Off Topic Thread 3.0

Dave_The_Sheep · 09-11-2016 10:16AM

pickarooney wrote: »

If they wanted serious change there'd be a viable third party instead of the absolute jokeshop collection they gave themselves to choose from.

The Dems had a potential candidate for change that could very well have wiped the floor with Trump. However, instead they shat the bed and went full tilt for the status quo candidate, and it's backfired massively.

Only themselves to blame.

09-11-2016 10:20AM

pickarooney wrote: »

If they wanted serious change there'd be a viable third party instead of the absolute jokeshop collection they gave themselves to choose from.

North Korea had a better selection.

The system is set by the incumbents. The incumbents would be mad to change it.

Third parties are an irrelevance in the US.

09-11-2016 10:24AM

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

The Dems had a potential candidate for change that could very well have wiped the floor with Trump. However, instead they shat the bed and went full tilt for the status quo candidate, and it's backfired massively.

Only themselves to blame.

Do you seriously believe this?

What % of Bernie's socialist voters would have moved across the spectrum to vote for Trump? What % of them voted for Hillary do you guess?

Hillary actually got a % of Republican voters for her in an effort for 'Not Trump'. There is almost no way that I could possibly see Republicans giving their 'Not Trump' vote to Bernie though, its far too much to ask.

It's like suggesting that the carnivores with a specific taste for meat that didn't choose the salad over the rhino steak would prefer this vegan paste and hemp sandwich.

Buer · 09-11-2016 10:29AM

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

The Dems had a potential candidate for change that could very well have wiped the floor with Trump. However, instead they shat the bed and went full tilt for the status quo candidate, and it's backfired massively.

Only themselves to blame.

I'm not sure he would have. I think he would have had a good chance but I don't think it would have been as clear cut as some believe.

Sanders doesn't represent the disaffected elements that Trump spoke to. Immigration and industry were the twin pillars of Trump's campaign.

Sanders had the polar opposite approach on immigration and, in terms of industry, Sanders would have been attacked repeatedly. Trump would have gone after his lack of experience in industry. He'd have called him a communist for the medicare and living wage proposals. That would have resonated with his supporters just the same as his accusations of criminal behaviour against Clinton have done.

Whilst I believe Sanders would have been the best man for the job, I don't believe his election would have been a sure thing. America are hugely resistant to socialism still. Sanders wouldn't have made a dent in any conservative areas.

molloyjh · 09-11-2016 10:36AM

A few thoughts this morning....

The Democrats need to go away and have a long, hard look at themselves. That they were unable to put forward a candidate or campaign capable of beating Trump must be a huge wake up call.

Do we have any idea what we can expect from Trump? Will he really be the extreme right wing nut he's portrayed or was a lot of that just grandstanding to an audience? There's one thing is for sure though, he is not a diplomat. How will he interact with world leaders (and they with him) and how will that impact America and the rest of the world?

What must other world leaders be thinking right now, realising that they are going to have to deal with this guy? None of them can really come out against him now either as they'll need to work with him.

Can we really be that surprised that this guy has gotten elected having seen more and more people moving to what would have traditionally been seen as fringe political groups. This has been coming slowly but surely for years, not just in the US but in the Western world in general. Libertas here duping the people into rejecting Lisbon with nothing but lies and misrepresentation. Brexit. For the last 20+ years voter turnouts have been in decline. People clearly don't feel that mainstream politics and politicians represent them or truly speak for them. The global recession was the last straw for a lot of people. And instead of positive candidates emerging and becoming successful, it's the likes of Farage and Trump who are gaining favour. Throw in a truly ridiculously polarised society like the US and we were probably always on a hiding to nothing.

09-11-2016 10:40AM

We truly have no idea what to expect from a Trump Presidency because;

He said everything.
He contradicted himself on everything many times.
His signature policies are mutually exclusive.
He is likely to repeat the same 'trick' as when he won the Republican Nomination and decree that 'I only said that to win the Presidency'.
Considering all of the above, the HoR and Senate, whilst both under a Republican majority, are not going to be supportive of policies that they disagree with. They will not blindly support any bizarre stuff.
Murica.

irishbucsfan · 09-11-2016 10:44AM

The best outcome (apart from Trump actually turning out to be 3 kids standing on each others shoulders using a painted pumpkin as a fake head) is probably that Trump line his pockets for 4 years while the political elite return to basics

09-11-2016 10:50AM

That's probably the short term best answer.

Unfortunately the long term best answer is significantly ****ter. As moral hazard suggests that the people wouldn't 'learn' from a No-Impact-Trump-Presidency and the demagogues would rise again and again. It could well be in the world's interest for Trump to actually implement some of the signatures and the effects roll out.

Definitely, definitely, definitely not in American's interests though.

Dave_The_Sheep · 09-11-2016 10:52AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you seriously believe this?

While "wipe the floor" is a bit strong, yeah, I believe he'd have beaten Trump overall. Polls seemed to indicate that prior to the Democratic primary (though again, they said similar about HRC too, though not to the same degree).

Whilst there would be a certain % of Republican voters who wouldn't give Sanders their "Not Trump" vote, there would also be a % of Republican voters would might give him their "Not Hillary" vote. They really really hate her over there, he wouldn't have received the same ire (for the same reason at least). There is also the effect of the various 'scandals' that have affected the HRC campaign, Sanders wouldn't have those. He might have his own skeletons, we'll never know, but there didn't appear to many - of course an actual Presidential campaign comes with more scrutiny.

For all that Trump is a lying racist sexist piece of sh*t, he garnered votes for the anti-establishment aspect of him. Sanders could have tapped at least some of that, given his record.

Buer wrote:

Whilst I believe Sanders would have been the best man for the job, I don't believe his election would have been a sure thing. America are hugely resistant to socialism still. Sanders wouldn't have made a dent in any conservative areas.

Agreed. I'm not blind to the difficulties of him winning, not at all, it would have been tough. Given HRC couldn't beat Trump (hindsight, 20/20, etc) the post mortem should definitely include how and why HRC topped Sanders in the primaries.

We'll never know, I suppose. Bottom line though is that they went up against a ****e candidate in Trump, and lost. Hopefully they learn for next time and/or the system undergoes some type of change (doubt it).

molloyjh · 09-11-2016 10:57AM

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

While "wipe the floor" is a bit strong, yeah, I believe he'd have beaten Trump overall. Polls seemed to indicate that prior to the Democratic primary (though again, they said similar about HRC too, though not to the same degree).

Whilst there would be a certain % of Republican voters who wouldn't give Sanders their "Not Trump" vote, there would also be a % of Republican voters would might give him their "Not Hillary" vote. They really really hate her over there, he wouldn't have received the same ire (for the same reason at least). There is also the effect of the various 'scandals' that have affected the HRC campaign, Sanders wouldn't have those. He might have his own skeletons, we'll never know, but there didn't appear to many - of course an actual Presidential campaign comes with more scrutiny.

For all that Trump is a lying racist sexist piece of sh*t, he garnered votes for the anti-establishment aspect of him. Sanders could have tapped at least some of that, given his record.

I'm not blind to the difficulties of him winning, not at all, but given HRC couldn't beat Trump (hindsight, 20/20, etc) the post mortem should definitely include how and why HRC topped Sanders in the primaries.

We'll never know, I suppose. Bottom line though is that they went up against a ****e candidate in Trump, and lost. Hopefully they learn for next time and/or the system undergoes some type of change (doubt it).

Those people who voted for Trump because he was anti-establishment were not the type who would vote for Sanders. They are the ones calling Sanders a Socialist and claiming that if he were President that he would turn the US into Columbia (and other totally mental things like that).

This wasn't simply a vote for change. It was a vote for anger and hatred, for polarisation and extremes.

09-11-2016 10:59AM

molloyjh wrote: »

This wasn't simply a vote for change. It was a vote for anger and hatred, for polarisation and extremes.

It was a vote for Trump to be President.

Everything else is analysis beyond the data that exists. Same as the arguments being made now in the UK about what the 'Brexit mandate' truly is.

I guarantee that some element of the vote was as you describe, but projecting those extremes onto the majority, let alone the entirety is simply wrong. It is always easier to think of the 'other side' as monsters etc, but there will be a huge swathe of good-honest-straightforward people who voted out of desperation for change. The 'roll the dice' group.

Buer · 09-11-2016 10:59AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Considering all of the above, the HoR and Senate, whilst both under a Republican majority, are not going to be supportive of policies that they disagree with. They will not blindly support any bizarre stuff.

Whilst a lot of Republicans are against Trump for his madness and rhetoric, they are actually on board with his tax/economic policies.

Whilst he proposed to cut taxes across the board, the biggest beneficiaries would be the big earners with any earnings over $154k being taxed at 33% and eliminating the estate tax and drastically reduce corporation tax which would resonate hugely with traditional Republican backers and representatives. Unsurprisingly, both of these would be massively beneficial to Trump himself.

It's going to be fascinating to see how he many of the economic policies gain traction now such as the trade agreement threats or the proposed tariffs on Mexico and China.

Dave_The_Sheep · 09-11-2016 11:00AM

molloyjh wrote: »

This wasn't simply a vote for change. It was a vote for anger and hatred, for polarisation and extremes.

Oh, sure. But it was also a vote for change.

All over social media feeds, people seem to be only focusing on the anger and hatred, racism and sexism. I get that and they've a point, but there's more to it than that.

09-11-2016 11:00AM

Buer wrote: »

Whilst a lot of Republicans are against Trump for his madness and rhetoric, they are actually on board with his tax/economic policies.

Whilst he proposed to cut taxes across the board, the biggest beneficiaries would be the big earners with any earnings over $154k being taxed at 33% and eliminating the estate tax and drastically reduce corporation tax which would resonate hugely with traditional Republican backers and representatives. Unsurprisingly, both of these would be massively beneficial to Trump himself.

It's going to be fascinating to see how he many of the economic policies gain traction now such as the trade agreement threats or the proposed tariffs on Mexico and China.

The protectionist policies don't fly with the GOP. Not one bit.

irishbucsfan · 09-11-2016 11:01AM

Deleted User wrote: »

That's probably the short term best answer.

Unfortunately the long term best answer is significantly ****ter. As moral hazard suggests that the people wouldn't 'learn' from a No-Impact-Trump-Presidency and the demagogues would rise again and again. It could well be in the world's interest for Trump to actually implement some of the signatures and the effects roll out.

Definitely, definitely, definitely not in American's interests though.

No it won't turn out well. But the political parties have been warned that:

A) Democracy is the best asset insurance

and

Demagogues can very easily infiltrate their parties

So I suspect we'll see them triangulate a bit: Promise to democractise their platforms, pay a lot of lip-service to the Sanders/Tea Party elements and make some changes. At the same time they'll surely quietly tighten up their nomination processes so that we don't see more Trumpets.

Trumpism will remain I think. But it's worse in some parts of Europe than it is in America, which is what scares me the most. What happens if we have the Swedish Democrats, Golden Dawn, UKIP, National Front, Lega Nord and the True Fins in power at the same time? That's a genuine possibility if there isn't some form of awakening.

(Of course it's also possible that we see the left-wing equivalent prevail, which we've seen in Greece and in the UK as well)

09-11-2016 11:06AM

It's not the political parties that need to learn (the harsh harsh truths) about demagogues, but the electorate.

Greece might actually be a good example of this (in a few more years).

molloyjh · 09-11-2016 11:17AM

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not the political parties that need to learn (the harsh harsh truths) about demagogues, but the electorate.

Greece might actually be a good example of this (in a few more years).

I'd like to thank this post multiple times. Politics and politicians will only change if there is the demand there from the electorate to change. That hasn't been there until now. People are pissed off that Governments don't listen to them, but then turn up to vote in low numbers for the same people time after time.

Now we're starting to see demands for change. But change towards what? What message does electing Trump or backing Farage send to politicians?

For years electorates have been complicit through a lack of action. Now that they are taking action it's massively counterproductive and sends completely the wrong message.

CMOTDibbler · 09-11-2016 11:18AM

This could actually damage the Republican party far more than a loss would have done.

If Trump tries to implement some of his nuttier plicies it could end up being a battle between the President and what should be (but can't be guaranteed) a friendly legislature. There may well be more rather than less bipartisanship.

There's a mid-term election to consider as well.

mfceiling · 09-11-2016 11:21AM

molloyjh wrote: »

I'd like to thank this post multiple times. Politics and politicians will only change if there is the demand there from the electorate to change. That hasn't been there until now. People are pissed off that Governments don't listen to them, but then turn up to vote in low numbers for the same people time after time.

Now we're starting to see demands for change. But change towards what? What message does electing Trump or backing Farage send to politicians?

For years electorates have been complicit through a lack of action. Now that they are taking action it's massively counterproductive and sends completely the wrong message.

But politicians must share some of the blame. Parties elected here with the "we will change how we govern, no more jobs for the boys". No sooner are they in through the door when you hear that the ministers cousin is now his driver or that he takes a longer route to work so he can claim more expenses.

The electorate must look at who they voted for and say WTF.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 09-11-2016 11:25AM

How is it a vote for change? Change from what? A president who knew what he was doing and was actively trying to improve things for the country as a whole? A change from progress?

Nobody voted for change. They voted for the opposite. They voted for a return to a white man in charge who wants to marginalise everyone else. They voted for regression. They voted for a man who has ZERO political experience and couldn't give a straight answer on policy if you held a gun to his head. They voted for this man to hold the most powerful office in all the land and they did it because they're either as filled with hate as he is or they're just plain ****ing stupid.

And now good people, people who have already spent years, decades, their whole lives actually fighting to be seen as equals in their own country, to have the same basic rights and have the same opportunities that are apparently guaranteed to them in the USA will be the ones that have to spend the next 4 years, AT LEAST, fighting more ignorance and bigotry and straight up hatred. And they will have to look everyday at this excuse for a man sitting at the head of their nation and know that the majority of people they live and work with felt perfectly okay with electing a man who was happily endorsed by the KKK, who played on every racial stereotype in the book to stoke the fires of fear and hate, to intimidate and to bully.

Trump never tried to hide what he is. The people who voted for him knew what they were doing and they know why they were doing it.

09-11-2016 11:26AM

Projection your Honor.

I'd strongly recommend listening to this level headed discussion on 'what to next' for the US. Bear in mind it was recorded pre election day

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-_Az5nZBBM

irishbucsfan · 09-11-2016 11:32AM

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not the political parties that need to learn (the harsh harsh truths) about demagogues, but the electorate.

Greece might actually be a good example of this (in a few more years).

I personally don't think the electorate aren't driven by ideology or political discourse for the most part. I don't even think Trump is. They're driven by their personal circumstances. Globalism is leaving people behind and they are leaving the political establishment in return. The countries most heavily hit generally have a massive negative shift in balance of trade over the past few decades in common (UK, France, Italy, USA all humungous shifts. Germany meanwhile...).

Going back to Blyth, who I steal all my opinions from, I think he captured the sentiment almost perfectly. You have voters in post-industrial conditions who used to feel massively important as part of booming industry suddenly watching their (and very often their parents') old jobs going abroad and correlating that with their decline in real income. So they hate the people who "took" those jobs (but Trump knows all about China and Mexico so he'll sort that out and teach em a lesson) and they hate the people who allowed it to happen ("I don't know what NAFTA is but Clinton said it was good and they told me it made me lose my job").

Is the state of the electorate symptomatic of a perceived declines in standards of living at the end of years of economic depression? I think it's at least partly that. Of course modern media makes demagoguery much more viable as well.

molloyjh · 09-11-2016 11:34AM

mfceiling wrote: »

But politicians must share some of the blame. Parties elected here with the "we will change how we govern, no more jobs for the boys". No sooner are they in through the door when you hear that the ministers cousin is now his driver or that he takes a longer route to work so he can claim more expenses.

The electorate must look at who they voted for and say WTF.

I'm not saying politicians are totally blameless, but we have an electorate that continued to elect guys like Michael Lowry despite everything. We have an electorate who allowed themselves to be easily taken in by a well run marketing campaign by Libertas despite the facts being readily available. We have an electorate that blamed Fianna Fail for the state of the country despite electing them time after time while being warned by some economists about the issues we had (and did so the final time despite there being question marks over Berties finances).

For all our looking across the water and judges the Yanks we're not exactly the shining model of constructive and positive democracy in action. And a huge amount of that is down to the electorate.

09-11-2016 11:38AM

Buer wrote: »

I'm not sure he would have. I think he would have had a good chance but I don't think it would have been as clear cut as some believe.

Sanders doesn't represent the disaffected elements that Trump spoke to. Immigration and industry were the twin pillars of Trump's campaign.

Sanders had the polar opposite approach on immigration and, in terms of industry, Sanders would have been attacked repeatedly. Trump would have gone after his lack of experience in industry. He'd have called him a communist for the medicare and living wage proposals. That would have resonated with his supporters just the same as his accusations of criminal behaviour against Clinton have done.

Whilst I believe Sanders would have been the best man for the job, I don't believe his election would have been a sure thing. America are hugely resistant to socialism still. Sanders wouldn't have made a dent in any conservative areas.

Sanders would have also really struggled to get older Democrats on board. He was barely a democrat and realistically he would not be a democrat outside only for a two party system.

I don't know how Trump has garned such a vote, but I don't think Sanders would have been all that much different to Hillary. I was worried the FBI antics last week would have an impact, it clearly did but I don't think she was going to win anyway, she was well beaten. All swing states are red.

Scary times, would be great TV but it's awful reality.

09-11-2016 11:40AM

molloyjh wrote: »

I'm not saying politicians are totally blameless, but we have an electorate that continued to elect guys like Michael Lowry despite everything. We have an electorate who allowed themselves to be easily taken in by a well run marketing campaign by Libertas despite the facts being readily available. We have an electorate that blamed Fianna Fail for the state of the country despite electing them time after time while being warned by some economists about the issues we had (and did so the final time despite there being question marks over Berties finances).

For all our looking across the water and judges the Yanks we're not exactly the shining model of constructive and positive democracy in action. And a huge amount of that is down to the electorate.

Whilst one small part of the country at a time might vote for someone like Lowry, (and I hate it). On a national scale he wouldn't register a single %.

Trump would be completely unelectable in Ireland, he'd be run out of any race the second he got into it.

We're not as good as we could be, but were significantly removed from what we just saw in America.

Buer · 09-11-2016 11:40AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I personally don't think the electorate aren't driven by ideology or political discourse for the most part. I don't even think Trump is. They're driven by their personal circumstances. Globalism is leaving people behind and they are leaving the political establishment in return. The countries most heavily hit generally have a massive negative shift in balance of trade over the past few decades in common (UK, France, Italy, USA all humungous shifts. Germany meanwhile...).

This is pretty much nail on head stuff. People only care about themselves and their wallet.

The rust belt was a hugely influential area in this election. Trump campaigned on a return of industry and jobs to these areas. It's not possible but he got people believing it is and perhaps he does so himself.

All the sexist, racist, xenophobe, hypocrite stuff falls by the wayside. He appealed to the root of people's main concern. They're getting taxed on low incomes (he's proposing to wipe tax for earnings up to $29k) and they can't get jobs.

The world's economy has moved on from heavy industry and those that continue moved to areas with lower costs. The traditional backbone of the American economy was wiped. People want to go back to it and Trump told them they can if they vote for him.

irishbucsfan · 09-11-2016 11:41AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Scary times, would be great TV but it's awful reality.

Said the same thing to my friend today. If this morning was the final episode of "House of Trump" season 1 I'd be dying to see season 2!

09-11-2016 11:46AM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I personally don't think the electorate aren't driven by ideology or political discourse for the most part. I don't even think Trump is. They're driven by their personal circumstances. Globalism is leaving people behind and they are leaving the political establishment in return. The countries most heavily hit generally have a massive negative shift in balance of trade over the past few decades in common (UK, France, Italy, USA all humungous shifts. Germany meanwhile...).

Going back to Blyth, who I steal all my opinions from, I think he captured the sentiment almost perfectly. You have voters in post-industrial conditions who used to feel massively important as part of booming industry suddenly watching their (and very often their parents') old jobs going abroad and correlating that with their decline in real income. So they hate the people who "took" those jobs (but Trump knows all about China and Mexico so he'll sort that out and teach em a lesson) and they hate the people who allowed it to happen ("I don't know what NAFTA is but Clinton said it was good and they told me it made me lose my job").

Is the state of the electorate symptomatic of a perceived declines in standards of living at the end of years of economic depression? I think it's at least partly that. Of course modern media makes demagoguery much more viable as well.

I never said anything about an electorate being ideologically driven?

I said that the electorate must unfortunately learn the harsh truth that demagogues and their easy answers are not the solution to their woes, and that the emperor has no clothes is actually a solid life lesson.

The Greek electorate is learning the hard way. I wish the US didn't have to, and that people could just see through the lies but they have managed to elect a president who fits every single tangible indicator of demagoguery.

Buer · 09-11-2016 11:47AM

Deleted User wrote: »

We're not as good as we could be, but were significantly removed from what we just saw in America.

A convicted terrorist won 14% of the vote in our last presidential election. It's hard to say how Trump would have polled here if he was Irish. The closest thing is Michael O'Leary, probably.

I've little enough faith in our electorate either. Every nation suffers from the same issue in their electorate which is willing ignorance and a refusal to educate themselves.

09-11-2016 11:47AM

Buer wrote: »

The world's economy has moved on from heavy industry and those that continue moved to areas with lower costs. The traditional backbone of the American economy was wiped. People want to go back to it and Trump told them they can if they vote for him.

Which is literally fantastic.

Off Topic Thread 3.0

Comments