2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

RobertKK · 12-11-2016 03:57PM

26000 Elephants wrote: »

You are being deliberately obtuse at this point. You were asked about Climate Change, not climate.

Only a fool would think they were being asked if Humans effect climate more than the sun!

I answered what was put in front me.

The other day I mentioned North Korea and intervention. People chose to add a word I never used like militarily, as if one cannot use other means to intervene like putting pressure on China to do more than they have been doing.

I was asked that question, do not blame me as I did not phrase the question and if I gave a different answer I would not have been answering the question.
People on forums tell others to answer the question.
Well tough if the question is answered correctly and it is the question that was not asked correctly.

Stheno · 12-11-2016 04:21PM

aloyisious wrote: »

It might be possible in at least one of the residences thought protectable by the S/Service, if the precedent set by the Kennedys is still allowed.

Will be interesting to see how it proceeds I wonder if he is starting to realise the restrictions a president of the US has to endure?

26000 Elephants · 12-11-2016 04:23PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I answered what was put in front me.

The other day I mentioned North Korea and intervention. People chose to add a word I never used like militarily, as if one cannot use other means to intervene like putting pressure on China to do more than they have been doing.

I was asked that question, do not blame me as I did not phrase the question and if I gave a different answer I would not have been answering the question.
People on forums tell others to answer the question.
Well tough if the question is answered correctly and it is the question that was not asked correctly.

No. We were discussing climate change, you choose to tangent to where you could give an answer than on the surface appeared to refute the consensus view.

Dito with "Intervene" - you later tried to suggest that the US "intervened" in NI politics. They did not. They provided an additional channel for dialogue. The canonical use of "intervene" is very different, and usually fatal for the party 'intervened' with

aphex™ · 12-11-2016 04:50PM

Bush spent weeks at a time at his compound in Texas while president https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_Chapel_Ranch

aloyisious · 12-11-2016 04:57PM

Stheno wrote: »

Will be interesting to see how it proceeds I wonder if he is starting to realise the restrictions a president of the US has to endure?

I reckon so, and there'll be a lot he can't talk about to anyone, can't shrug his shoulders and walk away from. It's his desk now Ala "the buck stops here". The hour or so long chat he had in private with Barak at the W/house two days ago is probably a sign of that. Other people tell me they thought he looked shook-up at the PR meet in the Oval Office with Barak afterwards: I thought he was very pensive looking.

aloyisious · 12-11-2016 05:00PM

aphex™ wrote: »

Bush spent weeks at a time at his compound in Texas while president https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_Chapel_Ranch

Camp David is still there, though I haven't heard of it much for several years

alastair · 12-11-2016 05:25PM

RobertKK wrote: »

His first two years he had Congress majority.

He only had a Senate majority for 4 months. Bit tricky to pass laws through the house in those circumstances, with blanket opposition from the GOP.

RobertKK · 12-11-2016 05:41PM

26000 Elephants wrote: »

No. We were discussing climate change, you choose to tangent to where you could give an answer than on the surface appeared to refute the consensus view.

Dito with "Intervene" - you later tried to suggest that the US "intervened" in NI politics. They did not. They provided an additional channel for dialogue. The canonical use of "intervene" is very different, and usually fatal for the party 'intervened' with

I was asked " can you link to the scientific consensus that the sun is affecting the global climate more than human activity is?"
My reply was a direct reply, I did not add presumptions to the question. I posted a reply to the question asked., and again, I did not add a presumption to the question.

I never said militarily. Look back and you will see how presumptions are not a good way to reply to a post.
The US did intervene in the NI peace process.
Definition of intervene: verb (used without object), intervened, intervening.
1.
to come between disputing people, groups, etc.; intercede; mediate.
2.
to occur or be between two things.

I never said militarily so it is not my problem if the definition of words is an issue for some.

I am finding this discussion rather ridiculous at this stage. I am being told we all have to add presumptions to what others post, as others have added presumptions to my posts.
That means we can presume anything that suits if we have a disagreement about something.
Let's not presume.

20Cent · 12-11-2016 05:45PM

aphex™ wrote: »

Bush spent weeks at a time at his compound in Texas while president https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_Chapel_Ranch

Trump wants to live in the middle of Manhattan. Very difficult to make secure and they wouldn't be able to put a no fly zone over it. Unlike Bush's ranch which was in a rural area.

Fr Tod Umptious · 12-11-2016 05:46PM

RobertKK wrote: »

On CNN they were saying it was a mistake that Hillary had not campaigned in the state, maybe they meant in the weeks leading up to the vote.

WI was a safe Dem state.

Did anyone on the ground in WI notice a trend towards Trump ?

Did they let HQ know ?

Did HQ ignore them ?

Did HQ take heed but told them that other states were more important ?

Plenty of questions for the Dems in plenty of places.

Jawgap · 12-11-2016 05:46PM

Manach wrote: »

Well he demonstrated his business acumen during the election by spending half her amount and still winning,

That's not business - that's politics. And if you're talking about 'spend' it might be worth reflecting on the fact that he was such a good politician he managed to raise less than half what Clinton raised - surely he could've have used his business acumen and superior negotiating skills to raise more than her?

....in other words he spent half what Clinton did by dint of necessity not because of his astuteness.

Jawgap · 12-11-2016 05:49PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Only flaw is, Trump was the most intelligent when it came to a 17 man/woman fight for the GOP nomination, and intelligent enough to get the job done in a 1 v 1 fight.

I always believe this - we may think someone is less intelligent than us, but the biggest mistake is argue with a person as if they are less intelligent than us, because it could be the case the person one is arguing with is more intelligent, and the person who is left looking less intelligent is not the person one thought.
So I would not underestimate Trump, or anyone for that matter, like that person who is quoted has done.

I think he was being intelligent - he thought he could run, build a profile and parlay that into expanding his business empire - in other words building the profile of the Trump brand.......I think he's startled he's won! The plan worked too well!

mrkiscool2 · 12-11-2016 05:59PM

One thing that will definitely be interesting is if he will live up to the promise he made last year that he won't accept the salary as President (around $400,000). If he doesn't do it, that's $1.6 million that can go into other projects (not a lot, I know, but it is something). Will definitely be interesting to see if he lives up to that one.

Rjd2 · 12-11-2016 06:17PM

I haven't read all the thread, but one thing I want to say the attacks on Johnson and Stein are deeply unfair, if I was American I simply would not have voted if it was only HC and DT on the ballot. Clinton was not entitled to those voters, she had to earn them and despite a very pro media, huge money and infrastructure behind her and a LOL opponent she absolutely failed.

The story of this defeat also needs to focus more on how awful HC was as a candidate rather than just blaming sexism, racism and 3rd party candidates.

Anyhow with Johnson while he was liberal socially, he still would have drawn plenty of republican supporters as plenty of conservative magazines etc chose to endorse him.

An example of this was Ethan Coen ranting on the NY Times. :pac:

1. Jill Stein voters: You helped elect a man who pledges that he will, in his first hundred days, cancel contributions to United Nations programs to fight climate change. If your vote for Ms. Stein did not end up advancing your green agenda, it did allow you to feel morally superior to all the compromising schmoes who voted for Hillary Clinton. And your feelings about your vote are more important than the consequences of your vote. So — thank you!

2. Gary Johnson voters: Thank you, for similar reasons. You, too, may now reward yourselves with feelings of warm self-approval, and your libertarian agenda will now be advanced (or not) by someone who admires the governance of Vladimir Putin. And to Mr. Johnson himself: Not only can no one blame you for this outcome — we’re all free agents, man! — but you can stop looking for Aleppo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/opinion/sunday/2016-election-thank-you-notes.html

LordAwesome · 12-11-2016 06:55PM

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

One thing that will definitely be interesting is if he will live up to the promise he made last year that he won't accept the salary as President (around $400,000). If he doesn't do it, that's $1.6 million that can go into other projects (not a lot, I know, but it is something). Will definitely be interesting to see if he lives up to that one.

He could have earned more money doing one episode of The Apprentice than he is going to earn in four years as president. He clearly isn't doing this for the money.

daithi7 · 12-11-2016 06:58PM

aloyisious wrote: »

I shouldn't really do this here as it's a serious issue but a bit of levity de-stresses people, helps them keep focus the O/P is another human... it's a skit on the John Lewis Ad.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjTz7H7tKPQAhUMBsAKHdXpCwIQtwIIITAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DVDVU_TGLJU0&usg=AFQjCNGEJKCU6Qv-nbKVWBfnR5L1VwQXjw

Bump, that is brilliant, thanks. Lol

)))

Billy86 · 12-11-2016 07:04PM

alastair wrote: »

and no returning heavy industry to the rust belt.

And no matter what the trump fans on boards who clearly don't give two sh*ts about this despite their earlier claims (as evidenced by their u-turn since his transition team was announced) or certain 'Americans' on boards who value the Republican party more than their own country think, say or do to deflect from it, the reaction from the rust belt era who ultimately were the difference in the election on this issue is going to be very angry I would imagine, if not immediately (denial is a strong thing and it could take a while for them to realise that all the warnings were right in that he's a self serving con man) then when it becomes apparent that those jobs just aren't coming and were never coming or planned to come.

Billy86 · 12-11-2016 07:10PM

LordAwesome wrote: »

He could have earned more money doing one episode of The Apprentice than he is going to earn in four years as president. He clearly isn't doing this for the money.

He wouldn't have earned as much doing 100 episodes of the apprentice as he would have from a 20% tax cut to all his businesses, for a start.

gosplan · 12-11-2016 07:13PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Only flaw is, Trump was the most intelligent when it came to a 17 man/woman fight for the GOP nomination, and intelligent enough to get the job done in a 1 v 1 fight.

I always believe this - we may think someone is less intelligent than us, but the biggest mistake is argue with a person as if they are less intelligent than us, because it could be the case the person one is arguing with is more intelligent, and the person who is left looking less intelligent is not the person one thought.
So I would not underestimate Trump, or anyone for that matter, like that person who is quoted has done.

I agree with this. Everyone underestimated Trump and it cost them. How many people that didn't vote are out protesting?

But.....his awesome job in the election and primaries was basically a big sales pitch. He told enough of the people what they wanted to hear and got elected.

But it was sales. Now he's got to produce. He'll need results or a war or what was mentioned will come to pass.

Backing up his talk will be very difficult for him.

And can everyone stop this good negotiator nonsense.

The guy at the fruit stand in Marakesh is a good negotiator. Not really enough to be president though.

daithi7 · 12-11-2016 07:18PM

aphex™ wrote: »

Bush spent weeks at a time at his compound in Texas while president https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_Chapel_Ranch

Yeah he did, and he was bloody great wasn't he!?!

P..s. 'let's make America Grotesque again' , well done ye American clowns!!!

Billy86 · 12-11-2016 07:19PM

RobertKK wrote: »

No, as I don't think he will be asking her about invading countries. He is not stupid to not see how disastrous that policy that Hillary always went for has been.
He has also not ruled out seeking counsel from Obama, who angered Hillary over not attacking Syria when the so called red line was deemed to have been breached.

Trump is new to the job, he knows now is the time to be conciliatory, you don't want to be making things harder than they need to be.
What he is doing is basic common sense.

Ah come on now Robert, you spent the entire election claiming you didn't think much of Trump but just thought the Clintons were the worst thing ever. According to you, one is a rapist, the other perhaps the most corrupt politician in living memory, both are murderers, warmongerers, and both are at the centre of multiple conspiracies, and both are to blame for basically everything wrong in the US today. That is what you have spent the last 6+ months telling us, using it to justify your preference for Trump while also claiming to not be very fond of Trump himself.

And yet here you are, jumping through loopholes to defend Trump at every avenue, to the point you are now claiming that the Clintons, who you consider to be raping, murdering, corrupt conspirators who rob from charities, are essentially Saudi operatives and who spread nothing but hatred, misery and despair everywhere they go - domestically and abroad - having influence in the White House is a good thing, because to say otherwise would mean you would criticising Trump?

I have to say that seems more than a bit rich.

ancapailldorcha · 12-11-2016 07:43PM

26000 Elephants wrote: »

So its the Sun, and not man that is at fault, eh? Can I ask you - Do you have kids?

Take the climate change talk to a more appropriate forum please. It's starting to derail the thread.

LordAwesome · 12-11-2016 08:06PM

daithi7 wrote: »

Yeah he did, and he was bloody great wasn't he!?!

P..s. 'let's make America Grotesque again' , well done ye American clowns!!!

That was still less than Obama spent on the golf course!

mrkiscool2 · 12-11-2016 08:08PM

LordAwesome wrote: »

He could have earned more money doing one episode of The Apprentice than he is going to earn in four years as president. He clearly isn't doing this for the money.

Still though, could easily have decided that he wasn't going to say anything about it. Again, he could still take the wage but if he doesn't it can go to something good.

Billy86 wrote: »

He wouldn't have earned as much doing 100 episodes of the apprentice as he would have from a 20% tax cut to all his businesses, for a start.

To be fair to Trump he has highlighted that he was able to do that because of a tax loophole in America. If he closes it, as he promised, that's a good thing and it's one of the good promises he made.

ancapailldorcha · 12-11-2016 08:09PM

daithi7 wrote: »

Yeah he did, and he was bloody great wasn't he!?!

P..s. 'let's make America Grotesque again' , well done ye American clowns!!!

LordAwesome wrote: »

That was still less than Obama spent on the golf course!

Less of this please.

Christy42 · 12-11-2016 08:28PM

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

To be fair to Trump he has highlighted that he was able to do that because of a tax loophole in America. If he closes it, as he promised, that's a good thing and it's one of the good promises he made.

Billy is referring to the money his companies will save if he manages to go through with his plan to reduce corporation tax to 15% (which would save him money) and not him paying no personal tax.

mrkiscool2 · 12-11-2016 08:43PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Billy is referring to the money his companies will save if he manages to go through with his plan to reduce corporation tax to 15% (which would save him money) and not him paying no personal tax.

Sure, that could be seen as self-serving (hell, it might be) but it is also a good way to keep companies in America and create more jobs.

alastair · 12-11-2016 08:48PM

LordAwesome wrote: »

That was still less than Obama spent on the golf course!

Obama took about a third of the vacation time that GW did. So, no.

alastair · 12-11-2016 08:53PM

LordAwesome wrote: »

He could have earned more money doing one episode of The Apprentice than he is going to earn in four years as president. He clearly isn't doing this for the money.

He's not earning much off a tv programme that was cancelled years ago on the back of dwindling viewership. I guess he could ask Alan Sugar for a hand out, but then he's burned his bridges there too.

TheOven · 12-11-2016 09:03PM

Things are looking good for getting those coal miners back into the mines.

https://thinkprogress.org/mcconnell-admits-jobs-war-on-coal-8938da18e5e3#.5jryifnm8

McConnell also noted that he did not intend to spend any government dollars to help those who have lost coal jobs and may not regain them. “A government spending program is not likely to solve the fundamental problem of growth,” McConnell argued. “I support the effort to help these coal counties wherever we can but that isn’t going to replace whatever was there when we had a vibrant coal industry.”

Oh....

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments