Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 378704 times)

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 647
  • Location: Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #750 on: December 28, 2016, 02:53:29 PM »
Kayvent seems to be unconcerned about conservatives infringing the rights of women, because conservatives have always been so supportive of the rights of the transgendered.  It's a weird world we live in, where this is the right's defense of attacking a woman's bodily autonomy.

Follow the train of conversation please. I asked for an example of a piece of legislation that targeted only women. The given news article talked about something that affected pregnant men seeking abortions too.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4581
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #751 on: December 28, 2016, 02:56:10 PM »
Kayvent seems to be unconcerned about conservatives infringing the rights of women, because conservatives have always been so supportive of the rights of the transgendered.  It's a weird world we live in, where this is the right's defense of attacking a woman's bodily autonomy.

Follow the train of conversation please. I asked for an example of a piece of legislation that targeted only women. The given news article talked about something that affected pregnant men seeking abortions too.
Women was being used to talk about female of reproductive age.  Better?  Do I have to refer to my biological sex instead of a term most people understand?  And frankly, to the GOP those transmen are women.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1357
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #752 on: December 28, 2016, 03:10:23 PM »

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.
You aren't really scared of Trump.

No, I'm not scared of Trump. I'm white, male, straight and middle class. But unlike many who voted for him, I am my brother's keeper.

How exactly will being white, straight or middle class make you braver in this situation? He's not advocated for hunting down gays, comparing Clinton v Trump to Obama v Romney he won because of minorities, and I think he'd be as awful for male body ownership as women.
There were over 400 laws passed by GOP leadership restricting women's bodily autonomy is the last year or two.  None restricting men.  I am literally in the process of getting my passport to be able to go to Canada because I am pregnant and for my safety, I am better off out of the USA.  A judge ordered a woman if florida a few years back to be tied to a bed because she wanted a second option on bed rest.  Which, btw, there is no medical/scientific evidence that bed rest helps a fetus.  Rest and lack of stress help, but not bed rest specifically.  And guess what, she still lost the fetus.  Huh, who would have thought that tying a woman to bed against her wishes might increase her stress level.

Need a story link to this.  Was the woman in prison?

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4581
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #753 on: December 28, 2016, 03:40:03 PM »

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.
You aren't really scared of Trump.

No, I'm not scared of Trump. I'm white, male, straight and middle class. But unlike many who voted for him, I am my brother's keeper.

How exactly will being white, straight or middle class make you braver in this situation? He's not advocated for hunting down gays, comparing Clinton v Trump to Obama v Romney he won because of minorities, and I think he'd be as awful for male body ownership as women.
There were over 400 laws passed by GOP leadership restricting women's bodily autonomy is the last year or two.  None restricting men.  I am literally in the process of getting my passport to be able to go to Canada because I am pregnant and for my safety, I am better off out of the USA.  A judge ordered a woman if florida a few years back to be tied to a bed because she wanted a second option on bed rest.  Which, btw, there is no medical/scientific evidence that bed rest helps a fetus.  Rest and lack of stress help, but not bed rest specifically.  And guess what, she still lost the fetus.  Huh, who would have thought that tying a woman to bed against her wishes might increase her stress level.

Need a story link to this.  Was the woman in prison?
[/quote]
She was not: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/florida-court-orders-pregnant-woman-bed-rest-medical/story?id=9561460

lbmustache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #754 on: December 28, 2016, 04:05:08 PM »
From my perspective, the entire country has been getting more and more conservative over the past decade as the right wing wins every consecutive battle with the help of a compliant President, but that narrative doesn't play well with the base so they have to pretend the liberals are taking over instead.

I agree completely with the above bolded portion, but I'd say that it's only been picking up speed during the past decade.  I think Obama would have lost if the Republicans had fielded a better candidate at the time, but they weren't ready for a Ron Paul.  I suspect that the Millineal generation isn't as liberal in their hearts as they might appear in public, at least not on all subjects.  As we now know, the new "alt-right" position has been growing in quiet, and didn't even tell the exit pollsters the truth of their vote.

Interestingly, arguments go both ways on this - depending on what side of the fence you are on. Meaning liberals are quick to say America is becoming more conservative and vice versa. A quick google search for this topic seems to go about 50-50 ("america is becoming more liberal" / "america is becoming more conservative").

I was under the impression that most polls actually have a majority of Americans more liberal-leaning in terms of policies: same-sex marriage, marijuana, raising the minimum wage - not necessarily to $15 though - and a few more, even though they might not personally identify as liberal or democratic. We have more POC and women in politics (aside from Trump's cabinet ha) and there seems to be a lot more discussion of race and various issues (for better or for worse).

North Carolina would be a good example - a Democratic governor won (and yes, I know that the republicans are $%^#%# around with that) in a very Republican state.

The general pattern of educated people leaning more liberal seems to hold true regardless of where or what we are looking at.

I teach college and high school in both liberal and conservative areas - and I've noticed that both groups of students talk about things I never even thought about a decade ago. I grew up in one of the most liberal, diverse, "gayest cities" - this is an actual title given to us by news sources like USA Today - in America. I never thought about feminism, politics, etc. when I was in HS and no one ever talked about it at lunch time. Now I have kids asking me about feminism and giving speeches about police brutality and global warming. I of course have conservative students who do the same for their own topics, like the 2nd amendment (lol), but it seems to me that if younger people aren't more liberal, they are at the very least more aware of things.

Final thing, I think the democrats in general have been very quick to roll over and are not as aggressive as republicans (specifically tea partiers). See voting rights, intimidation, etc. The tea partiers were also VERY VOCAL. Not arguing that there isn't corruption etc. with the dems, because there is. Go back to my N.C. example (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/north-carolina-republicans-make-brazen-bid-permanent-power-after-losing-governors-r) - I can't fathom in a million years a Democratic legislature pulling something like this. (I could be wrong.)

Quite frankly the KKK and co have always been a part of America. They just got a fancy new name ("alt-right"), got more media-savvy, got some people who know how to carry a conversation normally (rather than the stereotypical raving lunatic), and got a white man in office who won't denounce them. I personally don't forsee them rising up and amassing this huge stronghold.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8065
  • Registered member
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #755 on: December 28, 2016, 04:26:57 PM »
I thought it was agreed we are getting more divided.  So there are some getting more liberal and some getting more conservative.  I'm not sure if an "average" is meaningful.

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?

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #756 on: December 28, 2016, 04:48:37 PM »

Quite frankly the KKK and co have always been a part of America. They just got a fancy new name ("alt-right"), got more media-savvy, got some people who know how to carry a conversation normally (rather than the stereotypical raving lunatic), and got a white man in office who won't denounce them. I personally don't forsee them rising up and amassing this huge stronghold.

The alt-right and the KKK are not remotely the same thing.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 784
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #757 on: December 28, 2016, 05:43:20 PM »

I think that the way Trump's statements/views change depending on who he's talking to makes him an even bigger piece of shit. So yeah, we don't know what he's going to do, which is why people are scared.
You aren't really scared of Trump.

No, I'm not scared of Trump. I'm white, male, straight and middle class. But unlike many who voted for him, I am my brother's keeper.

How exactly will being white, straight or middle class make you braver in this situation? He's not advocated for hunting down gays, comparing Clinton v Trump to Obama v Romney he won because of minorities, and I think he'd be as awful for male body ownership as women.

If you don't know that being white, male, straight and middle class will benefit a person in the United States, vs being say, black, female, gay and poor, I cannot help you understand.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3205
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #758 on: December 28, 2016, 05:56:04 PM »

+1. I'm really curious about Q's motivations and wants here. Repeal ACA, OK. Then what? If Quidnon? were in charge of American healthcare policy, what would that system look like?

Make a new thread, and send me a link, I'll be happy to add details.  But my perspectives on the ACA are way off topic for this thread.

Not so off topic. Trump has said he would completely repeal the ACA. Which you said you want. A complete repeal. So, per the topic or this thread, that is a "realistic impact" of a Trump presidency.

I asked you this above for clarification,  which you haven't responded to yet:

Lifetime caps for care were outlawed under Obamacareóbut repeal would roll that back, even for people with employer-based coverage.  You're good with that?

How about the fact that repeal will mean insurers can start denying people with preexisting conditions again? That's good, too?

And kids won't be able to stay on their parents' policy until 26 anymore. That's cool with you?

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #759 on: December 28, 2016, 06:13:08 PM »

+1. I'm really curious about Q's motivations and wants here. Repeal ACA, OK. Then what? If Quidnon? were in charge of American healthcare policy, what would that system look like?

Make a new thread, and send me a link, I'll be happy to add details.  But my perspectives on the ACA are way off topic for this thread.

Not so off topic. Trump has said he would completely repeal the ACA. Which you said you want. A complete repeal. So, per the topic or this thread, that is a "realistic impact" of a Trump presidency.

He is doing it for different reasons, and my reasons are complex.  Still will be off topic if we dive down this hole.

Quote

I asked you this above for clarification,  which you haven't responded to yet:

Lifetime caps for care were outlawed under Obamacareóbut repeal would roll that back, even for people with employer-based coverage.  You're good with that?


Yes, so long as the lifetime cap is well disclosed.

Quote

How about the fact that repeal will mean insurers can start denying people with preexisting conditions again? That's good, too?


Yes, so long as there is an alternative.  There always has been, so I have no reason to assume that will be different now.

Quote

And kids won't be able to stay on their parents' policy until 26 anymore. That's cool with you?

Seriously?  Do you really think that is a deal breaker?  That's more of a bug than a feature anyway, and I believe that it only holds true if the parents can still claim them as dependents on their tax returns anyway, which implies they are living at home or full time students.  There was a medical plan available for students when I went to school, that was both cheap and subsidized for needs based students.  The ACA didn't really solve any unsolvable issues, mostly reduced the alternative options for individuals who were on the long tail of the distribution curve.  I'd say that half the people on this forum could do the same thing I stated above, with the self-insured up to a very high deductible amount, with very minimal risk of breaking their retirement plans (which cancer or an organ transplant is likely to do regardless) and very cheaply overall.  There are many, many different ways to reduce your individual health/expense risks, as well as to arrange for health care services, than the way the ACA attempts to do it for everyone; but now most of those alternatives are functionally illegal, pushed out of the market of choices by the individual & corporate mandates, as well as the increased regulations upon actual insurance companies.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 784
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #760 on: December 28, 2016, 06:15:59 PM »
Here is a more up-to-date graph.
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/number-of-executive-orders-per-president/

I did not verify the data in the graph. Please post any differing stats with sources so we can discuss.

It is just data. Nothing to see here. It only shows Quidnon is LYING. In fact, no one has ever lied in blog postings more than Quidnon. Hey, saying things where the data clearly shows I am full of it is kind of fun.I think you all ought to try it.

Quidnon...I would love to get your take on that relating to your statement about Obama abusing presidential power.

I always find it interesting that we have this here "internet" thing with vast amounts of data, but so many are unable to use a simple Google search to see if the talking points they are parroting have validity. I mean, a majority have the ability to look this shit up on their cell phones regardless of their physical location. But I suppose that it's just "The Media" lying again pushing their socialist agenda. Why trust a source if it doesn't back up your world view?

As for Democrats- I'm not registered, but I vote that way because...what's the alternative? They do not satisfy my need for revenge. I am tired of the high ground. I want them to punch out some teeth. Maybe the only way for the right to start using facts and science and shit are for the Left to push out an agenda of disinformation? It would only make sense in this Bizarro World.

But they wont. They'll continue to individually craft messages, bumble around, winning battles but losing the war.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3205
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #761 on: December 28, 2016, 06:20:53 PM »

+1. I'm really curious about Q's motivations and wants here. Repeal ACA, OK. Then what? If Quidnon? were in charge of American healthcare policy, what would that system look like?

Make a new thread, and send me a link, I'll be happy to add details.  But my perspectives on the ACA are way off topic for this thread.

Not so off topic. Trump has said he would completely repeal the ACA. Which you said you want. A complete repeal. So, per the topic or this thread, that is a "realistic impact" of a Trump presidency.

He is doing it for different reasons, and my reasons are complex.  Still will be off topic if we dive down this hole.

Quote

I asked you this above for clarification,  which you haven't responded to yet:

Lifetime caps for care were outlawed under Obamacareóbut repeal would roll that back, even for people with employer-based coverage.  You're good with that?


Yes, so long as the lifetime cap is well disclosed.

Quote

How about the fact that repeal will mean insurers can start denying people with preexisting conditions again? That's good, too?


Yes, so long as there is an alternative.  There always has been, so I have no reason to assume that will be different now.

Quote

And kids won't be able to stay on their parents' policy until 26 anymore. That's cool with you?

Seriously?  Do you really think that is a deal breaker?  That's more of a bug than a feature anyway, and I believe that it only holds true if the parents can still claim them as dependents on their tax returns anyway, which implies they are living at home or full time students.  There was a medical plan available for students when I went to school, that was both cheap and subsidized for needs based students.  The ACA didn't really solve any unsolvable issues, mostly reduced the alternative options for individuals who were on the long tail of the distribution curve.  I'd say that half the people on this forum could do the same thing I stated above, with the self-insured up to a very high deductible amount, with very minimal risk of breaking their retirement plans (which cancer or an organ transplant is likely to do regardless) and very cheaply overall.  There are many, many different ways to reduce your individual health/expense risks, as well as to arrange for health care services, than the way the ACA attempts to do it for everyone; but now most of those alternatives are functionally illegal, pushed out of the market of choices by the individual & corporate mandates, as well as the increased regulations upon actual insurance companies.

What is the alternative for people with preexisting conditions that there "always has been"?

Also, no, you are wrong about the details of the current age-26 cap.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2016, 06:22:46 PM by Kris »

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4581
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #762 on: December 28, 2016, 06:28:35 PM »

+1. I'm really curious about Q's motivations and wants here. Repeal ACA, OK. Then what? If Quidnon? were in charge of American healthcare policy, what would that system look like?

Make a new thread, and send me a link, I'll be happy to add details.  But my perspectives on the ACA are way off topic for this thread.

Not so off topic. Trump has said he would completely repeal the ACA. Which you said you want. A complete repeal. So, per the topic or this thread, that is a "realistic impact" of a Trump presidency.

He is doing it for different reasons, and my reasons are complex.  Still will be off topic if we dive down this hole.

Quote

I asked you this above for clarification,  which you haven't responded to yet:

Lifetime caps for care were outlawed under Obamacareóbut repeal would roll that back, even for people with employer-based coverage.  You're good with that?


Yes, so long as the lifetime cap is well disclosed.

Quote

How about the fact that repeal will mean insurers can start denying people with preexisting conditions again? That's good, too?


Yes, so long as there is an alternative.  There always has been, so I have no reason to assume that will be different now.

Quote

And kids won't be able to stay on their parents' policy until 26 anymore. That's cool with you?

Seriously?  Do you really think that is a deal breaker?  That's more of a bug than a feature anyway, and I believe that it only holds true if the parents can still claim them as dependents on their tax returns anyway, which implies they are living at home or full time students.  There was a medical plan available for students when I went to school, that was both cheap and subsidized for needs based students.  The ACA didn't really solve any unsolvable issues, mostly reduced the alternative options for individuals who were on the long tail of the distribution curve.  I'd say that half the people on this forum could do the same thing I stated above, with the self-insured up to a very high deductible amount, with very minimal risk of breaking their retirement plans (which cancer or an organ transplant is likely to do regardless) and very cheaply overall.  There are many, many different ways to reduce your individual health/expense risks, as well as to arrange for health care services, than the way the ACA attempts to do it for everyone; but now most of those alternatives are functionally illegal, pushed out of the market of choices by the individual & corporate mandates, as well as the increased regulations upon actual insurance companies.
I had a pre-existing condition when I aged off my mom's plan at age 24. I could find NO coverage for any amount of money on private market.  I therefore used COBRA but I would have been screwed once that was over.  My fiancť picked a grad school based on spousal coverage, which not all had and we got married early for insurance.  What alternatives do you think I had?  Please, do tell? 

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 784
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #763 on: December 28, 2016, 06:28:57 PM »
Quote
How about the fact that repeal will mean insurers can start denying people with preexisting conditions again? That's good, too?
Yes, so long as there is an alternative.  There always has been, so I have no reason to assume that will be different now.

What alternative would that be? Going bankrupt to pay medical bills? Deciding whether to pay for medication or groceries? People getting divorced so one spouse doesn't have to go broke too? "Don't get sick! and if you do get sick, die quickly!"'

Are you just trolling this thread, or do you actually believe what you're saying?

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #764 on: December 28, 2016, 06:39:53 PM »

What is the alternative for people with preexisting conditions that there "always has been"?

There were several, actually.  Most states had "high risk" insurance pools, subsidized by the state but with 'shall issue' rules for insurance policies, my mother used one for a few years between employer sponsored plans, which almost always expire limitations upon pre-existing conditions.  The catastrophic plans I mentioned before could be used to solve for this, in several ways; but most typically by solving a "gap", for the first several years of the policy, the pre-existing condition would not be covered, but eventually that condition ages out.  There are/were health care cost sharing groups such as Samaritan, MediShare & LibertyShare; all of which still have limitations on pre-existing conditions that expire after several years of membership, allowing the "premiums" to be significantly cheaper.  Their legal ability to "discriminate" against high risk lifestyles also helps lower the costs significantly.  The main reason that such limitations ever existed was to permit the policies to be offered cheaper, by limiting the risks involved in exactly what the ACA requires by law; the asymmetric information problem that occurs when a person decides to roll the dice for a few years, and ends up with such a "pre-existing condition".  It's not that the insurance companies can't calculate for any condition going forward, it's that they can't protect the risk pool from sudden cost shocks from new members who know they need more care sooner than later than they would admit.  Since true insurance is a contract to limit personal risks, allowing a pre-existing condition limitation to time out after 3 or 5 years is a legitimate solution that is no longer permitted by the ACA.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #765 on: December 28, 2016, 06:41:23 PM »
Quote
How about the fact that repeal will mean insurers can start denying people with preexisting conditions again? That's good, too?
Yes, so long as there is an alternative.  There always has been, so I have no reason to assume that will be different now.

What alternative would that be? Going bankrupt to pay medical bills? Deciding whether to pay for medication or groceries? People getting divorced so one spouse doesn't have to go broke too? "Don't get sick! and if you do get sick, die quickly!"'

Are you just trolling this thread, or do you actually believe what you're saying?

I'm not trolling.  I already mentioned this was going to be off topic.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #766 on: December 28, 2016, 06:44:37 PM »

I had a pre-existing condition when I aged off my mom's plan at age 24. I could find NO coverage for any amount of money on private market.  I therefore used COBRA but I would have been screwed once that was over. My fiancť picked a grad school based on spousal coverage, which not all had and we got married early for insurance.  What alternatives do you think I had?  Please, do tell?

That actually sounds like a pretty smooth solution, and one that I've never heard of before.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 784
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #767 on: December 28, 2016, 07:04:38 PM »
Quote
How about the fact that repeal will mean insurers can start denying people with preexisting conditions again? That's good, too?
Yes, so long as there is an alternative.  There always has been, so I have no reason to assume that will be different now.

What alternative would that be? Going bankrupt to pay medical bills? Deciding whether to pay for medication or groceries? People getting divorced so one spouse doesn't have to go broke too? "Don't get sick! and if you do get sick, die quickly!"'

Are you just trolling this thread, or do you actually believe what you're saying?

I'm not trolling.  I already mentioned this was going to be off topic.

If the cost is prohibitively expensive, it is not an alternative. I'll stand by my "medications or groceries" statement, because that's what happened.

I'm not sure what else I can call it but trolling when an argument based on a false or inaccurate statements continues after being presented with fact.

There are no REAL alternatives to the ACA that would overwhelmingly benefit our country besides a single payer system. There has been no alternative presented that would benefit everyone despite six years of trolling from the right despite all the rhetoric.

Beyond that, I'm genuinely interested in your take on Obama's abuses of executive power after articles presented. What say you?

radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #768 on: December 28, 2016, 07:17:33 PM »
Here is a more up-to-date graph.
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/number-of-executive-orders-per-president/

I did not verify the data in the graph. Please post any differing stats with sources so we can discuss.

It is just data. Nothing to see here. It only shows Quidnon is LYING. In fact, no one has ever lied in blog postings more than Quidnon. Hey, saying things where the data clearly shows I am full of it is kind of fun.I think you all ought to try it.

Quidnon...I would love to get your take on that relating to your statement about Obama abusing presidential power.

I always find it interesting that we have this here "internet" thing with vast amounts of data, but so many are unable to use a simple Google search to see if the talking points they are parroting have validity. I mean, a majority have the ability to look this shit up on their cell phones regardless of their physical location. But I suppose that it's just "The Media" lying again pushing their socialist agenda. Why trust a source if it doesn't back up your world view?

As for Democrats- I'm not registered, but I vote that way because...what's the alternative? They do not satisfy my need for revenge. I am tired of the high ground. I want them to punch out some teeth. Maybe the only way for the right to start using facts and science and shit are for the Left to push out an agenda of disinformation? It would only make sense in this Bizarro World.

But they wont. They'll continue to individually craft messages, bumble around, winning battles but losing the war.

My guess is there will be no response from quidnon. I do not think it was anything he read or saw. I truly believe he was LYING when he said:

"Obama has exercised more "extra-constitutional" power, mostly via "executive orders", than all of his predecessors combined."

He read it nowhere. He just made it up. I believe there to be NO reputable source that said this. Please prove me wrong.  Let me guess: This off topic, right quidnon?






sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7022
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #769 on: December 28, 2016, 07:18:13 PM »
There are no REAL alternatives to the ACA that would overwhelmingly benefit our country besides a single payer system. There has been no alternative presented that would benefit everyone despite six years of trolling from the right despite all the rhetoric.

I think your mistake is in your original assumption, which is that Republicans want Americans to have decent and affordable health insurance.  I think the past few years have proved me out on this one. 

They don't care if people have insurance, or get medical care, as long as the profit margins continue to climb for the industries that fund their political campaigns.  This isn't about making things better for American citizens, it's about making things better for American corporations at the expense of American citizens.

So I expect them to symbolically repeal the ACA, then eventually get around to instituting some sort of plan that provides worse coverage and worse care at a higher price, because that's what keeps profit margins the highest.  Maybe they'll call it "vouchers" and use taxpayer dollars to subsidize private insurance.  Maybe they'll end up keeping the individual mandate, since that is profitable for insurers.  Maybe they'll remove the restrictions that allow insurers to offer worthless insurance that doesn't cover anything.  They certainly won't let medicare negotiate drug prices, that would totally cut into profit margins.  I'm pretty sure they'll find a way to allow insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions again, because those people are profit sinks. 

The GOP is the party of corporate interests.  They will only do what they think benefits corporations.  They don't care about Americans, just American businesses.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #770 on: December 28, 2016, 07:51:22 PM »
Quote
How about the fact that repeal will mean insurers can start denying people with preexisting conditions again? That's good, too?
Yes, so long as there is an alternative.  There always has been, so I have no reason to assume that will be different now.

What alternative would that be? Going bankrupt to pay medical bills? Deciding whether to pay for medication or groceries? People getting divorced so one spouse doesn't have to go broke too? "Don't get sick! and if you do get sick, die quickly!"'

Are you just trolling this thread, or do you actually believe what you're saying?

I'm not trolling.  I already mentioned this was going to be off topic.

If the cost is prohibitively expensive, it is not an alternative. I'll stand by my "medications or groceries" statement, because that's what happened.

Maybe to you.
Quote

I'm not sure what else I can call it but trolling when an argument based on a false or inaccurate statements continues after being presented with fact.


I actually haven't made an argument, only stated my opinions so far.  What inaccurate statements do you refer to? 

Quote

There are no REAL alternatives to the ACA that would overwhelmingly benefit our country besides a single payer system. There has been no alternative presented that would benefit everyone despite six years of trolling from the right despite all the rhetoric.


I never attempted to benefit everyone.  I consider that to be likely impossible.  People's situations are too varied for a fixed set of rules to work out well for everyone.

Quote

Beyond that, I'm genuinely interested in your take on Obama's abuses of executive power after articles presented. What say you?

I didn't read any articles that may have been linked here, but generally speaking I don't consider Obama's abuses to be worthy of my time.  All presidents abuse the office; in different ways and to arguably different degrees, but they all have done it.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #771 on: December 28, 2016, 08:07:14 PM »

My guess is there will be no response from quidnon. I do not think it was anything he read or saw. I truly believe he was LYING when he said:

"Obama has exercised more "extra-constitutional" power, mostly via "executive orders", than all of his predecessors combined."

He read it nowhere. He just made it up. I believe there to be NO reputable source that said this. Please prove me wrong.  Let me guess: This off topic, right quidnon?

You are trying to goad me into a defensive reply, but I'm not that emotional.  I didn't claim that Obama wrote more executive orders, but that he has done more more actions outside the limitations of the constitutional parameters of the office than his predecessors.  And I don't consider ANY sources to be trustworthy, so I will cite whatever I please.  I pulled that part about "combined" from memory, but let's see if google can help me out here...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428882/obama-violate-constitution-top-ten-2015

Just one year.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2016/01/10/this-inventory-of-obamas-dozens-of-executive-actions-frames-his-final-state-of-the-union-address/#4016a30041bc

http://www.infowars.com/study-obama-has-issued-more-restrictive-executive-orders-than-past-six-administrations/

I probably can't support my claim that he has done it more than ALL of his predecessors, because that would require an examination of every president's actions and some kind of common ground on what should be considered unconstitutional, which we probably don't agree upon.  But nor do I care much to have that debate, because it's my definition of unconstitutional that I'm using.  This research took 5 minutes or less, so I imagine I could do better if I gave a damn, but I don't.  I don't expect to change anyone's mind anyway.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 784
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #772 on: December 28, 2016, 08:07:25 PM »
There are no REAL alternatives to the ACA that would overwhelmingly benefit our country besides a single payer system. There has been no alternative presented that would benefit everyone despite six years of trolling from the right despite all the rhetoric.

I think your mistake is in your original assumption, which is that Republicans want Americans to have decent and affordable health insurance.  I think the past few years have proved me out on this one. 

They don't care if people have insurance, or get medical care, as long as the profit margins continue to climb for the industries that fund their political campaigns.  This isn't about making things better for American citizens, it's about making things better for American corporations at the expense of American citizens.

So I expect them to symbolically repeal the ACA, then eventually get around to instituting some sort of plan that provides worse coverage and worse care at a higher price, because that's what keeps profit margins the highest.  Maybe they'll call it "vouchers" and use taxpayer dollars to subsidize private insurance.  Maybe they'll end up keeping the individual mandate, since that is profitable for insurers.  Maybe they'll remove the restrictions that allow insurers to offer worthless insurance that doesn't cover anything.  They certainly won't let medicare negotiate drug prices, that would totally cut into profit margins.  I'm pretty sure they'll find a way to allow insurers to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions again, because those people are profit sinks. 

The GOP is the party of corporate interests.  They will only do what they think benefits corporations.  They don't care about Americans, just American businesses.

And I agree.

How many here want some revenge? I want the Left to be able to fight their way out of a paper bag. I want them to throw dirt in faces. I want blood. I'm tired of how the team with the better idea and vision always loses because they can't implement a message. I remember this from 2010 that explains the incompetent Democrat message pretty well:

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/417/this-party-sucks?act=2

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #773 on: December 28, 2016, 08:08:27 PM »
There are no REAL alternatives to the ACA that would overwhelmingly benefit our country besides a single payer system. There has been no alternative presented that would benefit everyone despite six years of trolling from the right despite all the rhetoric.

I think your mistake is in your original assumption, which is that Republicans want Americans to have decent and affordable health insurance.  I think the past few years have proved me out on this one. 

Your bias is showing.  I stopped reading right here.

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #774 on: December 28, 2016, 08:13:52 PM »
There are no REAL alternatives to the ACA that would overwhelmingly benefit our country besides a single payer system. There has been no alternative presented that would benefit everyone despite six years of trolling from the right despite all the rhetoric.

I think your mistake is in your original assumption, which is that Republicans want Americans to have decent and affordable health insurance.  I think the past few years have proved me out on this one. 

Your bias is showing.  I stopped reading right here.

Indeed. This has become a pattern. It was clear he was about to disagree with your conclusions, and thus you stopped reading lest the cognitive dissonance echo too loudly. Don't worry, you're not alone in that approach.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 784
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #775 on: December 28, 2016, 08:25:19 PM »
There are no REAL alternatives to the ACA that would overwhelmingly benefit our country besides a single payer system. There has been no alternative presented that would benefit everyone despite six years of trolling from the right despite all the rhetoric.

I think your mistake is in your original assumption, which is that Republicans want Americans to have decent and affordable health insurance.  I think the past few years have proved me out on this one. 
Your bias is showing.  I stopped reading right here.

I'm doing it wrong. I need to follow the Republican playbook and not use facts or discourse. I need to dumb it down into small soundbites. How about instead I just say to you:

"You lie!"

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 784
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #776 on: December 28, 2016, 08:28:25 PM »

My guess is there will be no response from quidnon. I do not think it was anything he read or saw. I truly believe he was LYING when he said:

"Obama has exercised more "extra-constitutional" power, mostly via "executive orders", than all of his predecessors combined."

He read it nowhere. He just made it up. I believe there to be NO reputable source that said this. Please prove me wrong.  Let me guess: This off topic, right quidnon?

No I just can't...not sure if I should laugh or cry. Articles from opinion pages and Alex Jones website? Christ almighty!

You are trying to goad me into a defensive reply, but I'm not that emotional.  I didn't claim that Obama wrote more executive orders, but that he has done more more actions outside the limitations of the constitutional parameters of the office than his predecessors.  And I don't consider ANY sources to be trustworthy, so I will cite whatever I please.  I pulled that part about "combined" from memory, but let's see if google can help me out here...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428882/obama-violate-constitution-top-ten-2015

Just one year.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2016/01/10/this-inventory-of-obamas-dozens-of-executive-actions-frames-his-final-state-of-the-union-address/#4016a30041bc

http://www.infowars.com/study-obama-has-issued-more-restrictive-executive-orders-than-past-six-administrations/

I probably can't support my claim that he has done it more than ALL of his predecessors, because that would require an examination of every president's actions and some kind of common ground on what should be considered unconstitutional, which we probably don't agree upon.  But nor do I care much to have that debate, because it's my definition of unconstitutional that I'm using.  This research took 5 minutes or less, so I imagine I could do better if I gave a damn, but I don't.  I don't expect to change anyone's mind anyway.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 11601
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #777 on: December 28, 2016, 08:48:30 PM »

Quite frankly the KKK and co have always been a part of America. They just got a fancy new name ("alt-right"), got more media-savvy, got some people who know how to carry a conversation normally (rather than the stereotypical raving lunatic), and got a white man in office who won't denounce them. I personally don't forsee them rising up and amassing this huge stronghold.

The alt-right and the KKK are not remotely the same thing.

The term 'alt-right' itself was first coined by white supremacist Richard Spencer (https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alternative-right).  According to Breitbart's own guide to the alt-right, the group contains both neo-nazis and members of the KKK (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/29/an-establishment-conservatives-guide-to-the-alt-right/).

There is demonstrable and undeniable overlap between the KKK and the alt-right.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7022
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #778 on: December 28, 2016, 09:55:59 PM »
Your bias is showing.  I stopped reading right here.

Fortunately, I wasn't talking to you!  Get bent!

But while we're here I should mention that I find it hilarious that your refusal to read or engage in conversation has somehow become my fault, in your eyes.  You're not exactly helping your cause, if you want people to take you seriously.

Back on topic, if you think Republicans genuinely do want to improve health care, you've already been asked several times to explain what you think that should look like.  I don't think you're winning hearts and minds by making accusations against me without offering anything of substance in return.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #779 on: December 28, 2016, 10:42:06 PM »
Your bias is showing.  I stopped reading right here.

Fortunately, I wasn't talking to you!  Get bent!

But while we're here I should mention that I find it hilarious that your refusal to read or engage in conversation has somehow become my fault, in your eyes. You're not exactly helping your cause, if you want people to take you seriously.

Hmmm, honestly I don't know that is why I'm still here. I came to this thread out of curiosity, but it's my own experience in life that the same people that are most likely to engage in any kind of topic are also the least likely to have their opinions reversed.  Moving such a conversation to the internet certainly hasn't tempered that much.  Perhaps I should be reevaluating my own participation in this portion of the forum.

Quote
Back on topic, if you think Republicans genuinely do want to improve health care, you've already been asked several times to explain what you think that should look like.
I don't think that, but nor do I think there exists any maliciousness in what they do.  I am kind of mixed on calling myself a republican; part of me wants to reject it, part of me doesn't.  Either way, I'm not actually registered as a republican, and I don't vote by party lines.  I have tried to touch generally on what I'd like to see to improve health care (which I consider the most important issue, not the payment methods), but I don't want to get deep into the weeds as I consider it off-topic.  Again, if it means so much to you, start that thread.  It doesn't mean that much to myself, because I can manage with or without the ACA.

Quote
  I don't think you're winning hearts and minds by making accusations against me without offering anything of substance in return.

Yeah, I don't see that happening either, so...

Bye.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8065
  • Registered member
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #780 on: December 28, 2016, 10:55:40 PM »
My favorite part was when he refused to read any links, claimed no sources are reputable, then posted some links.  But other parts were good too.  8/10

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 784
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #781 on: December 29, 2016, 12:17:08 AM »
Quote
Back on topic, if you think Republicans genuinely do want to improve health care, you've already been asked several times to explain what you think that should look like.
I have tried to touch generally on what I'd like to see to improve health care (which I consider the most important issue, not the payment methods), but I don't want to get deep into the weeds as I consider it off-topic.  Again, if it means so much to you, start that thread.  It doesn't mean that much to myself, because I can manage with or without the ACA.

Payment methods matter, and decreasing costs matter. Go figure, actually having access to healthcare improves the health of those without access. Having a healthy citizenry is good for the economy. This crappy old ACA law was on a roll to save trillions. You cannot improve healthcare in the United States without managing the payment methods. They are inseparable.

What does that mean anyway, "Improve health care?" It's one of those talking point platitudes that the Right throws around when they want people to think they care without doing anything. It's not a simple answer because almost everything they are against tie together here. Give poor people enough subsidy to buy healthy food, or a living wage so they can buy it themselves? Give people time off from work/stress relief? Give families time off to be with a newborn child? Make housing healthy and affordable? Give fact-based sex education for our youth (since abstinence only education has been proven to not work)? Make medication affordable? Design cities to be livable/not car based? Decrease chemicals in food/environment? I could go on.

I just wish I could fit all that crap into a soundbite...oh yeah: "We're going to have the best system. With only the best things with the best people. It's going to be the best."

radram

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 730
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #782 on: December 29, 2016, 12:39:10 AM »



I probably can't support my claim that he has done it more than ALL of his predecessors [ don't forget the word COMBINED here!], because that would require an examination of every president's actions and some kind of common ground on what should be considered unconstitutional, which we probably don't agree upon I DIDN'T DO THE WORK AND MADE IT UP .

Fixed that for you.

That was my point all along.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428882/obama-violate-constitution-top-ten-2015


http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2016/01/10/this-inventory-of-obamas-dozens-of-executive-actions-frames-his-final-state-of-the-union-address/#4016a30041bc

http://www.infowars.com/study-obama-has-issued-more-restrictive-executive-orders-than-past-six-administrations/


Interesting things to read here, but none really supporting your claim regarding extra-constitutional actions of Obama and the frequency compared to other presidents.

I read the infowars article to conclude that Obama uses the words "shall" and "must" a lot, and that he is very wordy. He did this more than the past 6 presidents (except for the one he did not). It is really more than 5 of the last 6 minus the first Clinton term.

The Forbes article was both interesting and confusing to me. It seemed to be a combination of describing past orders in addition to guessing what future orders might be. Since it was written last January, it would be interesting to see a followup as to how many of the presumed orders actually happened. There was also an interesting comment on presidential memorandum and how Obama issued twice as many as Bush.

I find it strange that you would reference the national review article, since it is talking about the constitutionality of Obama's actions, and you have your own definition of unconstitutional. I agree that we would most likely disagree on some of those claims. Maybe the supreme court will someday speak to one of them. To my knowledge, none of these points in the article have been ruled unconstitutional yet.


Thank you for responding. Have a happy new year.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4581
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #783 on: December 29, 2016, 06:02:23 AM »

What is the alternative for people with preexisting conditions that there "always has been"?

There were several, actually.  Most states had "high risk" insurance pools, subsidized by the state but with 'shall issue' rules for insurance policies, my mother used one for a few years between employer sponsored plans, which almost always expire limitations upon pre-existing conditions.  The catastrophic plans I mentioned before could be used to solve for this, in several ways; but most typically by solving a "gap", for the first several years of the policy, the pre-existing condition would not be covered, but eventually that condition ages out.  There are/were health care cost sharing groups such as Samaritan, MediShare & LibertyShare; all of which still have limitations on pre-existing conditions that expire after several years of membership, allowing the "premiums" to be significantly cheaper.  Their legal ability to "discriminate" against high risk lifestyles also helps lower the costs significantly.  The main reason that such limitations ever existed was to permit the policies to be offered cheaper, by limiting the risks involved in exactly what the ACA requires by law; the asymmetric information problem that occurs when a person decides to roll the dice for a few years, and ends up with such a "pre-existing condition".  It's not that the insurance companies can't calculate for any condition going forward, it's that they can't protect the risk pool from sudden cost shocks from new members who know they need more care sooner than later than they would admit.  Since true insurance is a contract to limit personal risks, allowing a pre-existing condition limitation to time out after 3 or 5 years is a legitimate solution that is no longer permitted by the ACA.
So, your ignorance is showing.  As someone with a pre-existing condition there was no coverage for me within my condition if I lost my insurance coverage for even a day.  And those plans which did not cover it, counted as loss of coverage.  So, your solution is not to cover people with medical issue.  That is not a solution.  And this counted even if I got employer health care which is suppose cover everything. 
And yes, those health "share" plan still exist, just like they did prior to the ACA.  And they exist because they are not insurance and don't cover a lot.  That is why they are cheaper.  Go read some more before you decide you know how things should be.

Unique User

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 435
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #784 on: December 29, 2016, 06:13:23 AM »

What is the alternative for people with preexisting conditions that there "always has been"?

There were several, actually.  Most states had "high risk" insurance pools, subsidized by the state but with 'shall issue' rules for insurance policies, my mother used one for a few years between employer sponsored plans, which almost always expire limitations upon pre-existing conditions.  The catastrophic plans I mentioned before could be used to solve for this, in several ways; but most typically by solving a "gap", for the first several years of the policy, the pre-existing condition would not be covered, but eventually that condition ages out.  There are/were health care cost sharing groups such as Samaritan, MediShare & LibertyShare; all of which still have limitations on pre-existing conditions that expire after several years of membership, allowing the "premiums" to be significantly cheaper.  Their legal ability to "discriminate" against high risk lifestyles also helps lower the costs significantly.  The main reason that such limitations ever existed was to permit the policies to be offered cheaper, by limiting the risks involved in exactly what the ACA requires by law; the asymmetric information problem that occurs when a person decides to roll the dice for a few years, and ends up with such a "pre-existing condition".  It's not that the insurance companies can't calculate for any condition going forward, it's that they can't protect the risk pool from sudden cost shocks from new members who know they need more care sooner than later than they would admit.  Since true insurance is a contract to limit personal risks, allowing a pre-existing condition limitation to time out after 3 or 5 years is a legitimate solution that is no longer permitted by the ACA.
So, your ignorance is showing.  As someone with a pre-existing condition there was no coverage for me within my condition if I lost my insurance coverage for even a day.  And those plans which did not cover it, counted as loss of coverage.  So, your solution is not to cover people with medical issue.  That is not a solution.  And this counted even if I got employer health care which is suppose cover everything. 
And yes, those health "share" plan still exist, just like they did prior to the ACA.  And they exist because they are not insurance and don't cover a lot.  That is why they are cheaper.  Go read some more before you decide you know how things should be.

Agree Gin1984.  My husband had a pre-existing condition and could not get insurance, no matter the price.  He just kept getting denied, we would have agreed on a policy that excluded his condition, but still no go.  And the high risk pools denied us because we lived in a ski area in Colorado, thus must be high risk. 

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1735
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #785 on: December 29, 2016, 08:34:39 AM »
My favorite part was when he refused to read any links, claimed no sources are reputable, then posted some links.  But other parts were good too.  8/10

Not to mention, judging the legality of presidential actions on what Quidnon? considers as his own private definition of unconstitutional.

This thread has been boggling my mind. Quidnon? has got to be a troll.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3205
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #786 on: December 29, 2016, 09:00:57 AM »
My favorite part was when he refused to read any links, claimed no sources are reputable, then posted some links.  But other parts were good too.  8/10

Not to mention, judging the legality of presidential actions on what Quidnon? considers as his own private definition of unconstitutional.

This thread has been boggling my mind. Quidnon? has got to be a troll.


There's always at least one in "Off Topic." More than once, I've wondered if some of them are just new manifestations of previously banned people.

lbmustache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #787 on: December 29, 2016, 12:24:46 PM »
I thought it was agreed we are getting more divided.  So there are some getting more liberal and some getting more conservative.  I'm not sure if an "average" is meaningful.

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.

I provided anecdotal remarks as just that. I do have some poll data, I was in a rush and didn't have time to link them all. Here you go:

Same-sex marriage: http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/191645/americans-support-gay-marriage-remains-high.aspx?g_source=same%20sex%20marriage&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

Marijuana: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/12/support-for-marijuana-legalization-continues-to-rise/ 
http://www.gallup.com/poll/196550/support-legal-marijuana.aspx?g_source=marijuana&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

Minimum wage: http://www.gallup.com/video/175157/trend-line-support-minimum-wage-increase.aspx?
g_source=minimum%20wage&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles

^ Minimum wage info is a bit more difficult to find. It seems that the Fight for $15 has taken over a lot of previous talk - but it looks like a majority of Americans support raising it ~$2 (to $9).

lbmustache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 928
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #788 on: December 29, 2016, 12:35:02 PM »
Anyway. Thank you to the person to responded to the "The KKK and alt-right are not similar." comment. Basically said what I was going to say.

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.

accolay

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 784
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #789 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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Tennessee
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #790 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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 784
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #791 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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 784
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #792 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.

Cranberries

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 126
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #793 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

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1735
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #794 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: 5306
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #795 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 »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5306
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #796 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.


Unique User

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 435
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #797 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: 4581
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #798 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: 1510
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #799 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.