Print

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

[nenjin]

It'll be the same as with most politicians. 50% to 80% of their campaign promises will never materialize.

Not sure how that will square with "everything" being "great."

[wierd]

Well, we can ask WellsFargo about "greatness" I guess.

I have a feeling they will be very similar concepts.

[ECrownofFire]

You can bet your ass he'll rescind the LGBT protection executive orders though

[nenjin]

It'll be the same as with most politicians. 50% to 80% of their campaign promises will never materialize.

Not sure how that will square with "everything" being "great."

I thought that statistically 67% of their promises did materialize?

I seem to recall maniac dropping that statistic, yeah.

I'll be interested to see what Trump says about malfeasance like Wells Fargo. Private businessmen Trump would have called it smart business. I wonder what President Trump will say.

[Veylon]

If Trump wants to do what he says, and deport 11 million immigrants, he will have to deport over 7500 people per day, if he wants to get it done before his term is up.
For that amount of people to be processed, you'd need a lot of trains, camps and even more staff. Ask the Germans, they have experience with setting up the logistics, because you can't be doing it like with the native americans. That took you 3 centuries to get rid of 20+ million of them.

Obama deported 2.5 million. 11 million is a lot more, but it's not an order of magnitude more, either.

[Sergarr]

ok lagslayer

how exactly is this revisionism:

"Trump ran on a platform of hate, more so than Clinton."

rly, tell me more

The problem, as see it, is not so much the platform of hate; both sides have had quite a lot of hate-filled rhetoric, after all.

It's just that Trump's one was directed at... minorities, criminals, rich bankers and corporations - in other words, acceptable targets, while Clinton's side was plastering that "deplorable" label over 25-40% of USA population - they targeted too many people - including, for some godawful reason, Bernie Sanders supporters that weren't fully sold on her - and thus threw them into Trump's tiny YUUUGE hands.

It's an old truism, but nothing unites people as much as hatred towards "Jews". In this case, in the role of "Jews" there were also "illegal immigrants" and "SJWs". Maybe, if Hillary wanted to win, she should've found something like that - like, I dunno, drug dealers and crazy shooters? - and solely focused on them, instead of the whole Republican base..... but at this points, it's pure guesswork.


I guess that Japanese picture with Donald Trump in Gilgamesh armor charging Enuma Elish was more prophetic than I thought.

It'll be the same as with most politicians. 50% to 80% of their campaign promises will never materialize.

Not sure how that will square with "everything" being "great."

He's Donald Trump, he could reverse his words 180 degrees within a week and everyone will lap it up because he's a professional conman and he knows how to sell his stuff.

[nenjin]

Worked for Duerte didn't it?

[EnigmaticHat]

Yeah, Hillary played into some narratives people already had about smug democrats, in much the same way Romney played into some narratives people already had about the 1%.  In a time people were mad and wanted change, the democrats decided to run someone who (outside of her gender) pretty much felt like a piece of the past.

That being said, Hillary also fell afoul of the media.  Trump got literally billions of dollars in free advertising, and for all that the media acted as if they didn't like him their actions helped him.  I'm too tired to write a wall of text that will be gobbled up in a minute but the media was definitely irresponsible in how they handled Trump.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

At the end of the day, what I cannot believe is that I wasn't cynical enough. You'd have to be an absolute chump to believe in the Land of the Free version of America, but I thought at least, at least powerful people are pragmatic. At least they're selfish and power-consolidating in a way that made sense, and the wealth of the nation guaranteed a certain progression of universal rights.

And now this motherfucker comes riding in on "Mexican immigrants are rapists, blacks are thugs and drug dealers, women should be jailed for having abortions, I'm not saying but I'm just saying macho hate and bigotry are the way to go" and the country loves it. They absolutely love it.

Even the realist America isn't enough. This really, genuinely is just a country that thrives off hatred.

[alway]

Quit being cynical and step the hell up.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/an-american-tragedy-2

And here's some places to do so.
https://jezebel.com/a-list-of-pro-women-pro-immigrant-pro-earth-anti-big-1788752078

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

Calm yourselves, no need to start flaming and get defensive over your favorite barrel shaped politician, don't paint me as the ultimate antichrist supersatan just yet, you've done that a lot to a whole shitton of people already, and that didn't get you far. Sit down and grab a beer.

Was that directed toward me? I do not get it. Is that a jab at how many bans I have been involved in?

In case you couldn't tell, this was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. If I had put tildes around it...?

I may appear flamey, but I'm really quite calm. I was merely attempting to inject some salt into this thread, because we obviously don't have enough.

BRING IN THE DANK MEMERY, IT'S TROLLTIME

Yeeeea, if anything the dems and all their supporters pretty much handed the election to Trump. Wake up call, guys, maybe alienating anyone who doesnt imediately agree with you by calling them huge racists, bigots and misogynists isn't the best idea ever for a presidential campaign.

Lol, apparently Clinton ran on a platform of hate. Really, tell me more.

"They're sending their rapists, their murderers..."

pussygate

srsly tell me that's not racism/sexism

That was pretty terrible of him yea, but here's the thing, Trump being Trump, acted as the buffon he has always shown himself to be and went along with it, even explaining himself, altough very half assedly. This was, of course, used against him by the Hillary campaign, except it was just kind of repeated forever? And for a while, that was pretty much the only argument raised against him in multiple (non debate) instances?

Well, he's an awful person. Yes. (And while we did stoop to his level somewhat, meh, it's better to stoop and win sometimes.)

Hell, it was all over the media, and it was still seen as a minor issue in comparison to the shit that got thrown on Hillary (benghazi, clinton foundation money laundering, wikileaks stuff, the emails, etc).

Benghazi: some people died while Clinton was in power, thanks Obama Clinton! *lolnope*
CF money laundering: apparently she might be corrupt, well, she's still better than Trump on that issue too.
WikiLeaks: those damn quote miners don't even deserve a bullet point.
Emails: Non-issue - the FBI didn't find anything.

And besides, if the media chooses to focus on Clinton's okay-to-bad parts, and ignores how awful Trump is, maybe they're biased toward him. Just a thought.

Not to mention that said issue got minimized by a lot when the Wiener scandal came up. What happens when you got sexual harassment accusations vs actual, picture proven sexual harassment? Hillary didn't even actualy comment on the Wiener issue, at least not recently, AFAIK.

Oh, that was Clinton? Clinton was sexually harassing people? Wow, I wasn't aware of that.[/sarcasm]

Totally, some guy Clinton knew was a sexual harasser, that's equivalent to Trump sexually harassing people, right?

All around the world, the news were all positive towards a Hillary win, but only the actual loud crazies took Hillary's campaign seriously. While she was hailed as a saint by the media (so much, in fact, it was almost cartoonish)

lol no? Have you even seen the media? The emails which are in reality a non-issue have gotten blown far out of proportion by the media.

Where, breitbart? Fox News?

yes, the places that trump-supporters get their news

Hillary had the BBC, CNN, NYP, etc, all with her.

of course the news is polarized, unreliable, and a propaganda-machine

was that ever disputed

Of course, those outlets did comment on the emails issue, because those things are actualy a bigger issue than the stuff that got thrown at Trump, because those got progressively more minimized because the same accusations were just repeated over and over, rather than actualy expanded upon, and so became seen as mostly baseless, while the scandals involving Hillary just piled on.

The same accusations got repeated over and over again because they were not adequately dealt with or responded to.

pretty much nobody actualy took her seriously

except people did

Yep, but mostly just the people that were with her from the start.

And a few sane people who prefer her to Trump.

A lot of indecisives got alienated mid campaign, and nothing was done about it because Hillary's supporters were adamantly convinced that she'd win.

That was a bad idea, yes.

A lot of center leaning liberals got attacked for not supporting her.

Well as it is, we have a two-party system, and a vote for !Clinton means that Trump is 0.5*vote for Trump more likely to win.

while Trump was seen as a guy that, despite getting beatdowns over and over by big media, always somehow seemed to come out on top, even when he didn't have full republican support.

well huh maybe that's just how you saw it

I guess the results point out I'm probably not the only person who did. But hey, who am I to question your religion :U[/quote]
Lots of people saw Trump as the underdog, but he really wasn't. But of course, since most people disagree with me, I must be wrong. All Hail the Great God Popular Opinion! It is Always Right!

IE, the dems made everything so cartoonish and infantile that everyone just got fed up.

o rly

Quite rly.

how so

Additionaly, the democratic party associated itself with stuff people are not entirely happy with (black lives matter, saying banning milo from twitter is ok, attacking more centre-leaning liberals like sam harris because he's not very fond of islam OR Hillary even though he admitted he'd probably vote for her, etc).

ya? black lives do matter and I won't vote for anybody who says otherwise

They certainly do matter, except not to Black Lives Matters, I guess, lel.

I am a Social Justice Mage and I am very triggered!

Also it takes some serious gymnastics to consolidate groups like muslims and LGBT people, specially during the current times.

Indeed - the left is seeming as much of a Big Tent as the right these days.

Also, here's a rather big reason Hillary's campaign failed so massively: when faced with all the scandals and accusations thrown against her, nothing much other than utter dismissal was done about it

hmm, maybe because there was no actual scandal, just a manufactured scandal?

When you're a presidential candidate, you gotta explain shit when it gets thrown at you

yes, which is why Trump is unfit to be president

and the burden of proof isn't something that works super well in popularity contests.

I wasn't aware that popularity contests determined the truth. Are we discussing whether Clinton is awful, or whether most people think that Clinton is awful?

Trump was a buffon and just denied the stuff thrown at him, but he was smart enough to hide behind Hillary's very shady scandals. She was seen as the smartest and more reasonable of the two, so people expected an answer from her, and it simply didn't came. Then the wiener issue came up and she didn't bat an eye.

So since she's more reasonable, she loses? And since Trump denies everything, he wins? Huh, seems right to me. What was she thinking? She should have denied everything plus one!

while at the same time a lot of shit got thrown at Trump, and Trump being Trump, took things at face value and counter attacked

lolwut, Trump brought that on himself, all the shit he says is barely noticed. If the media was fair then Trump would have had far more of his shit thrown back at him

Mayhap, but here's the thing, Hillary's scandals got seen as the worst evils, and her campaign wasn't able to change that scenario. Ignoring people that want answers tends to do that.

But Trump also ignored people that want answers.

I'm legitimately confused, no sarcasm here. What does public opinion have to do with the actual reality of the scandals? I thought we were discussing the latter, not the former.

specially in the last debate, even when the media was pretty much ALL Hillary, to the point CNN literally cut off people on air when they wanted to talk about wikileaks stuff on Hillary.

context? link? anything?

Its essentialy a meme by now.

Oh geez, the media is definitely biased. Except some is biased one way, and some the other.

*yawn* This isn't news to me.

Do you really think people will look at that without as much batting an eye?
What happens to your image when 80% of the people defending your campaign on twitter consists of loud mouthed people who who surround themselves only by people who agree with them and attack anyone who doesnt?

well huh, maybe people like circlejerks, this is the case on both sides

Indeed, except Hillary's were considered politically correct circlejerks

Hmm, by whom? People who prefer Hillary? Naturally.

and more accepted in Twitter, facebook and reddit moderation,

People can be biased, yes. That doesn't make Hillary bad...

and people who questioned said ideas got banned almost arbitrarily, kinda like Milo.

Lolwut. Milo was racist as fuck, an alt-right troll, and he hate-tweeted racist things at an African-American actor. Sounds arbitrary to me.

You don't have to like him, but his ban was pretty much on the face controversial, and while not related to her campaign, got seen as an example of censorship in favor of politically correctness, which, mind you, a whole lot of people on 'murica hate with a passion.

Oh, so "not being a racist fuck who hatetweets African Americans and calls them apes" is just "politically correct"?

What happens when there's huge infighting and name calling because the more centre leaning liberals don't like hillary at all?

politics as usual

Politics as usual if you're a 15 year old boy, I guess. Life and people tend to be a bit more complex than cartoon network shows, I'm afraid.[/quote]
I don't watch cartoons of any sort. What I'm saying is that people will fight and call names, duh, that's what people do these days.

...wait...

Oh, shit, I'm sorry. I thought that you were implying that these actions by Clinton supporters showed something negative about Clinton. Yeah, the Clinton-base was often as awful as the Trump-base, that I can agree with.

Hell, Trump supporters would just get shut down, told to shut up and banned from discussions simply for not agreeing with the established idea in the media of Hillary being a saint.

no, they were told to shut up because they were being irrational idiots

Thanks for proving my point.

Did you read the same thread that I did? "I have no proof, but I can just tell that Clinton is eeeeviiiiil" is very irrational. Not-supporting-Clinton =/= supporting-Trump.

...oh shit again

Armokdammit, we did conflate the two!

Hell, I watched this happening right here on this very topic, and even warned people that said behavior would come back to haunt them.

ah, so all of the problems can be blamed on us, noice

exactly how does "you are being irrational" become a bad thing in your mind, srsly

nenjin: who is revising wut?

Having different opinions =/= irrationality. Lets see how many more humiliating defeats it takes for the dems to realize this, but hey, its regressive left season.

I never said that different is necessarily wrong, I said that Trump-supporters tended to be irrational. This may or may not be wrong.

Saying that difference isn't necessarily irrationality doesn't refute my statement! It only shows that they are not necessarily irrational, not that they are necessarily rational.

Also, what exactly do you mean by "regressive left"?

[TheBiggerFish]

For a while the right was called regressive, so the "regressive left" is the equivalent to the argument "You're stupid!" "No, you're stupid!"

More like 'left that goes so far around it looks a lot like the far right' s tactics'.

[smirk]

And here's some places to do so.
https://jezebel.com/a-list-of-pro-women-pro-immigrant-pro-earth-anti-big-1788752078

Heh, I was just gonna post this. For those of you here with disposable income, remember that for better or worse money speaks louder than votes these days.

...aaaaaaaand back to getting miserably drunk.

PPE:

For a while the right was called regressive, so the "regressive left" is the equivalent to the argument "You're stupid!" "No, you're stupid!"

More like 'left that goes so far around it looks a lot like the far right' s tactics'.

WHich is a fun way of glossing over the actual substantive differences, and feeling morally superior whilst so doing.

[martinuzz]

A columinst in my newspaper sketches two extreme scenarios:

1) Doom scenario
The first victim of Trump's presidency will be the Climate Agreement of Paris. Trump refuses to cooperate with this "expensive nonsense" and reduces all US contributions to the UN climate program to zero.
He cancels the atomic agreement with Iran and goes back to sanctions, having called it "one of the worst deals I have ever seen".
More fundamentally, the post ww2 architecture of world order will be shaken to it's foundations. "The US cannot be the world police". The Big US Withdrawal, which started already in the Middle East will be expanded to Asia and Europe. US troops will be withdrawn, and as a consequence, EU countries will have to increase their military budgets considerably, forcing them to cut more on social security and healthcare, which will in turn allow the populist parties to grow even larger.
Left to fend for themselves, EU countries will not be able to prevent Russia from expanding it's sphere of influence. The Ukraine and the Baltic states return under Russian influence, to Poland's great dismay.
In Asia, Chine takes advantage of the US withdrawal. Without their aid, Japan and South Korea find themselves cornered by an assertive China.
Trump does get into conflict with China though, once he installs high tarrifs for Chinese goods. To protect US jobs, he taxes those by an additional 40%, which also applies to Mexican products. Both China and Mexico retaliate with their own tariffs.
Because Trump does not endorse international trade agreements like Nafta, and refuses to ratify new agreements like TTP and TTIP, a wave of protectionism spreads out over the world, making the world economy shrink and causing further budget cuts.

Trump makes one exception to no world policing: Just like his friend Putin, he wants to destroy IS, and keep Assad in power in Syria. Defeating IS proves more difficult than expected, without using ground troops, which he will not send. To not lose face, he decides to do "something extreme". As the first president since ww2, he threatens to use nuclear weapons. When IS provokes him to go ahead and nuke them, he actually does.


2) Optimistic scenario:
Election time is for bald speech. When it comes to actual governing, Trump turns out to be a pragmatic leader, which starts to be apparent coming thursday, when Trump starts negotiating with team Obama about the transition period. He proves willing to listen to diplomats and lobbyists, and worker's associations, groups he used to be derogative about during elections. With their aid, he quickly learns about the small margins in foreign policy. He turns out to be sensitive to pleas to 'make America great again' by retaining it's global influence sphere.

Relief is noticable amongst foreign countries. Trump enters diplomatic negotiations with other NATO countries about them increasing military spending. The US bases in Europe are retained, albeit slightly more sober. This goes for the bases in Japan and South Korea as well, which Trump keeps to slow down his greatest rival, China.
At the same time he does not want to alienate China, so when president Xi urges him to honour the climate agreement both their countries agreed to in Paris, he agrees to do so.

Defense experts convince Trump that the TTP trade agreement is instrumental in keeping the peace in the region, so Trump agrees with it. He does not agree with TTIP. No one in Europe minds.

The big beautiful wall on the Mexican border finds financial troubles on it's way. Mexico refuses to pay for it, and neither will Trump. Crowdfunding initiatives do not bring in enough money to build the wall. The project is abandoned.
To keep up the appearance of working hard on the illegal immigrant labour problem, Trump makes deporting illegal immigrants his top priority. However his efforts come to a halt, as they stumble into a mire of legal procedures and appeals, much to his supporter's chargrin.

To divert attention, Trump makes it his new top priority to seek out and eliminate IS supporters from amongst the muslims living in the US. This is deemed nescessary, because it turns out he, and Putin are unable to defeat IS without the use of ground troops, which he refuses to send. Meanwhile the Syrian civil war continues, as Trump refuses to touch that even with a 6 foot pole.

http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/trump-als-president-vergaat-de-wereld-of-valt-het-mee~a4412129/

[TheBiggerFish]

Honestly I've yet to actually see that, other than the usual "horseshoe theory" stuff. Maybe I'm just too moderate.

Honestly I've yet to actually see that, other than the usual "horseshoe theory" stuff. Maybe I'm just too moderate.

Example's out of date but: https://popehat.com/2015/11/09/safe-spaces-as-shield-safe-spaces-as-sword/