Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Water John

Yes, and the POTUS failed to totally condemn them. 'Some of them are good people'.

rossie1977

Itssoeasy wrote: »

6 years ? You think trump will get reelected ? I don't.

Democratic party are a mess right now. With Pelosi and Schumer in charge Democrats have zero chance of winning in 2020.

Trump hasn't even used the 'war card' yet. When he does that's him confirmed for a second and perhaps a third term. Remember most Republicans are fine with Trump suspending Presidential elections if he feels like he has just cause.

Just last week we had people on the streets of los angeles one of America's most liberal cities wanting him to start a war with North Korea which would turn into a global disaster. His approval rating shot up that time he ordered misses to be fired on Syria.

Itssoeasy

rossie1977 wrote: »

Democratic party are a mess right now. With Pelosi and Schumer in charge Democrats have zero chance of winning in 2020.

Trump hasn't even used the 'war card' yet. When he does that's him confirmed for a second and perhaps a third term. Remember most Republicans are fine with Trump suspending Presidential elections if he feels like he has just cause.

Just last week we had people on the streets of los angeles one of America's most liberal cities wanting him to start a war with North Korea which would turn into a global disaster. His approval rating shot up that time he ordered misses to be fired on Syria.

the 22nd amendment to the US constitution prevents that from happening rossie. So as much as trump fan boys want to think he'll be leader for ever then sorry but he won't be. suspending presidential elections will never happen despite what the GOP supporters think. The whole reason the USA broke away from Britain was because they weren't that fond of monarchy and the us system is set up in such a way as to prevent one person becoming too powerful.

Water John

Don't think this thread is about the Democratic Party. We'll give them a thread of their own. This one is for Donald and his failings.

froog

Itssoeasy wrote: »

the 22nd amendment to the US constitution prevents that from happening rossie. So as much as trump fan boys want to think he'll be leader for ever then sorry but he won't be. suspending presidential elections will never happen despite what the GOP supporters think. The whole reason the USA broke away from Britain was because they weren't not fond of monarchy and the us system is set up in such a way as to prevent one person becoming too powerful.

yup. the entire US political system is designed specifically to prevent tyrants accumulating power.

thank god.

Itssoeasy

froog wrote: »

yup. the entire US political system is designed specifically to prevent tyrants accumulating power.

thank god.

Yeah for all the things about the US political system that baffle me, the fact that the founding fathers had the foresight to make sure no one person would all the power is great.

jrar

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Yeah for all the things about the US political system that baffle me, the fact that the founding fathers had the foresight to make sure no one person would all the power is great.

Indeed -and they can hardly be faulted for not foreseeing that the US electorate would one day elect a racist, misogynistic, narcissistic, ****wit of a president !

oscarBravo

jrar wrote: »

Indeed -and they can hardly be faulted for not foreseeing that the US electorate would one day elect a racist, misogynistic, narcissistic, ****wit of a president !

They kinda did. That's precisely why the electoral college was conceived rather than a direct election by popular vote.

I think it was in one of the federalist papers, I'd have to go digging, but the idea was that if the people were ever taken in by a populist charlatan, the electors would step in and elect someone sane instead.

Of course, that was back in the day before democracy began to be worshipped as a religion; back when it was forgivable to suggest that the electorate could conceivably ever be wrong. Now that's blasphemy, and when the US elects a bonobo with the temperament of a two-year-old, or the UK plays Russian roulette with three chambers loaded, we're supposed to accept it as the "will of the people".

Really Interested

rossie1977 wrote: »

Democratic party are a mess right now. With Pelosi and Schumer in charge Democrats have zero chance of winning in 2020.

Trump hasn't even used the 'war card' yet. When he does that's him confirmed for a second and perhaps a third term. Remember most Republicans are fine with Trump suspending Presidential elections if he feels like he has just cause.

Just last week we had people on the streets of los angeles one of America's most liberal cities wanting him to start a war with North Korea which would turn into a global disaster. His approval rating shot up that time he ordered misses to be fired on Syria.

A few months ago the labour party in the UK was 20+% behind the Tories, funny how that changed when an election happened. All the polls in the world dont matter what matters is 2018.

Samaris

oscarBravo wrote: »

They kinda did. That's precisely why the electoral college was conceived rather than a direct election by popular vote.

I think it was in one of the federalist papers, I'd have to go digging, but the idea was that if the people were ever taken in by a populist charlatan, the electors would step in and elect someone sane instead.

Of course, that was back in the day before democracy began to be worshipped as a religion; back when it was forgivable to suggest that the electorate could conceivably ever be wrong. Now that's blasphemy, and when the US elects a bonobo with the temperament of a two-year-old, or the UK plays Russian roulette with three chambers loaded, we're supposed to accept it as the "will of the people".

It was from Federalist Paper 68, written by Alexander Hamilton and including the lines;

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.

Mind you, he also said this, with a certain irony in retrospect.

Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

Not that he could be expected to forsee a Trump. But "talents for low intrigue and the little arts of popularity" certainly ring true. But the Electoral College long ago failed in what the intention for which it was created and is now nothing more than a rote exercise.

Sam Russell

Really Interested wrote: »

A few months ago the labour party in the UK was 20+% behind the Tories, funny how that changed when an election happened. All the polls in the world dont matter what matters is 2018.

Well, it was the polls showing the 20% lead that was the cause of TM calling a snap election so she could get a thumping majority. Instead she got a thumping.

If the polls go down the toilet for the Republicans, they could well force Trump down the toilet as well.

Itssoeasy

oscarBravo wrote: »

They kinda did. That's precisely why the electoral college was conceived rather than a direct election by popular vote.

I think it was in one of the federalist papers, I'd have to go digging, but the idea was that if the people were ever taken in by a populist charlatan, the electors would step in and elect someone sane instead.

Of course, that was back in the day before democracy began to be worshipped as a religion; back when it was forgivable to suggest that the electorate could conceivably ever be wrong. Now that's blasphemy, and when the US elects a bonobo with the temperament of a two-year-old, or the UK plays Russian roulette with three chambers loaded, we're supposed to accept it as the "will of the people".

That's very harsh on Bonobos who are smart animals.

20Cent

The contradicting tweets are getting closer. Once they match we will have reached the singularity.

Yesterday

For every CEO that drops out of the Manufacturing Council, I have many to take their place. Grandstanders should not have gone on. JOBS!


Today

Rather than putting pressure on the businesspeople of the Manufacturing Council & Strategy & Policy Forum, I am ending both. Thank you all!

Royal Legend

VinLieger wrote: »

This one might last a bit longer as there is likely to be knock on from it but yes in probably a week there will be a new fiasco.

The other issue about this is he is drastically lowering the bar on almost a daily basis about what is outrageous behavior and what isn't.

When everything he does is outrageous is anything he does outrageous?

Is anyone ever surprised by what he does anymore?

For once I would tend to agree, there was premeditated violence from both sides.

Remember the Love Ulster Parade a few years ago, a group of religious bigots descending on Dublin and being attacked by left wing yobs, did we not look at that ourselves as two extremes that had no place in OUR society at the time.

The racists came prepared for a riot last weekend, riot shields, bats, helmets and the anti racists came with bats, bottles looking for a fight as well, so do people think that this element of the anti racist group have a right to do what they like, Trump has got a point, he is not good at putting it into words, but as big a dangerous fool I see him as, I think he has a point about last weekend.

rossie1977

Itssoeasy wrote: »

the 22nd amendment to the US constitution prevents that from happening rossie. So as much as trump fan boys want to think he'll be leader for ever then sorry but he won't be. suspending presidential elections will never happen despite what the GOP supporters think. The whole reason the USA broke away from Britain was because they weren't that fond of monarchy and the us system is set up in such a way as to prevent one person becoming too powerful.

I will just post a piece that Masha Gessen wrote back in November, she has lived under authoritarian rule and everything she has said so far about Trump's presidency has come true.

Institutions will not save you. It took Putin a year to take over the Russian media and four years to dismantle its electoral system; the judiciary collapsed unnoticed. The capture of institutions in Turkey has been carried out even faster, by a man once celebrated as the democrat to lead Turkey into the EU. Poland has in less than a year undone half of a quarter century’s accomplishments in building a constitutional democracy.

Of course, the United States has much stronger institutions than Germany did in the 1930s, or Russia does today. Both Clinton and Obama in their speeches stressed the importance and strength of these institutions. The problem, however, is that many of these institutions are enshrined in political culture rather than in law, and all of them—including the ones enshrined in law—depend on the good faith of all actors to fulfill their purpose and uphold the Constitution.

Manic Moran

I doubt they will go without a fight. I think we would do better than, say, Venezuela. Many of us are well enough armed to make things rather hazardous for the authorities.

Out of interest, for those lambasting in the last couple of pages, what is the opinion here on the British electoral system? After all, it has also hapenned in the U.K. that the party with the most votes found itself in opposition. Five times, actually, most recently, when Ted Heath lost out to Harold Wilson, despite the Conservatives getting more votes. The first time, 1874, the party with 44% of the vote ended up with 59% of the seats. Doubtless the Liberals with 52% of the vote were miffed to be in the minority.

Where I'm going here is that any system of voting based on districts, counties, constituencies, states or other demographic or geographic boundaries runs the risk of popular and practical votes not aligning. That includes Ireland. At least the US system has some merit in its reflection of the fifty States doing the electing, not the people.

Peregrinus

The problem isn't that Trump failed to win the popular vote. This happens from time to time in the US and in many other countries. It's less likely to happen under the Irish electoral system, though in strict theory it's not absolutely impossible.

You can defend this as a feature, not a bug. The US system is intentionally designed to ensure that a bare majority of the vote will not necessarily be enough to win the presidency; you also need a broad appeal across the country. You can see why someone might think that that's a good idea.

Indeed, electoral and voting systems in the EU institutiones are much more skewed in this way, in favour of smaller countries such as ours. And, again, you can see the reasons for that.

No, the problem here is not that Trump lost the popular vote. It's that he is completely unfitted in every possible way to be President of the United States. He would still be completely unfitted even if he had won a clear majority, and his presidency would be just as damaging to his country and to the world. This is not a problem which can be fixed by tweaking the voting system.

Samaris

Yes and no, Peregrinus; I think the US has some major gaping holes in its system due to outdated rules and ideals that do not stand up to those of ill-faith interfering with them. The Electoral College seems to be a hindrance rather than a help at this stage and as I commented somewhere previously, it is now a rote exercise rather than a body of people to make the decision to ratify the peoples' choice or not. Now, it is arguable that there is no business for a modern democracy to be having a group of kingmakers deciding whether or not to disregard the peoples' choice but in that case, do away with the thing.

The other gaping hole in democracy is this frankly insane ability for parties to rearrange the districts to benefit themselves. Partisan gerrymandering is allowed and even expected. That seems absolutely bonkers and makes for results unrepresentative of the districts, which feeds up to states, which feeds up to the nation.

I agree the problem isn't that he didn't win the public vote, but rather that the man is a nasty-minded, dishonest little mountebank of low intellect and even lower morals who is doing his country deep and abiding harm though.

Peregrinus

Samaris wrote: »

Yes and no, Peregrinus; I think the US has some major gaping holes in its system due to outdated rules and ideals that do not stand up to those of ill-faith interfering with them. The Electoral College seems to be a hindrance rather than a help at this stage and as I commented somewhere previously, it is now a rote exercise rather than a body of people to make the decision to ratify the peoples' choice or not. Now, it is arguable that there is no business for a modern democracy to be having a group of kingmakers deciding whether or not to disregard the peoples' choice but in that case, do away with the thing.

The electoral college system is not doing its original job as outlined in the Federalist Papers and, as you point out, probably nobody nowadays would argue that it should do that job.

But it still has other functions, focussing the voting weight of each state on just one candidate rather than dividing it between two of them, and given the less populous states slightly more voting weight than they would be strictly entitled to on the basis of population.

You can argue the toss about the democratic credentials of these effects, but it’s undeniable that they do serve to require candidates to seek not just a bare majority, but a broadly-spread appeal. And for that reason I think Americans will be slow to abandon the system.

Samaris wrote: »

The other gaping hole in democracy is this frankly insane ability for parties to rearrange the districts to benefit themselves. Partisan gerrymandering is allowed and even expected. That seems absolutely bonkers and makes for results unrepresentative of the districts, which feeds up to states, which feeds up to the nation.

You’ll get no argument from me there.

The other other gaping hole, it seems to me, is the legally entrenched and privileged position of the two parties, coupled with the primary system which enables a populist to take a party’s nomination even though the party leadership, thinkers, etc, don’t want him and even though he is not a member of the party or a supporter of its values or ideals. If you can hijack the Republican or Democratic nominations, given the entrenched advantages afforded to the Republican and Democratic nominees, you’re half-way there.

Samaris wrote: »

I agree the problem isn't that he didn't win the public vote, but rather that the man is a nasty-minded, dishonest little mountebank of low intellect and even lower morals who is doing his country deep and abiding harm though.

Again, no argument from me.

But the real problem here is that I don’t think you can have an electoral system which is genuinely democratic and responsive to what people want, but which is proof from being exploited by a populist.

Here I think we come to the great strength of the American system; it’s designed to be resilient so that, even if it is hijacked in this way, the country will survive, and democracy will survive. It won’t be the nation’s finest hour, but they’ll get through it.

Right now, that aspect of the American constitutional/political system is being tested as never before. But, so far, it’s bearing up pretty well. Trump has been stymied in virtually everything he has sought to do. His crusade to abolish healthcare has died the death. His anti-Muslim laws have been delayed, limited and eventually accommodated so far only a temporary basis. Not all of his appointees who are unfit for office have been driven out yet, but many have. The media are doing a sterling job of holding him to account. And the special prosecutor is circling closer and closer to Trump Tower and to the White House. Those checks and balances really are checking and balancing.

Leroy42

Royal Legend wrote: »

For once I would tend to agree, there was premeditated violence from both sides.

Remember the Love Ulster Parade a few years ago, a group of religious bigots descending on Dublin and being attacked by left wing yobs, did we not look at that ourselves as two extremes that had no place in OUR society at the time.

The racists came prepared for a riot last weekend, riot shields, bats, helmets and the anti racists came with bats, bottles looking for a fight as well, so do people think that this element of the anti racist group have a right to do what they like, Trump has got a point, he is not good at putting it into words, but as big a dangerous fool I see him as, I think he has a point about last weekend.

The big difference, the difference that makes this apparent attempt to make both 'sides' equivalent, is that the alt right is determined to restrict and reject all others that do not suit their belief system. They want White rule, white power, christian values. They don't want equality. They don't want to treat people the same.

Their aim is not discussion, or compromise, or understanding. They want to go back to the time when they ruled, when they were in charge. They are looking for the state to be factored in their favour. Property rights, the legal system, money etc etc, should all be tuned to put them first. This is not a cry to give them some help, this a cry to actively put down anybody who doesn't fit with their ideals of humanity.

So the violence, which is what is being used to portray the 'other' side as equivalent (the 'other' side being those that believe that all man is created equal, strangley in line with the actual constitution!) is merely an outcome of the plan. You can be sure that there were some on the other side that committed violent acts, just as there as those that go to football games that get into fights. But the key difference is that the violent act is a result of fear or anger or intimidation. The violence from the alt right is a necessary part of the plan.

To dismiss the core beliefs of the alt right is incredible. Their very nature being to destroy the current constitution of the US, the deny fellow US citizens the right to vote, the right to property, the right to freedom. This is not about a statue, this is not about history. This is about the future. A future where groups of people like the KKK and Neo-Nazis want to subjegate parts of the human race to suit their needs.

Hector Savage

I just wish the media would call out the far left as much as they call out the far right.
At the end of the day these KKK White Supremacists idiots are a dying breed and aren't a real threat to the world anymore.
The far left are and are running US universities - and what starts in universities follows in society.

VinLieger

Hector Savage wrote: »

I just wish the media would call out the far left as much as they call out the far right.
At the end of the day these KKK White Supremacists idiots are a dying breed and aren't a real threat to the world anymore.
The far left are and are running US universities - and what starts in universities follows in society.

LOL theres no such thing as a far left in the states, what they call "far left" is more like middle left for the rest of the world

Christy42

Hector Savage wrote: »

I just wish the media would call out the far left as much as they call out the far right.
At the end of the day these KKK White Supremacists idiots are a dying breed and aren't a real threat to the world anymore.
The far left are and are running US universities - and what starts in universities follows in society.

A: they really aren't. B: they are a minor threat, ooh gay marriage and easy access to abortions - scary. (Yeah Antifa are a bit different but they really are not running universities)

Meanwhile on the far right we have an attack on a mosque causing deaths, a shooting in a church a few years back causing deaths, an attack on a train earlier this year causing deaths, a march as a show of power openly declaring that they are nazis resulting in a white supremacist driving their car into people killing one and injuring others. And that is just off the top of my head. Multiple attacks, most this year causing attacks. Looks like they are not doing too badly.

Tell their victims that they are not a real threat. They seem to be getting stronger. Nazis have proven too dangerous to ignore.

Peregrinus

Hector Savage wrote: »

I just wish the media would call out the far left as much as they call out the far right.
At the end of the day these KKK White Supremacists idiots are a dying breed and aren't a real threat to the world anymore.
The far left are and are running US universities - and what starts in universities follows in society.

The far right are behind a substantial majority of the terrorist incidents in the US - far more incidents that Islamists, and more again than the left.

The notion that "the far left are running US universities" is not one that will be taken seriously by anyone who has spent much time in a US university. They are very corporate, and utterly beholden to their funders, who are rarely people of the far left.

Bluefoam

Hector Savage wrote: »

I just wish the media would call out the far left as much as they call out the far right.
At the end of the day these KKK White Supremacists idiots are a dying breed and aren't a real threat to the world anymore.
The far left are and are running US universities - and what starts in universities follows in society.

The far right are growing in power and popularity... as shown by the election of Trump with his racist views and support for their cause. The right have been vocal in their wish to murder people and cause damage to society...

The far left are running universities, pushing their vile views on social infrastructure and care for society... They might not be right on allot of stuff, but they are from removed from the destructive agenda of the right...

Hector Savage

Peregrinus wrote: »

The far right are behind a substantial majority of the terrorist incidents in the US - far more incidents that Islamists, and more again than the left.

The notion that "the far left are running US universities" is not one that will be taken seriously by anyone who has spent much time in a US university. They are very corporate, and utterly beholden to their funders, who are rarely people of the far left.

What terrorist incidents ?

Akrasia

Hector Savage wrote: »

I just wish the media would call out the far left as much as they call out the far right.
At the end of the day these KKK White Supremacists idiots are a dying breed and aren't a real threat to the world anymore.
The far left are and are running US universities - and what starts in universities follows in society.

The 'far left' usually refers to vanguard communism, but here you seem to be referring to feminism and pc liberalism.

The worst the 'far left' that you describe do is espouse too much consideration for the principle of fairness and equality.

The far right, that you are underestimating are for ethnic cleansing and genocide.

If you think social justice warriors are against freedom of speech, wait until the fascists get some power

Hector Savage

Akrasia wrote: »

The 'far left' usually refers to vanguard communism, but here you seem to be referring to feminism and pc liberalism.

The worst the 'far left' that you describe do is espouse too much consideration for the principle of fairness and equality.

The far right, that you are underestimating are for ethnic cleansing and genocide.

If you think social justice warriors are against freedom of speech, wait until the fascists get some power

The fascists (as in right wing type) will never get into power - thats my point.

Akrasia

Hector Savage wrote: »

The fascists (as in right wing type) will never get into power - thats my point.

Have you ever read a history book?

Hector Savage

Akrasia wrote: »

Have you ever read a history book?

Ha !
Come on, I mean in the future.

ThisRegard

Hector Savage wrote: »

Ha !
Come on, I mean in the future.

Have you ever read a future book?

Akrasia

Hector Savage wrote: »

Ha !
Come on, I mean in the future.

Ok, so your position is that right wing totalitarians will never again rise up (as they have many many times in the past, and are currently in places like Turkey, Poland, Venezuela etc) but we should concentrate our attention on social justice warriors who are somehow a threat to democracy because they want us to pay women the same as men and call people different pro-nouns to what we are used to.

I get it, SJWs are annoying, sometimes they're anti free speech and many of them are self serving hypocrites, but only in the imaginations of the 'alt right' are SJWs any real threat to freedom.

The worst we can say about them, is that they enable right wing elements in Islam by refusing to condemn them out of cultural sensitivity. But in this case, the real threat is the ultra conservative Islamicism, not the hippies and feminists who don't want to offend muslims by tarring them all with the same brush.

Mancomb Seepgood

Hector Savage wrote: »

At the end of the day these KKK White Supremacists idiots are a dying breed and aren't a real threat to the world anymore.

There are a lot of young people who are attracted to white supremacist ideology.Just look at the videos from Charlottesville,or go to Twitter or Reddit.

To assume that these people are a dying breed is dangerously naive.

Water John

Is this Steve Bannon interview real or a hoax:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/17/steve-bannon-calls-far-right-losers-trump-warns-china-trade-war-american-prospect

He says like the Mooch he didn't know he was on the record.

VinLieger

Hector Savage wrote: »

Ha !
Come on, I mean in the future.

Yup no fascists to see here move along

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/15/dreamhost-declines-to-give-doj-visitor-data-for-activist-site.html

oscarBravo

Hector Savage wrote: »

What terrorist incidents ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=104402942&postcount=847

Hector Savage

Akrasia wrote: »

Ok, so your position is that right wing totalitarians will never again rise up (as they have many many times in the past, and are currently in places like Turkey, Poland, Venezuela etc) but we should concentrate our attention on social justice warriors who are somehow a threat to democracy because they want us to pay women the same as men and call people different pro-nouns to what we are used to.

I get it, SJWs are annoying, sometimes they're anti free speech and many of them are self serving hypocrites, but only in the imaginations of the 'alt right' are SJWs any real threat to freedom.

The worst we can say about them, is that they enable right wing elements in Islam by refusing to condemn them out of cultural sensitivity. But in this case, the real threat is the ultra conservative Islamicism, not the hippies and feminists who don't want to offend muslims by tarring them all with the same brush.

Very good post, can't really argue with this.

abff

Samaris wrote: »

I agree the problem isn't that he didn't win the public vote, but rather that the man is a nasty-minded, dishonest little mountebank of low intellect and even lower morals who is doing his country deep and abiding harm though.

I have to congratulate you on the most succinct (and accurate) description of Mr Trump that I have seen to date.

VinLieger

Water John wrote: »

Is this Steve Bannon interview real or a hoax:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/17/steve-bannon-calls-far-right-losers-trump-warns-china-trade-war-american-prospect

He says like the Mooch he didn't know he was on the record.

Its definitely real as in he said it, the question is is it "real" and not a well crafted "mistake"

ThisRegard

Water John wrote: »

Is this Steve Bannon interview real or a hoax:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/17/steve-bannon-calls-far-right-losers-trump-warns-china-trade-war-american-prospect

He says like the Mooch he didn't know he was on the record.

Read it this morning and couldn't work it out, was it for optics, is he trying to play things down so he can remain in a relative position of power but still work on his idealogies from within, was it a result of Trump's comments about having him at the mad press conference. I dunno.

Leroy42

Its a clear distraction technique. Trump is under severe pressure so Bannon mistakenly calls up a left wing journalist that he has never spoken too before and gives a full rundown of the real policies.

So the msm will focus on this, laugh about Bannons stupidity, wonder how poor Ivanka is dealing with all this, and forget that the POTUS is a "nasty-minded, dishonest little mountebank of low intellect and even lower morals" Samaris.

aloyisious

Water John wrote: »

Is this Steve Bannon interview real or a hoax:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/17/steve-bannon-calls-far-right-losers-trump-warns-china-trade-war-american-prospect

He says like the Mooch he didn't know he was on the record.

When is a leak not a leak?

Water John

I know SB full well knew what he was doing. I Leroy above gave a good reasoning, as to why.

aloyisious

On to Don, given his ego, how much longer will he be able to withstand the bruising it's taking from all sides now, even from Fox - has he the staying power to sit and take it? Has his track record in business before this shown he has the ability?

Seriously, how long will it be before there's a 3 AM tweet to the effect "you're a load of ingrates, I'm off, you can shove the job and BTW, all my W/H staff, advisors etc, including Dept Sec's appointed by me, are fired with immediate effect" - 3 months, 6 months, taking into account that the Presidency [as he's found] is not the be all and have all power-wise that he may have thought it was.

I've been wondering lately if he's ever taken a look at what other presidents, or been advised of, have done in terms of getting legislation passed and if he's thought "how did they manage it?" given his failures to date.

aloyisious

Water John wrote: »

I know SB full well knew what he was doing. I Leroy above gave a good reasoning, as to why.

Have to agree: the notion that SB would even randomly call a left-wing-magazine connected journalist at 3AM to have a friendly chat without confirming that the journalist knew it was "off the record" and not for publication is as likely as Don not wishing to reach his fanbase with a 3AM tweet. The timing is so coincidental as well....

Chips Lovell

aloyisious wrote: »

Seriously, how long will it be before there's a 3 AM tweet to the effect "you're a load of ingrates, I'm off, you can shove the job and BTW, all my W/H staff, advisors etc, including Dept Sec's appointed by me, are fired with immediate effect" - 3 months, 6 months, taking into account that the Presidency [as he's found] is not the be all and have all power-wise that he may have thought it was.

I've considered him quitting in frustration and I think its unlikely. From what I can tell, it doesn't bother him too much that he's a lame duck who has to achieve a single thing as president and is unlikely to do so. For Trump, simply being the president is enough. He enjoys the prestige and going around feeling important.

everlast75

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I've considered him quitting in frustration and I think its unlikely. From what I can tell, it doesn't bother him too much that he's a lame duck who has to achieve a single thing as president and is unlikely to do so. For Trump, simply being the president is enough. He enjoys the prestige and going around feeling important.

Oh I don't know. He didn't seem the happiest at that press conference. He was genuinely agitated and annoyed.

As soon as Bush Junior's second term was approaching its end, Fox et al started to comment more freely in terms of his shortcomings. Once Fox understand DT's time may be near, they will start to turn on him and start to heckle him with questions. (I think its taking so long because Hannity is a force in Fox and he has hitched his wagon firmly to oul tiny hands)

When that happens, poor Donald - he will have nothing to watch in the mornings

Leroy42

I think those thinking he may quit are using logic to the situation.

IMO Trump does not see himself as failing. He blames all those around him.

Look at his tweets today about fake news misinterpreting his press conference. No1 job of any leader is to get their message out. But instead of acknowledging that he is at fault he simply blames fake news.

In his mind, everything he has tried to do has been held back by the shortcomings of others.

Repeal and Replace failure is the fault of McConnell. Muslim ban failure is down to the courts. Failure of his industry forums are because CEOs of these massive companies didn't try hatd enough.

Shortcomings with press was Spicers fault, then Scaramucchi. Reibus was not up to the job. If he just gets rid of all the people that are the problem then he can get on with winning.

one armed dwarf

Once read a post which suggested that Trump could be a solipsist. In the sense that he lives in a universe of Trump and only Trump. Even the other day he could not help but bring up the winery he own's in Chartlottesville, like it has any relevance to the events.

Problem is now the rest of us risk getting pulled into this little micro-universe

oscarBravo

Tony Schwartz (the actual writer of Art of the Deal, to his eternal regret) thinks Trump will quit.