Trump presidency predictions

User Forum Topic
Submitted by zk on December 8, 2016 - 2:37pm

Let's hear your predictions for trump's presidency. In 4 (or, god forbid, 8) years, we'll see who was right. Some of my predictions are on these threads:

http://piggington.com/its_bad_day_human_...

http://piggington.com/ot_predictions_201...

and I'll make some more here soon.

In the mean time, if any of you trump voters are actually bold enough to predict good things, let's see it right here where we can all access it in 4 years.

Submitted by zk on January 23, 2017 - 8:21pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
Good point ZK. Trump's talk doesn't match his cabinet and perhaps the policies of his administration.

As far a Supreme Court picks, I'm ok with sending issues back to the states. States that pursue retrograde policies would lose population and business. People will vote with their feet. Plus on important issues, people need something to be passionate about and fight at the legislative level. I'm ok with the Supreme Court overturning Roe v wade and gay marriage. Congress and the states would fix it.

You make an interesting point.

I don't know about those states losing population and business, though. Some people might move to those states. And good for them, if that's what they want. Sucks for the people that live there and don't want those policies, but that's no different from living in America and not wanting trump for president. Sucks, but we have to deal with it.

But I'm not sure that "sending issues back to the states" is the biggest difference between a conservative and a liberal judge.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 24, 2017 - 11:35am.

The world is changing and talented people all want to live in first tier metros. They won't stay in small and mid towns. It may suck for people in cities like Raleigh, NC or Bloomington, IN. But let them drive out the vote and change their states. Let the states change from within rather than have them resist change imposed from the Feds.

I would say that most talented, educated people prefer liberal metros and states. Perhaps 30 - 45% may be Republican because they want lower taxes and regulations for themselves. Essentially, they conflate what is good for some individuals to what is best for the aggregate.

They'll say "look at Texas or Arizona." But I don't see 'm guys hauling ass to the red states. 'Em people who do are the ones who can't make it in Cali, so good riddance, we need more room for talented immigrants.

Submitted by zk on January 24, 2017 - 10:26pm.

I didn't see this coming, but I probably should have:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKB...

Can't have all that pesky information so readily available to the public.

Do any of you trump voters agree with this move? Can you explain why? Can you explain how this is good for the people in any way?

Oh wait, I forgot. Nobody here will admit they even voted for trump. Except maybe bg, and we haven't heard from her since the election.

Didn't trump say in his inauguration speech that, starting now, the power is being transferred to the people? This move proves that claim to be total BS.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 24, 2017 - 11:54pm.

Zk, i take comfort reading Garrison Keillor's columns.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...

Here's another proof that Trumpadors are stupid and gullible:

I had dinner with my cousin tonight. Very logical PhD in bioscience. We were talking about the wapo piece about how "dignity" made Trump president. His voters wanted to regain "dignity."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos...

Dignity? WTF!? These demographics voted for Reagan over a decent, compassionate guy. Reagan deregulated. Duh! What did they think would happen? Now these guys support Trump who wants to reregulate and erect barriers while deregulating at the same time. All for dignity? stupid idiots. I don't think they have any dignity.

Submitted by zk on January 25, 2017 - 9:31am.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post...

Another day, another stupid move by trump.

He wants to waste taxpayer money to chase his fantasy that he won the popular vote? Any of you trump voters want him spending your money to do that?

Submitted by spdrun on January 25, 2017 - 9:35am.

He won. He's President. Why does he care?

Honestly, his word salad, delusions, and paranoia smell of early stage senile dementia.

Submitted by zk on January 25, 2017 - 10:09am.

spdrun wrote:

He won. He's President. Why does he care?

He cares (as much as he does) because he's mentally ill. He cares because he's a narcissist. Not a narcissist in the, "my sister talks about herself all the time; she's a narcissist," nor in the "Bob thinks he's the greatest; he's such a narcissist" sense. More in the medically diagnosable sense. Losing the popular vote does not result in the status/admiration that he needs. Losing the popular vote is probably impossible to take for him.

spdrun wrote:

Honestly, his word salad, delusions, and paranoia smell of early stage senile dementia.

Yeah, they kinda do. But it seems to me he's always been that way.

Submitted by zk on January 25, 2017 - 10:07am.

I predict that trump's narcissism will have much more serious consequences in the future than a desire to spend taxpayer money to boost his ego. I predict that, at some point, he'll fly into a narcissistic rage when somebody or something or everybody or everything doesn't agree with him. It might not be the end of civilization as we know it (although that could happen, too), but it will be bad.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 25, 2017 - 12:36pm.

ZK, there is one advantage to Trump. His supporters went Trump or bust. If he wins then all is well and everyone happy. If bust, then we'll be rid of the Trumpadors. Win-win for America.

An analogy would that that in a rising market, everyone is happy. Better make sure you have plan B during crash. I don't think Trumpadors have Plan B.

Submitted by zk on January 25, 2017 - 1:03pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
If bust, then we'll be rid of the Trumpadors. Win-win for America.

That depends on the magnitude of the bust.

If there's, say, a trade war that causes an economic crash that will take a decade or more to fix, or, god forbid he goads North Korea into nuking us, or his inept administration can't keep terrorists from nuking us, or we end up at war with China, (this list really could go on and on...so many bad scenarios) then it's not a win-win.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 25, 2017 - 1:59pm.

That's true, ZK. Mentally ill Trump and mentally ill Kim going at each other would be bad.

My cousin made a good point last night. He said that people voted for Trump because they are not able to detach their own "dignity" from policy. Plus people inherently think that resources are finite so they cannot see win-win. Trumpadors see the Chinese getting rich and buying houses in USA, so somehow they feel "ripped off" of something that is "rightfully theirs.". They can't see that the Chinese getting rich is good for us because we can trade more with them. Win -win.

They think the 1950s were better because, at that time, the white man was relatively more powerful than all the other groups, although in real terms he was poorer than he is today. People judge themselves in relation to others. That's where the feeling of relevance and dignity comes from. They want to be big fish in small pond. Very parochial thinking. So a wealthy globalized world is hard for people to comprehend and embrace.

Ideally, people need to realize that, individually, they are no big deal. They shouldn't feel jealous or envious of other people (I think Bible teaches that). Other people doing well, or rising faster is actually good for humanity.

In the competitive world of NY real estate, Trump also doesn't believe in win-win. A deal that he gets means someone else lost. So he's a perfect match for his supporters.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 25, 2017 - 10:11pm.

zk wrote:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...

Another day, another stupid move by trump.

He wants to waste taxpayer money to chase his fantasy that he won the popular vote? Any of you trump voters want him spending your money to do that?

Thinking about this more, reading more articles, it's a smart move on Trump's part.

His supporters believe deep down that their country has been "taken away" from them. Trump is there to restore the rightful ownership. Trump is setting the stage for when he fails, he can blame it on the rigged establishment. His supporters will go to their graves believing their country has been "stolen."

Submitted by flu on January 25, 2017 - 10:59pm.

Lol... Rap battle between Hillary and Trump....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kbryz0mxuMY

Submitted by zk on January 26, 2017 - 10:33pm.

Another day, another stupid action by trump.

He tweets:

"If Mexico is unwilling to pay for the badly needed wall, then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting."

Why would he tweet something that has no upside but plenty of downside?

Is he too simple to understand a better way to go about it?

Is he not aware how it will be taken?

Does he just want to poke Nieto because he (trump) can't resist poking someone?

I think it's worse than those. I think he's too lazy to put any effort into the situation. I'm going to put more effort into this post on my break at work than I think he has put into the United States' relationship with Mexico.

He operates on impulse. There's no plan. There's no thought. There's no weighing of factors. There's no strategy. There's no studying the information. There's no effort at all.

Just an impulse and a tweet.

That's no way to run a country. This presidency won't end well.

Submitted by flu on January 26, 2017 - 10:49pm.

Here's a much better solution to pay for the wall.... Lol

https://www.gofundme.com/thewallforpopul...


The purpose of this fundraiser is to raise $12 billion USD among Trump supporters and Populists who support Donald Trump and the POTUS's interest in building "The Wall" between the United States and Mexico border.

"The Wall" is estimated to cost $12Billion USD. This fundraiser is intended to crowd source the required funds for this public works project among the only people in the United States that want "The Wall" built: the POTUS, Republicans, Trump Supporters, and Populists. Crowdsourcing the funds for "The Wall" is the most efficient means of ensuring that this public works project is funded by the people who really want it, and only by the people who really want it.

There were approximately 59million people that voted for the POTUS and "The Wall". Your fair share is $204 USD.

Borrowing and slightly modifying a phrase once used:
"If you like your Wall, you can keep it... Period... (and pay for it).
Help spread the word!

Submitted by outtamojo on January 26, 2017 - 10:56pm.

Getting Mexico to pay for the wall should be easy- just hire contractors from Mexico and stiff them on the payment. Iotw, business as usual for Mr. Trump.

Submitted by zk on January 26, 2017 - 11:15pm.

flu wrote:
Here's a much better solution to pay for the wall....

https://www.gofundme.com/thewallforpopul...

Oh, that's beautiful.

We should wager on how much they end up getting. Is there a minimum donation? I should donate 18 cents just to be the first one. I'll see if it's not too late when I get home.

$0.18 down, $11,999,999,999.82 to go!

Submitted by spdrun on January 26, 2017 - 11:19pm.

10 billion Zimbabwe dollars.

Submitted by flu on January 26, 2017 - 11:26pm.

Actually, the way to properly do this is to sell raffle tickets.

Maybe make each raffle tickets $300...

The grand prize would be you are income tax exempt for 4 years
The 1st place prize would be you are income tax exempt for 3 years
The 2nd place prize would be you are income tax exempt for 2 years
The 3rd place prize would be you are income tax exempt for 1 year

The can also sell sponsorship tiles. For $100 each, you can design a ceramic tile with your name, etc, and that tile will be placed along the Wall after it is completed

Submitted by ltsdd on January 26, 2017 - 11:37pm.

zk wrote:
flu wrote:
Here's a much better solution to pay for the wall....

https://www.gofundme.com/thewallforpopul...

Oh, that's beautiful.

We should wager on how much they end up getting. Is there a minimum donation? I should donate 18 cents just to be the first one. I'll see if it's not too late when I get home.

$0.18 down, $11,999,999,999.82 to go!

Someone is calling out trump's supporters...to put their money where their mouth is...noted that he/she even did the math for them by figuring out what each of their share is.

Submitted by zk on January 26, 2017 - 11:43pm.

spdrun wrote:
10 billion Zimbabwe dollars.

You can't donate 10 billion Zimbabwe dollars, because the minimum, it turns out, is a dollar (U.S.)

It wouldn't let me donate less than a dollar, so I'm out.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 27, 2017 - 4:07pm.

It's probably a scam and someone will pocket the money.

But let him bulld the wall. Anyone who's been on a hike across unimproved terrain knows that it's much easier to cross where there are access roads and trails.

I would donate to charities who feed and help immigrants on their journeys.

Submitted by zk on January 27, 2017 - 6:28pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
It's probably a scam and someone will pocket the money.

But let him bulld the wall. Anyone who's been on a hike across unimproved terrain knows that it's much easier to cross where there are access roads and trails.

I would donate to charities who feed and help immigrants on their journeys.

I don't think it's a scam so much as a joke. Not a joke as in a pathetic, silly thing that should be laughed at, but rather a joke as in an intentional attempt at humor (and a successful attempt, if you ask me). To make fun of the wall and its supporters and the idea that anyone believed Mexico would pay for it.

I don't think there'll be any money. Not enough to matter, anyway.

Submitted by zk on January 27, 2017 - 7:06pm.

Well, it's gone now. I guess gofundme doesn't take to jokes too well. As it should be.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 28, 2017 - 12:49am.

flu has a sharp money making mind. Maybe he created the funding drive.

Submitted by AN on January 29, 2017 - 12:50pm.

flu, now that I think about it, if this was proposed and implemented with Obamacare (i.e. those who voted for Obama cover the cost instead of forcing the middle class to do it), we might not be talking about Trump right now and the stupid wall or the ban.

Submitted by flu on January 29, 2017 - 6:49pm.

AN wrote:
flu, now that I think about it, if this was proposed and implemented with Obamacare (i.e. those who voted for Obama cover the cost instead of forcing the middle class to do it), we might not be talking about Trump right now and the stupid wall or the ban.

True, but at the same time, there were alternatives to healthcare. There's no alternative to "no wall". If our government wants to enforce immigration laws, fine. i don't see how a wall is very helpful, considering like in SD we already have one or two. It would be interesting though that if we adopted a crowd sourcing model of funding certain projects. For example, people that want a high speed train could contribute and those that didn't don't. Those that contribute would pay a much reduced rate for use. And those that didn't well, would pay a lot for it once it's done.

Submitted by AN on January 29, 2017 - 7:30pm.

flu wrote:
AN wrote:
flu, now that I think about it, if this was proposed and implemented with Obamacare (i.e. those who voted for Obama cover the cost instead of forcing the middle class to do it), we might not be talking about Trump right now and the stupid wall or the ban.

True, but at the same time, there were alternatives to healthcare. There's no alternative to "no wall". If our government wants to enforce immigration laws, fine. i don't see how a wall is very helpful, considering like in SD we already have one or two. It would be interesting though that if we adopted a crowd sourcing model of funding certain projects. For example, people that want a high speed train could contribute and those that didn't don't. Those that contribute would pay a much reduced rate for use. And those that didn't well, would pay a lot for it once it's done.

I totally agree. But at least it takes one of his voters' main reason for voting for him. Whether it would have made a difference, who knows, but I would think it would. But no one will know. We are where we are because of the decision the politicians made over the last 8 years. Remember, "Election have consequences" and "I have the pen and the phone"? Yep, we're now in pen and phone overdrive. Not only that, Dems used the nuclear option and now, Rep only needed 51 votes to confirm Trump's nominees. Thank you very much.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 29, 2017 - 8:13pm.

AN wrote:
flu, now that I think about it, if this was proposed and implemented with Obamacare (i.e. those who voted for Obama cover the cost instead of forcing the middle class to do it), we might not be talking about Trump right now and the stupid wall or the ban.

Humm some twisted logic.

I'd gladly pay for Obamacare if Bush voters paid for the wars and the constant paranoia and chasing terrorism that isn't there, which creates more terrorism and more paranoia.

After 8 years of Bush I was glad to have Obama. Lose followed by win.
I can understand you didn't like Obama, but it sounds like you don't like Trump either. Lose then lose more.

I could deal with Bush but people who voted for Trump better makes amends soon or carry that burden to their graves. If people think Trump is so good, I dare them to defend their votes to their children and grandchildren. I am disowning any friend or relative who voted for Trump and dares to defend that vote. They'd better forever stay mum, hide the shame, and stain on the family.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on January 29, 2017 - 8:33pm.

flu wrote:
It would be interesting though that if we adopted a crowd sourcing model of funding certain projects. For example, people that want a high speed train could contribute and those that didn't don't. Those that contribute would pay a much reduced rate for use. And those that didn't well, would pay a lot for it once it's done.

How about crowd funding the military? When the UN black helicopters come in to take away my guns, they can have them.

Crowd finding public education would good too. I wouldn't need to pay my property taxes anymore. That would be nice.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.