**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

Oh I see. Trump's been calling Castro all kinds of evil. I'm pretty sure it's just a persuasion technique so he doesn't seem as bad in comparison.

[Poopadoop]

In all fairness she's far too old for the majority of them.

edit - I just noticed the chest grab of the little girl, pretty sick.

edit 2 - And I obviously missed the first gif of him touching up the small asian girl.

You gotta be pretty paranoid to think that he's 'feeling up' those girls imo. Just look like another touchy politican to me.

[CoccoBill]

The irony is that Trump is by far the most left Republican nominee in history. You'd think they'd be happy. Nope, they want Bolshevism instead.

I guess this just shows that the candidates' leaning on economical policy is not the only, or even the most important factor. I'm sure some people would vote for a sociopath serial pedophile rapist mass murderer junkie if they just shared their political views, but hopefully that's not too common. Why do you say he's on the left by the way? I'd rather describe him as a libertarian-leaning moderate conservative with a healthy dose of what'sinitformeism.

[Poopadoop]

As for the brilliant ploy aspect of it, GOP Cuban voters are very important in key state Florida. Hoaxing media non-stop attacks everything Trump says. This puts the hoaxing media in a situation where they have to either make Trump look good by being actual journalists, or they can make Trump look even better by defending Castro and such. The word is the latter has been happening.

So I take it you're happy he hasn't given a press conference since winning? Keeps the hoaxing media from asking him anything about all the promises he's planning to break?

[Savy]

You gotta be pretty paranoid to think that he's 'feeling up' those girls imo. Just look like another touchy politican to me.

Playing clips in slow motion always makes movements look far more unnatural than they are. The funniest bit of it is when it looks like he tries to go in to kiss that girl on the cheek and she pulls her head away.

What is there to be paranoid about?

[Poopadoop]

Playing clips in slow motion always makes movements look far more unnatural than they are. The funniest bit of it is when it looks like he tries to go in to kiss that girl on the cheek and she pulls her head away.

Exactly, so why play them in slow motion? Things always look more intentional and premeditated in slowmo, that's why. Like the guy's really trying to cop a feel of a prepubescent girl's chest lol. Fuck off.

What is there to be paranoid about?

There's nothing to be paranoid about, that was my whole point.

[wufwugy]

I guess this just shows that the candidates' leaning on economical policy is not the only, or even the most important factor. I'm sure some people would vote for a sociopath serial pedophile rapist mass murderer junkie if they just shared their political views, but hopefully that's not too common. Why do you say he's on the left by the way? I'd rather describe him as a libertarian-leaning moderate conservative with a healthy dose of what'sinitformeism.

After having won, he has given next to no indication that he plans to cut taxes, entitlements, or agencies. He has given small indication that he will cut some regulation. On the social side, he is very much not a social conservative, which is what the left has identified itself against.

Trump plan is to secure the nation, bring peace, and to grow the economy. He has signaled he will use the kind of economic ideas that Paul Krugman loves to grow the economy, which is hilarious given how Krugman basically said Doom had come after Trump won. To grow the economy, Trump won't touch spending and will probably increase it with infrastructure projects. My theory, but this part is just a theory, is that he plans on doing the conservative/libertarian type things after the economy is already doing very well. That means his second term may be the time we get good reform of taxes and healthcare. But as it is now, he is not making moves consistent with conservatism and libertarianism.

If Cruz was president-elect, the media would be talking nonstop about how everybody is going to lose their healthcare, how Social Security is done, how the rich will get tax cuts, etc.. But little of that is going on now, because Trump is basically on the left on those things. He likes having government involved in healthcare and in Social Security; he just wants to change some elements to make them more effective. And those changes are not his top priority, or at least wouldn't be until the economy is much better.

[Poopadoop]

But let's assume Biden is going for a cheap feel or 'pepperoni pizza' or whatever the alt-right codeword is rather than just acting like your typical grabby grandpa. Why do it in front of the camera for the whole world to see? Does he really think 'hmm, no-one will notice if I just grope this girl here in front of everyone...'

[wufwugy]

So I take it you're happy he hasn't given a press conference since winning? Keeps the hoaxing media from asking him anything about all the promises he's planning to break?

I would prefer him to give zero press conferences. The media are such sophisticated liars that they put Goebbels to shame. If I was president, I'd do only direct messages and interviews on Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc.. The sooner the media that are trying to turn the West into the USSR are out of a job, the better.

[Poopadoop]

I would prefer him to give zero press conferences. The media are such sophisticated liars that they put Goebbels to shame. If I was president, I'd do only direct messages and interviews on Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc.. The sooner the media that are trying to turn the West into the USSR are out of a job, the better.

Some would say it's Trump trying to control the media that is reminiscent of the USSR. What does the media do to make America more authoritarian?

[Poopadoop]

The media are such sophisticated liars that they put Goebbels to shame.

As opposed to Trump, who is the kind of boldfaced liar Goebbels would be proud of

If I was president, I'd do only direct messages and interviews on Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc..

So no-one gets to contest your views and decisions in public then? Never get asked a tough question? Ok, Putin...

[Poopadoop]

Next you will be saying Trump should abolish the NY Times.

[wufwugy]

Some would say it's Trump trying to control the media that is reminiscent of the USSR.

Trump does not run the news networks. The propaganda is on the networks themselves.

What does the media do to make America more authoritarian?

On the elections level, they support the authoritarian candidate no matter what. They've turned the country into a race war and a gender war, and these have been used to galvanize support for authoritarian politics and demonize liberty politics. They've rewritten history at virtually every level. They've convinced people that the German national socialists of the 40s were not socialists, and they have used this lie to paint the western values derived from the Enlightenment as right-wing extremism. They have brainwashed the masses to loathe Christians who don't want to bake a gay wedding cake while defending Islamists who throw gays off buildings.

This is only the beginning and none of it comes close to their biggest lie: that they tell the truth.

So no-one gets to contest your views and decisions in public then? Never get asked a tough question? Ok, Putin

They have the fullest right to do so. And they will do so. And if I don't live up to their standards they will vote me out. Putin is an entirely different situation since Russians don't actually have the right to protest him and he is unelected.

Trump is so far the most accessible president. Accessible is not the same as playing theater with corrupt media organizations.

Next you will be saying Trump should abolish the NY Times.

If you think that, you don't consider the things I say much.

[CoccoBill]

He has signaled he will use the kind of economic ideas that Paul Krugman loves to grow the economy, which is hilarious given how Krugman basically said Doom had come after Trump won.

Maybe he also considered education, healthcare, science, equality, green values etc to be relevant issues, on top of economic policy. You might want to revisit my previous post.

To grow the economy, Trump won't touch spending and will probably increase it with infrastructure projects.

I'm sure Ivanka, Eric and Donald jr are already planning their execution.

My theory, but this part is just a theory, is that he plans on doing the conservative/libertarian type things after the economy is already doing very well. That means his second term may be the time we get good reform of taxes and healthcare. But as it is now, he is not making moves consistent with conservatism and libertarianism.

Alternatively by that time the trickle-down is already in full effect and those won't even be necessary, everyone will be swimming in cash like Uncle Scrooge.

If Cruz was president-elect, the media would be talking nonstop about how everybody is going to lose their healthcare, how Social Security is done, how the rich will get tax cuts, etc.. But little of that is going on now, because Trump is basically on the left on those things. He likes having government involved in healthcare and in Social Security; he just wants to change some elements to make them more effective. And those changes are not his top priority, or at least wouldn't be until the economy is much better.[/QUOTE]

My theory, and it's just a theory, is that Donald has no political agenda, he just hasn't figured out yet what profits himself the most, and what exactly is he able to get away with. I'd absolutely love to be proven wrong.

[Poopadoop]

Trump does not run the news networks. The propaganda is on the networks themselves.

Every media source has an angle. The MSM gets lambasted for being biased, but other sources of 'news' are often worse. If Trump himself, alone, gets to decide which form the propaganda takes, be it news networks, facebook, or Breitbart News, then that ain't news, that's Pravda.

On the elections level, they support the authoritarian candidate no matter what. They've turned the country into a race war and a gender war, and these have been used to galvanize support for authoritarian politics and demonize liberty politics. They've rewritten history at virtually every level. They've convinced people that the German national socialists of the 40s were not socialists, and they have used this lie to paint the western values derived from the Enlightenment as right-wing extremism. They have brainwashed the masses to loathe Christians who don't want to bake a gay wedding cake while defending Islamists who throw gays off buildings.

Alex Jones sounds like a level-headed guy after reading this.

This is only the beginning and none of it comes close to their biggest lie: that they tell the truth.

Uh, right.

They have the fullest right to do so. And they will do so.

How will they if you don't let them anywhere near you? If the only people who get to interview you are the ones you hand-select?

Trump is so far the most accessible president. Accessible is not the same as playing theater with corrupt media organizations.

If by 'accessible' you mean he gathers the media in his office and berates them, then yes i agree. If you mean he allows them to speak to them in unstructured press conferences where he doesn't get to set the rules, then no i disagree. More like the least accessible.

If you think that, you don't consider the things I say much.

That was a throwaway comment based on your apparent arguments that the media is evil and Trump is going to destroy it - or whatever you've been talking about. To be honest a lot of your posts are tl;dr.

[Poopadoop]

My theory, and it's just a theory, is that Donald has no political agenda, he just hasn't figured out yet what profits himself the most, and what exactly is he able to get away with. I'd absolutely love to be proven wrong.

Pretty much my view too; iow, he's the American Berlusconi. Hope I'm wrong too.

[wufwugy]

Maybe he also considered education, healthcare, science, equality, green values etc to be relevant issues, on top of economic policy. You might want to revisit my previous post.

He's a chicken with head cut off. It's a shame really, because he's very smart.

Alternatively by that time the trickle-down is already in full effect and those won't even be necessary, everyone will be swimming in cash like Uncle Scrooge.

That which is derided as trickle-down is exactly what I'm saying Trump seems unlikely to begin with. Maybe he'll do some supply-side cuts originally, as that would be great for the economy, but it may be more efficient politically to not fight that one out until after the deficit is no longer an issue.

It helps that the most important supply-side reform he could do is deregulate energy, which is what he intends on doing. If his entire economic agenda is to deregulate energy as much as possible while going on "confidence tours" proclaiming how amazing the economy is, we could probably hit 2x current real gdp from that alone.

My theory, and it's just a theory, is that Donald has no political agenda, he just hasn't figured out yet what profits himself the most, and what exactly is he able to get away with. I'd absolutely love to be proven wrong.

I believe you are being honest and I believe you will be happy with the outcome.

[a500lbgorilla]

Trump, the guy who has to fight ISIS, is now engaged in a twitter beef with the cast of some Broadway musical. Talk about priorities.

Plus, this

He's still missing a leg, I think.

Conservatives were tired of sucking shit, and they're glad we're sucking shit now.

[wufwugy]

The next eight years will be one of the greatest bull markets of the last hundred years.

[surviva316]

Alright, wuf, now that it's being reported that Trump is going to select the CEO of ExxonMobil to be the Secretary of State, you surely have to admit that we've been conned. I'm happy for you you got your MemeMaster as president and if you still think he's no worse than Clinton would have been, etcetcetc, then fine, but you can't actually be optimistic about this administration and their intentions.

[surviva316]

Nevermind, who am I kidding, you're just gonna say that he's thinking this way deeper than I am. Tillerson's going to get denied by the Senate anyway, and he'll use this as a bargaining chip later, and he's setting up such a shitstorm of negative news before he even takes office so that by the time he actually gets around to picking actually qualified people for his highest cabinet positions, he will have set the curve against him so hard that people will be seeing him as a promising politician who learns on the run, it's a persuasion tactic, he's a very smart man, etcetcetc.

I'm the checkers player who's sitting here expecting the appointments of an inexperienced politician to advisory positions as crucial steps toward instilling a competent administration, whereas Trump is using these appointments as chess pawns to set the board up in his favor.

[wufwugy]

Thank you for your critique. I always value it.

The average successful CEO of an enormous and complex corporation is highly qualified to construct policy, arguably more so than your average governor, senator, or president. Politicians are great at policy, yeah, bad policy. If you want results, don't go for politicians. Trump is doing what many have said they want: he's selecting people who get results and are not career insider politicians.

As for the Tillerson pick specifically, here are three big reasons why the pick may be great:

(1) The most effective and easiest way to improve the lives of human beings is to improve the oil situation. The Tillerson pick signals that the Secretary of State will be one of the most expert and credible contemporary figures in oil, a man who knows what it takes to increase production, decrease cost, and establish global relationships.

(2) Being CEO of such a huge and complex company for so long makes Tillerson one of the most qualified people on the planet to run the State Department, which is one of the most huge and complex institutions on the planet. None of the other candidates for SecState reported had nearly the qualifications.

(3) He's not a career politician. He is a highly successful person who gained his success doing the things that people (including most of us) gain educations for, look up to, and consider practices of highly successful people. Tillerson's success and strategies are an example of the type of thing people think of when they think of graduates at the top of the class in business school.

Additional reason (4): The way forward involves strengthening ties with Russia. They are a natural ally, and if we're serious about improving the world economy and about dealing with China with solid footing, we need Russia on our side. Tillerson can get a lot done here.

Final reason (5): Typically the SecState is used as the brand promoter of the United States. It is unlikely the Trump administration wants that. It is likely that Trump himself will act as the brand promoter globally, while Pence deals more with domestic governing and Tillerson fixes the State Department.


I really like his Marines generals picks for DHS and SecDef. They're people who know how to get things done, and how to manage highly complex institutions. And they have balls, which we need. This is not business as usual, this is more reforming the government truly. Where Obama campaigned on reforming government and many of us voted for him on it, he appointed the same old career politicians. Trump is putting in the actual work that Obama supporters said they want. Trump is going outside the swamp and bringing in excavators and framers to turn that swamp into productive land.

[Poopadoop]

Nevermind, who am I kidding

Pretty much sums it up and why i don't argue with him any more.

Wuf is the Kellyanne Conway of FTR. Whatever Trump does he finds a reason to say its a good move.

[surviva316]

Okay, in the interest of Occam's Razor, I'm going to propose what I think is a very simple explanation for all of this and I think it is very difficult to top this explanation to Occam's standard:

Trump--a real estate magnate who has been held in infamy for being an egotistical, greedy asshole well before he was a republican, well before he was a democrat, and well before he entered the political realm at all--was interested in expanding his power. He shot for the moon and (long story short) became the POTUS. He now intends to abuse that power to pet his ego, tout his brand and advance his financial interests as well as those of his business associates.

I think this is a very simple and straight-forward (honestly if you'd told anyone this a year ago it'd be like "LDFO!!!") narrative and does not seem to be directly contradicted by any part of the story thus far, whereas it is supported by many things that we have learned thus far. How he duped 46.3% of the electorate into thinking he was sincerely out to help the American people is the most complex part of the tale, but I think it's a much easier one to explain away than things like this.

On to my rebuttals ...

[wufwugy]

Okay, in the interest of Occam's Razor, I'm going to propose what I think is a very simple explanation for all of this and I think it is very difficult to top this explanation to Occam's standard:

Trump--a real estate magnate who has been held in infamy for being an egotistical, greedy asshole well before he was a republican, well before he was a democrat, and well before he entered the political realm at all--was interested in expanding his power. He shot for the moon and (long story short) became the POTUS. He now intends to abuse that power to pet his ego, tout his brand and advance his financial interests as well as those of his business associates.

I think this is a very simple and straight-forward (honestly if you'd told anyone this a year ago it'd be like "LDFO!!!") narrative and does not seem to be directly contradicted by any part of the story thus far, whereas it is supported by many things that we have learned thus far. How he duped 46.3% of the electorate into thinking he was sincerely out to help the American people is the most complex part of the tale, but I think it's a much easier one to explain away than things like this.

On to my rebuttals ...

You're not alone in this thought. Given how many people I know who have similar thoughts, I think the way the thoughts will change is after a couple years roll by and the results are in. Let's give it a few years and discuss it again. I predict it will look like he ran for president to do what he said he wanted to do.

To note: the people who crave power the most are the career politicians. While people like Trump are smeared and hoaxed by the media as being narcissists, they're reasonably less so than the politicians that the media praise and fib as noble and benevolent.

[Poopadoop]

Seems about right to me Surviva.

But, I don't think the hardest part is how he duped people. He basically promised them the things they want, like all politicians.

It's also worth remembering he ran against what was arguably the worst candidate running the worst campaign in presidential history, who was in fact so bad no-one even went to her rallies, and he still lost the popular vote.

[wufwugy]

Seems about right to me Surviva.

But, I don't think the hardest part is how he duped people. He basically promised them the things they want, like all politicians.

It's also worth remembering he ran against what was arguably the worst candidate running the worst campaign in presidential history, who was in fact so bad no-one even went to her rallies, and he still lost the popular vote.

Trump is the president people said they wanted. Then when Trump came along, those same people hated him because the media convinced them to hate him as well as convinced them that they came to that opinion on their own.

[surviva316]

(1) The most effective and easiest way to improve the lives of human beings is to improve the oil situation. The Tillerson pick signals that the Secretary of State will be one of the most expert and credible contemporary figures in oil, a man who knows what it takes to increase production, decrease cost, and establish global relationships.

He is not being selected to be the Secretary of Energy or even the Secretary of Commerce. If he were, this would be the old argument of helping the GDP versus preserving the environment. For how different our opinions are, this is besides the point.

We're talking about the Secretary of State, the lead diplomat for this country and the main advisor for the president on issues of foreign relations. For all the hoops we have to jump through just to say he's qualified, we have to do all that just to get to, "This is the man for the job to build a robust foreign policy that will be centered entirely around maximizing the acquisition of oil and distribution to America." Wait, what the fuck what?! If you'd said that this was the goal of the Republican party a decade ago, you would be seen as a tinfoil hat nutjob. Now this is the defense that apologists are bending over backwards to get to (because that's how unsavory the simpler alternative answer is)? My god.

(2) Being CEO of such a huge and complex company for so long makes Tillerson one of the most qualified people on the planet to run the State Department, which is one of the most huge and complex institutions on the planet. None of the other candidates for SecState reported had nearly the qualifications.

I grant that he's a successful man with a hard job, but that doesn't count as a qualification. That's a skill. I'm a professional poker player whose career earnings and highest level of success reached vet me out as someone who has a unique ability to take a complex and interconnected game tree and have an understanding of how decisions on one branch affect all the others and building strategies around that. This skill would probably come in handy at a lot of jobs. In fact, it comes in handy in writing novels (where keeping up with all the moving parts of subplots and characters, etc in the editing process wrinkles the brains of my peers much more than it wrinkles mine). This does not make me qualified to handle the US's foreign policy.

This is semantics, but it's very important semantics. I fucking hate it when my New Yorker arrives and there's a feature on the history of conflict in some middle eastern country because it is confounding as fuck and impossible to keep straight and is a torturous slog through an unending piece that does nothing but continually remind me how whatever perceived intelligence I have in the realm of game theory does not help me as so much be an informed voter, much less a foreign diplomat. Of course Tillerson's probably smarter than I am and as CEO of a global company undoubtedly has at least some of the names more straight in his head than I do, and I'm obviously not going to make any stolid logical arguments on the grounds of my personal anecdotes, but I'm just illustrating how important qualifications with a capital Q that actual falls under the dictionary definition of "qualifications" is.

This is like having George Clooney do your heart surgery. Maybe rising to the ranks of being an A-list actor is more rigorous than your run-of-the-mill med school, and he knows plenty of medical jargon from years and years of playing a doctor, but these are not things you put under Qualifications on a resume.

Okay, that's the brunt of what I want to cover, and all the other stuff I have to say is going to serve as a distraction/rebuttal fodder for you, so I'll keep them separate.

[wufwugy]

Trump will be the lead diplomat for America.

Tillerson has a very high level of meaningful relationships with major foreign players. Higher than the last several SecStates.

[wufwugy]

Pretty much sums it up and why i don't argue with him any more.

Wuf is the Kellyanne Conway of FTR. Whatever Trump does he finds a reason to say its a good move.

I have more substantive negative to say about Trump than you do. We just never get to it because being confronted by dumb galvanizes me to defend him against dumb.

[Poopadoop]

I have more substantive negative to say about Trump than you do.

Ok, let's hear it.

[wufwugy]

His welfare reforms will be slim to non-existent. He may do some reorganizing of healthcare and education, but what we need instead are big cuts.

He is very unlikely to cut any bureaucracies. Very few of the bureaucracies we have right now are worth keeping. We need major cuts. He will probably just temporarily slow down the rate of growth in them at best.

His tax cuts, if he does them, will be revenue neutral to their contemporary level of spending. Bad news.

Those tax cuts are likely to be window dressing at best. He is unlikely to eliminate any taxes, which is what's most needed.

The country will do very well for 8 years, but I voted against him and for a guy who would make things great for 30 and on. The difference is that Trump will do a good job while Trump is in office, but he is unlikely to make the systemic changes that are needed to correct the long term course.

His proposed regulation cut policy looks like it's more surface than substance. Maybe some bad regulations will get cut, but he'll probably just slow the growth of them at best.

There are only a handful of issues on which he is actually right. He just happens to be a helluva lot more right than anything the Democrats offered and most of what the Republicans offered.

[surviva316]

RE: Getting people who aren't politicians:

First thing's first, there are all sorts of ways to go outside of the political realm while still getting people who have foreign policy and/or diplomacy experience. There are academics, though that's obviously going in the exact opposite of Trump's stated preference for practitioners who get things done. There's a shit ton of people who work with foreign relations for a living who aren't elected/appointed officials. Yes, many of them either work directly for the US or their main client is the federal government so maybe their sullied by working in bureaucracies, but any concerns over corruption and conflicting loyalties are solved by the fact that they got their job by going to school, writing a resume, and showing up for an interview just like you and me.

There are people who work in the intelligence agencies (again, you can stay away from elected/appointed officials if so inclined). I'm sure the list goes on-and-on-and-on before you get down to "CEO of an oil company."

Second thing's second, it's not sufficient to say that politicians are bad. I agree there are things that suck about politicians, and those things should be weeded out of government, but you seem to have an unfettered disdain for them.

Like even your #3 point seems to be weird back-handed shot at anyone who's achieved anything in any field other than business. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are certainly seen as the pinnacles of success for poli-sci and law schools.

Anyway, it's helpful to cite reasons why you hate politicians, vilify them for those reasons then we can decide what needs to be done to be improved upon that. This has been the logical flaw with the whole "established politicians are corrupt and unproductive, so vote for me" mantra from the beginning.

If your issue with politicians is media manipulation, then every thing about the Breitbart/Project Veritas/Steve Bannon situation should be highly alarming. If your issue with them is corruption, earmarks, cronyism, etc, then this left-field appointment of someone whose only qualification is that he has hundreds of billions of dollars tied up in foreign fields, pipelines, etc should be concerning to you.

If your issue with politicians is that they don't get things done, then, well that's a whole other can of worms and this is where probably our philosophical differences arise.

Businessmen and corporations are efficient at meeting their ends and politicians are inefficient and ineffective at meeting their ends, but the ends they are striving for are different. Businesses are efficient at making money; governments are inefficient at enacting the will of the people. I have no doubt this guy will be good at lining his pockets. In fact, that's my fear. It's the other thing that's really hard.

At the risk of sounding like an apologist for politicians, a lot of their struggles are inherent to the office. This is obviously the common excuse made for Obama to where no matter how much he hears out the concerns of the other side and includes their revisions into policy, if 40% of one of the houses of Congress decides to obstruct everything you do, you're not going to get anything done. I wish I had any other example than that one to use because I'm sure you saw this one coming, haha, but it really is the perfect example.

Someone who isn't a politician isn't going to come in and just magically get shit done. If anything, the higher you get into a corporation, the less sharp they need to be with political savvy. Middle to high-middle management is probably where you'd find the best corollary of accountable people who have to get shit done to keep the lights running and achieve strategic objectives but have to do so with limited and/or non-direct power.

But I digress ...

I'm getting kinda tired of typing, haha. My last point had to do with government being inefficient due to bureaucracy and oversight, but I'm not so sure people complain about these as much in the diplomatic and especially the intelligence spheres (which are the most clandestine agencies with the most tenuous oversight).

[surviva316]

Trump is the president people said they wanted. Then when Trump came along, those same people hated him because the media convinced them to hate him as well as convinced them that they came to that opinion on their own.

1) It has long been the wet-dream of the Joe Schmoes to get a politician who cuts through the bullshit and political correctness and just says what's on their mind and has no special interests, etc. The most common trope is a comedian (eg: Colbert's bid for nomination, that Robin Williams movie "Man of the Year," Lewis Black, etc). Even within the political spheres, both sides have their favorite no-frills folk (Bernie Sanders was this year's flavor for the left). I really didn't think what we'd been asking for one of the most notoriously self-interested billionaires to be that person, but I guess it's a "hero we deserve, not the hero we asked for" sort of thing.

2) The public distaste for Trump is independent of bias. There is no politician I feel more comfortable using personal attacks (he's an asshole, he's egotistical, etc) against because I'm so confident that these things transcend political affiliation. He has literally been America's quintessential asshole business egotists for 30 years, well before he was on The Apprentice, much less entered the political sphere. My dad met him in person in the 90s and wanted to spit on his face (for what very very little it's worth, my dad was a registered republican).

The idea that the liberal media invented the idea that he's an asshole is so retconned that it frustrates me more than relatively tame political narratives should. There's a generation of voters just before us who missed the boat on his days when he was building up the AC empire and he'd cameo as himself on after-school specials and whose opinion of him as a person is wholly wrapped up in his political persona, but most voting-age people knew who Trump was and already had an opinion of him as a person before he ever put an R in front of his name.

Granted, that generation probably significantly overlaps with /pol/ ...

[wufwugy]

1) It has long been the wet-dream of the Joe Schmoes to get a politician who cuts through the bullshit and political correctness and just says what's on their mind and has no special interests, etc. The most common trope is a comedian (eg: Colbert's bid for nomination, that Robin Williams movie "Man of the Year," Lewis Black, etc). Even within the political spheres, both sides have their favorite no-frills folk (Bernie Sanders was this year's flavor for the left). I really didn't think what we'd been asking for one of the most notoriously self-interested billionaires to be that person, but I guess it's a "hero we deserve, not the hero we asked for" sort of thing.

2) The public distaste for Trump is independent of bias. There is no politician I feel more comfortable using personal attacks (he's an asshole, he's egotistical, etc) against because I'm so confident that these things transcend political affiliation. He has literally been America's quintessential asshole business egotists for 30 years, well before he was on The Apprentice, much less entered the political sphere. My dad met him in person in the 90s and wanted to spit on his face (for what very very little it's worth, my dad was a registered republican).

The idea that the liberal media invented the idea that he's an asshole is so retconned that it frustrates me more than relatively tame political narratives should. There's a generation of voters just before us who missed the boat on his days when he was building up the AC empire and he'd cameo as himself on after-school specials and whose opinion of him as a person is wholly wrapped up in his political persona, but most voting-age people knew who Trump was and already had an opinion of him as a person before he ever put an R in front of his name.

Granted, that generation probably significantly overlaps with /pol/ ...

#1 is a great point. #2, I certainly wouldn't agree with anybody who says the media convinced everybody he's an asshole when he's really not. He's definitely a jerk a noticeable proportion of the time (I think it's a perk). The misleading from the media I'm getting at is how he can only do wrong, that's he's more or less an evil person, and that he hates anybody who is non-white non-straight non-male.

[wufwugy]

RE: Getting people who aren't politicians:

First thing's first, there are all sorts of ways to go outside of the political realm while still getting people who have foreign policy and/or diplomacy experience. There are academics, though that's obviously going in the exact opposite of Trump's stated preference for practitioners who get things done. There's a shit ton of people who work with foreign relations for a living who aren't elected/appointed officials. Yes, many of them either work directly for the US or their main client is the federal government so maybe their sullied by working in bureaucracies, but any concerns over corruption and conflicting loyalties are solved by the fact that they got their job by going to school, writing a resume, and showing up for an interview just like you and me.

There are people who work in the intelligence agencies (again, you can stay away from elected/appointed officials if so inclined). I'm sure the list goes on-and-on-and-on before you get down to "CEO of an oil company."

Second thing's second, it's not sufficient to say that politicians are bad. I agree there are things that suck about politicians, and those things should be weeded out of government, but you seem to have an unfettered disdain for them.

Like even your #3 point seems to be weird back-handed shot at anyone who's achieved anything in any field other than business. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry are certainly seen as the pinnacles of success for poli-sci and law schools.

Anyway, it's helpful to cite reasons why you hate politicians, vilify them for those reasons then we can decide what needs to be done to be improved upon that. This has been the logical flaw with the whole "established politicians are corrupt and unproductive, so vote for me" mantra from the beginning.

If your issue with politicians is media manipulation, then every thing about the Breitbart/Project Veritas/Steve Bannon situation should be highly alarming. If your issue with them is corruption, earmarks, cronyism, etc, then this left-field appointment of someone whose only qualification is that he has hundreds of billions of dollars tied up in foreign fields, pipelines, etc should be concerning to you.

If your issue with politicians is that they don't get things done, then, well that's a whole other can of worms and this is where probably our philosophical differences arise.

Businessmen and corporations are efficient at meeting their ends and politicians are inefficient and ineffective at meeting their ends, but the ends they are striving for are different. Businesses are efficient at making money; governments are inefficient at enacting the will of the people. I have no doubt this guy will be good at lining his pockets. In fact, that's my fear. It's the other thing that's really hard.

At the risk of sounding like an apologist for politicians, a lot of their struggles are inherent to the office. This is obviously the common excuse made for Obama to where no matter how much he hears out the concerns of the other side and includes their revisions into policy, if 40% of one of the houses of Congress decides to obstruct everything you do, you're not going to get anything done. I wish I had any other example than that one to use because I'm sure you saw this one coming, haha, but it really is the perfect example.

Someone who isn't a politician isn't going to come in and just magically get shit done. If anything, the higher you get into a corporation, the less sharp they need to be with political savvy. Middle to high-middle management is probably where you'd find the best corollary of accountable people who have to get shit done to keep the lights running and achieve strategic objectives but have to do so with limited and/or non-direct power.

But I digress ...

I'm getting kinda tired of typing, haha. My last point had to do with government being inefficient due to bureaucracy and oversight, but I'm not so sure people complain about these as much in the diplomatic and especially the intelligence spheres (which are the most clandestine agencies with the most tenuous oversight).

I want to make sure that you saw one of my main points: CEO of ExxonMobil is arguably greater preparation for the complexities of the State Department than what Clinton or Kerry had. It isn't just that Tillerson is successful and knows oil that I think the pick may be smart. Finding somebody who knows how to successfully manage multi-tiered, multi-faceted, complex organizations is a great idea. Some of these people are already in government (they ain't senators though), but the rest are at high levels in the corporate world.

Your point that struggles are inherent to the office is very good. This is a main reason why I predict the Trump years will be good but not necessarily after that. We have to lessen the power of these inherently flawed institutions. Trump won't do that.

[wufwugy]

Ok, let's hear it.

I want to add that all those things, I would also at times argue for why Trump may not be making the wrong decision by not doing what I think he should. Here's an example.

I want the president to take a battle axe to the bureaucracy. I want eradication of many departments and a welfare/regulatory system that is a mouse to the behemoth it is today. But is that feasible? Probably not. Also, if the goal is to have as successful a presidency as possible by making peoples' lives during the time of that presidency as good as possible, it wouldn't be by slashing government. The benefits of my ideas don't all come at once; they pay dividends for decades and even centuries if maintained. But they hurt at first.

I see why Trump doesn't want to cut entitlements. I don't agree with it philosophically, but if I was advising him, I would possibly advise him to not focus on cutting entitlements. He can make his presidency more successful in the short run by not doing certain things even though the country will not be as well off in the long run.

[BananaStand]

I'm kinda late to the party, but I'll vent my two cents anyway, as I'm growing increasingly tilted with the post-election media narrative.

First, the outrage of "fake news" is especially infuriating. NBC doctored George Zimmerman's 911 call. "Hands up don't shoot" never even happened. Brian Williams imagined a story just to make himself look badass. Susan Rice went on television five different times to blame the tragedy in Libya on a YouTube video. And just recently, the Washington Post is claiming that the CIA has identified the perpetrators of hacking, and their motives. Yet, the CIA previously said the exact opposite to Congress, and has not updated their briefing since.

And these same media and political elites are now telling us citizens to watch out for "Fake News". Get the fuck out of town!

Speaking of hacking, as I said, the CIA is not corroborating what the Washington Post is publishing based on one anonymous source. Maybe the Russians did it. So what if they did? The US has meddled in more than a few foreign elections over the years. It really shouldn't be shocking to learn that an unfriendly nation is interested in diminishing US power. World power is a zero sum game. If Russia wants more, then the US must have less. It's our job to defend ourselves.

By all accounts we were able to keep the interlopers out of the voting machines and rendered them unable to influence vote counts or any other aspects of the mechanics of our election. By all accounts, the only affect the hackers had, was to influence public opinion with the contents of the emails.

But the Russians.....or whoever.....are not responsible for the content of the emails.

The DNC really did conspire to side-line Bernie. Clinton really did engage in 'pay-to-play' and 'quid pro quo' corruptions while at the State Department. Hillary staffers really did have unethical relationships with Journalists. All that stuff really happened.

For months before the election, we were bombarded with stories of Trumps sexual indiscretions. Every pass he ever made, every inappropriate comment he ever uttered, every romantic encounter that was intended to be kept private was aired in prime time. And now those same media outlets are pouting about how Hillary would have won if only her offenses were kept secret

So if the public voted with the benefit of more, accurate, information, that's a good thing. I certainly don't support any kind of hacking, or any foreign effort to influence our political system. But I'm also not against people having more information.

Finally, I would like to encourage everyone here to help make America great Again by doing the following:

Any time you encounter someone who suggests that Hillary winning the popular vote matters, I want you to sit them down and force that person to eat a pine cone as punishment for uttering idiotic and naive garbage.

If our two party system were satisfying to even a majority of voters, there would be absolutely no reason for campaigns or elections. Every body would just register as one party or the other, and the Census Bureau can just keep score. Easy game. In reality, there are populations at each pole of the political spectrum, but the vast majority of people are in the middle. And politicians have a year and a half to try and pull as many middle-folk onto their side as possible.

At the beginning of that process, the contenders dusted off the Constitution and brushed up on the "rules". They say electoral votes matter, popular votes don't. Not gonna debate if that's the right system or not (it is). That's just the way things are, and have been for a long time. Everybody knew the rules going in. Win the Electoral College, you get to be president. Fin.

So the candidates had months and months to strategize and campaign in a way that best allowed them to win the contest, with the rules as they are written. Trump saw vulnerability in Wisconsin. He put together an effort at the end of the campaign with Walker, and Ryan, and he pulled out a win. Trump won the state, but actually lost in Milwaukee. Hillary won that precinct, but by a margin that was 27,000 votes less than Obama won it in 2012. Overall, Hillary lost the state of Wisconsin by 27,000 votes. She actually never went to Wisconsin during the campaign. Turnout suffered, and she lost the state by a thin margin. The Russian's didn't do that. It was political malpractice!!!

By having a better strategy in Wisconsin, Trump turned the state, and others, and won the electoral college. That was the goal.

Now pay attention, cause this is where the "popular vote" fallacy comes apart....

If the Constitution were crafted differently, and the terms of winning were different, then wouldn't you assume that both candidates would approach the campaign with a different strategy? In other words, if the Constitution simply called for the winner of the popular vote to be President, then don't you think that Trump would have spent a little more time in New York, LA, San Francisco, Chicago, and Boston?

The point here is, that if the criteria for winning were different, then obviously the months-long campaign strategy of both candidates would have been drastically different as well. From there, its only logical to assume that the vote count would have also come out differently. It is absolutely preposterous to think that we would have the exact same popular vote results had the rules of the contest been different.

In order for the "Hillary won the popular vote" argument to hold water....you have to assume that every single person who voted had their mind made up 15 months ago. You also have to assume that everyone who didn't vote, also had their mind made up not to vote 15 months ago. In order to claim a "popular vote" victory for Hillary, you would have to assume that campaigning is worthless, and that the vote counts and turnout figures would be precisely the same if the campaign were conducted under a different set of rules. And that has got to be the most intellectually lazy premise ever invoked.

I am stunned at how many seemingly smart, educated people are claiming a 2.8 million vote margin of victory for Hillary.

Make them eat pine cones.

[wufwugy]

...

A+

You can't win a game you're not playing. They played the EC game, not the PV game.

[BananaStand]

On a happier note, it looks like Trump is going to name Kim Guilfoyle as his Press Secretary.

All the women on Fox News are turbo-babes, but Kimberly has been my #1 crush for a looooong time.

[wufwugy]

What no Hurricane Katrina?!?!?!!?

I don't even know Guilfoyle. Any specific BTFO from her?

I'm partial to Kayleigh McEnany

[BananaStand]

Help me out dude, what does "BTFO" mean?

[wufwugy]

blown the fuck out.

it's the way r/the_donald and /pol/ say "owned" these days.

[wufwugy]

Evidence of possible major fraud in Detroit (heavy Dem). Y'all were saying?

[wufwugy]

TIL about Assange's hard hints that Seth Rich leaked DNC emails. Who's Seth Rich? You know, the guy who died by "robbery" without the robber taking anything.

[Jack Sawyer]

The banana republicans

I like that one

[wufwugy]

He would have some credibility if he didn't make so many things up.

[jackvance]

Okay, in the interest of Occam's Razor, I'm going to propose what I think is a very simple explanation for all of this and I think it is very difficult to top this explanation to Occam's standard:

Trump--a real estate magnate who has been held in infamy for being an egotistical, greedy asshole well before he was a republican, well before he was a democrat, and well before he entered the political realm at all--was interested in expanding his power. He shot for the moon and (long story short) became the POTUS. He now intends to abuse that power to pet his ego, tout his brand and advance his financial interests as well as those of his business associates.

I think this is a very simple and straight-forward (honestly if you'd told anyone this a year ago it'd be like "LDFO!!!") narrative and does not seem to be directly contradicted by any part of the story thus far, whereas it is supported by many things that we have learned thus far. How he duped 46.3% of the electorate into thinking he was sincerely out to help the American people is the most complex part of the tale, but I think it's a much easier one to explain away than things like this.

On to my rebuttals ...

The good thing about Trump is that he's saying things the way they are, that he's battling with career politicians (in both parties), with the corporate media, and promises a halt to cultural marxism, the power tool used to keep the populace unaware and compliant. If you've read wikileaks you'll now how corrupt the washington insiders are, they don't care about any of the things they ralk about, it's all political powergames. Trump always said he'd only run when it was most needed, and now it was more needed than ever. Plus it's more entertaining this way!

[wufwugy]

gotta say when i saw jv posted in here, i knew it was gonna be on the right track. the jvp delivered!

[jackvance]

I was always wondering if u'd be pro-Trump wuf, i thought u would be but also remembered you shared Vox which just unreadably liberal. Good to hear in either case.

[wufwugy]

I was always wondering if u'd be pro-Trump wuf, i thought u would be but also remembered you shared Vox which just unreadably liberal. Good to hear in either case.

I'm always improving.

[surviva316]

cultural marxism, the power tool used to keep the populace unaware and compliant.

I would love for you to elaborate on this.

If you've read wikileaks you'll now how corrupt the washington insiders are, they don't care about any of the things they ralk about, it's all political powergames.

This statement has nothing whatsoever to do with Trump. It's not sufficient to just say, "Politicians tend to do bad stuff," to conclude that Trump will do good stuff. I've been repeating this point over and over and over again in this thread, and while that might have seemed like a vague, theoretical, piquionne logical observation to make, it should be a harder reality now that Trump is (among other things) appointing donors to his campaign at record rates.

[Poopadoop]

It's not sufficient to just say, "Politicians tend to do bad stuff," to conclude that Trump will do good stuff.

On the contrary, there's ample evidence he's been doing bad stuff all along and continues to do it, all the while claiming to be a champion in fighting corruption.

Just look at the mess his so-called charity is in.

Trump's charity has admitted it violated IRS regulations barring it from using its money or assets to benefit him, his family, his companies or substantial contributors to the foundation.

The admissions by the Donald J. Trump Foundation were in a 2015 tax filing made public after a presidential election in which it was revealed that Trump has used the charity to settle lawsuits, make a $25,000 political contribution and purchase items, such as a painting of himself, that was displayed at one of his properties.

[wufwugy]

Trump is appointing donors to his campaign at record rates.

Show me.

[wufwugy]

On the contrary, there's ample evidence he's been doing bad stuff all along and continues to do it, all the while claiming to be a champion in fighting corruption.

I don't have an opinion on the charity. There's typically a remarkable amount of noise in that stuff.

When we're talking about "fighting corruption", instead of doing what the standard politician does -- pick mostly political insiders -- he's picking mostly outsiders.

[Poopadoop]

I don't have an opinion on the charity. There's typically a remarkable amount of noise in that stuff.

There's nothing unclear about it. A charity isn't meant to make you wealthier or pay your bills. That's pretty much the opposite of the definition of the word 'charity'.

When we're talking about "fighting corruption", instead of doing what the standard politician does -- pick mostly political insiders -- he's picking mostly outsiders.

Just because an insider is corrupt doesn't mean an outsider isn't. The trick here is that he's hiring people with no experience so it looks all drainy-swampy when in fact he's already proven that he himself is as corrupt as they come. There's no reason apart from his rhetoric (which has in the past been shown to be mostly lies) to believe he's at all concerned about how honest the people he is hiring are.

[Poopadoop]

Any opinions from the Trumpites on him skipping all those intelligence briefings? Isn't that kind of an important thing to keep on top of for a future president?

[Poopadoop]

And what about his fake university? Does that sound like something a man concerned with honesty and integrity would do?

[wufwugy]

Any opinions from the Trumpites on him skipping all those intelligence briefings? Isn't that kind of an important thing to keep on top of for a future president?

This is an example of the noise I previously mentioned. The charity thing is very likely not so cut and dried as you think.

Trump is only skipping the redundant briefings. He only wants to be briefed when something changes. This is good.

[wufwugy]

And what about his fake university? Does that sound like something a man concerned with honesty and integrity would do?

I would like to see credible stories on this. So far, all I have seen is sourced from the same old liars, so I haven't wasted my time.

[Poopadoop]

This is an example of the noise I previously mentioned. The charity thing is very likely not so cut and dried as you think.

Being under investigation for fraud seems pretty simple to me. Most charities aren't. Explain how that and his fake university are 'noise'.

Trump is only skipping the redundant briefings. He only wants to be briefed when something changes. This is good.

How do you know that he's only skipping the redundant ones? Is that what he said?

[wufwugy]

How do you know that he's only skipping the redundant ones? Is that what he said?

Yep. That's the beginning and the end of it. He doesn't want to be briefed when that brief is "nothing has changed." The media turned it into something it's not, as usual.

[Poopadoop]

I would like to see credible stories on this. So far, all I have seen is sourced from the same old liars, so I haven't wasted my time.

Well he settled a lawsuit for fraud for 25m. Most universities don't get accused of being fraudulent. Also there's a lot of statements from people if you care to look them up.

[Poopadoop]

Yep. That's the beginning and the end of it. He doesn't want to be briefed when that brief is "nothing has changed."

Where and when did he say that?

The media turned it into something it's not, as usual.

So anything negative about him is made up or distorted by the media, and not the truth. How convenient for him and his supporters.

[wufwugy]

Being under investigation for fraud seems pretty simple to me. Most charities aren't. Explain how that and his fake university are 'noise'.

The reporting on it is mostly noise. I'm interested in reading non-noise reporting. When it comes to Trump, it has gone far beyond the point of normal noisy reporting, so many of us have turned off the noise-makers altogether. I've seen them lie about him way too much for me to give them any credibility on anything else.

[Poopadoop]

The reporting on it is mostly noise. I'm interested in reading non-noise reporting. When it comes to Trump, it has gone far beyond the point of normal noisy reporting, so many of us have turned off the noise-makers altogether. I've seen them lie about him way too much for me to give them any credibility on anything else.

What have they lied about, and who is telling you they are lying?

[wufwugy]

Where and when did he say that?

In an interview. There's video. I don't have it bookmarked.

So anything negative about him is made up or distorted by the media, and not the truth. How convenient for him and his supporters.

It could all be true. But I don't waste my time on those who have demonstrated that their agenda to destroy Trump takes primacy over their agenda to tell the truth. If you have good sources on this stuff, I'm open to it. My only dog in the fight is the truth.

[Poopadoop]

The reporting on it is mostly noise.

You mean the media made up those things that he admitted that basically amounted to fraud?

When it comes to Trump, it has gone far beyond the point of normal noisy reporting, so many of us have turned off the noise-makers altogether.

Where do you find out about Trump's activities now?

[wufwugy]

What have they lied about, and who is telling you they are lying?

It's more like what haven't they lied about.

I've seen tweets changed by CNN to make him say something different than he did. They were to make it look like he said something racist or sexist. That's where most of the lying is. They've taken somebody for whom there is more evidence that he is pro-woman than there was of Obama when he ran and that there was of Clinton, and they turned him into the world's biggest sexist.

[wufwugy]

You mean the media made up those things that he admitted that basically amounted to fraud?

As far as I know, fraud hasn't been found. The media still reports it as if it has.

Where do you find out about Trump's activities now?

Some pro-Trump and some anti-Trump sites. But zero pro-Democrat sludge. Their credibility is six feet under.

[Poopadoop]

Some pro-Trump and some anti-Trump sites. But zero pro-Democrat sludge. Their credibility is six feet under.

Which sites in particular? Just curious.

[wufwugy]

Which sites in particular? Just curious.

pro-Trump: r/the_donald, and breitbart. Anti-Trump: theresurgent, redstate, therightscoop, dailywire, nationalreview, conservativereview. Some of the latter are only mostly anti-Trump these days and I don't always check them. I'm also not a big breitbart fan. r/the_donald is where it's at. It's rigorously only pro-Trump, so you can only get the pro-Trump view on it. It's a healthy view to know about.

[wufwugy]

One thing about r/the_donald: it is one of the only major current event aggregators that didn't censor some very big events. The terrorist attack in the gay nightclub in Florida, for example. The day that happened, there was mass blackout. It was being actively censored by some and not reported by others. r/the_donald was the only site I knew about that was actually providing updated information. The networks weren't and the more popular sites weren't.

[Jack Sawyer]

He's put together an amazing

[Jack Sawyer]

Full thing, plus a lot of mnuchin