Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Sizik
Posts: 1190
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sizik » Wed May 16, 2018 8:44 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:But I also have the same thinking about what the ideal US would look like for the Democrats, and frankly I find that world to be downright terrifying...

I'm curious what you think that would be.
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1200
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby freezeblade » Wed May 16, 2018 8:59 pm UTC

Me as well, but I feel like I'm just providing a field for a strawman to be built.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9695
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed May 16, 2018 9:05 pm UTC

Sizik wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:But I also have the same thinking about what the ideal US would look like for the Democrats, and frankly I find that world to be downright terrifying...

I'm curious what you think that would be.


A world where theres a large permanently disadvantaged underclass, mostly. One where a plethora of policies are in place which ostensibly help the underclasses but are actually designed to sabotage them in one way or another to ensure they stay in the underclass. For instance, a welfare system with extensive use of means testing, where benefits cut off so drastically that the poor are no better off working more. Or during desegragation of schools, firing all black teachers, not only putting skilled black people out of work but leaving the children alienated in the education system. Or a policy regarding hiring that not only creates resentment amongst the general population and undermines the legitimate success of minority workers, but results in the companies resorting to college degrees to screen applicants which only puts decent jobs further out of reach of the people those policies are ostensibly there to help. Or protecting minority communities from "superpredators", or having multilingual classrooms...

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5782
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Wed May 16, 2018 9:12 pm UTC

So, basically, your assumption is that Democrats are well-meaning morons who will be unable to recognize if their policies are harmful?
The rage in their eyes, torches in their hands
And the power of the cross bringing fear to all the land
And darkness will come to us all.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9695
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Wed May 16, 2018 9:18 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:So, basically, your assumption is that Democrats are well-meaning morons who will be unable to recognize if their policies are harmful?


No. My assumption is that the Democrats (AND Republicans) are self-serving geniuses who know damn well what their policies do.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5782
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Wed May 16, 2018 9:24 pm UTC

I don't know where you are getting that from. Democrats have shown they will support any social justice that the public will accept, which is generally incrementalist policy that mitigates the pain but doesn't actually threaten their own status. I don't see where you even differ from them.

EDIT: If anything, I would say that the problem with Democrats is a lack of vision. They don't have ideas beyond just dealing with the current issues at hand, which limits them to reacting to the political climate which limits planning to the next election. Republicans are effective because they have a long-term plan, which is basically tear down government and replace with corporations, and use stricter criminal punishment and surveillance to mitigate the problems with suffering.
The rage in their eyes, torches in their hands
And the power of the cross bringing fear to all the land
And darkness will come to us all.

User avatar
dubsola
Posts: 2240
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 11:55 am UTC
Location: Sunny Snakeville

Re: Trump presidency

Postby dubsola » Thu May 17, 2018 4:20 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:A world where theres a large permanently disadvantaged underclass, mostly. One where a plethora of policies are in place which ostensibly help the underclasses but are actually designed to sabotage them in one way or another to ensure they stay in the underclass. For instance, a welfare system with extensive use of means testing, where benefits cut off so drastically that the poor are no better off working more. Or during desegragation of schools, firing all black teachers, not only putting skilled black people out of work but leaving the children alienated in the education system. Or a policy regarding hiring that not only creates resentment amongst the general population and undermines the legitimate success of minority workers, but results in the companies resorting to college degrees to screen applicants which only puts decent jobs further out of reach of the people those policies are ostensibly there to help. Or protecting minority communities from "superpredators", or having multilingual classrooms...

A good portion of this describes the world we currently live in. Nothing about anything the Republicans do is aimed at mitigating it.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6068
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu May 17, 2018 5:51 am UTC

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/p ... imals.html
“We have people coming into the country, or trying to come in — we’re stopping a lot of them,” Mr. Trump said in the Cabinet Room during an hourlong meeting that reporters were allowed to document. “You wouldn’t believe how bad these people are. These aren’t people, these are animals, and we’re taking them out of the country at a level and at a rate that’s never happened before.”

Mr. Trump’s remarks came as the local officials invited for the event took turns praising his immigration policies and lamenting California’s law, arguing that it was making it more difficult for their communities to find and deport criminals.

Looking back from 2016, I'm quite surprised at just how hard Trump fights and cares about *immigration*. He didn't even fight this hard when his taxes were on the line for the tax bill. I guess he's awful to everything and everybody, but the other issues have powerful advocates that push back/tamp down his worst impulses. Or maybe Jeff Sessions is just really good at his job. Not that he's a good person, just really good at his goal to punish nonwhites.

*Well, terrorizing nonwhites.

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1909
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Grop » Thu May 17, 2018 7:34 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:A world where theres a large permanently disadvantaged underclass, mostly. One where a plethora of policies are in place which ostensibly help the underclasses but are actually designed to sabotage them in one way or another to ensure they stay in the underclass. For instance, a welfare system with extensive use of means testing, where benefits cut off so drastically that the poor are no better off working more. Or during desegragation of schools, firing all black teachers, not only putting skilled black people out of work but leaving the children alienated in the education system. Or a policy regarding hiring that not only creates resentment amongst the general population and undermines the legitimate success of minority workers, but results in the companies resorting to college degrees to screen applicants which only puts decent jobs further out of reach of the people those policies are ostensibly there to help. Or protecting minority communities from "superpredators", or having multilingual classrooms...


I am not as informed as you are on American politics, but that sounds pretty much to me like a Republican "World" except that they ostensibly don't want to help the lower class (except through indirect means such as free market magic and God's will).

Mutex
Posts: 1240
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Thu May 17, 2018 8:36 am UTC

I don't think welfare cliffs are something Dems *want*, it's just that taking care of those who need welfare the most is the first priority and getting anything further agreed with Reps would be pretty hard since it'll inevitably mean spending even more money on welfare. E.g. gradually tapering welfare off as you get a higher pay, so you're always better off - I'd be surprised to see a Dem not agree with this idea, it's the Reps who'd balk at the higher taxes needed to pay for it. Another solution, Universal Income, would fix the welfare cliff problem. Are proponents of UI predominantly Dems or Reps? Claiming that welfare cliffs are something Dems want only makes sense if Reps are more enthusiastic about solutions to them than Dems.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9695
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu May 17, 2018 12:27 pm UTC

In terms of universal income, keep in mind that the person who put the idea of the Negative Income Tax in the public mind was Milton Friedman. But as I mentioned, the Republicans are under the control of the Religious Right, whose goal is to create a society where the only form of social services are the church-run charities.

Keep in mind that I don't view the current crop of Republicans any better than the Democrats. Or even the prior crop of Republicans for that matter. I'd say that they are worse, actually. But as I said, I'm a Rockefeller Republican.

Mutex
Posts: 1240
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Thu May 17, 2018 12:45 pm UTC

Indeed, the description in that link sounds more like a moderate Democrat than anything right now.
The term largely fell out of use by the end of the twentieth century and has been replaced by the term "moderate Republican". Rockefeller Republicans were typically moderate to center-right, vehemently rejected conservatives like Barry Goldwater and his policies and were often culturally liberal. They espoused government and private investments in environmentalism, healthcare and higher education as necessities for a better society and economic growth, in the tradition of Rockefeller. In general, Rockefeller Republicans opposed socialism and government ownership. They supported some regulation of business and many New Deal-style social programs. A critical element was their support for labor unions and especially the building trades appreciated the heavy spending on infrastructure. In turn, the unions gave these politicians enough support to overcome the anti-union rural element in the Republican Party. As the unions weakened after the 1970s, so too did the need for Republicans to cooperate with them. This transformation played into the hands of the more conservative Republicans, who did not want to collaborate with labor unions in the first place and now no longer needed to do so to carry statewide elections.[6]

In foreign policy, most wanted to use American power in cooperation with allies to fight against the spread of communism. They wanted to help American business expand abroad. Richard Nixon, a moderate establishment Republican within the party's contemporary ideological framework, was influenced by this tradition. Although Nixon ran against Rockefeller from the right in the 1968 primaries and was widely identified with the cultural right of the time, he adopted several Rockefeller Republican policies during his time as President: setting up the Environmental Protection Agency, supporting expanded welfare programs, imposing wage and price controls and in 1971 announcing he was a Keynesian.[7] Rockefeller Republicans were most common in the Northeast and the West Coast, with their larger liberal constituencies, while they were rare in the South and Midwest.[8]

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3854
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dauric » Thu May 17, 2018 12:54 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:Indeed, the description in that link sounds more like a moderate Democrat than anything right now.


Oh, but don't call him a Democrat, because those Democrats are all evil geniuses looking to further their own prosperity...

.... Tribalist bullshit. Pure tribalist "My Team Vs. Your Team" bullshit. If those democrats were suddenly labeled "Moderate Repubicans" it would be all fine and dandy.

...

Pointless tribalism is endemic in our society. Just yesterday I was overhearing co-workers talking about sports fandom, and the joke at one point about disowning a child that didn't follow the same sports team as the rest of the family.

A joke it may have been, but the existence of the joke is itself telling about how we divide ourselves in pointless boundaries.

Government policies are fine as long as the're put forth by "My Team" but the identical policy is an abomination if it's been put forward by "Your Team".
Last edited by Dauric on Thu May 17, 2018 12:55 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3854
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dauric » Thu May 17, 2018 12:54 pm UTC

Wrong button. Apologies.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Mutex
Posts: 1240
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Thu May 17, 2018 1:01 pm UTC

Case in point, the ACA. Literally invented by conservatives, but the moment Obama got behind it suddenly it became pure Leninism.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9674
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Thu May 17, 2018 1:13 pm UTC

Yep
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
emceng
Posts: 3130
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby emceng » Thu May 17, 2018 1:25 pm UTC

My point was not that Dems dislike or impede their own drive for power. It's that the GOP has abandoned the good of the country completely.

If Clinton had won, her top priority would have been helping herself, not helping the country. Probably not even in her top 3. But I think it would be in her top 5 priorities.

Trump, even if he had the slightest clue what would help the country, has zero interest in doing it. His top 20 priorities are all about helping himself, and the next 80 are about helping his family, friends, or flatterers.

GOP leaders are well aware of things that might help the country, but have abandoned pursuing them. Their priorities seem to be 1) get rich, 2) hold onto power. No #3.
The results are usually 1) fuck the poor, 2) fuck the disadvantaged, 3) enrich other 1%ers.
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9695
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu May 17, 2018 2:04 pm UTC

You can call me a RINO, or Democrat in denial. It is not Democrats I don't like, it's the party leadership which I believe suffers from the iron law of instutions/politics; the people involved in an institition often care more about their power within an institution than the health of the institution itself, and likewise the political parties care more about their power within the country than the health of the country itself.

I am sure that most of the party members arent like what you seem to think I think they are like. I am also sure that many people join as politicians for mostly altruistic reasons. I just don't think those people end up as either the major candidates or the party leadership, which actively sabotages candidates the public would rather have. Hey, I could be wrong, I just got out of a coma and I'm sure President Bernie has been doing a fine job.

Chen
Posts: 5406
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Chen » Thu May 17, 2018 3:25 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:You can call me a RINO, or Democrat in denial. It is not Democrats I don't like, it's the party leadership which I believe suffers from the iron law of instutions/politics; the people involved in an institition often care more about their power within an institution than the health of the institution itself, and likewise the political parties care more about their power within the country than the health of the country itself.


How is this different than the Republicans though? Or really almost any modern politician?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9695
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu May 17, 2018 3:31 pm UTC

It's NOT.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9674
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Thu May 17, 2018 3:32 pm UTC

emceng wrote:If Clinton had won, her top priority would have been helping herself, not helping the country. Probably not even in her top 3. But I think it would be in her top 5 priorities.
umm...Excuse me...But, uh...No FU's allowed. Sooo...I'm more than a little offended.
I think Mrs. Clinton would have held the Office with Dignity and Grace.
Dignity and Grace; A thing Orange Man can't even pretend possess.

Mrs. Clinton served her nation under a public microscope for nearly half a century.
I think she had and still has the well being of the nation and ALL the nation's people at the core of her conduct.


GOP leaders are well aware of things that might help the country, but have abandoned pursuing them. Their priorities seem to be 1) get rich, 2) hold onto power. No #3.
The results are usually 1) fuck the poor, 2) fuck the disadvantaged, 3) enrich other 1%ers.

I won't paint all GOP the way you have.
I will concede, you are correct about the Majority; Especially Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan (the Ayn Rand fan)
That %$#&, McConnell, refuses to allow the Senate to even debate legal protections of the investigators from Orange Man.

oh...The Uranium One deal is an Urban Myth.
By the only News at Fox 25 Hours of News.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vCjyWlpmEY

Most of the nasty things said from The Basket are as Plush and Myth as that Myth is.
If you keep saying it, you will keep believing it. And; So will the others in The Basket.

That makes it propaganda Not fact.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1488
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Thu May 17, 2018 4:14 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:It is not Democrats I don't like, it's the party leadership which ...
Having been to the USA a few times, I've formed the opinion that the vast majority of people there are decent people who want what's right in principle and for the country, and that their political positions are in most ways very similar. Viewed from somewhere that a European would consider licentious, socialist Hippie country, US Democrat and Replublican positions are clustered so tightly together trying to distinguish between them is like trying to figure out which of two trees on a distant ridgeline is closer. Having been to a lot of countries, I've formed the opinion that "Farmer in a sparsely-populated valley," "Working poor in a small town between cities," "Man in a suit in the biggest city" and "Soldier" are much better descriptors than anything about ethnicity, tribe, creed, nationality or skin colour. If you're "Working poor in a small town between cities," you have more in common with the other "Working poor in a small town between cities" in every country than you have with the party leadership in your own government (and British and Vietnamese Army squads on parade use such similar orders and movements they could merge).

In other words, yup.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
emceng
Posts: 3130
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby emceng » Thu May 17, 2018 4:21 pm UTC

addams wrote:
emceng wrote:If Clinton had won, her top priority would have been helping herself, not helping the country. Probably not even in her top 3. But I think it would be in her top 5 priorities.
umm...Excuse me...But, uh...No FU's allowed. Sooo...I'm more than a little offended.
I think Mrs. Clinton would have held the Office with Dignity and Grace.
Dignity and Grace; A thing Orange Man can't even pretend possess.

Mrs. Clinton served her nation under a public microscope for nearly half a century.
I think she had and still has the well being of the nation and ALL the nation's people at the core of her conduct.




addams, I respect your opinion, but I see it differently. Not due to Fox's smears. There's no question she would have been better than the current guy. Below are my thoughts. This is conjecture, but to me it makes sense.
1) staying with Bill. Perhaps they deeply love each other, but it seems more like they treat each other as allies, not loved ones
2) Moving to NY. She didn't move because of her deep ties to New York. It was because she knew she could win a Senate seat easily.
3) Sec. of State - She did well there, but it might have just been an attempt to polish her credentials on foreign relations, which is something Democrats typically are considered weak on
4) Her coziness with corporate interests. Yes, nearly every politician is like this. I do not consider corporate interests to be American interests.

There's likely more, but I am not deeply familiar with her career. And again, she would have worked to better the country. I just do not think it would have been her highest priority.
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5782
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu May 17, 2018 4:26 pm UTC

Everything you listed was about furthering her career, which I'm not sure where she would go as President. Trying to leave a positive legacy behind? I mean, if that's the kind of self-service you are concerned about, which the things you listed are pretty unsubstantial, I think you REALLY need to rethink your worldview.
The rage in their eyes, torches in their hands
And the power of the cross bringing fear to all the land
And darkness will come to us all.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9695
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu May 17, 2018 4:48 pm UTC

The economy and world are almost entirely out of the president's control. As was mentioned earlier, the ACA was basically exactly what the Republicans wanted, but that became Obama's legacy, of which the Republicans are doing their absolute hardest to destroy. Reagan's economic boom was virtually the result of the baby boomers being at the peak of their careers with only a tiny number of elderly to support. The President's legacy is almost more of fiction of how the media portrays them rather than a fair assessment of how they run the country.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7982
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Thu May 17, 2018 4:52 pm UTC

I think you're minimizing the president's impact a bit. Bush junior will always be remembered as the president who got the US in a useless war, for instance. Regardless, just because it's not real doesn't mean presidents won't strive for it.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9674
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Thu May 17, 2018 5:01 pm UTC

emceng wrote:
addams wrote:
emceng wrote:If Clinton had won, her top priority would have been helping herself, not helping the country. Probably not even in her top 3. But I think it would be in her top 5 priorities.
umm...Excuse me...But, uh...No FU's allowed. Sooo...I'm more than a little offended.
I think Mrs. Clinton would have held the Office with Dignity and Grace.
Dignity and Grace; A thing Orange Man can't even pretend possess.

Mrs. Clinton served her nation under a public microscope for nearly half a century.
I think she had and still has the well being of the nation and ALL the nation's people at the core of her conduct.




addams, I respect your opinion, but I see it differently. Not due to Fox's smears. There's no question she would have been better than the current guy. Below are my thoughts. This is conjecture, but to me it makes sense.
1) staying with Bill. Perhaps they deeply love each other, but it seems more like they treat each other as allies, not loved ones
2) Moving to NY. She didn't move because of her deep ties to New York. It was because she knew she could win a Senate seat easily.
3) Sec. of State - She did well there, but it might have just been an attempt to polish her credentials on foreign relations, which is something Democrats typically are considered weak on
4) Her coziness with corporate interests. Yes, nearly every politician is like this. I do not consider corporate interests to be American interests.

There's likely more, but I am not deeply familiar with her career. And again, she would have worked to better the country. I just do not think it would have been her highest priority.

Gasp!
So many Post!
I'm quoting you, Emceng, so we don't forget where we were.

Sigh....
No deep ties to New York?
Really??

Her only child and all of her GrandChildren don't count as Deep Ties?
What does she need for you to consider her attached?

For those in The Basket, nothing she does will be enough.
No relationship will be clean enough.

She's been with Bill most of her life.
They are simply an average old married couple.

Nah. They are Better than most old married couples.
They have not become The Bickersons.

She is so much better than those in The Basket can allow themselves to think.

If those peeking out of The Basket really Think! about it,
they might feel really bad about what they have encouraged to happen to our nation.

So; To maintain Ego Integrity, The Basket must find fault where no fault exists.

I know arguing is a Fool's Game.
But,...You hit a raw spot.

Honey...; I'm too tired to argue endlessly.
Let's simply agree to agree.
There's no question she would have been better than the current guy.
Oh, yes.
She would have been better and she would have hired better people. There would be less fear and fewer tears.

That's where we'd like to be.
Here we are...Married to The Mob.

We can hold hands and hope even The Mob is Not above The Law.
It is a flimsy hope. Hope is all we have at this point.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10364
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu May 17, 2018 5:26 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:It is part of why I am still registered as a republican even though they betrayed my values and I generally vote for third parties these days.


I'm registered as a republican because I find it useful to vote in primaries against specific candidates. Registered as one to vote against Trump. Voted third party in the general.

Ideologically, I feel no particular connection with the republicans. There are cases where we happen to agree, but that's true for pretty much any party. My ideal US probably doesn't look much like a entirely republican or democrat one. I figure that's likely normal. Very few people agree with *everything* a given party says. Just a matter of what compromises are acceptable, and what's the closest fit. Two parties doesn't give a ton of choice here, so it's not odd that many people are not thrilled at the options. Sableeagle's pretty much on the money here.

Thesh wrote:So, basically, your assumption is that Democrats are well-meaning morons who will be unable to recognize if their policies are harmful?


So, people, then. Checks out.

sardia wrote:Looking back from 2016, I'm quite surprised at just how hard Trump fights and cares about *immigration*. He didn't even fight this hard when his taxes were on the line for the tax bill. I guess he's awful to everything and everybody, but the other issues have powerful advocates that push back/tamp down his worst impulses. Or maybe Jeff Sessions is just really good at his job. Not that he's a good person, just really good at his goal to punish nonwhites.

*Well, terrorizing nonwhites.


Trump mostly just floats ideas, and pursues those that get traction. It's a really simple strategy, but it works pretty well if you're not overly worried about ideological consistency or what not. His anti-immigration ideas got traction and attention. so he stuck to 'em.

Mutex wrote:Case in point, the ACA. Literally invented by conservatives, but the moment Obama got behind it suddenly it became pure Leninism.


In practice, a lot of Republicans talk a great game about the power of the free market, and the evils of big government, but when given power, mostly use it to demonstrate said problems.

Invented by conservatives ought not be confused with good.

My point was not that Dems dislike or impede their own drive for power. It's that the GOP has abandoned the good of the country completely.


Nah. Trump probably thinks whatever he's doing is great for the country. Likely also true for many other GOP folks. Now, we can of course disagree over if they are actually accomplishing that....but they almost certainly believe that they're doing good.

And, in practice, the economy is doing pretty awesome, and Trump's just welcomed home the hostages he convinced North Korea to give up. It ain't all awful out there.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Thu May 17, 2018 5:54 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:I'm registered as a republican because I find it useful to vote in primaries against specific candidates. Registered as one to vote against Trump. Voted third party in the general.
Some might say that you didn't do much good in the first instance (not enough people thought like you) and actively went against your own aim in the second (too many people thought like you).

But democracy is a crazy game, and the EC method isn't the only one with rounding errors.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10364
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu May 17, 2018 7:42 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:I'm registered as a republican because I find it useful to vote in primaries against specific candidates. Registered as one to vote against Trump. Voted third party in the general.
Some might say that you didn't do much good in the first instance (not enough people thought like you) and actively went against your own aim in the second (too many people thought like you).

But democracy is a crazy game, and the EC method isn't the only one with rounding errors.


The first instance did indeed prove futile. But this wasn't certain at the time.

The second, feh. Electoral college means my vote is wasted in any practical sense. Maryland will go blue in the presidential election every single time. I can't actually do much there.

I mean, one vote doesn't mean a whole lot in either case, particularly because MD isn't one of the states with super early primaries. But all else being equal, primary votes are somewhat more likely to make a difference.

User avatar
Plasma_Wolf
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:11 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Plasma_Wolf » Thu May 17, 2018 7:52 pm UTC

The downside is that sometimes large groups of people will think "oh what does one vote matter?"

Registering as a Republican to try and push away from the worst in your state's primary is a good idea. In the general, your plan is a slippery slope. In Maryland about as far away from slippery as you can get, but still...

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9695
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu May 17, 2018 8:40 pm UTC

So... in the examples I listed, do we agree on the effects they have but disagree on the intention?

elasto
Posts: 3406
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Thu May 17, 2018 8:45 pm UTC

Moderate numbers of third-party votes can make a difference even in a two-party FPTP system (and not just by causing your otherwise preferred candidate to lose...)

The Green party were never going to win seats in UK elections in the 00's, but they got sufficient votes that both main parties in the UK adopted a number of green policies such as targets on renewables and carbon emissions.

UKIP were never going to win seats in UK elections (despite non-trivial double-digit support) but successfully tugged the Conservative party heavily to the right, resulting in the promise of a referendum which UKIP subsequently won (Brexit).

There's more than one way to win the ideological war.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9695
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu May 17, 2018 8:47 pm UTC

Better example would be the Grangers of the US, who got a lot of policies implemented in spite of making up a mere 12% of the vote.

A third party grows, the other two have to adjust and gobble it up or risk being the third party...

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Thu May 17, 2018 10:56 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Maryland will go blue in the presidential election every single time. I can't actually do much there.

Yes, by a very naive calculation, Maryland is the third-most invulnerable to not-being-Blue based upon how many of the non-Red/Blue voters would have to go red. It seems that there are 15 states (or part-states, where there's a split possible) in this position of not having enough wishy-washies to spare to flip things, suitably remotivated, which accounts for 178 EVs of solid-Blue.

Similarly, at the other end there's 25 invulnerably-Red states/part-states (and one composite-of-parts), or 196 EVs being solid-Red (in a re-run scenario where defection is only allowed towards the main colours from the sideline ones, everyone else vores how they did/didn't the first time).

There's 15 s/ps/cops where theoretically, the 3rd-party votes (if so inclined) could have swung the 157 EVs they control. 108 of those EVs currently favour Red, 49 currently favour Blue (i.e. it is possible for 3rd-party votes to have instead favoured Blue and Red, respectively, if they hadn't gone 3rd party, given the totally unwarranted assumption that they'd not already be happy with how their defection helped the vote even as they made their off-winner protest vote - and I'm also assuming non-voters remain non-voters for the sake of simplicity).

There's 14 cases where, had all voters in a state for a single 3rd-party nominee had the fore-knowledge and will that they could swing the local result the other way they could have defected to the losing one of the Big Two and made them the winning one, without other assistance, each 3rd-party having both options across different states (e.g. Jill Stein could have sent 3 Red votes Blue by sending three states-worth of support towards Hillary and 1 Blue state Red with the opposite drift, to a net shift of 42EVs, and I bet it wouldn't even be so dispartisan and perverse). Six states (evenly split) had enough votes not for Hillary, Donald, Gary, Jill or Evan (in my data, lumped into Other) to outnumber the Hillary/Donald majority-gap.

If you're a 3rd-party voter (or, indeed, a 4th-, 5th-, 6th-party voter, a no-party voter, a Mickey Mouse voter) in a set of states that gave 44.5 million votes-worth of direction, potentially (assuming that your mindset changes in line with others of your ilk, and vice-versa) you did have the power to make a difference. And that's heavily biased to "got Trump, but coulda got Hillary" (32 million people involved in that decision, Red, Blue, and every other colour) with relatively few "got Trump, could have defeated Hillary even more" (12 million). And, again, all that not including, non-voters (abstaining, messing up, wrongfully discouraged or even disqualified).


That's just chucking raw figures around a spreadsheet, though¹, just now, and without any of thr more sophisticated tools and assumptions and exit-polling opinions that the real pollsters get to drool over. It does totwlly ignore the very real factors of "I aint voting for either of them", which is a valid position, so long as you really consider the win that one of them is going to hapoen anyway to be no worse than the win of the other.

¹ And, somehow, I seem to have a totalled-up US-wide vote for Hillary 190 less than the official total, and 149 less Trump votes than the official national one, amongst other little sanity-checks that I made, with no obvious errors in the subtotals even after meticulous proof-reading the sources I imported. Which is annoying, and may mean some borderline assumptions are wrong, even if not the whole, general gist.

elasto
Posts: 3406
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Fri May 18, 2018 12:42 pm UTC

Related to Trump in so much as I wonder how he'd react and how US-EU relations would sour if this went forwards:

The EU has begun reviving legislation that will allow European companies to continue doing business with Iran, despite US sanctions, officials say. The so-called "blocking statute" was introduced in 1996 to circumvent US sanctions on Cuba but was never used.

An updated version of the measure should be in force before 6 August, when the first sanctions take effect. It will prohibit European companies from complying with the penalties and permit compensation for affected firms.

Washington is re-imposing strict sanctions on Iran, which were lifted under a 2015 international deal to control the country's nuclear ambitions.

"We have the duty, the Commission and the European Union, to do what we can to protect our European businesses, especially SMEs," European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said in a statement, referring to small and medium-sized companies.

The Commission - the EU executive - said the European Parliament and member states could raise objections to the statute. But the measure could also be activated sooner if there was strong political support.

It also announced:

- The start of the formal process of allowing the European Investment Bank to lend to EU projects in Iran
- It would urge EU governments to explore "one-off" transfers to Iran's central bank to help authorities to receive their oil-related revenues
- It would continue and strengthen the assistance to Iran with Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete travelling to Tehran this weekend

link

In terms of what kind of legacy a president can have: It's quite easy for them to leave a very poor legacy; It's slightly harder for them to leave a good legacy. This is because it's easy to screw things up - like start a war, whether conventional, cold or trade - and it usually requires cross-party cooperation to enact legislature that is meaningful and lasting.

The economy is mostly a crapshoot, with today's economy often dependant on decisions made a number of years previously, often by a different administration.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10364
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon May 21, 2018 4:53 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:So... in the examples I listed, do we agree on the effects they have but disagree on the intention?


I don't think either vote had any significant effect, nor could voting any other way have caused any significant change.

It's part of the nature of voting in steeply one sided elections.

That said, I think there's some virtue in voting anyways, if only to express a sentiment. Maybe the guy you don't like wins anyways, but more votes for whoever you wish to make a statement for might, in some small way, contribute to media coverage after the fact. Landslide wins are treated differently than closer races, after all. One vote's still super minor in the grand scheme of things, but hey, you do what you can.

Soupspoon wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Maryland will go blue in the presidential election every single time. I can't actually do much there.

Yes, by a very naive calculation, Maryland is the third-most invulnerable to not-being-Blue based upon how many of the non-Red/Blue voters would have to go red. It seems that there are 15 states (or part-states, where there's a split possible) in this position of not having enough wishy-washies to spare to flip things, suitably remotivated, which accounts for 178 EVs of solid-Blue.


Yeah. The extremely unbalanced states are extremely unlikely to matter in any real sense. There may be an outside chance that one candidate outstrips the other in popularity by such a vast margin that extremely partisan states become swing states but, in that case, the exceptionally popular candidate has already won.

Some votes matter a great deal more than other votes by virtue of the electoral system. Some basically don't matter at all.

That's just chucking raw figures around a spreadsheet, though¹, just now, and without any of thr more sophisticated tools and assumptions and exit-polling opinions that the real pollsters get to drool over. It does totwlly ignore the very real factors of "I aint voting for either of them", which is a valid position, so long as you really consider the win that one of them is going to hapoen anyway to be no worse than the win of the other.


Honestly, I was wildly unimpressed with both Clinton and Trump, and would really, really have liked another viable candidate besides them. Failing that, third party vote. If no third party vote had been available, I'd likely have left it blank or wrote in something amusing to me. Even if I were in a swing state, a third party vote would have been more attractive than either of them, but it'd have been worth actually considering how much one values each outcome as well as it's probability. In a safe state, it's not really worth worrying over.

elasto wrote:In terms of what kind of legacy a president can have: It's quite easy for them to leave a very poor legacy; It's slightly harder for them to leave a good legacy. This is because it's easy to screw things up - like start a war, whether conventional, cold or trade - and it usually requires cross-party cooperation to enact legislature that is meaningful and lasting.


A lot of stuff that's big during a president's term doesn't make any sort of tangible marks on a president's legacy. Starting a war isn't necessarily a big deal in the US. The US has a ton of wars or similar conflicts, and we do not generally think of wartime presidents pejoratively. Hell, Abraham Lincoln is often considered the most influential president, or at least close to it(maybe Washington, but it's hard to replicate being the first, yknow?), and Lincoln's term in office was defined entirely by conflict, not really by a lot of cross-party cooperation.

I mean, sure, getting the other party on board with your ideology is desirable, but I do not think that is a reasonable option for Trump. Partisanship being what it is, no recent president has enjoyed a great deal of cross-aisle support from Clinton onward. Obama had the same issue. I'm sure he'd have loved some Republican support, but it wasn't going to happen.

User avatar
emceng
Posts: 3130
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 9:38 pm UTC
Location: State of Hockey
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby emceng » Mon May 21, 2018 6:15 pm UTC

I feel that is a false dichotomy, and suspect most Democrats would agree. W Bush drew opposition from the Dems for starting a pointless war. Obama was opposed by the GOP for not being a republican. Trump is getting Democratic opposition because every fucking thing he does is terrible.
When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up. - CS Lewis

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10364
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon May 21, 2018 6:39 pm UTC

emceng wrote:I feel that is a false dichotomy, and suspect most Democrats would agree. W Bush drew opposition from the Dems for starting a pointless war. Obama was opposed by the GOP for not being a republican. Trump is getting Democratic opposition because every fucking thing he does is terrible.


Clinton was opposed heavily even before Dubya.

Both sides will insist that every thing the other side does is terrible. It's not really a false dichotomy, it's just a statement about how things are. Nobody gave a crap about fencing off Mexico and deporting immigrants when the Obama administration was doing it.

Edit: Also, for all the dislike of Dubya's drone striking and such, folks on the left made less fuss over it when Obama did basically the same.
Last edited by Tyndmyr on Mon May 21, 2018 6:53 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9674
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Mon May 21, 2018 6:46 pm UTC

Obama cared.
That's Why DACA was started.

Those people must feel So betrayed.
The information they paid to give is being used against them.

I think it is shameful behavior of a nation.
If our best and brightest are deported, it will strengthen any nation they enter.

Damn it!
History takes too damn long, sometimes.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests