2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Jawgap

daithi7 wrote: »

Love it, yes indeed. And my own pet theory on this is that Trump didn't expect to get elected at all, in fact he had actually himself nicely set up to launch a right wing tv channel like Fox say, which would have far more suited his skill set imho, and he could have a fortune being that big, loud attention seeking hurler the ditch.

Now that he actually won, he is like a rabbit caught in the headlights. The full responsibilities of trying to run the western world are now dawning on him, his family and all of those around him.....


Most business people and especially owners, generally find the tedium of politics overwhelming, frustrating and very unfulfilling. That may well be Trump's fate, I just wish he had' practiced ' first, by becoming a mayor or senator, before trying to learn the skills & art of politics in the biggest bloody political job on the planet!! YIKES!!!


P.s. I also hope he doesn't get the keys of his Twitter machine mixed up with the code entering device of nuclear Armageddon, when he's having one of his rant fests with some unhappy ex beauty pageant contestant at 3 AM some morning )) funny, but frightening all the same

.....which is why I think this is spot on......

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

That is true, but then Trump said there are parts he likes when it comes to Obamacare.

At least some of the wall will be built, the US has spent $7 billion on fencing and other measures along the border up to 2014, and apparently the improvement in the fencing is an ongoing thing.
He said there would be no ban on Muslims during the campaign when he backtracked then but instead there would be some form of extreme vetting from countries with a terrorist problem.
I don't think he will go after Hillary either, because I don't think he is this boogie man that some people choose to believe he is.

Obama didn't give us change we can believe in, Trump likewise won't live up to his promises, but I still 100% believe Hillary Clinton was by far the more dangerous candidate, and would make a decision to go to war much quicker than Trump would, and that is why and I hope I am right, that Trump is far less the warmonger than Hillary - that is one campaign issue he needs to keep, but I think he knows the US people are fed up of war.

Obama was constrained in what he could achieve cheers to GOP obstruction. Given all of that, and the hole that the country had to dig itself out of, he achieved quite a bit. I'm not seeing where Trump's grand schemes are impinged by anything other than their essential ludicrousness (and of course the dishonesty of the man making the pronouncements).

Glad to hear the wall has already been built by previous administrations. That's kinda handy, we could have been saved all the guff about how great the new wall was going to be.

RobertKK

Stheno wrote: »

New York times reporting that Trump is trying to work out if he can live part time in the white house

Yes he can.

I had a nice visit to the Texas White House last month where LBJ spent 25% of his presidency - but that was a rural location on his 2000+ acre ranch and he had an airstrip to land Air Force one - you could also get on the Presidential plane there.
His office there kind of resembled the Oval office.

But I don't think Trump can do that in the heart of Manhattan. The Secret Service and the NYPD are each wanting to get their own way.
There is a no fly zone over Trump tower that extends 3,000ft overhead and a two mile radius around. The Secret Service want to close fifth avenue to traffic, but the NYPD don't and say they are use to protecting high profile people in NY.

So I think if he wants to live part time in the White House, he can't choose to live in Trump Tower unless he really wants to piss off New Yorkers.
Traffic is already kind of restricted on 5th avenue as large trucks filled with sand are outside Trump Tower to offer some protection from car bombs.
So I don't think Manhattan is the most practicable location to live part time as President.

Jawgap

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

No one builds the business empire like he did without being a good negotiator.

And as for the 6 bankrupties, if a person believes that bankruptcy is a decision that yields a better return in the long run then an astute business person will go that route.

A bit like cashing out on a losing bet, do you lose some of the stake now and save something or stick it out and possibly lose the whole stake.

Ah come on, it's not like he built it from scratch, and seriously - bankruptcy as a business model?

And btw, it's more than cashing in a losing bet......every time he did it people went unpaid which meant they suffered. It's not something that doesn't have a neutral impact.

RobertKK

alastair wrote: »

Obama was constrained in what he could achieve cheers to GOP obstruction. Given all of that, and the hole that the country had to dig itself out of, he achieved quite a bit. I'm not seeing where Trump's grand schemes are impinged by anything other than their essential ludicrousness.

His first two years he had Congress majority.

aloyisious

I shouldn't really do this here as it's a serious issue but a bit of levity de-stresses people, helps them keep focus the O/P is another human... it's a skit on the John Lewis Ad.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjTz7H7tKPQAhUMBsAKHdXpCwIQtwIIITAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DVDVU_TGLJU0&usg=AFQjCNGEJKCU6Qv-nbKVWBfnR5L1VwQXjw

Manach

Well he demonstrated his business acumen during the election by spending half her amount and still winning,

Stheno

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes he can.

I had a nice visit to the Texas White House last month where LBJ spent 25% of his presidency - but that was a rural location on his 2000+ acre ranch and he had an airstrip to land Air Force one - you could also get on the Presidential plane there.
His office there kind of resembled the Oval office.

But I don't think Trump can do that in the heart of Manhattan. The Secret Service and the NYPD are each wanting to get their own way.
There is a no fly zone over Trump tower that extends 3,000ft overhead and a two mile radius around. The Secret Service want to close fifth avenue to traffic, but the NYPD don't and say they are use to protecting high profile people in NY.

So I think if he wants to live part time in the White House, he can't choose to live in Trump Tower unless he really wants to piss off New Yorkers.
Traffic is already kind of restricted on 5th avenue as large trucks filled with sand are outside Trump Tower to offer some protection from car bombs.
So I don't think Manhattan is the most practicable location to live part time as President.

He appears to want to split his time between the white house new York and two places in Florida!

RobertKK

Jawgap wrote: »

.....which is why I think this is spot on......

Only flaw is, Trump was the most intelligent when it came to a 17 man/woman fight for the GOP nomination, and intelligent enough to get the job done in a 1 v 1 fight.

I always believe this - we may think someone is less intelligent than us, but the biggest mistake is argue with a person as if they are less intelligent than us, because it could be the case the person one is arguing with is more intelligent, and the person who is left looking less intelligent is not the person one thought.
So I would not underestimate Trump, or anyone for that matter, like that person who is quoted has done.

Count Dooku

Stheno wrote: »

New York times reporting that Trump is trying to work out if he can live part time in the white house

Does anybody believe to them?
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/794257874306342912

aloyisious

Stheno wrote: »

He appears to want to split his time between the white house new York and two places in Florida!

It might be possible in at least one of the residences thought protectable by the S/Service, if the precedent set by the Kennedys is still allowed.

RobertKK

26000 Elephants wrote: »

You are being deliberately obtuse at this point. You were asked about Climate Change, not climate.

Only a fool would think they were being asked if Humans effect climate more than the sun!

I answered what was put in front me.

The other day I mentioned North Korea and intervention. People chose to add a word I never used like militarily, as if one cannot use other means to intervene like putting pressure on China to do more than they have been doing.

I was asked that question, do not blame me as I did not phrase the question and if I gave a different answer I would not have been answering the question.
People on forums tell others to answer the question.
Well tough if the question is answered correctly and it is the question that was not asked correctly.

Stheno

aloyisious wrote: »

It might be possible in at least one of the residences thought protectable by the S/Service, if the precedent set by the Kennedys is still allowed.

Will be interesting to see how it proceeds I wonder if he is starting to realise the restrictions a president of the US has to endure?

26000 Elephants

RobertKK wrote: »

I answered what was put in front me.

The other day I mentioned North Korea and intervention. People chose to add a word I never used like militarily, as if one cannot use other means to intervene like putting pressure on China to do more than they have been doing.

I was asked that question, do not blame me as I did not phrase the question and if I gave a different answer I would not have been answering the question.
People on forums tell others to answer the question.
Well tough if the question is answered correctly and it is the question that was not asked correctly.

No. We were discussing climate change, you choose to tangent to where you could give an answer than on the surface appeared to refute the consensus view.

Dito with "Intervene" - you later tried to suggest that the US "intervened" in NI politics. They did not. They provided an additional channel for dialogue. The canonical use of "intervene" is very different, and usually fatal for the party 'intervened' with

aphex™

Bush spent weeks at a time at his compound in Texas while president https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_Chapel_Ranch

aloyisious

Stheno wrote: »

Will be interesting to see how it proceeds I wonder if he is starting to realise the restrictions a president of the US has to endure?

I reckon so, and there'll be a lot he can't talk about to anyone, can't shrug his shoulders and walk away from. It's his desk now Ala "the buck stops here". The hour or so long chat he had in private with Barak at the W/house two days ago is probably a sign of that. Other people tell me they thought he looked shook-up at the PR meet in the Oval Office with Barak afterwards: I thought he was very pensive looking.

aloyisious

aphex™ wrote: »

Bush spent weeks at a time at his compound in Texas while president https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_Chapel_Ranch

Camp David is still there, though I haven't heard of it much for several years

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

His first two years he had Congress majority.

He only had a Senate majority for 4 months. Bit tricky to pass laws through the house in those circumstances, with blanket opposition from the GOP.

RobertKK

26000 Elephants wrote: »

No. We were discussing climate change, you choose to tangent to where you could give an answer than on the surface appeared to refute the consensus view.

Dito with "Intervene" - you later tried to suggest that the US "intervened" in NI politics. They did not. They provided an additional channel for dialogue. The canonical use of "intervene" is very different, and usually fatal for the party 'intervened' with

I was asked " can you link to the scientific consensus that the sun is affecting the global climate more than human activity is?"
My reply was a direct reply, I did not add presumptions to the question. I posted a reply to the question asked., and again, I did not add a presumption to the question.

I never said militarily. Look back and you will see how presumptions are not a good way to reply to a post.
The US did intervene in the NI peace process.
Definition of intervene: verb (used without object), intervened, intervening.
1.
to come between disputing people, groups, etc.; intercede; mediate.
2.
to occur or be between two things.

I never said militarily so it is not my problem if the definition of words is an issue for some.

I am finding this discussion rather ridiculous at this stage. I am being told we all have to add presumptions to what others post, as others have added presumptions to my posts.
That means we can presume anything that suits if we have a disagreement about something.
Let's not presume.

20Cent

aphex™ wrote: »

Bush spent weeks at a time at his compound in Texas while president https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_Chapel_Ranch

Trump wants to live in the middle of Manhattan. Very difficult to make secure and they wouldn't be able to put a no fly zone over it. Unlike Bush's ranch which was in a rural area.

Fr Tod Umptious

RobertKK wrote: »

On CNN they were saying it was a mistake that Hillary had not campaigned in the state, maybe they meant in the weeks leading up to the vote.

WI was a safe Dem state.

Did anyone on the ground in WI notice a trend towards Trump ?

Did they let HQ know ?

Did HQ ignore them ?

Did HQ take heed but told them that other states were more important ?

Plenty of questions for the Dems in plenty of places.

Jawgap

Manach wrote: »

Well he demonstrated his business acumen during the election by spending half her amount and still winning,

That's not business - that's politics. And if you're talking about 'spend' it might be worth reflecting on the fact that he was such a good politician he managed to raise less than half what Clinton raised - surely he could've have used his business acumen and superior negotiating skills to raise more than her?

....in other words he spent half what Clinton did by dint of necessity not because of his astuteness.

Jawgap

RobertKK wrote: »

Only flaw is, Trump was the most intelligent when it came to a 17 man/woman fight for the GOP nomination, and intelligent enough to get the job done in a 1 v 1 fight.

I always believe this - we may think someone is less intelligent than us, but the biggest mistake is argue with a person as if they are less intelligent than us, because it could be the case the person one is arguing with is more intelligent, and the person who is left looking less intelligent is not the person one thought.
So I would not underestimate Trump, or anyone for that matter, like that person who is quoted has done.

I think he was being intelligent - he thought he could run, build a profile and parlay that into expanding his business empire - in other words building the profile of the Trump brand.......I think he's startled he's won! The plan worked too well!

mrkiscool2

One thing that will definitely be interesting is if he will live up to the promise he made last year that he won't accept the salary as President (around $400,000). If he doesn't do it, that's $1.6 million that can go into other projects (not a lot, I know, but it is something). Will definitely be interesting to see if he lives up to that one.

Rjd2

I haven't read all the thread, but one thing I want to say the attacks on Johnson and Stein are deeply unfair, if I was American I simply would not have voted if it was only HC and DT on the ballot. Clinton was not entitled to those voters, she had to earn them and despite a very pro media, huge money and infrastructure behind her and a LOL opponent she absolutely failed.

The story of this defeat also needs to focus more on how awful HC was as a candidate rather than just blaming sexism, racism and 3rd party candidates.

Anyhow with Johnson while he was liberal socially, he still would have drawn plenty of republican supporters as plenty of conservative magazines etc chose to endorse him.

An example of this was Ethan Coen ranting on the NY Times. :pac:

1. Jill Stein voters: You helped elect a man who pledges that he will, in his first hundred days, cancel contributions to United Nations programs to fight climate change. If your vote for Ms. Stein did not end up advancing your green agenda, it did allow you to feel morally superior to all the compromising schmoes who voted for Hillary Clinton. And your feelings about your vote are more important than the consequences of your vote. So — thank you!

2. Gary Johnson voters: Thank you, for similar reasons. You, too, may now reward yourselves with feelings of warm self-approval, and your libertarian agenda will now be advanced (or not) by someone who admires the governance of Vladimir Putin. And to Mr. Johnson himself: Not only can no one blame you for this outcome — we’re all free agents, man! — but you can stop looking for Aleppo.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/opinion/sunday/2016-election-thank-you-notes.html

LordAwesome

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

One thing that will definitely be interesting is if he will live up to the promise he made last year that he won't accept the salary as President (around $400,000). If he doesn't do it, that's $1.6 million that can go into other projects (not a lot, I know, but it is something). Will definitely be interesting to see if he lives up to that one.

He could have earned more money doing one episode of The Apprentice than he is going to earn in four years as president. He clearly isn't doing this for the money.

daithi7

aloyisious wrote: »

I shouldn't really do this here as it's a serious issue but a bit of levity de-stresses people, helps them keep focus the O/P is another human... it's a skit on the John Lewis Ad.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjTz7H7tKPQAhUMBsAKHdXpCwIQtwIIITAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DVDVU_TGLJU0&usg=AFQjCNGEJKCU6Qv-nbKVWBfnR5L1VwQXjw

Bump, that is brilliant, thanks. Lol )))

Billy86

alastair wrote: »

and no returning heavy industry to the rust belt.

And no matter what the trump fans on boards who clearly don't give two sh*ts about this despite their earlier claims (as evidenced by their u-turn since his transition team was announced) or certain 'Americans' on boards who value the Republican party more than their own country think, say or do to deflect from it, the reaction from the rust belt era who ultimately were the difference in the election on this issue is going to be very angry I would imagine, if not immediately (denial is a strong thing and it could take a while for them to realise that all the warnings were right in that he's a self serving con man) then when it becomes apparent that those jobs just aren't coming and were never coming or planned to come.

Billy86

LordAwesome wrote: »

He could have earned more money doing one episode of The Apprentice than he is going to earn in four years as president. He clearly isn't doing this for the money.

He wouldn't have earned as much doing 100 episodes of the apprentice as he would have from a 20% tax cut to all his businesses, for a start.

gosplan

RobertKK wrote: »

Only flaw is, Trump was the most intelligent when it came to a 17 man/woman fight for the GOP nomination, and intelligent enough to get the job done in a 1 v 1 fight.

I always believe this - we may think someone is less intelligent than us, but the biggest mistake is argue with a person as if they are less intelligent than us, because it could be the case the person one is arguing with is more intelligent, and the person who is left looking less intelligent is not the person one thought.
So I would not underestimate Trump, or anyone for that matter, like that person who is quoted has done.

I agree with this. Everyone underestimated Trump and it cost them. How many people that didn't vote are out protesting?

But.....his awesome job in the election and primaries was basically a big sales pitch. He told enough of the people what they wanted to hear and got elected.

But it was sales. Now he's got to produce. He'll need results or a war or what was mentioned will come to pass.

Backing up his talk will be very difficult for him.


And can everyone stop this good negotiator nonsense.

The guy at the fruit stand in Marakesh is a good negotiator. Not really enough to be president though.

daithi7

aphex™ wrote: »

Bush spent weeks at a time at his compound in Texas while president https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prairie_Chapel_Ranch

Yeah he did, and he was bloody great wasn't he!?!


P..s. 'let's make America Grotesque again' , well done ye American clowns!!!

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

No, as I don't think he will be asking her about invading countries. He is not stupid to not see how disastrous that policy that Hillary always went for has been.
He has also not ruled out seeking counsel from Obama, who angered Hillary over not attacking Syria when the so called red line was deemed to have been breached.

Trump is new to the job, he knows now is the time to be conciliatory, you don't want to be making things harder than they need to be.
What he is doing is basic common sense.

Ah come on now Robert, you spent the entire election claiming you didn't think much of Trump but just thought the Clintons were the worst thing ever. According to you, one is a rapist, the other perhaps the most corrupt politician in living memory, both are murderers, warmongerers, and both are at the centre of multiple conspiracies, and both are to blame for basically everything wrong in the US today. That is what you have spent the last 6+ months telling us, using it to justify your preference for Trump while also claiming to not be very fond of Trump himself.

And yet here you are, jumping through loopholes to defend Trump at every avenue, to the point you are now claiming that the Clintons, who you consider to be raping, murdering, corrupt conspirators who rob from charities, are essentially Saudi operatives and who spread nothing but hatred, misery and despair everywhere they go - domestically and abroad - having influence in the White House is a good thing, because to say otherwise would mean you would criticising Trump?

I have to say that seems more than a bit rich.

ancapailldorcha

26000 Elephants wrote: »

So its the Sun, and not man that is at fault, eh? Can I ask you - Do you have kids?

Take the climate change talk to a more appropriate forum please. It's starting to derail the thread.

LordAwesome

daithi7 wrote: »

Yeah he did, and he was bloody great wasn't he!?!


P..s. 'let's make America Grotesque again' , well done ye American clowns!!!

That was still less than Obama spent on the golf course!

mrkiscool2

LordAwesome wrote: »

He could have earned more money doing one episode of The Apprentice than he is going to earn in four years as president. He clearly isn't doing this for the money.

Still though, could easily have decided that he wasn't going to say anything about it. Again, he could still take the wage but if he doesn't it can go to something good.

Billy86 wrote: »

He wouldn't have earned as much doing 100 episodes of the apprentice as he would have from a 20% tax cut to all his businesses, for a start.

To be fair to Trump he has highlighted that he was able to do that because of a tax loophole in America. If he closes it, as he promised, that's a good thing and it's one of the good promises he made.

ancapailldorcha

daithi7 wrote: »

Yeah he did, and he was bloody great wasn't he!?!


P..s. 'let's make America Grotesque again' , well done ye American clowns!!!

LordAwesome wrote: »

That was still less than Obama spent on the golf course!

Less of this please.

Christy42

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

To be fair to Trump he has highlighted that he was able to do that because of a tax loophole in America. If he closes it, as he promised, that's a good thing and it's one of the good promises he made.

Billy is referring to the money his companies will save if he manages to go through with his plan to reduce corporation tax to 15% (which would save him money) and not him paying no personal tax.

mrkiscool2

Christy42 wrote: »

Billy is referring to the money his companies will save if he manages to go through with his plan to reduce corporation tax to 15% (which would save him money) and not him paying no personal tax.

Sure, that could be seen as self-serving (hell, it might be) but it is also a good way to keep companies in America and create more jobs.

alastair

LordAwesome wrote: »

That was still less than Obama spent on the golf course!

Obama took about a third of the vacation time that GW did. So, no.

alastair

LordAwesome wrote: »

He could have earned more money doing one episode of The Apprentice than he is going to earn in four years as president. He clearly isn't doing this for the money.

He's not earning much off a tv programme that was cancelled years ago on the back of dwindling viewership. I guess he could ask Alan Sugar for a hand out, but then he's burned his bridges there too.

TheOven

Things are looking good for getting those coal miners back into the mines.

https://thinkprogress.org/mcconnell-admits-jobs-war-on-coal-8938da18e5e3#.5jryifnm8

McConnell also noted that he did not intend to spend any government dollars to help those who have lost coal jobs and may not regain them. “A government spending program is not likely to solve the fundamental problem of growth,” McConnell argued. “I support the effort to help these coal counties wherever we can but that isn’t going to replace whatever was there when we had a vibrant coal industry.”

Oh....

ECO_Mental

Jawgap wrote: »

.....which is why I think this is spot on......

You could see it in his face in that meeting with Obama. He did not want to be there he has no idea what a bubble he will have to live in. People watching him every single second. Going to endless meetings day after day, entertaining obscure 3rd world leaders. The secret service are going to make his life hell. He won't grabbing young ones by the P***y any more either

alastair

ECO_Mental wrote: »

You could see it in his face in that meeting with Obama. He did not want to be there he has no idea what a bubble he will have to live in. People watching him every single second. Going to endless meetings day after day, entertaining obscure 3rd world leaders. The secret service are going to make his life hell. He won't grabbing young ones by the P***y any more either

Could all we'll be true, but for the last point. Long tradition of presidents finding the time for precisely that.

RobbingBandit

I think Trumps blatant disregard for GOP protocols is what caused such a divide in the party backing him on a united front. Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani are two party members linked to Trump in the last few days as potential high ranking members of his staff.

alastair

RobbingBandit wrote: »

I think Trumps blatant disregard for GOP protocols is what caused such a divide in the party backing him on a united front. Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani are two party members linked to Trump in the last few days as potential high ranking members of his staff.

Scrapings of the barrel there tbh. Rudy used up his 9/11 credit a long time back, and Palin never had any to begin with. If he does go that route it'll give SNL a nice boost for four years all the same.

26000 Elephants

I lived in NY during his mayoral stint and liked him at the time. But you have to wonder about a guy who dumps his wife via press conference. And then has the temerity to denounce HRC for marriage fidelity.

20Cent

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I lived in NY during his mayoral stint and liked him at the time. But you have to wonder about a guy who dumps his wife via press conference. And then has the temerity to denounce HRC for marriage fidelity.

Was this his he cousin/wife or a different one?


Yes he married his cousin

m1ck007

Whats all this 'not my president nonsense all about'? If Hilary got elected and the republicans protested they would be branded hooligans

26000 Elephants

20Cent wrote: »

Was this his he cousin/wife or a different one?


Yes he married his cousin

Wow. Didnt know that. Hanover or his press secretary? :eek:

Either way it derailed his attempt to get on the republican ticket for NY senator. A race ultimately won by HRC. I think he is still sore.

Edit: Apparently it was his first wife, before Donna Hanover. Who Knew?

mrkiscool2

m1ck007 wrote: »

Whats all this 'not my president nonsense all about'? If Hilary got elected and the republicans protested they would be branded hooligans

Republicans did that when Obama got elected to be fair. I don't agree with it but sure that is the way politics is!