President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Professor Moriarty

Amerika wrote: »

Sorry, I disagree.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/no-obama-probably-wouldnt-have-beaten-trump-214557

That's an interesting but very sketchy argument. Which points in particular support your view?

Professor Moriarty

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump. he would not be demonized like he is today. The same media that are lambasting him today would have supported him back then. Obama was the radical in chief back then. Now it has become personal and the Clinton-Trump feud turned the election upside down with defections from the Obama & Sanders camp directly to the Trump side with support from Libertarians.

We will really have to see how Trump does Washington is full of factions that hate him now and the old Republican party has moved far to the right. Obama was unable to convince enough Republicans to back some of his small initiatives like gun control and immigration. On large issues like America's role in the world the sides are even more divided since Obama got into office.

The Republicans set out to disrupt his presidency at every turn and made no secret of it. My view is that Obama would have beaten Trump easily as he is a far better debater than Clinton and wouldn't have been intimidated by Trump. He also had less baggage (fake or otherwise) than Clinton. Essentially, once the public saw them on screen together, by contrast Trump would have been seen as the empty egotist that he is.

Amerika

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

That's an interesting but very sketchy argument. Which points in particular support your view?

The main points which I feel would have caused Obama to lose, revolves mainly on two points. The first is he lost the blue collar worker, who have felt they were ignored for the last 8 years. Even though unemployment rates have gone down, so too have labor market participation and median family income. The second is I don’t feel the Black turnout would have matched 2008 or 2012 levels. As noted in the piece there now is a disenchantment with the president on the economic front amongst Blacks.

Inquitus

Amerika wrote: »

The main points which I feel would have caused Obama to lose, revolves mainly on two points. The first is he lost the blue collar worker, who have felt they were ignored for the last 8 years. Even though unemployment rates have gone down, so too have labor market participation and median family income. The second is I don’t feel the Black turnout would have matched 2008 or 2012 levels. As noted in the piece there now is a disenchantment with the president on the economic front amongst Blacks.

It's hard to know, he only needed to turn out 100k voters in a few key states to flip the election, he may well have been able to do that by getting the black vote out by a couple of points or so more, and appealing to some of the Blue Collar white voters better than Hilary did.

KingBrian2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The Republicans set out to disrupt his presidency at every turn and made no secret of it. My view is that Obama would have beaten Trump easily as he is a far better debater than Clinton and wouldn't have been intimidated by Trump. He also had less baggage (fake or otherwise) than Clinton. Essentially, once the public saw them on screen together, by contrast Trump would have been seen as the empty egotist that he is.

The media behaved disgracefully towards both Trump & Obama. Trump latched onto the birther controversy long after the media has spread it about and the attacks against Trump only became worse when Clinton's support began to ebb away.

MadYaker

Amerika wrote: »

Sorry, I disagree.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/12/no-obama-probably-wouldnt-have-beaten-trump-214557

That was actually a really interesting piece. It's hard to say whether or not he would have won a third term because if he had the option of running again I think he would have been a different president in his second term. But saying Trump won because Obama was a sh!t president is a bit disingenuous, there are myriad of reasons why trump won some of which are outlined in that article and Obamas incompetence doesn't feature very highly.

Do you think trump will get reelected? I'll be amazed if he lasts 4 years never mind 8 and based on the cabinet he has put together I think he's going to do nothing for middle/working class people and the republicans will be decimated in 2020.

Amerika

MadYaker wrote: »

That was actually a really interesting piece. It's hard to say whether or not he would have won a third term because if he had the option of running again I think he would have been a different president in his second term. But saying Trump won because Obama was a sh!t president is a bit disingenuous, there are myriad of reasons why trump won some of which are outlined in that article and Obamas incompetence doesn't feature very highly.

Do you think trump will get reelected? I'll be amazed if he lasts 4 years never mind 8 and based on the cabinet he has put together I think he's going to do nothing for middle/working class people and the republicans will be decimated in 2020.

Hard to tell at this point. Too many questions... Will he keep his core principle campaign promises? Will Democrats, the MSM, and even some Republicans give him a chance to govern effectively? Will he stop being so thin-skinned? Etc...

The other day I listened to a fascinating analysis on NPR by a social scientist of sorts regarding Trump’s tweets. He had broken down each type of tweet into a different classifications (4 or 5 different classifications, I think, giving examples and analysis on the type, the reasoning, and effectiveness. I wish I could find the interview to post.

Inquitus

The Pre-Inauguration concert is desperate fare, US military band played the Monty Python theme tune though which was definitely fitting for what's to come for the next 4 years!

Overheal

The deluge of crazy **** happening is impressive. Simultaneous confirmation hearings, nominees forgetting hundreds of millions of dollars in disclosures. Never mind half of them clearly seem destined to dismantle the agencies they intend to run. Meanwhile crazy Don is trying his best to look like a clown so most people don't even want to pay attention. If you try you're bombarded with enormous amounts of "can't believe they said that" moments between spats about Valium, the rampant bear crisis in public schools, EPA picks that snub the best information available to do the job with, an energy pick that not only once forgot the name of the agency but now wishes to run it and completely misunderstood what his role would be as the head of it. I could go on. On top of all that, anyone reporting on it is labeled "fake news" and it has become an information war, where there are constantly two or three or more versions of any particular event. It's chaos and he isn't even in office yet. Just wait until he has a proper DOD propaganda arm (the one they just signed into the defense spending bill).

the immortals

Does anyone know of any pro trump celebrations in Dublin Fri night?

Shane St.

What time is the inauguration kicking off at 2mrw?

dinorebel

the immortals wrote: »

Does anyone know of any pro trump celebrations in Dublin Fri night?

Only in the Russian Embassy.

El_Duderino 09

Amerika wrote:

The main points which I feel would have caused Obama to lose, revolves mainly on two points. The first is he lost the blue collar worker, who have felt they were ignored for the last 8 years. Even though unemployment rates have gone down, so too have labor market participation and median family income.

Has trump even promised to do anything about low income wages? He promised more jobs but he's a serious neo-liberal. There's no way he's going to tell any employer to pay poor people more money. They might have the opportunity to work 2 jobs but they won't get paid more per hour.

El_Duderino 09

Amerika wrote:

Hard to tell at this point. Too many questions... Will he keep his core principle campaign promises?

What are his core principles? And which campaign promises will he need to keep? He made so many promises that have been waved away as campaign talk already -muslim ban, lock her up. His supporters aren't interested in doing a serious audit if his performance. They want red meat - racist rhetoric, black lads getting shot by police, terrorist attacks. He won't tell people to 'keep calm and carry on' like Obama did. He'll encourage uproar and hate. That's what he'll campaign on for a second term.

Zubeneschamali

Amerika wrote: »

Will he keep his core principle campaign promises? Will Democrats, the MSM, and even some Republicans give him a chance to govern effectively? Will he stop being so thin-skinned?

He didn't make any promises. Democrats and the MSM do not have any ability to stop him governing, since the republicans control both houses.

Only the republicans can stop him now.

demfad

From NYTIMES Today: Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates

WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

As per the McClatchy article day before yesterday this investigation started in early summer before the dossier was seen.

The McClatchy report prompted Putin to come out with an unusual public claim that there would be an attempted to take Trumps power as in the Maidan revolution in Ukraine (where Putin puppet Viktor Yanukovych was ousted).

The Senate intelligence committee has started its own investigation into Russia’s purported attempts to disrupt the election. The committee’s inquiry is broad, and will include an examination of Russian hacking and possible ties between people associated with Mr. Trump’s campaign and Russia.

There are 6 agencies involved with the investigation. Trump can close down some of it but crucially the Senate committee can call on evidence already found from these agencies.

El_Duderino 09

Time's running out for Trump supporters to predict how he will behave once he becomes president. Will he continue to berate his detractors or will the office of President cause him to behave honourably?

Will he carve out his own definition of behaving 'very Presidential'.

robinph

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Time's running out for Trump supporters to predict how he will behave once he becomes president. Will he continue to berate his detractors or will the office of President cause him to behave honourably?

Will he carve out his own definition of behaving 'very Presidential'.

The time in which to practice how to be a grown up was the previous two months. He's not done so and I can't see him doing anything different once he moves house today.

Mr.Micro

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Time's running out for Trump supporters to predict how he will behave once he becomes president. Will he continue to berate his detractors or will the office of President cause him to behave honourably?

Will he carve out his own definition of behaving 'very Presidential'.

He is a 70 year old brat, too late to change now.

El_Duderino 09

robinph wrote:

The time in which to practice how to be a grown up was the previous two months. He's not done so and I can't see him doing anything different once he moves house today.

Mr.Micro wrote:

He is a 70 year old brat, too late to change now.

That would be my thought. Will Trump's supporters be telling us that he's right to continue behaving like that in a year's time. Or will they think it's the wrong approach for someone in that position?

I think m they won't discuss it because they k ow it's wrong for the President to behave like that, but they know he will behave like that. Do the only thing to do is wait and then say he's right for doing it.
Anyone brave enough to say his current behaviour is perfectly appropriate for a President?

Rezident

I see there’s a protest against Trump becoming President outside the Central Bank on Dame St. today. Why not the US embassy?

Is it the same people that go to all these protests? How many Palestinian flags will there be this time?

aphex™

If Clinton got in we'd be talking about the tens of millions of dollars given to the foundation from Saudi right now.

Contact? Meh. Tens of millions? Boo, hiss!

FreudianSlippers

aphex™ wrote: »

If Clinton got in we'd be talking about the tens of millions of dollars given to the foundation from Saudi right now.

Contact? Meh. Tens of millions? Boo, hiss!

I don't see why the Saudi thing is even an issue. Saudi/US relations have been pretty good for the better part of a century; the Saudi government denounced 9/11 and put in place many measures to prevent funding of terrorism.

The Clinton Foundation is hardly the first or only foundation or group with ties to the Saudi government or companies.

Something about glass houses and stones comes to mind...

MightyMandarin

demfad wrote: »

From NYTIMES Today: Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates



As per the McClatchy article day before yesterday this investigation started in early summer before the dossier was seen.

The McClatchy report prompted Putin to come out with an unusual public claim that there would be an attempted to take Trumps power as in the Maidan revolution in Ukraine (where Putin puppet Viktor Yanukovych was ousted).



There are 6 agencies involved with the investigation. Trump can close down some of it but crucially the Senate committee can call on evidence already found from these agencies.

And for anyone who might claim that this is the same as the 'Fake News' report by Chris Steele, this is a separate investigation with different sources and evidence.

MightyMandarin

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I don't see why the Saudi thing is even an issue. Saudi/US relations have been pretty good for the better part of a century; the Saudi government denounced 9/11 and put in place many measures to prevent funding of terrorism.

The Clinton Foundation is hardly the first or only foundation or group with ties to the Saudi government or companies.

Something about glass houses and stones comes to mind...

The Saudi Govt. has funded islamic terrorist groups in the past, and possibly currently. That much confirms to me that the US should be doing nothing with them.

The problem with Trump supporters trying to justify Trump's treasonous activities is that Russia is no better whatsoever.

FreudianSlippers

MightyMandarin wrote: »

The Saudi Govt. has funded islamic terrorist groups in the past, and possibly currently. That much confirms to me that the US should be doing nothing with them.

The problem with Trump supporters trying to justify Trump's treasonous activities is that Russia is no better whatsoever.

Is there proof of that though?

aphex™

There's no money trail from Russia to Trump.
There's money trails from Saudi and Wall Street to Clinton.
You can't fill your boots with cash from these people and go into government.

Woo. The CIA have some other dodgy dossier on Russia trying to contact Trump (bit like last week's one?). I wonder do the CIA have any skeletons in their closet that can be used to shut that down in 5 seconds?

FreudianSlippers

aphex™ wrote: »

There's no money trail from Russia to Trump.
There's money trails from Saudi and Wall Street t

That's not what was asked though is it?

Are you claiming there is no money from Wall Street linked to Trump?

aphex™

But it's not clear what was asked, is it?
Proof of funds to Clinton foundation? http://www.politifact.com/arizona/statements/2016/jul/11/donald-trump/did-hillary-clinton-take-money-countries-treat-wom/ A simple google.

Amerika

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What are his core principles? And which campaign promises will he need to keep? He made so many promises that have been waved away as campaign talk already -muslim ban, lock her up. His supporters aren't interested in doing a serious audit if his performance. They want red meat - racist rhetoric, black lads getting shot by police, terrorist attacks. He won't tell people to 'keep calm and carry on' like Obama did. He'll encourage uproar and hate. That's what he'll campaign on for a second term.

For those not paying real attention during the election, his core principles could always have been found here...

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/