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

Leroy42

Quin_Dub wrote: »

They need to stop saying "Look how terrible Trump is" and start saying "Look how much better things would be with us in charge"

Why? the "look how terrible the other side is" worked perfectly well for Trump.

It seems people expect far higher standards from the Dems than they do from either the GOP or Trump.

Based on the last election, the Dems only need to flip a small number of voters. They don't have to change the world. They already have the popular vote, and whilst Trump is no doubt doing great things for his base, he is doing nothing to bring others in with him.

In many cases, those that were on the fence, or turned off by HC, now (with whomever the Dems run with) will have the very real possibility to gain.

I fail to see anywhere that Trump is gaining ground.

So those that feel that Trump is going to win, I think are being overconfident. It is clear that there are a number of very strong factors which might come into play. The economy could turn (it could also remain as is), the Mueller investigation could lead to charges etc.

None of it might happen, but even so, I fail to see how Trump is going to win new voters, and as such the Dems need only to work on targeting and turn-out.

If, as is expressed by many, HC was such a truly awful candidate and ran a terrible campaign, then both of those will be reduced in 2020.

ELM327

everlast75 wrote: »

Jesus. "Liberal tears" 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

Honest answers:

1 - don't care
2 - don't care
3 - don't care (they are all at it anyway)
4 - see 3) above
5 - definitely don't care... probably endear further tbh
6 - This would push me from supporting trump. That type of behaviour is not cool.

irishash wrote: »

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

Really could not care less what you deem regarding my credibility. This is an empty room echo chamber (there's me, outlaw pete, 12 gage and that's pretty much it, vs a gang of liberals - I wouldnt want credibility in that group anyway)

Captain Obvious

ELM327 wrote: »

Honest answers:

1 - don't care
2 - don't care
3 - don't care (they are all at it anyway)
4 - see 3) above
5 - definitely don't care... probably endear further tbh
6 - This would push me from supporting trump. That type of behaviour is not cool.

Crikey.

Leroy42

Credibility has nothing to do with the number of people, it is the arguments they provide.

You answers to the questions show why you have no credibility. You simply don't care about many things that many people do believe in.

Why did you side with Trump? You accept he is a liar. Yet all the things you claim are so bad about HC seem to not bother you at all.

People are trying to engage with you to understand (and then argue against) you position. But you are failing to provide any position except for "I like Trump".

That's fine, and is your right, but don't come on claiming that you should have any credibility when you can't even provide any credible platform yourself.

Just on the first question - is he compromised by Russia, that you claim not to care about. Is there anything that Russia could ask him to do that would turn you off him? He he gave up Alaska for example? What about he removed all sanctions from Russia and allowed them free access to all voter records?

Professor Moriarty

ELM327 wrote: »

Honest answers:

1 - don't care
2 - don't care
3 - don't care (they are all at it anyway)
4 - see 3) above
5 - definitely don't care... probably endear further tbh
6 - This would push me from supporting trump. That type of behaviour is not cool.

Really could not care less what you deem regarding my credibility. This is an empty room echo chamber (there's me, outlaw pete, 12 gage and that's pretty much it, vs a gang of liberals - I wouldnt want credibility in that group anyway)

And there we have it. The epitome of a Trump supporter.

No problem with racism.
No problem with fraud.
No problem with blackmail.

Explains a lot really.

StringerBell

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.

So what's your issue with calling him a liar? In a job filled with liars he stands head and shoulders above all. An impressive feat no doubt he has taken lying to a new level.

Actually you know what, doesn't matter. Ive edited out the other question. Your credibility is well shot at this point.

I commend you for being honest, and that is genuine. I don't mind the opposing views at all, just have an issue with dishonest discourse.

You can see Trump for what he is without being some radical left loon.

eagle eye

Does that stuff make him more corrupt than any other former POTUS?

The only difference for me these days is all the hysteria on social media and smartphones of course where virtually everything is videotaped.

Like George W Bush and the bank of crooks and criminals never got much press.

Billy Clinton and his other women, we heard about him puffing but not inhaling marijuana. The more serious stuff was mostly kept under wraps. Hilary's brother Hugh never got much attention until after his presidency and I could be wrong but I don't remember anybody screaming about it when Hilary went for the Presidency.

You'll notice I haven't mentioned Obama who for me was a good man and I was over the moon when he first got elected but he was a weak president imo. I still like the man a lot and I think he will do great things going forward but I thought he was just too easily bowled over as POTUS.

Quin_Dub

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why? the "look how terrible the other side is" worked perfectly well for Trump.

It seems people expect far higher standards from the Dems than they do from either the GOP or Trump.

Based on the last election, the Dems only need to flip a small number of voters. They don't have to change the world. They already have the popular vote, and whilst Trump is no doubt doing great things for his base, he is doing nothing to bring others in with him.

In many cases, those that were on the fence, or turned off by HC, now (with whomever the Dems run with) will have the very real possibility to gain.

I fail to see anywhere that Trump is gaining ground.

So those that feel that Trump is going to win, I think are being overconfident. It is clear that there are a number of very strong factors which might come into play. The economy could turn (it could also remain as is), the Mueller investigation could lead to charges etc.

None of it might happen, but even so, I fail to see how Trump is going to win new voters, and as such the Dems need only to work on targeting and turn-out.

If, as is expressed by many, HC was such a truly awful candidate and ran a terrible campaign, then both of those will be reduced in 2020.

I don't think it did "work for Trump" in 2016..

US politics is so utterly partisan that once you get past the primaries, the candidate doesn't really matter , all that matters is the letter in brackets after your name - (R) or (D). The key "swing" votes for Trump voted for him in spite of his horrible personality , not because.

Totally agree that the Dems only need to flip a few hundred thousand votes (if even that many) in a few keys states. My point is that those votes will not be flipped by repeatedly saying "Trump is Awful".

He got their votes by promising to bring back industrial blue collar jobs. They need to show that his policies have not really done that and they their policies will.

Gbear

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why? the "look how terrible the other side is" worked perfectly well for Trump.

It seems people expect far higher standards from the Dems than they do from either the GOP or Trump.

I think if you compare, for example, the outcome of the Al Franken situation, you can see how one side does hold itself to a higher standard, and so do their voters.

A Democratic candidate could be unambiguously better than Trump, but if they weren't completely beyond reproach, it would turn off their voters and keep them away from the ballot box in proportion to the seriousness of their missteps.

Nothing within the normal realms of politcal behaviour comes close to what Trump does, so any sane, informed person should be eager to vote against him, but in practice it doesn't work like that, and voters seem to lapse into cynicism and apathy all too easily.

That doesn't seem to faze Republicans or their candidates. They are far more practical about these kinds of things, and turn up for their candidate. Even if they're not perfect. Even if they ****ing hate them.

Captain Obvious

It seems Trump's Trade War has begun to take it's effects on the meat industry.

Meat is piling up in U.S. cold-storage warehouses, fueled by a surge in supplies and trade disputes that are eroding demand. Federal data, coming as early as Monday, are expected to show a record level of beef, pork, poultry and turkey being stockpiled in U.S. facilities, rising above 2.5 billion pounds, agricultural analysts said.

U.S. consumers’ appetite for meat is growing, but not fast enough to keep up with record production of hogs and chickens. That leaves the U.S. meat industry increasingly reliant on exports, but Mexico and China—among the largest foreign buyers of U.S. meat—have both set tariffs on U.S. pork products in response to U.S. tariffs on steel, aluminum and other goods. U.S. hams, chops and livers have become sharply more expensive in those markets, which is starting to slow sales, industry officials said.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/meat-piles-up-as-production-grows-and-exports-slow-1532268000?mod=hp_lead_pos3

Franz Von Peppercorn

Quin_Dub wrote: »

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

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.

Scott Adams of course thinks that Trump is still playing a game with the democrats. He knows his base is anti immigrant (in part) and thus pushes for a wall etc, and shouts about MS 13.

The réponse by some democrats is to abolish ICE, which is effectively an open borders belief system.

On Russia most people don't want war ( unlike Iran where they don't care, a war with Russia will effect them) and if Trump gets a summit and a reduction in nuclear missiles then it will be seen by the base, and independent voters and even some not very political democrats as a good thing.

Collusion isn't believed by a large majority of Republicans, and a majority of Independents. The majority of Democrats do believe it but most are more concerned with every day items. And it is independents who decide really.

The other bases were detailed in the link. The free marketers have their tax cuts, the economic nationalists have their tariffs. The religious right have the embassy in Jerusalem, verbal attacks on Iran, and the new Supreme Court judge ( who in reality is no more conservative than any kind of Supreme Court justice would have been by any other Republican).

The democrats need a response that isn't just anti Trump, possibly a socialist like Ocasio Cortez

Captain Obvious

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Scott Adams of course thinks that Trump is still playing a game with the democrats. He knows his base is anti immigrant (in part) and thus pushes for a wall etc, and shouts about MS 13.

The réponse by some democrats is to abolish ICE, which is effectively an open borders belief system.

Not really. Nothing to say they cannot be replaced by another department or have their remit taken over by an existing agency.

kunst nugget

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

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...

The rounded off percentages they showed added up to 101% - that's all I was pointing out.

kunst nugget

ELM327 wrote: »

Honest answers:

1 - don't care
2 - don't care
3 - don't care (they are all at it anyway)
4 - see 3) above
5 - definitely don't care... probably endear further tbh
6 - This would push me from supporting trump. That type of behaviour is not cool.

Trump going off on a racial tirade would endear you to him further? Seriously, why?

Professor Moriarty

eagle eye wrote: »

Does that stuff make him more corrupt than any other former POTUS?

The only difference for me these days is all the hysteria on social media and smartphones of course where virtually everything is videotaped.

Like George W Bush and the bank of crooks and criminals never got much press.

Billy Clinton and his other women, we heard about him puffing but not inhaling marijuana. The more serious stuff was mostly kept under wraps. Hilary's brother Hugh never got much attention until after his presidency and I could be wrong but I don't remember anybody screaming about it when Hilary went for the Presidency.

You'll notice I haven't mentioned Obama who for me was a good man and I was over the moon when he first got elected but he was a weak president imo. I still like the man a lot and I think he will do great things going forward but I thought he was just too easily bowled over as POTUS.

Yes. Nixon was admirable by comparison.

everlast75

ELM327 wrote: »

Honest answers:

1 - don't care
2 - don't care
3 - don't care (they are all at it anyway)
4 - see 3) above
5 - definitely don't care... probably endear further tbh
6 - This would push me from supporting trump. That type of behaviour is not cool.

Firstly, thank you for your honesty.

So, as you say - you don't care if he is compromised and controlled by Russia? (no 1)

You don't care if he committed fraud (no 3) or money laundered (no 4) and you would be endeared more to him if he had a racist tirade (no 5)?

You'd have to wonder WTF Obama did to cause the sh1t that he took, when he came nowhere near any of the above controversies.

Anyway - back on point.

You, by your own admission, have no problem with him being a racist. That makes you either a) a racist, or b) a racist enabler. I'm not calling you names here - you are admitting to this above.

That's the issue here you see. Anyone can disagree with another's viewpoint on politics, but the difference between Trump and any other politician is an ethics or moral standpoint.

Most right thinking people have a problem with racism. They see Trump come out with racist stuff, see his supporters not have a problem with that and therefore have a problem with both Trump and their supporters. That's not being a "snowflake" or a "liberal", its called being a decent human being.

You can call it "being triggered", or "owning the libs" if you want. Frankly, I don't give two sh1ts. I'll call somebody out on being a racist if I see it and I think everyone should.

StringerBell

kunst nugget wrote: »

Trump going off on a racial tirade would endear you to him further? Seriously, why?

He/she has his/her own racist views so this would validate and embolden them I guess

Trent Houseboat

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote:

The réponse by some democrats is to abolish ICE, which is effectively an open borders belief system.

No it's not. ICE are not border patrol. Nobody is advocating open borders.
ICE has only existed for the past 15 years or so.

listermint

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

Have you not refereed to yourself as liberal

I think possibly even days ago...

everlast75

Anyone else want to honestly answer these questions? Pete, Rigolo, Manic, danzy?

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)

Professor Moriarty

listermint wrote: »

Have you not refereed to yourself as liberal

I think possibly even days ago...

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107552509&postcount=9249

ELM327

listermint wrote: »

Have you not refereed to yourself as liberal

I think possibly even days ago...

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107552509&postcount=9249

Yes, I voted yes to gay marriage and abortion, that makes me a lefty in those spheres.

Professor Moriarty

ELM327 wrote: »

Yes, I voted yes to gay marriage and abortion, that makes me a lefty in those spheres.

Yes to gay marriage and abortion. But happy with racism, blackmail and fraud. Okay.

ELM327

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yes to gay marriage and abortion. But happy with racism, blackmail and fraud. Okay.

Not necessarily "happy" with blackmail or fraud... but I accept they are necessary evils at time.

irishash

ELM327 wrote: »

Not necessarily "happy" with blackmail or fraud... but I accept they are necessary evils at time.

Notice you left out racism there.

Can you give an example of when blackmail or fraud was a necessary evil in modern world politics (in your opinion)?

Professor Moriarty

ELM327 wrote: »

Not necessarily "happy" with blackmail or fraud... but I accept they are necessary evils at time.

So you'll accept a POTUS who is being blackmailed by a foreign government, who had engaged in electoral fraud, engaged in financial fraud and who is a racist. Okay.

[Deleted User]

seamus wrote: »

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.

It wouldn't be a good idea. I spoke to a few people who'd visited New York and another blue state in 2016 and both came back saying they thought Trump had a good chance. The "middle" voters in those states are somewhat default Democrats but it looks like the Republicans are solid Republicans. I get the impression that even if it's only about a third that voted for Trump in NY that they're as strongly pro-Trump as the rest.

Pelvis

kunst nugget wrote: »

Trump going off on a racial tirade would endear you to him further? Seriously, why?

Because he's a racist?

kilns

ELM327 wrote: »

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.

The question was are you stating that the President of United States is not a serial liar. Its a simple yes or no

ELM327

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So you'll accept a POTUS who is being blackmailed by a foreign government, who had engaged in electoral fraud, engaged in financial fraud and who is a racist. Okay.

According to the anti-trump brigade, the US currently have accepted a president engaging in all of the above.

kilns wrote: »

The question was are you stating that the President of United States is not a serial liar. Its a simple yes or no

I am stating that.
He's not a serial liar.
No doubt now you will provide a proliferation of instances where Trump changed his mind on a myriad of scenarios.