Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

rossie1977

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Hilary to run again? Who's the alternative?

Clinton won't run again

As for who will I suspect Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker.

I expect it to be between the former trio not the latter. If it's Biden the televised debates between him and Trump would be some of the greatest tv ever broadcast.

Sierra Oscar

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1020333776679964672

You have to wonder what other conversations he recorded.

pixelburp

If the Democrats choose another 'establishment' figure, they're toast, and Sanders / Biden are just too old for the role. Lord knows there's question marks over our own Michael D Higgins, nevermind the toughest political office on the planet (though it is probably easier if you spend much of your time golfing and ignoring briefs)

The DNC seem keen on self-sabotage anyway so will probably pick another polarising candidate, but it also depends on whether Trump looks vulernable or not; whether there's blood in the water will dictate how much 'effort' they'll put into a challenge IMO. Ditto younger candidates such as Booker, who may not want to run unless he thought there was a good chance of winning (I do genuinely think his veganism is a huge minus)

Leroy42

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1020333776679964672

You have to wonder what other conversations he recorded.

He recorded everything would be my bet.

Itssoeasy

rossie1977 wrote: »

Clinton won't run again

As for who will I suspect Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker.

I expect it to be between the former trio not the latter. If it's Biden the televised debates between him and Trump would be some of the greatest tv ever broadcast.

I'm like you I think it's one of the latter three. I really like kamala Harris from everything I've seen of her.

seamus

rossie1977 wrote: »

Clinton won't run again

As for who will I suspect Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker.

I expect it to be between the former trio not the latter. If it's Biden the televised debates between him and Trump would be some of the greatest tv ever broadcast.

If the Democrats had any sense they'd do an Obama on it and pick someone with enough governance experience to talk the talk, but without a high-profile legacy that can be picked over and rubbished.

US politics is now a "last man standing" battle where candidates have mud slung at them continuously until one person remains. So you need a candidate who brings with them very little mud, or one who is so caked in mud from the outset that it doesn't matter anymore (like Trump).

Clinton & Biden are awful candidates, there are warehouses full of mud waiting for them. Sanders is too polarising. Even Warren stinks of "commies".

StringerBell

Former mayor of New Orleans, name escape me right now is doing the circuit with a book. Speaks very well and has people begging him to run, he is giving it the I don't intend to run but never say never politican answer.

Can't say I know too much about him right now but he comes across well any time I see him. I suspect he will be a candidate if things go well for him over the next year with his market research.

A southern Democrat is always a live dog, 30 years public service but not entrenched as part of the establishment or blemished that I can tell

Itssoeasy

Leroy42 wrote: »

He recorded everything would be my bet.

Oh I'd says his recordings are like Aladdins cave in terms of the treasures of what he has of trump recordings.

Itssoeasy

seamus wrote: »

If the Democrats had any sense they'd do an Obama on it and pick someone with enough governance experience to talk the talk, but without a high-profile legacy that can be picked over and rubbished.

US politics is now a "last man standing" battle where candidates have mud slung at them continuously until one person remains. So you need a candidate who brings with them very little mud, or one who is so caked in mud from the outset that it doesn't matter anymore (like Trump).

Clinton & Biden are awful candidates, there are warehouses full of mud waiting for them. Sanders is too polarising. Even Warren stinks of "commies".

So US politics is like the predator then in that a mud covered person survives ? An interesting theory.

Water John

Mitch Landrieu, says he won't run, but that is not absolute. Would be a good candidate. The name you were looking for. A good few out there who have good form

Itssoeasy

Water John wrote: »

Mitch Landrieu, says he won't run, but that is not absolute. Would be a good candidate. The name you were looking for. A good few out there who have good form

I'd be taking what potential democratic candidates are saying on July 20th 2018 with a lash of salt being honest. Very early to pinning your colours to the mast this early out.

rossie1977

Trump is 72, Biden 75 and Sanders is 76 so not alot between them age wise.

As far as polarizing goes it really depends on can the Democratic candidate win Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. There won't be anywhere near the black cloud hanging over whatever candidate the Dems pick next summer compared to Clinton whom right wing media and the Republican party had been preparing to face since 2004.

In the end regardless who the Dems pick the 2020 election is going to come down to a handful of states. Trump's not winning a state he didn't win in 16 unless something dramatic like 9/11 happens between now and then and whatever candidate Dems pick they aren't winning any state in the deep South or great plains obviously meaning only the yellow states are up for grabs

Taytoland

badtoro wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

The CIA, NSA etc, are full of liars and deceivers. To this day I am still waiting for those WMD's to turn up but somehow I doubt very much it is going to happen. It amazes me that anyone believes anything they say. And they have also for years interfered in other countries elections, tried to overthrow other countries regimes. They haven't got a leg to stand on. So when people say Russia interfered in the US election, my response is great, well done to them.

On the WMD issue, I had the misfortune to listen to a Trump supporter during the week talk about this. I don't see it as this black & white thing that the intelligence services lied. There is a blend of inputs from raw data to human intelligence to analysis to political bias.

I believe that the then president George W Bush wanted revenge on Saddam for his plan to assassinate President George George HW Bush. If one takes that view then it can be said that political,or personal, bias leaned heavily towards a particular view that Saddam needed to be got rid of and how can information be cherry picked to build a narrative to war. They would have been better off coming out and saying Saddam is a colossal bag of **** the world would be better off without, not sure too many would have disagreed.

As to political interference in other nations affairs, there's no denying of that. However, this is where one must chose sides in the real world. To my mind, as dysfunctional as the USA has recently become it is still preferable to Authoritarian and aggressive Russia or Communist expansionist China.

You had Colin Powell in the senate holding up a piece "evidence" lying through his arse in order to make a convenient excuse to invade Iraq. I am saying they absolutely lied. They knew rightly WMD wasn't in Iraq.

Sal Butamol

Democrat candidate list is shocking...is that it?

Warren Vs Trump would be hilarious too

Biden and Sanders too old.

I bet Hilary will try again.

StringerBell

Taytoland wrote: »

You had Colin Powell in the senate holding up a piece "evidence" lying through his arse in order to make a convenient excuse to invade Iraq. I am saying they absolutely lied. They knew rightly WMD wasn't in Iraq.

You had an administration that was very clear and fixated on invading iraq. They were going to make it happen one way or another

StringerBell

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Democrat candidate list is shocking...is that it?

Warren Vs Trump would be hilarious too

Biden and Sanders too old.

I bet Hilary will try again.

Too far out to be thinking of you realistic candidates now.

Sonics2k

Taytoland wrote: »

You had Colin Powell in the senate holding up a piece "evidence" lying through his arse in order to make a convenient excuse to invade Iraq. I am saying they absolutely lied. They knew rightly WMD wasn't in Iraq.

So wait, you accept and acknowledge that Bush's administration was involved in lies and a conspiracy, set up by themselves.

But, at the idea of Trump bring involved in one, then it's fake? Despite the mounting evidence to the contrary.

BabyCheeses

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No, that's not how you treat someone and that is not discussion. She shoulf be ashamed of herself, as should anyone that feels that's an okay thing to do to a guest that has been invited onto a show and if Fox did the same to a liberal I'd say the same.

But saying someone who dislikes Trump is insane is ok.



You should at least try not to be a hypocrite when pretending to be impartial.

Taytoland

Sonics2k wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

You had Colin Powell in the senate holding up a piece "evidence" lying through his arse in order to make a convenient excuse to invade Iraq. I am saying they absolutely lied. They knew rightly WMD wasn't in Iraq.

So wait, you accept and acknowledge that Bush's administration was involved in lies and a conspiracy, set up by themselves.

But, at the idea of Trump bring involved in one, then it's fake? Despite the mounting evidence to the contrary.

I frankly don't care if he was. The Iraq question is not up for dispute. They lied knowing WMD wasn't in Iraq to get into Iraq. America has form on this, look at the Gulf of tonkin incident. Vo Giap said nothing happened whatsoever.

Leroy42

And your suggesting that Trump is fighting against this biased CIA by kowtowing to Putin.

Rather than actually calling them out on it? Rather than testifying to Mueller to show there is nothing there and turn the investigation back onto this liars and cheats?

So he knows HC is crooked, he knew Comey was biased, he knows that Coates is lying about Russian evidence, yet he does nothing? Doesn't set up his own investigation?

Instead he simply misspoke at a press conference and has never criticised Putin?

dr.fuzzenstein

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Democrat candidate list is shocking...is that it?

Warren Vs Trump would be hilarious too

Biden and Sanders too old.

I bet Hilary will try again.

Sadly there was such a massive campaign of hate, deceit and outright lies against her, she may be poison at the ballot box.
Killary, lock her up, calling her a criminal and what not.
That was another aspect of a huge, concerted, venomous and dirty campaign.
My Facebook feed simply exploded with hateful anti Hillary propaganda.
And that was the real meddling in the election.
If you followed some of the more rabid Facebook accounts, you saw they were completely empty.
Sadly it's not about finding existing muck, it's simply creating a massive sh*tstorm and throw barefaced lies at the opposition.

Trump latched on to it and one of his boasts was to lock up Hillary Clinton.
My dream in life would be for Hillary to lead an investigation that would find evidence to lock Donald Trump up.
It would only be fair.

Itssoeasy

I must say I did chuckle at Trumps assertion that Obama "was a patsy for Russia". I mean the irony is delicious really. He really is tone deaf and blind on perception and optics really. I suppose when you're born wealthy and have never had to do anything most normal people do, then your self awareness isn't great.

rossie1977

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Democrat candidate list is shocking...is that it?

Warren Vs Trump would be hilarious too

Biden and Sanders too old.

I bet Hilary will try again.

As a hardcore Trump supporter I suspect you would find any Democratic candidate list 'shocking'.

Again why is Biden 75 and Sanders 76 too old when Trump is 72. Clearly Biden is in much better physical shape than Trump for one.

As for Warren she enjoys a much better approval rating than Trump so it would be a much closer contest than you might think..i suspect Trump knows that too hence why he keeps attacking her.

listermint

This is amusing. Sure they didn't need the UN two weeks ago . All their rethoric. The US is a laughing stock


https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1020400713938108422?s=20

Sal Butamol

rossie1977 wrote: »

As a hardcore Trump supporter I suspect you would find any Democratic candidate list 'shocking'.

Again why is Biden 75 and Sanders 76 too old when Trump is 72. Clearly Biden is in much better physical shape than Trump for one.

As for Warren she enjoys a much better approval rating than Trump so it would be a much closer contest than you might think..i suspect Trump knows that too hence why he keeps attacking her.

Who's a hardcore Trump supporter

Outlaw Pete

BabyCheeses wrote: »

But saying someone who dislikes Trump is insane is ok.

Where did I say it was 'ok'? Whoopie's a grown woman, she throws around insults of her own a plenty. Hence the comment indeed. Throwing someone off a show for that is ridiculous. Especially given that she was invited on to discuss a book where she talks about how liberals are deranged when it comes to Trump. It'd be like inviting a Global Warming denier on to discuss their book and then kicking them off when they start denying climate change.

You should at least try not to be a hypocrite when pretending to be impartial.

Oh, so I'm lying when I say if a liberal was booted off a Fox show I'd be just as critical. Tell me, are you capable of discourse with those you disagree with without personal attacks? Certainly doesn't appear so.

listermint wrote: »

This is amusing. Sure they didn't need the UN two weeks ago . All their rethoric. The US is a laughing stock

What's amusing exactly?

The Trump administration has got us closer than ever to North Korea denuclearizing. How the hell could they be a laughing stock? Here's the full presser.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQDR2RUONG0

listermint

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Where did I say it was 'ok'? Whoopie's a grown woman, she throws around insults of her own a plenty. Hence the comment indeed. Throwing someone off a show for that is ridiculous. Especially given that she was invited on to discuss a book where she talks about how liberals are deranged when it comes to Trump. It'd be like inviting a Global Warming denier on to discuss their book and then kicking them off when they start denying climate change.



Oh, so I'm lying when I say if a liberal was booted off a Fox show I'd be just as critical. Tell me, are you capable of discourse with those you disagree with without personal attacks? Certainly doesn't appear so.



What's amusing exactly?

The Trump administration has got us closer than ever to North Korea denuclearizing. How the hell could they be a laughing stock? Here's the full presser.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQDR2RUONG0

They've got us nothing of the sort.

I would even say beyond nothing. Less than nothing if that's possible.

Awful awful awful government awful bunch of sorry individuals

badtoro

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Hilary to run again? Who's the alternative?

If the Dems allow "that woman" run again, they truly deserve everything bad coming to them. She was a terrible candidate. Reminded me of the scene in Master & Commander "One must always chose the lesser of two weevils doctor!" That's all she had going for her and messed it up.

Who else?.......

Oprah.

Trump won't be beaten by a politician imo.

batgoat

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Where did I say it was 'ok'? Whoopie's a grown woman, she throws around insults of her own a plenty. Hence the comment indeed. Throwing someone off a show for that is ridiculous. Especially given that she was invited on to discuss a book where she talks about how liberals are deranged when it comes to Trump. It'd be like inviting a Global Warming denier on to discuss their book and then kicking them off when they start denying climate change.



Oh, so I'm lying when I say if a liberal was booted off a Fox show I'd be just as critical. Tell me, are you capable of discourse with those you disagree with without personal attacks? Certainly doesn't appear so.



What's amusing exactly?

The Trump administration has got us closer than ever to North Korea denuclearizing. How the hell could they be a laughing stock? Here's the full presser.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQDR2RUONG0

Literally any president could have done what Trump did. The reason they did not is because talks with North Korea without concessions prior to meeting would be meaningless. Instead North Korea have had their big meeting and played the US, they won't denuclearise because of it.

irishash

badtoro wrote: »

If the Dems allow "that woman" run again, they truly deserve everything bad coming to them. She was a terrible candidate. Reminded me of the scene in Master & Commander "One must always chose the lesser of two weevils doctor!" That's all she had going for her and messed it up.

Who else?.......

Oprah.

Trump won't be beaten by a politician imo.

Hillary had baggage, there is no doubt about that (email crap, Bill, the toxic 2008 campaign) but to say she had it all going for her and SHE messed it up is more than a little unfair knowing what we do now re Russian interference.

She destroyed Trump on policy, experience, intelligence and class. At every debate it was clear to see who had a plan and who did not. But none of that mattered when a lie told well is better than the truth to a lot of people.

There is of course much much more to it than that and to fully delve into the reasons she lost I would need to be typing for hours. I will maintain however that it is a bit disingenuous to say it was her fault alone that Trump is president.

Also America still has a huge problem in regards to women in power and powerful women.