What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

Webb voted for Trump.  Or at least said he didn't vote Hillary and wouldn't say either way whether he voted Trump.  That's not presidential material in my book.

[The Larch]

Apparently the European parliament wants to reject Trump's candidate for ambassador towards the EU.

[Barrister]

Apparently the European parliament wants to reject Trump's candidate for ambassador towards the EU.

He's the dude that wanted to help bring down the EU like he helped bring down the Soviet Union.

Yeah, they might have a pont there...

[HVC]

yay.

[Eddie Teach]

Stop being an anti-Semite. 

[Grinning_Colossus]

Good thing that nothing I wrote in the past--especially in obscure, albeit publicly-accessible, media--will ever be held against me.

[HVC]

Good thing that nothing I wrote in the past--especially in obscure, albeit publicly-accessible, media--will ever be held against me.

True, he was probably just an impetuous youth back then. He's no doubt figured out you to do unconstitutional immediately by now

[The Larch]

Apparently the European parliament wants to reject Trump's candidate for ambassador towards the EU.

He's the dude that wanted to help bring down the EU like he helped bring down the Soviet Union.

Yeah, they might have a pont there...

Yup, that one. He also said that the Euro would collapse in 18 months or so.

I read somewhere that he was sugested to Trump by Farage. 

[grumbler]

If you can hypothesize Jim Webb winning the Democratic primary, why wouldn't his opponent be someone like Kasich or even Colin Powell? Sure, he would have destroyed Trump in a one to one contest, but that's not how it works in this country.

Sure.  Feel free to hypothesize anything you want.

[grumbler]

This kind of counter-factuals about alternate candidates ignore the reality of the primary process though.  In primaries, candidates have to appeal to the party's base.  That's why in the GOP all the candidates were trying to position themselves as "true Conservatives", and why in the Democratic Party HIllary's big challenger came at her from her left.

A moderate candidate like Jim Webb, or Lindsay Graham or Jonathan Huntsman, would never be able to get the nomination.

This kind of argument by assertion ignores the reality that discussion is for the purpose of  exchanging ideas and information, not for shutting it off because you don't like the outcome.

[OttoVonBismarck]

You suspect that if people just sat down and really really cared, they would come up with complex solution that would take care of white working class America's problems? But you have no idea what that complex solution would look like? That's a populist point of view right there.  If the elites only cared enough, then everything would be hunky dory.

It's a complex problem because *any* kind of solution would impose massive costs and burdens on the rest of Americans.

I think somewhere between 1988-2016 the strategies that got the democrats firm victories in the blue wall states started to fail, but those voters kept voting democrat either for similar reasons as solid republican states or because the republicans didn't really reach out to them. ohio being an exception for reasons I don't know why. this is the year of brexit and trump, and it's because of the working class not being compensated for industries leaving. the democrats could offer to compensate them somehow with a massive plan -- expensive, yeah, the democrats need to be willing to drop other expensive plans.

I don't think the democrats really sat down before this election to think about how to help the working class in a substantive way that forces them to sacrifice in other areas, because they didn't need to sit down before this election -- their previous strategies worked. if the republicans manage to steal those voters from them on a long term basis, then the democrats are fucked for a generation.

The Democrats strength politically for generations was the ~12-13% of the vote that is black and 90% Democrat and their ability to appeal to the white working class, exemplified by union households or "formerly union" households (more of those than union households after the generational gutting of labor unions.) For some reason some time around the midpoint of Bill's Presidency the Democrats started a shift to being the party of "identity politics." Democrats care more about whether a Latino woman is suffering "microaggressions" and which bathroom a tranny can use than they did whether a lower income white man can get a good paying job. They basically prioritized identity politics, which by their nature only deeply appeal to a coalition of people who have various "minority identifications" over broad based economic philosophy that likely appeal to many minorities (who are more likely to be lower class economically) and whites. Even worse, not only have Democrats not emphasized these matters, most Democrats have consistently chosen policies that are easily marketed as being more pro-corporate and pro-wealthy than pro-worker.

[Zanza]

Apparently the European parliament wants to reject Trump's candidate for ambassador towards the EU.

Good.

Canada on the other hand: "Former foreign affairs minister Stéphane Dion has accepted a diplomatic posting as Canada's ambassador to Germany and the European Union, vowing to fight for European unity." Having the same ambassador in the official and inofficial capital of the EU is rather efficient. 

[The Larch]

Apparently the European parliament wants to reject Trump's candidate for ambassador towards the EU.

Good.

Canada on the other hand: "Former foreign affairs minister Stéphane Dion has accepted a diplomatic posting as Canada's ambassador to Germany and the European Union, vowing to fight for European unity." Having the same ambassador in the official and inofficial capital of the EU is rather efficient. 

It is almost, dare I say...Germanic in its efficiency.

In other news, the EU and Mexico have just announced that their free trade talks will be accelerated towards a new free trade agreement (an update on the current agreement, that was made in 2000).

[LaCroix]

The Democrats strength politically for generations was the ~12-13% of the vote that is black and 90% Democrat and their ability to appeal to the white working class, exemplified by union households or "formerly union" households (more of those than union households after the generational gutting of labor unions.) For some reason some time around the midpoint of Bill's Presidency the Democrats started a shift to being the party of "identity politics." Democrats care more about whether a Latino woman is suffering "microaggressions" and which bathroom a tranny can use than they did whether a lower income white man can get a good paying job. They basically prioritized identity politics, which by their nature only deeply appeal to a coalition of people who have various "minority identifications" over broad based economic philosophy that likely appeal to many minorities (who are more likely to be lower class economically) and whites. Even worse, not only have Democrats not emphasized these matters, most Democrats have consistently chosen policies that are easily marketed as being more pro-corporate and pro-wealthy than pro-worker.

I'm still not convinced that the gender politics stuff is a major, maybe even dominant, reason for this shift. I think I'm starting to agree it's a material reason, though. your last sentence is more what I think is the case. at least nationally, it kinda seems the republicans and democrats are reversing their stances on this issue

[Barrister]

Apparently the European parliament wants to reject Trump's candidate for ambassador towards the EU.

Good.

Canada on the other hand: "Former foreign affairs minister Stéphane Dion has accepted a diplomatic posting as Canada's ambassador to Germany and the European Union, vowing to fight for European unity." Having the same ambassador in the official and inofficial capital of the EU is rather efficient. 

Yeah I did wonder about the optics of that one...