Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

[YouSir]

Just watching the debate. I still don't think Trump'll do half of what he bangs on about, I don't think he'd be allowed to, but also amazed by how well he's doing. Even by what, I'm guessing, his own supporters want of him he seems like an abject failure. He's not a strong leader, or anti-establishment, or honest, or even successful, he's a prick.

 

[YouSir]

Assuming congress goes along.....
Clinton-
Continuation of Obama except she says she's against TPP which Obama is for.
Increase minimum wage.
Increase environmental regulations.
Increase taxes on rich.
Trump-
Repeal Obamacare thus throwing millions off health insurance.
Slash environmental regulations (climate change is a Chinese hoax.)
Slash workplace safety regulations.
Slash taxes on rich.
Greatly increase military spending.
Oppose increase in minimum wage.
Impose import tariffs on goods from Mexico, China, Japan, etc to "bring back the jobs."(Congress will oppose this & will have to patiently explain to him that this will result in retaliation & a trade war & a huge recession.)
Deport millions of illegals.
Instruct the navy to blow Iranian boats out of the water if their crews insult US crews.
"Bomb the hell" out of ISIS some more & somehow "take the oil."
Ban all Muslim immigration into US.
Listen to Sec of State Bolton urge an attack on Iran & possibly try to cancel Iran nuke deal.
Appoint extreme right wing Fed judges (goodbye abortion rights, LGBT rights & more voter suppression of minorities & poor).

And, realistically, how much of that does he honestly intend to do, how much would he be allowed to do and how much could he practically do?

 

[Ted Striker]

It's a bunch of total wankers ordering me to vote for a mass murderer. What's not to like?

Granted it's not been the best of threads but...

 

[Orang Utan]

this is a very interesting linguistic analysis of Trump's tortuous manner of speaking:
Donald Trump’s strange speaking style, as explained by linguists

 

[krtek a houby]

this is a very interesting linguistic analysis of Trump's tortuous manner of speaking:
Donald Trump’s strange speaking style, as explained by linguists

I like this bit about his snake oil salesman style:

Take, for example, Trump’s frequent use of "Many people are saying..." or "Believe me" — often right after saying something that is baseless or untrue. This tends to sound more trustworthy to listeners than just outright stating the baseless claim, since Trump implies that he has direct experience with what he’s talking about. At a base level, Lakoff argues, people are more inclined to believe something that seems to have been shared.


Or when Trump keeps calling Clinton "crooked," or keeps referring to terrorists as "radical Muslims," he’s strengthening the association through repetition. He also calls his supporters "folks," to show he is one of them (though many politicians employ this trick). Trump doesn’t repeat phrases and adjectives because he is stalling for time, Liberman says; for the most part, he’s providing emphasis and strengthening the association.

 

[two sheds]

Yes and placing so long between the first and second half sentences of what he's saying you've forgotten what he's talking about and don't see that what he's actually said is simplistic and crap.

 

[DotCommunist]

the repition of keywords and keyphrases was on full display during that god awful 'debate'

 

[two sheds]

There was an earlier article analyzing his linguistic style a while ago that was also very good.

Looks to me verging on hypnotic techniques - a slew of words that people have to pay attention to if they're going to get any sort of meaning out of it. Rapidly change tack with little homilies and things so people don't have time to pause and think "Fuck me this man's a wanker". Dishonest salesman type stuff.

 

[teqniq]

 

[Casually Red]

Don't you fucking dare. You know exactly what kind of person you are - don't project it onto others.

Incessant stalking me round the board


Can't take much more of this

 

[Casually Red]

That's got nothing to do with what I said.

They're relevant statistics . You're more interested in irrelevance . And they're also statistics that'll increase exponentially should she and her brood of harpies get their bloody hands on the controls

The Three Harpies are Back!

 

[SpackleFrog]

And, realistically, how much of that does he honestly intend to do, how much would he be allowed to do and how much could he practically do?

To be fair, realistically, how much of what Clinton says does she intend to do/would she able to do?

It's good that there's a minimum wage commitment but I bet she doesn't think $12 an hour will get through Congress.

 

[DotCommunist]

I think she said she'd do away with 'right to work' (doublespeak for right to fire an employee without reason at any time) but I was under the impression those are state laws

 

[existentialist]

They're relevant statistics . You're more interested in irrelevance . And they're also statistics that'll increase exponentially should she and her brood of harpies get their bloody hands on the controls

The Three Harpies are Back!

No, really, you have completely misunderstood the point I was making. And, TBH, I am not entirely sure you'd understand it if I explained it, which is why I didn't bother.

 

[Orang Utan]

They're relevant statistics . You're more interested in irrelevance . And they're also statistics that'll increase exponentially should she and her brood of harpies get their bloody hands on the controls

The Three Harpies are Back!

and you claim not to be a misogynist.
maybe you don't know what it means - it doesn't mean you don't like Japanese soup, you know

 

[TomUS]

And, realistically, how much of that does he honestly intend to do, how much would he be allowed to do and how much could he practically do?

Repubs control the House & will retain it. They are likely to keep control of the Senate & are likely to change Senate rules to confirm Supreme Court nominees by a simple majority (instead of 60). If they get the WH, with one appointment, they'll control the Supreme Court. Trump & the Repubs could & would do just about everything on the list. Their right wing white christian base would demand it. The country would take a major swing to the extreme right. This is what is at stake.

 

[YouSir]

To be fair, realistically, how much of what Clinton says does she intend to do/would she able to do?

It's good that there's a minimum wage commitment but I bet she doesn't think $12 an hour will get through Congress.

I agree. Whichever one wins I don't see the end of days coming about. It's the economic and political system that matters and that'll make things plenty bad by itself. Presidents just make for an easier media narrative.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Assuming congress goes along.....
Clinton-
Continuation of Obama except she says she's against TPP which Obama is for.
Increase minimum wage.
Increase environmental regulations.
Increase taxes on rich.
Trump-
Repeal Obamacare thus throwing millions off health insurance.
Slash environmental regulations (climate change is a Chinese hoax.)
Slash workplace safety regulations.
Slash taxes on rich.
Greatly increase military spending.
Oppose increase in minimum wage.
Impose import tariffs on goods from Mexico, China, Japan, etc to "bring back the jobs."(Congress will oppose this & will have to patiently explain to him that this will result in retaliation & a trade war & a huge recession.)
Deport millions of illegals.
Instruct the navy to blow Iranian boats out of the water if their crews insult US crews.
"Bomb the hell" out of ISIS some more & somehow "take the oil."
Ban all Muslim immigration into US.
Listen to Sec of State Bolton urge an attack on Iran & possibly try to cancel Iran nuke deal.
Appoint extreme right wing Fed judges (goodbye abortion rights, LGBT rights & more voter suppression of minorities & poor).

Repubs control the House & will retain it. They are likely to keep control of the Senate & are likely to change Senate rules to confirm Supreme Court nominees by a simple majority (instead of 60). If they get the WH, with one appointment, they'll control the Supreme Court. Trump & the Repubs could & would do just about everything on the list. Their right wing white christian base would demand it. The country would take a major swing to the extreme right. This is what is at stake.

I find this a bit confusing TomUS. On the one hand you seem to be saying that Trump's promises can't be realised and that Congress would oppose some of them, and on the other you're saying he could do all of this and that the Congress will go along with it. Could you clarify?

 

[krtek a houby]

Incessant stalking me round the board


Can't take much more of this

Once again; I asked you a question. If you can't or won't answer; fine. But there's no need to continuously reference my mental health.

 

[TomUS]

I find this a bit confusing TomUS. On the one hand you seem to be saying that Trump's promises can't be realised and that Congress would oppose some of them, and on the other you're saying he could do all of this and that the Congress will go along with it. Could you clarify?

Much of what Trump wants to do would be struck down by the courts now. But if he packs the courts with right wing judges, that obstacle would be gone. The only thing I see the congress opposing him on are import tariffs because of the dire economic consequences and the fact that the donors to both parties, business and unions, benefit from international trade.

 

[SpackleFrog]

donors to both parties, business and unions, benefit from international trade.

How do unions benefit from international trade?

Do you honestly think Congress would approve a ban on all muslims entering the US?

I have a host of questions in relation to this I guess, but the main one would be: You repeatedly say you think Trump is just saying whatever he thinks will win votes and doesn't really care, but you also take all of his policy pledges seriously in the sense that you believe he means them and intends to carry them out. Sort of a Schrodingers Trump, who is at one and the same time an opportunist chancer who means none of what he says and a right wing nut job hellbent on banning abortion and nuking the Middle East.

 

[krtek a houby]

Apologies if already referenced but Trump is very keen on the racist stop & search policy

Checking Donald Trump's "stop and frisk" claims during first debate

 

[TomUS]

How do unions benefit from international trade?

Do you honestly think Congress would approve a ban on all muslims entering the US?

I have a host of questions in relation to this I guess, but the main one would be: You repeatedly say you think Trump is just saying whatever he thinks will win votes and doesn't really care, but you also take all of his policy pledges seriously in the sense that you believe he means them and intends to carry them out. Sort of a Schrodingers Trump, who is at one and the same time an opportunist chancer who means none of what he says and a right wing nut job hellbent on banning abortion and nuking the Middle East.

Unions work for companies that manufacture stuff for export.
I think congress would approve a ban on Muslims entering the US and I'm not even sure they would need to. Trump might be able to do this with an executive order.
I do think he means what he says. But even if he doesn't, his base will expect and pressure him to keep his promises.

 

[Yossarian]

I find this a bit confusing TomUS. On the one hand you seem to be saying that Trump's promises can't be realised and that Congress would oppose some of them, and on the other you're saying he could do all of this and that the Congress will go along with it. Could you clarify?

Trump will be able to do a lot with executive orders, those "checks and balances" aren't as strong as they used to be. Obama had a Democratic House and a Democratic supermajority in the Senate and still struggled to pass a crappy, watered-down health care bill somewhere to the right of Richard Nixon's proposals, but part of that may be because he started out with wild ideas about reduciing partisanship.

Trump doesn't seem to know or care much about the actual mechanics of governing so I think how much he actually get done will depend on what kind of Cheneys he surrounds himself with and with people like Roger Stone and Newt Gingrich on board, the signs are not good.

If I was setting the questions for the next debate, one of them might be: "Mr. Trump, can you explain how a bill becomes a law?"

 

[SpackleFrog]

Unions work for companies that manufacture stuff for export.

Just so you know, you support Clinton's neoliberal policies because you are a neoliberal who believes in TINA - 'there is no alternative'.

I think congress would approve a ban on Muslims entering the US and I'm not even sure they would need to. Trump might be able to do this with an executive order.
I do think he means what he says. But even if he doesn't, his base will expect and pressure him to keep his promises.

Not got much to back up your scaremongering then? Just hunches? Feel it in yer water do you?

 

[SpackleFrog]

Trump will be able to do a lot with executive orders, those "checks and balances" aren't as strong as they used to be. Obama had a Democratic House and a Democratic supermajority in the Senate and still struggled to pass a crappy, watered-down health care bill somewhere to the right of Richard Nixon's proposals, but part of that may be because he started out with wild ideas about reduciing partisanship.

Trump doesn't seem to know or care much about the actual mechanics of governing so I think how much he actually get done will depend on what kind of Cheneys he surrounds himself with and with people like Roger Stone and Newt Gingrich on board, the signs are not good.

If I was setting the questions for the next debate, one of them might be: "Mr. Trump, can you explain how a bill becomes a law?"

I agree a lot will depend on who he surrounds himself with. But I'd say Obama is a prime example of how Presidents can't get much done with Exec Orders and can't expect any party loyalty either.

 

[Idris2002]

Here's an odd one. The Prince of Orange is now attacking Hillzo for her alleged links to dodgy Irish businessman and international tax exile Denis O'Brien:

Trump attacks Clinton over Denis O’Brien links

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I agree a lot will depend on who he surrounds himself with. But I'd say Obama is a prime example of how Presidents can't get much done with Exec Orders and can't expect any party loyalty either.

There's a lot to this. However, even weak presidents can cause damage - the upcoming supreme court nomination will be the first bit of long-term damage that he will do if elected.

As for what a Republican-run senate/congress might push for with Trump as president, I dread to think. More erosion to the right to abortion, for sure, while they wait for enough liberal judges to kick the bucket for roe v wade to be overturned. Plus Obama has luckily just tied the US in to international climate change agreements that will be hard to renege on, but there's no doubt a Trump/Senate/Congress combo would do its best to renege. That affects all of us.

And that's before we even start on foreign policy or immigration bills.

 

[TomUS]

Just so you know, you support Clinton's neoliberal policies because you are a neoliberal who believes in TINA - 'there is no alternative'.

So, you think unions don't work for companies that make stuff for export? Really? The UAW who work for Ford, GM & Chrysler (& support Hillary) would be surprised to hear that. If neoliberals support Hillary, who supports Trump....neoliberals who are also neo-facists. I do belive in TINA. The alternatives to Hillary are Trump & his neo-fascist mob, Libertarians who are neoliberals on steroids & who's candidate didn't know what Aleppo is & couldn't name a single foreign leader he admires. Then there's the Greens, a joke of a party that has accomplished nothing in 20 years except help put GW Bush into power.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

.

The most important issue imo, and the one you don't mention, is the effect of a Republican president stacking the Supreme Court with rightist, conservative judges.