Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

Cheerful Spring

everlast75 wrote: »

He was, until he posted some crosshairs beside a pic of the judge's head



He did. She told him where to go

Was stupid but the points he made were true.

She is an Obama appointed Judge. She obviously a Democrat thinking judge.. Muller is using her because she agreeing to everything he wants.

everlast75

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Was stupid but the points he made were true.

She is an Obama appointed Judge. She obviously a Democrat thinking judge.. Muller is using her because she agreeing to everything he wants.

Genius!

(Apart from the fact that Mueller is a republican....)

Midlife

RIGOLO wrote: »

Quarterly growth hitting over 4%
African American unemployment lowest ever recorded
Womens unemployment rate lowest in 65 years
youth unemployment rate lowest in 50 years
Median household income highest ever recorded
over 400,000 manufacturing jobs created
Manufacturing growth highest in 30 years

Could you clarify what you mean by

Does this mean you're going to start answering questions?

Anyway, the groups that got him over the line won't feel he delivered on the promises that made them vote for him.

The swing group that turned the rust belt towards him.

Michigan has gone from +7 to -15

Ohio +14 to -6

Wisconsin +6 to-16

And so on. This is approval rating but you get the idea.

They don't approve of the job he's doing. You can post whatever rubbish you want here and say that he's responsible for everything good in america right now and basically attritube a growth that started in 2010 to a president elected in 2017.

But all the bullsh1t in the world won't convince people who expect to feel the difference.

That's Trump's problem now. I'm fairly sure he'd win a first election now but it's not his first election and he's going to be held to account for all his bullsh1t promises.

Cheerful Spring

everlast75 wrote: »

Genius!

(Apart from the fact that Mueller is a republican....)

Mueller is political and establishment dare I say it, deep state appointment. He was a George Bush Jr crony. Party affiliation is irrelevant.

PropJoe10

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Mueller is political and establishment dare I say it, deep state appointment. He was a George Bush Jr crony. Party affiliation is irrelevant.

Considering the song and dance that Trump and everyone connected to him has made about this being a "Democrat-led witch hunt", I think that party affiliation is very relevant. Mueller is a lifelong Republican, and by all accounts, one of the most by-the-book public servants in the entire country. I think it's about time the man was allowed to do his job.

RIGOLO

Midlife wrote: »

Does this mean you're going to start answering questions?

Anyway, the groups that got him over the line won't feel he delivered on the promises that made them vote for him.

The swing group that turned the rust belt towards him.

Michigan has gone from +7 to -15

Ohio +14 to -6

Wisconsin +6 to-16

And so on. This is approval rating but you get the idea.

They don't approve of the job he's doing. You can post whatever rubbish you want here and say that he's responsible for everything good in america right now and basically attritube a growth that started in 2010 to a president elected in 2017.

But all the bullsh1t in the world won't convince people who expect to feel the difference.

That's Trump's problem now. I'm fairly sure he'd win a first election now but it's not his first election and he's going to be held to account for all his bullsh1t promises.

Elections in November 2020 arent won by polls in Feb 2019.
Trumps approval rating is closer to the 40% mark, and I reckon its much higher but the polls dont reflect that.

Everyone is banging on about his base, his base like Trump is some dub hip-hop act, and his base is all that matters.. 63million people voted for him.
So what is his base , is his base 63 million people , is it 1 million people
Somewhere in between Id wager.

His base matters of course and they for the most part are content, with the caveat of there always being contentious issues in politics and personal preferences and ranking of importance for different policy issues come into play
but
Ive said it before, Elections arent won by getting your base to vote for you they are won by getting the moderate swing voter to pick you this time round.

As the DNC scare off these moderates, last time it was Hilary scared them off, this time its any one of AOC and the new progressives, they will turn to Trump in 2020 just as they did in 2016. The moderates see all the good being done.

Sure the GOP lost the House, Republicans are political pragmatists, they understand the swings of the pendulum and dont cry foul but get on with the next election cycle. The plus side on this is now that the DNC has the gavel , the American public can see in Full HD the bunch of crazies taking over that party.
Barely 2 months into taking over the house we have had one PR disaster after another from the Democrats.
I expect the moderates to run a mile from the DNC in 2020 just as they did in 2016 and the Donald will be duly re-elected.

Midlife

RIGOLO wrote: »

Elections in November 2020 arent won by polls in Feb 2019.
Trumps approval rating is closer to the 40% mark, and I reckon its much higher but the polls dont reflect that.

Everyone is banging on about his base, his base like Trump is some dub hip-hop act, and his base is all that matters.. 63million people voted for him.
So what is his base , is his base 63 million people , is it 1 million people
Somewhere in between Id wager.

His base matters of course and they for the most part are content, with the caveat of there always being contentious issues in politics and personal preferences and ranking of importance for different policy issues come into play
but
Ive said it before, Elections arent won by getting your base to vote for you they are won by getting the moderate swing voter to pick you this time round.

As the DNC scare off these moderates, last time it was Hilary scared them off, this time its any one of AOC and the new progressives, they will turn to Trump in 2020 just as they did in 2016. The moderates see all the good being done.

Sure the GOP lost the House, Republicans are political pragmatists, they understand the swings of the pendulum and dont cry foul but get on with the next election cycle. The plus side on this is now that the DNC has the gavel , the American public can see in Full HD the bunch of crazies taking over that party.
Barely 2 months into taking over the house we have had one PR disaster after another from the Democrats.
I expect the moderates to run a mile from the DNC in 2020 just as they did in 2016 and the Donald will be duly re-elected.

You seem to appreciate that it's the democrats to lose then?

RIGOLO

Midlife wrote: »

You seem to appreciate that it's the democrats to lose then?

You could not be further from what I think ...

I have no idea how you could draw that conclusion of what I am thinking from my post.

Its the danger of everyone on hear assuming what people think, and stating positions for other posters that they did not adopt, and trying to draw too many inferences from a post, etc etc but I digess.

Back to discusion of what I think and what you think, rather than discussions about ' what you think I think ' ....

Leroy42

Rigolo, have you had a chance to think about the length of time that federal investigations should be limited to?

You seemed very definitive that the Special Counsel investigation had gone on too long and should be stopped.

And on what basis do you judge progress?

Midlife

RIGOLO wrote: »

You could not be further from what I think ...

I have no idea how you could draw that conclusion of what I am thinking from my post.

Its the danger of everyone on hear assuming what people think, and stating positions for other posters that they did not adopt, and trying to draw too many inferences from a post, etc etc but I digess.

Back to discusion of what I think and what you think, rather than discussions about ' what you think I think ' ....

Sorry, you poiinted out that it's all about the moderates who, evidence shows and I'm sure you agreem, are leaning solidly away from Trump and then just added...

RIGOLO wrote: »

As the DNC scare off these moderates, last time it was Hilary scared them off, this time its any one of AOC and the new progressives, they will turn to Trump in 2020 just as they did in 2016. The moderates see all the good being done.

Sure the GOP lost the House, Republicans are political pragmatists, they understand the swings of the pendulum and dont cry foul but get on with the next election cycle. The plus side on this is now that the DNC has the gavel , the American public can see in Full HD the bunch of crazies taking over that party.
Barely 2 months into taking over the house we have had one PR disaster after another from the Democrats.
I expect the moderates to run a mile from the DNC in 2020 just as they did in 2016 and the Donald will be duly re-elected

So you can see how I came to the conclusion.

I mean your reason for Trump winning as you yourself just stated was that the moderates would run from the DNC. Hence it's the DNC's to lose.

Maybe you can explain what Trump will do to change everyone's mind because right now he'd lose by a mile against a decent opponent.

RIGOLO

Midlife wrote: »

Sorry, you poiinted out that it's all about the moderates who, evidence shows and I'm sure you agreem, are leaning solidly away from Trump and then just added...



So you can see how I came to the conclusion.

I mean your reason for Trump winning as you yourself just stated was that the moderates would run from the DNC. Hence it's the DNC's to lose.

Maybe you can explain what Trump will do to change everyone's mind because right now he'd lose by a mile against a decent opponent.

there you go again, first telling me what I think and now telling me what I agree tooo....

Donald Trump is POTUS 45 ... if you want to believe the evidence is telling you moderates are moving away from him, go for it.

The moderates have run back and forth between the 2 parties for over a hundred years.. the election is everyones to win or lose.

Midlife

RIGOLO wrote: »

there you go again, first telling me what I think and now telling me what I agree tooo....

Donald Trump is POTUS 45 ... if you want to believe the evidence is telling you moderates are moving away from him, go for it.

The moderates have run back and forth between the 2 parties for over a hundred years.. the election is everyones to win or lose.

So you don't agree that his approval rating is in the toilet.

Fair enough. Why embrace reality at all I guess.

And yes, I want to believe evidence. That's generally how rational people judge things.

RIGOLO

Leroy42 wrote: »

Rigolo, have you had a chance to think about the length of time that federal investigations should be limited to?

You seemed very definitive that the Special Counsel investigation had gone on too long and should be stopped.

And on what basis do you judge progress?

I dont need time to think about it, I already gave my answer yesterday at 2 oclock, in fact Im pretty sure I gave this answer before you even asked for it....
Ive no idea why you keep asking me , how long I think it should go on for, as I said keep it going as long as the left wants...

RIGOLO wrote: »

But by all means keep investigating, I hope the left does.

It keeps DT front and centre in the main stream media searchlight, sucks up all the airtime , puts Trump in the cross hairs 24x7 etc etc, and we all know how that worked out the last time... roll on 2020

Wanderer78

RIGOLO wrote:

The moderates have run back and forth between the 2 parties for over a hundred years.. the election is everyones to win or lose.

Not necessarily true, to date, and Joe Stiglitz is right here, the American political system is a 'one dollar, one vote system', so no, the election is not everyone's to win or lose.

RIGOLO

Midlife wrote: »

So you don't agree that his approval rating is in the toilet.

Fair enough. Why embrace reality at all I guess.

And yes, I want to believe evidence. That's generally how rational people judge things.

Since when is 42% for a sitting POTUS, in the toilet.

Factor in receiving 94% negative press

Factor in Trump stood at 39% in APPROVAL RATINGS or even lower for most pollsters on the eve of the 2016 election and still won.

Factor in 101 other things

Theres loads of evidence of lots of things.

Trump won, 63 million people got up off their butts and voted for him , and he stands a good chance of the same thing happening and winning in 2020, hows that for embracing reality.

RIGOLO

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Not necessarily true, to date, and Joe Stiglitz is right here, the American political system is a 'one dollar, one vote system', so no, the election is not everyone's to win or lose.

You do know the context we were talking about . DNC v GOP and attracting the moderate base.

When I said everyone is was pretty obviuos I was saying/implying it was there for the DNC or the GOP to lose.

Has a third party suddenly entered the fray or something.

Leroy42

The key to understanding how Trump will fair, if not using polls, is to firstly consider what the positives were in 2016.

He was new. New to politics, a new brand a showmanship, a new way to engage with the public, new use of rallies, new use of slogans.
It also meant he could avoid any review of his past, with the (ridiculous) claim that that was before he was a politician or interested in politics so was irrelevant.
He was also up against one of the most divisive candidates in modern history. So many people complained that the level of candidates was really poor, but given a choice Trump at least wasn't HC.
HC herself ran a poor campaign. SH elacked energy, she lack a real message.
She also ran into the fact that many voters (similar to Brexit) were fed up and wanted change, any change. And HC represented the status quo.
The media also played right into Trumps hands. There was very little discussion about his policies, about his lack of experience, about his positions. It was all laughed off as a great gas at first, and then later on the premise that he would pivot when he became POTUS.

In each of these cases Trump no longer has that advantage. He has of course gained other advantages. Being the incumbent brings its own positives for example.
But even given all the advantages he had, he still lost the popular vote and won by winning some states by tiny margins. Therefore any slippage in votes in these states would be devastating to his chances of reelection.

But the biggest loss of advantage is that HC is not going to be his opponent. It cannot be overstated just how must hatred there was towards her. Obviously from the GOP side, but the Sanders supporters also carried a large amount of dislike for her.

So it is going to be very difficult for Trump to win, and the mid-terms do not paint a pretty picture. But of course there is plenty of time and plenty of things that can and will happen. At the moment, with the House in DNC hands, the national debt at record levels, continuing battles over the wall, lack of tax cuts for the middle class now becoming apparent as people realise they have been sold a pup, is all working against him.

But one thing we can be sure off, it is premature to ever count Trump out.

Leroy42

RIGOLO wrote: »

Its been over 2 years, and Mueller still hasnt come up with anything illegal done by Trump.

At this stage Mueller and the DOJ in terms of investigating this are operating under the old KGB motto... bring me the man and I will find you the crime.

This was you original post.

RIGOLO wrote: »

I dont need time to think about it, I already gave my answer yesterday at 2 oclock, in fact Im pretty sure I gave this answer before you even asked for it....
Ive no idea why you keep asking me , how long I think it should go on for, as I said keep it going as long as the left wants...

You are saying that you think it should continue on not because you think that is the correct thing to do under an investigation but because you think it is hurting the Dems to continue it.

So, no, as usual you haven't answered the question. WHy did you bring it the fact that its been 2 years? What relevance was that. You then followed that up by comparing the Muller investigation (carried out under the US constitution) as akin to a KGB investigation.

Listen, its fine I already know that you don't actually have any issue with the length of time taken by federal investigations. You only have an issue with the length of time with this investigation as it is directly against your guy.

But don't try to insult everyone's intelligence by pretending that it is anything else.

RIGOLO

So the Trump Administration moves on helping the African American community

As I pointed out before unemployment rate for African American is at a record low .
The poverty rate for African Americans reached the lowest level ever recorded in 2017.
8,764 communities have been designated as Opportunity Zones able to avail of deregulation , tax incentives , training programs.

Trump Administration signed in sweeping prison reform changes , involving the ' FIRST Step Act ' . Im sure you all saw the 2 recipeints of this pardon who were at the SOTU speech. They were certainly grateful to be free.

The FIRST Step Act reduced enhanced penalties for certain non-violent repeat drug offenders and eliminated the three-strike mandatory life provision.
This historic legislation will help inmates successfully rejoin society by promoting participation in vocational training, education programs, or faith-based programs.

Trump administration has increased funding for HBCU , ' historically Black Collegs and Universities' by more than 14 percent.

The President also signed legislation forgiving Hurricane Katrina debt that threatened HBCUs.

Im sure y'all read about these great iniatitives on the main stream news feeds you sign onto.

now where was that post about a main stream media bias, its around here somewhere ...

Midlife

RIGOLO wrote: »

Since when is 42% for a sitting POTUS, in the toilet.

Since you compare it to all the other sitting POTUS. That Trump has historically low appproval ratings for a President isn't really disputable.

RIGOLO wrote: »

Factor in Trump stood at 39% in APPROVAL RATINGS or even lower for most pollsters on the eve of the 2016 election and still won.

Yes, because the democrats had a candidate with similar or lower approval ratings. Again, it's not a groundbreaking statement to say that Hillary was a bad candidate. I'm sure you agree with this.

RIGOLO wrote: »

Factor in receiving 94% negative press.

Unfrotunatly, that doesn't make a difference. You may feel it's unfair but the voters are what matters.

RIGOLO wrote: »

Factor in 101 other things

Theres loads of evidence of lots of things.

Can you be a bit more specific here?

RIGOLO wrote: »

Trump won, 63 million people got up off their butts and voted for him , and he stands a good chance of the same thing happening and winning in 2020, hows that for embracing reality.

Yes, unless the democrats do the sensible thing and run someone who isn't hugely unpoopular.

I can't see really how you can argue this? Trump is massivly unpopular. You're very fond of citing his many fantastic achievments but unfortunatly for Trump, these aren't being percieved as achievements by the people he needs to vote for him again.

I don't think we actually disagree here. I'm not giving my opinion on Trump, I'm simply stating that right now the polling shows that he's not popular and a great deal of the people that matter have turned away from him.

RIGOLO

Midlife wrote: »

Since you compare it to all the other sitting POTUS. That Trump has historically low appproval ratings for a President isn't really disputable.

Yes, because the democrats had a candidate with similar or lower approval ratings. Again, it's not a groundbreaking statement to say that Hillary was a bad candidate. I'm sure you agree with this.

Unfrotunatly, that doesn't make a difference. You may feel it's unfair but the voters are what matters.

Can you be a bit more specific here?

Yes, unless the democrats do the sensible thing and run someone who isn't hugely unpoopular.

I can't see really how you can argue this? Trump is massivly unpopular. You're very fond of citing his many fantastic achievments but unfortunatly for Trump, these aren't being percieved as achievements by the people he needs to vote for him again.

I don't think we actually disagree here. I'm not giving my opinion on Trump, I'm simply stating that right now the polling shows that he's not popular and a great deal of the people that matter have turned away from him.

You see there you go again .. assuming what I think and drawn conclusions that are so far wrong, they could not be more wrong.

Yeah sure I think the voters are unfair... DONALD TRUMP IS THE POTUS !!!

Its okay to disagree,
you call it massively unpopular..
I call it between 39-42% according to the latest polls.. (and personally I think they have a biased)

everlast75

Any thoughts on whether Roger "Warrior against the Deep State" Stone will be able to abide by the gag Order?

IMHO, I don't think he has the mental restraint. He has been getting away with his dirty tricks for year. As contrite as he appeared to be in Court yesterday, he wasn't able to pull off any sincerity and so I don't think he will be able to help himself.

Giving him a more intense gag Order rather than locking him up, means that he cannot credibly play the victim if he breaches the Order again and has to go to jail.

Midlife

RIGOLO wrote: »

You see there you go again .. assuming what I think and drawn conclusions that are so far wrong, they could not be more wrong.

Yeah sure I think the voters are unfair... DONALD TRUMP IS THE POTUS !!!

Its okay to disagree,
you call it massively unpopular..
I call it between 39-42% according to the latest polls.. (and personally I think they have a biased)

The conclusion I drew was that you feel press bias is unfair.

I think your posting backs that up.

My simple point Rigolo is that despite all the 'successes' you love posting about here and despite you feeling that Trump is doing a fantastic job, it's not looking at all good for him in terms of the next election.

If the Democrats are clever, they'lll win easily enough but simply not being Trump.

i.e. it's theirs to lose.

You're quick to take offence with my postings but all you've done is back this point up.

Pretty much all I can find of you saying Trump might win this thing on his own is

RIGOLO wrote: »

Factor in 101 other things

Theres loads of evidence of lots of things.

and

RIGOLO wrote: »

The moderates see all the good being done.

You must agree, you're being very vague here.

Trump is unnpopular, whether you wish to call it hugely or bigly unpopular or just unpopular, it doesn't make a difference. He's very unpopular for a sitting president. His unpopularity has increased, especially with those swing voters he needed to win and will need to win again.

Hillary was also very unpopular for a candidate. The democrats should not have run her.

Rather than getting angry, can maybe expand on your points or tell me where I'm wrong?

or

Can you point out how Trump wins this election given the current state of things?

rossie1977

2020 should have been slam dunk for Trump

* Was left strong corporate economy by Obama
* His policies have not yet had a major negative effect either financially or militarily (yes deficit and national debt have risen but that only matters when a dem is in office)
* Gets 24/7 media coverage giving him free advertising. The us cable news only talk Trump it looks like. I doubt North Korean tv reference Kim as much
* No real standout opponent for Democrats, the most talked about Dem is 29 years old so not eligible
* It's extremely difficult to unseat a sitting president. Only 3 times since the 1930s has an incumbent lost a presidential election

seamus

rossie1977 wrote: »

2020 should have been slam dunk for Trump

Right?

Literally, doing nothing would have been better than what he's done. Tread softly, make very few changes, allow Obama's policies to continue on. Outwardly make a few noises, be quirky and disruptive and get some publicity. But inwardly, don't do very much.

You'd nail the next election without having to do any real work.

Instead, in his time-honoured tradition he has gone about trying to tear up any legacy of his predecessor regardless of what harm it might do.

It's exactly what he has done in business, and it's why he is so bad at it.

All the democrats have to do is have some cohesiveness and present an uncontroverisal functioning adult for election and they'll take it. But they've proven that they're really bad at that too.

Penn

seamus wrote: »

All the democrats have to do is have some cohesiveness and present an uncontroverisal functioning adult for election and they'll take it. But they've proven that they're really bad at that too.

That's why I'd be worried about Bernie getting the nomination. He'd have a popular base, no doubt about it, but I think Trump/GOP could turn moderates against him by demonising his policies as socialist etc, which many in America see as a dirty word (even though I think many of them would support the actual policy itself provided it wasn't deemed a socialist policy). In what could be a close election, that could swing it.

And debates between Bernie and Trump would be a clusterf*ck.

is_that_so

Penn wrote: »

That's why I'd be worried about Bernie getting the nomination. He'd have a popular base, no doubt about it, but I think Trump/GOP could turn moderates against him by demonising his policies as socialist etc, which many in America see as a dirty word (even though I think many of them would support the actual policy itself provided it wasn't deemed a socialist policy). In what could be a close election, that could swing it.

And debates between Bernie and Trump would be a clusterf*ck.

I think Bernie's popularity will be siphoned off by others in the race. He was a bit of a focus in 2016 given the main two options, but I don't see him getting anywhere near the nomination this time.

MadYaker

is_that_so wrote: »

I think Bernie's popularity will be siphoned off by others in the race. He was a bit of a focus in 2016 given the main two options, but I don't see him getting anywhere near the nomination this time.

His popularity also forced the Hillary campaign to change tack on a few issues. I don’t think Bernie has anything new to offer on top of last time around and I think the other dem candidates will have adopted some of his policies which drew support last time. I don’t think he has a chance but there is a chunk of people who will vote for him no matter what.

hill16bhoy

I think Sanders has a decent chance, especially in a crowded field where a lot of candidates struggle to differentiate themselves from each other.

The crowded field is in my view a considerable help to him - he has a good, steady, motivated core support, name recognition, experience from 2016, and he doesn't have to go up against one extremely strong opponent like in 2016.

That was what let Trump in during the Republican primaries. People knew what he was, while all the other candidates sort of blurred into each other.

A lot of Democratic candidates this time will have trouble standing out from each other.

I'd say Sanders will probably fall just short of the nomination though, like he did the last time. But he's definitely in with a shout.

Eric Cartman

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I think Sanders has a decent chance, especially in a crowded field where a lot of candidates struggle to differentiate themselves from each other.

The crowded field is in my view a considerable help to him - he has a good, steady, motivated core support, name recognition, experience from 2016, and he doesn't have to go up against one extremely strong opponent like in 2016.

That was what let Trump in during the Republican primaries. People knew what he was, while all the other candidates sort of blurred into each other.

A lot of Democratic candidates this time will have trouble standing out from each other.

I'd say Sanders will probably fall just short of the nomination though, like he did the last time. But he's definitely in with a shout.

I think he's too left to get over the line, the low hanging fruit is just paint him as a communist and youve the rust belt gone,

being a jew is super easy pickings for other demographics , an effective campaign could seperate him from moderate working class people by painting him as a rich man who wants to grab more taxes.