road or we will never get out of this mess.

The more everyone takes the low road, the less there is worth fighting for.

When we Americans claw at one another like this, we are just playing into the hands of our rivals and enemies. When we destroy our liberties in the name of safety, when peaceful unity among diverse groups is disrupted, when we stop providing safe haven for refugees, when we become a beacon of hate and intolerance instead of love and welcome, then the jihadists, oligarchs, and authoritarians will have won. With the model of democracy so debased, how can their oppressed peoples muster enough hope to topple them?

Heaven knows I'm frustrated enough with the direction of the country, but it's important to not burn bridges. I find that a fair number of Trump voters I have contact with have minds open to change, which is why they felt they wanted to "give him a chance".  Some were poorly informed, some allowed a single issue to rule them, and yes, some have given into hate and fear. But when the economy tanks, as it surely will, an important percentage will change their minds.  We aren't going to see any come-to-Jesus moments where they come groveling to their liberal friends, but surely the disgust will come for 45 and his corrupt, totalitarian ways.  As Lincoln used to say, you can fool all of the people some of the time, and you can fool some of the people all of the time; but you can’t fool all the people all the time.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on September 27, 2017, 07:37:51 AM
I do not like the term Trumptards any more than libtards. Take the high road or we will never get out of this mess.

The more everyone takes the low road, the less there is worth fighting for.

+1
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: StarBright on September 27, 2017, 07:38:33 AM

The more everyone takes the low road, the less there is worth fighting for.


There is always the paradox of tolerance issue though.

And while I agree that using "tard" is NEVER appropriate, I have reached the point where I feel comfortable calling out beloved family members for their racism, hate, xenophobia etc and I'm not mincing words anymore. I'm using words that they are uncomfortable hearing and have been accused of taking the low road - but I'm gonna call a racist a racist from here on out.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 27, 2017, 07:45:44 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/27/politics/deleted-tweets-trump-luther-strange/index.html

Look at this petulant little man child.  He backed a candidate in Alabama who lost (Luther Strange) so he goes back and deletes the tweets that showed him supporting him.  LOL.

What a clown...pssst, Donnie, this is the internet, as soon as you click "send" it's out there forever.  Deleting those tweets accomplishes nothing.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Poundwise on September 27, 2017, 08:17:19 AM

The more everyone takes the low road, the less there is worth fighting for.


There is always the paradox of tolerance issue though.

And while I agree that using "tard" is NEVER appropriate, I have reached the point where I feel comfortable calling out beloved family members for their racism, hate, xenophobia etc and I'm not mincing words anymore. I'm using words that they are uncomfortable hearing and have been accused of taking the low road - but I'm gonna call a racist a racist from here on out.

Calling out racism is not taking the low road.   If we want people to change,  we can and should point out racist behavior. But calling a person dumb or a racist will likely have the opposite effect.  Challenge the behavior, not the person.

BTW, I don't want to preach from a high horse. I constantly fight my judgement of the intelligence of some of my friends with different political opinions; and I also have held racist, sexist, and otherwise intolerant opinions in my life, due to ignorance.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Wexler on September 27, 2017, 10:20:58 AM
Surveillance state, hello.

Quote
According to BuzzFeed, the new rule could also affect U.S. citizens who communicate with immigrants on social media by making their conversations the subject of government surveillance.

Quote
The rule filed last week, however, goes beyond would-be visitors to the U.S. and would also apply to those who have already obtained a green card or gone through the naturalization process.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/352421-dhs-planning-to-collect-social-media-info-on-all-immigrants
https://www.buzzfeed.com/adolfoflores/people-are-worried-about-dhs-plans-to-gather-social-media

What country are we living?

Weren't #cult45 members up in arms about the NSA surveillance stories?  Where is their outrage now?

Next up...........Watch the Trumptards ignore the half dozen key players in the White House, Ivanka, Kuchner, etc... who were just exposed for, wait for it..................... using private email for official government business. Hillary does it, and they call for a public lynching, I'm assuming they want the same thing for Dopey's posse, right?

Hillary didn't go to jail... why should Kushner?

In all serious, I'm livid about this and want them to be prosecuted to the extent of whatever laws they broke.

Despite the difference in magitude and that no classified information was handled by Trump's staff's private email, and that they complied with the record's keeping requirement that they forward anything sent to a private email to thier official one (at least, so far it appears they complied), I can't beleive they would make that mistake after filling thier barn with the political hay they made off Clinton doing so. It's not the worst thing Trump/staff has done, but for fucks sake, it seems so easy to avoid.

Well, the Bush administration did the same thing and deleted 22 million West Wing emails from the private RNC server they were using, and no Republicans seemed to care about that either.  None of those emails were ever forwarded for record keeping or assessment of whether they contained classified material, either. 

I'm glad you are outraged, but the only meaningful question is whether this is a disqualifying event for your vote in 2020.  So many people on here were claiming that Clinton's email server was a make-or-break issue for them.  If that's really true, it would have been a make-or-break issue for Bush II, and it should be one for Trump as well. I'm not speaking about you in particular if you hold Trump to the same standards as Clinton. Honestly, I think that a large number of the people who were "outraged" about this email thing found it a convenient way to express "I think Hillary is a bitch" without the social cost of saying that out loud as a member of the upper-middle class.  People of lower social classes just went with the truer, and simpler, expression of their views. 

As for me, I thought: it's not ideal to not keep records for FOIA, but Powell did the same thing and the world didn't end.  On the other hand, the world could ACTUALLY end if Trump is elected and has access to nuclear weapons.  Decision was easy.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Poundwise on September 27, 2017, 11:40:54 AM
Just saw this article... have not finished reading it yet, but some may find it interesting.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/can-democracy-survive-tribalism.html
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: ncornilsen on September 27, 2017, 12:29:49 PM
Surveillance state, hello.

Quote
According to BuzzFeed, the new rule could also affect U.S. citizens who communicate with immigrants on social media by making their conversations the subject of government surveillance.

Quote
The rule filed last week, however, goes beyond would-be visitors to the U.S. and would also apply to those who have already obtained a green card or gone through the naturalization process.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/352421-dhs-planning-to-collect-social-media-info-on-all-immigrants
https://www.buzzfeed.com/adolfoflores/people-are-worried-about-dhs-plans-to-gather-social-media

What country are we living?

Weren't #cult45 members up in arms about the NSA surveillance stories?  Where is their outrage now?

Next up...........Watch the Trumptards ignore the half dozen key players in the White House, Ivanka, Kuchner, etc... who were just exposed for, wait for it..................... using private email for official government business. Hillary does it, and they call for a public lynching, I'm assuming they want the same thing for Dopey's posse, right?

Hillary didn't go to jail... why should Kushner?

In all serious, I'm livid about this and want them to be prosecuted to the extent of whatever laws they broke.

Despite the difference in magitude and that no classified information was handled by Trump's staff's private email, and that they complied with the record's keeping requirement that they forward anything sent to a private email to thier official one (at least, so far it appears they complied), I can't beleive they would make that mistake after filling thier barn with the political hay they made off Clinton doing so. It's not the worst thing Trump/staff has done, but for fucks sake, it seems so easy to avoid.

Well, the Bush administration did the same thing and deleted 22 million West Wing emails from the private RNC server they were using, and no Republicans seemed to care about that either.  None of those emails were ever forwarded for record keeping or assessment of whether they contained classified material, either. 

I'm glad you are outraged, but the only meaningful question is whether this is a disqualifying event for your vote in 2020.  So many people on here were claiming that Clinton's email server was a make-or-break issue for them.  If that's really true, it would have been a make-or-break issue for Bush II, and it should be one for Trump as well. I'm not speaking about you in particular if you hold Trump to the same standards as Clinton. Honestly, I think that a large number of the people who were "outraged" about this email thing found it a convenient way to express "I think Hillary is a bitch" without the social cost of saying that out loud as a member of the upper-middle class.  People of lower social classes just went with the truer, and simpler, expression of their views. 

As for me, I thought: it's not ideal to not keep records for FOIA, but Powell did the same thing and the world didn't end.  On the other hand, the world could ACTUALLY end if Trump is elected and has access to nuclear weapons.  Decision was easy.

When I cast my vote for trump, via mail in ballot 2 weeks before the election, I thought he would defer to his advisiors, that beneath his bombastic, blowhardedness, he would defer to advisors, and govern this country as well as anyone. I expected constant fake moral outrage about inconsequential things like you see from the left about anyone republican... and was ready to ignore that.

What we actually got was him doubling down on being a blowhard, who seems to go out of his way to fuck things up, and does a horrible job of presenting what he does that isn't fucked up. The things I see people outraged about aren't unreasonable. He's doing nothing I wanted as a republican, he's undermining my credibility as a republican... and the moral high ground used to be a legitimately contested space. I find it hard to say trump holes a square inch of it at this point.

I won't vote for trump in 2020. I will actively work to get him rejected during the primary and hope for someone I could vote FOR to be there.

How does that square with the defense I find myself mounting for the guy? I'm a natural contrarian I guess. Sometimes i find the criticisms of trump petty and ignorant, and figure the other side is represented well enough.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on September 27, 2017, 12:48:55 PM
Surveillance state, hello.

Quote
According to BuzzFeed, the new rule could also affect U.S. citizens who communicate with immigrants on social media by making their conversations the subject of government surveillance.

Quote
The rule filed last week, however, goes beyond would-be visitors to the U.S. and would also apply to those who have already obtained a green card or gone through the naturalization process.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/352421-dhs-planning-to-collect-social-media-info-on-all-immigrants
https://www.buzzfeed.com/adolfoflores/people-are-worried-about-dhs-plans-to-gather-social-media

What country are we living?

Weren't #cult45 members up in arms about the NSA surveillance stories?  Where is their outrage now?

Next up...........Watch the Trumptards ignore the half dozen key players in the White House, Ivanka, Kuchner, etc... who were just exposed for, wait for it..................... using private email for official government business. Hillary does it, and they call for a public lynching, I'm assuming they want the same thing for Dopey's posse, right?

Hillary didn't go to jail... why should Kushner?

In all serious, I'm livid about this and want them to be prosecuted to the extent of whatever laws they broke.

Despite the difference in magitude and that no classified information was handled by Trump's staff's private email, and that they complied with the record's keeping requirement that they forward anything sent to a private email to thier official one (at least, so far it appears they complied), I can't beleive they would make that mistake after filling thier barn with the political hay they made off Clinton doing so. It's not the worst thing Trump/staff has done, but for fucks sake, it seems so easy to avoid.

Well, the Bush administration did the same thing and deleted 22 million West Wing emails from the private RNC server they were using, and no Republicans seemed to care about that either.  None of those emails were ever forwarded for record keeping or assessment of whether they contained classified material, either. 

I'm glad you are outraged, but the only meaningful question is whether this is a disqualifying event for your vote in 2020.  So many people on here were claiming that Clinton's email server was a make-or-break issue for them.  If that's really true, it would have been a make-or-break issue for Bush II, and it should be one for Trump as well. I'm not speaking about you in particular if you hold Trump to the same standards as Clinton. Honestly, I think that a large number of the people who were "outraged" about this email thing found it a convenient way to express "I think Hillary is a bitch" without the social cost of saying that out loud as a member of the upper-middle class.  People of lower social classes just went with the truer, and simpler, expression of their views. 

As for me, I thought: it's not ideal to not keep records for FOIA, but Powell did the same thing and the world didn't end.  On the other hand, the world could ACTUALLY end if Trump is elected and has access to nuclear weapons.  Decision was easy.

When I cast my vote for trump, via mail in ballot 2 weeks before the election, I thought he would defer to his advisiors, that beneath his bombastic, blowhardedness, he would defer to advisors, and govern this country as well as anyone. I expected constant fake moral outrage about inconsequential things like you see from the left about anyone republican... and was ready to ignore that.

What we actually got was him doubling down on being a blowhard, who seems to go out of his way to fuck things up, and does a horrible job of presenting what he does that isn't fucked up. The things I see people outraged about aren't unreasonable. He's doing nothing I wanted as a republican, he's undermining my credibility as a republican... and the moral high ground used to be a legitimately contested space. I find it hard to say trump holes a square inch of it at this point.

I won't vote for trump in 2020. I will actively work to get him rejected during the primary and hope for someone I could vote FOR to be there.

How does that square with the defense I find myself mounting for the guy? I'm a natural contrarian I guess. Sometimes i find the criticisms of trump petty and ignorant, and figure the other side is represented well enough.

I cannot imagine what led you to believe that, given everything you saw of him before the election.

Being a natural contrarian is all well and good, I guess... except that it can lead one to stubbornly defend positions that at bottom have no merit.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 27, 2017, 12:55:34 PM
I cannot imagine what led you to believe that, given everything you saw of him before the election.

Being a natural contrarian is all well and good, I guess... except that it can lead one to stubbornly defend positions that at bottom have no merit.

All due respect to any Trump voters here (I've met a few in real life with similar sentiments about regretting their vote)...did they not watch one iota of his campaign?  He laid his white nationalist (and sexist, and racist, and...etc.) out there for the world to see.  Being a "businessman" or an "outsider" isn't good enough to "shake up" Washington or whatever other ideas people had when voting for him.

Anywho...the truly scary ones are all the white nationalists he's awakened who still support him (current polling shows he's somewhere in the vicinity of 38% job approval rating).
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: jrhampt on September 27, 2017, 12:56:15 PM
Surveillance state, hello.

Quote
According to BuzzFeed, the new rule could also affect U.S. citizens who communicate with immigrants on social media by making their conversations the subject of government surveillance.

Quote
The rule filed last week, however, goes beyond would-be visitors to the U.S. and would also apply to those who have already obtained a green card or gone through the naturalization process.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/352421-dhs-planning-to-collect-social-media-info-on-all-immigrants
https://www.buzzfeed.com/adolfoflores/people-are-worried-about-dhs-plans-to-gather-social-media

What country are we living?

Weren't #cult45 members up in arms about the NSA surveillance stories?  Where is their outrage now?

Next up...........Watch the Trumptards ignore the half dozen key players in the White House, Ivanka, Kuchner, etc... who were just exposed for, wait for it..................... using private email for official government business. Hillary does it, and they call for a public lynching, I'm assuming they want the same thing for Dopey's posse, right?

Hillary didn't go to jail... why should Kushner?

In all serious, I'm livid about this and want them to be prosecuted to the extent of whatever laws they broke.

Despite the difference in magitude and that no classified information was handled by Trump's staff's private email, and that they complied with the record's keeping requirement that they forward anything sent to a private email to thier official one (at least, so far it appears they complied), I can't beleive they would make that mistake after filling thier barn with the political hay they made off Clinton doing so. It's not the worst thing Trump/staff has done, but for fucks sake, it seems so easy to avoid.

Well, the Bush administration did the same thing and deleted 22 million West Wing emails from the private RNC server they were using, and no Republicans seemed to care about that either.  None of those emails were ever forwarded for record keeping or assessment of whether they contained classified material, either. 

I'm glad you are outraged, but the only meaningful question is whether this is a disqualifying event for your vote in 2020.  So many people on here were claiming that Clinton's email server was a make-or-break issue for them.  If that's really true, it would have been a make-or-break issue for Bush II, and it should be one for Trump as well. I'm not speaking about you in particular if you hold Trump to the same standards as Clinton. Honestly, I think that a large number of the people who were "outraged" about this email thing found it a convenient way to express "I think Hillary is a bitch" without the social cost of saying that out loud as a member of the upper-middle class.  People of lower social classes just went with the truer, and simpler, expression of their views. 

As for me, I thought: it's not ideal to not keep records for FOIA, but Powell did the same thing and the world didn't end.  On the other hand, the world could ACTUALLY end if Trump is elected and has access to nuclear weapons.  Decision was easy.

When I cast my vote for trump, via mail in ballot 2 weeks before the election, I thought he would defer to his advisiors, that beneath his bombastic, blowhardedness, he would defer to advisors, and govern this country as well as anyone. I expected constant fake moral outrage about inconsequential things like you see from the left about anyone republican... and was ready to ignore that.

What we actually got was him doubling down on being a blowhard, who seems to go out of his way to fuck things up, and does a horrible job of presenting what he does that isn't fucked up. The things I see people outraged about aren't unreasonable. He's doing nothing I wanted as a republican, he's undermining my credibility as a republican... and the moral high ground used to be a legitimately contested space. I find it hard to say trump holes a square inch of it at this point.

I won't vote for trump in 2020. I will actively work to get him rejected during the primary and hope for someone I could vote FOR to be there.

How does that square with the defense I find myself mounting for the guy? I'm a natural contrarian I guess. Sometimes i find the criticisms of trump petty and ignorant, and figure the other side is represented well enough.

Thank goodness.  This comment gives me hope.  I had kept hoping that there had to be people out there who voted for Trump but after having seen his performance would not vote for him again.  What I can't understand is the large (>0) chunk of people who think he's been doing a fine job.  How can anyone possibly reach that conclusion, unless they were of the "burn it all down" category to begin with?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 27, 2017, 01:20:52 PM
Surveillance state, hello.

Quote
According to BuzzFeed, the new rule could also affect U.S. citizens who communicate with immigrants on social media by making their conversations the subject of government surveillance.

Quote
The rule filed last week, however, goes beyond would-be visitors to the U.S. and would also apply to those who have already obtained a green card or gone through the naturalization process.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/352421-dhs-planning-to-collect-social-media-info-on-all-immigrants
https://www.buzzfeed.com/adolfoflores/people-are-worried-about-dhs-plans-to-gather-social-media

What country are we living?

Weren't #cult45 members up in arms about the NSA surveillance stories?  Where is their outrage now?

Next up...........Watch the Trumptards ignore the half dozen key players in the White House, Ivanka, Kuchner, etc... who were just exposed for, wait for it..................... using private email for official government business. Hillary does it, and they call for a public lynching, I'm assuming they want the same thing for Dopey's posse, right?

Hillary didn't go to jail... why should Kushner?

In all serious, I'm livid about this and want them to be prosecuted to the extent of whatever laws they broke.

Despite the difference in magitude and that no classified information was handled by Trump's staff's private email, and that they complied with the record's keeping requirement that they forward anything sent to a private email to thier official one (at least, so far it appears they complied), I can't beleive they would make that mistake after filling thier barn with the political hay they made off Clinton doing so. It's not the worst thing Trump/staff has done, but for fucks sake, it seems so easy to avoid.

Well, the Bush administration did the same thing and deleted 22 million West Wing emails from the private RNC server they were using, and no Republicans seemed to care about that either.  None of those emails were ever forwarded for record keeping or assessment of whether they contained classified material, either. 

I'm glad you are outraged, but the only meaningful question is whether this is a disqualifying event for your vote in 2020.  So many people on here were claiming that Clinton's email server was a make-or-break issue for them.  If that's really true, it would have been a make-or-break issue for Bush II, and it should be one for Trump as well. I'm not speaking about you in particular if you hold Trump to the same standards as Clinton. Honestly, I think that a large number of the people who were "outraged" about this email thing found it a convenient way to express "I think Hillary is a bitch" without the social cost of saying that out loud as a member of the upper-middle class.  People of lower social classes just went with the truer, and simpler, expression of their views. 

As for me, I thought: it's not ideal to not keep records for FOIA, but Powell did the same thing and the world didn't end.  On the other hand, the world could ACTUALLY end if Trump is elected and has access to nuclear weapons.  Decision was easy.

When I cast my vote for trump, via mail in ballot 2 weeks before the election, I thought he would defer to his advisiors, that beneath his bombastic, blowhardedness, he would defer to advisors, and govern this country as well as anyone. I expected constant fake moral outrage about inconsequential things like you see from the left about anyone republican... and was ready to ignore that.

What we actually got was him doubling down on being a blowhard, who seems to go out of his way to fuck things up, and does a horrible job of presenting what he does that isn't fucked up. The things I see people outraged about aren't unreasonable. He's doing nothing I wanted as a republican, he's undermining my credibility as a republican... and the moral high ground used to be a legitimately contested space. I find it hard to say trump holes a square inch of it at this point.

I won't vote for trump in 2020. I will actively work to get him rejected during the primary and hope for someone I could vote FOR to be there.

How does that square with the defense I find myself mounting for the guy? I'm a natural contrarian I guess. Sometimes i find the criticisms of trump petty and ignorant, and figure the other side is represented well enough.

Thank goodness.  This comment gives me hope.  I had kept hoping that there had to be people out there who voted for Trump but after having seen his performance would not vote for him again.  What I can't understand is the large (>0) chunk of people who think he's been doing a fine job.  How can anyone possibly reach that conclusion, unless they were of the "burn it all down" category to begin with?

The number of people who voted for Trump and would not vote for him again is a small portion of the overall people who voted for Trump. I mean, it might be enough to swing an election, but it's not a huge portion. He'll get 40% of the vote with almost 100% certainty, so that's a good 80+% of people who voted for him that'll vote for him again.

I vote straight GOP, so I'll vote for him again if he's up again in 2020. In retrospect, I would probably vote for Ted Cruz over Donald Trump in the primaries now. At the time, Ted Cruz seemed like a crazier option than Donald Trump.

Hopefully he gets primaried in 2020 or otherwise chooses not to run. Hopefully Rubio makes another go of it. Really hoping Jeb! stays out this time and tries to become a Senator or something. He'll do better there.

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 27, 2017, 01:33:24 PM
I'll vote for him again if he's up again in 2020.

Ah yes, the election is some 37 months away but let's go ahead and decide our vote now, regardless of any action or inaction taken over those next 37 months and without regard for who the other options might be.  What a joke.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 27, 2017, 01:35:37 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-appeals-court-consider-rights-gay-workers-050642792--finance.html

The supposedly gay-friendly Trump administration:

Quote
A Trump administration lawyer on Tuesday urged a U.S. appeals court in Manhattan to rule that federal law does not ban discrimination against gay employees.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on September 27, 2017, 01:35:58 PM
I vote straight GOP

So you're not swayed by any issues, positions, or person running?  Really?  That kind of blind loyalty to a particular political party at the cost of reason has always seemed odd to me.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: jrhampt on September 27, 2017, 01:51:59 PM
I vote straight GOP

So you're not swayed by any issues, positions, or person running?  Really?  That kind of blind loyalty to a particular political party at the cost of reason has always seemed odd to me.

I'd protest, but at this point I am fairly determined to vote a straight democratic ticket until trump is out of office - in all elections, no matter how small - just on the grounds that we need more people who are unwilling to put up with his shenanigans, and so far I haven't seen that from most republicans.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on September 27, 2017, 02:14:57 PM
I vote straight GOP
So you're not swayed by any issues, positions, or person running?  Really?  That kind of blind loyalty to a particular political party at the cost of reason has always seemed odd to me.
Wow. I'm not surprised that many voters do this but I would have thought someone who participates in intelligent (mostly?) political discussion would not be so closed minded.

You should take a look at the article about tribalism posted by Poundwise a little ways up. Even if you're on the side of right, what does it matter if both sides are unwilling to compromise? Are there any particular issues that make you vote this way?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: SoundFuture on September 27, 2017, 02:25:14 PM

Challenge the behavior, not the person.


+1. Shame is an incredibly powerful concept.  Most people are not innately evil (no matter how bad they may seem), and you will not have a remote possibility of being the person that helps them make a positive change in their character by attacking the person. Shaming racists and sexists only puts it in the shadows where it can fester unchallenged; it makes exactly zero social progress.  Why some people are proud to shout down people they don't agree with makes no sense to me because it doesn't do any of us any good, it just makes you feel better without actually having accomplishing anything worthwhile.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: jim555 on September 27, 2017, 02:33:42 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/27/politics/deleted-tweets-trump-luther-strange/index.html

Look at this petulant little man child.  He backed a candidate in Alabama who lost (Luther Strange) so he goes back and deletes the tweets that showed him supporting him.  LOL.

What a clown...pssst, Donnie, this is the internet, as soon as you click "send" it's out there forever.  Deleting those tweets accomplishes nothing.
Erased tweets, LOL.  He backed a LOSER!  That must sting.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 27, 2017, 02:41:55 PM
I vote straight GOP

So you're not swayed by any issues, positions, or person running?  Really?  That kind of blind loyalty to a particular political party at the cost of reason has always seemed odd to me.
To me, it seems quite reasonable! You're voting for a set of policy platforms, so you're voting DNC or GOP much more than you're voting for HRC or DJT. At the national level especially, the GOP mirrors my policy preferences a lot more closely than the DNC. It so happens that the GOP also does at the state level, too, though I imagine that can vary depending on the state. Were I in Alabama or something, I might want to increase school spending and therefore vote DNC for state rep or governor.

Our local elections are non-partisan. So you aren't running for School Board or Village Board as D or R, just as your own individual person.


But, yeah, I'd be a lot more comfortable voting for HRC if she were GOP than DNC. She'd have to work with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, and answer to the Koch brothers, rather than working with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, and answering to George Soros. Those other players drive Presidents in opposite directions.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 27, 2017, 02:48:08 PM
I vote straight GOP

So you're not swayed by any issues, positions, or person running?  Really?  That kind of blind loyalty to a particular political party at the cost of reason has always seemed odd to me.
To me, it seems quite reasonable!

Play out the "worst case" scenario...Mueller confirms Russia connection with Trump campaign, but #45 escapes impeachment, #45 starts nuclear war with North Korea who begins firing at US mainland, #45 shoots someone on 5th Ave. (his words, not mine), no meaningful legislation is passed, etc.

You'd STILL vote for him?

That's not reasonable, that's insanity.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 27, 2017, 02:52:50 PM
I vote straight GOP

So you're not swayed by any issues, positions, or person running?  Really?  That kind of blind loyalty to a particular political party at the cost of reason has always seemed odd to me.
To me, it seems quite reasonable!

Play out the "worst case" scenario...Mueller confirms Russia connection with Trump campaign, but #45 escapes impeachment, #45 starts nuclear war with North Korea who begins firing at US mainland, #45 shoots someone on 5th Ave. (his words, not mine), no meaningful legislation is passed, etc.

You'd STILL vote for him?

That's not reasonable, that's insanity.

Those are really extreme scenarios. There are extreme scenarios where other rules don't apply, but I don't think the majority of these are going to happen. The most likely is the Mueller one, in which case Congress will likely impeach him if it's convincing. I'm taking a low-information diet on that particular case and will wait for the probe to finish.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: RetiredAt63 on September 28, 2017, 06:06:50 AM
Can someone please explain why, while we are re-negotiating NAFTA, your President seems to want to start a trade war with Canada?  He put super high duties on softwood lumber a while ago, and now he just put a 220% tariff on Bombardier.  It was bad enough that Boeing was asking for an 80% preferential tariff, but 220%?  Given that the Governors of States who do a lot of business with Canada had already pointed out to him what an important part of your economy we are?  Apart from trade, we must be one of your largest tourist groups.  Ask the Governor of Florida about Snowbirds.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: ixtap on September 28, 2017, 06:22:19 AM
Can someone please explain why, while we are re-negotiating NAFTA, your President seems to want to start a trade war with Canada?  He put super high duties on softwood lumber a while ago, and now he just put a 220% tariff on Bombardier.  It was bad enough that Boeing was asking for an 80% preferential tariff, but 220%?  Given that the Governors of States who do a lot of business with Canada had already pointed out to him what an important part of your economy we are?  Apart from trade, we must be one of your largest tourist groups.  Ask the Governor of Florida about Snowbirds.

If 80 is good 220 must be better? Trump is a bully and trying to get the upper hand. He will now claim to be a peace maker when that number is renegotiated.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on September 28, 2017, 06:38:44 AM
I vote straight GOP

So you're not swayed by any issues, positions, or person running?  Really?  That kind of blind loyalty to a particular political party at the cost of reason has always seemed odd to me.
To me, it seems quite reasonable! You're voting for a set of policy platforms, so you're voting DNC or GOP much more than you're voting for HRC or DJT. At the national level especially, the GOP mirrors my policy preferences a lot more closely than the DNC. It so happens that the GOP also does at the state level, too, though I imagine that can vary depending on the state. Were I in Alabama or something, I might want to increase school spending and therefore vote DNC for state rep or governor.

Our local elections are non-partisan. So you aren't running for School Board or Village Board as D or R, just as your own individual person.


But, yeah, I'd be a lot more comfortable voting for HRC if she were GOP than DNC. She'd have to work with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, and answer to the Koch brothers, rather than working with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, and answering to George Soros. Those other players drive Presidents in opposite directions.

Many of those policies actually evolve. Do you evolve with them or stick with your political party? Serious question.

For example, Trump has no vested interest in renewable energy.  Whereas, the last Republican president (Bush Jr.) actually invested large sums into renewables, specifically wind energy. He even helped set up the DOE loan program that so many Republicans blamed on Obama. Some even refer to him as the "godfather" of wind energy. He saw it as  a great opportunity to create jobs. Meanwhile Trump ran on the platform that investing more in dirty energy will create jobs, which no intelligent person actually believed.

Of course this isn't pointing out the obvious elephant in the room. That standing by typical Republican policy stances are vastly more important than racism, sexism, and even possible nuclear war. I mean I liked 1 or 2 Republican candidates initially, but Trump's desire to treat minorities and women the way he does and gloat about it sways me more than policy.

I just don't get the blind devotion to a single party. I voted for both Republicans and Dems.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 28, 2017, 08:09:18 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/puerto-rico-seeks-waiver-shipping-restrictions-speed-hurricane-025513424.html

Trump was against waiving the Jones Act...until he waived it.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on September 28, 2017, 08:35:49 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/puerto-rico-seeks-waiver-shipping-restrictions-speed-hurricane-025513424.html

Trump was against waiving the Jones Act...until he waived it.

Yep, with Trump there are countless examples of him saying something during the campaign and then completely reversing course. When someone says they support Trump's policy I don't have the slightest clue what that is. To me saying you would vote for trump again because you always vote Republican has nothing to do with policy. It's straight up blind devotion.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 28, 2017, 08:39:26 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/puerto-rico-seeks-waiver-shipping-restrictions-speed-hurricane-025513424.html

Trump was against waiving the Jones Act...until he waived it.
When someone says they support Trump's policy I don't have the slightest clue what that is. To me saying you would vote for trump again because you always vote Republican has nothing to do with policy. It's straight up blind devotion.

Well, if you're a white nationalist you'd probably have a blind devotion to Trump.  That's about it.

Quote
Yep, with Trump there are countless examples of him saying something during the campaign and then completely reversing course.

He said on Tuesday or Wednesday of this week he wouldn't be waiving the Jones Act.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: JLee on September 28, 2017, 10:51:10 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/puerto-rico-seeks-waiver-shipping-restrictions-speed-hurricane-025513424.html

Trump was against waiving the Jones Act...until he waived it.

He basically didn't waive it. The request was for a year and he gave 10 days.

https://np.reddit.com/r/PuertoRico/comments/72zsra/trump_has_suspended_the_jones_act/dnmx5d8/?context=3
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on September 29, 2017, 04:12:25 AM
I mean I liked 1 or 2 Republican candidates initially, but Trump's desire to treat minorities and women the way he does and gloat about it sways me more than policy.

I just don't get the blind devotion to a single party. I voted for both Republicans and Dems.


+1. And now there is report about how he make fun of McCain. You do not make fun of someone because that person is disable/weak/ill. Period.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/meghan-mccain-trump-mockery-john-mccain_us_59ccedeee4b0210dfdfc6521
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on September 29, 2017, 05:30:12 AM
I mean I liked 1 or 2 Republican candidates initially, but Trump's desire to treat minorities and women the way he does and gloat about it sways me more than policy.

I just don't get the blind devotion to a single party. I voted for both Republicans and Dems.


+1. And now there is report about how he make fun of McCain. You do not make fun of someone because that person is disable/weak/ill. Period.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/meghan-mccain-trump-mockery-john-mccain_us_59ccedeee4b0210dfdfc6521

That's really nothing new for Trump. His base will eat it up though.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 29, 2017, 07:52:38 AM
I vote straight GOP

So you're not swayed by any issues, positions, or person running?  Really?  That kind of blind loyalty to a particular political party at the cost of reason has always seemed odd to me.
To me, it seems quite reasonable! You're voting for a set of policy platforms, so you're voting DNC or GOP much more than you're voting for HRC or DJT. At the national level especially, the GOP mirrors my policy preferences a lot more closely than the DNC. It so happens that the GOP also does at the state level, too, though I imagine that can vary depending on the state. Were I in Alabama or something, I might want to increase school spending and therefore vote DNC for state rep or governor.

Our local elections are non-partisan. So you aren't running for School Board or Village Board as D or R, just as your own individual person.


But, yeah, I'd be a lot more comfortable voting for HRC if she were GOP than DNC. She'd have to work with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, and answer to the Koch brothers, rather than working with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, and answering to George Soros. Those other players drive Presidents in opposite directions.

Many of those policies actually evolve. Do you evolve with them or stick with your political party? Serious question.

For example, Trump has no vested interest in renewable energy.  Whereas, the last Republican president (Bush Jr.) actually invested large sums into renewables, specifically wind energy. He even helped set up the DOE loan program that so many Republicans blamed on Obama. Some even refer to him as the "godfather" of wind energy. He saw it as  a great opportunity to create jobs. Meanwhile Trump ran on the platform that investing more in dirty energy will create jobs, which no intelligent person actually believed.

Of course this isn't pointing out the obvious elephant in the room. That standing by typical Republican policy stances are vastly more important than racism, sexism, and even possible nuclear war. I mean I liked 1 or 2 Republican candidates initially, but Trump's desire to treat minorities and women the way he does and gloat about it sways me more than policy.

I just don't get the blind devotion to a single party. I voted for both Republicans and Dems.

I'm young, we'll have to see  how they evolve. Last decade I voted for a few Dem candidates, but I think they've drifted significantly leftward over the last 10 years, and will continue to drift further left. To me that's very concerning, because there's a lot of extremely stupid policies with a lot of currency on the political left. Like, there's a British survey of nationalization making rounds on Twitter right now that suggests a third of Brtis would want to nationalize grocery stores, and half want to nationalize the banks (both ridiculously dangerous policies, the first being reminiscent of one of the biggest 20th century calamities).

Here's the detail here:
http://www.li.com/activities/publications/public-opinion-in-the-post-brexit-era-economic-attitudes-in-modern-britain

The smell test goes off a bit here...I don't know why 20% of people want state-run travel agents?

I worry about those economic issues more than I worry about other issues.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: ncornilsen on September 29, 2017, 08:04:45 AM
I vote straight GOP

So you're not swayed by any issues, positions, or person running?  Really?  That kind of blind loyalty to a particular political party at the cost of reason has always seemed odd to me.
To me, it seems quite reasonable! You're voting for a set of policy platforms, so you're voting DNC or GOP much more than you're voting for HRC or DJT. At the national level especially, the GOP mirrors my policy preferences a lot more closely than the DNC. It so happens that the GOP also does at the state level, too, though I imagine that can vary depending on the state. Were I in Alabama or something, I might want to increase school spending and therefore vote DNC for state rep or governor.

Our local elections are non-partisan. So you aren't running for School Board or Village Board as D or R, just as your own individual person.


But, yeah, I'd be a lot more comfortable voting for HRC if she were GOP than DNC. She'd have to work with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, and answer to the Koch brothers, rather than working with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, and answering to George Soros. Those other players drive Presidents in opposite directions.

Many of those policies actually evolve. Do you evolve with them or stick with your political party? Serious question.

For example, Trump has no vested interest in renewable energy.  Whereas, the last Republican president (Bush Jr.) actually invested large sums into renewables, specifically wind energy. He even helped set up the DOE loan program that so many Republicans blamed on Obama. Some even refer to him as the "godfather" of wind energy. He saw it as  a great opportunity to create jobs. Meanwhile Trump ran on the platform that investing more in dirty energy will create jobs, which no intelligent person actually believed.

Of course this isn't pointing out the obvious elephant in the room. That standing by typical Republican policy stances are vastly more important than racism, sexism, and even possible nuclear war. I mean I liked 1 or 2 Republican candidates initially, but Trump's desire to treat minorities and women the way he does and gloat about it sways me more than policy.

I just don't get the blind devotion to a single party. I voted for both Republicans and Dems.

I'm young, we'll have to see  how they evolve. Last decade I voted for a few Dem candidates, but I think they've drifted significantly leftward over the last 10 years, and will continue to drift further left. To me that's very concerning, because there's a lot of extremely stupid policies with a lot of currency on the political left. Like, there's a British survey of nationalization making rounds on Twitter right now that suggests a third of Brtis would want to nationalize grocery stores, and half want to nationalize the banks (both ridiculously dangerous policies, the first being reminiscent of one of the biggest 20th century calamities).

Here's the detail here:
http://www.li.com/activities/publications/public-opinion-in-the-post-brexit-era-economic-attitudes-in-modern-britain

The smell test goes off a bit here...I don't know why 20% of people want state-run travel agents?

I worry about those economic issues more than I worry about other issues.

A strong economy is a key requirement for any sort of social justice. Nobody will lift a finger to change anything when they're hungry and have to wait in line for two days for government cheese.



Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on September 29, 2017, 08:15:49 AM
I vote straight GOP

So you're not swayed by any issues, positions, or person running?  Really?  That kind of blind loyalty to a particular political party at the cost of reason has always seemed odd to me.
To me, it seems quite reasonable! You're voting for a set of policy platforms, so you're voting DNC or GOP much more than you're voting for HRC or DJT. At the national level especially, the GOP mirrors my policy preferences a lot more closely than the DNC. It so happens that the GOP also does at the state level, too, though I imagine that can vary depending on the state. Were I in Alabama or something, I might want to increase school spending and therefore vote DNC for state rep or governor.

Our local elections are non-partisan. So you aren't running for School Board or Village Board as D or R, just as your own individual person.


But, yeah, I'd be a lot more comfortable voting for HRC if she were GOP than DNC. She'd have to work with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, and answer to the Koch brothers, rather than working with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, and answering to George Soros. Those other players drive Presidents in opposite directions.

Many of those policies actually evolve. Do you evolve with them or stick with your political party? Serious question.

For example, Trump has no vested interest in renewable energy.  Whereas, the last Republican president (Bush Jr.) actually invested large sums into renewables, specifically wind energy. He even helped set up the DOE loan program that so many Republicans blamed on Obama. Some even refer to him as the "godfather" of wind energy. He saw it as  a great opportunity to create jobs. Meanwhile Trump ran on the platform that investing more in dirty energy will create jobs, which no intelligent person actually believed.

Of course this isn't pointing out the obvious elephant in the room. That standing by typical Republican policy stances are vastly more important than racism, sexism, and even possible nuclear war. I mean I liked 1 or 2 Republican candidates initially, but Trump's desire to treat minorities and women the way he does and gloat about it sways me more than policy.

I just don't get the blind devotion to a single party. I voted for both Republicans and Dems.

I'm young, we'll have to see  how they evolve. Last decade I voted for a few Dem candidates, but I think they've drifted significantly leftward over the last 10 years, and will continue to drift further left. To me that's very concerning, because there's a lot of extremely stupid policies with a lot of currency on the political left.

Probably best that you never move to another country.  You are aware that both the Democrats and Republicans are pretty far right of center when compared to the rest of the world?


I wouldn't be overly concerned about survey results . .  they nearly always report odd stuff because most people are stupid.  77% of Americans believe in angels, but 40% believe in climate change.  Less than 50% of Americans believe that vaccines have no link to autism.  Your average voter probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.  :P
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: former player on September 29, 2017, 08:22:52 AM

I'm young, we'll have to see  how they evolve. Last decade I voted for a few Dem candidates, but I think they've drifted significantly leftward over the last 10 years, and will continue to drift further left. To me that's very concerning, because there's a lot of extremely stupid policies with a lot of currency on the political left. Like, there's a British survey of nationalization making rounds on Twitter right now that suggests a third of Brtis would want to nationalize grocery stores, and half want to nationalize the banks (both ridiculously dangerous policies, the first being reminiscent of one of the biggest 20th century calamities).

Here's the detail here:
http://www.li.com/activities/publications/public-opinion-in-the-post-brexit-era-economic-attitudes-in-modern-britain

The smell test goes off a bit here...I don't know why 20% of people want state-run travel agents?

I worry about those economic issues more than I worry about other issues.

I looked at that report but didn't get very far with it because it is very badly written (eg, in the forward " I come at this report with an agenda: I believe that free enterprise policies are a key driver of prosperity. Sadly though, it appears that a large proportion of British voters do not share this view, as illustrated by Transport for London’s decision to suspend Uber’s right to operate and Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell’s wide-ranging plans for nationalisation."  The TfL Uber decision was a quasi-judicial decision made on the facts by a public body which appears to be unpopular with British voters, and McDonnell's plans for nationalisation didn't win Labour the last election, and the first graph omits the option I would have voted for (raise taxes/reduce spending - our deficit is worrying).

The support in the poll for nationalising grocery stores and travel agents (as far as I know even McDonnell is not proposing these?) is at a lower level than the support for President Trump.  Which is to say, if you ask a poll question a sizeable number will probably take one view or the other without much consideration.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: ixtap on September 29, 2017, 08:28:07 AM
I vote straight GOP

So you're not swayed by any issues, positions, or person running?  Really?  That kind of blind loyalty to a particular political party at the cost of reason has always seemed odd to me.
To me, it seems quite reasonable! You're voting for a set of policy platforms, so you're voting DNC or GOP much more than you're voting for HRC or DJT. At the national level especially, the GOP mirrors my policy preferences a lot more closely than the DNC. It so happens that the GOP also does at the state level, too, though I imagine that can vary depending on the state. Were I in Alabama or something, I might want to increase school spending and therefore vote DNC for state rep or governor.

Our local elections are non-partisan. So you aren't running for School Board or Village Board as D or R, just as your own individual person.


But, yeah, I'd be a lot more comfortable voting for HRC if she were GOP than DNC. She'd have to work with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, and answer to the Koch brothers, rather than working with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, and answering to George Soros. Those other players drive Presidents in opposite directions.

Many of those policies actually evolve. Do you evolve with them or stick with your political party? Serious question.

For example, Trump has no vested interest in renewable energy.  Whereas, the last Republican president (Bush Jr.) actually invested large sums into renewables, specifically wind energy. He even helped set up the DOE loan program that so many Republicans blamed on Obama. Some even refer to him as the "godfather" of wind energy. He saw it as  a great opportunity to create jobs. Meanwhile Trump ran on the platform that investing more in dirty energy will create jobs, which no intelligent person actually believed.

Of course this isn't pointing out the obvious elephant in the room. That standing by typical Republican policy stances are vastly more important than racism, sexism, and even possible nuclear war. I mean I liked 1 or 2 Republican candidates initially, but Trump's desire to treat minorities and women the way he does and gloat about it sways me more than policy.

I just don't get the blind devotion to a single party. I voted for both Republicans and Dems.

I'm young, we'll have to see  how they evolve. Last decade I voted for a few Dem candidates, but I think they've drifted significantly leftward over the last 10 years, and will continue to drift further left. To me that's very concerning, because there's a lot of extremely stupid policies with a lot of currency on the political left. Like, there's a British survey of nationalization making rounds on Twitter right now that suggests a third of Brtis would want to nationalize grocery stores, and half want to nationalize the banks (both ridiculously dangerous policies, the first being reminiscent of one of the biggest 20th century calamities).

Here's the detail here:
http://www.li.com/activities/publications/public-opinion-in-the-post-brexit-era-economic-attitudes-in-modern-britain

The smell test goes off a bit here...I don't know why 20% of people want state-run travel agents?

I worry about those economic issues more than I worry about other issues.

You vote Republican because of British opinions???
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 29, 2017, 08:48:37 AM
I vote straight GOP

So you're not swayed by any issues, positions, or person running?  Really?  That kind of blind loyalty to a particular political party at the cost of reason has always seemed odd to me.
To me, it seems quite reasonable! You're voting for a set of policy platforms, so you're voting DNC or GOP much more than you're voting for HRC or DJT. At the national level especially, the GOP mirrors my policy preferences a lot more closely than the DNC. It so happens that the GOP also does at the state level, too, though I imagine that can vary depending on the state. Were I in Alabama or something, I might want to increase school spending and therefore vote DNC for state rep or governor.

Our local elections are non-partisan. So you aren't running for School Board or Village Board as D or R, just as your own individual person.


But, yeah, I'd be a lot more comfortable voting for HRC if she were GOP than DNC. She'd have to work with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, and answer to the Koch brothers, rather than working with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, and answering to George Soros. Those other players drive Presidents in opposite directions.

Many of those policies actually evolve. Do you evolve with them or stick with your political party? Serious question.

For example, Trump has no vested interest in renewable energy.  Whereas, the last Republican president (Bush Jr.) actually invested large sums into renewables, specifically wind energy. He even helped set up the DOE loan program that so many Republicans blamed on Obama. Some even refer to him as the "godfather" of wind energy. He saw it as  a great opportunity to create jobs. Meanwhile Trump ran on the platform that investing more in dirty energy will create jobs, which no intelligent person actually believed.

Of course this isn't pointing out the obvious elephant in the room. That standing by typical Republican policy stances are vastly more important than racism, sexism, and even possible nuclear war. I mean I liked 1 or 2 Republican candidates initially, but Trump's desire to treat minorities and women the way he does and gloat about it sways me more than policy.

I just don't get the blind devotion to a single party. I voted for both Republicans and Dems.

I'm young, we'll have to see  how they evolve. Last decade I voted for a few Dem candidates, but I think they've drifted significantly leftward over the last 10 years, and will continue to drift further left. To me that's very concerning, because there's a lot of extremely stupid policies with a lot of currency on the political left.

Probably best that you never move to another country.  You are aware that both the Democrats and Republicans are pretty far right of center when compared to the rest of the world?


I wouldn't be overly concerned about survey results . .  they nearly always report odd stuff because most people are stupid.  77% of Americans believe in angels, but 40% believe in climate change.  Less than 50% of Americans believe that vaccines have no link to autism.  Your average voter probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.  :P

Yes, and I think the rest of you guys are crazy :P
I don't think I could live in a non-Anglophone nation after living in the US, and I'm not just talking about the language barrier.
Agreed on the survey results to the extent that it doesn't mean those policies WILL be implemented. The UK has privatized railways apparently, even though the survey says the vast majority support nationalization, for instance. Policies can vary substantially from public opinion (US immigration policy 2000-2006 being a good example). But there's a significant power bloc that WILL support all kinds of central planning policies, and these central planning policies are within living memory. It wasn't all that long ago that the American attempted solution to inflation was to freeze all prices in the nation (and that was a Republican President doing it!).

So it's more suggesting, the Dems have moved left, they have a lot of run-room to move MORE left, and I think they'll be moving more left over the next few cycles. I'm somewhat less concerned about folks like antifa than I am folks like Bernie Sanders.

Quote
You vote Republican because of British opinions???
American culture is an export of a few British sub-cultures, so there are a lot of similarities exist between the two nations. If something can happen in the UK, it can happen in the US as well. Same applies, really, to all the Western cultures.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: jim555 on September 29, 2017, 09:48:24 AM
Haven't rail and bus prices gone way up in the UK since privatization?  Maybe that is a reason.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on September 29, 2017, 10:05:05 AM
Yes, and I think the rest of you guys are crazy :P
I don't think I could live in a non-Anglophone nation after living in the US, and I'm not just talking about the language barrier.
Agreed on the survey results to the extent that it doesn't mean those policies WILL be implemented. The UK has privatized railways apparently, even though the survey says the vast majority support nationalization, for instance. Policies can vary substantially from public opinion (US immigration policy 2000-2006 being a good example). But there's a significant power bloc that WILL support all kinds of central planning policies, and these central planning policies are within living memory. It wasn't all that long ago that the American attempted solution to inflation was to freeze all prices in the nation (and that was a Republican President doing it!).

So it's more suggesting, the Dems have moved left, they have a lot of run-room to move MORE left, and I think they'll be moving more left over the next few cycles. I'm somewhat less concerned about folks like antifa than I am folks like Bernie Sanders.

Quote
You vote Republican because of British opinions???

American culture is an export of a few British sub-cultures, so there are a lot of similarities exist between the two nations. If something can happen in the UK, it can happen in the US as well. Same applies, really, to all the Western cultures.
This sounds a lot like another argument I've heard, "Well It's not that I think people should own high capacity assault rifles, but if that gets taken away what's next? I'm afraid they'll take away all of our guns"

This mentality leads to zero compromise politics. What if the best solution is somewhere in the middle but you're so afraid of losing ground in terms of what you perceive as tug-of-war that the only option is one extreme or the other?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on September 29, 2017, 10:28:33 AM
Haven't rail and bus prices gone way up in the UK since privatization?  Maybe that is a reason.
There's nothing automatically wrong about a price increase. We have a lot of people here in Chicago whining about increases in parking and tolls after privatization, but that's a good thing. The resources were under-priced before, and the prices needed to increase.

Our train authority plans to increase our rates again next year, after a 10% hike this year...not like governments are themselves immune to price hikes.

Quote
This sounds a lot like another argument I've heard, "Well It's not that I think people should own high capacity assault rifles, but if that gets taken away what's next? I'm afraid they'll take away all of our guns"

This mentality leads to zero compromise politics. What if the best solution is somewhere in the middle but you're so afraid of losing ground in terms of what you perceive as tug-of-war that the only option is one extreme or the other?
I don't believe in zero compromise politics. I think before I've mentioned that I preferred Trump to Cruz because Cruz whipped the Senate into a frenzy and tried to shut down government multiple times. Once people are elected, you have a responsibility to try to arrive at some kind of consensus.

I don't support the current positions of the Dem party, so in your analogy, I am perfectly okay with people owning high-capacity assault magazines. I also think these policies are going to drift even further left-ward than the current positions, so the Dems will also bring back their AWB, and, if allowed, go much further to restrict gun rights (as they did in DC and in Chicago).
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on September 29, 2017, 01:33:45 PM
I vote straight GOP

So you're not swayed by any issues, positions, or person running?  Really?  That kind of blind loyalty to a particular political party at the cost of reason has always seemed odd to me.
To me, it seems quite reasonable! You're voting for a set of policy platforms, so you're voting DNC or GOP much more than you're voting for HRC or DJT. At the national level especially, the GOP mirrors my policy preferences a lot more closely than the DNC. It so happens that the GOP also does at the state level, too, though I imagine that can vary depending on the state. Were I in Alabama or something, I might want to increase school spending and therefore vote DNC for state rep or governor.

Our local elections are non-partisan. So you aren't running for School Board or Village Board as D or R, just as your own individual person.


But, yeah, I'd be a lot more comfortable voting for HRC if she were GOP than DNC. She'd have to work with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, and answer to the Koch brothers, rather than working with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, and answering to George Soros. Those other players drive Presidents in opposite directions.

Many of those policies actually evolve. Do you evolve with them or stick with your political party? Serious question.

For example, Trump has no vested interest in renewable energy.  Whereas, the last Republican president (Bush Jr.) actually invested large sums into renewables, specifically wind energy. He even helped set up the DOE loan program that so many Republicans blamed on Obama. Some even refer to him as the "godfather" of wind energy. He saw it as  a great opportunity to create jobs. Meanwhile Trump ran on the platform that investing more in dirty energy will create jobs, which no intelligent person actually believed.

Of course this isn't pointing out the obvious elephant in the room. That standing by typical Republican policy stances are vastly more important than racism, sexism, and even possible nuclear war. I mean I liked 1 or 2 Republican candidates initially, but Trump's desire to treat minorities and women the way he does and gloat about it sways me more than policy.

I just don't get the blind devotion to a single party. I voted for both Republicans and Dems.

I'm young, we'll have to see  how they evolve. Last decade I voted for a few Dem candidates, but I think they've drifted significantly leftward over the last 10 years, and will continue to drift further left. To me that's very concerning, because there's a lot of extremely stupid policies with a lot of currency on the political left.

Probably best that you never move to another country.  You are aware that both the Democrats and Republicans are pretty far right of center when compared to the rest of the world?


I wouldn't be overly concerned about survey results . .  they nearly always report odd stuff because most people are stupid.  77% of Americans believe in angels, but 40% believe in climate change.  Less than 50% of Americans believe that vaccines have no link to autism.  Your average voter probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.  :P

You forgot that 12.5 million folks think our country is run by shape shifting reptilians.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on September 29, 2017, 01:41:19 PM
I vote straight GOP

So you're not swayed by any issues, positions, or person running?  Really?  That kind of blind loyalty to a particular political party at the cost of reason has always seemed odd to me.
To me, it seems quite reasonable! You're voting for a set of policy platforms, so you're voting DNC or GOP much more than you're voting for HRC or DJT. At the national level especially, the GOP mirrors my policy preferences a lot more closely than the DNC. It so happens that the GOP also does at the state level, too, though I imagine that can vary depending on the state. Were I in Alabama or something, I might want to increase school spending and therefore vote DNC for state rep or governor.

Our local elections are non-partisan. So you aren't running for School Board or Village Board as D or R, just as your own individual person.


But, yeah, I'd be a lot more comfortable voting for HRC if she were GOP than DNC. She'd have to work with Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, and answer to the Koch brothers, rather than working with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, and answering to George Soros. Those other players drive Presidents in opposite directions.

Many of those policies actually evolve. Do you evolve with them or stick with your political party? Serious question.

For example, Trump has no vested interest in renewable energy.  Whereas, the last Republican president (Bush Jr.) actually invested large sums into renewables, specifically wind energy. He even helped set up the DOE loan program that so many Republicans blamed on Obama. Some even refer to him as the "godfather" of wind energy. He saw it as  a great opportunity to create jobs. Meanwhile Trump ran on the platform that investing more in dirty energy will create jobs, which no intelligent person actually believed.

Of course this isn't pointing out the obvious elephant in the room. That standing by typical Republican policy stances are vastly more important than racism, sexism, and even possible nuclear war. I mean I liked 1 or 2 Republican candidates initially, but Trump's desire to treat minorities and women the way he does and gloat about it sways me more than policy.

I just don't get the blind devotion to a single party. I voted for both Republicans and Dems.

I'm young, we'll have to see  how they evolve. Last decade I voted for a few Dem candidates, but I think they've drifted significantly leftward over the last 10 years, and will continue to drift further left. To me that's very concerning, because there's a lot of extremely stupid policies with a lot of currency on the political left.

Probably best that you never move to another country.  You are aware that both the Democrats and Republicans are pretty far right of center when compared to the rest of the world?


I wouldn't be overly concerned about survey results . .  they nearly always report odd stuff because most people are stupid.  77% of Americans believe in angels, but 40% believe in climate change.  Less than 50% of Americans believe that vaccines have no link to autism.  Your average voter probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.  :P

You forgot that 12.5 million folks think our country is run by shape shifting reptilians.

I was only listing some of the silly things that polls report, not the obvious.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on September 29, 2017, 02:51:29 PM
I was only listing some of the silly things that polls report, not the obvious.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/tyttpHduQdg3d6O8jAs/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: marty998 on September 29, 2017, 08:17:40 PM
Your Health Secretary Dr Tom Price has resigned over reports he billed the US taxpayer over $400,000 on private charter flights, instead of flying commercial.

Good to see people being held accountable for their actions.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: paddedhat on September 29, 2017, 08:32:00 PM
Your Health Secretary Dr Tom Price has resigned over reports he billed the US taxpayer over $400,000 on private charter flights, instead of flying commercial.

Good to see people being held accountable for their actions.

If this were any functional organization with any evidence of integrity, yes it would be a case of people being held accountable. Sadly, this is just more of the same.  Hundreds of people on the inside are horrified at what a shit show our executive branch has become, and they leak to the press when they see that nothing is being done to control the madness.   Donny junior and his meetings with Russians, as the dumb little shit gleefully expected to find dirt from Russian operatives,  many of  the president's key staff using private email, and a hundred other messes are dealt with once they are exposed, and the press keeps the pressure up, until the administration has no choice but to act.  Trump's obsession with "fake news" is only an issue because, for the first time in his sorry existence, he can't do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and fuck, or fuck over anybody he chooses to, with zero concern for legality, morality, or personal responsibility.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on September 30, 2017, 08:32:11 AM
Trump attacking the mayor of San Juan and the citizens of Puerto Rico while golfing this morning. This man is scum.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on September 30, 2017, 08:37:07 AM
Trump attacking the mayor of San Juan and the citizens of Puerto Rico while golfing this morning. This man is scum.

Scum is a gross understatement.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Lagom on September 30, 2017, 12:21:58 PM
Trump attacking the mayor of San Juan and the citizens of Puerto Rico while golfing this morning. This man is scum.

Scum is a gross understatement.

Yet another grossly horrific failure to meet the minimum standards of basic human decency that will be shrugged away by his base. We just have to accept that ~35% of voters actually approve of this sort of behavior, or at a minimum are so blindly hateful towards liberals that they literally don't care what he does as long as it pisses them off.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: JLee on September 30, 2017, 01:02:04 PM
Trump attacking the mayor of San Juan and the citizens of Puerto Rico while golfing this morning. This man is scum.

Scum is a gross understatement.

Yet another grossly horrific failure to meet the minimum standards of basic human decency that will be shrugged away by his base. We just have to accept that ~35% of voters actually approve of this sort of behavior, or at a minimum are so blindly hateful towards liberals that they literally don't care what he does as long as it pisses them off.

That's so true.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: bacchi on September 30, 2017, 02:12:18 PM
Trump is using the "minorities are lazy" gambit. His base loves it and Puerto Rico doesn't have an electoral vote anyway. It's all upside for him.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: jim555 on September 30, 2017, 03:08:22 PM
But DJT is doing a fantastic job, the best, I heard him say it, it must be true.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: aspiringnomad on September 30, 2017, 05:47:07 PM
Trump is using the "minorities are lazy" gambit. His base loves it and Puerto Rico doesn't have an electoral vote anyway. It's all upside for him.

Until a large contingent migrates and registers to vote in Florida. It's possible given how economically dire things have gotten in Puerto Rico (setting aside the current lack of basic necessities), and there is absolutely nothing Trump could do about it.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: paddedhat on September 30, 2017, 06:24:08 PM
Trump is using the "minorities are lazy" gambit. His base loves it and Puerto Rico doesn't have an electoral vote anyway. It's all upside for him.

Until a large contingent migrates and registers to vote in Florida. It's possible given how economically dire things have gotten in Puerto Rico (setting aside the current lack of basic necessities), and there is absolutely nothing Trump could do about it.

Oh, you mean like this?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/30/trump-attacks-mayor-san-juan-puerto-rico-hurricane-243329


I love the part about how close significant elections have been recently in the state, and how effective Trump is becoming at rallying the troops, as in Puerto Ricans, Latinos, Democrats................................... Keep flapping your pie hole, and banging on the twitter keys like a retarded monkey, Donny. What can go wrong?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: jim555 on September 30, 2017, 06:35:52 PM
I would leave PR if I was there.  Think of all those new voters pouring in Florida.  Florida turns blue the Repubs have a real problem.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on October 01, 2017, 11:44:45 AM
Absolute fucking imbecile. Now he is telling Puerto Ricans not to believe in "fake news media." Hey jackass, they don't have electricty!!!

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/353278-former-obama-speechwriter-calls-trump-f-dolt-for-puerto-rico (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/353278-former-obama-speechwriter-calls-trump-f-dolt-for-puerto-rico)
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 02, 2017, 12:02:25 AM
This is why I knew Trump would be nominated, and why he'd win,

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/521083335/the-forces-driving-middle-aged-white-peoples-deaths-of-despair (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/521083335/the-forces-driving-middle-aged-white-peoples-deaths-of-despair)

Note the trendline in the graph with Australia in it.


"If you go back to the early '70s when you had the so-called blue-collar aristocrats, those jobs have slowly crumbled away and many more men are finding themselves in a much more hostile labor market with lower wages, lower quality and less permanent jobs. That's made it harder for them to get married. They don't get to know their own kids. There's a lot of social dysfunction building up over time. There's a sense that these people have lost this sense of status and belonging. And these are classic preconditions for suicide."


They're also preconditions for people looking for something different, politically. And I could see that people would say, "yes he's an idiot, but he's different." Now, of course he is different in presentation and not in practice, since the power of US Presidents is limited. But we see the same in Australia: rising mortality for middle-aged white guys, and rising votes for third parties.


The oompah-loompah is a symptom of the underlying disease of the decline of the West, as free trade, deregulation and privatisation have destroyed our manufacturing economies. We can't all be accountants and baristas. Unless we acknowledge and deal with the underlying causes, we'll just get more Trumps and more Pauline Hansons and similar clowns.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on October 02, 2017, 06:46:02 AM
This is why I knew Trump would be nominated, and why he'd win,

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/521083335/the-forces-driving-middle-aged-white-peoples-deaths-of-despair (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/521083335/the-forces-driving-middle-aged-white-peoples-deaths-of-despair)

Note the trendline in the graph with Australia in it.


"If you go back to the early '70s when you had the so-called blue-collar aristocrats, those jobs have slowly crumbled away and many more men are finding themselves in a much more hostile labor market with lower wages, lower quality and less permanent jobs. That's made it harder for them to get married. They don't get to know their own kids. There's a lot of social dysfunction building up over time. There's a sense that these people have lost this sense of status and belonging. And these are classic preconditions for suicide."


They're also preconditions for people looking for something different, politically. And I could see that people would say, "yes he's an idiot, but he's different." Now, of course he is different in presentation and not in practice, since the power of US Presidents is limited. But we see the same in Australia: rising mortality for middle-aged white guys, and rising votes for third parties.


The oompah-loompah is a symptom of the underlying disease of the decline of the West, as free trade, deregulation and privatisation have destroyed our manufacturing economies. We can't all be accountants and baristas. Unless we acknowledge and deal with the underlying causes, we'll just get more Trumps and more Pauline Hansons and similar clowns.

And yet, they keep voting for Republicans because of the Southern Strategy and the culture wars. The very party that has been at the helm of deregulation and privatization.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 02, 2017, 07:58:31 AM
There isn't an absolute decline in the West. Things are better than they were in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Medicine is better, technology is better, homes are better, cars are better, everything is better. I can't think of any Western nations where things have objectively stagnated or regressed in the last 40-50 years.

Maybe there's been some relative decline, but that's offset by the US being dramatically more powerful in the 21st century than the early 20th, and doesn't matter because the rest of the World is catching up to us rather than us regressing to their levels. China has lifted hundreds of millions of people from poverty, which is a great accomplishment, and doesn't mean that we are worse off. It's certainly better than the 70s or the 80s when the Soviets might've just decided to kill us all.

You'll note that Germany and France both see declining "deaths of despair," but AfD captured parliament seats just last weekend, and the National Front in France has been doing better than they ever have been. I don't see Australia as having a growing far-right movement compared to either of those nations. Based on Wiki perusal, this Xenophon team is the newest party, and is roughly equivalent to Michael Bloomberg deciding to start his own party.

Privatization, deregulation, and free trade, make the West better off. There are some losers from trade, as there are losers with any policy. They happen to be geographically concentrated in swing states.

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on October 02, 2017, 08:54:18 AM
This is why I knew Trump would be nominated, and why he'd win,

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/521083335/the-forces-driving-middle-aged-white-peoples-deaths-of-despair (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/23/521083335/the-forces-driving-middle-aged-white-peoples-deaths-of-despair)

Note the trendline in the graph with Australia in it.


"If you go back to the early '70s when you had the so-called blue-collar aristocrats, those jobs have slowly crumbled away and many more men are finding themselves in a much more hostile labor market with lower wages, lower quality and less permanent jobs. That's made it harder for them to get married. They don't get to know their own kids. There's a lot of social dysfunction building up over time. There's a sense that these people have lost this sense of status and belonging. And these are classic preconditions for suicide."


They're also preconditions for people looking for something different, politically. And I could see that people would say, "yes he's an idiot, but he's different." Now, of course he is different in presentation and not in practice, since the power of US Presidents is limited. But we see the same in Australia: rising mortality for middle-aged white guys, and rising votes for third parties.


The oompah-loompah is a symptom of the underlying disease of the decline of the West, as free trade, deregulation and privatisation have destroyed our manufacturing economies. We can't all be accountants and baristas. Unless we acknowledge and deal with the underlying causes, we'll just get more Trumps and more Pauline Hansons and similar clowns.

And yet, they keep voting for Republicans because of the Southern Strategy and the culture wars. The very party that has been at the helm of deregulation and privatization.

Ehhhh, it's just easier to blame it on the liberals. Facts be damned
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Glenstache on October 03, 2017, 11:16:27 AM
Apparently PR should stop complaining and be proud because so few people died compared to a real catastrophe like Katrina. How the F&$% is that an appropriate thing to say? "Yeah, PR is destroyed, but you should be grateful for the help because something else terrible has happened."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/353634-trump-puerto-rico-has-thrown-our-budget-a-little-out-of-whack

Quote
“If you looked — every death is a horror, but if you look at a real catastrophe like Katrina, and you look at the tremendous hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people that died, and you look at what happened here with really a storm that was just totally overbearing, nobody has seen anything like this,” Trump said
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: partgypsy on October 03, 2017, 11:49:15 AM
Apparently PR should stop complaining and be proud because so few people died compared to a real catastrophe like Katrina. How the F&$% is that an appropriate thing to say? "Yeah, PR is destroyed, but you should be grateful for the help because something else terrible has happened."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/353634-trump-puerto-rico-has-thrown-our-budget-a-little-out-of-whack

Quote
“If you looked — every death is a horror, but if you look at a real catastrophe like Katrina, and you look at the tremendous hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people that died, and you look at what happened here with really a storm that was just totally overbearing, nobody has seen anything like this,” Trump said

WTF
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Inaya on October 03, 2017, 12:14:37 PM
Apparently PR should stop complaining and be proud because so few people died compared to a real catastrophe like Katrina. How the F&$% is that an appropriate thing to say? "Yeah, PR is destroyed, but you should be grateful for the help because something else terrible has happened."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/353634-trump-puerto-rico-has-thrown-our-budget-a-little-out-of-whack (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/353634-trump-puerto-rico-has-thrown-our-budget-a-little-out-of-whack)

Quote
“If you looked — every death is a horror, but if you look at a real catastrophe like Katrina, and you look at the tremendous hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people that died, and you look at what happened here with really a storm that was just totally overbearing, nobody has seen anything like this,” Trump said

WTF


Puerto Rico threw our budget out of whack, so I guess Texas and Florida didn't cost anything?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: infogoon on October 03, 2017, 02:37:26 PM
At least he told the hurricane survivors that their weather is "second to none".
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on October 03, 2017, 04:24:08 PM
At least he told the hurricane survivors that their weather is "second to none".

Come on... give the guy and gal a break :)

At least this time no USA and FLOTUS hat this time. Imagine what kind of fake news these hats would generate if he is trying to promote his hats to people who "threw our budget out of whack". That would just be outrageous!
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 03, 2017, 09:03:46 PM
There isn't an absolute decline in the West. Things are better than they were in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. [...]
Privatization, deregulation, and free trade, make the West better off. There are some losers from trade, as there are losers with any policy. They happen to be geographically concentrated in swing states.
This is the response of a salaried person with a tertiary education, and such people tend to do well whatever the economy is like, whether up or down, free trade or protected, liberal or communist.

A waged person without a tertiary education will view things differently, since they will be among the "some losers" you casually dismiss.

The continued failure of the salaried educated classes to recognise the inherent problems in the system they have benefited from will ensure more fruit loops arise. Through history we can see that it is in the nature of elites to destroy themselves - by getting greedy and insulating themselves from reality with a wall of personal guards and yes-men - and the middle classes follow the elites.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on October 04, 2017, 08:06:04 AM
There isn't an absolute decline in the West. Things are better than they were in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. [...]
Privatization, deregulation, and free trade, make the West better off. There are some losers from trade, as there are losers with any policy. They happen to be geographically concentrated in swing states.
This is the response of a salaried person with a tertiary education, and such people tend to do well whatever the economy is like, whether up or down, free trade or protected, liberal or communist.

A waged person without a tertiary education will view things differently, since they will be among the "some losers" you casually dismiss.

The continued failure of the salaried educated classes to recognise the inherent problems in the system they have benefited from will ensure more fruit loops arise. Through history we can see that it is in the nature of elites to destroy themselves - by getting greedy and insulating themselves from reality with a wall of personal guards and yes-men - and the middle classes follow the elites.

This must be why Trump is so reviled by the non-salaried, uneducated.  After all, he was born an elite to an elite father . . . the vast majority of his successes are due to the fortune he started with, not his own work.  He has also steadily implemented policies that are good for the elite and bad for the poor.

Wait, his largest base is among that group you say?  Hmmm . . . maybe there's something wrong with the theory.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on October 04, 2017, 08:08:29 AM
There isn't an absolute decline in the West. Things are better than they were in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. [...]
Privatization, deregulation, and free trade, make the West better off. There are some losers from trade, as there are losers with any policy. They happen to be geographically concentrated in swing states.
This is the response of a salaried person with a tertiary education, and such people tend to do well whatever the economy is like, whether up or down, free trade or protected, liberal or communist.

A waged person without a tertiary education will view things differently, since they will be among the "some losers" you casually dismiss.

The continued failure of the salaried educated classes to recognise the inherent problems in the system they have benefited from will ensure more fruit loops arise. Through history we can see that it is in the nature of elites to destroy themselves - by getting greedy and insulating themselves from reality with a wall of personal guards and yes-men - and the middle classes follow the elites.

This must be why Trump is so reviled by the non-salaried, uneducated.  After all, he was born an elite to an elite father . . . the vast majority of his successes are due to the fortune he started with, not his own work.  He has also steadily implemented policies that are good for the elite and bad for the poor.

Wait, his largest base is among that group you say?  Hmmm . . . maybe there's something wrong with the theory.

Yes, but Trump is a vulgarian and a boob with a chip on his shoulder who loves to bully a lot of the same people that the conservative poor hate. He talks a super-good blue collar game, if you aren't paying attention and don't actually want any details about how he's gonna do it -- you just want a lot of language about how he's gonna stick it to people you hate.

And most of his voters aren't paying attention.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on October 04, 2017, 08:46:31 AM
Having Trump as President is like having no leadership at all.  Whenever a tremendous historical opportunity presents itself, he produces a few inflammatory or irrelevant Tweets and then goes off to shoot a round of golf.  He doesn't seem to mind flying around for photo ops, but there is no substance or lasting impact.  It's astonishing that there is nothing else there to fill in the vacuum, Congress certainly hasn't become organized and galvanized by these recent events.  They seem scared to stick their neck out of their turtle shells.

My idealistic teenage self thought America not having leadership would be kind of interesting - power back to the people (with the expectation that the people could do better if government shrunk and kept out of the way), but now, not so much.  I'm not taking my family to any concerts or large gathernings anytime soon, I'm not expecting government to do much for hurricane victims now that the intial publicity has died down and the hard work continues, and I'm not holding my breath President Trump will be any different in 2020 so I'm doing my best to ignore him.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: RangerOne on October 04, 2017, 07:34:23 PM
There isn't an absolute decline in the West. Things are better than they were in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. [...]
Privatization, deregulation, and free trade, make the West better off. There are some losers from trade, as there are losers with any policy. They happen to be geographically concentrated in swing states.
This is the response of a salaried person with a tertiary education, and such people tend to do well whatever the economy is like, whether up or down, free trade or protected, liberal or communist.

A waged person without a tertiary education will view things differently, since they will be among the "some losers" you casually dismiss.

The continued failure of the salaried educated classes to recognise the inherent problems in the system they have benefited from will ensure more fruit loops arise. Through history we can see that it is in the nature of elites to destroy themselves - by getting greedy and insulating themselves from reality with a wall of personal guards and yes-men - and the middle classes follow the elites.

This has truth to it. Some economists note that the populist left and right wing shifts in the politics of both America and European countries is some of the first tangible evidence that the globalization experiment is not sustainable without significant modification. Enough people are getting fucked that it is starting to change voting patterns.

Unfortunately things will probably still have to get a lot worse before any tries to change this system enough to truly help the people getting left behind. Unfortunately I don't think we can simply bring lost jobs back or revert shun the global community to improve things at home.

Its going to take some radical action and re-thinking to give citizens purpose and hope back with regards to income and job prospects. And there is also the reality that we are likely moving towards a future where human labor is simply not needed in any quantity that can justify today concept of full employment. People of the future, if we are successful, will likely work less and have more leisure time. This could be a good thing or bad thing depending on how we chose to balance that new society and what we do with the additional free time.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kyle Schuant on October 04, 2017, 07:39:14 PM
This must be why Trump is so reviled by the non-salaried, uneducated.  After all, he was born an elite to an elite father . . . the vast majority of his successes are due to the fortune he started with, not his own work.  He has also steadily implemented policies that are good for the elite and bad for the poor.

Wait, his largest base is among that group you say?  Hmmm . . . maybe there's something wrong with the theory.
It's not a matter of what his background was. After all, Marx spent a large chunk of his life mooching off his friends, and many Russian nobles supported the Bolshevik revolution. It's a matter of who he spoke to, and in what ways.

Let's look a few centuries back to Machiavelli's Discourses, Chapter 53.

Quote
That 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. [...]

Two points are here to be noted. First, that a people deceived by a false show of advantage will often labour for its own destruction; and, unless convinced by some one whom it trusts, that the course on which it is bent is pernicious, and that some other is to be preferred, will bring infinite danger and injury upon the State. And should it so happen, as sometimes is the case, that from having been deceived before, either by men or by events, there is none in whom the people trust, their ruin is inevitable. [...]

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.


He was speaking mostly of military affairs, giving the example of Fabian's caution being scorned by the people, and other commanders' rash attacks being preferred, though the latter led to misery and defeat. But the same applies in all public affairs.


Trump is indeed an elite. But so are all who propose themselves for such an office. A gardener or janitor isn't becoming US President, however worthy they may be. So the people can't choose someone like them, they must choose someone who at least says what they want to hear. And he did that very effectively.


He was lying, of course, but the people are used to that, so they have nothing to lose in their choice.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: scottish on October 05, 2017, 04:07:25 PM
Here's something different.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-gop-is-on-its-deathbed/article36481644/ (https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-gop-is-on-its-deathbed/article36481644/)

Back around the turn of the century there were 2 right wing political parties in Canada.   The "Progressive Conservative" party (yes it's an oxymoron) and the "Reform" party - something like a tea party light.   After defeat at the hands of the Liberal party, both parties were in trouble and they merged to form the "Conservative Party".    Unfortunately the reformers had the upper hand and we were stuck with the likes of Stephen Harper, John Baird, Tony Clement and others.

The author draws an analogy to recent Canadian history and speculates that Trump and his ilk will gradually take over the Republican party in the states, much as Harper and his ilk did in Canada.

In the end, we've had other political leaders stand up and things are more or less back to normal in Canada after 10 years of having the Conservative Party in power.    They weren't nearly as bad as Trump mind you.    They just had some... overly conservative ideas.    And not very much fiscal responsibility.    The current Liberal party isn't much better in terms of fiscal responsibility, mind you.

Eventually I expect the US federal government will go back to something approaching normal as more people tire of Trump and come out to vote in order to suppress his base and his political allies.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on October 08, 2017, 12:04:03 AM
If there is a tape, I hope this video would be made public! I bet it is much more anticipated and watched than final season of GoT!

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-golden-shower-dossier-679973
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on October 08, 2017, 11:47:55 AM
More of what the Trump Presidency is about. Not a lot of protest against this sort of thing, I guess because they aren't rich black athletes kneeling for a cause.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/10/07/richard-spencer-leads-another-torchlight-march-in-charlottesville/?utm_term=.418964ffcd30 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/10/07/richard-spencer-leads-another-torchlight-march-in-charlottesville/?utm_term=.418964ffcd30)
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: paddedhat on October 08, 2017, 02:35:08 PM
More of what the Trump Presidency is about. Not a lot of protest against this sort of thing, I guess because they aren't rich black athletes kneeling for a cause.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/10/07/richard-spencer-leads-another-torchlight-march-in-charlottesville/?utm_term=.418964ffcd30 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/10/07/richard-spencer-leads-another-torchlight-march-in-charlottesville/?utm_term=.418964ffcd30)

There now appears to be verifiable proof that Spencer and Stephen Miller, Trumps personal anti-Muslim crusader, were  tight when they were both at Duke University, a decade ago. Shocking eh?  Senior level trump staff pals with a Neo-Nazi.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Barbaebigode on October 09, 2017, 07:08:49 AM
Another outcome of this presidency:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/oct/09/trumps-plan-to-bail-out-failing-fossil-fuels-with-taxpayer-subsidies-is-perverse

Apparently the goverment can choose winners and losers, after all.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: jim555 on October 09, 2017, 07:52:20 AM
The future is renewable energy, even if you deny climate change.  Guess the fuel lobby pays well.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Glenstache on October 09, 2017, 09:28:30 AM
Another outcome of this presidency:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/oct/09/trumps-plan-to-bail-out-failing-fossil-fuels-with-taxpayer-subsidies-is-perverse

Apparently the goverment can choose winners and losers, after all.

I wonder if Trump will try to block the Musk-Puerto Rico solar power push.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on October 09, 2017, 10:16:14 AM
Another outcome of this presidency:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/oct/09/trumps-plan-to-bail-out-failing-fossil-fuels-with-taxpayer-subsidies-is-perverse

Apparently the goverment can choose winners and losers, after all.

I wonder if Trump will try to block the Musk-Puerto Rico solar power push.

I don't know if he *can* block it. But I'd bet money on him taking time out of his busy golf schedule to bad-mouth it on Twitter.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: infogoon on October 09, 2017, 11:57:14 AM
I really enjoyed the Mike Pence protest protest yesterday. What a good use of tax dollars by the Party Of Fiscal Responsibility(tm).

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: ncornilsen on October 09, 2017, 12:05:41 PM
I really enjoyed the Mike Pence protest protest yesterday. What a good use of tax dollars by the Party Of Fiscal Responsibility(tm).

Another childish act, planned and scripted.

Are you upset about Pence using tax payer dollars to buy the tickets, or are you concerned about the security expenses? because thier's no evidence of the former and the latter is pretty par for the course for politicians of thier level.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DoubleDown on October 09, 2017, 12:34:03 PM
Are you upset about Pence using tax payer dollars to buy the tickets, or are you concerned about the security expenses? because thier's no evidence of the former and the latter is pretty par for the course for politicians of thier level.

I thought so too, at first, until I saw on the news this morning that Pence flew on Air Force Two all the way from Las Vegas to Indiana to stand for the anthem, then left and flew all the way back to Los Angeles knowing full well beforehand that some players would sit out. Obviously with the entire security and support entourage in tow, which costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on October 09, 2017, 12:40:40 PM
It was a stupid, juvenile stunt.

But Trump's base will eat that shit up.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on October 09, 2017, 07:51:32 PM
It was a stupid, juvenile stunt.

But Trump's base will eat that shit up.

Did not think Pence would do something like this - from little that I know about his past, he seemed pretty decent person. I guess when you sign up as the VP, you become that person too.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: paddedhat on October 10, 2017, 06:44:53 AM
It was a stupid, juvenile stunt.

But Trump's base will eat that shit up.

Did not think Pence would do something like this - from little that I know about his past, he seemed pretty decent person. I guess when you sign up as the VP, you become that person too.

Seriously?  Pence has the potential to be quite a bit more dangerous than trump. He is a competent, ethically bankrupt Evangelical jihadist. He led a totally criminal effort to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters, using his state police force as part of the unconstitutional and illegal maneuver. He abandoned Indiana's industrial wasteland, just east of Chicago, where children live in completely toxic public housing, in criminally unfit conditions, since they are not "supporters" of his. (As in, Black, and unlikely to vote for right wing extremists) Had he not attached himself to dopey's ass, he would of been out of a job, since the majority of Indiana residents couldn't stand him. The more you know about this chucklenut, the more you hope that dopey remains in power, as he totally destroys the party, and hope that he doesn't take the rest of us out in WW3. Pence is about as far right as it gets, and would be totally happy as the leader of an authoritarian Theocracy, which is what he, and fellow scum like DeVos, dream of. These are people that refuse funding for things like Head start, since it cannot be used to brainwash our nation's youth into being good little Evangelicals. Dopey is a clueless, malignant Narcissist who believes in nothing but himself, and keeping his followers happy, so they adore him. Pence is exponentially more dangerous. Pence has rigid beliefs that do not represent the vast majority of Americans, and the drive and intelligence to at least be partially successful, in his quest to make us an extremely right leaning, Christian extremist controlled nation.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on October 10, 2017, 06:56:21 AM
When I read the headline this morning that Trump was challenging Tillerson to an IQ test (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/10/10/trump-proposes-iq-tests-face-off-with-tillerson-after-secretary-of-state-calls-him-a-moron/?utm_term=.63f6e81fdf8e), I immediately thought 'Dunning Kruger'.  This article from Bloomberg in May (https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-12/trump-s-dangerous-disability-it-s-the-dunning-kruger-effect) popped up when I searched a bit and hits it right on the nose.

Quote
And Trump’s assumptions of expertise go beyond ordinary appliances and policy issues. He recently advised the Navy on how to improve aircraft carrier technology: “It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out.”

So, by this point, we know the guy is incompetent.  He has demonstrated that he is unaware of important aspects of world history and unable to grasp most of the present, and doesn't have any talent toward leading a team or accomplishing a fixed goal.  We can also surmise that he is ignorant to the fact that he is unaware of his own limitations.  Isn't this a textbook case of being unfit for office?  Hasn't enough evidence piled up to make a case? 

In nature, Trump would be a free radical in an ortherwise healthy organism that ping pongs around randomly until it causes cancer.   
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 10, 2017, 07:10:26 AM
Someone on the internet complaining about Dunning-Krueger in the President is pretty funny. How much do you know about military procurement, digital vs. steam catapults, etc?

The Ford is more than 3 years behind schedule and billions over budget, in part because of all the new tech they are trying to cram into it, some of which is that new-fangled electro-magnetic launch system. Unless you have a lot of industry experience (and who knows, maybe you might), Trump is more knowledgeable about the subject than you are.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on October 10, 2017, 07:46:10 AM
It was a stupid, juvenile stunt.

But Trump's base will eat that shit up.

Did not think Pence would do something like this - from little that I know about his past, he seemed pretty decent person. I guess when you sign up as the VP, you become that person too.

Seriously?  Pence has the potential to be quite a bit more dangerous than trump. He is a competent, ethically bankrupt Evangelical jihadist. He led a totally criminal effort to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters, using his state police force as part of the unconstitutional and illegal maneuver. He abandoned Indiana's industrial wasteland, just east of Chicago, where children live in completely toxic public housing, in criminally unfit conditions, since they are not "supporters" of his. (As in, Black, and unlikely to vote for right wing extremists) Had he not attached himself to dopey's ass, he would of been out of a job, since the majority of Indiana residents couldn't stand him. The more you know about this chucklenut, the more you hope that dopey remains in power, as he totally destroys the party, and hope that he doesn't take the rest of us out in WW3. Pence is about as far right as it gets, and would be totally happy as the leader of an authoritarian Theocracy, which is what he, and fellow scum like DeVos, dream of. These are people that refuse funding for things like Head start, since it cannot be used to brainwash our nation's youth into being good little Evangelicals. Dopey is a clueless, malignant Narcissist who believes in nothing but himself, and keeping his followers happy, so they adore him. Pence is exponentially more dangerous. Pence has rigid beliefs that do not represent the vast majority of Americans, and the drive and intelligence to at least be partially successful, in his quest to make us an extremely right leaning, Christian extremist controlled nation.

Like I said:  "from little that I know about his past"....
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on October 10, 2017, 07:52:09 AM
Someone on the internet complaining about Dunning-Krueger in the President is pretty funny. How much do you know about military procurement, digital vs. steam catapults, etc?

The Ford is more than 3 years behind schedule and billions over budget, in part because of all the new tech they are trying to cram into it, some of which is that new-fangled electro-magnetic launch system. Unless you have a lot of industry experience (and who knows, maybe you might), Trump is more knowledgeable about the subject than you are.

[[citation needed]]


Given the president's tendency to both lie outright ( https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html) ) and his demonstrated lack of understanding on a variety of issues ( https://www.vox.com/2017/7/20/16003218/trump-nyt-interview-ignorance (https://www.vox.com/2017/7/20/16003218/trump-nyt-interview-ignorance) , https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/donald-trump-ignorance-health-care-mitch-mcconnell (https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/donald-trump-ignorance-health-care-mitch-mcconnell), https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/08/donald-trumps-ignorance-evident-by-the-day (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/08/donald-trumps-ignorance-evident-by-the-day)) your extraordinary claim that he is more knowledgeable about any subject than the average person on the internet really needs some proof to back it up.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 10, 2017, 08:21:07 AM
There is no citation required to suggest with probability >95% that the sitting President knows more about experimental military technology than random commenters on the internet. It boggles the mind to suggest otherwise, and it is not an extraordinary claim.

I stopped reading your sources with Vox, and their first line. I'm familiar with the "$12 health insurance" line. I don't buy the criticism. Vox almost has the moment of clarity here, bust misses it:
Quote
The idea of paying a small annual premium up until a given age, at which point you have the insurance policy free and clear, roughly corresponds to how a limited payment life insurance plan works. These plans are useful tax avoidance devices for extremely wealthy individuals, which is perhaps why Trump has them at top of mind, but it has nothing to do with health insurance.
Yes, that's exactly the point. Anyone who follows conservative health care economics closely will know that is what they want as a minimalist solution to the problem of pre-existing conditions. This is not evidence of Trump's ignorance, this is evidence of Vox's ignorance. It is absolutely evidence of Trump being a dumbass since he worded it so poorly, but clearly Trump has advisers, and clearly Trump picks up at least some bit of his adviser's advice, or else he couldn't have made this statement at all.

Anyone who has the prior that THEY know more about experimental military tech than the sitting President is, in all probability, wrong.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: StarBright on October 10, 2017, 08:21:40 AM
It was a stupid, juvenile stunt.

But Trump's base will eat that shit up.

Did not think Pence would do something like this - from little that I know about his past, he seemed pretty decent person. I guess when you sign up as the VP, you become that person too.

Seriously?  Pence has the potential to be quite a bit more dangerous than trump. He is a competent, ethically bankrupt Evangelical jihadist. He led a totally criminal effort to disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters, using his state police force as part of the unconstitutional and illegal maneuver. He abandoned Indiana's industrial wasteland, just east of Chicago, where children live in completely toxic public housing, in criminally unfit conditions, since they are not "supporters" of his. (As in, Black, and unlikely to vote for right wing extremists) Had he not attached himself to dopey's ass, he would of been out of a job, since the majority of Indiana residents couldn't stand him. The more you know about this chucklenut, the more you hope that dopey remains in power, as he totally destroys the party, and hope that he doesn't take the rest of us out in WW3. Pence is about as far right as it gets, and would be totally happy as the leader of an authoritarian Theocracy, which is what he, and fellow scum like DeVos, dream of. These are people that refuse funding for things like Head start, since it cannot be used to brainwash our nation's youth into being good little Evangelicals. Dopey is a clueless, malignant Narcissist who believes in nothing but himself, and keeping his followers happy, so they adore him. Pence is exponentially more dangerous. Pence has rigid beliefs that do not represent the vast majority of Americans, and the drive and intelligence to at least be partially successful, in his quest to make us an extremely right leaning, Christian extremist controlled nation.

As someone who grew up in Indy and still has most of my family there I second all of this. Getting the VP slot was the best thing to happen to Pence, as his political career in Indiana was basically done. I know more than one republican who had an "anyone but Pence" sign in their yard.

In a period of like two years he accidentally created an HIV epidemic because he had moral issues with a clean needle program, decided last minute to put the kibosh on a universal Pre-K program (with basically no strings-attached federal funds) because of bad optics with his base, signed RFRA (the religious freedom restoration act) which prompted a major loss of convention business and corporations actually decided not to open up offices in the state capitol, and signed an insane anti-abortion bill which could accidentally criminalize miscarriages (if taken to an extreme) and charge doctors with manslaughter if they performed an abortive procedure that didn't check a draconian list of boxes. He was hurting the state on the national stage in a big way and hurting many citizens (particularly students, minorities, and people dealing with addictions) in a very real every day way.

I also remember listening to his radio show as a kid and it was the first place I ever heard about the "New World Order" - Pence is definitely interested in a Theocracy.

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on October 10, 2017, 08:24:06 AM
Someone on the internet complaining about Dunning-Krueger in the President is pretty funny. How much do you know about military procurement, digital vs. steam catapults, etc?

The Ford is more than 3 years behind schedule and billions over budget, in part because of all the new tech they are trying to cram into it, some of which is that new-fangled electro-magnetic launch system. Unless you have a lot of industry experience (and who knows, maybe you might), Trump is more knowledgeable about the subject than you are.
You don't need to be knowledgeable about a topic to see when someone is being effected by Dunning-Kruger. Is this what you're suggesting?

When he uses incorrect terminology and a sentence structure that bounces around incoherently it's not too much of a stretch to say that he doesn't have a firm grasp on the topic at hand.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on October 10, 2017, 08:42:37 AM
There is no citation required to suggest with probability >95% that the sitting President knows more about experimental military technology than random commenters on the internet.

Normally, I'd agree with you.  Trump is not a normal president.  He's displayed remarkable ability to remain uniformed regarding the things he speaks about both while running as a candidate and through his presidency.

To pick a single example at random . . . Remember when Trump was pretending that the British were spying on him because Obama asked them to?  The man who has full access to the information provided by the FBI and CIA chose instead to make stuff up . . . yet demonstrated less knowledge of British espionage activities than the average internet commenter.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Inaya on October 10, 2017, 08:53:01 AM
Anyone who has the prior that THEY know more about experimental military tech than the sitting President is, in all probability, wrong.


I don't think anyone here is saying that they have more info than the president. They're saying that the president lacks enough info to make informed statements or decisions, yet pretends he's an expert at everything.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on October 10, 2017, 08:55:44 AM
Anyone who has the prior that THEY know more about experimental military tech than the sitting President is, in all probability, wrong.


I don't think anyone here is saying that they have more info than the president. They're saying that the president lacks enough info to make informed statements or decisions, yet pretends he's an expert at everything.

The president has access to far more information that the average person, but has demonstrated a lack of interest in using it to educate himself regarding the issues he speaks about.  Therefore, his knowledge of anything should be suspect.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on October 10, 2017, 09:04:41 AM
There is no citation required to suggest with probability >95% that the a sitting President knows more about experimental military technology than random commenters on the internet. It boggles the mind to suggest otherwise, and it is not an extraordinary claim.


FTFY.

Unfortunately, it just so happens that at the moment, the sitting president is part of the other 5%.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on October 10, 2017, 09:06:14 AM
Someone on the internet complaining about Dunning-Krueger in the President is pretty funny. How much do you know about military procurement, digital vs. steam catapults, etc?

The Ford is more than 3 years behind schedule and billions over budget, in part because of all the new tech they are trying to cram into it, some of which is that new-fangled electro-magnetic launch system. Unless you have a lot of industry experience (and who knows, maybe you might), Trump is more knowledgeable about the subject than you are.
Here's someone else who seems to think Trump may be influenced by the Dunning-Kruger effect. I'm pretty sure this guy knows what that means.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-supporters-dunning-kruger-effect-213904

ETA: Just in case you don't want to click on the article, it's written by David Dunning of Dunning-Kruger.

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on October 10, 2017, 09:56:30 AM
Someone on the internet complaining about Dunning-Krueger in the President is pretty funny. How much do you know about military procurement, digital vs. steam catapults, etc?
...
Unless you have a lot of industry experience (and who knows, maybe you might), Trump is more knowledgeable about the subject than you are.

I know that I have limitations when it comes to knowledge and expertise on military technology, but I at least know that digital (in a general sense) is a necessary aspect of montoring and control for something like an aircraft carrier.  That's just common sense, at least to most people I know (granted, maybe not indicative of 'the general population'). 

So to come to the conclusion that Trump is more knowledgable than I am after reading his statement (“It sounded bad to me. Digital. They have digital. What is digital? And it’s very complicated, you have to be Albert Einstein to figure it out.”) is ridiculous to assume, IMHO.

But it does help me understand the blind devotion that some folks want to have for President Trump.  I mean, surely since Trump has access to all the information and experts and advisors that anyone could possibly have, surely he is better informed than you and I.  Therein lies the fallacy, with plenty of evidence (just about every time he opens his mouth or Tweets).     
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Wexler on October 10, 2017, 10:13:33 AM
There is no citation required to suggest with probability >95% that the sitting President knows more about experimental military technology than random commenters on the internet. It boggles the mind to suggest otherwise, and it is not an extraordinary claim.

I stopped reading your sources with Vox, and their first line. I'm familiar with the "$12 health insurance" line. I don't buy the criticism. Vox almost has the moment of clarity here, bust misses it:
Quote
The idea of paying a small annual premium up until a given age, at which point you have the insurance policy free and clear, roughly corresponds to how a limited payment life insurance plan works. These plans are useful tax avoidance devices for extremely wealthy individuals, which is perhaps why Trump has them at top of mind, but it has nothing to do with health insurance.
Yes, that's exactly the point. Anyone who follows conservative health care economics closely will know that is what they want as a minimalist solution to the problem of pre-existing conditions. This is not evidence of Trump's ignorance, this is evidence of Vox's ignorance. It is absolutely evidence of Trump being a dumbass since he worded it so poorly, but clearly Trump has advisers, and clearly Trump picks up at least some bit of his adviser's advice, or else he couldn't have made this statement at all.

Anyone who has the prior that THEY know more about experimental military tech than the sitting President is, in all probability, wrong.

I think you are working double-time to fill in the blanks in Trump's gaping lack of knowledge.  Which, why?  To make yourself feel better about your vote?  In 20 years, no one will quite remember why HILLARYCLINTONISTHEDEVILPIZZAGATEBENGHAZI-in fact, I predict that she'll rehabilitate her image quite well, which she has always tended to do after facing public losses.  But, I think that admitted Trump voters will be pretty scarce after this disaster of an administration.  I mean, we are already at the fucking moron stage (the feel-good news story we needed last week).  Just like no one wistfully talks about their enthusiasm for pulling the lever for George Wallace, I think that our country will have a collective case of amnesia affecting 60 million people pretty soon.  So, you can probably just lie to your grandkids about it like everyone else will.



Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: StarBright on October 10, 2017, 11:06:19 AM

I think you are working double-time to fill in the blanks in Trump's gaping lack of knowledge.  Which, why?  To make yourself feel better about your vote?  In 20 years, no one will quite remember why HILLARYCLINTONISTHEDEVILPIZZAGATEBENGHAZI-in fact, I predict that she'll rehabilitate her image quite well, which she has always tended to do after facing public losses.  But, I think that admitted Trump voters will be pretty scarce after this disaster of an administration.  I mean, we are already at the fucking moron stage (the feel-good news story we needed last week).  Just like no one wistfully talks about their enthusiasm for pulling the lever for George Wallace, I think that our country will have a collective case of amnesia affecting 60 million people pretty soon.  So, you can probably just lie to your grandkids about it like everyone else will.

I bolded some of your above to say - this is where facebook will come back to haunt everybody! The internet is forever :)
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: former player on October 10, 2017, 11:42:40 AM

I think you are working double-time to fill in the blanks in Trump's gaping lack of knowledge.  Which, why?  To make yourself feel better about your vote?  In 20 years, no one will quite remember why HILLARYCLINTONISTHEDEVILPIZZAGATEBENGHAZI-in fact, I predict that she'll rehabilitate her image quite well, which she has always tended to do after facing public losses.  But, I think that admitted Trump voters will be pretty scarce after this disaster of an administration.  I mean, we are already at the fucking moron stage (the feel-good news story we needed last week).  Just like no one wistfully talks about their enthusiasm for pulling the lever for George Wallace, I think that our country will have a collective case of amnesia affecting 60 million people pretty soon.  So, you can probably just lie to your grandkids about it like everyone else will.

I bolded some of your above to say - this is where facebook will come back to haunt everybody! The internet is forever :)
Not a Trump voter, but I'm currently deleting my (minimal) presence on Facebook because I am so pissed at them for embedding staff in the Trump campaign to help them use all the targeting tricks Facebook has to improve the reach of the Trump campaign.

Corker got it spot on with his "the White House has become an Adult Day Care Centre" tweet; I'm hoping he isn't quite so right about his "leading us into WWIII" comment.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: paddedhat on October 10, 2017, 12:01:11 PM
But, I think that admitted Trump voters will be pretty scarce after this disaster of an administration.  I mean, we are already at the fucking moron stage (the feel-good news story we needed last week).  Just like no one wistfully talks about their enthusiasm for pulling the lever for George Wallace, I think that our country will have a collective case of amnesia affecting 60 million people pretty soon.  So, you can probably just lie to your grandkids about it like everyone else will.

Honestly, I think you grossly overestimate the caliber of a significant number of his supporters. My wife still casually glances at FB, and folks we know there, who are still rabid supporters. The sickest part is that there seems to be absolutely nothing that this POS does that they can't quickly rationalize or dismiss, even at this point. Three months from now, or three years, he will be exiting the scene.  I guarantee that, absent some really strange turn of events, he will leave as a hero and martyr to tens of millions. If he pulls a Nixon and departs before being tried and convicted, he will be able to rally his base as he sells them on the story that he was forced out of the swamp, and unable conquer the deep state, Dems, and GOP establishment who want nothing more than to prevent him from MAGA. He failed because the same forces that keep them down, have made it impossible for even the great DJT to succeed in his battle to make their lives better.  He will convince them that he will always be there for them, and always doing battle on their behalf. If Mueller ties him to treason, and the legislative branch suddenly finds their long lost balls, he could even be impeached, convicted, removed and STILL have a significant loyal following. I really doubt that he will go out in any other manner than on top of his game, and still swindling, bullshitting, and conning a fairly large group of followers.

The two things that have really been eye opening in the whole Great White Dope saga, so far, have been. First, the POTUS has far more power than many of us ever really grasped. I think a lot of this is a result of most modern presidents acting in a rational manner, for the good of the nation. As in, for all your life so far, the Pres. is running the show, doing adult things 24/7 and as a citizen you really have no need to step back and reflect on exactly how much chaos a rogue POTUS can cause? After all, how could an incompetent, clueless, pathological psychopath ever make it to the oval office? This is the first time, in my adult life that we have a "leader" who makes it quite clear that the good of the republic is not a priority in the least, and is working hard to slash and burn anything his predecessor ever accomplished.  Second, the level of ignorance in our country is staggering. I have watched fellow working class voters do continual harm to themselves for decades, as they voted for leaders who were far from dedicated to the best interests of the working class. Sadly, a significant percentage of the electorate has gone past not voting in their best interests, to degraded into flat our morons, who want to believe absolute nonsense, fairy tales and bullshit, as long as it fits their own narrative, as to how things should work in their imaginary world. 

These folks have zero interest in denying their allegiance to Trump. No matter how ugly the road ahead gets for them. They are victims, Trump is their savior, and if he fails, it's somebody else's fault. He is one of them, they are victims, therefore his failure can only be compared to their own. They were wronged by many outside forces beyond their control, and when he fails it will be for the same reasons. Never look in the mirror for the source of your failure.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on October 10, 2017, 12:08:37 PM
As a reminder:
- No wall
- Obamacare still yet to be repealed
- DACA reinforced
- Embassy still in Tel Aviv
- No tax reform
- 62% of appointments have been made
- Special Counsel investigation continues.
- China has not been labeled a currency manipulator.
- Russia is still actively hacking our critical infrastructure.

SO. MUCH. WINNING.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Just Joe on October 10, 2017, 12:11:29 PM
But, I think that admitted Trump voters will be pretty scarce after this disaster of an administration.  I mean, we are already at the fucking moron stage (the feel-good news story we needed last week).  Just like no one wistfully talks about their enthusiasm for pulling the lever for George Wallace, I think that our country will have a collective case of amnesia affecting 60 million people pretty soon.  So, you can probably just lie to your grandkids about it like everyone else will.

Honestly, I think you grossly overestimate the caliber of a significant number of his supporters. My wife still casually glances at FB, and folks we know there, who are still rabid supporters. The sickest part is that there seems to be absolutely nothing that this POS does that they can't quickly rationalize or dismiss, even at this point. Three months from now, or three years, he will be exiting the scene.  I guarantee that, absent some really strange turn of events, he will leave as a hero and martyr to tens of millions. If he pulls a Nixon and departs before being tried and convicted, he will be able to rally his base as he sells them on the story that he was forced out of the swamp, and unable conquer the deep state, Dems, and GOP establishment who want nothing more than to prevent him from MAGA. If Mueller ties him to treason, and the legislative branch suddenly finds their long lost balls, he could even be impeached, convicted, removed and STILL have a significant loyal following. I really doubt that he will go out in any other manner than on top of his game, and still swindling, bullshitting, and conning a fairly large group of followers.

The two things that have really been eye opening in the whole Great White Dope saga, so far, have been. First, the POTUS has far more power than many of us ever really grasped. I think a lot of this is a result of most modern presidents acting in a rational manner, for the good of the nation. This is the first time, in my adult life that we have a "leader" who makes it quite clear that the good of the republic is not a priority in the least. Second, the level of ignorance in our country is staggering. I have watched fellow working class voters do continual harm to themselves for decades, as they voted for leaders who were far from dedicated to the best interests of the working class. Sadly, a significant percentage of the electorate has gone past not voting in their best interests to degraded into flat our morons, who want to believe absolute nonsense, fairy tales and bullshit, as long as it fits their own narrative, as to how things should work in their imaginary world.

That's more or less what I wanted to say. There are still people out there who think very highly of him and take as truth everything he says. These people do not do any self-study on current events except perhaps to listen to conservative talk radio. Unfortunately I'm related to a few of these people and work with several as well. I avoid the topic of politics or religion with them.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Wexler on October 10, 2017, 12:20:43 PM
But, I think that admitted Trump voters will be pretty scarce after this disaster of an administration.  I mean, we are already at the fucking moron stage (the feel-good news story we needed last week).  Just like no one wistfully talks about their enthusiasm for pulling the lever for George Wallace, I think that our country will have a collective case of amnesia affecting 60 million people pretty soon.  So, you can probably just lie to your grandkids about it like everyone else will.

Honestly, I think you grossly overestimate the caliber of a significant number of his supporters. My wife still casually glances at FB, and folks we know there, who are still rabid supporters. The sickest part is that there seems to be absolutely nothing that this POS does that they can't quickly rationalize or dismiss, even at this point. Three months from now, or three years, he will be exiting the scene.  I guarantee that, absent some really strange turn of events, he will leave as a hero and martyr to tens of millions. If he pulls a Nixon and departs before being tried and convicted, he will be able to rally his base as he sells them on the story that he was forced out of the swamp, and unable conquer the deep state, Dems, and GOP establishment who want nothing more than to prevent him from MAGA. If Mueller ties him to treason, and the legislative branch suddenly finds their long lost balls, he could even be impeached, convicted, removed and STILL have a significant loyal following. I really doubt that he will go out in any other manner than on top of his game, and still swindling, bullshitting, and conning a fairly large group of followers.

The two things that have really been eye opening in the whole Great White Dope saga, so far, have been. First, the POTUS has far more power than many of us ever really grasped. I think a lot of this is a result of most modern presidents acting in a rational manner, for the good of the nation. This is the first time, in my adult life that we have a "leader" who makes it quite clear that the good of the republic is not a priority in the least. Second, the level of ignorance in our country is staggering. I have watched fellow working class voters do continual harm to themselves for decades, as they voted for leaders who were far from dedicated to the best interests of the working class. Sadly, a significant percentage of the electorate has gone past not voting in their best interests to degraded into flat our morons, who want to believe absolute nonsense, fairy tales and bullshit, as long as it fits their own narrative, as to how things should work in their imaginary world.

Preach. Trump reveals our country to be full of belligerent half-wits, and he is their king.  The GOP has been running a long con for years (a little carried interest loophole under this cup while I wave my hand at the abortions under this cup), and a better con man stole the marks right out from under them.  He knows that what really fuels them is anger and spite, and no one does anger and spite better than he does.

I suppose the corollary to this is that liberals traffic in condescension, and I confess that I'm guilty.  If they'd like to punish me for this by poisoning their own water, providing private jets for Cabinet members, and eliminating their own healthcare, then so be it.  I just don't want my children sent off to fight a vanity war to appease their idiot-in-chief.


Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: infogoon on October 10, 2017, 12:49:09 PM
Preach. Trump reveals our country to be full of belligerent half-wits, and he is their king.  The GOP has been running a long con for years (a little carried interest loophole under this cup while I wave my hand at the abortions under this cup), and a better con man stole the marks right out from under them.  He knows that what really fuels them is anger and spite, and no one does anger and spite better than he does.

One of the few bitter laughs of this whole saga has been watching wankers like Paul Ryan slowly realizing that most of their voters don't actually care about their carefully articulated conservative economic dogma, they're just really fucking mad about everything.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: lost_in_the_endless_aisle on October 10, 2017, 06:25:57 PM
I wonder how much revenue a pay-per-view broadcast of Trump and Tillerson taking IQ tests then revealing their results to each other would generate. Enough to build the wall? Mensa is on board (http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/354718-mensa-offers-to-host-iq-test-for-trump-and-tillerson).

This may not be the administration we want but it is the one we deserve.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: ixtap on October 10, 2017, 06:34:52 PM
I wonder how much revenue a pay-per-view broadcast of Trump and Tillerson taking IQ tests then revealing their results to each other would generate. Enough to build the wall? Mensa is on board (http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/354718-mensa-offers-to-host-iq-test-for-trump-and-tillerson).

This may not be the administration we want but it is the one we deserve.

I mean, if they are just going to partake in a series of publicity stunts, this one would at least provide some information.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on October 11, 2017, 09:15:53 AM
So #45 is on Twitter today challenging the license of NBC.  This is real life.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Inaya on October 11, 2017, 09:34:02 AM
So #45 is on Twitter today challenging the license of NBC.  This is real life.
If only the 1st Amendment was as important as the 2nd.

ETA: So, I know Pence might be worse in some aspects (except he might not get us nuked, so maybe it's a net win), but would Trump's base rally around him? Or without their lord and master, would they just scatter back into the shadowy corners from whence they came?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on October 11, 2017, 09:45:05 AM
So #45 is on Twitter today challenging the license of NBC.  This is real life.
If only the 1st Amendment was as important as the 2nd.

The First Amendment only matters if you're carrying a tiki torch and marching behind Richard Spencer these days.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on October 11, 2017, 09:47:47 AM
So #45 is on Twitter today challenging the license of NBC.  This is real life.
If only the 1st Amendment was as important as the 2nd.

The First Amendment only matters if you're carrying a tiki torch and marching behind Richard Spencer these days.

You're not disparaging the good Nazis are you?  Because I have it on good authority (the best really) that only some of the Nazis marching were bad.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: A Definite Beta Guy on October 11, 2017, 09:58:03 AM
There is no citation required to suggest with probability >95% that the sitting President knows more about experimental military technology than random commenters on the internet. It boggles the mind to suggest otherwise, and it is not an extraordinary claim.

I stopped reading your sources with Vox, and their first line. I'm familiar with the "$12 health insurance" line. I don't buy the criticism. Vox almost has the moment of clarity here, bust misses it:
Quote
The idea of paying a small annual premium up until a given age, at which point you have the insurance policy free and clear, roughly corresponds to how a limited payment life insurance plan works. These plans are useful tax avoidance devices for extremely wealthy individuals, which is perhaps why Trump has them at top of mind, but it has nothing to do with health insurance.
Yes, that's exactly the point. Anyone who follows conservative health care economics closely will know that is what they want as a minimalist solution to the problem of pre-existing conditions. This is not evidence of Trump's ignorance, this is evidence of Vox's ignorance. It is absolutely evidence of Trump being a dumbass since he worded it so poorly, but clearly Trump has advisers, and clearly Trump picks up at least some bit of his adviser's advice, or else he couldn't have made this statement at all.

Anyone who has the prior that THEY know more about experimental military tech than the sitting President is, in all probability, wrong.

I think you are working double-time to fill in the blanks in Trump's gaping lack of knowledge.  Which, why?  To make yourself feel better about your vote?  In 20 years, no one will quite remember why HILLARYCLINTONISTHEDEVILPIZZAGATEBENGHAZI-in fact, I predict that she'll rehabilitate her image quite well, which she has always tended to do after facing public losses.  But, I think that admitted Trump voters will be pretty scarce after this disaster of an administration.  I mean, we are already at the fucking moron stage (the feel-good news story we needed last week).  Just like no one wistfully talks about their enthusiasm for pulling the lever for George Wallace, I think that our country will have a collective case of amnesia affecting 60 million people pretty soon.  So, you can probably just lie to your grandkids about it like everyone else will.

I'm not particularly concerned what my grand-children will think of me. There's no point in trying to guess social norms, what, 80 years in the future? I don't believe in Whiggish historiography either, so I don't buy into any "right side of history" arguments.

On the other hand, current US culture has a massive anti-Trump streak that strikes me as irrational. Trump being an idiot and a jackass does not justify statements like "Trump is a dictator" and "Trump knows less than the average internet commenter."

That's even true in cases where he makes decisions that are probably wrong. Trump will know more about the specifics on nuclear policy and probably more about health-care policy at this point than I do, even if I am highly confident he makes dumb decisions regarding them. Certainly Trump knows more about North Korea than I do.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: JLee on October 11, 2017, 10:04:23 AM
There is no citation required to suggest with probability >95% that the sitting President knows more about experimental military technology than random commenters on the internet. It boggles the mind to suggest otherwise, and it is not an extraordinary claim.

I stopped reading your sources with Vox, and their first line. I'm familiar with the "$12 health insurance" line. I don't buy the criticism. Vox almost has the moment of clarity here, bust misses it:
Quote
The idea of paying a small annual premium up until a given age, at which point you have the insurance policy free and clear, roughly corresponds to how a limited payment life insurance plan works. These plans are useful tax avoidance devices for extremely wealthy individuals, which is perhaps why Trump has them at top of mind, but it has nothing to do with health insurance.
Yes, that's exactly the point. Anyone who follows conservative health care economics closely will know that is what they want as a minimalist solution to the problem of pre-existing conditions. This is not evidence of Trump's ignorance, this is evidence of Vox's ignorance. It is absolutely evidence of Trump being a dumbass since he worded it so poorly, but clearly Trump has advisers, and clearly Trump picks up at least some bit of his adviser's advice, or else he couldn't have made this statement at all.

Anyone who has the prior that THEY know more about experimental military tech than the sitting President is, in all probability, wrong.

I think you are working double-time to fill in the blanks in Trump's gaping lack of knowledge.  Which, why?  To make yourself feel better about your vote?  In 20 years, no one will quite remember why HILLARYCLINTONISTHEDEVILPIZZAGATEBENGHAZI-in fact, I predict that she'll rehabilitate her image quite well, which she has always tended to do after facing public losses.  But, I think that admitted Trump voters will be pretty scarce after this disaster of an administration.  I mean, we are already at the fucking moron stage (the feel-good news story we needed last week).  Just like no one wistfully talks about their enthusiasm for pulling the lever for George Wallace, I think that our country will have a collective case of amnesia affecting 60 million people pretty soon.  So, you can probably just lie to your grandkids about it like everyone else will.

I'm not particularly concerned what my grand-children will think of me. There's no point in trying to guess social norms, what, 80 years in the future? I don't believe in Whiggish historiography either, so I don't buy into any "right side of history" arguments.

On the other hand, current US culture has a massive anti-Trump streak that strikes me as irrational. Trump being an idiot and a jackass does not justify statements like "Trump is a dictator" and "Trump knows less than the average internet commenter."

That's even true in cases where he makes decisions that are probably wrong. Trump will know more about the specifics on nuclear policy and probably more about health-care policy at this point than I do, even if I am highly confident he makes dumb decisions regarding them. Certainly Trump knows more about North Korea than I do.

Knowledge is useless if decisions are made on a foundation of idiocy.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on October 11, 2017, 10:07:07 AM
On the other hand, current US culture has a massive anti-Trump streak that strikes me as irrational. Trump being an idiot and a jackass does not justify statements like "Trump is a dictator" and "Trump knows less than the average internet commenter."

That's even true in cases where he makes decisions that are probably wrong. Trump will know more about the specifics on nuclear policy and probably more about health-care policy at this point than I do, even if I am highly confident he makes dumb decisions regarding them. Certainly Trump knows more about North Korea than I do.

How would you explain the sitting President trying to force some football players to stand for the anthem?  Threatening to ruin the business (I thought he was a pro-biz President?) of their sports league because a few players took a knee?  Forced patriotism is totalitarianism.

What evidence do you have that he knows more on these issues?  The one public example he made on health insurance plans shows he has no idea how health insurance plans works.  He is essentially trying to vilify North Korea via tweets, making thinly-veiled threats about nuking them, all the while undermining Secretary Tillerson who has (had?) a direct line of communication with them.  Just because he might have some "mostly unknown to the public" knowledge doesn't negate that he's an asshat.  If anything, it makes it worse.  He has secret knowledge but is still a blubbering idiot.

I guess, tl;dr - I don't really know what your point was.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Glenstache on October 11, 2017, 10:11:36 AM
There is no citation required to suggest with probability >95% that the sitting President knows more about experimental military technology than random commenters on the internet. It boggles the mind to suggest otherwise, and it is not an extraordinary claim.

I stopped reading your sources with Vox, and their first line. I'm familiar with the "$12 health insurance" line. I don't buy the criticism. Vox almost has the moment of clarity here, bust misses it:
Quote
The idea of paying a small annual premium up until a given age, at which point you have the insurance policy free and clear, roughly corresponds to how a limited payment life insurance plan works. These plans are useful tax avoidance devices for extremely wealthy individuals, which is perhaps why Trump has them at top of mind, but it has nothing to do with health insurance.
Yes, that's exactly the point. Anyone who follows conservative health care economics closely will know that is what they want as a minimalist solution to the problem of pre-existing conditions. This is not evidence of Trump's ignorance, this is evidence of Vox's ignorance. It is absolutely evidence of Trump being a dumbass since he worded it so poorly, but clearly Trump has advisers, and clearly Trump picks up at least some bit of his adviser's advice, or else he couldn't have made this statement at all.

Anyone who has the prior that THEY know more about experimental military tech than the sitting President is, in all probability, wrong.

I think you are working double-time to fill in the blanks in Trump's gaping lack of knowledge.  Which, why?  To make yourself feel better about your vote?  In 20 years, no one will quite remember why HILLARYCLINTONISTHEDEVILPIZZAGATEBENGHAZI-in fact, I predict that she'll rehabilitate her image quite well, which she has always tended to do after facing public losses.  But, I think that admitted Trump voters will be pretty scarce after this disaster of an administration.  I mean, we are already at the fucking moron stage (the feel-good news story we needed last week).  Just like no one wistfully talks about their enthusiasm for pulling the lever for George Wallace, I think that our country will have a collective case of amnesia affecting 60 million people pretty soon.  So, you can probably just lie to your grandkids about it like everyone else will.

I'm not particularly concerned what my grand-children will think of me. There's no point in trying to guess social norms, what, 80 years in the future? I don't believe in Whiggish historiography either, so I don't buy into any "right side of history" arguments.

On the other hand, current US culture has a massive anti-Trump streak that strikes me as irrational. Trump being an idiot and a jackass does not justify statements like "Trump is a dictator" and "Trump knows less than the average internet commenter."

That's even true in cases where he makes decisions that are probably wrong. Trump will know more about the specifics on nuclear policy and probably more about health-care policy at this point than I do, even if I am highly confident he makes dumb decisions regarding them. Certainly Trump knows more about North Korea than I do.

I would say that Trump absolutely has more access to the information you describe above. However, he is not one of the presidents who spends a lot of time delving into things intellectually. Reports are that he simply doesn't read, and may not have taken the time to read a whole book in his entire adult life post-college. I am not actually certain that your assertion that Trump, simply by virtue of being president, spontaneously has more subject knowledge on all of these issues. Access and people who desperately want to convey that to him? Absolutely. Demonstrated interest in applying himself to deep intellectual learning required to grasp these complicated issues with nuance? I don't see any evidence of that.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on October 11, 2017, 10:12:56 AM
On the other hand, current US culture has a massive anti-Trump streak that strikes me as irrational. Trump being an idiot and a jackass does not justify statements like "Trump is a dictator" and "Trump knows less than the average internet commenter."

That's even true in cases where he makes decisions that are probably wrong. Trump will know more about the specifics on nuclear policy and probably more about health-care policy at this point than I do, even if I am highly confident he makes dumb decisions regarding them. Certainly Trump knows more about North Korea than I do.

How would you explain the sitting President trying to force some football players to stand for the anthem?  Threatening to ruin the business (I thought he was a pro-biz President?) of their sports league because a few players took a knee?  Forced patriotism is totalitarianism.

What evidence do you have that he knows more on these issues? The one public example he made on health insurance plans shows he has no idea how health insurance plans works.  He is essentially trying to vilify North Korea via tweets, making thinly-veiled threats about nuking them, all the while undermining Secretary Tillerson who has (had?) a direct line of communication with them.  Just because he might have some "mostly unknown to the public" knowledge doesn't negate that he's an asshat.  If anything, it makes it worse.  He has secret knowledge but is still a blubbering idiot.

I guess, tl;dr - I don't really know what your point was.

Exactly. Almost everything I see from him suggests that he knows less on most of these issues. Case in point: the reason Tillerson allegedly called him a f***ing moron being that Trump wanted a ten-fold increase in the nuclear arsenal this summer.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tenfold-increase-us-nuclear-stockpile-tillerson-moron-2017-10

Proving that, for example, Trump knows less about the nuclear stockpile and the dangers of an arms race than just about every person I know.

Trump is literally the first president I've ever experienced where I am 100% confident I could do a better job in that position than he could. Potentially in my sleep.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: JLee on October 11, 2017, 10:20:35 AM
On the other hand, current US culture has a massive anti-Trump streak that strikes me as irrational. Trump being an idiot and a jackass does not justify statements like "Trump is a dictator" and "Trump knows less than the average internet commenter."

That's even true in cases where he makes decisions that are probably wrong. Trump will know more about the specifics on nuclear policy and probably more about health-care policy at this point than I do, even if I am highly confident he makes dumb decisions regarding them. Certainly Trump knows more about North Korea than I do.

How would you explain the sitting President trying to force some football players to stand for the anthem?  Threatening to ruin the business (I thought he was a pro-biz President?) of their sports league because a few players took a knee?  Forced patriotism is totalitarianism.

What evidence do you have that he knows more on these issues? The one public example he made on health insurance plans shows he has no idea how health insurance plans works.  He is essentially trying to vilify North Korea via tweets, making thinly-veiled threats about nuking them, all the while undermining Secretary Tillerson who has (had?) a direct line of communication with them.  Just because he might have some "mostly unknown to the public" knowledge doesn't negate that he's an asshat.  If anything, it makes it worse.  He has secret knowledge but is still a blubbering idiot.

I guess, tl;dr - I don't really know what your point was.

Exactly. Almost everything I see from him suggests that he knows less on most of these issues. Case in point: the reason Tillerson allegedly called him a f***ing moron being that Trump wanted a ten-fold increase in the nuclear arsenal this summer.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-tenfold-increase-us-nuclear-stockpile-tillerson-moron-2017-10

Proving that, for example, Trump knows less about the nuclear stockpile and the dangers of an arms race than just about every person I know.

Trump is literally the first president I've ever experienced where I am 100% confident I could do a better job in that position than he could. Potentially in my sleep.

Or suggesting that NBC's broadcast license be pulled because they are "bad for country:"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41584194
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Wexler on October 11, 2017, 11:04:47 AM
There is no citation required to suggest with probability >95% that the sitting President knows more about experimental military technology than random commenters on the internet. It boggles the mind to suggest otherwise, and it is not an extraordinary claim.

I stopped reading your sources with Vox, and their first line. I'm familiar with the "$12 health insurance" line. I don't buy the criticism. Vox almost has the moment of clarity here, bust misses it:
Quote
The idea of paying a small annual premium up until a given age, at which point you have the insurance policy free and clear, roughly corresponds to how a limited payment life insurance plan works. These plans are useful tax avoidance devices for extremely wealthy individuals, which is perhaps why Trump has them at top of mind, but it has nothing to do with health insurance.
Yes, that's exactly the point. Anyone who follows conservative health care economics closely will know that is what they want as a minimalist solution to the problem of pre-existing conditions. This is not evidence of Trump's ignorance, this is evidence of Vox's ignorance. It is absolutely evidence of Trump being a dumbass since he worded it so poorly, but clearly Trump has advisers, and clearly Trump picks up at least some bit of his adviser's advice, or else he couldn't have made this statement at all.

Anyone who has the prior that THEY know more about experimental military tech than the sitting President is, in all probability, wrong.

I think you are working double-time to fill in the blanks in Trump's gaping lack of knowledge.  Which, why?  To make yourself feel better about your vote?  In 20 years, no one will quite remember why HILLARYCLINTONISTHEDEVILPIZZAGATEBENGHAZI-in fact, I predict that she'll rehabilitate her image quite well, which she has always tended to do after facing public losses.  But, I think that admitted Trump voters will be pretty scarce after this disaster of an administration.  I mean, we are already at the fucking moron stage (the feel-good news story we needed last week).  Just like no one wistfully talks about their enthusiasm for pulling the lever for George Wallace, I think that our country will have a collective case of amnesia affecting 60 million people pretty soon.  So, you can probably just lie to your grandkids about it like everyone else will.

I'm not particularly concerned what my grand-children will think of me. There's no point in trying to guess social norms, what, 80 years in the future? I don't believe in Whiggish historiography either, so I don't buy into any "right side of history" arguments.

On the other hand, current US culture has a massive anti-Trump streak that strikes me as irrational. Trump being an idiot and a jackass does not justify statements like "Trump is a dictator" and "Trump knows less than the average internet commenter."

That's even true in cases where he makes decisions that are probably wrong. Trump will know more about the specifics on nuclear policy and probably more about health-care policy at this point than I do, even if I am highly confident he makes dumb decisions regarding them. Certainly Trump knows more about North Korea than I do.

Knowledge is useless if decisions are made on a foundation of idiocy.

Yeah, I'm really struggling to see how you are still #MAGA when you just admitted that you are confident that the US president makes dumb decision regarding such inconsequential things as health care and nuclear policy.  I mean, I'm sure Hillary would be worse, with her second in her class at Yale law school intellect and years of policy and administrative experience and encyclopedic knowledge of the issues.  Like, in that alternate reality, she sent some emails asking Huma (MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD!!1!!) how to operate the fax machine from a private server, so burn the witch. Is this where the redcaps are these days?  Arguing that Trump is dumb, but it's fine and why are we making such a big deal about it?  Hint: it's because we remember the last time Republicans told us a dumb president would be fine because he would hire all the best people.

I do buy into right side of history arguments, as well as arguments about doing the right thing and not succumbing to nihilistic "eh-what's the worst that can happen?" stance when it comes to our nuclear arsenal.  By the way, we just passed the "fucking moron" stage of this presidency and have reached the "who is in charge of tackling him if he tries to detonate a nuke?" stage.  That's right-Republicans are privately wondering if Kelly and Mathis would tackle him.  #MAGA #somuchwinning  Or is it the "what if we had 10x more nukes?" stage?  Who can tell?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on October 11, 2017, 11:10:55 AM
There is no citation required to suggest with probability >95% that the sitting President knows more about experimental military technology than random commenters on the internet. It boggles the mind to suggest otherwise, and it is not an extraordinary claim.

I stopped reading your sources with Vox, and their first line. I'm familiar with the "$12 health insurance" line. I don't buy the criticism. Vox almost has the moment of clarity here, bust misses it:
Quote
The idea of paying a small annual premium up until a given age, at which point you have the insurance policy free and clear, roughly corresponds to how a limited payment life insurance plan works. These plans are useful tax avoidance devices for extremely wealthy individuals, which is perhaps why Trump has them at top of mind, but it has nothing to do with health insurance.
Yes, that's exactly the point. Anyone who follows conservative health care economics closely will know that is what they want as a minimalist solution to the problem of pre-existing conditions. This is not evidence of Trump's ignorance, this is evidence of Vox's ignorance. It is absolutely evidence of Trump being a dumbass since he worded it so poorly, but clearly Trump has advisers, and clearly Trump picks up at least some bit of his adviser's advice, or else he couldn't have made this statement at all.

Anyone who has the prior that THEY know more about experimental military tech than the sitting President is, in all probability, wrong.

I think you are working double-time to fill in the blanks in Trump's gaping lack of knowledge.  Which, why?  To make yourself feel better about your vote?  In 20 years, no one will quite remember why HILLARYCLINTONISTHEDEVILPIZZAGATEBENGHAZI-in fact, I predict that she'll rehabilitate her image quite well, which she has always tended to do after facing public losses.  But, I think that admitted Trump voters will be pretty scarce after this disaster of an administration.  I mean, we are already at the fucking moron stage (the feel-good news story we needed last week).  Just like no one wistfully talks about their enthusiasm for pulling the lever for George Wallace, I think that our country will have a collective case of amnesia affecting 60 million people pretty soon.  So, you can probably just lie to your grandkids about it like everyone else will.

I'm not particularly concerned what my grand-children will think of me. There's no point in trying to guess social norms, what, 80 years in the future? I don't believe in Whiggish historiography either, so I don't buy into any "right side of history" arguments.

On the other hand, current US culture has a massive anti-Trump streak that strikes me as irrational. Trump being an idiot and a jackass does not justify statements like "Trump is a dictator" and "Trump knows less than the average internet commenter."

That's even true in cases where he makes decisions that are probably wrong. Trump will know more about the specifics on nuclear policy and probably more about health-care policy at this point than I do, even if I am highly confident he makes dumb decisions regarding them. Certainly Trump knows more about North Korea than I do.

I would say that Trump absolutely has more access to the information you describe above. However, he is not one of the presidents who spends a lot of time delving into things intellectually. Reports are that he simply doesn't read, and may not have taken the time to read a whole book in his entire adult life post-college. I am not actually certain that your assertion that Trump, simply by virtue of being president, spontaneously has more subject knowledge on all of these issues. Access and people who desperately want to convey that to him? Absolutely. Demonstrated interest in applying himself to deep intellectual learning required to grasp these complicated issues with nuance? I don't see any evidence of that.

+1

It's a point that I was trying to make a littler earlier on.



Access to information doesn't mean that you have learned, read, or understood that information.  If you lived in the library of congress you would have access to a tremendous amount of information . . . but it wouldn't make you an expert on every item contained therein.  Particularly if playing on twitter and watching network TV took up most of your day, every day.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Dabnasty on October 11, 2017, 12:49:24 PM
All this, and we're still arguing about whether he is more knowledgeable than citizens who have no power to make decisions. What we should be comparing him to is the generals, diplomats, policy wonks, and basically everyone he works with who he talks down to and says he could do a better job than. These are the experts and he is telling them he knows better than them, it's really not a stretch to suggest that this is Dunning-Krueger. Also, once again, David Dunning says so.

Remember, this is the guy who when asked who he talks with regarding foreign affairs answered “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things."

Even if he does understand some things better than he lets on I don't think it would be playing to his strengths to discuss details. If he starts talking specifics it becomes a lot harder to say "this stuff is easy, I have simple solutions" and simple solutions are what people want. All he has to do now is throw around some scary ideas that shut down rational thought and say "follow me, I'll protect you from the (gays, muslims, socialists, scientists, or whatever today's threat is)"
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on October 12, 2017, 07:56:33 AM
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/12/trump-just-claimed-stock-market-gains-actually-offset-national-debt.html

Are we sure #45 has knowledge or is smart?

Quote
Trump just claimed stock market gains actually offset national debt
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Glenstache on October 16, 2017, 12:04:23 PM
We can expect more of this, which is the exact opposite of the buck stops here:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-democrats-will-be-blamed-for-premiums-rising-obamacare-csrs
Quote
Bannon also said that his priority in the near future is “a season of war against the GOP establishment.”

Asked about his former top adviser’s remarks, Trump on Monday told reporters that Bannon “is very committed” and that he “can understand how Steve Bannon feels.”

“He’s a friend of mine and he’s very committed to getting things passed,” Trump said. “I mean, look. Despite what the press writes, I have great relationships with actually many senators, but in particular with most Republican senators. But we’re not getting the job done.”

“And I’m not going to blame myself, I’ll be honest,” he added. “They are not getting the job done.”
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: MasterStache on October 16, 2017, 12:50:57 PM
We can expect more of this, which is the exact opposite of the buck stops here:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-democrats-will-be-blamed-for-premiums-rising-obamacare-csrs
Quote
Bannon also said that his priority in the near future is “a season of war against the GOP establishment.”

Asked about his former top adviser’s remarks, Trump on Monday told reporters that Bannon “is very committed” and that he “can understand how Steve Bannon feels.”

“He’s a friend of mine and he’s very committed to getting things passed,” Trump said. “I mean, look. Despite what the press writes, I have great relationships with actually many senators, but in particular with most Republican senators. But we’re not getting the job done.”

“And I’m not going to blame myself, I’ll be honest,” he added. “They are not getting the job done.”

I particularly love this direct contradiction:

"Obamacare is finished. It’s dead. It’s gone. It’s no longer — don’t — you shouldn’t even mention it. It’s gone. There is no such thing as Obamacare anymore,” Trump said. “When the premiums go up, that has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that we had poor health care delivered poorly, written poorly, approved by the Democrats.

So we shouldn't mention Obamacare anymore, except when premiums go up under Trumpcare, then you can blame it on Obamacare. Sad part is, his minions will do just that.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: DarkandStormy on October 16, 2017, 02:24:41 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-falsely-says-obama-not-call-families-dead-soldiers-192604187.html

For some unknown reason, #45 decided to double down on his lie today.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: GuitarStv on October 16, 2017, 02:54:44 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-falsely-says-obama-not-call-families-dead-soldiers-192604187.html

For some unknown reason, #45 decided to double down on his lie today.



It's not an unknown reason . . . it's because he's a pathological liar.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Lagom on October 16, 2017, 07:20:17 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-falsely-says-obama-not-call-families-dead-soldiers-192604187.html

For some unknown reason, #45 decided to double down on his lie today.



It's not an unknown reason . . . it's because he's a pathological liar.

Yes but Hillary has been mistruthful before too so they are literally the same. (◔_◔)
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: EscapeVelocity2020 on October 16, 2017, 09:20:26 PM
Well, at least there is one politician that speaks their mind and has credibility.  McCain delivered what might just be a historic speech (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/10/16/emotional-sen-john-mccain-blasts-half-baked-spurious-nationalism/770686001/).

Quote
“To fear the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain 'the last, best hope of earth' for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is as unpatriotic as an attachment to any other tired dogma of the past that Americans consigned to the ash heap of history."

Let's hope the constant stream of toxic lies (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/10/16/trump-dont-blame-me-republicans-failing/768343001/) begin to stick to Trump.  We should demand better than this, and the world certainly expects more of us.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on October 17, 2017, 10:06:09 AM
Was he just bragging about "Grab 'em by the p****" or did he really do that?  With many women came forward and reported what Weinstein did, I been wondering if someone would come forward as well. That would be very bad... (this got nothing to do if one is Republican or Democrat).
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Inaya on October 17, 2017, 10:16:33 AM
Was he just bragging about "Grab 'em by the p****" or did he really do that?  With many women came forward and reported what Weinstein did, I been wondering if someone would come forward as well. That would be very bad... (this got nothing to do if one is Republican or Democrat).
If I recall correctly, many women came forward. And they were all brushed off as trying to capitalize on the situation. I believe he has some sexual assault cases still in the court system somewhere, as well.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Kris on October 17, 2017, 10:23:56 AM
Was he just bragging about "Grab 'em by the p****" or did he really do that?  With many women came forward and reported what Weinstein did, I been wondering if someone would come forward as well. That would be very bad... (this got nothing to do if one is Republican or Democrat).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Wexler on October 17, 2017, 10:25:13 AM
Nice try, Sarah.  But I don't think it made a whit of difference.  You should have called out the birther who kept insisting and joking (not joking) that Obama is an immigrant.  I also loved the part where they went around the room to demonstrate that every family member was on some kind of government healthcare.  At least some of them could identify that it was Medicaid, but the birther was all "well-I don't know, you just apply for it at school and get it."  And in the next breath, the birther explained that she didn't like Obama because he just handed out government goodies to all kind of people who didn't work.  Ummmm..... For all her empathy and listening, what does that really accomplish?  They will still believe things that are untrue, but now they'll feel better about it?

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sarah-silverman-reaches-out-to-trump-voters-in-i-love-you-america-premiere


tl;dr: Trump voters like sucking up public benefits but don't like it when other people do.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Wexler on October 17, 2017, 10:33:05 AM
Also, when are Trump voters ever going to reach out to us?  How come I never get any gentle approaches "Can you explain why you think the climate is changing?"  or "How can we reach a middle ground on abortion?"  I'm tired of one side always extending the olive branch.  You can't negotiate with these people if you can't even agree on what a fact is or even what a debatable subject is (not debatable: Obama's birthplace).
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: JLee on October 17, 2017, 11:53:10 AM
Also, when are Trump voters ever going to reach out to us?  How come I never get any gentle approaches "Can you explain why you think the climate is changing?"  or "How can we reach a middle ground on abortion?"  I'm tired of one side always extending the olive branch.  You can't negotiate with these people if you can't even agree on what a fact is or even what a debatable subject is (not debatable: Obama's birthplace).
They generally believe that climate change is junk science and that there is no middle ground to be had on abortion.  Having grown up in an extremely religious/conservative environment, compromise is not a thing.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: acroy on October 17, 2017, 12:56:58 PM
http://www.burrardstreetjournal.com/trump-overheard-calling-trudeau-leader-of-the-igloo-people/
LOL
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: jim555 on October 17, 2017, 01:11:52 PM
http://www.burrardstreetjournal.com/trump-overheard-calling-trudeau-leader-of-the-igloo-people/
LOL
That article was satire.  But it would not surprise me at all if it was true.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: sequoia on October 17, 2017, 01:39:25 PM
Was he just bragging about "Grab 'em by the p****" or did he really do that?  With many women came forward and reported what Weinstein did, I been wondering if someone would come forward as well. That would be very bad... (this got nothing to do if one is Republican or Democrat).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Holy ****!! It is disturbing enough there is a long list of this. While I understand you are innocent until proven guilty, this really caught my eyes:

"Another type of accusation was made, primarily after the audio recording surfaced, by several former Miss USA and Miss Teen USA contestants, who accused Trump of entering the dressing rooms of beauty pageant contestants. Trump, who owned the Miss Universe franchise, which includes both pageants, was accused of going into dressing rooms in 1997, 2000, 2001, and 2006, while contestants were in various stages of undress."

Miss Teen USA is for girls aged 14-19. That's really messed-up (for the lack of better terms).

Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Glenstache on October 17, 2017, 02:17:06 PM
Was he just bragging about "Grab 'em by the p****" or did he really do that?  With many women came forward and reported what Weinstein did, I been wondering if someone would come forward as well. That would be very bad... (this got nothing to do if one is Republican or Democrat).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Holy ****!! It is disturbing enough there is a long list of this. While I understand you are innocent until proven guilty, this really caught my eyes:

"Another type of accusation was made, primarily after the audio recording surfaced, by several former Miss USA and Miss Teen USA contestants, who accused Trump of entering the dressing rooms of beauty pageant contestants. Trump, who owned the Miss Universe franchise, which includes both pageants, was accused of going into dressing rooms in 1997, 2000, 2001, and 2006, while contestants were in various stages of undress."

Miss Teen USA is for girls aged 14-19. That's really messed-up (for the lack of better terms).

This was well known long before he was even the lead GOP candidate. The voters did not care, apparently. The only thing worse than Trump is that we, as a nation, voted him into office. This is independent of political positions, I am ashamed to have such a POS representing me to the world.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: Just Joe on October 17, 2017, 03:51:22 PM
How can people be highly religious conservatives and still support this dirtbag?
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: paddedhat on October 17, 2017, 04:07:35 PM
The crazy part is that he was far from an unknown entity. He spent four decades as a well known racist, misogynist, pathological prevaricator, con-man, and all around shitbag. He was absolutely stomped in the primary and general election in NYC, and the closer you got to his residence the bigger the margins. These are the people who lived with this embarrassment and said, " are you fuckin'  kiddin' me?" When he actually fooled enough idiots  to make it to the ballot. The fact that a significant percentage of the electorate actually believed a single thing he said, is mind blowing. To hear his base still babbling on about how hard he is trying, while being continually blocked by...... Pick an excuse, Dems. Pubs, deep state, or whatever bullshit they are shoveling ATM, is stunning.
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: wenchsenior on October 17, 2017, 04:14:27 PM
Was he just bragging about "Grab 'em by the p****" or did he really do that?  With many women came forward and reported what Weinstein did, I been wondering if someone would come forward as well. That would be very bad... (this got nothing to do if one is Republican or Democrat).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Holy ****!! It is disturbing enough there is a long list of this. While I understand you are innocent until proven guilty, this really caught my eyes:

"Another type of accusation was made, primarily after the audio recording surfaced, by several former Miss USA and Miss Teen USA contestants, who accused Trump of entering the dressing rooms of beauty pageant contestants. Trump, who owned the Miss Universe franchise, which includes both pageants, was accused of going into dressing rooms in 1997, 2000, 2001, and 2006, while contestants were in various stages of undress."

Miss Teen USA is for girls aged 14-19. That's really messed-up (for the lack of better terms).

Very old news. 
Title: Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
Post by: paddedhat on October 18, 2017, 06:57:00 AM
Was he just bragging about "Grab 'em by the p****" or did he really do that?  With many women came forward and reported what Weinstein did, I been wondering if someone would come forward as well. That would be very bad... (this got nothing to do if one is Republican or Democrat).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations

Holy ****!! It is disturbing enough there is a long list of this. While I understand you are innocent until proven guilty, this really caught my eyes:

"Another type of accusation was made, primarily after the audio recording surfaced, by several former Miss USA and Miss Teen USA contestants, who accused Trump of entering the dressing rooms of beauty pageant contestants. Trump, who owned the Miss Universe franchise, which includes both pageants, was accused of going into dressing rooms in 1997, 2000, 2001, and 2006, while contestants were in various stages of undress."

Miss Teen USA is for girls aged 14-19. That's really messed-up (for the lack of better terms).

Very old news.

Information is not fresh produce, it doesn't get "old".  I'm sure that I'm not the only one that was unaware that this POS has a history of gawking at 14 YO girls as they are changing their clothes.

On a more "fr