Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 194020 times)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #350 on: December 03, 2016, 11:32:50 AM »
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-bogus-claim-that-obama-skips-his-intelligence-briefings/2012/09/22/100cb63e-04fc-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html?utm_term=.fb1ab726aeb3

Now, it's legitimate to ask if Trump is maybe doing the same (reading it daily but not always having an in person meeting), although given his frightful lack of experience and foreign policy knowledge, I would still call even that a dereliction of duties if he really wants to take the job seriously.

The Twitter stuff falls into the category of so obviously bad that I would be surprised if Trump supporters even make much of an effort to defend it. Too much cognitive dissonance to be found there. Completely ignoring it is the safer option.

This was my first thought. Can't find any source commenting that he's reading them, though.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

wienerdog

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #351 on: December 03, 2016, 01:22:05 PM »
Well, this seems to be going well.
https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d

Spontaneously gives the leader of Taiwan a call to chat... which is also the first real diplomatic contact since (wait for it) 1979 because of an attempt to maintain good relations with the Chinese. FTW.

Trumps says she called him FYI.  Should not have diplomatic contact with Taiwan but selling of arms is okay to keep Chinese in good relations.  Check!  Oh I forgot most of them are defensive so China won't think they will get attacked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwan

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/u-s-taiwan-arms-sales/


Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1325
  • Age: 185
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2024 (maybe?)
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #352 on: December 03, 2016, 01:29:30 PM »
Well, this seems to be going well.
https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d

Spontaneously gives the leader of Taiwan a call to chat... which is also the first real diplomatic contact since (wait for it) 1979 because of an attempt to maintain good relations with the Chinese. FTW.

Trumps says she called him FYI.  Should not have diplomatic contact with Taiwan but selling of arms is okay to keep Chinese in good relations.  Check!  Oh I forgot most of them are defensive so China won't think they will get attacked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwan

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/u-s-taiwan-arms-sales/
Diplomacy is mostly gray area and it is natural to have parallel interests that do not appear to dovetail well. This would have been a good time to have staff smart enough to say, "Sorry, it appears that Mr. Trump is in a meeting. Would you like me to connect you to his voice mail?"

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #353 on: December 03, 2016, 01:37:33 PM »
Well, this seems to be going well.
https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d

Spontaneously gives the leader of Taiwan a call to chat... which is also the first real diplomatic contact since (wait for it) 1979 because of an attempt to maintain good relations with the Chinese. FTW.

Trumps says she called him FYI.  Should not have diplomatic contact with Taiwan but selling of arms is okay to keep Chinese in good relations.  Check!  Oh I forgot most of them are defensive so China won't think they will get attacked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwan

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/u-s-taiwan-arms-sales/

I'm changing my vote. If China didn't start a war when the U.S. gave missiles to Taiwan, there is even less chance of war over a phone call than I thought.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

wienerdog

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #354 on: December 03, 2016, 01:50:59 PM »
Diplomacy is mostly gray area and it is natural to have parallel interests that do not appear to dovetail well. This would have been a good time to have staff smart enough to say, "Sorry, it appears that Mr. Trump is in a meeting. Would you like me to connect you to his voice mail?"

Why would that be the smart thing to do?  The call was setup by his campaign staff.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1213
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #355 on: December 03, 2016, 02:10:07 PM »

FWIW:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2016/12/03/2003660473

"Trump reportedly agreed to the call, which was arranged by Taiwan-friendly members of his campaign staff after his aides briefed him on issues regarding Taiwan and the situation in the Taiwan Strait, sources said."

music lover

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #356 on: December 03, 2016, 02:33:45 PM »
Given that he has been declining intelligence briefings, I do not suspect that he has a genius master plan up his sleeve...

In Obama's first 6 years in office, he skipped 58% of all security briefings

Where do you get this stuff from?  Did you just pull that number out of your butt?

That is information provided by the government. You could look it up...or heaven forbid, you could have actually have been aware of it for the last 8 years. But, it seems that every single time Obama fails or does something wrong, that NO ONE on the left is aware.

former player

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2262
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #357 on: December 03, 2016, 03:49:15 PM »
Given that he has been declining intelligence briefings, I do not suspect that he has a genius master plan up his sleeve...

In Obama's first 6 years in office, he skipped 58% of all security briefings

Where do you get this stuff from?  Did you just pull that number out of your butt?

That is information provided by the government. You could look it up...or heaven forbid, you could have actually have been aware of it for the last 8 years. But, it seems that every single time Obama fails or does something wrong, that NO ONE on the left is aware.
Do you have an official source for it?  The Washington Post (link provided by Lagom) thinks it was generous to only give the story three Pinocchios.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5211
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #358 on: December 03, 2016, 04:18:30 PM »
But, it seems that every single time Obama fails or does something wrong, that NO ONE on the left is aware.

I'm just going to repeat myself...

In this case, Trump is violating decades of US foreign policy, apparently on a whim, on Twitter, over the objection of our nation's diplomats.  Whatever wild claims you want to make about Obama are irrelevant to that criticism.  If anything, your attacks on Obama reinforce the idea that you agree with us that this is a horrible thing to do be doing, you hated it when Obama supposedly did it, and now you also hate it when Trump is doing it even more.

radram

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #359 on: December 03, 2016, 05:25:48 PM »
Given that he has been declining intelligence briefings, I do not suspect that he has a genius master plan up his sleeve...

In Obama's first 6 years in office, he skipped 58% of all security briefings

Where do you get this stuff from?  Did you just pull that number out of your butt?

This is classic Trump, btw.  You're on video saying "grab them by the pussy?"  Make the false claim that Bill Clinton is a rapist, even though he's not even running for office.  You've been charged with defrauding the American public?  Make the false claim that Hillary Clinton is being charged with mishandling classified information (she wasn't).  You're resume is full of repeated business failures?  Make the false claim that your opponent's record of service to her country is meaningless because [honestly I'm not sure why he claimed that].  For every one of Trump's weaknesses and failures as a candidate, his "defense" has always been a baseless attack on the opposition for the exact same thing.  Try to sow dissent, introduce confusion, muddle the issue.

In this case, Trump is violating decades of US foreign policy, apparently on a whim, on Twitter, over the objection of our nation's diplomats.  Whatever wild claims you want to make about Obama are irrelevant to that criticism.  If anything, your attacks on Obama reinforce the idea that you agree with us that this is a horrible thing to do be doing, you hated it when Obama supposedly did it, and now you also hate it when Trump is doing it even more.

If you want to defend Trump's blatant disregard for diplomatic protocols, please do so on some grounds other than "I think the other guy sort of did that too."  For example, I know people who think Twitter is the CORRECT avenue to negotiate international treaties and that Trump is saving America by cutting out all that formal bullshit and just publicly announcing every step in his process in a 3am tweet.  If you believe that, or have some other defense of Trump's repeated diplomatic missteps, go ahead and make your case.  But you can stop making up shit that isn't even relevant just to confuse people.

I expect your response to this post to be "sol is making up shit that isn't even relevant just to confuse people!"

Music lover appears to be going back to a claim from around 2012:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-bogus-claim-that-obama-skips-his-intelligence-briefings/2012/09/22/100cb63e-04fc-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html?utm_term=.79e627fc657f

To summarize, every president changes how they receive and respond to intelligence. The "skipped meetings" in question appear to have never been scheduled meetings at all. If this is how that figure was reached, I would rate the 58% stat as deceptive.  To continue to spread it (say 4 years later) I would consider it a lie. 

From the article:
"That column also includes the White House’s response — that Obama reads his PDB every day, but he does not always require an in-person briefing every day. The White House argument is that this is how Obama structured his White House operation, so it is specious to say he has “skipped” a meeting that was not actually scheduled."

Using the same logic, this article claims one could accuse Reagan of "skipping" 99% of these same never scheduled meetings.  Also an unfair and deceptive assessment in my opinion.

The recent accusation that Trump is skipping security briefings might be just as unfair of an assessment. To me it would depend on whether Trump is receiving the information some other way. Does the president elect receive the PDB, or it that not yet for his eyes?  I am willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt here. If it later comes out that Trump is forgoing receiving the information in any way, I would then begin to get more concerned.


wienerdog

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #360 on: December 03, 2016, 06:21:27 PM »
Well, this seems to be going well.
https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d

Spontaneously gives the leader of Taiwan a call to chat... which is also the first real diplomatic contact since (wait for it) 1979 because of an attempt to maintain good relations with the Chinese. FTW.

Trumps says she called him FYI.  Should not have diplomatic contact with Taiwan but selling of arms is okay to keep Chinese in good relations.  Check!  Oh I forgot most of them are defensive so China won't think they will get attacked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwan

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/u-s-taiwan-arms-sales/

I'm changing my vote. If China didn't start a war when the U.S. gave missiles to Taiwan, there is even less chance of war over a phone call than I thought.

Did you vote Hillary or Trump?  I heard she still needs some votes in Wisconsin as she gained 1 but then lost 3 the next day.  Maybe you can tip it over the edge.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #361 on: December 03, 2016, 06:51:44 PM »
Well, this seems to be going well.
https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d

Spontaneously gives the leader of Taiwan a call to chat... which is also the first real diplomatic contact since (wait for it) 1979 because of an attempt to maintain good relations with the Chinese. FTW.

Trumps says she called him FYI.  Should not have diplomatic contact with Taiwan but selling of arms is okay to keep Chinese in good relations.  Check!  Oh I forgot most of them are defensive so China won't think they will get attacked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwan

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/u-s-taiwan-arms-sales/

I'm changing my vote. If China didn't start a war when the U.S. gave missiles to Taiwan, there is even less chance of war over a phone call than I thought.

Did you vote Hillary or Trump?  I heard she still needs some votes in Wisconsin as she gained 1 but then lost 3 the next day.  Maybe you can tip it over the edge.

Not that it's any of your business, but I did not vote for either of those candidates.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

wienerdog

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #362 on: December 03, 2016, 07:16:48 PM »
Well, this seems to be going well.
https://www.ft.com/content/fd19907e-b8d4-11e6-961e-a1acd97f622d

Spontaneously gives the leader of Taiwan a call to chat... which is also the first real diplomatic contact since (wait for it) 1979 because of an attempt to maintain good relations with the Chinese. FTW.

Trumps says she called him FYI.  Should not have diplomatic contact with Taiwan but selling of arms is okay to keep Chinese in good relations.  Check!  Oh I forgot most of them are defensive so China won't think they will get attacked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_US_arms_sales_to_Taiwan

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/16/politics/u-s-taiwan-arms-sales/

I'm changing my vote. If China didn't start a war when the U.S. gave missiles to Taiwan, there is even less chance of war over a phone call than I thought.

Did you vote Hillary or Trump?  I heard she still needs some votes in Wisconsin as she gained 1 but then lost 3 the next day.  Maybe you can tip it over the edge.

Not that it's any of your business, but I did not vote for either of those candidates.

Same.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #363 on: December 03, 2016, 07:19:14 PM »
High five. There were much better choices available , overall.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4322
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #364 on: December 05, 2016, 11:55:37 AM »
Given that he has been declining intelligence briefings, I do not suspect that he has a genius master plan up his sleeve...

In Obama's first 6 years in office, he skipped 58% of all security briefings

Where do you get this stuff from?  Did you just pull that number out of your butt?

This is classic Trump, btw.  You're on video saying "grab them by the pussy?"  Make the false claim that Bill Clinton is a rapist, even though he's not even running for office.  You've been charged with defrauding the American public?  Make the false claim that Hillary Clinton is being charged with mishandling classified information (she wasn't).  You're resume is full of repeated business failures?  Make the false claim that your opponent's record of service to her country is meaningless because [honestly I'm not sure why he claimed that].  For every one of Trump's weaknesses and failures as a candidate, his "defense" has always been a baseless attack on the opposition for the exact same thing.  Try to sow dissent, introduce confusion, muddle the issue.

In this case, Trump is violating decades of US foreign policy, apparently on a whim, on Twitter, over the objection of our nation's diplomats.  Whatever wild claims you want to make about Obama are irrelevant to that criticism.  If anything, your attacks on Obama reinforce the idea that you agree with us that this is a horrible thing to do be doing, you hated it when Obama supposedly did it, and now you also hate it when Trump is doing it even more.

If you want to defend Trump's blatant disregard for diplomatic protocols, please do so on some grounds other than "I think the other guy sort of did that too."  For example, I know people who think Twitter is the CORRECT avenue to negotiate international treaties and that Trump is saving America by cutting out all that formal bullshit and just publicly announcing every step in his process in a 3am tweet.  If you believe that, or have some other defense of Trump's repeated diplomatic missteps, go ahead and make your case.  But you can stop making up shit that isn't even relevant just to confuse people.

I expect your response to this post to be "sol is making up shit that isn't even relevant just to confuse people!"

Music lover appears to be going back to a claim from around 2012:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-bogus-claim-that-obama-skips-his-intelligence-briefings/2012/09/22/100cb63e-04fc-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html?utm_term=.79e627fc657f

To summarize, every president changes how they receive and respond to intelligence. The "skipped meetings" in question appear to have never been scheduled meetings at all. If this is how that figure was reached, I would rate the 58% stat as deceptive.  To continue to spread it (say 4 years later) I would consider it a lie. 

From the article:
"That column also includes the White House’s response — that Obama reads his PDB every day, but he does not always require an in-person briefing every day. The White House argument is that this is how Obama structured his White House operation, so it is specious to say he has “skipped” a meeting that was not actually scheduled."

Using the same logic, this article claims one could accuse Reagan of "skipping" 99% of these same never scheduled meetings.  Also an unfair and deceptive assessment in my opinion.

The recent accusation that Trump is skipping security briefings might be just as unfair of an assessment. To me it would depend on whether Trump is receiving the information some other way. Does the president elect receive the PDB, or it that not yet for his eyes?  I am willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt here. If it later comes out that Trump is forgoing receiving the information in any way, I would then begin to get more concerned.
I think the point is that reading a note, if you have the base to understand the note is one thing.  But reading a note without any backstory is a bad idea.  Many presidents (and VP elect Pence) have gotten the background that Trump is refusing to get.
This has a nice summary of the issue: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html?utm_term=.b929c1fa677d

radram

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #365 on: December 05, 2016, 01:28:34 PM »
Given that he has been declining intelligence briefings, I do not suspect that he has a genius master plan up his sleeve...

In Obama's first 6 years in office, he skipped 58% of all security briefings

Where do you get this stuff from?  Did you just pull that number out of your butt?

This is classic Trump, btw.  You're on video saying "grab them by the pussy?"  Make the false claim that Bill Clinton is a rapist, even though he's not even running for office.  You've been charged with defrauding the American public?  Make the false claim that Hillary Clinton is being charged with mishandling classified information (she wasn't).  You're resume is full of repeated business failures?  Make the false claim that your opponent's record of service to her country is meaningless because [honestly I'm not sure why he claimed that].  For every one of Trump's weaknesses and failures as a candidate, his "defense" has always been a baseless attack on the opposition for the exact same thing.  Try to sow dissent, introduce confusion, muddle the issue.

In this case, Trump is violating decades of US foreign policy, apparently on a whim, on Twitter, over the objection of our nation's diplomats.  Whatever wild claims you want to make about Obama are irrelevant to that criticism.  If anything, your attacks on Obama reinforce the idea that you agree with us that this is a horrible thing to do be doing, you hated it when Obama supposedly did it, and now you also hate it when Trump is doing it even more.

If you want to defend Trump's blatant disregard for diplomatic protocols, please do so on some grounds other than "I think the other guy sort of did that too."  For example, I know people who think Twitter is the CORRECT avenue to negotiate international treaties and that Trump is saving America by cutting out all that formal bullshit and just publicly announcing every step in his process in a 3am tweet.  If you believe that, or have some other defense of Trump's repeated diplomatic missteps, go ahead and make your case.  But you can stop making up shit that isn't even relevant just to confuse people.

I expect your response to this post to be "sol is making up shit that isn't even relevant just to confuse people!"

Music lover appears to be going back to a claim from around 2012:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-bogus-claim-that-obama-skips-his-intelligence-briefings/2012/09/22/100cb63e-04fc-11e2-8102-ebee9c66e190_blog.html?utm_term=.79e627fc657f

To summarize, every president changes how they receive and respond to intelligence. The "skipped meetings" in question appear to have never been scheduled meetings at all. If this is how that figure was reached, I would rate the 58% stat as deceptive.  To continue to spread it (say 4 years later) I would consider it a lie. 

From the article:
"That column also includes the White House’s response — that Obama reads his PDB every day, but he does not always require an in-person briefing every day. The White House argument is that this is how Obama structured his White House operation, so it is specious to say he has “skipped” a meeting that was not actually scheduled."

Using the same logic, this article claims one could accuse Reagan of "skipping" 99% of these same never scheduled meetings.  Also an unfair and deceptive assessment in my opinion.

The recent accusation that Trump is skipping security briefings might be just as unfair of an assessment. To me it would depend on whether Trump is receiving the information some other way. Does the president elect receive the PDB, or it that not yet for his eyes?  I am willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt here. If it later comes out that Trump is forgoing receiving the information in any way, I would then begin to get more concerned.
I think the point is that reading a note, if you have the base to understand the note is one thing.  But reading a note without any backstory is a bad idea.  Many presidents (and VP elect Pence) have gotten the background that Trump is refusing to get.
This has a nice summary of the issue: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html?utm_term=.b929c1fa677d

This article actually sets my mind more at ease, due to the following:

"A team of intelligence analysts has been prepared to deliver daily briefings on global developments and security threats to Trump in the two weeks since he won. Vice President-elect Mike Pence, by contrast, has set aside time for intelligence briefings almost every day since the election, officials said.
Officials involved in the Trump transition team cautioned against assigning any significance to the briefing schedule that the president-elect has set so far, noting that he has been immersed in the work of forming his administration, and has made filling key national security posts his top priority."

It is hinting that security briefings are happening, just in a way that might not have been considered "normal".  Just speculation here, but those 2 paragraphs imply that Pence will be poised to handle security issues more than vice-presidents in the past. This is consistent with reports that Trump will rely on others for more of the day-to-day actions of the presidency.

Believe me, the morning of November 9th you would never have convinced me I would ever pen a statement that in any way defended Trump.  While I still feel a little dirty, fair is fair.   




radram

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 493
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #366 on: December 05, 2016, 01:45:21 PM »
you are a piece of shit and I will not apologize.

Classic.

Donald Trump would be proud.  "I'm not saying you're a piece of shit.  I would never say that, because it wouldn't be proper.  But some people are saying you're a huge piece of shit.  I don't say that, but everyone knows that you're a huge piece of shit."

24 hours later...  "I never said he was a piece of shit, you're quoting me out of context.  Some other people have said that he's a piece of shit, but not me.  It's not me saying that, what a shitty thing for him to say, attacking me like that.  Only a real piece of shit would say that."

I'll be clearer. If you are convinced that x will happen, and x does not happen, and you sidestep, backpedal, deny, etc., you are a 'pick your disparaging descriptive word'. That is my only point. And, if x does happen, please, post and say 'damn it, I was right, this sucks'. Ditto for the opposite of those.

One small example is Chuck Todd. Last November or so he said on national tv, 'well, that will do it for trump, watch next week he will fade away'. I never heard him say 'wow, did I screw that up. You'd think someone who does this for a living would be better than that'. I never heard that. Others have, and I respect that. Have integrity, that is my desire. I am fine with no one caring about my desire, but you should be true to yourself.

Silverado,
This sounds like fun, so I will play.

Regarding ACA:
Full repeal of ACA with no replace gets discussed, debated, passed through the house and senate, and placed on Trumps desk. Just as discussed (in the 60 minutes article from a few weeks back), Trump Veto's the bill.

They start over with a repeal and replace plan that Trump signs. 

No mandate, 26 year-olds on parents plan, no denial of pre-existing conditions. There is now a catastrophic option, covering nothing until some large out of pocket max (lets say $25,000). This new option will cost about $2,000 less per year as the current bronze plans but will cover nothing unless you have a serious health event.  There will no longer be ACA credits for health insurance, but there will be some sort of off-set to help make the catastrophic plan affordable to the poor. Prevention services will be reduced to help contain costs.  Healthy people will love the new system. Sick people will not like it as much.

If you are unhealthy you will pay more or not get services, if you are well you will pay less. Many will think that is exactly the way it ought to be. Many will think we are abandoning our sick.

My family will pay more and utilize less services.

Regarding Medicare:
They go with the Ryan Plan voucher idea. Saves government money.  Costs people more. It might be a real problem, but not for 25 years. I hope my goggle reminder goes off in 2041 so I can come back here and gloat :)

Regarding Inheritance:
Full repeal of any taxes for inheritance. This will not effect 99.98% of current estates. The revenue difference will be offset by a combination of deficit increases and less services.

Regarding Taxes
Rates changes much like Trump has been discussing. Increased deficits and decreasing spending on services to offset the tax revenue decrease.

Regarding Military Spending
The largest percentage increase in modern history. All deficit driven.

Regarding infrastructure
Almost nothing changes.   No money. All improvements are deficit driven.

Overall, usual "don't tax and spend a little less" deficit increasing policies.  4 years from now, increased inflation, increased annual deficits, and a greater wealth gap. Trump falls short of his campaign promise to eliminate the debt(not deficit) in 10 years by $40 trillion, because congress does not go along with his idea to default on our debt.

If he runs in 2020, he wins again under the "give my ideas a chance" mantra.

Ryan was interviewed on 60 minutes. 

Question(regarding Obamacare being the first bill with Trump as president): You're going to repeal it (slight pause) ... first?
Ryan: Yes

It is way too early to say it, but I will begin anyway:
'damn it, I was right, this sucks'



RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 566
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #367 on: December 05, 2016, 04:38:36 PM »
And the funny thing about this kind of deficit driven government bloat we see from Republicans is the tax load keeps growing for the middle class in the form of near static taxes and continue inflation from the Fed.

Even a great conservative economist like Milton Friedman hammers at the point that inflation is basically a tax. If you keep tax brackets near stagnant at the lower income range and keep up inflation you effectively slowly move people into higher tax brackets.

The effects of a voucher program could be as bad or worse than the ACA for people when it actually would take effect. But if they are able to undo the ACA it gives me hope that a new administration could equally undo a bad program from the right.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4322
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #368 on: December 05, 2016, 05:22:43 PM »
Given that he has been declining intelligence briefings, I do not suspect that he has a genius master plan up his sleeve..

The recent accusation that Trump is skipping security briefings might be just as unfair of an assessment. To me it would depend on whether Trump is receiving the information some other way. Does the president elect receive the PDB, or it that not yet for his eyes?  I am willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt here. If it later comes out that Trump is forgoing receiving the information in any way, I would then begin to get more concerned.
I think the point is that reading a note, if you have the base to understand the note is one thing.  But reading a note without any backstory is a bad idea.  Many presidents (and VP elect Pence) have gotten the background that Trump is refusing to get.
This has a nice summary of the issue: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-turning-away-intelligence-briefers-since-election-win/2016/11/23/5cc643c4-b1ae-11e6-be1c-8cec35b1ad25_story.html?utm_term=.b929c1fa677d

This article actually sets my mind more at ease, due to the following:

"A team of intelligence analysts has been prepared to deliver daily briefings on global developments and security threats to Trump in the two weeks since he won. Vice President-elect Mike Pence, by contrast, has set aside time for intelligence briefings almost every day since the election, officials said.
Officials involved in the Trump transition team cautioned against assigning any significance to the briefing schedule that the president-elect has set so far, noting that he has been immersed in the work of forming his administration, and has made filling key national security posts his top priority."

It is hinting that security briefings are happening, just in a way that might not have been considered "normal".  Just speculation here, but those 2 paragraphs imply that Pence will be poised to handle security issues more than vice-presidents in the past. This is consistent with reports that Trump will rely on others for more of the day-to-day actions of the presidency.

Believe me, the morning of November 9th you would never have convinced me I would ever pen a statement that in any way defended Trump.  While I still feel a little dirty, fair is fair.
Given that Trump and his team have been noted for being liars, I am not sure I buy your ease.  That said, I do agree with your last paragraph that Pence is basically acting President.  That should scare people as well because people will still expect the president to make decisions.

Silverado

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 138
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #369 on: December 05, 2016, 07:58:49 PM »
you are a piece of shit and I will not apologize.

Classic.

Donald Trump would be proud.  "I'm not saying you're a piece of shit.  I would never say that, because it wouldn't be proper.  But some people are saying you're a huge piece of shit.  I don't say that, but everyone knows that you're a huge piece of shit."

24 hours later...  "I never said he was a piece of shit, you're quoting me out of context.  Some other people have said that he's a piece of shit, but not me.  It's not me saying that, what a shitty thing for him to say, attacking me like that.  Only a real piece of shit would say that."

I'll be clearer. If you are convinced that x will happen, and x does not happen, and you sidestep, backpedal, deny, etc., you are a 'pick your disparaging descriptive word'. That is my only point. And, if x does happen, please, post and say 'damn it, I was right, this sucks'. Ditto for the opposite of those.

One small example is Chuck Todd. Last November or so he said on national tv, 'well, that will do it for trump, watch next week he will fade away'. I never heard him say 'wow, did I screw that up. You'd think someone who does this for a living would be better than that'. I never heard that. Others have, and I respect that. Have integrity, that is my desire. I am fine with no one caring about my desire, but you should be true to yourself.

Silverado,
This sounds like fun, so I will play.

Regarding ACA:
Full repeal of ACA with no replace gets discussed, debated, passed through the house and senate, and placed on Trumps desk. Just as discussed (in the 60 minutes article from a few weeks back), Trump Veto's the bill.

They start over with a repeal and replace plan that Trump signs. 

No mandate, 26 year-olds on parents plan, no denial of pre-existing conditions. There is now a catastrophic option, covering nothing until some large out of pocket max (lets say $25,000). This new option will cost about $2,000 less per year as the current bronze plans but will cover nothing unless you have a serious health event.  There will no longer be ACA credits for health insurance, but there will be some sort of off-set to help make the catastrophic plan affordable to the poor. Prevention services will be reduced to help contain costs.  Healthy people will love the new system. Sick people will not like it as much.

If you are unhealthy you will pay more or not get services, if you are well you will pay less. Many will think that is exactly the way it ought to be. Many will think we are abandoning our sick.

My family will pay more and utilize less services.

Regarding Medicare:
They go with the Ryan Plan voucher idea. Saves government money.  Costs people more. It might be a real problem, but not for 25 years. I hope my goggle reminder goes off in 2041 so I can come back here and gloat :)

Regarding Inheritance:
Full repeal of any taxes for inheritance. This will not effect 99.98% of current estates. The revenue difference will be offset by a combination of deficit increases and less services.

Regarding Taxes
Rates changes much like Trump has been discussing. Increased deficits and decreasing spending on services to offset the tax revenue decrease.

Regarding Military Spending
The largest percentage increase in modern history. All deficit driven.

Regarding infrastructure
Almost nothing changes.   No money. All improvements are deficit driven.

Overall, usual "don't tax and spend a little less" deficit increasing policies.  4 years from now, increased inflation, increased annual deficits, and a greater wealth gap. Trump falls short of his campaign promise to eliminate the debt(not deficit) in 10 years by $40 trillion, because congress does not go along with his idea to default on our debt.

If he runs in 2020, he wins again under the "give my ideas a chance" mantra.

Ryan was interviewed on 60 minutes. 

Question(regarding Obamacare being the first bill with Trump as president): You're going to repeal it (slight pause) ... first?
Ryan: Yes

It is way too early to say it, but I will begin anyway:
'damn it, I was right, this sucks'

Yeah, haste here does not seem like a positive direction. This seems like an area where there should be some common ground, but alas, nothing but politics normally.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1385
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #370 on: December 05, 2016, 09:05:56 PM »
I thought that this was pretty shocking, a member of the electoral college is not only refusing to cast their vote in accordance with the electorate but they also published an op-ed as to their reasoning - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=1

Quote
DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

davisgang90

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
  • Location: NoVa
    • Chart prepping
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #371 on: December 06, 2016, 03:45:00 AM »
But, it seems that every single time Obama fails or does something wrong, that NO ONE on the left is aware.

I'm just going to repeat myself...

In this case, Trump is violating decades of US foreign policy, apparently on a whim, on Twitter, over the objection of our nation's diplomats.  Whatever wild claims you want to make about Obama are irrelevant to that criticism.  If anything, your attacks on Obama reinforce the idea that you agree with us that this is a horrible thing to do be doing, you hated it when Obama supposedly did it, and now you also hate it when Trump is doing it even more.
Obama violated decades of US foreign policy when he normalized relations with Cuba.  Nixon violated decades of US foreign policy when he went to China.  Given China's adventures building a military base on a coral reef in the South China Sea, I think the phone call was a good idea.  Time to put the "One China" fiction to rest.  The media and US diplomats have reacted more shrilly than the Chinese.  That should be cause for introspection.
Check out my blog.  Early retirement from a military perspective.

http://chartprepping.com

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1513
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #372 on: December 06, 2016, 05:56:15 AM »
But, it seems that every single time Obama fails or does something wrong, that NO ONE on the left is aware.

I'm just going to repeat myself...

In this case, Trump is violating decades of US foreign policy, apparently on a whim, on Twitter, over the objection of our nation's diplomats.  Whatever wild claims you want to make about Obama are irrelevant to that criticism.  If anything, your attacks on Obama reinforce the idea that you agree with us that this is a horrible thing to do be doing, you hated it when Obama supposedly did it, and now you also hate it when Trump is doing it even more.
Obama violated decades of US foreign policy when he normalized relations with Cuba.  Nixon violated decades of US foreign policy when he went to China.  Given China's adventures building a military base on a coral reef in the South China Sea, I think the phone call was a good idea.  Time to put the "One China" fiction to rest.  The media and US diplomats have reacted more shrilly than the Chinese.  That should be cause for introspection.

I don't necessarily disagree, BUT that could just be cultural differences manifesting in subtle ways. Americans are really loud.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #373 on: December 06, 2016, 06:55:40 AM »
I don't think that is a very accurate assesment. The chinese have reacted pretty damn loudly.  They just reacted more loudly at Tiwan than the USA.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

bananarama

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #374 on: December 06, 2016, 07:00:48 AM »
But, it seems that every single time Obama fails or does something wrong, that NO ONE on the left is aware.

I'm just going to repeat myself...

In this case, Trump is violating decades of US foreign policy, apparently on a whim, on Twitter, over the objection of our nation's diplomats.  Whatever wild claims you want to make about Obama are irrelevant to that criticism.  If anything, your attacks on Obama reinforce the idea that you agree with us that this is a horrible thing to do be doing, you hated it when Obama supposedly did it, and now you also hate it when Trump is doing it even more.
Obama violated decades of US foreign policy when he normalized relations with Cuba.  Nixon violated decades of US foreign policy when he went to China.  Given China's adventures building a military base on a coral reef in the South China Sea, I think the phone call was a good idea.  Time to put the "One China" fiction to rest.  The media and US diplomats have reacted more shrilly than the Chinese.  That should be cause for introspection.

I don't necessarily disagree, BUT that could just be cultural differences manifesting in subtle ways. Americans are really loud.

Sure, this could put us in a good position in some ways. Right now though, Trump is still a regular citizen so who cares what he says. As president? Might be different, especially if he doesn't leave room for China to come to agreements with us without losing face. They've given him room to let this get dismissed and instead he doubled down.

It's a delicate line to balance, and those examples of that  ”violated decades of US foreign policy" were all relatively mild. We didn't stand to lose anything normalizing relations with China or Cuba and a potential hell of a lot to gain. Destabilizing Pakistan/India or China/Taiwan? Lots more to lose, and a good number of other allies in that area who won't be keen on increasingly strong stances from countries trying to establish new hierarchies and relationships.

President wants to take a hard line? That's fine, we elected him to do the job and he's got the State Department to help him lay out a way forward. However, I'll always be (justifiably) nervous if that President decides twitter is an appropriate place to do diplomatic work (or that his children are acceptable unofficial ambassadors) and who's language is careless, especially when dealing with cultures very different from our own. At some point China (or others) won't be able to downplay things and then the situation will grow in ways we can't imagine now.Or not.

I think it boils down to trust. Looking at his history and considering everything I've read, I am incredibly doubtful that Trump has what it takes to be anything other than an embarrassment. I mean, saving a few jobs (which is good for sure) by giving a company millions (which is bad) can only lead to other companies trying the same tactic.

Interesting thought: I view the job thing as governance by bribe. But then, a lot of attempts to bring new business to an area are essentially bribes. When is the line where it becomes crony capitalism? Is it always crony capitalism?

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 741
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #375 on: December 06, 2016, 07:06:35 AM »
I thought that this was pretty shocking, a member of the electoral college is not only refusing to cast their vote in accordance with the electorate but they also published an op-ed as to their reasoning - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=1

Quote
DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.

If this @sshole, the elector, can't do his job properly he should give up his seat.

bananarama

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #376 on: December 06, 2016, 07:22:24 AM »
I thought that this was pretty shocking, a member of the electoral college is not only refusing to cast their vote in accordance with the electorate but they also published an op-ed as to their reasoning - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=1

Quote
DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.

If this @sshole, the elector, can't do his job properly he should give up his seat.

Pretty sure the 12th amendment doesn't say anything about how the electors are supposed to vote (just that they do) so it sounds like he knows exactly how to do his job. Seriously, even before the election I was for keeping the electoral college (and against the interstate agreement) because I like the idea that there is a built in safe guard for a bad national vote. Why does the prospect of someone voting for their nation over their party (against a candidate they judge is unfit for the presidency) make you so angry?

Pure democracy is a mob rule, either way. While it's unlikely that the electors will vote for anyone other than Trump and this is really just symbolic (electors aren't usually faithless), at some point in our future that tiny little distinction between popular vote and the electoral college might be all that stands between us and tyranny.

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1205
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #377 on: December 06, 2016, 08:34:19 AM »
I thought that this was pretty shocking, a member of the electoral college is not only refusing to cast their vote in accordance with the electorate but they also published an op-ed as to their reasoning - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=1

Quote
DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.

If this @sshole, the elector, can't do his job properly he should give up his seat.

The 12th Amendment doesn't say electors have to or even should vote for their party's nominee. Heck, it doesn't even say that states should allocate their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis (here's what famed Harvard constitutional law professor Lawrence Lessig has to say about that: https://medium.com/@lessig/the-equal-protection-argument-against-winner-take-all-in-the-electoral-college-b09e8a49d777#.qm3mzajg4).

And Founding Father Alexander Hamilton wrote that one of the purposes of the electoral college was to prevent dangerous but popular demagogues from reaching the White House: the EC "affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.... there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."
- Hamilton, Federalist Papers 68 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp).

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #378 on: December 06, 2016, 08:45:10 AM »
I thought that this was pretty shocking, a member of the electoral college is not only refusing to cast their vote in accordance with the electorate but they also published an op-ed as to their reasoning - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=1

Quote
DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.

If this @sshole, the elector, can't do his job properly he should give up his seat.

The 12th Amendment doesn't say electors have to or even should vote for their party's nominee. Heck, it doesn't even say that states should allocate their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis (here's what famed Harvard constitutional law professor Lawrence Lessig has to say about that: https://medium.com/@lessig/the-equal-protection-argument-against-winner-take-all-in-the-electoral-college-b09e8a49d777#.qm3mzajg4).

And Founding Father Alexander Hamilton wrote that one of the purposes of the electoral college was to prevent dangerous but popular demagogues from reaching the White House: the EC "affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.... there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."
- Hamilton, Federalist Papers 68 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp).

Exactly. The elector's job is precisely to do what this person is doing.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #379 on: December 06, 2016, 08:46:39 AM »
I thought that this was pretty shocking, a member of the electoral college is not only refusing to cast their vote in accordance with the electorate but they also published an op-ed as to their reasoning - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=1

Quote
DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.

If this @sshole, the elector, can't do his job properly he should give up his seat.

The 12th Amendment doesn't say electors have to or even should vote for their party's nominee. Heck, it doesn't even say that states should allocate their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis (here's what famed Harvard constitutional law professor Lawrence Lessig has to say about that: https://medium.com/@lessig/the-equal-protection-argument-against-winner-take-all-in-the-electoral-college-b09e8a49d777#.qm3mzajg4).

And Founding Father Alexander Hamilton wrote that one of the purposes of the electoral college was to prevent dangerous but popular demagogues from reaching the White House: the EC "affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.... there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."
- Hamilton, Federalist Papers 68 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp).

Now I know that I am Canadian and looking at this as an outsider.  But Trump, even if you completely agree with his policy(what are they again?) and the fact that he is a republican(conservative in my world) Is he even qualified to hold office?  As mentioned he goes on twitter rampages when SNL does a skit on him, refuses to put his businesses into a blind trust, so that policy that he may affect does not benefit him unequally, discuses policy through twitter, does not seem interested in existing policy?  I truly wonder how the EC that was designed to protect the US from this, would not be almost obligated to vote elsewhere?

Please fill me in how he is qualified? 

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #380 on: December 06, 2016, 08:47:39 AM »
I thought that this was pretty shocking, a member of the electoral college is not only refusing to cast their vote in accordance with the electorate but they also published an op-ed as to their reasoning - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=1

Quote
DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.

If this @sshole, the elector, can't do his job properly he should give up his seat.

The 12th Amendment doesn't say electors have to or even should vote for their party's nominee. Heck, it doesn't even say that states should allocate their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis (here's what famed Harvard constitutional law professor Lawrence Lessig has to say about that: https://medium.com/@lessig/the-equal-protection-argument-against-winner-take-all-in-the-electoral-college-b09e8a49d777#.qm3mzajg4).

And Founding Father Alexander Hamilton wrote that one of the purposes of the electoral college was to prevent dangerous but popular demagogues from reaching the White House: the EC "affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.... there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."
- Hamilton, Federalist Papers 68 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp).

Now I know that I am Canadian and looking at this as an outsider.  But Trump, even if you completely agree with his policy(what are they again?) and the fact that he is a republican(conservative in my world) Is he even qualified to hold office?  As mentioned he goes on twitter rampages when SNL does a skit on him, refuses to put his businesses into a blind trust, so that policy that he may affect does not benefit him unequally, discuses policy through twitter, does not seem interested in existing policy?  I truly wonder how the EC that was designed to protect the US from this, would not be almost obligated to vote elsewhere?

Please fill me in how he is qualified?

This is my feeling, too, Dycker, and I'm an American.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

SisterX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1482
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #381 on: December 06, 2016, 09:48:47 AM »
Sure, this could put us in a good position in some ways. Right now though, Trump is still a regular citizen so who cares what he says. As president? Might be different, especially if he doesn't leave room for China to come to agreements with us without losing face. They've given him room to let this get dismissed and instead he doubled down.

It's a delicate line to balance, and those examples of that  ”violated decades of US foreign policy" were all relatively mild. We didn't stand to lose anything normalizing relations with China or Cuba and a potential hell of a lot to gain. Destabilizing Pakistan/India or China/Taiwan? Lots more to lose, and a good number of other allies in that area who won't be keen on increasingly strong stances from countries trying to establish new hierarchies and relationships.

President wants to take a hard line? That's fine, we elected him to do the job and he's got the State Department to help him lay out a way forward. However, I'll always be (justifiably) nervous if that President decides twitter is an appropriate place to do diplomatic work (or that his children are acceptable unofficial ambassadors) and who's language is careless, especially when dealing with cultures very different from our own. At some point China (or others) won't be able to downplay things and then the situation will grow in ways we can't imagine now.Or not.

I think it boils down to trust. Looking at his history and considering everything I've read, I am incredibly doubtful that Trump has what it takes to be anything other than an embarrassment. I mean, saving a few jobs (which is good for sure) by giving a company millions (which is bad) can only lead to other companies trying the same tactic.

Interesting thought: I view the job thing as governance by bribe. But then, a lot of attempts to bring new business to an area are essentially bribes. When is the line where it becomes crony capitalism? Is it always crony capitalism?

The only positive I can see from Trump pissing off China is that he and his family might actually have to--gasp!--manufacture their shit products in America.

dycker - yes.

former player

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2262
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #382 on: December 06, 2016, 10:21:53 AM »
I thought that this was pretty shocking, a member of the electoral college is not only refusing to cast their vote in accordance with the electorate but they also published an op-ed as to their reasoning - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/why-i-will-not-cast-my-electoral-vote-for-donald-trump.html?_r=1

Quote
DALLAS — I am a Republican presidential elector, one of the 538 people asked to choose officially the president of the United States. Since the election, people have asked me to change my vote based on policy disagreements with Donald J. Trump. In some cases, they cite the popular vote difference. I do not think president-elects should be disqualified for policy disagreements. I do not think they should be disqualified because they won the Electoral College instead of the popular vote. However, now I am asked to cast a vote on Dec. 19 for someone who shows daily he is not qualified for the office.

If this @sshole, the elector, can't do his job properly he should give up his seat.

The 12th Amendment doesn't say electors have to or even should vote for their party's nominee. Heck, it doesn't even say that states should allocate their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis (here's what famed Harvard constitutional law professor Lawrence Lessig has to say about that: https://medium.com/@lessig/the-equal-protection-argument-against-winner-take-all-in-the-electoral-college-b09e8a49d777#.qm3mzajg4).

And Founding Father Alexander Hamilton wrote that one of the purposes of the electoral college was to prevent dangerous but popular demagogues from reaching the White House: the EC "affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.... there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."
- Hamilton, Federalist Papers 68 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp).

Now I know that I am Canadian and looking at this as an outsider.  But Trump, even if you completely agree with his policy(what are they again?) and the fact that he is a republican(conservative in my world) Is he even qualified to hold office?  As mentioned he goes on twitter rampages when SNL does a skit on him, refuses to put his businesses into a blind trust, so that policy that he may affect does not benefit him unequally, discuses policy through twitter, does not seem interested in existing policy?  I truly wonder how the EC that was designed to protect the US from this, would not be almost obligated to vote elsewhere?

Please fill me in how he is qualified?

This is my feeling, too, Dycker, and I'm an American.
At the moment Trump is quite possibly disqualified by reason of his business holdings, because of the emoluments clause.  As soon as any foreign government books a representative into any of his hotels and pays for it, he is toast.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #383 on: December 06, 2016, 10:23:14 AM »

At the moment Trump is quite possibly disqualified by reason of his business holdings, because of the emoluments clause.  As soon as any foreign government books a representative into any of his hotels and pays for it, he is toast.

Except I don't think the powers that be will do anything but look the other way. I think Trump is going to get away with a massive amount of illegal activity. Hell, he's arguably already getting away with it.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5211
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #384 on: December 06, 2016, 11:07:41 AM »
Please fill me in how he is qualified?

In a representative democracy, he is qualified if people think he is qualified and thus vote for him.  Currently, it looks like 46.2% of American voters supported him.

Maybe that makes him 46.2% qualified?

And 48.2% of voters supported Clinton, but we'll just sort of ignore that for the moment.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #385 on: December 06, 2016, 11:35:20 AM »
Please fill me in how he is qualified?

In a representative democracy, he is qualified if people think he is qualified and thus vote for him.  Currently, it looks like 46.2% of American voters supported him.

Maybe that makes him 46.2% qualified?

And 48.2% of voters supported Clinton, but we'll just sort of ignore that for the moment.

But a majority of electors are assigned to him... which is what actually qualifies him. So, he's fully qualified according to the Constitution; arguing otherwise is off base and pointless.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #386 on: December 06, 2016, 11:37:41 AM »
Sure, this could put us in a good position in some ways. Right now though, Trump is still a regular citizen so who cares what he says. As president? Might be different, especially if he doesn't leave room for China to come to agreements with us without losing face. They've given him room to let this get dismissed and instead he doubled down.

It's a delicate line to balance, and those examples of that  ”violated decades of US foreign policy" were all relatively mild. We didn't stand to lose anything normalizing relations with China or Cuba and a potential hell of a lot to gain. Destabilizing Pakistan/India or China/Taiwan? Lots more to lose, and a good number of other allies in that area who won't be keen on increasingly strong stances from countries trying to establish new hierarchies and relationships.

President wants to take a hard line? That's fine, we elected him to do the job and he's got the State Department to help him lay out a way forward. However, I'll always be (justifiably) nervous if that President decides twitter is an appropriate place to do diplomatic work (or that his children are acceptable unofficial ambassadors) and who's language is careless, especially when dealing with cultures very different from our own. At some point China (or others) won't be able to downplay things and then the situation will grow in ways we can't imagine now.Or not.

I think it boils down to trust. Looking at his history and considering everything I've read, I am incredibly doubtful that Trump has what it takes to be anything other than an embarrassment. I mean, saving a few jobs (which is good for sure) by giving a company millions (which is bad) can only lead to other companies trying the same tactic.

Interesting thought: I view the job thing as governance by bribe. But then, a lot of attempts to bring new business to an area are essentially bribes. When is the line where it becomes crony capitalism? Is it always crony capitalism?

The only positive I can see from Trump pissing off China is that he and his family might actually have to--gasp!--manufacture their shit products in America.

dycker - yes.

Several Chinese companies have already stated plans to open factories in the United States, beginning production next year.  Arkansas and North Carolina, i believe.

Soo... thanks, Trump?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5211
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #387 on: December 06, 2016, 11:40:41 AM »
Please fill me in how he is qualified?

In a representative democracy, he is qualified if people think he is qualified and thus vote for him.  Currently, it looks like 46.2% of American voters supported him.

Maybe that makes him 46.2% qualified?

And 48.2% of voters supported Clinton, but we'll just sort of ignore that for the moment.

But a majority of electors are assigned to him... which is what actually qualifies him. So, he's fully qualified according to the Constitution; arguing otherwise is off base and pointless.

Apparently the humor was lost, so I'll explain more clearly:  being qualified clearly has nothing to do with being elected.  In fact, it turns out that you don't even need to be the country's preferred candidate in order to get elected.

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #388 on: December 06, 2016, 12:33:28 PM »
Please fill me in how he is qualified?

In a representative democracy, he is qualified if people think he is qualified and thus vote for him.  Currently, it looks like 46.2% of American voters supported him.

Maybe that makes him 46.2% qualified?

And 48.2% of voters supported Clinton, but we'll just sort of ignore that for the moment.

But a majority of electors are assigned to him... which is what actually qualifies him. So, he's fully qualified according to the Constitution; arguing otherwise is off base and pointless.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but was the EC not started so that if the people elected someone not qualified, they could stop it? 

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4322
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #389 on: December 06, 2016, 12:35:00 PM »
Please fill me in how he is qualified?

In a representative democracy, he is qualified if people think he is qualified and thus vote for him.  Currently, it looks like 46.2% of American voters supported him.

Maybe that makes him 46.2% qualified?

And 48.2% of voters supported Clinton, but we'll just sort of ignore that for the moment.

But a majority of electors are assigned to him... which is what actually qualifies him. So, he's fully qualified according to the Constitution; arguing otherwise is off base and pointless.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but was the EC not started so that if the people elected someone not qualified, they could stop it?
That was one of the reasons.  The founding fathers did not have much trust in the average person.

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #390 on: December 06, 2016, 12:38:03 PM »
Please fill me in how he is qualified?

In a representative democracy, he is qualified if people think he is qualified and thus vote for him.  Currently, it looks like 46.2% of American voters supported him.

Maybe that makes him 46.2% qualified?

And 48.2% of voters supported Clinton, but we'll just sort of ignore that for the moment.

But a majority of electors are assigned to him... which is what actually qualifies him. So, he's fully qualified according to the Constitution; arguing otherwise is off base and pointless.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but was the EC not started so that if the people elected someone not qualified, they could stop it?
That was one of the reasons.  The founding fathers did not have much trust in the average person.
OK, but would this scenario not apply.  How is trump qualified to be "the leader of the free world"?  He has no experience in politics, well with anything really besides Trump industries, or what ever he calls it.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4322
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #391 on: December 06, 2016, 12:49:49 PM »


In a representative democracy, he is qualified if people think he is qualified and thus vote for him.  Currently, it looks like 46.2% of American voters supported him.

Maybe that makes him 46.2% qualified?

And 48.2% of voters supported Clinton, but we'll just sort of ignore that for the moment.

But a majority of electors are assigned to him... which is what actually qualifies him. So, he's fully qualified according to the Constitution; arguing otherwise is off base and pointless.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but was the EC not started so that if the people elected someone not qualified, they could stop it?
That was one of the reasons.  The founding fathers did not have much trust in the average person.
OK, but would this scenario not apply.  How is trump qualified to be "the leader of the free world"?  He has no experience in politics, well with anything really besides Trump industries, or what ever he calls it.
[/quote]
Because the founding fathers did not define what is not qualified and allowed each state to determine for to elect their electorate.  None of those electorate are willing to say no, because they are GOP insiders (for the most part) or appointed by Trump and by not voting for him, they won't move up in the party (aka the founding fathers had too much trust in the elite). 

dycker1978

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #392 on: December 06, 2016, 12:54:11 PM »


In a representative democracy, he is qualified if people think he is qualified and thus vote for him.  Currently, it looks like 46.2% of American voters supported him.

Maybe that makes him 46.2% qualified?

And 48.2% of voters supported Clinton, but we'll just sort of ignore that for the moment.

But a majority of electors are assigned to him... which is what actually qualifies him. So, he's fully qualified according to the Constitution; arguing otherwise is off base and pointless.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but was the EC not started so that if the people elected someone not qualified, they could stop it?
That was one of the reasons.  The founding fathers did not have much trust in the average person.
OK, but would this scenario not apply.  How is trump qualified to be "the leader of the free world"?  He has no experience in politics, well with anything really besides Trump industries, or what ever he calls it.
Because the founding fathers did not define what is not qualified and allowed each state to determine for to elect their electorate.  None of those electorate are willing to say no, because they are GOP insiders (for the most part) or appointed by Trump and by not voting for him, they won't move up in the party (aka the founding fathers had too much trust in the elite).
[/quote]

Makes sense to me...kind of ironic that the founding fathers put this in place to protect the US from stuff like this,  and now everyone is not wanting to do the correct thing and will allow a person with no experience or qualification into office... At least you all have guns to over through a corrupt government.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #393 on: December 06, 2016, 01:44:11 PM »
Please fill me in how he is qualified?

In a representative democracy, he is qualified if people think he is qualified and thus vote for him.  Currently, it looks like 46.2% of American voters supported him.

Maybe that makes him 46.2% qualified?

And 48.2% of voters supported Clinton, but we'll just sort of ignore that for the moment.

But a majority of electors are assigned to him... which is what actually qualifies him. So, he's fully qualified according to the Constitution; arguing otherwise is off base and pointless.

Apparently the humor was lost, so I'll explain more clearly:  being qualified clearly has nothing to do with being elected.  In fact, it turns out that you don't even need to be the country's preferred candidate in order to get elected.

Is this supposed to be news? America has been electing leaders the same way as long as it's been a country. Perhaps tea leaves or owl bones or weather events or some other meaningless system preferred a different candidate: the electoral college clearly preferred one over the other.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #394 on: December 06, 2016, 01:55:26 PM »
That was one of the reasons.  The founding fathers did not
Because the founding fathers did not define what is not qualified and allowed each state to determine for to elect their electorate.  None of those electorate are willing to say no, because they are GOP insiders (for the most part) or appointed by Trump and by not voting for him, they won't move up in the party (aka the founding fathers had too much trust in the elite).

Article II, section I of the Constitution lays out pretty clearly the qualifications to be president. 
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2351
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #395 on: December 06, 2016, 02:08:41 PM »
That was one of the reasons.  The founding fathers did not
Because the founding fathers did not define what is not qualified and allowed each state to determine for to elect their electorate.  None of those electorate are willing to say no, because they are GOP insiders (for the most part) or appointed by Trump and by not voting for him, they won't move up in the party (aka the founding fathers had too much trust in the elite).

Article II, section I of the Constitution lays out pretty clearly the qualifications to be president.

No, that article defines eligibility. Not qualifications.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1385
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #396 on: December 06, 2016, 02:14:02 PM »
That was one of the reasons.  The founding fathers did not
Because the founding fathers did not define what is not qualified and allowed each state to determine for to elect their electorate.  None of those electorate are willing to say no, because they are GOP insiders (for the most part) or appointed by Trump and by not voting for him, they won't move up in the party (aka the founding fathers had too much trust in the elite).

Article II, section I of the Constitution lays out pretty clearly the qualifications to be president. 

I think you mean Presidential eligibility.  You'll have to point me to the the part of the Constitution that says a President that Twitters inflamatory nonsense, debases the office, and takes phone calls with no regard for history, culture, or consequence against the general wishes and better judgement of the rest of the US governement and country is qualified to be President.  The fact that he doesn't have the temperment to represent our fair and balanced nation is abundantly clear, and I have yet to see a strong arguement from anyone that Trump is in any way shape or form qualified to assume office.  For the most part, people expect him to assume office and be summarily impeached, which generally assumes that he is not qualified, but apparently there isn't anything anyone can do except wait until we actually can hold him accountable for f'ing something up.

And yes, the article I linked to explained that the EC was put in place to stop someone like Trump from actually being installed as President if the EC suspected that the popular vote was somehow gamed (like making illegitimate promises in swing states and calling your opponent 'someone who should be in jail' to win votes).
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #397 on: December 06, 2016, 02:30:06 PM »
Well, i guess we can see how the Electors vote. Won't have to wait long. Interesting to see what happens, no doubt
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1172
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #398 on: December 06, 2016, 02:41:38 PM »
The Electors are a slate of lackeys put up by each candidate.  No way are they going to break rank.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1385
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #399 on: December 06, 2016, 03:20:45 PM »
The Electors are a slate of lackeys put up by each candidate.  No way are they going to break rank.

Being a realist, I agree.  But it is historic in the modern age to have two faithless electors and says quite a lot about just how much more screwed up than usual this all is.
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...