President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Sand

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

With a 55% disapproval rating, he'd be cleaned out if the Dems ran Mickey Mouse.

The Dems problems are vastly greater than Trump. Since before Clinton the Democrats have assumed the blue collar working man vote has no where else to go. So they have chased the new American aristocrat voters - the professional/Zuckerberg/innovative class. This has involved simultaneously attacking blue collar interests (to prove they're serious), embracing the interests of professionals (i.e. Wall Street, big pharma, etc) and endorsing financial/technological/legal 'innovation' which ultimately amounts to avoiding regulations and bringing about the return of modern day labouring, disguised as 'entrepreneurship'. As well as an embrace of identity politics, which is far more comfortable for the modern day Democrats than class politics, being that they are the party of the new aristocrats. Heavily Democrat controlled areas are some of the most unequal in the US. Inequality isnt something the Democrats fight against, its something they encourage. The message from the Democrats is that if you are poor, you deserve it.

The result was the unthinkable happened and Trump won in those blue collar states that Clinton and the Democrats have taken for granted for decades. And that was with Trump, a horrific candidate who should have lost to any reasonable candidate. The Republicans will be back next time with a far better candidate who makes basically the same sales pitch. The underlying dynamic is very troubling for the Democrats. Even the good result in Georgia isn't all that encouraging - the district is a wealthy suburban area, the same voters the Democrats have been pitching themselves too since before Bill Clinton.

Even the Democrat reaction to the defeat has been 'more of the same', rather than questioning if they really ought to be the party of Zuckerberg and Wall Street.

Sam Russell

Manach wrote: »

Ironically, decrypted Soviet intercepts from sources like the Verona cables showed numerous influencal insiders were agents that were acting to allow the Soviets to win the cold war. This, and the communist oppression during that era, never seem to come up during the de-rigour leftist denounations of McCarthy. Books written by authors such as John Gaddis at least can give a bit of background to this period.

This is off topic but just to say McCarthy led witch hunts against anyone who was left wing, and paid little respect for views that differed from his very distorted view. I do not think most victims of his purge were Soviet spies or even very many if any were. They would have to have been very poor spies to have been caught in his net.

Anyway, back to DJT, he told his rally in PA that the wall is back on target, plus more nonsense.

...And Justice

It looks like North Korea are on the same road to Iraq, Rex Tillerson has just delivered the most hawkish statement to the UN. In my opinion the US is going to war with NK, they've deployed THAAD on golf courses in SK and residents in the area are not happy. A major conflict is on the cards here.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sec-tillerson-un-security-council-act-north-korea-does-n752471

Water John

Joe Biden was who O'Bama cosied to for the blue collar vote.
Large political parties looking to capture half the voters in any country need to able to keep different interests within its ranks.
Looking after the blue collar worker___Biden, Young socially concious____Sanders, Female radical ___Warren, Etc.
Catering for sections, should be possible as many areas are not mutually exclusive.
You build a coalition within your own party.

hatrickpatrick

Sand wrote: »

Even the Democrat reaction to the defeat has been 'more of the same', rather than questioning if they really ought to be the party of Zuckerberg and Wall Street.

Bingo. I have yet to see a single high-up Dem question their own behaviour, message, policies, or ideology. At most perhaps they criticise their propaganda efforts as having been insufficient - at no point do they ever seem to ask "are we maybe doing something that's pissing off millions of people who are subsequently too disgusted with us to vote for us?"

Nody

Oh Trump never stop giving interviews; the latest reason why his 100 days has been a failure? The constitution. You heard it right; it's the constitutions fault with it's checks and balances that he could not get his stuff done with a republican senate, republican house and him as president. Not his failure to actually get his own flipping party to work with him, no sir, it's the constitution that's at fault here and should be changed.

Enjoy!

Christy42

Nody wrote: »

Oh Trump never stop giving interviews; the latest reason why his 100 days has been a failure? The constitution. You heard it right; it's the constitutions fault with it's checks and balances that he could not get his stuff done with a republican senate, republican house and him as president. Not his failure to actually get his own flipping party to work with him, no sir, it's the constitution that's at fault here and should be changed.

Enjoy!

And the party that love the constitution will still back him. This is ridiculous at this point he is coming closer and closer to saying he can't do the job. America is not a facist state and therefore has checks and balances on every position. Other presidents had to deal with them but he is simply incapable.

Sofa Spud

Nody wrote: »

Oh Trump never stop giving interviews; the latest reason why his 100 days has been a failure? The constitution. You heard it right; it's the constitutions fault with it's checks and balances that he could not get his stuff done with a republican senate, republican house and him as president. Not his failure to actually get his own flipping party to work with him, no sir, it's the constitution that's at fault here and should be changed.

Enjoy!

Be interesting to see if this was a one-off brain-fart or is he sowing the seed of calling for constitutional changes to provide him with more executive powers. Have to imagine it's just the former - cannot see the more rational side of Reps providing him with cover for any messing with the constitutional status quo...

Akrasia

He did congratulate Erdogan after he won his referendum giving him massively expanded powers in Turkey.

Trump would love to be able to ban wikipedia like Turkey have just done.

InTheTrees

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Be interesting to see if this was a one-off brain-fart or is he sowing the seed of calling for constitutional changes to provide him with more executive powers. Have to imagine it's just the former - cannot see the more rational side of Reps providing him with cover for any messing with the constitutional status quo...

I think most of what comes out of trumps mouth is brain fart.

Luckily the constitution is stronger than trump.

Really Interested

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think most of what comes out of trumps mouth is brain fart.

Luckily the constitution is stronger than trump.

To say most things that come out of Trumps mouth are brain farts, is an insult to both brains and farts as both in normal people have a use.

InTheTrees

I got a shock this morning watching the news. The republicans are running adverts saying what a great job trump has done. I'm using my phone but I'll post a link later.
Lunacy.
He's so unpopular he has to pay for ads saying how great he is.

Harika

InTheTrees wrote: »

I got a shock this morning watching the news. The republicans are running adverts saying what a great job trump has done. I'm using my phone but I'll post a link later.
Lunacy.
He's so unpopular he has to pay for ads saying how great he is.

Seems he learned a thing or two from Kim Jong-un.

Kitsunegari

The Guardian are suggesting Sen. Warren as a potential opponent to Trump in 2020. If that's the standard of candidate the Democrats are going to put forward then I think we'll be looking at 8 years of Trump.

The biggest challenge for Trump will be from within the Republicans IMO. Ryan and co are trying to support and go against Trump at the same time. The Democrats don't look capable of any reform so we'll likely be stuck with two more terrible candidates on the ticket in 2020 as it stands.

Itssoeasy

I see that mr trump has made another baffling comment about Andrew Jackson and the civil war. And he asked the question that no us historian has never asked, and that's "why couldn't the civil war have been avoided?"

In every interview I've seen of his where I see written answers, his answers are baffling and his train of thought is off the wall.

Professor Moriarty

When pressed on CBS about his claims of being wiretapped by Obama, Trump does a Trump.

Christy42

Kitsunegari wrote: »

The Guardian are suggesting Sen. Warren as a potential opponent to Trump in 2020. If that's the standard of candidate the Democrats are going to put forward then I think we'll be looking at 8 years of Trump.

The biggest challenge for Trump will be from within the Republicans IMO. Ryan and co are trying to support and go against Trump at the same time. The Democrats don't look capable of any reform so we'll likely be stuck with two more terrible candidates on the ticket in 2020 as it stands.

Which way do you want them to reform. They lost the blue collar vote. If you want them to help the blue collar voters they need someone along the lines of Warren and Sanders.

However the blue collar vote very much voted for someone trying to screw them over from a great height so maybe they should go along those lines a lot more. It was even stated a lot before that this was going to happen so presumably they knew. Poor people voting for Republicans is like a Turkey voting for Christmas. If you want to help the less well off you need a left wing party which the democrats are not.

I should point out that the Dems only need an extra per cent or so to take back the white house. An extra point from where we were months ago when people were still claiming that Trump would pivot away from being a racist idiot and would be this masterful negotiator who could actually get thinga done in Washington.

Sand

Water John wrote: »

Joe Biden was who O'Bama cosied to for the blue collar vote.
Large political parties looking to capture half the voters in any country need to able to keep different interests within its ranks.
Looking after the blue collar worker___Biden, Young socially concious____Sanders, Female radical ___Warren, Etc.
Catering for sections, should be possible as many areas are not mutually exclusive.
You build a coalition within your own party.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, the interests of blue collar workers and aristocrats are mutually exclusive. The Democrats always understood this - they used to represent those blue collar workers against the aristocrats. But then they calculated the blue collar workers had no where else to go. They were wrong, and twitter identity politics isnt a rallying cry that is going to unify their party.

Until they resolve that issue, they are going to face persistent problems. If not Trump, so other Republican will make the same bid in fertile territory.

Christy42 wrote: »

Which way do you want them to reform. They lost the blue collar vote. If you want them to help the blue collar voters they need someone along the lines of Warren and Sanders.

However the blue collar vote very much voted for someone trying to screw them over from a great height so maybe they should go along those lines a lot more. It was even stated a lot before that this was going to happen so presumably they knew. Poor people voting for Republicans is like a Turkey voting for Christmas. If you want to help the less well off you need a left wing party which the democrats are not.

I should point out that the Dems only need an extra per cent or so to take back the white house. An extra point from where we were months ago when people were still claiming that Trump would pivot away from being a racist idiot and would be this masterful negotiator who could actually get thinga done in Washington.

No, not necessarily. The Democrats are not the blue collar party anymore. Areas where Democrats dominate - where Republicans have next to no influence - are some of the most unequal in the United States. There is no evidence that the Democrats are somehow prevented by the Reps from combating inequality. The Dems endorse inequality and have done so at least since the Clintons. Poor people voting for Democrats is like a battered wife returning home for another beating.

Look at Barack Obama. Nice guy, but he appointed Geithner as Treasury Secretary. Neil Barofsky recalls that when he met with Geithner to discuss the bailout plans in 2009 that 'a lightbulb went on' for him. Warren had challenged Geithner on how the bailout plan would help homeowners. Geithner responded by explaining how it would help the banks.

Obama is a nice guy, but every time there was decision to be made between the interests of the blue collar and the interests of the aristocrats, the Democrats always back the aristocrats. Every time.

Sofa Spud

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see that mr trump has made another baffling comment about Andrew Jackson and the civil war. And he asked the question that no us historian has never asked, and that's "why couldn't the civil war have been avoided?"

In every interview I've seen of his where I see written answers, his answers are baffling and his train of thought is off the wall.

I loved his one a few months ago in a speech - I think possibly at CPAC - where he was talking about Lincoln and he said something along the lines of 'Who Knew that Abe Lincoln was a Republican? I think more people should know that!'. He said that as he stood there, literally talking to the party that calls itself The Party of Lincoln in much the same way FF like to call themselves the Republican Party, and it was clear he was really happy with he new fact of the day that he probably heard on Fox and Friends and wanted to share it with everybody....

InTheTrees

Here's trumps tv ad thats all over the airwaves today.

Lying piece of sh*t

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNQlAFonJU

Water John

The Blue Collar vote flipped from O'Bama/Biden to Trump because they believed the Dems represented rich people, twice as much as the GOP.
This is from the Dems own research.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/05/01/why-did-trump-win-new-research-by-democrats-offers-a-worrisome-answer/?utm_term=.aed00bbc9a4d&wpisrc=nl_most-draw8&wpmm=1


They'll have to put their heads together to overcome that.

The upside would be, after soul searching and changing tack, it can be won back.

Sand

InTheTrees wrote: »

Here's trumps tv ad thats all over the airwaves today.

Lying piece of sh*t

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNQlAFonJU

"...You wouldn't know it from watching the news..."

No. You wouldn't.

Christy42

Sand wrote: »

Unfortunately for the Democrats, the interests of blue collar workers and aristocrats are mutually exclusive. The Democrats always understood this - they used to represent those blue collar workers against the aristocrats. But then they calculated the blue collar workers had no where else to go. They were wrong, and twitter identity politics isnt a rallying cry that is going to unify their party.

Until they resolve that issue, they are going to face persistent problems. If not Trump, so other Republican will make the same bid in fertile territory.



No, not necessarily. The Democrats are not the blue collar party anymore. Areas where Democrats dominate - where Republicans have next to no influence - are some of the most unequal in the United States. There is no evidence that the Democrats are somehow prevented by the Reps from combating inequality. The Dems endorse inequality and have done so at least since the Clintons. Poor people voting for Democrats is like a battered wife returning home for another beating.

Look at Barack Obama. Nice guy, but he appointed Geithner as Treasury Secretary. Neil Barofsky recalls that when he met with Geithner to discuss the bailout plans in 2009 that 'a lightbulb went on' for him. Warren had challenged Geithner on how the bailout plan would help homeowners. Geithner responded by explaining how it would help the banks.

Obama is a nice guy, but every time there was decision to be made between the interests of the blue collar and the interests of the aristocrats, the Democrats always back the aristocrats. Every time.

You avoided the point of arguing how Republicans will help. I did mention that Democrats are still too right wing to seriously help the less well off but some of them have at least tried.

So far all Trump has done is try and remove any chance of them ever having healthcare. Obamacare has issues but it was a step in the right direction that Republicans tried to undue. It is a big issue of two party politics. The less well off get no where to go since the Dems ignore them and the Republicans will try and hurt them.

So it is a question of whether or not the Dems move towards those the blue collar voters went with (Trump and Republicans) or if they move towards those who might try and help the blue collar workers (and they can even keep the identity politics since that part is not against the needs of blue collar workers-many of whom will be lgbt or people of colour).

Water John

Would be an interesting situation if Independents got the balance of power in both Houses. Easy enough for it to happen.
In reality was there quite often before, because on diff issues, legislators did not stick rigidly to their own party line.
It has just become far more polarised recently.

Sand

Christy42 wrote: »

You avoided the point of arguing how Republicans will help. I did mention that Democrats are still too right wing to seriously help the less well off but some of them have at least tried.

So far all Trump has done is try and remove any chance of them ever having healthcare. Obamacare has issues but it was a step in the right direction that Republicans tried to undue. It is a big issue of two party politics. The less well off get no where to go since the Dems ignore them and the Republicans will try and hurt them.

So it is a question of whether or not the Dems move towards those the blue collar voters went with (Trump and Republicans) or if they move towards those who might try and help the blue collar workers (and they can even keep the identity politics since that part is not against the needs of blue collar workers-many of whom will be lgbt or people of colour).

They didn't vote for Republicans in 2016. They voted for change to the establishment, as represented by Trump. Just as they voted for change to the establishment, as represented by Obama previously. In both scenarios, they are trying to break out of the catch 22 trap where neither party represents them.

The Democrats don't ignore the less well off. They don't try to help them but are somehow prevented from doing so. They also try to hurt them through their embrace of 'innovation' and the interests of Zuckerberg and Co. Democrats *need* to attack the less well off, to prove themselves to the professional/aristocratic class.

The identity politics is a distraction from class politics. That's why the Democrats have embraced it, to replace class politics. Its hard to be a class warrior when you are yachting with Goldman Sachs for your holidays. Much more financially and politically expedient to pretend the real battle lines are in toilet signs and pronouns.

Billy86

Sand wrote: »

No, not necessarily. The Democrats are not the blue collar party anymore. Areas where Democrats dominate - where Republicans have next to no influence - are some of the most unequal in the United States. There is no evidence that the Democrats are somehow prevented by the Reps from combating inequality. The Dems endorse inequality and have done so at least since the Clintons. Poor people voting for Democrats is like a battered wife returning home for another beating.

Can't really agree too much with that. Yes, the Democrats often don't look out for the average person but the Republicans are comfortably worse offenders on that end. A lot of income inequality issues stemmed from their favourite president of the lot (Reagan) who they continue to worship as a God like figure despite the proven failures of his trickle down policies (policies that Trump will double and triple down on, since it's his family's pocket than the money won't be "trickling down" from). Furthermore they don't even try to hide that they are actors on behalf of corporations, doing the complete opposite of what they say (more on that later) - let's not forget that one of the reasons Trumpcare failed was because many Republicans felt it would not line the pockets of the wealthy enough and gave too much to the working/middle classes as one recent example.

That's a considerable issue the Democrats face also, that the Republicans have tied themselves in so deeply with religion in a country that has a very large number of hardliners and fundamentalists, and as such not voting Republican is seen as 'not doing the Christian thing' in many areas. The end result of this is that the Republicans have a considerably large voter base that refuses to hold it to any standard other than occasionally paying lip service to their religion.

Also, regarding the idea of the Democrats being the 'party of Wall Street' both are guilty here but there Republicans even moreso. Just from today - Republicans are marching ahead with a mammoth 593-page bill to deregulate Wall Street

Regarding income inequality, I'm pretty sure you would find the same if not worse in heavily Republican areas (apart from those of course that basically have no economy but don't appear to their representatives accountable for that at any point and continue to vote the The Almighty 'R').

Obama is a nice guy, but every time there was decision to be made between the interests of the blue collar and the interests of the aristocrats, the Democrats always back the aristocrats. Every time.

Very often yes, except his biggest action to benefit the average American was the one the Republicans opposed stronger than maybe anything they ever have as a party, and with a fair degree of success. Needless to say, like good Christians many of their supporters blindly followed as they fought hard to get rid of the same ACA they depended on and polled on being happy with (unless the poll called it Obamacare, in which case they hated it).

It's the massive failing of a two party system because it really is a definitive example of 'pick your poison' but I can't conceivably see how one doesn't view the Republicans as the worse of the two with regards to these kinds of issues.




To add to the analogies on beaten wives and Turkey's voting for Christmas though, is that the blue collar rust belters and the likes voting for Trump was like someone stubbing their toe on a bunch of things others left lying around, preventing them from going where they needed to get to, and ultimately in an effort to get back at those who left the debris and mess there... they decided to stab themselves in the face.

Valord

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Thanks for the free physiological lesson. If you're constantly reading negative stories about Trump, your perception of him is obviously going to be negative too. I think it's fair to question things and hammer him on certain others, but the hysteria surrounding him has never been seen before, it's constant hit after hit, and was during the campaign too. My own feeling is somewhat negative so far, but it's no where near the hysterical levels others are expressing.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/study-91-percent-of-trump-coverage-on-broadcast-news-was-negative-230297

A non partisan poll was released yesterday about the media and Trumps Whitehouse, and IMO some people might find the results surprising.

https://morningconsult.com/2017/04/28/political-media-earns-poor-marks-americans/

Maybe because this is kind of a silly survey to begin with. It's comparing something very specific (the Trump WH) to something incredibly vague and nebulous ("the media"). What one person thinks of when they hear "the media" is very different to what another person does. How about comparing his trust rating to actual tangible outlets instead? What are the ratings of CNN, Fox, the NY Times, WaPo, MSNBC, Reuters, AP, local papers, etc?

This seems almost like asking people if they trust "politicians" and then when they inevitably say they don't in large numbers, you use it to declare that some politicians you don't like aren't trusted by most people. Just bundling everything together is the same reason we always see those useless statistics about how some 90% of Americans disapprove of congress, which completely hides the fact that almost everyone is pretty satisfied with their own representatives and are happy to re-elect them quite easily.

Christy42

Sand wrote: »

They didn't vote for Republicans in 2016. They voted for change to the establishment, as represented by Trump. Just as they voted for change to the establishment, as represented by Obama previously. In both scenarios, they are trying to break out of the catch 22 trap where neither party represents them.

The Democrats don't ignore the less well off. They don't try to help them but are somehow prevented from doing so. They also try to hurt them through their embrace of 'innovation' and the interests of Zuckerberg and Co. Democrats *need* to attack the less well off, to prove themselves to the professional/aristocratic class.

The identity politics is a distraction from class politics. That's why the Democrats have embraced it, to replace class politics. Its hard to be a class warrior when you are yachting with Goldman Sachs for your holidays. Much more financially and politically expedient to pretend the real battle lines are in toilet signs and pronouns.

Identity politics is its own issue. The difference between the classes is not the only issue out there and lgbt legislation affects millions. Anyone who voted for Trump because they think he doesn't go yachting with Godman Sachs deserves him as a president really.

They voted a spoilt rich kid backed by Republicans and expected change? If you want change vote for the style you want within a party. Vote Sanders. Vote for a 3rd party,campaign too change how votes are counted (proportional representation or the French system would help). Sure none of these will likely work but it is trying.

Saying you are voting for change while voting for a man campaigning on reducing taxes for rich, reducing health care assistance for the poor and is backed by Republicans is laughable logic.

For Forks Sake

InTheTrees wrote: »

Here's trumps tv ad thats all over the airwaves today.

Lying piece of sh*t

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNQlAFonJU

Truly nauseating

Itssoeasy

InTheTrees wrote: »

Here's trumps tv ad thats all over the airwaves today.

Lying piece of sh*t

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uNQlAFonJU

That is... I'm not sure what that is I've just watched.