Forum    Search    FAQ

Board index » Chat Forums » Political Opinions and Opinionated Posts




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 1466 posts ] 
 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Trump.
 Post Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:07 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 12406
Location: The things, they hurt
I agree that they need somebody less establishment next time (1), but it also matters what kind of non-establishment candidate they run. Somebody like Elizabeth Warren is as progressive as Bernie Sanders but she'd be too easily targeted by cultural attacks. She's a senator from Massachusetts, she was a Harvard academic, and a bureaucrat, that's like the trifecta of Things Conservatives Love To Mock. Then there's the small matter of her once having claimed Native American ancestry on a form, which should be insignificant, but Trump will bash her over the head with it forever because he is a guttersnipe. No blue collar person from the Rust Belt would look at her and say "I'd like to have a beer with her, she sounds like one of us". At least Bernie had the crusty-but-lovable grandpa thing down. People be shallow.(2)

Well, Warren might be viable in 4 years' time if Trump has cratered the economy or ruined health care enough for his supporters to have gotten sick of him.

(1) This obsession with outsider candidates is getting ridiculous. How is it that voters on both sides agree that one of the primary qualifications for the leader of the world's biggest superpower is that they should not have had a career trajectory that might prepare them to lead the world's biggest superpower, because that would be morally compromising?

(2) How did Obama sidestep this? I really think he got lucky. In 2008, people were seriously sick of 8 years of Bush and the Republicans, and the economic crisis hit just in time to drive that home. In 2012, he had the luck to run against Romney, possibly the only politician even less relatable to the average person than Obama was.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Trump.
 Post Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 11:23 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 2266
Location: Vienna, Austria, EU
A lot of people do have the impression that their situation has worsened over the last, i guess 20, years. There is some debate about why exactly that is, but it pretty much clear, that this effect exists.

Establishment politicans do not acknowledge that times get harder though (the answer is usally more along the lines "but you are richer then ever, just look at theese statistics"), so it is quite straightforward, that people who's perception is, that times get harder, want politicans, who promise to do things different then the establishment.

Obama started pretty much as outsider, or rather as newcomer, who according to traditional politics should have held other offices before becoming president, and he ran on a "do things different" ticket the first time. And Rommney is pretty close to an establishment archetype. So Obamas victories fit into the anti establishment pattern.

I don't know enough about Warren to know if she has charisma. I don't think the "Massechusetts, academic, buerocrat" thing really still applies. Many people want something/anything new, and if you run a candidate, where established wisdom facepalms, then that is a plus for them, because what they enjoy most, is to embarass established wisdom.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Trump.
 Post Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2017 12:51 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 12406
Location: The things, they hurt
The first time Obama ran, he was up against McCain, who was a longtime senator but one who tried to sell himself as a different kind of Republican. McCain ended up being torn between trying to appease bog standard Republicans and independents simultaneously and succeeding at neither, so he chose Sarah Palin as his vice president to play up the outsider thing. Given the choice between two outsiders, Americans picked the one who didn't sound catastrophically ignorant.

Of course, this time, they chose the catastrophically ignorant outsider over the insider.

The problem with Warren being a nerdy regulator from Massachusetts is that this may allow the Republicans to paint her as an insider regardless of her billing herself as an outsider. Sure she has strong progressive positions and has never held executive office, but Trump and his ilk have been selling a whole narrative about how you, humble white American blue collar worker, are being imposed upon by a cabal of snooty over-educated yet naive urbanites who want to tell you what's good for you, disdain your religious beliefs, think that illegal immigrants matter more than you do, and force you to endure penises in women's bathrooms. They will do their best to slot Warren into that narrative.

Many commentators think that might not work so well once Trump has to defend 4 years of standard corporate screw-the-little-guy Republican policies. But I laugh at the very notion of Trump attempting to do something so logical as defend a policy. He will deflect and lie and fling petty insults, as usual. He conveys his outsiderness through his outrageous behaviour. Even his ugly ties and ridiculous hair scream "I don't care what dignified people think of me". What he actually does in terms of policy doesn't matter much at all.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Trump.
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:06 pm 
Offline
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:50 am
Posts: 1898
Location: Deep in debt, shallow on time.
I think personally that charisma isn't a problem for Warren - just get her started on Wall St. or things that matter to middle class Americans and you see the fire in her belly. Watch her disembowel some evasive witness in a hearing... I don't think that's any sort of problem. Some of the things she's done to Wall St. types that end up on the uncomfortable end of a senate hearing still make me smile. She's audacious when protecting the common people from the depredations of the powerful, not in a snooty way but in a powerful, sincere and quotable way. I honestly believe that once she has had a chance to show what she's got on a national stage, in a debate against an incumbent blowhard oligarch with a crappy record in office... Not worried about that at all. Trump can call her Pocahontas as much as he wants - he can't hold a candle to this woman in a one on one debate.

I am a tad concerned about her age - I don't personally care for putting people in their 70s in the White House - but realistically speaking with the exception of Reagan and his Alzheimer's disease this hasn't historically been a huge issue. And with current health care capabilities... it's possible I'm oversensitive on that one... Ageist! Ageist!

And as for her credentials, I think her "ivory tower intellectual" status won't dissuade many middle of the road voters - After all, these are the people that elected a one-term senator with "community organizer" in his resume. And a NY oligarch with a degree from Wharton...

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Trump.
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2017 2:02 pm 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 2266
Location: Vienna, Austria, EU
I think Democrats need to double down more often on stuff, that they get attacked for by Republicans. So if she goes for "Yes i am an over-educated urbanite, but i am one that makes them up there squirm", i think she has a chance.

Just think how a typical exchange of arguments looks for someone, who considers all that political stuff way to complicated to understand, but looks at how people behave:

Republican attacks Democrat for something. Democrat backpedals and assures everyone that he does not have such a radical opinion. -> The Republican has caught him on something.
Democrat attacks Republican for something. Republican doubles down and explains that he is proud about that position. -> The Democrat obviously has taken exception at some perfectly ordinary position, the Republican holds.

If someone asks you accusingly why you have a vodka bottle in your hand, if you say that you just wanted to dust the bottle and anyway use it only as cooking ingredient, you look like an alcoholic.
If you say "yes, that's my vodka, what's the problem, the prohibition era is over", you look more like a responsible alcohol user.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Trump.
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2017 9:04 pm 
Moderator of DOOM!
Moderator of DOOM!
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 15851
Location: Yes.
Interestingly enough, Pew just came out with a poll comparing Trump with Merkel on the question of who Americans trust to do the "right thing regarding world affairs". She came out ahead by 56% to 46%. Who knew that 56% of Americans even know who Angela Merkel is?

So, who thinks he's going to wind up doing something really stupid regarding North Korea because he can't stand doing nothing?

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Trump.
 Post Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 9:50 am 
Offline
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:50 am
Posts: 1898
Location: Deep in debt, shallow on time.
I kind of doubt he's going to anything really dumb with regards to N. Korea...

First of all, he can't really apply a military option because of the location of the DMZ - he does anything military and the South Korean capitol is one big artillery target. And Kim has a huge, huge arsenal of artillery waiting for that exact thing. He doesn't need to nuke Seoul - he can wipe it off the map with conventional explosives in a matter of a day. Any and all of his advisers will jump on his desk screaming before allowing that particular status quo to be disturbed.

The most that might happen is a diplomatic dust-up, everyone gets their fur up and more North Korean citizens starve to death while Kim buys more tanks and missiles to "defend" his country and sanctions tighten. Only China has the ability to change anything in the Korean Peninsula and they like the way things are now. As things stand as soon as Kim starts rattling his missiles around, China gets to negotiate with the "Negotiator in Chief" who they've already gotten the best of several times.

Truthfully, the international relations thing that has me the most worried is "freedom of navigation" in the South China Sea. I can see the blusterer-in-chief getting into some hot water because of some minor harassment incident (of which several have occurred in the last few years) and sending half of the Navy to show the size of his manhood to the Chinese. Who are pretty touchy about that sort of thing...

Edit: Unintentional joke there that I didn't see until after I posted... snorted my tea when I did!


Last edited by baconbotsforever on Fri Jul 07, 2017 9:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Trump.
 Post Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 9:51 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 12406
Location: The things, they hurt
Every single poll question about Trump looks like that, and it's always 56% of everyone equals 90% of Democrats and 65% of Independents. The Republicans are off on their own planet. I bet even people who don't know Angela Merkel are answering the question like "I don't care who she is but she's gotta be better than Trump" or "I have no idea who she is but Trump is the best at everything".

I sincerely hope that Mattis will tackle Trump to the ground if he tries to order a missile strike on North Korea. Even Trump should be able to get it into his skull that attacking North Korea means that Seoul and Tokyo would be reduced to rubble within the hour. But you never know what's gonna happen when he wakes up angry at 3 in the morning.

I'm more worried about him giving Eastern Europe away to Putin this week. His aides have been trying to prepare him for the meeting by writing tweet-length memos. But Trump won't have any of it and asked his staff to compile him a list of Putin Wish List items he could give away. In return for what, nobody knows.

Back on Warren - I hope you're right about her, bacon. She would be awesome. And the Democrats should try responding to Republican attacks more with "Yeah, and?" Right now her problem is that Bernie supporters haven't quite forgiven her for remaining neutral in the Bernie vs. Clinton race, but they'll have a couple more years to get over it. Assuming Bernie doesn't run again. He very well might.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Trump.
 Post Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2017 9:58 am 
Offline
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:50 am
Posts: 1898
Location: Deep in debt, shallow on time.
Good lord, Kea, I forgot about the Putin meeting. Yeah, that's definitely more fraught with peril at the moment. Long term, though? Not sure.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Trump.
 Post Posted: Wed Jul 12, 2017 1:27 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 12406
Location: The things, they hurt
Apparently the Trump-Putin meeting went something like this:
Trump: My intelligence agencies say you messed with our election.
Putin: No I didn't.
Trump: Are you sure? My national security people and the media are making a big fuss about it.
Putin: I didn't do it. Cross my heart.
Trump: Well, if you say so.
Putin: You know, Donald, you shouldn't believe everything you see on TV.
Trump: Haha yeah, fake news amirite?
Both men laugh heartily

And now, Donald Jr. has confessed to soliciting campaign opposition research from the Russian government. Which is likely a federal crime (depending on how they want to define "or anything else of value" in addition to the prohibition on soliciting foreign campaign donations*). Good grief this bunch is stupid. I imagine Mueller's sitting there, giving them a little more rope to hang themselves with... And then the Republicans in Congress will stick their heads in the sand going, "But, but our precious tax cuts!"

* Trump actually did this too by accident, because his staff sucked so hard at internetting. They sent out a bunch of "please donate to us" spam to all sorts of foreign politicians, including most of the UK parliament.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Trump.
 Post Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:59 pm 
Offline
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:50 am
Posts: 1898
Location: Deep in debt, shallow on time.
Uh oh, the proof is starting to pile up against Donald Trump... Junior.

How the hell did this group of morons think that meeting with the Russians to acquire dirt on Hillary was legal? Moral? Or even freaking smart?

And, the "Imperial Son-In-Law / Nepotism Poster Child / Dude in charge of everything" Kushner was in that meeting too. And failed to disclose it when he filed his paperwork to work for the White House. Oops.

This isn't corruption... This is just simple stupidity at a level I can't even describe properly.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Trump.
 Post Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 12:48 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 12406
Location: The things, they hurt
Well, nobody said that Russian stooges have to be smart. I've seen a couple of articles by former CIA officers about how guys like Donald Trump are ridiculously easy marks for foreign intelligence services looking to cultivate "assets", because they are vain, and silly, and in a lot of debt.

Anyway, the good news is that the Senate health care bill has just been killed by 4 defectors because McCain going into surgery gave them time to jump.

The bad news is that only one of those defectors, Susan Collins of Maine, is a moderate. The other three said it wasn't conservative enough. Which means the moderates are busy hiding behind bushes trying to look inconspicuous. They hate the bill, but they also won't stick their necks out to make a case for a bipartisan bill to fix, not kill Obamacare. Who knows if they will suddenly find their spines when McConnell comes back for Round 2? I wouldn't hold my breath.

I wonder if McConnell considers a couple of lost Senate seats an acceptable price to pay for massive tax cuts? He's probably trying to reassure the moderates that they'll be plenty of plush lobbying jobs for them if they lose their seats.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Trump.
 Post Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:04 pm 
Offline
Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 11:50 am
Posts: 1898
Location: Deep in debt, shallow on time.
I'm beginning to think the most likely outcome to this whole fight is that McConnell succeeds in getting "repeal without replacement" passed with a two year delay in implementation for the "replacement" to be figured out. That way, the GOP can claim victory without actually kicking people off of their plans immediately and kick the can a couple of years in the future after the midterm elections.

At which point there will be a gawdawful panic as the deadline for replacement looms and nobody seems to have a plan that can get through Congress. But that's for later... in the meantime they can trumpet "We kept our promise, we killed Obamacare!" without having to have a replacement plan ready to roll.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Trump.
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 1:48 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Tue May 21, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 12406
Location: The things, they hurt
He just tried repeal-now-replace-later and got shot down immediately. That idea seems to repel the moderates even more than the pig with lipstick he was trying to sell them earlier.
I'd put these outcomes in declining order of probability
1. Give up on health care, move onto tax cuts. The Trump administration will then administratively sabotage Obamacare to rid themselves of a favourable comparison and claim that it collapsed all by itself.
2. Passing some version of their bill with harder pandering to the right wing and bigger pork barrel payouts to the moderates to keep them quiet. Followed by a madcap dash towards tax cuts before the midterms. And then lining up new jobs for the likes of Susan Collins as Fox New pundits.
3. Repeal without replace (Fox News better have a LOT of job slots).
4. Bipartisanship! I think McConnell still fears the base more than he does the moderates. The entire tea party wing will go ape if he tries to work with Democrats on an Obamacare patch. I think the only way it could work is if Trump manages to keep the Breitbarters on board by spinning a bipartisan bill as a great victory for his superior deal-making skills, but Trump is an idiot, and he'll sabotage himself, and it won't work.

Top 
   
 Post subject: Re: Trump.
 Post Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2017 5:23 am 
User avatar
Offline
Joined: Sun May 26, 2002 12:00 am
Posts: 2266
Location: Vienna, Austria, EU
Or they could try to go for a "repeal as soon as the replacement is there" law or something like that. Soemthing that does effectivly nothing but with a lot of handweaving you can check the item on your list.

Top 
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 1466 posts ] 

Board index » Chat Forums » Political Opinions and Opinionated Posts


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: