Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBiggerFish]

Yes.

The location, the practical effects...

[mainiac]

I wasn't even talking about him winning the general, I just meant if he won the primary.

Sure that means that one of the two parties endorse his views but corporate cash always has the choice of siding with the other party.  It's not hard to see why democrats might be preferable to Trump for people with a lot of money.

Aside from the incenidary rhetoric and the bigotry, I don't really see anything that would drive big business away if Trump was nominated.

Erratic behavior and the possibility for capricious punishment of people that piss him off?  Being a legendary bad faith negotiator?

Is there any practical difference between endorsement by a noble (which is what wikipedia seems to say a grandee is) and an endorsement by a politician?

Well I know that one of them has a history of mattering in a context while I have no information about the other.

[Dorsidwarf]

Working the problem from the wrong end. Treating the symptoms, not the cause. Bailing the boat before you plug the hole. Etc.

Doctors treat symptoms when necessary; otherwise people die.  Symptoms can in fact make a disease worsen if not treated.  Governments should treat symptoms when necessary for the same reasons.

Also, dealing with symptoms means you don't need to know the cause. And we're often pretty shit at actually identifying the key causes for complex social phenomena. At least if you treat a symptom you can be pretty sure the symptom exists. Often different social theories' "root causes" are completely incompatible and in some cases might not exist at all.

The problem is that treating the symptom is rarely more than palliative care - it makes you feel better, and can keep that symptom from killing you, but the root problem will never go away. Acute conditions can go away on their own as long as you keep the symptoms down, but chronic problems never will. In medical terms, this is the difference between, for example, dysentery (which can be cured by pouring saline into the patient so they don't shit themselves to death by dehydration) and syphilis (which will cause medical problem after medical problem until it kills you unless you kill it first

Syphilis is a bad analogy here. Cancer or AIDS would work better in the example you gave. Big, complicated, and we don't know how to solve the root cause just yet. But we don't not treat cancer because we don't have a magic-bullet cure for it, we treat the shit out of the symptoms because as stated, if doctors don't treat the symptoms people die because while causes make the problem in the first place, symptoms kill people.

[smjjames]

And a lot of this relies on what Trump would actually do and say as President. Part of me thinks he might actually be (relatively) quiet as President and rely heavily on his cabinet and adviser's advice. Something about his demeanor in the first Republican debate really made me believe that this is all bluster and not an actual indication of how he would handle himself if elected to office. Like despite what he says he knows how grossly underqualified he is for the job.

Would be nice if we could see the REAL real Trump, you know, minus the bluster and show, like how he would actually be if elected to office.

And yeah, he's shown indications of delegating things while being as hands on or connected to things as possible.

[smjjames]

Erratic behavior and the possibility for capricious punishment of people that piss him off?  Being a legendary bad faith negotiator?

What's your source on the 'bad faith negotiator'? I haven't heard anything on that, actually, I have no idea on his reputation as a negotiator besides what Trump himself claims.

Edit: Half expected a response between posts what with the three posts before my previous.

[mainiac]

I will give him this much, he has shown an amazing ability to keep finding new suckers.

[TheBiggerFish]

This is amazingly true....

[wobbly]

Sure that means that one of the two parties endorse his views but corporate cash always has the choice of siding with the other party.  It's not hard to see why democrats might be preferable to Trump for people with a lot of money.

It's also got the choice of hedging it's bets & siding with both parties.

[mainiac]

Well they do that already, it's just they do that while favoring republicans most of the time but in 2008 they favored democrats instead.  I'm wondering if Trump could make that happen again.

[smjjames]

You know, if CNN (or at least the author of the article) calls Lindsey Graham the 'reigning king of the undercard debate', then how come he hasn't broken out of there? Just musing really.

[Roxfall]

Voting for Bernie Sanders.

Because everyone else is ignoring the real issues. One of them being big business money in politics, lobbyists outright buying public officials. I don't have faith that any other candidates are going to do anything about that, since big business is sponsoring their campaigns, and Trump IS big business.

[smjjames]

Except that Sanders isn't going to be able to beat the Clinton Juggernaut.....

[hector13]

Except that Sanders isn't going to be able to beat the Clinton Juggernaut.....

Obama managed it...

[Wolfhunter107]

There's a very big difference between today and 2008, not least because of the four years of experience that Clinton has under her belt.

[RedKing]

I'd love to see Sanders pull an Obama, but it ain't gonna happen. People aren't going to flock to the idea of "Oooh! We could be a part of electing the 44th white male President!" the way they did Obama.


New national-level poll out this morning from ABC News , and Trump is up to 38%, his best numbers of the entire campaign season. It's Trumpening, people!



Couple of takeaways from the crosstabs:

Trump is supported by 47% of Republican men surveyed, but only 28% of Republican women. 42% of those with no college degree, and 28% of those with a college degree.

Clinton continues to beat Trump in a head-to-head polling, but along deeply divided lines. The partisan swing is 75 points among Democrats, 66 points among Republicans.