US politics 2016: I can see Russia from my White House

[Fez]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Iraq was absolutely a disaster in 2004 - it was a disaster from the start.  People just weren't ready to admit it yet. 

It was disaster in that it was fucking stupid for us to get involved at all. But IIRC, in 2004 the insurgency wasn't massive yet, US casualties weren't reaching pretty high counts yet, and the money being wasted was still pretty manageable.

In other words, it had very little impact on most voters yet. Whereas if Trump implements policies that wreck the economy, that'd be a disaster that voters feel quickly and personally. If the disaster is slow-moving enough it won't affect him in 2020, but it will whenever it reaches the point that people feel it.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Maithanet said:

Iraq was absolutely a disaster in 2004 - it was a disaster from the start.  People just weren't ready to admit it yet. 

Ah yes, the good old days of 2004, when people thought the Bush presidency was going to be a success. Back in those days, remember when people wrote books like:

https://www.amazon.com/Bullish-Bush-Owenership-Society-Stronger/dp/B008SMNO4Q

Just for laughs:

Quote

In a spirited and compelling fashion, Bullish on Bush sets the record straight on the stunning success of President Bush's tax cut policies. It also provides the first comprehensive analysis of George W. Bush's bold second term economic agenda to create a broad-based Ownership Society in America and explains how Bush's tax relief policies have helped the economy grow, reversed the collapse in the stock market, and put America back to work. This book will make you Bullish on Bush, and Bullish on America!

LOL.

By the way, the guy that wrote that book, now works for Trump.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

19 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, they don't. Obama got elected largely because the people wanted change AND the US was going into one of the biggest economic disasters it has ever seen. If you think Trump won't jump at disasters to further cement his power, you've really not been paying attention. 

 Sure the economic meltdown also played a part, but I think Iraq was a huge factor as well. Of course Trump will try to take advantage of any disaster in an attempt to cement his power, but I'd say the odds that the disaster wasn't of his own making is probably 50/50. And I'd have to believe the odds on him being able to actually fix the situation would be considerably less.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Sure the economic meltdown also played a part, but I think Iraq was a huge factor as well. Of course Trump will try to take advantage of any disaster in an attempt to cement his power, but I'd say the odds that the disaster wasn't of his own making is probably 50/50. And I'd have to believe the odds on him being able to actually fix the situation would be considerably less.

And I'm saying it doesn't matter in the least. Him being able to fix a disaster doesn't matter. He doesn't fix things. He breaks them and enriches himself. That's what he's always done. 

You're working on a basis that if someone does a bad job they don't get re-elected or their party is punished. What we just witnessed completely puts that to a lie. And again, what we've just seen about the US election system is that half of the nation will vote for whoever their party nominates. Period. Why would you think they'll change their mind because of a disaster? They voted in change despite having some of the best results the US has ever witnessed, and voted against a person that would continue those policies. You think they're going to change?

No, what i think is going to happen is massive voter suppression across the board that will make the results in NC, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Iowa, and likely Wisconsin basically permanent. You won't see electoral college removal. You won't see improvement. Demographics are improving, but in all the wrong places, and they'll be repressed in others. And that's the 'good' outcome. The bad outcome is a state of emergency that suspends elections for the foreseeable future, and people applaud it. States like California are going to be punished for being larger and having less voting power. And you'll only see this getting worse and worse. 

[Rippounet]

34 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Exactly.  And there are plenty of disasters that won't be quite so obvious (or quite so immediate) as Iraq.

That is a genuine problem. It takes time to assess many types of policy. Economic changes especially can be rather slow, and then it takes time for the experts to analyse them.

Which means that because the American economy isn't doing so bad right now, Trump should have at least 4 years before the consequences of his policies become obvious. In some specific cases (climate change) it could take decades.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You're working on a basis that if someone does a bad job they don't get re-elected or their party is punished. What we just witnessed completely puts that to a lie. And again, what we've just seen about the US election system is that half of the nation will vote for whoever their party nominates. Period. Why would you think they'll change their mind because of a disaster? They voted in change despite having some of the best results the US has ever witnessed, and voted against a person that would continue those policies. You think they're going to change?

 For starters, I think it's fairly subjective. Those who have been out of work for a long period of time are going to have a different point of view. Those who view the ACA as forced socialism, or globalization as a One World Order scheme are going to have a different point of view.

 Also I'm not sure that anything you've included in your argument (outside of a State of Emergency) that would point to a dictatorship. This is going to be a rough 4 years, no doubt. As you posit, it may well be a rough 8 years, but the pendulum will swing back. It always does. 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 For starters, I think it's fairly subjective. Those who have been out of work for a long period of time are going to have a different point of view. Those who view the ACA as forced socialism, or globalization as a One World Order scheme are going to have a different point of view.

Sure, they are. But in general, the US is pretty prosperous right now, and a lot better than it was in 2008 or even 1992. I'm sure that they feel less secure, or feel less economically well-off, or feel less prosperous (though again, surveys of people don't indicate that either), but that doesn't make it true. 

And as to the globalism thing, again - okay. I had an argument with an apparently nice person who voted for  Trump because she could not support the Rothschild global banking agenda and believed that Clinton was part of the Illuminati. How do you convince them that they should vote against Trump? 

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Also I'm not sure that anything you've included in your argument (outside of a State of Emergency) that would point to a dictatorship. This is going to be a rough 4 years, no doubt. As you posit, it may well be a rough 8 years, but the pendulum will swing back. It always does. 

Until it doesn't. That's sort of the point. Assuming things are going to go back the other way based on prior history when nothing based on prior history worked to predict this. Democracies don't bounce back from authoritarian regimes by themselves. You don't go from less authoritarian to more authoritarian back to less. A rule about power is that once someone has power they don't relinquish it voluntarily. They work to entrench and solidify that power. 

[Galactus]

You don't go from less authoritarian to more authoritarian back to less.

That's fair to broad a statement to be particularly useful.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Galactus said:

That's fair to broad a statement to be particularly useful.

It's also accurate. The only time that it's happened is by either armed revolt or outside overthrow. It does not happen via peaceful transition of power. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's also accurate. The only time that it's happened is by either armed revolt or outside overthrow. It does not happen via peaceful transition of power. 

East Germany 1989.  

[Galactus]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's also accurate. The only time that it's happened is by either armed revolt or outside overthrow. It does not happen via peaceful transition of power. 

No? The classic example would be the democratization process of the 19th century. While in many cases they were the result of revolt, this wasn't true in all cases. (Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Norway...) Napoleon III's reign is another example, as he went back and forth on the level of authoritarianism quite frequently. 

 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

10 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Until it doesn't. That's sort of the point. Assuming things are going to go back the other way based on prior history when nothing based on prior history worked to predict this. Democracies don't bounce back from authoritarian regimes by themselves. You don't go from less authoritarian to more authoritarian back to less. A rule about power is that once someone has power they don't relinquish it voluntarily. They work to entrench and solidify that power. 

 I guess we're going to have to define Authoritarian Regime. I assume Trump is going to take liberties with the office, I doubt doubt that in the least. The question for me is how many of these liberties are going to force a breaking point. This is a Republic with some fairly clear rules. This is the Presidency we're talking about not some Emperorship. I can't imagine the country as a whole is just going to sit on its' hands if he attempts to take significant liberties.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

16 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sure, they are. But in general, the US is pretty prosperous right now, and a lot better than it was in 2008 or even 1992. I'm sure that they feel less secure, or feel less economically well-off, or feel less prosperous (though again, surveys of people don't indicate that either), but that doesn't make it true. 

I would agree with you there, but I think to some degree you and I are in a similar bubble. We live on the West Coast. We are both gainfully employed. I would have to guess that it becomes something more than just a feeling when you have issues feeding and housing your family, ya know? 

[Kalbear]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

East Germany 1989.  

Collapse of USSR caused that. So yeah, if you're waiting on the US to be taken over by a foreign government and then wait for them to collapse 50 years later you might be right.

Quote

No? The classic example would be the democratization process of the 19th century. While in many cases they were the result of revolt, this wasn't true in all cases. (Britain, Sweden, Denmark, Norway...) Napoleon III's reign is another example, as he went back and forth on the level of authoritarianism quite frequently. 

I honestly don't know enough about the Scandinavian structures to say, but Britain went through a whole bunch of revolts and threats of revolts before going to a parliamentary democracy. And Napoleon III didn't exactly give up the power all that willingly, did they? 

Quote

I would have to guess that it becomes something more than just a feeling when you have issues feeding and housing your family, ya know? 

Sure, and if that's who voted for Trump that'd be one thing. It isn't. The median income of Trump voters was higher than the median income overall. A majority of white men across ALL backgrounds voted for him - most of them aren't doing badly. This bullshit idea of a whole bunch of poor white people being the reason Trump won has to be stopped; it is not even remotely close to being true. 

Quote

I guess we're going to have to define Authoritarian Regime. I assume Trump is going to take liberties with the office, I doubt doubt that in the least. The question for me is how many of these liberties are going to force a breaking point. This is a Republic with some fairly clear rules. This is the Presidency we're talking about not some Emperorship. I can't imagine the country as a whole is just going to sit on its' hands if he attempts to take significant liberties.

No one could imagine that the Republican party would nominate him. No one would imagine that he could win. The country as a whole won't sit on its hands - but look at how people who are protesting are already characterized as 'rioting' and causing subversion and are being called traitors. People didn't imagine authoritarian regimes in a whole lot of places until they happened. 

[Galactus]

I honestly don't know enough about the Scandinavian structures to say, but Britain went through a whole bunch of revolts and threats of revolts before going to a parliamentary democracy. And Napoleon III didn't exactly give up the power all that willingly, did they? 

 

Your argument was that you don't go from more authoritarian to less authoritarian without revolts or foreing interference, this is just not true. There are plenty of examples of authoritarian ruling classes (for various reasons) slackening the reins.

Heck, with the exception of the aborted coup in 1990, the collapse of the USSR was not the result of either a revolution or foreign intervention, but the results of inherent issues within the regime itself. 

[Ormond]

I think when your statement that countries never peacefully go from more authoritarian to less is contradicted by the history of the last century in several Latin American countries, where democracies have been overthrown by authoritarian military juntas and later less authoritarian electoral democracies have been restored without huge uprisings. 

I don't think people should be complacent. But your degree of pessimism would seem to lead to a degree of despair and apathy that would make the outcome more likely. If there is no hope, why do anything to oppose the new regime? 

[The guy from the Vale]

I understood @Kalbear to mean that Trump has to be opposed now, and not just four or even eight years down the line. And that it'll be incredibly hard due to the electoral realities of gerrymandering and the Senate class of '12

[Galactus]

1 minute ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

I understood @Kalbear to mean that Trump has to be opposed now, and not just four or even eight years down the line. And that it'll be incredibly hard due to the electoral realities of gerrymandering and the Senate class of '12

Which is a decent argument, but not what he actually said. (Heck, I'd argue the US itself went from less authoritarian to more authoritarian to less during the entire reconstruction-jim crow-civil rights era) 

[Ormond]

2 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

I understood @Kalbear to mean that Trump has to be opposed now, and not just four or even eight years down the line. And that it'll be incredibly hard due to the electoral realities of gerrymandering and the Senate class of '12

But who on this thread has said that Trump should NOT be "opposed now"?

[The guy from the Vale]

@Galactus: sure, but the Civil Rights Era wasn't exactly a case of rainbows and lollipops.

I think kal overstates his case, but his point is important; there's a lot of danger in the usual checks and balances failing, particularly because all the levers of power are in Republican hands, and it would be very hard to undo said damage. It might happen without too much violence, but odds are it won't.