US Politics: Hindsight on 2020

[Mexal]

Three things.

1. Living in NYC is going to suck if Trump keeps hosting diplomatic conversations in Trump Tower. There were so many closed down streets that the traffic was horrendous, making it both more expensive to take a cab and harder to find one.

2. Ivanka Trump should NEVER be allowed anywhere near diplomatic conversations, especially if she's running Trump Organization with her brothers. This is the kind of conflict of interests that should worry everyone.

3. Jeff Sessions as AG? Mike Pompeo as CIA Director? Mike Flynn as National Security Advisor? Fuck my life. Might as well throw all immigrants (well, maybe just minorities) out of the country, start a war with Iran and become a vassal of Russia.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

9 hours ago, DraculaAD1972 said:

We know what Hillary would do. She would set up a charity to funnel funds into the clinton foundation and spend 5% of the donated money on actual aid for the people affected. Obama would play golf with his wall street buddies.

Trump would oversee reconstruction after personally visiting the affected areas as soon as was safe for him to do so. However he might still deny climate change, it depends on who he's listening to. 

Regarding the economy, if it got worse for workers and the economy then he will have failed utterly on a central promise. 

 

I know Trumpists operate in a post-truth environment, but:

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

Quote

Program Expenses (Percent of the charity’s total expenses spent on the programs and services it delivers)

86.9%

 

[LongRider]

8 minutes ago, Mexal said:

2. Ivanka Trump should NEVER be allowed anywhere near diplomatic conversations, especially if she's running Trump Organization with her brothers. This is the kind of conflict of interests that should worry everyone.

I think Trump's kids are going to be a real problem for the administration and well, us.  I'm nervous that Trump's election will possibly spur his children into candidacies of their own for various offices and am not thinking this would be a good thing.

[Mexal]

Just now, LongRider said:

I think Trump's are going to be a real problem for the administration and well, us.  I'm nervous that Trump's election will possibly spur his children into candidacies of their own for various offices and am not thinking this would be a good thing.

I'm more worried about them using the Presidency to further their business interests. 

[Lord Flashheart]

3 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

I know Trumpists operate in a post-truth environment, but:

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

 

Charities should be used for real charity. Like buying Tim Tebow's Helmet and having portraits of yourself made. Also having the proper permits for a charity? Overrated. Trump isn't a man who gets bogged down in whats legal and illegal.

[LongRider]

5 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I'm more worried about them using the Presidency to further their business interests. 

Yes, I feel that is a given, but both could happen concurrently. I haven't seen any real effort by Trump to separate himself from his businesses or put them into a true blind trust, there could be real deep ethical issues for him and the whole damn family.

[Dr. Pepper]

Looking at some commentary by diehard Trumpsters, they think Ivanka sitting in is fantastic.  "Look, Trump is supportive of women! Look, Ivanka is a voice of reason of course she should be there!"

Like, I don't even understand these people.  It's as if they are on a different planet.  

[DunderMifflin]

I predict lots of golf resorts

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, Altherion said:

You are missing the point. White nationalism was going to coalesce in any case simply because a great deal of politics is now identity politics and these were the only people left out. Did you think that urban, "diverse", upper and upper middle class representatives of the media, academia and the political class were going to get away with saying "Check your privilege!" forever -- to people who, by any reasonable measure, are less privileged than the speakers? The US government as well as a variety of corporations overtly discriminate against white people in general and white men in particular. This policy has been in place for half a century and it is extremely debatable whether the reasons for it still make sense. Furthermore, it was only possible in the first place because the people who were being disadvantaged by it believed that even with the policy in place, their children would be better off than they are. Today, this is definitely a minority opinion and it's an even smaller minority among Trump voters.

Neither Trump nor Bannon created the coalescing white identity -- it was there independently of them and, as long as the conditions which created it persist, it will continue growing no matter how many accounts Twitter bans. Trump's brilliance was in realizing that enough anger had built up for the rules to have changed. It used to be that being labeled by the media as racist meant that any national-level (or even state-wide) campaign or appointment was doomed. Trump turned that around and deliberately drew accusations of political incorrectness to stoke controversy (and thus draw attention) and fire up his base. Whether or not this was OK depends on one's point of view, but there is no doubt that it was effective.

I'm not missing the point, we're just talking about different things. You're talking about the effectiveness of his campaign tactics while I'm talking about the ethics of them. And I can't seriously believe that you just said that Trump was brilliant for stoking white racial resentment. Let's think now Althy, when in the past has stoking racial resentment and demonizing the other gone horribly wrong?

@Dr. Pepper here's your test subject. No one has been a bigger apologist for Trump than Altherion. Let's see if he can admit how wrong he was when things go south. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@Swordfish,

I was going to rebut your post from yesterday, but after reading the last few pages it's clear to me now that there's no point. @mormont was right. You really can't recognize racists comments unless they're so blatant that nobody could deny them. 

 

Also, I'm disappointed to see that you think you know more about dog whistle politics than most political scientists, and ya know, the guy that invented them, Lee Atwater. I'm at work, so I can't post his famous quote, but can someone else do so to show SF what the godfather of dog whistle politics had to say on the issue? He makes it unmistakably clear what dog whistle politics are.

[Ice Queen]

10 hours ago, felice said:

Trump is evidence that you don't need experience to win. He's not evidence that you don't need experience to be a good president. (Technically "not yet evidence", but I'm confident his time in office will come down firmly on the "experience would have been really helpful, actually" side).

I'd say we have some indirect evidence already that he's going to be positively awful. Look at the unqualified people he's putting in plum jobs in his administration--loyal followers who won't question him. Not qualified advisers. He's not draining the swamp, he's filling it with crocodiles. 

[butterbumps!]

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Looking at some commentary by diehard Trumpsters, they think Ivanka sitting in is fantastic.  "Look, Trump is supportive of women! Look, Ivanka is a voice of reason of course she should be there!"

Like, I don't even understand these people.  It's as if they are on a different planet.  

On my end, I know more reluctant trump voters, and they think the nepotism is appalling (I get the sense they didn't think he would or particularly want him to win).    

neither ivanka nor her husband are particularly talented, particularly intelligent, or substantial, but rather highly staged frauds (and kushner in particular comes across as a petty powerhungry douchebag).     I suspect they won't be able to survive the heavy scrutiny they are about to come under, and I genuinely believe they will come under endless scrutiny.  Their time in the spotlight might actually be more effective in preventing future runs for office than if HRC had won and they could regroup privately, continuing to obsessively curate their Brands.  Especially because so much of their brand is completely at odds with everything trump and his administration stands for.

though, this idea of ivanka as a voice of reason needs to be killed, full stop.   

[OldGimletEye]

3 hours ago, The Killer Snark said:

The birther thing was actually started within the Dems camp. This is public knowledge. They believed that if the Republicans picked up on it, it might discredit them. However, Obama himself admitted once in a speech he never knew was being recorded that he was born in Kenya. It is available on Youtube. Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQcd41RO25k 

And as a reminder, a person not born in America cannot be President of the United States.

This is ridiculous.

And it's this kind of ignorant and intellectually dishonest trash that is threatening our democracy.

This is nothing but low rent John Birch society conspiracy nonsense.

I think everyone here has gotten dumber by reading this.

 

[Weeping Sore]

19 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I'm more worried about them using the Presidency to further their business interests. 

President Carter was actually investigated for 6 months over potential conflicts of interest because he still had a peanut farm that he built with his own hands. Eventually had to give it up. So...Trump's holdings presumably more significant than that.

[Ice Queen]

2 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

On my end, I know more reluctant trump voters, and they think the nepotism is appalling (I get the sense they didn't think he would or particularly want him to win).    

neither ivanka not her husband are talented, particularly intelligent, or full of substance, rather being merely highly staged frauds (and kushner is particular come across as a petty douchebag).     I suspect they won't be able to survive the heavy scrutiny they are about to come under, and I genuinely believe they will.    Their time in the spotlight might actually be more effective in preventing future runs for office than if HRC had won and they could regroup privately/ continue to obsessively curate their images might enable.  

Whether they were reluctant or not doesn't change the fact that they voted for him. They knew what he was and they can't claim ignorance.

They own him and he is their responsibility. 

[Dr. Pepper]

2 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

On my end, I know more reluctant trump voters, and they think the nepotism is appalling (I get the sense they didn't think he would or particularly want him to win).    

neither ivanka not her husband are talented, particularly intelligent, or full of substance, rather being merely highly staged frauds.     I suspect they won't be able to survive the heavy scrutiny they are about to come under, and I genuinely believe they will.    Their time in the spotlight might actually be more effective in preventing future runs for office than if HRC had won and they could regroup privately/ continue to obsessively curate their images might enable.  

You're so much more optimistic than I can be.  I keep thinking about how Ivanka (or any of the kids/spouses) experienced virtually no scrutiny during the campaign.  There was some hit pieces about her fake feminism, but that was hit.  I think the administration will try to silence any criticism by pointing to a tradition of the press leaving the kids alone, even when the kids are sitting in on foreign diplomatic meetings and then walking across the street to their office to do business.

1 minute ago, OldGimletEye said:

This is ridiculous.

And it's this kind of ignorant and intellectually dishonest trash that is threatening our democracy.

This is nothing but low rent John Birch society conspiracy nonsense.

I think everyone here has gotten dumber by reading this.

It's hard to imagine that the person you quoted actually believes it.  Which is why it's always been so easy to dismiss the fake news, conspiracy theory consumers.  It jsut doesn't make sense.  It's so dumb that a toddler would know better. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, Mexal said:

I'm more worried about them using the Presidency to further their business interests. 

Sadly, this is low on my list of worries. His appointments are far more problematic than him grafting the U.S. government. 

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Lord of Rhinos said:

No, I'm saying that if something is normal in society than it ceases to be a disqualification for public office.

What a horrible point of view.

[Dr. Pepper]

17 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

@Dr Pepper, here's your test subject. No one has been a bigger apologist for Trump than Altherion. Let's see if he can admit how wrong he was when things go south. 

Oh fuck, we're doomed.  People like Altherion will literally fall to their knees and weep for joy when things go south because they'll believe their very sincere wish to immanentize the eschaton will have come true.

[Bold Barry Whitebeard]

20 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'm not missing the point, we're just talking about different things. You're talking about the effectiveness of his campaign tactics while I'm talking about the ethics of them. And I can't seriously believe that you just said that Trump was brilliant for stoking white racial resentment. Let's think now Althy, when in the past has stoking racial resentment and demonizing the other gone horribly wrong?

@Dr. Pepper here's your test subject. No one has been a bigger apologist for Trump than Altherion. Let's see if he can admit how wrong he was when things go south. 

So you agree that BLM stoking racial resentment among blacks is a bad thing?  And that certainly the democrats shouldn't also be doing the same thing with both african americans and hispanics?