US Politics: There's No Morning After Pill

[IheartIheartTesla]

We also import oil from Mexico, so we can make them pay for the Wall in barrels of oil, which they can roll to us through the tunnels that will be built under the Wall.

If Trump has a guiding philosophy, it appears to be "Make America first", but it isnt clear what exactly that means. Some deals will have to be made where America isnt exactly first. If he wants companies to stop leaving the US, then sure he may get a coupla jobs here, but the added cost to goods and services will have other deleterious effects (just as an example)

[Fragile Bird]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

ExxonMobil drills quite a bit of Canadian oil and owns stakes in most Canadian oil firms (for instance, they own over two-thirds of Imperial Oil Limited); if they worked in partnership with the US government they could squeeze Canada pretty easily to make production more profitable for US-based firms operating in Canada.

I find that extremely difficult to imagine.  The US already heavily discounts oil sands oil. We don't get $53 for a barrel of oil, you know, I think it's about $20 (when WTI fell to $30, we got $8). And out of $200 B in oil revenues in Canada in 2015, Imperial Oil made $33 B, not chump change (they are number 2), but they don't control the market.

And Canada is the number 1 trading partner for 35 US states, do you think we don't know how to do tit for tat?

[Kalbear]

heh

[snake]

21 minutes ago, Fez said:

ExxonMobil drills quite a bit of Canadian oil and owns stakes in most Canadian oil firms (for instance, they own over two-thirds of Imperial Oil Limited); if they worked in partnership with the US government they could squeeze Canada pretty easily to make production more profitable for US-based firms operating in Canada.

Well, Stephen Schwarzman has reassured our PM and cabinet today that because of our balanced trade we will probably be exempt from any tariffs and border taxes that may be implemented by the US.  Not gonna see much trade friction between us methinks.

The unfortunate thing is that our Ambassador said any future trade deals between our countries may exclude Mexico.  Our MoFA would not comment on it, which is pretty much an admission.

 

[Kalbear]

Also, on that Warren talk - Warren is currently polling neck and neck with 'anyone else' in her own state.

She's a good attack source, but she's not a particularly good presidential candidate for a whole lot of reasons. Most notably is that her best asset is that she's basically kinda like Sanders, but in that case why not go for Sanders?

[snake]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Also, on that Warren talk - Warren is currently polling neck and neck with 'anyone else' in her own state.

She's a good attack source, but she's not a particularly good presidential candidate for a whole lot of reasons. Most notably is that her best asset is that she's basically kinda like Sanders, but in that case why not go for Sanders?

Have the Dems seriously not have a somewhat respectable candidate who is not a senior citizen??  Someone with very little baggage and a bit of charisma?  Some young governor or former governor?

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, snake said:

Have the Dems seriously not have a somewhat respectable candidate who is not a senior citizen??  Someone with very little baggage and a bit of charisma?  Some young governor or former governor?

I don't think anyone's specifically thinking Warren save, perhaps, Stonekettle. 

The current plans include Cory Booker (who is problematic), Sanders, Warren, and Biden. That being said it's a pretty long road, and both Obama and Clinton came basically out of nowhere on the world. There is some time. 

[S John]

Just now, snake said:

Have the Dems seriously not have a somewhat respectable candidate who is not a senior citizen??  Someone with very little baggage and a bit of charisma?  Some young governor or former governor?

If in four years we are more or less in the same position as today, where conservative Americans and liberal Americans live in alternate realities, then I think it will take someone young, exciting, and (probably) male to beat Trump.  Clinton had plenty of baggage that hurt her, but I'm not convinced that her lack of a penis didn't also hurt her when pitted against heavy-handed President Comacho.

If the clown show continues unabated for four years and enough people on the right are finally sick of it, the Dems will have a lot more leeway with who they can run.  But I do hope they have learned from some of the mistakes of 2016.  

[Kalbear]

Another very real possibility would be Bloomberg, who had thought about running but was worried he'd essentially cause Trump to win. Democrats might not be super thrilled with that, but it might be enough after 4 years.

I am still thinking that it's optimistic to believe that anyone will beat an incumbent in 4 years time, especially given said incumbent will likely be in the middle of at least one war and major terrorist issues. 

[snake]

Well, I just did a search and I saw a Kirsten Gillibrand mentioned. 

[The Wedge]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

The current plans include Cory Booker (who is problematic), Sanders, Warren, and Biden. That being said it's a pretty long road, and both Obama and Clinton came basically out of nowhere on the world. There is some time. 

Any chance Loretta Lynch could be interested in running?  Anyone who takes on and takes down corrupt FIFA is okay in my book.

[mormont]

17 minutes ago, snake said:

Have the Dems seriously not have a somewhat respectable candidate who is not a senior citizen??  Someone with very little baggage and a bit of charisma?  Some young governor or former governor?

Well apart from the 70-year-old Trump, the Republican field included spry youngsters like John Kasich (64), Ben Carson (65), Carly Fiorina (62), Jeb Bush (63), Mike Huckabee (61), and George Pataki (71). They did at least have three candidates under 50, I suppose. Their qualifications in the areas of lack of baggage and charisma I leave as an exercise for the reader.

[TheKitttenGuard]

26 minutes ago, snake said:

Have the Dems seriously not have a somewhat respectable candidate who is not a senior citizen??  Someone with very little baggage and a bit of charisma?  Some young governor or former governor?

Seeing how the next couple years ago I am curious how people like Zuckerberg will figure in.  He has not been one to be opinionated like Trump have been but it can be one of the more interesting development since government experience no longer matters.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

58 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

SOMEONE SAVE MELANIA!

 

Now we know why he had to make sure she voted for him.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, snake said:

Well, I just did a search and I saw a Kirsten Gillibrand mentioned. 

Unlikely. Senators Booker, Klobuchar and Harris are the best early bets, but as others have said, there's plenty of time for someone else to emerge. 

Also, Trump opens up the door for non-politicians, assuming he isn't an epic disaster. Someone like Mark Cuban all of the sudden because a reasonable possibility.

[OldGimletEye]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Someone like Mark Cuban all of the sudden because a reasonable possibility.

I don't know about Cuban. He seems a bit too Republican. I know he was ardent critic of Trump, which I appreciate, but his basic outlook, seems a bit too Republican, at least on economic matters.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

16 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Also, Trump opens up the door for non-politicians, assuming he isn't an epic disaster. Someone like Mark Cuban all of the sudden because a reasonable possibility.

 Ugh. Really? Do we want to copy the Cons and play the Bobby Jindal card? I hope not.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Arakan said:

Actually it's unbelievable...weren't the Republicans the self-proclaimed guardians of free markets and capitalism?

Yes, they were. This is part of the reason why the accomplishments of Trump and his team are so remarkable: they defeated not only the Democrats, but also the Republican establishment. There were quite a few articles published on how Trump is destroying the Republican Party (e.g. one from the mainstream Washington Post and one from the conservative National Review), but I think the best one is this old Atlantic article from nearly a year ago which describes the rise of Trump as a Republican revolt:

Quote

The mutiny of the 2016 election cycle has been different. By the fall of 2015, a majority of Republicans favored candidates who had never been elected to anything: Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina. Fiorina’s campaign was perhaps not so unusual. A former CEO, she appealed to the same business-minded Republicans who might have voted for Romney in 2012. Carson appealed to the same religious conservatives that candidates like Mike Huckabee and Santorum had appealed to in prior presidential cycles. What was new and astonishing was the Trump boom. He jettisoned party orthodoxy on issues ranging from entitlement spending to foreign policy. He scoffed at trade agreements. He said rude things about Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers. He reviled the campaign contributions of big donors—himself included!—as open and blatant favor-buying. Trump’s surge was a decisive repudiation by millions of Republican voters of the collective wisdom of their party elite.

The next big battle will be to see whether Trump can get Congressional Republicans to go along with his vision of what the Republican party should be like. They appear to be caving on his Cabinet nominees -- Tillerson (the recipient of Russia's Order of Friendship nominated for Secretary of State) was the one most likely to encounter opposition, but he has just made it out of committee.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

I find that extremely difficult to imagine.  The US already heavily discounts oil sands oil. We don't get $53 for a barrel of oil, you know, I think it's about $20 (when WTI fell to $30, we got $8). And out of $200 B in oil revenues in Canada in 2015, Imperial Oil made $33 B, not chump change (they are number 2), but they don't control the market.

And Canada is the number 1 trading partner for 35 US states, do you think we don't know how to do tit for tat?

President Trump was also extremely difficult to imagine. Not saying it would be smart, but its the kind of thing I could see there being a push for. And yes, it could start up a trade war; so could just about everything Trump has actually talked about when it comes to trade.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Also, on that Warren talk - Warren is currently polling neck and neck with 'anyone else' in her own state.

She's a good attack source, but she's not a particularly good presidential candidate for a whole lot of reasons. Most notably is that her best asset is that she's basically kinda like Sanders, but in that case why not go for Sanders?

'Anyone else' usually polls very well against all but the most popular politicians, since people can fantasize about their dream candidate. Its why 'generic Republican' and 'generic Democrat' usually do so well also. When there's an actual candidate to run against, things change very quickly.

50 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Also, Trump opens up the door for non-politicians, assuming he isn't an epic disaster. Someone like Mark Cuban all of the sudden because a reasonable possibility.

Dwayne Johnson, Matt Damon/Ben Affleck, or George Clooney seem the most likely non-politicians to me to actually try a campaign.

Also, Democrats should put a real effort into getting Gregg Popovich to run against Ted Cruz in 2018.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 minute ago, Fez said:

Dwayne Johnson, Matt Damon/Ben Affleck, or George Clooney seem the most likely non-politicians to me to actually try a campaign.

While they may all be fine candidates when examined objectively, their statuses as being rich Hollywood librul elites pretty much counts them out of having any chance of taking back the states Hillary lost. The only rich Hollywood elites that seem to be able to win major elections are the Republican ones.

I guess at least The Rock would appeal to some of the WWE/WWF crowd, which is probably a very tough nut for any other progressive candidate to crack. Still, after becoming an actor he could be seen as having gone soft and no longer has the WWE/WWF cred he once had.

Bloomberg is of course tainted with the MSM label.