Likelihood: Trump loses in 2020, accepts the vote as legit, and cleanly transfers power?

[ImNotSurpisedDonks!]

What are the odds Hillary wont rig an election?

0

 

[waiguoren]

The guy is the largest sack of shit, a complete embarrassment, handed the world to China, and is a cunt hair, but he's going to be the president in 2020 for one reason......

The Democrats are a disorganized bunch of fucktards. There isn't a single Democratic leader I can see winning. Not one of them has a chance.

Also, most of the American electorate are a bunch of morons.

You seem like a happy man, with a great life.

 

[waiguoren]

It's like trying to predict the weather in the Aleutian Islands in the winter, the variables are off the chart.
Will the tax breaks boost business growth, purchasing power and hiring causing the economy to continue to grow? He will be a hero.
If the economy tanks, not so much.
Then you have N Korea issues that could push his popularity massively either direction.
Same with the Middle East especially if he moves on the Jerusalem issue trending presently.
If the DNC keeps imploding that's potentially a impacting factor.
If the Russian issue runs out of gas the equal and opposite reaction will be more than equal.
If the..
Well anyway I have no idea where it will end up by then.

Sorry, nuance and thoughtful analysis are not welcome in the War Room.

 

[Fawlty]

If you were a betting person, what would you place the odds of Donald Trump running for reelection in 2020, losing the electoral college vote, and then (i) publicly conceding and (ii) acknowledging the election as legitimate and untainted? This would produce a sequence of events akin to every other change in administration in US history, notwithstanding impeachment or assassination.

I figure it's (80% that he makes it through four years without impeachment) x (70% that he runs for reelection) x (75% that he loses the election) x (40% that he recognizes the election as legitimate) x (80% that he nevertheless yields to a transfer of power to the next administration).

.8 x .7 x .75 x .4 x .8, for a grand total of 13%

And, yes, this is a un-substantive, vapid Trump discussion.

I would go with (.8 x .95 x .45 x .1 x .95) = 3%

Which is insanely high for such a ridiculous hypothetical. But the important stat imo is there's a 95% chance he yields power regardless of circumstances. That's actually worringly low.

 

[IGIT]

Note that I said "gracefully", not "peacefully". I'm sure it will be peaceful, I'm not sure it will be graceful.

hi pan, good to see you again,

i think this distinction has been lost on most of the folks here.

no one is saying Mr. Trump will summon the national guard to gun down the incoming POTUS should he lose in 2020.

we're merely ruminating on whether the manner of his departure will be a source of embarrassment to his fellow americans.

- IGIT

 

[lfd0311]

Explain what this is. The Democrats are the party of pragmatism right now: sensible demand-side economics, sustainable investment in infrastructure and consumer demand, proper regulation of pollution and predatory economic actions, and the like.

Explain what the Democratic Party is doing that is so ludicrously so as to justify electing a guy who most of you are completely aware is passing policies that hurt everyone to the benefit of a small few.

No one seems to be able to do that. They get mad that the Democrats won't openly say that black protesters are thugs and have nothing to be angry about. They get mad that Democrats don't give a shit when people shit. They just vaguely cite actions by internet activists and guys on twitter pretending to be feminists and say, "WHEN WILL THE DEMOCRATS STOP THIS."

You'll note that I didn't say "The Democratic Party". I said "Progressives within the Democratic Party".

On a side note, which policies is it that Trump is passing that hurt everyone to the benefit of a few?

 

[panamaican]

You'll note that I didn't say "The Democratic Party". I said "Progressives within the Democratic Party".

On a side note, which policies is it that Trump is passing that hurt everyone to the benefit of a few?

If the tax plan passes, I think it will qualify

 

[Trotsky]

You'll note that I didn't say "The Democratic Party". I said "Progressives within the Democratic Party".

I won't note that, because it doesn't change the meaning in the slightest. If those progressives are killing the party, then their influence must have been imputed to a considerable number of Democrats.

So, again, what is it? The "progressives" are the Sanders wing, i.e. Sanders, Warren, Ellison, etc., so....single payer healthcare? Raising taxes on the wealthy?

On a side note, which policies is it that Trump is passing that hurt everyone to the benefit of a few?

Seriously?

Indebting the nation and reallocating the revenue burden onto the middle class on the back of giant tax cuts for the wealthy? Repealing net neutrality so that internet providers can artificially limit consumers' internet performance and their access to information? Deregulating the financial industry so that they can exploit consumers, gamble with their money, and make reckless profits? Eliminating the estate tax that only applies to persons whose estates are in excess of $6/12 million? Privatizing thousands of acres of public land and selling to private developers?

Should I continue?

 

[lfd0311]

If the tax plan passes, I think it will qualify

Why? I don't mean that in a snotty, rhetorical way. I'm genuinely interested to know why so many people are threatened by the tax plan.

 

[panamaican]

Why? I don't mean that in a snotty, rhetorical way. I'm genuinely interested to know why so many people are threatened by the tax plan.

Threatened is an inaccurate word choice. Your question was what would hurt many and benefit few. Pointing that out reality doesn't mean people are threatened.

I've written my opinion before.

1) This approach of tax cuts first without spending cuts means that we're going to see a ballooning of the national debt. That affects all of us negatively.

2) Eliminating the state and local tax deductions but keeping the mortgage interest and property tax deductions hurts many and benefits few. Almost everyone pays state and local taxes. Very few people have mortgages and property tax bills high enough to reap the associated benefit.

3) The scoring seems to suggest that long run most people will see their taxes increase while a smaller percentage of the population will actually reap a permanent decrease in their tax liability.

4) Eliminating the estate tax (which I support for personal reasons) only benefits ~5,000 households but it takes money away from the entire nation.

Now, an individual might stand to benefit from all of those choices but the majority of Americans are probably not going to benefit in the long run - the national debt increase alone almost guarantees it. And that was the criteria you laid out - hurting most while helping few.

 

[lfd0311]

I won't note that, because it doesn't change the meaning in the slightest. If those progressives are killing the party, then their influence must have been imputed to a considerable number of Democrats.

So, again, what is it? The "progressives" are the Sanders wing, i.e. Sanders, Warren, Ellison, etc., so....single payer healthcare? Raising taxes on the wealthy?



Seriously?

Idiotic progressive social policies specifically are what got Trump elected in the first place. Neither party has represented every day Americans for almost a full generation now, and doesn't show any real signs of doing so at any time in the forseeable future, so all you've given people to vote on is social positions, which Progressives still can't see that outside of their little self congraulatory circles are seen by many, many people in America as silly. Instead of recognizing that and attempting to change, Progressives have doubled down and actually managed to get worse under Trump.

Secondly, If you can't simply look at what an absolute mess the VA system has and will always be without being able to see the connection between that and the greater idea of single payer healthcare in the US, you don't live in reality.

Indebting the nation and reallocating the revenue burden onto the middle class on the back of giant tax cuts for the wealthy? Repealing net neutrality so that internet providers can artificially limit consumers' internet performance and their access to information? Deregulating the financial industry so that they can exploit consumers, gamble with their money, and make reckless profits? Eliminating the estate tax that only applies to persons whose estates are in excess of $6/12 million? Privatizing thousands of acres of public land and selling to private developers?

Should I continue?

ROFL. The Nation wasn't in debt before Trump? Obamacare is the single biggest burden on the Middle Class to ever be dropped on this Nation, ever. Democrats have actually had to go so far as to restructure language and call the actual Middle Class "The Rich" and re-dub the lower working class and the poor "The Middle Class" just so they can carry on this illusion that Obamacare in some small way benefited the Middle Class in some way. We've been over this in detail a number of times. You can't refute it. It's gotten to the point where you won't even try. Yet you're still in here repeating this horseshit. A part of you must be supremely embarrassed at posting pure ideological talking point nonsense like this. Where are all of these tax cuts for the wealthy by the way?

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/11/02/the-gops-hidden-46-tax-bracket-000570

Deregulating the financial industry so that they can exploit consumers, gamble with their money, and make reckless profits?

Correct me if I'm wrong... but doesn't that sound just a tad like the Sub Prime Mortgage Crisis? Who was that again?

Eliminating the estate tax that only applies to persons whose estates are in excess of $6/12 million?

WHY. THE. FUCK. DO. YOU. THINK. YOU'RE. ENTITLED. TO. OTHER. PEOPLE'S. MONEY?

As for net neutrality, I can see both sides of the argument, while at the same time worrying about living in a world in which we are entirely beholden to corporations at every turn for everything.

I agree with you about what is happening with the parks. That is just outright greed on display. None of these things are honestly hurting anyone else. That was a gross overstatement, and again, nothing is more damaging to the American people in our history than Obamacare, and you're total lack of any objective examination on that particular subject, and your purely partisan, ideologically driven opinions on it show that you've committed zero actual time to actual objective, critical examination of that particular legislation.

 

[Trotsky]

Idiotic progressive social policies specifically are what got Trump elected in the first place. Neither party has represented every day Americans for almost a full generation now, and doesn't show any real signs of doing so at any time in the forseeable future, so all you've given people to vote on is social positions, which Progressives still can't see that outside of their little self congraulatory circles are seen by many, many people in America as silly. Instead of recognizing that and attempting to change, Progressives have doubled down and actually managed to get worse under Trump.

Secondly, If you can't simply look at what an absolute mess the VA system has and will always be without being able to see the connection between that and the greater idea of single payer healthcare in the US, you don't live in reality.



ROFL. The Nation wasn't in debt before Trump? Obamacare is the single biggest burden on the Middle Class to ever be dropped on this Nation, ever. Democrats have actually had to go so far as to restructure language and call the actual Middle Class "The Rich" and re-dub the lower working class and the poor "The Middle Class" just so they can carry on this illusion that Obamacare in some small way benefited the Middle Class in some way. We've been over this in detail a number of times. You can't refute it. It's gotten to the point where you won't even try. Yet you're still in here repeating this horseshit. A part of you must be supremely embarrassed at posting pure ideological talking point nonsense like this. Where are all of these tax cuts for the wealthy by the way?

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/11/02/the-gops-hidden-46-tax-bracket-000570



Correct me if I'm wrong... but doesn't that sound just a tad like the Sub Prime Mortgage Crisis? Who was that again?



WHY. THE. FUCK. DO. YOU. THINK. YOU'RE. ENTITLED. TO. OTHER. PEOPLE'S. MONEY?

As for net neutrality, I can see both sides of the argument, while at the same time worrying about living in a world in which we are entirely beholden to corporations at every turn for everything.

I agree with you about what is happening with the parks. That is just outright greed on display. None of these things are honestly hurting anyone else. That was a gross overstatement, and again, nothing is more damaging to the American people in our history than Obamacare, and you're total lack of any objective examination on that particular subject, and your purely partisan, ideologically driven opinions on it show that you've committed zero actual time to actual objective, critical examination of that particular legislation.

Holy shit, I just realize you are the "Obamacare is the biggest middle class burden of all-time" moron.

I am not getting into this with you. You are a black hole for intelligent and rational thought.

 

[lfd0311]

Threatened is an inaccurate word choice. Your question was what would hurt many and benefit few. Pointing that out reality doesn't mean people are threatened.

Fair enough

I've written my opinion before.

1) This approach of tax cuts first without spending cuts means that we're going to see a ballooning of the national debt. That affects all of us negatively.

That in my opinion is on the Dems too. Dems don't want to cut ANYTHING. Look at the CHIPS program. The loss of that program didn't come about because of evil Republicans. It came about because Dems refused to cut spending anywhere. More spending is all they're willing to talk about.

4) Eliminating the estate tax (which I support for personal reasons) only benefits ~5,000 households but it takes money away from the entire nation.

I don't honestly see why we're so concerned with other people's money. That isn't the country's money. It's those people's money, in my opinion, as I'm sure you probably do too

 

[lfd0311]

Holy shit, I just realize you are the "Obamacare is the biggest middle class burden of all-time" moron.

I am not getting into this with you. You are a black hole for intelligent and rational thought.

Anyone who is actually informed is kryptonite to your arguments. Running is the preferred methods for ideologically driven "intellectuals" like you. You can't stand having you opinions challenged because it makes you realize you can't defend them, which, if you'll notice, is exactly what I said you'd do in my post. Fling insults, deflect, run from your shit post like it was on fire.

EDIT: Do me a favor and tell me who designed Obamacare, and why it was implemented in the first place.

 

[lfd0311]

Holy shit, I just realize you are the "Obamacare is the biggest middle class burden of all-time" moron.

I am not getting into this with you. You are a black hole for intelligent and rational thought.

And just for my own personal entertainment, how old are you?

 

[lfd0311]

Holy shit, I just realize you are the "Obamacare is the biggest middle class burden of all-time" moron.

I am not getting into this with you. You are a black hole for intelligent and rational thought.

Bro... Where'd you go bro? Did you run off again, bro?

 

[Trotsky]

Anyone who is actually informed is kryptonite to your arguments. Running is the preferred methods for ideologically driven "intellectuals" like you. You can't stand having you opinions challenged because it makes you realize you can't defend them, which, if you'll notice, is exactly what I said you'd do in my post. Fling insults, deflect, run from your shit post like it was on fire.

EDIT: Do me a favor and tell me who designed Obamacare, and why it was implemented in the first place.

Again, I'm not doing this

THREE times I have provided proof to you that the ACA was funded on returning taxes on the top 1% to 1979 levels and did not increase taxes on the middle class, and also slowed price growth.

And THREE times, you left the thread and stopped responding.


As far as your other shtick/non-arguments, I can only hope that the forum will someday make it a bannable offense to automatically appeal to "taxation is theft" and "you aren't entitled to other people's moneyzzzz!!!" when common sense redistribution is advocated to maintain a vibrant market. The estate tax is the single most important tool in keeping money in circulation across generations and regulating inflation. Just because you're a Rand Paul-ian economic illiterate doesn't make that immoral in any way.

And your "ROFL" on national debt is yet another fallacy: it's the same as people who say "hey, we've already harmed the environment through pollution, so why bother trying to stop any further damage?" For morons like you: because the previous tax plan was sustainable in paying interest on the debt and shaping up to demand (as virtually every economist said) INCREASES in taxes. This plan is going to add trillions of dollars to the debt and could very well affect the country's credit going forward, and it's taking away from important services that pacify wealth inequality.



In terms of morons who piss me off just by virtue of their own stupidity and complete immunity to being aware of it, you are absolutely king of the castle. Your opinions are uninformed shit.

Bro... Where'd you go bro? Did you run off again, bro?

Exactly what I'm talking about. The intelligence of a junior high kid, and the maturity of his little brother.

 

[panamaican]

Fair enough

I've written my opinion before.


That in my opinion is on the Dems too. Dems don't want to cut ANYTHING. Look at the CHIPS program. The loss of that program didn't come about because of evil Republicans. It came about because Dems refused to cut spending anywhere. More spending is all they're willing to talk about.

See, this is completely disingenuous. You asked what is going to be passed by Trump. I point out what that might be and now you want to say it's the Dem's fault. The Dem's aren't passing this law, the GOP is and Trump will either sign it or not. Nothing is stopping the GOP from writing a bill that doesn't balloon the debt. Nothing is stopping them from getting spending cuts drafted and passed first. That has nothing to do with the political party who lacks the seats to oppose anything that the GOP wants to do.

At some point, people have to assign responsibility where it belongs. Everything is not the Democrats' fault. People lack credibility when they insist that everything is the result of someone else, even when that someone else literally can't do anything to shape outcomes.

I don't honestly see why we're so concerned with other people's money. That isn't the country's money. It's those people's money, in my opinion, as I'm sure you probably do too

It's a tax that we're discussing, not anyone's specific money. Regardless, this is another answer that just ignores the very premise you asked about. Benefits a few and hurts many.

You asked and now it seems you don't like that you got an actual answer.

 

[b-hop]

TS think Trump is gonna lose in 2020.

 

[SBJJ]

When ones argument lacks substance. The insults flow like water.

I'm amazed people that do this don't seem to realize they do it. And realize how poor it looks