Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Kiri]

I wouldn't equate the situation current system, that is most certainly struggling to survive, with the stability of democracy. Democracy, as we'd define it in a modern sense as in a system with government institutions, rule of law, freedom of speech assembly etc., is doing quite well even in countries like say Italy, where the far right and far left have seized power.

The rules based international liberal order and many of the parties that have built and maintained it since WW2 are all failing however, what happens after I don't know but it's a very long way from where we are to a point where the rule of law wouldn't be respected in the US, where institutions don't work and freedoms aren't respected ( that isn't to say things are perfect, there's many loopholes and many abuses but as a whole the system is pretty damned solid ).

Democracy to be clear though is NOT just a vision of a global inclusive liberal world. Democracy can work just fine under a highly nationalistic, conservative political controls, though that certainly isn't the kind of country many people here would want to live in.

Sure, democracy can work that way as well, but there is still a divide between an actual democracy and an autocracy. Strongmen, the erosion of checks and balances, states asserting more control over their citizens are become more acceptable in recent years. Some countries are certainly on a trajectory away from a proper democracy. And that is less about liberal versus conservative, really. The only way that matters is due to conservatism and nationalism being easier to reconcile with more autocratic tones, so leaders that seek to amass more power to themselves just tend to be more on the conservative side.

[Dsonsion]

I wouldn’t trust that. The way algorithms work, you will see what places like YouTube think you want to see, based on your history. I’m coining it as an ‘algorithm bubble’...

Yeah, I don't trust a corporation further than I can jump, but the thing is there are now content creators for these subjects, and 4 or 5 years ago there were hardly any noticeable ones.

[CostinR]

The only way that matters is due to conservatism and nationalism being easier to reconcile with more autocratic tones, so leaders that seek to amass more power to themselves just tend to be more on the conservative side.

I'm going to have to correct you here and say you're dismissing how autocratic and authoritarian and autocratic globalist and left wing leaders can be and even are, or even so called liberals who bear the tittle with pride ( I say so called because real liberals would never endorse these kind of tactics ).

Remember that in the world of Orbans, Erdogans, Putins we do also have people like Maduro in Venezuala, a country that until his actions since he became president had free and fair elections that people accepted, rule of law and many freedoms. Chavez had many faults but Maduro, who's as left wing as they go on many issues, is an outright brutal dictator

There are many countries, in particular in Latin America, who have left wing, globalist leaders that are pushing or are already authoritarian leaders. To say conservatives or nationalists are easier to reconcile with those tones is rather missing current politics and historical politics: The Soviets and Warsaw Pact leaders DID firmly believe in the idea of a left wing, socialist and even GLOBAL communist ideal.

We have just as many issues with the far left as we do with the far right in Europe, take Italy for instance it ain't just Salvini that's pushing things to the brink with the EU, or Macron the globalist liberal darling who's propping himself up almost as a dictator with people accusing him, rightly I might add, of wanting to be another Napoleon, I support Macron by the way and what he wants to achieve, but let's not kid ourselves on what he's doing and how he's doing it.

It was the leaders of the liberal world order that have moved towards censorship on a EU level because "hate speech over migrants". Yeah limiting our rights because assholes post mean stuff about migrants on facebook is really helpful.

[Kiri]

I'm going to have to correct you here and say you're dismissing how autocratic and authoritarian and autocratic globalist and left wing leaders can be and even are, or even so called liberals who bear the tittle with pride ( I say so called because real liberals would never endorse these kind of tactics ).

Remember that in the world of Orbans, Erdogans, Putins we do also have people like Maduro in Venezuala, a country that until his actions since he became president had free and fair elections that people accepted, rule of law and many freedoms. Chavez had many faults but Maduro, who's as left wing as they go on many issues, is an outright brutal dictator

There are many countries, in particular in Latin America, who have left wing, globalist leaders that are pushing or are already authoritarian leaders. To say conservatives or nationalists are easier to reconcile with those tones is rather missing current politics and historical politics: The Soviets and Warsaw Pact leaders DID firmly believe in the idea of a left wing, socialist and even GLOBAL communist ideal.

We have just as many issues with the far left as we do with the far right in Europe, take Italy for instance it ain't just Salvini that's pushing things to the brink with the EU, or Macron the globalist liberal darling who's propping himself up almost as a dictator with people accusing him, rightly I might add, of wanting to be another Napoleon, I support Macron by the way and what he wants to achieve, but let's not kid ourselves on what he's doing and how he's doing it.

It was the leaders of the liberal world order that have moved towards censorship on a EU level because "hate speech over migrants". Yeah limiting our rights because assholes post mean stuff about migrants on facebook is really helpful.

But that is exactly my point? Just being nationalistic and conservative is not necessarily an issue, the issue is with people in power that erode their checks and amass more of it. That is what is endangering democracy. Autocrats can come from both ends of the spectrum, naturally. Just saying it is a bit easier to run as a strongman when you can be nationalistic and prey on people's insecurities and fears. It is certainly possible to do that on a far left platform as well, though in order to properly get that running, one often needs riches to use, like in Venezuela. It would certainly possible as a centrist as well. The important part is the respect and care for democratic institutions. Whether the strongman in question is left, middle, right, queer or a deer, that is just flavor of the month. But what is important is that there is a strongman trying to amass power to themselves.

[mvaliz]

Remember that in the world of Orbans, Erdogans, Putins we do also have people like Maduro in Venezuala...

And that's the moment when I stopped reading this post full of dumbass Pro-Trump propaganda.

Equating Venezuala with anything "left" in regards to North America - you are completely within the realm of a Dump Supporter as that's exactly the bullshit they spew...

It's about high time I threw your ass on ignore. Go and join your comrades on the FOX news chat forums and r/thedonald.

[CostinR]

Whether the strongman in question is left, middle, right, queer or a deer, that is just flavor of the month. But what is important is that there is a strongman trying to amass power to themselves.

That certainly nails the point of the issue, it's also when one side or another decides that the way care about trumps the democratic principle of a country. Like Maduro deciding to piss on everything Chavez stood for, by destroying the democracy of Venezuala or Erdogan effectively crowing himself Sultan.

Equating Venezuala with anything "left" in regards to North America - you are completely within the realm of a Dump Supporter as that's exactly the bullshit they spew...

@mvaliz Venezuala was, emphasis on the was, a model of a left wing socialist country in Latin America, but you missed the bloody point completely of what I was saying.

Chavez was a genuinely admirable man for what he did, especially for the poor in his country. Maduro, not so much.

[Kiri]

That certainly nails the point of the issue, it's also when one side or another decides that the way care about trumps the democratic principle of a country. Like Maduro deciding to piss on everything Chavez stood for, by destroying the democracy of Venezuala or Erdogan effectively crowing himself Sultan.



Venezuala was, emphasis on the was, a model of a left wing socialist country in Latin America, but you missed the bloody point completely of what I was saying.

Chavez was a genuinely admirable man for what he did, especially for the poor in his country. Maduro, not so much.

I guess we agree then. Please quote the other guy properly though, I was really confused at first since I would have remembered writing that line, haha.

[Paranoid Android]

.@JRubinBlogger: I would predict here on MSNBC that when #Trump leaves office he will resign the presidency ten minutes before Mike Pence leaves office allowing Pence to pardon him if there is not a Republican president to follow him. #AMJoy https://t.co/eJ6c1WsOPF

Hmm? Does this make too much sense? Only problem is this would really impact Pence. On the other hand he is a spineless snake.

Thoughts?

[Breccia]

Only problem is this would really impact Pence.

If Trump is forced out of office, Pence's legacy is already destroyed. Pence couldn't run for President in 2016. He'll be even less able to run after being proven #complicit with Trump fleeing and begging for a pardon. If Trump runs for the hills and Pence pardons him, Pence won't even bother campaigning. He will, instead, use his fleeting months of power to pass whatever legislation he can -- mired in a Democratic House, it won't be what he wanted -- and slink off in disgrace.

[PACOX]

Nick Ayers was the 'most likely to become Trump's next stooge' not only declined the job, he said he is out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/09/u...-of-staff.html

#Winning

[Breccia]

not only declined the job, he said he is out.

That fits into something I linked earlier. If he was already planning to leave Washington, taking that job, of all jobs, wouldn't make a lot of sense. It's not like Trump could have offered him more money, the salary's set and Trump can't bribe him.

Oh, it's still hilarious. And of course, thanks for posting it.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey remember when Trump said the $716 billion Pentagon budget was "crazy" and "uncontrollable"? I remember it like he tweeted on Monday.

Ah, good times...good times.

So anyhow, Trump decided that $750 billion was the right number. Why, yes, that is more, thank you for noticing.

"Huh. How much did the Pentagon actually ask for?"

$733 billion.

"...what."

I know, right? It fits exactly in Trump's plan to cut each department by five percent.

"But...$716 to $750 is up by five percent. It's literally the exact reverse of what he said."

Yes. Like I said, fits perfectly.

"Wait, is this that thing where you offer at a ridiculous price so that the other guy can haggle you down and you still come out ahead because you're ripping him off by slightly less?"

Well, if it's not blatantly transparent, then, maybe? But this is clearly part of Trump's plan.

"What plan? This is exactly the opposite of what he promiOOOOOH I get it."

Now, maybe @Skroe will make a case that even $750 billion is not enough. But for someone who claims he wants to reduce spending, this sure isn't doing it.



Image care of PolitiFact is from 2015, but the shift from that hasn't been that big. And that's all spending, not discretionary spending. A 5% raise in defense spending would nearly cover a 5% cut in transportation, food and agriculture, education, internal affairs, housing, energy, science and labor combined. That's not a cut, that's the same money but shuffled around.

The tax cut for the rich is, of course, far more responsible for the budget crisis than the increase to the Pentagon's budget. But that's not going anywhere until the individual rate reverts and everyone pays more in taxes than they do now. But don't worry! Trump has a plan.

Read full details of Trump's plan here.

- - - Updated - - -

Nick Ayers was

Mark Meadows could be the next choice.

"Isn't he the head of the Freedom Caucus?"

Yes.

"Well, at least he's qualified. He is a legitimately elected official."

Well, he's a Republican from North Carolina, so, the jury's out on that one.

- - - Updated - - -

In other news, Trump refuted the wording of a UN climate change report, saying, specifically, that they do not endorse the report but merely acknowledge the report exists. See also: "I don't believe it."

"This is clearly just a smokescreen to deflect from the growing proof Team Trump colluded with Russia, and Trump willingly coddling a murder and dismemberment carried out by the crown prince of Saudi Arabia."

Could be. Hey, guess who else refuted the wording? I'll give you three guesses.

"...no."

The third's Kuwait.

[Belize]

Nick Ayers was the 'most likely to become Trump's next stooge' not only declined the job, he said he is out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/09/u...-of-staff.html

#Winning

Womp womp.

[Skroe]

That fits into something I linked earlier. If he was already planning to leave Washington, taking that job, of all jobs, wouldn't make a lot of sense. It's not like Trump could have offered him more money, the salary's set and Trump can't bribe him.

Oh, it's still hilarious. And of course, thanks for posting it.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey remember when Trump said the $716 billion Pentagon budget was "crazy" and "uncontrollable"? I remember it like he tweeted on Monday.

Ah, good times...good times.

So anyhow, Trump decided that $750 billion was the right number. Why, yes, that is more, thank you for noticing.

"Huh. How much did the Pentagon actually ask for?"

$733 billion.

"...what."

I know, right? It fits exactly in Trump's plan to cut each department by five percent.

"But...$716 to $750 is up by five percent. It's literally the exact reverse of what he said."

Yes. Like I said, fits perfectly.

"Wait, is this that thing where you offer at a ridiculous price so that the other guy can haggle you down and you still come out ahead because you're ripping him off by slightly less?"

Well, if it's not blatantly transparent, then, maybe? But this is clearly part of Trump's plan.

"What plan? This is exactly the opposite of what he promiOOOOOH I get it."

Now, maybe @Skroe will make a case that even $750 billion is not enough. But for someone who claims he wants to reduce spending, this sure isn't doing it.



Image care of PolitiFact is from 2015, but the shift from that hasn't been that big. And that's all spending, not discretionary spending. A 5% raise in defense spending would nearly cover a 5% cut in transportation, food and agriculture, education, internal affairs, housing, energy, science and labor combined. That's not a cut, that's the same money but shuffled around.

The tax cut for the rich is, of course, far more responsible for the budget crisis than the increase to the Pentagon's budget. But that's not going anywhere until the individual rate reverts and everyone pays more in taxes than they do now. But don't worry! Trump has a plan.

Read full details of Trump's plan here.

- - - Updated - - -



Mark Meadows could be the next choice.

"Isn't he the head of the Freedom Caucus?"

Yes.

"Well, at least he's qualified. He is a legitimately elected official."

Well, he's a Republican from North Carolina, so, the jury's out on that one.

- - - Updated - - -

In other news, Trump refuted the wording of a UN climate change report, saying, specifically, that they do not endorse the report but merely acknowledge the report exists. See also: "I don't believe it."

"This is clearly just a smokescreen to deflect from the growing proof Team Trump colluded with Russia, and Trump willingly coddling a murder and dismemberment carried out by the crown prince of Saudi Arabia."

Could be. Hey, guess who else refuted the wording? I'll give you three guesses.

"...no."

The third's Kuwait.

I'll post more later because I have a busy night ahead of me, but I will say briefly:

Trump is not likely to get $750 billion in FY2020. He'll likely get the $733 billion for 2020.

$750 billion for FY2021 is very likely.


There is a zero chance of Defense expendiatures getting cut in years ahead. We will play this game where once side or another pleads poverty or complains about the deficit. Fact is, Defense spending right now is (1) very necessary due to the deteriorating global security situation and (2) very popular as it goes as much to blue states as red states.

The New House Armed Services Committee Chairman, Adam Smith, a progressive, is saying a bunch of crap he can't deliver on because his own fellows don't back him. If you want evidence of this, you just have to look at the voting of the last four defense budgets. He's going to waste the next two years dying on the most pointless hill of all - fighting against replacement of the Minuteman III ICBMs with the next-gen Ground Based Strategic Deterrent missile, and turning our military triad into a dyad.

The take away from this goes hand in hand with what I wrote several times over the last year. As the New Cold War worsens, defense budgets will go up and eat more and more into things like entitlement expansion and discretionary spending.

The way that liberals think about budgeting - an emphasis on expanding government services, especially on vulnerable peoples - and the way conservatives have thought about budgeting - a starve the beast, shrink government project is dead, and it isn't coming back. They are the quaint dreams of a post-Cold War era that's been squandered.

In the New Cold War, government expendatures on a host of things, but especially defense, will go way, way up, as well as taxation to pay for it.

Losing the peace has consequences. Maybe next time we won't squander it. But Universal Basic Income is as dead an idea as extending any of the tax cuts of the last 20 years as they expire over the course of this decade. As I've said before: nobody is going get what they want, because the consequence of the US's global position devolving from the one unassaibile superpower, back to a bipolar superpower conflict (with graft power competition iaround it), is we lose the ability to choose.

People like Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz will spew nonsense to their crowds saying that there is in fact, choices that we can make. How we can cut taxes and services further, or pay for college for everybody. There isn't. Modernizing and expanding defense against encroaching authoritarianism will devour every one of their ambitions for our country's future. Choice is as extinct as these failing arms treaties are.

Guns will eat into butter. And that's putting it lightly. Today $750 billion, tomorrow $1 trillion.

[Breccia]

China has summoned the US ambassador.

Yes, it's about the arrest.

But I'm sure this is no big deal. Countries summon ambassadors all the time when things are running smoothly. Right?

[Poopymonster]

This is a scary perspective. On the other hand, McCarthyism on socialist ideas is slowly dying out. Leftist ideas are being considered more often now, as well as propagated in places like YouTube.

It's true, commie socialist ideas even come from the president.

You heard "Grab them by the pussy", what he really said was "Seize the means of production".

Textbook Marxist.

[Blur4stuff]

At this point you don't accept a job offer from Trump unless you want to ruin your career.

[Breccia]

At this point you don't accept a job offer from Trump unless you want to ruin your career.

Not necessarily.

Don't worry, I 95%+ agree with you. But even being Chief of Staff for, I dunno, three months? You could still wrangle something useful to yourself or your agenda out of it. For example, you might say "Look, Mr. Trump, I will take your job on one condition. My voter base includes several large, private, wealthy universities. They're really not that fond of what Mrs. DeVos is doing to their enrollment, by means of threatening student loans even if the recipients work in the public sector for ten years, as required. I'll take the job, but only if you fire DeVos first."

Also, someone who jumps in that late with no connection to Trump/Pence at all, might get to play the "Whaaaaaaaa? Trump was a criminal? I had no idea impeach him and keep me please."

But mostly I agree with you. It's a big risk. Mnuchin could get it: he's already stained forever.

[mvaliz]

At this point you don't accept a job offer from Trump unless you want to ruin your career.

Dunno... you could easily wrangle a lucrative "tell all" book deal when you're fired.

...of course, those millions maaaaaay just cover your therapy session costs for Emotional PTSD. =/

[Skroe]

At this point you don't accept a job offer from Trump unless you want to ruin your career.

A 36 year old saying 'no' to one of the most powerful jobs in all of the US Government is a joke.

Like a complete joke. Almost nobody says no to ANY Administration job for a young Presidency entering year 3. This isn't year 7 and people aren't wanting to be ineffective lame-duck time nominees. This is year 3, prior to re-election. The line for every job, ESPECIALLY THIS JOB, should be around the block.

And the 36 year old says 'no'.

This Administration is a few losses away from being Trump, his personal secretary, Rudy Gulani (who fetches the dry cleaning, sweeps the floors and acts as a foot rest), and Sarah Huckabee Sanders Who Cant Get A Job Anywhere Else.

In Year 3.

El oh fucking el. Why don't some of our local deplorables go work for him?

- - - Updated - - -

That fits into something I linked earlier. If he was already planning to leave Washington, taking that job, of all jobs, wouldn't make a lot of sense. It's not like Trump could have offered him more money, the salary's set and Trump can't bribe him.

Oh, it's still hilarious. And of course, thanks for posting it.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey remember when Trump said the $716 billion Pentagon budget was "crazy" and "uncontrollable"? I remember it like he tweeted on Monday.

Ah, good times...good times.

So anyhow, Trump decided that $750 billion was the right number. Why, yes, that is more, thank you for noticing.

"Huh. How much did the Pentagon actually ask for?"

$733 billion.

"...what."

I know, right? It fits exactly in Trump's plan to cut each department by five percent.

"But...$716 to $750 is up by five percent. It's literally the exact reverse of what he said."

Yes. Like I said, fits perfectly.

"Wait, is this that thing where you offer at a ridiculous price so that the other guy can haggle you down and you still come out ahead because you're ripping him off by slightly less?"

Well, if it's not blatantly transparent, then, maybe? But this is clearly part of Trump's plan.

"What plan? This is exactly the opposite of what he promiOOOOOH I get it."

Now, maybe @Skroe will make a case that even $750 billion is not enough. But for someone who claims he wants to reduce spending, this sure isn't doing it.



Image care of PolitiFact is from 2015, but the shift from that hasn't been that big. And that's all spending, not discretionary spending. A 5% raise in defense spending would nearly cover a 5% cut in transportation, food and agriculture, education, internal affairs, housing, energy, science and labor combined. That's not a cut, that's the same money but shuffled around.

The tax cut for the rich is, of course, far more responsible for the budget crisis than the increase to the Pentagon's budget. But that's not going anywhere until the individual rate reverts and everyone pays more in taxes than they do now. But don't worry! Trump has a plan.

Read full details of Trump's plan here.

So re-reading my prior post it was more comprehensive than I intended it to be. So I'm just going to add a few points.

WHen I started writing this reply here, I started writing a big itemized list of all the things the armed forces is going to spend its money on through 2035. I deleted it. I can make my point without a multi trillion dollar shopping list.

It comes down to this. If the United States spends those trillions over the next 10-15 years in all the ways it intends to, it will have a somewhat better version of it's military advantage vis a vis China than it has today. Not hugely superior. Not worse. Think of it as a solid "B" Grade turning into a B+. Maybe an A- if we're being generous. Worst case, it stays a "B".

If it does not do that, the "B" will turn into a C-.

It's really up to the United States.

The US spent most of the Cold War at a military disadvantage. The USSR had a large degree of technological and industrial parity with the US from 1955 through the entirety of the Vietnam era. The US was able to capitalize on some long term investments and some amazing luck in the 1980s to start to create American military supremacy as we think of it. A big part of that though is that through the 1980s and 1990s, the US kept running while Russia, due to its economic crisises, stopped running entirely.

We've road that lead long and hard, but that era is over. China already produces hardware as good as the US was producing in the 1980s and 1990s. By 2030, they will be at near parity with us is most ways. If we do not invest, we'll lose that advantage.

Now this is where choice comes to play.

The US can choose to spend trillions to keep iot's B" grade, or turn it into a B+ or an A-. In that case, in 2035, China will have moved foward, but we'll still have the advantage.

Or we can choose to not, and find ourselves pushed out of regions and vulnerable by 2035.

This is, however unwise, something of a legitimate choice. The British Empire reteated "East of the Suez" to focus on European security because it's people chose the Welfare state over Empire. But the British Empire was able to do that because the United States filled the vacuum.

If America has an "East of the Suez" moment, China fills the gap. People like Bernie Sanders, who live and die on healthcare and main street concerns may not care. But it also isn't up to them, and they also aren't right. Two world wars tell us that reteating leads invariably to the people populating that main street being sent to die abroad.

There is no evidence the United States is even close to an East of the Suez moment. Congress, including democrats, is redoubling our foreign involvement. Polls show Americans, while wanting burden sharing, are internationalists, not isolationists. The policy of "defending the free world" is a popular policy. The next Democratic President will run explicitly on rebuilding America's moral reputation and standing up to autocracy around the world. It'll practically be neocon in words (though not action).

And Americans will eat it up.


It's going to go like this.

America can agree to share the world with China, and declare our domain spans a diamond that ranges from from Hawaii to Canada to Argentina to Greece, while China gets all of the Indo-Pacific region and Japan, andparts of Africa and the Middle East exist as a borderland. This would be an epochal retreat of American power, and maintainable at less cost. It also promises with a high degree of certainty, a series of major military conflicts along the "borderland" in decades ahead, as the two spheres push against each other. In this world though, human freedom retreats to 1950s levels. China _will_ see to it that China-friendly authoritarian regimes overthrow democracies.

Conversely, America can rally the international community and pay the price needed to keep China penned up. It will involve the biggest economic, diplomatic and military effort since World War II. It will be exorbitantly expensive. And at the end of it China might - might- be weak enough to collapse and transition to Democracy. But let me be clear. There is no world where we do this and everything ranging from more tax cuts for the rich, to UBI, to medicare for all (as we know it), to cuts in discretionary spending actually happen. The cost of securing the free world from its greatest threat in decades will be Americans giving up things that would make life for America arguably better. And that goes for Europe too. Their military Spending will grow while their welfare state will shrink.

Don't mistake me saying this is a good thing, or a bad thing. It's a choice, of either maintaning the hard fought victory of World War II - the American led liberal world order - or letting it pass into history. Personally, as a student of history, I think ANYTHING is worth preserving the most important experiment in human freedom the world's ever seen, which is the world since 1945. Choosing between UBI and it isn't a choice. But Americans, though right now clearly choosing to fight China, may not choose that down the road, and if they do, they just have to accept that the world will change for them, and it won't be in good ways.

As I see it, the biggest challenge as we head into the new Cold War is largely psychological. It's going to be very difficult for people who reached maturity or were born into the post-Cold War era to accept that the there is no space for the things they want anymore, without even greater cost. When some Republican wants to cut taxes again, that has to be put over how many fewer bases in the Pacific the US will be able to finance because of it. When Democrats want to grow the social safety net again, that has to be put against how many warships' that could otherwise finance (to put it crudely). It's not just a matter of tax cuts versus programs... big government versus small government, anymore. The simplicity of that world has come and gone.

$733 billion this year is about right. $750 billion in 2021 would be fine. Frankly, I'd boost it to $800 billion and grow the size of the active duty forces by hundreds of thousands across the board, in order to have the combat brigades and fully-staffed ships and squadrons we need. You know... be "if you ask them to do things, don't be cheap" idea.

We cannot spend that though. But we'd be accepting the very high cost of that. And there will be no complaining then when a Chinese Carrier Strike Group every bit as powerful as our own starts patrolling the mid Atlantic in the late 2030s. The age of doing things without putting them in the context of how it effects our position vis a vis China is over.

[Adam Jensen]

El oh fucking el. Why don't some of our local deplorables go work for him?

Because they couldn't pretend to be "woke independents" if they did.