With about a week to go before he gains power, I'd like your best predictions for the state of America and the World following a probable 4 years of Trump rule.
I know a lot of you rate yourselves as geo-poltical wonks, so you've a week to set out your AAR or story of the state of things come 20th January 2021; I'll lock the thread on this inauguration day.
And hopefully I'll be able to unlock it in four years time for comment on who was most prescient. :D
China will be the dominant power in Asia.
Russia will be the dominant power in Eastern Europe, possibly in the entire Europe too, with a weakened European Union and an isolationist USA.
Eventually, either NATO disintegrates or Europe & Canada begin WWIII with Russia.
I expect either a low intensity conflict between China and the US, or some kind of alliance between Russia & China against the Western World, reconquering past territories, dividing their zone of influence.
Quote from: mongers on January 14, 2017, 01:54:04 PM
I'd like your best predictions for the state of America and the World following a probable 4 years of Trump rule.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.cinemablend.com%2Fcb%2F5%2F9%2F1%2F5%2F7%2Fc%2F59157cf1813b7928e9683c5668168814e43815b25b4984481cccb391ea866b12.jpg&hash=5e052aa29691f2dca5776fd5ed8971d500f8ba35)
america's cyber defense network is impenetrable and blankets the civilized world
Quote from: LaCroix on January 14, 2017, 04:48:42 PM
america's cyber defense network is impenetrable and blankets the civilized world
Is Microsoft really going to support Windows 7 Enterprise to 2021?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2017, 04:52:42 PMIs Microsoft really going to support Windows 7 Enterprise to 2021?
:lol:
Quote from: LaCroix on January 14, 2017, 04:48:42 PM
america's cyber defense network is impenetrable and blankets the civilized world
America's cyber defense network is not the problem. The Russians can't hack through most US gov servers.
The problem is everything else: States, Banks, non tech private corporations, public/semi public utility companies (like that electricity company in Maine that found a russian virus implanted on one of its laptops), universities, etc.
Banks are especially non secure. Outdate protocols, antiquated tech.
It's just starting. The US ennemies are simply probing your defenses for now. Hacking through the Democrats e-mails was a piece of cake. Euros have some vulnerable nuclear power plant, the security is apparently abysmal in some places. Just wait until that lights goes off in the entire eastern seabord and you'll see mass panics and riots in the streets. While the US is preoccupied there, something else will happen thousands of miles away.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 14, 2017, 04:42:04 PM
Quote from: mongers on January 14, 2017, 01:54:04 PM
I'd like your best predictions for the state of America and the World following a probable 4 years of Trump rule.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.cinemablend.com%2Fcb%2F5%2F9%2F1%2F5%2F7%2Fc%2F59157cf1813b7928e9683c5668168814e43815b25b4984481cccb391ea866b12.jpg&hash=5e052aa29691f2dca5776fd5ed8971d500f8ba35)
(https://media.giphy.com/media/lF1XZv45kIwMw/giphy.gif)
Quote from: viper37 on January 14, 2017, 05:16:08 PMHacking through the Democrats e-mails was a piece of cake.
Especially when it was a leak not a hack. ;)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh101%2FMonoriu%2F428595579-prosperity-gospel_zpszndpockr.jpg&hash=87e990f58ba1e1d5a52642e4067c3df0aa6e68c9) (http://s62.photobucket.com/user/Monoriu/media/428595579-prosperity-gospel_zpszndpockr.jpg.html)
Quote from: Monoriu on January 14, 2017, 06:12:23 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi62.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh101%2FMonoriu%2F428595579-prosperity-gospel_zpszndpockr.jpg&hash=87e990f58ba1e1d5a52642e4067c3df0aa6e68c9) (http://s62.photobucket.com/user/Monoriu/media/428595579-prosperity-gospel_zpszndpockr.jpg.html)
I thought you were against Trump? :unsure:
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 14, 2017, 06:18:07 PM
I thought you were against Trump? :unsure:
I am. That doesn't mean the economy can't do well on its own ;)
I don't give a fuck.
Quote from: mongers on January 14, 2017, 01:54:04 PMprobable 4 years of Trump rule.
Rule? Do you think he'll make himself a king?
Ths time in 4 years, we'll be asking ourselves how the fuck that orange turd got re-elected.
Quote from: citizen k on January 14, 2017, 06:08:50 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 14, 2017, 05:16:08 PMHacking through the Democrats e-mails was a piece of cake.
Especially when it was a leak not a hack. ;)
they used a phishing technique, with a false e-mail. Common technique used by russian mobsters, but usually, they simply encrypt your data and give you a password in exchange for payment.
Quote from: citizen k on January 14, 2017, 06:08:50 PM
Especially when it was a leak not a hack. ;)
Don't be a douchebag.
Quote from: DGuller on January 14, 2017, 10:45:28 PM
Ths time in 4 years, we'll be asking ourselves how the fuck that orange turd got re-elected.
Yeah, that's a real fear of mine and I'd guess a not insubstantial risk once people get normalised to his terrible personality and say 'he hasn't killed us all yet'.
A Trudeau led Canada is firmly in the hands of Xi's China.
Quote from: mongers on January 16, 2017, 10:43:20 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 14, 2017, 10:45:28 PM
Ths time in 4 years, we'll be asking ourselves how the fuck that orange turd got re-elected.
Yeah, that's a real fear of mine and I'd guess a not insubstantial risk once people get normalised to his terrible personality and say 'he hasn't killed us all yet'.
The risk is that either the Bernietards take over the Democratic Party or the Democratic establishment maintains control but nominates another candidate as weak as Hillary.
I'd like to think that Trump will face a primary challenge from within the Republican party, but I doubt it. There are no doubt many that would like to challenge him, but I figure he's going to spend the next 3 years trying to destroy every potential Republican challenger that he can't co-opt.
Quote from: dps on January 16, 2017, 12:24:53 PM
The risk is that either the Bernietards take over the Democratic Party or the Democratic establishment maintains control but nominates another candidate as weak as Hillary.
I'd like to think that Trump will face a primary challenge from within the Republican party, but I doubt it. There are no doubt many that would like to challenge him, but I figure he's going to spend the next 3 years trying to destroy every potential Republican challenger that he can't co-opt.
I think you will see, pretty quickly, the rise of one or more Republicans who will stake their claim to fame precisely on being an enemy of Trump's. Trump isn't a Republican, after all, and he has paid no dues to, and is owed no favors by, the rest of the Republican establishment.
I'm not sure where the Democrats are going to go. If they're smart, they will move towards the center and try to find candidates that appeal more broadly and don't have scandals attached to them, like O'Malley or Webb. I'm sure those type exist in the dozens.
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2017, 01:38:03 PM
Quote from: dps on January 16, 2017, 12:24:53 PM
The risk is that either the Bernietards take over the Democratic Party or the Democratic establishment maintains control but nominates another candidate as weak as Hillary.
I'd like to think that Trump will face a primary challenge from within the Republican party, but I doubt it. There are no doubt many that would like to challenge him, but I figure he's going to spend the next 3 years trying to destroy every potential Republican challenger that he can't co-opt.
I think you will see, pretty quickly, the rise of one or more Republicans who will stake their claim to fame precisely on being an enemy of Trump's. Trump isn't a Republican, after all, and he has paid no dues to, and is owed no favors by, the rest of the Republican establishment.
I'm not sure where the Democrats are going to go. If they're smart, they will move towards the center and try to find candidates that appeal more broadly and don't have scandals attached to them, like O'Malley or Webb. I'm sure those type exist in the dozens.
I think there will come a time when the GOP turns decisively against Trump, but there's no gain in being even five minutes ahead of that curve. Sadly any Republican who tries "stake their claim to fame" by being anti-Trump will pay a heavy price for not being "loyal".
Quote from: Barrister on January 16, 2017, 01:52:51 PM
I think there will come a time when the GOP turns decisively against Trump, but there's no gain in being even five minutes ahead of that curve. Sadly any Republican who tries "stake their claim to fame" by being anti-Trump will pay a heavy price for not being "loyal".
"Not being loyal" to whom? I think that loyalty to the Republican party will, pretty quickly, be seen as more desirable than loyalty to Trump and his coterie. The ones who are on the front line of that move will be the ones seen as leaders. There will be no gain in being a follower when the realization hits that Trump is no Republican, and doesn't give a rat's ass for Republican values or goals.
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2017, 01:57:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 16, 2017, 01:52:51 PM
I think there will come a time when the GOP turns decisively against Trump, but there's no gain in being even five minutes ahead of that curve. Sadly any Republican who tries "stake their claim to fame" by being anti-Trump will pay a heavy price for not being "loyal".
"Not being loyal" to whom? I think that loyalty to the Republican party will, pretty quickly, be seen as more desirable than loyalty to Trump and his coterie. The ones who are on the front line of that move will be the ones seen as leaders. There will be no gain in being a follower when the realization hits that Trump is no Republican, and doesn't give a rat's ass for Republican values or goals.
I agree in part - at some point the GOP will realize that being associated with Trump is hurting them more than it is helping them, and a turn will happen.
But I disagree that those on the front line will be seen as leaders. They will be seen as turncoats, even if later on proven to be correct. In Parliamentary systems it's never the first to come out against the leader who wins. Loyalty to the party itself is too high a virtue.
Whoever thought the sun would come crashing down
My life in flames
My tears complete the pain
We fear the end
The dark as deep as river bed
[...]
Everything's gonna be alright (yeah)
Everything's gonna be okay (no doubt)
Everything's gonna be alright'
Together we can take this one day at a time
Plenty of Republican Senators have already crossed Donnie on email hacking.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 16, 2017, 02:45:44 PM
Plenty of Republican Senators have already crossed Donnie on email hacking.
Lots of Republicans havign spoken out against Trump on specific issues.
Since the election, no GOP politicians have spoken out against the Trump presidency writ-large.
I guess that depends on how you define that. Ben Sasse has been very consistent in his anti-Trumpism.
Quote from: Barrister on January 16, 2017, 02:14:26 PM
I agree in part - at some point the GOP will realize that being associated with Trump is hurting them more than it is helping them, and a turn will happen.
But I disagree that those on the front line will be seen as leaders. They will be seen as turncoats, even if later on proven to be correct. In Parliamentary systems it's never the first to come out against the leader who wins. Loyalty to the party itself is too high a virtue.
Trump was the republican presidential candidate, not a leader of the Republican party. I think your experience with parliamentary politics makes it hard for you to see how fundamentally different the presidential political system is. Trump could run for the Republican nom even though he wasn't a Republican. Sanders could run for the Democratic nom even though he's not a Democrat. Republicans voted for Trump when the alternative was voting for a Democrat, but that doesn't make Trump a republican, nor does it mean that loyalty to him will be valued more than loyalty to Republican party members and values.
trump and Sanders have their core voters, those that value the candidate above any party, but that's not going to make party members choose to follow them when they go against party values. Rules from the parliamentary system don't always apply.
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2017, 04:15:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 16, 2017, 02:14:26 PM
I agree in part - at some point the GOP will realize that being associated with Trump is hurting them more than it is helping them, and a turn will happen.
But I disagree that those on the front line will be seen as leaders. They will be seen as turncoats, even if later on proven to be correct. In Parliamentary systems it's never the first to come out against the leader who wins. Loyalty to the party itself is too high a virtue.
Trump was the republican presidential candidate, not a leader of the Republican party. I think your experience with parliamentary politics makes it hard for you to see how fundamentally different the presidential political system is. Trump could run for the Republican nom even though he wasn't a Republican. Sanders could run for the Democratic nom even though he's not a Democrat. Republicans voted for Trump when the alternative was voting for a Democrat, but that doesn't make Trump a republican, nor does it mean that loyalty to him will be valued more than loyalty to Republican party members and values.
trump and Sanders have their core voters, those that value the candidate above any party, but that's not going to make party members choose to follow them when they go against party values. Rules from the parliamentary system don't always apply.
We shall see who is right. :)
Ben Sasse was mentioned by Habs. I took a look - he hasn't said anything critical of Trump really since the election. Most newsworthy thing he's done is to urge John Lewis to attend the inauguration saying it's not just about Trump.
Many GOP lawmakers will do steps like that - take policy positions different than Trump, to create some distance between them. But no one is talking in the language that many Republicans were using before the election - that he's categorically unfit for the Presidency.
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2017, 04:15:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 16, 2017, 02:14:26 PM
I agree in part - at some point the GOP will realize that being associated with Trump is hurting them more than it is helping them, and a turn will happen.
But I disagree that those on the front line will be seen as leaders. They will be seen as turncoats, even if later on proven to be correct. In Parliamentary systems it's never the first to come out against the leader who wins. Loyalty to the party itself is too high a virtue.
Trump was the republican presidential candidate, not a leader of the Republican party. I think your experience with parliamentary politics makes it hard for you to see how fundamentally different the presidential political system is. Trump could run for the Republican nom even though he wasn't a Republican. Sanders could run for the Democratic nom even though he's not a Democrat. Republicans voted for Trump when the alternative was voting for a Democrat, but that doesn't make Trump a republican, nor does it mean that loyalty to him will be valued more than loyalty to Republican party members and values.
trump and Sanders have their core voters, those that value the candidate above any party, but that's not going to make party members choose to follow them when they go against party values. Rules from the parliamentary system don't always apply.
Sanders became a Democrat just before running for the primaries and he quitted once he was not elected.
People knew who Trump was, many did not believe he would do what he said he would, but they voted for him anyway. Right now, he's still extremely popular among republicans, and any attempt to resist him would see his vocal supporters campaigning against the Republican loyalists.
It seems that for many, it's a second American Revolution and he's some kind of George Washington, an idealized fictional Washington, without a fault, victime of the evil medias and the establishmennt.
Quote from: viper37 on January 16, 2017, 10:31:59 AM
they used a phishing technique, with a false e-mail. Common technique used by russian mobsters, but usually, they simply encrypt your data and give you a password in exchange for payment.
It was a classic whistleblower leak. The DNC dissenter physically handed off the emails to an ex-diplomat working with Wikileaks.
No Russians involved.
Quote from: grumbler on January 16, 2017, 04:15:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on January 16, 2017, 02:14:26 PM
I agree in part - at some point the GOP will realize that being associated with Trump is hurting them more than it is helping them, and a turn will happen.
But I disagree that those on the front line will be seen as leaders. They will be seen as turncoats, even if later on proven to be correct. In Parliamentary systems it's never the first to come out against the leader who wins. Loyalty to the party itself is too high a virtue.
Trump was the republican presidential candidate, not a leader of the Republican party. I think your experience with parliamentary politics makes it hard for you to see how fundamentally different the presidential political system is... ...Rules from the parliamentary system don't always apply.
While it's true that the President isn't the formal leader of his party in the way that a PM in a parliamentary system is the leader of his party, the fact is that the President is the
de facto leader of his party. That's not to say that there won't be a successful challenge to Trump from within the Republican Party for the nomination in 2020, but it makes any challenger a distinct underdog.
And, something else I thought about today--the next few years for the Republicans are going to be something like what the years after 1896 would have for the Democrats if William Jennings Bryan had defeated McKinley that year.
I think Bryan is the closest historical parallel to Trump--a populist buffoon whose views weren't necessarily entirely inline with his party's traditional positions, but who was able to gain the Presidential nomination because of his support among working class whites. Bryan was more bigoted than Trump, but also more honest in his populism than Trump--Trump will say random things, and if some of them resonate, he'll keep saying them, whereas Bryan appears to have been sincere about the stupidity that came out of his mouth.
Quote from: citizen k on January 17, 2017, 03:24:52 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 16, 2017, 10:31:59 AM
they used a phishing technique, with a false e-mail. Common technique used by russian mobsters, but usually, they simply encrypt your data and give you a password in exchange for payment.
It was a classic whistleblower leak. The DNC dissenter physically handed off the emails to an ex-diplomat working with Wikileaks.
No Russians involved.
Of course. Just like the DNC whisteblower who "leaked" the documents out of the Watergate Hotel in 72.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 17, 2017, 04:52:08 PM
Just like the DNC whisteblower who "leaked" the documents out of the Watergate Hotel in 72.
I thought that was a break-in by Nixon operatives. ;) ]
Quote from: dps on January 17, 2017, 04:19:36 PM
While it's true that the President isn't the formal leader of his party in the way that a PM in a parliamentary system is the leader of his party, the fact is that the President is the de facto leader of his party. That's not to say that there won't be a successful challenge to Trump from within the Republican Party for the nomination in 2020, but it makes any challenger a distinct underdog.
And, something else I thought about today--the next few years for the Republicans are going to be something like what the years after 1896 would have for the Democrats if William Jennings Bryan had defeated McKinley that year.
I think Bryan is the closest historical parallel to Trump--a populist buffoon whose views weren't necessarily entirely inline with his party's traditional positions, but who was able to gain the Presidential nomination because of his support among working class whites. Bryan was more bigoted than Trump, but also more honest in his populism than Trump--Trump will say random things, and if some of them resonate, he'll keep saying them, whereas Bryan appears to have been sincere about the stupidity that came out of his mouth.
I'd argue Trump isn't even de facto the leader of the Republicans. He's never run for office as Republican, never campaigned for other Republicans (before 2016), and appears to have given as much, or more, to Democratic candidates as republican ones.
I think Andrew Jackson is as close to DT as we've seen before. He had some experience in political office, and some previous campaign experience, but was so much out of the party mold that his supporters actually started a new party to get him elected president. He was clearly the leader of that party, but it was a one-candidate party for a few years when he started as its leader. He was a populist who said whatever he thought his supporters wanted to hear. I think he had an ideology, though, which Trump conspicuously lacks.
Quote from: viper37 on January 17, 2017, 01:54:22 PM
Sanders became a Democrat just before running for the primaries and he quitted once he was not elected.
Yes, that's my point; like Trump, he is a carpetbagger.
QuotePeople knew who Trump was, many did not believe he would do what he said he would, but they voted for him anyway. Right now, he's still extremely popular among republicans, and any attempt to resist him would see his vocal supporters campaigning against the Republican loyalists.
It seems that for many, it's a second American Revolution and he's some kind of George Washington, an idealized fictional Washington, without a fault, victime of the evil medias and the establishmennt.
Trump isn't extremely popular among Republicans. That's also my point. His approval ratings suck. For some, he may be a revolutionary figure, but the people who see him that way are as likely to be former Democrats as they are Republicans. Republicans are having buyer's remorse.
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2017, 05:15:42 PM
I think Andrew Jackson is as close to DT as we've seen before. He had some experience in political office, and some previous campaign experience, but was so much out of the party mold that his supporters actually started a new party to get him elected president. He was clearly the leader of that party, but it was a one-candidate party for a few years when he started as its leader. He was a populist who said whatever he thought his supporters wanted to hear. I think he had an ideology, though, which Trump conspicuously lacks.
That is the closest comp but it flatters Trump. Jackson had quite a bit more political experience and was a successful, if brutal military leader. Also having an ideology is a significant difference. Jackson had definitive and strong views on many of the key issues of his day and no one was under the illusion that cabinet members or advisors might drive policy while Jackson amused himself, as many people speculate could happen now.
I must admit it's a pretty hard question I've set and so not surprised few have attempted to make concrete predictions.
My guesses:
Tensions/conflicts with China sure, all out war or the invasion of Taiwan, no. Though I don't discount some accidental military clashes.
With Russia, some thawing, perhaps an informal understanding about zones of influence in E.Europe. But no giving Putin a free hand in the East, besides I think Putin has now made his point there and perhaps decisively influencing the US election was revenge enough for him?
NATO and Europe, lots of bluster on Trumps part, but I think those two institutions are largely unaffected by that, maybe some countries up their defence spending, maybe as a result of living in a more uncertain world.
The Middle East, I do see Trump accidentally being drawn into another war in the region. I also think some serious fighting with Iran is a possibility, the potential is there for any incident to be blown out of all proportion by Trump and used as an excuse for him to strut his stuff.
North Korea, who knows, add one unpredictable leader to another unstable demagogue, what do you get?
International trade, I can't see Trump doing anything positive, but America need too much cheap ass stuff from the developing world for it to seriously damage trade with China et al.
I think what Trump will be worst at is managing America's long term relative decline, because he's unlikely to understand that 'fact', certainly never admit it. He must make America great again, perhaps at any cost?
That's in contrast to Obama, who I think understood this, but got a lot of flack for at times acting accordingly to such a process, hence the pull back from war in Syria and despite the widening drone policy, a desire to pull away from the all absorbing theatre of conflict these last 15/30 years.
There I've said it, lets see who was nearest the mark come 2021. :)
I think it'll be one of these three scenarios:
More or less status quo, but worse - 60%
American institutions will be severely degraded and numerous worrying precedents will have been set. There'll probably be one or more wars fought, but nothing of a magnitude larger than the Iraq War; while alliances will have been weakened they remain in a state where they are repairable. The Trump family will be significantly richer, as will assorted hanger on oligarchs, but the American public and nation will be poorer and governance will be in a shambles. It's about even odds that the American body politic will reject Trump vs his brand of politics taking more permanent roots.
Disaster for Trump - 20%
Trump overplays his hand somehow and some combination of scandal, corruption, and incompetence brings him down, potentially affecting his whole family.
Disaster for the rest of us and/or Major Realignment - 20%
Some combination of major wars that affect tens of millions of people in the West (incl. major US allies outside of Europe), dissolution of NATO and other cornerstone alliances, massive destruction of wealth on a global scale due to depression, the rise of violent nationalism on a global scale, open armed conflict between nuclear powers, that sort of stuff. I don't have a particular bet on what, though... there are so many different scenarios.
Quote from: citizen k on January 17, 2017, 03:24:52 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 16, 2017, 10:31:59 AM
they used a phishing technique, with a false e-mail. Common technique used by russian mobsters, but usually, they simply encrypt your data and give you a password in exchange for payment.
It was a classic whistleblower leak. The DNC dissenter physically handed off the emails to an ex-diplomat working with Wikileaks.
No Russians involved.
No more Zerohedge for you.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 17, 2017, 06:11:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2017, 05:15:42 PM
I think Andrew Jackson is as close to DT as we've seen before. He had some experience in political office, and some previous campaign experience, but was so much out of the party mold that his supporters actually started a new party to get him elected president. He was clearly the leader of that party, but it was a one-candidate party for a few years when he started as its leader. He was a populist who said whatever he thought his supporters wanted to hear. I think he had an ideology, though, which Trump conspicuously lacks.
That is the closest comp but it flatters Trump. Jackson had quite a bit more political experience and was a successful, if brutal military leader. Also having an ideology is a significant difference. Jackson had definitive and strong views on many of the key issues of his day and no one was under the illusion that cabinet members or advisors might drive policy while Jackson amused himself, as many people speculate could happen now.
I'd say that it's a major insult to Jackson.
Will be interesting if the Republican party that Grumbler writes about still exists and will re-exert itself sooner or later or whether Trump did a hostile takeover and will push those "Old Republicans" from the GOP eventually and mould it in his view.
Quote from: Zanza on January 17, 2017, 07:53:30 PM
Will be interesting if the Republican party that Grumbler writes about still exists and will re-exert itself sooner or later or whether Trump did a hostile takeover and will push those "Old Republicans" from the GOP eventually and mould it in his view.
Trump, for all his bluster and the fact that he's got the White House, is so incredibly out of his depth. He doesn't know policy or politics, and most of the people he is surrounding himself with don't, either. The ones that do will eventually resign. Despite their electoral victory, they are all on incredibly thin ice in Washington, DC.
The moment he puts his hand on the Bible on Friday, he will be impeachable. If he threatens the traditional GOP legislative agenda that Priebus, Pence and Ryan want to run, he and his little group--psycho Flynn, the LL Bean Bond Villain, Uday and Qusay, Mr. and Mrs. Ivanka, and his cyclon wife--will find themselves on the outs very quickly. The legislative avalanche will crush them, and if the GOP wants him out, he will be out.
Quote from: Zanza on January 17, 2017, 07:53:30 PM
Will be interesting if the Republican party that Grumbler writes about still exists and will re-exert itself sooner or later or whether Trump did a hostile takeover and will push those "Old Republicans" from the GOP eventually and mould it in his view.
The latter has certainly happened before. Alas.
I just don't think Trump has the energy or ideology to do it. he ran for office on a lark, and still can't believe he actually won.
Quote from: dps on January 17, 2017, 07:47:06 PM
I'd say that it's a major insult to Jackson.
You think someone is closer to trump than Jackson? Feel free to share. I mean, it is hard to insult Jackson, after all. He's the worst pre-Trump president by far, but if you think Trump is closer to a better president than Jackson, have at it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2017, 08:07:06 PM
Trump, for all his bluster and the fact that he's got the White House, is so incredibly out of his depth. He doesn't know policy or politics, and most of the people he is surrounding himself with don't, either. The ones that do will eventually resign. Despite their electoral victory, they are all on incredibly thin ice in Washington, DC.
The moment he puts his hand on the Bible on Friday, he will be impeachable. If he threatens the traditional GOP legislative agenda that Priebus, Pence and Ryan want to run, he and his little group--psycho Flynn, the LL Bean Bond Villain, Uday and Qusay, Mr. and Mrs. Ivanka, and his cyclon wife--will find themselves on the outs very quickly. The legislative avalanche will crush them, and if the GOP wants him out, he will be out.
This. Mere election bestows no wisdom, and trump hasn't got a clue as to what he is getting into. He thinks he is hot shit personified because he owns a building in NYC. His whole wealth disappears into the pool of money being made off of Washington by the hour. He thinks that he can run the presidency as a cosy little family affair. That worked for Mrs. Wilson, but that was a century ago. It won't fly now.
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2017, 09:27:32 PM
Quote from: dps on January 17, 2017, 07:47:06 PM
I'd say that it's a major insult to Jackson.
You think someone is closer to trump than Jackson? Feel free to share. I mean, it is hard to insult Jackson, after all. He's the worst pre-Trump president by far, but if you think Trump is closer to a better president than Jackson, have at it.
Well, to start with, I don't share your view that Jackson was all that bad. Guys like Pierce or Harding were much worse IMO. Heck, I'd rate Jackson ahead of Wilson, but then I guess everybody here is probably already aware that Wilson pushes my buttons for some reason.
I do see some parallels between Jackson and Trump, mostly in that both won through populist appeals.
As I stated above, I think if Bryan had ever won the White House, he would have been about what we can expect out of Trump. Especially if Bryan had won on his first attempt.
Quote from: citizen k on January 17, 2017, 03:24:52 PM
Quote from: viper37 on January 16, 2017, 10:31:59 AM
they used a phishing technique, with a false e-mail. Common technique used by russian mobsters, but usually, they simply encrypt your data and give you a password in exchange for payment.
It was a classic whistleblower leak. The DNC dissenter physically handed off the emails to an ex-diplomat working with Wikileaks.
No Russians involved.
No it wasn't, it was a hack:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2017, 05:19:43 PM
His approval ratings suck. For some, he may be a revolutionary figure, but the people who see him that way are as likely to be former Democrats as they are Republicans. Republicans are having buyer's remorse.
Well, as the polls shows, 44% of Americans have a positive view of Trump. Assuming most Democrats have a negative view of Trump instead of an even split among party ines, that leaves a majority of Republicans with a favorable view of Trump.
I imagine lots of independents like him as well, anti-establishment types.
Quote from: viper37 on January 18, 2017, 09:43:43 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2017, 05:19:43 PM
His approval ratings suck. For some, he may be a revolutionary figure, but the people who see him that way are as likely to be former Democrats as they are Republicans. Republicans are having buyer's remorse.
Well, as the polls shows, 44% of Americans have a positive view of Trump. Assuming most Democrats have a negative view of Trump instead of an even split among party ines, that leaves a majority of Republicans with a favorable view of Trump.
This is when they tend to peak-- that honeymoon period. 44% during the honeymoon period is pretty bad.
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2017, 09:46:37 AMThis is when they tend to peak-- that honeymoon period. 44% during the honeymoon period is pretty bad.
trump is unique, though. once he proves himself, that number will soar. his honeymoon period will be his entire presidency.
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2017, 09:45:09 AM
I imagine lots of independents like him as well, anti-establishment types.
are there that many independants, enough to make a shift in the polls?
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2017, 09:46:37 AM
Quote from: viper37 on January 18, 2017, 09:43:43 AM
Quote from: grumbler on January 17, 2017, 05:19:43 PM
His approval ratings suck. For some, he may be a revolutionary figure, but the people who see him that way are as likely to be former Democrats as they are Republicans. Republicans are having buyer's remorse.
Well, as the polls shows, 44% of Americans have a positive view of Trump. Assuming most Democrats have a negative view of Trump instead of an even split among party ines, that leaves a majority of Republicans with a favorable view of Trump.
This is when they tend to peak-- that honeymoon period. 44% during the honeymoon period is pretty bad.
True. But it's still very high, too high for the Republican party to try anything. They'll need to have internal polls about his support among core Republican voters. Pissing off Democrats and independants is not much cause for concern, but pissing off Repubican voters would be dramatic.
Quote from: viper37 on January 18, 2017, 10:28:25 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2017, 09:45:09 AM
I imagine lots of independents like him as well, anti-establishment types.
are there that many independants, enough to make a shift in the polls?
40% of Americans are independents so...yes.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 18, 2017, 09:48:05 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2017, 09:46:37 AMThis is when they tend to peak-- that honeymoon period. 44% during the honeymoon period is pretty bad.
trump is unique, though. once he proves himself, that number will soar. his honeymoon period will be his entire presidency.
If the economy improves during his administration, then yeah I agree he'd get a nice bump.
Oil prices are going back up so he can take credit for that at least :P
Though that is kind of a double-edged sword.
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2017, 10:38:50 AM
Oil prices are going back up so he can take credit for that at least :P
Though that is kind of a double-edged sword.
It helps green jobs :yes:
oil prices need to go up another $10-20
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 17, 2017, 08:07:06 PM
Quote from: Zanza on January 17, 2017, 07:53:30 PM
Will be interesting if the Republican party that Grumbler writes about still exists and will re-exert itself sooner or later or whether Trump did a hostile takeover and will push those "Old Republicans" from the GOP eventually and mould it in his view.
Trump, for all his bluster and the fact that he's got the White House, is so incredibly out of his depth. He doesn't know policy or politics, and most of the people he is surrounding himself with don't, either. The ones that do will eventually resign. Despite their electoral victory, they are all on incredibly thin ice in Washington, DC.
The moment he puts his hand on the Bible on Friday, he will be impeachable. If he threatens the traditional GOP legislative agenda that Priebus, Pence and Ryan want to run, he and his little group--psycho Flynn, the LL Bean Bond Villain, Uday and Qusay, Mr. and Mrs. Ivanka, and his cyclon wife--will find themselves on the outs very quickly. The legislative avalanche will crush them, and if the GOP wants him out, he will be out.
As he was right about Pennsylvania, Seedy is right about this.
Quote from: viper37 on January 18, 2017, 09:43:43 AM
Well, as the polls shows, 44% of Americans have a positive view of Trump. Assuming most Democrats have a negative view of Trump instead of an even split among party ines, that leaves a majority of Republicans with a favorable view of Trump.
44% approval ratings are unprecedentedly BAD, in fact. Just less than half the counties in the country that Obama won at least once voted for Trump this time, indicating a massive flip in votes. I don't think your binary view of American voters captures the reality of the situation.
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2017, 10:36:23 AM
If the economy improves during his administration, then yeah I agree he'd get a nice bump.
It didn't seem to help Obama. Though he had other issues that may have drowned out the economic news, i can see that happen even more to trump.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 18, 2017, 09:48:05 AM
trump is unique, though. once he proves himself, that number will soar. his honeymoon period will be his entire presidency.
The country is now married to Trump; is there any reason to think that a marriage to Trump would go bad?
Quote from: grumbler on January 19, 2017, 09:36:15 AM
I don't think your binary view of American voters captures the reality of the situation.
Perhaps. But while I was freaking out about Trump, you said I didn't know the reality of the situation then.
Quote from: viper37 on January 19, 2017, 04:06:25 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 19, 2017, 09:36:15 AM
I don't think your binary view of American voters captures the reality of the situation.
Perhaps. But while I was freaking out about Trump, you said I didn't know the reality of the situation then.
Correct. None of the extreme positions you have taken correspond to the reality that I perceive living here and staying informed.
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2017, 10:41:13 AM
Quote from: Valmy on January 18, 2017, 10:38:50 AM
Oil prices are going back up so he can take credit for that at least :P
Though that is kind of a double-edged sword.
It helps green jobs :yes:
The double edged sword is increased fuel costs, which is more of a universally spread pain than the plague of green jobs.
Any more last minute predictions before I close the thread for four years?
Quote from: LaCroix on January 18, 2017, 09:48:05 AM
Quote from: derspiess on January 18, 2017, 09:46:37 AMThis is when they tend to peak-- that honeymoon period. 44% during the honeymoon period is pretty bad.
trump is unique, though. once he proves himself, that number will soar. his honeymoon period will be his entire presidency.
:lmfao:
OK, thread locked till January 2021, we'll see if anyone got near to the awful reality.
ahhhh
Quote from: garbon on January 20, 2017, 09:05:58 PM
ahhhh
Does anyone remember how to lock threads you started, as my browser isn't co-operating with the board software. :hmm: