Presidential election, 2016

[pbrower2a]

(11-26-2016, 08:07 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(11-26-2016, 04:44 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(11-26-2016, 11:36 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-26-2016, 07:22 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: You voted for a demagogue. You're associated with left wing demagogues. You take the bulk of your cues from left wing demagogues. You repeat what left wing demagogues say about us. You're a left wing demagogue who posts here. You have much more in common with the demagogues than me. You should evaluate your reasoning and add more truth about yourself and more truth and knowledge of what/how you post here to your reasoning.

I've been using 'extreme partisan' where you are using 'demagogue' here.  He has that much in common with you.  The above reasonably reflects what an extreme partisan of one stripe will think of an extreme partisan of the other.

I usually say an extreme demagogue will build a highly inaccurate vile stereotype of how the other side thinks, and debate with their own vile stereotype rather than the individual they are allegedly trying to communicate with.  The above is so vague that I don't know I could call it a stereotype.  It is also so vague that it can be used to describe a heck of a lot of posters who use these boards.

Anyway, read the above again and consider that a heck of a lot of people think precisely that of you.

Thank you. Yes, I am very partisan, but I can see some gradation  within the Other Side. I would have far less trouble with Mitt Romney as president even if he would be more successful in pushing a conservative agenda on  economics, education, and defense. We know what he believes in because he made it very clear. He could have won an election to the Presidency against anyone not a strong and effective incumbent. The only black marks on the Obama Presidency are that he failed to grow partisan support during his Presidency -- and that Donald Trump follows him. The latter may not be his fault.

I see Donald Trump as reckless, cruel, dishonest, and dictatorial. Such would utterly discredit a politician on the Left. Besides, who can now excuse the introduction of religious or ethnic bigotry into national politics?

We liberals did not complain so much about George W. Bush getting elected in 2000 and re-elected in 2004. We would not look at a "President Romney" with so much foreboding.  With Trump we have much cause for foreboding. I have cause to believe that he thinks "We won! You're done!" about us liberals.

We aren't done. We will still be here. We will be protesting every destructive policy of this upcoming Administration at least as much as the Tea Party protested the person and policies of Barack Obama. We won't need any FoX News stirring us up. Donald Trump, Republican Governors, and Congressional Republicans will be effective enough to give us cause for protests. Ethnic equity and religious freedom. Women's rights. Quality education. Labor-management relations. Economic performance. Environmental quality. Corruption? Not yet, but that will also work. We will have better, more coherent slogans.  

It might not be long before many conservatives wish that Hillary Clinton had instead won the election instead of having a Pyrrhic victory.

Oh! I forget. The sorts of voters  who think at a middle-school level who voted for Donald Trump don't know what a Pyrrhic victory is. The next Administration will need to suggest means of shoring up education to make America less vulnerable to the next demagogue, Left or Right. The next demagogue could be as nasty as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. A hint: the black, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim, and Jewish parts of the American middle class rejected Donald Trump. They respect formal education.

Pyrrhic victory? She didn't have a Pyrrhic victory. Trump didn't have one either. She lost Super Bowl XLII.

1. Donald Trump was the real demagogue, goading poor white people against educated people, especially ethnic and religious minorities. In that he imitated George Wallace in 1968, but (1) having even more scapegoats, and (2) having a national appeal.

2. The Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans is in having control of the Presidency, both Houses of Congress, and the vast majority of State legislators at an inauspicious time for holding them -- the most dangerous time of a Crisis Era -- while being ill-prepared for a Crisis.  An economic downturn is always possible after a seven-hear recovery when the leadership casts off the leadership that  made it possible. A rise of demagogues in other countries ensures that the steady hand that one might associate with a Sarkozy or an Obama will no longer be the norm, which means that international relations will be much shakier. 

2a. Donald Trump has neither the temperament nor the training to be the #1 Diplomat. Sure, Barack Obama was not trained in international relations, but he could learn the job from people suitable to teach him. We got eight years of a steady hand in foreign policy. That is over on January 21 because nobody can tell Donald Trump that he might want to consider some other course of action. The incoming President's idea is to cut deals  as if they were business transactions. He might take over Cuba in return for giving Vladimir Putin something that the President of the US has no right to deal -- let us say "Finland" or "Pakistan". That level of competence in diplomacy is what I associate with Joachim von Ribbentrop, a foreign minister unable to cut deals with honest people but quite able to do so with political gangsters.  Ribbentrop always had difficulty dealing with Britain, France, and America.... but he could deal with fellow fascists and even with Stalin. Donald Trump will have more trouble dealing with a New Margaret Thatcher than dealing with a fellow fascist.In view of his dictatorial style, his ethnic and religious bigotry, and his selection of the most reactionary figures possible for Cabinet posts, he will likely make many possible enemies among the nations because he will show contempt for democracies. He praised strong leaders during the campaign, but somehow he chose murderous dictators over the sorts (Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher) that one would expect an American conservative to suggest as models of strong leaders.

The transformation of America into an Evil Empire will shatter NATO, many of whose Member States will need to arm to the teeth against America as well as Russia. Until recently I thought Europe safe from World War III due to NATO and the European Union. I suddenly no longer believe that.


2b. Anyone who bets on a continuation of a long recovery that began under a previous President is betting against luck, especially when the new President chooses to renounce the economic principles of his predecessor. The only way in which President Trump will be able to get more economic growth is to ensure that working people get better pay and working conditions -- when the Congress and most state legislatures want to cut wages. If he does what the Corporate Wing of the GOP wants him to do, then the consumer economy goers into the toilet. A speculative boom? It will fizzle fast. Americans may have short memories, but not so  short that they don't remember the  corrupt boom in real estate under Dubya or the dot.com bubble.

2c. There will be much civil unrest. President Trump will set race relations back 50 years because he ran a campaign heavily upon religious and ethnic bigotry. The only promise that he has made to the white working class that I can expect him to keep is to stick it to the educated middle class of America... and the educated middle class is the perfect group of people for staging peaceful protests and demonstrations. Should President Trump stick it to the working class by going along with the reactionary of Corporate America to abolish the minimum wage, make collective bargaining optional for Big Business, and gut occupational health and safety laws, then expect strikes as well. Donald Trump has been calling upon abrasive reactionaries... what's next? Will he appoint Joe Arpaio as the director of the Bureau of Prisons? That's not a good way to get majority support unless one counts only economic assets and bureaucratic power within Corporate America.   Government representing economic power instead of the People -- that's Fascism.

2d. He has shown contempt for the intelligence agencies, much unlike his predecessor (who could have never had Osama bin Laden whacked without a smooth relationship with the CIA). Donald Trump is more likely to have a 9/11-like disaster happen on his watch than to resolve one. He's also likely to react inappropriately. So here's where the military comes in. Senior officers are unlikely to issue orders for crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, or conventional war crimes that might get them haled before the Hague Tribunal. The Joint Chiefs could conceivably overthrow him on grounds of (mental) health and then try to find a President by going down the list of succession until someone promises not to start an aggressive, illegal war. Military coup? There's no precedent in American history. Donald Trump? That is even more unprecedented.

2e.