The Art of the Donald Trumpocalypse

[Combustible Lemur]

Still debating the particulars of my point. Let me try again.

Take the major social issue of the past few years, equality for the LBGT community (outside of NC anyway). Obviously that is a huge development for this country, and the timing was certainly helped by Obama. But the cultural shift was already underway, and the avalanche would have happened at some point (IMO).

Equally obvious, I am pleased that it didn't have to wait longer and that has actually directly impacted friends and family.

I work every day on an Army base, the impact of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is not lost on me.

All I was attempting to convey was that the America that I remember back in 1990 under Bush I is the same American that I lived in through the Clinton, Bush II and Obama years. It's the same America that I would have lived in during the Dole, Gore, Kerry, McCain or Romney years.

Identical? No. Better under some than others? Certainly. But fundamentally different? No.

The system just doesn't allow that much power to the President. A great deal of the changes we see also come about because of Congressional makeup, cultural movements, etc.

Clinton continues that America. Trump lights it all on fire.

If you listen to that kind of thing, Freakonomics recently interviewed a constitutional scholar about the very question of the powers of the president for podcast.

The main take away was that "Great Presidents" often are quite at odds with the Madisonian interpretation of the constitution.

[RunningMn9]

Having 3 more Scalias on the Supreme Court for the next couple generations would set America's social liberties and civil rights back a century.

And if I asked a staunch conservative, they would say the exact same thing about having three Clinton nominees on the bench.

Maybe one last way. For staunch liberals, these conservative presidents might rate as 0s on the scale, while liberal candidates might rate 10s. For staunch conservatives, maybe we just flip that, right?

For someone like me, we aren't normally choosing between 0s and 10s. We are choosing between 4s and 6s. And I think that I'm not alone. I think there's a lot of people that wake up each day and spend all their energy figuring out to pay their mortgage and keep the lights on - and not much changes from Administration to Administration.

I'm not saying that I'm right that these people are 4s and 6s, just that that's how it seems to me. My 4 might be your 0 or 10. That's all subjective. Clearly Bush II was a 0 for most liberals and Obama is a 0 for most conservatives. They're both in the 5/6 range to me.

As stated, the difference this year is that Clinton is the predictable 5/6 to me. Someone like Kasich would have been something like a 4/5. Trump is a -100.

Let's focus on that rather than whether or not we agree on GWB or Obama's rating.

[gilraen]

Having 3 more Scalias on the Supreme Court for the next couple generations would set America's social liberties and civil rights back a century.

And if I asked a staunch conservative, they would say the exact same thing about having three Clinton nominees on the bench.

Because staunch conservatives are so pro-abortion rights, LGBT rights, making sure that voter rights for minorities are preserved...amirite? I don't think flipping your argument works the same way. Conservatives would actually prefer to keep things in the last century, "conserving" is in their name. The world moves on with or without them, but they keep trying to drag everyone back kicking and screaming.

[Dogstar]

For someone like me, we aren't normally choosing between 0s and 10s. We are choosing between 4s and 6s. And I think that I'm not alone. I think there's a lot of people that wake up each day and spend all their energy figuring out to pay their mortgage and keep the lights on - and not much changes from Administration to Administration.

I'm not saying that I'm right that these people are 4s and 6s, just that that's how it seems to me. My 4 might be your 0 or 10. That's all subjective. Clearly Bush II was a 0 for most liberals and Obama is a 0 for most conservatives. They're both in the 5/6 range to me.

As stated, the difference this year is that Clinton is the predictable 5/6 to me. Someone like Kasich would have been something like a 4/5. Trump is a -100.

Let's focus on that rather than whether or not we agree on GWB or Obama's rating.

I'm trying to determine whether my scale has always been relative, or whether it's just this election. Because while I may not have been Bush II's biggest fan, I'd vote for him and a host of other Republicans I previously wouldn't have considered when they're contrasted against Trump.

[RunningMn9]

I don't think flipping your argument works the same way. Conservatives would actually prefer to keep things in the last century, "conserving" is in their name.

You don't think that conservatives would hate Clinton judges every bit as much as liberals would hate more Scalias? Because that's what I was saying, and that seems obvious to me.

[Zaxxon]

Sure they would. But they'd be wrong.

[Enough]

Also Trump today:

In other words, JEWS!

This man really is the absolute worst. What he's riling up in this country won't be easy to contain, even after he loses.

Roger that.

And for those that don't know, the triple parentheses is an antisemitic symbol to identify Jews. Ugh.

[Skinypupy]

And for those that don't know, the triple parentheses is an antisemitic symbol to identify Jews. Ugh.

Just in case the money=Satan=Jews wasn't subtle enough.

[Defiant]

I am crushing on Anderson Cooper.

The series of reports breaking Wednesday that detailed specific allegations of sexual assault by Donald Trump over a span of three decades might never have happened if not for the work of CNN’s Anderson Cooper during Sunday’s presidential debate.

The New York Times, which reported on two women who say they were forcibly touched by Trump, notes in its story it was Cooper’s questioning of Trump in the debate that convinced them to step forward:

Questioning by Anderson Cooper Credited With Clearing Way for New Trump Reports

[GreenGoo]

Sure they would. But they'd be wrong.

Amusingly I was discussing what I felt was the one semi-valid argument for voting Drumpf, and that was the supreme court. There is nothing that would lead anyone to believe that Drumpf's nominee would be any more acceptable to conservatives than it would be for liberals, but a Clinton presidency guarantees a left leaning judge (or judges) while Drumpf is a completely random crap shoot which might result with his son being nominated. One the one hand, you are guaranteed to be screwed. On the other you might not be. Or you might be but so might the other side.

That said, I struggle to understand the conservative viewpoint on social issues. On the left, you have pro-women's rights, pro-minority rights, civil liberties in general (if we ignore nanny state overwrought do-gooders) and on the right you have...what, exactly? Pro-fetus rights I guess, which I might understand even if I don't agree with, but what else? What is it that needs to be done for the right to sleep at night?

I was surprised to find that I was at an almost complete loss. Anything I could think of was about making people do stuff that I think they should do. Essentially deciding what's right for other people even when they don't agree with it. The left, as far as I know, is not going into conservative bedrooms and making everyone have anal sex or marry their tennis instructor. Conservatives could quite happily live out their lives in exactly the fashion they want (assuming they don't want to own slaves or something). Why are conservatives so concerned with other peoples' business?

[Isgrimnur]

Look at the recent electoral college posts and you can see that the gun rights argument is still a going concern.

[Archinerd]

Gun Rights and Low Taxes.

[RunningMn9]

Gun Rights and Low Taxes.

They are already the lowest they've been since before WW2.

[Kraken]

Know your deplorables: How Half of America Lost Its F**king Mind

[GreenGoo]

Ok, gun rights is a concern I can understand even if I'm not a fan. I guess it never crossed my mind because gun rights are fairly limited where I live.

My bad.

I don't think taxes cross the supreme court's desk very often, do they?

[Kurth]

It felt like that was an example, but the net was being spread wide enough to catch everyone. He may not have meant it that way, but that's how it came across to me. It felt more like a dig at the "victim" (I'll use quotes to make everyone happy) than at the reporter.

Totally not a dig at the victim or a knock on the NYT story. All about the reporting on CNN. Glad we cleared that up! I hate to disappoint people.

[Chaz]

I think a big thing conservatives are looking for in Supreme Court justices are rulings that grant more power and autonomy to the states and less to the federal government. The thinking being that the states know what's best for their population, and it shouldn't be left to nine people in DC to determine what's best for the residents of Wyoming or Alabama.

Where this falls down is stuff like HB2, or states imposing restrictions on access to abortions or women's health care, or restrictions specifically intended to reduce voting access for minorities. In many cases, what states believe is "best" for their residents is actually really, super crummy for the residents not in power.

[Captain Caveman]

Gun Rights and Low Taxes.

They are already the lowest they've been since before WW2.

Trump routinely says that our taxes are the highest in the world. I think he even said it in the last debate. He's never called on it.

[PLW]

Gun Rights and Low Taxes.

They are already the lowest they've been since before WW2.

Trump routinely says that our taxes are the highest in the world. I think he even said it in the last debate. He's never called on it.

I wonder if he has some metric in mind for which it's true. Because on its face, it's just ridiculous. We have like the 3rd lowest overall tax burden in the OECD.

Edit: it's/its

[Holman]

Gun Rights and Low Taxes.

They are already the lowest they've been since before WW2.

Trump routinely says that our taxes are the highest in the world. I think he even said it in the last debate. He's never called on it.

He's thinking of HIS taxes.

[RunningMn9]

He's thinking of HIS taxes.

HIS taxes are the ones that are the most lowest.

Edit to add: Just so we're clear, in case anyone is confused about the current state of federal income tax in the United States. Here are the brackets for "Married Filing Jointly" for 2013:

Code: Select all

10.0%  $      0  $ 17,488
15.0%  $ 17,488  $ 71,030
25.0%  $ 71,030  $143,432
28.0%  $143,432  $218,528
33.0%  $218,528  $390,273
35.0%  $390,273  $440,875 
39.6%  $440,876  -

Here are the tax brackets for "Married Filing Jointly" for 1945, adjusted to 2013 dollars:

Code: Select all

23.0%  $        0  $   25,510
25.0%  $   25,510  $   51,021
29.0%  $   51,021  $   76,531
33.0%  $   76,531  $  102,042
37.0%  $  102,042  $  127,552
41.0%  $  127,552  $  153,063
46.0%  $  153,063  $  178,573
50.0%  $  178,573  $  204,084
53.0%  $  204,084  $  229,594
56.0%  $  229,594  $  255,104
59.0%  $  255,104  $  280,615
62.0%  $  280,615  $  331,636
65.0%  $  331,636  $  408,167
68.0%  $  408,167  $  484,698
72.0%  $  484,698  $  561,230
75.0%  $  561,230  $  637,761
78.0%  $  637,761  $  765,313
81.0%  $  765,313  $  892,866
84.0%  $  892,866  $1,020,418
87.0%  $1,020,418  $1,147,970
90.0%  $1,147,970  $1,275,522
92.0%  $1,275,522  $1,913,283
93.0%  $1,913,283  $2,551,044
94.0%  $2,551,044  -

[raydude]

He's thinking of HIS taxes.

HIS taxes are the ones that are the most lowest.

Perhaps Trump is using the entire number line. If so, zero isn't the lowest number. The US should PAY him for winning so much, believe me.

[Combustible Lemur]

I think a big thing conservatives are looking for in Supreme Court justices are rulings that grant more power and autonomy to the states and less to the federal government. The thinking being that the states know what's best for their population, and it shouldn't be left to nine people in DC to determine what's best for the residents of Wyoming or Alabama.

Where this falls down is stuff like HB2, or states imposing restrictions on access to abortions or women's health care, or restrictions specifically intended to reduce voting access for minorities. In many cases, what states believe is "best" for their residents is actually really, super crummy for the residents not in power.

More weirdly, some of the strongest red states are the ones who get the most federal assistance. Creating More autonomy for states would be disastrous for quite a few in education and economy. http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailycha ... scal-union

[Toe]

I think a big thing conservatives are looking for in Supreme Court justices are rulings that grant more power and autonomy to the states and less to the federal government. The thinking being that the states know what's best for their population, and it shouldn't be left to nine people in DC to determine what's best for the residents of Wyoming or Alabama.

Where this falls down is stuff like HB2, or states imposing restrictions on access to abortions or women's health care, or restrictions specifically intended to reduce voting access for minorities. In many cases, what states believe is "best" for their residents is actually really, super crummy for the residents not in power.

Also, rulings that grant more power to corporations (look no further than citizens united). Liberals are already talking about reversing it or at least neutering it with another law once they have the majority on the supreme court (because you know republicans will fight anything that messes with it all the way to the supreme court).

[RunningMn9]

some of the strongest red states are the ones who get the most federal assistance.

I think "assistance" is the wrong word. Some of the strongest red states are the ones who get the most federal dollars. Because they are host to some of the biggest defense contractors and/or have lots of old people. In some cases it might be because of socioeconomic reasons, but in many cases I don't think it is.

[Apollo]

some of the strongest red states are the ones who get the most federal assistance.

I think "assistance" is the wrong word. Some of the strongest red states are the ones who get the most federal dollars. Because they are host to some of the biggest defense contractors and/or have lots of old people. In some cases it might be because of socioeconomic reasons, but in many cases I don't think it is.

And in a lot of cases (Like Alabama) it's because the state won't raise it's taxes enough to meet it's responsibilities and relies on the Federal Government to cover the budget shortfalls.

[Isgrimnur]

Wallethub, March 2016



Apparently the state government of North Dakota is the least reliant on federal payments, while it's people are the most reliant, for an overall rank of 15th highest.

[RunningMn9]

And in a lot of cases (Like Alabama) it's because the state won't raise it's taxes enough to meet it's responsibilities and relies on the Federal Government to cover the budget shortfalls.

What sort of budget shortfalls does the Federal Government step in to cover?

[Grifman]

Know your deplorables: How Half of America Lost Its F**king Mind

That echoes what a number of article previously posted have said, and I was surprised since you used the word "deplorable", that it was a fairly sympathetic view of what is going on in rural white America. These people are being ignored by both parties, and unfortunately, they find a voice in Trump. That's how demagogues work unfortunately.

[Isgrimnur]

I don't think it's general budgetary assistance, but there's a lot of funds that go to prop up state programs.

[Grifman]

some of the strongest red states are the ones who get the most federal assistance.

I think "assistance" is the wrong word. Some of the strongest red states are the ones who get the most federal dollars. Because they are host to some of the biggest defense contractors and/or have lots of old people. In some cases it might be because of socioeconomic reasons, but in many cases I don't think it is.

And in a lot of cases (Like Alabama) it's because the state won't raise it's taxes enough to meet it's responsibilities and relies on the Federal Government to cover the budget shortfalls.

Uh, no, that's not how it works. States have their own budgets, they may get money for roads, schools, etc, but that's there for all states, not just low tax states.

[malchior]

Right but some states get much more of their operating budgets from the Federal government than others. Typically they are matching grants though. For instance highway dollars are almost always matched with state dollar outlays and have certain conditions attached.

Also Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, etc. There are a lot of social programs that pay out more that tend to correlate with the poverty levels in the state.

[Jaymann]

I'm not a fan of big bankers either, but not because any of them are Jewish.

[Blackhawk]

I think a big thing conservatives are looking for in Supreme Court justices are rulings that grant more power and autonomy to the states and less to the federal government. The thinking being that the states know what's best for their population, and it shouldn't be left to nine people in DC to determine what's best for the residents of Wyoming or Alabama.

Some of this is also because the current national trend has been toward non-conservative values. If those rights are given to the states, they can keep their bathrooms and abortions the way they want them. If they stay with the federal government, they have to comply with liberal values.

I have a feeling that their tune would be different if things like gay marriage and abortions were being banned at the national level, and states' rights meant those things being permitted.

[Defiant]

This is page compares Trump to the kind of trolls you might see in online games.

[YellowKing]

I still get emails from the GOP, and they are highly entertaining. The latest one talks about all the "dirty tricks" Clinton has pulled in October, as if she put the words in Trump's mouth in 2005. It also claims that Trump is tied or leading in most of the swing states.

There are lies, then there are damn lies. And the mere fact that the Republican party still keeps trotting out stuff that is EASILY fact-checkable with just a five second Google search just fills me with rage.

[RunningMn9]

That echoes what a number of article previously posted have said, and I was surprised since you used the word "deplorable", that it was a fairly sympathetic view of what is going on in rural white America. These people are being ignored by both parties, and unfortunately, they find a voice in Trump. That's how demagogues work unfortunately.

This is something that I struggle with. On the one hand, I understand the struggle that they are in, at least to the degree that I can empathize with it. The world has passed them by socioeconomically and culturally. But on the other hand, it can't go back to what they perceive of as the "glory days" - socioeconomically or culturally.

I've said before that some of their beliefs don't *deserve* a voice. To clarify that, it's not that they don't deserve a voice as people - it's that the things that they want aren't possible. It's a fantasy to believe that any politician is going to bring back their coal mines or steel mills or <insert single large employer>. It simply cannot and will not happen. It's a fantasy to believe that we are going to return to the oppressive features of their cultural beliefs. The rest of the world (rightly) doesn't care that they believe their religion empowers them to discriminate and oppress in the public square. We aren't going back to a world where they are allowed to do that.

So while I understand their plight, I struggle to care about it. If they want their voice to be heard, they need to make sure their voice is about things that are possible. There must be solutions to the socioeconomic issues in rural America that don't involve a return to the 1950s economy. There must. Or these people are fucked - Trump or no Trump.

[Scraper]

I still get emails from the GOP, and they are highly entertaining. The latest one talks about all the "dirty tricks" Clinton has pulled in October, as if she put the words in Drumpf's mouth in 2005. It also claims that Drumpf is tied or leading in most of the swing states.

There are lies, then there are damn lies. And the mere fact that the Republican party still keeps trotting out stuff that is EASILY fact-checkable with just a five second Google search just fills me with rage.

The problem is that most people won't fact check it because it supports their confirmation bias. The GOP knows this and therefor they prey on it.

[Max Peck]

My secret life as a Texan Trump supporter

In March this year, I received an email informing me that my 2003 Cadillac DeVille had had an urgent safety recall. I was told to take it straight to my local dealer in Texas for a free repair.

This would have been unremarkable, except that I live in north London and do not own, and have never shown any interest in owning, a Cadillac - DeVille or otherwise.

On further examination, I realised I had been mistaken for a man called Reuben R - my email address somehow having become attached to his identity.

I thought little more about it until I received a message three months later - again intended for Reuben R - from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), inviting me to sign a birthday card for Donald Trump.

When I failed to do so, I received a further email informing me that the signing deadline had been extended and that I should get on with it. "There will be no more extensions - SIGN THE CARD NOW!" commanded the message.

This was the beginning of a whole series of Trump-related emails, intended for Reuben R - evidently a loyal supporter of the Republican Party's presidential candidate, but instead reaching me - a left-leaning, female writer living on the other side of the Atlantic.

[...]

In June the strident Trump emails began to vie for space in my inbox with similar appeals from Marco Rubio, a Republican senator from Florida who is seeking re-election on 8 November.

"I've asked my staff to create exclusive, secure buttons below," he told me, "so that I can personally be notified when you donate. Only with your IMMEDIATE action today can we ensure the United States Senate remains in Republican control."

When I failed to provide a contribution, despite the campaign's success resting on my shoulders, I received an email from Senator Rubio himself: "This is disturbing," it read. "I just received a concerning update from my campaign manager, Clint. It's not good. I didn't hear back from you before the End of Quarter deadline. This puts me in a really tough position."

"Oh Marco", I thought. "I've let you down. I've let Clint down. And worst of all, I've let myself down."

It occurs to me that if I have been mistaken for Reuben R, perhaps he has been mistaken for me.

Is he, for example, receiving messages at his home in Texas inviting him to a parents' evening in a north London primary school? Is he wondering why he is being sent money-off vouchers for UK women's clothing stores?

And is he sad to be missing out on the chance to be recognised as one of the state's foremost conservatives?

Why has no-one offered to inscribe him in the official Republican Record Book? Why is he the only person in the street without a Trump yard sign?

And most aggravating of all, why has his 2003 Cadillac DeVille broken down?

[LordMortis]

Wallethub, March 2016



Apparently the state government of North Dakota is the least reliant on federal payments, while it's people are the most reliant, for an overall rank of 15th highest.

I think that's a nice link. The distinction without a difference that others argue with old people and contractors and such versus the model federal money is going into the state versus federal money going out of the state per capita. The more that goes in, the more federal government is propping up the state economy and its people. The more coming out, the more the federal government is a drain on the state and its people. I find it ironic (and yet politically predictable) that so many red states bitch the loudest about federal budgets and taxes and yet are the biggest drains and push for an even bigger slice of the pie be spend in their districts.


So this is what matters also indirectly pulled from the same study



http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... rs/361668/