Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Brian?

Water John wrote: »

Similar to the hard core Brexiteers. If limited to their core hard support, they become irrevelent. That's why appealing to the middle ground is important.

The middle ground is disappearing

Professor Moriarty

Brian? wrote: »

Logically you should be right. Lest we forget, he lost the popular vote and won 3 swing states by less than 100k votes to win the election. He only really needs to keep doing what he's doing to do the same again. He mobilised the angry white man's vote with crap like this.

I don't think so. I would imagine many undecided/floating/centrist voters regret their decision as they voted Trump because Clinton didn't appeal or they thought he would e.g. drain the swamp. As you say, a small e.g. 5% swing would be devastating to the GOP. Hopefully.

david75

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The mid terms will tell a lot. To date, taking him on would do more damage than letting him continue being a bull in a china shop.

They’re in a bind when it comes to that. They’ll ultimately want to save their own skins but they’ll each have to guage what support for Trump is like in their own constituencies before they throw in behind him or denounce him.
I can see them being savaged eitherway, overall in the midterms

Leroy42

david75 wrote: »

They’re in a bind when it comes to that. They’ll ultimately want to save their own skins but they’ll each have to guage what support for Trump is like in their own constituencies before they throw in behind him or denounce him.
I can see them being savaged eitherway, overall in the midterms

Unless Russia gets involved again!

david75

Leroy42 wrote: »

Unless Russia gets involved again!

Well even dt has acknowledged that happened and is just denying involvement.

To be fair the entire US seems to have woken up to that and are aware of it.
How can it be stopped in future is the big question.

PropJoe10

Leroy42 wrote: »

Unless Russia gets involved again!

NO COLLUSION!

PropJoe10

david75 wrote: »

Well even dt has acknowledged that happened and is just denying involvement.

To be fair the entire US seems to have woken up to that and are aware of it.
How can it be stopped in future is the big question.

He's sort of acknowledged it, but is refusing to do anything about it. Pretty obvious that Putin has him in his back pocket. I'd love to know what dirt the Russians have on Trump!

laugh

PropJoe10 wrote: »

He's sort of acknowledged it, but is refusing to do anything about it. Pretty obvious that Putin has him in his back pocket. I'd love to know what dirt the Russians have on Trump!

Having prostitutes piss on a hotel bed seems like an oddly specific thing to make up.

PropJoe10

laugh wrote: »

Having prostitutes piss on a hotel bed seems like an oddly specific thing to make up.

I'd say its likely to be stuff of a financial nature, as well as the obvious hooker pissing video. He seems afraid to do or say anything that'd anger the Russians. Look at how he treats pretty much every other country in comparison.

AbusesToilets

I've been disappointed with the Democrats messaging this year. Trump has provided them with so many examples of ineptitude, from his Cabinet appointees, his legislative initiatives, to the personal scandal that lingers around everything he touches.

david75

Isn’t there millions going through his Doonbeg property from bogey Russian sources?

There was an article linked to that here a While back

Brian?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I don't think so. I would imagine many undecided/floating/centrist voters regret their decision as they voted Trump because Clinton didn't appeal or they thought he would e.g. drain the swamp. As you say, a small e.g. 5% swing would be devastating to the GOP. Hopefully.

I think you’re viewing this through a logical lens. Everything you say makes, but Trump wasn’t elected on sense. I’m increasingly cynical and disheartened since his election.

recedite

david75 wrote: »

Isn’t there millions going through his Doonbeg property from bogey Russian sources?

There was an article linked to that here a While back

Yes, we're expecting the evidence for that to emerge any day now.

Water John

Well, you have the evidence that the Russians interfered in 2016 election. Or do you deny that, like your beloved Trump.
Also the five heads of security all say they will try again in 2018. Perhaps you could encourage Trump to address that need.

mcmoustache

Rick Gates, coffee boy to the campaign, has decided to plead guilty for no reason. This could cause problems for another Trump coffee boy, Manafort who had other problems recently.

Brian?

recedite wrote: »

Yes, we're expecting the evidence for that to emerge any day now.

You think the FBI can’t flip someone they’ve already arrested for a deal or even immunity. I’d wager Manafort is about to singe like a bird. Once the get him going Trump is finished.

Water John

Slowly Slowly, catchy monkey.
If there is a Trump case.Mueller will get there. From above Manafort has two choices. Sing or do a long spell in prison.

mcmoustache

recedite wrote: »

Yes, we're expecting the evidence for that to emerge any day now.

I don't really expect anything to come from this. On the other hand, given the amount of goalpost shifting that Trumpers have had to do, it might be worth paying attention to.

It's actually been quite funny, to be fair. Initially, there was no Russian interference and no contacts with the Russians - talking points that were parroted here on this very site.

Now, we know better. Slowly but surely every Trump talking point gets demolished. "Putin said he didn't do it", "I have no connections with the Russians", "Obama wiretapped me", "We just discussed adoptions" and god knows what else.

Basically, you can't believe a word he says nor can you believe his toadies who wind up looking more and more stupid as more of the truth comes out. It's a fairly clear pattern at this point. At this rate, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump came right out and said "I promised to go easy on Russia if they would help me keep Crooked Hillary out of the white house". I really wouldn't be surprised at all given all the goalpost shifting going on.

Manic Moran

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

His fanatical support will vote for him no matter what he does. Personally, I would put that at about 30%. It's the relatively centrist/floating people that will continue to turn away from him. If the Dems address the reasons why people voted for Trump and put forward credible candidates then Trump will become a toxic hot potato for the GOP.

I don't think his fanatical support is even at 30%. I'm sure a lot of folks who voted for him in the primaries regret that decision, however, that doesn't mean that they regret voting for him over Clinton in the election.

It's going to come down to the candidate the Democrats put up. If it's Sen Warren, Schumer or Harris, for example, the dislike to the coastal Democrats which seems very evident in middle America is going to stay and make what should be an easy win a bit more difficult. On the other hand, if they went with someone like Sens. Manchin or Tester, that's a lot less off-putting to folks in Ohio or Wisconsin who may yet decide "Trump is an idiot, but he's not actually done any particular damage, so better stick with the devil we know" simply because they have less in common with the coast Democrats in question. And the folks from the Coast states like CA are going to vote D if it's a moderate or a further left candidate with the 'D' ticket.

Remember the unfortunate truth of American elections, we tend not to vote for the person we want, we tend to vote against the person we don't want.

Itssoeasy

Water John wrote: »

Slowly Slowly, catchy monkey.
If there is a Trump case.Mueller will get there. From above Manafort has two choices. Sing or do a long spell in prison.

Yeah the people expecting mueller to go quickly clearly don't know that mueller is playing senior hurling in this investigation. Mueller is like a senior hurler playing against a junior A team(trump White House)

aloyisious

david75 wrote: »

Isn’t there millions going through his Doonbeg property from bogey Russian sources?

There was an article linked to that here a While back

One might wonder if CAB and/or the Revenue might have taken a look-see here into that story to see if there were any financial irregulrities.

mcmoustache

What could possibly go wrong with a weak State Department and a weak president?

Axios reported on Sunday that during President Donald Trump's trip to China in November, a Secret Service member tackled a Chinese security official.
The incident reportedly began when Chinese detail tried to prevent the military aide carrying the "nuclear football" from entering a room behind Trump.
White House Chief of Staff John Kelly intervened, and was grabbed by a Chinese security official, who was then tackled by a Secret Service agent.
The nuclear football was never in contact with a foreign official, and the Chinese security detail later apologized.

I'm no diplomat nor am I a soldier but this seems a bit crazy. Is protocol not arranged beforehand by diplomats so that these things don't happen?

PopePalpatine

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't think his fanatical support is even at 30%. I'm sure a lot of folks who voted for him in the primaries regret that decision, however, that doesn't mean that they regret voting for him over Clinton in the election.

It's going to come down to the candidate the Democrats put up. If it's Sen Warren, Schumer or Harris, for example, the dislike to the coastal Democrats which seems very evident in middle America is going to stay and make what should be an easy win a bit more difficult. On the other hand, if they went with someone like Sens. Manchin or Tester, that's a lot less off-putting to folks in Ohio or Wisconsin who may yet decide "Trump is an idiot, but he's not actually done any particular damage, so better stick with the devil we know" simply because they have less in common with the coast Democrats in question. And the folks from the Coast states like CA are going to vote D if it's a moderate or a further left candidate with the 'D' ticket.

Remember the unfortunate truth of American elections, we tend not to vote for the person we want, we tend to vote against the person we don't want.

Ah, the wonders of "first past the post".

Personally, I'm resigned to the assumption that if Trump makes it to Election Day 2020 and hasn't presided over a recession, he's the favourite based off the likelihood he'll copy Bill Clinton's 1996 motto of "It's the economy, stupid".

Leroy42

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Ah, the wonders of "first past the post".

Personally, I'm resigned to the assumption that if Trump makes it to Election Day 2020 and hasn't presided over a recession, he's the favourite based off the likelihood he'll copy Bill Clinton's 1996 motto of "It's the economy, stupid".

Joe Biden may be the one, and seems to be open to a run. (they should have gone with him last time IMO)

Peregrinus

If elected, Biden would be 78 years old on inauguration - 8 years older than Trump was, 9 years older than Reagan was. I think that pretty well rules him out.

Igotadose

I liked Tim Kaine, HRC's running mate. Boring, straightforward, centrist, bilingual Spanish/English. Haven't heard much from him lately he's a low-key Senator. Not sure he wants the job, you have to be crazy to want that job (current holder qualified in that regard.)

I still wonder if there'll be a Republican opponent to Trump in the primaries. No reason there can't be; Rubio and Cruz are still out there.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

If elected, Biden would be 78 years old on inauguration - 8 years older than Trump was, 9 years older than Reagan was. I think that pretty well rules him out.

Oh, I wasn't aware he was that old. In that case I agree with you.

Igotadose wrote: »

I liked Tim Kaine, HRC's running mate. Boring, straightforward, centrist, bilingual Spanish/English. Haven't heard much from him lately he's a low-key Senator. Not sure he wants the job, you have to be crazy to want that job (current holder qualified in that regard.)

I still wonder if there'll be a Republican opponent to Trump in the primaries. No reason there can't be; Rubio and Cruz are still out there.

Kaine did really poorly against Pence in the VPOTUS debate. If I recall correctly, he simply stuck to a few talking points and Pence came out of it pretty well.

How much of that was done to how the HC campaign was being handled is unknown, but I from the limited amount that I have seen Kaine does not have the personality to engage people.

In regards to a GOP candidate against Trump, based on their total subservience to him to date, and with the fear of alienating his base, I really can't see any GOP member looking to take him on. Of course that is based on things staying as they are. A massive loss in the mid-terms could have an effect, although Obama suffered a near wipe-out and still went on to get a 2nd term.

If you are relying on the GOP to do anything with Trump, I fear you will continue to be disappointed.

Igotadose

Leroy42 wrote: »

Oh, I wasn't aware he was that old. In that case I agree with you.



Kaine did really poorly against Pence in the VPOTUS debate. If I recall correctly, he simply stuck to a few talking points and Pence came out of it pretty well.

How much of that was done to how the HC campaign was being handled is unknown, but I from the limited amount that I have seen Kaine does not have the personality to engage people.

I guess we disagree, I thought he did o.k.. But you're pointing out a major problem for the DNC - who is the candidate? It's 2018 now, time to start getting the organization going, lining up all the infrastructure. No one's announced, and there isn't anyone out there with any kind of name that'd energize the "Silent Majority." Running on not being Trump isn't enough, it's what Trump turned HRC's campaign into in 2016. You have to run on what you're going to do AND continue bringing Trump's failings and the Republican's failings to light.

Incumbents are hard to defeat, and Trump's main priority is getting reelected, so he's constantly campaigning and going to rallies, and acquiring money.

As for the economy, I recently saw a video with David Stockman again shredding the Fox News 'economics reporters' about the stock plan, and the 'infrastructure plan' coming together in about October where the US will need to issue a huge amount of loans to account for the new debt. He expects that the Fed'll have to raise rates in order for buyers to be found for the loans. That may start the economy tanking and that should flow over into the 2020 Presidential election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZLFTe8Cb1g

Water John

Maybe boring, middle America, is the way to go. Didn't do John Major any harm.

Meanwhile this is what you are up against. Bump stock that makes semi automatic fire faster, is on special discount on President's Day.
This must be as low as one can go. Worth a read.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/feb/18/rapid-fire-rifle-device-on-special-offer-in-salute-to-donald-trump

Leroy42

Another issue that seems not to have been discussed is the public's responsibility in all of this Russian interference.

Voters need to ask themselves how it was so easy for the Russians to be able to interfere? Not from a technical POV, but just how easily they well led. There is little doubt that the Russians were able to interfere to the extend that they were because of the acceptance of many of these items at face value by many supporters.

So well apart from whether Trump was involved, what this episode has shown is that it is relatively easy and cheap to manipulate a sufficient amount of voters.

The FBI etc can do all they can, but in the end interference will, and I suppose always has been, a part of any democracy. So what systems are you going to put in place to limit any potential outcomes?

Based on the current state of the political system in the US, it won't be them who come up with any solutions, as they both hope that they will gain the advantage next time.