moochedit
I'm not feeding seagulls
Probably not but people tend to think of recent politicians when asked questions like this.
Donald Trump - MAGAtwat news and discussion
- Thread starter tim
- Start date
magneze
🎧
Perhaps one caused the other...
Cloo
Banana for scale
I'm reading Peter Frankopan's 'The New Silk Roads' which is fascinating in part because it was written in, I think, 2019 and thus is already out of date in many ways, but one thing it elucidates clearly is what a load of disastrous bullshit Trump's 'Foreign Policy' was, if you can even call it that because he basically treated foreign relationships like sending out a tweet, as things that there would be no consequences from other than Looking Cool And Tough by Showing Those Bitches We're America. A very salient point Frankopan makes is that Trump made America an overtly destabilising force, which makes China look like a much better ally to struggling countries that need foreign aid.
It looks like De Santis' campaign may be crumbling and, although it seems like it should simply not be possible, it's looking like Trump will stand again. And probably fucking win.
I mean, I know we're a raging dumpster fire and global embarrassment ourselves, but I cannot imagine a PM who had been found to have been blithely keeping documents of national security significance in his bathroom in his house where half his staff are probably Russian spies and who had rallied people to attack Parliament when he lost an election would be allowed anywhere near a mainstream political party again.That said, if Boris had done that, I'm not sure the Mail and Express still wouldn't be backing him for a comeback. Partygate may not be in that realm of, y'know... treason... but if he had done worse it does seem like nothing will make the RW press stop loving him.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
It looks like De Santis' campaign may be crumbling and, although it seems like it should simply not be possible, it's looking like Trump will stand again. And probably fucking win.
He is running again.
Will he win?
Yes, despite the indictments, impeachments, sexual assaults, lies, racism, documents etc etc.
Hope am wrong on this.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Why would he win when he lost last time? What will have changed to make more people vote for him and fewer people be energised to vote against him?
I can see why the prospect is depressing, but surely Trump as GOP candidate next time is a gift to the Dems in narrow electoral terms. There is no evidence that a Trump endorsement helped candidates in last year's elections. He energises a base and he energises opposition. And the opposition to him is narrowly bigger than his possible base. I don't think that's changed.
I can see why the prospect is depressing, but surely Trump as GOP candidate next time is a gift to the Dems in narrow electoral terms. There is no evidence that a Trump endorsement helped candidates in last year's elections. He energises a base and he energises opposition. And the opposition to him is narrowly bigger than his possible base. I don't think that's changed.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Interesting suggestion. However, how did this manifest itself and what made previous US foreign policy a stabilising force ?I'm reading Peter Frankopan's 'The New Silk Roads' which is fascinating in part because it was written in, I think, 2019 and thus is already out of date in many ways, but one thing it elucidates clearly is what a load of disastrous bullshit Trump's 'Foreign Policy' was, if you can even call it that because he basically treated foreign relationships like sending out a tweet, as things that there would be no consequences from other than Looking Cool And Tough by Showing Those Bitches We're America. A very salient point Frankopan makes is that Trump made America an overtly destabilising force, which makes China look like a much better ally to struggling countries that need foreign aid.
It looks like De Santis' campaign may be crumbling and, although it seems like it should simply not be possible, it's looking like Trump will stand again. And probably fucking win.
That said, if Boris had done that, I'm not sure the Mail and Express still wouldn't be backing him for a comeback. Partygate may not be in that realm of, y'know... treason... but if he had done worse it does seem like nothing will make the RW press stop loving him.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
His base seems to be energised, but Tbh, that's just going by online ragers convinced that the world is turning in their favour - recent Supreme Court decisions, the Hunter Biden stuff and growing confidence from the fringes.
That said, it is the fringe fans making all the noise, so again, hopefully am completely wrong.
Whatever happens, his base aren't going anywhere. There's going to be trouble whatever the outcome.
Cloo
Banana for scale
They obviously weren't a stabilising force when you think about it for more than three seconds, but the point is they were seen as one - but a Trump US where he just makes decisions based on whether he's feeling grumpy because his steak wasn't overcooked enough is not a reliable ally or somewhere to look for partnership.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
He loses if he can't appeal beyond his base. That's his problem.
In terms of winning the election, that his legacy in the SC is proving so powerful is also likely to concentrate the minds of those who detest him.
I don't see a path to victory for him. Why would it be different from last time? He also lacks the advantage of incumbency this time around.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
I genuinely think its an interesting idea and worthy of a deeper look. However I am not sure if this is US perception though or one shared by those who were being 'stabilised' . Does he give any examples in his book?
rubbershoes
not the only raver in the village
So much will depend on how the American economy does between now and election day
petee
no gods, no malarkey
why, just from today:
Need One Bit Of Good Economic News? How about Four?
For well over a year now, we have heard the constant drumbeat of negativity on the economy. Stubborn inflation would require higher interest rates to tame, which would lead to economic contraction, job losses and, inevitably, a recession. Then something like a big strike might come along and...
statuskuo.substack.com
For well over a year now, we have heard the constant drumbeat of negativity on the economy. Stubborn inflation would require higher interest rates to tame, which would lead to economic contraction, job losses and, inevitably, a recession. Then something like a big strike might come along and further cripple the economy, perhaps as soon as August 1. The thought that this would then sink Joe Biden’s poll numbers even more and set Trump up for a win in 2024 has left many anxious and fearful.
But so far, July has delivered the very opposite of all of that, and the economic news has the folks on Fox scrambling for talking points. (They apparently have settled on “Barbie is Woke” and “Slavery Had Its Benefits.”)
it won't matter to the GOP strategists, they'll jut keep repeating "you'e supposed to think this is bad because it happened under biden".
Is it an advantage? It looked to me like the year 2016-2020 did for him in the last election as much as the wonders and brilliance of Biden. He and his acolytes could turn the tables in 2024 and hope people have short memories.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's a vague idea for sure. But in many elections around the world, there has historically been a skew towards the incumbent gaining reelection. In Brazil, Bolsonaro was the first incumbent president ever to fail to win reelection. In the US, there has been a marked skew towards reelection - more than twice as many presidents presenting for reelection have won than have lost.
Of course, there can be circumstances in which being the incumbent is a disadvantage. Here, I guess we have a unique possibility - the first time a former president has sought reelection after a period out of office. So they can both run on their respective records. I don't see that as an advantage for Trump, though. I struggle to see how Trump doesn't do worse than he did last time. If the economy totally tanks, perhaps.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I guess you could say that the US helped to stabilise Western Europe post-WW2 with the Marshall Plan. They helped stabilise Japan during the occupation, perhaps.
I guess someone of a certain persuasion could also look at the backing of right wing regimes/dictators as in a sense stabilising. Pinochet was in power for a long time. The Shah of Iran bumbled on for decades after the US/UK ousted Mosaddegh.
Perhaps some consider it proper behaviour to bomb countries into stability?
petee
no gods, no malarkey
i'm glad somebody else sees it.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
The idea of stability is historically often one from a business/economic angle isn't it. Stable is not having your investment capital nationalised.
Biden has to pull out, or karks it, and Trump's up against someone like Harris?
hitmouse
music obfuscation technology
He will be running against an incumbent this time though (unless Biden retires, I suppose), which he wasn't in 2016. It's certainly not an absolute rule, but the US does tend to have two-term presidents.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
3 is Giuliani? Tbh the charges against him sound piss weak.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
He's using his legal woes as "a badge of honour". Recent rallies are all about his being targeted and victimised.
Fucking hell, he's going to win.
Fucking hell, he's going to win.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Sure. Rallies. His base. They love him. They don't win him the election.
wemakeyousoundb
hopefully not gimboid
amplification is the word in there I guess
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
He was a lawyer lawyering. Highly amusingly and embarrassingly for him, of course. Was it his daughter who disowned him? it was obviously a wtf moment for someone who in the past had at least appeared to be relatively sane, but he was doing what he was paid to do by his client.
I can see how going after Trump for the Jan 6 uprising is justified, but going after him for all his failed lawsuits? Isn't there an argument there that all the lawsuits failed because they were clearly bollocks and that is an example of the system working? A disbarring for the likes of Giuliani for knowingly bringing vexatious lawsuits, which I believe is against the lawyerly rules. Professional misconduct. But anything more than that?
ohmyliver
poppin' like a cork
Donald Trump : Favorability Polls going by that I think that's unlikely
Similar threads
