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

[Lweji]

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.

Talking to yourself again?

He thinks he will be able to come up with a deal that Putin finds OK.
I keep finding this very amusing in a very worried kind of way. What kind of deal do you or Trump think can be done with Putin? Give back the iron curtain countries?

Anyway, I liked your analysis Proginoskes
People have been pointing those problems with Trump's proposals for 4 or 5 threads now, but it's always amusing when claig launches into one of her blind propaganda series of long posts. Welcome. :)

'Talking to yourself again? '

No, just proiding interesting info instead of insults, but you are insulting as usual, no change there.

'I keep finding this very amusing in a very worried kind of way.'

I am not surprised, you seem to find strange things amusing. I won't bother explaining what deal Trump could do with Putin as you would only find it amusing.

'but it's always amusing when claig launches into one of her blind propaganda series of long posts'

Amused again? Another one of your insults.

I wasn't expressing personal disapproval of Trump's or Cruz's private lives, just wondering how such news affects voting of rightwing Christian Republicans.
Reportedly, Trump does ok with evangelicals, but very badly with Mormons, e.g. in Utah, plus some other states where they are a substantial minority - I wonder if the Mormons place more emphasis on views of abortion, homosexuality and on private lives when voting.

There are some fascinating US voter groupings like Yellow Dog Democrats (Southerners with bitter feelings about the Civil War, who would rather vote for a "yellow dog" than a Republican) - but I think many such Southern racists have now found their home in the GOP.

In Reagan's strategy for getting elected, the "Reaganite Democrats" were an important target group. They are, imo, basically the same blue collar Democrats that Nixon targeted - I vividly remember Tricky Dicky. He was another opportunist populist with no fixed political ideology, who appealed to prejudices to get elected, just in a more sophisticated way.

Interesting article, not amusing unless that is your sense of humour, on Trump's foreign policy which is America First as opposed to the international globalism of Bush, Clinton and all the rest of them.

"In Donald Trump’s Worldview, America Comes First, and Everybody Else Pays
...
"Mr. Trump’s views, as he explained them, fit nowhere into the recent history of the Republican Party: He is not in the internationalist camp of the elder President George Bush, nor does he favor George W. Bush’s call to make it the mission of the United States to spread democracy around the world. He agreed with a suggestion that his ideas might best be summed up as “America First.”

“Not isolationist, but I am America First,” he said. “I like the expression.” He said he was willing to reconsider traditional American alliances if partners were not willing to pay, in cash or troop commitments, for the presence of American forces around the world. “We will not be ripped off anymore,” he said.
..
Much the same way he treats political rivals and interviewers, he personalized how he would engage foreign nations, suggesting his approach would depend partly on “how friendly they’ve been toward us,” not just on national interests or alliances."

www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy.html

I doubt the UK Parliament will be holding anymore pointless showboating debates on trying to ban Trump from coming to visit the UK.

'I wonder if the Mormons place more emphasis on views of abortion, homosexuality and on private lives when voting.'

Yes they are more socially conservative than Trump is. Interestingly they also tend to believe in manmade global warming unlike the majority of Republicans and Trump, and they also have the majority of their members in Mexico. Apart from that it seems that the Mormon elite may be favourable to George W Bush and Mitt Romney, who is a Mormon, came out against Trump and is favoured by the Republican/Bush elite.

thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/03/22/3762118/mormons-donald-trump/

Strangely, although Nixon was supposed to be on the Republican right and thought dangerous wrt "finger on the nuclear button" he greatly reduced international tensions in practice:
he was able to disengage from some pointless wars and he started the 1st dialogue and detente with China and the then Soviet Union.

If Trump were elected President (still v unlikely, imo) our best hope is that he might be Nixonian and get on well with Putin. They aren't interested in the same territory and Trump wouldn't care if Putin blasted some Middle East countries down to rubble until they surrendered, as he did in Chechnya.
We just have to hope that Trump has a Kissinger in the wings: someone competent in foreign affairs, who could make detente with Putin.
If Cruz or even Hillary is elected, they might try to confront Putin in the Middle East. He is a ruthless mass murderer, e.g. New Statesman and rarely backs down, so that won't go well for the world as a whole.

As nasty as his policy sounds, trying to build a wall to keep out Mexicans (impractical anyway) or not allowing Muslim into the US (which would only limit the obvious ones) isn't going to start WW3. Getting into conflict with Putin might.

Cruz's proposals for heavy police patrols where Muslims live would affect everyday life for US Muslims and I fear Trump will copy that proposal - if he thinks it will gain votes. I wouldn't put it past Hillary, either.

Ah, thanks, that explains Trump's Mormon problem.
I thought the magic underwear would come into it

' although Nixon was supposed to be on the Republican right and thought dangerous wrt "finger on the nuclear button" he greatly reduced international tensions in practice'

The same as Reagan who ended the Cold War. Republicans are often like that. Trump will also end all of the "humanitarian" liberal intervionist Blairite/Clinton left wing wars.

Yes, Trump will get on with Putin. He will carve out regions of interest and understandings and deals will be made and as long as no one crosses him, everything will be fine. US interests is what he cares about, he is not interested in Blairite foreign aid and "humanitarian" wars and Bush globalist spreading of "democracy" to countries who aren't interested in it. Under Trump, America will no longer be the policeman of the world and anyone who wants American support will have to start paying a heavy price for it. Europe is panicking because they won't be able to risk wars etc in Libya or Ukraine or anywhere and expect unconditional US support. Trump has questioned how much America contributes and pays for NATO. All countries will have to be realistic and start making peaceful deals with each other instead of relying on US support in their dealings with other countries and regions.

'Cruz's proposals for heavy police patrols where Muslims live'

A lot of these things are for electioneering. Trump says lots of way out things also that he will not really do.

Lweji, thanks for the welcome, I didn't mean to poke a hornet's nest though!

I read that NYT article out loud to my husband and we were both cackling like mad at how Trump is living in his own little Trump-world where he thinks that he will make a proposal and it will be so. Executive orders can only get you so far, and as for his ideas about renegotiating treaties, I have bad news for him, Congress has to be on board with that. Not to mention his ideas on foreign policy all boil down to "The US (allegedly, sometimes) does stuff for you. Now pay us for it."

The Republican party must be absolutely frantic by now; there's little doubt that, should a brokered convention happen and the nomination be denied him, Trump would make a third-party run which would very effectively split the Republican vote nearly in half and hand the election right over to Hillary, Bernie, or the hamwich. I've been wondering lately if, in my lifetime, I'll see the Republican party split itself into two separate parties - one socially and fiscally conservative but not based on advancing religion, and the other also socially and fiscally conservative but aimed primarily at enacting Christian Dominionism into all levels of government with the end goal of the US as a theocracy.

I thought the posturing by Uk politicians was VERY stupid: their showing off to the media risked annoying a future US president.

I remember the problems PM Major had when Bill Clinton was elected: relations were very frosty because of remarks during the 2008 US elections by some Tory rightwingers. Major hadn't said anything, but that didn't matter - Clinton bore a grudge against the Tory government, snubbed Major at every opportunity. In N Ireland, Clinton rode roughshod over him & deliberately embarassed him.
The UK only resumed normal relations with the US after Blair was elected.

Trump, with an even bigger ego than a Clinton, is likely to remember slights and bear grudges. The UK is in trouble if he is elected.

You seem to have ignored most of that article. The journalist heavily criticises Trump.

This part of Trump's policy is, ahem, interesting too:
"And he said he would be willing to withdraw United States forces from both Japan and South Korea if they did not substantially increase their contributions to the costs of housing and feeding those troops. “Not happily, but the answer is yes,” he said."

He doesn't seem aware that US troops are not exactly welcome in Japanese soil, and stem from an occupying force. They have a clear strategic role for the US.
See:
www.iop.harvard.edu/us-military-japan-overview

This is also hardly achievable:
"offered only one new idea about how he would change its content: Ban Iran’s trade with North Korea."
Unless he proposes to shoot down or intercept every plane or ship, respectively, between the two.

Then, as the journalist points out: "“We have tremendous economic power over China,” he argued. “And that’s the power of trade.” He did not mention Beijing’s capability for economic retaliation."
The world is a big market these days and the US is not the only available to China.

Proginoskes, the Republican Party as it has been is now finished. Trump has ended it and he has shown that the majority of its voters were never interested in the doctrinal conservative policies that its elite foisted on them. Both Trump and Cruz are anti-establishment in the sense that they oppose the Bush/Romney style policies. But Cruz could never win cross-over Democrat and independent voters whereas Trump can. Trump is a populist rather than a conservative and that is now the future of the Republican Party which is why its elite is in panic because they are globalists just like Clinton and the Democrats and their whole world is going to change when Trump wins.

'The journalist heavily criticises Trump.'

Of course the journalist criticises Trump. It is the New York Times. So do all of the media, the BBC, the Conservative Party and Uncle Tom Cobbley, but so what? It is the American people that count, not the great and the good.

'The world is a big market these days and the US is not the only available to China.'

I think Trump understands that. China will do as they are told because no one wants to get into a trade war with America. Trump will change the entire world and everyone will have to accomodate the changes. That is why the European political class and all other political classes are in pieces.

BigChoc, it would be a shame for him if Trump shunned the UK if he was elected. He will need all the international political help he can get. And some sensible voices that are not from yes people and actually know what's going on in the word. (even if from a Conservative government)

'Trump, with an even bigger ego than a Clinton, is likely to remember slights and bear grudges. The UK is in trouble if he is elected.'

Absolutely. The UK will be fine, they will have to start grovelling and not criticise Trump. Trump will forgive and forget, but he won't take kindly to criticism and showboatism.

The whole world is going to change and realism and common sense will become the order of the day. No country will be able to overplay their hand anymore because Amrica will be boss.

The one thing that might save Cruz is actually the evangelical base he appeals to; if you get up in front of them with a good old-fashioned tearful repentance you pretty much get welcomed right back into the fold (cf. Josh Duggar) and, once someone has confessed and repented, they view it as not proper to hold a grudge. So, if the affair thing is true and Cruz puts on a good show, he might be fine; the evangelicals will be sympathetic and the non-religious will probably shrug, because lord knows enough Republican pols have been busted in affairs that it's hardly worth it to be shocked.

Proginoskes You mentioned Bill Clinton might be claiming Hillary has bipartisan support in Congress.
Does she really have more support than Obama ? The Republican base (which Senators and Congresspersons dare not ignore) absolutely hate her. And have hated her for a longer time than Obama has been around.
In fact, her negative ratings are so high that Independent voters probably also hate her.

Trump is also likely to have problems in Congress, in that both parties will hate him as an amateur outsider. So, he will be very limited in what he can do.

He'd probably be quite happy just swanning around in Air Force One - with sponsorship logos - and hosting game shows "You Can Be President For a Day"

The question will be if he had real sex with those women and if his wife will stand by him and eventually run for president.

Proginoskes, but don't forget that Trump beat Cruz among evangelicals across most of the South. Apparently the rumours over Cruz were initiated among Republican elite circles and some articles say they may have started from a Rubio backer.

What this election has shown is that evangelicals are like everyone else, they did not vote based on religion but on the economy and someone who would fight their corner over political correctness which is why they backed Trump over Cruz. As an evangelical pastor said "evangelicals didn't vote for someone religiously correct, they voted for someone who was not politically correct".

I think he might be President, I don't think it will matter much.

Because, like Obama, he has to get his laws past Congress and they won't pass stuff they don't like (such as fair health care and restrictions on gun ownership) but also Trumps extreme ideas. So all will be well.

BigChocFrenzy No, absolutely not. Obama is actually at his highest approval rating in years, and while she would certainly get more bipartisan support than Trump or Cruz, it wouldn't be ALL of it. Then again, with her connections to big banking and corporate interests she would have a better chance at getting Republicans to take her side - but just those things would make some of the more liberal Democrats LESS likely to do so.

This article by Matt Taibbi, a writer for Rolling Stone, lays out many of the issues people have with Hillary Clinton. She's going to have a lot of trouble getting past what Bill Clinton's policies on crime have done to black youth in America (even though articles from other sources describe black women in particular as "lining up" behind her, that tide is changing as well).

Oops, typo. Of course some Tories annoyed Clinton in 1992 election.
btw, I'm irritated about Obama sticking his nose into the EU referendum and I've always been pro-EU. I voted yes in the 1st referendum too < Sorry, I can imagine your BP rising, Claig >
Very unwise for politicians to comment about politics in other democracies.

' I'm irritated about Obama sticking his nose into the EU referendum '

I'm not bothered about that because it is highly likely that Cameron asked him for help. The Establishment is desperate to stay in the EU with the European Establishment so they need all the help they can get.

There've been so many famous evangelicals doing a public mea culpa after being caught with their trousers down. I'm surprised the evangelical voters still come out to vote for religious candidates.
It seems guaranteed they'll be explaining how that Beagle pup tempted them, or how they fell and their tiny parts landed in the Hoover hose.

Hmm, I suspect it's just Obama sticking his nose in unasked. He's another Democrat who has frosty relations with UK Tories, unlikely to be on terms to be asked for favours.
Strange really, since most Democrat politicians - notable exception being Sanders - have rightwing policies that IDS (Tory rightwinger) can only dream of.
I remember Hannan in the Torygraph rooting for Obama in 2008; several Tories did.

If you don't elect Sanders, can we have him please ? All your other choices are terrible, but he's miles better than any British politican for decades. btw, we have no rules about nationality for British PM