Do people not realise that every time Trump is thwarted by judges his grip on power

[Monty92]

will strengthen as all it will serve to do is embolden his support base?

[Luis Anaconda]

will strengthen as all it will serve to do is embolden his support base?

Not really - it may embolden his support base but it won't make it grow particularly and every time he attacks one of the pillars of the establishment and threatens their sacred constitution, he alienates more and more of the conservative base that he still needed to elect him

[redgunamo]

will strengthen as all it will serve to do is embolden his support base?

I'm sure everyone does but his opponents don't really have any choice but to bite, do they.

They may as well fight him though, in any case, as, if he succeeds in breaking the grip of the courts and returning some "power to the people", they are f-ed anyway.

[Burney]

Not really - it may embolden his support base but it won't make it grow particularly and every time he attacks one of the pillars of the establishment and threatens their sacred constitution, he alienates more and more of the conservative base that he still needed to elect him

That's not borne out by polling. In fact, the only thing he does that his base really don't like is his tweeting.

[redgunamo]

Not really - it may embolden his support base but it won't make it grow particularly and every time he attacks one of the pillars of the establishment and threatens their sacred constitution, he alienates more and more of the conservative base that he still needed to elect him

He never had their love or support anyway. But if it's between him and a Clinton or Clinton-clone, they will hold their noses and back him. As we just saw during his election.

They need *him*, if anything.

[redgunamo]

That's not borne out by polling. In fact, the only thing he does that his base really don't like is his tweeting.

:hehe: I strongly suspect they are just *saying* that though.

[Luis Anaconda]

He never had their love or support anyway. But if it's between him and a Clinton or Clinton-clone, they will hold their noses and back him. As we just saw during his election.

They need *him*, if anything.
:nod: Yes - that's what got him in. Just needs the democrats to be smart ... oh :homer:

[Luis Anaconda]

That's not borne out by polling. In fact, the only thing he does that his base really don't like is his tweeting.

And suddenly polling can be trusted :shrug:

Are you talking popularity polls? They are seeing some good economic figures at the moment - always going to help a President even though they are the square root of **** all to do with any policies he has implemented

[redgunamo]

:nod: Yes - that's what got him in. Just needs the democrats to be smart ... oh :homer:

Trouble is, their reserves' bench is about as convincing and potent as the Arsenal's would be for an early-round Carling Cup away match.

[Burney]

And suddenly polling can be trusted :shrug:

Are you talking popularity polls? They are seeing some good economic figures at the moment - always going to help a President even though they are the square root of **** all to do with any policies he has implemented

No, this was a poll of his supporters' view of him. I think you're making the mistake of thinking in Democrat/Republican terms. Trump's not a Republican, he's an independent who got in on the Republican ticket. His supporters like his 'outsider' status and actively want to see him attacking pillars of the establishment. Every perceived 'insider' who is seen to thwart him actually makes him stronger because it vindicates his narrative of 'the swamp' trying to protect itself.

[redgunamo]

No, this was a poll of his supporters' view of him. I think you're making the mistake of thinking in Democrat/Republican terms. Trump's not a Republican, he's an independent who got in on the Republican ticket. His supporters like his 'outsider' status and actively want to see him attacking pillars of the establishment. Every perceived 'insider' who is seen to thwart him actually makes him stronger because it vindicates his narrative of 'the swamp' trying to protect itself.

Right. And even more importantly, *this* is his wife and C-Span have their Nielsen share to worry about

http://s.mlv-cdn.com/img/08543080d6b16393e8cf04a30c1b916f.600x.jpg

[Peter]

No, this was a poll of his supporters' view of him. I think you're making the mistake of thinking in Democrat/Republican terms. Trump's not a Republican, he's an independent who got in on the Republican ticket. His supporters like his 'outsider' status and actively want to see him attacking pillars of the establishment. Every perceived 'insider' who is seen to thwart him actually makes him stronger because it vindicates his narrative of 'the swamp' trying to protect itself.

So he is polling well among his own supporters?

This does not overly surprise or concern me.

[Peter]

Not really - it may embolden his support base but it won't make it grow particularly and every time he attacks one of the pillars of the establishment and threatens their sacred constitution, he alienates more and more of the conservative base that he still needed to elect him

Moderates and the undecided....cant win without them.

Still, aside from gaining another four years his popularity only equates to political capital and I don't think you can measure that in the same way with Trump. Alienating most of Washington seems to be his default position.

[redgunamo]

Yeah, it's complicated.


So he is polling well among his own supporters?

This does not overly surprise or concern me.

[Burney]

So he is polling well among his own supporters?

This does not overly surprise or concern me.

The assertion was that he would lose support by constantly bumping up against pillars of the governmental structure. In fact, the reverse appears to be the case. :shrug:

[Burney]

Moderates and the undecided....cant win without them.

Still, aside from gaining another four years his popularity only equates to political capital and I don't think you can measure that in the same way with Trump. Alienating most of Washington seems to be his default position.

It's his raison d'etre as far as his voters are concerned.

[Luis Anaconda]

No, this was a poll of his supporters' view of him. I think you're making the mistake of thinking in Democrat/Republican terms. Trump's not a Republican, he's an independent who got in on the Republican ticket. His supporters like his 'outsider' status and actively want to see him attacking pillars of the establishment. Every perceived 'insider' who is seen to thwart him actually makes him stronger because it vindicates his narrative of 'the swamp' trying to protect itself.

Yes - you're right I am thinking in terms of Republican/Democrats - and agree with what you are saying in terms of his supporter base. But he needs more than that supporter base, I would say, to strengthen his grip on power, which was Monty's assertion. He has undoubtedly given a bloody nose to the establishment but he hasn't knocked it out. I was thinking in terms of a potentially increasingly fractious relationship with Congress and the damage that will eventually do to him. His base will stay with him whatever.

Mind you, he's proved me utterly wrong about most things over the past two years (and a fair few others), so we'll see

[Luis Anaconda]

The assertion was that he would lose support by constantly bumping up against pillars of the governmental structure. In fact, the reverse appears to be the case. :shrug:

I was talking specifically about people who voted for him either because he wasn't Hillary or he was running on a Republican ticket - not people who were dogmatically behind what he stands for (whatever that is). Do you not think this is significant body of votes?

[Peter]

It's his raison d'etre as far as his voters are concerned.

And I understand that. The only minor difficulty is that it is an incredibly ****ing stupid thing to do if you want to actually achieve anything. He was little understanding of what his job entails. I suspect he doesn't really care.

[Sir C]

And I understand that. The only minor difficulty is that it is an incredibly ****ing stupid thing to do if you want to actually achieve anything. He was little understanding of what his job entails. I suspect he doesn't really care.

I wonder if he thinks 'everyone's been doing this the same way for years, concensus and deals and compromise, fúck it, let's try sheer will and braggadocio'.

:shrug: It might even be worth a go.

[redgunamo]

I wonder if he thinks 'everyone's been doing this the same way for years, concensus and deals and compromise, fúck it, let's try sheer will and braggadocio'.

:shrug: It might even be worth a go.

Yes, that's the way. A long-term criticism of Republican candidates and presidents is that they always meekly accept whatever their opponents say about them, for fear of causing offense. You know, to darkies or women or whatever. Trump fans adore him in large part because he actually fights back.

It seems refreshing, if nothing else.

[Burney]

I was talking specifically about people who voted for him either because he wasn't Hillary or he was running on a Republican ticket - not people who were dogmatically behind what he stands for (whatever that is). Do you not think this is significant body of votes?

The problem his opponents (Dem and Rep) have is that for business as usual to return, Trump's Presidency really has to be a disaster. If it isn't, the paradigm of what a 'good' presidential candidate looks like in the voters' minds could shift permanently to their disadvantage. That's why they actually have to relentlessly push the negatives - even to the point of creating them themselves.

[Peter]

I wonder if he thinks 'everyone's been doing this the same way for years, concensus and deals and compromise, fúck it, let's try sheer will and braggadocio'.

:shrug: It might even be worth a go.

Isn't it more likely that he is incapable of behaving in any other way?

Behind the scenes he is cutting deals and acting as a mouthpiece for parts of his party. He'll play the game with the pro-lifers to keep them on side for long enough.

[Sir C]

Isn't it more likely that he is incapable of behaving in any other way?

Behind the scenes he is cutting deals and acting as a mouthpiece for parts of his party. He'll play the game with the pro-lifers to keep them on side for long enough.

Possibly. On the one hand the chap appears to be a drooling retard, but in the other he seems to have played a highly effective game, so he could be a genius.

[Peter]

The problem his opponents (Dem and Rep) have is that for business as usual to return, Trump's Presidency really has to be a disaster. If it isn't, the paradigm of what a 'good' presidential candidate looks like in the voters' minds could shift permanently to their disadvantage. That's why they actually have to relentlessly push the negatives - even to the point of creating them themselves.

Not really. For a return to normalcy they simply have to ensure that they don't allow a **** like him to gain a major party nomination. As long as the voters are restricted to the choice of two mainstream puppets all will be well again.

[Peter]

Possibly. On the one hand the chap appears to be a drooling retard, but in the other he seems to have played a highly effective game, so he could be a genius.

I doubt he is a genius or an idiot. What he likes is a balanced mind. So you can show him the dreadful consequences of the thing he wants to do and he wont care, regardless of how bad it is. This is what makes him dangerous (and potentially effective).

[redgunamo]

I doubt he is a genius or an idiot. What he likes is a balanced mind. So you can show him the dreadful consequences of the thing he wants to do and he wont care, regardless of how bad it is. This is what makes him dangerous (and potentially effective).

That's part of his point though, ain't it. It was apparently "balanced minds" that led to things becoming so bad that they elected *him*.

[Sir C]

I doubt he is a genius or an idiot. What he likes is a balanced mind. So you can show him the dreadful consequences of the thing he wants to do and he wont care, regardless of how bad it is. This is what makes him dangerous (and potentially effective).

Or he might not believe in your dreadful consequences. He may think them a price worth paying.

[Burney]

Not really. For a return to normalcy they simply have to ensure that they don't allow a **** like him to gain a major party nomination. As long as the voters are restricted to the choice of two mainstream puppets all will be well again.

Might not be that easy. The longer he's around and succeeding, the more the mainstream will have to shift to meet him.

[Peter]

That's part of his point though, ain't it. It was apparently "balanced minds" that led to things becoming so bad that they elected *him*.

Yes, of course. But when you consider that he is Commander in Chief with direct control of the military, a mind that refuses to be sidetracked by potentially catastrophic consequences is a rather worrying thing.

Thus far, the bravado has been largely promises and posturing. Hopefully it stays that way.

[Peter]

Might not be that easy. The longer he's around and succeeding, the more the mainstream will have to shift to meet him.

He isn't going to be succeeding though. Unless he starts acting like a president.

[redgunamo]

Yes, of course. But when you consider that he is Commander in Chief with direct control of the military, a mind that refuses to be sidetracked by potentially catastrophic consequences is a rather worrying thing.

Thus far, the bravado has been largely promises and posturing. Hopefully it stays that way.

So everyone can get back to doing the things that made them elect someone like him in the first place? Yeah, terrific. Essentially, what you seem to be saying is whatever President Trump does will be wrong because President Trump?

Anyway, the military controls the military, not a mere Commander-in-Chief.

[Luis Anaconda]

The problem his opponents (Dem and Rep) have is that for business as usual to return, Trump's Presidency really has to be a disaster. If it isn't, the paradigm of what a 'good' presidential candidate looks like in the voters' minds could shift permanently to their disadvantage. That's why they actually have to relentlessly push the negatives - even to the point of creating them themselves.

Yes - hence I added the caveat in another post - this is all so unpredictable. I would say he is the bending the status quo as far as it can go, something has to give. I would say it's going to snap back into usual form at some point but quite possible it might just snap into pieces

[World's End Stella]

The assertion was that he would lose support by constantly bumping up against pillars of the governmental structure. In fact, the reverse appears to be the case. :shrug:

Your assumption, or someone's assumption, seems to be that everyone that voted for Trump did so because of his anti-establishment pitch, or anti-swamp pitch, you might say.

I think he got a lot of anti-Hillary support, and much of that will be less than enamored with his continual run ins with traditional government and, in some cases, the constitution. I just don't think there's been enough time and enough incidents to see the full impact of that.

Or to put it another way, if he wants 4 more years at some point he is going to have to play some 'ball', as the Americans put it,

[Ash]

Yes, of course. But when you consider that he is Commander in Chief with direct control of the military, a mind that refuses to be sidetracked by potentially catastrophic consequences is a rather worrying thing.

Thus far, the bravado has been largely promises and posturing. Hopefully it stays that way.

Potentially catastrophic consequences didn't seem to enter Hilary's calculations when advocating her policy of endless wars. Particularly against a nuclear power.

[redgunamo]

Potentially catastrophic consequences didn't seem to enter Hilary's calculations when advocating her policy of endless wars. Particularly against a nuclear power.

:nono: Whataboutery, A.

[Peter]

So everyone can get back to doing the things that made them elect someone like him in the first place? Yeah, terrific. Essentially, what you seem to be saying is whatever President Trump does will be wrong because President Trump?

Anyway, the military controls the military, not a mere Commander-in-Chief.

I don't think I said that. I certainly didn't intend to do so.

In ordinary politics the military controls the military because the President is house-trained. This is not ordinary politics.

I expect it will work itself out but he is still a scary guy to have in charge of anything.

[Peter]

Potentially catastrophic consequences didn't seem to enter Hilary's calculations when advocating her policy of endless wars. Particularly against a nuclear power.

Sensible wars (the ones the military are happy to fight) are fine. Its the bad wars you need to worry about.

[World's End Stella]

Anyway, the military controls the military, not a mere Commander-in-Chief.

Not always, see Robert S McNamara

[Peter]

Or he might not believe in your dreadful consequences. He may think them a price worth paying.

That suggests some kind of balanced thought process, the pros and cons. I don't think he makes his decisions like this.

[Burney]

Yes - hence I added the caveat in another post - this is all so unpredictable. I would say he is the bending the status quo as far as it can go, something has to give. I would say it's going to snap back into usual form at some point but quite possible it might just snap into pieces

Yes. I rather like the fellow. Well not 'like' exactly, since he's obviously a thoroughgoing arse. But I do actually think he's probably a good thing in general, giving the lie as he does to the 'There is no alternative' crowd.

[Sir C]

Yes, of course. But when you consider that he is Commander in Chief with direct control of the military, a mind that refuses to be sidetracked by potentially catastrophic consequences is a rather worrying thing.

Thus far, the bravado has been largely promises and posturing. Hopefully it stays that way.

Oh I shouldn't worry too much about that, p. He can choose to start any ridiculous war he fancies. They're not going to lose, are they? They've got bundles and bundles of the good stuff.

[Peter]

Oh I shouldn't worry too much about that, p. He can choose to start any ridiculous war he fancies. They're not going to lose, are they? They've got bundles and bundles of the good stuff.

I don't care if they lose. I only care about my cats.

[Peter]

Yes. I rather like the fellow. Well not 'like' exactly, since he's obviously a thoroughgoing arse. But I do actually think he's probably a good thing in general, giving the lie as he does to the 'There is no alternative' crowd.

There isn't supposed to be and that is the point. There wont be again.

[Burney]

There isn't supposed to be and that is the point. There wont be again.

That's the thing, though. He's living proof that there is - which is one of the reasons he's so very hated.

[redgunamo]

I don't think I said that. I certainly didn't intend to do so.

In ordinary politics the military controls the military because the President is house-trained. This is not ordinary politics.

I expect it will work itself out but he is still a scary guy to have in charge of anything.

I'm sorry for the whataboutery, but how can he be considered "scary" for people who supported, say, Tony Blair? Surely all the scrutiny Trump is subject to greatly reduces his capacity for scariness, as certainly wouldn't have been the case for Hillary Clinton.

You *must* see how that (your) view comes across as less than serious, in this context?

[redgunamo]

Not always, see Robert S McNamara

.. With honourable exceptions, of course.

[Sir C]

I don't care if they lose. I only care about my cats.

How very isolationist of you p. Did you follow the unspoken wishes of your leader Jeremy and vote leave?

[Burney]

Sensible wars (the ones the military are happy to fight) are fine. Its the bad wars you need to worry about.

The only sensible wars are ones with clear aims that you can win without things dragging on for years. So:

The Falklands = sensible war :-)
Gulf War 1 = sensible war :-)
Gulf War 2 = bad war :-(

[Luis Anaconda]

Your assumption, or someone's assumption, seems to be that everyone that voted for Trump did so because of his anti-establishment pitch, or anti-swamp pitch, you might say.

I think he got a lot of anti-Hillary support, and much of that will be less than enamored with his continual run ins with traditional government and, in some cases, the constitution. I just don't think there's been enough time and enough incidents to see the full impact of that.

Or to put it another way, if he wants 4 more years at some point he is going to have to play some 'ball', as the Americans put it,
If only I had said more or less the same thing :rolleyes:

[Luis Anaconda]

Not always, see Robert S McNamara

You leave Uncle Bobby out of this

[redgunamo]

The only sensible wars are ones with clear aims that you can win without things dragging on for years. So:

The Falklands = sensible war :-)
Gulf War 1 = sensible war :-)
Gulf War 2 = bad war :-(

Gulf War 2 made me though so I think it's wrong for everyone to be so critical.

[Ash]

Sensible wars (the ones the military are happy to fight) are fine. Its the bad wars you need to worry about.

Soothing platitudes, but meaningless, Peter. The cycle of perpetual war and chaos for which Clinton was a continuity candidate was bad enough. Trump might well have his own conflicts, but at least we're not guarranteed this, as we are with, basically, any mainstream president. With Clinton there was a real menace of something even worse than the routine neocon-libhawk wars (direct and proxy).

[Burney]

Gulf War 2 made me though so I think it's wrong for everyone to be so critical.

Well that's the trick, isn't it? Get into a position whereby you win whoever wins.

[Sir C]

Well that's the trick, isn't it? Get into a position whereby you win whoever wins.

You think he had a fallback position working for the Republican Guard?

[Burney]

You think he had a fallback position working for the Republican Guard?

I wouldn't put it past him. I'm sure he'd have looked lovely with a moustache.

[redgunamo]

Well that's the trick, isn't it? Get into a position whereby you win whoever wins.

Right. The key life question must always be, what's in it for *me*. It just mustn't look like it.

I tell all the young lads nowadays*.



*Not like that.

[Luis Anaconda]

Yes. I rather like the fellow. Well not 'like' exactly, since he's obviously a thoroughgoing arse. But I do actually think he's probably a good thing in general, giving the lie as he does to the 'There is no alternative' crowd.

hmm - the most positive thing I took out of him winning was that the alternative was four years of Hillary and then a true right-wing bible-bashing automaton like Pence would win in 2020 - or someone like Cruz could have run against HC and win. Time for the Democrats to find a better alternative - although it seems like they've ditched the Clintons and are looking down the Kennedy route again

[Luis Anaconda]

The only sensible wars are ones with clear aims that you can win without things dragging on for years. So:

The Falklands = sensible war :-)
Gulf War 1 = sensible war :-)
Gulf War 2 = bad war :-(
Sensible conflict, b, for a, please

[Peter]

I'm sorry for the whataboutery, but how can he be considered "scary" for people who supported, say, Tony Blair? Surely all the scrutiny Trump is subject to greatly reduces his capacity for scariness, as certainly wouldn't have been the case for Hillary Clinton.

You *must* see how that (your) view comes across as less than serious, in this context?

Because he is a ****ing egotistical loon. Blair made a bad call at the wrong moment and **** me he has been punished for it.

You know as well as I do that the first thing one requires of a political leader is the ability to take advice and to seek it from the right places. Can you honestly say that Trump fills you with confidence on that score?

[Peter]

Soothing platitudes, but meaningless, Peter. The cycle of perpetual war and chaos for which Clinton was a continuity candidate was bad enough. Trump might well have his own conflicts, but at least we're not guarranteed this, as we are with, basically, any mainstream president. With Clinton there was a real menace of something even worse than the routine neocon-libhawk wars (direct and proxy).

Can we just clarify something here. You seem to have me down as a Hilary apologist.

Trust me, I would have come very, very close to voting for Trump myself....

[World's End Stella]

.. With honourable exceptions, of course.

Very honourable

Bob :love:

[Peter]

That's the thing, though. He's living proof that there is - which is one of the reasons he's so very hated.

He is unique. There wont be another alternative. This alternative seems to involve being a **** on twitter....

[World's End Stella]

If only I had said more or less the same thing :rolleyes:

Like I'd read anything you post

[Peter]

How very isolationist of you p. Did you follow the unspoken wishes of your leader Jeremy and vote leave?

What can I say? I don't like them. They talk funny, they refer to the EPL and they elect a bloke who refers to them as 'folks'.....

This really wont do.

[Luis Anaconda]

Like I'd read anything you post

fair point

[Ash]

Can we just clarify something here. You seem to have me down as a Hilary apologist.

Trust me, I would have come very, very close to voting for Trump myself....

:hehe: Fair do's, Pedro.

[Peter]

:hehe: Fair do's, Pedro.

AND....as much as I hate him if he brings a swathe of manufacturing jobs to the rust belt (without destroying the world) even I will hail him as a great President.

[Sir C]

AND....as much as I hate him if he brings a swathe of manufacturing jobs to the rust belt (without destroying the world) even I will hail him as a great President.

If he did that Bruce would have nothing to mither on about.

[redgunamo]

Because he is a ****ing egotistical loon. Blair made a bad call at the wrong moment and **** me he has been punished for it.

You know as well as I do that the first thing one requires of a political leader is the ability to take advice and to seek it from the right places. Can you honestly say that Trump fills you with confidence on that score?

He has surrounded himself with a bunch of men and women who have taken both him and his candidacy about a million miles further than anybody else believed was remotely possible. At this point, what more do you want :shrug:

[redgunamo]

He is unique. There wont be another alternative. This alternative seems to involve being a **** on twitter....

He is a unique personality certainly. His coalition and his programme need not be though. In fact, it may transfer quite easily to another candidate, perhaps a less controversial one.

He did and said what he had to to get *Donald Trump* elected; somebody else may not need to be so raw.

[redgunamo]

If he did that Bruce would have nothing to mither on about.

Oh, well. We'll always have "Atlantic City".

[Peter]

He has surrounded himself with a bunch of men and women who have taken both him and his candidacy about a million miles further than anybody else believed was remotely possible. At this point, what more do you want :shrug:

And since taking office he has consistently proven the fact that running and governing are very different. Most of his moves so far have been pretty poor or laughable. His Press Secretary is a laughing stock and his ridiculous travel bans have made the country look daft.

Then there is the constant attack on the press and his habit of responding to absolutely everything.

Who is telling him to shut the **** up and stay off twitter?

[redgunamo]

You're going to have to do better than that, I'm afraid. That's all just sour grapes. Surely you've been around long enough to know that your opponents' captiousness is merely a tribute to your success.

Or simply put, Obama-style: He won.




And since taking office he has consistently proven the fact that running and governing are very different. Most of his moves so far have been pretty poor or laughable. His Press Secretary is a laughing stock and his ridiculous travel bans have made the country look daft.

Then there is the constant attack on the press and his habit of responding to absolutely everything.

Who is telling him to shut the **** up and stay off twitter?

[Peter]

You're going to have to do better than that, I'm afraid. That's all just sour grapes. Surely you've been around long enough to know that your opponents' captiousness is merely a tribute to your success.

Or simply put, Obama-style: He won.

He isn't my opponent.