Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

DrumSteve

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Dont forget that if it is Pence, Trump will have been impeached and the GOP will be very angry and motivated. Also dont underestimate him, Tim Kaine though he would wipe the floor with him in the TV debate and he didn't!! and won that debate by most peoples reckoning.



He's as slippery as an eel

Yeah can't disagree there; though Kaine also wasn't a great pick.

Would love to see Trump run against Biden just to see the debates though!

serfboard

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Don't want to derail the Trump thread, but I think there is appetite and momentum for a woman and even better a minority so my bet is Kamala Harris.

Kamala Harris is Hillary Clinton Mark II. If they put a corporatist like her up, they will lose again - and they will deserve to.

Leroy42

A corporatist? What, like Trump the bestest business man on the planet?

Water John

Some GOPs have being talking up Kamela Harris as a formidable opponent. Do they wish it to be her? Klobuchar has the advantage of tapping Middle America, similar to Biden. If Biden's star fades, she benefits.
She was really good in the Kavanaugh hearing, no grandstanding.

Jamiekelly

Lads, I wouldn't put any money on Kamala Harris just yet. If you do a quick search on Youtube of her you will see a slew of her private speeches that would certainly mark her as a Republican in Democrat clothing. Certainly similiar to Hilary Clinton in that she will take a position on something as long as it is politically expedient but then drop it as soon as it served its purpose. She's done this with Medicare for all, bank prosecutions for mortgage fraud (Case in point would be Steve Mnuchin). Also her laughing at parents who were locked up for 6 months because of child truancy will almost certainly come back to bite her. Especially considering it directly affected poor black and hispanics the most.

If I had to put money on anyone to run against Trump and win it would be Tulsi Gabbard hands down. She has very few scandals compared with Harris, she was a military vet which will certainly help in swing states like Ohio and Florida. She's attractive, which lets face it, helps massively when giving long speeches on policy and she has a solid history of calling out corruption within the DNC even resigning over the Bernie/Hillary CNN scandal. There is a lot more nuance and consistency to her arguments unlike Harris who seems to flip on issues quite a bit.

Honestly most people only remember Harris from the Kavanagh hearing where as Gabbard was known since the 2016 election for standing up for Bernie.

everlast75

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Lads, I wouldn't put any money on Kamala Harris just yet. If you do a quick search on Youtube of her you will see a slew of her private speeches that would certainly mark her as a Republican in Democrat clothing. Certainly similiar to Hilary Clinton in that she will take a position on something as long as it is politically expedient but then drop it as soon as it served its purpose. She's done this with Medicare for all, bank prosecutions for mortgage fraud (Case in point would be Steve Mnuchin). Also her laughing at parents who were locked up for 6 months because of child truancy will almost certainly come back to bite her. Especially considering it directly affected poor black and hispanics the most.

If I had to put money on anyone to run against Trump and win it would be Tulsi Gabbard hands down. She has very few scandals compared with Harris, she was a military vet which will certainly help in swing states like Ohio and Florida. She's attractive, which lets face it, helps massively when giving long speeches on policy and she has a solid history of calling out corruption within the DNC even resigning over the Bernie/Hillary CNN scandal. There is a lot more nuance and consistency to her arguments unlike Harris who seems to flip on issues quite a bit.

Honestly most people only remember Harris from the Kavanagh hearing where as Gabbard was known since the 2016 election for standing up for Bernie.

1)Kamilla is like Hillary
2)Tulsi is more attractive


Remember
1)Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million & Trump cheated
2) that's how Fox News pick their staff. The rest of the U.S. has evolved past that

Tulsi thinks Assad isn't an enemy of the U.S. No thanks to someone who thinks that

Jamiekelly

everlast75 wrote: »

1)Kamilla is like Hillary
2)Tulsi is more attractive
3)Tulsi thinks Assad isn't an enemy of the U.S.

Remember
1)Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million & Trump cheated
2) that's how Fox News pick their staff. The rest of the U.S. has evolved past that
3) No thanks to someone who thinks that

1) Electoral College. Hilary also cheated in the primaries....
2) The US has evolved past what? Human biology?
3) The world isn't black and white. Especially in middle east warzones. The moderate rebels the US backed against Assad turned out to be Al-Nusra and ISIS affiliates who then passed the equipment onto ISIS. Assad is a tyrant, no question about it. But an enemy of the US? Bit of a stretch really.

everlast75

Jamiekelly wrote: »

1) Electoral College. Hilary also cheated in the primaries....
2) The US has evolved past what? Human biology?
3) The world isn't black and white. Especially in middle east warzones. The moderate rebels the US backed against Assad turned out to be Al-Nusra and ISIS affiliates who then passed the equipment onto ISIS. Assad is a tyrant, no question about it. But an enemy of the US? Bit of a stretch really.

1) Donald cheated the general public and is an unindicted co-conspirator.
2) evolved past judging people on their looks
3) Tyrants aren't enemies of the U.S.? what a time to be alive

Leroy42

HC did not cheat in the primaries. Show how she cheated? I would wager that this is not the thread for a discussion about it, but every so often we get some posters coming on on the basis that HC is just as bad as Trump

She was clearly the favored candidate, that is a far cry from cheating.

Its a nice little narrative of course as it gives cover to those Trump supporters that know that Trump used Russia to help him get elected and so need to make it look like what they were doing was actually to protect America rather than letting Russia have a direct link to the WH.

Jamiekelly

everlast75 wrote: »

1) Donald cheated the general public and is an unindicted co-conspirator.
2) evolved past judging people on their looks
3) Tyrants aren't enemies of the U.S.? what a time to be alive

1) My point still stands regarding the electoral college and Hilary. Trump is clearly a russian puppet but it makes very little difference until he becomes indicted or is impeached.
2) Wrong, as in it's impossible not to judge people on their looks, it's engrained into us as a species and the Americans are no different. In fact I'd say it's much worse in the US compared to other parts of the world.
3) Netanyahu is a tyrant who actively steals land, breaks UN resolutions and blockades an entire country yet he has been called the greatest ally the US has in the world. Do I really have to post the list of coups backed by the US that actively installed tyrants into positions of power overturning democratically elected officials?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change

Over 325 sources at the bottom that will keep you busy if you still believe that the US opposes all tyrants. They seem to be quite fond of tyrants who can help them in some way.


Look I think we are going down a silly rabbit hole here that doesn't really have anything to do with Trump at this point. I just wanted to give my opinion on Harris and why I think she wouldn't be the best choice to run against Trump.

Jamiekelly

Leroy42 wrote: »

HC did not cheat in the primaries. Show how she cheated? I would wager that this is not the thread for a discussion about it, but every so often we get some posters coming on on the basis that HC is just as bad as Trump

She was clearly the favored candidate, that is a far cry from cheating.

Its a nice little narrative of course as it gives cover to those Trump supporters that know that Trump used Russia to help him get elected and so need to make it look like what they were doing was actually to protect America rather than letting Russia have a direct link to the WH.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/memo-reveals-details-hillary-clinton-dnc-deal-n817411

There is also the CNN questions being leaked to her that she did not report to the FBI (which she was supposed to) and she apologised for it. So it's hardly up for debate.

The favored candidate is supposed to be picked by the democratic voters without interference from the national committee. The DNC is supposed to hold fair primaries not trying the sway voters. How about the Superdelegate system for a start? Hawaii superdelegates were not bound by the PPP results. Eight of ten superdelegates chose to ignore the PPP vote. 70% of Hawaii voted for Bernie, 80% of superdelegates declared for Clinton. Hardly democratic when superdelegates are allowed to ignore the general population's preference.

Oh and I didn't realise I'm now a Trump supporter or attempting to give cover to Trump supporters just because I don't like Clinton. Please don't insult my intelligence. You can have a look through my posting on the Politics forum and see I agree with most of what is said regarding Trump and the 2016 election, but I won't be pinned in as a Trump supporter or a "Hilary is just as bad as Trump" sympathiser just because I expect a basic standard to be applied to all candidates and arguments.

mcmoustache

Jamiekelly wrote: »

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/memo-reveals-details-hillary-clinton-dnc-deal-n817411

There is also the CNN questions being leaked to her that she did not report to the FBI (which she was supposed to) and she apologised for it. So it's hardly up for debate.

Where did you get this information? I heard something similar about Donna Brazile leaking questions to her before a televised debate but I would like to know where you got the information that she was obliged to report it to the FBI.

feargale

Leroy42 wrote: »

HC did not cheat in the primaries. Show how she cheated? I would wager that this is not the thread for a discussion about it, but every so often we get some posters coming on on the basis that HC is just as bad as Trump

She was clearly the favored candidate, that is a far cry from cheating.

Its a nice little narrative of course as it gives cover to those Trump supporters that know that Trump used Russia to help him get elected and so need to make it look like what they were doing was actually to protect America rather than letting Russia have a direct link to the WH.

In the course of the campaign Trump accused HC of all kinds of nefarious actions and said she would be prosecuted and in jail when he became president. Now he's president. Allowing that Trump didn't seem to know that it is not for the president to decide who goes to jail, why has he not caused herbto be prosecuted? He hasn't put his
easy money where his mouth is.

Putin must be dancing.

Jamiekelly

mcmoustache wrote: »

Where did you get this information? I heard something similar about Donna Brazile leaking questions to her before a televised debate but I would like to know where you got the information that she was obliged to report it to the FBI.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donna-brazile-leaves-cnn/

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/donna-brazile-finally-admits-she-shared-debate-questions-with-clinton-campaign

The emails that contained the questions are supposed to be turned over to the DNC and reported to law enforcement for investigation. This was discussed on this forum at the time it happened in detail.

Sorry to the mods for dragging the thread off topic.

mcmoustache

Jamiekelly wrote: »

The emails that contained the questions are supposed to be turned over to the DNC and reported to law enforcement for investigation. This was discussed on this forum at the time it happened in detail.

Like I said earlier, I knew about this event. Where I'm having difficulty is the claim that there was an obligation on Clinton to report the event to authorities. Those links don't show anything like that.

StringerBell

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Don't want to derail the Trump thread, but I think there is appetite and momentum for a woman and even better a minority so my bet is Kamala Harris. She is also tough enough to take on Trump.


Next up after that will be Beto O'Rourke, he stands a VERY good chance also. A lot of twits and turns yet. More than likely anyway it will be against Pence, and the conservatives will Turn out in droves for him.

I like Harris, but I don't think she is strong enough for a 2020 run, Trump also knows this as you can see by his comments regarding her and those he throws at Elizabeth Warren for instance.

Beto couldn't carry his own state, he isn't going to be winning the Presidency.

FWIW I do think Klobucher would be a good shout.

everlast75

Shenanigans afoot with Whitaker...



https://twitter.com/PreetBharara/status/1093570220692852738?s=19

The Phantom Jipper

Jamiekelly wrote: »

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/memo-reveals-details-hillary-clinton-dnc-deal-n817411

There is also the CNN questions being leaked to her that she did not report to the FBI (which she was supposed to) and she apologised for it. So it's hardly up for debate.

The favored candidate is supposed to be picked by the democratic voters without interference from the national committee. The DNC is supposed to hold fair primaries not trying the sway voters. How about the Superdelegate system for a start? Hawaii superdelegates were not bound by the PPP results. Eight of ten superdelegates chose to ignore the PPP vote. 70% of Hawaii voted for Bernie, 80% of superdelegates declared for Clinton. Hardly democratic when superdelegates are allowed to ignore the general population's preference.

Oh and I didn't realise I'm now a Trump supporter or attempting to give cover to Trump supporters just because I don't like Clinton. Please don't insult my intelligence. You can have a look through my posting on the Politics forum and see I agree with most of what is said regarding Trump and the 2016 election, but I won't be pinned in as a Trump supporter or a "Hilary is just as bad as Trump" sympathiser just because I expect a basic standard to be applied to all candidates and arguments.

He got 3.7m less votes than Clinton; that was the decisive factor rather than Clinton being given debate questions. I was reasonably sympathetic to his candidacy but it's utter nonsense to claim it was rigged or that he was robbed of the nomination.

Eric Cartman

Jamiekelly wrote: »

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/memo-reveals-details-hillary-clinton-dnc-deal-n817411

There is also the CNN questions being leaked to her that she did not report to the FBI (which she was supposed to) and she apologised for it. So it's hardly up for debate.

The favored candidate is supposed to be picked by the democratic voters without interference from the national committee. The DNC is supposed to hold fair primaries not trying the sway voters. How about the Superdelegate system for a start? Hawaii superdelegates were not bound by the PPP results. Eight of ten superdelegates chose to ignore the PPP vote. 70% of Hawaii voted for Bernie, 80% of superdelegates declared for Clinton. Hardly democratic when superdelegates are allowed to ignore the general population's preference.

Oh and I didn't realise I'm now a Trump supporter or attempting to give cover to Trump supporters just because I don't like Clinton. Please don't insult my intelligence. You can have a look through my posting on the Politics forum and see I agree with most of what is said regarding Trump and the 2016 election, but I won't be pinned in as a Trump supporter or a "Hilary is just as bad as Trump" sympathiser just because I expect a basic standard to be applied to all candidates and arguments.

Nah mate sorry, this is the politics forum where you either completely loved Hillary or you were personally behind the wheel of the car in charlottesville chanting build the wall. Any slight deviation from 'orange man bad' here automatically has you supporting the klan. If you even slightly try say that one executive order, conference, statement, policy etc wasnt completely evil or racist then you'll have infinite posts coming back saying 'so since your a trump fanatic you must support this thing he supposedly said 30 years ago according to a news site that was set up 2 weeks before the election'

Manic Moran

As I recall correctly, part of the problem was that the superdelegates generally declared for Clinton before the primaries. (Not necessarily voted, but said that they would vote for). I remember seeing charts in the news with a really big long graph bar for Clinton and a much smaller one for Bernie, making it obvious that Bernie was not going to win even though many States had yet to actually hold their contests. With that information, it would seem to many people there was no point in voting.

Hence the perpetual shift to the left of states for their primary dates as well. They want to be “relevant”

Leroy42

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Nah mate sorry, this is the politics forum where you either completely loved Hillary or you were personally behind the wheel of the car in charlottesville chanting build the wall. Any slight deviation from 'orange man bad' here automatically has you supporting the klan. If you even slightly try say that one executive order, conference, statement, policy etc wasnt completely evil or racist then you'll have infinite posts coming back saying 'so since your a trump fanatic you must support this thing he supposedly said 30 years ago according to a news site that was set up 2 weeks before the election'

He insinuated that HC cheated, when she did no such thing.

They then came out with some spurious 'evidence' to back up their claim.

They might well have the greatest posting record on Boards but coming out with such nonsense deserves to be called out.

Eric Cartman

Leroy42 wrote: »

He insinuated that HC cheated, when she did no such thing.

They then came out with some spurious 'evidence' to back up their claim.

They might well have the greatest posting record on Boards but coming out with such nonsense deserves to be called out.

well the CNN debate questions leak did happen , Hillary also used social media firms to target potential voters, communications firms were hired to post pro hillary propoganda on the internet.

The only real difference between their election strategies was how hard they hit it and that Trump used companies that in some part were based in russia and are described as 'troll farms' rather than 'PR firms'

if its cheating for one it is for the other. But this is how US elections were always run, just now with internet.

weisses

Eric Cartman wrote: »

well the CNN debate questions leak did happen , Hillary also used social media firms to target potential voters, communications firms were hired to post pro hillary propoganda on the internet.

The only real difference between their election strategies was how hard they hit it and that Trump used companies that in some part were based in russia and are described as 'troll farms' rather than 'PR firms'

if its cheating for one it is for the other. But this is how US elections were always run, just now with internet.

Who or what is pulling the strings at these Russian troll farms ?

Eric Cartman

weisses wrote: »

Who or what is pulling the strings at these Russian troll farms ?

Roger stone and trumps campaign team via whichever private citizens own these communications companies

Den14

This thread reminds me of 1960's Batman. Tune in next week to hear how Trumpman finds himself in serious impeaching jeopardy only for him to eventually last minute escape the latest accusations made by the evil bunch of joker's called the Democrats.
Same Trump time same Trump channel

weisses

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Roger stone and trumps campaign team via whichever private citizens own these communications companies

Ahh so you are only naive then when it suits your narrative ?

You really think that this kind of meddling happens without the Kremlin at least knowing about it ?

weisses

Den14 wrote: »

This thread reminds me of 1960's Batman. Tune in next week to hear how Trumpman finds himself in serious impeaching jeopardy only for him to eventually last minute escape the latest accusations made by the evil bunch of joker's called the Democrats.
Same Trump time same Trump channel

But its mostly republicans who are investigating him.
You're Better of sticking with the comic books I guess

everlast75

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Roger stone and trumps campaign team via whichever private citizens own these communications companies

Trump's team, that he hired (the best people)?

And if that didn't make him culpable alone, all this was done, without him knowing? Need I remind you of what was said on camera?
"Russia, if you're listening.."

Eric Cartman

weisses wrote: »

Ahh so you are only naive then when it suits your narrative ?

You really think that this kind of meddling happens without the Kremlin at least knowing about it ?

you cant fart in moscow without the kremlin approving of it , this is one of the problems with russia. This is why they had to meet with the Russian government to try get a trump tower built there. Im in no way excusing the mudslinging low brow way that america does politics full stop , but we're still talking about posting internet ads and fake profiles here, that is the limit of the interference.

If he did this with a US company would you be completely alright with it ? , can you explain to me what material difference there is between paying a US company for propaganda targeting US citizens and paying a russian company for propaganda targeting US citizens is ? Same tactic, same intended outcome.

everlast75

Eric Cartman wrote: »

If he did this with a US company would you be completely alright with it ? , can you explain to me what material difference there is between paying a US company for propaganda targeting US citizens and paying a russian company for propaganda targeting US citizens is ? Same tactic, same intended outcome.

One is illegal.

One is not I would guess...