|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 14 2016 20:39 Nebuchad wrote:
Again, Trump has some things that he cares about, and we can be certain he's going to do something about them. That includes cutting taxes for the rich (a bad thing), deregulating a lot of things (a bad thing) including things on climate change (a bad thing).
In the rest of the cases, he doesn't really care about what's going to happen. So no, he's not going to push social conservatism. That's a good thing. He's not going to push building his wall or keeping the muslims out. That's a good thing. The thing is, it's not like he's going to be against those things, he just doesn't care. If his entirely republican government pushes him to do one of those things, for example something related to social conservatism (as I don't believe they're going to push for a wall), there's no reason to assume he will push vividly against it.
The notion that everything's cool cause Trump isn't super right wing is absurd. It relies on me ignoring all the things that he actually wants to do, and then trusting him to go against his own governing body because he doesn't care about some other things. Those are not reassuring ideas.
Let simply say that it's less awful than if he really believed or meant everything he has said during his campaign.
Trump is above all a bullshit artist: he just makes stuff up because he doesn't care at all about the truth, and doesn't believe in anything else than Donald Trump.
It's awful, but it's not as awful as it could be if he was serious, because that would really be the end of America as we know it. So yeah, it's gonna be terrifying, but we probably won't see the hateful alt right style rhetoric he used during his campaign being applied.
Ironically, all in all the people who will suffer the most are the ones who voted for him: rust belt lowly educated people. Good lick with social security massacre, wild deregulations and massive tax cuts.
|
On November 14 2016 21:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 20:39 Nebuchad wrote:
Again, Trump has some things that he cares about, and we can be certain he's going to do something about them. That includes cutting taxes for the rich (a bad thing), deregulating a lot of things (a bad thing) including things on climate change (a bad thing).
In the rest of the cases, he doesn't really care about what's going to happen. So no, he's not going to push social conservatism. That's a good thing. He's not going to push building his wall or keeping the muslims out. That's a good thing. The thing is, it's not like he's going to be against those things, he just doesn't care. If his entirely republican government pushes him to do one of those things, for example something related to social conservatism (as I don't believe they're going to push for a wall), there's no reason to assume he will push vividly against it.
The notion that everything's cool cause Trump isn't super right wing is absurd. It relies on me ignoring all the things that he actually wants to do, and then trusting him to go against his own governing body because he doesn't care about some other things. Those are not reassuring ideas. Let simply say that it's less awful than if he really believed or meant everything he has said during his campaign. Trump is above all a bullshit artist: he just makes stuff up because he doesn't care at all about the truth, and doesn't believe in anything else than Donald Trump. It's awful, but it's not as awful as it could be if he was serious, because that would really be the end of America as we know it. So yeah, it's gonna be terrifying, but we probably won't see the hateful alt right style rhetoric he used during his campaign being applied. Ironically, all in all the people who will suffer the most are the ones who voted for him: rust belt lowly educated people. Good lick with social security massacre, wild deregulations and massive tax cuts.
Honestly, that's why I'm even more scared of Pence than Trump: Trump is unpredictable and will flip-flop on any given day on any random issue, but Pence is absolutely serious about implementing his crazy ideas. That being said, I'm still worried about Trump too, especially because he's utterly incapable of being diplomatic or being humble. He's such a thin-skinned, whiny brat, and I worry that he won't be able to handle any sort of foreign relations that ask for compromise.
|
My recommendation on foreign policy to Trump would be DONT DO IT IN PERSON. appoint a secretary of state, let the sec of state handle all foreign policy negotiations. trump can set the overall policy, but actual meetings with foreign leaders and negotiations should be handled by sec of state, with Trump doing only the minimum meetings necessary to maintain protocol (i.e. basic meet and greets).
or at least something vaguely like that, haven't pondered the particulars much.
maybe it just means not going abroad much for personal visits by the president, let the sec of state handle the foreign visits.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Now we just need to know what kind of SoS Trump is going to choose. That's going to be a toughie.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
The way Democratic leadership attempts to reach out to "whitey" is not connecting and the way the left coast elites treats the "whitey" only alienates them.
Much of SJW critique on white privilege is impossible to see in the regions where the "whitey" are a big majority. It is this same region where the unfamiliarity of the "whitey" with minorities and dealing with minorities produces the most racially insensitive kind of interactions.
The white privilege experienced by these kind of people is greatest when they move to the cities and their treatment can be contrasted with that of minorities.
Instead the "whitey" deal with "white trash" problems of weak economy, boredom and idleness, and drug usages, while carrying all of the pride of self-sufficiency and aversion to charity. You don't get through to this crowd by treating them like the "poor".
|
On November 14 2016 12:53 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 12:19 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2016 12:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 10:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's pretty jarring to see systematic efforts elsewhere to marginalize any report of any racial or religious violence, including the real planned KKK March in North Carolina, as lying and/or a media conspiracy.
I mean, I don't even understand why people are so dedicated to rejecting a possible increase in these things; I can understand resistance to attributing them to Trump or making him responsible, but surely they do understand that it can be vindicating and motivating for the people out there who actually do think of Trump as a champion of the white race when he's going to be the next President?
I mean, if Clinton had won I wouldn't have been skeptical of all reports of graffiti on the doors of Young Republicans organizations in colleges. This is what happens when people tire of the media's relentless propaganda and cease giving a shit about what the media has to say. Like I have been railing about for years around here, when everyone's a racist, then no one's a racist then shut off their brains. Having brains means you know a KKK march is newsworthy. If you're willing to deny that, there's a lot you're willing to deny. Such as that Donald Trump is a deer in headlights right now. 200 retards walking down the street in the Carolinas aren't really newsworthy, no. Neither is David Duke. Nobody cares about David Duke. A guy with all of 3% support. And nobody will ever care about him again. This is something people have already been blaming the media for. That it was the news cycle, without which Trump didn't have free advertising, that elevated him. And that's a bad thing to do, legitimize someone you believe is evil, give them a platform, unless it's someone who's actually called himself a Grand Wizard and would never be relevant without getting invited on TV.  Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 12:18 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:
I bet Trump is going to be the president that a lot of democrats wished Obama was. The bottom line is that Trump is left on a lot of issues, and he is more likely to get action on those issues than Obama. Might want to re-evaluate this one. We don't have much of an idea what is going to happen. Trump's inability to focus and taking a "chairman of the board" role means, like we suspected, others especially Mike Pence are gonna be making a lot of decisions. The notion that we can make all these reasoned statements of what President Trump will be and do is pretty silly. His incompetence still makes him a dice roll. And I hope Trump's supporters have the honesty to own the result. If you find it inconvenient to think your way through these issues, just don't trouble yourself. The rest of us will continue seeing our predictions come to fruition. Everything might feel like a roll of the dice to you, but if one side of the die comes up 90% of the time, we can be pretty confident. If you don't like Pence, you should have collectively been more psychologically open to his candidacy from the beginning, as some of us suggested (rather than going all-in on one candidate with one strategy), and you might have gotten a different running mate to go along with the best thing to happen to the GOP in years. If DJT had run as a Democrat in an alternate timeline, he would have won with the votes of a lot of the same people naysaying him now. But he probably smartly knew the Democratic nomination would have been out of reach.
lol @ 90%. The only prediction you've gotten right is that Trump won. Beyond that, you don't know what he's going to do. And I'm pretty sure you and others were denying that Pence was going to be so powerful. Remember, that was a media story that Kasich had been offered domestic and foreign policy, so it can't have been true.
|
Trump supporters, asked in Jan 2016 two very similar questions, gave different results. So people are discussing, which is their greater fear - economic anxiety or racial anxiety? Are the two intertwined?
Trump supporters' thoughts on whether minorities are taking their jobs:
+ Show Spoiler +
Trump supporters' thoughts on making free trade agreements with other countries:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On November 14 2016 20:39 Nebuchad wrote:
Again, Trump has some things that he cares about, and we can be certain he's going to do something about them. That includes cutting taxes for the rich (a bad thing), deregulating a lot of things (a bad thing) including things on climate change (a bad thing).
In the rest of the cases, he doesn't really care about what's going to happen. So no, he's not going to push social conservatism. That's a good thing. He's not going to push building his wall or keeping the muslims out. That's a good thing. The thing is, it's not like he's going to be against those things, he just doesn't care. If his entirely republican government pushes him to do one of those things, for example something related to social conservatism (as I don't believe they're going to push for a wall), there's no reason to assume he will push vividly against it.
The notion that everything's cool cause Trump isn't super right wing is absurd. It relies on me ignoring all the things that he actually wants to do, and then trusting him to go against his own governing body because he doesn't care about some other things. Those are not reassuring ideas.
That wall will be build,i am quiet certain of this. Its about the only thing that trump could actually do himself,and underbudget as well lol. The way he has been talking about it (yes there could be some fencing,in other areas a wall is more apropiate) makes me think he has a quiet detailed plan for the wall already. And he is going to build it cheap,now that's a nice gesture towards mexico that has to pay for it in the end.
I think the wall will be there within 1 year of him taking office.
Its a good thing priebus is in there,that makes me a lot less worried. I have a lot of confidence in him making this work somehow.
Trump is kinda in a good position here, all he has to do to satisfy a large part of his voters is build that wall. It wouldn't even do that much but as a symbol it will be enough to satisfy quiet a few trump voters for at least some time I think.
Don't think he could afford to not build the wall,he has to keep some of the "promises" he made during the campaign and the wall seems to be the most feasonable in the short run.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On an almost tangential note, I think this entire affair has left "the media" (which isn't one entity, but they certainly do collude) with egg on their faces for failing to predict the possibility of a Trump outcome and trying to paint him as a super-Hitler without trying to get to the bottom of why exactly it is that he was able to go as far as he was despite his many flaws. Many times I have highlighted that I believe he is a policy dunce but that he cuts deeply into some issues that people don't talk about, and that that gives him a truly impressive anti-establishment appeal. Indeed, it appears that many newspapers attempted to bury him by what was called the "Hillary Clinton Consensus" (by one commentator at least) in that by having an overwhelming "establishment" support for one candidate that they could coerce opinion enough in that direction to make sure he doesn't get elected. A pox on their houses for letting their agenda get the better of them, even if they do have reason to believe their agenda-pushing was well-founded.
|
On November 15 2016 01:09 LegalLord wrote:
On an almost tangential note, I think this entire affair has left "the media" (which isn't one entity, but they certainly do collude) with egg on their faces for failing to predict the possibility of a Trump outcome and trying to paint him as a super-Hitler without trying to get to the bottom of why exactly it is that he was able to go as far as he was despite his many flaws. Many times I have highlighted that I believe he is a policy dunce but that he cuts deeply into some issues that people don't talk about, and that that gives him a truly impressive anti-establishment appeal. Indeed, it appears that many newspapers attempted to bury him by what was called the "Hillary Clinton Consensus" (by one commentator at least) in that by having an overwhelming "establishment" support for one candidate that they could coerce opinion enough in that direction to make sure he doesn't get elected. A pox on their houses for letting their agenda get the better of them, even if they do have reason to believe their agenda-pushing was well-founded.
Take as an example the Dallas Morning News endorsing Hillary - it's not a media conspiracy. It's smart people being able to see Trump is a dunce with no plan and a dysfunctional personality. For the educated people employed by newspapers, those factors outweighed Trump's positives ("hey look he's talking about immigration and he's anti-establishment").
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 15 2016 01:17 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 01:09 LegalLord wrote:
On an almost tangential note, I think this entire affair has left "the media" (which isn't one entity, but they certainly do collude) with egg on their faces for failing to predict the possibility of a Trump outcome and trying to paint him as a super-Hitler without trying to get to the bottom of why exactly it is that he was able to go as far as he was despite his many flaws. Many times I have highlighted that I believe he is a policy dunce but that he cuts deeply into some issues that people don't talk about, and that that gives him a truly impressive anti-establishment appeal. Indeed, it appears that many newspapers attempted to bury him by what was called the "Hillary Clinton Consensus" (by one commentator at least) in that by having an overwhelming "establishment" support for one candidate that they could coerce opinion enough in that direction to make sure he doesn't get elected. A pox on their houses for letting their agenda get the better of them, even if they do have reason to believe their agenda-pushing was well-founded. Take as an example the Dallas Morning News endorsing Hillary - it's not a media conspiracy. It's smart people being able to see Trump is a dunce with no plan and a dysfunctional personality. For the educated people employed by newspapers, those factors outweighed Trump's positives ("hey look he's talking about immigration and he's anti-establishment").
You really do spend way too much talking about "smart people" as one entity with one set of opinions. That is a very severe and inaccurate oversimplification of the issue here.
|
On November 15 2016 01:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 01:17 Doodsmack wrote:On November 15 2016 01:09 LegalLord wrote:
On an almost tangential note, I think this entire affair has left "the media" (which isn't one entity, but they certainly do collude) with egg on their faces for failing to predict the possibility of a Trump outcome and trying to paint him as a super-Hitler without trying to get to the bottom of why exactly it is that he was able to go as far as he was despite his many flaws. Many times I have highlighted that I believe he is a policy dunce but that he cuts deeply into some issues that people don't talk about, and that that gives him a truly impressive anti-establishment appeal. Indeed, it appears that many newspapers attempted to bury him by what was called the "Hillary Clinton Consensus" (by one commentator at least) in that by having an overwhelming "establishment" support for one candidate that they could coerce opinion enough in that direction to make sure he doesn't get elected. A pox on their houses for letting their agenda get the better of them, even if they do have reason to believe their agenda-pushing was well-founded. Take as an example the Dallas Morning News endorsing Hillary - it's not a media conspiracy. It's smart people being able to see Trump is a dunce with no plan and a dysfunctional personality. For the educated people employed by newspapers, those factors outweighed Trump's positives ("hey look he's talking about immigration and he's anti-establishment"). You really do spend way too much talking about "smart people" as one entity with one set of opinions. That is a very severe and inaccurate oversimplification of the issue here.
If nothing else, one can only hope that smart people recognize the "dunce with no plan and a dysfunctional personality" part of Trump.
|
The irony of the president elect tweeting veiled threats at the NYT for unfair coverage while naming the Breitbart leader as chief strategist.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 15 2016 01:39 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 01:28 LegalLord wrote:On November 15 2016 01:17 Doodsmack wrote:On November 15 2016 01:09 LegalLord wrote:
On an almost tangential note, I think this entire affair has left "the media" (which isn't one entity, but they certainly do collude) with egg on their faces for failing to predict the possibility of a Trump outcome and trying to paint him as a super-Hitler without trying to get to the bottom of why exactly it is that he was able to go as far as he was despite his many flaws. Many times I have highlighted that I believe he is a policy dunce but that he cuts deeply into some issues that people don't talk about, and that that gives him a truly impressive anti-establishment appeal. Indeed, it appears that many newspapers attempted to bury him by what was called the "Hillary Clinton Consensus" (by one commentator at least) in that by having an overwhelming "establishment" support for one candidate that they could coerce opinion enough in that direction to make sure he doesn't get elected. A pox on their houses for letting their agenda get the better of them, even if they do have reason to believe their agenda-pushing was well-founded. Take as an example the Dallas Morning News endorsing Hillary - it's not a media conspiracy. It's smart people being able to see Trump is a dunce with no plan and a dysfunctional personality. For the educated people employed by newspapers, those factors outweighed Trump's positives ("hey look he's talking about immigration and he's anti-establishment"). You really do spend way too much talking about "smart people" as one entity with one set of opinions. That is a very severe and inaccurate oversimplification of the issue here. If nothing else, one can only hope that smart people recognize the "dunce with no plan and a dysfunctional personality" part of Trump.
When that goes deeper and becomes "let's whitewash the other candidate and shill hard for her" that becomes an agenda.
|
I disagree with legal that it left any egg on the faces of the media (which is a too broad descriptor anyways).
the actual predictions did show a real chance of a trump victory.
and the actual media did not paint him as a super-hitler at all. certain individuals did, but the media itself did not.
that's mostly a falsity propagated by, ironically, OTHER media groups.
|
On November 15 2016 01:59 zlefin wrote:
I disagree with legal that it left any egg on the faces of the media (which is a too broad descriptor anyways).
the actual predictions did show a real chance of a trump victory.
and the actual media did not paint him as a super-hitler at all. certain individuals did, but the media itself did not.
that's mostly a falsity propagated by, ironically, OTHER media groups.
The issue is that some places were comfortable directly calling him Hitler. Others tried hard to be neutral. It was all over the place.
|
On November 15 2016 01:09 LegalLord wrote:
On an almost tangential note, I think this entire affair has left "the media" (which isn't one entity, but they certainly do collude) with egg on their faces for failing to predict the possibility of a Trump outcome and trying to paint him as a super-Hitler without trying to get to the bottom of why exactly it is that he was able to go as far as he was despite his many flaws. Many times I have highlighted that I believe he is a policy dunce but that he cuts deeply into some issues that people don't talk about, and that that gives him a truly impressive anti-establishment appeal. Indeed, it appears that many newspapers attempted to bury him by what was called the "Hillary Clinton Consensus" (by one commentator at least) in that by having an overwhelming "establishment" support for one candidate that they could coerce opinion enough in that direction to make sure he doesn't get elected. A pox on their houses for letting their agenda get the better of them, even if they do have reason to believe their agenda-pushing was well-founded.
The media followed the easiest way to make money. Unfortunately, that didn't include any real substantive criticism and just a lot of "Clinton is corrupt and Trump is an asshole". There was good stuff here and there, but it was pretty much drowned out by the deluge of clickbait.
|
On November 15 2016 02:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 01:59 zlefin wrote:
I disagree with legal that it left any egg on the faces of the media (which is a too broad descriptor anyways).
the actual predictions did show a real chance of a trump victory.
and the actual media did not paint him as a super-hitler at all. certain individuals did, but the media itself did not.
that's mostly a falsity propagated by, ironically, OTHER media groups. The issue is that some places were comfortable directly calling him Hitler. Others tried hard to be neutral. It was all over the place.
some places did note that people were making the comparison.
was it the good or bad places doing it? it's well known that there are left counterparts to the likes of foxnews and the much worse ones.
also a difference between mentioning it and doing a compare/contrast and actually claiming it is so.
|
On November 15 2016 00:46 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2016 12:53 oBlade wrote:On November 14 2016 12:19 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2016 12:17 xDaunt wrote:On November 14 2016 10:01 TheTenthDoc wrote:
It's pretty jarring to see systematic efforts elsewhere to marginalize any report of any racial or religious violence, including the real planned KKK March in North Carolina, as lying and/or a media conspiracy.
I mean, I don't even understand why people are so dedicated to rejecting a possible increase in these things; I can understand resistance to attributing them to Trump or making him responsible, but surely they do understand that it can be vindicating and motivating for the people out there who actually do think of Trump as a champion of the white race when he's going to be the next President?
I mean, if Clinton had won I wouldn't have been skeptical of all reports of graffiti on the doors of Young Republicans organizations in colleges. This is what happens when people tire of the media's relentless propaganda and cease giving a shit about what the media has to say. Like I have been railing about for years around here, when everyone's a racist, then no one's a racist then shut off their brains. Having brains means you know a KKK march is newsworthy. If you're willing to deny that, there's a lot you're willing to deny. Such as that Donald Trump is a deer in headlights right now. 200 retards walking down the street in the Carolinas aren't really newsworthy, no. Neither is David Duke. Nobody cares about David Duke. A guy with all of 3% support. And nobody will ever care about him again. This is something people have already been blaming the media for. That it was the news cycle, without which Trump didn't have free advertising, that elevated him. And that's a bad thing to do, legitimize someone you believe is evil, give them a platform, unless it's someone who's actually called himself a Grand Wizard and would never be relevant without getting invited on TV. On November 14 2016 12:18 Doodsmack wrote:On November 14 2016 11:12 xDaunt wrote:
I bet Trump is going to be the president that a lot of democrats wished Obama was. The bottom line is that Trump is left on a lot of issues, and he is more likely to get action on those issues than Obama. Might want to re-evaluate this one. We don't have much of an idea what is going to happen. Trump's inability to focus and taking a "chairman of the board" role means, like we suspected, others especially Mike Pence are gonna be making a lot of decisions. The notion that we can make all these reasoned statements of what President Trump will be and do is pretty silly. His incompetence still makes him a dice roll. And I hope Trump's supporters have the honesty to own the result. If you find it inconvenient to think your way through these issues, just don't trouble yourself. The rest of us will continue seeing our predictions come to fruition. Everything might feel like a roll of the dice to you, but if one side of the die comes up 90% of the time, we can be pretty confident. If you don't like Pence, you should have collectively been more psychologically open to his candidacy from the beginning, as some of us suggested (rather than going all-in on one candidate with one strategy), and you might have gotten a different running mate to go along with the best thing to happen to the GOP in years. If DJT had run as a Democrat in an alternate timeline, he would have won with the votes of a lot of the same people naysaying him now. But he probably smartly knew the Democratic nomination would have been out of reach. lol @ 90%. The only prediction you've gotten right is that Trump won. Beyond that, you don't know what he's going to do. And I'm pretty sure you and others were denying that Pence was going to be so powerful. Remember, that was a media story that Kasich had been offered domestic and foreign policy, so it can't have been true.
Of course Pence is going to be powerful - because he's the vice president. Not because the New York Times made up a story that Kasich would really be president. Other powerful figures in the WH will be people like Gingrich, Bannon, Priebus, Sessions, people who have been there all along. All obvious stuff.
|
As a minnesota resident I can say Keith elison is super legit. Him and Tom Emmer who's a Republican work together on minnesota Somali issues. He sees in the ground islamaphobia and it's causes and actively works on it. A lot of friction in the Somali community actually comes from other west African catholic black people. And yes it's not the whole community but the young who are first generation americans who have the most problems.
Amy Klobuchar would make a great candidate for president and for a first woman president. Now that the midwest is the battleground of the nation someone able to lock down the great lake states would be powerful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://media.salon.com/2016/11/SalonTrump1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://media.salon.com/2016/11/SalonTrump2.jpg)
