Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

pixelburp

This is entirely off topic, not trying to be, but for a club whose membership cost 200k, that's a very shabby, tired looking room; I'm guessing this is one of those places where you pay for "access", cos that looks more like a Premier Inn or something

Franz Von Peppercorn

listermint wrote: »

Oh you were replying to me.

Let's be clear. I posted something about an AOC policy and you immediately responded to that post saying she can't run for president.

Why are you lying about that. It's literally on the previous page. ????

I wasn’t replying to you. This is a reply to you. It quotes you. Since I wasn’t quoting you I wasn’t replying to you. You weren’t the only person commenting about the green deal as far as I know.

And I simply asked a question to which I wanted a simple answer. Is this democratic policy. I didn’t know. I don’t follow US politics as much as the posters on this thread.

pixelburp

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

AOC can’t run for President so I’m not sure what the fuss re the green deal is about. She’s not a leader of the democrats either. Is this deal democratic policy?

(Not complaining about costs etc just wondering why it’s so famous).

Simple. The media are obsessed about her - both sides of the American political divide - because she's a young, attractive, Latina, socialist with savvy social media skills (I believe she's the most prolific tweeter in Congress). In an environment of Bidens, Grassleys, and Sanders she's a breath of fresh air.

For democrats she's emblematic of the new generation some were worried didn't exist, for others she'd normalising more socialist policies in a country that has villified sensible baseline socialism; the right think she's Chavez and Castro reborn, and ... well, certain rightwing media doesn't respond well to lippy women...

alchemist33

alchemist33 wrote: »

Day 2 of the national emergency. Where is the President? In an underground bunker in the Rockies? In the air in AF1 in case of apocalypse on the ground? Rallying the troops with a rousing speech?

No, he's having omelettes before going out on the golf course at his holiday home.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/02/trump-takes-refuge-from-his-national-emergency-at-florida-golf-course/

Kinda gives the lie to the emergency

"the national emergency"? There are over 30 national emergencies in effect in America, which would suggest that a president's behaviour isn't expected to change with the addition of one.

circadian

pixelburp wrote: »

This is entirely off topic, not trying to be, but for a club whose membership cost 200k, that's a very shabby, tired looking room; I'm guessing this is one of those places where you pay for "access", cos that looks more like a Premier Inn or something

Definitely a pay for access place. Apparently membership cost doubled after winning the election. Built as cheap as possible which is no surprise, the front panel of the omlette bar looks like a piece of furniture me da would throw together in a Sunday afternoon. Some plywood and beading. Varnish it and yer done.

alchemist33

[Deleted User] wrote: »

"the national emergency"? There are over 30 national emergencies in effect in America, which would suggest that a president's behaviour isn't expected to change with the addition of one.

The fact that nobody knew about these emergencies until the last few days is telling, and bringing them up as if to emphasise this one is no big thing is a diversion. Trump has been banging this drum for minths and even spoke about it in his SOTU address. This "emergency" is a big thing for Trump and yet he's off golfing (something he repeatedly criticused Obama for, even when there weren't any aparent emergencies). His actions now clearly show he doesn't really believe there is an emergency, but he's just invented it for political reasons.

alchemist33

alchemist33 wrote: »

The fact that nobody knew about these emergencies until the last few days is telling, and bringing them up as if to emphasise this one is no big thing is a diversion. Trump has been banging this drum for minths and even spoke about it in his SOTU address. This "emergency" is a big thing for Trump and yet he's off golfing (something he repeatedly criticused Obama for, even when there weren't any aparent emergencies). His actions now clearly show he doesn't really believe there is an emergency, but he's just invented it for political reasons.

Accusing me of "diversion"? You said "the" which can only mean "one". I was correcting you with a fact and a measured and mature response to the story.

Trump declared a national emergency to get funding. That's it. It's not a war and the country isn't suddenly in crisis since he declared it. You saw this elsewhere online, just like I did, and decided to post it here. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't actually believe he needs to be in the oval office managing this national emergency.

everlast75

He said he "didn't need to do it".

That's exhibit "A" in any case brought to debunk it.

That's all we need.

The fact that he had two years to do something about it and didn't will be exhibit "B".

Exhibit "C" will be his own government agencies who don't believe there is any such crisis.

Let's just call it what it is - A ridiculous promise which he used to bait those that saw Mexico as the big baddie.

He tried to get Mexico to pay for it and they literally told him to f**k off. (Master Negotiator part I)

He tried to do it constitutionally via the house and it didn't go his way.(Master Negotiator part II)

He then shut down the government to force their hand and failed (Master Negotiator part III)

I swear, people who defend Trump at this stage are akin to parents who have a dysfunctional child in school. They see merit in his actions where there are none, praise him when he manages to get through an event without sh1tting himself (figuratively speaking) and make excuses for him when he messes up, rather than address the problem.

looksee

Deleted User wrote: »

Accusing me of "diversion"? You said "the" which can only mean "one". I was correcting you with a fact and a measured and mature response to the story.

Trump declared a national emergency to get funding. That's it. It's not a war and the country isn't suddenly in crisis since he declared it. You saw this elsewhere online, just like I did, and decided to post it here. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don't actually believe he needs to be in the oval office managing this national emergency.

A crisis doesn't happen because it is announced; there is supposed to be a emergency and as a result it is declared such, not the other way round. If Trump thinks there is an emergency, yes he should be managing it, not playing golf.

There is no emergency, he knows it and anyone with half a brain cell knows it, but he can't have it both ways - say there is an emergency to get his way, then continue as if there is not.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

A crisis doesn't happen because it is announced; there is supposed to be a emergency and as a result it is declared such, not the other way round. If Trump thinks there is an emergency, yes he should be managing it, not playing golf.

There is no emergency, he knows it and anyone with half a brain cell knows it, but he can't have it both ways - say there is an emergency to get his way, then continue as if there is not.

So he should pretend to be hard at work managing what everyone knows is a non-crisis?

Would it not make more sense to be outraged by things that are legitimate causes of outrage, instead of pretending he shouldn't be playing golf? That's my point here. It's hard to take outrage seriously when nonsense like this is also a source of it.

Timberrrrrrrr

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So he should pretend to be hard at work managing what everyone knows is a non-crisis?

Would it not make more sense to be outraged by things that are legitimate causes of outrage, instead of pretending he shouldn't be playing golf? That's my point here. It's hard to take outrage seriously when nonsense like this is also a source of it.

Well to be fair, this is exactly what he has been doing for the last 2 years. And honestly, you can't see why people have an issue going to his own resort every frw weeks to play golf? Something he slammed a previous president for doing.

Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well to be fair, this is exactly what he has been doing for the last 2 years. And honestly, you can't see why people have an issue going to his own resort every frw weeks to play golf? Something he slammed a previous president for doing.

It would make a lot more sense for people to be delighted he spends so much time not actually doing his job and causing more damage.

But anyways, I'm talking about this specific example where people all over Reddit, and then the poster here, are literally pretending he shouldn't be playing golf because of the national emergency as he should be in the oval office with his map and advisors. It is simply a lie. A reason to be angry, or dismayed, or whatever. No one actually believes it. Everyone knows it about funding.

I'm simply calling it out for what it is. Be outraged about the actual declaration. Be outraged about the wall itself. Be outraged that he spends so much time playing golf. But have some self-respect and don't hoover up and then share every bit of outrage someone else has created online.

alchemist33

People are outraged about the blatant hypocrisy he's displaying, amongst all theother things.

PropJoe10

everlast75 wrote: »

He said he "didn't need to do it".

That's exhibit "A" in any case brought to debunk it.

That's all we need.

The fact that he had two years to do something about it and didn't will be exhibit "B".

Exhibit "C" will be his own government agencies who don't believe there is any such crisis.

Let's just call it what it is - A ridiculous promise which he used to bait those that saw Mexico as the big baddie.

He tried to get Mexico to pay for it and they literally told him to f**k off. (Master Negotiator part I)

He tried to do it constitutionally via the house and it didn't go his way.(Master Negotiator part II)

He then shut down the government to force their hand and failed (Master Negotiator part III)

I swear, people who defend Trump at this stage are akin to parents who have a dysfunctional child in school. They see merit in his actions where there are none, praise him when he manages to get through an event without sh1tting himself (figuratively speaking) and make excuses for him when he messes up, rather than address the problem.

All this is, is a diversionary tactic to get people talking about something else other than the Russia investigation. It's as plain as day. And I totally agree about the school analogy. Reminds me of the mother watching her son marching disastrously in an army battalion and saying that everyone else is out of step other than her lovely son.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

So he should pretend to be hard at work managing what everyone knows is a non-crisis?

No, what a ridiculous point.

He should be hard at work dealing with an emergency that exists or not abusing the powers vested in him for a made up issue purely for his own electoral advantage.

StringerBell

He's just campaigning tbh, the mid terms spooked him and he has to reignite his bad. He has 18 months or so to build up a head of steam so I wouldn't count him out. The wall was a winner in 2016, in a massive way, him using it again for 2020 is a no brainer.

It's not even clever, it doesn't stand up to any form of scrutiny. It doesn't need to though for soundbites and slogans which again played a massive part in 2016. The media don't seem to have learned the lessons of that campaign either.

marno21

StringerBell wrote: »

He's just campaigning tbh, the mid terms spooked him and he has to reignite his bad. He has 18 months or so to build up a head of steam so I wouldn't count him out. The wall was a winner in 2016, in a massive way, him using it again for 2020 is a no brainer.

It's not even clever, it doesn't stand up to any form of scrutiny. It doesn't need to though for soundbites and slogans which again played a massive part in 2016. The media don't seem to have learned the lessons of that campaign either.

The wall may be popular with his base, but will it do much for him with swing voters in Michigan or Pennsylvania? His promises to bring back prosperity for blue collar workers in rust belt states haven't exactly worked out well for those who voted for him.

listermint

StringerBell wrote: »

He's just campaigning tbh, the mid terms spooked him and he has to reignite his bad. He has 18 months or so to build up a head of steam so I wouldn't count him out. The wall was a winner in 2016, in a massive way, him using it again for 2020 is a no brainer.

It's not even clever, it doesn't stand up to any form of scrutiny. It doesn't need to though for soundbites and slogans which again played a massive part in 2016. The media don't seem to have learned the lessons of that campaign either.

Trump will not run in 2020. He has no interest in it , presently he's living week to week. And his only concern is the investigation or what's for lunch.

rossie1977

His approval rating has gone from +10 in Pennsylvania in January 17 to -10 in January 2019. From +6 in Wisconsin to -16 and from +7 in Michigan to -15.

Based on approval alone Michigan and Wisconsin would be safe Democrat if election was held tomorrow even though Trump won both in 2016.

Of course he still has time to turn it around and can't win election without at least one of the 3 states given way map is looking. Last time he charmed the voters there with promises he was never likely to keep so that might work again. Of course Democrats will like spend most of their time campaigning in the rust belt this time unlike last election

StringerBell

listermint wrote: »

Trump will not run in 2020. He has no interest in it , presently he's living week to week. And his only concern is the investigation or what's for lunch.

Id disagree strongly with that, at present his best chance of avoiding any consequences stemming from any criminality is to remain in office. It's in his best interests and family interests to hold on to power as long as possible

everlast75

marno21 wrote: »

The wall may be popular with his base, but will it do much for him with swing voters in Michigan or Pennsylvania? His promises to bring back prosperity for blue collar workers in rust belt states haven't exactly worked out well for those who voted for him.

He promised to give blue collar workers a tax break just before the midterms. That didn't quite work out...

listermint

StringerBell wrote: »

Id disagree strongly with that, at present his best chance of avoiding any consequences stemming from any criminality is to remain in office. It's in his best interests and family interests to hold on to power as long as possible

America is not Russia... Presently. There is no remaining in power. Who won't contest as he won't win a second term

Igotadose

listermint wrote: »

Trump will not run in 2020. He has no interest in it , presently he's living week to week. And his only concern is the investigation or what's for lunch.

Week to week he campaigns. His press conferences are run like one of his rallies - 'here's the <blah star> moms victims of immigrant crime, tell me, mrs. mom, is there a national emergency as your offspring died at the hands of an illegal immigrant?'

All campaigning, all the time. Holding regular rallies. Soliciting donations.

He's running come hell or high water. If through some miracle of rapid spine growth the GOP actually has other candidates to run against him (which he and the RNC are working hard to prevent), and said candidate wins the GOP nomination, I believe he'll run as an independent or some such (maybe create a Conservative party). He absolutely's running in 2020 bar being in prison.

I think if he's impeached and found guilty, if not imprisoned, he could run then, too. Not sure what the punishment is, if impeached.

Rest assured he'll be written in by a bunch of his zealots, too.

Water John

When last did Trump host a Press Conference? Did he ever while POTUS?

Igotadose

Water John wrote: »

When last did Trump host a Press Conference? Did he ever while POTUS?

Meh, the one the other day announcing the national emergency kind of counts. The one a couple months back when he pitched a fit at Jim Acosta and stormed away from the podium I think was, putatively, a press conference, last November. The one that resulted in Trump revoking Acosta's access then being shamed by the press into reinstating it. Not apologizing for his behavior, of course. No respect shown by Trump to anyone. Sadly, the press still respects the office and by osmosis, has to respect Trump.

Water John

Most of these interactions with the Press quickly descend into rambling nonsense and an embarrassment for any US citizen.

Igotadose

Water John wrote: »

Most of these interactions with the Press quickly descend into rambling nonsense and an embarrassment for any US citizen.

The embarrassment started in 2015 with that clown coming down the escalator in Trump Tower to applause from paid actors, and hasn't ended since. This US citizen hangs his head in shame at the state of the US Presidency.

And every day, it's something else with Trump. Can't even keep track anymore.

batgoat

Igotadose wrote: »

Meh, the one the other day announcing the national emergency kind of counts. The one a couple months back when he pitched a fit at Jim Acosta and stormed away from the podium I think was, putatively, a press conference, last November. The one that resulted in Trump revoking Acosta's access then being shamed by the press into reinstating it. Not apologizing for his behavior, of course. No respect shown by Trump to anyone. Sadly, the press still respects the office and by osmosis, has to respect Trump.

I'll never forget that the time where he kept saying to a journalist about how much they love the Kurds..

Muahahaha

pixelburp wrote: »

This is entirely off topic, not trying to be, but for a club whose membership cost 200k, that's a very shabby, tired looking room; I'm guessing this is one of those places where you pay for "access", cos that looks more like a Premier Inn or something

Thought the same myself. Imagine paying $200,000 membership fees to a golf club and then the interior is no better than a shabby 3 star hotel with 1980's decor.

Ultros

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Next step is dead journalists

Then a president for life

Serious lack of perspective with insane statements like this. Most of the "outrage" stems from click bait media who make money from those naive enough to be sucked into it.