sardia wrote: morriswalters wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:What happens if Trump *doesn't* fuck up badly enough to lose(however badly that is, which...I don't even know)? If your strategy is merely "hope that doesn't happen", you don't actually have a strategy.
They are still in the denial stage, they haven't moved to acceptance yet. Trump on the other hand has the Presidency, now we get to see what is what and who is who. In two years he'll have a RECORD.
It's not so much denial as lack of short term options. Democrats can try competing for white middle class votes, and maintain their coalition. No guarantee it will work, and it's very dependent on Trump fucking up. incumbent advantage is a harsh mistress.
They're in a tough spot, true. But they don't have to take a strategy that relies on Trump fucking up. Trump appealed to people by an avenue that had traction that was traditionally ignored. If Democrats can find a different one, and stop ignoring that one, they can make headway.
KnightExemplar wrote:I think if Trump doesn't fuck up majorly and actually happens to run the country well (despite his odds), then he deserves to remain President for another 4 years. I think its highly unlikely given the circumstances. But if he's a good man and runs things well... why not have him for another few years?
Sure, in the abstract. But in practice, a good bit comes down to partisanship. People are quick to forget errors on their side. What kind of error would be major enough to shake those who have faith in him right now? You'd need something really bad, I think. Look at single term presidents of late, and see what got 'em. Probably the most applicable is Bush's broken "read my lips, no new taxes" promise. That was particularly explicit, and about something people care about. Vaguer policy shifts happen all the time, under every president, and do not appear to suffice to unseat an incumbent.
Now, Trump's maybe a little less secure, because he didn't actually have the popular vote, but that didn't seem to be a factor for Dubya.
morriswalters wrote:Trump hasn't taken office. Elections are two years away and no consensus exists as to why Clinton went bust. They need to get their heads around the concept of a Trump Presidency. They need to identify the Trump voter in a more revealing way than as "angry white people". Why is he angry and what can we do to make him less so.
Eh, white probably isn't most essential identifier. As mentioned, Trump had better minority appeal than Romney. Sure, you've got much of the usual Republican skew, but over-focusing on that identifier misses other factors, I think. Mostly, I'm agreeing with you. They need to examine in detail how they lost.
Granted, I thought the post-election analysis last time by the Republicans was good, and then they did fine with Trump, who incorporated basically none of it. Hmmm.
The Great Hippo wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Why is he angry and what can we do to make him less so.
What if the only way to make him less angry is to deport all illegal immigrants, ban Muslim immigration, put Hillary Clinton in jail, murder the families of terrorists, stop acting like black lives matter, withdraw from NATO, and build an actual wall (and make Mexico pay for it)?
Simple answers are often wrong. Or at least, they miss important nuance. Politics are complicated. There's always subtext, history, and competing ideologies at play. The entire nation doesn't want the same thing. What constitutes a Republican voter may not even be the same from state to state. It's often tempting to distill stuff down to catchy slogans, sound bites, or whatever, but there's always complexity there in practice. Yeah, some people probably do want these things, or at least some of them. But not all people want literally the worst aspects of a candidate. That's never true. People vote for many reasons. You gotta tease these things apart and figure out how to deal with 'em.
If you start treating most of the country as a basket of deplorables who are not worth speaking to, you ain't gonna win there votes. And then you get none of what you want.
Also, withdrawing from NATO hasn't really been treated like a goal. Getting other countries to pay their fair share of NATO costs is a goal. This is far more reasonable.
Lucrece wrote:Next time leave the celebrities at home. Some pampered millionaire with an overpaid job in entertainment telling people who to vote for certainly did not help Clinton.
It made her look like she was in cahoots with Hollywood elites. People who are not particularly popular in the country as a whole, or popular for the wrong reasons because they most certainly are not respected.
Also, said celebrities, if they want to do endorsements, should probably refrain from ridiculous promises like moving to Canada. That's a credibility killer right there. I mean, sure, celebrities are people, they get to talk politics too, but if you're using your publicity to make your side sound dumb, you're doing it no favors.
The Great Hippo wrote:I'm really not sure how to respond? I don't think someone who wants to kill the families of terrorists is a villain; I just think they have terrible morals.
What's the difference?
For what it's worth, I believe people endorsing such a view seriously likely do so on utilitarian grounds. If it results in fewer dead people overall, bam, you've got a classic trolley problem. Ethically, it's not particularly novel. And it's a view that *has* been used a fair bit. Probably can't just avoid dealing with it.
I'm not endorsing it, mind you, but yeah, I think understanding ethical systems that are wildly different from your own is essential. You should absolutely attempt to fully understand other systems without assuming your own is necessarily better. AFTER you understand it, then you can judge it.
In practice, I think a more common explanation is that people love cheerleading for their side, so it's cheered just because everyone's anti-terrorism. Being anti-terror isn't a particularly edgy position to take, and adding hyperbole allowed him to appear "tougher" on it.
And back to Trumpistan, Trump
has no idea how much the President makes
says he'll take only a $1 salary
. I'll bet 5 times that 1) the donations will go to one of his non-charities and 2) he'll still keep the tax write-off.
Honestly, the salary is small potatoes to him. It's a cheap PR stunt. The salary is a tiny part of the cost of the President.