Ian Bezek is a writer i follow. Thought his take on a Trump presidency was interesting…
As someone who has read Trump’s bestselling Art Of The Deal book, I can assure you of a few things. Trump is running a businessman’s campaign; he’s no politician.
He wrote one of the all-time bestselling books on negotiation, and it clearly shows. His stated campaign positions, such as deporting 11 million Mexicans, and making Mexico herself pay to build a wall on the border, are patently absurd. You know it, I know it, and he knows it. He likely never intends to make this law, just as a real estate agent doesn’t expect you to pay the listed price for a house she shows you. This is a common sales technique. Start off at one extreme, and walk back to the middle.
He’s anchoring your expectations to an outlier position so that when he negotiates and concedes ground later, he can still get a reasonably acceptable outcome. This goes for his views on tax policy, foreign policy, and other such positions that analysts have deemed extreme.
If elected, he would likely take anti-free trade and anti-immigration positions that would probably harm the economy, but I doubt the damage would be as bad as expected.
His proposed foreign policy, rhetoric aside, appears to be fairly dovish. He was against the Iraq war - a position shared only with Ron Paul among notable Republicans - and his preferred stance for dealing with Syria is letting Russia fight them. He says the US has wasted trillions of dollars fighting in the Middle East, and by all accounts, he looks likely to exit the region, defusing geopolitical premia. Needless to say, I’d become (even) more bearish on oil following a Trump win.
On healthcare, despite his anti-Obama discourses, Trump previously favored a single-payer solution. I expect his election would cause the sanding off of the rougher edges of Obamacare, rather than a full-on repeal as other Republicans have wanted. This would likely be bullish for healthcare and the beat-up hospital sector in particular.
Trump’s views on taxation appear to favor a progressive system - another rarity among Republicans. If you are inclined toward Krugman and Piketty’s view of economics, this would likely be good for the economy.
In all, I expect Trump would, contrary to fears, govern as a pragmatic moderate. His vast empire of businesses seem to align his interest with the nation’s. He has more to lose than most if, in some way, he damages America’s brand.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. he’s a true modersate at heart with an excellent anti-politically correct tone that this country needs so badly in the age of PC
The sad part is that this is news for many on this board that consider themselves informed and educated. In fact, many are just media monkeys. Even those that may have IQs north of my own. Why have so many chosen not to think for themselves? Maybe it’s education. Non-STEM disciplines don’t seem to reward independent thought anymore.
So in other words, elect Trump so he won’t do any of what he promises, but instead will follow the lead of his predecessor Obama? That’s what I call leadership!
Trump will come far closer to restoring state’s rights and controlled immigration than HRC. Is that disputed? Never know for sure, but he’s the only chance left.
Trump doesn’t have a foreign policy or healthcare plan. He is not a politician and has not spent any time legislating or campaigning for any particular policy. Therefore, anything he has proposed is not fully formed and will likely change over time, if he ends up in office. This is the “known unknown” that appeals to voters who just think the government is generally mismanaged.
The most concrete thing that Trump has proposed so far is his preference towards “America First” point of view. This means he will favor limited US engagement in foreign affairs, especially with respect to military spending. He also proposes more internalization of US economic activity. However, I don’t think he has substantiated either of these with specific proposals.
My personal opinion is that politics is quite inbred, corrupt, and based on patronage. It would be good to bring in an outsider to force politicians to rethink their system. The Republican Party, for instance, is severely affected by this election cycle, and they must evolve as a result. Maybe the same can happen for the general election. The question is whether it is worth accepting the volatility of someone like Trump as payment.
I think I’m voting Trump simply because I don’t believe in electing someone who’s family has already served 8 years in office. Same reason why I wouldn’t have voted for Jeb Bush. Same reason why I wouldn’t vote for an Obama.
Are you familiar with constitution? How old were you when you were first exposed to it? Slavery is not an issue that is left to states by the document. Are you really not familiar? Do you really prefer the Feds taking care of everything? It has proven to be a bait and switch to get the states to join the Union. Those at the federal level have not lived up to the bargain. Constitutional changes are fair game. Executive overreach is not . Do you think those at the federal level are inherently better and more righteous than those at the state level? Why are you so comfortable with so few controlling so many? Are the Feds your saints? Why do you have no fear of an enormous central power? Demonstrates zero sense of history.
Do you think those at the state level are inherently better and more righteous than those at the federal level? Why are you so comfortable with so few controlling so many? Are the state leaders your saints? Why do you have no fear of an enormous state power? Demonstrates zero sense of history.
Ghibli what law school did you study at? You seem to be the foremost constitutional law scholar on here. Seems crazy you would have the time seeing as how you are also an expert on all things our society should be, expert climate scientist, apparent financial genius, and generally self proclaimed “least biased person” in basically any group.
Yes, we have just as much to fear from the ten year old in charge of his clubhouse as we do a global power. You are officially a buffoon. Who are you anyway? Do you think we should all answer to one global power? That is the logical conclusion of your way of thinking. Maybe the U.S. should start letting Canada govern its affairs. Let’s get this party started.
The whole point of state’s rights is to allow the populations of states to have the laws that best fit them, their demographics and their economy. In doing so, it helps prevent gridlocks and the idea of one portion of the country using federal level influence to essentially oppress other segments. This is why it’s in the constitution.
It was obviously and incorrectly used as an argument for slavery, but equating the two is a fallacy in the same way nearly every good idea concept has been used to justify an evil action at one point or another. This does not invalidate the concept. By compartmentalizing and dispersing control, it is far less likely that a smaller more local population will be oppressed by their smaller more local government over which they have more control. They will also feel better represented which is easily mathematicall demonstrated (larger relative vote).
Beyond that, within the constitutional framework it is easy for people to move between states, so to really oppress a population would require coordinated efforts between states (less likely), whereas a nation has much fuller control of its borders and the federal power is more concentrated yet more removed from its populace.
I’m not talking about abolishing a federal government (it serves a clear role in checks and balances as well with slavery and civil rights issues being a prime example), but scoffing at the idea of states rights is idiocy.
See, that’s where you become confused. I have no idea what is best for California or Florida, and even if I did, I shouldn’t be allowed to force it on them beyond what they agreed to by being part of the union. Just like I don’t think the US should be forcing her way of life on Canada or Japan. Why do some think it’s okay to force New York how to live but they would balk at the US forcing its way of life on Canada? Even if Canada joined the union our authority would be limited to defense and commerce. Well, it should be.