United States Trump 2nd Term - Planning and Beyond

Reader mode
Cherico said:
Ok guys bad news from another thread it looks like the leftwing terrorist threats and attacks have begun.

GdZ3OWKWcAAYN3C


Barcle I know your watching this thread you can say I told you so now.
Click to expand...


 
I'd want Trump to be hawkish on Iran, Azerbaijan and Pakistan. Pakistan has fallen back under military junta rule, Azerbaijan is included due to its proximity to both Iran (geographically and culturally) and Pakistan (martial and political), and Iran is included for reasons I believe are obvious to everyone here. I don't support us going to war with these countries however, that would be a disaster for everyone involved and is not in Trump's or America's interests. Obviously if they attack us we should defend ourselves, but I'd want Trump to also be an open-minded dealmaking businessman like he portrays himself (he did run to the right in the general, but that was mainly to shore up his base, so it was a smart move... unlike Harris who whored herself out to donors and moronic swing state voters.)

I also hope he marshals a Russo-Israeli bulwark against Iran, not dependent on the U.S. for support, just to rub it in (and trigger all the correct people, of course).
 
Vyor said:
He got more votes from independents than Kamala did too. So, clearly, america as a whole wants more right wing policies than left wing ones.
Click to expand...
Or: Trump as a whole appeared more populist than Harris, who came off as a coastal liberal elite. Further, Trump got the lower class vote, whereas Harris beat Trump in those that make over 100K a year. So it was more a rejection of liberal elitism than it was the left in general. The far-left certainly has no reason to celebrate, however. I don't understand why they preferred Trump tbh, maybe you have an answer to that question but I don't lmao
 
IndyFront said:
Or: Trump as a whole appeared more populist than Harris, who came off as a coastal liberal elite. Further, Trump got the lower class vote, whereas Harris beat Trump in those that make over 100K a year. So it was more a rejection of liberal elitism than it was the left in general. The far-left certainly has no reason to celebrate, however. I don't understand why they preferred Trump tbh, maybe you have an answer to that question but I don't lmao
Click to expand...
If you look at most of Trump's policies under the hood, a huge number of the internal side of the economic policies are liberal, working class talking points from like 30 years ago back when your ground level and tangential "outsider" left wing democrats were largely more left-center, prior to the core of the party managing to increase the amount of globalization and trade deregulation while taking advantage of them to play cheeky dicks to the benefit of selling off American jobs essentially. He just adds a dollop of sporadic right wing deregulation and internal state incentives to corporations VS outsourcing incentivization. It's working class leftist populism from when most of the current generation was growing up or being conceived in a conservative wrapper and topped with a bit of anti-establishment icing.

The "Mainstream conservative talking points are liberal ones from decades ago" meme is kinda true to an extent since time makes it easier to judge which ones are beneficial and can be used to help build things further VS just kneejerk reactions or power grabs, and because most left-wing ideologies hinge on the assumption that all causes are temporary, they MUST endlessly expand the base because one cannot be progressive if one is not progressing somewhere.

Intersectionality is a prime example, none of these groups really have too many things in common and inherently will fight for political capital if they want short term results, and only "hot" issues bring in new voters [you can't sell a man who you already cured cough medicine] so you need to convince your base that actually all their problems are the same and they must vote in lockstep on all issues. The base must be expanded and it must be kept obedient enough to do what you want, while being loud and hot button enough to cause conflict and controversy for you to feed off of to fuel your public presence. New interests are welded to the mass, old, no longer useful demographics are mitigated and compressed into a homogenous mass or discarded, depriving them of political power they once had in the wider movement.

[Coincidentally this is a large part of why the LGBT movement and current wave Feminism has gone further bugfuck in the last few decades. They need controversy and rejection to maintain the political relevance many of their upper level representatives among organizations and political movements have gotten used to. Attempting to cultivate a new front in the T not only destroyed the ability of the far rarer and more behaved trans communities to gatekeep and self moderate by overloading them ala an Eternal September of the mentally ill, but ended up crippling the LGB part of things and most feminist blocs in the resulting infighting because they basically replaced themselves. Fucking whoops.]

The result is people who aren't just endlessly farming clout and money through this method inevitably get left behind as well because they actually had political beliefs and the odds of them either becoming conservative due to rejection of the party, becoming so because they genuinely changed, or because the Overton window shifted so far that their middleground opinions that were abandoned become palatable to the right is exceedingly high, so you get people like Trump who end up having barely fucking budged politically in 40 years beyond getting louder and more flamboyant and a bit more militant becoming the frontline for the fuckload of people who have also been pushed right because he still cares about the issues they're concerned with.

The result is you have a generation or two who grew up with that kind of rhetoric as being the good guys, and their parents who used to vote for people saying that shit who ended up not delivering, voting for Trump because the entirety of the 90s and early 2000s was about how the guy who fights for the little working dude is the best guy and throw in a dose of "Richie Rich is gonna solve all your money problems" to pair with it tapping in to the American fascination and belief in Great Man figures.

Throw in the hyperfocus on identity politics among the broader left movements, crippling blows to faith in media institutions gutting the effectiveness of their propaganda, economic troubles that just don't stop that can be traced directly to left-wing policies, political alienation, and the fact that America has been late to its semi-annual isolationist nap for almost a hundred years post-WWII and into the cold war and then the war on terror? A policy moderate, but anti-establishment, rhetorically loud, strong man populist with a track record of strong bonds with workers who's family and life look like one of those fictional royals from a 2000s romantic comedy? Yeah it's not super surprising. The only chance the democrats would have had would have been to probably field Bernie Sanders and garish his nomination with the resignations and/or corpses of several establishment democrats.
 
LordSludge said:
If you look at most of Trump's policies under the hood, a huge number of the internal side of the economic policies are liberal, working class talking points from like 30 years ago back when your ground level and tangential "outsider" left wing democrats were largely more left-center, prior to the core of the party managing to increase the amount of globalization and trade deregulation while taking advantage of them to play cheeky dicks to the benefit of selling off American jobs essentially. He just adds a dollop of sporadic right wing deregulation and internal state incentives to corporations VS outsourcing incentivization. It's working class leftist populism from when most of the current generation was growing up or being conceived in a conservative wrapper and topped with a bit of anti-establishment icing.

The "Mainstream conservative talking points are liberal ones from decades ago" meme is kinda true to an extent since time makes it easier to judge which ones are beneficial and can be used to help build things further VS just kneejerk reactions or power grabs, and because most left-wing ideologies hinge on the assumption that all causes are temporary, they MUST endlessly expand the base because one cannot be progressive if one is not progressing somewhere.

Intersectionality is a prime example, none of these groups really have too many things in common and inherently will fight for political capital if they want short term results, and only "hot" issues bring in new voters [you can't sell a man who you already cured cough medicine] so you need to convince your base that actually all their problems are the same and they must vote in lockstep on all issues. The base must be expanded and it must be kept obedient enough to do what you want, while being loud and hot button enough to cause conflict and controversy for you to feed off of to fuel your public presence. New interests are welded to the mass, old, no longer useful demographics are mitigated and compressed into a homogenous mass or discarded, depriving them of political power they once had in the wider movement.

[Coincidentally this is a large part of why the LGBT movement and current wave Feminism has gone further bugfuck in the last few decades. They need controversy and rejection to maintain the political relevance many of their upper level representatives among organizations and political movements have gotten used to. Attempting to cultivate a new front in the T not only destroyed the ability of the far rarer and more behaved trans communities to gatekeep and self moderate by overloading them ala an Eternal September of the mentally ill, but ended up crippling the LGB part of things and most feminist blocs in the resulting infighting because they basically replaced themselves. Fucking whoops.]

The result is people who aren't just endlessly farming clout and money through this method inevitably get left behind as well because they actually had political beliefs and the odds of them either becoming conservative due to rejection of the party, becoming so because they genuinely changed, or because the Overton window shifted so far that their middleground opinions that were abandoned become palatable to the right is exceedingly high, so you get people like Trump who end up having barely fucking budged politically in 40 years beyond getting louder and more flamboyant and a bit more militant becoming the frontline for the fuckload of people who have also been pushed right because he still cares about the issues they're concerned with.

The result is you have a generation or two who grew up with that kind of rhetoric as being the good guys, and their parents who used to vote for people saying that shit who ended up not delivering, voting for Trump because the entirety of the 90s and early 2000s was about how the guy who fights for the little working dude is the best guy and throw in a dose of "Richie Rich is gonna solve all your money problems" to pair with it tapping in to the American fascination and belief in Great Man figures.

Throw in the hyperfocus on identity politics among the broader left movements, crippling blows to faith in media institutions gutting the effectiveness of their propaganda, economic troubles that just don't stop that can be traced directly to left-wing policies, political alienation, and the fact that America has been late to its semi-annual isolationist nap for almost a hundred years post-WWII and into the cold war and then the war on terror? A policy moderate, but anti-establishment, rhetorically loud, strong man populist with a track record of strong bonds with workers who's family and life look like one of those fictional royals from a 2000s romantic comedy? Yeah it's not super surprising. The only chance the democrats would have had would have been to probably field Bernie Sanders and garish his nomination with the resignations and/or corpses of several establishment democrats.
Click to expand...
Hmm, never looked at it that way. Also if Bernie had run as a Republican instead of a Democrat in 16 (he's an Independent after all), he would've never had to deal with superdelegates, smoke-filled back rooms and coastal liberal elites AND Trump may have even picked him to be his vice president instead of Mike Pence and the Democrats under Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and whomever they ended up fielding in this alternate 2024 election would've lost by landslides. Tulsi Gabbard is basically Bernie Sanders without the Democrat loyalist baggage and history of simping for the Democrat establishment types like Biden and Harris. Yeah, he's started calling them out NOW, but it's a bit late for that don't you think? He's lost all credibility. Hell, even the Democrats don't like him anymore, in a recent poll he came in dead last. I'll try to find it.
 
IndyFront said:
Hmm, never looked at it that way. Also if Bernie had run as a Republican instead of a Democrat in 16 (he's an Independent after all), he would've never had to deal with superdelegates, smoke-filled back rooms and coastal liberal elites AND Trump may have even picked him to be his vice president instead of Mike Pence and the Democrats under Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and whomever they ended up fielding in this alternate 2024 election would've lost by landslides. Tulsi Gabbard is basically Bernie Sanders without the Democrat loyalist baggage and history of simping for the Democrat establishment types like Biden and Harris. Yeah, he's started calling them out NOW, but it's a bit late for that don't you think? He's lost all credibility. Hell, even the Democrats don't like him anymore, in a recent poll he came in dead last. I'll try to find it.
Click to expand...
Bernie's biggest issue is that he got choked out by Clinton but yeah, absolutely, if he'd gone under a republican label or just grabbed a potential running mate with some military appeal, I'd bet money he'd have beaten Trump in 2016, or at least given him a genuine fight. Like Trump, he's a populist, though he goes with more of the "Grampa's got your back" kind of energy rather than Trump's shit-talking rich uncle vibe, works well with people, and generally focused on core, ground level bread and butter issues with massive amounts of appeal to every demographic, the kind of thing that used to be a democratic staple before they decided that like a shareholder in a company boardroom, they just wanted numbers to go up as far as possible as fast as possible.

Being fair to the man himself, kissing the ring has unfortunately been baked into modern American politics, the only way to remove it at this point would be to undo the decades of work both Republicans and Democrats have done to centralize power and create a false binary between all left of center opinions under one umbrella, all right of center under the other, and delegitimize other political parties. So long as the dichotomy exists and is culturally enforced, the people who dominate and frontline the party will always have obedience and gestures of submission directed to them to avoid being frozen out of any kind of relevancy within the party itself because there's no other option beyond "the other guy", a dicey proposition though one that more and more are considering, last I checked AOC was unironically doing self-reflection after learning that most people who voted for her also voted for Trump based on them having shared core issues and appeal.
 
IndyFront said:
Hmm, never looked at it that way. Also if Bernie had run as a Republican instead of a Democrat in 16 (he's an Independent after all), he would've never had to deal with superdelegates, smoke-filled back rooms and coastal liberal elites AND Trump may have even picked him to be his vice president instead of Mike Pence and the Democrats under Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and whomever they ended up fielding in this alternate 2024 election would've lost by landslides. Tulsi Gabbard is basically Bernie Sanders without the Democrat loyalist baggage and history of simping for the Democrat establishment types like Biden and Harris. Yeah, he's started calling them out NOW, but it's a bit late for that don't you think? He's lost all credibility. Hell, even the Democrats don't like him anymore, in a recent poll he came in dead last. I'll try to find it.
Click to expand...
Bernie Sanders is a communist.
 
IndyFront said:
Hmm, never looked at it that way. Also if Bernie had run as a Republican instead of a Democrat in 16 (he's an Independent after all), he would've never had to deal with superdelegates, smoke-filled back rooms and coastal liberal elites AND Trump may have even picked him to be his vice president instead of Mike Pence and the Democrats under Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and whomever they ended up fielding in this alternate 2024 election would've lost by landslides. Tulsi Gabbard is basically Bernie Sanders without the Democrat loyalist baggage and history of simping for the Democrat establishment types like Biden and Harris. Yeah, he's started calling them out NOW, but it's a bit late for that don't you think? He's lost all credibility. Hell, even the Democrats don't like him anymore, in a recent poll he came in dead last. I'll try to find it.
Click to expand...
If the Communist had run Republican.

Think that over again a few times.
 
Blasterbot said:
Bernie was the Dems shot at going populist. the party rejected him even if their base didn't. instead they try and double down on extreme identity politics with climate doomerism to try and scare their base into not abandoning them. it has been less and less successful.
Click to expand...

Historically speaking there is normally only enough oxigen in the room for one populist party at a time.

There is nothing wrong with there being an establishment party but the implicite deal with being one is that your not allowed to do crazy shit and you have to do boring stuff like maintain what you have properally. Do those things and the populists will have a real hard time mismanage things and act like idiots and your going to have a bad time.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 2, guests: 2)
Back
Top