is it really possible that Donald trump could be president????? [Part 3]

(1000 Posts)
Lweji Fri 25-Mar-16 08:45:11

Continuing the thread, and in reply to the two last posts of thread 2

Today 08:15 OhYouBadBadKitten

I don't think it is about Trump taking risks, its more that he is a narcisstic sociopath. He feels untouchable in what he says and has no regard for the consequences.

Today 06:53 fourmummy

To be fair, voters know that all political rhetoric mostly comes to nothing (rhetoric = argumentation and persuasion, elevated to an art from in Ancient Greece). Why do you imagine Labour want to introduce votes for 16 year olds? They know that people don't become "more conservative" as they get older-they become wiser to the political process and its lies rhetoric. So what's different with Trump? Why hasn't his unbelievably unlikeable public and private persona sunk him?

Answer=risk

He is not a ready-rolled, ready-prepped and ready-to-go politician (think Blair's son parachuted into a constituency; MIliband brothers, Clintons). These are not risking much because they were cast in the role when they were made. We know that this is the case with, certainly, Clinton (numerous interviews with aides attest to this; ditto for the others). Voters are doing a risk assessment of his risks and have decided that he is worth something. It's not as simple as suggesting that if someone votes for him then they must be racist or sexist, as I've seen journos assert. Voters are effectively doing a risk assessment and deciding that given the enormous costs both to him (energy, health, time away from family, reputation, financial, career, historical implications, ) and to his voters (risk of being viewed as sexist, racist, intolerant, asshole), the benefits must outweigh these costs. Very unwise to dismiss ordinary voters as simplistically sexist and racists, as many, many journalists have (shortsightedly) done. Even non-experts are very good at performing cost/benefit analyses

As I said I don't see anything of what he says as taking a risk. Because he is saying what many people want to hear.
As for personal cost, he is clearly someone who enjoys the power, the limelight, the adoration. All that is missing for him is the ultimate power, particularly as he sees other true billionaires taking central stage.
But he doesn't have the heart to be Gates.
So, he's going for the highest office, and on the back of American voters most primal fears.

But...
He's not averse to risk. He's built his empire on it. He's had four bankruptcies. Anyone should be worried about the way he manages risk.

OhYouBadBadKitten Fri 25-Mar-16 08:57:06

thanks for the new thread Lwej smile

anotherbusymum14 Fri 25-Mar-16 09:10:16

I haven't followed this thread yet but yes, he could well be President. As much as everyone is up in arms about it the thing is some Americans are fed up with leaders toeing the line and running the country to keep certain groups happy (for funding purposes etc). Trump is not bound by all this nonsense and can go in and do what he says he will do. I'm not exactly "for" him because if some of his attitudes but I think it's interesting times and maybe not a bad idea to have him in for a term. Look at how many people he upsets because of what he is saying right now. Personally I think there are some very controlling people who are realizing they will lose all power and authority they have in government and they are pooping themselves. He is getting into a place that takes years for some people to get to and where only some of Americas "elite" or "favorites" can tread.
It's going to be very interesting if he wins. Don't forget that American culture and beliefs are very different to the UK. Individuals in America feel they have an individual right to do what they want. It's not as much collective group / society. For example they have access to guns because it's their right and they believe it's not someone's right to take this off them. They have that right to protect themselves regardless of their neighbor being a nutter with a stash of guns. This is every reason why they believe they have access to guns. Telling them they cannot do something goes against what they believe (it goes back to their founding statements Bill of Rights / Amendments - which the UK does not have and cannot compare to). As a nation they believe it's their right to do and say what they believe and you cannot tell them not to. It's not a bad thing, it's just unusual because it's their culture not ours. There's a whole lot more on this but no room to properly discuss here but yes I can see it's possible Trump will win and we have to stop viewing Trump as the Apprentice star or just a billionaire or whatever, and see that he is going for President and he will change America if he gets in.

fourmummy Fri 25-Mar-16 09:17:55

Today 06:53 fourmummy

That makes me look like such a BiIly-No-Mates. Not only did I post when the whole country is on holiday but I posted at 6.53 in the morning blush You didn't have to include the time in the c&p grin

Want2bSupermum Fri 25-Mar-16 09:42:09

fourmummy It's 5 hours behind here.... So half 5 in the morning!

WRT taxes Trump has put forward a plan as to how he would cut them for everyday people. Right now there are certain loopholes around carried interest that he would close. He would also lower corporation tax and not penalize companies who onshore their profits. This would result in a significant (estimated at 10-15% increase) increase in tax revenue. Also by removing the need for anyone making under $50k a year to file a tax return you could look at downsizing the IRS (which has ballooned under Obama).

His tax plan does make sense. It doesn't pander to special interests (H&R block etc) which is why the media dismiss it.

Lweji Fri 25-Mar-16 09:57:54

fourmumm

If it makes you feel better, I sometimes post at 4 am between sleeps. grin

fourmummy Fri 25-Mar-16 10:24:16

Lweji Yes, much better!

As I said I don't see anything of what he says as taking a risk. Because he is saying what many people want to hear

This is the thing. Trump's persona is actually very risky given that in Western societies, accusations of racism, sexism, xenophobia are socially undesirable and regulated with zeal. These are risks not only for himself but for his supporters. He doesn't even try to ward them off. I think that this is extremely significant and is an insight into some very important processes going on, which are not explainable away as merely sociopathy, egotism, instability or nastiness.I wouldn't have said this a few months ago but there's been a game-changer (don't know what it is off-hand). Imagine any other politician saying what he has said.

Lweji Fri 25-Mar-16 10:29:59

Interesting about taxes.
According to his own website, though, "those who would otherwise owe income taxes will save an average of nearly $1,000 each." by not charging income tax to those "single and earn less than $25,000, or married and jointly earn less than $50,000". I agree that it would save a lot of paperwork for IRS, although the savings for families are not that fantastic, but still worthwhile, I suppose.
My question would be: how do you show that you earned less than that? Surely there has to be some paperwork involved, thereby not saving IRS that much work?

I don't have the exact calculations, but he seems to be saying that the very rich will effectively be taxed more (by reducing loopholes) although the overall taxes will be lower. But the very rich are a very small percentage of the population. Whereas I agree that loopholes should be ended, I think it's mostly a matter of justice rather than having a big effect on tax revenue.

Also for "death" tax, which he wants to eliminate, it only applies for wealth of over 5 million if the person dies in the 2010s. According to Wikipedia, it corresponds to only "the largest 0.2% of estates in the US". That's 1 in 500 people. Not many. But most Americans would like to think they could be in that group one day, I suppose. And it certainly includes his own family.

OhYouBadBadKitten Fri 25-Mar-16 11:42:40

welcome to the discussion busymummy.

What I find most scary in all of this is the way he absolutely viciously and personally attacks anyone who criticises him. His followers are all 'yeah well he/she started it'. What on earth will happen when a leader of another country criticises him as will happen? Is he going to start calling him names? going after his wife? send in the troops? push the nuclear button?

He seems to have no brakes on his feelings - just blurts them out in school ground style retorts.

BigChocFrenzy Fri 25-Mar-16 12:36:24

On a BFing thread just now, I was applauding someone for their policy
"follow your inner monkey"
Very useful for many matters physical.
i just realised it's Trump's policy. Works better for BFing

wiltingfast Fri 25-Mar-16 17:54:02

Omg you nailed it. He is totally inner monkey grin

Lweji Fri 25-Mar-16 18:15:32

Are there any MN rules about insulting monkeys? wink

wiltingfast Fri 25-Mar-16 18:18:38

I think his tax cuts ideas are bonkers. The vast majority won't gain anything like enough to compensate for services lost. Found these charts here which do not make for pretty reading. Bottom earner? Gain of $128/y. Top? Gain of $1.3m+/y shock

Contrast such lunatic talk with this analysis from Warren Buffet. who has never gone bankrupt

fourmummy Fri 25-Mar-16 19:08:47

But he wouldn't be writing his own projections or policies. None of them do. That's like thinking that George Osborne is a financial whizz - with a degree in Modern History, he's singularly unqualified for it.

Lweji Fri 25-Mar-16 20:56:33

Except that Trump is supposed to be a financial wizard which he isn't. And he keeps presenting himself as a self made man ignoring his initial loans and inheritance with a huge fortune.

wiltingfast Fri 25-Mar-16 22:12:40

But surely what he is presenting is what he wants to do?

Proginoskes Fri 25-Mar-16 22:37:49

Coming in with the caveat that - and an apology for - the fact that I am sorry, but RTlast two FThreads is just not happening grin so I may end up re-hashing old info... I'm in the US, in a part of Pennsylvania that with the exception of the 1.1 square-mile boro in which I (along with a shedload of other uni faculty members) live is screamingly Republican, and yes, there are some Trump-ets here, but the sense I'm getting is that while he may be able to bully/buy his way in to the nomination, he would be destroyed in the actual Presidential election by just about anyone, be it Clinton, Sanders, or a Democratic-party-approved ham sandwich. The media is absolutely gleefully rubbing its thighs over the prospect of a "brokered convention", which is basically "okay, we know you won most of the delegates but we're damned if we're just going to hand over that nomination" - it's like sporn for newshounds. The thing is that the Republican party, especially over...ugh, I'm thinking the last 12 years or so? has been slowly growing more and more evangelical-Christian (the demographic to which Cruz has the most appeal) and there is simply no way I can see them casting a vote for Trump as President. The problem is that Cruz has made himself very unpopular with his colleagues in the Senate, and even if he's a close second to Trump he may find that party support just isn't there for him either. I have a wee bit of a wager on with my brother that the party is going to end up putting Mitt Romney out to run again; DB thinks it's going to be Speaker of the House Paul Ryan.

But as far as Trump is concerned? I'm still not convinced this whole stramash, especially the nasty tweets and jibes about his opponents, isn't just a marketing ploy. His name is his brand - he can't help but to plaster it over everything he has a hand in - and from a marketing standpoint he has to be salivating over all the basically free advertising Brand TRUMP is getting.

I'm not a political scientist; I may be wrong and we might have a trainwreck on our hands come November; but from what I've seen and heard discussed by actual voters rather than the media, the global community can push Herr Drumpf way to the bottom of their list of 'stupid things the US is going to do this year'. wink

Lweji Fri 25-Mar-16 23:27:24

Proginoskes
I'd say that's just about right. Good to have opinions from the states.

wiltingfast
Not according to a certain highly prolific and repetitive poster. Apparently, Trump is the one who says it like it is, while at the same time saying anything to get elected and who knows what he'll actually do. grin

peggyundercrackers Fri 25-Mar-16 23:38:31

What I find most scary in all of this is the way he absolutely viciously and personally attacks anyone who criticises him

Whereas all other politicians say it behind their backs - I guess with trump you know where you stand but Clinton just seems to lie to save her own ass and tells people what they want to hear.

Another example is what G Brown said about that woman when he thought everyone else was out of earshot - I'm sure he didn't want everyone to know he thought she was a bigot.

I think Clinton is a scarier prospect that trump - everything about her is false, she is too smooth and too well connected to the establishment.

BigChocFrenzy Fri 25-Mar-16 23:44:19

Don't be fooled that the only feasible alternative, Cruz, is any more virtuous.
Apart from being fanatically anti-choice, he's yet another far-right racist using the Brussels slaughter to appeal to the worst instincts.
The guardian reports: "Cruz called for emboldening law enforcement to “patrol and secure Muslim neighborhoods”.

BigChocFrenzy Sat 26-Mar-16 00:01:19

Cruz voters seem impervious to logic, but I wonder if the bizarre allegations about 5 affairs would affect his chances at all.
They seem to have come originally from the Rubio camp, but the National Enquirer has published them. Trump of course is gloating without any shame / subtlety. He really doesn't follow the polite conventions.
Is US voting likely to be affected by scandals published in the NE ? Doesn't any seem real evidence, at least so far.

Proginoskes Sat 26-Mar-16 00:06:08

Oh, Cruz would be terrible. He's a Christian Dominionist who thinks that every aspect of life, from family life to educational institutions, courts, and the highest levels of the government, should be run according to Christianist theology. He is actually my "worst-case scenario" president, not Trump.

I'm registered as a Democrat but am far more in favour of Sanders than Clinton; mostly because I'm so left I just about fall off the spectrum. That's not to say I agree with everything he proposes, but there are quite a lot of things about Clinton that really bother me, chief among them being her connection with big banking. I lost my job when the markets crashed in 2008 - I was the assistant to a certified financial planner - but that wasn't till my boss' business had to fold in April 2009. In the interim, I took calls from people like our 80-year-old client who suddenly found herself going from "comfortable assisted living care" to "have to move in with granddaughter" because her money was gone. Our Supreme Court decision on Citizens United, that defined corporations as 'persons' for the purpose of political contributions has fucking WRECKED the idea of legislators being elected by the people whose lives they'll affect with their policies and I want it gone like YESTERDAY; Sanders is the only candidate who would even consider it.

There is a lot, like REALLY a lot of sentiment among women, mostly ten or more years older than me (I'm 44) that we women must vote for Clinton because we owe it to her and to all women who ever fought for feminism ever to make her President. I would be THRILLED to bits to be able to share the joy of seeing a woman President with my DD, but honestly, that doesn't mean I have to automatically jump behind the first woman who sticks her hand up for the job. Or the second, or the third. If anything, the amount of stick thrown at Sanders-voting women by Clinton-because-she's-a-woman women pushes me and others even MORE the other way.

BigChocFrenzy Sat 26-Mar-16 00:06:39

Oh and Cruz was talking about patrolling Muslim neighbourhoods in the US , not as an emergency measure in Brussels while hunting terrorists.
So, I wouldn't shed any tears if his campaign crashes.
A very nasty, dangerous professional politician, who is quite capable of actually getting things done, as distinct from amateur Trump who is unlikely to achieve anything he promises.

Proginoskes Sat 26-Mar-16 00:11:52

BigChocFrenzy the NE is actually kind of an odd bird amongst US tabloids in that when they break REALLY big news, like when they broke the news of Presidential candidate John Edwards' affair with his former campaign worker, or other big celebrity stories, more often than not they're not making it up. The NE claiming to have proof of five affairs probably means that...well, maybe it was five or maybe it was three or coulda been seven, but it's a dead cert Cruz was dipping his wick somewhere it shouldn't have been.

BigChocFrenzy Sat 26-Mar-16 00:13:01

He's my worst case too.
I agree about Hilary, who seems to hold unpleasant rightwing views on nearly everything except abortion. She supports the interests of the wealthy above those of the bottom 90%.
She would be Wall Street's 1st women in the White House

This thread is not accepting new messages.