What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[DGuller]

Hope the door hits him. #lackofcivility

Yep
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b31ad0de4b0b5e692f0c7b8

But the GOP might not have been able to pull off stealing that Supreme Court seat if Democrats, and the rest of us, hadn't practiced "civility"

You know I was around in 2016 and I do not recall any of this 'civility' going on. Nobody has been civil politically since John McCain's concession speech (for which he was booed by his own supporters).

So I can conclude the author of that article does not speak English or has suffered some sort of brain damage that harmed their memory.

I bet we would've had a lot more civility if we had a lot less of this infuriating false balance shit that enables the worst of the worst.  Barack Obama has been pretty steadfast at being civil up until the end even while facing unqualified and utterly unearned disdain from the other side, all the way from the beginning.  He meant well, but his civility not only destroyed everything that he accomplished, but possibly everything that has been accomplished for many decades, the count of which is yet to be determined. 

Let's stop with this "anything with a shade of gray is equally black", it has caused us enough catastrophes already.  Trump vegetables are incurable and irredeemable, but they're in a minority as long as the other side doesn't keep gifting them unwarranted "both sides are shit" sentiment.

[Razgovory]

Trump has proven that nobody cares about civility.  It's also difficult to be civil with people who openly talk about how much they want to scalp us.

[Admiral Yi]

Barack Obama has been pretty steadfast at being civil up until the end even while facing unqualified and utterly unearned disdain from the other side, all the way from the beginning.  He meant well, but his civility not only destroyed everything that he accomplished, but possibly everything that has been accomplished for many decades, the count of which is yet to be determined. 

How do you figure?  If he had told McConnell to fuck off he would have instantly held a confirmation vote?

[Razgovory]

"they go low, we go high".  Well clearly that strategy didn't work.

[dps]

Hope the door hits him. #lackofcivility

Yep
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5b31ad0de4b0b5e692f0c7b8

But the GOP might not have been able to pull off stealing that Supreme Court seat if Democrats, and the rest of us, hadn’t practiced “civility”

You know I was around in 2016 and I do not recall any of this 'civility' going on. Nobody has been civil politically since John McCain's concession speech (for which he was booed by his own supporters).

So I can conclude the author of that article does not speak English or has suffered some sort of brain damage that harmed their memory.

I bet we would’ve had a lot more civility if we had a lot less of this infuriating false balance shit that enables the worst of the worst.  Barack Obama has been pretty steadfast at being civil up until the end even while facing unqualified and utterly unearned disdain from the other side, all the way from the beginning.  He meant well, but his civility not only destroyed everything that he accomplished, but possibly everything that has been accomplished for many decades, the count of which is yet to be determined. 

Let’s stop with this “anything with a shade of gray is equally black”, it has caused us enough catastrophes already.  Trump vegetables are incurable and irredeemable, but they’re in a minority as long as the other side doesn’t keep gifting them unwarranted “both sides are shit” sentiment.

Civility is mostly just a matter of being a decent human being, which I always though Barak Obama pretty much is.  Neither Donald Trump nor Hilary Clinton is a decent person IMO, though I readily acknowledge that Trump is a worse person than Hilary.  But I'm not sure what your point is, exactly;  being a decent person wasn't a political strategy for President Obama, nor is being a terrible piece of shit is a political strategy for Trump--it's just both men being themselves.

[Tamas]

"they go low, we go high".  Well clearly that strategy didn't work.

"they go low we go low" doesn't really work either now does it? Especially in America, if you have two sides of aggressive firebrands pushing minority objectives and views, people will NOT go with the far left one.

Let's face it: the plebs never really bought the humanist and liberal ideas of equality. They went along with it because that side protected their financial interests. Now that they feel that's no longer the case, they are just all too happy with the whole banning coloureds thing and assorted nastiness.

[garbon]

"they go low, we go high".  Well clearly that strategy didn't work.

"they go low we go low" doesn't really work either now does it? Especially in America, if you have two sides of aggressive firebrands pushing minority objectives and views, people will NOT go with the far left one.

Let's face it: the plebs never really bought the humanist and liberal ideas of equality. They went along with it because that side protected their financial interests. Now that they feel that's no longer the case, they are just all too happy with the whole banning coloureds thing and assorted nastiness.

I've always said that Tamas has his finger on the pulse of America.

[Eddie Teach]

Question: why is neither side protecting their financial interests?

[DGuller]

The question should be about perception.  The reality is that one side is actually trying to protect their financial interests, but is voted out anyway in favor of sociopaths that would financially rape and pillage them to make a buck for themselves.

My answer would be that economics is a rational subject, while "culture" is emotional.  Emotions tend to dominate rationality.  People emotionally vote for the people that savage them financially, and then rationalize to themselves that neither party really cares about their financial interests.  It's not true, but facts don't counter emotion effectively.

[Tamas]

I've always said that Tamas has his finger on the pulse of America.

I meant it for the First World in general. Look at Europe: the weakening of the moderate left is strengthening the far left and the far right. France is a notable exception but just because the moderates managed to show themselves as radically new.

[garbon]

I've always said that Tamas has his finger on the pulse of America.

I meant it for the First World in general. Look at Europe: the weakening of the moderate left is strengthening the far left and the far right. France is a notable exception but just because the moderates managed to show themselves as radically new.

Okay, I'll withdraw but I hope you'll pardon my confusion when your post said 'especially in America' in a thread about the American President.

[crazy canuck]

Let's face it: the plebs never really bought the humanist and liberal ideas of equality. They went along with it because that side protected their financial interests. Now that they feel that's no longer the case, they are just all too happy with the whole banning coloureds thing and assorted nastiness.

Yep, the attraction of liberal democracy has historically been its connection with improving standards of living, economic mobility and relative financial security.  What Americans used to refer to as the American Dream.  But that is not the case anymore in the US and right wing populists have found fertile ground as Americans are culturally conditioned to question the value of Government in any event.

[Jacob]

Personally I think you guys are generalizing too broadly about "Americans".

[crazy canuck]

Personally I think you guys are generalizing too broadly about "Americans".

Well, we are not talking about the confirmed Democrats

[dps]

The question should be about perception.  The reality is that one side is actually trying to protect their financial interests, but is voted out anyway in favor of sociopaths that would financially rape and pillage them to make a buck for themselves.

My answer would be that economics is a rational subject, while “culture” is emotional.  Emotions tend to dominate rationality.  People emotionally vote for the people that savage them financially, and then rationalize to themselves that neither party really cares about their financial interests.  It’s not true, but facts don’t counter emotion effectively.

I'd say that the real anwer is that politicians have less understanding of economics than the typical poster here has of particle physics.  The only thing most politicians know about economics is to blame their opponents for any bad economic news.