Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 389449 times)

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3400
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #850 on: January 06, 2017, 09:35:48 AM »
There was that whole veterans memorial thing too. Silly political games. Wasn't Obamas finest moment.

Why was it Obama's fault when Congress couldn't get its shit together? 

That government shutdown was a legislative branch problem.  Obama bears no more responsibility for it than does the Supreme Court, but for some reason I don't see you blaming them.

Sol, if there's one thing you should have learned in the last eight years, it's that everything is Obama's fault. #thanksobama

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #851 on: January 06, 2017, 09:39:43 AM »
There was that whole veterans memorial thing too. Silly political games. Wasn't Obamas finest moment.

Why was it Obama's fault when Congress couldn't get its shit together? 

That government shutdown was a legislative branch problem.  Obama bears no more responsibility for it than does the Supreme Court, but for some reason I don't see you blaming them.

Sol, if there's one thing you should have learned in the last eight years, it's that everything is Obama's fault. #thanksobama

This is all I can ever think of when someone says "Thanks, Obama"


Pooplips

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
  • Age: 32
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #852 on: January 06, 2017, 09:51:02 AM »
I thought the last eight years everything was Bush's fault? The upcoming years Obama will get the blame. haha

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3400
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #853 on: January 06, 2017, 10:17:15 AM »
I thought the last eight years everything was Bush's fault? The upcoming years Obama will get the blame. haha

Nope. All the backsliding we did from 2000-2008 is on the Bush administration. No way would I let Bush take credit for the job growth and economic improvement of the last eight years.

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 686
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #854 on: January 06, 2017, 02:57:05 PM »
The worst part of all of this is now guarantee we have to watch another election cycle where Trump is the focus...

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5302
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #855 on: January 06, 2017, 03:29:25 PM »
There was that whole veterans memorial thing too. Silly political games. Wasn't Obamas finest moment.

Why was it Obama's fault when Congress couldn't get its shit together? 

That government shutdown was a legislative branch problem.  Obama bears no more responsibility for it than does the Supreme Court, but for some reason I don't see you blaming them.

You are confusing the overall shut down with specific closures instructed by the administration.
 

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #856 on: January 06, 2017, 05:09:33 PM »
The worst part of all of this is now guarantee we have to watch another election cycle where Trump is the focus...
Oh goodness, don't remind us of what is going to happen in 4 years...

Probably in 8 years, also; if you think about it.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7482
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #857 on: January 06, 2017, 06:09:17 PM »
You are confusing the overall shut down with specific closures instructed by the administration.

The "specific closures" are determined by each agency, not by the President.  I was "non-essential" for example, so I had to sit home. 

I was unhappy about it, but I certainly didn't think to blame Obama for it.  Everything was closed except for public health and safety personnel, basically.  No one "ordered" anything in particular to shut down.  Everything shut down, unless it was given specific instructions to stay open for safety reasons that supposedly warranted indefinite deficit spending.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5302
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #858 on: January 06, 2017, 06:20:17 PM »
You are confusing the overall shut down with specific closures instructed by the administration.

The "specific closures" are determined by each agency, not by the President.  I was "non-essential" for example, so I had to sit home. 

I was unhappy about it, but I certainly didn't think to blame Obama for it.  Everything was closed except for public health and safety personnel, basically.  No one "ordered" anything in particular to shut down.  Everything shut down, unless it was given specific instructions to stay open for safety reasons that supposedly warranted indefinite deficit spending.

Sorry, i was mis remebering. It was the Democratic contolled senate who refused to pass H.J . resolution 70, and not the president specifically.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7482
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #859 on: January 06, 2017, 06:23:34 PM »
Sorry, i was mis remebering. It was the Democratic contolled senate who refused to pass H.J . resolution 70, and not the president specifically.

Funny, I remember it as the Republican minority that attached an ACA repeal amendment to the federal budget bill, while the Democrats wanted to pass a clean funding bill.  Ted Cruz was on TV!

But we can remember differently.  If there's one thing this election has taught me, it's that facts no longer matter.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5302
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #860 on: January 06, 2017, 06:26:24 PM »
Sorry, i was mis remebering. It was the Democratic contolled senate who refused to pass H.J . resolution 70, and not the president specifically.

Funny, I remember it as the Republican minority that attached an ACA repeal amendment to the federal budget bill, while the Democrats wanted to pass a clean funding bill.  Ted Cruz was on TV!

But we can remember differently.  If there's one thing this election has taught me, it's that facts no longer matter.

Both are true, and both would have kept national parks and museums open.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #861 on: January 06, 2017, 06:36:44 PM »
But we can remember differently.  If there's one thing this election has taught me, it's that facts no longer matter.

Honestly, Sol; I question whether they ever did.  Perception is everything in the age of social media, and maybe it always has been.  This might be why Trump uses twitter posts to circumvent the mass media, in the same way that FDR used regular "fireside chats".  He who controls the perception of the masses, controls the masses.  We have already had an actor as president, and now a reality tv star; perhaps a talk radio pundit is next.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3243
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #862 on: January 07, 2017, 08:54:27 AM »
But we can remember differently.  If there's one thing this election has taught me, it's that facts no longer matter.

Honestly, Sol; I question whether they ever did.  Perception is everything in the age of social media, and maybe it always has been.  This might be why Trump uses twitter posts to circumvent the mass media, in the same way that FDR used regular "fireside chats".  He who controls the perception of the masses, controls the masses.  We have already had an actor as president, and now a reality tv star; perhaps a talk radio pundit is next.
This is where progressives dropped the ball. The Obama administration focused on governing, and neglected to spin their efforts/results to be interpreted by the public in a favorable way. Instead, they let the think-tank influenced press morph every action or inaction into a story where Obama was eating live babies.

I don't like it. Don't get me wrong though. I *want* my government focused on policy and not on propaganda. But look where that has us. If only we had a free press that reported government activities objectively. We once did. However, between the lapse of the fairness doctrine (Reagan)  and later the telecommunications act of (iirc) 1994, the press was allowed to abandon their duty to demonstrate their value for the public good. The result is that we end up with heritage foundation talking points baiting the regular press into discussing absolute bullshit.

It sucks man.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2017, 09:00:37 AM by Malaysia41 »

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #863 on: January 07, 2017, 02:53:31 PM »
But we can remember differently.  If there's one thing this election has taught me, it's that facts no longer matter.

Honestly, Sol; I question whether they ever did.  Perception is everything in the age of social media, and maybe it always has been.  This might be why Trump uses twitter posts to circumvent the mass media, in the same way that FDR used regular "fireside chats".  He who controls the perception of the masses, controls the masses.  We have already had an actor as president, and now a reality tv star; perhaps a talk radio pundit is next.
This is where progressives dropped the ball. The Obama administration focused on governing, and neglected to spin their efforts/results to be interpreted by the public in a favorable way. Instead, they let the think-tank influenced press morph every action or inaction into a story where Obama was eating live babies.

I don't like it. Don't get me wrong though. I *want* my government focused on policy and not on propaganda. But look where that has us. If only we had a free press that reported government activities objectively. We once did. However, between the lapse of the fairness doctrine (Reagan)  and later the telecommunications act of (iirc) 1994, the press was allowed to abandon their duty to demonstrate their value for the public good. The result is that we end up with heritage foundation talking points baiting the regular press into discussing absolute bullshit.

It sucks man.

Um, no we didn't.  The media has always had it's biases, although they have shifted repeatedly over the past 100 years.  Fake news is not a new phenomenon, either.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3243
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #864 on: January 07, 2017, 03:58:51 PM »
I fervently disagree quindon. The press, esp the mainstream press, was quite a bit more objective in the days of Edward R Murrow. Back then, press were required to demonstrate they served the public interest.  They strove for journalistic standards and professionalism. Of course they weren't perfect, but they at least tried to hone in on reality. Sure they neglected to cover salacious scandals. But they didn't spin stories for corporate masters - well, if they did, they didn't spin as brazenly as they do now.

It's been shown that these accusations of liberal bias - starting under the Nixon administration - turned out to actually be a bias for the truth. Edna Efron's News Twisters, the book that seeded this whole 'liberal bias' mantra, was itself full of bias and inconsistencies in her analysis. Yet it's quoted to this day.

Also, news orgs back then were owned by disparate and conflicting owners. After the telecom act under Clinton, massive consolidation occurred. Now the majority of news outlets are owned by 6 corporations.

It's entirely different now. It's demonstrably worse. One main difference is the internet. But as we've seen - that's a many edged sword.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2017, 04:04:36 PM by Malaysia41 »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8780
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #865 on: January 07, 2017, 05:22:39 PM »
I'm skeptical of the idea that "fake news" is demonstrably worse now than it ever has been in the past. 
Propaganda throughout history has often been blatantly false, politicians and parties have 'created' scapegoats and perpetuated horrible and untrue stereotypes (see: Jews, Gypsies, blacks, hispanics, gays, immigrants, socialists, the Japanese... just to name a few from the 20th century alone).
Advertisers in the US used to be able to guarantee products would prevent or cure ailments - now they just suggest it will revive your set life in a claw-foot tub.

Then as now politicians occasionally lost because people believed things about them that simple fact-checking proved to be false.  Jefferson paid a newspaper editor to write a negative Op-Ed about his opponent John Adams. Jackson claimed his opponent's mother was a prostitute. Kerry's extensive military career was called into question when he was 'swift-boated'.  Kennedy claimed the USSR had more missiles than the US (they didn't) and we needed to close the 'Missile gap.'   Nixon, like Trump, aired commercials about crime sweeping our nation when there was no increase.

I have no doubt fake news is a problem, and fake news stories are almost certainly spreading faster today than in any previous decade, but historical perspective is important.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1816
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #866 on: January 07, 2017, 05:40:39 PM »
I have no doubt fake news is a problem, and fake news stories are almost certainly spreading faster today than in any previous decade, but historical perspective is important.

I'm not even sure that a historical perspective is important anymore.  Sure, the axiom that we are doomed to repeat the past rings loud in my ears, but people *do believe* that this time it's different.  And even I believe that, to a larger extent than usual.  We have one branch of government that has gone off of all historical rails, and there is a Legislative branch and Judicial branch that are leaning over toward augmenting their impact.  So if it's not different this time, then I'll relax for a very long time, but I do think we are in a new realm of what is possible in terms of social reform, and a small, savvy, manipulative group are pulling the strings.  Trump can shift millions of investment dollars and billions of tax / government dollars with each 'new initiative'.  And I do personally think that he puts himself and his family before the will of the nation he is charged with governing and protecting.

Also, even if people have stayed the same, it appears that social media / fake news on people's Twitter / Facebook is more effective than the propaganda methods of the past.  Maybe like when we watch 'special effects' from the pre-2010 era and laugh at how obviously fake it is, then are silent about obvious CGI-enhancement nowadays (legitimizing the extent that many historical special effects are perfected and acceptable, like 'fake weather', tracking, figurants).
« Last Edit: January 07, 2017, 06:04:20 PM by EscapeVelocity2020 »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8780
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #867 on: January 07, 2017, 05:54:32 PM »
I have no doubt fake news is a problem, and fake news stories are almost certainly spreading faster today than in any previous decade, but historical perspective is important.

I'm not even sure that a historical perspective is important anymore.  Sure, the axiom that we are doomed to repeat the past rings loud in my ears, but people *do believe* that this time it's different.  And even I believe that, to a larger extent than usual.  We have one branch of government that has gone off of all historical rails, and there is a Legislative branch and Judicial branch that are leaning over toward augmenting their impact.  So if it's not different this time, then I'll relax for a very long time, but I do think we are in a new realm of what is possible in terms of social reform, and a small, savvy, manipulative group are pulling the strings.  Trump can shift millions of investment dollars and billions of tax / government dollars with each 'new initiative'.  And I do personally think that he puts himself and his family before the will of the nation he is charged with governing and protecting.

Please don't mistake my comments for support; I too feel more apprehentious than I ever have about our current federal government, and the failure of Trump to disclose his taxes, his hiring of billionaires and financial insiders only add to my concern.
My point is merely that there are historical analogs, and so far we've endured.  I pray we don't wind up in another avoidable war, and that scapegoats aren't locked up or blacklisted as we've seen in the past.  It could very well be horrible... or it could not.
My serenity statement right now is: This too shall pass.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #868 on: January 07, 2017, 06:03:16 PM »
I fervently disagree quindon. The press, esp the mainstream press, was quite a bit more objective in the days of Edward R Murrow.

You just referred to a subjective observation as "quite a bit more objective".  And while the "liberal bias" in the age of Nixon was mostly BS, it certainly wasn't during the age of Clinton, Bush 2 or Obama.  Like I said before, the biases of the media tend to shift, but they do exist, and they always have.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8780
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #869 on: January 07, 2017, 06:23:10 PM »
I fervently disagree quindon. The press, esp the mainstream press, was quite a bit more objective in the days of Edward R Murrow.

You just referred to a subjective observation as "quite a bit more objective".  And while the "liberal bias" in the age of Nixon was mostly BS, it certainly wasn't during the age of Clinton, Bush 2 or Obama.  Like I said before, the biases of the media tend to shift, but they do exist, and they always have.

I think whether or not there is a "liberal bias" or a "conservative bias" depends on how you attempt to measure the bias. There is no one media, so how do we define whether, on a whole, it leans one way or another? First there's the problem of determining where the line is between liberal and conservative (which is different depending on the decade, country, and even generation you are talking about).

Do we look at the total number of news outlets, or somehow weight outlets based on their number of customers? Do we treat all flavors of news media equally?  There are certainly more radio talk-shows that consider themselves 'conservative' - but there might be (I'm just guessing here) more pod-casts that lean liberal. Does an extremely conservative media outlet balance out an organization that's just left of center, or is the net still conservative in that case?

Finally, if people only or predominatly get their news only from sources that lean solidly one way or another, what use is it to say that there's an overall 'bias' one way or the other?  From the individual's perspective there isn't one.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #870 on: January 07, 2017, 06:31:01 PM »
I fervently disagree quindon. The press, esp the mainstream press, was quite a bit more objective in the days of Edward R Murrow.

You just referred to a subjective observation as "quite a bit more objective".  And while the "liberal bias" in the age of Nixon was mostly BS, it certainly wasn't during the age of Clinton, Bush 2 or Obama.  Like I said before, the biases of the media tend to shift, but they do exist, and they always have.

I think whether or not there is a "liberal bias" or a "conservative bias" depends on how you attempt to measure the bias. There is no one media, so how do we define whether, on a whole, it leans one way or another? First there's the problem of determining where the line is between liberal and conservative (which is different depending on the decade, country, and even generation you are talking about).

Do we look at the total number of news outlets, or somehow weight outlets based on their number of customers? Do we treat all flavors of news media equally?  There are certainly more radio talk-shows that consider themselves 'conservative' - but there might be (I'm just guessing here) more pod-casts that lean liberal. Does an extremely conservative media outlet balance out an organization that's just left of center, or is the net still conservative in that case?

Finally, if people only or predominatly get their news only from sources that lean solidly one way or another, what use is it to say that there's an overall 'bias' one way or the other?  From the individual's perspective there isn't one.

This is also a wonderful point.  Never has the media been monolithic in their biases, but neither have they ever been unbiased.  How one perceives the media in general has much to do with what the observer's own biases are, as well as which media outlets they are most likely to be exposed to, both voluntarily and circumstantially.  So it's entirely reasonable for two people living in different cities with different ideological preferences to come to completely different opinions about "the media", while both trying to be as objective as they can from their own position.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5823
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #871 on: January 07, 2017, 07:00:28 PM »
Finally, if people only or predominatly get their news only from sources that lean solidly one way or another, what use is it to say that there's an overall 'bias' one way or the other?  From the individual's perspective there isn't one.

Last year the ex-chief executive officer of the ANZ Bank Mike Smith was asked by the Board of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC - Australia's taxpayer funded public broadcaster), to conduct an investigation into perceived left wing bias in content and programming. His part of the review was about the ABC's portrayal of business, companies, the economy and stakeholder groups such as unions.

He freely admitted beforehand that he thought the ABC was full of left wing bias, was anti-business and championed progressive causes too much.

After conducting the review, he explicitly stated that he felt the coverage was rigorous and balanced*, and on the whole portrayed business in a positive light.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/media-and-marketing/abc-cleared-of-antibusiness-bias-in-independent-review-20160722-gqbp68.html

It's quite amazing how perceptions can be changed if you take the time to engage with content. The broader point is I'd like to make is that how can you claim an organisation is biased if you never consume it's content?

If you do consume enough content from a MSM source and still claim bias, why do you (generally, not specifically directed at any one poster) bother reading it?

It's something that I notice/observe a lot on various internet forums...

Progressives will not consume content from what they perceive to be right wing news sources (such as Fox), and therefore won't really be in a position to argue against it, or will stay silent (because they "know" it's rubbish anyway), and engaging in a debate won't change anything.

Conservatives seem to watch every minute and read every story published on what they perceive to be left-wing media, and will jump on any indication, no matter how small, of left-wing bias. They will also outright ignore any story published by "left-wing" media that supports a conservative point of view.

I honestly don't know how some of them have so much time to spend consuming media that they hate so much.

* The review also found that the ABC is biased in favour of covering big business, and doesn't give enough coverage to small business. The ABC acknowledged this by saying it does not have the resources to cover individual small businesses easily in a mass media format (TV/Radio), and that it is comparatively simpler to cover big business stories and link them to events such as stock-market movements.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2017, 07:03:13 PM by marty998 »

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1816
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #872 on: January 07, 2017, 07:47:54 PM »

It's quite amazing how perceptions can be changed if you take the time to engage with content. The broader point is I'd like to make is that how can you claim an organisation is biased if you never consume it's content?


I firmly believe that Americans perceive journalists to be liberal.  Therefore, it is quite easy to dismiss whatever the resultant work to be biased, even if they still use facts to craft a narrative as opposed to a flood of tweets.  It's sad that shortcuts and generalizations to finalize opinions are justified by this information age, but we can hope that folks realize that being preoccupied and distracted ultimately does not count as being informed.  And being truly informed requires that you write something for yourself when you need to know where you stand, and then interact with others, and follow up to fill in the blanks...

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3740
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #873 on: January 08, 2017, 02:26:09 AM »
From a UK point of view, one of the astonishing things about USA politics is that no-one seems to agree on the facts.  In the UK, we generally agree on the facts and then the dispute is about the interpretation and what action to take.  If you can't even agree on the facts, there is no hope for a rational discussion.  But in the US there also seems to be no interest in facts, or a deliberate omission of the facts, or a distorted presentation of the facts, which is the start of a death spiral for democracy.

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5823
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #874 on: January 08, 2017, 03:38:05 AM »
From a UK point of view, one of the astonishing things about USA politics is that no-one seems to agree on the facts.  In the UK, we generally agree on the facts and then the dispute is about the interpretation and what action to take.  If you can't even agree on the facts, there is no hope for a rational discussion.  But in the US there also seems to be no interest in facts, or a deliberate omission of the facts, or a distorted presentation of the facts, which is the start of a death spiral for democracy.

It's the same in Australia. Both sides generally use the same data to arrive at substantially similar facts and want the same destination/outcomes, they just disagree on how to get to that destination.

Not withstanding Australia being one of the most diverse nations on earth, I would hazard a guess a nation of 320 million is going to have a lot more well resourced "loud voices" and special interest groups arguing their case than a nation of 25 or 60 million.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8780
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #875 on: January 08, 2017, 06:57:40 AM »
From a UK point of view, one of the astonishing things about USA politics is that no-one seems to agree on the facts.  In the UK, we generally agree on the facts and then the dispute is about the interpretation and what action to take.  If you can't even agree on the facts, there is no hope for a rational discussion.  But in the US there also seems to be no interest in facts, or a deliberate omission of the facts, or a distorted presentation of the facts, which is the start of a death spiral for democracy.

It's the same in Australia. Both sides generally use the same data to arrive at substantially similar facts and want the same destination/outcomes, they just disagree on how to get to that destination.

Not withstanding Australia being one of the most diverse nations on earth, I would hazard a guess a nation of 320 million is going to have a lot more well resourced "loud voices" and special interest groups arguing their case than a nation of 25 or 60 million.

I can't comment on Australia, but I think there are several factors at play in the US that contribute to the "loud voices" you speak of.  First is sheer size of the US company and with that the number of very large corporations that can afford to lobby hard for their special interests. Unlike authoritarian China corporations and unions here have a healthy degree of autonomy and push for what is in their best interests, often with little discussion about what is best for the country as a whole. Second, we're a large country both in terms of size and population (4th on both accounts, I think). Combined with moderate diversity this creates lots of microcosms where large areas with lots of people can find it hard to relate to other other areas (examples:  California and Texas; New England and the Deep South).  Third, our executive branch has become increasingly more powerful since at least WWII at the expense of the state governments and the US Congress. That's created an environment where whole states feel under threat of the presiding government and fuels this "not my president" mentality.

Cranberries

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #876 on: January 08, 2017, 10:41:32 AM »

From a UK point of view, one of the astonishing things about USA politics is that no-one seems to agree on the facts.  In the UK, we generally agree on the facts and then the dispute is about the interpretation and what action to take.  If you can't even agree on the facts, there is no hope for a rational discussion.  But in the US there also seems to be no interest in facts, or a deliberate omission of the facts, or a distorted presentation of the facts, which is the start of a death spiral for democracy.

It's the same in Australia. Both sides generally use the same data to arrive at substantially similar facts and want the same destination/outcomes, they just disagree on how to get to that destination.

Not withstanding Australia being one of the most diverse nations on earth, I would hazard a guess a nation of 320 million is going to have a lot more well resourced "loud voices" and special interest groups arguing their case than a nation of 25 or 60 million.

Up until the 1980's the USA was largely like this as well, but then President Reagan gutted the fairness doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine) and the media (fox, etc.) started to spin out of control. The result now is that people on the right are convinced that all democrats want to steal their guns(tm), and people on the far left and far right eating up weird propaganda hit pieces about quite ordinary politicians. We now have a complete breakdown of a large part of the population's ability to tell when something is coming from a reliable source. I've heard it hypothesized that older generations are particularly susceptible to media spin, as they grew up in a time before the fairness doctrine was repealed.
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/02/this_is_how_the_clowns_took_over_the_sad_history_leading_to_the_spectacle_of_a_fox_news_debate_starring_front_runner_donald_trump/

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3243
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #877 on: January 09, 2017, 06:31:17 AM »

From a UK point of view, one of the astonishing things about USA politics is that no-one seems to agree on the facts.  In the UK, we generally agree on the facts and then the dispute is about the interpretation and what action to take.  If you can't even agree on the facts, there is no hope for a rational discussion.  But in the US there also seems to be no interest in facts, or a deliberate omission of the facts, or a distorted presentation of the facts, which is the start of a death spiral for democracy.

It's the same in Australia. Both sides generally use the same data to arrive at substantially similar facts and want the same destination/outcomes, they just disagree on how to get to that destination.

Not withstanding Australia being one of the most diverse nations on earth, I would hazard a guess a nation of 320 million is going to have a lot more well resourced "loud voices" and special interest groups arguing their case than a nation of 25 or 60 million.

Up until the 1980's the USA was largely like this as well, but then President Reagan gutted the fairness doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine) and the media (fox, etc.) started to spin out of control. The result now is that people on the right are convinced that all democrats want to steal their guns(tm), and people on the far left and far right eating up weird propaganda hit pieces about quite ordinary politicians. We now have a complete breakdown of a large part of the population's ability to tell when something is coming from a reliable source. I've heard it hypothesized that older generations are particularly susceptible to media spin, as they grew up in a time before the fairness doctrine was repealed.
http://www.salon.com/2015/08/02/this_is_how_the_clowns_took_over_the_sad_history_leading_to_the_spectacle_of_a_fox_news_debate_starring_front_runner_donald_trump/

Exactly. Thank you. Between the loss of the fairness doctrine, and the passage of the telecommunications act of 1996, the objectivity of large, professional news sources has degraded to an appalling degree. Frequent and pervasive accusations (by muck-raking radio personalities) of liberal media bias over three decades have baited professional news organizations into presenting 'balance' rather than truth. This means crackpots with no credentials are often given equal air time as legit experts. This is not the path to truth - it's the path to confusion, and it cedes control to the people who pay the crackpots.

Furthermore, loaded phrasing, crafted by people like frank luntz and spread via Grover norquidst's weekly meetings also baited regular news orgs into using conservative language ( e.g. rather than tax policy we speak of tax relief (as if it's an affliction) ... rather than supporting policies which protect our rights to clean water, we are 'oppressed by a nanny state' ...rather than estate tax we talk of death tax... rather than the ACA it's Obamacare. Even Obama used 'Obamacare').

Yes, the dialogue we see in media is very much the result of an organized, highly coordinated effort by a handful of very wealthy people. The end result is that the republican base is distracted into thinking their enemies are liberals. Meanwhile, corporate ceos and neocons are taking over our government. It should make us all irate , yet some people continue to regurgitate this propaganda.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 06:51:25 AM by Malaysia41 »

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3243
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #878 on: January 09, 2017, 06:38:41 AM »
I recommend reading David Brock. He was a journalist at the heritage foundation and at the very right wing Washington Times. After 10 years of creating biased propaganda against Anita hill and the clintons, his conscience and integrity kicked in. Since then, he has written oodles exposing what he calls the Republican noise machine.

Another example of language ( sorry I know it's a bit off topic ): think of what anti Clinton people sometimes say : "I don't want dynasties!"

Okay - if that's the case, then you should support an estate tax that applies to only the top .1 - .5% of estates. Bingo: Dynasty problem kept in check. Unfortunately, I fear some of us are too entrenched in the visceral injustice of a death tax that even this sort of argument won't land. And THIS is what we're up against. Language framing that blocks honest and objective dialogue.

Nevertheless I'm trying to reach my trumpeter family members. Civil Asset Forfeiture is the issue I've chosen.  the government is brazenly looting the private property of innocent people. It's a clear 4th amendment violation. If I can't convince them of this - I fear all hope is lost and we may be looking at civil war.... well, that is if progressives grow some spines. I don't have much hope for that. So maybe we'll have to wait until the right realizes their rights are gone. Then it'll be revolution.


« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 08:13:27 AM by Malaysia41 »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8780
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #879 on: January 09, 2017, 06:45:53 AM »
What irks me is that so few understand the differences between being "balanced" and being "objective".

Too many news outlets are so careful of seeming "Balanced" that they believe the correct response is always to give near-equal time to dissenting opinions, regardless of whether that's objectively reasonable or factually accurate. THe result is that fringe ideas and conspiracy theories are frequently given air time even when thoroughly debunked or widely disputed.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3243
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #880 on: January 09, 2017, 08:10:28 AM »
What irks me is that so few understand the differences between being "balanced" and being "objective".

Too many news outlets are so careful of seeming "Balanced" that they believe the correct response is always to give near-equal time to dissenting opinions, regardless of whether that's objectively reasonable or factually accurate. THe result is that fringe ideas and conspiracy theories are frequently given air time even when thoroughly debunked or widely disputed.

EXACTLY.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3400
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #881 on: January 09, 2017, 09:50:26 AM »
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":

The federal week in review:
1. Trump fires all Ambassadors and Special Envoys, ordering them out by inauguration day.
2. House brings back the Holman rule allowing them to reduce an individual civil service, SES positions, or political appointee's salary to $1, effectively firing them by amendment to any piece of legislation. We now know why they wanted names and positions of people in Energy and State.
3. Senate schedules 6 simultaneous hearings on cabinet nominees and triple-books those hearings with Trump's first press conference in months and an ACA budget vote, effectively preventing any concentrated coverage or protest.
4. House GOP expressly forbids the Congressional Budget Office from reporting or tracking ANY costs related to the repeal of the ACA.
5. Trump continues to throw the intelligence community under the bus to protect Putin, despite the growing mountain of evidence that the Russians deliberately interfered in our election.
6. Trump breaks a central campaign promise to make Mexico pay for the wall by asking Congress (in other words, us, the taxpayers) to pay for it.
7. Trump threatens Toyota over a new plant that was never coming to the US nor will take jobs out of the US.
8. House passes the REINS act, giving them veto power over any rules enacted by any federal agency or department--for example, FDA or EPA bans a drug or pesticide, Congress can overrule based on lobbyists not science. Don't like that endangered species designation, Congress kills it.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #882 on: January 09, 2017, 10:07:10 AM »
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":

The federal week in review:
1. Trump fires all Ambassadors and Special Envoys, ordering them out by inauguration day.
2. House brings back the Holman rule allowing them to reduce an individual civil service, SES positions, or political appointee's salary to $1, effectively firing them by amendment to any piece of legislation. We now know why they wanted names and positions of people in Energy and State.
3. Senate schedules 6 simultaneous hearings on cabinet nominees and triple-books those hearings with Trump's first press conference in months and an ACA budget vote, effectively preventing any concentrated coverage or protest.
4. House GOP expressly forbids the Congressional Budget Office from reporting or tracking ANY costs related to the repeal of the ACA.
5. Trump continues to throw the intelligence community under the bus to protect Putin, despite the growing mountain of evidence that the Russians deliberately interfered in our election.
6. Trump breaks a central campaign promise to make Mexico pay for the wall by asking Congress (in other words, us, the taxpayers) to pay for it.
7. Trump threatens Toyota over a new plant that was never coming to the US nor will take jobs out of the US.
8. House passes the REINS act, giving them veto power over any rules enacted by any federal agency or department--for example, FDA or EPA bans a drug or pesticide, Congress can overrule based on lobbyists not science. Don't like that endangered species designation, Congress kills it.

Bill introduced by Todd Rokita (R) of Indiana that removes all civil service protections from future new hires. (different than Holman rule)  Including but not limited to
•Eliminate an employee’s right to representation at the worksite by no longer allowing union representatives to resolve disputes, address issues of discrimination or retaliation, or propose improvements in the workplace during the workday.
•Allow political appointees to demote career executives and reduce their pay without cause.

so political appointees can clear house of all the people who know what they are doing over ideological differences.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8780
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #883 on: January 09, 2017, 10:22:14 AM »
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":

The federal week in review:
1. Trump fires all Ambassadors and Special Envoys, ordering them out by inauguration day.
2. House brings back the Holman rule allowing them to reduce an individual civil service, SES positions, or political appointee's salary to $1, effectively firing them by amendment to any piece of legislation. We now know why they wanted names and positions of people in Energy and State.
3. Senate schedules 6 simultaneous hearings on cabinet nominees and triple-books those hearings with Trump's first press conference in months and an ACA budget vote, effectively preventing any concentrated coverage or protest.
4. House GOP expressly forbids the Congressional Budget Office from reporting or tracking ANY costs related to the repeal of the ACA.
5. Trump continues to throw the intelligence community under the bus to protect Putin, despite the growing mountain of evidence that the Russians deliberately interfered in our election.
6. Trump breaks a central campaign promise to make Mexico pay for the wall by asking Congress (in other words, us, the taxpayers) to pay for it.
7. Trump threatens Toyota over a new plant that was never coming to the US nor will take jobs out of the US.
8. House passes the REINS act, giving them veto power over any rules enacted by any federal agency or department--for example, FDA or EPA bans a drug or pesticide, Congress can overrule based on lobbyists not science. Don't like that endangered species designation, Congress kills it.

Bill introduced by Todd Rokita (R) of Indiana that removes all civil service protections from future new hires. (different than Holman rule)  Including but not limited to
•Eliminate an employee’s right to representation at the worksite by no longer allowing union representatives to resolve disputes, address issues of discrimination or retaliation, or propose improvements in the workplace during the workday.
•Allow political appointees to demote career executives and reduce their pay without cause.

so political appointees can clear house of all the people who know what they are doing over ideological differences.

It seems clear that the president elect is "cleaning house" and removing as many people that do not share his views as possible.  This isn't particularly surprising to me, but the anticipated outcome will be that policy will drive theory, and not the other way around.
Companies that do this quickly find themselves at a disadvantage. I fear so shall we...


nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8780
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #885 on: January 09, 2017, 11:33:06 AM »
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":


The federal week in review:
9. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/03/508075313/ford-scraps-plans-for-mexico-plant-in-surprise-move
10. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/08/fiat-to-invest-1-billion-in-new-michigan-ohio-plants-create-2000-jobs.html
11. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alibaba-ceo-jack-ma-meets-164900109.html

You forgot some....

yeah, from the articles you linked:
Quote
Well, the main reason that we're canceling our $1.6 billion new plant in Mexico is essentially because we've seen market demand here in North America for small cars drop off pretty significantly.
Quote
The announcement, in what the company said was the second phase of a plan it first made public a year ago

Seems all of this was already in motion and unrelated to Trump. Suppose we ought to credit Obama for these, if anyone.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12278
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #886 on: January 09, 2017, 11:40:55 AM »
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":


The federal week in review:
9. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/03/508075313/ford-scraps-plans-for-mexico-plant-in-surprise-move
10. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/08/fiat-to-invest-1-billion-in-new-michigan-ohio-plants-create-2000-jobs.html
11. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alibaba-ceo-jack-ma-meets-164900109.html

You forgot some....

yeah, from the articles you linked:
Quote
Well, the main reason that we're canceling our $1.6 billion new plant in Mexico is essentially because we've seen market demand here in North America for small cars drop off pretty significantly.
Quote
The announcement, in what the company said was the second phase of a plan it first made public a year ago

Seems all of this was already in motion and unrelated to Trump. Suppose we ought to credit Obama for these, if anyone.

Thanks Obama!

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2149
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #887 on: January 09, 2017, 11:42:48 AM »

10. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/08/fiat-to-invest-1-billion-in-new-michigan-ohio-plants-create-2000-jobs.html

You forgot some....

I'd just like to call out the fact that they're laying out $1,000,000,000 in capital, and it's going to generate 2,000 jobs. We need to stop acting like it's 1951. I'm sure those are going to be 2,000 solid jobs with good pay and benefits, but they're going to require specialists, not grunts.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8780
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #888 on: January 09, 2017, 11:48:46 AM »
breaking news:  Jared Kushner officially named as 'special advisor' to Trump.

So:  the husband of one of the children put in charge of the family business is now officially a special advisor to the president?
This further entrenches the conflict of interest.

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 826
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #889 on: January 09, 2017, 11:57:37 AM »
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":

The federal week in review:
1. Trump fires all Ambassadors and Special Envoys, ordering them out by inauguration day.
2. House brings back the Holman rule allowing them to reduce an individual civil service, SES positions, or political appointee's salary to $1, effectively firing them by amendment to any piece of legislation. We now know why they wanted names and positions of people in Energy and State.
3. Senate schedules 6 simultaneous hearings on cabinet nominees and triple-books those hearings with Trump's first press conference in months and an ACA budget vote, effectively preventing any concentrated coverage or protest.
4. House GOP expressly forbids the Congressional Budget Office from reporting or tracking ANY costs related to the repeal of the ACA.
5. Trump continues to throw the intelligence community under the bus to protect Putin, despite the growing mountain of evidence that the Russians deliberately interfered in our election.
6. Trump breaks a central campaign promise to make Mexico pay for the wall by asking Congress (in other words, us, the taxpayers) to pay for it.
7. Trump threatens Toyota over a new plant that was never coming to the US nor will take jobs out of the US.
8. House passes the REINS act, giving them veto power over any rules enacted by any federal agency or department--for example, FDA or EPA bans a drug or pesticide, Congress can overrule based on lobbyists not science. Don't like that endangered species designation, Congress kills it.

Bill introduced by Todd Rokita (R) of Indiana that removes all civil service protections from future new hires. (different than Holman rule)  Including but not limited to
•Eliminate an employee’s right to representation at the worksite by no longer allowing union representatives to resolve disputes, address issues of discrimination or retaliation, or propose improvements in the workplace during the workday.
•Allow political appointees to demote career executives and reduce their pay without cause.

so political appointees can clear house of all the people who know what they are doing over ideological differences.

I'm actually OK with this. Public employee unions need to be gutted and reformed heavily. whether or not Ford would be changing their plans based on Trump's bluster or not, at least these things are part of the national conversation again, instead of being ignored and openly disdained by the alternative administration.

The rest of what trump has done this week does not sit well with me... especially the double booking of confirmation hearings and bringing back the Holloman rule and the REINS act.

Does anyone else see the irony that we're upset that Russia hacked into the DNC (exposing their very real shadiness)... the main source of new evidence being US hacking into the Russians and leaking their internal communications? There's some nuance to that comparison but I thought it was humorous.

wienerdog

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 449
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #890 on: January 09, 2017, 02:03:34 PM »
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":


The federal week in review:
9. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/03/508075313/ford-scraps-plans-for-mexico-plant-in-surprise-move
10. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/08/fiat-to-invest-1-billion-in-new-michigan-ohio-plants-create-2000-jobs.html
11. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alibaba-ceo-jack-ma-meets-164900109.html

You forgot some....

yeah, from the articles you linked:
Quote
Well, the main reason that we're canceling our $1.6 billion new plant in Mexico is essentially because we've seen market demand here in North America for small cars drop off pretty significantly.
Quote
The announcement, in what the company said was the second phase of a plan it first made public a year ago

Seems all of this was already in motion and unrelated to Trump. Suppose we ought to credit Obama for these, if anyone.

Thanks Obama!

Wait I thought Bush was taking the blame on everything for Obama?  So confused

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8780
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #891 on: January 09, 2017, 02:19:14 PM »

Wait I thought Bush was taking the blame on everything for Obama?  So confused

Bush gets blamed (or gets credit) for most everything that took place in Obama's first ~6 months in office that Obama didn't directly pass.  After that responsibility shifts towards the new guy until he's completely accountable after 2 years.
Example:  Obama can't be held responsible for the great recession, but he and the 111th-113th congresses own the recovery (both that they happened and that they took so long).
Same goes for Trump.

Common sense really - you can't take credit or blame for things your first week in office, nor can you blame everything on your predecessor after you've been there for a few years.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #892 on: January 09, 2017, 02:20:32 PM »
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":


The federal week in review:
9. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/03/508075313/ford-scraps-plans-for-mexico-plant-in-surprise-move
10. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/08/fiat-to-invest-1-billion-in-new-michigan-ohio-plants-create-2000-jobs.html
11. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alibaba-ceo-jack-ma-meets-164900109.html

You forgot some....

yeah, from the articles you linked:
Quote
Well, the main reason that we're canceling our $1.6 billion new plant in Mexico is essentially because we've seen market demand here in North America for small cars drop off pretty significantly.
Quote
The announcement, in what the company said was the second phase of a plan it first made public a year ago

Seems all of this was already in motion and unrelated to Trump. Suppose we ought to credit Obama for these, if anyone.

Thanks Obama!

Wait I thought Bush was taking the blame on everything for Obama?  So confused

Thanks Bush!

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8780
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #893 on: January 09, 2017, 02:23:44 PM »
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":


The federal week in review:
9. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/03/508075313/ford-scraps-plans-for-mexico-plant-in-surprise-move
10. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/08/fiat-to-invest-1-billion-in-new-michigan-ohio-plants-create-2000-jobs.html
11. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alibaba-ceo-jack-ma-meets-164900109.html

You forgot some....

yeah, from the articles you linked:
Quote
Well, the main reason that we're canceling our $1.6 billion new plant in Mexico is essentially because we've seen market demand here in North America for small cars drop off pretty significantly.
Quote
The announcement, in what the company said was the second phase of a plan it first made public a year ago

Seems all of this was already in motion and unrelated to Trump. Suppose we ought to credit Obama for these, if anyone.

Thanks Obama!

Wait I thought Bush was taking the blame on everything for Obama?  So confused

Thanks Bush!

Thanks Washington!

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3740
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #894 on: January 09, 2017, 02:33:36 PM »
From a UK point of view, one of the astonishing things about USA politics is that no-one seems to agree on the facts.  In the UK, we generally agree on the facts and then the dispute is about the interpretation and what action to take.  If you can't even agree on the facts, there is no hope for a rational discussion.  But in the US there also seems to be no interest in facts, or a deliberate omission of the facts, or a distorted presentation of the facts, which is the start of a death spiral for democracy.
Did you miss brexit?
"People have had quite enough of experts"
"75 Million Turks are about to come to the UK once Turkey joins the EU"
"350 Million for the NHS per week"
An agriculture minister who thinks farming has been around as long as humans have.
...
Regrettably the UK is fully on board the post truth politics train
Yes, thank Trump's best buddy Farage for a lot of that.  Reality seems to be setting in a bit now, though.

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 686
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #895 on: January 09, 2017, 05:39:14 PM »
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":


The federal week in review:
9. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/03/508075313/ford-scraps-plans-for-mexico-plant-in-surprise-move
10. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/08/fiat-to-invest-1-billion-in-new-michigan-ohio-plants-create-2000-jobs.html
11. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alibaba-ceo-jack-ma-meets-164900109.html

You forgot some....

yeah, from the articles you linked:
Quote
Well, the main reason that we're canceling our $1.6 billion new plant in Mexico is essentially because we've seen market demand here in North America for small cars drop off pretty significantly.
Quote
The announcement, in what the company said was the second phase of a plan it first made public a year ago

Seems all of this was already in motion and unrelated to Trump. Suppose we ought to credit Obama for these, if anyone.

Thanks Obama!

Wait I thought Bush was taking the blame on everything for Obama?  So confused

It is incredibly difficult and debate even among very experienced and talented economist to determine the exact administration which is at fault for a given financial crises.

At any given point the current economic climate could easily be a result of a combination of rules and regulations spanning many presidencies much further back than Obama and Bush.

Unless anyone on this form is masquerading as a normal poster and are really Mark Blyth or Milton Friedman(risen from the dead) in disguise, or some other notable economist, I doubt any of us could have a truly fair and informed in-depth discussion about who is to blame or congratulate on the great recession and our continuing recovery.

Politicians are certainly offering zero clarity on either side, only presenting simple metrics with spin. Suffice it to say the current state of things would seem to indicate that the US has had the best recovery of any developed nation. Whether that recovery is fast enough, good enough or equally felt by all Americans is another story.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 05:49:50 PM by RangerOne »

RangerOne

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 686
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #896 on: January 09, 2017, 05:49:22 PM »
I say at least one major problem along the lines being discussed is not necessarily that expert opinion is no longer valid but rather that the rise of equal access to the public ear via the internet has lead to the bar for qualifying yourself as an expert on a subject to drop to zero.

Or rather you can be considered an expert simply based on the size of your following. Your legitimacy on the internet as a spokes person on any subject has less to do with science and education or more to do with how many people are willing to listen to you and believe you.

In some ways this level of information sharing has been an amazing thing. In others, looking at this recent election, it has been a complete and tragic failure for all of us.

All the major social media sites are grappling with these issues right now. How do we evolve the internet beyond the wild west of information that it currently is. How do we do it without giving up the current freedoms that we value on it? Regulation of the internet and its major contributors is going to be a huge issue probably for the remainder of most of our lifetimes. And ultimately the gatekeepers who will craft that future are the social media sites and search engines like google and telecom providers that control bandwidth and accessibility.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7482
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #897 on: January 09, 2017, 06:07:58 PM »
It is incredibly difficult and debate even among very experienced and talented economist to determine the exact administration which is at fault for a given financial crises.

Agreed.  Lots of people blame Bill Clinton for the 2008/9 crash, for example, because he signed off on Congress's repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act in 1999, helping to deregulate banks so they could play on Wall Street. 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8780
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #898 on: January 09, 2017, 06:19:02 PM »
It is incredibly difficult and debate even among very experienced and talented economist to determine the exact administration which is at fault for a given financial crises.

Agreed.  Lots of people blame Bill Clinton for the 2008/9 crash, for example, because he signed off on Congress's repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act in 1999, helping to deregulate banks so they could play on Wall Street.

My broader point (which I think is being missed) is that it's ridiculous to blame someone who just took office for any given financial crisis, or give them immediate credit for 'good things'.

Certainly after they've settled in for a while it becomes much harder to distinguish which administration truly set up the circumstances for the current crisis.   Regarding blaming Clinton for the '08 crash, there's some validity there, but one must also acknolwedege that the subsequent 8 years congress and Bush had ample opportunities to increase regulation but didn't.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5302
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #899 on: January 09, 2017, 09:56:26 PM »
More "realistic impacts of a Trump presidency":


The federal week in review:
9. http://www.npr.org/2017/01/03/508075313/ford-scraps-plans-for-mexico-plant-in-surprise-move
10. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/08/fiat-to-invest-1-billion-in-new-michigan-ohio-plants-create-2000-jobs.html
11. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/alibaba-ceo-jack-ma-meets-164900109.html

You forgot some....

yeah, from the articles you linked:
Quote
Well, the main reason that we're canceling our $1.6 billion new plant in Mexico is essentially because we've seen market demand here in North America for small cars drop off pretty significantly.
Quote
The announcement, in what the company said was the second phase of a plan it first made public a year ago

Seems all of this was already in motion and unrelated to Trump. Suppose we ought to credit Obama for these, if anyone.

Thanks Obama!

Meh. Terrible for the planet. I suppose he could use the win though.