Will Trump be Re-elected?

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Will Trump be Re-elected?

Trump is more effective than people are willing to admit [ala Scott Adams] and will be re-elected.
23
38%
Hillary will run again in 2020, and thus Trump will beat her again.
3
5%
Trump will cause the GOP to lose one or both houses of congress in the mid-term elections.
5
8%
The Dems in congress will be so insufferable, Trumps wins by a small margin despite them.
14
23%
Trump will choose not to run for re-election, since he never really wanted the job anyway.
7
12%
Trump is a disaster and will lose by a landslide.
3
5%
Trump will not only lose, but will lose to a candidate so far to the left that people will wish he'd stayed.
3
5%
Other, please elaborate.
2
3%
 
Total votes: 60
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by Kriegsspiel » Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:52 am

That's pretty good. Except for Melania. Left leg looks weird. WNB.
Only a few prefer liberty-- the majority seek nothing more than fair masters.
- Gaius Sallustius Crispus
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8146
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by moda0306 » Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:08 am

dualstow wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:43 am
ahahhahaha
o dear lord O0
I'm kind of glad I suck at pic-sizing. Cuz I never would've done it that big on purpose... but I'm very glad it turned out so... bigly.
User avatar
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by Kbg » Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:16 am

moda0306 wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:53 am
Kbg wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:03 pm
I’ve zero idea what Trump is actually like. I do know there is a standard set of caricatures rolled out for Republican presidents. Rich, stupid, uncaring, unsophisticated, embarrassing to our allies, bumbling, in the pocket of corporations...as opposed to witty, urbane, sophisticated, a man of the people, cares about the working man, loved by our Allies (particularly European allies)...etc.

It really doesn’t matter what the person is or is not like, that IS going to be the narrative.
Zero idea? No idea at all? Really? Just a big goddamn mystery isn't it...

I mean it's possible that he is polished, professional and an expert negotiator behind closed doors, but we definitely have a pretty good sample of what he's "actually like."

But you DO know that there's a narrative "rolled out." Of course there is. There's always some narrative "rolled out." Fox News Rolled out a narrative for Obama. And Bush. So did MSNBC. So did every smaller news outlet. So did people around dinner tables. Every conceivable "narrative" was probably "rolled out." Adults should ignore these narratives, even if partially true, and try to come up with their own conclusions based on much more fact-based analysis.

What are you actually trying to say here? The only thing we know about Trump is what "thuh mediuh" is telling us in line with "their" narrative? Well that's ridiculous. We can know plenty without exposing ourselves to CNN garble.
I’m saying I think the US media sucks and who knows how far the narrative is from reality. I also agree the same applies to how Democrats are portrayed on Fox, Rush etc. Agreed that people need to make their own conclusions; however, you don’t generally reach good conclusions if you don’t have good factual material to begin with.

Also, there’s a difference between snark and demeaning and you’re way over that line in your reply.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8146
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by moda0306 » Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:53 am

Kbg wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:16 am
moda0306 wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 8:53 am
Kbg wrote:
Wed Jun 19, 2019 11:03 pm
I’ve zero idea what Trump is actually like. I do know there is a standard set of caricatures rolled out for Republican presidents. Rich, stupid, uncaring, unsophisticated, embarrassing to our allies, bumbling, in the pocket of corporations...as opposed to witty, urbane, sophisticated, a man of the people, cares about the working man, loved by our Allies (particularly European allies)...etc.

It really doesn’t matter what the person is or is not like, that IS going to be the narrative.
Zero idea? No idea at all? Really? Just a big goddamn mystery isn't it...

I mean it's possible that he is polished, professional and an expert negotiator behind closed doors, but we definitely have a pretty good sample of what he's "actually like."

But you DO know that there's a narrative "rolled out." Of course there is. There's always some narrative "rolled out." Fox News Rolled out a narrative for Obama. And Bush. So did MSNBC. So did every smaller news outlet. So did people around dinner tables. Every conceivable "narrative" was probably "rolled out." Adults should ignore these narratives, even if partially true, and try to come up with their own conclusions based on much more fact-based analysis.

What are you actually trying to say here? The only thing we know about Trump is what "thuh mediuh" is telling us in line with "their" narrative? Well that's ridiculous. We can know plenty without exposing ourselves to CNN garble.
I’m saying I think the US media sucks and who knows how far the narrative is from reality. I also agree the same applies to how Democrats are portrayed on Fox, Rush etc. Agreed that people need to make their own conclusions; however, you don’t generally reach good conclusions if you don’t have good factual material to begin with.

Also, there’s a difference between snark and demeaning and you’re way over that line in your reply.
I told you that your assertion that you have "zero idea" what Trump is actually like is ridiculous. Is that demeaning? I thought it was too obvious to ignore. If you find that demeaning, I have trouble figuring out how you have "zero idea" what Trump is actually like, as we have hundreds-if-not-thousands of hours of him actually behaving a certain way in a myriad of scenarios. Many of which are far-and-away more demeaning than calling an idea "ridiculous."

I didn't mean it personally or towards you as a whole, but merely towards that assertion.
jacksonM
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 342
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:59 pm

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by jacksonM » Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:01 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Thu Jun 20, 2019 1:32 pm
I like Mayor Pete. Most well spoken one of the bunch. And a military vet.

I'd be interested to see the response across America to a president who is gay and a veteran. I suppose some heads will explode.
I suspect Mayor Pete and his husband would be well-received in Europe and may even win the Nobel peace prize like Obama did.

Other places, not so much - like say, sitting down with Putin in Russia. The expression on Putin's face would be interesting to behold.

Muslim countries and African countries, yes, heads will probably explode and that might be putting it mildly.

Not sure about Asian and Latin American countries.
User avatar
Kbg
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:18 pm

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by Kbg » Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:51 pm

moda0306 wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:53 am
I didn't mean it personally or towards you as a whole, but merely towards that assertion.
Apology accepted? :)

I see where you are coming from, for the record I'm not a big Trump fan either. To be more precise in my comment, the standard narrative thing drives me nuts and shapes perceptions sometimes strongly so. Secondarily, literally "no clue" indeed is a stretch and a fair call out. However, I'll stand by my comment that what any president is really like in person is heavily shaped and we probably don't them to a significant degree. The fact that any person is reviled by the partisans of one political party and adored by the other tells you all you need to know on this topic. You just don't see this kind of stuff in local politics.

An interesting case study of a more recent nature is Nixon. He was Satan in the early 70s and a wise elder statesman by the time he died. My guess is whatever Nixon was didn't change a whole lot, just the narrative.
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8146
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by moda0306 » Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:02 am

Kbg wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:51 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:53 am
I didn't mean it personally or towards you as a whole, but merely towards that assertion.
Apology accepted? :)

I see where you are coming from, for the record I'm not a big Trump fan either. To be more precise in my comment, the standard narrative thing drives me nuts and shapes perceptions sometimes strongly so. Secondarily, literally "no clue" indeed is a stretch and a fair call out. However, I'll stand by my comment that what any president is really like in person is heavily shaped and we probably don't them to a significant degree. The fact that any person is reviled by the partisans of one political party and adored by the other tells you all you need to know on this topic. You just don't see this kind of stuff in local politics.

An interesting case study of a more recent nature is Nixon. He was Satan in the early 70s and a wise elder statesman by the time he died. My guess is whatever Nixon was didn't change a whole lot, just the narrative.
Yes please consider that an apology. Put another way, what I was trying to say is "this is ridiculous... so surely you don't actually mean that and mean something else" hence the part asking "what are you trying to say."

I was perhaps too young to see the "rehabilitation of Nixon." I never realized that was a thing.

So I sort of see what you mean with standard narrative with dem vs republican presidents, but let's take a look at what they've given us for a second here. I was barely cognizant of who Bush 1 was, so Clinton was really my first president, so perhaps my scope is limited, but I've only really seen two dem and two republican presidents, as well as the media response to them. The two dems were Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and while both definitely had their hiccups, both could discuss complicated issues in relatively nuanced ways. Often this was over-stated, or what they were "saying" was really nothing, but just sounded good if you don't know much (think Reagan speeches, though I think both Obama and Clinton were much smarter than Reagan). On the other hand, you have Bush II and Trump.

It would take pretty biased media to NOT have the first two sound more worldly and polished and the other two sound like doofuses. If anything, I think "the media" is too easy on Presidential stupidity, and that would have been a lot more prevalent during Bush II/Trump than Clinton/Obama. If there's any media bias worth really getting incensed over during Bush II, it's the 2001-2005 9/11 and follow-up foreign policy coverage, not "making Bush II look too dumb." At least as far as I'm concerned. Bush II was pretty dumb. It's not the media's job to find his most nuanced, professional statements and pepper them all over the news. It's their job to hold them accountable on lies, falsehoods, and bad/inconsistent analysis.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8144
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: next to emotional support peacock
Contact:

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by dualstow » Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:07 am

Nixon didn't become a wise elder statesman so much as..an elder statesman. Well, that's anecdotal.
As a kid, I remember watching a news talk show with my dad featuring Nixon as a guest. I think he had just published his eighth book. My dad just rolled his eyes.
.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3743
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by Mountaineer » Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:09 am

moda0306 wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:02 am
Kbg wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:51 pm
moda0306 wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:53 am
I didn't mean it personally or towards you as a whole, but merely towards that assertion.
Apology accepted? :)

I see where you are coming from, for the record I'm not a big Trump fan either. To be more precise in my comment, the standard narrative thing drives me nuts and shapes perceptions sometimes strongly so. Secondarily, literally "no clue" indeed is a stretch and a fair call out. However, I'll stand by my comment that what any president is really like in person is heavily shaped and we probably don't them to a significant degree. The fact that any person is reviled by the partisans of one political party and adored by the other tells you all you need to know on this topic. You just don't see this kind of stuff in local politics.

An interesting case study of a more recent nature is Nixon. He was Satan in the early 70s and a wise elder statesman by the time he died. My guess is whatever Nixon was didn't change a whole lot, just the narrative.
Yes please consider that an apology. Put another way, what I was trying to say is "this is ridiculous... so surely you don't actually mean that and mean something else" hence the part asking "what are you trying to say."

I was perhaps too young to see the "rehabilitation of Nixon." I never realized that was a thing.

So I sort of see what you mean with standard narrative with dem vs republican presidents, but let's take a look at what they've given us for a second here. I was barely cognizant of who Bush 1 was, so Clinton was really my first president, so perhaps my scope is limited, but I've only really seen two dem and two republican presidents, as well as the media response to them. The two dems were Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and while both definitely had their hiccups, both could discuss complicated issues in relatively nuanced ways. Often this was over-stated, or what they were "saying" was really nothing, but just sounded good if you don't know much (think Reagan speeches, though I think both Obama and Clinton were much smarter than Reagan). On the other hand, you have Bush II and Trump.

It would take pretty biased media to NOT have the first two sound more worldly and polished and the other two sound like doofuses. If anything, I think "the media" is too easy on Presidential stupidity, and that would have been a lot more prevalent during Bush II/Trump than Clinton/Obama. If there's any media bias worth really getting incensed over during Bush II, it's the 2001-2005 9/11 and follow-up foreign policy coverage, not "making Bush II look too dumb." At least as far as I'm concerned. Bush II was pretty dumb. It's not the media's job to find his most nuanced, professional statements and pepper them all over the news. It's their job to hold them accountable on lies, falsehoods, and bad/inconsistent analysis.
;)

Moda, my opinion, and you know what opinions are like ;) , on the bolded sentences above:

1. I have relatively good memory of the presidents beginning with Truman (but I was quite young when Truman was president). The four you have seen are in the weaker quadrant in my opinion for a variety of reasons: Clinton - poor role model especially for youth who came to see lying was not a problem; Obama - denigration of "American" values and a narcissist; Bush II - too much faith in his advisors or perhaps naively wanting to believe in the goodness of man; Trump - blatant egotist.

2. Obama and Clinton are perhaps smarter than Reagan, however I'd say much of that smartness was not put to the good use of our country; Reagan was the better at uniting our country.

3. I do not believe Bush II is dumb. Basically you can't be dumb and fly an F-102 and survive.
Excerpt: Regardless, the F-102 was still far more dangerous to fly than today's combat aircraft. Compared to the F-102's lifetime accident rate of 13.69, today's planes generally average around 4 mishaps per 100,000 hours. For example, compare the F-16 at 4.14, the F-15 at 2.47, the F-117 at 4.07, the S-3 at 2.6, and the F-18 at 4.9. Even the Marine Corps' AV-8B, regarded as the most dangerous aircraft in US service today, has a lifetime accident rate of only 11.44 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots. https://www.456fis.org/PRESIDENT_BUSH_&_THE_F-102.htm

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. :)
Rev 22:6-21
User avatar
moda0306
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8146
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:05 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by moda0306 » Tue Jun 25, 2019 8:43 am

Mountaineer wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:09 am
moda0306 wrote:
Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:02 am
Kbg wrote:
Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:51 pm


Apology accepted? :)

I see where you are coming from, for the record I'm not a big Trump fan either. To be more precise in my comment, the standard narrative thing drives me nuts and shapes perceptions sometimes strongly so. Secondarily, literally "no clue" indeed is a stretch and a fair call out. However, I'll stand by my comment that what any president is really like in person is heavily shaped and we probably don't them to a significant degree. The fact that any person is reviled by the partisans of one political party and adored by the other tells you all you need to know on this topic. You just don't see this kind of stuff in local politics.

An interesting case study of a more recent nature is Nixon. He was Satan in the early 70s and a wise elder statesman by the time he died. My guess is whatever Nixon was didn't change a whole lot, just the narrative.
Yes please consider that an apology. Put another way, what I was trying to say is "this is ridiculous... so surely you don't actually mean that and mean something else" hence the part asking "what are you trying to say."

I was perhaps too young to see the "rehabilitation of Nixon." I never realized that was a thing.

So I sort of see what you mean with standard narrative with dem vs republican presidents, but let's take a look at what they've given us for a second here. I was barely cognizant of who Bush 1 was, so Clinton was really my first president, so perhaps my scope is limited, but I've only really seen two dem and two republican presidents, as well as the media response to them. The two dems were Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and while both definitely had their hiccups, both could discuss complicated issues in relatively nuanced ways. Often this was over-stated, or what they were "saying" was really nothing, but just sounded good if you don't know much (think Reagan speeches, though I think both Obama and Clinton were much smarter than Reagan). On the other hand, you have Bush II and Trump.

It would take pretty biased media to NOT have the first two sound more worldly and polished and the other two sound like doofuses. If anything, I think "the media" is too easy on Presidential stupidity, and that would have been a lot more prevalent during Bush II/Trump than Clinton/Obama. If there's any media bias worth really getting incensed over during Bush II, it's the 2001-2005 9/11 and follow-up foreign policy coverage, not "making Bush II look too dumb." At least as far as I'm concerned. Bush II was pretty dumb. It's not the media's job to find his most nuanced, professional statements and pepper them all over the news. It's their job to hold them accountable on lies, falsehoods, and bad/inconsistent analysis.
;)

Moda, my opinion, and you know what opinions are like ;) , on the bolded sentences above:

1. I have relatively good memory of the presidents beginning with Truman (but I was quite young when Truman was president). The four you have seen are in the weaker quadrant in my opinion for a variety of reasons: Clinton - poor role model especially for youth who came to see lying was not a problem; Obama - denigration of "American" values and a narcissist; Bush II - too much faith in his advisors or perhaps naively wanting to believe in the goodness of man; Trump - blatant egotist.

2. Obama and Clinton are perhaps smarter than Reagan, however I'd say much of that smartness was not put to the good use of our country; Reagan was the better at uniting our country.

3. I do not believe Bush II is dumb. Basically you can't be dumb and fly an F-102 and survive.
Excerpt: Regardless, the F-102 was still far more dangerous to fly than today's combat aircraft. Compared to the F-102's lifetime accident rate of 13.69, today's planes generally average around 4 mishaps per 100,000 hours. For example, compare the F-16 at 4.14, the F-15 at 2.47, the F-117 at 4.07, the S-3 at 2.6, and the F-18 at 4.9. Even the Marine Corps' AV-8B, regarded as the most dangerous aircraft in US service today, has a lifetime accident rate of only 11.44 mishaps per 100,000 flight hours. The F-102 claimed the lives of many pilots, including a number stationed at Ellington during Bush's tenure. Of the 875 F-102A production models that entered service, 259 were lost in accidents that killed 70 Air Force and ANG pilots. https://www.456fis.org/PRESIDENT_BUSH_&_THE_F-102.htm

Of course you are entitled to your opinion. :)
To your point on Bush, it partially un-makes my point, but it's probably a good time to mention that I've personally found myself dumbfounded on how smart people can be in certain areas, while being over-confidently and astoundingly dumb in others. And by dumb, I don't mean uninformed. I mean dead-confident but the critical thinking on display is garbage on its face.

Bush II may have been smart in certain areas, and a savvy pilot. But I found him to be quite dim-witted when it came to anything related to politics, economics, etc... I'll throw in the caveat that I know a lot of being president is essentially "saving-face" and not necessarily giving an honest and nuanced take of a situation to the public.

But all that said, Bush II & Trump don't need "the media's" help in looking sorta dim-witted and ill-informed any more than Obama/Clinton needed their help looking comparatively smarter, if only on a surface "what is the general take of an under-informed public" standpoint. I'd take that trend back even further to Carter vs Reagan, but I wasn't alive or old enough to experience press coverage then, and even though Reagan didn't have a firm/deep grasp on any issue, overall Reagan did have the art of really good public speaking, and it'd be totally skipping Bush I, who generally seemed like a pretty damn smart dude, though as head of the CIA I wouldn't trust him an inch politically.
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 742
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by stuper1 » Tue Jun 25, 2019 5:55 pm

There are many different types of intelligence, of course. Some people have a pretty good brain on their shoulders but aren't very articulate in speaking or writing, either by choice or just lack of interest. Some people are more doers than talkers. Regarding Trump, I suspect that a lot of stuff he posts that sounds bombastic is just to cultivate his image and ultimately get votes from lower intelligence people (i.e., rednecks). I seriously doubt that the guy is a dummy, but what do I know? I am convinced that the media would like us to think that he's a dummy.

I really care very little how a person sounds in the media or on their own, and even less about their sexual proclivities. To me, the most important things are big-picture policy and motivation. In the big picture, does he think that big government is a good thing or a bad thing? What is it that motivates a certain politician? Is he looking out for his own country people? Or is he just trying to curry favor with the powers that be so that he can be fawned over by the world media and ultimately make a lot of money on the back end? This was one of the big hopes with Trump -- that he had made enough money on his own that now he was just trying to help out his own people. The jury is still out on whether he has accomplished much in that regard, but he has made steps on fixing trade with China and legal/illegal immigration. And we still aren't at war with Iran and hopefully won't be.

When I say "help out his own people" those are not code words for white supremacy. I'm saying "help out Americans of whatever color and origin". If someone is here legally as an American citizen, then they are one of us. We are all in the same boat. The president's mandate is to serve those people.
User avatar
Kriegsspiel
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1571
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2012 5:28 pm

Re: Will Trump be Re-elected?

Post by Kriegsspiel » Tue Jun 25, 2019 10:54 pm

Female accuses Trump of sexually assaulting her in "the fall of 1995 or the spring of 1996" now that she has a book coming out. ::)
Only a few prefer liberty-- the majority seek nothing more than fair masters.
- Gaius Sallustius Crispus
Post Reply