Prelude to the Apocalypse

[Ed Oscuro]

Regardless of how you try to parse it, you can't be a traditionalist without following the past. You can have fantasies about what traditions are, or that Trump meets them, sure, but real traditions are historical trends and not empty words.

Like I said (and was not noticed, as is happening EVERY TIME I mention a fact to our conservative friends), Trump isn't a principled conservative by any definition. Bringing European or Burkean thought into the discussion (as an unread PDF link drop, nice) only makes things more jarring because Trumpism shares almost nothing in common with those views, despite the familiar opening about "to conserve."

[Opus131]

Trump's success has nothing to do with his ideas or politics. It is the things he is saying. This is why he seems to be impervious to criticism of any kind. People don't want mass immigration. They don't won't political correctness dominating their lives and thoughts. They don't see their children get dismembered in pointless wars. They don't want to see their jobs go to foreigners. They don't want to see their culture and their identity being eroded or outright obliterated. Politics, ideologies. Who gives a rat's ass? Western civilization is on the brink of total destruction and we have windbags like Cruz making Star Wars analogies or stupid crap of that kind. It's like everybody has gone insane or something.

[Ed Oscuro]

So everything you've said up to this point was just a fig leaf and ultimately a distraction from these issues.

[HenAi]

Ed Oscuro:

I get the impression that what he means by traditionalist essentially means preferring the way society was at a point a few decades (or half a century) ago. If you take that point to be some time before the Civil Rights movement, that would certainly fit the "racist" part. Considering societies views on women (and homosexuals for that matter) back then, you've also got the "sexist" part down.
Now we've got "fascist" left, and since you'd need to be pretty... forceful to achieve the above two goals, I think we've got that down, too.
To sum it up, that would be "throw the foreigners out, get the women back in the kitchen and beat the dirty misfits with a shovel". Yeah no, I think it's pretty clear what he wants and what he means by "right wing" and "traditions".

[EmperorIng]

Pretty poor understanding of mid-century America, and my history grad education taught me to hate mid-century America (still hard to totally break away; plenty of things to dislike). You're reading your biases backwards, which is a history no-no.

Trump isn't a principled conservative by any definition.

No objections here!

Trump reminds me of Andrew Jackson more than any other politician, with shades of Teddy Roosevelt. Of course, this comparison has plenty of pros and cons going for it.

[Opus131]

Ed Oscuro:

I get the impression that what he means by traditionalist essentially means preferring the way society was at a point a few decades (or half a century) ago.

Tradition is a question of values, not "time". From my point of view, the middle ages were more "traditional" than late Rome, despite the fact the latter is antecedent to the former from a purely chronological point of view.

Of course, progressives cannot think in any other terms. For them, there is only the "past", which is always backwards and retrograde, doesn't matter what time period we are talking about, and the "future", which is always bright and full of hope.

[Giest118]

Tradition is a question of values, not "time". From my point of view, the middle ages were more "traditional" than late Rome, despite the fact the latter is antecedent to the former from a purely chronological point of view.

Well, when you decide that "traditional" means "good," then yes, tradition is good.

Why do people even bother with debates without first agreeing on what all the words mean? This discussion is so much talking past each other.

[Ed Oscuro]

The comparison to Jackson is interesting, but I think Jackson was quite predictable. His line about the Supreme Court also showed a certain disregard for the rule of law - which has its place, but unfortunately that seems to be one of the few things Trump would be consistent about. Rule of law is indeed a value worth keeping when possible.

What's more important to recognize here is that the issues we get during a campaign (or at any other time) can be random. I do not therefore have a problem with the idea that Trump just hits on the issues, instead of pledging fealty to some list of dead letters nobody cares about.

So your continued focus on "values" is missing the point, I think.

Tradition is a question of values, not "time".

Yes, agreed.

From my point of view, the middle ages were more "traditional" than late Rome, despite the fact the latter is antecedent to the former from a purely chronological point of view.

Wait, what? Instead of telling us what you think these values are, you're sticking to chronology. I'm afraid this can't give me any insight into what things you think are more "traditional."

But I find your view unlikely all the same. Medieval persons, who read St. Augustine if they could, and were pious and observant of the Roman Catholic doctrine (in a way that Trump clearly is not), and were highly unforgiving of usury and shady business dealings (again, Trump's stock in trade), would be highly suspicious of your view that their later days were not overshadowed by the glories of Rome. Of course, there are many things that we don't miss from the Roman days, like the tyranny, the gladiatorial fights (instead we have football), and the whole business of rolling over any independent states.

Your view seems to show profound ignorance about what Rome actually accomplished. Even before Rome invaded the British isles, and after the empire's withdrawal, all British culture was shaped by immigrants and shipping trade with all the cosmopolitan centers of the world. The very concept of writing down a name, or recording a likeness of a person, are distinctly Roman concepts as far as Britain goes - before the Romans there is not a single British name recorded to history, nor a single portrait of a British person. Before and after the Romans I think you would find that British culture, with its strange pagan worship and obsession with scribbly little decorations, would feel very foreign until the rediscovery of Roman influence. The Romans introduced the plane for woodworking, policing, and pretty much every staple fruit and vegetable. The only good news about the end of Roman Britain is the sugary, tooth-decaying foods they brought stopped being eaten.

So yes, I'm not a fan of all the latecomers to the US complaining about how the slightly newer immigrants are messing it up. I am concerned about the birth rate and overdevelopment, but in my view immigration as such is not the problem. If anything, I find many immigrants better skilled and more motivated than many Americans who just take everything for granted.

Of course, progressives cannot think in any other terms. For them, there is only the "past", which is always backwards and retrograde, doesn't matter what time period we are talking about, and the "future", which is always bright and full of hope.

If you have a question about what somebody else believes, JUST FUCKIN' ASK. Goddamn!

It is your problem that you want to wiggle out of sticking to a reasonable definition, not mine. This discussion about your beliefs gives you no excuse to insert your distortions and lies in my mouth.

See also: Self-declared "conservatives" who are more interested in reinforcing their own beliefs about the Other than in seeking out the truth honesty.

[Ed Oscuro]

This discussion is so much talking past each other.

You can hardly accuse me of trying this as I've tried to pin Opus131 down on some definitions. And indeed, I think he delivered in the post listing Trump's issues.

In my view, a lot of trouble would be solved if people did not have to pretend that the random issues of the day required a great deal of philosophy to understand. I mean, here's a problem with useless wars and there's a problem with the budget: These are things people understand clearly. So on that point I would agree with Opus131, but he keeps trying to insist on a structural view of it, while also claiming that it's not an "ideological" or "political" view or whatever. It is very strange.

[BulletMagnet]

Of course, progressives cannot think in any other terms. For them, there is only the "past", which is always backwards and retrograde, doesn't matter what time period we are talking about, and the "future", which is always bright and full of hope.

"Full of it" does not so much as begin to describe you.

[quash]

Trump isn't a principled conservative by any definition.

Wasn't this one of the very first things I said in this thread? I don't seem to remember anyone wanting to acknowledge this, but now it's practically common knowledge.

[Ed Oscuro]

That's already been sorted, unless Kulturminister Beethoven disagrees.

The better question is, how come Trump's lack of any scruples fails to upset you guys?

I can agree or disagree with each item in the list of things Trump says he wants to do or defend, that's fine. You can't win 'em all.
I can also give him a break on the predictions about whether he'd be an effective President or not - I know (as with Bernie) part of the interest is in sending a message.

But I don't think that excuses playing Russian Roulette with the Presidency. Is he going to do just and only the things you want? Who knows - maybe one day his closest advisors from his circle of ex-taxi-drivers will come up with a brilliant new plan! Trump doesn't have proposals, he just has a list of wishes; he's not got the spine to actually explain how the Mexicans are going to sell him a bridge or whatever - if he said "I'm going to hire the worst Mexican drug cartels to shoot Mexican politicians until they do my bidding" then at least we'd have something to start with. (On the plus side, Trump isn't this ruthless; Cruz seems to delight in things like that.)

[quash]

Trump's lack of principle is one of the best things about him.

Paraphrasing, but he basically said that he's spent his entire career being greedy and now it's time for him to be greedy for America. I can't think of a single thing he could tangibly gain from running for office that he couldn't have simply paid for otherwise.

[Rob]

Paraphrasing, but he basically said that he's spent his entire career being greedy and now it's time for him to be greedy for America.

Greedy is right, but Warren Buffet this guy ain't.

Trump is a self-made Republican man (like George W) - he only had to borrow at least 9 million bucks from pops that one time, but it was all him after that.

[HenAi]

Trump's lack of principle is one of the best things about him.

I concur, although in a markedly different sense. All the other options (with the debatable exception of Hillary) do have principles - they're just really not my principles. Not counting Sanders here.
I think compared to the other candidates and in stark contrast to his rhetoric, he's the candidate least likely to actually make good on a large fraction of the ideas he put forth.
To a exaggerate a little, all the other options suck and it seems like he could make for a reasonably effective 4 year filibuster. I'll admit there's a healthy dose of wishful thinking mixed in there, but when you've got Ted Cruz with a non-zero chance of becoming president otherwise, it does kinda make you wanna find something to feel hopeful about.

[BulletMagnet]

Paraphrasing, but he basically said that he's spent his entire career being greedy and now it's time for him to be greedy for America.

...and so he throws his lot in with the party whose guiding philosophy is "you lazy, filthy peasants can all go to hell". I feel like I'm talking to a wall when I repeatedly point out what an enormous giveaway to the super-rich his tax plan is, just like every other Republican tax plan (and now that his health care plan is out, we know that he also wants to throw everyone who got onto Obamacare back to the wolves); I really don't know where anyone is getting this "what he really means..." vibe from, unless you choose to interpret his endlessly self-serving amorphousness as "well, he'll surely have to flop my way at some point!" Frankly, I'd find it more prudent to apply the "dating a girl who cheated on her last boyfriend" principle; what's to stop her from doing the same to you the second it suits her?

[BryanM]

Definitely. Donald Trump is stopping Ted Cruz from becoming president. He's a hero for that alone.

actually explain how the Mexicans are going to sell him a bridge or whatever

His issues page, back when it was the only issue on his page (I think he's up to five now), said economic sanctions.

[Mischief Maker]

I really don't know where anyone is getting this "what he really means..." vibe from, unless you choose to interpret his endlessly self-serving amorphousness as "well, he'll surely have to flop my way at some point!"

He's the white Obama!

[austere]

Hitlery "we came we saw he died" Killington was promised heavy support for the presidency after Obama's term was over when she pulled out in 2008. From the super-delegates and the amazing coin flips I can see that promise is being called in.

Now Trump looks like he could derail those plans. Everyone but him would have been a ringer for Hillary. The more the media hates on him, the more the majority who are disgruntled with the establishment will vote for him. At this point the worst thing they can do to Trump is to start promoting him and he knows it. That is why he keeps doubling down. What his real policies are remain to be seen. Politicians never keep their promises once they come to power, but at least he's so far not promising any bad policies for the west in general. A bit of peace and reconstruction might heal the planet if that's his real intention.

If I was a Bernie voter (I'm not American but, hypothetically), I'd vote for him to avoid handing Hitlery a victory. Really, Bernie is out -- be realistic. Trump has a good chance at this point, if they don't do a brokered convention or throw in a third candidate to leach enough votes to allow Hitlery to win. She has the blood of hundreds of thousands of people dripping down from her wicked hands while promising to kill even more if she were to come to power. If Freddy Kruger was running against her, I would vote for him.

At the very least Trump's victory will be a massive defeat to the equally viperous media who demonise entire nations and people just to push the favoured foreign policy of the 6 or so corporations who own them.

[BryanM]

Really, Bernie is out -- be realistic.

He has to win 53% of the remaining delegates to win.

Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana are the only confederate states of hillary that remain. If he can avoid getting completely slaughtered in Florida, and roughly tie across the states of New York, Michigan and Illonois, California will decide the nominee in June.

Saying "he's out" at this particular point of time is the equivalent of saying Hillary was out at this point in time back in 2008. But of course, when it's a guy the billionaires who own television don't like, the narratives of the same circumstances somehow are different.

[Mischief Maker]

It's worth noting that the owner of Daily Kos has declared that the primary will be decided March 15th, henceforth there will be a moratorium of all Hillary criticism allowed on the site.

It's being received about as well as you can expect.

[BryanM]

Yeah, he's been sucking her dick pretty hard since he wants to get a hyooge paying pundit gig. The Clintons made the career of George Stephanopoulos, and hundreds of other people in the media. Supporting Hillary is the antithesis of everything DailyKos was created to do, so it's lovely seeing its founder turn into a stooge.

He chose the 15th since that's the cutoff of the absolute peak in her lead - after that point the gap will only shrink.

Kind of an example of why getting "access" poisons everything.

[BryanM]

See, Hillary Clinton is the real progressive heir to Eugene Debs's legacy. By campaigning to become president from a jail cell.

[quash]

I feel like I'm talking to a wall when I repeatedly point out what an enormous giveaway to the super-rich his tax plan is, just like every other Republican tax plan (and now that his health care plan is out, we know that he also wants to throw everyone who got onto Obamacare back to the wolves)

How is it a "giveaway to the super rich"? His plan is outlined here.

As for healthcare, he wants to expand Medicaid (which Obama tried to do but the GOP wasn't having it) and allow insurance policies to be sold across states with no limitations.

I feel like I'm talking to a wall when myself and others have correctly pointed out numerous times that Trump is not some typical Republican boogeyman, and is actually acting in staunch defiance of the party. But when your own party is ready to enforce a fifth term of Bush while whispering sweet nothings in your ear about how it'll be different this time, I guess you have to hold on to something.

I really don't know where anyone is getting this "what he really means..." vibe from

It comes from being informed and pragmatic. He is on a mission to force a paradigm shift in American politics. All of the most informed people I know, some of whom are professional political analysts, love Trump because he's forcing us to destroy the oligarchy or die trying.

[Mischief Maker]

How is it a "giveaway to the super rich"? His plan is outlined here.

I'm not going to do a total breakdown tonight, but let's address 3 points that stick out:

1. Here were the income tax brackets for 2015.

Existing tax rate (single):
$413,201 or more annual income has an income tax rate of $119,996.25 plus 39.6% of the amount over $413,200.

Trump's plan:
$150,001 and up annual income has an income tax rate of 25%

That's an income tax cut of 14.6% to the richest bracket. It's not literally a giveaway like Bush jr. mailing you a $300 check, but it's effectively a huge giveaway and a huge slice out of government revenues. No doubt there is waste in government spending and much money could be saved from some housecleaning, but can he even find, let alone legislate the repeal of that much?

2. He's also capping corporate taxes at 15%. Much like Dick Cheney's "Deficits don't matter," he justifies this by saying Reagan did similar. People seem to forget that Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt.

3. Also, 3rd generation scion of family fortune that he is, he wants to eliminate the estate tax. You know, people afraid the Bushes and Clintons are becoming aristocracy, the law the founding fathers created to prevent American aristocracy.

He is on a mission to force a paradigm shift in American politics. All of the most informed people I know, some of whom are professional political analysts, love Trump because he's forcing us to destroy the oligarchy or die trying.

I read your own link and all he has to offer is the same old trickle-down voodoo economics that establishment Republicans have been pushing since Herbert Hoover.

Edit: Here's an even more in-depth analysis of his plan and its long-term effects.

[Rob]

It looks like quash is really informed.

he's forcing us to destroy the oligarchy or die trying.

What - he doesn't want his grandchildren to have all of the advantages that he and his children have had? Amazing.

[BulletMagnet]

As for healthcare, he wants to expand Medicaid (which Obama tried to do but the GOP wasn't having it) and allow insurance policies to be sold across states with no limitations.

MM and Rob have already done most of the work, but on the "allow people to buy health coverage across state lines" thing, even the National Review noticed that it's basically meaningless:

But the plan says that people should be allowed to buy insurance out of state only “as long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements.” That defeats the whole purpose of the reform, and means either that Trump is coming out for the status quo or that whoever wrote his plan garbled it.

Oh, and the "expansion" of Medicaid comes in the form of block grants, which give states (which already use far too much Medicaid money for other stuff) even further control over the funds, and eliminates automatic increases in Medicaid spending during recessions, when it would do the most good.

On a more general note, I really don't get where the idea comes from that Trump wants to destroy the oligarchy, when he and people like him are the oligarchy; no matter how badly and repeatedly they screw up, he and his ilk are prospering under the status quo, and selflessness is not exactly part of his much-ballyhooed "brand".

[quash]

That's an income tax cut of 14.6% to the richest bracket. It's not literally a giveaway like Bush jr. mailing you a $300 check, but it's effectively a huge giveaway and a huge slice out of government revenues. No doubt there is waste in government spending and much money could be saved from some housecleaning, but can he even find, let alone legislate the repeal of that much?

I don't buy for a minute that his tax plan is "revenue neutral"; he's even said he wants to cut spending so he'd have to be saying that's it's neutral after spending cuts, which is still a stretch.

That being said, I don't think he's on the wrong track in terms of repatriating money being held overseas. Whether 25% of someone's "real income" ends up being more or less than ~40% of what they currently claim remains to be seen, but it's pretty likely that it will be less. I'm sure he knows this and has a plan of some sort to cut spending. I doubt he'll be making any promises of straight up balancing the budget since that's more or less impossible to do within the next decade at least, but it's a start.

He's also capping corporate taxes at 15%. Much like Dick Cheney's "Deficits don't matter," he justifies this by saying Reagan did similar. People seem to forget that Ronald Reagan tripled the national debt.

Frankly I don't see the issue with a lower corporate tax, since most companies are effectively paying way less than our current tax rate anyways. Similar to his "I win" form for low income individuals and couples, many of whom already don't contribute to income tax. As long as business earnings are defined clearly enough as to prevent people from claiming personal income as business income, I fail to see the issue here.

Also, 3rd generation scion of family fortune that he is, he wants to eliminate the estate tax. You know, people afraid the Bushes and Clintons are becoming aristocracy, the law the founding fathers created to prevent American aristocracy.

Would you say it's succeeded? I sure as hell wouldn't. I don't see much of an issue with this, either.

[quash]

But the plan says that people should be allowed to buy insurance out of state only “as long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements.” That defeats the whole purpose of the reform, and means either that Trump is coming out for the status quo or that whoever wrote his plan garbled it.

I'm pretty certain all he means by this is that the policies qualify under state's individual mandate healthcare. If there's one thing he wants to support, it's competition.

Oh, and the "expansion" of Medicaid comes in the form of block grants, which gives states (which already use far too much Medicaid money for other stuff) even further control over the funds, and eliminates automatic increases in Medicaid spending during recessions, when it would do the most good.

It is regrettable just how awful most states are when it comes to using federal money for what it's supposed to be used for. Still, I kind of doubt Trump of all people would want states using Medicaid money for other expenses, and would likely have some strings attached to prevent as much. It'd be nice if he elaborated on this now, but who are we kidding: we don't elect anyone based on policies.

On a more general note, I really don't get where the idea comes from that Trump wants to destroy the oligarchy, when he and people like him are the oligarchy; no matter how badly and repeatedly they screw up, he and his ilk are prospering under the status quo, and selflessness is not exactly part of his much-ballyhooed "brand".

It could be that he's sending the Republican party on a crash course to self destruction. It could be that he's strikingly not conservative on a number of issues and causes his party to react in crazy ways as a result (they recently defended the Iraq war, years after they jettisoned Bush over it). It could be a number of things he's done to piss off the GOP establishment. If you don't want to see it, then you're probably way too entrenched in your side of the aisle to notice.

[Skykid]

I shall spend some time and get back to you on this as it is pertinent and interesting and good that you raised it.

Cheers,

Minty.

I'm still waiting. You must have some time to comment, you've been posting everywhere else on the forum recently.