It's today then ... (Trump thread)

[Factotum]

I saw some idiot Cabinet Minister the other day say we didn't necessarily need a US trade deal. I mean I know the Cabinet is useless at the moment, but surely we can get some cardboard cut outs that will do a better job

[David]

Sadly, I think that even if Trump is eventually forced to concede and admit defeat, it's not the last we'll see of him. Any hopes that come January he'd vacate and go back to doing whatever it is that Trump did before his run at the White House look to be misguided.

If the Republicans maintain a hold on the Senate you can bet your bottom dollar that Trump will be pulling strings and getting up to his usual nonsense, especially as there's rumours of him running again in 2024, and even if he's not he'll basically be the "kingmaker" in whoever stands for the Republican party by the looks of it.

It's going to be really interesting I think, with a whole bunch of ways it could all play out, and surprisingly, Trump stands to benefit somewhat from most of the scenarios.

If the Republicans hold the Senate he'll be able to work behind the scenes to ensure that Biden's presidency is as ineffective as possible, allowing him to run in 2024 with potentially a good chance of success.

If the Dems take the Senate and are able to implement the changes they wish to carry out, they risk upsetting a decent chunk of the voters who "held their nose" and voted Biden to remove Trump after the latter had a horrendous time during the COVID pandemic. Would that result in some of those voters switching back to Trump in 2024? You can bet Trump will be vocal as fuck in the next four years in rallying the troops and maintaining an element of discontent.

In reality, this is the perfect time for a "caretaker" president, isn't it? The political landscape is a shitshow, he'll have his own people pressing him to implement more liberal policies, but he'll have to be careful of alienating too many of those unsure voters he nabbed this time around for fear they could switch in 2024.

It makes me think of an adult trying desperately to tidy up a sitting room while a child runs around after him trashing the place and smashing shit up. You can try to tidy up as much as you like, but so long as that child is still relevant and in the same room you're pretty much fucked.

[Pinc]

No one expects Trump to disappear. He's essentially the most famous human being who ever lived at this point, and certainly the most famous alive. That won't go away over night, especially as Biden's victory fell short of an unequivocal repudiation of Trump or Trumpism.

What will change when he leaves office is the media's obligation to cover everything he says. He'll certainly continue making a lot of noise, and you'd imagine Fox will dance to his tune for a while longer. But the other networks seem tired of him, and genuinely repentant about the role they played in giving him free "earned" publicity in the early days of his 2016 campaign. Giving him and his events undue prominence because the freak show attracted viewers in large numbers, and thereby contributing to his rise.

His removal from office also removes his freedom from censure by Twitter, who have been extremely lenient with him on the grounds that as the leader of the free world it would be anti-democratic to suspend or ban him from their platform. As a regular citizen he'll fall foul of their Terms & Conditions pretty quickly if he continues his familiar unrestrained style. I don't think he'd just jump to another platform like Parler either. The presence he's built for himself on Twitter will be impossible to reproduce elsewhere and he and his people will surely recognise that. He needs Twitter more than Twitter needs him.

So certainly he's not going away completely. He'll remain a Republican figurehead and there's a chance he runs again in 2024. But there are good reasons to expect his reach to be much diminished by losing the Presidency.

[SuperBacon]

Maybe he'll die soon? I bet the coronavirus ravaged his cheeseburger heart and gravy filled veins.

[Chest Rockwell]

I don't think he's going to drop dead dramatically any time soon but I would question whether he'll be healthy enough to run in 4 years.

[David]

8 minutes ago, Pinc said:

What will change when he leaves office is the media's obligation to cover everything he says. He'll certainly continue making a lot of noise, and you'd imagine Fox will dance to his tune for a while longer. But the other networks seem tired of him, and genuinely repentant about the role they played in giving him free "earned" publicity in the early days of his 2016 campaign. Giving him and his events undue prominence because the freak show attracted viewers in large numbers, and thereby contributing to his rise.

His removal from office also removes his freedom from censure by Twitter, who have been extremely lenient with him on the grounds that as the leader of the free world it would be anti-democratic to suspend or ban him from their platform. As a regular citizen he'll fall foul of their Terms & Conditions pretty quickly if he continues his familiar unrestrained style. I don't think he'd just jump to another platform like Parler either. The presence he's built for himself on Twitter will be impossible to reproduce elsewhere and he and his people will surely recognise that. He needs Twitter more than Twitter needs him.

I actually think that he'll be banking on Twitter and other social platforms censoring him. His entire presidency has been built on the notion that big tech, the media with its "fake news" and so forth are doing their best to destroy the good ol' working man of America while pandering to elites. 

Also, as I said earlier, I don't think Trump's success is built on Twitter. I'm not buying the idea that the majority of his voters are on social platforms of any kind. They don't seem the type from the demographics that I've seen. 

His success is built on covering the ground, holding the rallies, and getting in front of huge crowds of people, most of whom believe Twitter is a liberal brainwashing playground anyway, don't they?

How this Senate situation plays out will be interesting, but again, I don't see how he can lose from either scenario really. 

5 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

I don't think he's going to drop dead dramatically any time soon but I would question whether he'll be healthy enough to run in 4 years.

I'd never wish death on anyone, but hoping he isn't fit to run in four years is probably the best course of action, because if he's still relevant and fit enough to do the job I don't think he's going to lose to an opponent who will likely be a non-white woman. 

Sad as it is, Biden managed to win votes this time around that I don't think the Dems would have gotten if it wasn't a wealthy old white guy who was in that position.

[Pinc]

23 minutes ago, David said:

I actually think that he'll be banking on Twitter and other social platforms censoring him. His entire presidency has been built on the notion that big tech, the media with its "fake news" and so forth are doing their best to destroy the good ol' working man of America while pandering to elites. 

Eh, I suppose so. But the same is true for Alex Jones and a whole ecosystem of lesser ghouls, and de-platforming them off the big social media sites seems to have worked in limiting their influence. I think its an under-acknowledged factor in Trump's election defeat actually. If Trump wants to play brinksmanship with Twitter's Ts&Cs he may well end up regretting it.

[BomberPat]

yeah, the overwhelming evidence is that no-platforming does work. If he's not on Twitter, and the "mainstream media" don't continue to fawn over him and his supporters (a big if), his influence will dry up. Not to the extent that it has for Alex Jones or Milo whatshischops, because he was a far bigger player than either of them before he was ever president, but enough to create a dent in his popularity, and his reach.

The danger of no-platforming, in my opinion, is that it might do away with the individual, but not the idea. Similar to the "Give Them Enough Rope" argument for allowing these people a platform, people always point to Nick Griffin on Question Time as killing his political career - that may be true, but it didn't exactly refute his politics in the public eye, or quell the rising far-right influence on British politics that he represented, did it? 

The thing with Trump, though, is that there's no real frame of reference. He's not the same thing as a Katie Hopkins or an Alex Jones - if for no other reason than that he won. But he's also not really equivalent to another former president - he's not going to retire off to a relatively low profile life of book deals, private speaking engagements and charity work, or while away his final years painting pictures of dogs. It's unchartered territory.

[Jazzy G]

It'll be interesting to see whether he does go ahead with the rumoured setting up his own "news" network. That'd be the only way I could see him managing to remain consistently in the public eye. 

[Chest Rockwell]

16 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

The danger of no-platforming, in my opinion, is that it might do away with the individual, but not the idea. Similar to the "Give Them Enough Rope" argument for allowing these people a platform, people always point to Nick Griffin on Question Time as killing his political career - that may be true, but it didn't exactly refute his politics in the public eye, or quell the rising far-right influence on British politics that he represented, did it? 

That's why you have to do both though. You can't get rid of the idea whilst its biggest proponent is loudly banging their drum. The problem is that no-one ever bothers doing the other part because squeaky wheel and all.. 

[David]

6 minutes ago, Pinc said:

Eh, I suppose so. But the same is true for Alex Jones and a whole ecosystem of lesser ghouls, and de-platforming them off the big social media sites seems to have worked in limiting their influence. I think its an under-acknowledged factor in Trump's election defeat actually. If Trump wants to play brinksmanship with Twitter's Ts&Cs he may well end up regretting it.

Yeah, but Alex Jones is a non-entity. He's a fringe figure with a weird, cult following. Trump is a heavyweight political player who has around 70 million people willing to put their X next to his name.

I honestly believe that he'd see no-platforming as a positive, as it gives him more ammunition for his cause when he's talking about "fake news" and all of that shite.

7 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

yeah, the overwhelming evidence is that no-platforming does work. If he's not on Twitter, and the "mainstream media" don't continue to fawn over him and his supporters (a big if), his influence will dry up. Not to the extent that it has for Alex Jones or Milo whatshischops, because he was a far bigger player than either of them before he was ever president, but enough to create a dent in his popularity, and his reach.

The mainstream media will cover him though. I mean, sure, the likes of the New York Times and CNN may give him less ticker time, but those platforms aren't where Trump voters go to find their news. The NYT and CNN know their audience and pander to that demographic. 

The truth is, all mainstream media outlets are businesses. They are in the business of making money, and that's done via clicks, buys, and viewers. Trump brings all of those, so they won't cut him loose on some sort of moral basis. The cunts who run these large media companies aren't going to "do what's right," that's for sure.

9 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

The danger of no-platforming, in my opinion, is that it might do away with the individual, but not the idea. Similar to the "Give Them Enough Rope" argument for allowing these people a platform, people always point to Nick Griffin on Question Time as killing his political career - that may be true, but it didn't exactly refute his politics in the public eye, or quell the rising far-right influence on British politics that he represented, did it?

There's only one way to negate the effect of the idea behind "Trumpism" and that's for a proper politician such as Joe Biden to honestly and properly address the concerns of the vast majority of the tens of millions who voted Trump.

And by that I don't mean the fringe lunatics who also subscribe to Alex Jones. They'll always be there is small numbers.

I know the knee jerk reaction is for most people to gloat and talk about putting Trump voters "back in their boxes" but we all know that kind of approach never ends well. 

Biden, if he's serious about healing the United States, and representing all Americans, has to address those legitimate concerns that have driven middle-of-the-road conservative voters to back Trump. 

Carrying out sweeping liberal reform isn't going to do that, so he's going to have to walk that fine line between angering those who voted for him, while trying to win over the majority of those 70 million who voted against him. 

It's a near-impossible job I think, but it's the only way I see the relative calm of close to normal returning.

16 minutes ago, BomberPat said:

The thing with Trump, though, is that there's no real frame of reference. He's not the same thing as a Katie Hopkins or an Alex Jones - if for no other reason than that he won. But he's also not really equivalent to another former president - he's not going to retire off to a relatively low profile life of book deals, private speaking engagements and charity work, or while away his final years painting pictures of dogs. It's unchartered territory.

Absolutely. He's going to come back, and if he isn't physically able I have a feeling we'll see a run from someone else named Trump in four years, and if they have his backing then they'll go far. Which is why, unless we want to all be shitting ourselves every four years, someone with the political know-how like Biden needs to step in and calm the waters.

Now isn't the time to gloat and mock the Trump "losers" who voted for him. That's the kind of shit I'd expect from the more deluded among his fanbase. It's time to knock this shit on the head and for everyone to grow the fuck up.

[Chest Rockwell]

5 minutes ago, David said:

The truth is, all mainstream media outlets are businesses. They are in the business of making money, and that's done via clicks, buys, and viewers. Trump brings all of those, so they won't cut him loose on some sort of moral basis. The cunts who run these large media companies aren't going to "do what's right," that's for sure

If you want to talk about the outlet where his fans get their information from you have to be specific. Talk about Fox, and the fact that it's is a propaganda arm for the Republican party. If the party decides it's beneficial to part ways with Trump then they'll fall in line. Even if they still feature him to get clicks they sure won't be covering his ass the way they have done since he won the nomination 4 years ago. So that again reduces his influence. Sll of these things together reduce his ability to reach new followers, so with the natural attrition effect on his existing fanbase the net effect is a reduction in followers and influence.

[Carbomb]

Another thing to bear in mind about things like no-platforming and other such methods is that, like with so much in life in general, it can't just be a general rule: it needs to be applied on a case-by-case basis. People like Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos built their profiles and livelihoods on their political vomiting in a relatively short space of time, so no-platforming them took away their "oxygen" pretty quickly. Trump, on the other hand, had a long-standing celeb profile since the 70s from his media activity, his existing wealth, and his establishment amongst the US' and New York's wealthy families. 

Even if Trump were to be de-platformed, he's already known to hundreds of millions of people as an established member of the US' rich - in that sense, he has long-term social approbation, something the others didn't have. And that's not taking into account that it's probably not possible to de-platform him - even if he gets chucked off Twitter, he has the means and the connections to get exposure one way or the other, whether it's through the print press or the broadcast media.

[David]

2 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

If the party decides it's beneficial to part ways with Trump then they'll fall in line.

But most indications suggest this won't happen. There's a reason why key party figures are going out of their way to back him. From the off they're going to need his support to secure the Senate most likely, and those who you would figure may want him gone so they can grab the spotlight aren't making those kinds of noises.

Marco Rubio, for example. He's got designs on 2024, and he knows that without the backing from Trump he'll find it difficult to garner the same level of support that Trump did this time around. 

Honestly, while most Republicans would love to part ways with Trump, they know deep down that doing so would see the party weakened substantially. Like it or not, this election was Donald Trump vs the Democrats. The Republican party as a whole was just along for the ride.

13 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

If you want to talk about the outlet where his fans get their information from you have to be specific. Talk about Fox, and the fact that it's is a propaganda arm for the Republican party. Even if they still feature him to get clicks they sure won't be covering his ass the way they have done since he won the nomination 4 years ago.

I've read claims from some who believe that when Trump is finally gone from the white House it could potentially allow him to see more coverage in the mainstream media than ever before. As President he had to step back, but what's to stop him becoming a regular on news channels of his choice? Or from even launching his own news network and featuring prominently on that? 

Could you imagine FOX News turning down the chance to have Trump on their show, live, offering his "expert analysis" on the Biden presidency every week or so? It doesn't bear thinking about.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The way to negate Trump, and more importantly what he stands for, is by addressing the issues many who voted for him have and remove the need and desire for someone like him, not to try and ban our way to a solution.

[Chest Rockwell]

4 minutes ago, David said:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The way to negate Trump, and more importantly what he stands for, is by addressing the issues many who voted for him have and remove the need and desire for someone like him, not to try and ban our way to a solution.

You don't need to say it again because no-one has disagreed with this part.