[Poll] How Long Will DJ Trump Stay in Office?

Politics US Politics
,
41

Correct me if I’m wrong.

The way I see it, on a very basic level, the low-income people who voted for Trump are screwed big time. Companies are going to benefit from tax breaks and will invest in… more automated production. At the same time, getting a good education with a low income is going to be even harder, if not impossible. There will be less jobs, because everything will be done automatically by computers, robots, drones, etc. and the people needed, the ones who can develop, produce, and operate the new technologies, need a good education. What jobs will there be left for the people with no money and no higher education? On top of that the changing climate will make it even harder for small farms to compete against big food producing conglomerates. America will be great again for Trump’s billionaire buddies, who worry about having less bathrooms or smaller yachts than their peers.

5 Likes
42

In which country in the world there’s a such a high level of automation that precludes people with good education to find a job?

1 Like
43

This is a long laundry list, who said free markets is everything? Another straw-man argument. But certainly resource constraints can be addressed as it is the first thing capitalism solves through the accumulation of capital. Resource constraints is the primary problem in socialist, communist countries. Soviet Union lasted 70 years because they were able to thrive for a while on the capitalist goods of hundreds of years before they came to power. It took them 70 years to use it all up before they fell because communism itself doesn’t create wealth. Even China has realized that they need to allow some capitalization and “limited” free marketry to create enough wealth for their communism and party to survive.

1 Like
44

Wrong.

But the lesson they took from the whole election cycle was that they lost because Hillary didn’t pivot far enough to the left. Have you seen the main candidates for DNC chair? Keith Ellison headed the Progressive Caucus and is a big supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and Louis Farrakhan,
and Tom Perez, before becoming Secretary of Labor, cut his teeth pushing a left wing agenda in the Obama Justice Department, where the Justice was short for Social Justice.

There we agree. The social justice wing is on the ascendant just as the tide of public opinion is turning against them. That’s why I predict two terms for Trump, or else Trump followed by another Republican.

45

Trump will keep taking away people’s precious rights and freedoms (abortion, healthcare, education, religion, movement, speech, press, etc.), stealing their money (tax cuts for the rich, leading to economic collapse and job losses), causing environmental damage (ignoring and exacerbating the dangers of global warming, closure and sale of national parks for mining), and starting wars and conflict with other countries, leading to deaths, suffering and disease, not to mention worthless US passports as all other countries will require visas or refuse entry to Americans, and the people in their infinite wisdom will say “We’re not suffering as much as we could! Please make our lives even worse!” and vote for this loathsome tyrant again.

46

This sure looks like you are blaming mysterious ‘government elites’ for all the problems. Which government elite? Where?
Why the last 200 years?

We experienced exponential growth in what exactly?
Population?
Resource utilization?
CO2 emissions?

Certainly I’m living in a smaller house than my parents and grandparents. Just because these houses are worth a million quid each doesn’t mean we are necessarily better off. I get to breath more polluted air and eat farm raised fish instead of fresh. We do live longer but better? Some of us yes, some now.
Economic growth by a set of numbers in a balance sheet doesn’t really capture any of that.

47

Rights and freedom: I think you’re confusing some “services” with “rights”

Stealing their money: in the pre-Trump era, high taxes have been used to fund social welfare and healthcare, forcing many employers to leave the Us and creating a situation that is not self-sustainable.

Starting wars: Trump? Seriously? After 8 years of Obama and friends bombing half of the middle east, leading to the death of millions of people and the fall of entire governments? Is that what the CNN writes?

In before:“It was all Bush’ fault for everything ever because I’ve been told so”

1 Like
48

[quote=“Brianjones, post:46, topic:157785, full:true”]
This sure looks like you are blaming mysterious ‘government elites’ for all the problems. Which government elite? Where?
Why the last 200 years?[/quote]

I use elites to mean those government officials who think they can manage people’s money better than they can, who have a contempt for common people, which is the same as contempt for the economy, because we are the economy. When government tries to manipulate the economy, it’s another way of manipulating and controlling people, which is authoritarian.

The USA is over 200 years, and by and large mostly capitalist during that time.
Also, after Adam Smith Wealth of Nations, free markets were more active in the 1800s, which produced the Industrial Revolution, which was a break from the old aristocratic fiefdom economy. But even before this, there were pockets in Europe were free markets were practiced, such as on the coast of Germany and Netherlands, but mostly mercantilism was practiced in the whole of Europe, especially in the 1700s, which Adam Smith preached against.

[quote]We experienced exponential growth in what exactly?
Population?
Resource utilization?
CO2 emissions?[/quote]
The context of my quote was of course the economy, but specifically in the amount of capital available per head. Indeed, countries with a freer market and great prosperity will see population growth, which naturally produces more CO2 emissions. Resources are utilized to a greater degree, but where there is capital in abundance, there will be no lack, or else that capital will be actively used to find or develop other sources, such as shale, for example. We actively are developing solar and wind and other forms of energy, precisely because our country has the wealth and capital to squander on these as of yet unprofitable sources of energy. If we were poor on capital like Cuba for lack of free markets, we wouldn’t touch those with a ten-foot pole.

[quote]Certainly I’m living in a smaller house than my parents and grandparents. Just because these houses are worth a million quid each doesn’t mean we are necessarily better off. I get to breath more polluted air and eat farm raised fish instead of fresh. We do live longer but better? Some of us yes, some now.
Economic growth by a set of numbers in a balance sheet doesn’t really capture any of that.[/quote]
You’re going on anecdotal experience here, not to mention that in the last 10 years, we’ve been living in a bubble that hasn’t been popped yet, which means capital has been squandered, and hasn’t been actively developing wealth and a market that is responsive to the needs of society. Yes, we are poorer than 10 or 20 years ago, which explains your demise, and not only USA, but most of the world has been following our lead with low interest rates to stave off the inevitable recession, which is the correction for trying to live in this bubble so long. Until we’ve endured the recession and the market has been put back to normal, we may not see growing wealth again. We’re put on hold for now.

Nevertheless, we are still living prosperous on the buildup of capital going back for 200 years or more, take a look at what our IPhones can do these days, the Internet, gosh, I don’t need to list them all, you surely know, compared to 10 years ago…we’ve reached a form of wealth that they didn’t know back then. All this required capital accumulated over the ages to develop. Surely this kind of wealth has affected even you for the better?

49

[quote=“Dr_Milker, post:44, topic:157785, full:true”]
But the lesson they took from the whole election cycle was that they lost because Hillary didn’t pivot far enough to the left. [/quote]

I sure as hell HOPE they take that lesson, but I’ll believe it when I see it. Hillary didn’t pivot to the left at all, unless you’re talking about her stance on gay marriage. She continued to be every bit as much of a hawk and corporate shill as Obama and the Bushes. A very large segment of the American population are liberals/progressives who are tired of having to choose between a right-of-center party and a so-far-to-the-right-they-have-lost-their-damned-minds party. That’s why Bernie’s campaign did so well despite not having the support of the DNC. Mainstream Democrats have drifted so far to the right in an attempt to compromise with the Republicans that they now occupy the idealogical space once occupied by mainstream Republicans. The Republicans, rather than moving to the left to compromise, have moved further to the right to maintain their distance. That’s how we got Trump. Meanwhile, there is a huge vacuum on the left. The Dems can either claim it, or they can continue to shoot themselves in the foot by drifting to the right and embracing people like Hillary, and watch a third party take over the left.

2 Likes
50

I agree with 99% of your reply, except with the fact that the Dems have moved to the right. The current political ideology promoted by the democrats, with a really strong state in charge of handling pretty much everything, as well as offering healthcare, welfare and all sort of free stuff, while at the same time advocating for all the sjw &#*^ that has been going on over the last few years, is very close to Marxism, especially from a social point of view.
University campuses and most media outlets (and hollywood) being completely skewed in one direction and bombarding children, kids, teenagers and young adults with all the same kind of propaganda is what lead those ideas grow unquestioned.

3 Likes
51

If the democrats moved so far to the right how could they be Marxists?

Post makes no sense whatsoever.

52

Then you don’t agree with 99% of my reply, or even 5%, because that was the entire point of my reply.

The Clintons and Obama are as far to the right as Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes were, other than on a few issues (like gay rights) that reflect the evolution of society more than individual differences. Economically and foreign policy-wise, they absolutely are. Obama was called a “socialist” for implementing a health care plan previously championed by Bob Dole and Mitt Romney, and for attempting to raise tax rates on the uber-rich to a level FAR FAR lower than they were under Eisenhower, Nixon, and Reagan.

Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex. Nixon supported the Equal Rights Amendment. Reagan negotiated with terrorists and supported gun control. Bush massively increased the size and scope of the federal government. Reagan AND Bush massively increased the federal deficit. (Clinton and Obama were far more conservative, spending-wise.) All of these Republicans would be far too liberal for today’s GOP, and possibly even too liberal for the mainstream of the Democratic Party. That is how far to the right both parties, and the discourse between them, has shifted in recent decades. This is undeniable.

2 Likes
53

If we go by definitions, what has happened in the US in the last few years, both economically and on a social level, is far off the left. To be fair though, far left and far right tend to have many similarities. I just think that the current (hopefully past) trend in the US is more left-leaning, because welfare, social justice and a strong government that basically creates a situation where people need to rely on him, are all features or far left governments.

54

Who, exactly, do you think represents the far left in US politics? Bernie is to the left, but only barely by global and historical standards. (He only seems radical because everyone else is so far to the right.) Maybe the Green Party? They got, what, 2% of the vote? I’m sorry, but there is really no extreme left, and barely any left at all, in current mainstream US politics. We have a right wing party and a further right wing party, when compared to Europe and other liberal democracies in the world.

2 Likes
55

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

This pretty much sums it up. There was only one liberal among the four major candidates for president (if you even want to call numbers three and four “major”), and she wasn’t nearly as far to the left as the others were to the right.

56

I wasn’t making a direct comparison between the US and other countries because each country has very different systems that can be difficult to compare with each other.
If we go by the traditional american definition of dems = left, reps = right, most of the choices made during recent years are very similar to a socialist state. The US didn’t go from full capitalism to USSR 2.0, but many of the things started/continued by Obama lead in that direction, which is not the traditional right or far right.
No classic liberal/libertarian would/should be able to identify with the democratic party, and the constant collapse of production in the Us clearly shows that a free market was far from Obama’s administration ideals. Of course, people blamed for that were the greedy capitalistic pigs, not the government.

57

Trump wants to cut regulations by 75%. That sounds insane to me. It would be insane if 75% of the existing regulations in fact do serve no good purpose. But I think it’s more likely that a majority, if not most of them are actual there for a (good) reason and just getting rid of them will have severe repercussions on environment, safety and so on.

1 Like
58

Spoken like a European.[quote=“hannes, post:57, topic:157785”]
It would be insane if 75% of the existing regulations in fact do serve no good purpose.
[/quote]
Bingo! (with maybe just a touch of Trump hyperbole)[quote=“hannes, post:57, topic:157785”]
But I think it’s more likely that a majority, if not most of them are actual there for a (good) reason and just getting rid of them will have severe repercussions on environment, safety and so on.
[/quote]
Spoken like a European. :slight_smile:

1 Like
59

I’m actually ‘economically successful’ compared to large portion of Taiwan or even my home country.

My point is that that resource constraints such as space, fresh air, fresh water, green taxes to combat climate change, massively increase global population and degraded environments are not counted in this mystical capital accumulation and growth of wealth. Many are shrinking in real value even though their monetary value has increased.

The free market and unfettered energy use has failed almost completely to combat climate change so far. We need to regulate the hell out of energy use at least until alternatives to carbon fuels are super competitive.

1 Like
60

[quote=“Brianjones, post:59, topic:157785, full:true”] We need to regulate the hell out of energy use at least until alternatives to carbon fuels are super competitive.
[/quote]
There’s an alternative way of looking at this. Carbon-based fuels are already 1.5-2x more expensive than PV electricity for transportation, and 3-5x more expensive than thermal solar for space heating. Just to be clear: “alternative” power sources are not just cheaper than fossil fuels, they’re a LOT cheaper. So why is that cheapness not visible? Because the regulatory environment, and all of the infrastructure that was built around fossil fuels, is not compatible with those energy sources.

If - for the sake of argument - it were legally possible for some corporation to lay freight transport routes across farmland, using autonomous electric vehicles powered from trackside PV, transport costs would drop precipitously. Trucking companies, brokers, and most likely a lot of retail stores would go out of business. Diesel consumption would fall through the floor. But the fact is, it isn’t legal. Farmland is zoned as farmland, and if you operate a transport service over it, the lawyers and the gubmint will rain hellfire down upon your head. You can see far more egregious examples of this kind of thing (jotham might call it ‘market failure’) in third-world countries, where regulations literally prevent people from doing things that would alleviate poverty, and force them into doing things that make it worse.

I suspect, of course, that that’s not the sort of regulation Trump will be taking aim at. But in theory he could, with positive effects.