POTUS Election thread

[Husar]

And in the other cage we have the nationalist Brit who is currently using crude tools to create platitudes and exaggerations.

[HopAlongBunny]

[Greyblades]

And in the other cage we have the nationalist Brit who is currently using crude tools to create platitudes and exaggerations.

You used to be better at this.

[InsaneApache]

[Greyblades]

[Kralizec]

If he could, I imagine he would try to sell the place for a profit.

[HopAlongBunny]

Resistance and road map:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/donald-...enda-1.3845222

first 100 days:

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_lan...ontractv02.pdf

[Blastoise Groudon]

Why do people think Hilary really would have been any better? Don't people remember all the money she took from Trump?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Why do people think Hilary really would have been any better? Don't people remember all the money she took from Trump?

The mains stream media has fed the younger ones on a steady diet of:

1. Social progress trending away from traditional values is wonderful (to be fair, some of it truly has been progress).
2. Republicans are racists, bigots, homophobes, and misogynists.
3. Trump was rejected by many Republicans, so he must be worse.

After 8 years of Obama's administration, a goodly chunk of these student age protestors literally have no recollection of any other political "brand."


I find the calls for his impeachment particularly funny. I could have sworn he needed to take the oath before he could be impeached.

[AE Bravo]

Do you believe Trump espouses these traditional values?

It's not so much the GOP as it is Trump's despicable old guard cabinet. There was a brief time in this election where the GOP had glimpses of a promising new breed. They are fighting an uphill demographic battle. They need Rubio or someone who will not alienate minorities as much. If you want younger voters to have another brand besides the one known, there needs to be a rebranding.

[Fisherking]

There are a lot of Americans who are optimistic about a Trump Presidency. This is because they believe that he is anti-establishment.

I am not one of them. I am expecting just more building of government power and federal overreach.

We (Americans) have had progressivism in government for so long that we don’t even know what kind of government we are supposed to have. It is not supposed to be state and federal governments that regulate and legislate everything under the sun. It is limited government who’s only purpose for existence is to preserve and protect the rights and property of the people.

Progressives will cry at that and say what about the poor or minorities or what ever cause is in vogue. The may not know that government regulation may be the very thing keeping the poor or minorities where they are.

It is both parties and their elected officials. They represent the Oligarchs who bought them all years ago. The agenda is their version of global government and it is not freedom.

[InsaneApache]

Breaking news.

The 'Donald' evicts black family from their house.

[Beskar]

On the Radio, there was a comment about how British and American voters have different perspectives of politicians. That is, in general, if you say you will do something in British politics, there is the expectation that you will do it. On the other hand in American politics, there isn't the expectation of politicians doing what they say they will do.

How true do people feel this comment is?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Do you believe Trump espouses these traditional values?

It's not so much the GOP as it is Trump's despicable old guard cabinet. There was a brief time in this election where the GOP had glimpses of a promising new breed. They are fighting an uphill demographic battle. They need Rubio or someone who will not alienate minorities as much. If you want younger voters to have another brand besides the one known, there needs to be a rebranding.

Rebranding is crap. The mainstream media will just make it obvious that all the GOP would be doing is pandering to Latinos.

The party needs to get in the trenches and slowly teach/educate/work with the Latino communities -- and they are NOT a monolith as any Floridian could tell you -- as to why the GOP's agenda of smaller government, limited regulation, etc. is in their best long term interests.

Pandering gets you votes for one election. Truly working with the groups involved builds your core.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

On the Radio, there was a comment about how British and American voters have different perspectives of politicians. That is, in general, if you say you will do something in British politics, there is the expectation that you will do it. On the other hand in American politics, there isn't the expectation of politicians doing what they say they will do.

How true do people feel this comment is?

Some of the more "over the top" promises are assumed to be PR. The rest they expect you to make a good effort at -- though our purposefully gridlock-centric system means that such efforts may be stymied.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Dems have a leadership gap. Their old guard is either on the way out due to age/political fortune (Reed, H. Clinton, Nelson, J. Brown, Sanders...) or constitutionally ineligible (Obama, Clinton), or too young/not prominent enough to step onto the national stage yet (Booker). This positions them poorly to push back against Trump, should Trump be able to generate actual support.

The GOP is riven. The Trump coalition (Tea Partyers, Reagan Democrats, Hold-their-nose establishments, and the unwanted but still present Alt Right fringers) is not inherently stable. Trump can maintain most of this cadre by a full-on attack in favor of his full campaign agenda, but might lose support among the nose-holders and the mainline who didn't want him in the first place. This might get a number of the agenda items stymied.

As an alternative, he can go (or at least start with) conservative favorites (clean up tax loopholes, tighten up border security, cut back on regulation) and build a fair amount of support. He would lose the alt right types, and some of the tea party crowd who want sweeping tax changes yesterday, but might be able to build more mainstream party support and shift his direction a bit.

Or, he can make many of these changes while doing deals with democrats for some of their pet issues to buy off their opposition. This would be very "establishment" of him, however, and would lose the alt right types, but also a number of tea partyers, and all of the hard-core social conservatives (since gay marriage etc. are the "buy-off" issues he would have to use). This would rip his current coalition apart. Not sure if he could rebuild an establishment coalition if he goes this route.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Breaking news.

The 'Donald' evicts black family from their house.

LOL

But it is not their house -- he's just bouncing them from public housing.

[Pannonian]

The Dems have a leadership gap. Their old guard is either on the way out due to age/political fortune (Reed, H. Clinton, Nelson, J. Brown, Sanders...) or constitutionally ineligible (Obama, Clinton), or too young/not prominent enough to step onto the national stage yet (Booker). This positions them poorly to push back against Trump, should Trump be able to generate actual support.

The GOP is riven. The Trump coalition (Tea Partyers, Reagan Democrats, Hold-their-nose establishments, and the unwanted but still present Alt Right fringers) is not inherently stable. Trump can maintain most of this cadre by a full-on attack in favor of his full campaign agenda, but might lose support among the nose-holders and the mainline who didn't want him in the first place. This might get a number of the agenda items stymied.

As an alternative, he can go (or at least start with) conservative favorites (clean up tax loopholes, tighten up border security, cut back on regulation) and build a fair amount of support. He would lose the alt right types, and some of the tea party crowd who want sweeping tax changes yesterday, but might be able to build more mainstream party support and shift his direction a bit.

Or, he can make many of these changes while doing deals with democrats for some of their pet issues to buy off their opposition. This would be very "establishment" of him, however, and would lose the alt right types, but also a number of tea partyers, and all of the hard-core social conservatives (since gay marriage etc. are the "buy-off" issues he would have to use). This would rip his current coalition apart. Not sure if he could rebuild an establishment coalition if he goes this route.

Can't he build a Republican coalition by building a picture of the archetypal Democrat, and promising to give them lot a kicking? AFAICS it's easier to build and maintain support against a stereotypical opposition than it is to build something constructive.

[AE Bravo]

The Dems have a leadership gap. Their old guard is either on the way out due to age/political fortune (Reed, H. Clinton, Nelson, J. Brown, Sanders...) or constitutionally ineligible (Obama, Clinton), or too young/not prominent enough to step onto the national stage yet (Booker). This positions them poorly to push back against Trump, should Trump be able to generate actual support.

They have Tulsi Gabbard. As of now she seems to be the ideal Democratic candidate. Opposed the Iraq War but still served in it, and would likely be running on a similar platform as Bernie Sanders. Plus, she has not shilling for the Hillary shills going for her.

[Husar]

They have Tulsi Gabbard.

I'd vote for her.
Not only because I just googled pictures, I think I actually heard of her before and that email you posted could be reason enough.

I mean it sounds like a thinly veiled attempt at blackmail or peer pressure, although the fact that it seems to be a done deal would hint at him just insulting her because he is sour.

[edyzmedieval]

Admit it Husar, you'd vote for her because you googled those pics man.

[AE Bravo]

Wouldn't put it past Trump to question her birth certificate in 2020 for being Hindu.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Gabbard is in the same boat as Booker. About 8-10 years of experience and gravitas short. Both are excellent longer term bets though.

[Greyblades]

Even if this wasnt a problem in the end they arent going anywhere if the party behind them refuses to learn from this year and keeps haemorrhageing voters.

[AE Bravo]

Gabbard is in the same boat as Booker. About 8-10 years of experience and gravitas short. Both are excellent longer term bets though.

That would make perfect sense if Trump didn't win your primaries and the general.

[Montmorency]

That would make perfect sense if Trump didn't win your primaries and the general.

Trump didn't win as a consequence of lack of experience and gravitas, or else you might as well consider Bernard the 40 year-old Cincinnati actuary a solid bet for 2020.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That would make perfect sense if Trump didn't win your primaries and the general.

Not quite the point I was making. The mainline aka establishment leadership of the Dem party is the one with the gap in leadership. The GOP had an establishment leadership but Trump beat them precisely because he was not a part of it. The same thing could happen to the Democrat party as well.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Thought this was an interesting pro-Trump video given the contrast between what he said before deciding to run and after:

https://youtu.be/OCabT_O0YSM

[Montmorency]

Mmhm

For every one voter nationwide who reported having voted for Obama in 2012 and Trump in 2016, at least five people voted for Trump after not having voted four years ago. Clinton attracted substantially fewer 2012 nonvoters, the data show. On net, Trump’s gains among nonvoters mattered more than his gains from vote switchers, Rivers says.

[Crandar]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/gr...ond-eh-hillary