2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
But jfc what happened to the "cultural" left was an abomination. You are mutilating children. A normie democrat from 1988 would think aliens got control of the party and you guys all know it.
How do you think a Reagan-era Republican would view Trump, the MAGA movement and the Republican party of today?
ChatGPT might be the worst thing to happen to this forum. It's reduced the already pretty low barrier to entry of "representing oneself as an expert" to almost nothing on pretty much any topic.
Although I suppose that has to be weighed against those posters who have chosen to crib responses straight from ChatGPT and thus enjoyed a prodigious increase in the quality of their posting.
I was a fan of LLM based AIs before they went mainstream but tbh, I feel like the "uncanny valley" there is still relevant, you get a bad feeling when you read AI generated counsel on anything that is even tangentially related to a hot political topic, like it was a well sanitized take by some center left public employee tasked with giving the "socially proper, democratic party accepted" line
How do you think a Reagan-era Republican would view Trump, the MAGA movement and the Republican party of today?
Reagan and his advisors on immigration would have spent years to try to determine if the biggest amnesty in American history was good In retrospect or not.
According to what they said at the time, it was supposed to be followed by very "swiss" (as un strict, and flawlessly executed) immigration policies to make things good for all. That didn't happen at all.
I honestly don't know if at the end they would think america can be ok with a very porous border, because after all the economy can digest those people and make them productive, or hate it because of the second order effects.
On the economy, Reagan and his closest allies love the idea of deficit spending and low rates, of american worldwide pride, of american energy independence at all costs. They would **** upon all the green communists much more than Trump and party over their carcasses with a glee.
They would love how trump recognizes china as the new USSR and the strongarming with them. They would criticize the efficacy of many choices in that regard though, the superficiality, the imprecision.
They would think trump had a hit on his head when he didn't oppose Putin as a scourge of the world with the maximum strength possible.
And of course they would never accept anything but an ever growing, infinitely powerful NATO with the USA in command of it.
Reagan and his closest allies would despise, to their bones, the vulgarity.
The dismantling of the aura of elegance and superiority of the presidency, the raping of it's image that trump represents.
A few of them from Nixon times might appreciate the fact that at the end, rituals don't matter much if the sausage is decent, but many of them wouldn't.
They would plot if they could to remove the cancer of Trump and restore dignity to the presidency and the republican party.
But on the policies, outside some geopolitical **** up (some of huge proportions) they would broadly agree. Except the big question mark on immigration, that I truly can't answer even in retrospect.
Reagan and his advisors on immigration would have spent years to try to determine if the biggest amnesty in American history was good In retrospect or not.
According to what they said at the time, it was supposed to be followed by very "swiss" (as un strict, and flawlessly executed) immigration policies to make things good for all. That didn't happen at all.
I honestly don't know if at the end they would think america can be ok with a very po
You chose to make your response about policy, which was smart. But the question was, "How would they view Trump, the MAGA movement, and the modern republican party?". Policy aside.
Specifically, my question was posed in response to your statement that "a normie democrat from 1988 would think that the party had been taken over by aliens". I think we're all in agreement here that the republican party has been taken over by Trump, hence my question.
One of lucioms better posts imo.
You chose to make your responses about policy, which was smart. But the question was, "How would they view Trump, the MAGA movement, and the modern republican party?". Policy aside.
I truly think there is no "policy aside" for a rightwing person. We are the pragmatic guys, always have been. Policy is politics
People voting for a probable rapist , pluri divorced, even if conservative christian, because objectively his judge picks will achieve what you want more than the other guy.
I wrote a part about the optics.
They would hate it. Not necessarily because of MAGA (the crowd can be crassy, and loud), but from the pulpit.
The president mocking an handicapped leftist journalist just because he criticized him, mimicking his difficulty at moving his arms, is simply something that can't happen for a 1985 republican, and if it happens you kick the president in the ass and you substitute him.
Election result denialism is bad for them but not the end of the world. They can accept conspiracies exist in the deep state to take out presidents. They did it with Nixon after all and they don't forget.
It's the day by day routine disgrace of the position. The lack of any aura, of any grandeur. The McDonald's food in the oval office with golden lights. The calling one of the worst human beings to ever live (NK dictator) nice words.
The lowlife attempts to decide monetary policy (they agree on the merits, but the form matters and trump form on that is unacceptable).
The boys that made america actually great (1980s republicans) would think they have a bad performing, very vulgar clown as president who for some reason at the end achieves 70-80% of what their preferences are. They would be puzzled, disgusted, and plotting heavily to replace him with some dignified person who can deliver the same, or a little better, with far better manners
Edit: but if they fail in the primaries, they would still vote for him over current democrats, no doubt about it
I truly think there is no "policy aside" for a rightwing person. We are the pragmatic guys, always have been. Policy is politics
People voting for a probable rapist , pluri divorced, even if conservative christian, because objectively his judge picks will achieve what you want more than the other guy.
I wrote a part about the optics.
They would hate it. Not necessarily because of MAGA (the crowd can be crassy, and loud), but from the pulpit.
Ok, thanks, appreciate the response. I think it's fair to say that we agree that a 1980s Republican wouldn't be overly enamoured of who had taken over their party either, then.
I have only heard some anecdotes on right wing radio stuff , but given my take was on the left going ****ed up with the right staying very normal, I don't feel like I need to answer this.
You said that the Democrats started the country on its current trajectory of polarization 20+ years ago.
Ofc today we will have complete polarization of that sort. Democrats started it 20+ years ago.
I was suggesting a different starting point.
Yes but, accepting I don't have enough data on what happened on the right at the time, judging by actual policy proposals, it is clearly the left that moved dramatically (with Obama, ironically, keeping them in check. Obama is an under rated president from the right, he probably saved the nation, and so the western world, in some ways), obscenely, to the radical left (not on the economics, yet, but on cultural issues).
So I have a hard time accepting it started from the right on the last 10-15 years of the last century.
Bush Jr mandates were fairly normal tbh (Patriot act aside, which was a fascist provision, a bipartisan one, that only went away thanks to trump, even if Obama had already reduced it's scope)
My topic was leftist voters, activists, you know the people who volunteer, the grassroot legions who make politics happen, the people on academia, the teachers and so on and on.
This seems to be a favorite of yours - Sure, you guys were talking about that, but I decided to talk about this.
At least you make me laugh.
Ok, thanks, appreciate the response. I think it's fair to say that we agree that a 1980s Republican wouldn't be overly enamoured of who had taken over their party either, then.
Sure but not for the policies (with some important exceptions) at the end.
The 1985 democrat would actually be teaming up with the Reagan republicans in some ways today, because "his party" has gone truly banana on the policies.
The hippie cannabis addicted polyamorist child less woman in California in 1982 is at home now though. She has representation in the mainstream democratic party.
I thought you were making a point about hypocrisy at CBS. The CBS article I linked and the headline to the article make clear that Kamala is now supporting something that Trump has been supporting for months.
Candidly, I'm not sure that I agree with Trump or Kamala on this point. If we want to lower taxes for a particular income bracket, we should just do it. Lowering for one group in a particular income bracket but not other people in the same income bracket just seems like pandering that could have unintended economic consequences.
I thought you were making a point about hypocrisy at CBS. The CBS article I linked and the headline to the article make clear that Kamala is now supporting something that Trump has been supporting for months.
Candidly, I'm not sure that I agree with Trump or Kamala on this point. If we want to lower taxes for a particular income bracket, we should just do it. Lowering for one group in a particular income bracket but not other people in
I am always intellectually honest, o agreed with the policy when trump talked about it, I am very happy Harris has jumped on board, I think in general is very important for policies of possible to be as bipartisan as they can, and any and all tax cuts are a win for society in my book so... Well done trump, well done Harris, let's hope this gets done no matter who wins, asap.
I AGRee that general tax cit are usually better than targeted ones but those workers have weird salary structures, and the variance in their wages matter a lot, especially when the tip part is significant.
Would it be better to increase the " no tax area" meaningfully, allowing most of them to declare all tips anyway paying low or 0 rates,and also other people having better tax prospects? Yes ofc.
But politics isn't like that unfortunately, you take a win whenever you can, all tax cuts especially for low-middle income earners are moral positives, take as many of them as you can
Yes trump moved far to the left on the Washington consensus package. He did things Sanders asked for , for decades.
The rest was normal American center - right politics.
Gonna need a big 'ol citation for that one!
-Sanders has advocated for single payer healthcare/Medicare For All for decades. Trump didn't take one step towards achieving that goal.
-Sanders has advocated to pull our troops out of our countless bases, and is anti-intervention in general. Trump mentioned "pulling us out" of Afghanistan one or two times, then the generals said, "that will make you look bad, sir", and he promptly left them in.
-Sanders has advocated to raise, and significantly so, minimum wage. Trump talked about it a bunch of times because it was politically expedient for him to do so, but 7.25/hr was the federal minimum wage at the start of his presidency and that's what it remains today.
Trump's aforementioned policies would have fit right in with the 80s GOP.
No, I don't. When was this, exactly? Was it when Reagan and H.W. Bush were launching invasive proxy wars on behalf of a fruit company and other corporate interests? Was it when H.W. Bush was laundering tons of cocaine into this country? Was it in the 60s, during Watergate and Vietnam/Cambodia?
🙄
There are hundreds of thousands of reactionary lunatics out there, and they don't need to be paid in order to spew out their moronic and evil right-wing ideas. Just go ahead and call him a Russian bot, it's what you're implying, after all.
As much as I am repulsed by Kathleen Harris, and as dismayed as I was by the SCOTUS decision in Bush v. Gore, you really can't compare Bush's behavior in connection with the 2000 election to Trump's behavior in connection with the 2020 election.
If you wanted to argue that Bush was a more destructive president than Trump because of the Iraq War, I would be more sympathetic.
Insofar as Bush and his team had a much more comprehensive and ordered plan than Trump had, or that the former ACTUALLY SUCCEEDED, I would agree. Somehow, though, I suspect you're in the opposite direction and think Trump was more dastardly for whatever reason. Maybe it was when he lied and said he was gonna "march with the crowd!", and how that was just too uncouth?
Jan 6 was just some YouTube stars and onlookers cosplaying THE QANON STORM and having a good time with it. It was far more "funny" than "dangerous". Jan 6 was never ever ever ever gonna effect any real change. On the other hand, it's widely believed that Gore was going to win Florida, and thus the election, if the count was not arbitrarily stopped.
Whatever else he might be, he's not stupid. He's one of those intelligent right winger unicorns.
No. Being less dumb than hotdogmickey doesn't render one intelligent. He's not. Look at his quote at the top of this post.
That the problem with fascist , they think they are .
His takes on the American left it’s incredibly delusional.
Indeed.
Our guy said Donald Trump (the most cocained 80s-style capitalist this side of Patrick Bateman) enacted multiple things Bernie Sanders (democratic socialist) advocated for. This is the allegedly "intelligent" conservative on this board.
