President Trump

[quadraginta]

Tearing up the Paris accord wouldn't bother me, but scrapping Obamacare is a different matter. 22 million people will be disenfranchised, including myself. I'm not poor, but I am self-employed, and have a pre-existing condition (diabetes) so I will go back to uninsured status shortly.

That is the price of the election. He has called for a special session of congress to do exactly that.

You might just have to resign yourself to being a casualty of the election.

The U.S. had somewhere around 418,500 casualties in WW2.

We just have to resign ourselves to Trump's election being more than fifty times worse than the war.

 

[Minoosh]

IOW the media, having been caught flat-footed, is now covering the media. Are now covering the media? Pack journalism. Go find some freaking news, dammit. I'm putting some degree of confidence in The Associated Press; but even plain old citizens have blogs now. Find out something no one knows, instead of salting stale news with ever-escalating adjectives.

This is just me venting my spleen.

 

[acbytesla]

Trump is wavering like crazy now, though. Hitler was always clear about following through on his promises (to the people, not to other politicians), and his strength was not really phony - he had a immense resolve, determination and wilpower. He made clear his intention to abolish democracy and make Germany great again - he was less overt about invading Russia, but still pretty clear if you were in the right circles.

Trump does have Hitler's ability to lie with a brazen disregard for facts, but I don't think he has Hitler's prudency. I don't think Trump can make people feel like they got their vote's worth. Hitler always had a clear idea of what to do, and made a lot of that clear to the people. Trump doesn't seem to.

But we'll see. Maybe he's just pandering to Democrats across the aisle in order to gain wider support in face of their resignation. His radical satraps will probably keep his base happy, and a lot of his voters are probably happy about him backing down on some promises.

I can no doubt see elements of Hitler in Trump. But he's not Hitler. He has never seemed to be clear about his vision. Hitler wrote out his plans while he was in prison

Trump relishes in the idea of being the boss but not in what he would do with the job. He believes he knows what the problems are and what to do about fixing them but the truth is he has only a surface idea of the problems and the solutions. I really wonder at what point Trump will wish he had lost the election. I compare Trump to other dictators and demagogues because he talks like them. The question in my head is when will he act like one? On January 21st or never?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I can no doubt see elements of Hitler in Trump. But he's not Hitler. He has never seemed to be clear about his vision. Hitler wrote out his plans while he was in prison

Of course Hitler had the guts to go into battle and fight instead of finding a doctor to say that he couldn't walk on one of his feet.

I view trump as a cross between Mussolini and Berlusconi.

 

[CapelDodger]

The Trumpites will have a serious problem if Trump continues to water down the wine he trampled from the grapes of the people's wrath during his remarkable campaign.

Will he really build a wall to keep out the Latino rapists? He better! Will he expel three million illegal immigrants? He better! Will he impose restrictions on terrorist Muslim visitors to the USA? He better! Is he going to lock up Crooked Hillary? Cos if he don't the rednecks are going to write him off as yet another traitor to the cause. A Commie Liberal. And they're will look like complete dupes and fools, voting for this lying wimp, which is going to make them plenty mad!

Will he really do away with inheritance tax? You betcha! Will he implement his tax policy, which massively favours the uber-rich? You betcha!

 

[CapelDodger]

Lots of fascist nations have plenty of access to firearms.

Indeed. It's not enough that people be angry and armed, they have to be organised, and organisation under fascism is the difficult bit.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Indeed. It's not enough that people be angry and armed, they have to be organised, and organisation under fascism is the difficult bit.

Just look at Russia, clearly by the standards of access to firearms they must be a healthy functioning democracy.

 

[Belz...]

Just look at Russia, clearly by the standards of access to firearms they must be a healthy functioning democracy.

Of course they are! Have you seen Putin's favourability? He's clearly a man of the people!

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Indeed. It's not enough that people be angry and armed, they have to be organised, and organisation under fascism is the difficult bit.

Fascist/totalitarian societies also have the ability to recruit a lot of the people (those who are not serious ideologues, but drawn into it for other reasons) who would normally make up the bulk of rebels and revolutionaries into the army or secret police force. A lot of the most vicious SS officers, such as Reinhard Heydrich, joined it precisely because they viewed it as a "revolutionary" organization.

 

[Spindrift]

This may belong in another thread, but there are so many Trump threads I'm just picking this one.

Though it's probably not good for me, I'm starting my days looking for headlines of Trump doing (or more likely saying) something outrageous. CNN's top Trump transition story, as of maybe 5 minutes ago, is based entirely on Lesley Stahl's "60 Minutes" interview, which was taped Friday but aired Sunday. Granted, CNN is not the only media outlet doing this but it reminds me of a kitten chasing its own tail. I had a long career in media, and the first thing I notice is what Trump said in his "first televised interview" Sunday. Nowhere in the story did it acknowledge the interview was taped Friday.

But that's not my beef. It's this line paragraph:



"Powerful," "ripped," "divisive," "angry," "fearful." CNN is essentially telling readers what to think and feel (I almost always read CNN rather than watching clips). The story was so stale I can imagine an editor or rewrite person busily tweaking the piece making sure a checklist of words is included: powerful, divisive, angry, fearful.

But that's not even my objection. I would have done the same thing. It's the casual assumption that the campaign caused the divisiveness, instead of the divisiveness causing the campaign.

I want new words, fresh words, walking-back-the-walking-back words, but most of all I want the news based on what Trump said or did this morning, not Friday. The sane thing to do is realize that Donald goes into eclipse periodically and is not delivering bombshells 24/7, so get on with my life. Right.

The interview wasn't made public until Sunday, so when it was recorded isn't important. As far as the public is concerned the interview was on Sunday night.

 

[Spindrift]

Of course Hitler had the guts to go into battle and fight instead of finding a doctor to say that he couldn't walk on one of his feet.

I view trump as a cross between Mussolini and Berlusconi.

And Rufus T. Firefly.

 

[Emily's Cat]

FYI Emily, That law would violate the first amendment's establishment clause. Are YOU going to stand up against that?

Yes, of course.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, of course.

Why would you start caring after the election? He wasn't secret about his desires to curtail constitutional rights.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, of course.

How?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Now you're moving the goalposts again. You talked about an armed populace, not a mutiny by armed forces. I asked you if an armed populace would make a difference. It's twice now that you've avoided answering my question.

How am I moving the goalposts? I thought I did answer your question. The answer was "Yes". Then I went on to provide at least some of my reasoning for that answer of "Yes". In fract, I've answered all of your questions in this regard. In all cases, I have given you a direct answer, then provided my supporting reasons.

What more are you looking for?

ETA:

Funny thing on that front... Trump isn't going to be able to become that sort of a fascist unless he takes away the citizenry's right to bear arms - something that his supports absolutely will not tolerate or allow.

You really think that would make any sort of difference?

Yes.
His supporters are exactly the cohort of people who deeply believe that we have the second amendment in order to defend ourselves from usurpers and tyrants. They firmly believe that it is the duty and obligation of the citizenry to protect themselves from a government that overreaches.

Why would you expect them to meekly support a tyrant overreaching?

That wasn't my question: You really think that (guns in the hands of citizens) would make any sort of difference?

Yes - the military are citizens too, and a large number of active duty take their oath to defend the constitution pretty seriously. To disarm the populace, Trump would have to use the military... and the military isn't going to follow that order.

I genuinely don't see how you think I'm not answering you, or even how I'm not answering the question that you've asked.

acbytesla implied that Trump intends to abuse his power, and implies that Trump's supporters would be behind him on that.

I responded by saying I think that's unlikley. A good chunk of Trumps supporters are people who believe in a small government, and who already believe that the government is over-reaching. I do not think they would support him blatantly disregarding the law and the constitution. I think he would have to disarm the populace to succeed in that, and his supporters won't meekly be disarmed.

You asked if I thought that made any difference.

I responded with yes, I do think it makes a difference. Many of Trump's supporters are also strong gun rights advocates and also strict constitutionalists. They are exactly the kind of people who believe that the 2nd Amm is in place to PREVENT the action that you're concerned about, and they see that as an important duty of the citizens of the US.

Then you asked whether I thought guns in the hands of citizens would make a difference.

Again, I responded yes - I think it would. To disarm those people, Trump would need the military, and I don't think the military would support that action.

So as far as I can tell, I've given you direct responses to everything you've asked of me, as well as my supporting reasons. I don't believe I've shifted goal posts at all.

 

[Belz...]

How am I moving the goalposts?

I just explained it to you in the post you quoted!

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, of course.

Really? You're going to rise up with firearms if Trump requires Muslims to register in the US?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Or maybe his supporters will be using their arms to help consolidate his power. But, I actually doubt that... I hope.

That's always possible... but like you I doubt it. I don't consider it plausible at all. I know a large number of gun-rights people. Sure, there are a few nutjobs out there... but the vast majority of them really truly believe in the 2nd amendment, they believe very strongly that if german citizens had a 2nd am before WW2, it couldn't have happened the way it did, and they firmly believe that part of their duty is to defend the rights and liberties of other people in this country, regardless of whether they agree with those people or not.

Maybe it's selection bias, but I can't count the number of times I've heard one of those people say "I disagree with everything they say/believe, but I would defend to the death their right to say/believe it".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Interesting. Where in the 2A is that stated? I can't seem to find it.

Never mind, I think I know the answer*. Plus, it's off topic.





*No the frick where.

Your question doesn't even make sense. I didn't claim it was stated in the 2nd Am. I told you that many of them believe that is the reason that we have the 2nd Am.

 

[Emily's Cat]

He has suggested creating high risk pools in the states to cover people with preexisting conditions, subsidized to make the premiums affordable. Unworkable of course, unless you are in favor of exploding the national debt. Unless he meant he wanted the states to pay for it, which would be even crazier.

Emilys Cat, if you are still reading this thread perhaps you could give us the benefit of an actuarial perspective.

If it's set up well, it isn't as unworkable as you think. My profession actually made several suggestions to this effect before ACA went live. Here's the very high-level reasoning.

People in those High-Risk categories have extremely high costs. In WA, the State High Risk Pool (HRP) had claim costs that were 12 times the average claim cost in the individual market, and that's with the HRP paying at Medicaid rates (I believe, not 100% sure).

The proposal for ACA was to keep the HRP in place, but to make it "invisible". People would still sign up with whatever carrier they wanted, to the consumer it wouldn't even exist. But if they met the qualifying criteria (a set of particularly high-cost rare diseases, a few terminal conditions, etc.) then all of their claim costs and all of their revenue would be ceded to the HRP. The additional cost of these people above their revenue would then be shared back out across all of the insurance carriers in the state - it would become a pooled cost. This would reduce the volatility for all carriers, allowing for a more stable marketplace with more manageable premium levels.

They didn't go for it, but it's an actuarially sound idea. It would also have helped reduce some of the big swings we've been seeing, some of the inconsistencies from one carrier to another, etc. It would have been paid for by the insurance carriers within the state - the same ones who are paying for it now. It's just that we all would have been pitching in the same amount, rather than one or two carriers with bad luck getting reamed.