The future of the American presidency

[Timbuktu]

Whether or not you agree with Donald Trump and his policies, most agree that he has drastically altered the role of the American president in only one month. His professional code of conduct, relationship with the press, and motives regarding foreign policy are foreign to many Americans and set him aside from previous presidents in modern history.

Is Donald Trump a trailblazer? Some argue that populism will surge indefinitely, and we will find future presidents very similar to Trump. His particularly rambunctious approach to candidacy appealed to many Americans enough to win him the nomination, and his lack of political experience arguably gave him a slight edge. With increasing tension among the people and the government of America, more candidates like Trump might become more prevalent to break the political status quo.

Or has Donald Trump incited an unprecedented backlash? Most would argue that to put in place distinct limitations to the role of president beyond the 35 year age restriction, natural-born citizen requirement, and 14 years of residency requirement would be unconstitutional, but some expect some more societal pressures. Will future candidates use Trump's campaign as an example of what they strive not to be? Will those who hold political power rise to the occasion and re-instill a more predictable path of American presidents?

This can extend to the first family, cabinet appointees, judges, members of congress, and leaders of foreign countries as well. Alternative facts are frowned upon.

 

[Tasellus]

I absolutely agree that Trump's advantage so far lies in his candid attitude and determination to say what he thinks, not what he ought to say. He approaches politics like a businessman, and I think there is definitely an appeal to that attitude that shouldn't be underrated. I wouldn't be surprised to see future presidents borrow at least something from his ability to tap into people's feelings rather than simply behaving as we have been trained to expect a diplomat to behave.

Apparently he recently chewed out the Australian Prime Minister over an asylum seeker transfer deal that we had struck with the Obama administration, which obviously got a lot of press here. If the reports are true, Trump was utterly undiplomatic. I think most Australians are such that we are less likely to be offended by the POTUS berating our PM than we are to be entertained, but all the same, Trump risked straining diplomatic relations between two nations that have been close allies for a century, within a few weeks of taking office. I don't think it's at all inaccurate to describe him as a 'trailblazer'- certainly no former POTUS has taken this brash, forthright approach to advancing the US's interests in the international forum. There is a part of me that believes that 'something's gotta give' eventually - he'll go one step too far, something will crack, and what began as appealing, refreshing candour and bravado will start to look misguided and foolish. But who knows just how far he'll be able to push the envelope? If his record as a businessman is anything to go by, he has a knack for getting his way.

 

[faint]

I think we will see a rise in a new wave of populist candidates ala Bernie. I don't think the current definition of a populist candidate (Trump) will remain the same by 2020 considering many called Bernie one to begin with.

 

[Chou Toshio]

I absolutely agree that Trump's advantage so far lies in his candid attitude and determination to say what he thinks, not what he ought to say. He approaches politics like a businessman, and I think there is definitely an appeal to that attitude that shouldn't be underrated. I wouldn't be surprised to see future presidents borrow at least something from his ability to tap into people's feelings rather than simply behaving as we have been trained to expect a diplomat to behave.

Apparently he recently chewed out the Australian Prime Minister over an asylum seeker transfer deal that we had struck with the Obama administration, which obviously got a lot of press here. If the reports are true, Trump was utterly undiplomatic. I think most Australians are such that we are less likely to be offended by the POTUS berating our PM than we are to be entertained, but all the same, Trump risked straining diplomatic relations between two nations that have been close allies for a century, within a few weeks of taking office. I don't think it's at all inaccurate to describe him as a 'trailblazer'- certainly no former POTUS has taken this brash, forthright approach to advancing the US's interests in the international forum. There is a part of me that believes that 'something's gotta give' eventually - he'll go one step too far, something will crack, and what began as appealing, refreshing candour and bravado will start to look misguided and foolish. But who knows just how far he'll be able to push the envelope? If his record as a businessman is anything to go by, he has a knack for getting his way.

He also seems to have a knack for making things crash and burn.

Trump is an impressive promoter (in part due to his obsession with his brand and media), but utterly terrible as an executive in charge of operations (understanding the numbers... knowing what the fuck is actually going on).

 

[Deck Knight]

Trump is the first president to get in hot water for actually following through on his campaign promises, and the first I think to actively mention them after assuming office.

Contrast Obama who sold everyone "Hope and Change" in 2008 and promised "The Most Transparent Presidency Ever" and then proceeded to shut down any possible method of transparency. To this day we still don't know anything about that guy other than his publishing agent once said he was born in Kenya to sell one of his autobiographies, oh, and his pastor of 20 years really hates white people.

I probably shouldn't be that dismissive though, the "imperial executive" as liberals called it when GWB was President got expanded to incredible degrees under the Obama Administration, and Trump inherited all of those powers and precedents. Being undermined by the federal bureaucracy installed in the Obama years that is still loyal to the former president is not going to last that long, Trump knows how to staff large organizations and deal with internal troublemakers.

As far as Trump's knack for crashing and burning, he's had 4 companies fail when he owns hundreds of individual market segments throughout the Trump organization. His failure rate is well below 4%. There are roughly 18 long-time political figures who - thinking him a fool - got steamrolled by Trump, who only picked up politics as a serious hobby (rather than a balloon he's floating) two years ago.

I do think Trump will be a break from how Presidents usually act and we will revert to their more mild-mannered form after him, regardless of whether his successor is Mike Pence or whoever the Dems put up against him. This is because he was elected as a harsh corrective to a corrosive politically correct culture whose key feature was dishonesty in every major institution. That is, the press was seen as biased and corrupt, Congress, the Presidency, and the Courts seen as hopelessly out of touch, ceaselessly meddling, and totally unconcerned with advancing prosperity rather than managing decline. Trump was elected as the hatchet man to take an axe to the bramble and break through to daylight.

This doesn't make him a hero or a saint or any of that. It just is what it is. Other world leaders probably won't personally like Trump or his style, but they aren't going to sacrifice an economic and intellectual relationship with the world's largest stable economy over it. Trump is seeking bilateral trade agreements primarily because he understands that America will always have maximum leverage against individual countries as opposed to international blocs. The Post-Brexit UK will employ the same strategy since London has a lot of financial services power to bring to bear, and if it works with the United States it will basically be a return to the Pax Americana of the post-Soviet era. Trump hates war, as should be seen in his relatively retrained response to Russia and his admonishing the press that it would be a good thing if the United States and Russia got along.

So in summary, Trump is brash guy who wants strong economies, bilateral international agreements, and world peace. It's the "brash guy" piece everyone is focusing on because it's so different.

Trump's opposition is only unprecedented in that it's the first opposition movement that's already resorted to violence when it wasn't bawling its eyes out. They've trampled their own credibility at the outset and they are in for a long four-eight years. Unfortunately these are the people who have been led on the last two years to believe Trump is incompetent, racist, and authoritarian and refuse to rationally process how he won. They say he stole the election because he lost the popular vote (also, RUSSIANS!) when literally the only reason he lost the popular vote was California, a state he didn't campaign in because to do so was a waste of resources. Every other state looks at California with utter contempt and is glad the electoral college keeps them in check.

Instead of asking why Californians voted against him, the opposition movement should ask themselves why Pennsylvanians, Michiganders, and Wisconsinites voted for him after voting twice for Obama. "Sudden Onset Racism" is inadequate to that task.

 

[Ortheore]

Trump hates war

I'm having a bit of giggle right now. Russia doesn't mean much here, since regardless there's no way that war with Russia was anywhere near likely. Unless there's something I'm overlooking there's been negligible difference made in terms of avoiding war so I guess we have to fall back onto rhetoric to determine Trump's stance, where his perspective is incredibly aggressive.

So in summary, Trump is brash guy who wants strong economies, bilateral international agreements, and world peace. It's the "brash guy" piece everyone is focusing on because it's so different.

This is particularly misleading since by listing bilateral trade agreements you make it seem like he's building bridges with other countries, rather than the reality that he favours a more isolationist america. And that point interacts with the whole strong economies thing, since isolationism is a pretty good way to undermine an economy

Trump's opposition is only unprecedented in that it's the first opposition movement that's already resorted to violence when it wasn't bawling its eyes out. They've trampled their own credibility at the outset and they are in for a long four-eight years. Unfortunately these are the people who have been led on the last two years to believe Trump is incompetent, racist, and authoritarian and refuse to rationally process how he won. They say he stole the election because he lost the popular vote (also, RUSSIANS!) when literally the only reason he lost the popular vote was California, a state he didn't campaign in because to do so was a waste of resources. Every other state looks at California with utter contempt and is glad the electoral college keeps them in check.

Instead of asking why Californians voted against him, the opposition movement should ask themselves why Pennsylvanians, Michiganders, and Wisconsinites voted for him after voting twice for Obama. "Sudden Onset Racism" is inadequate to that task.

I mean, if you're going to characterise people who disagree with you in this way you're asking for this thread to turn into a shitfest. More to the point, you're not showing yourself to be any better than the people you're misrepresenting by funnelling everything through your own personal bias and a thick layer of condescension and contempt. Shall I assume all Trump supporters are like this? You portray his opponents as petulant children when most of them are being entirely rational, and their belief that his presidency will be a total disaster generally has some foundation in reasoning. Assuming that ppl have been deceived into thinking Trump's the things you describe is rather insulting as it suggests his opposition isn't capable of accepting any more than what is spoon-fed to them, which again, is not true, it's probably more to do with the fact that everything we've seen from him thus far can genuinely be argued to be representative of those characteristics. Also your comments on California are amusing

 

[UncleSam]

Tbh I don't see what all the fuss is about - yet. Trump hasn't changed anything about the functionality of the presidency, he hasn't taken away speech rights or become a dictator etc as many on the left foretold (of course there's still plenty of time left!).

Only difference outside of policy I can see is Trump hates the press, but he hasn't restricted their ability to report on him or what they can report. He just hates them because he views them (probably accurately) as political enemies.

Like I dislike lots of Trump's policy agenda but every time liberals scream 'fascist dictator' it's a true ? Moment like how out of touch do you have to be to believe that? Obviously large segments of the population don't like him but why hyperbolize things?

Tl;dr only difference between Trump and Obama's function as president (not policy!) is that Obama and the media were in love while Trump hate sexes the media instead (let's be real they both get something out of their adversarial relationship).

 

[Tasellus]

I don't think that what the OP had in mind wasn't a pro-versus-anti-Trump debate, but more along the lines of, what is Trump doing as POTUS that is unprecedented, and how might this change the very nature of presidency in the US?

For me that's where the interest lies - it would be putting it lightly to say that I am no supporter of Trump, but at the same time I can't help some degree of fascination at just how bizarre his presidency has been so far, and how the status quo is scrambling to adjust. That's why I brought up the incident with the Australian PM - I can't remember the last time our PM got chewed out on an international scale, and better yet in a way that the White House seemed to be in no hurry to hush up! Watching things like the Senate disputes over all of his appointments, the attack on the media as 'the enemy of the people', tweeting in outrage over Ivanka's dropped clothing line - all totally unprecedented coming from a sitting President!

So I think the question is, if the status quo can somehow absorb all of this unconventionality and retain Trump as President, will Trump leave a mark on the office that future presidents would be foolish to disregard altogether? Or is it so unbearably unconventional that the system will break under the pressure (diplomatic bridges burned, trade wars, impeachment) and spit him out before 2020? Will future presidents send their own heartfelt, personal, pouty tweets directly to the American people, or will they revert to passing the account off to a staffer? Is he reaching more people this way or shooting himself in the foot on a daily basis?

 

[Saria]

Tbh I don't see what all the fuss is about - yet. Trump hasn't changed anything about the functionality of the presidency, he hasn't taken away speech rights or become a dictator etc as many on the left foretold (of course there's still plenty of time left!).

Only difference outside of policy I can see is Trump hates the press, but he hasn't restricted their ability to report on him or what they can report. He just hates them because he views them (probably accurately) as political enemies.

Like I dislike lots of Trump's policy agenda but every time liberals scream 'fascist dictator' it's a true ? Moment like how out of touch do you have to be to believe that? Obviously large segments of the population don't like him but why hyperbolize things?

Tl;dr only difference between Trump and Obama's function as president (not policy!) is that Obama and the media were in love while Trump hate sexes the media instead (let's be real they both get something out of their adversarial relationship).

What about Trump attacking "so called protestors" (aka American citizens that don't support everything he does), the clear conflict of interest with his business, his constant trips and his wife and son not staying in the white house (costing tax players millions and being inconvenient to many, due to the high amount of security those things require), his constant stream of bullshit that has been going since before his presidential campaign, him starting his 2020 campaign 1 day into the job, his complete inability to talk like a decently educated person, Trump creating conflict with other countries (including important allies), his links with Russia (it's a fact his people have done shit with Russia, how much Trump is involved is another thing), the sheer incompetence of some of his cabinet picks (like Devos), his stance on global warming, etc.

He's less than 1 month in and the differences are very clear.

Dictators and fascist governments aren't made in a month. Chavez took 7 years to start blatantly censoring the media, but the he showed signs of fascist tendencies since day 1. Maybe it's too early to straight up call him a dictator, but if you don't get what the "fuss is about", you should learn a little bit about global politics and history.

 

[verbatim]

Food for thought, Trump's presidency and the unparalleled amount of lies his administration has told during it has actually made people trust the "mainstream media" more than ever (online "fake news" also probably has something to do w/ it).

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/29/new-...nfold-after-donald-trump-wins-presidency.html
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ng-washington-post-to-add-sixty-newsroom-jobs

 

[Flare]

All the things that Trump has said in the media, done during his presidency so far and the things he's planning to do really makes me wonder about his Mental State, when you have your own people protesting against your method...clearly means that stuff is not going well.

 

[thesecondbest]

Food for thought, Trump's presidency and the unparalleled amount of lies his administration has told during it has actually made people trust the "mainstream media" more than ever (online "fake news" also probably has something to do w/ it).

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/29/new-...nfold-after-donald-trump-wins-presidency.html
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ng-washington-post-to-add-sixty-newsroom-jobs

Yeah you're gonna need a source for that... people still don't trust the mainstream media
http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx - late 2016 poll. Readership is dropping and online/small outlets are taking over.

This meme I think sums up the relationship between the media and Trump
EDIT:
Also adding this video... listen to the last thing Mika says. Nice of them to be transparent about their role

 

[Billy the Uncle]

While Trump is a questionable character by himself, I can't really blame him for putting a good distance between himself and the media. Ever since he won the elections, most media sources have been hounding him and reporting his every move with heavy criticizing. Sure there's a lot to criticize but most media are just attacking him endlessly. If Trump and the media are at war it's not only The Donald's fault.

 

[verbatim]

Yeah you're gonna need a source for that... people still don't trust the mainstream media
http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx - late 2016 poll.

I linked several. Here's another that was sourced in one of the multiple sources that I linked, http://www.politico.com/media/story...dding-more-than-five-dozen-journalists-004900.

While Trump is a questionable character by himself, I can't really blame him for putting a good distance between himself and the media. Ever since he won the elections, most media sources have been hounding him and reporting his every move with heavy criticizing. Sure there's a lot to criticize but most media are just attacking him endlessly. If Trump and the media are at war it's not only The Donald's fault.

Any time a politician has issues they will blame the media as a diversion tactic.

Here's a speech Richard Nixon gave after he lost a race for Govenorship (i.e., it had nothing to do with Watergate, where he famously was 100% in the wrong and abusing government powers to attack the people that exposed him)

“You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference … I hope that the press … recognize that they have a right and a responsibility, if they’re against a candidate, give him the shaft, but also recognize if they give him the shaft, put one lonely reporter on the campaign who will report what the candidate says now and then.”

This isn't a partisan issue either, Bill Clinton did the same thing during the investigation into his sex scandal, Barrack Oet al.


The legal term used in lawsuits against public figures (which news would count as in this case) is called Actual Malice.

"a condition required to establish libel against public officials or public figures and is defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." Reckless disregard does not encompass mere neglect in following professional standards of fact checking. The publisher must entertain actual doubt as to the statement's truth. This is the definition in only the United States and came from the landmark 1964 lawsuit New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which ruled that public officials needed to prove actual malice in order to recover damages for libel."

Regardless of what party someone belongs to, they're going to get chewed out if they lie cheat and stealt [and get caught :/]. If they do that a lot and get chewed out a lot, it's not because the media is liberal or conservatively biased, it's because of them.

 

[verbatim]

Also

Also adding this video... listen to the last thing Mika says. Nice of them to be transparent about their role
[video here]

Here's a quote by the 2nd (or 3rd depending on who you ask) person in charge of the executive branch, and effectively the United States.

The end result of this, though, is that our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned.

Every single person I have talked to about this, which has been predominantly Republican, has expressed fear at this statement, because of how draconian it is.

The United States is three branches of government with a series of checks and balances on one another to try to prevent any totalitarian attitudes.

The idea that not only the other two branches of government, but the PEOPLE that voted for the president WILL not be allowed to think about what the president is doing is why people on both sides of the aisle, but especially independents, keep making comparrisons to Russia, or Turkey, or 1984, or North Korea, etc.

 

[EV]

This meme I think sums up the relationship between the media and Trump

But he is a fascist ?_?

 

[y2zipper]

Where Trump is interesting is that he's a television celebrity and I think we're unfortunately going to see more of that given the U.S. election is essentially a likeability and popularity contest that has little or nothing to do with substiantive policy. Trump essentially got more media coverage than any candidate without spending the money because he had a television show and people watched him all the time.

This election was about how much people disliked Hillary. Neither candidate was liked and the base that Obama won twice with stayed home instead of voting for Trump or Hillary. Obama is more of a unique person in politics in that people like him a lot. In fact, I'd say that people like him more than his actual policies.

But without turning this into a Trump thread, I think that all the talk of celebrities being the "monarchy" here in the United States is going to turn more of them toward politics.

 

[Ortheore]

Where Trump is interesting is that he's a television celebrity and I think we're unfortunately going to see more of that given the U.S. election is essentially a likeability and popularity contest that has little or nothing to do with substiantive policy. Trump essentially got more media coverage than any candidate without spending the money because he had a television show and people watched him all the time.

This election was about how much people disliked Hillary. Neither candidate was liked and the base that Obama won twice with stayed home instead of voting for Trump or Hillary. Obama is more of a unique person in politics in that people like him a lot. In fact, I'd say that people like him more than his actual policies.

But without turning this into a Trump thread, I think that all the talk of celebrities being the "monarchy" here in the United States is going to turn more of them toward politics.

so we can expect Kanye to be the next us president? On a similar note, if you've seen the clip where that Stephen Miller quote Verbatim posted is from you know it's delivered exactly as cartoonishly sinister as it is to read.

On a more serious note, the question of media bias vs trump genuinely being objectionable is perhaps best resolved by examining the media response when trump actually does something right, like deliver a speech that isn't bat-shit insane. Personally I think both sides of the argument hold valid points so w/e.

 

[thesecondbest]

But he is a fascist ?_?

OK, that's what you think. Then don't pretend you're not biased against him. Also, I didn't know decreasing government regulations and taxes was the fascist thing to do now. Do people even know what fascism is besides "whatever we disagree with"?

 

[Blazade]

The things you're talking about are kind of orthogonal. It's possible, nay probable for each individual to cherry pick something they like about Trump's policy, and for many liberals, probably even easier to pick a handful of things they disagree with. But the idea that Trump is a fascist tends to come from the overtly authoritarian tone (heavy authoritarianism being the common denominator under all definitions I'm aware of) he and his administration have carried themselves with since even before getting elected. Even with lockstep support from Congress he isn't a dictator, but he clearly wants to be and this isn't even going into specific policy. History has taught us that it's important to watch for the signs of dangerous behavior in government early, and to be careful not to normalize it when it happens.

It's a little more complicated than "I think he's a fascist" -> "I'm so biased I'm against everything he does". There are underlying thoughts and arguments that cause someone to disagree with him or that cause someone to think he's a fascist and those ideas are the ones worth discussing. A member of a party should be able to be critical without appearing weak/antagonistic (if they are on/opposing that party respectively) but in the current climate of discussion that doesn't seem to be the case.

With respect to the media it goes both ways. The media needs to pander to the people that are freaking out with clickbait titles and it's kind of gotten disgusting but by and large there is still very much a content rigor gap between more established journalism and other sources like Breitbart, and imo Trump's fake news allegations are either shameless lying and discrediting of actual evidence and information to protect his narrative and reputation, (30000000 illegal zombies voted for hillary on buses and they kidnapped my inauguration crowd) or amazement that the policies he has put forth haven't gone over as well as he thought they would (usually ends up being a large disagreement on opinion starting at the root of what Trump assumes wrt national security, the economy, or what have you compared to his critics that could be a real discussion if the president ever decided to give ground on literally any topic of conversation)

On topic, I think the answer could be different depending on if Trump decides to drag us into a war, which imo probably wins him another election then loses the Republicans the next one and the cycle starts again (the swingier outcome) or if he continues on like this, in which we'll have normalized a lot of his bullshit over the course of 4 years and elections should proceed similarly with subtle, but noticeable differences in rhetoric and candidate choice, and hopefully a large restructuring of media coverage during election time.

 

[EV]

OK, that's what you think. Then don't pretend you're not biased against him. Also, I didn't know decreasing government regulations and taxes was the fascist thing to do now. Do people even know what fascism is besides "whatever we disagree with"?

Who said I ever pretended not to be biased? Are you not biased?

Also please define fascism for us.

 

[EV]

Also, please for the love of god stop wasting my taxes on Mar a Lago. After this weekend Trump will have spent ~30% of his "presidency" in Florida.

Fuckin tropical ass fascist.

 

[thesecondbest]

Who said I ever pretended not to be biased? Are you not biased?

Also please define fascism for us.

The whole point of the meme is he calls them biased because they call him a fascist, which is why he's against the MSM. So I guess you agree with my point then.

Fascism is "a political system headed by a dictator in which the government controls business and labor and opposition is not permitted" according to Merriam Webster. Fascism ranges from Lenin on the left, Hitler in the middle, and Mussolini on the right. Trump is decreasing the size of government, that is the opposite of being fascist lol

 

[Soul Fly]

Fascism is "a political system headed by a dictator in which the government controls business and labor and opposition is not permitted" according to Merriam Webster.

you're right!

The Trump administration has ZERO conflicts of interest with the Trump empire and has never breached laws and ethics to help promulgate their monopoly over various business enterprises. It has also never tried to manipulate labor or artificially limit or eliminate certain segments of the market - like green energy for instance.

The Trump administration also civilly and moderately engages with political and media opponents and critics. For instance you could only call him a fascist say if he were to do something completely retarded and unrealistic like banning certain press outlets from press briefings, aggressively controlling and denying information, savagely and violently attacking political opponents without any evidence, and committing regular perjury and lying to stymie opposition.

Who are we kidding!!!!!!!!! He would never do that. THIS IS AMERICA!!!!!!!

PS: Also a non-fascist president intent on "decreasing the size of the government" will NEVER EVER actually expand a governmental department [say for instance the I.C.E?] and divert resources to create a special office just to explicitly investigate and monitor refugees and immigrants. That's what Hitler did. Why are all these cucks even getting salty. salty liberal tears amirite or what brooooo....


You are legitimately a horrible presence on this forum and have never managed to fail to ruin a thread.

 

[Soul Fly]

Also double posting, but fuck it, it's not like this thread is a paragon of standards at the moment.

Everyone who will expend their sweat and tears arguing with walls on this thread should take this quote to heart.

After this if you have the energy and attention span to trawl through a brief article on the internet I would suggest reading this. The effects of this are highly visible in this thread.

Want to Make a Lie Seem True? Say It Again. And Again. And Again