Once America Elects Supreme Overlord Trump

When did I ever say it had anything to do with obama?

And you conveniently skipped over anything Clinton did.

Also I am not a registered republican, nor do I vote straight republican, I've voted for plenty of democrats too.

My point before all this bait and switch was it's hard to blame a singular president for the economic situation. It's the whole system in general, a lot of different parties.

Just because you only played one verse of the Republican anthem don't get irritated that I played both.

As to there being plenty of blame to go around, I agree...I just don't limit it to presidents or politicians. The US provides the best governing environment on the planet, probably ever. It produces the greatest opportunities the world has ever known for the citizens...who constantly rage at any intimation that they should have to pay for this.

No politician, from either party, can point to the ballooning deficit and say "yeah, folks, you're going to have to get a little closer to paying for what you are getting." It is political suicide to not claim you will cut taxes, no matter how low they are for the services provided, and that isn't the politician's fault.
 
No politician, from either party, can point to the ballooning deficit and say "yeah, folks, you're going to have to get a little closer to paying for what you are getting." It is political suicide to not claim you will cut taxes, no matter how low they are for the services provided, and that isn't the politician's fault.

The problem moreso lies in the alternative to paying for said services.
 
The problem moreso lies in the alternative to paying for said services.

The alternative is "get the services on credit," which is basically "the American way." That still doesn't make it a politician problem.
 
The solution is to let local people be the enabler of local government, instead of some average of the rest of the country. It is not the form of government that is the issue. The issue is that one grand sweeping central authority is never going to be fair to every small or large local governing body.

For instance, for the longest time Michigan did enjoy the benefits of being the auto producing capital of the USA, if not the world. However that seemed unfair to the rest of the states, so every state had to be allowed to produce autos, and then every other nation, so that other people can get in on the benefit of production. This equality of production sounds great in theory, except now parts of Michigan no longer produce autos, and never will again. Unless the Fed takes incentives away from other states and figure out how to bring production back to Michigan.
 
For instance, for the longest time Michigan did enjoy the benefits of being the auto producing capital of the USA, if not the world. However that seemed unfair to the rest of the states, so every state had to be allowed to produce autos, and then every other nation, so that other people can get in on the benefit of production.

:confused:

For instance, here's a bizarre interpretation of history presented out of the blue.

Could you flesh this out, even a little bit, to make it look like something that actually occurred?
 
You think everything should be abolished, though.

True, but I also have the idealism of youth somewhere deep inside me, and I think a better world is possible, and getting rid of Nato is one of the first steps towards that
 
:confused:

For instance, here's a bizarre interpretation of history presented out of the blue.

Could you flesh this out, even a little bit, to make it look like something that actually occurred?

Not even an attempt to just blame it on the free market?

I am sure that Michael Moore attempted to "flesh" this all out. I don't feel that any thing I posted was taken out of context. When it comes to the auto industry, it is pretty much government regulated due to it's fierce respect to unions and the need to even get the government at all involved in local politics. Not to mention that the auto industry represents (or did) a huge chunk of the economy. Automobiles and oil and everything service related has an impact on the economy of the USA as a whole.

The USA has been involved in Supreme "overlord" politics since the advent of social politics. Not that some issues had to be dealt with on a national level like slavery, but more on the thought that only the Fed can save local governments instead of letting them rise and fall on their own local merits.

This point is only related to the fact that posters here claim that leaving will make things better (for them). The thinking that we can only trust in the Fed. Huge chunks of locals left Michigan and went to other states just to keep doing what they had been doing. Who cares about local government, when we have the almighty Fed on our side?

Even the Republicans at the State level (in Michigan) think that local governments cannot handle things themselves and have taken over "control". Now people blame that for all their local woes, and more than likely have every reason to be upset. Even relying on State level politics to make it fair and balanced for every single local government, has proven "not to work".
 
Sooooooo...

Can you point to any particular federal law, regulation, or policy that suddenly "allowed" every state to produce autos when it was noted that it "seemed unfair" to the rest of the states? To the best of my knowledge there was never any regulation that contained the auto industry in Michigan, or any repealing of such a regulation that allowed or encouraged a "breaking" of such containment. This "equality of production" that you say "sounds good in theory" sounds more like fantasy than theory.

The US auto industry went through what it went through. It got its tail beat in by Japanese companies, mostly through the poor decision making of its own executives. In that regard, yeah, I could be "blaming it on the free market." But in the absence of any support for this "fairness doctrine distributed production" idea I think the free market looks like a much likelier suspect.
 
This point is only related to the fact that posters here claim that leaving will make things better (for them).

If that is meaning me, then let me clarify: leaving might make things better (for you...should it be for anyone else?), but more importantly it distances you from things getting pronouncedly worse.

Take an episode from history that really did happen: 80 people down in Texas tried to flee to Mexico, when Civil War broke out in 1862. Is that because life in Mexico as an American, not even 20 years after the U.S. slaughtered Mexico, is somehow better? No...it's because they were fleeing war. Their lives were not going to be better than they used to be. But they sure as heck were going to be better than they were GOING to be if they had stayed.

The point is moot, though: Texas massacred all of them on their way out.
 
Sooooooo...

Can you point to any particular federal law, regulation, or policy that suddenly "allowed" every state to produce autos when it was noted that it "seemed unfair" to the rest of the states? To the best of my knowledge there was never any regulation that contained the auto industry in Michigan, or any repealing of such a regulation that allowed or encouraged a "breaking" of such containment. This "equality of production" that you say "sounds good in theory" sounds more like fantasy than theory.

The US auto industry went through what it went through. It got its tail beat in by Japanese companies, mostly through the poor decision making of its own executives. In that regard, yeah, I could be "blaming it on the free market." But in the absence of any support for this "fairness doctrine distributed production" idea I think the free market looks like a much likelier suspect.

I am not an expert on federal law, nor all the bills that have gone through Congress over the last 40 years. I have only seen the aftermath. I am not sure who can argue that some of our leaders past and present have not attempted to give the Fed total control, because passing bills at the federal level leaves local governments without any recourse but to just "let things happen".

Theoretically "free market" should work on any level, but maybe not. The whole issue with the USA though is that switching back and forth between "free market" and "socially liberal" tendencies makes things worse than just settling on one and sticking with it to the end. That China and Russia have figured it out, and the US keeps stabbing itself internally is what is so frustrating.
 
I am not an expert on federal law, nor all the bills that have gone through Congress over the last 40 years. I have only seen the aftermath. I am not sure who can argue that some of our leaders past and present have not attempted to give the Fed total control, because passing bills at the federal level leaves local governments without any recourse but to just "let things happen".

Theoretically "free market" should work on any level, but maybe not. The whole issue with the USA though is that switching back and forth between "free market" and "socially liberal" tendencies makes things worse than just settling on one and sticking with it to the end. That China and Russia have figured it out, and the US keeps stabbing itself internally is what is so frustrating.

I understand 'seeing the aftermath,' but that doesn't make assigning causality to this random idea of "federally mandated fair distribution of production" make sense.

Last time I was talking about the auto industry here someone (Cutlass?) made the very valid point that the US allows far too much monopolization and that left "the big three" ill prepared to deal with having to compete...so when they faced international competition they got totally mauled. That made sense, as we DO allow monopolization forces to act unchecked far too long in the market.
 
I think I'd like to start saving more. I think Trump would likely lead to a decrease in housing prices, and it'd be nice to buy some real estate with some savings. However, I should be saving more anyway, so I don't know.
 
I understand 'seeing the aftermath,' but that doesn't make assigning causality to this random idea of "federally mandated fair distribution of production" make sense.

Last time I was talking about the auto industry here someone (Cutlass?) made the very valid point that the US allows far too much monopolization and that left "the big three" ill prepared to deal with having to compete...so when they faced international competition they got totally mauled. That made sense, as we DO allow monopolization forces to act unchecked far too long in the market.

I think that is my point, and the "curse" of democracy. One group passes through legislation that allows for monopolies, then a few years later, another group legislates, more regulation, then later de-regulation. So democratically every one gets their way, but there is hardly any progress. The point of limited federal involvement to only that which applies to international business, may not work in the new global community format, but some one needs to figure out a way that does not give away our internal interest just for the sake of appeasing the rest of the world. If we "die" at home, what good are we to tell others what is wrong with how they do things? On the other hand if we think we can be the golden bucket for the rest of the world to benefit from, we cannot hold ourselves back internally. Some hold that "eternal" debt can create the momentum to keep giving everything away. So we owe every one else the money we are giving them, to lend to us. I guess if humans think a circle cannot be broken or fall apart it may just work. Unless another superpower does the same thing, and the USA is left with nothing, and nothing to offer the rest of the world.
 
Given that this makes the collapse of NATO and the beginning of Russian expansion into the Baltic pretty much inevitable, I won't have many places left to go. I'd try to leave the country for good if possible, but it isn't as easy as booking a flight. But I couldn't live in an openly racist and fascist state.

Stop being such a drama queen. None of that is going to come to pass and you know it. It is absolutely absurd to completely uproot yourself because of one election result, especially an election result that hasn't even happened yet.
 
But which president ran the economy into the ditch? The 2008 crisis was banks and housing markets, caused by a bubble due to deregulation and pushing bad loans. Reagan actually got the ball rolling with every american should own a house so let's let them deduct interest on their taxes, clinton had a big hand in deregulating the industry and it spiraled out of control under bush along with insane war spending we didn't need. It's not like bush took over an amazing economy and trashed it, it was at the top of a bubble and popped on his watch, but it had been building steam for 20 or so years to that point.

:goodjob: Not too many people know this. Kudos. :hatsoff:
 
Do you plan on changing anything about your day-to-day life? Do you plan on becoming more politically active? Less? Just keep doing what you're doing? Escape to Canada?

Elon Musk is collecting names of those who wish to colonize Mars. The No. 1 qualification is a willingness to face a high chance of death.

Hmmm: Trump vs. a high chance of death on an airless, waterless, frozen planet. :dunno:
 
Stop being such a drama queen.

-Complacent white privileged guy who won't do all that badly under a Trump presidency

At least, you think you won't. I sincerely believe that the election of Donald Trump would be one of the greatest disasters in US history. I can understand those who say they'll leave the country if he wins, but I don't think that's the route I'll take.

ZKribbler said:
Hmmm: Trump vs. a high chance of death on an airless, waterless, frozen planet.

Translation: high chance of death on an airless, waterless, desert planet vs a high chance of death on an airless, waterless, frozen planet. :dunno: indeed.
 
I'm sure the next thing we'll be hearing is that it's completely absurd to leave just because Trump got elected, so let's keep them from leaving or else take all their money if they do, "for their own good".
 
I can actually think of a second good outcome that might happen as a result of four years of President Trump, other than that Cold War II goes into a new detente phase (which has been until now the only upside to me).

The Democrats have a problem: over the last 8 years, they've held the presidency but have lost control of both houses of Congress and the majority of state legislatures and governorships. The 2010 election was a particularly bad disaster because it happened during a census year. In the many statehouses where Republicans gained control, they gerrymandered House seats and state legislative seats to ensure that they'd have a lock on those state legislatures and the US House barring a Democratic wave election.

The only way to reverse this situation is to get that Democratic wave election in 2020, take over many state legislatures, and then have Democrats do the gerrymandering after the 2020 census. Hillary Clinton is almost certainly not going to be a very popular president, and whether she wins or loses in 2020, the Dems are pretty unlikely to win back a bunch of state legislatures. That would then ensure that they will rarely have the House through 2030, at least.

Donald Trump will almost certainly be a godawful president, so much so that there is a very high likelihood that the Dems would get their wave election in 2020. The 2020 election under those circumstances is likely to resemble the 2008 one and feature strong Democratic gains, enough so that they could get the gerrymandering power back. This would help Democrats to keep control of Congress.

I'm not arguing that it would be better to lose this election - a bad president can cause a lot of damage in four years, and as with any Republican, the Supreme Court situation would deteriorate. Still, I think there's a good argument for a silver lining if Trump wins.
 
Top Bottom