Why the pessimism about Donald Trump here?

[Calthrina950]

One thing I have noticed, as I have looked through posts and topics here, is that many seem to be pessimistic about Donald Trump's chances as President. Now, I know that Trump is a repulsive character for many people, and I can understand that. Yet at the same time, it seems that all the election scenarios and all the maps are pointed in the direction of a Trump failure? Would people here be making the same prediction about Hillary Clinton, had she won the election?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Because past behavior is generally predictive of future behavior - especially among people incapable of shame or regret.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

You're not going to like it here. 

[Meclazine for Israel]

We love the Don.

Trump is tremendous.

You should have been here before the election. It was a Hillary Clinton wet dream with people posting how many terms Hillary would preside over and what Donald's concession speech would look like.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

We love the Don.

Trump is tremendous.

You should have been here before the election. It was a Hillary Clinton wet dream with people posting how many terms Hillary would preside over and what Donald's concession speech would look like.

Remember sir, Trump was never going to concede. 

[Hindsight was 2020]

Between his twitter rants, zero political experience, and his multiple bankruptcies many of us don't have faith in his abilities

[Hermit For Peace]

On my nicer days, I'm willing to give Trump a chance. I will never, however, legitimize his total bullchit campaign and all the absolute garbage he spewed and his pigish personality. As a human being he is the King of Deplorables.

I'm willing to look past my dislike and utter personal disgust for him if he does some good things for the American people, and not just his billionaire buddies.

But if he guts Obamacare first without replacing it with something better, I'll have a real hard time believing he and his party are even worthy of being called "deplorables."

[Calthrina950]

Personally, I am glad that Trump defeated Clinton. In my view, despite his comments and his off-handed behavior, I think it was better for us that Trump won, rather than her. Hillary Clinton would have represented the continuation of the status quo. She would have been dogged by more scandals, and that would have been horrendous for the United States. Moreover, her behavior during her husband's administration, her time as Senator, and as Sec. of State, suggests that she would have been out for herself.

But here, I haven't seen much discussion of these facets of her character.

[pbrower2a]

One thing I have noticed, as I have looked through posts and topics here, is that many seem to be pessimistic about Donald Trump's chances as President. Now, I know that Trump is a repulsive character for many people, and I can understand that. Yet at the same time, it seems that all the election scenarios and all the maps are pointed in the direction of a Trump failure? Would people here be making the same prediction about Hillary Clinton, had she won the election?

Had the election gone the other way, then we would have a Democratic President and almost certainly a Democratic majority in the House -- and more of the same gridlock that we have had since 2011. We might solve nothing, but we would have no looming disaster.

Instead we have a cruel, vindictive, bossy man whose ideology suggests an admiration for Gilded-Age plutocrats and perhaps agrarian racists of the Jim-Crow South, someone who has won on a slogan that means whatever he wants it to mean... and a Congress willing to do his bidding. No human suffering is in excess (short of chattel slavery, but debt bondage might be acceptable) so long as it enriches elites and allows their unlimited indulgence.

Donald Trump can force change in America, but I see none of the change as an unqualified good. Like Dubya he is a big-government right-winger, a socialist for the rich, but he has far more severe vices than Dubya had. Can you imagine Dubya talking about personal violence or grabbing women by their crotches? Just imagine what happens to some non-white street thug who grabs an attractive, middle-class white woman by her crotch without her consent and is convicted in a court of law. Ten years for sexual assault? That might be harsh, and less for a frat boy who does such with a pretty white girl, or some member of a minority group who does such with one of 'his kind'. Decent people don't even talk about doing something of the sort.  

His foreign policy is a mess. He has a sick admiration of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. A real conservative would admire Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher -- not Moammar Qaddafi, Vladimir Putin, Satan Hussein, or any of the absolute-monarchs in all but name in North Korea. About the only wisdom that he showed was to not praise Fidel Castro.

Speaking of Fidel Castro... he is (and in philosophical language one uses the present tense to describe anyone deceased as a repository of ideas and a list of behaviors because the reputation outlasts the body) a dictator. His rigid rhetoric is on an elementary level,  is full of populist resentment. The difference between Donald Trump (who will likely be as militaristic as Castro and has a tendency to bark out orders like a tyrant) is not how Donald Trump sees capitalism, but rather that Castro excoriates what Trump exults.

I am already sick of his rhetoric, and I can imagine myself getting similarly sick of Castro propaganda.

I do not expect politicians to entertain me. Politics is too important to become a way of entertaining people. Barack Obama not entertain us much. The most derided of Roman Emperors, Caligula, Nero, and Commodus, were adept at ensuring that everyone had a good time watching as Christians were offered to  "lions and tigers and bears -- oh my!", except of course for the Christians, not to mention gladiatorial games. I thought "No Drama Obama" fully adequate. Want drama? Watch episodes of Downton Abbey or Breaking Bad, dammit! Want sports? Get cable TV and you can get plenty of baseball, football, hockey, and basketball. Maybe track and field and ice skating. Tough luck if you want to see religious pariahs cast into a tank full of great white sharks or leopard seals.  

For Donald Trump there is no precedent in American history. Precedents elsewhere are horrible. He's practically a foreign agent. His idea of how to get prosperity is to have a corrupt speculative boom... which usually ends in a financial panic as in 1893, 1907, 1929, or 2008.

"Make America Great Again" -- sure. Only if you are super-rich, so far as I can tell, in view of his cabinet selections.

I expect to hate life. I wish that I had dual citizenship.  

[Virginiá]

Between his twitter rants, zero political experience, and his multiple bankruptcies many of us don't have faith in his abilities

The trouble I have with threads/questions like this is that I can never seem to find a way to include all of Trump's issues in just one post. For instance, I look at your post and wonder, "this really needs to have 'sexual abuses,' 'numerous instances of cheating contractors out of their money just because he can,' and 'constant bullying of anyone who even slightly goes against him'."

Then of course I'll look at that post and think it's missing even more. My point is, Trump has so many terrible negative attributes that almost no single post or even series of posts does it justice. He is arguably the most god awful politician in modern American history, and a bad, bad person in general. On top of that, in some areas he is savvy but many others that actually count, he's dumb as a bag of rocks and his narcissistic personality seems to prevent him from ever even trying to learn anything. This and his highly superficial view of the world and life in general makes it very difficult for me to ever think he will make a net positive contribution to America, probably due to a powerful combination of sheer incompetence and corruption.

She would have been dogged by more scandals, and that would have been horrendous for the United States. Moreover, her behavior during her husband's administration, her time as Senator, and as Sec. of State, suggests that she would have been out for herself.

In that case, all that is happened is exchanging Clinton's scandals for Trump's scandals and selfish pursuit of policies. Clinton probably would have had even more scandals, but at least her policy platform wasn't so blatantly geared towards taking from workers and transferring to the wealthy.

If you think Trump is going to be any better, you need to take a closer look at Trump's history and the kind of man he is. It's not like he is a complex man. His terrible nature is clear as day, and he has seemingly worked to make it so.

[Calthrina950]

Between his twitter rants, zero political experience, and his multiple bankruptcies many of us don't have faith in his abilities

The trouble I have with threads/questions like this is that I can never seem to find a way to include all of Trump's issues in just one post. For instance, I look at your post and wonder, "this really needs to have 'sexual abuses,' 'numerous instances of cheating contractors out of their money just because he can,' and 'constant bullying of anyone who even slightly goes against him'."

Then of course I'll look at that post and think it's missing even more. My point is, Trump has so many terrible negative attributes that almost no single post or even series of posts does it justice. He is arguably the most god awful politician in modern American history, and a bad, bad person in general. On top of that, in some areas he is savvy but many others that actually count, he's dumb as a bag of rocks and his narcissistic personality seems to prevent him from ever even trying to learn anything. This and his highly superficial view of the world and life in general makes it very difficult for me to ever think he will make a net positive contribution to America, probably due to a powerful combination of sheer incompetence and corruption.

She would have been dogged by more scandals, and that would have been horrendous for the United States. Moreover, her behavior during her husband's administration, her time as Senator, and as Sec. of State, suggests that she would have been out for herself.

In that case, all that is happened is exchanging Clinton's scandals for Trump's scandals and selfish pursuit of policies. Clinton probably would have had even more scandals, but at least her policy platform wasn't so blatantly geared towards taking from workers and transferring to the wealthy.

If you think Trump is going to be any better, you need to take a closer look at Trump's history and the kind of man he is. It's not like he is a complex man. His terrible nature is clear as day, and he has seemingly worked to make it so.

But I think that a major reason for Trump's victory is that people were tired of political dynasties, tired of the nonsense. Yes, Trump is not perfect. In fact, I did not vote for him, nor for Hillary Clinton; I thought at one point that neither nominee was a good choice. However, now that the election has transpired, and things have proceeded along, I have come to recognize, even more so then before, that it is better to have him then it would have been to have Hillary Clinton.

You say that Hillary's platform was not as toxic to Americans as Trump's. I would disagree. Hillary's platform was not really hers at all. She stole ideas from Bernie Sanders and his movement, trying to push them off as her own. Moreover, her association with the Obama Administration, and with the same-old policies of free trade (i.e. TPP) and of aggressiveness in foreign policy matters were in themselves repulsive. Hillary also claimed to be for women's rights: how could this be the case when she attacked and slandered all of the women who had been abused by her husband? Moreover, she aided and abetted her husband in those acts, for all of these years.

Hillary Clinton, as revealed by the Wikileaks and by her own behavior, as well as through the testimony of so many who have known her, is a liar, a fraud, and a cheat. For decades, she pursued power and wealth, caring not for the American people. That was the purpose of her run for the presidency, and the motivation behind all of her actions. She tied herself to her husband for her own advancement. I think she would never have made a name for herself on her own merit. Her own personality would not have attracted anyone on that basis.

Now for Trump, I believe many of his policy stances are correct. Jobs do need to come back to this country; there needs to be an improvement in our economic circumstances. We have to restore our respect in the world, maintain the strength of our military, and promote our own interests. Hillary Clinton would not have done any of this. She would have eroded the Second Amendment, and would have let the working classes go down the drain. That is why I cannot understand the defense and idolization of her.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Im actually more worried about the republican party as a whole than the current figurehead.

[DrScholl]

Because he's demonstrated that he is not qualified to lead? Every day since the election, he has shown more and more how unqualified he is to lead.

[Beet]

The election result was a disaster. Put aside all policy, partisanship, or politics.

A man who lacked common decency, who acted like a bully, who repeatedly exploited prejudice, and who was accused by some 15 women of sexual assault, was elected over one of the most qualified candidates in modern history, who would have been the first woman president, who was running on a comprehensive program of jobs and inclusiveness. What does this say to our kids? We've spent the last 10 years teaching them to stand up to bullies, only to elect one. We teach our kids good manners and to treat people with respect, only to elevate a person who doesn't do that to the highest level. I know some people will say "polite people have messed up", but respect for each other is a fundamental part of our society as well. We teach our girls that they can do anything if they work hard, yet humiliated an intelligent woman who worked extremely hard and never gave up, sending the message that no, hard work doesn't pay off. Instead we've taught them that men can do anything to their bodies and get away with it. We teach our kids not to engage in racism only to make a person who does this the most powerful person in the world. What is open to all to see, is that empathy, compassion, respect, hard work, policy knowledge and tolerance do not work, whereas insults, bullying, disregard for the truth, gaudy self-promotion, fear mongering and race baiting do work. I truly believe that 70 years worth of damage has done to our society, due to the impact this has on the current generation of children and young adults. They have learned all the wrong lessons and these wrong lessons will stay with them to varying degrees their entire lives. We will never know the full extent of the damage but we will be paying for it for the rest of our lives.

As for Trump since the election / going forward, I cannot say. It is too early to tell what his presidency will be like. It's my genuine hope that people will look back at him as a president who oversaw peace and prosperity.

[Virginiá]

You say that Hillary's platform was not as toxic to Americans as Trump's. I would disagree. Hillary's platform was not really hers at all. She stole ideas from Bernie Sanders and his movement, trying to push them off as her own.

What does the source of ideas have to do with being toxic, though? It's one thing if you think those specific policies are toxic, but 'stealing from Bernie' doesn't inherently make any policy toxic.

Hillary is a hawk, and she probably would have ramped up various military actions abroad (I won't say 'start a war' or whatever, as unless a candidate actually pushes for something of the sort I'm not convinced any would actually do that). As for the TPP, well, I'm sure Hillary would have loved to do that but the electorate forced her hand. She would have paid an enormous political cost for backtracking on her promise not to pursue it. Hillary indulges bigly in political expediency, and that would dictate that TPP was no longer politically feasible.

Hillary Clinton, as revealed by the Wikileaks and by her own behavior, as well as through the testimony of so many who have known her, is a liar, a fraud, and a cheat. For decades, she pursued power and wealth, caring not for the American people.

Again, you could replace her name with Trump's and that statement would basically be a perfect fit. This was largely the point of my response to you. If your view of Hillary is such, then this election should really be a wash for you.

I've always acknowledged my bias for Democrats but I've also not held my tongue on Hillary on this forum, particularly since the Fall, and so it increasingly bothers me how my fellow voters on the right (or middle?) can't or won't do the same. Trump is not omnipotent. He's a deeply flawed man, and it's fking obvious.

Now for Trump, I believe many of his policy stances are correct. Jobs do need to come back to this country; there needs to be an improvement in our economic circumstances. We have to restore our respect in the world, maintain the strength of our military, and promote our own interests. Hillary Clinton would not have done any of this. She would have eroded the Second Amendment, and would have let the working classes go down the drain. That is why I cannot understand the defense and idolization of her.

I truly don't mean any offense by this, but you're speaking almost entirely in talking points. The things you listed there are very generic and sound like part of a stump speech.

1. We do need good jobs - both Democratic and Republican policies are meant to do this. It's one thing if you're a conservative who believes in conservative policies, but if you haven't noticed this is a forum slanted towards Democrats so you shouldn't be surprised if people disagree on conservative solutions here.

I'm unsure what you mean by 'jobs coming back' - you don't honestly believe Trump is going to somehow revive our manufacturing industry, do you? Those jobs are gone, either through trade agreements or automation or other means. If Trump forced a shift of manufacturing away from China, those companies would just move to places like Vietnam. I believe his own cabinet pick (Ross maybe?) said this!

2. Actually under Obama, it seemed the world did respect us, as opposed to the lack of trust/respect we suffered under Bush due to his foreign policy failures. You'd really have to elaborate more on this for me to argue it any further though.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/29/as-obama-years-draw-to-close-president-and-u-s-seen-favorably-in-europe-and-asia/

3. Maintain strength of our military - ok, look, if you think our military is in shambles right now, then you should explain why, keeping in mind we still spend far more than any other country (even combined), and that our military is still top-notch. This "military in decline" is a farce, and it's beginning to look like conservative America only thinks the military is strong when there is a Republican president and the military budget is getting increases year after year. When does this end?

If you think it's fine now and you just want it maintained, I'm unsure why you think Hillary of all people would be bad for that. She is the type of president who probably would have been open to increases in spending, and a GOP House certainly would not have allowed deep(er) cuts.

4. As for 'letting working class go down the drain' - welcome to the era of Trump. If you think gutting labor regulations and cutting massive tax breaks for the wealthy (again) is going to be worth the trillions it adds to our debt, then I dunno what to say. We've already done this. I'd say it would be better to take that money and fund paid family leave and invest significantly in education (K12-college) to prepare new generations (and existing) for our continuing shift to a high-tech economy.

[Calthrina950]

Because he's demonstrated that he is not qualified to lead? Every day since the election, he has shown more and more how unqualified he is to lead.

So you would rather have a woman who, "qualified" by virtue of holding different offices, nevertheless had no accomplishments of her own to speak of; who took advantage of others for her own purposes; and who is known to be a heartless, repulsive woman concerned only about her own advancement? I would rather have a political rookie win the White House than someone marred by scandal, who is also untrustworthy and greedy.

[Crumpets]

The US President is both the head of state and the head of government. Trump ran entirely on being America's "voice" and a symbol of "the people" against "the global elites." So, that tells me he will at least serve as some sort of head of state. However, he seems to have no interest whatsoever as serving as head of government. This is pretty much the exact mistake GWB made - a bottom-heavy presidency of cold and calculating advisors with a mascot as their boss. At best, Trump can accomplish nothing while governing as his advisors take up the slack. At worst, our government is a headless chicken running in circles for four years.

[Calthrina950]

These sources: http://www.hoover.org/research/barack-obamas-failed-presidency and http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/16/10-ways-obama-has-failed-as-president/ list many of the reasons why Obama's Presidency did not turn out be as "good" as many in this country had hoped for. From this, it is clear to me why Trump won, and Hillary did not. Voters in the Rust Belt, in particular, were turned off by the excessive focus of the Democratic Party upon "identity politics", their leftward turn on so many issues in regards to society and economics, and the stagnation of their economic conditions. I am not saying that Trump will bring back all of their jobs, or that the situation will be completely reversed. What I am saying is that voters saw, and believed, that Hillary Clinton would not be the one to reverse the situation.

Moreover, I think the county-by-county map shows the extent of Hillary's weakness. More than two hundred counties, which had voted for Obama twice, switched to Trump. Trump won six states (Iowa, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Florida) which had voted for Obama twice, and two (Indiana, North Carolina) which had gone for him in 2008. He came within a hair's breath of winning Maine, New Hampshire, and Minnesota, and he had a serious chance in Colorado, Nevada, and even New Mexico. To me, this is the definition of appeal. Yes, you say Hillary won the popular vote, but all of that is from the numbers she obtained in California and in New York (primarily NYC). Outside of those two populous states, she lost the popular vote. She lost the Rust Belt, she lost independents, and she lost the critical battleground states.

Consequently, I feel that if Trump does well these next four years, then we will have some sense restored. Hillary Clinton would have continued and worsened our stagnation, and she would have not lifted a finger to help workers and others who feel left behind in today's economy.

[Person Man]

The US President is both the head of state and the head of government. Trump ran entirely on being America's "voice" and a symbol of "the people" against "the global elites." So, that tells me he will at least serve as some sort of head of state. However, he seems to have no interest whatsoever as serving as head of government. This is pretty much the exact mistake GWB made - a bottom-heavy presidency of cold and calculating advisors with a mascot as their boss. At best, Trump can accomplish nothing while governing as his advisors take up the slack. At worst, our government is a headless chicken running in circles for four years.

I see a pattern here.

Also, does anyone else find it dishonest to claim to be an Indepent but then say "I understand why you don't like Republicans, I hate Democrats, and I kind of like Republicans".

[DrScholl]

Because he's demonstrated that he is not qualified to lead? Every day since the election, he has shown more and more how unqualified he is to lead.

So you would rather have a woman who, "qualified" by virtue of holding different offices, nevertheless had no accomplishments of her own to speak of; who took advantage of others for her own purposes; and who is known to be a heartless, repulsive woman concerned only about her own advancement? I would rather have a political rookie win the White House than someone marred by scandal, who is also untrustworthy and greedy.

First off, experience counts when you are running for President and I think would rather have someone who has held office before as President over a complete novice. Second, Clinton has a substantial amount of accomplishments that she achieved on her own, whereas Trump was given a check by his father. If you think Trump isn't out for himself, then you are not well informed.

If we want to talk about heartless and repulsive, just read about Trump's past antics. And untrustworthy and greedy describe Trump's entire career. But at the end of the day, it's pointless making these comparisons, because the election is over and Trump is President.

[Deblano]

This was probably the most polarizing, violent, and pessimistic election since 1968, so I'm not terribly surprised.

As for me, I'm mostly neutral at this point. I am pleasantly surprised with Trump's picks for Sec of Defense and State, so there's that.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Because we're opposed to the evisceration of the New Deal and the Great Society, the possibility of nuclear war and the deportation of millions of immigrants?

Quit being intellectually dishonest. If you're leftist, you're going to be pessimistic about Trump. This isn't surprising.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Because he's demonstrated that he is not qualified to lead? Every day since the election, he has shown more and more how unqualified he is to lead.

So you would rather have a woman who, "qualified" by virtue of holding different offices, nevertheless had no accomplishments of her own to speak of; who took advantage of others for her own purposes; and who is known to be a heartless, repulsive woman concerned only about her own advancement? I would rather have a political rookie win the White House than someone marred by scandal, who is also untrustworthy and greedy.

Because I am not a child, I vote based on policy issues and not the politics of personality. Trump is a scumbag and if he died via a coronary, I'd celebrate his death but I'm opposed to him because I think his agenda is repugnant, disgusting, reprehensible etc.

To repeat my previous post: most posters are pessimistic about Trump because of his cabinet appointments, his brash undiplomatic and dangerous behavior on twitter and the agenda of the Republican Congress. He's a scumbag, total filth, one of the worst people to ever walk the Earth and so on. He's also insane. However, that's not why this forum is, for the most part, anti-Trump.

[Mr. Smith]

Because this election was pessimistic and polarized from the get-go, neither candidate had good approvals, and Congress is utterly wrecked.

[Enduro]

He makes it easy to be pessimistic when he decides to attack a stage production instead of opening a dialogue about issues that matter.