Fëanen
Member
Posts: 21
Original Join Date: Jun 10, 2003
|
Post by Fëanen on Nov 5, 2016 20:06:57 GMT
Thank you, Steve, for helping me find the new forum's like button.
|
|
Masamune
Member
Posts: 113
Original Join Date: January, 2002
|
Post by Masamune on Nov 5, 2016 21:15:24 GMT
I think Steve just convinced me to vote for Trump. Dammit.
|
|
Egann
Member
Posts: 124
Original Join Date: Sometime in 2008
|
Post by Egann on Nov 5, 2016 22:23:19 GMT
And here I thought I was being smart for voting the one I think the rest of us can clean up after.
|
|
|
Post by SteveT on Nov 6, 2016 4:54:57 GMT
I haven't heard that argument before. Do explain. I'm genuinely curious here, not trying to pick a fight.
|
|
Egann
Member
Posts: 124
Original Join Date: Sometime in 2008
|
Post by Egann on Nov 6, 2016 22:41:09 GMT
Both Trump and Clinton will create messes. They'll also be completely different kinds of messes, too, so it's kinda comparing apples and oranges.
Clinton is a schemer and a career politician. The wikileaks emails show a concerted effort to remove Sanders from the race, and the ridiculous margins the superdelegates voted for Hillary show there was a fair amount of back room dealing going on in her favor. Forget Hillary; the DNC is exceptionally corrupt at the moment and won't see the need to clean house until they lose a few elections. Clinton also has a fair amount of media bias in her favor. It's not huge, but it's worth noting that as of right now, two days before election, Pew research says the two most important issues for voters are the economy and terrorism. LA times does not have a single article about either until you've scrolled down over half their front page (unless you count Trump being rushed off stage from a sign-wielding protester a terrorist attack).
Clinton will almost certainly break things and we will never be the wiser for years.
Trump, conversely, is a beltway outsider. He doesn't have the connections to do anything of any consequence. I expect that if he's elected, the federal reserve will do some sort of reprisal that will translate to a vicious bear market, but to my mind that's inevitable, anyway. He'll start some fires for sure, but Congress will not let him do too much because he's an outsider under intense media scrutiny. The bottom line is that with Trump, I'm more likely to know what awful things he's done and possibly even afford to help put out the fires he starts. Both of those are less likely to be true with Hillary.
|
|
|
Post by SteveT on Nov 6, 2016 23:38:25 GMT
Well, I guess the important thing is that the analogy still works.
In an alternate reality where I liked the Republican platform but didn't like Trump, that's probably how I would justify a Trump vote. He can be counted on to rubber stamp Republican bills and we could hope for the other branches to keep him in check. I'd still be concerned about voting for a guy who a) needs to be handled and b) doesn't understand the limits of the power of the president (or much else about the President's job or how government works). It seems like every President grabs a little more power than the last and I do think Trump would constantly overreach. It's just a question of how effectively the Republican party would try to slow him down.
Back to this reality.
I think the best case scenario for a Trump presidency would be for him to focus on making speeches and setting goals while his cabinet runs the show. It would be a GOP wet dream and I'd hate his goals, but at least the government would continue to function as long as they can keep Trump happy and feeling like he's in charge. I do buy the idea that Trump would think like a CEO and just lay out goals and let his staff handle the details.
On the other hand, the best case scenario for a Hillary Clinton presidency is that the Republicans try to work with her better than they have with Obama (Ha!), impeachment hearings are held to a minimum, and Hillary bows out or gets primaried in 2020.
|
|
Egann
Member
Posts: 124
Original Join Date: Sometime in 2008
|
Post by Egann on Nov 7, 2016 0:15:28 GMT
The irony that you described Obama's actual white house as Trump's ideal one isn't lost on me. But the ineptitude there is mostly Obama's complete inability to form a competent cabinet. He didn't have the executive experience or connections to form a cabinet of his own--remember; only one term as a senator--so he basically let the DNC use autofill. For the record, I have the same fear if Tim Kane becomes president, because he's got an almost identically abbreviated background. I also wonder if the competition for cabinet offices was a reason the DNC exploded in corruption this cycle. Normally the president pads the cabinet out with trusted friends and allies. These are not offices which are usually up for the ambitious to grab, and who knows what that could do to the DNC's insides.
I don't think Trump will be a great or even a good president--although we've had four mediocre presidents in a row now, so it's not like anyone's expectations are high--but I think his capacity to break things under such intense media scrutiny is greatly exaggerated. That said, the DNC really needs to clean house. The Obama and Kane model of rapidly promoting ambitious people for favors is insane. This is a republic, not a dictatorship. Power is fractured and set among many checks and balances. These ambitious promotees don't have the network or experience to wield power effectively, let alone to the interest of the average American voter.
|
|
Selena
Admin
Odinsdottir
Posts: 318
Original Join Date: February 13, 2003
|
Post by Selena on Nov 7, 2016 0:21:40 GMT
There is some logic to the idea. Trump is a buffoon and has no idea how politics actually works. I don't think he's even looked at the Constitution, nor can he likely name more than two or three amendments. He doesn't personally have the capacity to run the country.
A Trump presidency will go one of two ways:
* He insists on making decisions, which could be disastrous in a chaotic way -- if his advisers help him find loopholes in the law. You're looking at more authoritarian and nationalist policies. But more likely, he'll be too dumb to make any lasting impact on anything. And everything will be dead in the water. Nothing will get done, or crazy shit will get done. President Caligula.
* He immediately gets bored of being president and delegates fucking everything to Pence and his yes-men. Pence is a politician. One that's significantly more conservative. Pence and a highly right-wing cabinet could effectively call all the shots, and they'd know what they're doing. This is probably what the GOP is hoping for. Trump being a non-issue, and the party itself running Washington.
I think the second one is more likely, myself. Trump openly admits he likes acquiring power, but easily gets bored and distracted afterward. He won't have the patience to sit still. He won't like actually being president. So to make an alternate metaphor: Trump is Cersei Lannister. Easily manipulated by advisers, too impatient and petty to govern, and extraordinarily narcissistic.
All that said, I'd still prefer Clinton for four years because of obvious reasons. I think she'll probably be a one term president.
Still worried about post-election violence.
|
|
|
Post by SteveT on Nov 7, 2016 0:31:24 GMT
Well, when you put it that way, maybe that's my ideal president in general. Someone who is able to assemble and direct a team of qualified experts to keep the country running. I would love to give technocracy a go in this country.
I should note that I don't think the Trump case I imagined would come to pass based on the people advising him so far and his inability to handle criticism.
This is a general statement, but I love how all over the place Republican opinions of Obama are. You called him essentially a charismatic figurehead like I imagined Trump could be. Others call him a tyrant*. Some will call him an ineffective political weakling. I look forward to seeing what the concensus across historians turns out to be on him.
*I had one conversation where someone was arguing that Obama issued a record-breaking number of executive orders even after I showed him the numbers.
|
|
|
Post by SL the Pyro on Nov 7, 2016 22:48:00 GMT
|
|
wisp
Admin
Posts: 203
Original Join Date: February 18, 2004
|
Post by wisp on Nov 7, 2016 23:03:40 GMT
I looked at a few more articles, and it looks like most of them are calling it a test, so the headline there may be misleading. Still, though... We have enough tension in the world right now without adding in more threats. >.>
I voted on Friday, and now all I can do is try not to read the news until after tomorrow night is all over. Probably still won't want to read it then, though, since I'm kinda scared of crazy people doing crazy things no matter what the outcome is. I can just imagine all the uproar we'll hear about rigging elections if/when Hillary wins... which will be harder to argue with, given what the DNC did to secure her nomination. I still have a bad taste in my mouth from all that.
|
|
Egann
Member
Posts: 124
Original Join Date: Sometime in 2008
|
Post by Egann on Nov 8, 2016 0:52:56 GMT
Last I checked, North Korea barely had missiles able to reach Japan. Granted, that was a few years ago, but I kinda doubt they're ready to lob one over here.
|
|
|
Post by SteveT on Nov 8, 2016 1:19:17 GMT
The article is saying they would aim at Guam, which is a little more feasible.
|
|
tydaze
Member
Posts: 72
Original Join Date: 2004
|
Post by tydaze on Nov 8, 2016 16:04:39 GMT
Today's the day. I'm fucking terrified. Not about the missile, about the possibility of a Trump presidency.
|
|
wisp
Admin
Posts: 203
Original Join Date: February 18, 2004
|
Post by wisp on Nov 8, 2016 17:08:44 GMT
I'm far less terrified than I was a few weeks ago. Still, I'm hoping to avoid the temptation to look at political news today.
|
|