What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Berkut]

People are faced with a choice:
- a candidate who is not racist but does not care about their jobs and
- a candidate who uses racist rhetoric but seems to care about their jobs.

Only an idiot would think Trump really cares about his job.  Trump cares about Trump.  End of story.

That isn't the point though.

I get this - I don't agree with it of course, but I get it.

There are a lot of people who think they had a choice between someone who certainly doesn't care about them (because Clinton is part and parcel of an establishment that has shown how little it cares about them consistently) and someone who claims to care about them and keeps telling them what they want to hear about how this is all the fault of the "other" and he can fix it.

Yeah, it is transparently obvious he cannot fix it, and probably doesn't even care to fix it if he could. But why not roll the dice on the guy who at least *claims* to care rather than the one who has shown she doesn't care as part of an establishment that clearly doesn't care?

This isn't really defendable from a "let's have a moderated debate about this and see who wins" standpoint. But it is very *understandable* from an emotional and economic standpoint.

[garbon]

People are faced with a choice:
- a candidate who is not racist but does not care about their jobs and
- a candidate who uses racist rhetoric but seems to care about their jobs.

Only an idiot would think Trump really cares about his job.  Trump cares about Trump.  End of story.

That isn't the point though.

I get this - I don't agree with it of course, but I get it.

There are a lot of people who think they had a choice between someone who certainly doesn't care about them (because Clinton is part and parcel of an establishment that has shown how little it cares about them consistently) and someone who claims to care about them and keeps telling them what they want to hear about how this is all the fault of the "other" and he can fix it.

Yeah, it is transparently obvious he cannot fix it, and probably doesn't even care to fix it if he could. But why not roll the dice on the guy who at least *claims* to care rather than the one who has shown she doesn't care as part of an establishment that clearly doesn't care?

This isn't really defendable from a "let's have a moderated debate about this and see who wins" standpoint. But it is very *understandable* from an emotional and economic standpoint.

Doesn't seem understandable from an economic standpoint unless you are claiming 'economic' as some sort of closely correlated item with emotional.

I'm not sure I even understand it as an emotional thought either given that we all know he lies every second that he can. Though I suppose there may be some who don't have emotional reactions to lies. Just think, he's saying what I want to hear.

I know for certain though that I'd rather not have politicians seek to emulate this. I don't think any of us is helped if lying about everything becomes the best way to get elected.

Anyway, it is certainly an over-simplistic view of the options. I'm not sure the 'uncaring' political establishment is chock full of Hillary Clintons. Why she should get the blame for the establishment while Trump was a wealthy businessman who benefited from the establishment and used his power to economically crush all the 'little people' gets a pass?

[Berkut]

Yeah, I can't defend it in any rational argument. Just trying to understand the motives more beyond the easy "They are all racist pigs, so they voted for the guy who acts like a racist pig".

I know lots of people who voted for Trump.

I guess in a nutshell, the rational argument for Trump is pretty simple:

There is a serious and significant problem in how America is being run that requires radical change to fix.
Doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result is foolish.
Voting for Clinton is doing exactly that - the same old same old set of political choices that have proven only one thing for certain - nothing will change.
Voting for Trump, despite all the negatives, is a vote for actual change. It might be terrible change, since he is such a loose cannon, but at least it will be change. Indeed, his instability might even argue in his favor, in that it may increase the odds that he actually forces change.

It is deciding to roll the dice on the "Who Knows What Crazy Shit Might Happen" table, rather than rolling on the "Here are a bunch of outcomes, none of which will really hurt you, but none of which will actually stop the slow bleeding either" table.

[Berkut]

Doesn't seem understandable from an economic standpoint unless you are claiming 'economic' as some sort of closely correlated item with emotional.

Simple really.

1. My economic position sucks.
2. If I choose Hillary, it won't get any better, and her and her mega rich friends will get even more mega rich.
3 If I choose Trump and he really does smash everything up, then either:
              A. Things get better as promised!, or
              B. The economy gets worse, and all those rich assholes won't be quite as rich, but my economic position still sucks, just like it does now.
4. Therefore, I should choose Trump. I will enjoy the potential rewards, while things are bad enough that I don't seem exposed to the potential risks.

[Martinus]

People are faced with a choice:
- a candidate who is not racist but does not care about their jobs and
- a candidate who uses racist rhetoric but seems to care about their jobs.

Only an idiot would think Trump really cares about his job.  Trump cares about Trump.  End of story.

That's why I intentionally used the word "seems".

[Martinus]

Doesn't seem understandable from an economic standpoint unless you are claiming 'economic' as some sort of closely correlated item with emotional.

Simple really.

1. My economic position sucks.
2. If I choose Hillary, it won't get any better, and her and her mega rich friends will get even more mega rich.
3 If I choose Trump and he really does smash everything up, then either:
              A. Things get better as promised!, or
              B. The economy gets worse, and all those rich assholes won't be quite as rich, but my economic position still sucks, just like it does now.
4. Therefore, I should choose Trump. I will enjoy the potential rewards, while things are bad enough that I don't seem exposed to the potential risks.

It's, in a nutshell, why populists are so popular - and privileged people, like garbon, so often fail to grasp this.

Populists identify a real problem - usually one that the establishment either doesn't care about or doesn't even acknowledge - and offer a simple solution. The solution is usually bogus but to an average unprivileged person, it is still better than the alternative.

[Martinus]

By the way, I would be interested in what you think about Sam Harris's explanation of Trump's victory that I posted in the elections (stickied) thread.

[Berkut]

Doesn't seem understandable from an economic standpoint unless you are claiming 'economic' as some sort of closely correlated item with emotional.

Simple really.

1. My economic position sucks.
2. If I choose Hillary, it won't get any better, and her and her mega rich friends will get even more mega rich.
3 If I choose Trump and he really does smash everything up, then either:
              A. Things get better as promised!, or
              B. The economy gets worse, and all those rich assholes won't be quite as rich, but my economic position still sucks, just like it does now.
4. Therefore, I should choose Trump. I will enjoy the potential rewards, while things are bad enough that I don't seem exposed to the potential risks.

It's, in a nutshell, why populists are so popular - and privileged people, like garbon, so often fail to grasp this.

Populists identify a real problem - usually one that the establishment either doesn't care about or doesn't even acknowledge - and offer a simple solution. The solution is usually bogus but to an average unprivileged person, it is still better than the alternative.

Indeed, it isn't terribly hard to understand a non-racist, non-bigoted reason for an average, unprivileged person to support Trump.

For privileged people to support him, obviously those reasons are known to be false. So you are pretty much just left with the bigotry and intolerance.

[garbon]

Doesn't seem understandable from an economic standpoint unless you are claiming 'economic' as some sort of closely correlated item with emotional.

Simple really.

1. My economic position sucks.
2. If I choose Hillary, it won't get any better, and her and her mega rich friends will get even more mega rich.
3 If I choose Trump and he really does smash everything up, then either:
              A. Things get better as promised!, or
              B. The economy gets worse, and all those rich assholes won't be quite as rich, but my economic position still sucks, just like it does now.
4. Therefore, I should choose Trump. I will enjoy the potential rewards, while things are bad enough that I don't seem exposed to the potential risks.

That's not an emotional argument though. You basically just used formal logic to define it.

Also, I think there is a fundamental flaw in perception there. Most of the voters still have something to lose while path B suggests that they don't.

[Berkut]

Doesn't seem understandable from an economic standpoint unless you are claiming 'economic' as some sort of closely correlated item with emotional.

Simple really.

1. My economic position sucks.
2. If I choose Hillary, it won't get any better, and her and her mega rich friends will get even more mega rich.
3 If I choose Trump and he really does smash everything up, then either:
              A. Things get better as promised!, or
              B. The economy gets worse, and all those rich assholes won't be quite as rich, but my economic position still sucks, just like it does now.
4. Therefore, I should choose Trump. I will enjoy the potential rewards, while things are bad enough that I don't seem exposed to the potential risks.

That's not an emotional argument though. You basically just used formal logic to define it.

You asked for the non-emotional, economic argument though. I already covered the emotional argument.

Also, I think there is a fundamental flaw in perception there. Most of the voters still have something to lose while path B suggests that they don't.

Well, there is a reason I voted for Hillary...and it wasn't the sharp pantsuits.

[garbon]

That's not an emotional argument though. You basically just used formal logic to define it.

You asked for the non-emotional, economic argument though. I already covered the emotional argument.

Ah sorry, I misread what that was supposed to be.

[Hamilcar]

Garbon, Yi, all: I apologize for being an ass. I got too carried away by the SJWs finally getting some backlash. I was wrong. I'm still not convinced that Trump is the Next Hitler(tm), but he's not reassuring me at all right now. Bannon's appointment is a Bad Sign.

[Martinus]

Donald Trump says he's 'fine' with the legalisation of same-sex marriage

The President-elect was quizzed on his views in an interview with CBS this weekend.

President-elect Donald Trump has said that he accepts same-sex marriage as law, suggesting that he won't attempt to repeal federal marriage equality laws, ABC reports.

The businessman's election victory last week cast doubt over the future of a number of LGBT rights and freedoms, including same-sex marriage; over the course of his campaign he had said he would appoint Supreme Court judges who would be committed to overturning the nation-wide ruling on same-sex marriage.

However, the hate-mongering Republican has seemingly dialled back on his oppositon, describing marriage equality as a "settled" issue in an an interview with CBS, which aired on Sunday (November 13).

"It's law," Trump argued during the segment. "It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it's done."

He continued: "These cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They've been settled. And I'm – I'm fine with that."

While his views on same-sex marriage have been cautiously welcomed by some campaigners, there has been no indication that Trump will U-turn on what is arguably a much greater threat to LGBT people – 'First Amendment Defence Act,' which seeks to legalise discrimination against minorities to 'protect' people's religious freedoms. And as well as his own questionable views on LGBT issue, Trump's presidential transition team is already said to contain several anti-LGBT figures.

While it seems the former Celebrity Apprentice star is ready to accept the Supreme Court's 2015 decision on equal marriage, however, the incoming leader of the free world remains set against its historic Roe v Wade ruling from 1973, which upheld the right to abortion.

Asked if he wanted to appoint a supreme court justice who wanted to overturn the ruling, Trump replied: "So look, here's what's going to happen. I'm going to – I'm pro-life. The judges will be pro-life."

He added: "Having to do with abortion – if it ever were overturned, it would go back to the states. So it would go back to the states."

http://attitude.co.uk/donald-trump-says-hes-fine-with-the-legalisation-of-same-sex-marriage/

[Razgovory]

He said that same-sex marriage is settle but will try to overturn Roe v Wade.

[The Minsky Moment]

There's free trade, then there's the so called "free trade" treaties that are light on free trade and written by the corporate lobbyists.

That's one of those received narratives that doesn't stand up to the facts.  TPP for example, would have enforced ILO labor standards, and that cost the pact some support in Congress.  Those provisions weren't being drafted by corporate lobbyists.  TPP also set the patent protection period for biologics to as little as 5 years as opposed to 12 years under US law, that caused much of the pharma lobby to turn against it and again cost support on the Hill.  That change resulted from pressure brought by Medicins sans Fronteires, again contradicting the narrative that the deal was a product of a secret cabal of corporate lobbyists.