Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

serfboard

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Ah sorry, I didn't realise you were still trying to make "Pocahontas" become a thing.

If Warren wins the Democratic nomination, Trump will make Pocahontas a thing 24/7.

everlast75

serfboard wrote: »

If Warren wins the Democratic nomination, Trump will make Pocahontas a thing 24/7.

Then she should come out at the debate with him wearing a pocahontas t shirt and ask him "what now?".

Seriously, a 10 year old's ability to nickname is all he has.

pixelburp

TheDiceMan2020 wrote: »

Eh? You must have missed the bit where her whole life story of being native American turned out to be complete bull****. Not to mention her contributing to a native American cookbook and being touted as a diversity hire at Harvard. She's fcuking whiter than I am!

It was all lies to advance her own career.

She has addressed & apologised for the Native American farce - including meeting the tribe she pretend to be part of IIRC - but if you look at the content of her political career and her stances on various issues, she has been outspoken and upfront - perhaps second to Sanders in terms of 'socialist' credentials. She's consistent, and has policy priorities. Unlike the boilerplates such as O'Rourke who is all charm, no substance and endemic of "career politician".

But you're right in one aspect: latching onto that one political balls-up is precisely the kind of petty, narrow focus the Republicans & Trump would latch onto, were she to get the nomination.

TheDiceMan2020

pixelburp wrote: »

She has addressed & apologised for the Native American farce - including meeting the tribe she pretend to be part of IIRC - but if you look at the content of her political career and her stances on various issues, she has been outspoken and upfront - perhaps second to Sanders in terms of 'socialist' credentials. She's consistent, and has policy priorities. Unlike the boilerplates such as O'Rourke who is all charm, no substance and endemic of "career politician".

But you're right in one aspect: latching onto that one political balls-up is precisely the kind of petty, narrow focus the Republicans & Trump would latch onto, were she to get the nomination.

Can you blame them? Even her own colleagues couldn't believe it when she went public with that DNA test. What the absolute fcuk was she thinking? And what the hell was Warren doing claiming ethnicity like that in the first place? Choosing Cherokee as her ethnicity in her workplace? Contributing "Cherokee" recipes to a Native American cookbook?

How on earth are people excusing this batshyt craziness? It's deeply suspect behaviour.

Leroy42

So claiming incorrect ancestry is terrible but making up medical issues to avoid a draft and refuse to fight for your country is ok?

Or setting up a fake university to defraud people of their money is a good character trait?

TheDiceMan2020

TheDiceMan2020 wrote: »

How on earth are people excusing this batshyt craziness? It's deeply suspect behaviour.

I'm sorry but this is hilarious! I've been thinking the same about Trump and his fans since he ran for president.

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

So claiming incorrect ancestry is terrible but making up medical issues to avoid a draft and refuse to fight for your country is ok?

Or setting up a fake university to defraud people of their money is a good character trait?

Or him and his family carrying out widespread tax fraud.

Or him lying on Insurance forms and bank forms, i.e. financial fraud.

But no, her's is the hanging offence.

Simple cognitive dissonance. That or someone is on the wind up.

Timberrrrrrrr

Leroy42 wrote: »

So claiming incorrect ancestry is terrible but making up medical issues to avoid a draft and refuse to fight for your country is ok?

Or setting up a fake university to defraud people of their money is a good character trait?

Any candidate against Trump should just consistently hammer him over the lies hebhas told since taking office. Hard to bluff/bluster when in the middle of a live debate.

pixelburp

TheDiceMan2020 wrote: »

Can you blame them? Even her own colleagues couldn't believe it when she went public with that DNA test. What the absolute fcuk was she thinking? And what the hell was Warren doing claiming ethnicity like that in the first place? Choosing Cherokee as her ethnicity in her workplace? Contributing "Cherokee" recipes to a Native American cookbook?

How on earth are people excusing this batshyt craziness? It's deeply suspect behaviour.

I'm not excusing it, it was shoddy behaviour - for which she has apologised and sought apologies from the tribe she insulted - but having read of her overall career, don't believe it's enough to hang her with.

My original point was she has an unwavering set of policies and priorities, which is more than can be said for most politicians who will flip-flop depending on what lobbyist they've met. compared to 10k lier Trump, it's small potatoes.

Professor Moriarty

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Any candidate against Trump should just consistently hammer him over the lies hebhas told since taking office. Hard to bluff/bluster when in the middle of a live debate.

Absolutely. If Clinton had known how Trump was going to approach the debates, and had the level of information now available on Trump, she would have destroyed him. I'm going to guess that Trump won't agree to a head to head debate this time around.

relax carry on

Leroy42 wrote: »

So claiming incorrect ancestry is terrible but making up medical issues to avoid a draft and refuse to fight for your country is ok?

Or setting up a fake university to defraud people of their money is a good character trait?

Don't forget his "Charity" organisation.

everlast75

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Any candidate against Trump should just consistently hammer him over the lies hebhas told since taking office. Hard to bluff/bluster when in the middle of a live debate.

TBH I would like a plain and simple interviewer to do that for once...

relax carry on

everlast75 wrote: »

Then she should come out at the debate with him wearing a pocahontas t shirt and ask him "what now?".

Seriously, a 10 year old's ability to nickname is all he has.

And yet look at the percentage of his hard core supporters who think he's some sort of political/business genius. What does that say or the state of politics & education in the US at the moment?

Kimsang

Brian? wrote: »

No I wouldn't agree at all. Geopolitics isn't a game of poker. It's an extremely serious subject.

Their enemies don't take them seriously because there's no consistency in their approach.

Game theory would suggest otherwise. Its an outstanding tool at realizing what you or your enemy will do, and in turn what you should do, given a lot of unknowns.

For example, applying game theory to nuclear scenarios, one realizes that the threat of mutual destruction is enough for your enemy not to strike first.

A rudimentary understanding of strategy would easily reveal this.

(I would recommend a documentary called "The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom"- By Adam Curtis. This is detailed quite well

"Game theory had been developed as a way of mathematically understanding poker games. It looked at the game as a system, where the players are locked in together, each trying to work out what they think the other will do"

Professor Moriarty

Kimsang wrote: »

Game theory would suggest otherwise. Its an outstanding tool at realizing what you or your enemy will do, and in turn what you should do, given a lot of unknowns.

For example, applying game theory to nuclear scenarios, one realizes that the threat of mutual destruction is enough for your enemy not to strike first.

A rudimentary understanding of strategy would easily reveal this.

Thankfully The Donald doesn't have complete control of the nuclear button so.

Kimsang

Midlife wrote: »

I mean I think everyone gets it at this stage. Political correctness has been taken to far at times online and on social media. People have been tried and convicted by an online mob.

Why do you make this same point over and over and over in a thread about Donald Trump?

Because people keep ignoring my questions over and over again.

The question I asked in the post you quoted was

Why do people take things at face value without fact checking first?

Why is it only one side can apologize and change their opinion?

Can you answer it?
As exampled by my example of Roger Scruton being stitched up by left-wing media.

AbusesToilets

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Thankfully The Donald doesn't have complete control of the nuclear button so.

He does, actually.

Walter Bishop

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Any candidate against Trump should just consistently hammer him over the lies hebhas told since taking office. Hard to bluff/bluster when in the middle of a live debate.

Exactly, goes back to the 'if you're explaining, you're losing' line.


Any time he refers to her as Pocahontas or any of his other typical nonsense, the reply should be 'where are your taxes?', or 'why have you lied over 11,000 times in office?' or 'do you expect us to believe that all 23 allegations of rape against you are false?'.

AbusesToilets

SCOTUS rules in favor of partisan gerrymandering. Jesus wept. Republicans have played the Democrats for fools this past decade, literally stolen the democratic franchise away from huge swathes of the country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-says-constitution-does-not-bar-partisan-gerrymandering.html

Kimsang

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Thankfully The Donald doesn't have complete control of the nuclear button so.

Are you ever able to quote me, without changing the subject? Could you ever answer one of my questions in my quotes? Could you engage honestly with debate in good faith or not?

Professor Moriarty

Kimsang wrote: »

Are you ever able to quote me, without changing the subject? Could you ever answer one of my questions in my quotes? Could you engage honestly with debate in good faith or not?

I thought the subject of the thread was Donald Trump?

ancapailldorcha

Kimsang wrote: »

Are you ever able to quote me, without changing the subject? Could you ever answer one of my questions in my quotes? Could you engage honestly with debate in good faith or not?

Don't get personal please.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I thought the subject of the thread was Donald Trump?

Don't backseat mod please.

TheDiceMan2020

Leroy42 wrote: »

So claiming incorrect ancestry is terrible but making up medical issues to avoid a draft and refuse to fight for your country is ok?

Or setting up a fake university to defraud people of their money is a good character trait?

Where did I bring up Trump? I'd rather vote for someone like Tulsi Gabbard.

Let's also make another thing clear while we are at it though. The left openly celebrated draft dodging during Vietnam and lionised many musicians and public figures for doing so. But Trump gets bashed for it. More idiocy. The man's an ass but Democrats have to still even lower in their pathetic attacks on him. If their criticism was even remotely sane they'd crush him in 2020 but instead they've gone batshyt crazy since he took office. They are their own worst enemy.

Professor Moriarty

AbusesToilets wrote: »

He does, actually.

No, he actually doesn't have complete control over the nuclear button. In fact, he has no button at all.

He sends a coded message to the military who then launch the missiles. However, it isn't at all as simple as someone getting a message from Trump and then pressing the 'button'.

AbusesToilets

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No, he actually doesn't have complete control over the nuclear button. In fact, he has no button at all.

He sends a coded message to the military who then launch the missiles. However, it isn't at all as simple as someone getting a message from Trump and then pressing the 'button'.

You're diving into semantics. He has the ability to launch a unilateral nuclear attack. That's all that matters.

Richard Nixon ordered a nuclear attack against North Korea whilst drunk.

Some hangover that.

MrFresh

AbusesToilets wrote: »

SCOTUS rules in favor of partisan gerrymandering. Jesus wept. Republicans have played the Democrats for fools this past decade, literally stolen the democratic franchise away from huge swathes of the country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-says-constitution-does-not-bar-partisan-gerrymandering.html

There's something seriously wrong with the political system over there. It's not really a functioning democracy. Gerrymandering permitted. Voter disenfranchising a valid tactic. Politicians being bought and paid for. It really is insane.

Professor Moriarty

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You're diving into semantics. He has the ability to launch a unilateral nuclear attack. That's all that matters.

Not semantics. Words are important and it's important not to be simplistic. He cannot unilaterally launch a nuclear attack.

This BBC article, having examined the realities and discussed the matter with a variety of relevant experts, concludes that:
Although normally nobody is allowed to refuse the president's order, in practice, generals would expect a good explanation for the strike - and would be obliged to say "no" to an illegal order.


Similarly, the general in charge of nuclear warfare, stated categorically that if the order was illegal, it would be ignored. A quote:
“And if it’s illegal, guess what’s going to happen? I’m going to say, ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’ And guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’ And we’ll come up with options, of a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated.”

pixelburp

AbusesToilets wrote: »

SCOTUS rules in favor of partisan gerrymandering. Jesus wept. Republicans have played the Democrats for fools this past decade, literally stolen the democratic franchise away from huge swathes of the country.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/us/politics/supreme-court-says-constitution-does-not-bar-partisan-gerrymandering.html

This is worth bumping by dint of it being a potentially huge decision and doesn't deserve getting lost in the blather; it could have major ramifications for many District elections to come (and presumably those districts already being contested for a redraw).

It could open the door to even more flagrant abuses of constituency drawing, and on the face of it reads like a further erosion of baseline democracy in the country. It certainly throws up potentially 'interesting' ramifications for post 2020 elections...

Presumably this is one result where those who clamour most about "States Rights!!" will say silent..

mcmoustache

MrFresh wrote: »

There's something seriously wrong with the political system over there. It's not really a functioning democracy. Gerrymandering permitted. Voter disenfranchising a valid tactic. Politicians being bought and paid for. It really is insane.

Never fear. There's a candidate who promised to drain that swamp.