Trump Triumphs

[Guest MattP]

13 hours ago, SMX11 said:

Trump is really starting to piss me off with the "Make cars in USA or face border tax" crap. I would have though a businessman like him would understand that companies will build their product in the most cost effective place.

 

He should be looking at the reasons why they are leaving/have moved not threatening companies with punitive taxes.
The problem is you don't know if he is being serious or just playing to the mob.

It wasn't exactly a secret he was going to be more protectionist in order to bring a lot of jobs back to the USA, I'm sure Americans know they'll have to pay a bit more if that's the case, they aren't stupid.

 

Trump can probably pull this off though, with a low deficit to GDP and the cancellation of Obamacare he's actually got quite a bit of money to play with, it's going to be a hell of a long road back for the Democrats as well if his policy does bring jobs back to the rust belts. that's another four states they'll probably need to find to win an election.

 

How long they can pull it off for is a different question, as with any government putting forward Keynesian economic policy.

[leicsmac]

It's becoming more and more obvious that the Dems simply chose the wrong battleground to fight this election (amongst other mistakes), given how much everyone seems intent on rabbiting on about economic rather than social issues. Personally I simply don't get it, but what matters is what more people believe, I guess. They wanted a leader and a party who they think (key word) is going to make them richer. Given how wild and woolly economic predictions can be though (see EU thread) it's very difficult to be certain on that, nu?

 

It's just unfortunate that the nut job wing of the Republicans are going to now demand their pound of flesh to toe the line on Trumps economic stuff, and a lot of people are overlooking that.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It's becoming more and more obvious that the Dems simply chose the wrong battleground to fight this election (amongst other mistakes), given how much everyone seems intent on rabbiting on about economic rather than social issues. Personally I simply don't get it, but what matters is what more people believe, I guess. They wanted a leader and a party who they think (key word) is going to make them richer. Given how wild and woolly economic predictions can be though (see EU thread) it's very difficult to be certain on that, nu?

 

It's just unfortunate that the nut job wing of the Republicans are going to now demand their pound of flesh to toe the line on Trumps economic stuff, and a lot of people are overlooking that.

You are assuming that the people who voted for Trump are that bothered about the "nut job wing" (that's not going to win you votes back btw) of the Republican party getting a bit of what they want, a lot of voters actually won't mind that.

 

The Dems chose the wrong candidate and the wrong battleground, the fact Clinton didn't even bother to visit Wisconsin tells you al you need to know, they took their vote for granted, they assumed poor white would always vote for them in their droves no matter how much unemployment, inequality and mass immigration they forced on them, they got exactly what they deserved and instead of crying about it now need to start working on winning those voters back than complaining about Trump doing things he said he was going to do.

[Manwell Pablo]

33 minutes ago, MattP said:

It wasn't exactly a secret he was going to be more protectionist in order to bring a lot of jobs back to the USA, I'm sure Americans know they'll have to pay a bit more if that's the case, they aren't stupid.

 

Trump can probably pull this off though, with a low deficit to GDP and the cancellation of Obamacare he's actually got quite a bit of money to play with, it's going to be a hell of a long road back for the Democrats as well if his policy does bring jobs back to the rust belts. that's another four states they'll probably need to find to win an election.

 

How long they can pull it off for is a different question, as with any government putting forward Keynesian economic policy.

 

Well you are going against quite a few stereotypes with that one I am afraid. 

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

You are assuming that the people who voted for Trump are that bothered about the "nut job wing" (that's not going to win you votes back btw) of the Republican party getting a bit of what they want, a lot of voters actually won't mind that.

 

The Dems chose the wrong candidate and the wrong battleground, the fact Clinton didn't even bother to visit Wisconsin tells you al you need to know, they took their vote for granted, they assumed poor white would always vote for them in their droves no matter how much unemployment, inequality and mass immigration they forced on them, they got exactly what they deserved and instead of crying about it now need to start working on winning those voters back than complaining about Trump doing things he said he was going to do.

 Yeah, so what exactly am I supposed to call them? There is a significant swath of both the Republican legislature and the Republican voters who believe the earth in a few thousand years old, that women shouldn't have the right to bodily autonomy, that gay people are an abomination and should be refused equal rights, and that the future of this world doesn't matter because the next one does. They believe it proudly, zealously, and would take joy in passing legislation to the effect of the above.

 

Those people won't be swayed by any economic arguments. As far as I'm concerned they're a lost cause and should only be considered in terms of limiting the damage they can do in the legislature at state and federal level. If the ones who voted Trump for economic reasons back what they want to do in return for a possible short term rise in fortune, well...

 

All that aside, it is however those voters the ones more concerned about their wallets) that do need to be reached with sound economic arguments. That IS the major part of how Trump won and my own feelings aside it is the issue most people care about right now.

[Finnaldo]

Just now, MattP said:

You are assuming that the people who voted for Trump are that bothered about the "nut job wing" (that's not going to win you votes back btw) of the Republican party getting a bit of what they want, a lot of voters actually won't mind that.

 

The Dems chose the wrong candidate and the wrong battleground, the fact Clinton didn't even bother to visit Wisconsin tells you al you need to know, they took their vote for granted, they assumed poor white would always vote for them in their droves no matter how much unemployment, inequality and mass immigration they forced on them, they got exactly what they deserved and instead of crying about it now need to start working on winning those voters back than complaining about Trump doing things he said he was going to do.

 

Arguably they need to do both.

 

Bernie's been going about it the right way in my opinion. Since the result he's managed to put himself in the position where he can almost pull the strings of the Dems, he's been a massive benefactor in Keith Ellison's campaign for the DNC chair and he's been doing rallies, talks and interviews virtually non-stop. He's never moaned about the election or branded Trump as some kind of Neo-Nazi Overlord Dictator as some elements of the left have, in fact he's embraced his economic goals as long as he doesn't attempt to pull any extreme conservative social reform. He's quite clearly still got some momentum and support behind him and he's positioned himself right up the rear of Trump. He knows if anything goes wrong when it comes to preserving American jobs he can give Trump a kick right up his arse and that's the trump card (mind the pun) he has as the unsuccessful anti-establishment candidate.

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

Arguably they need to do both.

 

Bernie's been going about it the right way in my opinion. Since the result he's managed to put himself in the position where he can almost pull the strings of the Dems, he's been a massive benefactor in Keith Ellison's campaign for the DNC chair and he's been doing rallies, talks and interviews virtually non-stop. He's never moaned about the election or branded Trump as some kind of Neo-Nazi Overlord Dictator as some elements of the left have, in fact he's embraced his economic goals as long as he doesn't attempt to pull any extreme conservative social reform. He's quite clearly still got some momentum and support behind him and he's positioned himself right up the rear of Trump. He knows if anything goes wrong when it comes to preserving American jobs he can give Trump a kick right up his arse and that's the trump card (mind the pun) he has as the unsuccessful anti-establishment candidate.

I think they need to just drop Bernie now, he's too old, his only support is among young millenialls (and he lost a lot of them after selling out) who often repulse anyone in the middle ground.

 

If he is anywhere near the top of the Democratic party they aren't winning Florida back (you can't be pro Castro and win that) and this is still a bloke who once not only thought but wrote down that women enjoy being gangraped, although I suppose that sort of stuff doesn't do as much harm as it should in America.

 

I don't really see how Trump will care about what he says or does, he has the house, the senate and the Preseidency and this is going to be the most blinkered tenure you'll see, the main opposition will probably come from his own party.

[Webbo]

20 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 Yeah, so what exactly am I supposed to call them? There is a significant swath of both the Republican legislature and the Republican voters who believe the earth in a few thousand years old, that women shouldn't have the right to bodily autonomy, that gay people are an abomination and should be refused equal rights, and that the future of this world doesn't matter because the next one does. They believe it proudly, zealously, and would take joy in passing legislation to the effect of the above.

 

Those people won't be swayed by any economic arguments. As far as I'm concerned they're a lost cause and should only be considered in terms of limiting the damage they can do in the legislature at state and federal level. If the ones who voted Trump for economic reasons back what they want to do in return for a possible short term rise in fortune, well...

 

All that aside, it is however those voters the ones more concerned about their wallets) that do need to be reached with sound economic arguments. That IS the major part of how Trump won and my own feelings aside it is the issue most people care about right now.

That's a very emotive way of saying that. You could just as easily say that they don't believe you should be able to murder babies. Some people have a moral problem with that, that doesn't make them wrong and it doesn't make them bad people either. You need to accept that not everybody agrees with you.

[Finnaldo]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

I think they need to just drop Bernie now, he's too old, his only support is among young millenialls (and he lost a lot of them after selling out) who often repulse anyone in the middle ground.

 

If he is anywhere near the top of the Democratic party they aren't winning Florida back (you can't be pro Castro and win that) and this is still a bloke who once not only thought but wrote down that women enjoy being gangraped, although I suppose that sort of stuff doesn't do as much harm as it should in America.

 

I don't really see how Trump will care about what he says or does, he has the house, the senate and the Preseidency and this is going to be the most blinkered tenure you'll see, the main opposition will probably come from his own party.

 

I thought it was quite clear he has a bigger audience than just millennials. And as I said, he's mainly acting as a benefactor to Keith Ellison, all he needs to do is send the party in a certain direction. His personal views will matter little.

 

The middle ground? I'm not sure if you followed the election but the middle ground, or the left and right wing, matter very little as long as you can guarantee employment and the economy. If the middle ground mattered, I doubt the candidate suggesting building a wall thousands of kilometres long, putting a blanket ban on a religious group or "grabbing her by the pussy" would have come close to the run-of-the-mill career politician he faced. Talking of which, I find it amusing you bring up an essay he described as a poorly written 50 Shades of Grey that he wrote close to a half-century ago when the President-elect was caught on tape claiming things a lot more forward than Bernie a decade ago. 

 

As far as your last point goes, the House, Senate and Presidency won't win votes in 2020. That's what I'm talking about, using any Trump failures on his rather bombastic claims and using it to rebuild a new-look Dems, appealing especially in the rust states. I'm sure you have no problem utilising debt problems of Blair and Brown for Tory advantage, why on Earth wouldn't the Dems and Bernie do the same if Trump slipped?

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, Finnaldo said:

 

I thought it was quite clear he has a bigger audience than just millennials. And as I said, he's mainly acting as a benefactor to Keith Ellison, all he needs to do is send the party in a certain direction. His personal views will matter little.

 

The middle ground? I'm not sure if you followed the election but the middle ground, or the left and right wing, matter very little as long as you can guarantee employment and the economy. If the middle ground mattered, I doubt the candidate suggesting building a wall thousands of kilometres long, putting a blanket ban on a religious group or "grabbing her by the pussy" would have come close to the run-of-the-mill career politician he faced. Talking of which, I find it amusing you bring up an essay he described as a poorly written 50 Shades of Grey that he wrote close to a half-century ago when the President-elect was caught on tape claiming things a lot more forward than Bernie a decade ago. 

 

As far as your last point goes, the House, Senate and Presidency won't win votes in 2020. That's what I'm talking about, using any Trump failures on his rather bombastic claims and using it to rebuild a new-look Dems, appealing especially in the rust states. I'm sure you have no problem utilising debt problems of Blair and Brown for Tory advantage, why on Earth wouldn't the Dems and Bernie do the same if Trump slipped?

Yes I did follow the election, popular polices won it from all across the political spectrum, left wing protectionism to right wing immigration ideals, I'm not sure if you followed the primaries but left wing Bernie Sanders couldn't beat centre ground Hillary Clinton in a nationwide election of left wing voters.

 

I never for one minute said Bernie shouldn't challenge and point out what Trump is doing wrong, what I'm saying is he's the wrong man to do it, if the Democrats think people like Sanders is what they need to rebuild you just have to let them do it in the same way Labour members handed it over to Corbyn, they'll find out eventually that the only people who really care about anything he says are his own little clique.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

That's a very emotive way of saying that. You could just as easily say that they don't believe you should be able to murder babies. Some people have a moral problem with that, that doesn't make them wrong and it doesn't make them bad people either. You need to accept that not everybody agrees with you.

It's the double standard that gets me, as we've discussed before. As far as I'm concerned it's hypocritical. Is letting someone die because you're the only one who can give them blood or an organ and refusing to, even if you're responsible for them being in that situation in the first place, what would be called murder too?

 

I don't have an issue with disagreement in that way in that issue (or the other issues such people bring to bear), but when such people try to bring things into law that affect people other than them by inhibiting then fundamental freedoms, then there is a problem. And quite frankly, the religious wing of the Republicans are only interested in freedom for those who believe as they do.

[Guest MattP]

This is a good breakdown of how the Republicans would have taken Bernie to pieces had he got the nomination.

 

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/5/19/this-ends-now-the-bernie-sanders-opposition-research-the-media-refuses-to-release

 

Bernie The Rapist

Think everything in Bernie's past is off-limits? Republicans know better. They know Bernie Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in 1972 describing the a woman enjoying being raped by three men. This was not the work of a high school boy. Or a horny college student. This was the work of a thirty-one-year-old man. With a child. If you think Republicans wouldn't go after this essay in an attempt to hurt Sanders' standing among women you'd be crazy. Republicans would plaster this essay all over a series of ads to discredit Sanders support among women voters and they'd do it without giving it a second thought.

Bernie The Bum

Think Republicans wouldn't attempt to portray Sanders as a drain on the system? Sanders collected unemployment through his mid-30s and did a series of odd jobs including carpentry, teaching, working as a hospital aid, and working for a nonprofit. At one point, he stole electricity from his neighbor because he had failed to pay his own bills. At this time, Sanders also shared custody of his son and quite possibly struggled to pay child support. Think Republicans wouldn't try to portray Bernie as a deadbeat dad? Then you clearly don't know Republicans. 

Bernie's Disdain For Latinos

Think Republicans wouldn't attempt to lessen Sanders' support among key Democratic voting blocs like Latinos? In 1994, Sanders co-sponsored a bill that would have allow low-level nuclear waste from Vermont to be shipped to the poor Latino community of Sierra Blanca, Texas. Activists from Sierra Blanca fought back for four years and even traveled 2,000 miles to Vermont to speak with then Congressman Sanders. Sanders' response? He told the activists he didn't care and that he had a re-election campaign to worry about. Republicans would be certain that Sanders would be forever associated with the terms 'Sierra Blanca' and 'environmental racism.'

Bernie's Apathy Toward African-Americans

Besides women and Latinos, African-Americans represent another essential part of the Obama coalition needed to win a general election. Sanders is proud of his early civil rights work but don't think for a second that Republicans wouldn't remind the voters that Sanders has been noticeably absent for the past half-century. They'd point out how Sanders was "invisible" to African-Americans activists in Vermont and how civil rights icon John Lewis "never saw" Sanders go to bat for civil rights issues while in Congress. Don't doubt that Republicans wouldn't gleefully use these instances to portray Sanders as someone who simply isn't invested in the African-American community.

"Bernie The Bomber" 

Think Republicans wouldn't love to shatter Sanders' angelic reputation among his core supporters? Sanders consistently touts his anti-war record. Yet in 1999, he voted in favor of NATO's military mission in Yugoslavia, much to the dismay of his hometown supporters. In fact, his supporters were so upset that they went to Congressman Sanders' office to speak to him or someone with his staff. Sanders was in D.C. but the protesters were promptly arrested without being given an audience. Yup, that's right. Civil rights hero Bernie Sanders openly arrested protesters in his own congressional office. Republicans could literally kill two birds with one stone by using this instance to show Sanders and being pro-war and pro-establishment at the same time.

Bernie The War Hawk

Sanders has also gone on record against excessive military spending. Yet Republicans would gladly point out how he openly supports the military's $1.5 trillion F-35 boondoggle that epitomizes superfluous military spending as well as perpetual war. Why does Sanders support this? Because it brings jobs to his home state of Vermont. And anything that brings jobs helps to get Senator Sanders re-elected every six years which is much more important than one's principled anti-war stance. Republicans would be sure to remind everyone in the other 49 states that Sanders loves to enrich his own pockets through war.

Calamity Jane

As we've already seen with Donald Trump, spouses are fair game in the year 2016. Unfortunately, for Bernie Sanders, his wife Jane has more than enough baggage for Donald Trump and Republicans to use. Not only has she continued to profit off of the same nuclear commission involved in the Sierra Blanca case, but she also received a $200,000 golden parachute from Burlington College, where she served as president to a for-profit school that is scheduled to close later this month due to crushing debt. She also has been accused of bank fraud for potentially having scammed the Catholic Church out of nearly $2 million in a land deal. If Donald Trump would criticize a woman for her looks, imagine what he'd do to someone who has a shady background concerning business deals and personal finances.

Bolshevik Bernie

Republicans know it's one thing to paint someone a certain way because of their policies, but it's another one entirely to paint someone a certain way because of their lifestyle. Bernie Sanders was an open supporter of Communism in the 1980s. He honeymooned in the USSR and traveled to Cuba in 1989 in an unsuccessful attempt to meet with Fidel Castro. Yet these two instances pale in comparison to Sanders' interactions in Nicaragua. Not only has Sanders gone on record in praise of the Sandinistas but he also attended an anti-American rally where the crowd chanted for "death to the Yankees." Combine this nugget of information along with Sanders' radical ideas on income inequality and Republicans could easily paint him as an unpatriotic anarchist hell-bent on destroying America.

Bernie The Crook 

Don't think for a second that Donald Trump wouldn't attack Sanders on anything and everything related to finances. Unfortunately for Sanders, his campaign has left a lot to be desired in this regard. Sanders and his campaign have been flagged for multiple campaign finance violations including 639 pages worth this past month. These violations combined with the fact that the Sanders campaign has a mystery $10 million donation from one single address in Washington, D.C. that has yet to be accounted for. In addition, Sanders' long time friend and political advisor Tad Devine is raking in a cool $800,000 a month for his consulting firm. With this in mind, there can be no question that Donald Trump would go after Sanders for being a hustler, a con man, and a crook when it came to other people's money. 

Bernie The Hypocrite

The last line of attack Republicans use would be a culmination of everything Sanders has said or done throughout his political career. They'd point out that Sanders has railed against super PACS but is being openly supported by the National Nurses United. They'd point out that Sanders went on the picket line to support Verizon workers but he uses Verizon at his campaign headquarters. They'd point out that Sanders has spoken out against Boeing but that he has accepted over $72,000 from them this election cycle alone. They'd point out that Sanders criticized Hillary Clinton for supporting the 1994 Crime Bill but Sanders himself expressed no regret in actually voting for the bill. They'd point out that Sanders claims to be against the NRA but was supported by them for his first successful congressional run in 1990. They'd point out that Sanders claims to be able to work across the aisle but that his blind ideology caused him to vote against the Amber Alert system. They'd point out that Sanders supports universal health care but it failed in his home state of Vermont due to high costs. They'd point out that Sanders has consistently bashed Democrats, including President Obama, and is admittedly using the party for his own personal gain. And, perhaps most damaging, Republicans would point out how Sanders has claimed to be able to save families money but has openly admitted that "we will raise taxes" in order to enact his agenda.

 

[leicsmac]

TBF Matt I don't think the Repubs would even have had to be that in depth, all they would have had to do was scream "COMMIE!" (rightly or wrongly) and they'd have got the votes they needed against Bernie. The dog-whistle of choice, even now.

[Guest MattP]

31 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

TBF Matt I don't think the Repubs would even have had to be that in depth, all they would have had to do was scream "COMMIE!" (rightly or wrongly) and they'd have got the votes they needed against Bernie. The dog-whistle of choice, even now.

Rightly or wrongly?

 

The bloke was pro-Castro and went to the USSR on his honeymoon

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Rightly or wrongly?

 

The bloke was pro-Castro and went to the USSR on his honeymoon

Until you've gone full Stalin and opened up the gulags, you don't get your "Commie" badge. I thought you knew this?

 

In any case, they would just have had to push the Red Scare buttons and that would have been enough for enough states in the US.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Until you've gone full Stalin and opened up the gulags, you don't get your "Commie" badge. I thought you knew this?

 

In any case, they would just have had to push the Red Scare buttons and that would have been enough for enough states in the US.

Just telling people what Bernie Sanders stands for would be more than enough in the same way telling people here what Corbyn stands for would be.

[Finnegan]

3 hours ago, Webbo said:

That's a very emotive way of saying that.

 

Yes it is.

 

You could just as easily say that they don't believe you should be able to murder babies.

 

If you were retarded.

 

Some people have a moral problem with that.

 

They're retarded.

 

that doesn't make them wrong

 

It does.

 

and it doesn't make them bad people either.

 

Questionable.

 

You need to accept that not everybody agrees with you.

 

Everyone used to agree strong willed women were witches as well. The majority can be wrong.

 

 

 

This is why I'm not in politics.

[leicsmac]

20 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

 

 

This is why I'm not in politics.

You should be!

 

Finn swinging for the fences again.

[Guest MattP]

I've not fact checked this but it is true when Obama leaves he'll have become the first President of the USA to attacked another country militarily in some way on every single day he spent in office?

[Finnegan]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

I've not fact checked this but it is true when Obama leaves he'll have become the first President of the USA to attacked another country militarily in some way on every single day he spent in office?

 

Probably a stupid question but what exactly do you mean by attacked another country militarily every day?

 

Do you just mean had troops deployed in a non routine deployment? As in, troops abroad but not in Germany or Japan or whatever?

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

Probably a stupid question but what exactly do you mean by attacked another country militarily every day?

 

Do you just mean had troops deployed in a non routine deployment? As in, troops abroad but not in Germany or Japan or whatever?

Not a stupid question, I don't even know what they mean, I'm presuming it would mean you have ordered some sort of military strike on a country ie anything from a drone to an invasion.

 

Even it was true you could hardly pin it on him given he walked into what George W Bush had left him but I thought if true it was an interesting statistic.

[Merging Cultures]

My goodness his tweets are getting more moronic.

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Merging Cultures said:

My goodness his tweets are getting more moronic.

Is this even possible?

[bovril]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Is this even possible?

Oh yes.

Can't wait til he starts posting call out videos telling Xi Jinping to meet him outside Supervalue in Limerick and "bring ya fecking cousins too".

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, bovril said:

Oh yes.

Can't wait til he starts posting call out videos telling Xi Jinping to meet him outside Supervalue in Limerick and "bring ya fecking cousins too".

To be fair that would actually be rather funny.