Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

VinLieger

In lighter news Kushner has been registered to vote as a woman for the last 8 years

http://www.thejournal.ie/kushner-vote-woman-3619383-Sep2017/

Celticfire

Billy86 wrote: »

We can start with the majority of "birthers" - we know there are a whole tonne of them. As to what percentage they make up it's anyone's guess, but they run well into the tens if not hundreds of thousands. Show them your birth cert and they'll still think you're a Kenyan.

Notwithstanding that you don't actually have evidence that "Birthers" don't consider Americans of all ethnic varieties "real Americans" and you've no idea how many there actually are let's throw in a few of your other favorite group that you like to attribute being Trump fans "white supremacists " and give an arbitrary figure of 200,000. So that's approx 0.3% of the 62,000,000 Trump voters that meet your claim (a claim made with no actual evidence). So 99.7% of Trump supporters believe that Americans of all ethnic backgrounds are "real Americans".

That's because in office Trump came to realise that he couldn't outright ban Muslims (it's impossible to prove very often), and the reality that trying to ban Muslim countries that fattened his wallet would mean less money for him personally. So he sold his voters out and went for a cheap trick instead (it's come to be expected of him). But none of that does anything to change the fact that he quite clearly has issues with Muslims as Leroy said, and was bleating on about Muslim bans almost a full year before the election.

Has he opened a few hotels in Sudan all of a sudden? Has Sudan converted to being a Christian country in the last few months? Have North Korea and Venezuela gone Islamic also in that time?

You actively choose to ignore this statement as to why country's are still on the ban list but still choose to spout "Muslim" ban.

The U.S. notified all countries in July of “baseline” standards they would need to meet to avoid travel restrictions, said Miles Taylor, a counselor to Duke at DHS. Several countries didn’t respond to the U.S. requests for more information, he said.

“Some countries didn’t even have the courtesy to say ‘fly a kite’,” Taylor said. “We’re talking about countries that were willfully non-compliant and refused to engage with the United States.”

Leroy42

Celticfire, what do you consider a racist to be?

Celticfire

Leroy42 wrote: »

Celticfire, what do you consider a racist to be?

I think the left has it summed up nicely. Everything is Racist.

Museums are now racist, according to Professors Tasha N. Dubriwny and Kristan Poirot, from Texas A&M University – the same university that has a racist professor who called for the killing of white people.

The seeking of objective truth and facts is now...racist.

Using one's hands while speaking is now racist.

Mathematics is now racist.

The OK sign is racist

Park benches are now racist.

White cooks selling burritos is now racist. (It remains to be seen whether whites eating Mexican food at Mexican restaurants will also be considered racist.)

University of Iowa professor Sarah Bond has declared that white marble, used in sculpture, is racist.

Using mathematics in art, such as the Fibonacci ratio, is racist, and used by Nazis.

Lisa Wade, a sociology professor at Occidental College in California (again), called for the banning of fraternities having white members but retaining black fraternities.

According to the U.K.'s Oxford University's Equality and Diversity Unit, not making eye contact is racism and can cause "mental ill-health."

Truth is racism.

The painting of a black person by a white artist is now racist.

Certain hairstyles are now racist.

Green frogs are now racist.

Plastic wrap is either racist or sexist (not sure which).

Asao B. Inoue, who teaches writing at University of Washington, Tacoma, has declared grammar racist.

Psychologist Steven Pinker of Harvard University has likewise condemned the use of grammar as oppressively racist.
Homeschooling is now racist

Milk is Racist.

Etc etc etc.......

Was the poster earlier in this thread a Racist for suggesting that it could be assumed Puerto Ricans would vote Democrat like Mexicans because both groups are Latinos? Is Bill86's cousin a racist because he calls all hispanics Mexican regardless of where they come from.

Was it also racist of posters in this thread to ignore The Governor and locals of Puerto Rico (who are Hispanic) who said that the were happy with Trumps response to the disaster and then to go ahead contrary to The Governor and locals word and make the claim that Trump was being racist and not helping Puerto Rico because they are too poor, Hispanic and not voters .

The word "Racist" is thrown around like confetti so pardon me if I don't subscribe to your identity politics.

recedite

VinLieger wrote: »

In lighter news Kushner has been registered to vote as a woman for the last 8 years

http://www.thejournal.ie/kushner-vote-woman-3619383-Sep2017/

He should grow a beard. Might help.

MadYaker

I'm not convinced he's actually a racist. He panders to the white supremacists and the racists and islamophobes because he knows they form the core of his (shrinking) base. But there is little evidence of real racism in his past. The guy was a new york democrat for most of his life who donated loads of money to the political campaigns of people like Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton. He is a narcissist who will say anything to please the people sat in front of him because he likes people patting him on the head and telling him he's great. He doesn't care if those people are vile individuals.

The media are doing their utmost to paint him as a racist though. Honestly I think a lot of the people on the left side of the spectrum are just as bad as the loony Trump supporters you see on reddit. Their hatred of Trump has turned a lot of people into bitter individuals, it's just the other side of the coin. Democrats and liberals in the US used to value things like decency, transparency, inclusiveness and logical reasoning and some still do but it seems Trumps election has radicalised a lot of people on the left and now they are engaging in all the same behaviours that they used to hate republicans and conservatives for. You see plenty of outright bias and twisting of facts from media outlets such as The Hill, The Daily Beast and Newsweek. They are no different to fox news and breitbart.

Christy42

MadYaker wrote: »

I'm not convinced he's actually a racist. He panders to the white supremacists and the racists and islamophobes because he knows they form the core of his (shrinking) base. But there is little evidence of real racism in his past. The guy was a new york democrat for most of his life who donated loads of money to the political campaigns of people like Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton. He is a narcissist who will say anything to please the people sat in front of him because he likes people patting him on the head and telling him he's great. He doesn't care if those people are vile individuals.

The media are doing their utmost to paint him as a racist though. Honestly I think a lot of the people on the left side of the spectrum are just as bad as the loony Trump supporters you see on reddit. Their hatred of Trump has turned a lot of people into bitter individuals, it's just the other side of the coin. Democrats and liberals in the US used to value things like decency, transparency, inclusiveness and logical reasoning and some still do but it seems Trumps election has radicalised a lot of people on the left and now they are engaging in all the same behaviours that they used to hate republicans and conservatives for. You see plenty of outright bias and twisting of facts from media outlets such as The Hill, The Daily Beast and Newsweek. They are no different to fox news and breitbart.

He was part time of the birther movement before he needed his base.

I am also less convinced about the significance of the difference between being a racist and pretending to be a racist to keep your base happy. Same end result and not a better person morally.

Leroy42

Celticfire wrote: »

I think the left has it summed up nicely. Everything is Racist.



Was the poster earlier in this thread a Racist for suggesting that it could be assumed Puerto Ricans would vote Democrat like Mexicans because both groups are Latinos? Is Bill86's cousin a racist because he calls all hispanics Mexican regardless of where they come from.

Was it also racist of posters in this thread to ignore The Governor and locals of Puerto Rico (who are Hispanic) who said that the were happy with Trumps response to the disaster and then to go ahead contrary to The Governor and locals word and make the claim that Trump was being racist and not helping Puerto Rico because they are too poor, Hispanic and not voters .

The word "Racist" is thrown around like confetti so pardon me if I don't subscribe to your identity politics.

So what do you define as racist? You gave a nice diatribe about what "the left" think. What do you think it is?

Identify politics. What the hell are you talking about. i asked for your definition of racist. I thought it was quite a simple question with a fairly straightforward answer. I already provided my understanding of the definition. It is difficult to have a discussion with someone about racism when one of the people cannot even state what they think racism is

Billy86

Celticfire wrote: »

Notwithstanding that you don't actually have evidence that "Birthers" don't consider Americans of all ethnic varieties "real Americans" and you've no idea how many there actually are let's throw in a few of your other favorite group that you like to attribute being Trump fans "white supremacists " and give an arbitrary figure of 200,000. So that's approx 0.3% of the 62,000,000 Trump voters that meet your claim (a claim made with no actual evidence). So 99.7% of Trump supporters believe that Americans of all ethnic backgrounds are "real Americans".

No I do, there's no coincidence that the first black president was "not American" to them, despite showing both his short and long form birth certificates.

Are you saying 200,000 people is not 'a lot' of people?

Has he opened a few hotels in Sudan all of a sudden? Has Sudan converted to being a Christian country in the last few months? Have North Korea and Venezuela gone Islamic also in that time?

You actively choose to ignore this statement as to why country's are still on the ban list but still choose to spout "Muslim" ban.

Let's revisit that for context given you brought up the Muslim ban, to which I responded "You seem to forget "Muslim ban" is what Trump referred to it as." I've shown you Trump referring his want for a Muslim ban, if you don't like the fact that Trump wanted "complete and total shutdown" of Muslims entering the US, that's your own issue. As I said, thankfully Trump (as is to be expected at this point) failed because he didn't do his homework on it. Instead he had to settle for a few countries while leaving off others who have had citizens engaged in far more acts of terror on the US (where he conveniently has business interests). Funny that don't you think?

As for Sudan Christ only knows, but we do know the Trump team spent months begging politicians and foreign business people for money in exchange for "the right to whisper in the president's ear" - so the likelihood of dodgy dealings also given the Sudanese government's reputation is very much there.

Meanwhile he has had very public spats with the leaders of both Venezuela and North Korea and now they're on his banned list, funny how that worked out.

Celticfire wrote: »

I think the left has it summed up nicely. Everything is Racist.

Leroy didn't ask what 'the left' consider racist, he asked what you consider racist. You don't seem very eager to give a straight answer but I'll ask again - what do you define as racist?

circadian

Apparently Trump has waived the restrictions on Puerto Rico so that's something positive.

In other news the man who was responsible for a lot of the fake news articles on social media has been found dead of a suspected drug overdose.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41422827

MadYaker

The guy sounds like an idiot. Idiots like him are partly resposible for the media sh!tstorm and fake news nonsense that now clouds all political reporting in the US.

MadYaker

Christy42 wrote: »

He was part time of the birther movement before he needed his base.

I am also less convinced about the significance of the difference between being a racist and pretending to be a racist to keep your base happy. Same end result and not a better person morally.

I actually think he honestly believed that it was true, because he's a moron.

Billy86

recedite wrote: »

Are we back to real Mexicans now, or is this your expanded definition which includes every latino/hispanic person?
Trumps infamous quote was referring to uncontrolled and unvetted immigration. He actually said he liked Mexico. If people are crossing the border illegally in the middle of the night, then it stands to reason that they are more likely to be a drugs smuggler than a brain surgeon.

He wasn't just talking about illegal immigrants though and said he was, and he wasn't talking about uncontrolled migration because the US does not have uncontrolled legal migration. It was about migrants generally, and one of his more well known comments on it was specifically worded to vilify migrants and the country of Mexico as a whole while implying he had never met "a good person" among them (you can only assume what you don't know, if he had met some good people among them already he wouldn't have to assume anything, much like I don't have to assume I'm currently wearing socks because I know I am): "When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

The USA has a lot of Korean immigrants. They settle in well and don't tend to get involved in terrorism. The record for people from Islamic countries is not as good. Why is that? Is it because the Koreans are inherently a more peaceful race of people? No, the less racist answer to that question is that Islam is not a race, and not even just a religion, it is an ideology. Adherents from certain islamic countries have usually been raised and educated in this ideology which makes them less compatible with western values.

This is gas, given the number of Korean migrants the US have put in concentration camps on the basis that they were seen as not settling in well and being likely to get involved in terrorism.

They may have been raised as homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant of other religions, that sharia law is better than civil law, that a country run according to sharia is better than a democracy, and that the ultimate honour is to be martyred in the name of Islam.

They'd actually fit in very well then, given those traits tend to describe the president of the US and chunks of his followers. Sharia not so much, but parts of the US where they believe "God's law" should be render that whole "federal law" thing obsolete would be a hell of a lot closer to that than secular democracies.

And then there are some other mainly muslim countries such as Malaysia which are more tolerant. And some such as Saudi which are intolerant, but are so rich that they would not want to give up their own citizenship anyway. Restrictions on immigration from these would make less sense.

The USA has always had a problem with welcoming immigrants from ideologies that it regards as incompatible with its own. A standard question on arrival is "Are you or have you ever been a member of the nazi party or the communist party". If you answered Yes to such ideologies then you are probably going to be rejected.

And these 'problems' due to 'incompatibility' down the years have extended to everyone from 'Catholic' Irish to Italians to 'voodoo' Africans to 'oriental' Asians to 'security risk' Jews to Communists and anarchists, to HIV sufferers and plenty more. I'm sure you agree all of these are also incompatible with the US, right?

Celticfire

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what do you define as racist? You gave a nice diatribe about what "the left" think. What do you think it is?

You already posted up the nice handy dictionary definition of what a racist is. I've also given my opinion.... everything can be racist if one wants.

Itssoeasy

Leroy42 wrote: »

Celticfire, what do you consider a racist to be?

since Celticfire misread the question. This is the official definition.

racist
NOUN

A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.
‘I had a fear of being called a racist’

Leroy42

Celticfire wrote: »

You already posted up the nice handy dictionary definition of what a racist is. I've also given my opinion.... everything can be racist if one wants.

Wow, you are finding it so difficult to say what you think a racist is.

Based on the list you dumped, and your post above, you seem to imply that everything is racist, and therefore by extension racism is nothing to worry about as everybody is one.

Everything can't be a racist if one wants. You have defended people calling Trump a racist. Why? If you think racism is such a wide category (although funnily you made the point to point out that Muslim isn't a race!) why do you worry if he is or not?

Celticfire

Itssoeasy wrote: »

since Celticfire misread the question. This is the official definition.

Actually you misread the question. I wasn't asked for the dictionary definition, that was already given.

Originally Posted by Leroy42
Celticfire, what do you consider a racist to be?

I gave my opinion.

Leroy42

Celticfire wrote: »

Actually you misread the question. I wasn't asked for the dictionary definition, that was already given.



I gave my opinion.

I didn't ask you opinion I asked for your definition. You are right I didn't ask for the dictionary definition, only you mentioned that word.

I think you need to look at yourself if you are finding it this difficult to define how you understand racism. Has your political outlook overtaken all other views that you have so that you cannot answer what would be a pretty straightforward question for even a child to answer yet you continually dance around it.

So you're opinion is that everything can be considered racist, because that is what the 'left' thinks?

Your opinion on racism is being driven by the left? Based on that you must be shocked by the racism undertaken by Trump, for isn't that what the left has called him?

you have told us what you think others think racism is. What do you think it is? And does Trump meet any of those criteria?

david75

https://instagram.com/p/BZmBC7Bl9HW/

Water John

Fekin brilliant!!!

Itssoeasy

Water John wrote: »

Fekin brilliant!!!

I have to say I chuckled. It was very well picked up on. Speaking of bill. He's looking very shook recently and during the campaign.

demfad

As the presidency has been more or less a series of big shocks one has to wonder if this 'shock politics' is not deliberate.
In the campaign it allowed Trump to move on from scandal: the next shock knocking the scandal out of the news scandal. This allowed him to control it. As president these shocks stun the public (terrorizing certain groups) so they can't form coherent resistance and even if they can it is defensive so no credible alternative to the system that produced Trump emerges.

These shocks will allow Trump more opportunity to further undermine democracy, whether its property bubbles, or terrorist attacks/wars resulting from foreign policy.

To understand this presidency it can be seen as the natural consequence of the regulation free market. The corporations have now simply taken over.

The green energy shift will be reversed because Exxon Mobil is SoS. Boeing is defence. Goldman Sachs is everything else. The other appointments reflect the inevitable far right/religious nationalism/racism needed for this type of regime.

spacecoyote

demfad wrote: »

As the presidency has been more or less a series of big shocks one has to wonder if this 'shock politics' is not deliberate.
In the campaign it allowed Trump to move on from scandal: the next shock knocking the scandal out of the news scandal. This allowed him to control it. As president these shocks stun the public (terrorizing certain groups) so they can't form coherent resistance and even if they can it is defensive so no credible alternative to the system that produced Trump emerges.

These shocks will allow Trump more opportunity to further undermine democracy, whether its property bubbles, or terrorist attacks/wars resulting from foreign policy.

To understand this presidency it can be seen as the natural consequence of the regulation free market. The corporations have now simply taken over.

The green energy shift will be reversed because Exxon Mobil is SoS. Boeing is defence. Goldman Sachs is everything else. The other appointments reflect the inevitable far right/religious nationalism/racism needed for this type of regime.

Agreed. I think I remember reading a piece, maybe on fivethirtyeight, where they were saying that, in essence, you could see a constant barrage of controversies, which eventually just dull the publics outrage. Basically people become numb to the crazy.

It seems to be playing out in his polling numbers. Initially when a big piece would break you'd see his numbers take a spike. Now, it doesn't seem to matter what news breaks. His polling numbers, whilst still poor, are staying relatively static recently, if anything they've had a slight upward tick

Leroy42

You certainly have a point Demfad. The latest issue with the NFL and now Trumps insistence that the healthcare only failed because some Senator was in hospital (denied in a statement by the Senator) have totally knocked the use of private e-mails off the 'front page'

In Jared case, he actually set up a new e-mail account specifically after joining WH, so one can only assume that this was deliberate.

The media play a big part. Each new issue, each new bizarre rant, gets extra viewers/readers etc and makes for lively 'debates'. The media played with this in the campaign thinking it was just some fun, and now that they have played their part in getting Trump elected cannot seem to ween themselves off the sugar rush that each new scandal brings them.

However, whilst it may appear that all these new scandals are having the desired effect (is anyone even asking about Trumps conflicts of interests anymore for eg?) in terms of the media cycle, it is clear the Mueller is getting through a major amount of digging and each scandal will only add to the dossier he can bring forward.

Samaris

Also, prior norms aren't even noticed when they're lost.

Look at the thing there yesterday, Trump deleting his tweets endorsing Luther Strange. It was treated as "what a sore loser" but (not looked it up today, may have evolved since), this was an apparently official presidential source deleting unquestionably political tweets related to an actual political thing. It was petty and silly and Trumpish, ofc, but it was also a serious matter from the president.

It's minor, yeah, compared to all the usual stuff. But it's another norm gone, and this one may be a legal issue.

MadYaker

His deleting of tweets is totally pointless anyway. You can be sure that twitter and everyone else are recording absolutely everything that he puts out.

Samaris

Absolutely, it was utterly pointless, unless it was either to stir trouble again as is the man's natural reaction to waking up in the morning apparently or a foolish burst of temper that indicates he has no foresight whatsoever.

Awesomeness

Showing how smart he is again today with the revelation that puerto rico "is an island, surrounded by water, big water, ocean water"

mind = blown

circadian

I read today that the ship embargo was lifted on PR for 10 days. The government was asked for a year to allow for the rebuilding of infrastructure on PR.

So basically what will happen now is they'll barely get anything done in those 10 days, the GOP will say it was a waste of time lifting the embargo and no longer entertain the idea of extending it. All while looking like they done the right thing.

Nody

Nody wrote: »

Looks like the turbulence around Trump's WH will continue; Tom Price (Healthcare minister) is under heavy criticism for using the state yet for private travel for over 300k USD. Trump's response if he would be fired was "We'll see" which is Trumpism for yes in most cases.

As predicted he's out; according to the WH he resigned once Trump made his position clear to him and the revolving door policy of the WH continues on the staffing side.

Igotadose

Nody wrote: »

As predicted he's out; according to the WH he resigned once Trump made his position clear to him and the revolving door policy of the WH continues on the staffing side.

First cabinet level to resign under Trump? Flynn wasn't in the Cabinet if I recall correctly. I wonder if this means health care repeal is dead now. No HHS head, just a caretaker in place. Price was dodgy to begin with, no surprise he's gone due to fiscal impropriety. Maybe we'll see the back of Mnuchin and Treasury Barbie soon, too.

Inquitus

I wonder if the deplorables are tired of winning yet? Mnuchin could be in danger as well, his flight to see the eclipse was taking the piss.

everlast75

Health Secretary - GONE


"We have the best people..." are there any left?

BoatMad

everlast75 wrote: »

Health Secretary - GONE


"We have the best people..." are there any left?

perhaps he can find yet another General

Nody

If you ever wondered how out of touch the US government was with reality Trump's economical adviser trying to pitch the benefits of Trump's tax reforms is happy to show you:

Based on the administration’s assumptions, Mr Cohn said, a typical family that has two children and earns $100,000 per year can expect annual tax savings of about $1,000.

“If we allow a family to keep another $1,000 of their income, what does that mean?” he asked. “They can renovate their kitchen, they can buy a new car, they can take a family vacation, they can increase their lifestyle.”

Only a minor problem that an average kitchen renovation costs $22.000; the average new car is $35.000 (or $19.000 for a used car). Oh and the average income is $59.039 and not $100k. This is the "middle class benefit" while Trump is estimated to save $125 Million a year in the tax benefit bill "that's not going to benefit the rich". Yup; clearly a bill for the middle class by the people who knows them...

BuilderPlumber

Igotadose wrote: »

First cabinet level to resign under Trump? Flynn wasn't in the Cabinet if I recall correctly. I wonder if this means health care repeal is dead now. No HHS head, just a caretaker in place. Price was dodgy to begin with, no surprise he's gone due to fiscal impropriety. Maybe we'll see the back of Mnuchin and Treasury Barbie soon, too.

Yeah, the next stage of agent Trump's plan is getting into gear. He is according to H Clinton some kind of Russian agent but I suspect he is working a little closer to the Clinton brand of politics. Either way, Donald is taking apart these neo-nazi Republicans one by one and embarrassing them with their own rhetoric.

Cookie_Monster

Nody wrote: »

If you ever wondered how out of touch the US government was with reality Trump's economical adviser trying to pitch the benefits of Trump's tax reforms is happy to show you:
Only a minor problem that an average kitchen renovation costs $22.000; the average new car is $35.000 (or $19.000 for a used car). Oh and the average income is $59.039 and not $100k. This is the "middle class benefit" while Trump is estimated to save $125 Million a year in the tax benefit bill "that's not going to benefit the rich". Yup; clearly a bill for the middle class by the people who knows them...

his tax reforms also turn out to completely favour the rich and he will personally benefit greatly from it, despite his grandiose speech suggesting the opposite.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/29/trump-tax-plan-benefit-richest-1-percent

Samaris

"We had the best people...unfortunately, Russia, Turkey and love of government money had them first..."


Unfortunately, I don't think anyone's at all surprised that Trump's tax breaks turn out to benefit himself!

Mr.Micro

Samaris wrote: »

"We had the best people...unfortunately, Russia, Turkey and love of government money had them first..."


Unfortunately, I don't think anyone's at all surprised that Trump's tax breaks turn out to benefit himself!

Long may he reign. It may be the only way the people in the US will get a reality check. They voted for what it said on the tin. Corrupt, greedy, bigot, racist, sexist etc. No surprises then when that is what they got. The sad thing is its reality in 2017.

BoatMad

Donald is taking apart these neo-nazi Republicans one by one and embarrassing them with their own rhetoric.

certainly in an alternative reality , maybe

BoatMad

Long may he reign. It may be the only way the people in the US will get a reality check. They voted for what it said on the tin. Corrupt, greedy, bigot, racist, sexist etc. No surprises then when that is what they got. The sad thing is its reality in 2017.

Absolutely , hopefully Trumo and Brexit will stand out for future generations, to demonstrate that "messing" with democracy , gets you into huge trouble. Democracy requires an element of truth to function correctly, if participants lie with impunity, the democratic process fails

Itssoeasy

I see Donald trump is being his normal classy self. He's going after the mayor of San Juan who had the gaul to beg for help for from the US government.

He's such a ****ing bell end of a human being. I know that's probably not the most parliamentary thing to say but he can't take ANY criticism or even what he believes to be less than glowing praise from his subjects.

PopePalpatine

She obviously committed the mortal sin of being a woman with Spanish as her mother tongue. I expect the Church of the Cheeto to come out lauding their hero for "negging" her.

Nody

Now here's an interesting twist for 2020 election; how about Trump vs. Oprah? Now it sounds outlandish as a starting point but thinking about it from a Democrat point of view it would make sense; you have a woman of color who's got a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge network already who's very popular. Will help engage the base and non whites alike and someone who can easily handle Trump in a debate or showdown.

Water John

I see our Citizens Assembly have been listening to scientists speak on climate change. It's all very one sided, could Trump possibly over some one to lend, balance to the discussion. Doesn't have to have any qualifications, just bring their opinion.

Billy86

Water John wrote: »

I see our Citizens Assembly have been listening to scientists speak on climate change. It's all very one sided, could Trump possibly over some one to lend, balance to the discussion. Doesn't have to have any qualifications, just bring their opinion.

They should allow the climate change denying scientists to have a voice to reflect their presence. So 100 scientists on a panel where each scientist gets exactly as much time to speak as the last - 97 who believe in climate change a 3 who don't. To give each side fair representation, of course.

Water John

I will be fine with that, though I'd suspect the 3 of being bought.

Quin_Dub

Nody wrote: »

Now here's an interesting twist for 2020 election; how about Trump vs. Oprah? Now it sounds outlandish as a starting point but thinking about it from a Democrat point of view it would make sense; you have a woman of color who's got a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge network already who's very popular. Will help engage the base and non whites alike and someone who can easily handle Trump in a debate or showdown.

Would another "celebrity" candidate not be a huge risk..

Surely the whole point about Trump is his utter lack of experience in Politics?

Not saying that Oprah Winfrey would be as incompetent as Trump appears to be , but the desire to elect another "celebrity outsider" might be fairly low.

Nody

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Would another "celebrity" candidate not be a huge risk..

Surely the whole point about Trump is his utter lack of experience in Politics?

Not saying that Oprah Winfrey would be as incompetent as Trump appears to be , but the desire to elect another "celebrity outsider" might be fairly low.

The problem is there is no real suitable Democrat candidate for 2020 election to put up as it stands. Hence putting up Celebrity vs. Celebrity and have one who's more famous than Trump and hits all your demographics that you need to come out to vote and neuter Trump directly and surrounding her with competent people can make sure things get done Democratic style.

PopePalpatine

On top of that, it's the NY Post, owned by the GOP's favourite Australian. If the Dems were to nominate a black woman to take on Trump, Kamala Harris would be a better bet. Given that she co-sponsored Bernie's "Medicare For All" bill in the Senate and previously prosecuted white collar criminals, I think she could appeal to voters who were put off by Clinton. Sure, she might be her state's junior Senator (and OK, the fact she represents California probably opens up another angle for the GOP's attack ads), but Obama was in the same position.