El Presidente Trump

ebbsy · 02-01-2017 07:12PM

Deleted User wrote: »

ebbsy wrote: »

But more importantly, I doubt if the Sanders crew were rushing out to vote for her ?

Why is that important or relevant?

I will leave that for you to work out.

02-01-2017 07:15PM

Christy42 wrote: »

I doubt it is why she lost. I would put the blame for that on inappropriate FBI comments but just because they were not the deciding factor does not mean a foreign power messing about in the US elections is ok. Granted the releases probably didn't help but up until the random FBI comments she had a big enough lead in the polls even accounting for the margin for error and her weakness in the electoral college.

Surely you must at least admit this deserves further investigation?

See, in my mind, you're doing the exact redirection of blame that I have a problem with.

Calling the FBI's comments "random" glosses over the fact that she / the Clinton Foundation is still under investigation. If you use the word "unfortunate" or "badly timed", your post makes sense but there was nothing random about it.

Manic Moran · 02-01-2017 07:58PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The Democrats are utterly screwing themselves in 2018 and beyond by not looking at why this all happened. Being more left than most of my Democrat-supporting friends, I was hopeful that in the future, the party would be more progressive but neither their leadership or the majoroty of their voters are going that way so good riddance.

After the 2012 election, I saw a lot of conservatives coming to a similar conclusion: In order to regain their chances of winning, they needed to double-down on conservatism instead of trying to appeal more to mid-range voters and even some of the opposition.

I like the idea of the Democratic party moving further left about as much as I like the idea of the Republicans moving further right. I would expect that if you want to get swing states, you need to have a similar philosophy.

Christy42 · 02-01-2017 08:08PM

Deleted User wrote: »

See, in my mind, you're doing the exact redirection of blame that I have a problem with.

Calling the FBI's comments "random" glosses over the fact that she / the Clinton Foundation is still under investigation. If you use the word "unfortunate" or "badly timed", your post makes sense but there was nothing random about it.

They had absolutely nothing and made it seem like an arrest was imminent. There was nothing of the sort. The announcement was that they had a load of e-mails relevant to the investigation on Clinton when in fact they had a load of e-mails and had no idea what was in them. They were then forced to admit that these e-mails contained nothing to do with any investigation about Clinton.

The Clinton Foundation is indeed still under investigation but I fail to see the relevance. The announcement was about the e-mail investigation which had been closed. Was opened a little before the election before the FBI had to admit they had nothing.

I use the word random to give Comney the benefit of the doubt and not directly accuse him of attempting to influence the election. If he has evidence Clinton should absolutely be tried. Without that no official announcement should have been made right before the election.

BuilderPlumber · 02-01-2017 10:55PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

For years the GOP wanted President Obama to take on a more tougher foreign policy with regards the Russians. Even when Russia was supporting a two state solution between the Arabs and Israel's and cooperating with us Europeans on a peace deal with Iran. The GOP were never happy about Russia and Trump throughout the election spoke of working with Russia and not having yet more of this cold war rhetoric and insults against each other. Those who benefit the most from bad relations between Russia and the US is the weapons dealers.

This anti-Russia mindset exists in both the GOP/Republicans and Democrats alike. It seems as if they have been conditioned to hate Russia. Meanwhile, the Americans supported groups the very same as ISIS against Russia (USSR) and to this day the likes of ISIS continue to benefit from poor US/Russia relations. The fact that has yet to dawn on American politicians is that Russia's enemies are their enemies too!

Whatever one says about Trump, one thing he makes sense with is to work with Russia against common threats to both countries. Islamic extremism is the nasty byproduct from the cold war and of course you are correct to say that it is the arms industry who benefit most from all this carry on. The practice of arms-dealing states creating proxy wars to sell these arms to is what is going on. Now these people are using these weapons not only in warzones but everywhere. A whole new mindset is needed to defeat terrorism. The problem is that terrorism is big business for some and those who make and supply terrorists with their gear are as responsible as the terrorists themselves.

RobertKK · 02-01-2017 11:08PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Of course we can't exactly show what will happen in the future. However we can use the evidence to hand to make educated guesses as to what will happen. Of course actually applying the evidence to Trump would take you into a discussion about Trump which is something you and other shave desperately attempting to avoid in the entire thread about Donald Trump.

I pointed to the evidence that suggests he will be a terrible president. You did in fairness point out that he has said that he is against regime change (which I would counter by pointing out that he has spoken about implementing regime changes abroad as a good thing http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/05/politics/donald-trump-libya/).

So the evidence is the alternative to Trump has been supporting wars, interventions and regime change for about two decades, and the worrying thing is, when a person makes a mistake they should learn from it, Trump's main rival didn't learn and still supported the dangerous and failed policies that helped the rise of ISIS, the migrant crisis, hundreds of thousands of people dead...
That is who the alternative to Trump was.
That is the hard evidence.

SkinnyBuddha · 02-01-2017 11:17PM

HellSquirrel wrote: »

This year already shapes up well for morally weak idiots for whom sticking their tongues up Trump's ass is far more important than petty considerations of evidence and fact.

There's not much room after Putin's fist has parked itself there...

Christy42 · 03-01-2017 12:07AM

RobertKK wrote: »

So the evidence is the alternative to Trump has been supporting wars, interventions and regime change for about two decades, and the worrying thing is, when a person makes a mistake they should learn from it, Trump's main rival didn't learn and still supported the dangerous and failed policies that helped the rise of ISIS, the migrant crisis, hundreds of thousands of people dead...
That is who the alternative to Trump was.
That is the hard evidence.

The alternative to Trump is Pence if Trump gets impeached I believe. Or failing that the alternative is the democratic nominee in 4 years time.

Time and time again people point blank refuse to talk about Donald Trump. Look at the thread title. No one argues for or against Obama on the basis of Romney or McCain. They argue using Obama's words and his actions and his past.

I presume I am meant to step up and defend Hillary so we can continue to talk about her in the Donald Trump thread? Time and time again when Trump's actions and statements are brought up suddenly someone comes along to change the focus. Try and put forward your feelings on Trump without reference to the person who several months ago! was his opponent.

Cheerful Spring · 03-01-2017 12:40AM

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/816057920223846400

Trump has just posted on hes Twitter about North Korea. This guy will be end of us all. Trump the guy who started WW3 if it don't happen i be shocked.

Kermit.de.frog · 03-01-2017 01:20AM

I said it before, i'll say it again, the guy is a dangerous and unstable idiot. Amazing how some people have not copped it yet.

Kermit.de.frog · 03-01-2017 01:38AM

And he follows it up with this...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/816068355555815424

This idea that people suddenly mature once gaining high office is being seriously tested. This won't happen on this occasion and one can only worry about the consequences. You don't do foreign policy with 140 characters.

Kermit.de.frog · 03-01-2017 01:38AM

double post

Wanderer78 · 03-01-2017 01:40AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

And he follows it up with this...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/816068355555815424

...

hes as thick as **** really, there really is no intelligence there at all

PopePalpatine · 03-01-2017 01:46AM

So, the USA has avoided hostilities with Russia...only to step into more of it with China.

Hank Scorpio · 03-01-2017 01:48AM

Trump should avoid Twitter once he gets into office honestly. Foreign policy strategy should be a thing for closed doors or organised media scheduling.

On the Russia stuff, there's a new Assange face to face interview being aired tomorrow. Whatever side of the coin you're on it should be interesting.

Wanderer78 · 03-01-2017 01:48AM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

So, the USA has avoided hostilities with Russia...only to step into more of it with China.

so its gonna be russia/us v's china/nk, that ll end well for us all:rolleyes:

Kermit.de.frog · 03-01-2017 01:50AM

Wanderer78 wrote: »

hes as thick as **** really, there really is no intelligence there at all

I posted this video already. Do people not think Obama was well briefed on the risk of Trump, not because he was a Republican or anything like that, but because of what we are seeing? This is him warning the American people that this guy is a dangerous buffoon. Listen carefully to what he says. Trump is unqualified and unfit.

A majority listened but f**k the electoral college. Ironically in being to protect from the likes of this clown getting his chance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16KtYaTooQU

ChikiChiki · 03-01-2017 01:57AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

And he follows it up with this...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/816068355555815424

This idea that people suddenly mature once gaining high office is being seriously tested. This won't happen on this occasion and one can only worry about the consequences. You don't do foreign policy with 140 characters.

I was delighted to see Clinton lose. Can't stand her. But Trumps tweets are very erratic. I would imagine his handlers have advised him to lay off twitter or hire someone to manage it for him and he has completely rebuffed them like a petulant child when it would be for the better. That's a worrying insight into the man. These tweets accomplish nothing and only raise tensions.

RobertKK · 03-01-2017 06:04AM

Christy42 wrote: »

The alternative to Trump is Pence if Trump gets impeached I believe. Or failing that the alternative is the democratic nominee in 4 years time.

Time and time again people point blank refuse to talk about Donald Trump. Look at the thread title. No one argues for or against Obama on the basis of Romney or McCain. They argue using Obama's words and his actions and his past.

I presume I am meant to step up and defend Hillary so we can continue to talk about her in the Donald Trump thread? Time and time again when Trump's actions and statements are brought up suddenly someone comes along to change the focus. Try and put forward your feelings on Trump without reference to the person who several months ago! was his opponent.

It was never an election with good options.
Hillary Clinton is relevant to the Donald Trump story and to why he won.
I had Gogglesprogs recorded on C4 which was shown before Christmas, watched it last night, it is always interesting to see what a child sees.
They showed the children watching one of the debates, one of the children said 'she thinks she is so much better than him', and made the point they didn't like that.
I did put forward opinions on Trump, I said less dangerous, previously I said: he said that implementing regime change is a disaster. Which is very true, one needs to show why he is better in some areas by comparing to the alternative, to give more relevance to the point.
It will be interesting to see how Trump does with Russia, given he said the truth about wouldn't it be better to get along and work on common interests. The current administration have been a huge failure in this area, unless one liked the Cold War era.
Hillary was determined to keep corporation tax at 35%, something Obama also committed too and which has not served the US well. 15% corporation tax combined with the special tax to allow overseas monies return to the US by companies will lead to higher revenues and job creation.

It has been very lazy by people in the media and here who based on no evidence have simply chosen to write Trump off, when Obama based on 'hope and change' was allowed so much freeway and probably one of the worst US presidents in history, an achievement aided by HRC and one reason Obama was ineffective in the election as his words were found to be hollow.
People tried 'change you can believe in' and found it was a lie.
The electorate rejected Bush and Clinton, because people are fed up of the establishment and that is what allowed a hotel/resort owner and TV reality star to become president, and having most of the establishment media and politicians supporting Her was a help.
I think a lot still fail to realise how much the establishment in politics have let down so many people. It is why the rust belt went from blue to red and ended up with Trump.
Trump talked about jobs leaving these areas to go elsewhere, helped by agreements the blue candidate supported, they saw how Trump was consistent with his message about TTIP, and not with Her who had flip flopped because of Bernie rather than it being what she actually believed.
In 2008, people voted for change, they didn't get it.
In 2016, people voted for change again. It was a rejection of the establishment, a rejection of trade agreements that worked against the people, it was a rejection of war mongering and the policy of regime change.
The individual states ended up with a vote that said 'we don't want more of the same'.
This is why Trump is president, I had money on Trump to win as it was clear if one stepped away from biased media that there were a lot of people who felt as Trump said to inner city black communities where the death rate is high among young black Americans in inner cities - 'what have you got to lose?'.
Thing is that message resonated rather than the narcissistic 'I'm with Her' as if the sex organs of the candidates mattered and we should want it to be her to 'break the glass ceiling' - I don't think that was high in relevance to the people of Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania etc.
Donald is narcissistic, but he did not make the campaign about him in the sense the slogans used were not about him.
A clever person will speak about what is relevant to get elected.
We saw Trump consistently talk about the flight of jobs from the rust belt and trade agreements.
That is why he will be in the Oval Office.
The evidence is attacking Trump and closing ones eyes to why he will be President in a little over three weeks, shows a lot still fail to see how Trump won by being consistent on the key area of jobs and trade - things that were relevant enough to the lives of people, unlike glass ceilings and it about being with Her.
People wanted it to be about them in key states, their lives, their jobs and their future.
The irony was Trump managed to be less narcissistic, because his main message as in MAGA was not narcissistic.
He managed to get some key areas and messages about the people, not himself.
It was not a 'I'm with Him', which would have been deemed to have been sexist, and no relevance to the ordinary lives of people.
So Trump actually won on policy, despite what people may argue.

Kermit.de.frog · 03-01-2017 06:56AM

ChikiChiki wrote: »

I was delighted to see Clinton lose. Can't stand her. But Trumps tweets are very erratic. I would imagine his handlers have advised him to lay off twitter or hire someone to manage it for him and he has completely rebuffed them like a petulant child when it would be for the better. That's a worrying insight into the man. These tweets accomplish nothing and only raise tensions.

I predict in the not too distant future... Sad to say but I really believe the guy has a narcissistic personality disorder and is a lunatic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJeXd-N_zGE

Richard Hillman · 03-01-2017 07:03AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

And he follows it up with this...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/816068355555815424

This idea that people suddenly mature once gaining high office is being seriously tested. This won't happen on this occasion and one can only worry about the consequences. You don't do foreign policy with 140 characters.

You don't get it. People voted for a change of the way their elected officials do things. You're suggesting he do it Obama/HRC style with the cloak and daggers. Wrong.

Christy42 · 03-01-2017 08:23AM

RobertKK wrote: »

It was never an election with good options.
Hillary Clinton is relevant to the Donald Trump story and to why he won.
I had Gogglesprogs recorded on C4 which was shown before Christmas, watched it last night, it is always interesting to see what a child sees.
They showed the children watching one of the debates, one of the children said 'she thinks she is so much better than him', and made the point they didn't like that.
I did put forward opinions on Trump, I said less dangerous, previously I said: he said that implementing regime change is a disaster. Which is very true, one needs to show why he is better in some areas by comparing to the alternative, to give more relevance to the point.
It will be interesting to see how Trump does with Russia, given he said the truth about wouldn't it be better to get along and work on common interests. The current administration have been a huge failure in this area, unless one liked the Cold War era.
Hillary was determined to keep corporation tax at 35%, something Obama also committed too and which has not served the US well. 15% corporation tax combined with the special tax to allow overseas monies return to the US by companies will lead to higher revenues and job creation.

It has been very lazy by people in the media and here who based on no evidence have simply chosen to write Trump off, when Obama based on 'hope and change' was allowed so much freeway and probably one of the worst US presidents in history, an achievement aided by HRC and one reason Obama was ineffective in the election as his words were found to be hollow.
People tried 'change you can believe in' and found it was a lie.
The electorate rejected Bush and Clinton, because people are fed up of the establishment and that is what allowed a hotel/resort owner and TV reality star to become president, and having most of the establishment media and politicians supporting Her was a help.
I think a lot still fail to realise how much the establishment in politics have let down so many people. It is why the rust belt went from blue to red and ended up with Trump.
Trump talked about jobs leaving these areas to go elsewhere, helped by agreements the blue candidate supported, they saw how Trump was consistent with his message about TTIP, and not with Her who had flip flopped because of Bernie rather than it being what she actually believed.
In 2008, people voted for change, they didn't get it.
In 2016, people voted for change again. It was a rejection of the establishment, a rejection of trade agreements that worked against the people, it was a rejection of war mongering and the policy of regime change.
The individual states ended up with a vote that said 'we don't want more of the same'.
This is why Trump is president, I had money on Trump to win as it was clear if one stepped away from biased media that there were a lot of people who felt as Trump said to inner city black communities where the death rate is high among young black Americans in inner cities - 'what have you got to lose?'.
Thing is that message resonated rather than the narcissistic 'I'm with Her' as if the sex organs of the candidates mattered and we should want it to be her to 'break the glass ceiling' - I don't think that was high in relevance to the people of Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania etc.
Donald is narcissistic, but he did not make the campaign about him in the sense the slogans used were not about him.
A clever person will speak about what is relevant to get elected.
We saw Trump consistently talk about the flight of jobs from the rust belt and trade agreements.
That is why he will be in the Oval Office.
The evidence is attacking Trump and closing ones eyes to why he will be President in a little over three weeks, shows a lot still fail to see how Trump won by being consistent on the key area of jobs and trade - things that were relevant enough to the lives of people, unlike glass ceilings and it about being with Her.
People wanted it to be about them in key states, their lives, their jobs and their future.
The irony was Trump managed to be less narcissistic, because his main message as in MAGA was not narcissistic.
He managed to get some key areas and messages about the people, not himself.
It was not a 'I'm with Him', which would have been deemed to have been sexist, and no relevance to the ordinary lives of people.
So Trump actually won on policy, despite what people may argue.

He spoke in the vague generalities of policies. He didn't speak about them. His main message was I am great and will fix stuff cos trust me which is narcissistic (I have the best words, I am very intellegence etc.). He said I will make your lives better. Nothing in more detail. He couldn't speak about the specifics of trade deals because either he didn't understand them or because he needed to make them sound far worse than they actually are. The main driver of jobs abroad is wages and technology has also removed some of the jobs from society.

In fact his few policies contradicted his rhetoric such as claiming to be for the middle class while wanting to ditch the "death tax". That bit was exceptional salesmanship it has to be said. He managed to convince a load of people that a tax the vast majority would never pay was crippling their lives.

It is hard to argue that people voted against regime change given Trump's statements. Indeed I would argue that regime changes abroad have little effect on the lives of most Americans.

A clever person will say what is needed to get elected only if they have absolutely 0 moral back bone. Trump brings new meaning to the lying politician stereotype. Trump won because he was a better salesman. He has flip flopped on most policies which you feel was fatal to the opposition on just a single trade agreement. And yes minimum wage affects ordinary people.

Wanderer78 · 03-01-2017 09:13AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote:

I predict in the not too distant future... Sad to say but I really believe the guy has a narcissistic personality disorder and is a lunatic.

I actually think he could be a sociopath but there's no question he's narcissistic, really nice traits for a world leader!

Igotadose · 03-01-2017 10:22AM

RobertKK wrote: »

It was never an election with good options.
Hillary Clinton is relevant to the Donald Trump story and to why he won.

This is the President Trump thread - so lets stick to Trump, not the candidate he defeated. No longer relevant.

RobertKK wrote: »

I did put forward opinions on Trump, I said less dangerous, previously I said: he said that implementing regime change is a disaster.

And, 140 characters later, said it wasn't. Trump is wildly inconsistent and was throughout the campaign.

RobertKK wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how Trump does with Russia, given he said the truth about wouldn't it be better to get along and work on common interests.

He's already come out in favor of a nuclear arms escalation. Seems like he's saying nice things to his boss Vlad, and doing things for his pals in the military/industrial complex against Russian interests elsewhere. Inconsistency thy name is Trump.

RobertKK wrote: »

Hillary was determined to keep corporation tax at 35%, something Obama also committed too and which has not served the US well. 15% corporation tax combined with the special tax to allow overseas monies return to the US by companies will lead to higher revenues and job creation.

Not well? How are US corporations doing? That's a silly strawman. And, from the Irish perspective, we're all in favor of the US keeping its corporate tax rate high.

Do you honestly think that if tomorrow, corporations could repatriate trillions of dollars from overseas it'd go anywhere but stock buybacks and CEO bonuses?

RobertKK wrote: »

It has been very lazy by people in the media and here who based on no evidence have simply chosen to write Trump off, when Obama based on 'hope and change' was allowed so much freeway and probably one of the worst US presidents in history, an achievement aided by HRC and one reason Obama was ineffective in the election as his words were found to be hollow.
People tried 'change you can believe in' and found it was a lie.

Tell that to the millions with health insurance today who are soon to lose it. Tell that to the 800,000 people losing their jobs each month up to the start of Obama's presidency; now the number is much smaller, and the unemployment rate widely reduced.

Only in Fox nonsense is this false.

GWB is the worst president in history. Trump could be worse, but I think he'll be mostly ineffective internationally, and the economy crashes once his cronies get their hooks into policy. I hope otherwise - but he seems to lack the temperament and intellectual capacity for the job; nor is he surrounded by particularly impressive people. Say what you want about Reagan, he knew he wasn't terribly smart, but he DID surround himself with strong people. Plus Reagan was hardworking. Trump has NEVER shown that attribute.

I am waiting on his plan to defeat ISIS, however. Perhaps his Russian friends will do the heavy lifting for him. Of course, Trump keeps the media attention by promising to tell things later, which he never does (I'm sure that IRS audit is done for his taxes, can we see them now?)

RobertKK wrote: »

The electorate rejected Bush and Clinton, because people are fed up of the establishment

That'd be the Electoral college; Clinton won the electorate. Do recall the economy nearly froze completely except for the $800bn injected by Treasury in the waning days of 2008. It wasn't 'the establishment' then; it was people were angry about losing houses and jobs. Oh, and McCain's VP candidate was wildly unqualified and polarizing, bad move on his part.

RobertKK wrote: »

In 2008, people voted for change, they didn't get it.

Going from unemployed, no health care and losing your home to foreclosure, to employed with health care and no threat of foreclosure, seems like change to me

RobertKK wrote: »

In 2016, people voted for change again. It was a rejection of the establishment, a rejection of trade agreements that worked against the people, it was a rejection of war mongering and the policy of regime change.
The individual states ended up with a vote that said 'we don't want more of the same'.

Their issue, really, is with Congress and Senate. Gerrymandering's guaranteed them more of the same. As you know, Trump doesn't create legislation - Congress does. What he does in the first 100 days (if he gets that much of a honeymoon), will be telling, but Obama was clear from the get go he had a legislative agenda and got hopping on it.

RobertKK wrote: »

A clever person will speak about what is relevant to get elected.

And manipulate the media masterfully; that's his real skill.

RobertKK wrote: »

People wanted it to be about them in key states, their lives, their jobs and their future.

Read somewhere that 100,00 votes in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida made the difference. That's the real tragedy in this election.

RobertKK wrote: »

The irony was Trump managed to be less narcissistic, because his main message as in MAGA was not narcissistic.
He managed to get some key areas and messages about the people, not himself.
It was not a 'I'm with Him', which would have been deemed to have been sexist, and no relevance to the ordinary lives of people.
So Trump actually won on policy, despite what people may argue.

I'd like to see you articulate Trump's policy from the start of the campaign through the end. Fuzzy garbage at best.

Trump won on soundbites, and had a big boost from the FBI. Plus, frankly, it's hard for one party to keep the Presidency more than 8 years in a row.

ECO_Mental · 03-01-2017 10:59AM

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I posted this video already. Do people not think Obama was well briefed on the risk of Trump, not because he was a Republican or anything like that, but because of what we are seeing? This is him warning the American people that this guy is a dangerous buffoon. Listen carefully to what he says. Trump is unqualified and unfit.

A majority listened but f**k the electoral college. Ironically in being to protect from the likes of this clown getting his chance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16KtYaTooQU

Yeah I think you are right obviously the intel agencies did a full work up on him they have to and they would have done it for all the candidates and what they turned up scared them. Now I dont think he will start WW3 there are too many people in between him and actually pushing a button also other world leaders know what he is like also and will take his **** with a pinch of salt.

What they are actually worried about is him trying to keep a secret, as you all know the man cannot keep his moth shut and just says stuff to deflect and to belittle someone. Can you imagine some world leader saying something critical of him or not show him respect (he cant take criticism well able to give it out:mad:) he will then hop on twitter at 3am and blurt out some information on some NSA covert action that is going on in their country etc.

The man is a like a two year old child he cannot be told to do anything, he wont take advice, he knows more than everybody else. As night follows day Trumpski will let out some top secret information when he is under pressure, that is why he wont do press conferences as when he is on the spot he is liable to say anything.

Poor old Sean Spicier I feel sorry for....nah I dont

dudara · 03-01-2017 11:11AM

A quote from Teddy Roosevelt in 1918

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.

ECO_Mental · 03-01-2017 12:12PM

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Trump should avoid Twitter once he gets into office honestly. Foreign policy strategy should be a thing for closed doors or organised media scheduling.

On the Russia stuff, there's a new Assange face to face interview being aired tomorrow. Whatever side of the coin you're on it should be interesting.

Hannity is some "journalist"

He was asking telling Assange to say that the information he got was not from Russia....:p he is joke

Reagan will be turning in his grave with how the GOP are selling out to the Russians shamefull stuff

ECO_Mental · 03-01-2017 12:30PM

Ethics who needs ethics, GOP guts and removes independence from the ethics committee. I thought he was going to drain the swamp? :mad:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/02/politics/office-of-congressional-ethics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/

Wanderer78 · 03-01-2017 12:30PM

ECO_Mental wrote:

Reagan will be turning in his grave with how the GOP are selling out to the Russians shamefull stuff

Reagan, another beaut!

RobertKK · 03-01-2017 12:35PM

Christy42 wrote: »

He spoke in the vague generalities of policies. He didn't speak about them. His main message was I am great and will fix stuff cos trust me which is narcissistic (I have the best words, I am very intellegence etc.). He said I will make your lives better. Nothing in more detail. He couldn't speak about the specifics of trade deals because either he didn't understand them or because he needed to make them sound far worse than they actually are. The main driver of jobs abroad is wages and technology has also removed some of the jobs from society.

In fact his few policies contradicted his rhetoric such as claiming to be for the middle class while wanting to ditch the "death tax". That bit was exceptional salesmanship it has to be said. He managed to convince a load of people that a tax the vast majority would never pay was crippling their lives.

It is hard to argue that people voted against regime change given Trump's statements. Indeed I would argue that regime changes abroad have little effect on the lives of most Americans.

A clever person will say what is needed to get elected only if they have absolutely 0 moral back bone. Trump brings new meaning to the lying politician stereotype. Trump won because he was a better salesman. He has flip flopped on most policies which you feel was fatal to the opposition on just a single trade agreement. And yes minimum wage affects ordinary people.

That is ignoring there was no flip flop on TTIP.
There was no flip flop on bringing jobs back to the US.
There was no flip flop on being more business friendly with lower corporation tax and an incentive for US companies to bring offshore money back to the US.
There has been no flip flop on opposing regime change.
There has been no flip flop on improving relations with Russia.
There has been no flip flop when it comes to China.

On the politics forum I had said the attacks on Clinton were similar to how he attacked his main rivals to get the Republican nomination, and how when he had disposed of them he no longer cared about them. It was the same with Hillary, one could say flip flop, or one could say consistent with how he dealt with Rubio, Bush, Kasich and Cruz.

You say a politician will only say what is needed to get elected if they have no backbone.
The problem here is his main rival flip flopped to oppose what she had called the gold standard in regards to TTIP.
Was exposed as telling enormous amount of lies when the Goldman Sachs transcripts were exposed - something she had refused to show the public. She did a Pat Rabbite telling GS about holding private positions and opposing public positions on the same issue, in other words tell the people what they want to hear.

It was said during the election campaign that Trump avoids email as he doesn't trust it but he uses it very rarely so there were no emails on his side to be worth hacking.
It also seems he has a person he dictates most of his tweets to.
From UK business insider back in July 2015.

"I don't do the email thing," Trump said in a 2007 deposition, according to The Times.

In testimony in 2013, Trump revealed that he had embraced email, but only slightly.

"Very rarely, but I use it," Trump said then.

Trump reportedly often has aides handle his online presence for him. He has been a prolific tweeter for years, but, according to The Washington Post, he dictates many of his tweets to his communications director, who hands them off to aides to tweet out.

I think if he can improve lives in the rust belt and improve relations with Russia, he will do alright.
The end of the Obama administration has been like a build up to war, the biggest build up of troops along the eastern borders of Europe with Russia, the blame games, the proxy war in Syria where the west has been supporting the wrong side. It was interesting to see that it was said on CNN that some of the groups fighting Assad used chemical weapons, yet it seemed Assad was to blame for everything bad, the propaganda narrative of the Syrian war which started with Muslim rebels in the Syrian army and backed by Assad enemies.
Trump will be wise if he switches sides so the suffering which the west and countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar helped prolong by many years in their proxy war against Russia and Iran can finally be over.
We know the alternatively Trump was to go after regime change, but maybe we will get some sense from Trump, who many will not acknowledge has had the right approach when he talked about working with Russia to end it. Something Russia seems to be doing already.
I don't think a lot of people are as easy to influence, Russia is not the Soviet Union, yes it like other countries are involved in hacking, yes it is like the US and have tried to influence who governs certain countries.
But to see the US in glowing terms and Russia as being the bad boy, is to ignore they all do the same thing, but US foreign policy has been far more destructive since the end of the Cold War.
Trump and Putin do need to work together with a new era of detente and end the failed relationship that occurred under Obama.
There is a lot of really bad stuff left behind by Obama that needs fixing, one can say the economy improved under Obama, but the cost has been massive with a national debt increase near $11 trillion. A debt that seems to double every 8 years at this stage and it will be an enormous challenge for Trump.

I do think people are wrong to write off anybody before the race has started.
Trump was written off when he announced he would run.
He was written off against Hillary.
Now he is being written off before he has even done anything as President.
Then there are others who call him the clown...I believe one can be sceptical, but I also believe people need to be given a chance as well, and that rule applies to everyone including Trump, only then will we know.

El Presidente Trump

Comments