The Trump 2024 thread...

[dneal]

Might as well make a place to consolidate all the stuff that's coming, so go ahead and vent it here.

I'll go ahead and lay out my position, and a prediction.

I don't like Trump, but I like many of his policies. I like that he shook up the status quo (as Bernie would have done), but he's simply too toxic. Even more toxic than before, as weird as that sounds. I'd like to see anyone beat him in the primaries, or the government to finally kill off his aspirations with something that would stick. In a perfect world, DeSantis would beat him in a primary.

The crazy prediction - Scott Adams has a saying along the lines of: "The most absurd outcome is the most likely". He says it tongue in cheek, but Trump did sit in the Oval Office for 4 years. Pennsylvania elected a 6' turnip, and Biden won a Presidency from his basement.

So the craziest thing to happen is we get a Hillary vs Trump rematch, and Hillary wins. I don't know what the Democrats are doing, and maybe it's cheating (there's a good hypothesis in team-red's conspiracy theory), or maybe they've got a winning formula by focusing (legitimately) on ballots instead of votes (I'll post an interesting article about that later); but I think Hillary runs.

She's got a show on Apple TV with Chelsea to increase her likability factor. She's got her "right-wing gonna steal 2024" thing out there. Most of all though, the Dems have no bench*.

We can fill this thread with outrage and vitriol, or laugh at the absurdity of the country. I'm going with the latter.

*One caveat: Michelle O might be the disruptor to my Hillary theory. She just released a book, and that's what Dems do before they campaign.

[TSherbs]

Is there any energy out there around a Trump campaign? I mean by "any" as in any appreciable amount? I thought the announcement was flat and boring (I did not watch it all). He hasn't changed a bit (seems to me) nor his messaging.

I think he is doing this to delay his prosecution(s). Interesting that Ivanka was not there and said she will not be involved this time. And she has a house right down the road.

Mike Pence does a live interview/town hall thing tonight on CNN. Interesting timing.

I'm sure I'll dump on the Trumpster in time, but right now I'm just discouraged because American politics is just killing intelligence and charisma and verve and quality leadership at the top. The party/primary/money system just sucks.

[dneal]

Is there any energy out there around a Trump campaign? I mean by "any" as in any appreciable amount? I thought the announcement was flat and boring (I did not watch it all). He hasn't changed a bit (seems to me) nor his messaging.

I didn't watch it either, and forgot about it until I scanned Twitter and saw it. But to the question of energy... From his die-hard supporters, definitely.

I think he is doing this to delay his prosecution(s). Interesting that Ivanka was not there and said she will not be involved this time. And she has a house right down the road.

Mike Pence does a live interview/town hall thing tonight on CNN. Interesting timing.

I'm sure I'll dump on the Trumpster in time, but right now I'm just discouraged because American politics is just killing intelligence and charisma and verve and quality leadership at the top. The party/primary/money system just sucks.

The ease with which the federal government can prosecute and convict is amazing (and scary - see: Three Felonies A Day). I can't understand how they can easily sweep up those in his orbit (but usually for crimes unrelated to Trump), but still haven't done anything with the orange guy himself. Either he's a criminal genius the likes of which we've never seen, or there isn't anything there to prosecute.

But back to the "energy" concept. Ivanka bowing out is big, and I can't see her wanting to be subject to that again. At the end of the day, she's a mom with little kids. Priorities, and all that.

I think Hannity is the bellwether. First is whether or not he continues to support Trump. Second is what happens to his ratings if he doesn't.

[TSherbs]

I felt at one point that I was watching some episode of a series about family dynasty in decline but the patriarch can't accept his diminished status yet (aware and the flicker of panic flaming up at times but ego still holding on tight) and there are the sycophantic children off to the side, showing up in support in the hopes that Daddy does not cut them out of the will.

[dneal]

Maybe that applies to Don Jr. and Eric, but Ivanka married a separate income stream.

[TSherbs]

Yeah, I don't know what the delay on the Mar-a-lago papers thing is, except that Trump himself wrangled some delays into the investigation. That's a big part of why the feds finally authorized the search: Trump was playing rope-a-dope for over a year. He's kind of the master of legal wrangling. Yes, he loses A LOT of cases, but he uses the legal process to his propaganda and time advantage. He is a master manipulator. He has said as much: that no one can sue like he can. God bless litigious America.

[TSherbs]

Maybe that applies to Don Jr. and Eric, but Ivanka married a separate income stream.

Yes, I meant those two.

[TSherbs]

I don't know if you are familiar with Shakespeare's King Lear. When seeing Trump doing things like last night, I can't help but be reminded of that play. Sad, tragic, deserving decline, and a bunch of other characters suffer too.

[TSherbs]

In the opening scene, as he is announcing that he has decided to divide up his kingdom (in acknowledgement of his aging), he calls his three daughters in and asks them to tell him how much they love him. They know that they are there to kiss his ass to get the royal keys. In other words, the opening movement in the tale is a loyalty test. Sound familiar? Well, the sucking up begins, except.... (no plot spoilers)....

[dneal]

Speaking of the bard, the Mar A Lago paper thing is Much Ado About Nothing. Political theater, which is probably why it’s out of the news cycle. At the end of the day, the executive’s constitutional authority will be confirmed. Too many originalist justices on the SC. The Jan 6 hearings are much of the same, and will go down similarly to Adam Schiff’s claims during the Mueller stuff.

If they’re going to get him, it’ll be NY state (or city) and taxes. The fact that they haven’t yet leads me back to he’s either a criminal mastermind, or he stays between the legal lines.

[dneal]

On a different note, I think his announcement this early is a mistake. At least a year for the (right) media to turn on him, with DeSantis or another prepared to step in as a “savior of the party/nation”.

The enthusiasm can easily be turned to fatigue.

[TSherbs]

Speaking of the bard, the Mar A Lago paper thing is Much Ado About Nothing.

Another play that I taught, and one of my favorites (I like it more than King Lear.) The play, by the way, belies the apparent meaning of the title. It is about much more than "nothing," but I'll leave that for another discussion.

[Bold2013]

I don’t think (at least hope) Trump will be the 2024 Rep candidate. But maybe Desantis is waiting for 2028.

I believe M.O. would be an unstoppable candidate in our woke/intersectional culture.

[TSherbs]

I was thinking, dneal, about why we have disagreed so much, and from recent exchanges I came upon this idea (not as a full explanation, but as a possible piece): your background in your military work had you working with the machinations of large scale units and the dynamics of systems of machinery, supplies, military projects (etc). You seem interested in these large scale forces and patterns in politics, too. I, on the other hand, for decades worked on character development and the dynamics in play between individuals (in stories) and the interior elements that make them tick. I tend to view politics in terms of character and leadership. You often kept saying, "Let's talk about policy" and I kept saying "Trump is a disgrace." These are not "narratives," these are more like channels that our brains are used to operating in. My observation and thoughts, for what they are worth...

[TSherbs]

I believe M.O. would be an unstoppable candidate in our woke/intersectional culture.

The last First Lady to run lost, and she was beat up in the campaign. I don't agree with you. And unlike dneal, I don't think that her book has anything to do with campaign hopes. M.O. writes books, she has already done so (without mounting a campaign). They ALL write books. It's easy money.

[Bold2013]

I was thinking, dneal, about why we have disagreed so much, and from recent exchanges I came upon this idea (not as a full explanation, but as a possible piece): your background in your military work had you working with the machinations of large scale units and the dynamics of systems of machinery, supplies, military projects (etc). You seem interested in these large scale forces and patterns in politics, too. I, on the other hand, for decades worked on character development and the dynamics in play between individuals (in stories) and the interior elements that make them tick. I tend to view politics in terms of character and leadership. You often kept saying, "Let's talk about policy" and I kept saying "Trump is a disgrace." These are not "narratives," these are more like channels that our brains are used to operating in. My observation and thoughts, for what they are worth...

I see what you are getting at here and it makes sense.

I find myself on the policy side. A politicians character for me is doing what you said you would do, making hard decisions, accountability and swallowing one’s pride when wrong. Otherwise in regards to morality I believe they are all guilty (more or less than any of us really) but I can’t judge the heart (but I sure can make assumptions because words are the overflow of the heart).

[Bold2013]

I believe M.O. would be an unstoppable candidate in our woke/intersectional culture.

The last First Lady to run lost, and she was beat up in the campaign. I don't agree with you. And unlike dneal, I don't think that her book has anything to do with campaign hopes. M.O. writes books, she has already done so (without mounting a campaign). They ALL write books. It's easy money.

I believe she is a vastly better candidate than HC (plus she checks some ‘equity’ boxes).

[TSherbs]

I believe M.O. would be an unstoppable candidate in our woke/intersectional culture.

The last First Lady to run lost, and she was beat up in the campaign. I don't agree with you. And unlike dneal, I don't think that her book has anything to do with campaign hopes. M.O. writes books, she has already done so (without mounting a campaign). They ALL write books. It's easy money.

I believe she is a vastly better candidate than HC (plus she checks some ‘equity’ boxes).

Obviously on the equity boxes, but MO has never run for anything, nor has she ever had a role in government. I think that she is very underqualified. We elected Donald Trump, who had never been in govt before, and look what that got us. She may be personally admirable and appealing and intelligent, but I want a lot more than that.

[dneal]

I was thinking, dneal, about why we have disagreed so much, and from recent exchanges I came upon this idea (not as a full explanation, but as a possible piece): your background in your military work had you working with the machinations of large scale units and the dynamics of systems of machinery, supplies, military projects (etc). You seem interested in these large scale forces and patterns in politics, too. I, on the other hand, for decades worked on character development and the dynamics in play between individuals (in stories) and the interior elements that make them tick. I tend to view politics in terms of character and leadership. You often kept saying, "Let's talk about policy" and I kept saying "Trump is a disgrace." These are not "narratives," these are more like channels that our brains are used to operating in. My observation and thoughts, for what they are worth...

That's probably a lot of it, but it's also my disposition in general. Although I started out working on a psychology degree, I ended up majoring in philosophy and intended to go on to law. Life got in the way, I had an opportunity to go back on active duty as an officer, and the rest is what it is.

Psychology introduced statistics, the enormous complexity of variables, and Z variables. Keen lessons on correlation not equaling causality (which is not to say correlation isn't important).

Philosophy wasn't about trees falling in forests, but sentential logic, fallacies, and rhetoric - and a keen desire for truth, wherever that might lead.

Add all that to a military environment where a dispassionate attitude is essential (literally calculating potential casualties, and planning for the logistics of storing and transporting bodies, for example). As time went by, I progressed in rank, assignments and responsibility. I got closer to the bureaucracy, saw more of what went on behind the curtain, and got disgusted by the way the real world works.

So I suppose it's a matter of considering all that light of "channels that our brains are used to operating in". You're not wrong, and I would just add that given my background it is a subject that interests me. Channels my brain operates in, your (and other's) brains, but collective brains as well.

I'm always cognizant of Twain's maxim about people feeling and mistaking it for thinking, and check my own thinking and wonder if I'm feeling (or if my emotion is influencing my reason). I've got lots of opinions that intuitively feel right (Whitehead's: the final appeal is to intuition), but I try to weigh that against evidence. What I try not to do is get into those emotional arguments. I used the term "intelligent discussion" in the past, but on reflection it would be better to say "dispassionate discussion". Imagine a forum of two people, one a die-hard MAGA bubba and the other a purple-haired "wokenista". It would be both simply hurling accusations at each other. Aside from being unproductive, it's boring. There are a lot of smart people here that know more about things I'm completely ignorant of. I asked you in the lounge about poetry suggestions. I'm actually interested in Chip's experiences - greenhouses in particular.

The political/societal landscape has become so charged that people are quick to prove Twain's maxim. Blue and right echo-chambers with narratives reinforcing limited worldviews. Very little compassion or attempts to understand alternate points of view.

As an aside - once you get away from the specific characters and plot in Much Ado, it's what the title says. A bunch of Dogberry's and Don Pedro's wrapped up in their personal perspectives (or narratives). We (humans) seem to love drama and absurdity, but like Dogberry are completely unaware of our own.

[Kgbenson]

This is going to be one wacky election cycle. I'm not seeing a lot of candidates that aren't the kind you hold you nose and vote for on either side.