Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 159338 times)

accolay

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #800 on: December 29, 2016, 01:47:25 PM »
For those of you living in conservative areas and would like to make an impact, this is a good read created by former congressional staffers. Details how the tea party was successful in getting their message across, and how we can start to do the same.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DzOz3Y6D8g_MNXHNMJYAz1b41_cn535aU5UsN7Lj8X8/preview

I mention conservative areas because a lot of the success of this relies on opposition to Republican representatives. I live in an area that's liberal and has a liberal Dem rep, so there's only so much I can do to disrupt.

I appreciate your post. But I really wonder if facts and clear concise use of the English language is really the way to combat the seething pitchfork carrying portion of the Right in conservative areas in our "post truth" 24 hour news cycle world? How do you peacefully and rationally protest against those who are ready to spit on you for your ideals?

Democrats continue this strategy. They win every once in a while, but the overt trend is to lose elections, especially important positions of power. Only barely holding onto governance is not winning.  Being civil to our opponents and responding rationally has lost not only the presidency but swaths of state and local elections, which they totally forgot about. How do you combat a fact-free driven emotional decision making electorate with fact? These people don't participate with thoughtful helpful comments and decency. There are no Left answers to the foaming at the mouth ultra conservative and neo-nazi Right radio programs and websites and how can there be?

When Democrats do win, they take it to mean their entire system has been working like they planned, but then wonder why the next election cycle they lose. When they do have power, they fumble. They field unpopular candidates. They do nothing about money in politics. Putting Republicans in government positions after winning will continue to bite them in the ass (Comey much?) "Good luck - we will win" Is written on the bottom of the google doc. At least I love the optimism. With Obama's government Dems should have been a shoe in this cycle. The Right doesn't care about drone killings and Gitmo as long as they are the ones doing it.

Back to the topic of this thread...If a government can make up it's own facts as Trump can and will, Democrats will continue to be herded like cats and they will always lose. Republicans will mob our government with their lies, change positions when needed and deny everything previously said like our next Commander in Chief.

After remembering our President Elect's title will be Commander in Chief I remember how truly fucked we are for the next decades of washing off the shit stank of this presidency.

OurTown

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 305
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Memphis, Tenn.
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #801 on: December 29, 2016, 01:57:00 PM »
For those of you living in conservative areas and would like to make an impact, this is a good read created by former congressional staffers. Details how the tea party was successful in getting their message across, and how we can start to do the same.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DzOz3Y6D8g_MNXHNMJYAz1b41_cn535aU5UsN7Lj8X8/preview

I mention conservative areas because a lot of the success of this relies on opposition to Republican representatives. I live in an area that's liberal and has a liberal Dem rep, so there's only so much I can do to disrupt.

I appreciate your post. But I really wonder if facts and clear concise use of the English language is really the way to combat the seething pitchfork carrying portion of the Right in conservative areas in our "post truth" 24 hour news cycle world? How do you peacefully and rationally protest against those who are ready to spit on you for your ideals?

Democrats continue this strategy. They win every once in a while, but the overt trend is to lose elections, especially important positions of power. Only barely holding onto governance is not winning.  Being civil to our opponents and responding rationally has lost not only the presidency but swaths of state and local elections, which they totally forgot about. How do you combat a fact-free driven emotional decision making electorate with fact? These people don't participate with thoughtful helpful comments and decency. There are no Left answers to the foaming at the mouth ultra conservative and neo-nazi Right radio programs and websites and how can there be?

When Democrats do win, they take it to mean their entire system has been working like they planned, but then wonder why the next election cycle they lose. When they do have power, they fumble. They field unpopular candidates. They do nothing about money in politics. Putting Republicans in government positions after winning will continue to bite them in the ass (Comey much?) "Good luck - we will win" Is written on the bottom of the google doc. At least I love the optimism. With Obama's government Dems should have been a shoe in this cycle. The Right doesn't care about drone killings and Gitmo as long as they are the ones doing it.

Back to the topic of this thread...If a government can make up it's own facts as Trump can and will, Democrats will continue to be herded like cats and they will always lose. Republicans will mob our government with their lies, change positions when needed and deny everything previously said like our next Commander in Chief.

After remembering our President Elect's title will be Commander in Chief I remember how truly fucked we are for the next decades of washing off the shit stank of this presidency.

Germany, in the 20th century, survived defeat in two world wars, a fascist dictatorship, and a communist dictatorship in 1/2 the country.  They, as a society, lived to tell about it.  Hopefully we will too.

accolay

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #802 on: December 29, 2016, 01:59:31 PM »
Overall, I'd agree we are getting more socially liberal.  Seems like we are getting more fiscally conservative.  But none of this is based on actual polls -- any anecdotal remarks here will be skewed based on your location and social circle, no?
Well, I think "divided" would indicate that people feel more strongly about their beliefs and opinions, and are less willing to compromise on them - not necessarily that we as a whole are skewing heavily to one political extreme or another. But yes you are correct in that Americans seem to be leaning towards social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

Theoretically speaking, why can't Democrats be "fiscally conservative" (lower case "f") by rebranding the idea? Is it not fiscally conservative that a lot of Democratic policies actually save money in the long term? Government programs are cheaper than private industry doing the same job. Why can't we reduce the military budget for stupid shit, fraud waste and abuse? Who on a forum about finances not like the idea of reducing government debt? Why does this have to be an idea from the Right? Why do Democrats suck so bad at the message?

accolay

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 438
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #803 on: December 29, 2016, 02:01:12 PM »
Germany, in the 20th century, survived defeat in two world wars, a fascist dictatorship, and a communist dictatorship in 1/2 the country.  They, as a society, lived to tell about it.  Hopefully we will too.

Hopefully we don't need to be blown to smithereens to get there.

FliXFantatier

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Los Angeles
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #804 on: December 29, 2016, 02:33:04 PM »
For those of you living in conservative areas and would like to make an impact, this is a good read created by former congressional staffers. Details how the tea party was successful in getting their message across, and how we can start to do the same.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DzOz3Y6D8g_MNXHNMJYAz1b41_cn535aU5UsN7Lj8X8/preview

I mention conservative areas because a lot of the success of this relies on opposition to Republican representatives. I live in an area that's liberal and has a liberal Dem rep, so there's only so much I can do to disrupt.

I appreciate your post. But I really wonder if facts and clear concise use of the English language is really the way to combat the seething pitchfork carrying portion of the Right in conservative areas in our "post truth" 24 hour news cycle world? How do you peacefully and rationally protest against those who are ready to spit on you for your ideals?

Democrats continue this strategy. They win every once in a while, but the overt trend is to lose elections, especially important positions of power. Only barely holding onto governance is not winning.  Being civil to our opponents and responding rationally has lost not only the presidency but swaths of state and local elections, which they totally forgot about. How do you combat a fact-free driven emotional decision making electorate with fact? These people don't participate with thoughtful helpful comments and decency. There are no Left answers to the foaming at the mouth ultra conservative and neo-nazi Right radio programs and websites and how can there be?

When Democrats do win, they take it to mean their entire system has been working like they planned, but then wonder why the next election cycle they lose. When they do have power, they fumble. They field unpopular candidates. They do nothing about money in politics. Putting Republicans in government positions after winning will continue to bite them in the ass (Comey much?) "Good luck - we will win" Is written on the bottom of the google doc. At least I love the optimism. With Obama's government Dems should have been a shoe in this cycle. The Right doesn't care about drone killings and Gitmo as long as they are the ones doing it.

Back to the topic of this thread...If a government can make up it's own facts as Trump can and will, Democrats will continue to be herded like cats and they will always lose. Republicans will mob our government with their lies, change positions when needed and deny everything previously said like our next Commander in Chief.

After remembering our President Elect's title will be Commander in Chief I remember how truly fucked we are for the next decades of washing off the shit stank of this presidency.

Germany, in the 20th century, survived defeat in two world wars, a fascist dictatorship, and a communist dictatorship in 1/2 the country.  They, as a society, lived to tell about it.  Hopefully we will too.
That sounds an awful lot like the broken window fallacy. Impossible to know what would have happened but faced with the choice a priori I would not consider what you mention a future to look forward to...

Cranberries

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 117
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #805 on: December 29, 2016, 03:45:32 PM »
How do you peacefully and rationally protest against those who are ready to spit on you for your ideals?

I don't really know the answer to your broader question, but we have several pretty spectacular answers to this part of it.

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

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

wenchsenior

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 870
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #806 on: December 29, 2016, 06:43:09 PM »
How do you peacefully and rationally protest against those who are ready to spit on you for your ideals?

I don't really know the answer to your broader question, but we have several pretty spectacular answers to this part of it.

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

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

Practically speaking, I think the problems liberals (and specifically Democrats) have getting and keeping political power are as follows:

1) Many liberals (from big donors to your average citizen activist) seem to only be attracted to the 'sexy' or 'social' aspects of politics (e.g., this upcoming women's march on Washington). Liberals are really big into  marching, signing petitions, and other similar forms of protest, esp around flashpoint topics (e.g., women's reproductive rights, LBGT rights, combating climate change, protesting big banks). There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but I haven't seen much evidence that it works in the modern political era. I'm suspicious that it allows liberals to feel participatory without actually accomplishing anything.  You know what DOES accomplish things? What the conservatives do, which is learn every boring detail of  local political process, start at ground zero, and mobilize the hell out their voters to take over ALL the offices at the local level. Then move the game up and out. With each step, conservatives have been able to make changes to procedural rules that solidify their gains and make it easier to hold those gains in the future.  And because they organize so much better than liberals, they naturally have a MUCH deeper and better prepared bench of up and coming 'talent'. That is why they now hold the vast majority of state and local offices across the country.

To sum up: Conservatives are much better than liberals at making plans that take decades of work to pay off, limiting themselves to a smaller number of achievable goals, and then busting their asses for years to reach those goals. To sum up, conservatives possess much more interest in, and tolerance for, the dirty, boring, day to day grind of building a political machine than liberals seem to.

2) Liberals seem to fundamentally misunderstand certain things about human nature despite being perpetually smacked in the face with them. Humans are wired to respond to emotion first and reason second. Also, humans are wired to be tribal, to discount the long term, and to view resources as somewhat 'zero-sum' (whether they are or not). It's our default to separate ourselves into in-groups and out-groups using the most obvious criteria at hand.  If nothing obvious is at hand, we will look for something to use to self-sort, even if that criterion is totally meaningless (as Dr. Seuss well knew). And the more Democrats talk about each special-snowflake subgroup of their potential coalition, celebrate their uniqueness, and talk about how special policies should be in place for each group, the more their message divides the electorate. (Note: I didn't say Dems shouldn't create the policies to help certain subgroups that need it, only that they shouldn't focus on the narrowness or specialness of that policy or subgroup in messaging).

Here's a crucial point: Although people of different 'tribes' will readily learn tolerance of each other when they are in position to actually develop personal relationships with each other, mere casual exposure to different 'tribes' often has the opposite effect because it triggers our in group/out group response.  Democrats need to STOP spending so much message time actively highlighting how diverse the nation and start focusing messaging more on the commonalities of their constituency. (Successful Dem candidates tend to not fall into this trap as much...e.g., Obama and Bill Clinton).

Incidentally, one of the things that I find perplexing about the current Dem struggle for Party Chair is one leading contender, Keith Ellison, is almost perfectly designed to symbolize the more problematic form of messaging: he's a black Muslim.  Now, I personally admire Ellison, and for all I know he'd be a great party leader...but the only way the Dems could more aggressively broadcast the the messaging problem I noted above in the form of an individual person, is if Keith was also transgender LOL.  I'm not sure who, if anyone, would be a better choice, but Ellison seems an ironic front-runner given the views of the swing voters of the Midwest who just kicked the Dems out of power.

3. There is a really interesting book out The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haidt, that I think should be required reading for all politically active liberals.  He posits that ethical and moral principles that underlie our worldviews cluster around six fundamental ideas: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Haidt says that people who identify as conservative tend to place more equal 'weight' across all six ideas when forming their ethical principles and worldview, whereas people who identify as liberal tend to dramatically weight only two (fairness and care) and can be downright dismissive of some of the others (incidentally, as a left-leaning centrist, I personally fit Haidt's formula).  Caveats aside, I suspect Haidt is really onto something in terms of how the two parties 'message' to activate their base. He says conservatives campaign on messages that seek to activate emotions associated with all six ideas; whereas liberals campaign on messages that tend to focus excessively on fairness/care. This works fine to activate the most liberal voters, but swing voters and moderates would likely be more responsive to more 'balanced' messaging.

4. Finally, in terms of policy, I think the tiresomely smug Thomas Frank is correct yet again. The Dems have more or less practically abandoned the working class (of all races) that used to be their base vote. Their policies and messaging are now much more heavily directed squarely at MY demographic: college-educated, upper-middle income, creative class people. They need to actually pursue and message more policies that truly help the working class and the lower middle, and not worry so much about my demo (which is still doing ok in this country).

Ok, Dem strategists, give me a call!

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #807 on: December 30, 2016, 04:44:17 AM »
Where did anyone say "He doesn't really mean what he said."

Me.  I've been saying that.  I'll say it again.  Trump doesnt' really mean most of what he says, and I think many of his supporters were counting on that being true.

Hey, thanks for proving me wrong.  I guess you and SisterX can argue over whether he means what he says or not; it seems that some people believe some of the things he said (but not all) and other people believe other things he said (though not all.)  I've always assumed he meant the crazy shit he's said, though I trusted the checks and balances of the government would keep him from accomplishing them.
Quote
Quote
Also, I feel that comparisons are valid. When one throws out a claim like "Trump will exacerbate climate change." It should be qualified

Okay, I'll qualify it.  Trump will not only fail to try to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions the way Obama has, I think he'll actively try to increase them.  He's already talking about opening up national parks and wildlife refuges to oil drilling.  He loves fracking.  He actively opposes renewable energy, regardless of price.  He appointed the head of Exxon to be Secretary of State.  He's setting the stage to be quantifiably worse for global climate than any President in US history.

I guess if one can pick the dates, one could say Obama has reduced greenhouse gas emissions during his presidency. But really the trend has been upwards since he took office, and the downward trend over the last few years has been argued to be at least partially due to fracking allowing far more nat. gas to be burned and thus offsetting some worse fuel sources.

I was not intending to argue Trump will be good for global climate; just that he'll be as terrible as everyone else before him. I agree it sucks that no one is doing anything about climate change, but any affect Trump has will be minor noise as Americans and other developed countries continue to spew such massive amounts of carbon into the air.
Quote
Quote
honestly, if Trump ends some of Obama's most terrible policies, without burning the place down in the process, I would totally consider having elected an idiot narcissist to have some positive aspects.

What policies would those be?  If you're keen on "qualify it" then let's talk details.  Which of Obama's policies do you want Trump to overturn, and how many of those policy changes would be required for you to consider Trump's presidency to be a success?  Are you ceding any concurrent negative consequences that might  offset those benefits, like if you support overturning the One China policy then does a trade war with China offset improved relations with Taiwan?

Great question!

Overarching point: I'm not sure how to quantify presidential 'success'. I don't really expect Trump to save the whole world, or bring peace to the middle east or cure cancer or anything. He'll likely be better than others in some areas, and worse in many others. So again, if the world doesn't end up in flames through the direct actions of Donald Trump, I'll give him credit for participation and hope the next person does even better. So since there's no objective scorecard, I don't think it would be fair to grade for 'success'; obviously the negatives of each action need to be taken into consideration with the positives; the world doesn't operate in a vacuum. 

As for specific policies:

Stop fucking assassinating American citizens abroad without trial. Just stop it. JesustittyfuckingChrist.
Stop droning fucking civilians around the world.
Close GITMO. Just close it. - (EDIT: I now see Trump claims he wishes to do literally the exact opposite of this. :( )
ACA individual mandate - if there is literally no way to provide good insurance to people who want it without forcing people who don't want it to have it, then get rid of insurance. If everyone needs to pay for healthcare, then just fucking go single payer. Enriching insurance companies doesn't help people, just their shareholders.  What a damn mess.

So there's a quick list of some foreign and some domestic policies I would hope to see improved.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2016, 06:31:16 AM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #808 on: December 30, 2016, 04:56:46 AM »

When Democrats Republicans do win, they take it to mean their entire system has been working like they planned, but then wonder why the next election cycle they lose. When they do have power, they fumble. They field unpopular candidates. They do nothing about money in politics. Putting Republicans in government positions after winning will continue to bite them in the ass (Comey much?) "Good luck - we will win" Is written on the bottom of the google doc. At least I love the optimism. With Obama's government Dems should have been a shoe in this cycle. The Right Left doesn't care about drone killings and Gitmo as long as they are the ones doing it.

I think this could apply to both parties.  While Democrats have been known to 'lose so goddamned always', and to mess things up when they do get a shot, it's not as if Republicans are immune.

This is why I may often agree with a person but not their party of choice, or may disagree with a candidate while supporting the positive aspects of their policies. I look forward to a day when simple party affiliation is not the beginning and end of political debates.

Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Unique User

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #809 on: December 30, 2016, 05:47:35 AM »
For those of you living in conservative areas and would like to make an impact, this is a good read created by former congressional staffers. Details how the tea party was successful in getting their message across, and how we can start to do the same.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DzOz3Y6D8g_MNXHNMJYAz1b41_cn535aU5UsN7Lj8X8/preview

I mention conservative areas because a lot of the success of this relies on opposition to Republican representatives. I live in an area that's liberal and has a liberal Dem rep, so there's only so much I can do to disrupt.

I appreciate your post. But I really wonder if facts and clear concise use of the English language is really the way to combat the seething pitchfork carrying portion of the Right in conservative areas in our "post truth" 24 hour news cycle world? How do you peacefully and rationally protest against those who are ready to spit on you for your ideals?

Democrats continue this strategy. They win every once in a while, but the overt trend is to lose elections, especially important positions of power. Only barely holding onto governance is not winning.  Being civil to our opponents and responding rationally has lost not only the presidency but swaths of state and local elections, which they totally forgot about. How do you combat a fact-free driven emotional decision making electorate with fact? These people don't participate with thoughtful helpful comments and decency. There are no Left answers to the foaming at the mouth ultra conservative and neo-nazi Right radio programs and websites and how can there be?

When Democrats do win, they take it to mean their entire system has been working like they planned, but then wonder why the next election cycle they lose. When they do have power, they fumble. They field unpopular candidates. They do nothing about money in politics. Putting Republicans in government positions after winning will continue to bite them in the ass (Comey much?) "Good luck - we will win" Is written on the bottom of the google doc. At least I love the optimism. With Obama's government Dems should have been a shoe in this cycle. The Right doesn't care about drone killings and Gitmo as long as they are the ones doing it.

Back to the topic of this thread...If a government can make up it's own facts as Trump can and will, Democrats will continue to be herded like cats and they will always lose. Republicans will mob our government with their lies, change positions when needed and deny everything previously said like our next Commander in Chief.

After remembering our President Elect's title will be Commander in Chief I remember how truly fucked we are for the next decades of washing off the shit stank of this presidency.

I'm not sure that the overt trend is for Dems to lose elections.  If you look at who has held Congress, Senate and Presidency since 1981 it's actually fairly balanced.  And looking back over the last hundred years, Dems have held more than Republicans.  Also, looking back on the five Democratic Presidents (Obama, Clinton, Carter, Johnson and JFK) - you get four who won by being idealists and one who won by getting in the mud (Johnson).  The two before that, Truman and FDR, FDR won by being an idealist and I truly have no thoughts on Truman.   Also Dems seem to do better after Republicans screwed things up, it is surprising that Obama won after the 2007 Recession, Clinton won after the S&L debacle, FDR won after the Depression and Carter won after the Nixon craziness?  I do agree with Sol, Dems need to learn how to get in the mud again, the blatant lies spewed by Fox News and their ilk has to be met and I don't think it will be met by going high.   

The thing that concerns me is that the Republicans have held Congress, Senate and the Presidency for over three years only three times since 1901 - the years leading up to 2007 and the Great Recession, the years leading up to the Depression and the years leading up to the Panic of 1907 which if I read my history correctly fit in between the other two with how devastating it was.  The other stuff matters also - climate, minority rights, Ryan and Pence gleefully taking apart the safety net, but another economic disaster would impact those groups/causes even more. 
« Last Edit: December 30, 2016, 07:01:52 AM by Unique User »

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4190
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #810 on: December 30, 2016, 06:05:38 AM »

When Democrats Republicans do win, they take it to mean their entire system has been working like they planned, but then wonder why the next election cycle they lose. When they do have power, they fumble. They field unpopular candidates. They do nothing about money in politics. Putting Republicans in government positions after winning will continue to bite them in the ass (Comey much?) "Good luck - we will win" Is written on the bottom of the google doc. At least I love the optimism. With Obama's government Dems should have been a shoe in this cycle. The Right Left doesn't care about drone killings and Gitmo as long as they are the ones doing it.

I think this could apply to both parties.  While Democrats have been known to 'lose so goddamned always', and to mess things up when they do get a shot, it's not as if Republicans are immune.

This is why I may often agree with a person but not their party of choice, or may disagree with a candidate while supporting the positive aspects of their policies. I look forward to a day when simple party affiliation is not the beginning and end of political debates.
It was like that when I was a child, so less than 30 years ago. 

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1323
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #811 on: December 30, 2016, 06:16:57 AM »
Quote
Practically speaking, I think the problems liberals (and specifically Democrats) have getting and keeping political power are as follows:

1) Many liberals (from big donors to your average citizen activist) seem to only be attracted to the 'sexy' or 'social' aspects of politics (e.g., this upcoming women's march on Washington). Liberals are really big into  marching, signing petitions, and other similar forms of protest, esp around flashpoint topics (e.g., women's reproductive rights, LBGT rights, combating climate change, protesting big banks). There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but I haven't seen much evidence that it works in the modern political era. I'm suspicious that it allows liberals to feel participatory without actually accomplishing anything.  You know what DOES accomplish things? What the conservatives do, which is learn every boring detail of  local political process, start at ground zero, and mobilize the hell out their voters to take over ALL the offices at the local level. Then move the game up and out. With each step, conservatives have been able to make changes to procedural rules that solidify their gains and make it easier to hold those gains in the future.  And because they organize so much better than liberals, they naturally have a MUCH deeper and better prepared bench of up and coming 'talent'. That is why they now hold the vast majority of state and local offices across the country.

To sum up: Conservatives are much better than liberals at making plans that take decades of work to pay off, limiting themselves to a smaller number of achievable goals, and then busting their asses for years to reach those goals. To sum up, conservatives possess much more interest in, and tolerance for, the dirty, boring, day to day grind of building a political machine than liberals seem to.

2) Liberals seem to fundamentally misunderstand certain things about human nature despite being perpetually smacked in the face with them. Humans are wired to respond to emotion first and reason second. Also, humans are wired to be tribal, to discount the long term, and to view resources as somewhat 'zero-sum' (whether they are or not). It's our default to separate ourselves into in-groups and out-groups using the most obvious criteria at hand.  If nothing obvious is at hand, we will look for something to use to self-sort, even if that criterion is totally meaningless (as Dr. Seuss well knew). And the more Democrats talk about each special-snowflake subgroup of their potential coalition, celebrate their uniqueness, and talk about how special policies should be in place for each group, the more their message divides the electorate. (Note: I didn't say Dems shouldn't create the policies to help certain subgroups that need it, only that they shouldn't focus on the narrowness or specialness of that policy or subgroup in messaging).

Here's a crucial point: Although people of different 'tribes' will readily learn tolerance of each other when they are in position to actually develop personal relationships with each other, mere casual exposure to different 'tribes' often has the opposite effect because it triggers our in group/out group response.  Democrats need to STOP spending so much message time actively highlighting how diverse the nation and start focusing messaging more on the commonalities of their constituency. (Successful Dem candidates tend to not fall into this trap as much...e.g., Obama and Bill Clinton).

Incidentally, one of the things that I find perplexing about the current Dem struggle for Party Chair is one leading contender, Keith Ellison, is almost perfectly designed to symbolize the more problematic form of messaging: he's a black Muslim.  Now, I personally admire Ellison, and for all I know he'd be a great party leader...but the only way the Dems could more aggressively broadcast the the messaging problem I noted above in the form of an individual person, is if Keith was also transgender LOL.  I'm not sure who, if anyone, would be a better choice, but Ellison seems an ironic front-runner given the views of the swing voters of the Midwest who just kicked the Dems out of power.

3. There is a really interesting book out The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haidt, that I think should be required reading for all politically active liberals.  He posits that ethical and moral principles that underlie our worldviews cluster around six fundamental ideas: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Haidt says that people who identify as conservative tend to place more equal 'weight' across all six ideas when forming their ethical principles and worldview, whereas people who identify as liberal tend to dramatically weight only two (fairness and care) and can be downright dismissive of some of the others (incidentally, as a left-leaning centrist, I personally fit Haidt's formula).  Caveats aside, I suspect Haidt is really onto something in terms of how the two parties 'message' to activate their base. He says conservatives campaign on messages that seek to activate emotions associated with all six ideas; whereas liberals campaign on messages that tend to focus excessively on fairness/care. This works fine to activate the most liberal voters, but swing voters and moderates would likely be more responsive to more 'balanced' messaging.

4. Finally, in terms of policy, I think the tiresomely smug Thomas Frank is correct yet again. The Dems have more or less practically abandoned the working class (of all races) that used to be their base vote. Their policies and messaging are now much more heavily directed squarely at MY demographic: college-educated, upper-middle income, creative class people. They need to actually pursue and message more policies that truly help the working class and the lower middle, and not worry so much about my demo (which is still doing ok in this country).

Ok, Dem strategists, give me a call!

There is a lot of truth here.  I find it interesting that one of Obama's stated goals when leaving the presidency is to "mentor" the left and try to develop new talent.  It concerned me a bit that the two main Democratic presidential candidates were 69 and 74. 

The identity politics of the left also needs to die, for a lot of reasons.  It is a fundamentally flawed strategy that appeals more  to people's narcissism and victimhood instead of the welfare of all citizens.  There was a good interview that Obama did with Ta-Nahesi Coates where he pushed back on the idea that he didn't do enough to help black people.  He argued that he put through more universal programs like Obamacare because those were what would have a chance of passing, not specific programs tied to demographic groups. 

lbmustache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • Location: Southern California
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #812 on: December 30, 2016, 12:45:25 PM »
How do you peacefully and rationally protest against those who are ready to spit on you for your ideals?

I don't really know the answer to your broader question, but we have several pretty spectacular answers to this part of it.

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

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

Practically speaking, I think the problems liberals (and specifically Democrats) have getting and keeping political power are as follows:

1) Many liberals (from big donors to your average citizen activist) seem to only be attracted to the 'sexy' or 'social' aspects of politics (e.g., this upcoming women's march on Washington). Liberals are really big into  marching, signing petitions, and other similar forms of protest, esp around flashpoint topics (e.g., women's reproductive rights, LBGT rights, combating climate change, protesting big banks). There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but I haven't seen much evidence that it works in the modern political era. I'm suspicious that it allows liberals to feel participatory without actually accomplishing anything.  You know what DOES accomplish things? What the conservatives do, which is learn every boring detail of  local political process, start at ground zero, and mobilize the hell out their voters to take over ALL the offices at the local level. Then move the game up and out. With each step, conservatives have been able to make changes to procedural rules that solidify their gains and make it easier to hold those gains in the future.  And because they organize so much better than liberals, they naturally have a MUCH deeper and better prepared bench of up and coming 'talent'. That is why they now hold the vast majority of state and local offices across the country.

To sum up: Conservatives are much better than liberals at making plans that take decades of work to pay off, limiting themselves to a smaller number of achievable goals, and then busting their asses for years to reach those goals. To sum up, conservatives possess much more interest in, and tolerance for, the dirty, boring, day to day grind of building a political machine than liberals seem to.

2) Liberals seem to fundamentally misunderstand certain things about human nature despite being perpetually smacked in the face with them. Humans are wired to respond to emotion first and reason second. Also, humans are wired to be tribal, to discount the long term, and to view resources as somewhat 'zero-sum' (whether they are or not). It's our default to separate ourselves into in-groups and out-groups using the most obvious criteria at hand.  If nothing obvious is at hand, we will look for something to use to self-sort, even if that criterion is totally meaningless (as Dr. Seuss well knew). And the more Democrats talk about each special-snowflake subgroup of their potential coalition, celebrate their uniqueness, and talk about how special policies should be in place for each group, the more their message divides the electorate. (Note: I didn't say Dems shouldn't create the policies to help certain subgroups that need it, only that they shouldn't focus on the narrowness or specialness of that policy or subgroup in messaging).

Here's a crucial point: Although people of different 'tribes' will readily learn tolerance of each other when they are in position to actually develop personal relationships with each other, mere casual exposure to different 'tribes' often has the opposite effect because it triggers our in group/out group response.  Democrats need to STOP spending so much message time actively highlighting how diverse the nation and start focusing messaging more on the commonalities of their constituency. (Successful Dem candidates tend to not fall into this trap as much...e.g., Obama and Bill Clinton).

Incidentally, one of the things that I find perplexing about the current Dem struggle for Party Chair is one leading contender, Keith Ellison, is almost perfectly designed to symbolize the more problematic form of messaging: he's a black Muslim.  Now, I personally admire Ellison, and for all I know he'd be a great party leader...but the only way the Dems could more aggressively broadcast the the messaging problem I noted above in the form of an individual person, is if Keith was also transgender LOL.  I'm not sure who, if anyone, would be a better choice, but Ellison seems an ironic front-runner given the views of the swing voters of the Midwest who just kicked the Dems out of power.

3. There is a really interesting book out The Righteous Mind, by Jonathan Haidt, that I think should be required reading for all politically active liberals.  He posits that ethical and moral principles that underlie our worldviews cluster around six fundamental ideas: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Haidt says that people who identify as conservative tend to place more equal 'weight' across all six ideas when forming their ethical principles and worldview, whereas people who identify as liberal tend to dramatically weight only two (fairness and care) and can be downright dismissive of some of the others (incidentally, as a left-leaning centrist, I personally fit Haidt's formula).  Caveats aside, I suspect Haidt is really onto something in terms of how the two parties 'message' to activate their base. He says conservatives campaign on messages that seek to activate emotions associated with all six ideas; whereas liberals campaign on messages that tend to focus excessively on fairness/care. This works fine to activate the most liberal voters, but swing voters and moderates would likely be more responsive to more 'balanced' messaging.

4. Finally, in terms of policy, I think the tiresomely smug Thomas Frank is correct yet again. The Dems have more or less practically abandoned the working class (of all races) that used to be their base vote. Their policies and messaging are now much more heavily directed squarely at MY demographic: college-educated, upper-middle income, creative class people. They need to actually pursue and message more policies that truly help the working class and the lower middle, and not worry so much about my demo (which is still doing ok in this country).

Ok, Dem strategists, give me a call!

I agree with all of this, especially the part about Democrats/liberals mobilization (or lack thereof).

It's one of the reasons I posted the link above. While I think that some of it - as others have rightly pointed out - is like, "good luck hopefully things will turn out our way," it does talk about putting in the work and starting at the city or county level, especially with regards to knowing your representative and being there to ask questions or protest. However we will need to do more than protest this time around.

"Liberals are really big into  marching, signing petitions, and other similar forms of protest, esp around flashpoint topics ...  I'm suspicious that it allows liberals to feel participatory without actually accomplishing anything." - I personally fell into the trap myself, I donated to Obama and made a few calls, and once he won I was like well! My work is done here, let me kick back for 8 years. This election was a wakeup call to myself, and hopefully others.

lbmustache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • Location: Southern California
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #813 on: December 30, 2016, 12:59:12 PM »
Overall, I'd agree we are getting more socially liberal.  Seems like we are getting more fiscally conservative.  But none of this is based on actual polls -- any anecdotal remarks here will be skewed based on your location and social circle, no?
Well, I think "divided" would indicate that people feel more strongly about their beliefs and opinions, and are less willing to compromise on them - not necessarily that we as a whole are skewing heavily to one political extreme or another. But yes you are correct in that Americans seem to be leaning towards social liberalism and fiscal conservatism.

Theoretically speaking, why can't Democrats be "fiscally conservative" (lower case "f") by rebranding the idea? Is it not fiscally conservative that a lot of Democratic policies actually save money in the long term? Government programs are cheaper than private industry doing the same job. Why can't we reduce the military budget for stupid shit, fraud waste and abuse? Who on a forum about finances not like the idea of reducing government debt? Why does this have to be an idea from the Right? Why do Democrats suck so bad at the message?

It's the way the message is delivered sure, but I think this also goes back to your previous post:

"But I really wonder if facts and clear concise use of the English language is really the way to combat the seething pitchfork carrying portion of the Right in conservative areas in our "post truth" 24 hour news cycle world? ...  Being civil to our opponents and responding rationally has lost not only the presidency but swaths of state and local elections, which they totally forgot about. How do you combat a fact-free driven emotional decision making electorate with fact?"

The basis of the argument that you are proposing - that government programs are more fiscally responsible - is a logical one. You would have to tell people that a program, let's say ACA, is going to cost $x billion or trillion now, and there are going to be some bumps in the road (rising premiums, insurers pulling out), but in 20 years we'll see healthier people and that will mean less money spent and the world will be a better place and blahblahblah. Like wenchsenior mentioned, most tend to not see things long-term and rather see what is right in front of them. Add to this the fact that people respond emotionally. Add the fact that a lot of people seem to see "big government," "socialism," etc. as fundamentally bad.

Arguing for more government programs - in terms of of an emotional, short-term "now" argument - I'm not sure how it could be done.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #814 on: December 31, 2016, 06:51:01 AM »
The basis of the argument that you are proposing - that government programs are more fiscally responsible - is a logical one. You would have to tell people that a program, let's say ACA, is going to cost $x billion or trillion now, and there are going to be some bumps in the road (rising premiums, insurers pulling out), but in 20 years we'll see healthier people and that will mean less money spent and the world will be a better place and blahblahblah. Like wenchsenior mentioned, most tend to not see things long-term and rather see what is right in front of them. Add to this the fact that people respond emotionally. Add the fact that a lot of people seem to see "big government," "socialism," etc. as fundamentally bad.

Arguing for more government programs - in terms of of an emotional, short-term "now" argument - I'm not sure how it could be done.

I think one good step would be to be honest. "Yes this is going to cost a shit ton of money; no the effects are not going to be seen for quite awhile and be hard to measure even then, and there are going to be bumps in the road but overall everyone will be healthier and the country will be measurably better for it."

Instead of lies like "This will save everyone $2,500 a year and everything will go smoothly and all healthcare issues will be covered and you can keep your doctor." (For example).

Social liberalism and fiscal conservatism can coexist; but there is still a balancing act between those two actions. Everyone falls along the continuum of which is more important, but being dishonest or blind to the real costs of policies does not do any favors to the people that are affected by, or support, said policies.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #815 on: December 31, 2016, 10:56:19 AM »
The basis of the argument that you are proposing - that government programs are more fiscally responsible - is a logical one. You would have to tell people that a program, let's say ACA, is going to cost $x billion or trillion now, and there are going to be some bumps in the road (rising premiums, insurers pulling out), but in 20 years we'll see healthier people and that will mean less money spent and the world will be a better place and blahblahblah. Like wenchsenior mentioned, most tend to not see things long-term and rather see what is right in front of them. Add to this the fact that people respond emotionally. Add the fact that a lot of people seem to see "big government," "socialism," etc. as fundamentally bad.

Arguing for more government programs - in terms of of an emotional, short-term "now" argument - I'm not sure how it could be done.

I think one good step would be to be honest. "Yes this is going to cost a shit ton of money; no the effects are not going to be seen for quite awhile and be hard to measure even then, and there are going to be bumps in the road but overall everyone will be healthier and the country will be measurably better for it."

Instead of lies like "This will save everyone $2,500 a year and everything will go smoothly and all healthcare issues will be covered and you can keep your doctor." (For example).

Social liberalism and fiscal conservatism can coexist; but there is still a balancing act between those two actions. Everyone falls along the continuum of which is more important, but being dishonest or blind to the real costs of policies does not do any favors to the people that are affected by, or support, said policies.

+1. Well said. Although I'm not sure using your first quote would be effective in the era where gaslighting/spreading fake news is considered a perfectly acceptable tactic. 

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #816 on: December 31, 2016, 11:35:32 AM »
+1. Well said. Although I'm not sure using your first quote would be effective in the era where gaslighting/spreading fake news is considered a perfectly acceptable tactic.

Well, hopefully the people writing and suggesting policies are more diplomatic than I. :)
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

sol

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4945
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #817 on: December 31, 2016, 11:41:53 AM »
Well, hopefully the people writing and suggesting policies are more diplomatic than I. :)

Not so much, those people gave us "build the wall" and "lock her up" and "drain the swamp" and I suspect that three syllables is the maximum capacity for detailed policy analysis provided by these folks.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #818 on: December 31, 2016, 11:55:30 AM »
Well, hopefully the people writing and suggesting policies are more diplomatic than I. :)

Not so much, those people gave us "build the wall" and "lock her up" and "drain the swamp" and I suspect that three syllables is the maximum capacity for detailed policy analysis provided by these folks.

Well, these polices also seem to fail the 'honesty' part of the equation that I mentioned earlier. So there is obviously much room for improvement.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #819 on: December 31, 2016, 01:49:02 PM »
Germany, in the 20th century, survived defeat in two world wars, a fascist dictatorship, and a communist dictatorship in 1/2 the country.  They, as a society, lived to tell about it.  Hopefully we will too.

And they're actually doing really well, aren't they. Strongest economy in Europe, very socially liberal, excellent safety net for the poor (disabled, working poor, starving artists, aspiring entrepreneurs etc.), excellent health care, excellent education system. Not to mention their astonishingly beautiful response to the Syrian refugee crisis last year.

Wow. That's so heartening. Thank you for pointing that out!

sol

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4945
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #820 on: December 31, 2016, 01:51:07 PM »
Wow. That's so heartening. Thank you for pointing that out!

Yea!  Let's perpetrate a global war and racial genocide so that we can have a heartwarming comeback story too!

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #821 on: December 31, 2016, 01:51:37 PM »
Liberals are really big into  marching, signing petitions, and other similar forms of protest, esp around flashpoint topics (e.g., women's reproductive rights, LBGT rights, combating climate change, protesting big banks). There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but I haven't seen much evidence that it works in the modern political era. I'm suspicious that it allows liberals to feel participatory without actually accomplishing anything.  You know what DOES accomplish things? What the conservatives do, which is learn every boring detail of  local political process, start at ground zero, and mobilize the hell out their voters to take over ALL the offices at the local level. Then move the game up and out. With each step, conservatives have been able to make changes to procedural rules that solidify their gains and make it easier to hold those gains in the future.  And because they organize so much better than liberals, they naturally have a MUCH deeper and better prepared bench of up and coming 'talent'. That is why they now hold the vast majority of state and local offices across the country.

You've hit the nail on the head. And on a side note, you've explained why I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the Greens, Libertarians or any other U.S. third parties. They don't want to do the work--they just want to run a doomed presidential campaign every four years and complain about how unfaaaaaaaair it is that the "system" is stacked against them. Yeah, it's stacked against political movements that refuse to do what works.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #822 on: December 31, 2016, 02:14:18 PM »
Germany, in the 20th century, survived defeat in two world wars, a fascist dictatorship, and a communist dictatorship in 1/2 the country.  They, as a society, lived to tell about it.  Hopefully we will too.

And they're actually doing really well, aren't they. Strongest economy in Europe, very socially liberal, excellent safety net for the poor (disabled, working poor, starving artists, aspiring entrepreneurs etc.), excellent health care, excellent education system. Not to mention their astonishingly beautiful response to the Syrian refugee crisis last year.

Wow. That's so heartening. Thank you for pointing that out!

All we have to do is put a madman in charge, go through the deepest reaches of hell, leave a checkered past as a gift to our children...  no thanks, I'm going to remain clearly in the camp that I oppose Trump at every incremental turn I disagree with and leave my skepticism that 'it'll all be OK' as an upside if I'm wrong 4 or 8 years from now.  Unless, of course, Trump manages to get a 3rd term since I'm beginning to think that even at 78 years of age people will continue to excuse reasonable doubt. 

There are plenty of areas in life where optimism and hope are exactly the right antidote to creating the change you want.  I guess I'm not seeing how optimism and hope fit with Trump changing some of the most important qualities of American life for the better.
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

kellyincville

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 182
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #823 on: December 31, 2016, 07:09:37 PM »
saw this today-

John (while writing Revelations): "So Lord, the end will be signaled by trumpets?"

God: "No... I said Trump/Pence."

John: "Yeah, trumpets."

God: "Never mind. They'll know." 

purple monkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #824 on: December 31, 2016, 08:00:54 PM »
Wow. That's so heartening. Thank you for pointing that out!

Yea!  Let's perpetrate a global war and racial genocide so that we can have a heartwarming comeback story too!

Bow to you Sol!

KBecks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 869
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #825 on: January 01, 2017, 05:20:33 PM »
saw this today-

John (while writing Revelations): "So Lord, the end will be signaled by trumpets?"

God: "No... I said Trump/Pence."

John: "Yeah, trumpets."

God: "Never mind. They'll know."

That's hilarious.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #826 on: January 01, 2017, 08:22:38 PM »
Yet another important act of a Trump presidency.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #827 on: January 01, 2017, 10:14:22 PM »
saw this today-

John (while writing Revelations): "So Lord, the end will be signaled by trumpets?"

God: "No... I said Trump/Pence."

John: "Yeah, trumpets."

God: "Never mind. They'll know."

I have to admit, I literally laughed out loud. My daughter asked me, "what are you laughing about?!" so I showed this to her, and she started laughing too.  My wife didn't see the humor so much.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #828 on: January 02, 2017, 08:01:19 AM »
Wow. That's so heartening. Thank you for pointing that out!

Yea!  Let's perpetrate a global war and racial genocide so that we can have a heartwarming comeback story too!

Don't be an idiot, Sol. The point is that a country can come back from the dark side relatively quickly (Germany's been in good shape since at least the 1970s).

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #829 on: January 02, 2017, 08:05:39 AM »
All we have to do is put a madman in charge, go through the deepest reaches of hell, leave a checkered past as a gift to our children...  no thanks, I'm going to remain clearly in the camp that I oppose Trump at every incremental turn

Uh, me too. My vision board features photos of Trump, Ryan and Pence superimposed on an image of the flaming Hindenburg. They lost by almost 3 million votes, "won" on a technicality and thus have absolutely no mandate whatsoever, to do anything. If Democratic members of Congress were listening to me my message would be, "Block those fuckers at every turn. Four years of gridlock is preferable to anything they will ever propose. Oh, and put a trauma team and a heart/lung machine in the Supreme Court building--we will keep RBG alive NO MATTER WHAT!"

There are plenty of areas in life where optimism and hope are exactly the right antidote to creating the change you want.  I guess I'm not seeing how optimism and hope fit with Trump changing some of the most important qualities of American life for the better.

The point is to not completely and utterly lose hope, because loss of hope can sap the will to keep fighting.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #830 on: January 02, 2017, 09:27:47 AM »
Wow. That's so heartening. Thank you for pointing that out!

Yea!  Let's perpetrate a global war and racial genocide so that we can have a heartwarming comeback story too!

Don't be an idiot, Sol. The point is that a country can come back from the dark side relatively quickly (Germany's been in good shape since at least the 1970s).

Don't violate Rule #1 of the forum.

Sol's point, and it is a good one, is that to cheerfully say we can come back from the dark side "relatively quickly" seems horrifically cold, when the tone seems to complacently shrug shoulders at the horrors that so many individuals suffered in the process. It's a tone that speaks of reading about the history from a book, in front of a warm fire with a lovely mug of something, at a very comfortable remove.

People in the present can observe things unfolding from a comfortable remove, as well, if they feel fairly certain the brunt of the impact won't be felt by them too much.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #831 on: January 03, 2017, 12:27:38 PM »
Ford cancels 1.6B Mexico plant:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ford-cancels-1-6-billion-160903623.html

Pretty interesting news and one of the largest that is directly attributable to our President Elect.  I consider reduction of offshoring a positive for the US economy.  I agree that it will likely be more automation and less overall jobs than there would have been in Mexico, but that brings a different (and better) type of job to the US.

Not replying to this news specifically, but in general there are lots of conflicting details emerging, and I think this is going to be the trend with any of the hyperbolic headlines in the coming years.  It is a useful tactic, to blow people's minds with a statement, and then put all of the disclaimers in the small print.  For example, with this news story -

Quote
To be sure, Ford acknowledged that it would still move production of the next-generation Focus sedan to Mexico, as previously announced. But it will be built at an existing plant in Hermosillo, Mexico, not at a new facility.

And spin like - "We've seen our jobs go overseas," UAW Vice President Jimmy Settles said. "It's evident today that Ford is rewarding us for our hard work."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/01/03/ford-motor-co-donald-trump-mexico-us/96106334/

And just in general, using common-sense economics, playing the tariff game and stifling the free market ultimately results in one or all of:  increased cost, longer schedule, lower quality, and/or reduced choice.  I'm one of those folks perpetually amazed by the ability of markets to self-organize and drive efficiency, so putting a bunch of extra tariffs and politics into American manufacturing is not going to help make our products more competitive globally. 
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 388
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #832 on: January 03, 2017, 12:38:28 PM »
Ford cancels 1.6B Mexico plant:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ford-cancels-1-6-billion-160903623.html

Pretty interesting news and one of the largest that is directly attributable to our President Elect.  I consider reduction of offshoring a positive for the US economy.  I agree that it will likely be more automation and less overall jobs than there would have been in Mexico, but that brings a different (and better) type of job to the US.

Not replying to this news specifically, but in general there are lots of conflicting details emerging, and I think this is going to be the trend with any of the hyperbolic headlines in the coming years.  It is a useful tactic, to blow people's minds with a statement, and then put all of the disclaimers in the small print.  For example, with this news story -

Quote
To be sure, Ford acknowledged that it would still move production of the next-generation Focus sedan to Mexico, as previously announced. But it will be built at an existing plant in Hermosillo, Mexico, not at a new facility.

And spin like - "We've seen our jobs go overseas," UAW Vice President Jimmy Settles said. "It's evident today that Ford is rewarding us for our hard work."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2017/01/03/ford-motor-co-donald-trump-mexico-us/96106334/

Pretty much every "announcement" of jobs or production coming back to the US has been hyperbole or previously announced, just being re-announced so that Trump can take credit.  This, the carrier plant and the T-Mobile (Sofbank owned company) expansion were all previously done deals that Trump has had no influence whatsoever on.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1323
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #833 on: January 03, 2017, 01:03:51 PM »
The Ford plant is good short term news for the region, and indirectly attributable to Trump in the sense that Ford thought he would be more business friendly than Clinton.   However, they also said that it was due to market forces as well.

It's going to be one eye-rolling headline after the other.  Business will do what it always does and if they think that sucking up to Trump will put more dollars in their pocket, then they will do it.  It is pretty easy to figure out how to get on the guy's good side and use it to their advantage.  It's going to be a giant dick sucking contest.   

Gondolin

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 282
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #834 on: January 03, 2017, 01:57:22 PM »
Quote
All we have to do is put a madman in charge, go through the deepest reaches of hell, leave a checkered past as a gift to our children... 

Could be argued that we've got 2 out of 3 at present...Would definitely argue that America's past is plenty checkered already.
"There cannot be two skies"

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1200
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #835 on: January 03, 2017, 02:04:38 PM »
Quote
All we have to do is put a madman in charge, go through the deepest reaches of hell, leave a checkered past as a gift to our children... 

Could be argued that we've got 2 out of 3 at present...Would definitely argue that America's past is plenty checkered already.

Very true, sadly.

FliXFantatier

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Los Angeles
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #836 on: January 03, 2017, 02:16:56 PM »
Quote
All we have to do is put a madman in charge, go through the deepest reaches of hell, leave a checkered past as a gift to our children... 

Could be argued that we've got 2 out of 3 at present...Would definitely argue that America's past is plenty checkered already.
What's kind of amazing is that many of us will look back fondly upon dubya after the next couple of years... Just like Tony Blair is looking real attractive in the UK right now....
« Last Edit: January 03, 2017, 02:19:57 PM by FliXFantatier »

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2204
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #837 on: January 03, 2017, 02:31:32 PM »
Quote
All we have to do is put a madman in charge, go through the deepest reaches of hell, leave a checkered past as a gift to our children... 

Could be argued that we've got 2 out of 3 at present...Would definitely argue that America's past is plenty checkered already.
What's kind of amazing is that many of us will look back fondly upon dubya after the next couple of years... Just like Tony Blair is looking real attractive in the UK right now....

I remember saying during the Dubya administration that Republican presidents seemed to get almost exponentially worse every time, and that I was sure the next one would make Dubya look decent by comparison. My own prescience terrifies me.

Now apply that truism to the next Republican president. I can't even imagine.
"Well I'm sure I'd feel much worse if I weren't under such heavy sedation."   - David St. Hubins, This is Spinal Tap

Gondolin

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 282
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #838 on: January 03, 2017, 02:45:42 PM »
Despite all the Trump hate and hyperbole about how "unprecedented" this election was, I can think of one other Republican President who called his opponents nasty names and reveled in stirring up controversy that swirled around his huge ego. That was Teddy Roosevelt, who is usually listed as a top 10 President.

Imagine Teddy with a Twitter account...Turns out you can find historical precedent for just about anything if you're willing to look back more than 30 years.
"There cannot be two skies"

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5685
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #839 on: January 03, 2017, 03:06:06 PM »
Despite all the Trump hate and hyperbole about how "unprecedented" this election was, I can think of one other Republican President who called his opponents nasty names and reveled in stirring up controversy that swirled around his huge ego. That was Teddy Roosevelt, who is usually listed as a top 10 President.

Personally I haven't seen anyone claim that Trump's name-calling was unprecedented, only that he's the first to use Twitter to do it (at least to this degree).  As you've alluded to, there have been lots of politicians who spent their careers attacking their opponents.  In terms of ego Trump's probably not very different from FDR, LBJ, Nixon or a half a dozen others.

What's unprecedented is that Trump comes to the position having never held public office nor been in the military.  FDR was in the military before being elected state rep before becoming governor of NY before being VP before running for president. Similar story for every one else to ever hold the office.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2017, 03:15:04 PM by nereo »
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

wenchsenior

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 870
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #840 on: January 03, 2017, 03:11:23 PM »
Quote
All we have to do is put a madman in charge, go through the deepest reaches of hell, leave a checkered past as a gift to our children... 

Could be argued that we've got 2 out of 3 at present...Would definitely argue that America's past is plenty checkered already.
What's kind of amazing is that many of us will look back fondly upon dubya after the next couple of years... Just like Tony Blair is looking real attractive in the UK right now....

I'm looking back fondly on  him NOW, in comparison.  I said all the way through this election, I'd vote for W over Trump in a heartbeat if those were the choices. And I thought W was mostly unprecedentedly terrible.

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #841 on: January 03, 2017, 03:30:56 PM »
There were over 400 laws passed by GOP leadership restricting women's bodily autonomy is the last year or two.  None restricting men. 

Gin, what you're clearly missing here is that those laws were passed by Republican legislatures and governors to protect women -- those frail, helpless damsels that were being killed and hurt by the thousands every day because of super-dangerous conditions in health clinics, because of vicious health practitioners who would "rip fetuses out of their wombs in the ninth month" like Trump said, to sell the body parts and leave the woman on the operating table to die, and because of all kinds of other horrors being committed. It was like a medieval torture dungeon in health clinics before these laws were created; women needed protection. They need health clinics that are up to the standards of a major trauma center in a large city hospital, even if they're only getting routine outpatient care like fixing an ingrown toenail. If a clinic is not up to those kinds of standards, close that mother*er down and have the woman go to an appropriate facility 700 miles away that will protect them.

Women need doctors to show them pictures of their fetus, make them listen to it. They need to have a doctor put an imaging rod in their vagina and do a trans-vaginal ultrasound (even if they think they don't want that), then make the woman look at the image so those ladies know what they're doing, because who else is going to protect those poor women from harm and from themselves? Republicans care about women. Without these new laws women could suffer all kinds of injustices and harm. THAT is why those laws have been created, as stated by the creators of such laws; they have NOTHING to do with restricting abortion or bodily autonomy.

<sarcasm>
"Not all quotes on the internet are accurate" -- Abraham Lincoln

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #842 on: January 03, 2017, 06:34:34 PM »
Despite all the Trump hate and hyperbole about how "unprecedented" this election was, I can think of one other Republican President who called his opponents nasty names and reveled in stirring up controversy that swirled around his huge ego. That was Teddy Roosevelt, who is usually listed as a top 10 President.

Imagine Teddy with a Twitter account...Turns out you can find historical precedent for just about anything if you're willing to look back more than 30 years.

Sure, but that's not really why most of us here are horrified/terrified by Trump (except when he threatens decades of foreign policy and international relations through unvetted Twitter posts, anyway).


Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1113
  • Age: 33
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #843 on: January 03, 2017, 08:33:43 PM »

Sure, but that's not really why most of us here are horrified/terrified by Trump (except when he threatens decades of foreign policy and international relations through unvetted Twitter posts, anyway).


I'm welcoming some fresh foreign policy - the last couple of decades have left room for improvement. 

I'm hoping you aren't actually terrified - there is too much fear being spread around.

Terrified in an intellectual sense, sure. But perfectly happy and hopeful for the future in a more general sense.

New foreign policy is fine (even desirable), but not when issued off the top of the head by someone with no experience whatsoever on the topic who has still expressed admiration for many of our worst practices (e.g. waterboarding).

former player

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2142
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #844 on: January 04, 2017, 01:36:50 AM »
Quote
All we have to do is put a madman in charge, go through the deepest reaches of hell, leave a checkered past as a gift to our children... 

Could be argued that we've got 2 out of 3 at present...Would definitely argue that America's past is plenty checkered already.
What's kind of amazing is that many of us will look back fondly upon dubya after the next couple of years... Just like Tony Blair is looking real attractive in the UK right now....
No, Dubya and Tony Blair still helped kill hundreds of thousands in an unnecessary and illegal war, and that can't be forgiven.  I do get a little bit of a feeling in the UK that perhaps Maggie is not the hate-figure she was (note: I don't live in a former coal-mining area, though).  Perhaps Ronald in the US?
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #845 on: January 04, 2017, 03:37:23 AM »

Sure, but that's not really why most of us here are horrified/terrified by Trump (except when he threatens decades of foreign policy and international relations through unvetted Twitter posts, anyway).


I'm welcoming some fresh foreign policy - the last couple of decades have left room for improvement. 

I'm hoping you aren't actually terrified - there is too much fear being spread around.

Terrified in an intellectual sense, sure. But perfectly happy and hopeful for the future in a more general sense.

New foreign policy is fine (even desirable), but not when issued off the top of the head by someone with no experience whatsoever on the topic who has still expressed admiration for many of our worst practices (e.g. waterboarding).

Well, at least on this particular subject, Trump has calimed to have evolved his views, thankfully.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

former player

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2142
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #846 on: January 04, 2017, 05:35:15 AM »

Sure, but that's not really why most of us here are horrified/terrified by Trump (except when he threatens decades of foreign policy and international relations through unvetted Twitter posts, anyway).


I'm welcoming some fresh foreign policy - the last couple of decades have left room for improvement. 

I'm hoping you aren't actually terrified - there is too much fear being spread around.

Terrified in an intellectual sense, sure. But perfectly happy and hopeful for the future in a more general sense.

New foreign policy is fine (even desirable), but not when issued off the top of the head by someone with no experience whatsoever on the topic who has still expressed admiration for many of our worst practices (e.g. waterboarding).

Well, at least on this particular subject, Trump has calimed to have evolved his views, thankfully.

Citation?  The most recent I can find is this, which says that Trump listened to Mattis on waterboarding but went on to say -

“I’m not saying it changed my mind about torture” and “if it’s so important to the American people, I would go for it. I would be guided by that.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-waterboarding-new-york-times-still-in-favour-a7438976.html

Not so big a change of views.  The biggest so-called "democracy" in the world will yet again have a Head of State who would be prepared to order torture.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #847 on: January 04, 2017, 06:04:43 AM »
Citation?  The most recent I can find is this, which says that Trump listened to Mattis on waterboarding but went on to say -

“I’m not saying it changed my mind about torture” and “if it’s so important to the American people, I would go for it. I would be guided by that.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-waterboarding-new-york-times-still-in-favour-a7438976.html

Not so big a change of views.  The biggest so-called "democracy" in the world will yet again have a Head of State who would be prepared to order torture.

I guess I was referencing the Times and CNN, and Donald Trump which focused on Trump quoting: 'Trump quoted Gen Mattis as saying that “I’ve never found it [waterboarding] to be useful”.' and '(waterboarding) is not going to make the kind of difference that a lot of people are thinking.'

I can see how others would have different conclusions.

So we'll see what he orders, I guess. Currently the leader of the biggest Republic in the world orders extra-judicial assassinations of civilians around the world, so we do have a lot of ground to make up.

Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

former player

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2142
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #848 on: January 04, 2017, 06:25:44 AM »
Citation?  The most recent I can find is this, which says that Trump listened to Mattis on waterboarding but went on to say -

“I’m not saying it changed my mind about torture” and “if it’s so important to the American people, I would go for it. I would be guided by that.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-waterboarding-new-york-times-still-in-favour-a7438976.html

Not so big a change of views.  The biggest so-called "democracy" in the world will yet again have a Head of State who would be prepared to order torture.

I guess I was referencing the Times and CNN, and Donald Trump which focused on Trump quoting: 'Trump quoted Gen Mattis as saying that “I’ve never found it [waterboarding] to be useful”.' and '(waterboarding) is not going to make the kind of difference that a lot of people are thinking.'

I can see how others would have different conclusions.

So we'll see what he orders, I guess. Currently the leader of the biggest Republic in the world orders extra-judicial assassinations of civilians around the world, so we do have a lot of ground to make up.
Yes, it's all about the reporting, isn't it?  The reports on Trump quoting Mattis were accurate but incomplete.  Including Trump's follow-on comments changes the outcome of the story.
Be frugal and industrious, and you will be free (Ben Franklin)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #849 on: January 04, 2017, 06:26:59 AM »
Yes, it's all about the reporting, isn't it?  The reports on Trump quoting Mattis were accurate but incomplete.  Including Trump's follow-on comments changes the outcome of the story.

With Trump, the only constant is that the story will change...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM