Assume he wins the November election, paint the general election however you want and come January, suggest what he does in his first 100 days?
Bangs his wife on the Oval Office desk.
Quote from: mongers on May 04, 2016, 06:23:06 PM
Assume he wins the November election, paint the general election however you want
:unsure:
Attempts to build a giant wall by executive order, nominates Nancy Grace to the Supreme Court, sells Poland to Russia.
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 04, 2016, 06:39:48 PM
sells Poland to Russia.
Gets a bag of turnips and a wadded up 20 dollar bill for it.
Kicks off a whole bunch of government spending that funnels public money to entities that kick money back to him on a scale unprecedented for the US. It likely won't come out for a while though.
Quote from: Jacob on May 04, 2016, 06:59:15 PM
Kicks off a whole bunch of government spending that funnels public money to entities that kick money back to him on a scale unprecedented for the US. It likely won't come out for a while though.
Has Putin over for a state dinner to discuss how best to do it first.
Trump bangs Putin on the Oval Office desk.
I think he'll blunder into a war with Iran or North Korea. He's a bully, and bullies find out to late who they can push around and who punches back.
Dead Persians or dead Norks?
I just got HARD
I think he is too publicly invested in his Mexican wall thing to do nothing about it. He will have to follow through on his most visible policy pledge, or he'll appear weak. He'll also have to somehow make Mexico pay. They certainly won't give the US a cheque, but he can sort of make them pay by levying some kind of tariff or duty or whatever on goods and people travelling between the two places.
I think he'll prove a lot of people wrong.
Quote from: derspiess on May 04, 2016, 09:06:31 PM
I think he'll prove a lot of people wrong.
I agree, his supporters would be disappointed :P
Quote from: HVC on May 04, 2016, 09:14:40 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 04, 2016, 09:06:31 PM
I think he'll prove a lot of people wrong.
I agree, his supporters would be disappointed :P
I gave you a nice set and you just bump it over the net. Gotta spike that one!
Day 1: Trump becomes president.
Day 44: We run out of emergency supplies.
Day 59: The NRA becomes the fourth wing of government.
Day 60: Martinus is executed
Day 75: The eastern seaboard becomes its own nation under the leadership of Donald Trump. The rest of the country is cut free.
Day 80: The rest of the US unites behind the LDS prophet Thomas S. Monson and we created a theocratic republic governed out of Salt Lake City.
Day 81: Trumpland sinks into the ocean.
Day 100: Everyone becomes Mormon. The second coming of Jesus is triggered.
So you're trying to prevent the second coming by voting for Hill? :hmm:
Jaron, do you drink a lot of Red Bull at work?
We all do.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 04, 2016, 11:46:12 PM
So you're trying to prevent the second coming by voting for Hill? :hmm:
Your logic assumes the second coming doesn't happen either way. I, like all true believers, want it to happen but not early next year. I still have things I want to do on this Earth before I ascend.
Makes sense, Trump is quite Christ-like. Owes it all to His dad, has publicly gathered disciples, will die...
I think apart from a few highly visible pet projects like The Wall, a president Trump would be rather ineffective due to checks & balances. Being an outsider will make it hard for him to navigate Washington and get anything meaningful done fast.
Quote from: Zanza on May 05, 2016, 03:06:54 AM
I think apart from a few highly visible pet projects like The Wall, a president Trump would be rather ineffective due to checks & balances. Being an outsider will make it hard for him to navigate Washington and get anything meaningful done fast.
Despite his impressive length, he is a nimble navigator. :P
I predict Trump's Wall will never be as impressive as the one created by Roger Waters.
His first task would be recovering from the stock market crash that would result from him winning the election.
Sell everything you can. Get out of the us market before its too late.
Quote from: Jaron on May 04, 2016, 11:44:10 PM
Day 1: Trump becomes president.
Day 44: We run out of emergency supplies.
Day 59: The NRA becomes the fourth wing of government.
Day 60: Martinus is executed
Day 75: The eastern seaboard becomes its own nation under the leadership of Donald Trump. The rest of the country is cut free.
Day 80: The rest of the US unites behind the LDS prophet Thomas S. Monson and we created a theocratic republic governed out of Salt Lake City.
Day 81: Trumpland sinks into the ocean.
Day 100: Everyone becomes Mormon. The second coming of Jesus is triggered.
I agree with all of this.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 04, 2016, 11:46:12 PM
So you're trying to prevent the second coming by voting for Hill? :hmm:
Yes. I've read about this second coming and don't look forward to it. What rough beast slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 05, 2016, 03:13:17 AM
Quote from: Zanza on May 05, 2016, 03:06:54 AM
I think apart from a few highly visible pet projects like The Wall, a president Trump would be rather ineffective due to checks & balances. Being an outsider will make it hard for him to navigate Washington and get anything meaningful done fast.
Despite his impressive length, he is a nimble navigator. :P
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 04, 2016, 06:41:55 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 04, 2016, 06:39:48 PM
sells Poland to Russia.
Gets a bag of turnips and a wadded up 20 dollar bill for it.
I don't think he'll be able to get the Russians to overpay that much for it.
He will establish the position of Secretary of Dank Memes.
Quote from: Hamilcar on May 05, 2016, 07:44:04 AM
He will establish the position of Secretary of Dank Memes.
:yes:
When Heidi Cruz went on the record to deny that Ted was really the Zodiac Killer, it finally dawned on me that 4chan had escaped out into meatspace.
(https://i.sli.mg/vr4vtK.jpg)
Quote from: Legbiter on May 05, 2016, 07:56:36 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on May 05, 2016, 07:44:04 AM
He will establish the position of Secretary of Dank Memes.
:yes:
When Heidi Cruz went on the record to deny that Ted was really the Zodiac Killer, it finally dawned on me that 4chan had escaped out into meatspace.
Someone on Twitter described Trump v Clinton as 4chan v tumblr. :lol:
Glorious weaponized autism vs. wow, just wow, i can't even socjus snowflakes. ^_^
If that's the case we're going to see a Trump landslide. ;)
Quite a few of the SJWs are clearly autistic. "Yes means yes" is exactly the kind of non-human robot algorithmic prescriptions an autistic person who can't read social cues would demand. The SJW *leaders* of course are mostly dark triad.
Maybe it's just because I am interested in this topic more recently, but it seems to me that the backlash is rising against the whole culture of SJW, whether it is college safe spaces and trigger warnings, or rabid activism of gamer gate and the like. From Bill Maher making fun of them to Bloomberg recently delivering an inaugural speech at some university where he called safe space to be the most dangerous place on a college campus, it seems the public sentiment is shifting.
Quote from: Hamilcar on May 05, 2016, 08:11:53 AM
Quite a few of the SJWs are clearly autistic. "Yes means yes" is exactly the kind of non-human robot algorithmic prescriptions an autistic person who can't read social cues would demand. The SJW *leaders* of course are mostly dark triad.
2016 will be The Year of the Shitlord to restore balance to the Force.
Milo claiming dank memes won Trump the nomination:
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/05/04/meme-magic-donald-trump-internets-revenge-lazy-entitled-elites/
:P
Legbiter and Marty are going to be so butthurt in November. It'll be amusing to see them demonstrated to be losers. I will relish that day, like a tasty peach.
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2016, 08:26:03 AM
Milo claiming dank memes won Trump the nomination:
He's a bit of an intellectual lightweight, but his trolling skills are championship level. "Privilege Grant" :lol:
Serious: he called the switch of white gay men (i.e Mart) from oppressed minority to privileged oppressors (read: successful, wealthy & happy).
Quote from: Razgovory on May 05, 2016, 08:27:34 AM
Legbiter and Marty are going to be so butthurt in November. It'll be amusing to see them demonstrated to be losers. I will relish that day, like a tasty peach.
It's about the journey rather than the destination Raz. The Journey of Lulz. :ccr
Quote from: Hamilcar on May 05, 2016, 08:30:36 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2016, 08:26:03 AM
Milo claiming dank memes won Trump the nomination:
He's a bit of an intellectual lightweight, but his trolling skills are championship level. "Privilege Grant" :lol:
Serious: he called the switch of white gay men (i.e Mart) from oppressed minority to privileged oppressors (read: successful, wealthy & happy).
He does need someone more intellectual to bounce off for best effect, yes. All his appearances with Christina Hoff Sommers are gold for example.
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2016, 08:35:06 AM
He does need someone more intellectual to bounce off for best effect, yes. All his appearances with Christina Hoff Sommers are gold for example.
Maybe he should..... go study at university? :lol:
And make a documentary about it. ;)
I'd watch.
Incidentally, I am not sure if you know him, but Dave Rubin's "Rubin Report" podcast is a great source for me for learning about various interesting people. He is a liberal in a Maher vein who left the Young Turks over the Bill Maher/Ben Affleck row and every week he invites one person - from all political sides - for an interview. It's through his podcast that I learned of Arifur Rahman, Faisal Saeed Al Mutar, Sam Harris, Christina Hoff Sommers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Maajid Nawaz and many other interesting people (admittedly some of them I have also seen on Real Time but Rubin does one-on-one one hour interview with them). He also had Stephen Fry, Larry King, Milo (I was waiting for them to start fucking they seemed to be so much into each other despite political differences :P) etc. Very much recommended.
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2016, 08:51:43 AM
Incidentally, I am not sure if you know him, but Dave Rubin's "Rubin Report" podcast ...
He's very interesting but ultimately not sufficiently tough as an interviewer for my taste. Good to see him doing his show though, esp. with the backing of someone like Larry King.
Quote from: Hamilcar on May 05, 2016, 08:58:09 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 05, 2016, 08:51:43 AM
Incidentally, I am not sure if you know him, but Dave Rubin's "Rubin Report" podcast ...
He's very interesting but ultimately not sufficiently tough as an interviewer for my taste. Good to see him doing his show though, esp. with the backing of someone like Larry King.
Yup, the complaint about his softness is a relative constant - but I think he is more interesting as someone showcasing those people, if not necessarily challenging them. Sorta like Reader's Digest of alt right.
Quote from: Hamilcar on May 05, 2016, 08:11:53 AM
The SJW *leaders* of course are mostly dark triad.
Is there a translator for this?
Sounds like single Jewish women are either joining some covert Asian crime syndicate, or alternatively are spending their evenings managing the US nuclear deterrent.
Governor Chris Christie, who still apparently has no time for New Jersey, has been announced as head of Trump's White House transition team.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/trump-chris-christie-transition-222962
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 09, 2016, 11:52:19 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on May 05, 2016, 08:11:53 AM
The SJW *leaders* of course are mostly dark triad.
Is there a translator for this?
Sounds like single Jewish women are either joining some covert Asian crime syndicate, or alternatively are spending their evenings managing the US nuclear deterrent.
Dark triad of personality traits: Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy . See this site for examples: http://languish.org/forums/index.php/board,1.0.html (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/board,1.0.html)
What a crew. Trump, Pailin, Christie, Carson, Fiorina.... they need to get Bachmann and then Hannity for press secretary. :lmfao:
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 09, 2016, 03:32:08 PM
Dark triad of personality traits: Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy . See this site for examples: http://languish.org/forums/index.php/board,1.0.html (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/board,1.0.html)
And who are exactly are these "leaders" that exhibit this extraordinary cascade of pathologies?
No clue. Ask Hami.
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2016, 03:33:19 PM
What a crew. Trump, Pailin, Christie, Carson, Fiorina.... they need to get Bachmann and then Hannity for press secretary. :lmfao:
Fiorina supported Cruz.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on May 10, 2016, 12:28:18 AM
Quote from: 11B4V on May 09, 2016, 03:33:19 PM
What a crew. Trump, Pailin, Christie, Carson, Fiorina.... they need to get Bachmann and then Hannity for press secretary. :lmfao:
Fiorina supported Cruz.
She's easy though.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 09, 2016, 04:00:52 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 09, 2016, 03:32:08 PM
Dark triad of personality traits: Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy . See this site for examples: http://languish.org/forums/index.php/board,1.0.html (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/board,1.0.html)
And who are exactly are these "leaders" that exhibit this extraordinary cascade of pathologies?
The SJW ones, obviously.
Quote from: Jacob on May 10, 2016, 03:28:03 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 09, 2016, 04:00:52 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 09, 2016, 03:32:08 PM
Dark triad of personality traits: Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy . See this site for examples: http://languish.org/forums/index.php/board,1.0.html (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/board,1.0.html)
And who are exactly are these "leaders" that exhibit this extraordinary cascade of pathologies?
The SJW ones, obviously.
Well BB is obviously the Machiavellian :P
Quote from: Valmy on May 10, 2016, 03:29:21 PM
Quote from: Jacob on May 10, 2016, 03:28:03 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 09, 2016, 04:00:52 PM
Quote from: Grinning_Colossus on May 09, 2016, 03:32:08 PM
Dark triad of personality traits: Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy . See this site for examples: http://languish.org/forums/index.php/board,1.0.html (http://languish.org/forums/index.php/board,1.0.html)
And who are exactly are these "leaders" that exhibit this extraordinary cascade of pathologies?
The SJW ones, obviously.
Well BB is obviously the Machiavellian :P
:showoff:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 09, 2016, 04:00:52 PM
And who are exactly are these "leaders" that exhibit this extraordinary cascade of pathologies?
You'd have to ask the intellectual heavyweights who think "SJW" is an insult.
I wonder what Sanders' first 100 days would look like? :hmm:
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 10, 2016, 03:49:48 PM
I wonder what Sanders' first 100 days would look like? :hmm:
Well it'll be January-March, so they'll probably look cold.
Quote from: Barrister on May 10, 2016, 03:52:31 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 10, 2016, 03:49:48 PM
I wonder what Sanders' first 100 days would look like? :hmm:
Well it'll be January-March, so they'll probably look cold.
:bowler:
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 10, 2016, 03:49:48 PM
I wonder what Sanders' first 100 days would look like? :hmm:
Many bills that fail in committee, much heated rhetoric, some symbolic executive orders.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2016, 03:56:29 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 10, 2016, 03:49:48 PM
I wonder what Sanders' first 100 days would look like? :hmm:
Many bills that fail in committee, much heated rhetoric, some symbolic executive orders.
So not unlike what President Trump will achieve.
Quote from: mongers on May 10, 2016, 04:26:59 PM
So not unlike what President Trump will achieve.
Very different. Bernie would rail against Teh Wall Street while Donald would rail against foreigners and maybe launch a few nukes.
I actually think Trump has a reasonable chance of not being as terrible as we all think.
My horror with him is really not about him, since I actually think his actual policies would have little resemblance to the things he says, but rather about the fact that he says those things, and Americans - a lot of Americans - love him for it.
I think if he were President he would likely be largely incompetent, but not actually malevolent. He would not get much done, and what he did get done would have little in common with the idiotic rhetoric he has been spewing for the last 9 months.
His schtick would wear thin quickly when confronted with the quotidian reality of office.
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2016, 04:34:15 PM
I actually think Trump has a reasonable chance of not being as terrible as we all think.
My horror with him is really not about him, since I actually think his actual policies would have little resemblance to the things he says, but rather about the fact that he says those things, and Americans - a lot of Americans - love him for it.
I think if he were President he would likely be largely incompetent, but not actually malevolent. He would not get much done, and what he did get done would have little in common with the idiotic rhetoric he has been spewing for the last 9 months.
I think that you're probably right, but if his opponent is Hilary I'm not willing to take that chance. Against Bernie, I probably would be, but that's likely a moot point.
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2016, 04:34:15 PM
I actually think Trump has a reasonable chance of not being as terrible as we all think.
My horror with him is really not about him, since I actually think his actual policies would have little resemblance to the things he says, but rather about the fact that he says those things, and Americans - a lot of Americans - love him for it.
I think if he were President he would likely be largely incompetent, but not actually malevolent. He would not get much done, and what he did get done would have little in common with the idiotic rhetoric he has been spewing for the last 9 months.
It would be worth it for the late nite and premium channel shows. MSNBC would be in constant fit mode.
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2016, 04:34:15 PM
I actually think Trump has a reasonable chance of not being as terrible as we all think.
My horror with him is really not about him, since I actually think his actual policies would have little resemblance to the things he says, but rather about the fact that he says those things, and Americans - a lot of Americans - love him for it.
I think if he were President he would likely be largely incompetent, but not actually malevolent. He would not get much done, and what he did get done would have little in common with the idiotic rhetoric he has been spewing for the last 9 months.
My theory is that a lot of people are so unhappy, they feel so hopeless, and they are so desperate, that they are willing to vote for any idea or person that is new and has not been tried before. Tell them that Trump is a bad person and his ideas are unworkable, and they'll respond with "the politicians and their ideas have not worked for us in the past few decades either, so why not give him a chance?"
Unfortunately the only way to thoroughly discredit a political idea is to implement it. Millions and millions of people wanted to try communism and wouldn't listen to arguments that it doesn't work. Until it has been tried and shown not to work. The US hasn't tried to elect someone who is completely new to politics and isn't a war hero as president before. Unless the have-nots feel they have some hope for the future, it is only a matter of time before they successfully elect an anti-establishment candidate. If not Donald Trump in 2016, it will be another populist in the future elections.
I wonder how rationally addressing the (at least in some instances legitimate) grievances of those who feel disenfranchised enough to vote for Trump would look like, so as to reduce the likelihood of another Trump coming along? Because Trump (and Bernie) is a bullshit answer to some serious issues, issues which clearly are leading large swaths of people to feel they no longer have much of a stake in status quo America. And I don't think dismissing Trump's supporters simply as moronic rubes is terribly useful in this process either.
Quote from: Camerus on May 10, 2016, 10:45:29 PM
I wonder how rationally addressing the (at least in some instances legitimate) grievances of those who feel disenfranchised enough to vote for Trump would look like, so as to reduce the likelihood of another Trump coming along? Because Trump (and Bernie) is a bullshit answer to some serious issues, issues which clearly are leading large swaths of people to feel they no longer have much of a stake in status quo America. And I don't think dismissing Trump's supporters simply as moronic rubes is terribly useful in this process either.
I think the options are limited to educating, pandering, and giving free money.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 10, 2016, 10:51:46 PM
Quote from: Camerus on May 10, 2016, 10:45:29 PM
I wonder how rationally addressing the (at least in some instances legitimate) grievances of those who feel disenfranchised enough to vote for Trump would look like, so as to reduce the likelihood of another Trump coming along? Because Trump (and Bernie) is a bullshit answer to some serious issues, issues which clearly are leading large swaths of people to feel they no longer have much of a stake in status quo America. And I don't think dismissing Trump's supporters simply as moronic rubes is terribly useful in this process either.
I think the options are limited to educating, pandering, and giving free money.
How would that be different from now?
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2016, 04:34:15 PM
I actually think Trump has a reasonable chance of not being as terrible as we all think.
My horror with him is really not about him, since I actually think his actual policies would have little resemblance to the things he says, but rather about the fact that he says those things, and Americans - a lot of Americans - love him for it.
I think if he were President he would likely be largely incompetent, but not actually malevolent. He would not get much done, and what he did get done would have little in common with the idiotic rhetoric he has been spewing for the last 9 months.
The problem is that the person in the office of the Presidency needs to show a great deal of restraint, or people will die. Take for instance our embassies. People protest our embassies all the time. In some places they throw rocks at our embassies, and have occasion climbed over the walls or otherwise assault the gates. Last year some idiot threw bombs at our embassy (nobody was killed). A few years ago an Embassy was over run in Yemen and lit on fire. The US can legally defend these embassies with lethal force, but chooses not to do so. Doing so could make the entire situation much worse. I could easily see Trump giving the order to use lethal force.
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2016, 04:34:15 PM
I actually think Trump has a reasonable chance of not being as terrible as we all think.
My horror with him is really not about him, since I actually think his actual policies would have little resemblance to the things he says, but rather about the fact that he says those things, and Americans - a lot of Americans - love him for it.
I think if he were President he would likely be largely incompetent, but not actually malevolent. He would not get much done, and what he did get done would have little in common with the idiotic rhetoric he has been spewing for the last 9 months.
I don't know. His previous ventures seem him regularly burn things to the ground because of his ego. I don't think he could be satisfied with incompetent irrelevance. That is why he is dangerous.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 09, 2016, 11:52:19 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on May 05, 2016, 08:11:53 AM
The SJW *leaders* of course are mostly dark triad.
Is there a translator for this?
Sounds like single Jewish women are either joining some covert Asian crime syndicate, or alternatively are spending their evenings managing the US nuclear deterrent.
Jewish women *do* play a lot of mah jongg, so joining an Asian crime syndicate isn't an impossibility ... :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2016, 09:01:03 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 09, 2016, 11:52:19 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on May 05, 2016, 08:11:53 AM
The SJW *leaders* of course are mostly dark triad.
Is there a translator for this?
Sounds like single Jewish women are either joining some covert Asian crime syndicate, or alternatively are spending their evenings managing the US nuclear deterrent.
Jewish women *do* play a lot of mah jongg, so joining an Asian crime syndicate isn't an impossibility ... :hmm:
"SJW" to me means Steven Jackson Wargames.
OGRE!
Quote from: dps on May 11, 2016, 04:38:37 PM
Quote from: Malthus on May 11, 2016, 09:01:03 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on May 09, 2016, 11:52:19 AM
Quote from: Hamilcar on May 05, 2016, 08:11:53 AM
The SJW *leaders* of course are mostly dark triad.
Is there a translator for this?
Sounds like single Jewish women are either joining some covert Asian crime syndicate, or alternatively are spending their evenings managing the US nuclear deterrent.
Jewish women *do* play a lot of mah jongg, so joining an Asian crime syndicate isn't an impossibility ... :hmm:
"SJW" to me means Steven Jackson Wargames.
I thought it was just Steve Jackson Games. :nerd:
(https://www.247famous.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/donal-trump-meme-let-the-memes-begin-e1443378288596.jpeg)
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2016, 04:34:15 PM
I actually think Trump has a reasonable chance of not being as terrible as we all think.
My horror with him is really not about him, since I actually think his actual policies would have little resemblance to the things he says, but rather about the fact that he says those things, and Americans - a lot of Americans - love him for it.
I think if he were President he would likely be largely incompetent, but not actually malevolent. He would not get much done, and what he did get done would have little in common with the idiotic rhetoric he has been spewing for the last 9 months.
Yeah he could be ineffectual or he could even be sort of decent in a surprising way. Other options include self-serving corruption that'd make Berlusconi blush, and, of course flailing about tearing down institutions and causing economic havoc Chavez style when he fails to deliver anything resembling his promises.
So though his chances of winning currently seem on the decline, hoq has your thinking evolved on just how good or bad his presidency will be?
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2016, 04:34:15 PM
I actually think Trump has a reasonable chance of not being as terrible as we all think.
Yeah, that's everybody's first fucking mistake.
Maybe Trump will just delegate everything to other people and get his narcissistic highs giving TV interviews and doing rallies everywhere.
Of course, then it depends on who he delegates all his shit to. :hmm:
Quote from: mongers on August 01, 2016, 04:31:58 PM
So though his chances of winning currently seem on the decline
Why would you say that? They are definitely higher than back in May when you started this thread.
I feel like Trump would be an extraordinarily ineffective President, but the way our government is structured he's really incapable of doing much destruction, and I don't think he's crazy enough to fire off nukes or anything like that. But there's just no way in hell Congress would ever work with the guy.
Quote from: Caliga on August 02, 2016, 10:20:56 AM
I feel like Trump would be an extraordinarily ineffective President, but the way our government is structured he's really incapable of doing much destruction, and I don't think he's crazy enough to fire off nukes or anything like that. But there's just no way in hell Congress would ever work with the guy.
Actually, the way our executive is structured presumes that someone like Trump could never get into office.
He has shown that he is radically worse than I feared at the start of what looked like a PR stunt. He has thin skin, a hyper inflated ego, and an incredible lack of self awareness or basic common sense.
In fact, I think you could not construct a human being who could be *more* dangerous as President. This is someone who can order US forces to engage in lethal actions on his word alone in a variety of ways. He might not fire of a nuke, but he could certainly order a air/missile strike on some target basically because he is pissed off or annoyed.
And the damage simply electing him would do to our international credibility would be immense.
The kinds of risks that a Trump presidency involve would include:
+ breaking/abrogating treaties
+ panicking markets with antics like exploring debt writedowns
+ causing allies to finlandize to russia/china due to perceived unreliability of US security guarantees
+ ignoring unfavorable WTO panel rulings/imposing illegal tariffs which if done often enough could undermine the multi-lateral trade system
+ do lots of unconstitutional things and then engage in brutal rhetorical attacks on the Supreme Court - further politicizing the Court and generating mini-constitutional crises
+ further to the above, appointing nutbars to the Court and/or trying to pack it ("FDR did it")
That's not end of the world bad stuff but it's pretty bad.
Quote from: Caliga on August 02, 2016, 10:20:56 AM
I feel like Trump would be an extraordinarily ineffective President, but the way our government is structured he's really incapable of doing much destruction, and I don't think he's crazy enough to fire off nukes or anything like that. But there's just no way in hell Congress would ever work with the guy.
I think this is a dangerous level of complacency. Our president has quite a lot of say in foreign affairs, and having an idiot at the helm is very dangerous. And it's not like having the government paralyzed and preoccupied with containing the idiot at the top is not destructive on its own.
I have a horrible feeling we may find out exactly what kind of damage a Trump Presidency may do.
The current parade of Trump gaffes and insane or idiotic statements - while the race remains more or less neck and neck - makes me wonder what it would take to get his current supporters to not vote for him. :(
It seems like he could pull down his pants and take a shit on the US Constitution in a public press conference, while giving a Nazi salute, and it would not make the slightest difference. He's already said he'd enact policies that would be substantially similar to those symbolic acts. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2016, 11:01:34 AM
I have a horrible feeling we may find out exactly what kind of damage a Trump Presidency may do.
The current parade of Trump gaffes and insane or idiotic statements - while the race remains more or less neck and neck - makes me wonder what it would take to get his current supporters to not vote for him. :(
I think there is only one way. When they find out that even if Trump is elected president, their lives won't improve. That's when they'll stop voting for him.
Quote from: Monoriu on August 02, 2016, 11:08:14 AM
I think there is only one way. When they find out that even if Trump is elected president, their lives won't improve. That's when they'll stop voting for him.
Yes, because American voters are really good at figuring out cause and effect.
Quote from: Monoriu on August 02, 2016, 11:08:14 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2016, 11:01:34 AM
I have a horrible feeling we may find out exactly what kind of damage a Trump Presidency may do.
The current parade of Trump gaffes and insane or idiotic statements - while the race remains more or less neck and neck - makes me wonder what it would take to get his current supporters to not vote for him. :(
I think there is only one way. When they find out that even if Trump is elected president, their lives won't improve. That's when they'll stop voting for him.
He can only run twice. I have a sinking feeling that most of the people voting for Trump just want to stick to Muslims and Hispanics. Quite a few wouldn't be that bothered if gave blacks a hard time, and some would be fine with seeing the Jews harmed. That's really all they want.
I somewhat doubt the worst of the Trump predictions would come true.
To me, the saddest thing about a Trump win is that he is so obviously a buffoon, I won't be able to take the US government seriously anymore and I don't think I'll be "proud to be an american" overseas.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2016, 10:41:58 AM
The kinds of risks that a Trump presidency involve would include:
+ breaking/abrogating treaties
+ panicking markets with antics like exploring debt writedowns
+ causing allies to finlandize to russia/china due to perceived unreliability of US security guarantees
+ ignoring unfavorable WTO panel rulings/imposing illegal tariffs which if done often enough could undermine the multi-lateral trade system
+ do lots of unconstitutional things and then engage in brutal rhetorical attacks on the Supreme Court - further politicizing the Court and generating mini-constitutional crises
+ further to the above, appointing nutbars to the Court and/or trying to pack it ("FDR did it")
That's not end of the world bad stuff but it's pretty bad.
The stuff you listed would basically give up 75 years of American foreign policy.
Quote from: Zanza on August 02, 2016, 12:12:51 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2016, 10:41:58 AM
The kinds of risks that a Trump presidency involve would include:
+ breaking/abrogating treaties
+ panicking markets with antics like exploring debt writedowns
+ causing allies to finlandize to russia/china due to perceived unreliability of US security guarantees
+ ignoring unfavorable WTO panel rulings/imposing illegal tariffs which if done often enough could undermine the multi-lateral trade system
+ do lots of unconstitutional things and then engage in brutal rhetorical attacks on the Supreme Court - further politicizing the Court and generating mini-constitutional crises
+ further to the above, appointing nutbars to the Court and/or trying to pack it ("FDR did it")
That's not end of the world bad stuff but it's pretty bad.
The stuff you listed would basically give up 75 years of American foreign policy.
The people who would vote for trump (or not hillary) think that would be a good thing.
Quote from: sbr on August 02, 2016, 12:18:17 PM
Quote from: Zanza on August 02, 2016, 12:12:51 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2016, 10:41:58 AM
The kinds of risks that a Trump presidency involve would include:
+ breaking/abrogating treaties
+ panicking markets with antics like exploring debt writedowns
+ causing allies to finlandize to russia/china due to perceived unreliability of US security guarantees
+ ignoring unfavorable WTO panel rulings/imposing illegal tariffs which if done often enough could undermine the multi-lateral trade system
+ do lots of unconstitutional things and then engage in brutal rhetorical attacks on the Supreme Court - further politicizing the Court and generating mini-constitutional crises
+ further to the above, appointing nutbars to the Court and/or trying to pack it ("FDR did it")
That's not end of the world bad stuff but it's pretty bad.
The stuff you listed would basically give up 75 years of American foreign policy.
The people who would vote for trump (or not hillary) think that would be a good thing.
I know. Funny how they probably consider themselves "conservatives" when their candidate promises this radical change in policy. It basically upends the postwar world order that relies on America's hegemony, committment and reliability.
If the primaries taught us anything, they taught that conservatism is not a commonly held political philosophy among the American electorate.
Quote from: Zanza on August 02, 2016, 12:12:51 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2016, 10:41:58 AM
The kinds of risks that a Trump presidency involve would include:
+ breaking/abrogating treaties
+ panicking markets with antics like exploring debt writedowns
+ causing allies to finlandize to russia/china due to perceived unreliability of US security guarantees
+ ignoring unfavorable WTO panel rulings/imposing illegal tariffs which if done often enough could undermine the multi-lateral trade system
+ do lots of unconstitutional things and then engage in brutal rhetorical attacks on the Supreme Court - further politicizing the Court and generating mini-constitutional crises
+ further to the above, appointing nutbars to the Court and/or trying to pack it ("FDR did it")
That's not end of the world bad stuff but it's pretty bad.
The stuff you listed would basically give up 75 years of American foreign policy.
Yep. I'm not as relaxed about the US' checks and balances but even if they were effective at neutralising Trump I don't think the liberal, Western, rules based post-war world would survive. The US may be able to survive a want to be strongman, but I'm not sure the Western system could survive that from its leader.
And I think people can be a bit over-relaxed about these things. History is full of enduring systems collapsing because in themselves they don't matter if there's not the will to maintain them. Given Trump's comments today about a stolen, rigged election I'd already worry about the ability of the US system to endure. After all, Presidential systems generally end in an authoritarian regime or a coup. Though I imagine the lame duck Congress and Obama would rapidly dismantle the 'imperial Presidency' and I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they found a compromise SCOTUS candidate if that's allowed.
I've no idea what his first 100 days would be like. I think it's impossible to even guess because he's so far from any norms.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 02, 2016, 01:08:01 PM
I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they found a compromise SCOTUS candidate if that's allowed.
I would be entirely surprised. Obama nominated a very good compromise SCOTUS candidate the Republicans refuse to consider, and one of the few arguments that rational Republicans are buying is the "we can't let Hillary nominate 1 or 2 people to the bench". If the Republicans were scared of Trump's nominees they'd take Obama's offer.
Similarly I think Obama's a decent man with a sense of responsibility. I'm sure if the GOP Senators came to him and said, look we can't now accept Garland, please could you nominate one of x sane (non-Trumpian) conservatives he probably would.
Quote from: frunk on August 02, 2016, 01:15:50 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 02, 2016, 01:08:01 PM
I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they found a compromise SCOTUS candidate if that's allowed.
I would be entirely surprised. Obama nominated a very good compromise SCOTUS candidate the Republicans refuse to consider, and one of the few arguments that rational Republicans are buying is the "we can't let Hillary nominate 1 or 2 people to the bench". If the Republicans were scared of Trump's nominees they'd take Obama's offer.
The Republican senators aren't blocking Garland because they are excited about a potential trump pick and bullish on a trump win. They are blocking garland because they are scared of republican primary voters and supporting an Obama nominee no matter how reasonable may earn them a damnable reputation: a moderate.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 02, 2016, 01:19:35 PM
Similarly I think Obama's a decent man with a sense of responsibility. I'm sure if the GOP Senators came to him and said, look we can't now accept Garland, please could you nominate one of x sane (non-Trumpian) conservatives he probably would.
He already nominated a moderate that was being referenced by Orrin Hatch as the kind of compromise guy that should be nominated but wouldn't be. What more do you want from him?
Quote from: alfred russel on August 02, 2016, 03:17:26 PM
The Republican senators aren't blocking Garland because they are excited about a potential trump pick and bullish on a trump win. They are blocking garland because they are scared of republican primary voters and supporting an Obama nominee no matter how reasonable may earn them a damnable reputation: a moderate.
Does that fear meaningfully change when it is the general instead of the primaries? They'll be just as vulnerable to such accusations.
Clinton should nominate Obama to the Supreme Court. :huh:
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 02, 2016, 03:25:01 PM
Clinton should nominate Obama to the Supreme Court. :huh:
First Barrack then Michelle. :contract:
No time. Obama has to make peace somewhere to earn his Prize.
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 02, 2016, 03:25:01 PM
Clinton should nominate Obama to the Supreme Court. :huh:
It's been done before.
Quote from: Jaron on May 04, 2016, 11:44:10 PM
Day 1: Trump becomes president.
Day 44: We run out of emergency supplies.
Day 59: The NRA becomes the fourth wing of government.
Day 60: Martinus is executed
Day 75: The eastern seaboard becomes its own nation under the leadership of Donald Trump. The rest of the country is cut free.
Day 80: The rest of the US unites behind the LDS prophet Thomas S. Monson and we created a theocratic republic governed out of Salt Lake City.
Day 81: Trumpland sinks into the ocean.
Day 100: Everyone becomes Mormon. The second coming of Jesus is triggered.
Day 101: Ottoman Empire rises(?)
Quote from: frunk on August 02, 2016, 03:24:00 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 02, 2016, 03:17:26 PM
The Republican senators aren't blocking Garland because they are excited about a potential trump pick and bullish on a trump win. They are blocking garland because they are scared of republican primary voters and supporting an Obama nominee no matter how reasonable may earn them a damnable reputation: a moderate.
Does that fear meaningfully change when it is the general instead of the primaries? They'll be just as vulnerable to such accusations.
No.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 02, 2016, 03:20:58 PM
He already nominated a moderate that was being referenced by Orrin Hatch as the kind of compromise guy that should be nominated but wouldn't be. What more do you want from him?
I'm talking about if Clinton loses.
Here's a question: if Trump loses, will we see any swing towards a more sane form of conservatism for the Republican party? Or is Trump setting the tone for the future, win or lose?
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2016, 04:17:51 PM
Here's a question: if Trump loses, will we see any swing towards a more sane form of conservatism for the Republican party? Or is Trump setting the tone for the future, win or lose?
Trumpism is here to stay. The really interesting question is who will take up Trump's mantle after his defeat in the election.
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2016, 04:17:51 PM
Here's a question: if Trump loses, will we see any swing towards a more sane form of conservatism for the Republican party? Or is Trump setting the tone for the future, win or lose?
Nah, not yet. So Romney despite going hard-right in the primaries and largely staying there in the general, had long been seen as a "Rockefeller Republican" or "RINO" ( a charge that would be leveled at me if I was a public figure, since I tend to be more of a 1980s, George H.W. Bush type of Republican--if I had been voting back in the Primaries in '80 I'd have been an H.W. guy, not a Reagan guy.) A large part of the far right believed Romney lost because he wasn't conservative enough. Ted Cruz was the answer to that charge, and had Ted been defeated in the general it may have forced some soul-searching among power brokers on the far right, to acknowledge their views simply cannot win the White House. Or maybe not, but at least it'd have forced them to think about it.
Instead, Trump was elected, representing a form of blue collar populism we hadn't really seen in a long time, but he definitely holds many views that are 100% anathema to mainstream conservatives, so assuming Trump loses, the Cruz-wing of the party will still be there, believing the right time for a "true conservative" is still now.
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2016, 04:17:51 PM
Here's a question: if Trump loses, will we see any swing towards a more sane form of conservatism for the Republican party? Or is Trump setting the tone for the future, win or lose?
I doubt it, there is clearly a lot of demand for this kind of insanity among the voters.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 02, 2016, 04:24:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2016, 04:17:51 PM
Here's a question: if Trump loses, will we see any swing towards a more sane form of conservatism for the Republican party? Or is Trump setting the tone for the future, win or lose?
Nah, not yet. So Romney despite going hard-right in the primaries and largely staying there in the general, had long been seen as a "Rockefeller Republican" or "RINO" ( a charge that would be leveled at me if I was a public figure, since I tend to be more of a 1980s, George H.W. Bush type of Republican--if I had been voting back in the Primaries in '80 I'd have been an H.W. guy, not a Reagan guy.) A large part of the far right believed Romney lost because he wasn't conservative enough. Ted Cruz was the answer to that charge, and had Ted been defeated in the general it may have forced some soul-searching among power brokers on the far right, to acknowledge their views simply cannot win the White House. Or maybe not, but at least it'd have forced them to think about it.
Instead, Trump was elected, representing a form of blue collar populism we hadn't really seen in a long time, but he definitely holds many views that are 100% anathema to mainstream conservatives, so assuming Trump loses, the Cruz-wing of the party will still be there, believing the right time for a "true conservative" is still now.
This makes sense I guess: there were at least
three flavors of insanity on offer in the primaries: Trump, Cruz, and Carson. If Trump crashes and burns, that doesn't discredit the other two.
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2016, 04:29:34 PM
This makes sense I guess: there were at least three flavors of insanity on offer in the primaries: Trump, Cruz, and Carson. If Trump crashes and burns, that doesn't discredit the other two.
It's a shame that Romney-ism wasn't even really being considered.
Trump is only the beginning for sure. There will come a candidate who will do the same act but will be less narcistic and more sociopath, and win the election
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2016, 04:17:51 PM
Here's a question: if Trump loses, will we see any swing towards a more sane form of conservatism for the Republican party? Or is Trump setting the tone for the future, win or lose?
My guess would be no. For a start too many people are making money out of this crazy.
I know the argument that in general when outlier candidates win they tend to shift the party in the long-term. I'm not sure if that'll be the case with Trump because he's not a party man unlike, say, McGovern and Goldwater. I don't know if there's a movement or an intellectual trend behind him - the "alt-right" are only an internet groupuscule after all.
Challenge I see for Republicans is they've built their party on that old Reaganite stool: fiscal conservatism, national security, social conservatism. Off the top of my head Trump has given very strong support to social security and Medicare, he's widely regarded as an unserious foreign policy candidate and his social conservatism leaves a lot to be desired too. It's been obvious for a while that the base of the GOP is different from the people who'll benefit from the GOP elite policy opinions (in part this is why I like Huck in 2008: they needed to be more like a party led by guys you work with and less like one led by the guys who fire you). But that gap is now huge. Trump has shown that you can entirely disregard the post-Reagan GOP ideological structure and win and the issues that won it were things like immigration where the Republicans were thinking of compromising.
If they've any sense they'll start re-thinking their policies so their economic policy is actually an offer for working class America not just 1986 extrapolated forward. They may end up being rather more isolationist than were used to and I think definitely more nativist. The challenge is to come up with some coherent policy offer for these voters and to break up the Democrat coalition of the college educated and minorities.
It may be that like the GOP in 68 and the Democrats in 76 the Republicans automatically go to the other extreme. While I don't think he's going to transform his party in the way they did - ie. in any constructive fashion - I think Trump may have lit the touchpaper beneath core parts of the GOP since Reagan. In my view, in the long-run, it may lead to a different Republican and Democratic Party.
Yeah, there's actually a lot of black and Hispanic votes if you combine welfare state + nativism. A lot of polling after Romney saw disastrous numbers with Hispanics showed that immigration isn't the first issue of concern with every Hispanic voters. In fact, the Hispanic voters that most care about immigration are Mexican-Americans, because they are the most likely to have extended family that immigration laws affect (obviously actual Mexican-American citizens are not personally at risk of deportation--and all voters are citizens.) But, Mexican-Americans are not evenly distributed among Hispanic Americans, in fact they're clustered in California and Texas, two uncompetitive states that don't really swing Presidential elections. So while Mexican-Americans make up 63% of all Hispanics, in many ways they may not be "that" important in terms of swinging elections (albeit Arizona and New Mexico are getting more competitive because of them, these are smaller states in terms of EVs.)
Additionally, among Mexican-Americans it stands to reason, it's precisely those clustered in the Southwest who are most likely to have family wanting to cross the border. Mexican Americans say, east of the Mississippi, are probably third or fourth generation. (There's also a big divide on immigration as being a priority when you look at Hispanics who only speak English versus those who are bilingual or monolingual Spanish speakers, it should be no surprise a Hispanic like Cruz holds the views he does--he doesn't even speak Spanish and is many generations removed from immigrants.)
What we instead see is that blacks and Hispanics (in swing states) actually are voting more based on economics than "cultural" issues like whether GOP people dislike blacks or whether or not the GOP supports immigration reform. Now, a lot of blacks will never vote for Republicans as long as they remain deaf to systemic racism, but that's not the entire black electorate.
In fact, probably at least half the black electorate are primarily Dems due to economic policies/social welfare. Even during the height of Jim Crow blacks were roughly split between Dem/Republican. This is something people often don't realize, they presume blacks supported Republicans by 90/10 margins like they do Democrats today, and this "flipped" like a switch after LBJ passed civil rights legislation. The reality is, historically blacks really have liked Democratic welfare/economic policy, and voted for Dems in pretty large numbers even though it was also the party of segregation. A big part of FDR's coalition was black voters. A lot of blacks voted for JFK and LBJ (even before he had enacted his most meaningful civil rights reforms), because blacks had been voting for Democrats for decades (especially in the North and at the Federal level.) The GOP really lost its competitiveness in the black vote because when the Civil Rights movement basically "won", the "party of Lincoln" blacks who were civil rights voters first had far less reason to stick with the GOP. It wasn't just Goldwater coming out against Civil Rights, it was that with the most important reforms passed there was much less incentive for large swathes of the black electorate to vote against what was perceived as their economic self-interest.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 02, 2016, 04:14:42 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on August 02, 2016, 03:20:58 PM
He already nominated a moderate that was being referenced by Orrin Hatch as the kind of compromise guy that should be nominated but wouldn't be. What more do you want from him?
I'm talking about if Clinton loses.
I think the best course of action would be to let Trump make the pick. Otherwise, you infuriate Trump regarding the Senate, and also his voters, which are the same people electing the presumed republican majority. Trump isolated from and angry at the Legislative Branch while at the same time undermining the core support of the legislative majority is not the way to bring Trump into the mainstream. 1 of 9 supreme court justices really isn't that important.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 02, 2016, 05:18:01 PM
I think the best course of action would be to let Trump make the pick. Otherwise, you infuriate Trump regarding the Senate, and also his voters, which are the same people electing the presumed republican majority. Trump isolated from and angry at the Legislative Branch while at the same time undermining the core support of the legislative majority is not the way to bring Trump into the mainstream. 1 of 9 supreme court justices really isn't that important.
I don't think he can be brought mainstream exactly because of the temperament you're mentioning.
As I see it the only option - if possible - is for a lame duck President and a lame duck Congress to gut the Presidency of its modern powers and do everything to construct bulwarks against Trump.
What effect Trump will have on the GOP has been a major concern of mine. If he loses, it'll probably be minimal. If he wins... The GOP could turn into a party completely bereft of ideas, simply a machine for the adulation for a narcissist.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 02, 2016, 05:32:20 PM
What effect Trump will have on the GOP has been a major concern of mine. If he loses, it'll probably be minimal.
Afraid I very, very much doubt that. The party lost which is a big deal and there'll be ramifications that are very difficult to predict.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 02, 2016, 05:32:20 PM
What effect Trump will have on the GOP has been a major concern of mine. If he loses, it'll probably be minimal. If he wins... The GOP could turn into a party completely bereft of ideas, simply a machine for the adulation for a narcissist.
I don't think there is a danger of GOP being bereft of ideas. The danger lies in the ideas that GOP will embrace actively and openly.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 02, 2016, 05:00:15 PM
(albeit Arizona and New Mexico are getting more competitive because of them, these are smaller states in terms of EVs.)
If the McCain-Trump relations continue to deteriorate, AZ could get interesting.
While I agree with your analysis, it's possible he extreme nature of Trump's immigration policy could have knock on effect even for those Latinos that for which that issue wouldn't otherwise be a litmus test. I.e. talking about the Eisenhower era "operation wetback".
Quote from: Hamilcar on August 02, 2016, 04:18:52 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2016, 04:17:51 PM
Here's a question: if Trump loses, will we see any swing towards a more sane form of conservatism for the Republican party? Or is Trump setting the tone for the future, win or lose?
Trumpism is here to stay. The really interesting question is who will take up Trump's mantle after his defeat in the election.
Paul Ryan was ideally positioned to take the high road, and the future of the GOP along with it. But no.
Now granted, he's not without his weaknesses--when the premise of your economic plan is so draconian and devoid of basic human decency that enraged nuns come after you to tell you that, as a Catholic, that's not how you were fucking raised, young man--sure, it's going to be tough to maintain relevant leadership in the grudge caged match of the party's WrestleMania, but still: young, smart, a decent reputation as Not A Total Asshole
TM and already cemented as Speaker of the House, as well as distanced enough from the 2012 ticket not to have Mittens' loser funk soaked into him like farts in an airline seat.
Yeah, losing the White House for another term or even two is a kick in the nuts....but just hunker down, accomplish what needs to be accomplished in keeping the party from splitting like a Palestinian terror group circa 1971, save the House's down ballots, try to save the Senate, and emerge from the post-Trumpocalyptic terrorscape ready to rebuild the GOP as a mainstream party. Because it sure as shit isn't going to be Cruz.
Noooo, fucking dumbass had to sell out to the Donald like everybody else. Unfuckingbelieveable.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcrasstalk.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F10%2Fpaul_lasers_full.jpg&hash=e41a83dce3a4acb79d4c80ba816dd5373e27daef)
Now that Trump has withheld his support for Ryan, Ryan can't even withdraw his own endorsement for Trump without looking petty and personally offended. Leaves him in a very undignified position.
Even more undignified than that Saved By The Bell workout photo shoot.
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2016, 04:29:34 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on August 02, 2016, 04:24:41 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2016, 04:17:51 PM
Here's a question: if Trump loses, will we see any swing towards a more sane form of conservatism for the Republican party? Or is Trump setting the tone for the future, win or lose?
Nah, not yet. So Romney despite going hard-right in the primaries and largely staying there in the general, had long been seen as a "Rockefeller Republican" or "RINO" ( a charge that would be leveled at me if I was a public figure, since I tend to be more of a 1980s, George H.W. Bush type of Republican--if I had been voting back in the Primaries in '80 I'd have been an H.W. guy, not a Reagan guy.) A large part of the far right believed Romney lost because he wasn't conservative enough. Ted Cruz was the answer to that charge, and had Ted been defeated in the general it may have forced some soul-searching among power brokers on the far right, to acknowledge their views simply cannot win the White House. Or maybe not, but at least it'd have forced them to think about it.
Instead, Trump was elected, representing a form of blue collar populism we hadn't really seen in a long time, but he definitely holds many views that are 100% anathema to mainstream conservatives, so assuming Trump loses, the Cruz-wing of the party will still be there, believing the right time for a "true conservative" is still now.
This makes sense I guess: there were at least three flavors of insanity on offer in the primaries: Trump, Cruz, and Carson. If Trump crashes and burns, that doesn't discredit the other two.
Clinton landslides in 2016 and 2020. Republicans will have lost a generation.
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2016, 04:17:51 PM
Here's a question: if Trump loses, will we see any swing towards a more sane form of conservatism for the Republican party? Or is Trump setting the tone for the future, win or lose?
Trump is nearly one step further down the path the Republicans took years ago. It will only get worst, from our perspectives. Look at the people supporting Trump and Sanders, both are radicals anti free trade people. These people have the same core values: they deny any responsibility for their situation, it's someone else's fault, the system is rigged against them. It used to be they were a fringe minority, post WWII, but now, they're everywhere in mainstream politics, in every occidental country and they're growing back, like the tumors they are.
Quote from: viper37 on August 02, 2016, 11:58:18 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2016, 04:17:51 PM
Here's a question: if Trump loses, will we see any swing towards a more sane form of conservatism for the Republican party? Or is Trump setting the tone for the future, win or lose?
Trump is nearly one step further down the path the Republicans took years ago. It will only get worst, from our perspectives. Look at the people supporting Trump and Sanders, both are radicals anti free trade people. These people have the same core values: they deny any responsibility for their situation, it's someone else's fault, the system is rigged against them. It used to be they were a fringe minority, post WWII, but now, they're everywhere in mainstream politics, in every occidental country and they're growing back, like the tumors they are.
How will you get rid of these tumors? :hmm:
Quote from: Phillip V on August 03, 2016, 12:03:56 AM
How will you get rid of these tumors? :hmm:
ideally, a good ol' political purge, we round 'em up, put them into work camps until they die. Sadly, we are supposed to have evolved beyond that :(
So I propose a long term plan: education. It seems to me that education, public education at the least, as degraded a lot in the US and Canada since the late 90s/early 2000s. I see student from our high schools struggling with basic math equations and suffering from heavy difficulties in the use of a computer. It ain't normal that a 40 year old is more adept at using technology than 20 somethings.
Quote from: Malthus on August 02, 2016, 04:29:34 PM
This makes sense I guess: there were at least three flavors of insanity on offer in the primaries: Trump, Cruz, and Carson. If Trump crashes and burns, that doesn't discredit the other two.
I think Carson was just Trumpism on steroids. Cruz was a completely different set of wacky ideas, but I don't see a lot of difference between Cruz and Pence.
I think that, when the Republicans lose the Senate (as they will), it will be a more salutary shock than losing the race for the White House.
Oh, man...first the White House, then the Senate? That could mean Hillary could destroy America even faster than Obama did!
I found this in the NYT archives, a book review for his latest work at the time, "Trump: Surviving at the Top".
This review was written in
1990, which makes it all the more fascinating.
QuoteTrump Fights Back
By MICHAEL LEWIS
Published: September 2, 1990
TRUMP: Surviving at the Top
By Donald J. Trump with Charles Leerhsen.
Illustrated. 236 pp. New York:
Random House. $21.95.
Toward the end of ''Trump: Surviving at the Top'' the reader actually feels something like pity for the hero. This brief, unlikely moment occurs when Donald J. Trump is describing his bizarre dealings with Leona Helmsley. Long ago, he explains, the middle-aged Mrs. Helmsley took an uncommon fancy to him. ''For some reason,'' Mr. Trump writes, ''even though I was not tremendously successful at that time, Leona always liked having me around. . . . I was always asked to be [at her parties] and was always given a seat, usually right near her.''
Mr. Trump has already alluded several times to his own sex appeal and has once claimed that ''I've never had any trouble in bed.'' The young and dashing Mr. Trump escorts a fashion model to one of Mrs. Helmsley's parties. Mrs. Helmsley flies into what appears to be a jealous rage. ''How dare you bring that tramp to one of my parties?'' she screams, in the presence of the other woman. ''At first I was shocked,'' Mr. Trump says, ''but then all the things people had been telling me about Leona and her Jekyll-and-Hyde personality started coming back to me.'' From then on Mrs. Helmsley, with her ''crazed personality,'' heaps all manner of abuse on Mr. Trump.
This rare passage in which Mr. Trump seems at the mercy of forces beyond his control ends quickly. The roles reverse when Mr. Trump steamrollers over Mrs. Helmsley in a deal, then fires off a few gratuitous insults of his own. Mr. Trump, once again, is the Conqueror.
Filled as it is with Mr. Trump's usual commercial sadomasochism, ''Trump: Surviving at the Top'' is already out of date. Mr. Trump can no longer afford to insult at will. He can no longer sow salt in the real estate of his enemies. We now know Mr. Trump's business, based as it was on rising property prices and foolish bankers, has collapsed. He is losing money. He is a virtual slave to external forces. With his debts possibly exceeding his assets by as much as $250 million, his bankers watch and advise his every move. He has had to agree, for example, not to spend more than $450,000 a month on his personal expenses. Yet he still insists, like a captured tyrant, that he is in charge.
Reading the scene between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Helmsley, I began to wonder if there isn't something in the Manhattan soil that drives those who wish to control it to distraction; it's not just Mrs. Helmsley who seems to have gone loopy. The book Mr. Trump has presided over (with the writing help of Charles Leerhsen, a senior writer at Newsweek) is full of petty, desperate and often laughable swipes at anyone who has ever dared to criticize Donald Trump. Of a Village Voice reporter, Mr. Trump says that the writer, ''whose last book was a major failure, is still trying to make his name at my expense.'' Of a recent article in Forbes magazine estimating (generously, it turns out) his net worth at a mere $500 million: ''Who can say what these one-of-a-kind assets are worth until they're put on the market? Certainly not some mediocre reporter from Forbes'' (whom Mr. Trump names). Of Garry Trudeau's widely loved ''Doonesbury'' cartoons lampooning Mr. Trump: ''Trudeau's wife, Jane Pauley, is much more talented than he is.''
Mr. Trump's relentless accumulation leads people often to mistake his motive for greed, when what drives the man seems to me to be more a pathological need for control. But control of what? Perhaps there was a time when he wanted to control his business; now he seems merely to want to control the opinion others hold of him. Mr. Trump has come to believe that if he nurtures his fame his business will follow. ''Success,'' he writes, ''so often, is just a matter of perception.'' That may explain why he goes berserk when a journalist tries to tinker with his image, but it still represents an odd and - it now seems - wrongheaded approach to commerce. The man whose first impulse after he buys a building is to change the facade has become nothing but a facade.
In ''Trump: The Art of the Deal,'' Mr. Trump celebrated his shrewdness; in ''Trump: Surviving at the Top,'' he celebrates his reputation. The book is a strained, sloppy exercise in facade restoration. Mr. Trump begins by gluing on himself the best tinsel and chrome that money can buy. There are several photographs in ''Trump: Surviving at the Top'' of Mr. Trump with celebrities (Hulk Hogan!) who don't even appear in the text. Mr. Trump devotes a chapter to his instant friendship with Mike Tyson without ever explaining how it began. The rest of the book is a blizzard of name-dropping. The index starts with ''Ali, Muhammad'' and ends with ''York, Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of.'' In between there are perhaps 10 names not recognizable to readers of People magazine. Under ''V'': ''Vanderbilt family'' and ''van Gogh, Vincent.'' Under ''O'': ''Onassis, Jackie.'' (Perhaps there's a new Trump board game in this: I give you a letter from Mr. Trump's index and you guess who is listed underneath. Pick the wrong name and you're foreclosed upon.) ''Pick the wrong name, and no matter what else you do, you'll never be a hit,'' says the author to explain why he called one of his casinos Trump. He explains a lot more than that.
Another of Mr. Trump's cheap bag of building tricks is simply to tell us repeatedly how widely loved and admired he is. Of a trip to Brazil -a country with which he has much in common, financially - he says only that ''I found Brazil to be a lovely, if economically troubled, country. And I was surprised and delighted that children came running up to me with pencils and paper yelling, 'Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump.' '' He walks down Fifth Avenue and ''about twenty-five perfect strangers wave and shout, 'Hi, Donald,' and 'How're you doing, Donald,' and 'Keep up the good work.' One thing this proves to me is that the average working man or woman is a lot better adjusted and more secure than the supposedly successful people who stare down at them from the penthouses.''
So says the penthouse dweller. And in his case, he's right. ''Trump: Survival at the Top'' is a portrait of an ego gone haywire. He saves the reviewer a great deal of anguish by making a brief foray into the nether regions of his mind. ''I'm not the same person that I was just a few years ago,'' he writes. ''The changes I've undergone . . . are what this book is about.'' In a chapter called ''The Survival Game,'' he suggestively offers a list of once wealthy men, some of whom committed suicide; they are, it seems, his bogy. He compares himself to Howard Hughes. ''As time goes on,'' he writes, ''I find myself thinking more and more about Howard Hughes and even, to some degree, identifying with him. Take, for example, his famous aversion to germs. While I'm certainly not as fanatical as he was, I've always had very strong feelings about cleanliness. I'm constantly washing my hands.''
But he's not exposing himself so much as he is shopping for new identities. Having tried Lady Macbeth on for size, he at last selects another equally implausible shell. He tells us, in so many words, that he has discovered the futility of the possessions he calls his trophies. The best-known of these is perhaps the yacht, now named the Trump Princess, purchased from the arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi (see ''Doonesbury'' for details). Mr. Trump devotes a chapter to the Princess identical in tone and content to the braggadocio in ''Trump: The Art of the Deal'': how brilliantly he haggled for it, how his boat is the biggest, how he made it better and so on.
Then he lobs in this revelation: ''But as much as I've enjoyed it until now, and as impressive as it's been to my casino customers, I think I'm giving up the game of who's got the best boat. . . . It's funny how the boat seemed more appropriate to my life in the past than to my future.'' It's even funnier that this decision comes at a time when he can no longer afford the boat. There's every reason to believe that self-denial is just one more gewgaw for the Trump facade, stuck on to distract us from the cheap construction. After all, the man has built a career gloating over his ability to fool others; ''fool'' comes second only to ''loser'' as Mr. Trump's favorite epithet. The truth more likely is that if his real estate recovers, he'll begin bragging more loudly than ever about his boat. But who then will listen? Only fools.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 03, 2016, 09:56:51 PM
I found this in the NYT archives, a book review for his latest work at the time, "Trump: Surviving at the Top".
This review was written in 1990, which makes it all the more fascinating.
Michael Lewis :thumbsup:
Quote from: derspiess on May 04, 2016, 09:06:31 PM
I think he'll prove a lot of people wrong.
Still hold this view?
Quote from: Zanza on May 05, 2016, 03:06:54 AM
I think apart from a few highly visible pet projects like The Wall, a president Trump would be rather ineffective due to checks & balances. Being an outsider will make it hard for him to navigate Washington and get anything meaningful done fast.
Does this still hold sway?
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2016, 04:34:15 PM
I actually think Trump has a reasonable chance of not being as terrible as we all think.
My horror with him is really not about him, since I actually think his actual policies would have little resemblance to the things he says, but rather about the fact that he says those things, and Americans - a lot of Americans - love him for it.
I think if he were President he would likely be largely incompetent, but not actually malevolent. He would not get much done, and what he did get done would have little in common with the idiotic rhetoric he has been spewing for the last 9 months.
From your more recent posts, I'm guessing you've changed your opinion?
Quote from: Berkut on August 02, 2016, 10:27:06 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 02, 2016, 10:20:56 AM
I feel like Trump would be an extraordinarily ineffective President, but the way our government is structured he's really incapable of doing much destruction, and I don't think he's crazy enough to fire off nukes or anything like that. But there's just no way in hell Congress would ever work with the guy.
Actually, the way our executive is structured presumes that someone like Trump could never get into office.
He has shown that he is radically worse than I feared at the start of what looked like a PR stunt. He has thin skin, a hyper inflated ego, and an incredible lack of self awareness or basic common sense.
In fact, I think you could not construct a human being who could be *more* dangerous as President. This is someone who can order US forces to engage in lethal actions on his word alone in a variety of ways. He might not fire of a nuke, but he could certainly order a air/missile strike on some target basically because he is pissed off or annoyed.
And the damage simply electing him would do to our international credibility would be immense.
:thumbsup:
Don't disagree with a word of that.
Quote from: Sheilbh on August 02, 2016, 01:08:01 PM
Quote from: Zanza on August 02, 2016, 12:12:51 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 02, 2016, 10:41:58 AM
The kinds of risks that a Trump presidency involve would include:
+ breaking/abrogating treaties
+ panicking markets with antics like exploring debt writedowns
+ causing allies to finlandize to russia/china due to perceived unreliability of US security guarantees
+ ignoring unfavorable WTO panel rulings/imposing illegal tariffs which if done often enough could undermine the multi-lateral trade system
+ do lots of unconstitutional things and then engage in brutal rhetorical attacks on the Supreme Court - further politicizing the Court and generating mini-constitutional crises
+ further to the above, appointing nutbars to the Court and/or trying to pack it ("FDR did it")
That's not end of the world bad stuff but it's pretty bad.
The stuff you listed would basically give up 75 years of American foreign policy.
Yep. I'm not as relaxed about the US' checks and balances but even if they were effective at neutralising Trump I don't think the liberal, Western, rules based post-war world would survive. The US may be able to survive a want to be strongman, but I'm not sure the Western system could survive that from its leader.
And I think people can be a bit over-relaxed about these things. History is full of enduring systems collapsing because in themselves they don't matter if there's not the will to maintain them. Given Trump's comments today about a stolen, rigged election I'd already worry about the ability of the US system to endure. After all, Presidential systems generally end in an authoritarian regime or a coup. Though I imagine the lame duck Congress and Obama would rapidly dismantle the 'imperial Presidency' and I wouldn't be entirely surprised if they found a compromise SCOTUS candidate if that's allowed.
I've no idea what his first 100 days would be like. I think it's impossible to even guess because he's so far from any norms.
Interesting.
And where are you now? :(
Quote from: Razgovory on August 02, 2016, 05:32:20 PM
What effect Trump will have on the GOP has been a major concern of mine. If he loses, it'll probably be minimal. If he wins... The GOP could turn into a party completely bereft of ideas, simply a machine for the adulation for a narcissist.
Pretty good prediction.
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2018, 03:39:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 04, 2016, 09:06:31 PM
I think he'll prove a lot of people wrong.
Still hold this view?
Well, the people who voted for him were wrong.
:D
Quote from: dps on February 14, 2018, 05:15:55 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 14, 2018, 03:39:52 PM
Quote from: derspiess on May 04, 2016, 09:06:31 PM
I think he'll prove a lot of people wrong.
Still hold this view?
Well, the people who voted for him were wrong.
:D
:)
I wasn't criticising him, came across the thread by accident and pulled out some views that I though interesting in light of how things developed in the the first year.
Berkut seems to be the one whose most hardened his view.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 02, 2016, 05:32:20 PM
What effect Trump will have on the GOP has been a major concern of mine. If he loses, it'll probably be minimal. If he wins... The GOP could turn into a party completely bereft of ideas, simply a machine for the adulation for a narcissist.
Well, I'm sure glad that didn't happen.
Quote from: Valmy on May 11, 2016, 08:20:14 AM
Quote from: Berkut on May 10, 2016, 04:34:15 PM
I actually think Trump has a reasonable chance of not being as terrible as we all think.
My horror with him is really not about him, since I actually think his actual policies would have little resemblance to the things he says, but rather about the fact that he says those things, and Americans - a lot of Americans - love him for it.
I think if he were President he would likely be largely incompetent, but not actually malevolent. He would not get much done, and what he did get done would have little in common with the idiotic rhetoric he has been spewing for the last 9 months.
I don't know. His previous ventures seem him regularly burn things to the ground because of his ego. I don't think he could be satisfied with incompetent irrelevance. That is why he is dangerous.
I have to say that so far I am pretty much right. He just hasn't done anything too dangerous yet.
Oh. Mongers beat me to it. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2018, 07:56:52 PM
Oh. Mongers beat me to it. :(
I just pulled out the half-dozen opinions I thought most interesting, from a time before we saw him wield the tools of state.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 05, 2016, 03:31:31 AM
I predict Trump's Wall will never be as impressive as the one created by Roger Waters.
Right so far.
good thread bump.
I see you got my message, sask.
:)