Brexit and Trump

[Marvin the Martian]

Today's Brexit vote has been interesting to watch from afar. There is a lot of similarities between pro-Brexit voters and US Trump voters, a general willingness to give "the man" the finger. But is it in anyone's best interest?

I've seen concerns that a Brexit could trigger a world recession. I've heard it has potential to greatly impact US trade as Britain is our normal "in" to the EU. A lot of American corporations have built facilities in the UK to get them inside the EU. With the UK gone, that insider access is removed until the plants could be located elsewhere (obviously at some cost). But US firms hire 1 million Brits in an effort to get into the EU. If those jobs no longer provide us access, do US companies keep those jobs there or move them into the EU?

Is it much different though than Trump ripping up our trade deals? Don't we think that would send shock waves through the world economy? Are we going to be saying "Yippee, we taught the Chinese a lesson by ripping up the trade deal. My 401k is now worth half of what it was, but it is worth it"?

John Oliver had some good points. First, the numbers used by the pro-Brexit people are seriously inflated. If you haven't seen his commentary, the people wanting out of the EU have a commercial showing the number of EU laws in making pillows. Of course all they did was search an EU database for "pillow", many of the laws shown have nothing to do with the type of pillow one sleeps on.

But secondly, the UK would still be subject to the remaining regulations if they plan on exporting said pillows. And since the Continent is far and away Britain's largest trading partner any decent sized firm is going to have to continue following those laws. They really don't gain anything, except increased difficulties in travelling to the continent (a point Jeremy Clarkson made, and given how far right he is I am surprised the vote is this close).

But that point about needing to follow the regulations of the EU applies here as well. The EU as a whole is a huge trading partner of the US. Even if Washington tomorrow became a libertarian Utopia, businesses selling in Britain would still have to follow the EU manufacturing requirements to sell there. Not just that, anyone selling products in California would have to abide by their rules (such as carcinogen warnings).

I think everyone, left and right, loves the idea of fighting city hall. But I'm not sure I like the idea of pyrrhic victories. The UK leaving the EU, us electing Trump, both seem to fall into that category.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I think everyone, left and right, loves the idea of fighting city hall. But I'm not sure I like the idea of pyrrhic victories. The UK leaving the EU, us electing Trump, both seem to fall into that category.

This is exactly right. A vote for Brexit and a vote for Trump are emotional votes, not reasonable votes. They're a demonstration of myopia and not understanding the 2nd and 3rd order effects of actions.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

This is exactly right. A vote for Brexit and a vote for Trump are emotional votes, not reasonable votes. They're a demonstration of myopia and not understanding the 2nd and 3rd order effects of actions.

Is sitting on the floor in the well, disrupting Congress' business an emotional act?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Today's Brexit vote has been interesting to watch from afar. There is a lot of similarities between pro-Brexit voters and US Trump voters, a general willingness to give "the man" the finger. But is it in anyone's best interest?

I've seen concerns that a Brexit could trigger a world recession. I've heard it has potential to greatly impact US trade as Britain is our normal "in" to the EU. A lot of American corporations have built facilities in the UK to get them inside the EU. With the UK gone, that insider access is removed until the plants could be located elsewhere (obviously at some cost). But US firms hire 1 million Brits in an effort to get into the EU. If those jobs no longer provide us access, do US companies keep those jobs there or move them into the EU?

Is it much different though than Trump ripping up our trade deals? Don't we think that would send shock waves through the world economy? Are we going to be saying "Yippee, we taught the Chinese a lesson by ripping up the trade deal. My 401k is now worth half of what it was, but it is worth it"?

John Oliver had some good points. First, the numbers used by the pro-Brexit people are seriously inflated. If you haven't seen his commentary, the people wanting out of the EU have a commercial showing the number of EU laws in making pillows. Of course all they did was search an EU database for "pillow", many of the laws shown have nothing to do with the type of pillow one sleeps on.

But secondly, the UK would still be subject to the remaining regulations if they plan on exporting said pillows. And since the Continent is far and away Britain's largest trading partner any decent sized firm is going to have to continue following those laws. They really don't gain anything, except increased difficulties in travelling to the continent (a point Jeremy Clarkson made, and given how far right he is I am surprised the vote is this close).

But that point about needing to follow the regulations of the EU applies here as well. The EU as a whole is a huge trading partner of the US. Even if Washington tomorrow became a libertarian Utopia, businesses selling in Britain would still have to follow the EU manufacturing requirements to sell there. Not just that, anyone selling products in California would have to abide by their rules (such as carcinogen warnings).

I think everyone, left and right, loves the idea of fighting city hall. But I'm not sure I like the idea of pyrrhic victories. The UK leaving the EU, us electing Trump, both seem to fall into that category.

Put briefly, I'd say the same thing to the idea of Brexit that I'd say to the idea of Trump: it would be far preferable for the entrenched political establishment to take the message to heart, clean up their acts accordingly, and avoid such populist uprisings in the future.

The EU -- in myriad ways -- has just been begging for something like this to happen. And it's not at all hard to understand why a nation with a stronger economy in the Eurozone would object to ceding so much power to nations with weaker economies. Combine that with the explosive issue of immigration, exacerbated by the recent refugee matter, and it should come as no surprise that people are starting to ponder the present arrangements and institutions.

I don't think UK voters are ultimately going to vote for Brexit. But the writing is still on the wall. I hope the opponents of Brexit don't take their likely victory the wrong way and carry on as they have been.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

This is exactly right. A vote for Brexit and a vote for Trump are emotional votes, not reasonable votes. They're a demonstration of myopia and not understanding the 2nd and 3rd order effects of actions.

I'm (probably) going to be voting for Trump -- and, as I've explained before, emotion has nothing to do with it.

I opposed him in the Republican primary. He was my least favorite candidate by a pretty wide margin -- as he is quite obviously not a conservative in the way that I understand the term. I still have plenty of misgivings about him (but, then, there aren't too many votes I've cast where I didn't have at least some misgivings). And I would be thrilled if, somehow, the Republicans could nominate somebody else....without taking a sledgehammer to the party to do so (and I still think about the only way that could happen is for Trump himself to bow out....which isn't going to happen).

All that said: I'm still pretty confident that he's closer to me on key issues than Hillary Clinton is. I'm still pretty confident that he'd nominate judges who see the law, and the role of the judiciary, more the way I see it than the kinds of judges I expect Hillary Clinton would nominate.

As such, he'll be getting my vote. And, FTR, the above explanation for my vote is derived of reason, not emotion. For me, it's not about "sticking it to the man", but about choosing the candidate with whom I share the most common philosophical ground.

 

[Noodle]

I think there are similarities, particularly the underlying sentiment driving much of the support for Brexit and Trump. Another similarity I have experienced firsthand is that whenever I mention the vote to Brits I have talked to they all kind of dance around the issue in a way that suggests they believe an exit from the EU would be catastrophically absurd--yet, at the same time they go out of their way not to reveal which side they are on. Much like the Trump issue here, they are appalled by the thought of an EU exit, but since there is a seemingly high, but illogical, level of support for it they don't want to offend anyone who might secretly be a supporter.

I recently attended an international conference where I had numerous meetings with attorneys from all over the world. I would estimate that well over 50% of the time the issue of Donald Trump came up during conversations. The underlying tone was one of "are you Americans fu%&&ng nuts?," but in a vague way just in case I might be a closeted Trump supporter. It got kind of comical, in a weird way. Ironically, the only conversation about politics that was not strained like this was one I had with a Brazilian attorney. After all, as we agreed, each of our countries had its own political problems of note. Misery loves company, I suppose.

Oh, and there is absolutely no way that Brexit will pass--one more similarity with Trump.

 

[twenty02]

Is sitting on the floor in the well, disrupting Congress' business an emotional act?

Do you ever make a post longer than one sentence?

 

[twenty02]

I'm (probably) going to be voting for Trump -- and, as I've explained before, emotion has nothing to do with it.

I opposed him in the Republican primary. He was my least favorite candidate by a pretty wide margin -- as he is quite obviously not a conservative in the way that I understand the term. I still have plenty of misgivings about him (but, then, there aren't too many votes I've cast where I didn't have at least some misgivings). And I would be thrilled if, somehow, the Republicans could nominate somebody else....without taking a sledgehammer to the party to do so (and I still think about the only way that could happen is for Trump himself to bow out....which isn't going to happen).

All that said: I'm still pretty confident that he's closer to me on key issues than Hillary Clinton is. I'm still pretty confident that he'd nominate judges who see the law, and the role of the judiciary, more the way I see it than the kinds of judges I expect Hillary Clinton would nominate.

As such, he'll be getting my vote. And, FTR, the above explanation for my vote is derived of reason, not emotion. For me, it's not about "sticking it to the man", but about choosing the candidate with whom I share the most common philosophical ground.

Your rationales have no basis in any kind of supporting fact. Why don't you just say you are voting for him because an (R) now follows his name.

In reality he is much more leftist and protectionist than Hillary, but you have let the (R) greatly cloud your judgement.

I honestly can't understand how a logical and intelligent person could vote for him. His temperament alone makes him entirely unqualified. And temperament greatly supersedes policy in that job.

I understand how the mouth breathers and other know-nothings vote for him, as they "want their country back" ( which is, BTW, the same slogan the Brexit people use), but I'm flabbergasted that otherwise intelligent people would even consider Trump.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Is sitting on the floor in the well, disrupting Congress' business an emotional act?

I would say it is a political publicity stunt, not unlike scheduling a dozen or so votes that had no chance to succeed to defund ACA. Neither side is above playing games when they think it will advance their ball.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Oh, and there is absolutely no way that Brexit will pass.

I agree. But I don't think this means the underlying political and cultural forces driving it are just going to go away. The fact that such a referendum would be even relatively close ought to be enough to give Eurozone advocates some pause about what they've been doing -- and an indication of just how thin the ice they're standing on is.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Your rationales have no basis in any kind of supporting fact. Why don't you just say you are voting for him because an (R) now follows his name.

Simple: because that's not the case.

In reality he is much more leftist and protectionist than Hillary, but you have let the (R) greatly cloud your judgement.

More protectionist: yes. More leftist: no. And, in fact, his bent towards protectionism is #1 on my list of misgivings about him -- as I think I've made clear.

Again, you're taking my vote for him as some kind of blanket endorsement. It's not -- at all. He's simply closer to me on issues that matter to me than Hillary is. If he was running as a Republican on Bernie Sanders' platform, I'd be voting for Hillary -- for the exact same reason.

 

[twenty02]

Simple: because that's not the case.



More protectionist: yes. More leftist: no. And, in fact, his bent towards protectionism is #1 on my list of misgivings about him -- as I think I've made clear.

Again, you're taking my vote for him as some kind of blanket endorsement. It's not -- at all. He's simply closer to me on issues that matter to me than Hillary is. If he was running as a Republican on Bernie Sanders' platform, I'd be voting for Hillary -- for the exact same reason.

What issues exactly?

 

[zeke4ahs]

I think there are similarities, particularly the underlying sentiment driving much of the support for Brexit and Trump. Another similarity I have experienced firsthand is that whenever I mention the vote to Brits I have talked to they all kind of dance around the issue in a way that suggests they believe an exit from the EU would be catastrophically absurd--yet, at the same time they go out of their way not to reveal which side they are on. Much like the Trump issue here, they are appalled by the thought of an EU exit, but since there is a seemingly high, but illogical, level of support for it they don't want to offend anyone who might secretly be a supporter.

I recently attended an international conference where I had numerous meetings with attorneys from all over the world. I would estimate that well over 50% of the time the issue of Donald Trump came up during conversations. The underlying tone was one of "are you Americans fu%&&ng nuts?," but in a vague way just in case I might be a closeted Trump supporter. It got kind of comical, in a weird way. Ironically, the only conversation about politics that was not strained like this was one I had with a Brazilian attorney. After all, as we agreed, each of our countries had its own political problems of note. Misery loves company, I suppose.

Oh, and there is absolutely no way that Brexit will pass--one more similarity with Trump.

That's what I keep reiterating. I'm at a conference now with people from all over. The number one comment: what's up with you people and Trump. Honestly, no one can believe that this man might possibly be the leader of the free world. I try to reassure them. But it certainly is embarrassing.,

 

[jughaid]

I'm sure it's in the interest of a lot of Brits; otherwise the vote would not be so close. Your point about already meeting regulatory requirements for trade is important: given globalization, if you meet the requirements, you can already sell there fairly easily (even without membership). Being on the inside has less advantage now than it did 20 years ago. Agreements will be made which make any trade disturbances minimal. England not joining the Euro (which has not been a success) is also really important. Given that little will change coupled with how much is paid to the EU versus what England gets back, one can see why there is strong support. I think there are lots of exaggerations on both sides. However, calling decisions to support it (or Trump for that matter) as simply emotional or illogical does not tell much of the story.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Simple: because that's not the case.



More protectionist: yes. More leftist: no. And, in fact, his bent towards protectionism is #1 on my list of misgivings about him -- as I think I've made clear.

Again, you're taking my vote for him as some kind of blanket endorsement. It's not -- at all. He's simply closer to me on issues that matter to me than Hillary is. If he was running as a Republican on Bernie Sanders' platform, I'd be voting for Hillary -- for the exact same reason.

How do you know he's closer to you on issues? He's been a Democrat much longer than he was a Republican. He's saying what his team wants to hear.. And riling up the hate and fear while he does so. ( you saw the sign in TN Make America White Again). Follow Politicheck after one of his speeches. No idea how anyone knows what he believes. I had a meeting with my financial advisor last week. We've never discussed politics. He believes there will be a tremendous amount of volatility in the stock market if the Donald is elected.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

What issues exactly?

Taxes, Immigration, the Courts, Obamacare, 2nd Amendment....and, most recently (and refreshingly), entitlement reform.

Put his stated positions on those issues and Hillary's stated positions on those issues side by side, and it's really not that difficult a calculus.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Is sitting on the floor in the well, disrupting Congress' business an emotional act?

Probably. Let's focus on what I'm saying rather than clustering me into a one-sided camp.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Simple: because that's not the case.



More protectionist: yes. More leftist: no. And, in fact, his bent towards protectionism is #1 on my list of misgivings about him -- as I think I've made clear.

Again, you're taking my vote for him as some kind of blanket endorsement. It's not -- at all. He's simply closer to me on issues that matter to me than Hillary is. If he was running as a Republican on Bernie Sanders' platform, I'd be voting for Hillary -- for the exact same reason.

I understand your thoughts on this and appreciate you sharing them. I understand that he seems closer to your positions than does HRC. That being said, you're obviously intelligent enough to know (or at least strongly suspect) that he'll never accomplish anything that he describes he'll do. His policies are cartoonist in nature and if he's serious about them, we're all in for a world of hurt.

And there has never (in my lifetime) been a more shockingly unprepared and unenlightened candidate that has been taken this seriously.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I agree. But I don't think this means the underlying political and cultural forces driving it are just going to go away. The fact that such a referendum would be even relatively close ought to be enough to give Eurozone advocates some pause about what they've been doing -- and an indication of just how thin the ice they're standing on is.

One of the items that attracts populists is the anti-big movement. Look at our country, we don't like big government, big business, big labor. I know people who belong to small churches that don't like big religion. There is nothing the EU can do to eliminate that problem.

There was a controversy in Tennessee where an independent congressional candidate put up billboards saying "make America white again". He wants a return to the "Leave it to Beaver" and "Ozzie and Harriett" days. I get that, but that is part of this idea. Yes, it is true that minorities and women have more power than they did. Power is pretty much a zero sum game, that power has come from white males. I'm not going to suggest a majority of Trump backers are reacting to that loss of power, but it certainly is one influence.

Some of what the populist movement is railing against isn't fixable. Britannia will never again rule the waves, English textiles will never again dominate world trade. There is a feeling of loss of power and identity, Britain was special at one time and controlled the world. Now the average Brit doesn't have any more than the average German or Frenchman. Leaving the EU isn't really going to change that. He may feel more powerful, but again, to sell anything to Europe they are going to have to comply to whatever rules those silly French and Germans come up with. Whatever power they gain is an illusion.

 

[twenty02]

Taxes, Immigration, the Courts, Obamacare, 2nd Amendment....and, most recently (and refreshingly), entitlement reform.

Put his stated positions on those issues and Hillary's stated positions on those issues side by side, and it's really not that difficult a calculus.

Positions he just magically made up this year, after decades of having the totally opposite position.

He's long advocated for single payer health care, he's long promised to "protect entitlements", he's advocated higher taxes many times, he's long been on the same position as Obama regarding guns, he's said "the government is going to pay for it" regarding health care, he strongly believes in eminent domain.....I could go on and on...

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

How do you know he's closer to you on issues?

Because I pay attention, zeke. And, really, he'd have to go pretty far to get to where he's farther away from me than Hillary Clinton is. And while I certainly acknowledge that Donald Trump is hard to pin down philosophically and hasn't spent his adult life honing public policy positions to more-or-less adhere to a party platform, HRC isn't that hard to pin down and she's pretty much my polar opposite.

He's been a Democrat much longer than he was a Republican.

So? Now you and twenty have to get things worked out. Because he's saying I'm only voting for Trump because of his (current) party affiliation. You're saying that I'm voting for him despite his previous party affiliation. Neither are true. I'm explaining why I'm voting for him. And my entire point of doing to is to refute INRanger's assertion that a vote for Trump is based on emotion.

That may be the case for many people. It's not for me. I don't do much of anything based on emotion.

He's saying what his team wants to hear

What politician doesn't?

And riling up the hate and fear while he does so. ( you saw the sign in TN Make America White Again).

Well, again, hate and fear are emotions. They have nothing to do with my decision.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Positions he just magically made up this year, after decades of having the totally opposite position.

He's long advocated for single payer health care, he's long promised to "protect entitlements", he's advocated higher taxes many times, he's long been on the same position as Obama regarding guns, he's said "the government is going to pay for it" regarding health care, he strongly believes in eminent domain.....I could go on and on...

Oh, I understand perfectly twenty. And, of course, there's clearly a risk that he doesn't really mean what he says -- moreso than with most typical candidates.

But, here's the rub: is there any doubt that Hillary Clinton doesn't mean what she says? I mean...while I can't say I'd know exactly what to expect from a Trump presidency, I know exactly what to expect from a Hillary candidacy. And that's just not a viable option for me. If I thought Gary Johnson could actually win, I'd vote for him. He's closer to me on key issues than Trump is. But he can't win, so I won't be voting for him. As a rule, I only cast votes for candidates who stand a realistic chance of winning.

I only have two choices. And, for me, Trump is the better of the two. He's a long way from ideal -- but he's the better of the two.

And, again, the only reason I brought it up was because INRanger made a pretty asinine statement that a vote for Trump is necessarily rooted in emotion. No it isn't.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I'm sure it's in the interest of a lot of Brits; otherwise the vote would not be so close. Your point about already meeting regulatory requirements for trade is important: given globalization, if you meet the requirements, you can already sell there fairly easily (even without membership). Being on the inside has less advantage now than it did 20 years ago. Agreements will be made which make any trade disturbances minimal. England not joining the Euro (which has not been a success) is also really important. Given that little will change coupled with how much is paid to the EU versus what England gets back, one can see why there is strong support. I think there are lots of exaggerations on both sides. However, calling decisions to support it (or Trump for that matter) as simply emotional or illogical does not tell much of the story.

It may be there is a conspiracy to oversell, but the British Treasury, London School of Economics, the IMF, and Dr Doom all predict bad economics if Brexit passes. The others may be explainable, but Roubini is an American with no real vested interest. I don't know how the EU will react, my guess is they aren't going to make it easy for Britain to carry on as usual to discourage others from leaving.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

One of the items that attracts populists is the anti-big movement. Look at our country, we don't like big government, big business, big labor. I know people who belong to small churches that don't like big religion. There is nothing the EU can do to eliminate that problem.

There was a controversy in Tennessee where an independent congressional candidate put up billboards saying "make America white again". He wants a return to the "Leave it to Beaver" and "Ozzie and Harriett" days. I get that, but that is part of this idea. Yes, it is true that minorities and women have more power than they did. Power is pretty much a zero sum game, that power has come from white males. I'm not going to suggest a majority of Trump backers are reacting to that loss of power, but it certainly is one influence.

Some of what the populist movement is railing against isn't fixable. Britannia will never again rule the waves, English textiles will never again dominate world trade. There is a feeling of loss of power and identity, Britain was special at one time and controlled the world. Now the average Brit doesn't have any more than the average German or Frenchman. Leaving the EU isn't really going to change that. He may feel more powerful, but again, to sell anything to Europe they are going to have to comply to whatever rules those silly French and Germans come up with. Whatever power they gain is an illusion.

I'm not sure you quite have your finger on the pulse of what's driving this. But I do think you're at least trying.

Where, for instance, do the spread of Islamist terrorism and the continuing economic doldrums fit in your explanation? Because I think they are absolutely central to the political upheaval we're witnessing.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Oh, I understand perfectly twenty. And, of course, there's clearly a risk that he doesn't really mean what he says -- moreso than with most typical candidates.

But, here's the rub: is there any doubt that Hillary Clinton doesn't mean what she says? I mean...while I can't say I'd know exactly what to expect from a Trump presidency, I know exactly what to expect from a Hillary candidacy. And that's just not a viable option for me. If I thought Gary Johnson could actually win, I'd vote for him. He's closer to me on key issues than Trump is. But he can't win, so I won't be voting for him. As a rule, I only cast votes for candidates who stand a realistic chance of winning.

I only have two choices. And, for me, Trump is the better of the two. He's a long way from ideal -- but he's the better of the two.

And, again, the only reason I brought it up was because INRanger made a pretty asinine statement that a vote for Trump is necessarily rooted in emotion. No it isn't.

You're quite obviously an exception to a lot of rules, crazed, because you are intelligent and can think critically in details. However, it is not asinine to point out that the majority of Trump's support comes from rampant nationalism and xenophobia (I won't say racism) that is not informed by fact or logic.

You're not voting for HRC because she's your reciprocal. Fine. Trump is a complete unknown and vacilates daily on his "positions." You are acting on emotion when you "hope" that he'll turn out well.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It may be there is a conspiracy to oversell, but the British Treasury, London School of Economics, the IMF, and Dr Doom all predict bad economics if Brexit passes. The others may be explainable, but Roubini is an American with no real vested interest. I don't know how the EU will react, my guess is they aren't going to make it easy for Britain to carry on as usual to discourage others from leaving.

Well, you're talking about it as if it's going to happen. I'm about 90% sure it isn't. There are way too many people claiming to be undecided left at this stage -- and I'd be stunned if the vast majority of those didn't break towards "Remain."

The thing is: the EU is on shaky ground today and will be on shaky ground tomorrow, even with Remain prevailing. It's not like this result is going to put to bed all the issues that are driving these forces. They're still there -- and I think the PTBs in Brussels and the other capitals of Europe need to reassess what they've been doing to get to the brink as they have.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I'm not sure you quite have your finger on the pulse of what's driving this. But I do think you're at least trying.

Where, for instance, do the spread of Islamist terrorism and the continuing economic doldrums fit in your explanation? Because I think they are absolutely central to the political upheaval we're witnessing.

No doubt there are a lot of factors and they often interrelate. I think the economic doldrums combined with a feeling the powers that be don't care about us little people is a driving force. I think that's where FDR's plan worked, the economy totally sucked but it interjected a feeling the government cared about its citizens. Both the Trump and Bernie backers share the trait that the government is rigged for an elite few.

I'm not sure where terrorism entirely comes in. Trump handily beat Cruz who was set to carpet bomb the Middle East.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You're quite obviously an exception to a lot of rules, crazed, because you are intelligent and can think critically in details. However, it is not asinine to point out that the majority of Trump's support comes from rampant nationalism and xenophobia (I won't say racism) that is not informed by fact or logic.

First of all, you didn't say anything about a "majority". You made a definitive universal statement. And it's just not correct.

I won't venture to guess how many people are driven to vote as they do by emotion. You could just as easily say that a majority of votes for Bernie Sanders are derived of emotion -- and I bet a lot of Bernouts would object to that. I guess emotion is, in many ways, in the eye of the beholder.

You're not voting for HRC because she's your reciprocal. Fine. Trump is a complete unknown and vacilates daily on his "positions." You are acting on emotion when you "hope" that he'll turn out well.

Making a decision based on calculated risk is not emotional, Ranger. I know exactly what I'll get with Door #1 (Hillary). Yes, Door #2 (Trump) is less certain. But I'd be stunned if it were as bad as what I know I'd get with Door #1.

This is called reason. Emotion plays no role.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Well, you're talking about it as if it's going to happen. I'm about 90% sure it isn't. There are way too many people claiming to be undecided left at this stage -- and I'd be stunned if the vast majority of those didn't break towards "Remain."

The thing is: the EU is on shaky ground today and will be on shaky ground tomorrow, even with Remain prevailing. It's not like this result is going to put to bed all the issues that are driving these forces. They're still there -- and I think the PTBs in Brussels and the other capitals of Europe need to reassess what they've been doing to get to the brink as they have.

I don't follow EU politics closely, so I'm not sure what they can do. DeGaulle once said that it was difficult to govern a country with 246 kinds of cheese. The EU has at least doubled that. We have had 200 years and have the same problems. It is hard to create a system that works in NYC and in Gnawbone. What people want and expect is tremendously different. Getting a British sheep farmer, a German auto worker, and a Greek tour guide to all be happy is going to be awful tough.

 

[twenty02]

Oh, I understand perfectly twenty. And, of course, there's clearly a risk that he doesn't really mean what he says -- moreso than with most typical candidates.

But, here's the rub: is there any doubt that Hillary Clinton doesn't mean what she says? I mean...while I can't say I'd know exactly what to expect from a Trump presidency, I know exactly what to expect from a Hillary candidacy. And that's just not a viable option for me. If I thought Gary Johnson could actually win, I'd vote for him. He's closer to me on key issues than Trump is. But he can't win, so I won't be voting for him. As a rule, I only cast votes for candidates who stand a realistic chance of winning.

I only have two choices. And, for me, Trump is the better of the two. He's a long way from ideal -- but he's the better of the two.

And, again, the only reason I brought it up was because INRanger made a pretty asinine statement that a vote for Trump is necessarily rooted in emotion. No it isn't.

My position is that 1) there is little chance his policies would be distinguishable from Hillary's....and in his quest to be seen as "doing something" will likely result in lurch leftward from Hillary in the way of social spending.....and 2) and I can't overstate this enough, his temperament is entirely unsuited for the job...unless you enjoy endless lawsuits and turmoil, and God knows what incoherent foreign policy.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

First of all, you didn't say anything about a "majority". You made a definitive universal statement. And it's just not correct.

I won't venture to guess how many people are driven to vote as they do by emotion. You could just as easily say that a majority of votes for Bernie Sanders are derived of emotion -- and I bet a lot of Bernouts would object to that. I guess emotion is, in many ways, in the eye of the beholder.



Making a decision based on calculated risk is not emotional, Ranger. I know exactly what I'll get with Door #1 (Hillary). Yes, Door #2 (Trump) is less certain. But I'd be stunned if it were as bad as what I know I'd get with Door #1.

This is called reason. Emotion plays no role.

Fair point. I was using hyperbole...I meant the majority. And I fully agree that this can be levied at the majority of bernie supporters also.

You're ignoring (or rationalizing) too many warning signs for the Trump door to be a logic based decision. It's still very much filed with hope.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

No doubt there are a lot of factors and they often interrelate. I think the economic doldrums combined with a feeling the powers that be don't care about us little people is a driving force. I think that's where FDR's plan worked, the economy totally sucked but it interjected a feeling the government cared about its citizens. Both the Trump and Bernie backers share the trait that the government is rigged for an elite few.

But reintroduce the "nativism" you were speaking of before -- and juxtapose it with these economic doldrums.

Let me ask this a different way: if most American citizens felt sufficiently secure in their economic fortunes, do you really think they'd care about immigrants from Mexico and Central America coming here by the millions to fill low-paying, low-skilled jobs?

See, I don't think it's so much returning to Norman Rockwell's America that is driving this. I think it's ultimately about economic insecurity.

I'm not sure where terrorism entirely comes in. Trump handily beat Cruz who was set to carpet bomb the Middle East.

....by headlining, among other things, a temporary suspension of visas to Muslims.....while simultaneously denouncing the Bush view of the use of brute force military power to combat terrorism.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

First of all, you didn't say anything about a "majority". You made a definitive universal statement. And it's just not correct.

I won't venture to guess how many people are driven to vote as they do by emotion. You could just as easily say that a majority of votes for Bernie Sanders are derived of emotion -- and I bet a lot of Bernouts would object to that. I guess emotion is, in many ways, in the eye of the beholder.



Making a decision based on calculated risk is not emotional, Ranger. I know exactly what I'll get with Door #1 (Hillary). Yes, Door #2 (Trump) is less certain. But I'd be stunned if it were as bad as what I know I'd get with Door #1.

This is called reason. Emotion plays no role.

I get your point, I sort of feel the mirror image same way. I may end up voting Hillary (I have a very hard time voting L and I'm not sure Green will be on the ballot). My thought is that I think Hillary will compromise to move things along (see Bill with welfare reform and NAFTA). I don't think compromise is in Trump's DNA and I don't think he'll have much power in Congress. As a result, we'll have four more years of absolutely nothing happening. I like having the ship of state steered and not just floating with the currents.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

My position is that 1) there is little chance his policies would be distinguishable from Hillary's....and in his quest to be seen as "doing something" will likely result in lurch leftward from Hillary in the way of social spending.....and 2) and I can't overstate this enough, his temperament is entirely unsuited for the job...unless you enjoy endless lawsuits and turmoil, and God knows what incoherent foreign policy.

Well, temperament isn't much of a factor to me. I'm primarily driven by policy positions. I'm not saying that it doesn't factor at all -- but it would be more of a tiebreaker kind of thing.

Really, as much power as has been amassed by our judiciary these days, I might even say that the single most important factor in choosing a president would be the judges they're likely to nominate. Of course, I'd MUCH rather that our judiciary pull back and involve itself less in what really ought to be decided politically. But that crap is (for now anyway) out of the horse.

I don't know how much Donald Trump actually knew about the list of potential SCOTUS nominees he put out a few weeks ago. But I do know that judges like Diane Sykes and William Pryor would *never* make their way onto any list Hillary Clinton would put out.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

But reintroduce the "nativism" you were speaking of before -- and juxtapose it with these economic doldrums.

Let me ask this a different way: if most American citizens felt sufficiently secure in their economic fortunes, do you really think they'd care about immigrants from Mexico and Central America coming here by the millions to fill low-paying, low-skilled jobs?

See, I don't think it's so much returning to Norman Rockwell's America that is driving this. I think it's ultimately about economic insecurity.



....by headlining, among other things, a temporary suspension of visas to Muslims.....while simultaneously denouncing the Bush view of the use of brute force military power to combat terrorism.

We've had complaints about the border in good times and bad. I recall people complaining back in the 90s when the economy was at full employment. In fact, wasn't the idea of making English our official language huge in the 90s? Economics certainly adds fuel to the fire. But things like complaints about Spanish have existed in good times and bad.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Fair point. I was using hyperbole...I meant the majority. And I fully agree that this can be levied at the majority of bernie supporters also.

You're ignoring (or rationalizing) too many warning signs for the Trump door to be a logic based decision. It's still very much filed with hope.

I don't see it that way. Again, I'm pretty sure I know exactly what we'd get with a President Hillary. And it's anathema to me. It's probably just hard for you to understand because it's not anathema to you. If you were facing a similar choice, where one choice was a certain anathema and another choice was uncertain (but at least endeavored to stake out some better positions), you might understand better.

What we'd get from Trump is uncertain. I know that, I understand it, I've said it myself countless times. Obviously it's true that I can only hope that it's better (for somebody of my disposition) than what we'd get from Hillary. But that's not an emotional decision. It's a calculated risk.

It's about like somebody being diagnosed with terminal cancer and being told that an experimental treatment might help....but might also result in their death. Well, if you're going to die anyway, what exactly do you have to lose?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

We've had complaints about the border in good times and bad. I recall people complaining back in the 90s when the economy was at full employment. In fact, wasn't the idea of making English our official language huge in the 90s? Economics certainly adds fuel to the fire. But things like complaints about Spanish have existed in good times and bad.

Well, yeah, it adds fuel to the fire -- like a blast torch to a pilot light.

Ask yourself: if things like the English/Spanish language were so politically motivating in the 90s, where was the Trump candidate in that time period? Was it Bob Dole? George W. Bush?

If American citizens felt entirely secure -- financially, physically, and otherwise -- I don't think issues having to do with immigration would gain much political traction at all. But people have been feeling very insecure for quite some time. Now, I don't think that clamping down on immigration (let alone mass deportation) is going to magically make that insecurity go away. But it's an understandable product of that insecurity.

 

[IUNorth]

You're quite obviously an exception to a lot of rules, crazed, because you are intelligent and can think critically in details. However, it is not asinine to point out that the majority of Trump's support comes from rampant nationalism and xenophobia (I won't say racism) that is not informed by fact or logic.

You're not voting for HRC because she's your reciprocal. Fine. Trump is a complete unknown and vacilates daily on his "positions." You are acting on emotion when you "hope" that he'll turn out well.

For me this is just about where my decision is being made.

Everything Trump has said, done, stands for, doesn't stand for, back to stands for...all of it, has been in the name of Donald Trump thus far.

If he were to win, the day he lays his hand on The Bible next January...all that ridiculousness is directly associated with the United States of America. Its cute and funny when Donald Trump calls a world leader a liar. It riles up a faction of our countries population..."Hell yeah Donald!" But when The United States of America calls a world leader a liar...different effect. When the USA makes damning comments against an entire religion...what, a billion or more people...different effect. When the USA makes chauvinistic comments about women...different effect.

Hillary is a liar. She's probably just as self serving as Trump is. And she'll make mistakes. Possibly big mistakes. But she won't alienate the rest of the world. And she won't make mistakes on a near daily basis the way Donald Trump will. And there's little to no chance that she makes rash decisions that could lead to wars, recessions, fractured relationships with other world powers, etc... With Trump, no one has any idea whether those things could happen. And that level of uncertainty is completely unacceptable.

 

[hoosboot]

First of all, you didn't say anything about a "majority". You made a definitive universal statement. And it's just not correct.

I won't venture to guess how many people are driven to vote as they do by emotion. You could just as easily say that a majority of votes for Bernie Sanders are derived of emotion -- and I bet a lot of Bernouts would object to that. I guess emotion is, in many ways, in the eye of the beholder.



Making a decision based on calculated risk is not emotional, Ranger. I know exactly what I'll get with Door #1 (Hillary). Yes, Door #2 (Trump) is less certain. But I'd be stunned if it were as bad as what I know I'd get with Door #1.

This is called reason. Emotion plays no role.

You're voting "not Hilary". Got it.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You're voting "not Hilary". Got it.

Basically.

It's what is known in conservative circles as "The Buckley Rule." WFB advised conservatives to vote for the most conservative candidate in a race who has a plausible chance of winning. This would preclude a vote for, say, Gary Johnson (who is closer to me philosophically than Trump is -- but has no plausible chance of winning).

This is the reason that lefties who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000 really should've been voting for Al Gore -- and he'd have won if even a few hundred of them in Florida had. While I'm sure they saw Nader as more palatable philosophically, the truth is that their votes only helped the major party candidate who was farthest away from them -- which was GWB.

I'm not going to like it much -- but I'll be pulling the lever for Trump...because he's the most conservative candidate in the race who has a plausible chance of winning.