nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Quin_Dub

This thread is for the continuing discussion of Donald Trumps's presidency in the US and any related matters.

Please ensure that you are familiar with the charter before posting.

Thanks.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Itssoeasy

Leroy42 wrote: »

He recorded everything would be my bet.

Oh I'd says his recordings are like Aladdins cave in terms of the treasures of what he has of trump recordings.

StringerBell

Former mayor of New Orleans, name escape me right now is doing the circuit with a book. Speaks very well and has people begging him to run, he is giving it the I don't intend to run but never say never politican answer.

Can't say I know too much about him right now but he comes across well any time I see him. I suspect he will be a candidate if things go well for him over the next year with his market research.

A southern Democrat is always a live dog, 30 years public service but not entrenched as part of the establishment or blemished that I can tell

seamus

rossie1977 wrote: »

Clinton won't run again

As for who will I suspect Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker.

I expect it to be between the former trio not the latter. If it's Biden the televised debates between him and Trump would be some of the greatest tv ever broadcast.

If the Democrats had any sense they'd do an Obama on it and pick someone with enough governance experience to talk the talk, but without a high-profile legacy that can be picked over and rubbished.

US politics is now a "last man standing" battle where candidates have mud slung at them continuously until one person remains. So you need a candidate who brings with them very little mud, or one who is so caked in mud from the outset that it doesn't matter anymore (like Trump).

Clinton & Biden are awful candidates, there are warehouses full of mud waiting for them. Sanders is too polarising. Even Warren stinks of "commies".

Itssoeasy

rossie1977 wrote: »

Clinton won't run again

As for who will I suspect Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker.

I expect it to be between the former trio not the latter. If it's Biden the televised debates between him and Trump would be some of the greatest tv ever broadcast.

I'm like you I think it's one of the latter three. I really like kamala Harris from everything I've seen of her.

Leroy42

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1020333776679964672

You have to wonder what other conversations he recorded.

He recorded everything would be my bet.

pixelburp

If the Democrats choose another 'establishment' figure, they're toast, and Sanders / Biden are just too old for the role. Lord knows there's question marks over our own Michael D Higgins, nevermind the toughest political office on the planet (though it is probably easier if you spend much of your time golfing and ignoring briefs)

The DNC seem keen on self-sabotage anyway so will probably pick another polarising candidate, but it also depends on whether Trump looks vulernable or not; whether there's blood in the water will dictate how much 'effort' they'll put into a challenge IMO. Ditto younger candidates such as Booker, who may not want to run unless he thought there was a good chance of winning (I do genuinely think his veganism is a huge minus)

Sierra Oscar

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1020333776679964672

You have to wonder what other conversations he recorded.

rossie1977

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Hilary to run again? Who's the alternative?

Clinton won't run again

As for who will I suspect Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker.

I expect it to be between the former trio not the latter. If it's Biden the televised debates between him and Trump would be some of the greatest tv ever broadcast.

Captain Obvious

StringerBell wrote: »

It's hardly surprising given your own somewhat racist views though is it that you find yourself in agreement and happy to attempt to skew the picture on this.

Hey, here's a question.

Two Mexicans move to the US, they have a baby. Is that baby Mexican or American?

And is he born a rapist or a drug dealer?

pixelburp

Pleading semantics doesn't detract from the implied hostility towards "The Other", a political tactic that is as old as time and extends far beyond the current US climate. It really shouldn't be that much of a stretch to see how Trump used this fear / hatred of the Other during his rallies. To use the American phrase, it was 'dog whistling', heavily coded statements to condemn a whole demographic via affecting concern over the "bad hombrés" as Trump also called them. He did the same again when he railed against the 'immigrant caravans' that were apparently full of violent, nasty people.

There is already a very strong, resting resentment towards migrants from Latin and South America that predated Trump; he knew this, and used coded language to whip crowds up into a frenzy. This was, and remains, his base - the "Build a Wall" demographic, because the whole pretext was based upon a hatred of people coming across the Southern Border. It's 'they took our jobs' territory and Trump promised them a big, shiny wall to keep the rapists out.

Sal Butamol

Hilary to run again? Who's the alternative?

StringerBell

ELM327 wrote: »

of course not, don't be ridiculous.
Trump was speaking in the impersonal tense and stating that the country was sending their rapists etc

Not the best grammar but he's a president not a grammar nazi!

I think he probably intended the remark as aimed towards those who illegally immigrate from mexico (hence the idea of the wall)

However if you take the comment in no context and just analyse the verbiage used then yes I can see why you would take that as the literal meaning. Ironically as someone with Asberger's I'm generally the one struggling to get context but you seem to be doing that here. On purpose as it supports your view of the potus perhaps. Now I'm being cynical.

It's hardly surprising given your own somewhat racist/xenophobic views though is it that you find yourself in agreement and happy to attempt to skew the picture on this.

Hey, here's a question.

Two Mexicans move to the US, they have a baby. Is that baby Mexican or American?

seamus

ELM327 wrote: »

Not the best grammar but he's a president not a grammar nazi!
...
I think he probably intended the remark as aimed towards those who illegally immigrate from mexico (hence the idea of the wall)

"I think"

"he probably"

So you freely admit that the intent & context of his remarks is unclear, and at best is imprecise and grammatically flawed.

Can't you see how that presents an issue when someone is supposed to be a leader? How can someone lead with any level of effectiveness when he cannot express himself in a coherent manner?

That doesn't mean they have to be H.G. Wells or anything, but if there's confusion over whether or not you're completely racist, or whether you've just committed treason, then that's a pretty strong indicator that your communication skills are incredibly poor.

Intentionally or not, the spirit of his Mexico statement is clear; "Mexicans" are "not us" and the ones here are "bad". That's irrefutable.

everlast75

ELM327 wrote: »

I think he probably intended the remark as aimed towards those who illegally immigrate from mexico (hence the idea of the wall)

So, what he was saying was that any illegal immigrant from mexico is a rapist or a drug dealer, somehow that is better.. and you don't think that is racist?

Excuse my vernacular, but where in the **** does he get off saying that every single Mexican coming across the border is a rapist or drug dealer. Unless he has empirical evidence to confirm that, his ignorant and misinformed words do nothing but rile up an already racist base.

And even if he isn't racist (which he most certainly is), then he is an absolute despicable hate monger for making such wild and scandalous accusations against people, the plight of whom, he has never had the misfortune, given his lavish and blessed upbringing, to experience.

Leroy42

ELM327 wrote: »

of course not, don't be ridiculous.
Trump was speaking in the impersonal tense and stating that the country was sending their rapists etc

Not the best grammar but he's a president not a grammar nazi!

But he clearly said they are sending. That implies that it is a deliberate act and that that is why he can be sure they are all drug dealers etc.

ELM327 wrote: »

I think he probably intended the remark as aimed towards those who illegally immigrate from mexico (hence the idea of the wall)

So why did he say , "they are sending"? If they are illegal then by definition nobody is sending them, they are doing it on their own.

And we are back to you thinking what he said, rather than dealing with what he actually said? Why do you feel entitled to second guess what the man said? He has never restated it, never offered a retraction. On basis basis do you think he misspoke?

And doesn't that call into question everything he says?

ELM327 wrote: »

However if you take the comment in no context and just analyse the verbiage used then yes I can see why you would take that as the literal meaning. Ironically as someone with Asberger's I'm generally the one struggling to get context but you seem to be doing that here. On purpose as it supports your view of the potus perhaps. Now I'm being cynical.

There is no other meaning to take from it. How else can we judge what a person says, except on what the person actually said? I am dealing with the words he actually used, in the context that he was drumming up support for himself and his Wall idea.

Christy42

ELM327 wrote: »

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

"Owned her" lol.

Whoopie said Trump starts conversations with "Mexicans are liars and rapists" and that he "whips up people to beat the hell out of people" and then kicked her off the show not letting her reply to that nonsense. That means she "owned her"?

No, that's not how you treat someone and that is not discussion. She shoulf be ashamed of herself, as should anyone that feels that's an okay thing to do to a guest that has been invited onto a show and if Fox did the same to a liberal I'd say the same.

everlast75 wrote: »

To be fair, he did say those things. And if you come back with "when?", I'd refer you to a search engine.

Great - I actually agree with you.

Now, if I had the rest of the afternoon, I could get you a good and representative cross section of Fox interviewers behaving far worse than (admittedly, the out of order) Whoppi Goldberg.

What he actually said was that they were not sending the good guys, no, they were sending their rapists, their drug dealers.

That doesnt mean that all mexicans are like that.

It is interesting that you think that is much better. It is not.

Do you or Trump have evidence to back this up? It seems like they are not sending rapists too often.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/01/18/trumps-claim-that-immigrants-bring-tremendous-crime-is-still-wrong/

Trump just wants people to hate immigrants and illegal immigrants. This is why crimes from illegal immigrants are examined to the nth degree (remember the register, parading victims on stage). Other criminals are not given the same attention because they don't fit his narrative of hating Mexicans etc.

ELM327

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You're suggesting perhaps the Mexican government is picking who attempts to cross the border? Or is someone else sending them?

of course not, don't be ridiculous.
Trump was speaking in the impersonal tense and stating that the country was sending their rapists etc

Not the best grammar but he's a president not a grammar nazi!

Leroy42 wrote: »

Elm, based on what Trump says, don't you think it is reasonable that we people now see a Mexican, one sent to the US, that they assume it is one of the bad ones. Based on nothing more than where they came from, their race....sounds a lot like racism to me.

I think he probably intended the remark as aimed towards those who illegally immigrate from mexico (hence the idea of the wall)

However if you take the comment in no context and just analyse the verbiage used then yes I can see why you would take that as the literal meaning. Ironically as someone with Asberger's I'm generally the one struggling to get context but you seem to be doing that here. On purpose as it supports your view of the potus perhaps. Now I'm being cynical.

Leroy42

Elm, based on what Trump says, don't you think it is reasonable that US people now see a Mexican, one sent to the US, that they assume it is one of the bad ones. Based on nothing more than where they came from, their race....sounds a lot like racism to me.

Captain Obvious

ELM327 wrote: »

--

You're suggesting perhaps the Mexican government is picking who attempts to cross the border? Or is someone else sending them?

aloyisious

It'll probably come as a surprise to the Ukrainians but, according to Anatoly Antonov, Russia's US ambassador, Don & Vlad discussed a referendum being held on the issue of the Ukraine's future during their Helsinki meeting. Up til now the US and Russia have been on opposing sides on the issue.

The next meeting, according to Don, is to cover terrorism which might mean him sacrificing the present US position on the Ukraine for a move by Russia on it's Syrian position. It all depends on what one sees as terrorism.

https://www.independent.ie/world-news/trump-and-putin-discussed-referendum-in-ukraine-russian-ambassador-says-37138465.html

spacecoyote

ELM327 wrote: »

What he actually said was that they were not sending the good guys, no, they were sending their rapists, their drug dealers.

That doesnt mean that all mexicans are like that.

Ah OK, so he didn't say all Mexicans are rapists & drug dealers, just the ones that are being "sent" to America.

That's much better indeed. How dare people make such wild generalisations about a statement by the president...when he would never make such a generalisation himself. Oh wait...

Leroy42

ELM327 wrote: »

What he actually said was that they were not sending the good guys, no, they were sending their rapists, their drug dealers.

That doesnt mean that all mexicans are like that.

NO, you are right it doesn't.

It means that all the Mexicans in the US are like that. Now since he was talking to Americans, then he really is saying that all the Mexicans living and working around them are rapists and drug dealers.

You really think the Americans care what the Mexicans living in Mexico are like?

ELM327

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Who was sending exactly?

ELM327 wrote: »

Yes of course.

Here's the exact quote
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/wild-donald-trump-quotes/9/

Captain Obvious

ELM327 wrote: »

What he actually said was that they were not sending the good guys, no, they were sending their rapists, their drug dealers.

That doesnt mean that all mexicans are like that.

Who was sending exactly?

ELM327

kunst nugget wrote: »

By post?

Yes of course. :rolleyes:

Here's the exact quote

POTUS wrote:

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting."

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/wild-donald-trump-quotes/9/

kunst nugget

ELM327 wrote: »

What he actually said was that they were not sending the good guys, no, they were sending their rapists, their drug dealers.

By post?

Water John

So that demonised any undocumented Mexicans WTF.

ELM327

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

"Owned her" lol.

Whoopie said Trump starts conversations with "Mexicans are liars and rapists" and that he "whips up people to beat the hell out of people" and then kicked her off the show not letting her reply to that nonsense. That means she "owned her"?

No, that's not how you treat someone and that is not discussion. She shoulf be ashamed of herself, as should anyone that feels that's an okay thing to do to a guest that has been invited onto a show and if Fox did the same to a liberal I'd say the same.

everlast75 wrote: »

To be fair, he did say those things. And if you come back with "when?", I'd refer you to a search engine.

Great - I actually agree with you.

Now, if I had the rest of the afternoon, I could get you a good and representative cross section of Fox interviewers behaving far worse than (admittedly, the out of order) Whoppi Goldberg.

What he actually said was that they were not sending the good guys, no, they were sending their rapists, their drug dealers.

That doesnt mean that all mexicans are like that.

kunst nugget

She's proper gas. An absolute mentaller.

EltonJohn69

why is she so mad ! is this just a character she plays to get rich or is she that full of hate ?
she is like something out of an 80's movie portraying a dystopian american future