Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

MadYaker

Brian? wrote: »

You know what Warren and Clintonhave in common? They’re both women and they were both senators. That’s it. Completely different backgrounds and policy positions.

Apoligies, it was actually Pelosi I was thinking of

I still think they need someone who isn't old and white

circadian

Like Sanders, Warren has form and consistency. I do worry about her ability to galvanise people. She has the drive to push things in the right direction but I always found her speeches lackluster in delivery. She could get into trouble in debates with Donnie if it gets to that as he'll have no problem lowering the tone instantly.


I have a strong suspicion that of AOC continues making huge waves over the next few years that she might be a runner. I think the age is 35+ although there would also have to be a fundamental shift in Democratic party direction for that. The increasingly younger voter base might just push it that way. Interesting few years ahead for politics in America as I think we'll see greater polarisation over the next decade with those on the extreme right being emboldened now to that line of ideology reaching the fringes again.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

She's an establishment 'socialist' in American politics and very far from Clinton tbh, that's a bit of a stretch. Maybe in the Sanders, Ocasio- Cortez era of American socialism, Warren is now old hat so suppose stands to reason she might be seen as "the sell out" candidate. But she ain't Clinton.

Still, the native American nonsense is enough reason to preclude her from being a good candidate. Trump and his enablers has shown to be more than happy to slum it with personal ad hominem jibes towards Warren. She'd struggle to get past the personal attacks and get a message across

Bloody hell. I mean I said Trump would go low & personal, but I just expected the 'Pocahontas' jibes - I didn't expect this: I refuse to paste the full tweet but here's a C&P (this is verbatim, Trump using uppercase is him doing that - I only bolded the pertinent bit):

"Today Elizabeth Warren, sometimes referred to by me as Pocahontas, joined the race for President, [...] Will she run as our first Native American presidential candidate, or has she decided that after 32 years, this is not playing so well anymore? See you on the campaign TRAIL, Liz!"

So if it's not clear, that's Trump - the 45th President of the United States - making a sh*tty, bad taste joke about the Trail of Tears, one of the many low-points of US history in regards to its relationship with the native population. But then Trump is apparently quite fond of Andrew Jackson, so maybe it's not that surprising he can hold such a callous opinion of Native Americans.

Sigh. We can debate the politics 'til we're blue in the face, and I don't expect everyone to agree - I'd prefer it if people don't - so I can accept people supporting Trump's policies (up to a point, the recent downgrading of domestic abuse is sinister stuff); but it frustrates me constantly that those who might defend the man would just ignore these kind of abhorrent, plain disgusting comments.

If Arlene Foster made a snide joke about the Potato Famine, we'd be outraged; if Teresa May made a horrible comment about ... well, the Potato Famine, or any other sundry deaths caused by the former Empire, there'd be outrage. Trump makes jokes about the US's slow genocide of an indigenous people, and it's a Sunday.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

Bloody hell. I mean I said Trump would go low & personal, but I just expected the 'Pocahontas' jibes - I didn't expect this: I refuse to paste the full tweet but here's a C&P (this is verbatim, Trump using uppercase is him doing that - I only bolded the pertinent bit):


So if it's not clear, that's Trump - the 45th President of the United States - making a sh*tty, bad taste joke about the Trail of Tears, one of the many low-points of US history in regards to its relationship with the native population. But then Trump is apparently quite fond of Andrew Jackson, so maybe it's not that surprising he can hold such a callous opinion of Native Americans.

Sigh. We can debate the politics 'til we're blue in the face, and I don't expect everyone to agree - I'd prefer it if people don't - so I can accept people supporting Trump's policies (up to a point, the recent downgrading of domestic abuse is sinister stuff); but it frustrates me constantly that those who might defend the man would just ignore these kind of abhorrent, plain disgusting comments.

If Arlene Foster made a snide joke about the Potato Famine, we'd be outraged; if Teresa May made a horrible comment about ... well, the Potato Famine, or any other sundry deaths caused by the former Empire, there'd be outrage. Trump makes jokes about the US's slow genocide of an indigenous people, and it's a Sunday.

It's funny how RIGOLO and his ilk never comment when Trump comes out with this kind of stuff.

everlast75

pixelburp wrote: »

Bloody hell. I mean I said Trump would go low & personal, but I just expected the 'Pocahontas' jibes - I didn't expect this: I refuse to paste the full tweet but here's a C&P (this is verbatim, Trump using uppercase is him doing that - I only bolded the pertinent bit):


So if it's not clear, that's Trump - the 45th President of the United States - making a sh*tty, bad taste joke about the Trail of Tears, one of the many low-points of US history in regards to its relationship with the native population. But then Trump is apparently quite fond of Andrew Jackson, so maybe it's not that surprising he can hold such a callous opinion of Native Americans.

Sigh. We can debate the politics 'til we're blue in the face, and I don't expect everyone to agree - I'd prefer it if people don't - so I can accept people supporting Trump's policies (up to a point, the recent downgrading of domestic abuse is sinister stuff); but it frustrates me constantly that those who might defend the man would just ignore these kind of abhorrent, plain disgusting comments.

If Arlene Foster made a snide joke about the Potato Famine, we'd be outraged; if Teresa May made a horrible comment about ... well, the Potato Famine, or any other sundry deaths caused by the former Empire, there'd be outrage. Trump makes jokes about the US's slow genocide of an indigenous people, and it's a Sunday.

One of his defenders has come out with the line that Trump knows very little about Native American history and therefore couldn't have meant what people are taking his comment to mean.

Also known as the "too dumb to know better" excuse...

Penn

everlast75 wrote: »

One of his defenders has come out with the line that Trump knows very little about Native American history and therefore couldn't have meant what people are taking his comment to mean.

Also known as the "too dumb to know better" excuse...

Yeah, he definitely didn't purposely capitalise that word, and only that word, while referencing Native Americans, and possibly have any idea about the history of what it could have been taken as a reference to.

L1011

everlast75 wrote: »

One of his defenders has come out with the line that Trump knows very little about Native American history and therefore couldn't have meant what people are taking his comment to mean.

Also known as the "too dumb to know better" excuse...

I'd alsost think that could be true - someone so incredibly thick and self-centred remembering a bit of American history not personally relevant to him is unlikely!

Sad Professor

The bad orange man frequently types words in all caps to punctuate his tweets, so I'm sceptical this was a deliberate reference to anything. Politicians often engage in dog-whistling to demonise one or another group, of course. Both the Clintons were accused of using racist dog whistles against black people in their campaigns. Evoking genocide, if indeed that's what Trump was doing, is on a whole other level of course. But nothing would surprise me about him.

Leroy42

So either he is the smartest, greatest and the only person able to MAGA, or the man is a complete dolt with no knowledge of US history?

It cannot be both. But lets see. If indeed it was simply thick thumbs syndrome, then I am sure he will quickly tweet to clarify. As Twitter means he can do that instantly. Doesn't need a second guess.

B0jangles

Sad Professor wrote: »

The bad orange man frequently types words in all caps to punctuate his tweets, so I'm sceptical this was a deliberate reference to anything. Politicians often engage in dog-whistling to demonise one or another group, of course. Both the Clintons were accused of using racist dog whistles against black people in their campaigns. Evoking genocide, if indeed that's what Trump was doing, is on a whole other level of course. But nothing would surprise me about him.

His son seems to think it was entirely intentional and that making open jokes about the genocide of the native americans is cool and very funny




( Trump jr.'s comment on Daddy's tweet and the even worse response is highlighted on the right - I'm sure he was extremely proud of that bit of wordplay)

duploelabs

Sad Professor wrote: »

The bad orange man frequently types words in all caps to punctuate his tweets, so I'm sceptical this was a deliberate reference to anything. Politicians often engage in dog-whistling to demonise one or another group, of course. Both the Clintons were accused of using racist dog whistles against black people in their campaigns. Evoking genocide, if indeed that's what Trump was doing, is on a whole other level of course. But nothing would surprise me about him.

A sure fire flag for a Trump sympathiser is someone who mentions the Clintons. That said, can you provide a citation for this claim that they used dog whistles?

Leroy42

I always find it odd that Trump supporters are so very quick to bring up Clintons in almost any discussion.

Many seem to deem the Clintons as the worst thing to happen to the US, yet they judge their own against these very low standards (low standards in their eyes).

Surely you all expected more from Trump than simply being equally as bad as the worst family you can think of?

Water John

I see Klobuchar has formally entered the race.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/10/amy-klobuchar-2020-announces-run-minnesota-senator

She has a great tie in with blue collar workers and from the Mid West. Someone who really gets things done.
Worth a few bob at the bookies I'd say.

mcmoustache

duploelabs wrote: »

A sure fire flag for a Trump sympathiser is someone who mentions the Clintons. That said, can you provide a citation for this claim that they used dog whistles?

To be fair, there is evidence for this. The term, "Super Predator" which was used by Hillary when the Clinton administration was working on the 1994 crime bill. It certainly sounds quite dog-whistley to me.

When it came up on the debate stage, Hillary Clinton didn’t flinch.

“In 1996, you used the term ‘superpredators’ to describe some young kids,” said that night’s moderator Don Lemon, referring to a speech the candidate gave as first lady. “Some feel like it was a racial code. Was it? And were you wrong to use that term?”

Clinton repeated the answer she and her aides have given reporters — that in context, the “superpredators” quote referenced drug cartels specifically; that it was nonetheless a “poor choice of words,” a term she didn’t and wouldn’t ever use again — and then, quickly, easily, the candidate moved on. “To go back to what I was saying…”

everlast75

Leroy42 wrote: »

So either he is the smartest, greatest and the only person able to MAGA, or the man is a complete dolt with no knowledge of US history?

It cannot be both. But lets see. If indeed it was simply thick thumbs syndrome, then I am sure he will quickly tweet to clarify. As Twitter means he can do that instantly. Doesn't need a second guess.

If anyone doubted his stupidity, see the below..

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1094718856197799936

Sad Professor

Racist dog whistles are a technique perfected by Republicans but later adopted Democrats. It's being around since the 70s at least. There's a chapter about Bill Clinton's use of racial appeals in Ian Haney Lopez's book about dog whistle politics. There was also several articles suggesting there was "racist undertones" to Hilary's 2008 campaign. I don't subscribe to it in all cases, but it seems to be a fairly common criticism of the Clintons on the American left. Pointing it out doesn't make me a "Trump sympathiser". :rolleyes:

Stallingrad

^ He's just fulfilling his brief, say crazy batsh!t stuff, keep the media and US talking about this crap while he and his cronies set about dismantling things in the background.

everlast75

Stallingrad wrote: »

^ He's just fulfilling his brief, say crazy batsh!t stuff, keep the media and US talking about this crap while he and his cronies set about dismantling things in the background.

Most people just referenced her willingness to stay out in the snow throughout the whole thing, to his inability to go outside for a service because it was raining...

pixelburp

Stallingrad wrote: »

^ He's just fulfilling his brief, say crazy batsh!t stuff, keep the media and US talking about this crap while he and his cronies set about dismantling things in the background.

His persistence with "How can there be global warming when it's SNOWING!?!" is a particularly enervating signal over his administration's continued attempt to dismantle any environmental protections or policies. Evidence continues to pile up that we're on a very dangerous path - and it'll be the Trump voters that ultimately suffer from Climate Change.

I'm not sure if it's a deliberate ploy by him, but it's certainly working in making sure the media don't report the substance of his actions. I didn't even know about the Domestic Abuse changes until a poster here flagged it: that's a chilling and sinister retrograde manoeuvre, and should be on more channels / conversations.

Yet... what? 50% of white women voted for this man.

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

Most people just referenced her willingness to stay out in the snow throughout the whole thing, to his inability to go outside for a service because it was raining...

And apparently, she's mentioning it too


https://twitter.com/amyklobuchar/status/1094744351803170816?s=19

Leroy42

I simply cannot see a way for Trump to win in 2020.

The voting patterns of the mid-terms certainly point against it. He lost the popular vote but won the EC in large part down to a poor election campaign by HC, not visiting some states enough (at all!). This will be unlikely to happen again.

In HC, he faced a really divisive candidate. Even many within the DNC voters would not profess to being completely behind her. No matter who they run with this time, it is unlikely to be such a divisive person.

I think many felt that HC was pre-ordained, whilst it is clear that the DNC are going to have many initial candidates. This worked well for Trump as a reluctant GOP got behind the last man standing. Many in the DNC voters had turned off HC long before the November election.

Trump was seen as a complete outsider, many commentators and those in the media saw him as very unlikely to win, or even stand much of a change. This mirror the DNC selection, many saw HC as pre-ordained. A vote for Trump was a free vote with no consequences as HC was bound to win. That is certainly gone in 2020.

Trump not not achieved anything in office what would swing voters to his side. Undoubtedly he will keep a very large percentage of the voters that went with him last time, but that is not going to be enough. He only needs to lose 100k votes in some states to end up being beaten.

Of course the economy is chugging alone nicely, but tax cuts have not filters down enough and the DNC will go after the debt. Tellingly the GOP almost ignored the tax reform for the mid-terms and there is nothing to suggest that it will be a vote gainer in 2020. But even if it does play well, having to discuss the finer points of tax law and trickle down economics drags Trump into and area he neither appears to understand or seems capable of discussing.

But he will have lost two of the big talking points. Drain the Swamp is not going to be possible, he will in all likelihood have the continuation of Manafort and Cohen hanging over him. And lock her up will not have the same resonance against the like of Harris etc.

MadYaker

I definitely can’t see him getting more votes than last time around and he had such a slim margin then it’s very hard to see him winning again. No wall won’t help either.

Speaking of the wall, where are we on that? The government shutdown is postponed but I thought there was supposed to be more negotiations?

Penn

MadYaker wrote: »

I definitely can’t see him getting more votes than last time around and he had such a slim margin then it’s very hard to see him winning again. No wall won’t help either.

Speaking of the wall, where are we on that? The government shutdown is postponed but I thought there was supposed to be more negotiations?

Last I heard negotiations have stalled, and the temporary re-opening of Government is due to end this Friday, possibly leading to another shutdown.

Stallingrad

Can't see how another shutdown can be avoided.

Unless he can magic up some kind of non wall related disaster that gives him an out for not shutting things down.

Leroy42

Stallingrad wrote: »

Can't see how another shutdown can be avoided.

Unless he can magic up some kind of non wall related disaster that gives him an out for not shutting things down.

I don't see how he is going to go with another shutdown. The last one was pretty much a disaster for him.

He is teeing up the National Emergency route. He has mentioned it in tweets, some senators have backed it and Fox News seems to be teeing it up with talking points about it.

As others have pointed out, he really needs it to have any chance in 2020. So at this stage it is less about the wall and more about re-electinpn. The problem for Trump is that the DNC and Pelosi, are only too aware of this.

Stallingrad

Leroy42 wrote: »

The last one was pretty much a disaster for him.

Agree 100%, but he has such poor form with backing down. The National Emergency waffle is a convenient 'out' alright.

Penn

But many senior Republicans don't want him to go the National Emergency route because it'll likely be challenged in the courts by the Dems and likely overturned, and it gives precedent to the Dems to call a National Emergency when they inevitably get back into power (whether 2020 or beyond) for things like climate change (aka actual emergencies).

I think their best bet now might be to try claim they're taking the higher ground by not shutting down the government, say they'll go for wall funding again next year, accuse the Dems of being obstructionist, and blame them for every minute transgression by an immigrant. They'll take a hit because it'll be played in the media like the Dems won, but I don't think at this stage the GOP want any of the alternatives they'd have to go with in order to win (shutdown or national emergency).

Quin_Dub

Penn wrote: »

But many senior Republicans don't want him to go the National Emergency route because it'll likely be challenged in the courts by the Dems and likely overturned, and it gives precedent to the Dems to call a National Emergency when they inevitably get back into power (whether 2020 or beyond) for things like climate change (aka actual emergencies).

I think their best bet now might be to try claim they're taking the higher ground by not shutting down the government, say they'll go for wall funding again next year, accuse the Dems of being obstructionist, and blame them for every minute transgression by an immigrant. They'll take a hit because it'll be played in the media like the Dems won, but I don't think at this stage the GOP want any of the alternatives they'd have to go with in order to win (shutdown or national emergency).

That's what's best for the GOP , but definitely not what's best for Trump as he has hung his entire Presidency on this stupid thing.

Will the GOP send him a bill to sign on the basis of the above only for him to reject it (because I can't see how they get him to sign it), or will they row in behind him again.

That will be extremely instructive as to whether Trump survives to 2020.

If they pull the plug on his wall without him , then I think the more moderates will being to feel emboldened to start calling him out on the other stuff and the possibility of impeachment begins to rumble..

If they support him and he's left to go the National Emergency route , then they are all in and their fates are utterly linked..

If they stayed with him and he goes down , it's actually bad for democracy in the US as it would lead to the utter destruction of the GOP for multiple election cycles..

Good enough for them , some might say - But given that the US is a 2 Party state , is it really good for overall democracy in the Dems get a free walk for the next 8-12 years whilst the GOP recovers?

James Brown

I think Warren is a damp squib. She is no match for Trumps lies. Calling out his lies isn't really working. Anyone making off Trump, such as the GOP, don't care quite frankly.
The Dems need a quick on his/her feet bullsh*t caller with a good record. None seem to be high profile enough. Saunders has no hope. Biden might but he's not much cop and Warren is too tame.
They are selling this temporary stay on the shutdown as them, (Reps) trying to meet in the middle. If it shuts down again Trump will claim the Dems wouldn't negotiate.

Thargor

Would hate to see Warren in the running alright, that would be Trumps best chance of reelection.

Why couldnt Al Gore just have won it back it in the day?