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

amandstu

Allez dodo les gamins.

Captain Obvious

ELM327 wrote: »

I hate to break it to you, especially since given your moniker you should be aware of this already, but it never was a title.

It's a descriptor that has been used for US presidents (even the bad ones like Carter) for as far as I can remember.

Point still stands no matter what you call it. Under every president until now the US has been a leader, now it's on it's own.

irishash

derb12 wrote: »

No it’s someone called James Brennan. If John Brennan of the CIA was involved it’d be even bigger news!!

Ah, thank you - I was wondering for the longest time why would the former director of the CIA need immunity if he was to testify at the trial........also why would he be testifying? The only reason I could come up with is that they were looking at him before Trump involvement re: Ukraine.

When I saw a name like "J Brennan" my mind went straight away to the CIA.

ELM327

listermint wrote: »

Oh, your one of those.

ok then, I will modify my response in future to take account of this new normal.

Let me know when that starts please.

migrant

ELM327 wrote: »

Let me know when that starts please.

I love it, thanks.

dr.fuzzenstein

Great, do we now bicker over monikers and grammar errors for the next few pages?
That will get old fast.

Quin_Dub

Cut out the petty crap.

Taking pot shots over spelling & grammar etc. is not going to fly.

Back on Topic please.

Thank you.

kilns

Who are the Dems lining up to challenge him for 2020?

If they bring anyone in with a flawed character Trump will tear them apart like he did with Hillary

Will they go for a celebrity candidate too, ala Oprah
But I dont trust the Dems, they are a bunch of unorganised jokers, at least the Republicans are organised and can get what they want to get done, done

Leroy42

kilns wrote: »

But I dont trust the Dems, they are a bunch of unorganised jokers, at least the Republicans are organised and can get what they want to get done, done

Like stopping Trump from winning the Primaries?

Is that the type of getting thing done, done type of stuff you are talking about?

Water John

I think the present focus is on the mid terms. Let's not get too far ahead, though this was discussed a day or two ago here, if you care to flick back. Seems plenty of good quality options. If you continually lie, a la Trump, you will always have something to say about your opponent. You always have the old LBJ option to fall back on, lets hear him/her deny it.

kilns

Leroy42 wrote: »

kilns wrote: »

But I dont trust the Dems, they are a bunch of unorganised jokers, at least the Republicans are organised and can get what they want to get done, done

Like stopping Trump from winning the Primaries?Is that the type of getting thing done, done type of stuff you are talking about?

Do you really trust the Dems to get organised to create a blue wave, I dontThey are leaderless and dont propose a credible alternative all they come out with is he is bad vote for us. Why dont they produce a manifesto for really making America great again

Leroy42

kilns wrote: »

Do you really trust the Dems to get organised to create a blue wave, I dontThey are leaderless and dont propose a credible alternative all they come out with is he is bad vote for us. Why dont they produce a manifesto for really making America great again

Don't know. I do know that HC won the popular vote, and that Trump will have done nothing to gain voters, but plenty to lose them.

We are constantly told that many people held their noses when voting for Trump as HC was just too bad to vote for. They are now all in play.

Trump didn't have any policies. He had plenty of soundbites. All the Dems need is a PR person. All parties in the US are leaderless unless they have the POTUS. Trump was not even a GOP member and ended up their leader. They were completely against him throughout and even after the primaries.

The Dems only need to change small things, important things, but small things. If Trump delivers the coal jobs, manufacturing job, pay rises etc then there is nothing the Dems can do.

The other issue is that Trump was very successful in arguing about the swamp. Yet next time he will have to answer what he has actually done. Pruitt etc will leave a bad taste in those swing voters.

irishash

kilns wrote: »

Do you really trust the Dems to get organised to create a blue wave, I dontThey are leaderless and dont propose a credible alternative all they come out with is he is bad vote for us. Why dont they produce a manifesto for really making America great again

They did - DNC Platform

Except they dont use a meaningless soundbite such as MAGA. I think they are more concerning with governing based on their principles.

amandstu

Leroy42 wrote: »

kilns wrote: »

Do you really trust the Dems to get organised to create a blue wave, I dontThey are leaderless and dont propose a credible alternative all they come out with is he is bad vote for us. Why dont they produce a manifesto for really making America great again

Don't know. I do know that HC won the popular vote, and that Trump will have done nothing to gain voters, but plenty to lose them.

We are constantly told that many people held their noses when voting for Trump as HC was just too bad to vote for. They are now all in play.

Trump didn't have any policies. He had plenty of soundbites. All the Dems need is a PR person. All parties in the US are leaderless unless they have the POTUS. Trump was not even a GOP member and ended up their leader. They were completely against him throughout and even after the primaries.

The Dems only need to change small things, important things, but small things. If Trump delivers the coal jobs, manufacturing job, pay rises etc then there is nothing the Dems can do.

The other issue is that Trump was very successful in arguing about the swamp. Yet next time he will have to answer what he has actually done. Pruitt etc will leave a bad taste in those swing voters.

Why are the coal jobs important? They are only a small part of the economy and ,if they were saved it would be at the expense of jobs in other sectors I would feel.

Yes the rust belt topped the balance last time but why would the next election play out the same way with the same fault lines?

On its own merits saving the coal industry (without cleaning it up) is bad for global warming.

ELM327

amandstu wrote: »

Why are the coal jobs important? They are only a small part of the economy and ,if they were saved it would be at the expense of jobs in other sectors I would feel.
Yes the rust belt topped the balance last time but why would the next election play out the same way with the same fault lines?

On its own merits saving the coal industry (without cleaning it up) is bad for global warming.

The coal jobs are important as it was part of Trump's campaign ticket.

ELM327

kilns wrote: »

Who are the Dems lining up to challenge him for 2020?

If they bring anyone in with a flawed character Trump will tear them apart like he did with Hillary

Will they go for a celebrity candidate too, ala Oprah
But I dont trust the Dems, they are a bunch of unorganised jokers, at least the Republicans are organised and can get what they want to get done, done

If it's not Sanders, or perhaps Biden (who I don't think has the public personality anyway) then I can't see them winning.
Trump would destroy michelle obama, oprah, clooney, all the rest of hollywood etc
It needs (for the democrats) to be a credible safe politician who is the exact antithesis of Trump (socialist, liberal, PC, good history of economics etc) while still retaining some form of populism.

If it's not sanders, i'd be surprised.
God knows Hillary can't run again

oscarBravo

kilns wrote: »

Why dont they produce a manifesto for really making America great again

Because it's a meaningless slogan that only appeals to people who prefer their manifestos in meaningless slogan form.

Sn@kebite

ELM327 wrote: »

God knows Hillary can't run again

I don't see why she can't. If Trump really annoys the public she might have a chance. She's run twice already and the Clinton establishment is not short of money. I hope I never see her in office but she would need to adapt to the climate change.

I don't fully agree /understand that it needs to be the antithesis of Trump as in PC etc. . One of the reasons why so many people voted for Trump is because of the sidelining of important issues due to PC attitudes. America is not going to go back to the false Obama mindset in another 2 years IMO.

ELM327

Sn@kebite wrote: »

I don't see why she can't. If Trump really annoys the public she might have a chance. She's run twice already and the Clinton establishment is not short of money. I hope I never see her in office but she would need to adapt to the climate change.

I don't fully agree /understand that it needs to be the antithesis of Trump as in PC etc. . One of the reasons why so many people voted for Trump is because of the sidelining of important issues due to PC attitudes. America is not going to go back to the false Obama mindset in another 2 years IMO.

That's the dems best chance of winning IMO, enough people in key swing states getting sick of the non PC non liberal Trump and vote a protest vote for the likes of Sanders.

Clinton won't win it, and she shouldn't run, she's been defeated at least twice now, is it "third time's the charm"?

Penn

No way should Clinton run again. If anyone other than her had run in 2016, Trump likely wouldn't have won. So many people in America simply just hate Hilary, and she comes with far too much baggage. Given how close the vote was in swing states, anyone other than Hilary could have turned the tide completely.

I'd be hoping Bernie doesn't run either but I can see him trying. A Presidential debate between him and Trump would be disastrous.

The Dems have so many people with no negative baggage that would have a great shot against Trump. If Bernie & Hilary really want Trump out of office, they should step aside and give their full support to whoever runs.

ELM327

Penn wrote: »

No way should Clinton run again. If anyone other than her had run in 2016, Trump likely wouldn't have won. So many people in America simply just hate Hilary, and she comes with far too much baggage. Given how close the vote was in swing states, anyone other than Hilary could have turned the tide completely.

I'd be hoping Bernie doesn't run either but I can see him trying. A Presidential debate between him and Trump would be disastrous.

The Dems have so many people with no negative baggage that would have a great shot against Trump. If Bernie & Hilary really want Trump out of office, they should step aside and give their full support to whoever runs.

Bernie with (K)Hillary as VP? :cool:
Called it right there folks.

weisses

kilns wrote: »

Do you really trust the Dems to get organised to create a blue wave, I dontThey are leaderless and dont propose a credible alternative all they come out with is he is bad vote for us. Why dont they produce a manifesto for really making America great again

Its not about trusting Dems.

Its about having common sense to steer away from this disaster of a presidency ... any way possible ...

Professor Moriarty

ELM327 wrote: »

Bernie with (K)Hillary as VP? :cool:
Called it right there folks.

Hopefully neither. Sanders would be pushing 80 and Clinton is damaged goods.

pixelburp

The obsession with Hillary is bizarre at this stage: why the presumption she'd even be interested to go back to that well a 3rd time, especially having endured possibly the dirtiest, ugliest US presidential campaign in decades? To jump back into the arena against an opponent you lost to, one as openly pugnacious as Trump. You'd want to be mad. Clinton gave it a go - twice - and already has a decent career behind her anyway. Lord knows who is brave / foolhardy / stubborn enough to actually run, but I'm willing to put money on it not being Clinton.

ELM327

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Hopefully neither. Sanders would be pushing 80 and Clinton is damaged goods.

But... but... all the liberals told me anyone is better than Trump? :P

kunst nugget

Get Anthony Weiner!!!

Midlife

I know there's a separate thread about it but I think the Democrats are strategically keeping quiet.

if you raise your hand now as a potential candidate, you're in line for serious targeting from the Republican machine and Trump himself.

You don't need to go after Trump, just let him continue. He'll do all the ground work for you and you've 18 months to figure out how to target the key states.

kilns

Dems need a candidate that would get the whole country behind him, like Obama in his first election

But politics being politics in the US, favours will be called in and money talks and I would not be surprised if its Hillary again, btw she shouldnt be let near it again, she is the reason Trump is President

Midlife

ELM327 wrote: »

But... but... all the liberals told me anyone is better than Trump? :P

I'm curious. You're pro-gay rights, pro-abortion and you don't agree with his economic policy.

Why?

Water John

It's funny seeing pro Trump posters having a discussion here with each other as to who the Dems should choose to run against Trump.
Are you in a game of bluff or double bluff? Let's get a bit real and focus on the mid terms, less than 100 days away, on Nov 1st 2018.