**** Elections thread *****

[rong]

Most of the people who voted to leave didn't do so due to Nige and I don't think they give him any credit due to his role in getting brexit to a referendum. Most of those voters voted for a change from the status quo, the fact that that change happened to be brexit is irrelevant.

So no, I don't think he is popular and I really don't see him getting the ambassador position.

[OngBonga]

So this was two years ago, well before Brexit happened...

https://www.indy100.com/article/the-...ou--e1nXgZVSSe

[Poopadoop]

So this was two years ago, well before Brexit happened...

https://www.indy100.com/article/the-...ou--e1nXgZVSSe

26% approval.

Being the least unpopular arguably isn't the same as being popular.

[OngBonga]

26% approval.

Being the least unpopular arguably isn't the same as being popular.

Not bad for someone whose party only went on to get 12.6% of the vote. He clearly reaches out beyond his party, which the vast majority of politicians fail to do.

[wufwugy]

So this was two years ago, well before Brexit happened...

https://www.indy100.com/article/the-...ou--e1nXgZVSSe

Wow. If you guys had presidential elections, a solid ambassadorship that resulted in better relations between UK and US would put him at the head of the pack.

[OngBonga]

Wow. If you guys had presidential elections, a solid ambassadorship that resulted in better relations between UK and US would put him at the head of the pack.

What amuses me about this poll is that it implies the British public despise a spineless weasel (Clegg) more than both a lying war criminal (Blair), and a one eyed villain who sold all of our gold at rock bottom prices (Brown).

Clegg really was not very popular at all. Blair is more passionately hated by those who hate him (which is a lot of people), but Clegg has a wider dislike appeal because everyone hates a yes man. So it's probably accurate.

[OngBonga]

The Huff claim Corbyn is "as unpopular as Farage".

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0f475601c1bda

I might stick some money on Corbyn winning the election. He's leader of an electable party, a position that Nige sadly has not held.

[OngBonga]

I'm telling you this... if Nige was Tory leader, he'd be PM with a huge majority. None of this hung parliament bullshit.

[CoccoBill]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rld_b-gdnworld

Not that surprised.

[wufwugy]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rld_b-gdnworld

Not that surprised.

This needs to happen.

The theory that Russia hacked shit on one side; the theory that Clinton never called for a recount due to not wanting to expose her fraud on the other side.

Sessions and Kobach appear to be getting set up to tackling voting issues. That'll be nice.

[wufwugy]

If I'm Trump I would punish the UK ruling party if they didn't make Farage ambassador. It could be done with things like "accidentally" missing a meeting with the actual ambassador and instead having lunch with my best bud Nigel. This would be embarrassing for the ruling party in the UK and also somewhat for the citizens, but it would not be embarrassing at all for the US because we're pretty egocentric and Trump supporters love Nige.

I think May and fam should talk all about how Nige isn't gonna get it, until last minute on a Friday, they give it to him.

[wufwugy]

^^That exact scenario probably wouldn't work because it would possibly be embarrassing for Farage since he could be painted as complicit in undermining the UK government. But it's a type of thing that can be implicitly alluded to before the ambassador is chosen.

[Poopadoop]

^^That exact scenario probably wouldn't work because it would possibly be embarrassing for Farage since he could be painted as complicit in undermining the UK government. But it's a type of thing that can be implicitly alluded to before the ambassador is chosen.

The UK ambassador was appointed earlier this year for a term of four years. He's gonna be there till 2020 unless he kicks the bucket or Trump has him shot.

[Keith]

Best thing for UK would be if May had a quiet word with Farage and suggested that he leave UKIP and join the Tories . He could then conveniently be put in charge of negotiating the trade deal with USA.Down the line after the trade deal is done and the current US ambassador retires/leaves/dies he could then be considered for the post. UK can't start discussing trade deals whilst we are still part of Europe and I presume we can only start negotiating trade deals worldwide once article 50 is triggered in March.

Beneficial trade deal with USA could also help during the brexit negotiations if USA thinks it may get trade concessions with europe if europe can also piggy back off Farages popularity with trump to give europe better access to USA via the uk and usa better access to europe through the uk.

[wufwugy]

Best thing for UK would be if May had a quiet word with Farage and suggested that he leave UKIP and join the Tories . He could then conveniently be put in charge of negotiating the trade deal with USA.Down the line after the trade deal is done and the current US ambassador retires/leaves/dies he could then be considered for the post. UK can't start discussing trade deals whilst we are still part of Europe and I presume we can only start negotiating trade deals worldwide once article 50 is triggered in March.

Beneficial trade deal with USA could also help during the brexit negotiations if USA thinks it may get trade concessions with europe if europe can also piggy back off Farages popularity with trump to give europe better access to USA via the uk and usa better access to europe through the uk.

Good points. This could actually be very good for the Tories since they could flat out tell Farage he gets the ambassadorship if he switches parties. Granted I don't know UK politics well enough to know if they or Farage would want that. If they did want it, though, it would be very good for them.

[OngBonga]

Or he gets fired. I'm sure it's pretty easy to fire an ambassador, given the sensetive nature of the job. I would hope it can be done purely on the whim of the Prime Minister.

[Poopadoop]

Or he gets fired. I'm sure it's pretty easy to fire an ambassador, given the sensetive nature of the job. I would hope it can be done purely on the whim of the Prime Minister.

There's all kinds of fallout from sacking an ambassador 'on a whim'. That's why it doesn't happen. Unless they guy is clearly ineffective e.g. because he's acting independently of orders, or he totally hates the country he's in and resigns, or he's a drunk, or w/e, and/or the host country foreign minister (or w/e the US equivalent is) says 'i can't work with this guy, please send someone else', he ain't getting fired. And certainly not for Farage lol.

[OngBonga]

There's all kinds of fallout from sacking an ambassador 'on a whim'. That's why it doesn't happen.

It happens. Check out the guy I mentioned. The government need only cite "national interest" as the reason, and the ambassador can do jack about it. The best he can hope for is his contract to be paid up in full. That's if he's lucky and they don't try to throw some dirt at him.

Again, someone is already there. There's no reason to think he's incompetent or in any way impeded from talking to the US about foreign affairs.

There's been an unexpected change of leadership. I would consider replacing the ambassador if I felt it furthered our interests.

Sure that's one solution. But the issue is that Trump didn't raise the possibility in private which would be showing us some respect. He made his view public and put our gov't in an embarrassing position.

Fair point.

[Poopadoop]

It happens. Check out the guy I mentioned. The government need only cite "national interest" as the reason, and the ambassador can do jack about it. The best he can hope for is his contract to be paid up in full. That's if he's lucky and they don't try to throw some dirt at him.

You mean the Kazakstan whistleblower guy? Ya, that's not sacking someone 'on a whim'. It's defensible (not saying it's right, just defensible) if the ambassador's views go against those of the people who hired him. See above on 'not following his gov'ts instructions'.

[OngBonga]

Not in 2003. 9/11 was largely still being taken at face value as a terrorist attack then.

I'm not referring to the conspiracy side of things. The footage of him at a school being told the attacks were under way demonstrated a very weak leader. His credibility was destroyed right there.

You mean the Kazakstan whistleblower guy? Ya, that's not sacking someone 'on a whim'. It's defensible (not saying it's right, just defensible) if the ambassador's views go against those of the people who hired him. See above on 'not following his gov'ts instructions'.

Uzbekistan, but yeah, him. By "on a whim", I mean at the sole discrection of the PM. It only needs to be in the national interests, as far as the PM is concerned. That could apply here, if indeed they wished to appoint Farage.

[Poopadoop]

There's been an unexpected change of leadership. I would consider replacing the ambassador if I felt it furthered our interests.

I'm sure they could find an excuse to do that if they really wanted to. I'm not saying it's unimaginable. In fact it's a lot more likely that they sack him and replace him with someone else they like better than that they sack him and put in Farage.

[OngBonga]

Craig Murray got fired because he tried to blow the whistle on UK government knowledge of, and use of intelligence from, torture chambers in Uzbekistan. All an ambassador needs to do to lose his job is to not be in line with current foreign policy.

[OngBonga]

I would also argue that previous Prime Ministers have made acts that are indicative of obedience, such as Blair joining Bush in Iraq. Of course, it can be seen as an act of solidarity, too. How do you think Bush perceived it?

[wufwugy]

I would also argue that previous Prime Ministers have made acts that are indicative of obedience, such as Blair joining Bush in Iraq. Of course, it can be seen as an act of solidarity, too. How do you think Bush perceived it?

I didn't pay attention to politics back then, so I can't say.

What I can say is that Americans like Britain. It's where we get most of our values and we have common history and ancestry. We definitely view deals with the UK more in terms of joint cooperation that benefit both countries. Contrast this to France, and the response from Americans would be mixed. If Hollande did something after Trump asked for it, a decent proportion of Americans might say Hollande did that because he's Trump's bitch. But we wouldn't do that with the PM of Britain.

[Poopadoop]

I would also argue that previous Prime Ministers have made acts that are indicative of obedience, such as Blair joining Bush in Iraq. Of course, it can be seen as an act of solidarity, too. How do you think Bush perceived it?

Bush probably viewed it as an act of friendship. The British public certainly viewed it as obedience (you might recall the phrase 'Bush's poodle'). I don't expect history to have Blair listed among the great British PMs.

In my view, respect is worth more than friendship. If you just follow your ally blindly into any foreign morass, you're kind of an idiot imo. A lot of America's allies didn't joint them in Iraq in 2003 and didn't suffer from it in the long run. Even Americans now believe it was a bullshit war.

[wufwugy]

Bush probably viewed it as an act of friendship. The British public certainly viewed it as obedience (you might recall the phrase 'Bush's poodle').

This is probably mostly due to Bush not being viewed well.

[Poopadoop]

This is probably mostly due to Bush not being viewed well.

You're putting the cart before the horse. A lot of that perception was due to Iraq 2003.

[OngBonga]

You're putting the cart before the horse. A lot of that perception was due to Iraq 2003.

Nah, 9/11 fucked the last of his credibility. Iraq just made sure he'd go down in history as a war criminal.

[wufwugy]

It would only be "compliance" and "obedience" if the UK governing party didn't negotiate well and didn't get good out of the deal. Yeah, if they appoint Farage because Trump asked, that's dumb. But if they as a piece of a larger strategy, it would be smart.

[wufwugy]

Y'all want the Nige man reppin' UK 'round these parts. Trump supporters like Based Uncle Nigel so much that if he ran for US president in 2024, half of us would probably vote for him even though he's ineligible.

[Poopadoop]

Y'all want the Nige man reppin' UK 'round these parts.

Actually I'm fairly sure most of us don't...

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]

Trump won WI by 27k votes and it's being recounted. He lost NH by 3k votes and it's not being recounted.

This is what it looks like when propaganda rules the waves.

[wufwugy]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[BananaStand]

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.

Trump----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.

^Really guys? Really??

You really think that Trump just decided to become president (like its easy to do), so that he could "pet his ego", and further his own business interests? He is 70+ years old and can look back on his life and say....

"By any measure, I am the most successful businessman mankind has ever produced"

But you think the he just woke up one day and said...

"I've got more money than I, or my family, could every spend in ten lifetimes. But ya know...if I was president, I could make a little bit more. Yeah...I'll be exploiting an entire government, yeah....my family and I will face unrelenting public scrutiny for years, yeah...I'll be considered a vile selfish traitor for generations to come, yeah...I'll be destroying public confidence in a government and election system that has led the free world for centuries.......but none of that matters. I absolutely must die with more money than Mark Cuban!"

@surviva....you think that's the only logical conclusion....based on Occam's razor??

This kind of illogical, inflammatory, and accusatory rhetoric is toxic to public discourse. Your entire argument hinges upon your KNOWING, for sure, the exact sentiments in Donald Trump's brain. And your best evidence...is Occam's razor.

Aren't you embarrassed, to be presenting these ideas as part of substantive, intelligent debate??

The tragic irony in all of this....it's people like you and bill who actually got Trump elected.

Intelligent people got totally sick of this kind of garbage polluting public discussions. Whoever is not totally on your side is gets lambasted as a racist, misogynist, nationalist pig. Whoever votes for Trump must be an idiot, because only an idiot would be duped by someone who is so obviously only out for himself. Occam says so.

Here's a life tip. Don't use Occam's razor as evidence in a debate. You look retarded.

You can make up any narrative you want, and then put Occam's stamp on it because it's plausible. In fact, it doesn't even have to be plausible, it just has to be simple enough for anyone to follow.

Aliens made trump president because silk ties are a priceless commodity on their home planet

Since you can't disprove that....it's obviously true, right?

[wufwugy]

Mr. Savy was right

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/802326510547804160

[Poopadoop]

Fidel Castro is dead!

Apparently Trump doesn't trust the media to report the truth. Using twitter to let everyone know.

[Poopadoop]

in b4 "This is a brilliant ploy to deflect attention from his lawsuits, shitty appointments, and business conflicts of interest."

[Savy]

Mr. Savy was right

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/802326510547804160

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.

[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.

[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]

Lots of people don't pay attention to the hoaxing media, so we get news like Castro dying from people we follow on twitter and such.

[wufwugy]

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.

[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.

Defending Castro from what? All he said was 'he's dead'.

The good thing about the hoaxing media and the hoaxing Trump is that they only hoax the gullible people, like with Trump U. Doesn't hoax the rest of us.

[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]

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?

[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?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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!

[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.