Trump to win?

[GRG55]

Re: Trump to win?

Um, Elizabeth Warren is quite conservative. She doesn't want average Americans to get cheated by multinational corporations. She thinks everyone should pay their fair share in taxes. She would like to conserve the environment. She does not think corporations are people. She thinks family farms should not be bludgeoned by Monsanto and corporate farms. She thinks banks and the government should serve the people of the US. She thinks education and medical care are a right not a profit center. I may have missed a couple but there is nothing more centrist in the US than these views.

and when was the last time you witnessed large groups of people voting based on platform or facts?

In the world of politics perception is reality. And not just in this most recent affair...

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

democrats are hoping that ruth bader-ginsburg [83yo] and stephen breyer [78yo] live to 100, and they even have good wishes for anthony kennedy.

Dems will have to become more progressive well before the 2020 election. Dems will have to organize better, listen to Millennials more closely and choose their party leadership carefully. If not, there will be a Wendy's half way down Bright Angel Trail and a new Disneyland at the bottom. Oh, and a 21st Century Great Wall on the Southern border....the kids will love it. Also, we'll get to watch Miami go under sea water. Who says it won't be exciting watching Republicans swim for land. I think I just invented DJT's next reality show.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

Trump voters have no idea what they've done. By the time they get it, it will be too late. I don't even think Hillary would be so brazen. Welcome to the new America folks

Let's wait and see. I don't disagree with you but we should give him a chance to prove that the election was just a show and that he'll treat the political alt-right with the same level of respect he treated his Republican opponents and every slice of America that crossed him on his way to the presidency. He owns the Republican party now and I'm sure the Republican corporate handlers think of him as Bush 3. Maybe he's not. We'll know in two months if it's Trump or the Kochs that own America. In a worst case, it's both, but I'll reserve judgment until I can see which direction he's going.

I have given zero respect to the crayon clan on iTulip. This is what they do. They project their own prejudice on anything that does not fit their world view. While I agree with your position, I'd suggest we do not want to use their tactics. To rephrase your opening statement, we have no idea what they've done. We'll know soon enough. When we know, we'll respond.

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

im like 100% sure that if Hillary won, and we started getting word that they were even thinking about putting total crooks like Dimon into office, there would be shit flipping going on here lol. But i guess the trump kool aid wont run dry until we reach the point where plausible deniability wont work anymore. So until then, ill wait

I don't recall too many people here wringing their hands and crying about people Obama's advisors were considering appointing to key positions. In fact, I don't recall if there was any discussion at all about the people Obama was considering never mind who his advisors were considering.

There was more grumbling when people like Timothy Geithner and Dr. Evil were appointed to key positions but no one flipped his shit and started crying about the coming of Armageddon. I gave Obama until the end of his first term before I considered his presidency a failure. For goodness sakes, it seems fair to give Trump at least one day in office before declaring his presidency a failure or global catastrophe.

In the meantime, chillax. You're worrying more about a Trump presidency than the Hollywood elite who threatened to leave the U.S. and go to Canada if Trump were elected. If we were to believe that those limousine liberals are so smart, then you're entirely safe since they, in their enlightened liberalism, will choose to go a place safe from Trump and the effects of his policies.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

and when was the last time you witnessed large groups of people voting based on platform or facts?

In the world of politics perception is reality. And not just in this most recent affair...

GRG, I was answering your assertion that Warren was a "liberal". The term liberal is dead in the US. The term progressive is one we use for Sanders and Warren. The term democratic socialist is now acceptable. This perception of Warren as a liberal is yours. Americans think of her as a populist and a progressive. She's too hawkish and conservative for my liking but I think she's a person we can all work with. She's brutally honest. Seems to me we just elected someone with a similar trait, (although he's more of a KKK style populist). We'll see, Trump hasn't even taken office.

BTW, congratulations, it looks like we'll be buying and piping tar sands for at least four years.

[santafe2]

Re: Trump to win?

For goodness sakes, it seems fair to give Trump at least one day in office before declaring his presidency a failure or global catastrophe.

As one who seldom agrees with you, +1. Of course I expect you to own up if verdo is correct...

[Milton Kuo]

Re: Trump to win?

As one who seldom agrees with you, +1. Of course I expect you to own up if verdo is correct...

I've always owned up to mistakes even when I've known it would be harmful or embarrassing to me. Don't believe me? I've never made it to executive management.

I'll be more than happy to say that Trump is a loser/crook/phony/failure once he has had a reasonable amount of time to try to make things happen. If Trump does not succeed and pleasantly surprise at least some of the people who are against him (which means his supporters will feel that he has done them right), he will not get a second term.

No one need remind me. If Trump screws us, I'll verbally rip him a new one.

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

The All-Seeing Simpsons Predicted Donald Trump’s Presidency in 2000

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

The All-Seeing Simpsons Predicted Donald Trump’s Presidency in 2000

[Woodsman]

Re: Trump to win?

You're still being snarky and fighting the battle you won Woody. You can stop it and we can move forward or we can start fighting again and talk about how your boy lost the popular vote by well more the a million votes,how the exit polls were are off by 5% or more in most of the swing states, (always in the Trump direction), and very accurate in the states that don't matter. We can talk about how happy the KKK and other racist organizations are. We can talk about how the alt-right and Koch brothers appear to own Trump and the Republican party. We can talk about 100+ cases of extreme sexual and racial harassment that have occurred in the last two days and how it appears your candidate is the person who unleashed this rash of racism. And there's a lot more if you'd prefer fighting over the outcomes of the past election.

Clinton is gone, it's not about her. These are not riots they're marches. This is mostly the young progressive wing of the party that feels like they got screwed by the Dems and the screwed again when Trump was elected.

Oh most certainly, lets. Especially with you being so magnanimous in defeat and exhibiting such clarity about the causes in the aftermath.

Since you elected him, it might be much more useful for you to tell us what you think he'll do. Or I'll accept that you're an anarchist as you said earlier. Your job is done. You put a bomb in the White House and you're ready to rebuild after it goes off.

I can't take credit for electing Trump, but I will cop to knowing a thing or two about American politics and acting accordingly to support my interests, yes. It wasn't particularly hard to fathom, but it required intellectual honesty and a willingness to face unpleasant facts and avoid the temptation to create new facts when those available didn't meet one's expectations.

It also required seeing the truth in your "enemy's" argument and not making enemies of allies who tell you the truth. I learned that one in Sunday School when I was a kid.

"Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may have zeal for them. It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always, not just when I am with you."

Galatians 4:16-18

And yes, my job is done. The torch of anarchism and nihilism has been passed, as you say, to a new generation.

If not, please answer the following so we can begin to understand your thinking. Who will he appoint to his cabinet?

That is emergent and I'll know same time as you do.

We can look to the campaign where he outsourced much of the nitti-gritty scut work of the campaign to the RNC and managed toward the outcomes he wanted in the manner fitting of the dynamic "CEO of America" he wants voters to believe he is. If he carries on similarly in the transition, then your view might have more credence. What we've seen so far with him dumping Christie and putting Pence/Sessions is a check in the independence column, but it's just my opinion.

I think it's an (the?) open question if Trump maintains independence and exercises authority over Congress (else Emperor Palpatine...sorry, Bannon sic the Breitbart on them in the next primary), or if he takes the path of least resistance and lets the GOP also rans to run away with it.

That would be a fatal error and anyway as a Democrat that's how I would plan to run against "Trumpism" in the next session. But I fully expect, after the hysteria we're witnessing, I don't think they'll be able to help themselves and they'll go with the identity politics gambit ONE MORE TIME, before it finally dawns on them to give it up.

Anyway, the folks who voted for him in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan and Wisconsin did not elect Trump to restore the movement GOP to power. I think he's in for a rude electoral surprise if it turn out otherwise. I will continue to say that to the degree Trump provides direct material improvements to the lives of people representative of his voters in those "firewall" states, he will succeed. Democrats better hurry and start winning those people back or they really will be in the wilderness.

As for the inside baseball, the first 100 appointments are going to be the most significant in terms of optics. But I think the next 3900 will be what makes the Trump Administration. Time will tell.

Will he repeal many hundreds of regulations that keep banks and energy companies among others, in check.

He has said he will repeal regulations and he has been clear about his support for coal (won't help me recover from the bath I took on Peabody - timing is everything).

Would I like to see him make a frontal assault against the banksters? Yes, that would be most gratifying and I think would be a political winner. But if I were a universally hated outsider entering into the clubhouse like Trump is, I think I might be a bit more cautious in going hey diddle diddle straight down the middle than I would just sitting here with you and the gang here in the peanut gallery.

Will he lower taxes like every other Republican or will he stand firm and force the government to plan how we'll pay for expenditures?

He has said he intends to lower taxes, individual and corporate, particularly with an eye to repatriating funds kept outside the country. You can keep score here and tell us how he measures up. I can't be expected to do all this by myself, can I?

Will he keep Social Security and Medicare viable or will he attempt to privatize it and give Grandma a voucher?

He has repeatedly said no social security cuts and to be intellectually honest one should contrast that with Obama's (and HRC's before she announced) grand bargain Social Security dance with the GOP and the Pete Peterson outfit calling for austerity. Me, I hope there's someone near Trump to tell him about MMT and chartalism.

I've many more questions but that seems like a good start.

Awesome.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

and when was the last time you witnessed large groups of people voting based on platform or facts?

It's the same in every election in the US. Maybe 15% of people voting on platform and ideology. Another 5% coming close, but confusing a thing or two. 20% voting just based on identity, inherited party backing, etc. 20% voting because of job, union, business, or other single issue. 20% voting on visual/auditory cues and feelings about candidates. About 20% voting randomly--so out of their minds that odds are they can't even tell you who they voted for in 2012 and 2008 accurately.

The breakdown is pretty consistent over the last 50 years, give or take a few percent here or there.

The thing is, when 20% is a randomized crapshoot, 20% is managed image over time, and another 20% is voting for their party no matter what come hell or high water, you've only got the single-issue and platform voters left to persuade.

[GRG55]

Re: Trump to win?

It's the same in every election in the US. Maybe 15% of people voting on platform and ideology. Another 5% coming close, but confusing a thing or two. 20% voting just based on identity, inherited party backing, etc. 20% voting because of job, union, business, or other single issue. 20% voting on visual/auditory cues and feelings about candidates. About 20% voting randomly--so out of their minds that odds are they can't even tell you who they voted for in 2012 and 2008 accurately.

The breakdown is pretty consistent over the last 50 years, give or take a few percent here or there.

The thing is, when 20% is a randomized crapshoot, 20% is managed image over time, and another 20% is voting for their party no matter what come hell or high water, you've only got the single-issue and platform voters left to persuade.

Election's over. Time to move on.

Maybe a little dose of The Eagles will help all of us?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9nEqJrl0lI

[dcarrigg]

Re: Trump to win?

Election's over. Time to move on.

Truth be told, GRG, me and the misses had a pretty good 5am belly laugh when we heard the news, and not for any reason other than the coronation was interrupted again and the queen would never get her crown. Neither of us was too proud to vote for her. But we felt like we had to. And still now we think maybe it's possible the US avoided war--cold or hot--with Russia by electing Trump. Don't know if you follow too much media from south of the border, but the press were starting to beat the war drums at Moscow louder and louder as the election approached.

So we're already moving on. Got some worries...trying to read the tea leaves as things take shape...but far, far away from rioting or shedding tears. Besides which, I'm full of that old world culture...far better at fighting than mourning.

That said, this is the time for us who are sick of the New Democrats and the Third Way nonsense to drain the swamp in our own party, or at least to try to strike and get some of the most obviously corrupt and inept fools out of there. And any bit you see me talking about how the electorate splits and why Hillary done lost so bad isn't aimed at sour grapes or being mad at Trump. It's actually quite the opposite. It's me musing ways drive home the point to Democrats that they lost this election and it's their fault for having a terrible candidate, a slimy DNC, a vision-less policy platform, and for throwing the working class under the bus.

Hell, Trump didn't even do all that well. Romney got 1 million more votes. McCain got more. W. got more in 04. Clinton just was an exceptionally terrible candidate--corrupted with multiple scandals against her own party members and others, lying to the core, elitist, condescending, and totally inept at politics.

If she were a used car salesman, she'd talk to you briefly about the fabrication process on the CV boot and its relative lack of wear. Then she'd talk to you about how she was the greatest car saleswomen in the history of the universe until the cows came home. And she'd be doing this instead of showing off the low mileage, sunroof, and the leather. Then, when you check out the car and point out that the tires are bald, she'd insist the 4 obviously bald tires on it really have very good tread even though your eyes tell you another story. And as you walked away, she'd call you a sexist for not buying the car.

Oh, crap....
Was I supposed to be moving on or something?
Where were we....................

Maybe a little dose of The Eagles will help all of us?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9nEqJrl0lI

Pffft. Nice try. But youtube tells me you were being a sneaky foreigner and as a good 'Murican Free Market Soldier of Mammon®, it's my duty to beg UMPG Publishing to let me somehow find a way to pay them for the right to "get over it!"

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

the only reason to dwell on failures is to learn from them.

here's a video of a talk by thomas frank, author of "what’s the matter with kansas?" and more recently “listen liberal” about the democratic party’s choice in the 1990's to turn away from working people and organized labor and instead identify itself as the party of educated professionals.

it's been a few days since i watched it, but iirc he explains the obama victories by saying that obama got the working class vote by presenting himself as a change agent. but then, of course, he bailed out the wall st. banks. i don’t ususally watch videos because most commonly the information isn’t dense enough to repay the time investment. but i found this talk interesting and worthwhile.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbt8gJ7EW8E

in my recent readings i came across someone saying that "the democrats used to be the party of decatur [illinois, the home of caterpiller tractor], but now it's the party of martha's vineyard."

[jk]

Re: Trump to win?

and here's another view of the meaning of this election, not economic but cultural:

President Trump and Our Post-Secular Future