Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

serfboard

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Biden is currently above 50% support in the "poll of polls" averages - At no point did Clinton even get close to 50% support in 2016 , Her support was in the low to mid 40% all along , there was always a fairly decent chunk of undecideds throughout the campaign.

Biden is also polling a lot higher among Democrats than Clinton did and indeed polling higher with Democrats than Trump is with GOP voters.
...
[Trump] also campaigned as a much more moderate choice than he actually turned out to be , which would have definitely helped him with the "Sure , How bad could it be , let's shake things up a bit" vote.

Even though I don't think that Biden is the best candidate, he is a far better candidate than Hillary Clinton, with her sense of entitlement, was the last time around.

And Trump was politically unknown the last time. Not now.

I said after the 2016 election that I thought the Republicans getting the House, Senate and Presidency would show Americans just how despicable the GOP are. And so it has proved.

pixelburp

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

If Biden is the best the Dems have, Trump wins.

Biden won't be president.

You'd think after the 2016 election itself, people would learn to be slow in pronouncing electoral certainties? Just a thought.

Trump's foundational problem now is that he is no longer the Hurler in the Ditch, or indeed Outside the Tent, Urinating In. He has a record to defend now, can't just blame everything on the last guy (even if he has continued to do so). Every major item in his manifesto has been a failure (discounting the economy he inherited and is now in tatters anyway), with 2020 turning into Race Riots & CoVid - neither of which has shown leadership from the man. Quite the opposite, the choice to teargas peaceful protestors so he could have that bible photo-op is a bit of a low-point, even for him.

The US has had a taste of populist inexperience & bluster - the question is simple: keep going with that? Sportsfan politicking will ensure most will continue to vote Democrat or Republican come what may - the victory lies in the minds of those Undecideds. And they don't show to be sticking with Trump

Sand

MICKEYG wrote: »

So why did they vote him in twice?

Obama was a neoliberal campaigning against two other neoliberals. He was simply better at it. But there was never an alternative offered to neoliberalism.

Midlife wrote: »

Trump was elected because of identity politics.

Not exactly. He offered an alternative to neoliberalism: controlled borders, re-industrialisation and an end to forever wars and military interventions abroad.

Of course he abandoned that entirely in office and has governed as an entirely conventional GOP president.

Don't think as many will stick with him. He's electrified the rightwing but is steadily losing the middleground.

No, he hasn't. His 2020 campaign is decidedly stale. He abandoned the program that got him elected. And he was never a 'middle ground' candidate. He offered change and then delivered none. He is going to deservedly lose in November.

Midlife

Sand wrote: »

Obama was a neoliberal campaigning against two other neoliberals. He was simply better at it. But there was never an alternative offered to neoliberalism.



Not exactly. He offered an alternative to neoliberalism: controlled borders, re-industrialisation and an end to forever wars and military interventions abroad.

Of course he abandoned that entirely in office and has governed as an entirely conventional GOP president.



No, he hasn't. His 2020 campaign is decidedly stale. He abandoned the program that got him elected. And he was never a 'middle ground' candidate. He offered change and then delivered none. He is going to deservedly lose in November.

I think the point you make that he offered change them delivered none is spot on.

I just think after Obama a lot of people identified with Trump over Hillary. I'm basing this also on Steve Bannon saying he felt the minute that the Democrats went into identity politics, he had them.

But your correct too in that a lot of people thought of it the way you say.

I just think it was always very very obvious that Trump was completely full of sh1t.

Sand

Midlife wrote: »

I just think after Obama a lot of people identified with Trump over Hillary. I'm basing this also on Steve Bannon saying he felt the minute that the Democrats went into identity politics, he had them.

Well, the US is a multi-racial state, so I don't see how you win an election there without identity politics. Identity matters when it comes to voting. Black people are never going to vote for Republicans. Ever.

I just think it was always very very obvious that Trump was completely full of sh1t.

Yet (white) people gambled on a chaotic change rather than the stable decline they were on.

The program is still attractive, but Trump isnt offering it anymore and neither is Biden so those voters are going to stay at home this year. As to how genuine he was - you have to remember his initial staff were decimated by investigations, fallouts and dismissals. The replacements were a whose who of conventional GOP functionaries who had no interest in his initial program. But he picked them. Malicious or merely incompetent, adds up to the same.

Gbear

Sand wrote: »

Well, the US is a multi-racial state, so I don't see how you win an election there without identity politics. Identity matters when it comes to voting. Black people are never going to vote for Republicans. Ever.

It is completely in the gift of the party of Lincoln to change that.
And I don't say that to be snide, but it's simply demonstrative of how quickly the politics of parties can change. The Civil Rights Act was passed by a Republican president.

Black voters are more conservative than white voters, but because the Republican party steadily became the party of white christian nationalism in the 20th century, they've made a choice to exclude them.

It's a bit of a parallel with Muslims. The far right in the US have more in common with the Taliban than they do with, say, Labour in the UK, when you remove identitarian politics from the equation.

There's a bit of carrot and stick here. While it's true that most of the white racists vote Republican, the Republican party and its affiliated propaganda arms also make a concerted effort to radicalise and racialise politics because the stronger it is as a factor, the more they can rely on a certain cohort of voters.


But that share of voters is shrinking as a proportion of the electorate.


Hence their current dilemma, where they have been given a choice between modernising and liberalising or turning towards fascism.

Leroy42

Sand wrote: »

The program is still attractive, but Trump isnt offering it anymore and neither is Biden so those voters are going to stay at home this year. As to how genuine he was - you have to remember his initial staff were decimated by investigations, fallouts and dismissals. The replacements were a whose who of conventional GOP functionaries who had no interest in his initial program. But he picked them. Malicious or merely incompetent, adds up to the same.

I think you are giving him far too much credit.

I don't think he ever thought he would actually win, he was clearly shocked when he did and he was making ecuses in the days before about rigged election and so on.

He clearly loves the limelight, and clearly loves to put peoples noses out of joint. He takes pleasure in upsetting other people, and what better people to upset than the political class in Washington. I would say that he had to put up with many favours and hand outs to politicians over the years to get, what he saw, as fairness to him and thus resented that they never accepted him as one of them.

Look back at the GOP primaries. He almost tore the party apart, he openly attacked senior people in the party, previous GOP POTUS. THis was never about the GOP, this was always about him.

And he very much appears to have little to no ideology. He doesn't seem to have an overall plan. What has been his policy agenda apart from judges, and IMO that goes back to him feeling aggrieved at judges in the past and wanting to 'sort it out' to his liking rather than any ideologically driven drive for justice reform.

So the people he started with was because they came to him with ideas, they were not his, but he liked them because they were different. I can picture him and his closest allies sitting in a room thinking of ideas with the main point being that it had to p1ss a certain crowd off. That morphed, by the supporters more than himself, into getting one over the libs.

But I think that was just a convenience. IMO he would be quite liberal himself, certainly his private life is far from the traditional conservative ideal. He saw that it gained traction and so ran with it.

I, for example, don't think he has anything against Mexicans. In so far as I doubt he thinks about them at all. But they became a useful scapegoat and played well with the Southern states.

So it is not that he has been let down by his staff, or held back by Washington. One thing that comes out of his tenure is that Washington is almost powerless in the face of a determined POTUS. He is let down by is lack of ideology. He only cares about what it advantageous for him. He didn't go on his walkabout the other day to show that America was healing, or open, or he stood with the police. He did it because he was accused of hiding in the bunker, and that hurt his ego. It was purely selfish reasons that he did it.

He is unhappy about Covid, not because of the deaths or the massive issues it has caused to people with dying loved ones, or people missing school etc, but purely because it messes up the economy and creates a huge amount of work for him. When he felt that with the economy he could simply stroll around and hold pre election parties in between games of golf.

All that was taken away from him, that is what has upset him.

And the reason for the claims about medicine etc, is that he hated that experts like Fauci were the ones people turned to. In his head, he became a sideshow, no longer the No 1 person that everyone was looking at. How many times has he mentioned ratings?

Sand

Gbear wrote: »

It is completely in the gift of the party of Lincoln to change that.

No, it isnt. Trump has been doing everything in his power to win over black voters. If anything his polling has declined.

Black voters are more conservative than white voters, but because the Republican party steadily became the party of white christian nationalism in the 20th century, they've made a choice to exclude them.

It's not clear what 'conservative' means in 2020.

There's a bit of carrot and stick here. While it's true that most of the white racists vote Republican,

Most white people vote Republican.

the Republican party and its affiliated propaganda arms also make a concerted effort to radicalise and racialise politics because the stronger it is as a factor, the more they can rely on a certain cohort of voters.

They absolutely do not. The Republican party is avowedly neoliberal and competes to be seen as more liberal and progressive than the Democrats. All of US politics can be understood as two groups each trying to prove the other group are nazis.

But that share of voters is shrinking as a proportion of the electorate.

Largely down to policies pursued by the Republicans themselves. Somewhat self defeating.

Hence their current dilemma, where they have been given a choice between modernising and liberalising or turning towards fascism.

They will double down on neoliberalism. Guaranteed. It's only a question if white voters will continue to vote for them.

Aidric

Foxtrol wrote: »

He is so tone deaf. Apparently the black man murdered by police would be looking down happy about the improved job numbers, despite the fact the data showed that black unemployment got worse.

https://twitter.com/clairecmc/status/1268927209831448576?s=20

Of all the empty rhetoric he has delivered during his term this was by far the most aloof. Imagine being so morally corrupt that you would peg market performance to a racially oppressed life. He is an empathy vacuum mendaciously turning the screw.

Itssoeasy

Sand wrote: »

Obama was a neoliberal campaigning against two other neoliberals. He was simply better at it. But there was never an alternative offered to neoliberalism.



Not exactly. He offered an alternative to neoliberalism: controlled borders, re-industrialisation and an end to forever wars and military interventions abroad.

Of course he abandoned that entirely in office and has governed as an entirely conventional GOP president.



No, he hasn't. His 2020 campaign is decidedly stale. He abandoned the program that got him elected. And he was never a 'middle ground' candidate. He offered change and then delivered none. He is going to deservedly lose in November.

By right he should be starting with his election in 2016 and the brexit referendum and the most recent uk general election things that you think should happen haven't.

Rjd2

Sand wrote: »

They will double down on neoliberalism. Guaranteed. It's only a question if white voters will continue to vote for them.

Yes and No.

The issue for the Republicans is the think tanks and the doners love neoliberalism and once Trump loses they will decide that the loss of Trump means than can return to been the party of what they were before.

However the majority of Republicans voters don't share the same affection for those politics. Stuff like taxes on the rich, poverty, healthcare they are not in sync whatsoever.

So while the Never Trumpers (lol) and the professional class may hope someone like Hailey will rebuild the party to its "glory" Neocon days its also more likely an economic populist will lead the party into 2024.

spacecoyote

Aidric wrote: »

Of all the empty rhetoric he has delivered during his term this was by far the most aloof. Imagine being so morally corrupt that you would peg market performance to a racially oppressed life. He is an empathy vacuum mendaciously turning the screw.

Don't have the article, as its paywalled, but in the FT today was reading that there was actually a bit of selective editing on what was published on that tweet.

He was rambling and talking crap, as always, and was in very poor taste to use his name at all, but he did only reference him in relation to some waffle about equality, and not in relation to the job numbers

Sand

Rjd2 wrote: »

So while the Never Trumpers (lol) and the professional class may hope someone like Hailey will rebuild the party to its "glory" Neocon days its also more likely an economic populist will lead the party into 2024.

The Republicans are largely setup to prevent any 'takeover'. Steve King was recently primaried by the Republicans (and Trump) for example. They were surprised by Trump but that isnt going to happen again. The Republicans are going to double down on neoliberalism. Equally, any third party will be strangled in the crib.

What white voters in that scenario do is debateable. In about 15-20 years, they'll drop into official minority status. A hated minority. The recent spectacle of white people prostrating themselves as penance for imagined crimes is a good indicator of what the future offers their children. If that's enough for them to keep voting for neoliberalism is an open question.

Gbear

Sand wrote: »

No, it isnt. Trump has been doing everything in his power to win over black voters. If anything his polling has declined.

You're going have to enumerate a few of them, because that looks like just about the most insane thing I've ever read on this site.

Sand wrote: »

Most white people vote Republican.

And yet they don't cater to most white people in their economic policies. That is an identity-based relationship, and not one they have to prioritise, but they're left using it as a crutch because it's the only way they are competitive pushing an oligarchical economic policy.

In terms of policy, the Democratic policy platform (as a whole, rather than the relatively extremist positions of AOC, Sanders et al.) is extremely popular across the board, including for the Republican base.

Sand wrote: »

They absolutely do not. The Republican party is avowedly neoliberal and competes to be seen as more liberal and progressive than the Democrats. All of US politics can be understood as two groups each trying to prove the other group are nazis.

It competes to be seen as more traditional. Progressivism is a dirty word on the right in the US.

They attempt to paint themselves as virtuous, but so does everyone, from Communists, to centrists, to Fascists. Virtuous isn't the same as progressive. There was a little tack back during the post-W. Bush era of being more progressive, but it's been totally abandoned in favour of more chauvinism, regressive politics, luddism, anti-minority and anti-democracatic policies.

Sand wrote: »

Largely down to policies pursued by the Republicans themselves. Somewhat self defeating.

In the long term, in the sense that they haven't totally closed their borders, that's somewhat true, but demographic shifts of existing minority populations are reducing the share of vote held by white people.
There's no policies that can truly effect that now. It'd be a matter of closing the doors after the horse has bolted, because the minority populations are already in situ.

If anything Trump has been pushing back against this, with his protectionism and his campaign against ethnic minorities, immigrants and refugees.

Sand wrote: »

They will double down on neoliberalism. Guaranteed. It's only a question if white voters will continue to vote for them.

All American politics is Neoliberal. It's pretty much only Sanders and his cohort of the Democratic party that are pushing against it, and even then, only pretty gently.

It only comprises an element of the Republican platform. It is, perhaps, a truer reflection of their policies from an economic standpoint, but it is incredibly unpopular when taken on its own, hence the deploying of fascistic identitarian tactics to shore up the white working and middle class votes.

Sand

Gbear wrote: »

You're going have to enumerate a few of them, because that looks like just about the most insane thing I've ever read on this site.

Isn't the point made by you simply being unaware of them?

And yet they don't cater to most white people in their economic policies. That is an identity-based relationship, and not one they have to prioritise, but they're left using it as a crutch because it's the only way they are competitive pushing an oligarchical economic policy.

In terms of policy, the Democratic policy platform (as a whole, rather than the relatively extremist positions of AOC, Sanders et al.) is extremely popular across the board, including for the Republican base.

The Democratic and Republican policy platform are merely different flavours of the same product. What differentiates them is identity - hence why you cant win an election in a multi-racial society without identity politics.

In the long term, in the sense that they haven't totally closed their borders, that's somewhat true, but demographic shifts of existing minority populations are reducing the share of vote held by white people.

Republicans have always endorsed mass migration because it serves the interests of their donors. The killer of Mollie Tibbetts, an illegal immigrant, was working at farm owned by prominent Republicans. There's nothing 'traditional' about their ideology.

If anything Trump has been pushing back against this, with his protectionism and his campaign against ethnic minorities, immigrants and refugees.

Which exists more on Twitter than in reality. Any semi-serious efforts ended with Sessions departure from the administration.

It only comprises an element of the Republican platform. It is, perhaps, a truer reflection of their policies from an economic standpoint, but it is incredibly unpopular when taken on its own, hence the deploying of fascistic identitarian tactics to shore up the white working and middle class votes.

No, they're an utterly neoliberal party and they truly believe it. What they lie about is caring about the concerns of their voters. Look at the reaction to the Covington scandal - Republicans were queuing up to throw those kids under the bus to win approval. Republicans never ever defend their voters.

sydthebeat

SNIP. Use people's proper names please.

TomOnBoard

New CNN poll shows that support for Trump 2020 has fallen away by 7 points during the last month. Also, according to CNN, "Overall 38% approve of the way Trump is handling the presidency, while 57% disapprove. That's his worst approval rating since January 2019, and roughly on par with approval ratings for Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush at this point in their reelection years" , and they went to lose after their first terms.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/politics/cnn-poll-trump-biden-chaotic-week/index.html

Other reports have painted a picture of Trump being very dissatisfied with Parscale/Kushner over recent polls, with Trump seeing his re-election in trouble. Vanity Fair is reporting the duo as being under threat of being pushed out. While we've heard that before, they would obviously be in the firing line if things get any worse on the polls front.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/06/with-bad-poll-numbers-trump-is-thinking-of-replacing-kushner

FrostyJack

TomOnBoard wrote: »

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/politics/cnn-poll-trump-biden-chaotic-week/index.html

Other reports have painted a picture of Trump being very dissatisfied with Parscale/Kushner over recent polls, with Trump seeing his re-election in trouble. Vanity Fair is reporting the duo as being under threat of being pushed out. While we've heard that before, they would obviously be in the firing line if things get any worse on the polls front.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/06/with-bad-poll-numbers-trump-is-thinking-of-replacing-kushner

Would be hard to get Kushner out, he is so important to peace in the middle east, managing the Covid-19 response and today to be over the police reforms, what a "star".

aloyisious

Trump is now faced into the reality that the U.S is officially in a recession, one caused by the arrival on U.S soil of Covid-19. The definition of a recession: a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income. It's only 5 months to the election. If the recession lasts more than a few months, the definition of the downturn could change to depression, not something either party wants, even as a departing gift. Coming so soon after the reported error by the BLS in totting up the employment figures [which Trump praised saying George would be happy with] versus the unemployed figures, Trump cannot be happy with them or the BLS coming before the recession was called official.

aloyisious

Sand wrote: »

No, they're an utterly neoliberal party and they truly believe it. What they lie about is caring about the concerns of their voters. Look at the reaction to the Covington scandal - Republicans were queuing up to throw those kids under the bus to win approval. Republicans never ever defend their voters.

Pardon me for asking a "from left field" question: If the GOP is neoliberalism by nature, would that mean it would like to see the end of the Federal Reserve Bank's freedom of movement [just keep the F.R.B as a necessary bulwark against market stupidity] because it's existence is antithetical to neoliberalism and in that regard, agree with Trump's attitude to the chair of the Fed and it's control of U.S monetary policy?

I'm thinking that F.R.B independence is probably the only sure thing the U.S economy has going for it, as Trump-economics don't seem to be ensuring the U.S economy keeps giving to the people. Is that why Trump and others are so into the anti Deep State thing?

Roger the cabin boy

Would anyone in this thread actually prefer Trump over Biden for the next term of office?

Foxtrol

Trump this morning has posted a conspiracy theory around the old man that was pushed by police in Buffalo and left bleeding on from his head. Trump has now given all media outlets and opponent ads license to play the video over and over again and put Trump on the side of the cops that have been charged.

It really shows how far gone Trump's mind is and how wrong people are to say he is some sort of political genius.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1270333484528214018?s=20

Stallingrad

Foxtrol wrote: »

Trump this morning has posted a conspiracy theory around the old man that was pushed by police in Buffalo and left bleeding on from his head. Trump has now given all media outlets and opponent ads license to play the video over and over again and put Trump on the side of the cops that have been charged.

It really shows how far gone Trump's mind is and how wrong people are to say he is some sort of political genius.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1270333484528214018?s=20

I hope the media doesn't fall for this BS again, these tweets aren't worth the time it takes to read them. Focus on the real issues and avoid deflection.

Foxtrol

Stallingrad wrote: »

I hope the media doesn't fall for this BS again, these tweets aren't worth the time it takes to read them. Focus on the real issues and avoid deflection.

I understand that perspective when he is distracting from negative 'real issues' to some made up nonsense that doesn't move the needle but that isn't the case here.

What is he distracting from here? The ongoing protests and the 3rd funeral? If anything a big news story is something that should be positive for Trump - Biden pushing back on defunding the police. Instead we are talking about what a horrible human he is. Do you think senior voters are going to like him justifying police cracking their skulls open?

TomOnBoard

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

Would anyone in this thread actually prefer Trump over Biden for the next term of office?

Straight question. Deserves a straight answer. Perhaps the question would be better put as a poll?

pixelburp

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

Would anyone in this thread actually prefer Trump over Biden for the next term of office?

No, for the simple reason that if it's a choice between continued rudderless chaos and a return to normalcy of governance - even under the stewardship of a corpo-Democrat - better the person who at least knows how to run a country. Trump has shown himself a bad manager of people and businesses; it was suspected from his CEO days, and confirmed with his Presidential ones. It takes a very specific brand of inept to control all branches of power, yet still fail to get policy rubber-stamped.

Tchaikovsky

Aside from him being a reprehensible human being and an affront to any evolving species, what exactly does he offer when it comes to benefiting the lives of everyday Americans?
I mean, am I missing something with his achievements or over the last 3.5 years? How did he 'create the greatest economy in the history of the world (by far)', for instance, contrary to what Obama did over the previous 8 years? How has the corporate tax cuts and getting an alleged rapist on to the Supreme Court helped the general population? I can't think of anything else he's done that hasn't been based on destruction.

What is he offering at this particular moment to make this grave situation for his country - the twin prongs of Covid and social equality protest - better in the long run? What plan is there? Because as far as I can see he is opening the country back up/deciding to ignore the pandemic while cases are still rising, and sending the army out on to the streets to squash demonstrations about police brutality and systemic racism.

serfboard

Tchaikovsky wrote: »

How has ... getting an alleged rapist on to the Supreme Court helped the general population?

Because that judge will eventually overturn abortion laws and to Trump's Christian fundamentalists (who he also pandered to by holding up that bible), that is all that matters.

They don't care too much about his handling of Covid-19 becuase they are "covered in Jesus blood" (to quote one of them), and that is protecting them from a disease that is mostly only affecting those people in the liberal North Eastern States.

Roger the cabin boy

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Straight question. Deserves a straight answer. Perhaps the question would be better put as a poll?

I am wondering because mostly, the thread traffic seems to be anti-Trump.
The topic of the thread is not specifically positive or negative.

As bad as the dems and far left paint him, he must have some people championing him?

Leroy42

Roger the cabin boy wrote: »

I am wondering because mostly, the thread traffic seems to be anti-Trump.
The topic of the thread is not specifically positive or negative.

As bad as the dems and far left paint him, he must have some people championing him?

You would think so, and there have been quite a few that have come on to argue, not exactly for him, but against what others are saying.

However, they can never, or very rarely, provide anything even resembling facts, their arguments tend to be completely one sides (Biden has dementia. Ok, what about Trump? Echo chamber!) is usually the way it goes.

It all seems to fall down because Trump himself doesn't have any actual policies or agenda. That it makes it very hard to argue for him as really nobody has any idea what he is planning.

Clearly the judges, not just SCOTUS but across the board, if a massive win for conservatives. But I would argue that nearly all GOP POTUS would have done the same. Maybe not taken such a divisive approach, but McConnell started it with the last year of Obama.

I remember having a back and forth a while ago about Trump policies and the only one put forward as a positive was that he defunded Planned Parenthood. And whilst one might agree with that, it is surely not worth the price of all the other issues that Trump brings to the table.