The Dangerous Case Of Donald Trump

[anticlimatic]

Usually they are the same people complaining about protesters blocking traffic. I guess they're all for "shaking things up" unless it personally inconveniences them directly.

"Shaking things up" was Obama's entire campaign.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

"Shaking things up" was Obama's entire campaign.

Nachos.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Sorry, I find it difficult to take anyone seriously when the reason behind their vote is wanting to "shake things up." That seems like the most vapid reason to choose a candidate. What exactly are they wanting to "shake up"? Sounds like something someone would say when they're talking about their favorite game show changing hosts. I expect a little more reasoning and substance when we're talking about electing heads of state. But then again, given Trump's past as a reality TV star and frequent subject of tabloid headlines, I guess it's not that surprising some of his supporters use these metrics in deciding who to vote for.

There is almost always a "change" candidate and a "stay the course" candidate.

Change candidates examples: Obama 2008, Trump 2016, Clinton 92, JFK 60, Harding 1920, FDR 32, Reagan 80, McCain 2000, Carter 76

Stay the course: Hillary, Romney, McCain 08, Kerry, Biden 2020, Bush 41, Bush 43

Trump was a change candidate in 2016, as was Bernie.

Bernie still is a change candidate and Yang is a change candidate.

The rest are stay the course candidates. Warren is Hillary 2.0, Mayor Pete is the candidate of meritocracy.

Trump can argue that he is still trying to change the DC Establishment and the Impeachment and FBI malfeasance and media hatred only reinforce the point. Plus he will claim, rightly or wrongly, the overall better economy, and people will vote for economic improvement (like they did in 1996) over annoying personality.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

There is almost always a "change" candidate and a "stay the course" candidate.

Change candidates examples: Obama 2008, Trump 2016, Clinton 92, JFK 60, Harding 1920, FDR 32, Reagan 80, McCain 2000, Carter 76

Stay the course: Hillary, Romney, McCain 08, Kerry, Biden 2020, Bush 41, Bush 43

Trump was a change candidate in 2016, as was Bernie.

Bernie still is a change candidate and Yang is a change candidate.

The rest are stay the course candidates. Warren is Hillary 2.0, Mayor Pete is the candidate of meritocracy.

Trump can argue that he is still trying to change the DC Establishment and the Impeachment and FBI malfeasance and media hatred only reinforce the point. Plus he will claim, rightly or wrongly, the overall better economy, and people will vote for economic improvement (like they did in 1996) over annoying personality.

Change is fine. My comment was directed more at the sort of voters that article quoted who don't really seem to have a good idea of exactly what they want to change or "shake up". It's not always good to shake things up just for the sake of shaking them up.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Thats easy. They're masculine. If they were feminine they would be nachas.

By that metric, you should know that it's socialismo in Spanish.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Change is fine. My comment was directed more at the sort of voters that article quoted who don't really seem to have a good idea of exactly what they want to change or "shake up". It's not always good to shake things up just for the sake of shaking them up.

Most voters who voted for "change" in 2008 likely had no idea what it meant, either. It was just "change".

Change is fundamentally idealistic, and does not mean "better".

 

[anticlimatic]

That seems like the most vapid reason to choose a candidate. What exactly are they wanting to "shake up"? Sounds like something someone would say when they're talking about their favorite game show changing hosts. I expect a little more reasoning and substance when we're talking about electing heads of state.

You mean Politicians? Some of the most vapid and superficial creatures on the planet?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

You mean Politicians? Some of the most vapid and superficial creatures on the planet?

 

[Z Buck McFate]

For some reason USA as a nation is convinced that the only true Capitalism is unregulated one, while more regulated one is Socialism. What can only be claimed by someone who has never been in genuine socialism for a single day. I presume this has something to do with the whole wild west thing but regulated Capitalism is still Capitalism. The difference between Capitalism and Socialism is basically in the ownership over the means of production. Therefore regulated Capitalism is still Capitalism, especially if not everything is regulated down to the last detail.

This is a pretty good summation of my frustration with GOP fear-mongering. Absolutely unfettered capitalism is perceived as "freedom" (it's not, for the vast majority) and any kind of regulation seems to incite fear of an invariable apocalyptic communist conclusion. Democratic socialism is stlll capitalism, but with enough regulation to create a more level playing field in which everyone can flourish (which is actually more freedom). This fear people have of the U.S. becoming hardcore socialist is purely histrionic, but 45 and McConnell and company milk that fear like it's going out of style.

Another stat (it's too much work to find and link support on my phone, but this one's easy to find) is that currently 53 million people in this country forego a medication they've been prescribed because they can't afford it - and the medical industry last year raked in over $100 billion profit.

This is kinda getting off the topic of why Trump is dangerous though.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Before that I'd like to just point out that nobody dies from not having health insurance. They die from diseases and accidents. I never had health insurance in my 20s, and I didn't die as a consequence, so let's just take a moment to acknowledge that syntax of that statement is misleading.

This is like saying, "No one dies from playing Russian Roulette. I've played lots of times and I'm just fine."

No one wants a life threatening illness or to experience a life threatening medical problem of any kind. But they happen, and people do die as a direct result of not having access to affordable healthcare.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

(Back on the topic of why Trump is dangerous...)

I started watching the latest Frontline last night, about how/when toxic partisanship spun out of control. And to sum: Palin is such an asshole. She just came across (to my sphere) as a joke at the time, but she made a bigger splash than I realized.

 

[anticlimatic]

This is like saying, "No one dies from playing Russian Roulette. I've played lots of times and I'm just fine." No one wants a life threatening illness or to experience a life threatening medical problem of any kind. But they happen, and people do die as a direct result of not having access to affordable healthcare.

Health care costs are a problem I agree, and I'm open to ideas on how to remedy the problem. I'm not very open to the idea of having taxpayers issue a blank check to the industries involved to cover everyone, and I was very much against the individual mandate involved with Obamacare. I'd back anything that made procedures, prescriptions, and insurance more affordable- but I wouldn't go for nationalizing it. At least until we stop hemmoraging cash and getting the national debt back down. Right now I'm mostly concerned about inflation and making sure healthy people can still feed themselves, because we are getting really close to the point where they can't.

 

[Virtual ghost]

As much as I'd love to keep defending myself against you hyenas, let's back off discussing me and back up to something even remotely on topic- you don't think socialism is inheritly feminine? Elaborate. I'm listening.

Since there are crickets here I will take a shoot at this, especially since I probably have more practical experience with this than anyone one here. Simply because I was born in the part of the world I was born.




At this point "Socialism" is basically almost a scarecrow in USA, while it is empty term without special meaning. In a way USA merges two ideologies into one here.

1. First is Socio-democracy that is fundamentally a regulated capitalism with many "people friendly" laws. It can be argued that this is kinda feminine ideology in certain ways but there is nothing here that is fundamentally against any competition or military spending. You can be competitive but you must not hurt others too much while going up. The closest you have to this is Bernie.


2. While on the other side you have "hard-core" socialism that is generally called Communism, and that is something that never existed in USA. (Stalin, Mao and the rest of the company)
In other words there isn't much feminism in this because these are all militaristic dictatorships that have created the horrors that are generally linked with the term "Socialism".



However I will dare to push this further. Fundamental idea behind socialism is that people share resources and work together more as a group in order to become more than a sum of it's part. So that each individual gets more than it would on it's own. Therefore typical socialist ideas are: military spending and defense (building the walls at the border included), education system, legal system, political party, healthcare insurance, ... etc. Each nation has it's own amounts how many of these ideas are seen as "socially acceptable" but in implementation the strategies can be fairly feminine like education to very muscular like army. Even the term says it nicely "Social-ism", what means turning thing into social structures. However just like with everything that humans ever invented there is a light side version and dark side version. Since fundamentally this is just a tool/strategy, while local morals will determine how it will actually be used.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Health care costs are a problem I agree, and I'm open to ideas on how to remedy the problem. I'm not very open to the idea of having taxpayers issue a blank check to the industries involved to cover everyone, and I was very much against the individual mandate involved with Obamacare. I'd back anything that made procedures, prescriptions, and insurance more affordable- but I wouldn't go for nationalizing it. At least until we stop hemmoraging cash and getting the national debt back down. Right now I'm mostly concerned about inflation and making sure healthy people can still feed themselves, because we are getting really close to the point where they can't.

If you want that without too much change the best way is perhaps playing "the consumer card". Gather the communities and threaten with boycott(s) if prices aren't rationalized. Or convince enough people to gather money to start new insurance company, that will bring prices down. If we consider the medical prices that might actually be a pretty decent investment for most on the long run.


While on the other hand you need to cut the ties between politics and healthcare industry. To make sure that the market is doing it's thing.

 

[anticlimatic]

Since there are crickets here I will take a shoot at this, especially since I probably have more practical experience with this than anyone one here. Simply because I was born in the part of the world I was born.




At this point "Socialism" is basically almost a scarecrow in USA, while it is empty term without special meaning. In a way USA merges two ideologies into one here.

1. First is Socio-democracy that is fundamentally a regulated capitalism with many "people friendly" laws. It can be argued that this is kinda feminine ideology in certain ways but there is nothing here that is fundamentally against any competition or military spending. You can be competitive but you must not hurt others too much while going up. The closest you have to this is Bernie.


2. While on the other side you have "hard-core" socialism that is generally called Communism, and that is something that never existed in USA. (Stalin, Mao and the rest of the company)
In other words there isn't much feminism in this because these are all militaristic dictatorships that have created the horrors that are generally linked with the term "Socialism".



However I will dare to push this further. Fundamental idea behind socialism is that people share resources and work together more as a group in order to become more than a sum of it's part. So that each individual gets more than it would on it's own. Therefore typical socialist ideas are: military spending and defense (building the walls at the border included), education system, legal system, political party, healthcare insurance, ... etc. Each nation has it's own amounts how many of these ideas are seen as "socially acceptable" but in implementation the strategies can be fairly feminine like education to very muscular like army. Even the term says it nicely "Social-ism", what means turning thing into social structures. However just like with everything that humans ever invented there is a light side version and dark side version. Since fundamentally this is just a tool/strategy, while local morals will determine how it will actually be used.

Thank you for your response. I am mostly referring to democratic socialism when I call it feminine, which I base on my generalized archetypes- prioritizing safety over conquest, preferring networked systems, looking out for one's self by feigning to look out for others, complex, political, micro-managed, among others. I don't consider any of these things objectively wrong or weak, but the way I would personally like to travel through life, as a man, is not on line with many/any of these archetypical motivations. Communism to me seems like the worst of both worlds- capitalism and socialism.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Thank you for your response. I am mostly referring to democratic socialism when I call it feminine, which I base on my generalized archetypes- prioritizing safety over conquest, preferring networked systems, looking out for one's self by feigning to look out for others, complex, political, micro-managed, among others. I don't consider any of these things objectively wrong or weak, but the way I would personally like to travel through life, as a man, is not on line with many/any of these archetypical motivations. Communism to me seems like the worst of both worlds- capitalism and socialism.

Number one problem with Communism is dictatorship, which is generally lose-lose for the most people right from the start. Because if someone wants to really help people he wouldn't make a dictatorship out of it.



While in the other things it really depends: in my book the left in the western/developed countries can get carried away with certain impractical ideas, but that doesn't really make me a right winger. Although I have seen "globalists" calling my people savages and what not. Because we aren't too politically correct from left to right and we can skip this "micro stuff". Here we didn't have political stability since the collapse of Roman empire and therefore we aren't too firmly into "rules".



As I said we just had elections in this country and here are photos from the debates. Who do you think represents left and who is right here ?

Therefore if we go by your logic you would probably make a wrong conclusion. The guy is a Socialist, not to mention ex party boss of our Socio-democratic party. Therefore left-right as you know them aren't made in stone. Muscular left wing is possible, after all the guy won basically on "I am ENTJ 8 and I am not afraid of anyone" ticket. I am not really a big fan of either of them but there is perhaps a lesson to be learned here, he even openly defied Angela Merkel back in a day (to the point of international scandal). Or if you want it straight: do you honestly think that "socialism" would get so bad rep in the case that it can't be muscular or as you say "conquest oriented" ?

 

[Virtual ghost]

Just to add.


Actually those debates were a lot like Trump vs. Hillary in many elements. Plus it must not be overlooked that Trump came from the left wing party into GOP.


On the other hand our left winger is from textbook right wing part of the country and therefore he has many of their manners. While the woman was educated in US and she lived there for a long time. This really is complicated issue once you take a closer look.

 

[ceecee]

Health care costs are a problem I agree, and I'm open to ideas on how to remedy the problem. I'm not very open to the idea of having taxpayers issue a blank check to the industries involved to cover everyone, and I was very much against the individual mandate involved with Obamacare. I'd back anything that made procedures, prescriptions, and insurance more affordable- but I wouldn't go for nationalizing it. At least until we stop hemmoraging cash and getting the national debt back down. Right now I'm mostly concerned about inflation and making sure healthy people can still feed themselves, because we are getting really close to the point where they can't.

House passes Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bill to lower drug prices

I'm fully aware you don't watch news or read news and it's very obvious by your comments on the topic. If the house passes a bill to address the concerns you yourself wrote above, why is the senate not acting on it? I know why and so do you but if you support what the senate is doing, you must not give much of a shit if people feed themselves or not. And that's fine, just don't pretend to be something you aren't.

 

[Jaguar]

As I said we just had elections in this country and here are photos from the debates. Who do you think represents left and who is right here ?

She looks right to me.

 

[Virtual ghost]

She looks right to me.

That is because she is the right girl for you.

You are right, she can also pass as right. However the key part of the argument was that left doesn't have to necessary be "by the book empty moralist" type of people. Plus I did use some of the logic that "woman" can't be the president. In this duo it would be somewhat more logical that the women is "the left" side. Although they are both left wing by American standards. The whole spectrum is moved to the left in my country, so my right is actually what you call left. While GOP doesn't exist here, as well as my left in USA. Which is exactly why the Europe as a whole is uncomfortable with GOP for a long time, while you claim that "USA will never be a socialist country".