USA Policy positions of Donald Trump; let's see how many he achieves

[Festerz]

IMHO - these two paragraphs from a former Obama staffer writing for the New York Times is spot on in terms of how Trump captured the US Presidency so easily and what framework he will use to shape his presidency going forward.

Yet now Mr. Trump has decisively won back the presidency. I would never claim to have all the answers about what went wrong, but I do worry that Democrats walked into the trap of defending the very institutions — the “establishment” — that most Americans distrust. As a party interested in competent technocracy, we lost touch with the anger people feel at government. As a party that prizes data, we seized on indicators of growth and job creation as proof that the economy was booming, even though people felt crushed by rising costs. As a party motivated by social justice, we let revulsion at white Christian nationalism bait us into identity politics on their terms — whether it was debates about transgender athletes, the busing of migrants to cities, or shaming racist MAGA personalities who can’t be shamed. As a party committed to American leadership of a “rules-based international order,” we defended a national security enterprise that has failed repeatedly in the 21st century, and made ourselves hypocrites through unconditional military support for Israel’s bombardment of civilians in Gaza.

Donald Trump has won the presidency, but I don’t believe he will deliver on his promises. Like other self-interested autocrats, his remedies are designed to exploit problems instead of solving them, and he’s surrounded by oligarchs who want to loot the system instead of reforming it. Mass deportation and tariffs are recipes for inflation. Tax cuts and deregulation will exacerbate inequality. America First impulses will fuel global conflict, technological disruption and climate conflagration. Mr. Trump is the new establishment in this country and globally, and we should emphasize that instead of painting him as an outlier or interloper.

Opinion | I Study Guys Like Trump. There’s a Reason They Keep Winning.

Democrats walked into the trap of defending the very institutions most Americans distrust.

www.nytimes.com

 

[And_ROOS]

They have drunk the Kool Aid from donny rumps cup, and will end up be very disappointed.

It reminded me of people who voted against Shorten in 2019 because he said he would get rid of negative gearing. The people I know who voted in line with that STILL CAN'T BUY ONE HOUSE let alone the multiple you need to make good on negative gearing.

You keep people dumb, and dangle an unobtainable carrot and you end up with Trump/Scummo in charge.

 

[Spearman]

would be epic if true

Maybe produce some NFT of ripped, bare-chested Don with the blue and yellow arm band heroically combating the invaders. Surely that would stop it.

 

[Spearman]

1. They have no idea how importing goods works.
2. They believe the manufacturer will pay the tariff and not increase the price at all.
3. They believe it'll bring manufacturing jobs back to the US, which will for <reasons> lower the cost of things.

The liberal leaning outlets have been explaining them to viewers, just like they reported on the infrastructure projects and economic rebound of the Biden admin.
Unfortunately Fox and the conservatives don't, so of course they have no clues.

 

[carltonchelsea]

Does Lady Gaga's father have his own name?

Papa Gaga

 

[Jazny]

Papa Gaga

Daddy MAGA... based of his love of Trump

 

[carltonchelsea]

IMHO - these two paragraphs from a former Obama staffer writing for the New York Times is spot on in terms of how Trump captured the US Presidency so easily and what framework he will use to shape his presidency going forward.

Yet now Mr. Trump has decisively won back the presidency. I would never claim to have all the answers about what went wrong, but I do worry that Democrats walked into the trap of defending the very institutions — the “establishment” — that most Americans distrust. As a party interested in competent technocracy, we lost touch with the anger people feel at government. As a party that prizes data, we seized on indicators of growth and job creation as proof that the economy was booming, even though people felt crushed by rising costs. As a party motivated by social justice, we let revulsion at white Christian nationalism bait us into identity politics on their terms — whether it was debates about transgender athletes, the busing of migrants to cities, or shaming racist MAGA personalities who can’t be shamed. As a party committed to American leadership of a “rules-based international order,” we defended a national security enterprise that has failed repeatedly in the 21st century, and made ourselves hypocrites through unconditional military support for Israel’s bombardment of civilians in Gaza.

Donald Trump has won the presidency, but I don’t believe he will deliver on his promises. Like other self-interested autocrats, his remedies are designed to exploit problems instead of solving them, and he’s surrounded by oligarchs who want to loot the system instead of reforming it. Mass deportation and tariffs are recipes for inflation. Tax cuts and deregulation will exacerbate inequality. America First impulses will fuel global conflict, technological disruption and climate conflagration. Mr. Trump is the new establishment in this country and globally, and we should emphasize that instead of painting him as an outlier or interloper.

Opinion | I Study Guys Like Trump. There’s a Reason They Keep Winning.

Democrats walked into the trap of defending the very institutions most Americans distrust.

www.nytimes.com

It’s really very simple, one of our greatest minds predicted it quite some time ago.

 

[Cyber_punk]

Under no circumstances will imposing tariffs bring manufacturing back to the USA in any kind of quantity. Ford and GM are not suddenly going to build car making factories in Detroit again.

It might have a slight positive impact on US based cottage manufacturers, but the products made by those small companies usually come with a premium in any event (which people are generally prepared to pay). Once those companies want to scale up, it's always more financially beneficial to offshore manufacturing (even with a tariff in place).

Globalization is inevitable.

All I can see it doing is ramping up the price of all consumer electronics, cars and clothes which are all made overseas.

Deporting millions of poorly paid undocumented migrant workers won't help with driving manufacturing costs down either. Companies will have to pay to recruit and then pay locally born workers more, which will also drive prices up.

If he wanted to drive US manufacturing, he needs to go the way of the Germans and focus on high end manufacturing - the sort of stuff that requires rare resources, and specialist technical expertise (both of which the USA has in droves).

About the only thing keeping US manufacturing afloat over the past 50 years is a legislative requirement for defence procurement projects to be 'made in America' (Berry regulations and related policies) and similar restrictions on things like certain firearms via importation (restrictions that don't apply to locally made firearms).

The net positive of the above defence rules is the US has a ready-made manufacturing sector capable of making extremely high-tech stuff.

It won't be long until the gamers turn on him

 

[2 eazy]

I guess funding perfect rate for s tariff is vital maybe 5-7% still get some revenue but won't be such a hike where inflation and competition

 

[2 eazy]

Also what makes you think he will live up to his promises like he did in first term lot of talk but no action

 

[stallon]

Also what makes you think he will live up to his promises like he did in first term lot of talk but no action

He didnt have a majority government last time, a lot of stuff he wanted to do got blocked.
Hes got the majority this time, so no excuse

 

[magpie_marty]

He didnt have a majority government last time, a lot of stuff he wanted to do got blocked.
Hes got the majority this time, so no excuse

That is not true,
In 2016 he had the senate and the house for two years.

 

[stallon]

That is not true,
In 2016 he had the senate and the house for two years.

youre right, surprised he didnt get a little more done, cant remember if he just didnt push it or it got blocked by republicans working against him.

Point is he has a lot more support this time around, he was dealing with a lot of the old republicans who had been there for a loooong time and werent interested in making waves in 2016-2020. Sounds like hes got a bit more of a handle on who is useful to him and who isnt this time, he spoke about it a bit in his Joe Rogan podcast

 

[magpie_marty]

Donald Trump picks immigration hardliner Tom Homan as his 'Border Czar'

Tom Homan, the former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), will be in charge of the country's borders in Donald Trump's new administration.

www.sbs.com.au

 

[Blue1980]

youre right, surprised he didnt get a little more done, cant remember if he just didnt push it or it got blocked by republicans working against him.

Point is he has a lot more support this time around, he was dealing with a lot of the old republicans who had been there for a loooong time and werent interested in making waves in 2016-2020. Sounds like hes got a bit more of a handle on who is useful to him and who isnt this time, he spoke about it a bit in his Joe Rogan podcast

He didn't expect to get elected, and had no plan really before coming in. This time its very different, he knows and the party is all MAGA now, whereas it was still a neocon party back in 2016 largely. Since then the old neocons have either got on board MAGA or been replaced by MTG, Gaetz, Boebert etc.

 

[SeaOfFire]

I think you have forgotten the most troubling of his intentions, although it is debatable if it truly falls under the umbrella of policy.

That being the desire for the most recent election to be 'the last time' people have to vote.

Democracy itself can now be argued to have reached its nadir of its own political expression. When people choose to elect a tyrant, one who appears comfortable to dismiss many of the guardrails and balances that have been instituted to prevent authoritarian representation, it exposes the greatest flaw in representative democracy.

We got here, because decades ago, the embrace of capitalism eschewed fundamental skills that couldn't easily be quantified within an economic cost/benefit analysis - critical thinking and ethical philosophy. This failing has led to generational ignorance and blind acceptance of disputable facts being raised up as pillars of societal norms, realised for many simply as satisfactory living standards. The system rewards stability and that stability comes at the cost of difficult questions that otherwise serve a useful purpose in exploring just what type of society people wish to live in.

That has now been shown to be one in which communities are happy to sacrifice the rights of others which they themselves either don't understand, or don't self-identify with.

"It doesn't affect me, so I don't care" has become the champion of the mainstream.

We are all guilty of this, as a general rule. But that's the purpose of governments, of collective thinking, that of embracing the notion of a different point of view which can illuminate a problem that you might not otherwise see from your position.

Rather we have educated that conformity and homogeneity are the framework for a peaceful and successful society. And whoever controls that narrative can sway public opinion and endorsement in a populace tired of constant dialogue and confusing policy positions.

Democracy's biggest failing, its achilles heel, has always been in the simple maths.....if a majority of 51% vote yes, then X wins. Which overlooks the fact that 49% are then unhappy because Y has been defeated. And rather than educate the 49% OR the 51% on how the other's position could be valued, it is far easier to demonise and discredit, thus achieving "democratically" what the authoritarian simply decrees.

When the individual citizen prefers to let others take responsibility for the health of the society at large, all you need to legitimise this surrender of autonomy is for that position to be embraced by a democratic majority.

Thus, people have embraced, and will continue to embrace, tyrannical authoritarians who offer the vision of stability which appeals to the largest number of voters.

 

[stallon]

I think you have forgotten the most troubling of his intentions, although it is debatable if it truly falls under the umbrella of policy.

That being the desire for the most recent election to be 'the last time' people have to vote.

Democracy itself can now be argued to have reached its nadir of its own political expression. When people choose to elect a tyrant, one who appears comfortable to dismiss many of the guardrails and balances that have been instituted to prevent authoritarian representation, it exposes the greatest flaw in representative democracy.

We got here, because decades ago, the embrace of capitalism eschewed fundamental skills that couldn't easily be quantified within an economic cost/benefit analysis - critical thinking and ethical philosophy. This failing has led to generational ignorance and blind acceptance of disputable facts being raised up as pillars of societal norms, realised for many simply as satisfactory living standards. The system rewards stability and that stability comes at the cost of difficult questions that otherwise serve a useful purpose in exploring just what type of society people wish to live in.

That has now been shown to be one in which communities are happy to sacrifice the rights of others which they themselves either don't understand, or don't self-identify with.

"It doesn't affect me, so I don't care" has become the champion of the mainstream.

We are all guilty of this, as a general rule. But that's the purpose of governments, of collective thinking, that of embracing the notion of a different point of view which can illuminate a problem that you might not otherwise see from your position.

Rather we have educated that conformity and homogeneity are the framework for a peaceful and successful society. And whoever controls that narrative can sway public opinion and endorsement in a populace tired of constant dialogue and confusing policy positions.

Democracy's biggest failing, its achilles heel, has always been in the simple maths.....if a majority of 51% vote yes, then X wins. Which overlooks the fact that 49% are then unhappy because Y has been defeated. And rather than educate the 49% OR the 51% on how the other's position could be valued, it is far easier to demonise and discredit, thus achieving "democratically" what the authoritarian simply decrees.

When the individual citizen prefers to let others take responsibility for the health of the society at large, all you need to legitimise this surrender of autonomy is for that position to be embraced by a democratic majority.

Thus, people have embraced, and will continue to embrace, tyrannical authoritarians who offer the vision of stability which appeals to the largest number of voters.

Trump isnt an authoritarian mate, hes just america first with no consideration for other countries or non citizens. Hes not the nicest at doing things, but you cant deny hes effective at dealing with other countries and getting favourable outcomes.
If you honestly believe he wants to be a dictator then you have been a victim of propaganda, sorry to say mate

Democracy is the worst form of government aside from all the others. Yes it gives the uneducated a voice, but whats the alternative? IQ tests for a vote? a little quiz to determine if you have any knowledge on the election at all? education is NOT a sign of high intelligence so rule that out, aside from that you start to go into forms of government where someone takes power and doesnt let it go, like many other countries do.

The 49% vs 51% thing, of course you discredit the opposition, particularly before an election. You need to say why you will solve this issue that the other side will create/perpetuate. When both sides have different goals of course theyre going to be different.
The media in general is guilty of making this worse, they all push that you have to pick 1 side, and if you are on the other you are EVIL(the left does this a LOT). That doesnt leave much room for talk or compromise.
In fact I think that is a large part of why the dems lost, they called white men evil, they called anybody who doesnt embrace trans people evil, they called people who dont support an open border evil

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I think you have forgotten the most troubling of his intentions, although it is debatable if it truly falls under the umbrella of policy.

That being the desire for the most recent election to be 'the last time' people have to vote.

Democracy itself can now be argued to have reached its nadir of its own political expression. When people choose to elect a tyrant, one who appears comfortable to dismiss many of the guardrails and balances that have been instituted to prevent authoritarian representation, it exposes the greatest flaw in representative democracy.

We got here, because decades ago, the embrace of capitalism eschewed fundamental skills that couldn't easily be quantified within an economic cost/benefit analysis - critical thinking and ethical philosophy. This failing has led to generational ignorance and blind acceptance of disputable facts being raised up as pillars of societal norms, realised for many simply as satisfactory living standards. The system rewards stability and that stability comes at the cost of difficult questions that otherwise serve a useful purpose in exploring just what type of society people wish to live in.

That has now been shown to be one in which communities are happy to sacrifice the rights of others which they themselves either don't understand, or don't self-identify with.

"It doesn't affect me, so I don't care" has become the champion of the mainstream.

We are all guilty of this, as a general rule. But that's the purpose of governments, of collective thinking, that of embracing the notion of a different point of view which can illuminate a problem that you might not otherwise see from your position.

Rather we have educated that conformity and homogeneity are the framework for a peaceful and successful society. And whoever controls that narrative can sway public opinion and endorsement in a populace tired of constant dialogue and confusing policy positions.

Democracy's biggest failing, its achilles heel, has always been in the simple maths.....if a majority of 51% vote yes, then X wins. Which overlooks the fact that 49% are then unhappy because Y has been defeated. And rather than educate the 49% OR the 51% on how the other's position could be valued, it is far easier to demonise and discredit, thus achieving "democratically" what the authoritarian simply decrees.

When the individual citizen prefers to let others take responsibility for the health of the society at large, all you need to legitimise this surrender of autonomy is for that position to be embraced by a democratic majority.

Thus, people have embraced, and will continue to embrace, tyrannical authoritarians who offer the vision of stability which appeals to the largest number of voters.

Good post.

 

[bourbons]

Trump isnt an authoritarian mate, hes just america first with no consideration for other countries or non citizens. Hes not the nicest at doing things, but you cant deny hes effective at dealing with other countries and getting favourable outcomes.
If you honestly believe he wants to be a dictator then you have been a victim of propaganda, sorry to say mate

How does trying to overturn a democratic election and render void the votes of 80 million US citizens fit in with this take?

 

[Fire]

How does trying to overturn a democratic election and render void the votes of 80 million people fit in with this take?

It doesn't. Trump has shown the world who he is but it either didn't believe him, or wasn't paying attention.

 

[Maggie5]

The only reason I would suggest yes is this time going in, he's more aware of people. But, why waste precious time guessing? Let's see what he does.

I have plenty of time so not an issue for me, besides only takes seconds to guess based on past history.

Not sure factoring in people's awareness even enters his mind.

He will do as he sees fit whether it pleases others or not.

You give him too much credit.

 

[And_ROOS]

It won't be long until the gamers turn on him

Project 2025 wants to ban violent games and pr0n, you think the republic incel that took a shot at Trump was bad wait until he bans games when the new GTA is about to drop. Trump on stage is going to be like that old Duck Hunt game with the amount of shots at him.

And if he bans pr0n, he might want to go into hiding.

 

[Sqotty from office works]

Donald Trump picks immigration hardliner Tom Homan as his 'Border Czar'

Tom Homan, the former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), will be in charge of the country's borders in Donald Trump's new administration.

www.sbs.com.au

To be fair, Trump has said what his border policy would be and has appointed somebody with a clear mandate of what he has to do.
Can't blame him if he starts doing what's required

 

[stallon]

How does trying to overturn a democratic election and render void the votes of 80 million US citizens fit in with this take?

You mean the claims that the election was stolen?

Tell me how that makes a man authoritarian to question the democratic process that did have some questionable things happen, largely based around mail in ballots? Should nobody question it under any circumstance?

Now 4 years later we see that 2020 was a complete anomaly with the dems somehow losing 10million votes this time around, republicans stayed the same.
Even the most steadfast leftie has to agree there may have been something to it, just based off that info alone.

 

[Happy Mastenator]

You mean the claims that the election was stolen?

Tell me how that makes a man authoritarian to question the democratic process that did have some questionable things happen, largely based around mail in ballots? Should nobody question it under any circumstance?

Now 4 years later we see that 2020 was a complete anomaly with the dems somehow losing 10million votes this time around, republicans stayed the same.
Even the most steadfast leftie has to agree there may have been something to it, just based off that info alone.

Nah, it was a completely different election given covid and the ease of mail in voting for that specific election. It meant a lot more people voted than usual, because they had nothing else to do.

No one denies you can challenge an election, but you need evidence/proof and to be able to win in court. The GOP never had anything in 2020. They lost fair and square. They then engaged in insurrection in order to try retain power.

It's like this election, some on the left are arguing the lack of votes mean the election was stolen. As a result, they need to make a legitimate case in court, or shut up.