Magruder
Brownlow Medallist
- Nov 14, 2012
- 12,419
- 20,444
- AFL Club
- Carlton
He sees teh presidency as an extension of his celebrity.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Play Nice 45th President of the United States: Donald Trump - Part 6 - It begins. (cont in pt 7)
- Thread starter Crow54
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
He sees teh presidency as an extension of his celebrity.
Jesus this has been addressed multiple times over the various threads. I could write an essay on the topic, but then some idiots would post MAGA Trump is not a racist, and it’d be like casting pearls before swine.
Showbags
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 21, 2013
- 5,366
- 5,574
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- West Ham Utd
Yep agree for the most part. Definitely a bit of both helped him get the support he needed in the key states.
While Trump undeniably ran a racist, divisive campaign in 2016 and 2018. The Democrats best chance for 2020 is not to run a campaign based on identity politics (ala Hillary) but to bypass that entirely and focus on Trump's cozying up to wall street/corporations.
Campaigning on Trump's racism/bigotry only appeals to those who already hate Trump and serves to fire up his base even more to come out and vote for him.
The voters the Dems need to get (especially in the rust belt) already know Trump is a bigot, and while the majority don't share those views, they think he is standing up for them against corruption.
While I obviously think Bernie would be best placed to attack Trump's Achilles Heels (aka corruption and doing wall street's bidding) there are other candidates who could be good too.
Richard Ojeda seems a pretty intriguing candidate to me. Ex military guy who voted for Bernie and then Trump in 2016. Got a huge 32% swing in deep red West Virginia in 2018 so can appeal to Trump type rust belt voters (the non deplorables).
Magruder
Brownlow Medallist
- Nov 14, 2012
- 12,419
- 20,444
- AFL Club
- Carlton
I'll bite...
He did within the narrow confines afforded under the American system. Bit bored with this line of argument TBH.
Blaming Obama for Trump is a stretch though. Bit like blaming Gerald Ford for Jimmy Carter. The conditions were in place regardless of Obama's presidency.
Magruder
Brownlow Medallist
- Nov 14, 2012
- 12,419
- 20,444
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Agreee with much of this - difficult to see Ojeda as presidential but the approach of courting Obama/Trump voters is important. Clearly cannot field a candidate who makes these people feel like they are being blamed for their circumstances.
Needs a candidate who clearly articulates this group's concerns.
I think that a candidate like Warren or Harris plays to a campaign based around identity and that allows Trump to sit on his strengths.
Early days, but a Sanders/O'Rourke ticket would be my personal choice. Regardless of their personal compatibility it conveys both experience and energetic relative youth, a radical edge with Beto's undoubted conservative (for a Democrat) leanings. Both have a common touch, both conducted campaigns that appeared grassroots and Sanders is clearly not establishment.
Sanders - O'Rourke vs Trump - Pence
In every key demographic this gives the Dems a clear advantage
Showbags
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 21, 2013
- 5,366
- 5,574
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- West Ham Utd
I do think he was a disappointment from a left wing POV considering the excitement he generated in 2008.
I understand the limitations he had placed around him but he seemed way too willing to cave in and negotiate rather than stand his ground. The Democratic base would have backed him if he was seen to be actually fighting for what they wanted.
Trump seems to understand this better than most. If he caves on the wall or other important issues to his moronic base, they will not turn out for him in 2020.
Having said that though, it seems amazing to me that right wingers shit on Obama relentlessly despite him being successful in all the regular metrics of success that the Republicans usually set for a POTUS (many of which they now cite to suck off Trump).
That is why many of the Trump sycophants on here shouldn't be taken too seriously. They call Obama the worst POTUS ever, conveniently forgetting that the guy before him was genuinely a contender for worst ever.
Obama nearly halved the deficit, led the recovery from the Great Recession, nearly halved the unemployment rate, doubled the stock market, corporate profits went up massively, GDP growth was consistently solid etc etc all regular GOP talking points of success.
If anything it should be the left that is pissed with Obama for not really using his enormous political capital and super majorities in the House and Senate in the early period, to push for meaningful health care reform and other progressive policies the Democratic base were crying out for.
Showbags
Norm Smith Medallist
- Jul 21, 2013
- 5,366
- 5,574
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- West Ham Utd
The only problem with running Beto O'Rourke with Bernie is that much of Bernie's hardcore progressive base will see that as a sign he is willing to compromise and sell out to the corporate establishment wing of the Democratic party.
I think you are better off running a real progressive that can also appeal to those rust belt style voters. This will ensure not to piss off the people Bernie will need to help him with grass roots campaigning in 2020 (ie the progressive base).
Bernie is going to need that progressive campaigning network to win in 2020 as he won't have the big corporate money rolling in ala Trump.
Magruder
Brownlow Medallist
- Nov 14, 2012
- 12,419
- 20,444
- AFL Club
- Carlton
We are in furious agreement for the most part.
The Obama presidency shows the difficulty of generating meaningful progressive change within the constraints of the US system.
The affordable healthcare act deserves to be regarded as one of the great achievements of an American president
Magruder
Brownlow Medallist
- Nov 14, 2012
- 12,419
- 20,444
- AFL Club
- Carlton
It’s academic as I don’t think Sanders will run.
The fundamental conditions were in place for a conventional Republican to win in 2016 and may still be there in 2020
Hence the need to harness a desire for change with some of the trappings of the establishment Democrats.
Stablity with progress and inclusion
“Stronger Together” was the right slogan and message, HRC was the wrong candidate.
The Dems cannot fall into identity politics - that just gifts Trump a good chance at reelection
Some interesting points.
I totally agree that if the Democrats run another establishment neo-Liberal in 2020 they will not win. They need Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and will not do it with milktoast slogans.
I think he will run. The DNC will completely screw him over, and I think he should run as a third party candidate, but he will run.
I totally disagree - I think it was the opposite. There was very little chance of a "conventional" politician winning, and now there's even less of a chance. People do not want the status quo.
The current establishment Democrats cannot co-exist with true progressives. They're diametrically opposed.
Sh*t like "Stronger Together" is a big turnoff for most voters too. It's rubbish. The slogan should be simple - "Medicare For All". Whoever runs with that, and means it, will win. I don't give it a chance though - the DNC will fight harder against Sanders than they will against the Republicans.
Be careful with Beto, too - the more I read and watch about him the more I am bitterly disappointed. He's a fraud.
I totally agree that if the Democrats run another establishment neo-Liberal in 2020 they will not win. They need Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania and will not do it with milktoast slogans.
I think he will run. The DNC will completely screw him over, and I think he should run as a third party candidate, but he will run.
I totally disagree - I think it was the opposite. There was very little chance of a "conventional" politician winning, and now there's even less of a chance. People do not want the status quo.
The current establishment Democrats cannot co-exist with true progressives. They're diametrically opposed.
Sh*t like "Stronger Together" is a big turnoff for most voters too. It's rubbish. The slogan should be simple - "Medicare For All". Whoever runs with that, and means it, will win. I don't give it a chance though - the DNC will fight harder against Sanders than they will against the Republicans.
Be careful with Beto, too - the more I read and watch about him the more I am bitterly disappointed. He's a fraud.
Good post. Ojeda is certainly interesting.
You're spot on re: the type of leader the Democrats need in order to win in 2020 - anti-corporate - but the party is fundamentally corporate and people know it.
Spot on.
Apart from a couple of social issues, Obama essentially governed as a moderate Republican. He did very little of what he was elected to do. Hence the push for populist change in 2020.
Magruder
Brownlow Medallist
- Nov 14, 2012
- 12,419
- 20,444
- AFL Club
- Carlton
pjcrows
My initial thoughts were that a conventional Republican would have stood a fair chance against an establishment Clinton, particularily in light of a grid-locked Washington. But on reflection I think my logic is faulty. It may well have been impossible for a conventional Republican to forge a winning coalition of voters. To much emphasis on the traditional "base" wasn't going to win it, they needed to carve out a new group or motivate the disaffected to vote. Something Trump managed where a Rubio, Kasich, Romney type would have struggled.
I also didn't express what I meant by "trappings of the establishment".
Dems need to present as FDR Democrats IMO but convince enough that this represents the party's core rather than the neoliberal corporate candidates that have been fielded thus far.
They need to present the "establishment" as forward looking, rather than asking voters to vote for one candidate who is clearly an exception. So as poorly as I think I've expressed it - the fundamental message becomes the outsider candidate with the sense that we are the party to change the country.
People want change but part of that is yearning for what America was supposed to be, or what they think it was in the past.
To my way of thinking embracing a tradition of the New Deal, the Great Society, Obamacare and a strong stable world with moral leadership based on these values is the way forward.
Agree on the limited amount I've seen of Beto, but being a fraud didn't stop Trump.
My initial thoughts were that a conventional Republican would have stood a fair chance against an establishment Clinton, particularily in light of a grid-locked Washington. But on reflection I think my logic is faulty. It may well have been impossible for a conventional Republican to forge a winning coalition of voters. To much emphasis on the traditional "base" wasn't going to win it, they needed to carve out a new group or motivate the disaffected to vote. Something Trump managed where a Rubio, Kasich, Romney type would have struggled.
I also didn't express what I meant by "trappings of the establishment".
Dems need to present as FDR Democrats IMO but convince enough that this represents the party's core rather than the neoliberal corporate candidates that have been fielded thus far.
They need to present the "establishment" as forward looking, rather than asking voters to vote for one candidate who is clearly an exception. So as poorly as I think I've expressed it - the fundamental message becomes the outsider candidate with the sense that we are the party to change the country.
People want change but part of that is yearning for what America was supposed to be, or what they think it was in the past.
To my way of thinking embracing a tradition of the New Deal, the Great Society, Obamacare and a strong stable world with moral leadership based on these values is the way forward.
Agree on the limited amount I've seen of Beto, but being a fraud didn't stop Trump.
Trump is a symptom but he could be a bigger problem than the original problem. Problem is most of you people analysing american politics only look at domestic implications with the only exception for some odd reason being the middle east. You dont look at the broader global implications of who is running the US.
All fair points, and cheers for explaining
The issue the Democrats as they currently stand - i.e. the ones led by Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, recently Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and cheered on by dolts like Neera Tanden - can't run on ACTUAL progressive policy because they don't want it. They can't attack corporates/Wall St because they are owned by them. The Republicans are too - even more so - but they had Trump who ran as the populist candidate who was against the establishment. Total bullsh*t but he ran on it nonetheless.
Sanders' 2016 campaign has shifted ideas to the left which is a good thing, because the people want it. The main problem is that the DNC will now espouse "progressive values" but act on none of them.
I come from the point of view that both parties are corrupt and - despite having differing social views and some differences in economic theory - are essentially the same when it comes to who they serve and ultimately screwing the people.
Last edited:
Because America is domestically f*cked. The richest country in the world, yet half of the people live below or near the poverty line. 30 million without healthcare. Abhorrent minimum wage.
But yep, they should definitely be involved in illegal wars in Syria. Definitely.
Last edited:
Richest country in the world but domstically fu***. Do you hear how stupid that sounds in a world of 200 plus countries. And thats before you even account for the fact most rich in the US are self made rather than just those who have control of resources. Get out and see the rest of the world then come back to me with a straight face and say the US is your major concern. Its an unbelievably naive comment.
Magruder
Brownlow Medallist
- Nov 14, 2012
- 12,419
- 20,444
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Yep the country is ****ed up -
It's astonishing to me that every attempt to improve the lot of people through social wage is decried as unamerican.
Someone's "right" to own an assault rifle outweighs someone else's right to not get shot by one.
Exercising the right to vote means sacrificing pay from a minimum wage job for the working poor.
A country where voter role purges and gerrymandering are rampant.
No healthcare for 27 million people and crippling premiums and deductibles for many who do.
"At will" employment and little organised labour
No real conditions, no mat leave, not a lot of sick leave etc.
The wealthiest country in the world is a third world country.
It's astonishing to me that every attempt to improve the lot of people through social wage is decried as unamerican.
Someone's "right" to own an assault rifle outweighs someone else's right to not get shot by one.
Exercising the right to vote means sacrificing pay from a minimum wage job for the working poor.
A country where voter role purges and gerrymandering are rampant.
No healthcare for 27 million people and crippling premiums and deductibles for many who do.
"At will" employment and little organised labour
No real conditions, no mat leave, not a lot of sick leave etc.
The wealthiest country in the world is a third world country.
Magruder
Brownlow Medallist
- Nov 14, 2012
- 12,419
- 20,444
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Can't agree with any of that...
Most wealth is transmitted by inheritance and generated by the continuation of rent seeking, it is the minority that are "self-made", and in many cases this is due to leveraging advantages that others do not have.
The standard of living for a fair proportion of the US is horrific, an insecure brutal existence within a callous public domain and with limited scope for improvement.
It's a third world country
No this thread is about Trump and as foriegners you would think we would at least care as much for the global ramifications of his presidency as the domestic ramifications. And no focusing just on the tiny backwater of the largely irrelevant Middle East does not count as thinking about the global ramifications. The geopolitics of the Asia Pacific, the region we live in, is changing dramatically as a result of Trumps anti globalist and anti multilateral views. It barely rates a mention in here. We focus more on US healthcare policies, which is largely irrelevant for us, instead.
Are you talking about Australia or the US? The majority of the really rich in Australia are rich due to inheritance and gaining rents in mining sectors or other duopoly sectors that require gaining rights from the government such as our media sector. In the US the majority of the really rich are self made from technology or service based industries. Ruchir Sharma wrote a book on this very topic. Rise and Fall of Nations is its name I think. The US was one of the best performed in proportion of rich who are self made and dont earn their wealth in rent seeking sectors. Australia was one of the worst of the developed economies. However developing economies, as you would expect, are the worst. As for inheritance accumulation, Australia doesnt even have a death tax. The US does even if its too small.
I travel to the US often and am very aware of all the homeless and poverty that just doesnt exist in other developed economies. But relative to other developing economies it is small and the homeless in the US do have access to services, rights and food that does not exist in many developing economies. My comment also wasnt solely about poverty. Its about freedom of movement, access to information and freedom or religion, which the US has in spades compared to many developing economies and even some developed. We have China which is currently on the path to embracing a 1984 scenario where citizens are constantly monitored, denied access to information and graded on their social contribution. Its scary sh**. We have developing economies with governments that kidnap people in the night and never return. We have governments that force kids to go work in the fields. We have countries where people are stoned for being gay and women are imprisoned for being r*ped. Many countries ban groups of citizens from travelling from outside their own little region and effectively are prisoners. Many countries force people into doing military service including many developed economies. Many countries deny whole subgroups rights that other subgroups get. If we think the poor in the US is as bad as its gets we are greatly misinformed.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
