Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Midlife · 24-07-2018 3:11pm

ELM327 wrote: »

But... but... all the liberals told me anyone is better than Trump? :P

I'm curious. You're pro-gay rights, pro-abortion and you don't agree with his economic policy.

Why?

Water John · 24-07-2018 3:17pm

It's funny seeing pro Trump posters having a discussion here with each other as to who the Dems should choose to run against Trump.
Are you in a game of bluff or double bluff? Let's get a bit real and focus on the mid terms, less than 100 days away, on Nov 1st 2018.

Professor Moriarty · 24-07-2018 3:18pm

ELM327 wrote: »

But... but... all the liberals told me anyone is better than Trump? :P

They're right. Charles Manson would be better than Trump.

Leroy42 · 24-07-2018 3:19pm

ELM327 wrote: »

But... but... all the liberals told me anyone is better than Trump? :P

Anyone is better than Trump. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether the candidate can break the cult like following of enough people.

Trump proved that being the better candidate is not necessary.

kilns wrote: »

Dems need a candidate that would get the whole country behind him, like Obama in his first election

But politics being politics in the US, favours will be called in and money talks and I would not be surprised if its Hillary again, btw she shouldnt be let near it again, she is the reason Trump is President

Whole country? What like Trump did? Why are you putting these conditions on the Dems when none of it was there for Trump.

The Dems need to be organised, the Dems need to be aligned, they need a leader to get the whole country behind them.

No they don't. It would be nice, but Trump showed that the trick is to win, being right, or even having policies that make sense beyond a soundbite is not important.

HC won the popular vote, and Trump is doing nothing to increase his reach. As is said numerous times, he is talking to his base, he makes decisions based on what he thinks works with his base. So He can only fall in terms of votes.

All the Dems need to do is turn some of those disenfranchised Trump voters either to Dem voter or non voters, and if they can get more of their vote out they win.

A sitting POTUS normally has the advantage, but in Trumps case nearly all of the potential issues brought up about him (lack of experience, lack of policies, lack of ethics etc) have been shown to be valid.

Add to that the movement of the Russia probe from mere suggestion to a full blown investigation with Flynn, Manafort and others caught up in it.

Also, a big star for Trump was Ivanka. Many people, wrongly, gave her the benefit that she would be a good influence on her Dad (no idea why they ever thought that). That has been shown to be totally wrong, so that another cohort lost.

ELM327 · 24-07-2018 3:23pm

Water John wrote: »

It's funny seeing pro Trump posters having a discussion here with each other as to who the Dems should choose to run against Trump.
Are you in a game of bluff or double bluff? Let's get a bit real and focus on the mid terms, less than 100 days away, on Nov 1st 2018.

I'm pro trump, but I'm also an avid fan of political theory in general.
It will be interesting to see how the democrats approach the next election.

spacecoyote · 24-07-2018 3:23pm

Was listening to a bit of Morning Joe the other day. It can be a bit tedious at times, but he made quite a few good points.

Basically that Trumps core are the minority. They always were, and continue to be. Trump won by pulling in enough of the independent/swing voter/silent majority.

But nobody is talking about them anymore, its all about Trumps core & how they will keep backing him. But he can't win an election off the back of his core alone.

I don't see how any reasonable independent voter that might have supported Trump in 2016 can continue to do so given everything that's happened since the election. In fact, if they have half a brain, he has surely alienated a decent proportion of them.

Leroy42 · 24-07-2018 3:24pm

ELM327 wrote: »

I'm pro trump, but I'm also an avid fan of political theory in general.
It will be interesting to see how the democrats approach the next election.

You are pro trump but don't agree with his stance on social issues, or his stanch on tariffs?

ELM327 · 24-07-2018 3:24pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Whole country? What like Trump did? Why are you putting these conditions on the Dems when none of it was there for Trump.

The Dems need to be organised, the Dems need to be aligned, they need a leader to get the whole country behind them.

No they don't. It would be nice, but Trump showed that the trick is to win, being right, or even having policies that make sense beyond a soundbite is not important.

HC won the popular vote, and Trump is doing nothing to increase his reach. As is said numerous times, he is talking to his base, he makes decisions based on what he thinks works with his base. So He can only fall in terms of votes.

All the Dems need to do is turn some of those disenfranchised Trump voters either to Dem voter or non voters, and if they can get more of their vote out they win.

A sitting POTUS normally has the advantage, but in Trumps case nearly all of the potential issues brought up about him (lack of experience, lack of policies, lack of ethics etc) have been shown to be valid.

Add to that the movement of the Russia probe from mere suggestion to a full blown investigation with Flynn, Manafort and others caught up in it.

Also, a big star for Trump was Ivanka. Many people, wrongly, gave her the benefit that she would be a good influence on her Dad (no idea why they ever thought that). That has been shown to be totally wrong, so that another cohort lost.

Trump didn't need to win the whole country. He needed to win the red states and enough of the swing states so that super liberal areas like California could vote Hillary and it wouldn't matter.

As a Dem, you need the reverse - to win the blue states - like NY and California - and win the swing states.

ELM327 · 24-07-2018 3:25pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

You are pro trump but don't agree with his stance on social issues, or his stanch on tariffs?

I don't agree with some social issues... eg LGBT rights, abortion... but agree with others (immigration, anti-PC)
I don't agree that tariffs are the best decision either but fully support the man to do the job that each state elected him to do.

Water John · 24-07-2018 3:26pm

Neither the DNC or the GOP have that much control of who puts themselves forward in the primaries. Not sure what strategy either can input, unless you want all potential runners in a Party, to agree to some broad manifesto. The last time you had Trump, in the middle of the campaign threatening the GOP that he would go Independent. That's how much control the Parties have over their candidates.

kunst nugget · 24-07-2018 3:26pm

Midlife wrote: »

I'm curious. You're pro-gay rights, pro-abortion and you don't agree with his economic policy.

Why?

It's something to do with the tears of liberals.

ELM327 · 24-07-2018 3:27pm

spacecoyote wrote: »

Was listening to a bit of Morning Joe the other day. It can be a bit tedious at times, but he made quite a few good points.

Basically that Trumps core are the minority. They always were, and continue to be. Trump won by pulling in enough of the independent/swing voter/silent majority.

But nobody is talking about them anymore, its all about Trumps core & how they will keep backing him. But he can't win an election off the back of his core alone.

I don't see how any reasonable independent voter that might have supported Trump in 2016 can continue to do so given everything that's happened since the election. In fact, if they have half a brain, he has surely alienated a decent proportion of them.

Morning Joe is an audible version of The Hill, and a slightly easier to tolerate version of Rachel Maddow (ie the angry feminist.. arch democrat).

But they are right, here anyway... Trump needs more than his core base to retain the ticket in 2020.

Leroy42 · 24-07-2018 3:29pm

Totally agree, I was replying to the poster that said the Dems need someone to unite the country.

As spacecoyote said, Trump is keeping his base but little else. And the base is not enough to win the election.

A lot will depend on the mid-terms. If the blue-wave happens then Trump is toast. If it doesn't happen, and I am not too confident that it will, then Trump may well have done enough get over the line. But all the factors indicate that Trump is really going to struggle to make lighting strike twice.

The simple fact that HC will not be the opponent takes away a very large part of the reason that many voted for Trump in the first place.

pixelburp · 24-07-2018 3:30pm

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't agree with some social issues... eg LGBT rights, abortion... but agree with others (immigration, anti-PC)
I don't agree that tariffs are the best decision either but fully support the man to do the job that each state elected him to do.

That feels borderline contradictory: what is 'anti PC' other than sounding like a nebulous, ambiguous kickback against the very rights you say you're for, such as LGBT or abortion? Whatever about Trump, Pence is twice as fundamentalist when it comes to those rights, the same can be said for Trumps advisors such as Bannon or Miller.

Leroy42 · 24-07-2018 3:32pm

ELM327 wrote: »

I don't agree with some social issues... eg LGBT rights, abortion... but agree with others (immigration, anti-PC)
I don't agree that tariffs are the best decision either but fully support the man to do the job that each state elected him to do.

That very odd. You are willing to have fellow citizens lose out on their rights simply to stop others gaining entry to the country?

The second line is very strange. You agree that he has the right to do the job? What a strange non answer. He can do just about anything, and once it fits under your idea of his job then that fine with you? Regardless of whether you agree with it or not?

dr.fuzzenstein · 24-07-2018 3:35pm

ELM327 wrote: »

If it's not Sanders, or perhaps Biden (who I don't think has the public personality anyway) then I can't see them winning.
Trump would destroy michelle obama, oprah, clooney, all the rest of hollywood etc
It needs (for the democrats) to be a credible safe politician who is the exact antithesis of Trump (socialist, liberal, PC, good history of economics etc) while still retaining some form of populism.

If it's not sanders, i'd be surprised.
God knows Hillary can't run again

For once I actually agree with you. Oprah, Obama, Clooney, etc... are novelty candidates and event though they are capable people in their own right, I don't think they have the substance or politcal appeal. Even though Trump was of the same caliber, i.e. joke candidate and for novelty purposes only.
I agree that the Dems need to put up a solid candidate with a programm that appeals to the swing voters, back to basics economic and common sense policies, something that has been trampled into the dust in the recent madness. If they put up a candidate to out-Trump Trump, they can only lose, because Trump is already beyond satire and into Panto and you simply cannot go one above that.
I really don't want to believe that the average US voter wants another novelty candiate like Trump, maybe it's like the Eurovision, a joke act wins, next year they all try to be even more outrageous and a regular act wins.

I admit that a small, spiteful part of me wants Hillary to run against him and win, it would drive a lot of people absolutely batsh*t crazy. Some people hate her that much, it could even turn violent. Putin would have a seizure.
Ah well, a man can dream...

ELM327 · 24-07-2018 4:10pm

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

For once I actually agree with you. Oprah, Obama, Clooney, etc... are novelty candidates and event though they are capable people in their own right, I don't think they have the substance or politcal appeal. Even though Trump was of the same caliber, i.e. joke candidate and for novelty purposes only.
I agree that the Dems need to put up a solid candidate with a programm that appeals to the swing voters, back to basics economic and common sense policies, something that has been trampled into the dust in the recent madness. If they put up a candidate to out-Trump Trump, they can only lose, because Trump is already beyond satire and into Panto and you simply cannot go one above that.
I really don't want to believe that the average US voter wants another novelty candiate like Trump, maybe it's like the Eurovision, a joke act wins, next year they all try to be even more outrageous and a regular act wins.

I admit that a small, spiteful part of me wants Hillary to run against him and win, it would drive a lot of people absolutely batsh*t crazy. Some people hate her that much, it could even turn violent. Putin would have a seizure.
Ah well, a man can dream...

I don't think HC can win though, that's the thing.

Look who followed Reagan. GHW Bush. A down to earth back to basics southern man and southern wife. Perfect "old school" american.

There needs (for the blue side's sake) to be a similar down to earth candidate. Bush Senior, not Carter/Clinton is the way to go here.

ELM327 · 24-07-2018 4:13pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

That very odd. You are willing to have fellow citizens lose out on their rights simply to stop others gaining entry to the country?

The second line is very strange. You agree that he has the right to do the job? What a strange non answer. He can do just about anything, and once it fits under your idea of his job then that fine with you? Regardless of whether you agree with it or not?

You don't have rights to enter another country, only to do so legally.
A country has a right and a duty to its citizens to uphold national security and the border.

pixelburp wrote: »

That feels borderline contradictory: what is 'anti PC' other than sounding like a nebulous, ambiguous kickback against the very rights you say you're for, such as LGBT or abortion? Whatever about Trump, Pence is twice as fundamentalist when it comes to those rights, the same can be said for Trumps advisors such as Bannon or Miller.

Pence is a born again christian, and I don't think he would ever get office.
If (like the liberals claim to want) Trump is impeached, the presidency goes to Pence. and that's a whole lot of hurt, whether you are aboard the Trump Train or not.

PC - politically correct ideology... simple things like Obama being afraid to say "Islamist Extremism". Trump calls things like he sees them. And he makes mistakes. But I'd prefer the mistakes and the non-PC bullcrap, than to have a scripted goon in the Oval Office.

Zubeneschamali · 24-07-2018 4:20pm

ELM327 wrote: »

Look who followed Reagan. GHW Bush. A down to earth back to basics southern man and southern wife. Perfect "old school" american.

A Southern man from Massachusetts and his Southern wife from Queens.

You are really well up on this American-talking stuff.

Leroy42 · 24-07-2018 4:20pm

ELM327 wrote: »

You don't have rights to enter another country, only to do so legally.
A country has a right and a duty to its citizens to uphold national security and the border.

But that is not the point. You have put those issues above the rights and freedoms of your fellow citizens in that you are willing for LGBT and abortion rights to be denied on the basis that you get better immigration.

Water John · 24-07-2018 4:27pm

So Elm if it was between Pence and Warren, who would you go for?

Leroy42 · 24-07-2018 4:27pm

ELM327 wrote: »

PC - politically correct ideology... simple things like Obama being afraid to say "Islamist Extremism". Trump calls things like he sees them. And he makes mistakes. But I'd prefer the mistakes and the non-PC bullcrap, than to have a scripted goon in the Oval Office.

Would you take the line that Trump was to afraid to call out Nazi Extremism? Id that Anti-PC a or telling it like it is?

Trent Houseboat · 24-07-2018 4:29pm

Think of all the lives saved and jobs created from Trump saying "islamic extremism". What does it matter that he'll stack the courts for generations with religious fundamentalists with whom you disagree.

Can anyone actually point to an anti-politically correct policy?

Gbear · 24-07-2018 4:30pm

Leroy42 wrote: »

Totally agree, I was replying to the poster that said the Dems need someone to unite the country.

Other than the occasional existential threat from war, you can't unite countries.

What we've seen in many democratic countries is that they develop a system of government that finds an approximation for consensus and gives people representation in proportion to their numbers.

Without that, you will always have polarisation, and if one of those poles stops cooperating, as the Republicans have, to a large extent the country stops being governed.

The US, at least, also has quite a lot of decentralisation, so it's not as much of a calamity for their central government to be a shambles, as it is in, for example, the UK, which seems to have largely ground to a halt as Brexit and internal politicking have become the only thing the government actually do anymore.

irishash · 24-07-2018 4:37pm

ELM327 wrote: »

PC - politically correct ideology... simple things like Obama being afraid to say "Islamist Extremism".

Always love to see this rubbish said - Obama called the likes of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, etc, terrorist groups, murderers and a stain on our world. But he refused to define them by the religion they professed to do their actions on behalf of. That is why he would not say that phrase. He refused to define billions of people by the actions of a few.

Trump, on the other hand, is a racist so does not care.

jooksavage · 24-07-2018 4:37pm

ELM327 wrote: »

Look who followed Reagan. GHW Bush. A down to earth back to basics southern man and southern wife. Perfect "old school" american.

In the name of God, what are you going on about? None of this is right.

pixelburp · 24-07-2018 4:52pm

ELM327 wrote: »

PC - politically correct ideology... simple things like Obama being afraid to say "Islamist Extremism". Trump calls things like he sees them. And he makes mistakes. But I'd prefer the mistakes and the non-PC bullcrap, than to have a scripted goon in the Oval Office.

Islamist Extremism is a perfectly valid expression to encompass the myriad of groups currently knocking around or competing against each; rationalising that as 'PC' is a stretch and seems like a thin excuse to castigate Obama over - especially when the more common use of that waffly term is to include being empathetic towards LGBT or minority rights, the backlash then to curb or remove those rights.

So to remain within that sphere, when you say you prefer Trumps "calling it as he sees it", do you believe him when he claimed he knew more about ISIS than the generals? And like The Wall, his war on ISIS hasn't transpired? So his "calling it" amounts to nothing, as usual. And I guess equally you simply equated his infamous 'grab em by the pussy' remarks as mere 'locker room talk'?

Spontaneity has its places, not in the seat of the highest political office in the world. Spoofing and lying doesn't really help anyone or demonstrate any competence, not in place of another politician you obviously have a blindspot or bias towards.

Being PC hurts nobody, and has no affect on those without maltreatment; being an a$$hole for the sake of it... oh sorry, "calling it as you see it" has an obvious affect on those an administration chooses to persecute.

humberklog · 24-07-2018 5:00pm

ELM327 wrote: »

Look who followed Reagan. GHW Bush. A down to earth back to basics southern man and southern wife. Perfect "old school" american.

As in South of Boston?
Just a good ol' boy roughing it with yokels in The Phillips Academy and mixing it with the hillbillies of Yale and becoming president of the DKE fraternity and a member of the Skull and Bones society.

"Old Schools" indeed.

Yeeehar.

Penn · 24-07-2018 5:01pm

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1021784726217142273

Oh ffs

:D:D

jooksavage · 24-07-2018 5:08pm

humberklog wrote: »

As in South of Boston?
Just a good ol' boy roughing it with yokels in The Phillips Academy and mixing it with the hillbillies of Yale and becoming president of the DKE fraternity and a member of the Skull and Bones society.

"Old Schools" indeed.

Yeeehar.

While his southern belle wife was the daughter of a prominent New York publisher. All in all, the Bush's were a note-perfect example of the so-despised "coastal elite".

Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Comments