Compare/contrast American Presidential elections

[Eric the Green]

(05-06-2016, 11:47 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama won only one state that Eisenhower lost in either 1952 or 1956 (North Carolina); in 2012 he did not win any state that Dwight Eisenhower ever lost. This is amazing in view of the partisan identities of the two Presidents.

[Galen]

(03-21-2017, 12:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-06-2016, 11:47 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama won only one state that Eisenhower lost in either 1952 or 1956 (North Carolina); in 2012 he did not win any state that Dwight Eisenhower ever lost. This is amazing in view of the partisan identities of the two Presidents.

There aren't any of the Lost left and you despise the current crop of Nomads.  Ironically Trump may actually be the best the Boomers can produce.  God, knows that Clinton, Bush II and Obozo have pretty much been a complete loss.  You could argue Obozo either way since he sits right on the cusp.

[Odin]

(03-21-2017, 02:42 AM)Galen Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 12:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-06-2016, 11:47 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama won only one state that Eisenhower lost in either 1952 or 1956 (North Carolina); in 2012 he did not win any state that Dwight Eisenhower ever lost. This is amazing in view of the partisan identities of the two Presidents.

There aren't any of the Lost left and you despise the current crop of Nomads.  Ironically Trump may actually be the best the Boomers can produce.  God, knows that Clinton, Bush II and Obozo have pretty much been a complete loss.  You could argue Obozo either way since he sits right on the cusp.

If you think TRUMP is the best the Boomers can produce your brain is well and truly twisted outside the bounds of reality. Senators Franken, Klobuchar, and Warren would all make great presidents.

[Galen]

(03-21-2017, 07:01 AM)Odin Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 02:42 AM)Galen Wrote: There aren't any of the Lost left and you despise the current crop of Nomads.  Ironically Trump may actually be the best the Boomers can produce.  God, knows that Clinton, Bush II and Obozo have pretty much been a complete loss.  You could argue Obozo either way since he sits right on the cusp.

If you think TRUMP is the best the Boomers can produce your brain is well and truly twisted outside the bounds of reality. Senators Franken, Klobuchar, and Warren would all make great presidents.

I have very low expectations of the Boomers in general and the idiots you recommend would turn the US into Venezuela given the chance.  By that standard then Trump may very well be the best option out a set of bad choices.  Aren't fourth turnings fun?

[pbrower2a]

(03-21-2017, 02:42 AM)Galen Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 12:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-06-2016, 11:47 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama won only one state that Eisenhower lost in either 1952 or 1956 (North Carolina); in 2012 he did not win any state that Dwight Eisenhower ever lost. This is amazing in view of the partisan identities of the two Presidents.

There aren't any of the Lost left and you despise the current crop of Nomads.  Ironically Trump may actually be the best the Boomers can produce.  God, knows that Clinton, Bush II and Obozo have pretty much been a complete loss.  You could argue Obozo either way since he sits right on the cusp.

OBAMA. There's nothing clownish about President Obama. I wanted to see an Idealist style but instead we got a mature Reactive, someone acting like a 60-something Lost. Maybe the best thing that his sort can do in a Crisis Era is to mitigate risk -- but that is a good thing. That is one form of good generalship.

He won't be the last such President. Around 2025 that is what America will have available -- competent caretaker, war hero from the Crisis of 2020, someone with a valid grievance (widow?) who chooses to make things safe? The Angry Nomad, of course, is one of the most dangerous figures in history (extreme: Hitler). The Mature Reactive respects tradition and precedent, like Obama, and creates few problems and has a modest agenda. We will appreciate that again.

Clinton is slightly above average, Dubya is awful, and Trump stands to be the worst President ever. Heck, James Buchanan had a more promising start.

One does not have approval ratings sliding into the 30s from the low 40s at this stage unless one is crooked or incompetent or has some incredibly-bad luck (like facing a 1929-style market crash).  I wish that I could give President Trump some benefit of a doubt, but I cannot imagine him facing an economic meltdown, a diplomatic crisis, a military emergency, or even a natural disaster competently. His campaign has scandals that he can't run from.  He does not have a steady hand; he relies upon yes-men who keep him in a bubble; he has too many ties to a vile dictatorship but offends democratic leaders elsewhere; he is too full of himself to self-correct. As a demagogue, he could never deliver what he promised -- and he has betrayed the people that he gulled. Sure he has then moneyed elites behind him -- but that will not be enough. They have the 'Kochaine' to lubricate some campaign funds, but they don;t have the numbers unless they can intimidate their employees into voting for right-wing pols.

It took much longer, and a well-coordinated effort by well-organized people, to gut the good will with which President Obama operated in early 2009. Trump is below the lowest level of approval that Obama ever had, and that was after some political defeats that Trump has yet to have.

I'm not saying that the Republicans will lose a majority in either House of Congress -- but I can;t imagine President Trump being any more graceful under such a circumstance as Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. He is just too abrasive to concede anything. I see no cause to see him as a competent First Diplomat or Commander-in-Chief.

[Galen]

(03-21-2017, 03:28 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 02:42 AM)Galen Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 12:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-06-2016, 11:47 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama won only one state that Eisenhower lost in either 1952 or 1956 (North Carolina); in 2012 he did not win any state that Dwight Eisenhower ever lost. This is amazing in view of the partisan identities of the two Presidents.

There aren't any of the Lost left and you despise the current crop of Nomads.  Ironically Trump may actually be the best the Boomers can produce.  God, knows that Clinton, Bush II and Obozo have pretty much been a complete loss.  You could argue Obozo either way since he sits right on the cusp.

OBAMA. There's nothing clownish about President Obama. I wanted to see an Idealist style but instead we got a mature Reactive, someone acting like a 60-something Lost. Maybe the best thing that his sort can do in a Crisis Era is to mitigate risk -- but that is a good thing. That is one form of good generalship.

Those three presidents are complete losses because they refuse to deal with the obvious fiscal issues of the federal government and accept that the American Empire is ending.  Expecting the usual idealisti Boomer who has sporadic contact with reality at best to do anything useful is an unreasonable expectation.

The jury is still out on Trump's presidency but I think the chickens are going to come home to roost during his watch.  Since the Fed just got done raising interest rates it looks like the deep state has decided to pop the bubble economy and blame it on Trump and the free market.  Peter Schiff makes some pretty good points about this in his conversation with Molyneux.

[Snowflake]

(03-21-2017, 03:28 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 02:42 AM)Galen Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 12:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-06-2016, 11:47 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama won only one state that Eisenhower lost in either 1952 or 1956 (North Carolina); in 2012 he did not win any state that Dwight Eisenhower ever lost. This is amazing in view of the partisan identities of the two Presidents.

There aren't any of the Lost left and you despise the current crop of Nomads.  Ironically Trump may actually be the best the Boomers can produce.  God, knows that Clinton, Bush II and Obozo have pretty much been a complete loss.  You could argue Obozo either way since he sits right on the cusp.

OBAMA. There's nothing clownish about President Obama. I wanted to see an Idealist style but instead we got a mature Reactive, someone acting like a 60-something Lost. Maybe the best thing that his sort can do in a Crisis Era is to mitigate risk -- but that is a good thing. That is one form of good generalship.  

He won't be the last such President. Around 2025 that is what America will have available -- competent caretaker, war hero from the Crisis of 2020, someone with a valid grievance (widow?) who chooses to make things safe? The Angry Nomad, of course, is one of the most dangerous figures in history (extreme: Hitler). The Mature Reactive respects tradition and precedent, like Obama, and creates few problems and has a modest agenda. We will appreciate that again.

Clinton is slightly above average, Dubya is awful, and Trump stands to be the worst President ever. Heck, James Buchanan had a more promising start.

One does not have approval ratings sliding into the 30s from the low 40s at this stage unless one is crooked or incompetent or has some incredibly-bad luck (like facing a 1929-style market crash).  I wish that I could give President Trump some benefit of a doubt, but I cannot imagine him facing an economic meltdown, a diplomatic crisis, a military emergency, or even a natural disaster competently. His campaign has scandals that he can't run from.  He does not have a steady hand; he relies upon yes-men who keep him in a bubble; he has too many ties to a vile dictatorship but offends democratic leaders elsewhere; he is too full of himself to self-correct. As a demagogue, he could never deliver what he promised -- and he has betrayed the people that he gulled. Sure he has then moneyed elites behind him -- but that will not be enough. They have the 'Kochaine' to lubricate some campaign funds, but they don;t have the numbers unless they can intimidate their employees into voting for right-wing pols.

It took much longer, and a well-coordinated effort by well-organized people, to gut the good will with which President Obama operated in early 2009. Trump is below the lowest level of approval that Obama ever had, and that was after some political defeats that Trump has yet to have.

I'm not saying that the Republicans will lose a majority in either House of Congress -- but I can;t imagine President Trump being any more graceful under such a circumstance as Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. He is just too abrasive to concede anything. I see no cause to see him as a competent First Diplomat or Commander-in-Chief.

Are you referring to George W. Bush as 'Dubya'?

[Odin]

(03-21-2017, 03:04 PM)Galen Wrote: the idiots you recommend would turn the US into Venezuela given the chance.

That's funny, because it's Trump that most resembles caudillos like Chavez.

[pbrower2a]

(03-22-2017, 04:18 AM)Snowflake Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 03:28 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 02:42 AM)Galen Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 12:48 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(05-06-2016, 11:47 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both respect legal precedents more than they trust legislation and the transitory will of the people in states. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. In the 2008 election, Barack Obama won only one state that Eisenhower lost in either 1952 or 1956 (North Carolina); in 2012 he did not win any state that Dwight Eisenhower ever lost. This is amazing in view of the partisan identities of the two Presidents.

There aren't any of the Lost left and you despise the current crop of Nomads.  Ironically Trump may actually be the best the Boomers can produce.  God, knows that Clinton, Bush II and Obozo have pretty much been a complete loss.  You could argue Obozo either way since he sits right on the cusp.

OBAMA. There's nothing clownish about President Obama. I wanted to see an Idealist style but instead we got a mature Reactive, someone acting like a 60-something Lost. Maybe the best thing that his sort can do in a Crisis Era is to mitigate risk -- but that is a good thing. That is one form of good generalship.  

He won't be the last such President. Around 2025 that is what America will have available -- competent caretaker, war hero from the Crisis of 2020, someone with a valid grievance (widow?) who chooses to make things safe? The Angry Nomad, of course, is one of the most dangerous figures in history (extreme: Hitler). The Mature Reactive respects tradition and precedent, like Obama, and creates few problems and has a modest agenda. We will appreciate that again.

Clinton is slightly above average, Dubya is awful, and Trump stands to be the worst President ever. Heck, James Buchanan had a more promising start.

One does not have approval ratings sliding into the 30s from the low 40s at this stage unless one is crooked or incompetent or has some incredibly-bad luck (like facing a 1929-style market crash).  I wish that I could give President Trump some benefit of a doubt, but I cannot imagine him facing an economic meltdown, a diplomatic crisis, a military emergency, or even a natural disaster competently. His campaign has scandals that he can't run from.  He does not have a steady hand; he relies upon yes-men who keep him in a bubble; he has too many ties to a vile dictatorship but offends democratic leaders elsewhere; he is too full of himself to self-correct. As a demagogue, he could never deliver what he promised -- and he has betrayed the people that he gulled. Sure he has then moneyed elites behind him -- but that will not be enough. They have the 'Kochaine' to lubricate some campaign funds, but they don;t have the numbers unless they can intimidate their employees into voting for right-wing pols.

It took much longer, and a well-coordinated effort by well-organized people, to gut the good will with which President Obama operated in early 2009. Trump is below the lowest level of approval that Obama ever had, and that was after some political defeats that Trump has yet to have.

I'm not saying that the Republicans will lose a majority in either House of Congress -- but I can;t imagine President Trump being any more graceful under such a circumstance as Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. He is just too abrasive to concede anything. I see no cause to see him as a competent First Diplomat or Commander-in-Chief.

Are you referring to George W. Bush as 'Dubya'?

Yes. It's commonplace and neutral. It's a reference to his middle initial.

...Please, folks -- this is not the place for discussing the merits of politicians. We have plenty of threads for that. I intend this thread to show trends in partisan affiliation in the states over time suggesting long-term trends (see the map matching Obama and Taft a century apart) and possible similarities between Presidents. Certain states may have strong affinities for Presidents that I call "Mature Reactives". Surely I called to the attention that Eisenhower won states that Republicans rarely win (Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island)* -- twice. Sure, Obama was one of the youngest Presidents ever elected, but he was already acting like a 60-mething Reactive.

If around 2030 states seem to elect 60-something Reactive politicians, then we might see maps in which we must make the decision of whether we compare the pol to Eisenhower or Obama. In view of the anomalous appearance of President Obama (the least of the matter is his ethnicity) in the context of the Generational cycle, his type usually appearing as President at the end of the Crisis or just after the Crisis is over, we can expect his type to return after the Crisis is over. The best testament to his Presidency will be that there will be others with much the same pattern of leadership. After chaotic times such may be what we want.

*Beginning in 1928, there have been twenty-three Presidential elections, and those three states have accounted for twelve wins for Republican nominees for President. Eisenhower has fully half of those twelve republican wins of those states in Presidential elections, even without getting 46 or 49 states in landslides.

[pbrower2a]

(03-21-2017, 03:04 PM)Galen Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 07:01 AM)Odin Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 02:42 AM)Galen Wrote: There aren't any of the Lost left and you despise the current crop of Nomads.  Ironically Trump may actually be the best the Boomers can produce.  God, knows that Clinton, Bush II and (Obama) have pretty much been a complete loss.  You could argue (Obama) either way since he sits right on the cusp.

If you think TRUMP is the best the Boomers can produce your brain is well and truly twisted outside the bounds of reality. Senators Franken, Klobuchar, and Warren would all make great presidents.

I have very low expectations of the Boomers in general and the idiots you recommend would turn the US into Venezuela given the chance.  By that standard then Trump may very well be the best option out a set of bad choices.  Aren't fourth turnings fun?

If you see Donald Trump as in any way better than Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or even Dubya, then you are ideologically blinded. Should there be a libertarian utopia emerging, then such will be the work of a Boomer. Note that I consider libertarianism utopian.

The Crisis is practically over when Idealists either get tossed out on their derrieres or leave in triumph. Seeing Donald Trump as the last act of Boomers in top leadership is premature. There will be plenty of 60-something Boomers available for the Presidency in 2020. May America choose one not as sexually-perverse as Bill Clinton or Donald Trump or as inattentive than Dubya. We need  some huge reforms just to deal with the economic reality of the demise of manufacturing and energy-production as driving forces of the economy.

I'd like to see America transformed into something more like a Scandinavian country (except for an ethnic mix more like that of Brazil) than like some caudillo-plagued regime like Venezuela under Chavez or a right-wing version of Castro's Cuba.

[Eric the Green]

I think the demagogic cult-hero worship and cronyism of Trump is fully reminiscent of Hugo Chavez.

[Galen]

(03-22-2017, 12:47 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 03:04 PM)Galen Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 07:01 AM)Odin Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 02:42 AM)Galen Wrote: There aren't any of the Lost left and you despise the current crop of Nomads.  Ironically Trump may actually be the best the Boomers can produce.  God, knows that Clinton, Bush II and (Obama) have pretty much been a complete loss.  You could argue (Obama) either way since he sits right on the cusp.

If you think TRUMP is the best the Boomers can produce your brain is well and truly twisted outside the bounds of reality. Senators Franken, Klobuchar, and Warren would all make great presidents.

I have very low expectations of the Boomers in general and the idiots you recommend would turn the US into Venezuela given the chance.  By that standard then Trump may very well be the best option out a set of bad choices.  Aren't fourth turnings fun?

If you see Donald Trump as in any way better than Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or even Dubya, then you are ideologically blinded. Should there be a libertarian utopia emerging, then such will be the work of a Boomer. Note that I consider libertarianism utopian.

Given how Boomers have pretty much been a complete loss, Trump may very well be the best we are going to get out of them.  I didn't say that I regarded this as a particularly good thing but it is nice to watch the complete meltdown of the left..

[Kinser79]

Odin Wrote:If you see Donald Trump as in any way better than Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or even Dubya, then you are ideologically blinded. Should there be a libertarian utopia emerging, then such will be the work of a Boomer. Note that I consider libertarianism utopian.

I too see libertarianism as ultimately utopian. Mostly because humans have proved themselves incapable of Not concentrating power. That said, however, Dubya is an unmitigated disaster. Bill Clinton is the very same boomer that implemented most of the disastrous trade and immigration policy--though the Immigration Act of 1965 clearly doesn't help. Next time I'm in Boston I plan on urinating on Teddy Kennedy's grave. As for Obama, I think he was pre-seasonal. When everyone voted for him in 08 they expected Tryrone from down the block and instead we got Steve Urkle.

Quote:The Crisis is practically over when Idealists either get tossed out on their derrieres or leave in triumph. Seeing Donald Trump as the last act of Boomers in top leadership is premature. There will be plenty of 60-something Boomers available for the Presidency in 2020. May America choose one not as sexually-perverse as Bill Clinton or Donald Trump or as inattentive than Dubya. We need  some huge reforms just to deal with the economic reality of the demise of manufacturing and energy-production as driving forces of the economy.

If you expect these people to be on the Dim-ocratic side of the spectrum you'll be sorely disappointed. The Dims have been massacred in the Senate, House, and State Level over the past 8 years. They have been replaced by GOP Xers too. In short the Dim-ocrats have neither a bench nor an ideology worth taking up arms for.

Quote:I'd like to see America transformed into something more like a Scandinavian country (except for an ethnic mix more like that of Brazil) than like some caudillo-plagued regime like Venezuela under Chavez or a right-wing version of Castro's Cuba.

That is as utopian as libertarianism.

1. No form of socialism actually works. The Scandinavian models are braking down right now and have been linked to much lower GDP output than they would have had otherwise.

2. Multi-racial societies have never successfully implemented a democratic form of socialism. They don't do well with authoritarian socialism either. See USSR and Yugoslavia.

3. Brazil unlike the US does not divide on racial lines but on class lines. Moreover Brazil has an overt policy of assimilation--their model is not multicultural but monocultural.

[Snowflake]

(03-22-2017, 12:20 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-22-2017, 04:18 AM)Snowflake Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 03:28 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 02:42 AM)Galen Wrote: There aren't any of the Lost left and you despise the current crop of Nomads.  Ironically Trump may actually be the best the Boomers can produce.  God, knows that Clinton, Bush II and Obozo have pretty much been a complete loss.  You could argue Obozo either way since he sits right on the cusp.

OBAMA. There's nothing clownish about President Obama. I wanted to see an Idealist style but instead we got a mature Reactive, someone acting like a 60-something Lost. Maybe the best thing that his sort can do in a Crisis Era is to mitigate risk -- but that is a good thing. That is one form of good generalship.  

He won't be the last such President. Around 2025 that is what America will have available -- competent caretaker, war hero from the Crisis of 2020, someone with a valid grievance (widow?) who chooses to make things safe? The Angry Nomad, of course, is one of the most dangerous figures in history (extreme: Hitler). The Mature Reactive respects tradition and precedent, like Obama, and creates few problems and has a modest agenda. We will appreciate that again.

Clinton is slightly above average, Dubya is awful, and Trump stands to be the worst President ever. Heck, James Buchanan had a more promising start.

One does not have approval ratings sliding into the 30s from the low 40s at this stage unless one is crooked or incompetent or has some incredibly-bad luck (like facing a 1929-style market crash).  I wish that I could give President Trump some benefit of a doubt, but I cannot imagine him facing an economic meltdown, a diplomatic crisis, a military emergency, or even a natural disaster competently. His campaign has scandals that he can't run from.  He does not have a steady hand; he relies upon yes-men who keep him in a bubble; he has too many ties to a vile dictatorship but offends democratic leaders elsewhere; he is too full of himself to self-correct. As a demagogue, he could never deliver what he promised -- and he has betrayed the people that he gulled. Sure he has then moneyed elites behind him -- but that will not be enough. They have the 'Kochaine' to lubricate some campaign funds, but they don;t have the numbers unless they can intimidate their employees into voting for right-wing pols.

It took much longer, and a well-coordinated effort by well-organized people, to gut the good will with which President Obama operated in early 2009. Trump is below the lowest level of approval that Obama ever had, and that was after some political defeats that Trump has yet to have.

I'm not saying that the Republicans will lose a majority in either House of Congress -- but I can;t imagine President Trump being any more graceful under such a circumstance as Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. He is just too abrasive to concede anything. I see no cause to see him as a competent First Diplomat or Commander-in-Chief.

Are you referring to George W. Bush as 'Dubya'?

Yes. It's commonplace and neutral. It's a reference to his middle initial.

It may be 'commonplace' and 'neutral' in your world, but not in mine.
I can't recall anyone that wanted to be taken seriously referring to Bush 43 as: 'Dubya'.

[Odin]

This new guy has to be a troll.

[Snowflake]

(03-23-2017, 06:39 AM)Odin Wrote: This new guy has to be a troll.

If you're referring to me, the answer is no.
(I'm actually a Russian Spy charading as a 'bot! )

[Eric the Green]

(03-23-2017, 06:33 AM)Snowflake Wrote:

(03-22-2017, 12:20 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-22-2017, 04:18 AM)Snowflake Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 03:28 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 02:42 AM)Galen Wrote: There aren't any of the Lost left and you despise the current crop of Nomads.  Ironically Trump may actually be the best the Boomers can produce.  God, knows that Clinton, Bush II and Obozo have pretty much been a complete loss.  You could argue Obozo either way since he sits right on the cusp.

OBAMA. There's nothing clownish about President Obama. I wanted to see an Idealist style but instead we got a mature Reactive, someone acting like a 60-something Lost. Maybe the best thing that his sort can do in a Crisis Era is to mitigate risk -- but that is a good thing. That is one form of good generalship.  

He won't be the last such President. Around 2025 that is what America will have available -- competent caretaker, war hero from the Crisis of 2020, someone with a valid grievance (widow?) who chooses to make things safe? The Angry Nomad, of course, is one of the most dangerous figures in history (extreme: Hitler). The Mature Reactive respects tradition and precedent, like Obama, and creates few problems and has a modest agenda. We will appreciate that again.

Clinton is slightly above average, Dubya is awful, and Trump stands to be the worst President ever. Heck, James Buchanan had a more promising start.

One does not have approval ratings sliding into the 30s from the low 40s at this stage unless one is crooked or incompetent or has some incredibly-bad luck (like facing a 1929-style market crash).  I wish that I could give President Trump some benefit of a doubt, but I cannot imagine him facing an economic meltdown, a diplomatic crisis, a military emergency, or even a natural disaster competently. His campaign has scandals that he can't run from.  He does not have a steady hand; he relies upon yes-men who keep him in a bubble; he has too many ties to a vile dictatorship but offends democratic leaders elsewhere; he is too full of himself to self-correct. As a demagogue, he could never deliver what he promised -- and he has betrayed the people that he gulled. Sure he has then moneyed elites behind him -- but that will not be enough. They have the 'Kochaine' to lubricate some campaign funds, but they don;t have the numbers unless they can intimidate their employees into voting for right-wing pols.

It took much longer, and a well-coordinated effort by well-organized people, to gut the good will with which President Obama operated in early 2009. Trump is below the lowest level of approval that Obama ever had, and that was after some political defeats that Trump has yet to have.

I'm not saying that the Republicans will lose a majority in either House of Congress -- but I can;t imagine President Trump being any more graceful under such a circumstance as Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. He is just too abrasive to concede anything. I see no cause to see him as a competent First Diplomat or Commander-in-Chief.

Are you referring to George W. Bush as 'Dubya'?

Yes. It's commonplace and neutral. It's a reference to his middle initial.

It may be 'commonplace' and 'neutral' in your world, but not in mine.
I can't recall anyone that wanted to be taken seriously referring to Bush 43 as: 'Dubya'.

How else do you refer to a president who can't be taken seriously?

And today, what else can you say but, dump the Drump!

[Galen]

(03-22-2017, 05:59 PM)Kinser79 Wrote:

Odin Wrote:If you see Donald Trump as in any way better than Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or even Dubya, then you are ideologically blinded. Should there be a libertarian utopia emerging, then such will be the work of a Boomer. Note that I consider libertarianism utopian.

I too see libertarianism as ultimately utopian.  Mostly because humans have proved themselves incapable of Not concentrating power.  That said, however, Dubya is an unmitigated disaster.  Bill Clinton is the very same boomer that implemented most of the disastrous trade and immigration policy--though the Immigration Act of 1965 clearly doesn't help.   Next time I'm in Boston I plan on urinating on Teddy Kennedy's grave.  As for Obama, I think he was pre-seasonal.  When everyone voted for him in 08 they expected Tryrone from down the block and instead we got Steve Urkle.

Most libertarians to be of the minarchist variety and would fit in very nicely with most of the Founding Fathers and Jefferson in particular.  In this respect they were realists and Jefferson and the rest of the Anti-Federalists were predicting that the Constitution would be a failure because eventually the government would ignore or interpret away the written constitution.  Any objective observer would have to admit that this in fact did happen.

There are relatively few anarcho-captialists in the world and even they would be happy to have a federal government living within the limits of the constitution instead of leviathan.

[The Wonkette]

(03-23-2017, 03:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(03-23-2017, 06:33 AM)Snowflake Wrote:

(03-22-2017, 12:20 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(03-22-2017, 04:18 AM)Snowflake Wrote:

(03-21-2017, 03:28 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: OBAMA. There's nothing clownish about President Obama. I wanted to see an Idealist style but instead we got a mature Reactive, someone acting like a 60-something Lost. Maybe the best thing that his sort can do in a Crisis Era is to mitigate risk -- but that is a good thing. That is one form of good generalship.  

He won't be the last such President. Around 2025 that is what America will have available -- competent caretaker, war hero from the Crisis of 2020, someone with a valid grievance (widow?) who chooses to make things safe? The Angry Nomad, of course, is one of the most dangerous figures in history (extreme: Hitler). The Mature Reactive respects tradition and precedent, like Obama, and creates few problems and has a modest agenda. We will appreciate that again.

Clinton is slightly above average, Dubya is awful, and Trump stands to be the worst President ever. Heck, James Buchanan had a more promising start.

One does not have approval ratings sliding into the 30s from the low 40s at this stage unless one is crooked or incompetent or has some incredibly-bad luck (like facing a 1929-style market crash).  I wish that I could give President Trump some benefit of a doubt, but I cannot imagine him facing an economic meltdown, a diplomatic crisis, a military emergency, or even a natural disaster competently. His campaign has scandals that he can't run from.  He does not have a steady hand; he relies upon yes-men who keep him in a bubble; he has too many ties to a vile dictatorship but offends democratic leaders elsewhere; he is too full of himself to self-correct. As a demagogue, he could never deliver what he promised -- and he has betrayed the people that he gulled. Sure he has then moneyed elites behind him -- but that will not be enough. They have the 'Kochaine' to lubricate some campaign funds, but they don;t have the numbers unless they can intimidate their employees into voting for right-wing pols.

It took much longer, and a well-coordinated effort by well-organized people, to gut the good will with which President Obama operated in early 2009. Trump is below the lowest level of approval that Obama ever had, and that was after some political defeats that Trump has yet to have.

I'm not saying that the Republicans will lose a majority in either House of Congress -- but I can;t imagine President Trump being any more graceful under such a circumstance as Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. He is just too abrasive to concede anything. I see no cause to see him as a competent First Diplomat or Commander-in-Chief.

Are you referring to George W. Bush as 'Dubya'?

Yes. It's commonplace and neutral. It's a reference to his middle initial.

It may be 'commonplace' and 'neutral' in your world, but not in mine.
I can't recall anyone that wanted to be taken seriously referring to Bush 43 as: 'Dubya'.

How else do you refer to a president who can't be taken seriously?

And today, what else can you say but, dump the Drump!

People also used "Dubya" as a shorthand to distinguish between George Walker Bush (son) and George Herbert Walker Bush (father).

[pbrower2a]

Mostly posted elsewhere:

These are the electoral maps that I wish that President Trump would  contemplate. Red suggests the failure of Al Smith in the 1928 election. Red and white suggest the failure of Herbert Hoover to get re-elected in 1932:




red -- Smith 1928, FDR 1932
white -- Hoover 1928, FDR 1932
blue -- Hoover both years

(Ignore shades)


From the landslide that President Trump to which he thought he was entitled because he is so brilliant and wonderful (winning everything but 'unpatriotic' parts of America like DeeCee, Greater Hollywood, some pathetic islands in the Pacific Ocean that the Kenyan fraudulently claimed to be born in, and maybe Ethan Allen's treacherous state and the one that first betrayed George III)... no, I am not showing that fantasy map to the consequences of gross failure of economic stewardship.  The landslide of Hoover in 1928 to the landslide of FDR in 1932 will likely show the biggest shift in popular vote from one President to another and it is likely to stick for a very long time as the largest such shift.    

This could be more relevant if one thinks that the official map is valid. Trump won with a margin of electoral votes more like that of Jimmy Carter.  But Carter would end up with problems that he could not solve, and for which Ronald Reagan offered solutions; also, the states were shifting in their partisan allegiance, but to the detriment of Jimmy Carter. Maybe Reagan didn't offer the solutions that many Americans would not have liked at the time, but the 1984 election suggested that Reagan did a lot of things right, like lowering many Americans' expectations. Oh, you have a college degree and you hate your job in retail or fast food, but your low pay even worse? There is a solution -- take another such job to supplement your meager earnings, and always remember to show that moronic "Delighted to serve you!" smile! People taking second jobs that they hated as much as their ill-paid first jobs solved lots of economic problems.  Capitalism depends upon people solving problems of others before one solves one's own problems.




red -- Carter in 1976 and 1980
white -- Carter 1976, Reagan 1980
blue -- Ford in 1976, Reagan in 1980

(Ignore shades).

Just a reminder: it's the next election that matters. It's not that I expect President Trump to be caught with an economic meltdown as bad as that of 1929-1932 or with a diplomatic disaster as severe as the Iranian hostage crisis.  I'm not saying that the President will lose fifteen states that he won in 2016, and for obvious reasons he can't lose 33 that he won in 2016. But two will be enough if one of them is Florida and one of them is Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin and three will be enough if one of them is Pennsylvania and the other two are any pair of Michigan, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.

It will be a long time (three and a half years) before les jeux sont faits. After January 20, 2021 the Trump era could well be seen as an anomaly.