The Trump Presidency - Part 2

WI_Red said:
A and B sound great in theory, but in practice they lead us here. You are essentially advocating for throwing gas on a fire and hoping the house doesn't burn down before the fire truck shows up.

As for blaming people? I really don't care about "turning them to my side". It's obvious that self interest is not a motivator, so why should the thoughts of some nobody on a football website mean shit to anyone. Besides, saying people are apolitical or any other any other excuse does nothing but provide cover for choices they made. Not voting is a choice, and making that choice has consequences. If someone says "I decided not to vote and I am ok with Trump's America" than fair enough, but if one chooses not to vote and then laments the outcome of that choice?
Click to expand...

oneniltothearsenal said:
A. Just reducing everything to calling a person evil is overly simplistic and, in my opinion, useless when applied to voting. Say both candidates have policies on issues A and B that you think are evil. So you just say "both candidates are evil". Problem is, two candidates never have an equally evil set of policies. So both candidates are functionally the same on issues A and B, but Candidate R is leagues worse on issues C, D, E, and F so just saying "both candidates are evil" because of issues A and B completely ignores the outcomes that make the country and world far worse because of issues C,D,E,F, etc.
So I find that angle fundamentally flawed and not a sound way to make a decision.

B. No, it is impossible now. After Citizen's United there is simply no way a third party will ever be able to compete with the money in politics.

Even before Citizen's United, the only two times it was viable in the last 150 years were when Perot, a billionaire himself, poured a ton of money into a campaign in 1992 and then, depending on accounts, one or both major parties did some shady shite to force Perot out. Before that, you have to go way back to 1912 and a former popular president, Teddy Roosevelt and his Bull Moose party and even then Roosevelt lost and wasn't all that close.

I can see why people from Europe, or other places with multi-party, is het 51zesystems, might think Bernie should have just run as a third party candidate in 2016 or 2020 but he had zero chance of winning as a third party candidate. Roger Stone realized this even earlier when he and Trump were bandying about taking over Perot's party post 2000 and using that as a platform to get Trump elected but Stone concluded Trump wouldn't have a chance of winning so it's better to take over one of the two main parties. Not voting is simply not going to force the Democrats to "move further to the left".
Click to expand...
That option B doesn't have to aim for a new, different party though. It can also signal to the losing existing party that their program lacks appeal: 'I hate Trump but don't care for what the Democrats have to offer either'. If the numbers of that are sufficiently significant, it forces the Democrats to come up with something else at the next elections.

I'm not suggesting that this is worth risking the election of Trump for, cause he's obviously hugely damaging to US society. But it's logic that might make sense in normal times.
 
golden_blunder said:
Alfonso etc, this is a good idea. It’s gone way of topic please create a dedicated thread for military size etc then you can all measure your military dick sizes all you want
Click to expand...
Created

European military power with no American support - AKA the tank counting thread​

 
Cheimoon said:
That option B doesn't have to aim for a new, different party though. It can also signal to the losing existing party that their program lacks appeal: 'I hate Trump but don't care for what the Democrats have to offer either'. If the numbers of that are sufficiently significant, it forces the Democrats to come up with something else at the next elections.

I'm not suggesting that this is worth risking the election of Trump for, cause he's obviously hugely damaging to US society. But it's logic that might make sense in normal times.
Click to expand...

I think that's a valid point in theory. But pragmatically, the problem is Citizens United and how that money really dominates modern US elections now. It would take massive funding for that third party to somehow break from the established 1% parties like Green or Libertarian. So that poses two options, have a massive grass roots funding like Bernie in 2016 or AOC's campaigns at a national level. Or they'd have to have a "good billionaire" fund them. I can't imagine a world now where a Soros funded 3rd party would be able to gain traction so that leaves a third party entirely funded by grass roots. Considering this party would likely have the bulk of support outside the top 20% of wealth, I'm not really sure what it would take for a grassroots third party to really coalesce but I think it would take one or likely both of a) things to get really measurably worse under Trump or his successor and b) a third party candidate who is a really, really good orator (better than Bernie and in the Obama tier).
 
Cheimoon said:
That option B doesn't have to aim for a new, different party though. It can also signal to the losing existing party that their program lacks appeal: 'I hate Trump but don't care for what the Democrats have to offer either'. If the numbers of that are sufficiently significant, it forces the Democrats to come up with something else at the next elections.

I'm not suggesting that this is worth risking the election of Trump for, cause he's obviously hugely damaging to US society. But it's logic that might make sense in normal times.
Click to expand...
Lets check to see how that's going

 
WI_Red said:
Lets check to see how that's going

Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't say it will work in the current landscape. But at least it's more possible than hoping for a third party to make a viable run for the presidency within your lifetime.

Also, I would almost say that a move to the centre would be a move left for the Dems. But I suppose the frame of reference is current US perspectives, and it rather means a move even further right...
 

Trump Reportedly Preparing To Seize Control of the U.S. Postal Service​

Click to expand...
President Donald Trump could “dissolve the leadership” at the U.S. Postal Service as soon as the end of this week and have the agency merge with the Commerce Department, The Washington Post reported on Thursday night.


The paper, citing six people it said were close to talks about a takeover of the USPS, reported Trump’s chief 2020 and 2024 campaign fundraiser Howard Lutnick – the current Commerce secretary – could lead the agency. The Post reported:


President Donald Trump is preparing to dissolve the leadership of the U.S. Postal Service and absorb the independent mail agency into his administration, potentially throwing the 250-year-old mail provider and trillions of dollars of ecommerce transactions into turmoil.
Trump is expected to issue an executive order as soon as this week to fire the members of the Postal Service’s governing board and place the agency under the control of the Commerce Department and Secretary Howard Lutnick, according to six people familiar with the plans, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisals.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
https://www.mediaite.com/trump/trum...g-to-seize-control-of-the-u-s-postal-service/
 
Redplane said:
How convenient to also control the very service that process electoral mail, bills, and everything else to give them direct control and insight into also that aspect of people s lives.
Click to expand...
whilst privitisation of postal services has been a GOP wet dream for decades, I agree this is more about controlling postal voting.
 
068xzyfc6fke1.jpg
vldh3qfc6fke1.jpg
 
WPMUFC said:
068xzyfc6fke1.jpg
vldh3qfc6fke1.jpg
Click to expand...
Whatever their plans are in gaining increased controls over all things election will likely already become apparent come the midterms. I hope the only reason the Dems and decent Republicans are keeping their heads down is because they're working to safeguard against the ultimate power play - which in a way one might argue already happened.
 
CassiusClaymore said:
Too late, it's gone. It's a dictatorship now and none of his supporters seem to have a problem with it.

Trump has never made any bones about looking up to fellow dictators like Putin and Kim. He's convinced his base that they're strong leaders who look out for their people first and that's how he's sold himself to them.
Click to expand...
So I say again, take back your country..... Like feck is it too late!
 
Pexbo said:
Cheers for the reply. Could maybe summarise it by saying that overall his governing is an incoherent mess which cannot be easily pigeonholed into a traditional ideology which is to be expected because he’s actually fairly unique in that if you were to boil him right down I don’t think you would find any interest in politics. Politics at its essence is conflicting ideas about how the world should best be run, with who that benefits being part of the argument. Trump isn’t interested in anything other than himself.

Now I’ve typed that I realise I’ve probably just described him as a conservative but I’m sure you know the point I’m trying to make.

Personally I think that Trump is a very very simple man. He’s transactional and he’s vindictive. Everything he does can be traced back to him needing a personal win.

What he’s got is a bunch of people hanging off his coattails, leveraging those personality traits to their own advantage.

Do I believe he really wants concentration camps full of Arabs and Latinos? Not really. I genuinely don’t think he’s wired that way. I think the way he is wired is to be completely ambivalent to it happening either way. If it he saw an advantage of it happening under his watch he would do it and it would be as significant to him as going for a shit that morning. He wouldn’t lose a wink of sleep over it, not a single twinge of regret.
Click to expand...
Yep would agree with you. Trump might be the first president with peak undecided voter brain. It’s impossible to imagine Trump seeing himself as political or even thinking in those type of terms.

It’s mostly as you said vindictiveness(During the Russiagate saga a lot of the info was coming from Ukrainian sources which is probably the reason for Trump harsh turn on Zelenskyy). Which is bad as the US President is the most powerful person on the planet but on the positive side long term planning isn’t possible.

Pexbo said:
The problem though is that there are people around him that want all these things so while there might not be a coherent structure of fascism, we could still see all it’s worst aspects.

In addition to that, he’s in his 80’s, eats an exclusively MacDonald’s diet, is clinically obese and likely had a problem with prescription meds and his cognitive decline is there for all to see. If he’s dead within the next 5 years it wouldn’t be a huge surprise nor would him being a dribbling mess in 2 or 3 years so the dismantling of democracy currently happening could serve a genuine fascist dictator - that’s probably my biggest fear right now, Trump is a very short time worry.
Click to expand...
Trump is a strange mix of “billionaire” with the
cultural taste of a used car salesman. His Air Force One plane just covered in Coca Cola stains, tan lines and stinking of mcnuggets. A unique kind of idiot. Vance did tried to present a more competent version of Trump and it failed badly.

But America is so unpredictable anything is possible. Which is terrifying!
 
Sweet Square said:
Yep would agree with you. Trump might be the first president with peak undecided voter brain. It’s impossible to imagine Trump seeing himself as political or even thinking in those type of terms.

It’s mostly as you said vindictiveness(During the Russiagate saga a lot of the info was coming from Ukrainian sources which is probably the reason for Trump harsh turn on Zelenskyy). Which is bad as the US President is the most powerful person on the planet but on the positive side long term planning isn’t possible.


Trump is a strange mix of “billionaire” with the
cultural taste of a used car salesman. His Air Force One plane just covered in Coca Cola stains, tan lines and stinking of mcnuggets. A unique kind of idiot. Vance did tried to present a more competent version of Trump and it failed badly.

But America is so unpredictable anything is possible. Which is terrifying!
Click to expand...
There’s also the fact that Trumpism is a movement centred very much around one man - that is, it’s a cult of personality. When Trump dies, so will Trumpism, and there’s going to be a massive power vacuum. None of his children really seem like they’ll be able to take on the mantle - he’s probably grooming Barron to be his successor though - and none of his acolytes can successfully replicate what he’s doing. Trump is very charismatic and is successfully able to whip up the masses - he’s a true demagogue. There isn’t really anybody else in the GOP who can do what he can. Sure, they copy his policies, but ultimately they’re nowhere near as appealing as Trump to the voter base. Ron De Santis is another good example of somebody who has Trumpian policies but nowhere near as much charismatic authority.
 
thisisnottaken1 said:
There’s also the fact that Trumpism is a movement centred very much around one man - that is, it’s a cult of personality. When Trump dies, so will Trumpism, and there’s going to be a massive power vacuum. None of his children really seem like they’ll be able to take on the mantle - he’s probably grooming Barron to be his successor though - and none of his acolytes can successfully replicate what he’s doing. Trump is very charismatic and is successfully able to whip up the masses - he’s a true demagogue. There isn’t really anybody else in the GOP who can do what he can. Sure, they copy his policies, but ultimately they’re nowhere near as appealing as Trump to the voter base. Ron De Santis is another good example of somebody who has Trumpian policies but nowhere near as much charismatic authority.
Click to expand...
Depends on your definition. There is no way that Trump's right-wing populism, anti-immigration, America First, anti-DEI, and even imperialist agenda dies with him. These elements were there to some extent before Trump, obviously, but he supercharged it and shifted the party from the standard Neoconservatism to what we are seeing today.
While I agree that there is no natural successor in terms of populist appeal and charisma, I can't imagine that the next Republican nominee will not try to ride the coattails of what Trump has built in terms of messaging and policy.
 
Mike Smalling said:
Depends on your definition. There is no way that Trump's right-wing populism, anti-immigration, America First, anti-DEI, and even imperialist agenda dies with him. These elements were there to some extent before Trump, obviously, but he supercharged it and shifted the party from the standard Neoconservatism to what we are seeing today.
While I agree that there is no natural successor in terms of populist appeal and charisma, I can't imagine that the next Republican nominee will not try to ride the coattails of what Trump has built in terms of messaging and policy.
Click to expand...
That is very true.
 
There's a great show on Amazon Prime about America just after WW2, if the Nazi's had won. It's called The Man in the High Castle.
 
Cheimoon said:
Yeah, I didn't say it will work in the current landscape. But at least it's more possible than hoping for a third party to make a viable run for the presidency within your lifetime.

Also, I would almost say that a move to the centre would be a move left for the Dems. But I suppose the frame of reference is current US perspectives, and it rather means a move even further right...
Click to expand...
I‘m afraid you are right. I‘d say Biden is in the center or slightly right of the center.
 
Cheimoon said:
Yeah, I didn't say it will work in the current landscape. But at least it's more possible than hoping for a third party to make a viable run for the presidency within your lifetime.

Also, I would almost say that a move to the centre would be a move left for the Dems. But I suppose the frame of reference is current US perspectives, and it rather means a move even further right...
Click to expand...

I had the exact same thought. Do they want to be more left leaning?
 
Mike Smalling said:
Depends on your definition. There is no way that Trump's right-wing populism, anti-immigration, America First, anti-DEI, and even imperialist agenda dies with him. These elements were there to some extent before Trump, obviously, but he supercharged it and shifted the party from the standard Neoconservatism to what we are seeing today.
While I agree that there is no natural successor in terms of populist appeal and charisma, I can't imagine that the next Republican nominee will not try to ride the coattails of what Trump has built in terms of messaging and policy.
Click to expand...
The next nominee is already in place, JD Vance, populist appeal and charisma he doesn't have but he is a big-time Project 2025 guy
 
Red in STL said:
The next nominee is already in place, JD Vance, populist appeal and charisma he doesn't have but he is a big-time Project 2025 guy
Click to expand...
You’d think that the Dems would just have to find a non-terrible candidate to get an easy win over Vance in 2028, but finding non-terrible candidates has been their Achilles heel of late
 
Eric_the_Red99 said:
You’d think that the Dems would just have to find a non-terrible candidate to get an easy win over Vance in 2028, but finding non-terrible candidates has been their Achilles heel of late
Click to expand...

I don't think we will see a free and fair election again so it doesn't really matter.

Glad the Dems got to stick with their gerontocracy though... ... ...
 
The Firestarter said:
That's because he plans to a) run again b) simply stay in power
Click to expand...
Red in STL said:
He also said Project 2025 was nothing to do with him, yet it's being implemented left, right and center, he might not want Vance but I suspect the ones behind 2025 will
Click to expand...
Gotta say I agree with the former here.

If there is a normal presidential election in 2028, why would they go with Vance? He has negative charisma, and would not do well in the general election. And if they plan some form of power grab, it will just be Trump or possibly Musk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.