Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

irishash

StringerBell wrote: »

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

In most other political norms I would agree, but this is America and you seem to have to declare your interest almost as soon as one election cycle is over. Obama was been talked about just after the democratic national convention in 2004.

I have no idea who is going to run in 2020. Anybody who goes up against Trump will be 100 times more qualified than him for the office but yet the election will not come down to that or their ability to do the job. I would like to see Warren go for it, but I think she values her seat in the senate as a place she can do her best work.

For my money, if the Democrats do not win 2020, and as long as he can keep his nose clean, my pick for 2024 would be Joe Kennedy III.

dinorebel

irishash wrote: »

In most other political norms I would agree, but this is America and you seem to have to declare your interest almost as soon as one election cycle is over. Obama was been talked about just after the democratic national convention in 2004.

I have no idea who is going to run in 2020. Anybody who goes up against Trump will be 100 times more qualified than him for the office but yet the election will not come down to that or their ability to do the job. I would like to see Warren go for it, but I think she values her seat in the senate as a place she can do her best work.

For my money, if the Democrats do not win 2020, and as long as he can keep his nose clean, my pick for 2024 would be Joe Kennedy III.

Where he'll be running against Ivanka Trump US politics has turned into Dynasty.

StringerBell

irishash wrote: »

In most other political norms I would agree, but this is America and you seem to have to declare your interest almost as soon as one election cycle is over. Obama was been talked about just after the democratic national convention in 2004.

I have no idea who is going to run in 2020. Anybody who goes up against Trump will be 100 times more qualified than him for the office but yet the election will not come down to that or their ability to do the job. I would like to see Warren go for it, but I think she values her seat in the senate as a place she can do her best work.

For my money, if the Democrats do not win 2020, and as long as he can keep his nose clean, my pick for 2024 would be Joe Kennedy III.

Not really though, even in the US candidates don't come out officially this early, think it was George Will said it recently when asked who. Someone will step forward closer the time. Too early now to focus on that officially. You conduct your market research, if you have an interest. You raise your profile over the next few months sure. It's just too long of a lead in time now though for anything more.

jooksavage

Could be an interesting weekend. Its confirmed now that Cohen indeed recorded Trump talking about Karen McDougal only weeks out from the election. Giuliani is spinning the story that the recording is actually "powerful exculpatory evidence". Cohens attorney however later advised that third party attempts to spin "can not change whats on the tape". Trump meanwhile is privately raging that Cohen would do this. Its only a matter of time before this spills into his Twitter feed.

dr.fuzzenstein

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.

If a capable, intelligent, seasoned politician doesn't have a chance in a race between 2 TV stars, I'd say fcuk it.
US voters clearly have sh*t for brains and don't deserve a working democracy.
I hope the USA tears itself apart and ends up like Russia in 1991.
It's the only way people over there will learn that democracy is not a game or reality TV show.
Just turn it into something like the X Factor and have TV audiences vote on the next President.
Yanks can seemingly only handle a kind of playdoe and crayon version of democracy.
It's a shame, it was once a great nation, but I fear that even Idiocracy was too optimistic.
Because Camacho would make a better Prez.

everlast75

I've a feeling he will be gone by Christmas...

Captain Obvious

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.

She's been vindicated quite heavily though. She flat out said Trump was a Russian puppet and predicted a lot about what he would do.

Captain Obvious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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

What's amusing? To start with, the comments on that video. But I think what the poster was referring to was that Trump blustered into NK against all reasonable advice and without international support. He gave away much and got nothing in return. Now he wants the international community to help enforce his crappy deal, that isn't really even a deal because it has no specifics but that didn't stop him and his supporters talking like he brought about world peace.

dr.fuzzenstein

Captain Obvious wrote: »

She's been vindicated quite heavily though. She flat out said Trump was a Russian puppet and predicted a lot about what he would do.

Has the damage been done though?
What was done to her can be equated to cyber terrorism and enough people have swallowed that trite hook line and sinker.
Either the race for POTUS becomes normal again, or they should strip that post of all powers and turn it into the reality TV circus Trump has made it into.

Captain Obvious

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Has the damage been done though?
What was done to her can be equated to cyber terrorism and enough people have swallowed that trite hook line and sinker.
Either the race for POTUS becomes normal again, or they should strip that post of all powers and turn it into the reality TV circus Trump has made it into.

I think it's very likely she would have won if the DNC hadn't alienated Bernie supporters. If she were to run with him as VP, or someone equally as popular, and directly address the issues within the DNC from the first campaign I think she would have a good chance, especially if Trump runs again for the other side. I don't think her issue will be convincing the center and right to vote for her, it will be convincing the hard left to.

Captain Obvious

Here'a piece I missed in relation to the border internments. It amazes me that people who believe in pizzagate have no concern with the dodgy stuff at the border.

https://twitter.com/NY1/status/1009380587856191488

dr.fuzzenstein

Some people will still vehemently defend that atrocity.
Anyone with that opinion can safely be disregarded as a nutter.

Igotadose

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Here'a piece I missed in relation to the border internments. It amazes me that people who believe in pizzagate have no concern with the dodgy stuff at the border.

The place in question, Cayuga Centers, is an adoption agency in East Harlem (not exactly the greatest place to be in NYC.) It received a $44 million contract to help with 'unaccompanied Mexican children' from the Fed in 2017. https://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2017/03/cayuga_centers_in_auburn_gets_44_million_fed_contract_to_help_refugee_children.html

As the reporter stated in the video, they don't know for sure what was going on no one responded to questioning nor have they since, and I frankly don't know if this story is going to have any legs, the barbarism at the border seems like it's fading due to the Helsinki follies.

What I think is, the Trump government in it's "planning" to separate families at the border and criminalize children, somehow knew it had some 'resources' due to programs like the one in the syracuse.com article (Cayuga's a county in NY State which is where this agency started.) My guess is there are other agencies around the country we don't know about that are involved, as the USG is moving these poor kids to different parts of the country.

The barbarity of young girls being led into some strange place in the middle of the night, then covered in materials so their images aren't visible later to the reporters, seems staggering. Why hide them? What's the big secret? Even if this was a legitimate program, like finding foster homes for these children torn from their parents for some time, there's no reason it couldn't be done during regular business hours. It's what I presume that agency does for a living. Why the middle of the night skulduggery? Also, why no boys? Odd that.

badtoro

irishash wrote: »

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.

I didn't say she had it all going for her, she did mess it up mind you.

Allegedly Bill advised her to campaign in the great lake states, she didn't and took them for granted and what happened?

Ultimately her campaign strategy was fatally flawed. I fully expect a backlash on here for the next comment but it played out in the real world for real people. Hillary talked excessively on topics that while important are peripheral to everyday people such as gender issues, glass ceilings etc. That doesn't win you elections because it encompases too narrow a spectrum with too few votes!

It'll be pointed out she won the popular vote, doesn't matter a shyte, that's not how their system works, you need to win the electoral college.

To give an example that will also prove unpopular on this site because of it's source. I heard part of a piece on George Hook this morning with Michael Graham. He gave the example of hotel workers vs the environment. Guests are given the option of not getting housekeeping in, less sheet and towel changes etc, which leads to less hours for hotel staff, therefore less employment but hey it's great for the environment. This plays well to well of suburbanites but not so well to the (formerly) blue collar Dems who voted for the guy not pandering excessively to the environmental lobby.

Now, that's all grand, and I expect a hape of criticism on how I don't understand XY or Z, but Trump won the election.

Trump, ffs.

That's all the election was about, winning. And Hillary was a shyte candidate with a shyte strategy.

I'm as anti Trump as it gets, but just because that's my view i can't dismiss the shyteness of the democratic campaign stragegy.

If you don't look after your own, then you don't end up with anything.

I don't agree either with the woman in power type comment. How many said that before Obama was elected that a black man would never be president? How many wanted Michele Obama or oprah to run, it just needs to happen, rather than there being a problem. It's like Dana not being president here, shes one woman, the wrong woman. When we've had good women presidents.

Best thing the democrats can do is tell Hillary, politely or not, you had two chances (Obama won first nomination), now push off.

Captain Obvious

Another nice Russian connection for Trump

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/russian-prostitute-ring-busted-in-miami-trump-tower-10546831

High-End Russian-Prostitute Ringleaders Busted Inside Miami's Trump Towers

According to Facebook, Russian national Ksenia Khodukina grew up in Chelyabinsk before eventually moving to New York City and then to Trump Towers III in Sunny Isles Beach. Here, she runs a salon service called "Beauty by Ksenia" in Hallandale Beach.

Or maybe not. According to Manhattan prosecutors, Khodukina and her husband, Yevgen Rizanov, both age 29, were, in fact, remotely running a high-end prostitution service called the "Russian Dolls" from their Trump Towers III apartment, the New York Post first reported Wednesday.

badtoro

Captain Obvious wrote: »

She's been vindicated quite heavily though. She flat out said Trump was a Russian puppet and predicted a lot about what he would do.

Makes no odds at all, and with respect people are missing my point.

When a candidate loses an election because they lost their own traditional voters, it isn't their oponents doing. It's because they're the wrong person for the job.

Captain Obvious

Another poor reflection on Trump supporters

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=107576869

Trump supporters tried to get a Hillsborough man fired from his job at a homeless family shelter over his activism. But it backfired, and is instead motivating Didier Jimenez-Castro to make his protests go even more viral. Jimenez-Castro, an organizer of the movement to bring the Baby Trump balloon to New Jersey, said his job was in jeopardy after defenders of the president contacted his employer, alleging he was misrepresenting the organization in his activism.

All over a balloon.

PopePalpatine

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Another poor reflection on Trump supporters

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=107576869





All over a balloon.

"Free speech for me, not for thee."

Taytoland

Captain Obvious wrote: »

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.

She's been vindicated quite heavily though. She flat out said Trump was a Russian puppet and predicted a lot about what he would do.

They are all puppets of someone. The big corporations control the politicians, the politicians do the bidding for them and they are the ones who set the policy while they bag the cash. What the American people think is irrelevant frankly, the same people will get voted in in November and those same puppets will bow to the corporate donors.

irishash

badtoro wrote: »

I don't agree either with the woman in power type comment. How many said that before Obama was elected that a black man would never be president? How many wanted Michele Obama or oprah to run, it just needs to happen, rather than there being a problem.

The US ranks 102 (out of 188) in the world classification table for women's representation in parliament. For comparison the UK is 41st, Ireland 82nd, France 16th and the US boggeyman Cuba 2nd. Historically this position has never really changed whereas the UK, Ireland, most of Europe have increased their female representation without the need for quotas.

The US had always had a problem with strong female personalities and politicians. There is a reason they keep talking about the US and glass ceilings. There is a big difference between people talking about wanting Oprah or Michelle Obama running and them winning.

You can pin the blame on Hillary for lots of reasons but her gender was not something she could do anything about.

Source - http://archive.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.Htm

Taytoland

everlast75 wrote: »

I've a feeling he will be gone by Christmas...

The Republicans should have had him impeached MONTHS ago and I say that as someone who preferred him over Hillary. What Trump did the other day was betray his country and attack his own country to the interests of Russia. The reason he hasn't been is simply self preservation. Politicians only look out for themselves, how to protect the cash cow and the truth is Trump has such high approval ratings among Republicans and they just won't do it because  they want to get elected again in November.

But it's a short term way of thinking, they should take the hit, get rid of him, get Mike Pence in and get America back to some normality. I remember those on the left wing spectrum thought Romney was a monster and yet turns out he is a perfectly normal conservative politician. To think Bill Maher gave a million dollars to the Obama campaign because he was that worried, laughable.

Captain Obvious

Taytoland wrote: »

They are all puppets of someone. The big corporations control the politicians, the politicians do the bidding for them and they are the ones who set the policy while they bag the cash. What the American people think is irrelevant frankly, the same people will get voted in in November and those same puppets will bow to the corporate donors.

A Narcissist's Prayer
That didn't happen.

And if it did, it wasn't that bad.

And if it was, that's not a big deal. <--- You are here

And if it is, that's not my fault.

And if it was, I didn't mean it.

And if I did...You deserved it.


There is quite a large difference between being potentially beholden to a financial donor and being controlled by a hostile foreign government. It's the top of the scale versus the bottom.

irishash wrote: »

The US ranks 102 (out of 188) in the world classification table for women's representation in parliament. For comparison the UK is 41st, Ireland 82nd, France 16th and the US boggeyman Cuba 2nd. Historically this position has never really changed whereas the UK, Ireland, most of Europe have increased their female representation without the need for quotas.

The US had always had a problem with strong female personalities and politicians. There is a reason they keep talking about the US and glass ceilings. There is a big difference between people talking about wanting Oprah or Michelle Obama running and them winning.

You can pin the blame on Hillary for lots of reasons but her gender was not something she could do anything about.

Source - http://archive.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.Htm

Doesn't Ireland have quotas in parties?

StringerBell

I wouldn't get too concerned about liberal celebrities donating to Obama. Romney would not have been great in terms of his policies, particularly economic. Trickle down as usual, but he would have been ok as a human being with decency and respect for the office. He wouldn't have done anything too drastic he was just your run of the mill Republican candidate. Likely to be opposed by those who support Democrats

Comparing him to Obama and comparing him to Trump are two very different things tbf

badtoro

irishash wrote: »

There is a big difference between people talking about wanting Oprah or Michelle Obama running and them winning.

There sure is, it's called running versus not running. If you're not in you can't win.

irishash wrote: »

You can pin the blame on Hillary for lots of reasons but her gender was not something she could do anything about.

I did not list her gender as an issue for her campaign failure. I certainly would list her, an an individual as being one of the issues.

dr.fuzzenstein

badtoro wrote: »

Makes no odds at all, and with respect people are missing my point.

When a candidate loses an election because they lost their own traditional voters, it isn't their oponents doing. It's because they're the wrong person for the job.

It has to be said though that there was a sustained, bitter, vehement, toxic campaign of lies and propaganda against her.
If anyone wants to look for Russian meddling there it is, right there.

aloyisious

badtoro wrote: »

To give an example that will also prove unpopular on this site because of it's source. I heard part of a piece on George Hook this morning with Michael Graham. He gave the example of hotel workers vs the environment. Guests are given the option of not getting housekeeping in, less sheet and towel changes etc, which leads to less hours for hotel staff, therefore less employment but hey it's great for the environment. This plays well to well of suburbanites but not so well to the (formerly) blue collar Dems who voted for the guy not pandering excessively to the environmental lobby.

Now, that's all grand, and I expect a hape of criticism on how I don't understand XY or Z, but Trump won.

If you don't look after your own, then you don't end up with anything.

Best thing the democrats can do is tell Hillary, politely or not, you had two chances (Obama won first nomination), now push off.

I've cut out some of your post so's to concentrate on the above, which is an interesting notion and may be incidental to the debate on his post-election actions. It seems Don would have been in a win/win place as a hotel chain owner and electoral candidate. Cut down on hotel running costs without saying so and gut the Dems voting base by telling his blue collar employees that Hillary's election campaign push on the environment was the cause they lost work-hours and jobs whilst duping the environmentalists. I wouldn't even know if he reduced the room-rates for guests. That would be a dream situation for him.

irishash

badtoro wrote: »

There sure is, it's called running versus not running. If you're not in you can't win.

Nope. Not the point at all.

The US will not vote a woman to high office anytime in the near future unless it gets to grips with their personal issues with women.

You only have to look at the attitude towards planned parenthood in the US for an example.

The facts and the figures I linked to prove this. At least some part of America wanted Trump over Hillary because of her gender. She was always fighting an uphill battle and any other woman in the future will face the same.

irishash

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Doesn't Ireland have quotas in parties?

Sorry, must clarify what I said. You are quite right - the parties do have quotas. The Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Act 2011, passed in 2012, forced parties to nominate women to at least thirty per cent of their total candidacies.

What I meant by no quota is that no seats in the Dail are specifically held for any person of a particular gender and the electorate is still free to choose whomever they want.

dudara

Putin had a huge dislike of Hilary, and I think it was important to him that she should be stopped. He would have backed whoever was up against her, the fact that it was gullible and malleable Trump was just icing on the cake. They were able to exploit her flaws very effectively, both through social media and by priming Trump (IMO).

Putin has also tried to play mind games with Merkel. (http://uk.businessinsider.com/putin-merkel-meeting-dog-2017-7?r=US&IR=T ) Whether you like her or not, she’s strong and intelligent and wouldn’t be inclined to back down from Putin.

Captain Obvious

Trump still not understanding the concept of a search warrant.


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1020642287725043712