Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

pixelburp

I think the support for Trump is simply down to the crisis level situation; it's not without reason that he and his acolytes have chosen to use "war time" in their language as it reinforces this idea that one doesn't change administrations during war-time (even though yes, there are historical precedents). Mind you, 538's polling average doesn't show a majority support for Trump. The gap has shrunk sure, but even in this existential crisis he can't get sweeping support. Bush's popularity skyrocketed in the wake of 9/11.

If this pandemic persists up to and into the Autumn, I'd say there are shorter odds for the likelihood of the typical mouth-pieces talking of suspending the November election - in the interests of "public safety". AFAIK this is not allowed under the constitution but ... ... oh sorry, who were the recent appointees to the Supreme Court? Huh.

Huh. Hey, remember when Trump demurred on whether he'd accept the 2016 election result? Huh.

Not saying it will happen, and TBH I'm maintaining the belief that the hump of this will be truly in our rearview by Summer, but for now I reckon Americans are leaning towards the Devil You Know.

And I'm not so proud that I can't admit I would love to see a journalist rage-quit during one of those sham Press Conferences and just eviscerate Trump on his persistent nonsense. Real wrath of God stuff, then just Peace Out and leave the room (and, presumably, his or her career). Patience of saints that lot, or else they're all functional alcoholics at this stage.

Penn

Drumpot wrote: »

I could also see him potentially moving elections if it doesn’t look good for him around October. You can rule out nothing with this person

I think it's already been established that if the election isn't held by late-January (when the inauguration would normally be held, can't remember exact date, 21st or 22nd January I think), then the Speaker of the House (currently Pelosi) becomes President as neither the President nor Vice-President has been elected to a second term, whereas whoever is in the role of Speaker of the House stays even if no election has been held.

The election will happen. As seen in Wisconsin just yesterday they'll force people out to the polls regardless. What's more likely is they'll find some way to close down polling stations in more Dem-leaning constituencies in swing states or other such measures.

aloyisious

The oft-repeated quote by Don that the virus will be gone by April has me wondering if Christians like Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo and the A.G. in the Admin might actually think that Easter and what it signifies [the resurrection of Christ] would cause the virus to just go away, disappear as if it had never happened. A lot of faith, as it were, seems to have been put in religious faith rather than medical science practicalities for the cure. Have they got to Don, influencing his decisions? Looking at some of his own comments about his knowledge and abilities makes me wonder if they have been filling his head with twaddle and he believes in their praises. One of the online references which "cover" the April timeline mentioned by Don uses the word miraculously when making what seems to be a sarcastic take on his quote.

StringerBell

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1247737221911896064?s=19

I think i figured out why trump is so impulsive. It's because if he thinks about anything for more than 3 seconds he forgets what he said and ends up contradicting himself

Yet you would have some try to convince you he is a better, safer pair of hands and more mentally capable than Biden.

Itssoeasy

Penn wrote: »

I think it's already been established that if the election isn't held by late-January (when the inauguration would normally be held, can't remember exact date, 21st or 22nd January I think), then the Speaker of the House (currently Pelosi) becomes President as neither the President nor Vice-President has been elected to a second term, whereas whoever is in the role of Speaker of the House stays even if no election has been held.

The election will happen. As seen in Wisconsin just yesterday they'll force people out to the polls regardless. What's more likely is they'll find some way to close down polling stations in more Dem-leaning constituencies in swing states or other such measures.

January 20th.

StringerBell

The fact that Trump is going to win or lose a close election after everything that has happened and continues to happen over the past 3 years says an awful lot about the country itself and how divided it is.

The middle need to take a long hard look at the situation and ensure that even if they deem a vote for Biden, or Sanders (unlikely) to be something they don't want to do that they need to just follow the republican creed of the lesser of two evils for this election. Pragmatism rather than ideological aspirations are the order of the day.

Get the stain out of office, work on the rest after that. It's positive that Biden is saying he wants Sanders in his administration.

Quin_Dub

StringerBell wrote: »

The fact that Trump is going to win or lose a close election after everything that has happened and continues to happen over the past 3 years says an awful lot about the country itself and how divided it is.

The middle need to take a long hard look at the situation and ensure that even if they deem a vote for Biden, or Sanders (unlikely) to be something they don't want to do that they need to just follow the republican creed of the lesser of two evils for this election. Pragmatism rather than ideological aspirations are the order of the day.

Get the stain out of office, work on the rest after that. It's positive that Biden is saying he wants Sanders in his administration.

Agree that it's good that Biden is looking to be inclusive with Sanders , mainly to keep the "Bernie Bros" onside for November , but I don't think he necessarily wants him to be part of the Administration.

He talked about wanting Sanders to be "part of the Presidential journey" which I'm interpreting as meaning he wants him to be out involved on the campaign trail etc.

"If I'm the nominee I can tell you one thing — I would very much want Bernie Sanders to be part of the journey. Not as a vice presidential nominee, but just in engaging in all the things that he's worked so hard to do, many of which I agree with."

Penn

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Agree that it's good that Biden is looking to be inclusive with Sanders , mainly to keep the "Bernie Bros" onside for November , but I don't think he necessarily wants him to be part of the Administration.

He talked about wanting Sanders to be "part of the Presidential journey" which I'm interpreting as meaning he wants him to be out involved on the campaign trail etc.

Yeah I think it's just a ploy to get Bernie's supporters onside, as he'll need them to beat Trump. But no way he'd give him a high position in his administration, and even if he did he'd severely handcuff Bernie and prevent him from doing anything Bernie really wants to do. We've already seen Biden's position and how they're completely different to the areas Bernie's most passionate about. Biden's not going to let Bernie anywhere near those.

marno21

I posted a poll result here before, which I cannot seem to find, that focused on one certain demographic from the 2016 and 2020 elections. "I hate both candidates but I will vote for x". In 2016, that demographic skewed heavily towards Trump. In 2020 polling, it's skewing heavily towards Biden.

The important message will be to the "pure" voters who won't vote because their ideal or perfect candidate is not on the ballot paper. If you are a Bernie fan and you won't vote for Biden, it's effectively a vote for Trump. The Republicans don't carry on with this bull**** and it's part of the reason they are so successful at politics.

aloyisious

WaPo has a report that Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer are going to lay down markers for the next stimulus funding plan, that it must provide funding to local banks and local enterprises for it to get their agreement. Don and Mitch are dependant on their voting approval for it to get through the house ad senate. It's below the initial Don attacks W.H.O report paragraphs. They don't, thankfully, seem to be falling for the trap set by Don in his firing of the finance spending oversight inspector general.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/04/08/coronavirus-latest-news/#link-FTTQERWMAVB3VOEQA32OB5JHGI

Quin_Dub

aloyisious wrote: »

WaPo has a report that Nancy Pelosi and Charles Schumer are going to lay down markers for the next stimulus funding plan, that it must provide funding to local banks and local enterprises for it to get their agreement. Don and Mitch are dependant on their voting approval for it to get through the house. It's below the initial Don attacks W.H.O report paragraphs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/04/08/coronavirus-latest-news/#link-FTTQERWMAVB3VOEQA32OB5JHGI

All well and good , but how will any of that matter when Trump has already said he will refuse to engage with any oversight of the stimulus cash distribution?

They can have all the rules and stipulations in the world but if Trump just says "Nah , not bothered" and will get away with it as the Senate will let him, what's the point??

AbusesToilets

They should tie in electoral reforms and voting security measures too, but they won't because the Democrats are inherent losers.

Leroy42

AbusesToilets wrote: »

They should tie in electoral reforms and voting security measures too, but they won't because the Democrats are inherent losers.

And they would immediately be accused of putting politics ahead of the people.

Trump already stated that they won't change to make voting easier as it would result in the republicans never winning another election.

Unfortunately, Trump has a free 2 hour spin session every evening carried by numerous live media and reported on across all media to throw out any narrative he wishes and from that moment on the DNC are on the back foot.

aloyisious

Leroy42 wrote: »

And they would immediately be accused of putting politics ahead of the people.

Trump already stated that they won't change to make voting easier as it would result in the republicans never winning another election.

Unfortunately, Trump has a free 2 hour spin session every evening carried by numerous live media and reported on across all media to throw out any narrative he wishes and from that moment on the DNC are on the back foot.

That is the time to ask questions which will make him lose his temper and the plot before MP or one of the other actors there can step in and save him. Get him undeniably raging live on air.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

And they would immediately be accused of putting politics ahead of the people.

Trump already stated that they won't change to make voting easier as it would result in the republicans never winning another election.

Unfortunately, Trump has a free 2 hour spin session every evening carried by numerous live media and reported on across all media to throw out any narrative he wishes and from that moment on the DNC are on the back foot.

Ok, and? Sometimes you have play hardball, which they seem utterly adverse to. Republicans wouldn't hesitate in similar circumstances, but that's why they continue to mop the floor with the Dems politically.

fullstop

everlast75 wrote: »

Hopefully people won't get fooled again come November...

Well as another famou republican said “fool me once, shame on you...you fooled me you can’t get fooled again”!

everlast75

Trump quoting Fox and Friends in relation to mail in voter fraud this morning.

Perhaps if he restored quorum for the board that oversees election security that might help?

Professor Moriarty

everlast75 wrote: »

Trump quoting Fox and Friends in relation to mail in voter fraud this morning.

Perhaps if he restored quorum for the board that oversees election security that might help?

He's an Authoritarian. Everything he says and does is designed to limit democracy and ensure that his voice is the only voice heard.

Leroy42

Its easy to say that but there is very large potential loss of support and little upside from that.

They play hardball, deal doesn't go through, companies and individuals do not get access to funds, more hardship and unemployment and all laid at the feet of the DNC.

They could potentially lose swing voters that may have gone with them. But they definitely have no chance of getting any GOP leaning voters as they follow the line from Trump et al that the DNC screwed them over at a time of national crisis.

On the other hand, if they do get want they want (election reform or whatever) what is the potential gain? There would be some but many people are likely to feel that now is not the time to be playing politics and that feeding themselves and their families is more important.

BonnieSituation

pixelburp wrote: »

And I'm not so proud that I can't admit I would love to see a journalist rage-quit during one of those sham Press Conferences and just eviscerate Trump on his persistent nonsense. Real wrath of God stuff, then just Peace Out and leave the room (and, presumably, his or her career). Patience of saints that lot, or else they're all functional alcoholics at this stage.

That's hilarious, I've just been imagining that exact scenario and playing it over and over in my head.

The journalist about should've just said after all that "Sir, you're lying", that's all. Just a small interjection like that and we'll all get the reaction we want.

It's bubbling.

aloyisious

When you take the firing of inspectors-general alongside Dons regular ignoring of official advice and denying that he got the advice in the first place, it's plain that he's scared ****less of whistle-blowers and leakers. Now would be the time for more to reveal what Don has been doing [action-wise] in the background, like with the Peter Navarro advisory memos to Don and Co about the likely numbers of U.S. citizens dying from the effects of a covid-19 virus outbreak.

BonnieSituation

aloyisious wrote: »

That is the time to ask questions which will make him lose his temper and the plot before MP or one of the other actors there can step in and save him. Get him undeniably raging live on air.

Yup, ask said above, just catch him lying about something that he said in the nightly conference, like they did last night and just go for it.

Nothing to lose.

aloyisious

BonnieSituation wrote: »

That's hilarious, I've just been imagining that exact scenario and playing it over and over in my head.

The journalist about should've just said after all that "Sir, you're lying", that's all. Just a small interjection like that and we'll all get the reaction we want.

It's bubbling.

I have in mind a reporter saying politely to Don: Mr President, you've evaded answering my question and said I was rude. That is both rude and untrue on your part. Again I put my question to you....

everlast75

pixelburp wrote: »

I think the support for Trump is simply down to the crisis level situation; it's not without reason that he and his acolytes have chosen to use "war time" in their language as it reinforces this idea that one doesn't change administrations during war-time (even though yes, there are historical precedents). Mind you, 538's polling average doesn't show a majority support for Trump. The gap has shrunk sure, but even in this existential crisis he can't get sweeping support. Bush's popularity skyrocketed in the wake of 9/11.

If this pandemic persists up to and into the Autumn, I'd say there are shorter odds for the likelihood of the typical mouth-pieces talking of suspending the November election - in the interests of "public safety". AFAIK this is not allowed under the constitution but ... ... oh sorry, who were the recent appointees to the Supreme Court? Huh.

Huh. Hey, remember when Trump demurred on whether he'd accept the 2016 election result? Huh.

Not saying it will happen, and TBH I'm maintaining the belief that the hump of this will be truly in our rearview by Summer, but for now I reckon Americans are leaning towards the Devil You Know.

And I'm not so proud that I can't admit I would love to see a journalist rage-quit during one of those sham Press Conferences and just eviscerate Trump on his persistent nonsense. Real wrath of God stuff, then just Peace Out and leave the room (and, presumably, his or her career). Patience of saints that lot, or else they're all functional alcoholics at this stage.

I posted yesterday or so about the requirement for "gloves are off" style questioning by the reporters. The nevaro stuff is perfect ammunition.

However, I later thought that any examples of that could be spliced by Trump to fuel the enemy of the people/nasty media narrative adverts.

There is a happy medium though. Persistent, firm but polite questioning with each reporter ready for a personal attack and allow it pass them by, repeating the question. If Trump doesn't address it properly, the next reporter should stay on the topic.

BTW - I am listening to the latest Trumpcast pod and the premise is that everything Trump does should be viewed through the prism of a narcissist. Once you adopt that as the starting point, everything else makes more sense. The contributor argues that lately there is no long term plan or strategy, but knee jerk reactions to being trapped in a situation that he cannot control and he does everything he can to prevent being found out/embarrassed.

BonnieSituation

aloyisious wrote: »

I have in mind a reporter saying politely to Don: Mr President, you've evaded answering my question and said I was rude. That is both rude and untrue on your part. Again I put my question to you....

My passive aggression talents are crying out to be dropped into that room.

AbusesToilets

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its easy to say that but there is very large potential loss of support and little upside from that.

They play hardball, deal doesn't go through, companies and individuals do not get access to funds, more hardship and unemployment and all laid at the feet of the DNC.

They could potentially lose swing voters that may have gone with them. But they definitely have no chance of getting any GOP leaning voters as they follow the line from Trump et al that the DNC screwed them over at a time of national crisis.

On the other hand, if they do get want they want (election reform or whatever) what is the potential gain? There would be some but many people are likely to feel that now is not the time to be playing politics and that feeding themselves and their families is more important.

Enduring electoral success? They should be dominant at the national level, demographics support that. It's rampant gerrymandering and disenfranchisement that keeps the Republicans winning in many states. NC is a perfect example for this. Roughly 50/ 50 split in support, Republicans hold 11 of 14 seats in Congress.

serfboard

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/jonathanvswan/status/1247363112862396417?s=19

So if we believe the BS line that Trump was distracted by the impeachment, we now know his economic advisor presented a stark apocalyptic warning. If Trump was too distracted to act about the virus, then that speaks more to his mental fragility and lack of discipline and moreover ability to lead than anything else.

God, people, ye still aren't getting it!

If you want Trump to pay attention to something, send it to Fox (& Friends). It's the only way he gets his information.

amdublin

Bernie Sanders has dropped out.

Come on Biden! Time to galvanize and get this idiot OUT

Jaysus Biden or Trump. What an awful choice

Cork Boy 53

Deleted User wrote: »

Jaysus Biden or Trump. What an awful choice

Biden can`t be any worse than Trump ........................can he?