Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Options
1…319320322324325…330

Comments

  • Options
    #9632
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    kilns wrote: »
    Is America geniunely damaged beyond repair in that could we see in as early as the next 20 years states like California going it alone, especially if things like Rowe vs Wade are reversed etc

    I think it is a realistic possibility as if California left the Union it would need the backing of 38 other states.  The Republicans would be very much in favour of this as the Democrats would lose 55 electoral college seats plus 2 senators, giving even more control to the Republicans
    It wouldn't just be California, Oregon and Washington would almost certainly vote to go along with them


  • Options
    #9633
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Townton wrote: »
    The president was never intended to have such a standing. That was the whole point of federalism and the constitutional make up of the United States. The idea of de centralising power down to the states is actually quite a good one and intended to allow states that felt unrepresented at the federal level to make the majority of their own laws regardless.
    It's time to admit that the men who wrote and signed the Constitution had no clue what the USA would become and/or how large it would be. This idea that we even remotely know what the framers intended is ridiculous.


  • Options
    #9634
    StringerBell
    Registered Users Posts: 14,054 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Pretty standard Trump distraction tactic. Nothing to see there.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Options
    #9635
    StringerBell
    Registered Users Posts: 14,054 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    Captain Obvious wrote: »
    He has flip flopped again on Russia now calling it a hoax. It must be stressful being one of his spin machines.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1021158915206152193

    Nah as I said before he just consistently, almost daily makes absolute fools of them and his defenders online. They absolutely deserve it though so I enjoy it

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Options
    #9636
    amandstu
    Registered Users Posts: 3,421 ✭✭✭amandstu


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Are we again going with he is saying what I want him to have said?

    Seriously are they rapists? Even the majority of illegal immigrants? This is what the claim is. Is this what you agree with?

    As for Helsinki being a misspeak. I have a bridge I can sell. He got back and was told in no uncertain terms he was a naughty boy by the Republicans and he went out and made a politicians excuse. I mean this is the same man who has repeatedly fought the accusation that Russia meddled, fought sanctions and declared he would have proof (found by " his people") in a matter of weeks (I am still waiting on that). Are we to be shocked he said the same thing again? Especially while next to Putin given he has a tendency to back down face to face.
    I count myself as virulently anti Trump ,but this "mis speak" thing has also got into my head and I read it on this occasion without questioning it,so sick and tired am I of his lying and others acceptance of it.

    Didn't Goebbels say it best?

    "A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth."

    Indeed it was no misspeak. It was a filter failure.

    Even compulsive liars get caught out from time to time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9637
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,878 ✭✭✭Christy42


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Christy42 wrote: »
    Are we again going with he is saying what I want him to have said?
    No, we are reading what was written.
    Christy42 wrote: »
    Seriously are they rapists? Even the majority of illegal immigrants? This is what the claim is. Is this what you agree with?.
    The claim that I agreed with was contained in the post I quoted, and this is what I agree with
    Seamus wrote:
    Intentionally or not, the spirit of his Mexico statement is clear; "Mexicans" are "not us" and the ones here are "bad". That's irrefutable.

    Christy42 wrote: »




    As for Helsinki being a misspeak. I have a bridge I can sell. He got back and was told in no uncertain terms he was a naughty boy by the Republicans and he went out and made a politicians excuse. I mean this is the same man who has repeatedly fought the accusation that Russia meddled, fought sanctions and declared he would have proof (found by " his people") in a matter of weeks (I am still waiting on that). Are we to be shocked he said the same thing again? Especially while next to Putin given he has a tendency to back down face to face.


    Is this kindergarten?
    Come on. Is that the response as to why you believe the serial liar misspoke when stating a position he has previously stated?

    There is no reason to believe he misspoke. The speech was not of an accusatory tone towards Putin to begin with. He only stated it was a mistake when he saw how badly it went down even amongst conservatives. He was next to Putin making it harder to criticize Putin, he has previously stated his belief (and his disbelief to be fair) of the Russian position.

    As an aside remember in the campaign when his handlers took away his phone. Can we go back to that please? I would rather he didn't try and steer the US towards another middle east war via Twitter.


  • Options
    #9638
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,579 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Christy42 wrote: »
    Come on. Is that the response as to why you believe the serial liar misspoke when stating a position he has previously stated?

    There is no reason to believe he misspoke. The speech was not of an accusatory tone towards Putin to begin with. He only stated it was a mistake when he saw how badly it went down even amongst conservatives. He was next to Putin making it harder to criticize Putin, he has previously stated his belief (and his disbelief to be fair) of the Russian position.

    As an aside remember in the campaign when his handlers took away his phone. Can we go back to that please? I would rather he didn't try and steer the US towards another middle east war via Twitter.
    We've been over this.
    That is not, nor has ever been, my belief.

    PS: I have italicised the unnecessary condescension that many liberals use when discussing the US President. When you wonder where the conservative notion that people "think it's not ok to be conservative anymore" comes from - this is a good example.

    EDIT: Italics don't seem to work in quoted posts, I have underlined instead


  • Options
    #9639
    Christy42
    Registered Users Posts: 7,878 ✭✭✭Christy42


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Christy42 wrote: »
    Come on. Is that the response as to why you believe the serial liar misspoke when stating a position he has previously stated?

    There is no reason to believe he misspoke. The speech was not of an accusatory tone towards Putin to begin with. He only stated it was a mistake when he saw how badly it went down even amongst conservatives. He was next to Putin making it harder to criticize Putin, he has previously stated his belief (and his disbelief to be fair) of the Russian position.

    As an aside remember in the campaign when his handlers took away his phone. Can we go back to that please? I would rather he didn't try and steer the US towards another middle east war via Twitter.
    We've been over this.
    That is not, nor has ever been, my belief.

    PS: I have italicised the unnecessary condescension that many liberals use when discussing the US President. When you wonder where the conservative notion that people "think it's not ok to be conservative anymore" comes from - this is a good example.

    EDIT: Italics don't seem to work in quoted posts, I have underlined instead
    Apologies if I got you mixed up with someone else? Where you not saying that liberals would be able to get a lot out of his linguistic mistakes? Or did I mix up what you were referring to? Anyway I should have misrepresented your position in any case.

    Is he not a serial liar? What was wrong about my statement. I was making the point as to why his statements (that of the misspeak) should not be believed. It was needed for my point. If he does not wish to be called a serial liar he can stop lying.


  • Options
    #9640
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,476 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    ELM327 wrote: »
    We've been over this.
    That is not, nor has ever been, my belief.

    PS: I have italicised the unnecessary condescension that many liberals use when discussing the US President.

    :confused:
    how is it condescension when it is verifiably true? He lies non stop, 69% of recent statements noted as mostly or completely false...

    http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/


  • Options
    #9641
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    :confused:
    how is it condescension when it is verifiably true? He lies non stop, 69% of recent statements noted as mostly or completely false...

    http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

    That scorecard adds up to 101%


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9642
    spacecoyote
    Registered Users Posts: 8,466 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    ELM327 wrote: »
    We've been over this.
    That is not, nor has ever been, my belief.

    PS: I have italicised the unnecessary condescension that many liberals use when discussing the US President. When you wonder where the conservative notion that people "think it's not ok to be conservative anymore" comes from - this is a good example.

    EDIT: Italics don't seem to work in quoted posts, I have underlined instead

    When multiple outlets keep a running count of lies & mis-representations from the President, and that count runs into the thousands when we're less than 2 years into his presidency, then I don't think there is any issue with Christy's assertion that he is a "serial liar"

    I know that all politicians lie, but has this been carried out in relation to any previous president, and if so, what are the comparable counts? Trump's default setting appears to be lie or grossly exaggerate in relation to every issue. I've known & worked with people who do the same, but thankfully they've never been in a position where their lying could have a significant global impact.

    The world doesn't have that luxury with Trump.


  • Options
    #9643
    irishash
    Registered Users Posts: 657 ✭✭✭irishash


    ELM327 wrote: »
    We've been over this.
    That is not, nor has ever been, my belief.

    PS: I have italicised the unnecessary condescension that many liberals use when discussing the US President. When you wonder where the conservative notion that people "think it's not ok to be conservative anymore" comes from - this is a good example.

    EDIT: Italics don't seem to work in quoted posts, I have underlined instead

    Below is the PolitiFact scorecard for Trump. 69% of everything he has said during his political career has been certified as false. Those are the numbers of a serial liar. End of. There is no argument to this. It is not a condescension. The man is a compulsive serial liar.

    The PolitiFact scorecard
    True (5%)
    Mostly True (12%)
    Half True (15%)
    Mostly False (22%)
    False (32%)
    Pants on Fire (15%)

    For comparison here are some other politicians:

    Obama (Lies -26%):

    True (21%)
    Mostly True (28%)
    Half True (27%)
    Mostly False (12%)
    False (12%)
    Pants on Fire (2%)

    Paul Ryan (Lies - 41%)

    True (12%)
    Mostly True (19%)
    Half True (28%)
    Mostly False (27%)
    False (8%)
    Pants on Fire (6%)

    The devil incarnate.....sorry, I mean Hillary (lies - 26%)

    True (24%)
    Mostly True (26%)
    Half True (23%)
    Mostly False (14%)
    False (10%)
    Pants on Fire (2%)


  • Options
    #9644
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,506 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Why is he even stating these things on Twitter? There are channels for this, the UN, diplomats, the Israelies. Does he really think that making these announcements on Twitter is sending a message to the (in this case) Iranians?

    It comes across as being rattled, and clearly points to a WH that is not working on a integrated agenda.

    Now, a fully focused US is able to take out whomever and whereever they want. But a divided one? Is the military on board? Has congress agreed to this?

    And you can bet the likes of Iran will play off these inconsistencies. They, like Russia, would like nothing more than a divided US. A POTUS out on his own.

    And the one thing that Iran clearly have over the US is that the Iran regime is far more prepared for the human cost of a war. They have shown in the Iran/Iraq war that they would hunker down of the long term. So the US would need a swift and decisive victory, which again they have shown themselves to be incapable of achieving.

    Are the US citizens really prepared to put up with years of war like Vietnam? They are still stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, imaging the blow-back is thousands of soldiers start coming back in body bags?


  • Options
    #9645
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,116 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    That scorecard adds up to 101%

    The joys of not showing decimal places :-)

    Category Count %
    TRUE 27 4.6%
    Mostly True 68 11.7%
    Half True 87 14.9%
    Mostly False 126 21.6%
    FALSE 189 32.4%
    Pants on Fire 86 14.8%
    TOTAL 583 100.0%



  • Options
    #9646
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Christy42 wrote: »
    Come on. Is that the response as to why you believe the serial liar misspoke when stating a position he has previously stated?

    There is no reason to believe he misspoke. The speech was not of an accusatory tone towards Putin to begin with. He only stated it was a mistake when he saw how badly it went down even amongst conservatives. He was next to Putin making it harder to criticize Putin, he has previously stated his belief (and his disbelief to be fair) of the Russian position.

    As an aside remember in the campaign when his handlers took away his phone. Can we go back to that please? I would rather he didn't try and steer the US towards another middle east war via Twitter.
    We've been over this.
    That is not, nor has ever been, my belief.

    PS: I have italicised the unnecessary condescension that many liberals use when discussing the US President. When you wonder where the conservative notion that people "think it's not ok to be conservative anymore" comes from - this is a good example.

    EDIT: Italics don't seem to work in quoted posts, I have underlined instead
    Are you stating the current President of the United States is not a serial liar?


  • Options
    #9647
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,116 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Why is he even stating these things on Twitter? There are channels for this, the UN, diplomats, the Israelies. Does he really think that making these announcements on Twitter is sending a message to the (in this case) Iranians?

    No - It's sending a message to his base.

    His tough guy image has taken a beating this week with the fall-out from Helsinki so he needs to try to re-establish that , he can't throw out a "little rocket man" tweet so he goes after Iran..

    He's saying "I'm still the Alpha , I'm a hard man"


  • Options
    #9648
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Why is he even stating these things on Twitter?  There are channels for this, the UN, diplomats, the Israelies.  Does he really think that making these announcements on Twitter is sending a message to the (in this case) Iranians?

    No - It's sending a message to his base.

    His tough guy image has taken a beating this week with the fall-out from Helsinki so he needs to try to re-establish that , he can't throw out a "little rocket man" tweet so he goes after Iran..

    He's saying "I'm still the Alpha , I'm a hard man"
    And he is trying to re-direct the media narrative, away from the latest sh1tstorm


  • Options
    #9649
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Why is he even stating these things on Twitter? There are channels for this, the UN, diplomats, the Israelies. Does he really think that making these announcements on Twitter is sending a message to the (in this case) Iranians?

    Your first mistake is the presumption that President Trump knows, or cares to know, about diplomatic (back) channels or procedure. I genuinely believe Trump is simply too lazy or set in his ways to look into how one rattles cages in the diplomatic world, and presumes that he can rule the roost like he did as a CEO. And with the WH haemorrhaging staff at a constant rate, there's no one there to tell him how things are done (not that he'd listen given they can't get him NOT to tear up the for-preservation documents). Diplomats have had to placate the man every time he throws a huff, I can see why it's easier to just let him Tweet.

    Plus his base laps up all this "tough talk", and there's no sign said base has demanded any followthrough. Most paper tigers are found out pretty quickly, yet Trump's somehow coasting on ... whatever spell he has weaved. Normal politicians by now would have been destroyed after failing to even get 'the Wall' started, yet here we are.


  • Options
    #9650
    Franz Von Peppercorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,070 ✭✭✭Franz Von Peppercorn


    Leroy42 wrote: »
    Why is he even stating these things on Twitter? There are channels for this, the UN, diplomats, the Israelies. Does he really think that making these announcements on Twitter is sending a message to the (in this case) Iranians?

    It comes across as being rattled, and clearly points to a WH that is not working on a integrated agenda.

    Now, a fully focused US is able to take out whomever and whereever they want. But a divided one? Is the military on board? Has congress agreed to this?

    And you can bet the likes of Iran will play off these inconsistencies. They, like Russia, would like nothing more than a divided US. A POTUS out on his own.

    And the one thing that Iran clearly have over the US is that the Iran regime is far more prepared for the human cost of a war. They have shown in the Iran/Iraq war that they would hunker down of the long term. So the US would need a swift and decisive victory, which again they have shown themselves to be incapable of achieving.

    Are the US citizens really prepared to put up with years of war like Vietnam? They are still stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, imaging the blow-back is thousands of soldiers start coming back in body bags?

    US citizens don’t care about war since there’s no draft anymore. Also it doesn’t have major effects on the economy. The military is getting paid anyway.

    It’s actually one of the problems of a huge military - if you have dozens of generals they will want a war.

    As for the reaction to this - it will be muted. Lots of anti trump types are anti Iran.

    In fact I bet you’ll see some support from the anti trump conservatives and neo conservatives, and war hawk democrats.


  • Options
    #9651
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,506 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    No - It's sending a message to his base.

    His tough guy image has taken a beating this week with the fall-out from Helsinki so he needs to try to re-establish that , he can't throw out a "little rocket man" tweet so he goes after Iran..

    He's saying "I'm still the Alpha , I'm a hard man"
    kilns wrote: »
    And he is trying to re-direct the media narrative, away from the latest sh1tstorm

    Yes, you are both right. What I meant to say was why the WH and the media are allowing him to continue on with this behaviour?

    The second part of the my post still stands. The US populace,as a whole, does not have the stomach for a fight (that is a good thing overall). They are almost locked in. They have all this amazing military gear, but are scared to use it because they don't want get their hands dirty of have Billy or Sally coming home in a body bag.

    It is all well and good firing a few rockets at an airbase, but as we see in Syria is really doesn't do very much (I accept there is a short-term PR spike). But Iran knows this as well. They know its an empty threat.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9652
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,110 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    If the US go into Iran they will have their a55 handed to them and that's a fact.

    The tweet is serving two purposes
    1) meat to his base
    2) distraction from Russia/Cohen/Manafort/Paige/Daniels/McDougal etc.

    We only know the tip of the iceberg in terms of Trump's worries and concerns. And even those, on the face of it, are ominous enough.

    Can you imagine the weight of knowing 80% and worse, the anticipation of what you have done and what may come out?

    Any normal person would be buckle, but in his case and his position, the pressure must be incredible.

    (Oh and btw, I don't mean for one moment to sound sympathetic for Trump. He thoroughly deserves each and every last bit of misery)


  • Options
    #9653
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,116 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Your first mistake is the presumption that President Trump knows, or cares to know, about diplomatic (back) channels or procedure. I genuinely believe Trump is simply too lazy or set in his ways to look into how one rattles cages in the diplomatic world, and presumes that he can rule the roost like he did as a CEO. And with the WH haemorrhaging staff at a constant rate, there's no one there to tell him how things are done (not that he'd listen given they can't get him NOT to tear up the for-preservation documents). Diplomats have had to placate the man every time he throws a huff, I can see why it's easier to just let him Tweet.

    Plus his base laps up all this "tough talk", and there's no sign said base has demanded any followthrough. Most paper tigers are found out pretty quickly, yet Trump's somehow coasting on ... whatever spell he has weaved. Normal politicians by now would have been destroyed after failing to even get 'the Wall' started, yet here we are.

    Interesting Article in the Guardian about the nature of the Trump "base".

    The sheer ordinariness of Trump’s coalition is impossible to overstate. Data from the show that more than 80% of his votes came from men and women who voted for Republican nominee Mitt Romney just four years before. This group contains the usual suspects among American Republicans: tax-cut advocates, religious evangelicals and Catholics, gun rights supporters and business types eager for deregulation. Trump has made sure to give each faction what they most desire just like any good politician would. That keeps them in his camp even as the media flays him with each supposed transgression.
    Evangelicals are a case in point. My work on Republican factions, contained in the book I co-authored with professor Dante Scala, The Four Faces of the Republican Party, found that very conservative voters who highly value social issues comprise about 25% of the party. These voters today are very afraid that liberal and progressive judges will slowly circumscribe their ability to practice their religion in their daily lives. They tended not to support Trump during the primaries, instead backing Texas senator Ted Cruz. Their support for Trump now is highly transactional: so long as he nominates the judges they think will protect their beliefs and way of life, they will overlook virtually anything else he says or does.

    The recent nomination of Brett Kavanagh to the supreme court thus solidified their support, as social conservatives believe he is much likelier to back their views than the man he is replacing, Anthony Kennedy. They might be troubled by other things he says or does, but so long as he keeps his end of the bargain on their priority they will swallow hard and stick with their man.

    It says something that I have felt for a long time , that simply saying "Look at how awful he is" is not sufficient to change voters minds for the Democrats.

    The disfunctional nature of the US 2 party system means that for a huge number of voters the choices are "Vote for your side or just don't vote" particularly in Presidential elections.


  • Options
    #9654
    Cookie_Monster
    Registered Users Posts: 24,476 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    That scorecard adds up to 101%

    not it doesn't, just rounded off.
    27 0.046391753
    68 0.116838488
    87 0.149484536
    126 0.216494845
    189 0.324742268
    85 0.14604811
    582


    basic stuff tbh...


  • Options
    #9655
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,579 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    kilns wrote: »
    Are you stating the current President of the United States is not a serial liar?
    He's a populist. He plays to his voter base. That voter base loved the tears of the liberals when their hero sanders lost to hillary who then lost to Trump.


    Show me an honest politician and I'll show you a dry sea, an airbourne fish and a circular square.


  • Options
    #9656
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 37,572 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    lol. Do you have any evidence of this? It's borderline gossiping at this stage.

    Lol? Seriously?

    If you want footage of Putin giving Trump orders then I don't have that. But you see no cause for concern at all. He was given intel before his inauguration that Putin had ordered Cyber attacks to affect the US election (Source).
    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    What? Sure I have discussed his comments in Helsinki at length.

    It's preposterous to suggest that anything he said amounts to him having sided with a hostile foreign power over his own government.

    You can all repeat it over and over again as much as you like, and back slap one another's posts while you're at it, but it won't make it true.

    But it's Trump, one of the most inarticulate politicians in history, and so you're gonna have ample opportunities to make huge leaps from minor misspeaks.

    It's literally everywhere. The both sides nonsense is unprecedented. I'm not sure what sort of evidence you need but the pieces are all there. The behind closed doors meeting with Putin, the refusal to denounce Russian interference and contradicting his own intelligence services.

    We sat again for an hour and a half discussing maps and figures and always getting back to that most damnable creation of the perverted ingenuity of man - the County of Tyrone.

    H. H. Asquith



  • Options
    #9657
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,579 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    Interesting Article in the Guardian about the nature of the Trump "base".
    Thats an interesting article.
    Quin_Dub wrote: »


    t says something that I have felt for a long time , that simply saying "Look at how awful he is" is not sufficient to change voters minds for the Democrats.

    The disfunctional nature of the US 2 party system means that for a huge number of voters the choices are "Vote for your side or just don't vote" particularly in Presidential elections.
    Regardless of how "awful he is"

    I don't see anyone that will challenge Trump successfully for 2020.
    Sanders could run again I suppose but he lost to Hillary so he's unlikely to beat Trump. Middle America has a fear of anything socialist.
    Is there a democrat in waiting for 2020?


  • Options
    #9658
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    It wouldn't just be California, Oregon and Washington would almost certainly vote to go along with them
    It's a bit of a crazy rabbit hole to go down. If California were to consider it, then New York would too.

    The two of them alone make up 23% of the US economy. Then consider how reliant the surrounding states are on those economies. You'd probably have 10-15 states in total (including Maryland/DC), making up around half the US economy, considering making a break for it.

    Obviously the other states aren't going to vote for them to leave.

    It would be bizarre times, to say the least. Could the blue states exercise their significant economic might over the red ones to force political change?

    I doubt it.


  • Options
    #9659
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,110 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    ELM327 wrote: »
    He's a populist. He plays to his voter base. That voter base loved the tears of the liberals when their hero sanders lost to hillary who then lost to Trump.


    Show me an honest politician and I'll show you a dry sea, an airbourne fish and a circular square.

    Jesus. "Liberal tears" :confused: wtf?

    Anyway.

    Okay - let's try another approach.

    What "exactly" would it take for you to not go out and bat for him?

    1) he is found out to be compromised by Russia - definitive proof?
    2) paid for an abortion of a former playboy bunny?
    3) finance campaign violation fraud
    4) money laundering
    5) caught on tape in a racial tirade
    6) caught on tape sexually assaulting or genuinely admitting it (not locker room talk)

    Any of those do it for you? Honest answer please


  • Options
    #9660
    irishash
    Registered Users Posts: 657 ✭✭✭irishash


    ELM327 wrote: »
    He's a populist. He plays to his voter base. That voter base loved the tears of the liberals when their hero sanders lost to hillary who then lost to Trump.

    you have no credibility anymore on this forum after that last statement.

    ELM327 wrote: »
    Show me an honest politician and I'll show you a dry sea, an airbourne fish and a circular square.

    Lincoin.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9661
    Leroy42
    Registered Users Posts: 15,506 ✭✭✭✭Leroy42


    ELM327 wrote: »
    I don't see anyone that will challenge Trump successfully for 2020.
    Sanders could run again I suppose but he lost to Hillary so he's unlikely to beat Trump. Middle America has a fear of anything socialist.
    Is there a democrat in waiting for 2020?

    I really find this thinking strange. Where was Trump in 2014 in terms of being elected POTUS?

    Why who would think that the Dems have no chance to bring up someone when you have just witnessed it yourself.

    What about the likes of Oprah, Michelle Obama, George Clooney blah blah (I'm am not advocating any of these, I think it one would be terrible, but it highlights that the US has many celebrities that could draw a lot of support).


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement