Trump 2nd term prediction thread
So, looks like Trump not only smashed the electoral college, but is looking on track to win the popular vote, which seems to be an unexpected turn of events, but a clear sign of the current temperature in the country and perhaps the wider world.
Would be interested to hear views on how his 2nd term will pan out from both sides of the aisle - major happenings, what he's going to get done, what he's not going to get done, the impact of his election on the current conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, whether his popularity will remain the same, wane, or increase, etc.
A bit of an anemic OP, I know, just interested to hear people's thoughts now that the election uncertainty is over.
She is against “endless wars” meaning regime change but she is not a dove by any stretch of the imagination.
She seems to be very popular with the MAGA crowd, so you'd have to ask them.
I've talked about Gabbard before but the short version is either she was a DINO or she's just someone who changes teams whenever convenient. Concerns about her go way back. Her old man incidentally did the same thing, he was Independent, Republican and Democrat over his career also, which aligned with his electability in his area.
I don't honestly know if she's compromised, but her positions and the fact that she's a darling of Russian media aren't a great look. Her activities wrt to Syria deserve all the scrutiny and more, well past the point of liberal media beating up on her, etc.
In any case, even if her entire known history is some big misunderstanding and she's just an awesome human being, she's not even remotely qualified for the role.
de Santis was pushing the vaccine harder than anyone in the first trimester of 2021.
then democrats started venting mandates, and implementing some in colleges and so on and they destroyed public trust in them for a generation or more among republicans.
They destroyed public trust in them what ?
Vaccines ?
Well if a government actions could changed beliefs about science doesn’t mean science changes but only their beliefs do .
It’s on them they get brainwash not on government .
I was just responding to SRM's original comment. That's all. Moving the conversation to specific issues is moving the goal post. The behavior I spoke about has consequences, of course.
For what it's worth, I'm pro-life, but I'm also against federal and state book bans, as well as editing authors' works to remove so-called problematic and outdated language, which the left has been doing in recent years. Regardless, it's not a winning strategy to just point out someone's stance on an issue and act
Ok all good .
But my main point is isn’t the same because maga is in control while the « bad left » you allude for isn’t .
So maga will eventually do far more damage then the left could ever do .
We are about to see it in couple months .
Can’t wait .
Exactly how hardcore MAGA does one have to be to get sold on choices like Gabbard or Hegseth? There was never much question DJT wanted loyalists in his cabinet but there are more than enough of them to not have to make these totally unqualified picks, especially with such critical positions.
I get putting an anti EPA-guy in as the EPA guy last time if you're all about de-regulating everything and think climate change is nonsense. But I would imagine Republicans care about national defense and th
The real enemy is inside the U.S. .
National defence is irrelevant in their mind .
Especially if they want to takeover .
Maga is not trying to relate to an old America (which they would be despise) , they aim at a new America by eradicating all people that have freedom they don’t agree with .
Republican freedom is the only freedom acceptable which obviously makes the word freedom irrelevant.
And no worry , once get those incompetent loyalists fails hard , they will find a way to blame them and others but not the guy who put them in .
Ok all good .
But my main point is isn’t the same because maga is in control while the « bad left » you allude for isn’t .
So maga will eventually do far more damage then the left could ever do .
We are about to see it in couple months .
Can’t wait .
MAGA is a reaction to the the damage the left has already done. I think the event that sparked the fire was the media's coverage of Mike Brown and the Ferguson riots. After that, things continued to escalate, and only in the last year or two have things started to settle down. I'm sure we disagree on this, but left wing identity politics taken to the extreme caused a ton of damage, and now we're experiencing the blowback.
MAGA is a reaction to the the damage the left has already done. I think the event that sparked the fire was the media's coverage of Mike Brown and the Ferguson riots. After that, things continued to escalate, and only in the last year or two have things started to settle down. I'm sure we disagree on this, but left wing identity politics taken to the extreme caused a ton of damage, and now we're experiencing the blowback.
Was there identity policies that explain trump 2016 win you allude too today ?
Maga is just a movement stemming from Palin and the tea party like in 2008 …
Millions of people lost their houses and job and they were angry !
They, like today , barked at the wrong tree to explain many of their problems .
But it’s a common them for republicans.
They always need someone to blame instead of looking at their own policies and realizing maybe they could do better …
It is far from being about only identity policies but yeah I guess we disagree on that .
Usually with things like this I start from the opposite direction and critically ask, okay, what case CAN I make for them.
With Gabbard there's really nothing there aside from administrative experience, which is always worth something. But you would expect to see some level of background in the intelligence community, like anywhere, or if stretching maybe an active role on the House Intel Committee. This is the Director of National Intelligence we're talking about.
Hegseth I can't find any kind of national security background on at all. His military experience wasn't senior or policy level, and by his own admission was cited as an extremist while in service and separated as a result. But that's fine, you can do the job without bring a retired general if you're bringing something to the table (it's not the JCS), but what else is there? I can make an argument for Director of the VA without too much trouble since he has relevant experience there, at least sort of.
I have other concerns, but I'm looking for reasons they could be qualified.
Exactly how hardcore MAGA does one have to be to get sold on choices like Gabbard or Hegseth? There was never much question DJT wanted loyalists in his cabinet but there are more than enough of them to not have to make these totally unqualified picks, especially with such critical positions.
I get putting an anti EPA-guy in as the EPA guy last time if you're all about de-regulating everything and think climate change is nonsense. But I would imagine Republicans care about national defense and th
They care about national defense and intelligence, what you don't get is that they think the current establishment is destroying both of them.
When you feel career professionals have been destroying things for decades corrupting them almost irremediably and using them against the American people, what's your pick if not someone you know for a certainty not to be compromised and who has spent years to declare intelligence has become a domestic enemy, and for the DoD that the emasculation of the militaries is a threat to the security of the nation?
How do you get a "qualified" person for intelligence that wasn't a part of the problem? Someone who always told you that the Patriot act was an unconstitutional coup, that Fisa courts are fascism and incompatible with American democracy and so on?
I mean try to enter that mentality, people who are 100% convinced intelligence illegally spied on trump campaign in 2016 and made up claims of russian collaboration, covered the hunter laptop and so on and on?
Remember we are talking people who think Nixon was removed by a coup.
Which qualified pick for dod can you find who is on record fully opposing trans and women in the militaries?
They care about national defense and intelligence, what you don't get is that they think the current establishment is destroying both of them.
When you feel career professionals have been destroying things for decades corrupting them almost irremediably and using them against the American people, what's your pick if not someone you know for a certainty not to be compromised and who has spent years to declare intelligence has become a domestic enemy, and for the DoD that the emasculation of the mi
I think everyone understands the bold. The problem is not everything is rot and if you’re so unqualified that you can’t distinguish which is which, you can do a lot of damage, even if your intentions are noble.
I think everyone understands the bold. The problem is not everything is rot and if you’re so unqualified that you can’t distinguish which is which, you can do a lot of damage, even if your intentions are noble.
How do you qualify according to your standards without having been part of the problem?
It's like you accepting that marxist professors destroy colleges yet you consider anyone who isn't a marxist professor unqualified to fix that
How do you qualify according to your standards without having been part of the problem?
It's like you accepting that marxist professors destroy colleges yet you consider anyone who isn't a marxist professor unqualified to fix that
Being a professor doesn’t make you a Marxist. Having relative experience in intelligence and defense doesn’t make you whatever it is that’s considered problematic either. I’d rather someone who knows the system well and is disillusioned with it than someone with little experience. This is leaving aside the ideological problems I have with these people.
Trump is 100% to explore staying in power once his term is completed. That is who he is. What that effort looks like is still not clear, but it is 100% to be explored. The only thing that will potentially thwart Trump is inadequate enablement from those surrounding him. He didn’t anticipate Pence breaking with him on Jan6. Trump is ensuring he’s got significantly more loyal (and depraved) people around him for round 2. Just look at Gaetz and RFK. 2 total garbage human being zeroes who would be nothing without their respective daddies.. Just like Trump.
And he’s going to get all up in that young pussy. Frustrated, loser incels, like many on this site, are a significant portion of his base. They live vicariously thru Trump in hopes that they too may one day have a mail-order bride from the former EasternBlock.
Usually with things like this I start from the opposite direction and critically ask, okay, what case CAN I make for them.
With Gabbard there's really nothing there aside from administrative experience, which is always worth something. But you would expect to see some level of background in the intelligence community, like anywhere, or if stretching maybe an active role on the House Intel Committee. This is the Director of National Intelligence we're talking about.
Hegseth I can't find any kind
Qualifications have never been paramount to Trump. He appointed a surgeon with no experience in housing or the government as the head of HUD. He appointed someone with no background in education (other than advocating for charter schools) as Secretary of Education.
It's concerning that he is following the same path this time around with more important cabinet positions, but it isn't surprising.
Qualifications have never been paramount to Trump. He appointed a surgeon with no experience in housing or the government as the head of HUD. He appointed someone with no background in education (other than advocating for charter schools) as Secretary of Education.
It's concerning that he is following the same path this time around with more important cabinet positions, but it isn't surprising.
In 2016 he didn't have very much support outside the hoi polloi; it really was a populist movement. He didn't have the power or enough supporters to just fill every position with people loyal to him, regardless of experience.
This time around he has enough power and support to just fill the govt. with people loyal to him, for good or bad.
In 2016 he didn't have very much support outside the hoi polloi; it really was a populist movement. He didn't have the power or enough supporters to just fill every position with people loyal to him, regardless of experience.
This time around he has enough power and support to just fill the govt. with people loyal to him, for good or bad.
Trump of course had the ability in 2016 to fill important cabinet position with competent people. A president always has that ability. You may well be correct that he didn't really have the the necessary support in 2016 to install truly incompetent loyalists in key spots.
But that wasn't really my point. My point was that Trump has never cared about competence when making appointments. Not really.
How do you qualify according to your standards without having been part of the problem?
It's like you accepting that marxist professors destroy colleges yet you consider anyone who isn't a marxist professor unqualified to fix that
This is a terrible argument. Even if we accepted your definition of Marxism, and even if we agreed that your definition of a Marxist professor was "the problem," no one is arguing that only a Marxist professor (as defined by you) could fix the problem.
People are suggesting that the person to fix the problem probably should have a familiarity with higher education that extends beyond simply having attended college.
If you really think that Trump is playing 4D chess, if you really think that he is nominating incompetent idiots like Gaetz so that he can bring agencies like the DOJ that he despises into disrepute, then just make that tin foil hat argument.
"only a tiny minority of the american population wants to significantly reduce the scope and size of government!"
Memes are real life, SCOTUS edition
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch referenced the case of Peanut the Squirrel as a classic example of government overreach.
Speaking at a Federalist Society event yesterday, Gorsuch stated: “I’ve just seen too many cases like that. You have just the other day, some of you might have seen one in the newspaper, if the newspapers are to be believed,”
“Yes, I’m speaking of Peanut the squirrel.”
[URL="https://edition.cnn.com/2024/11/15/politics/security-clearances-fbi-gabbard-gaetz/index.html"]Trump’s team skips FBI background checks for some Cabinet picks
[/URL]
