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.

Sorry, App is bolding on its own

Now see, my kids (16 and 15) would try so hard to convince everyone that it's a turrible turrible authoritarian house we have and they're awfully hard done by.

I, on the other hand, am pretty sure that at this point the inmates are gearing up to take over the asylum.

Anybody know of any kind of worldwide political comparator tool that can put politicians/leaders of different countries on one political spectrum? It'd be kind of interesting to compare Sanders/Clinton/Trump/Cruz/IDS/Corbyn/Cameron etc

I think it's very difficult to compare countries because you have to have a country-specific starting point. To give an example, I'm pretty left-wing by UK standards. But I'm in favour of (limited) labour-market liberalisation in my home country (France). That's a "right wing" policy but in the context of a very protectionist labour market.

In a similar way. Sanders proposals for healthcare reform and cheap/ free higher education wouldn't look left-wing at all in a European country where everyone has healthcare cover and it costs peanuts to attend university. Actually, you don't have to go back very far in the UK to find a very right wing government (Thatcher) which governed a country where people enjoyed socialised healthcare and heavily subsidised higher education ....

There are three threads about the consequences of Islaminc intollerance and provocation in the top of the page. These are active discussions And reflect the MN community and what it is worried about.

Trump is one of the few politicians who is saying islam is a problem.

That alone is probably why he is getting support.

Those threads don't "reflect the community" - count the number of active posters. It's like the Trump threads, where out of maybe 1200 posts I would put a bet on at least half being from a single person, and at least 95% of posts are from the five or six of us on MN who care about US politics.

Islamophobia doesn't come close to explaining Trump's success anyway. Cruz is also very anti-Muslim, and certainly much more in favour of running the US according to "Christian values" than Trump is. If it were a straightforward battle to elect the most pro-Christian/ anti-Muslim candidate, Cruz would have the nomination sewn up by now.

Anybody know of any kind of worldwide political comparator tool that can put politicians/leaders of different countries on one political spectrum? It'd be kind of interesting to compare Sanders/Clinton/Trump/Cruz/IDS/Corbyn/Cameron etc

Try the political compass www.politicalcompass.org/

Thanks for the link that was given previously and we used to generate the nice graphs.
It only does a selection of European countries or as far back as 2012.

Any other suggestions?

sorry didnt see that it had been answered on page before. (i have completed it previously and I sit on middle line left of SDLP/plaid cyrmu. So also pretty screwed when trying to vote in general election.

Agreed Mistigri.

That was an interesting quiz. I'm definitely moving more left as I age. Looks like Green is my natural home. which is what I voted in the last election

Im assuming the scale of the graphs is the same so its just a matter of transposing them to one graph?

I have not come across anyone else trying to measure policies in this way.

The BIG problem with "political compass" sites is that they only take account of what's in the manifesto, not what isn't. And policies which are broadly supported by all mainstream parties tend not be in manifestos!

Practical example: Sanders' commitment to affordable higher education for all puts him on the left of US politics. Elsewhere, though, higher education is already very cheap or free, and it's widely accepted by continental European governments that the state should subsidise a university education. Therefore, a French "right-wing" government that continues existing policies towards affordable further education (as the Sarkozy government did) gets no "left-wing points" for offering university education for all.

In a similar way, any politician proposing an NHS style healthcare system in his or her manifesto would get "leftwing points". But the current UK government gets no leftwing points at all for maintaining a free-at-the-point-of-treatment service - in fact, it gets rightwing points for partly privatising it (even though, in most of continental Europe, private sector involvement in healthcare is widespread and is accepted by right and left alike).

that makes sense.

And if you want an example of what I'm talking about, just consider the position of Scandinavian governments - with their famously high taxes and redistributive economic policies - on this chart.

www.politicalcompass.org/euchart

European governments look right wing even when they are not really, because they are starting from a very (by US/UK standards) "left wing" position, and therefore manifestos tend to contain promises that are more likely to lean right than left. But they are leaning right from a starting point that is well to the left of US politics.

Incidentally, that chart alone - which crowds all European governments into a narrow area despite the very different economic structures and social support systems of their respective countries - should tell you that the method is deeply flawed.

Nate Silver wrote Terrorist attcks help Trump capitalise on anti-muslim sentiments and has this graph from his national polling.
We'll have to see if the horrific Brussels attacks help him further, or if he has already gained all the votes available with his approach.
Results suggest even those who like his anti-Muslim attitude don't have much faith in his crisis management skills.

< laughing at "authoritarian" Proginoskes household >

Very inspirational video on African Americans for Trump. Don't know what the music is - probably from a movie, if anyone knows please say what it is.

Nate Silver wrote Terrorist attcks help Trump capitalise on anti-muslim sentiments

Trump may be best at capitalising on islamophobia but actually his opinions on Islam are completely in keeping with those of other candidates like Cruz and Carson, and with those of a Republican Party that has spent 8 years demonising their democratically-elected president on the grounds that he is a black man whose grandfather was a muslim.

Yes, that's the point with Trump: The others hide their nastiness; he doesn't
Listen very carefully to what Cruz says, e.g. abortion, patrolling US Muslims
If Cruz were nominated and became President (always a chance Hillary could implode with indictments etc) then people would find his policies are just as nasty as Trump's bombast.

However, since Cruz probably genuinely believes his religious and far right crap, he'd invest all his energy into getting his policies through.
Trump would probably just stick sponsorship logos on Air Force One - Trump One maybe ? - and swan around doing popular game shows. He's in this for the loot and the fun.

It was mentioned earlier on about how "truthful" Trump was.

So, according to factcheck.org:

• unemployment among African Americans is more 25% (half of the claimed over 50%)
• recent polls (February) have African American support at 4-12%, and no longer 25% as in September (possibly when people hadn't realised how he really was
• Trump has similar black support as other Republican candidates, excluding when Obama run for office, so, it's not higher for him as claimed.

I don't think the others hide their Islamophobia at all bigchoc. They are just not as good at playing the media game as Trump.

I think the election could be very close, people are saying watch this space with the Hilary indictments - could they actually go somewhere or will it just end in a slap on the wrist.

The thing is all candidates in this age chop and change and also lots of spin, so you cant throw that against trump anymore than any candidate. I think for all there bluster about communist block countries etc Americans would like a strong authoritarian.

Trump has done well to set himself up as a man of money, 'outside of washington' looking to rock the boat, and has ignited the population in the most base way. Getting those same people who in England 'dont like how its not England anymore'.

For me I think he could be a complete nightmare as he could set us up for another cold war with Russia.

Clearly all are guilty of spin, but Trump claims he tells it like it is and when scrutinised most of what he says are lies.

'Hilary indictments - could they actually go somewhere or will it just end in a slap on the wrist. '

Lots of conflicting views on this, no one really knows. Someone who used to work for the Clintons has been on internet talkshows saying that there is no way because she knows too much on others. But Roger Stone, Trump's former advisor, says that he thinks the FBI will recommend it and Obama will not go ahead with it and that the FBI Director and other FBI agents may possibly then resign which will possibly end her campaign.

Some analysts on Fox, and people like Newt Gingrich, think that they are preparing info for a Grand Jury, but they don't know for sure.

Other analysts, like Democrat supporting Geraldo Rivera on Fox, who is a lwayer, says there is no case to answer and that she won't be indicted.

'could be a complete nightmare as he could set us up for another cold war with Russia'

Unlikely. It s possible because Trump is unpredictable and no one really knows what he will do, but he has said he thinks he will "get on well with Putin". He is saying that "Nato is obsolete" and new or different structures are needed that focus on terrorism as well. He has not said what they are, but they could even possibly include Russia ecause he said he was happy for Russia to sort Isis out in Syria. Also this week, Putin released some documents showing that Russia asked to join Nato under Stalin soon after Nato was founded, but they were turned down and that is why they set up the Warsaw Pact. Under trump, anything is possible and all realtionships could be changed. Trump has been consistently anti-war except where Isis is concerned where he says he will "knock them out quickly".

If they indict Hillary, they'll have to explain why previous Secretaries of State (including Republicans) were allowed to use private email.