Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

serfboard

aloyisious wrote: »

when the choice is solely Trump V Bernie or Mike, which way do you see the Dem supporter voting?

If the DNC stitches up the process in favour of Bloomberg, a former Republican, in other to keep Sanders out, what I can see Democrat voters doing is what they did the last time - staying at home.

Call Me Jimmy

serfboard wrote: »

If the DNC stitches up the process in favour of Bloomberg, a former Republican, in other to keep Sanders out, what I can see Democrat voters doing is what they did the last time - staying at home.

Haven't they already changed the rules to accommodate him?

Timberrrrrrrr

serfboard wrote: »

If the DNC stitches up the process in favour of Bloomberg, a former Republican, in other to keep Sanders out, what I can see Democrat voters doing is what they did the last time - staying at home.

Isn't Trump a former Democrat?

aloyisious

serfboard wrote: »

If the DNC stitches up the process in favour of Bloomberg, a former Republican, in other to keep Sanders out, what I can see Democrat voters doing is what they did the last time - staying at home.

Do you really think the average Dem supporter will throw the election and give Don another 4 years? One of the things about Mike is that before he switched to the republican party, he was a Democrat so he's returned to the fold, as it were. I readily admit the fact that he and Don are very rich New Yorkers, with all that carries, cant be ignored.

aloyisious

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Haven't they already changed the rules to accommodate him?

Re the question in your last post, the answer to that more importantly would be given on the day of the vote. However one candidates supporter might not like the other candidate, when the choice is solely Trump V Bernie or Mike, which way do you see the Dem supporter voting?

BorneTobyWilde

Penn wrote: »

... Harrison Ford... ???

Is this really where we are now? Has Trump sunk the bar so low that even with the likes of Sanders and Warren running, we're at "Oh if only Harrison Ford put himself forward for it the Dems might be in with a shot..."

Don't get me wrong, I agree that it's looking like none of them might beat Trump. But where the hell are you pulling Harrison Ford from?

If Trump has taught us anything (and it's a complete accident on his part if he has), it's that we need politicians in the highest political positions, not celebrities. At least even Ronald Reagan was a governor for a few years.

Harrison Ford is a passionate Democrat, he speaks at a lot of Climate Change events, and does a lot of campaigning on various issues.
He more qualified than Trump ever was.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NCWvtjah8SQ/maxresdefault.jpg

pixelburp

aloyisious wrote: »

Do you really think the average Dem supporter will throw the election and give Don another 4 years?

Given how tight many of the electoral results were in 2016, the Democrat vote would only need to be depressed by a similar amount to ensure another Trump victory. The GOP vote itself might lessen by dint of apathy or presumption of victory, but the last election was a stark lesson in what happens if the Establishment pushes against a more popular(ist) candidate.

You'd have thought the DNC had learned this lesson yet here we are - although I'm still not convinced the threat of Bloomberg is anything other than a media fantasy. His polling has crept up IIRC but until he starts clocking up some delegates is merely a phantom IMO

Itssoeasy

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Harrison Ford is a passionate Democrat, he speaks at a lot of Climate Change events, and does a lot of campaigning on various issues.
He more qualified than Trump ever was.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/NCWvtjah8SQ/maxresdefault.jpg

I'm sure that sentence was meant as a compliment to Harrison ford but being more qualified than trump given how trump has performed in office isn't a good thing.

Itssoeasy

aloyisious wrote: »

Do you really think the average Dem supporter will throw the election and give Don another 4 years? One of the things about Mike is that before he switched to the republican party, he was a Democrat so he's returned to the fold, as it were. I readily admit the fact that he and Don are very rich New Yorkers, with all that carries, cant be ignored.

Well Bloomberg while also a very rich New Yorker from what I've seen isn't a complete eijit who seems incapable or unwillingly of facts and how government works having been mayor of New York. He also is the one person who knows the circles trump tried to get into and could needle trump constantly.

aloyisious

pixelburp wrote: »

Given how tight many of the electoral results were in 2016, the Democrat vote would only need to be depressed by a similar amount to ensure another Trump victory. The GOP vote itself might lessen by dint of apathy or presumption of victory, but the last election was a stark lesson in what happens if the Establishment pushes against a more popular(ist) candidate.

You'd have thought the DNC had learned this lesson yet here we are - although I'm still not convinced the threat of Bloomberg is anything other than a media fantasy. His polling has crept up IIRC but until he starts clocking up some delegates is merely a phantom IMO

I'm hoping he's a variant of the trojan horse ploy [a cunning plan - as it were] deliberately doing something to cause Don & Co to waste valuable campaign cash on fighting without him actually hoping to get into the Oval Office, whatever his motive. As for the DNC, if they haven't learned from what happened in 2015, they should go. They can't blame the voter.

eire4

aloyisious wrote: »

Do you really think the average Dem supporter will throw the election and give Don another 4 years? One of the things about Mike is that before he switched to the republican party, he was a Democrat so he's returned to the fold, as it were. I readily admit the fact that he and Don are very rich New Yorkers, with all that carries, cant be ignored.

Blloomberg is a Republican just minus the love of guns and hating various groups hence he is running as a Democrat. But economically he is very much the ultimate Corporate Democrat who has zero interest in doing anything economically other then making sure the US stays under the thrall of Friedmanite disaster capitalism. If he is the Democratic nominee then yes I agree with the previous poster that I think a significant number of potential Democratic voters will not show up or vote for someone else for president.

SeamusFX

Trump has just pardoned former Illinois governor Rob Blagojevich, a Democrat who tried to sell Obama’s Senate seat. Former NYPD commissioner Bernard Kerik. Junk bond trader
Michael Milken. Former 49’s owner Edward J. DiBartolo, who was in for sexual assault and corruption.

Far from draining the swap, especially since Blagojevich is a Democrat and someone everyone agrees is a crook, but he was on Celebrity Apprentice. Kerik is buddies with Trump’s bagman Rudy Guiliani. The other common denominator is, they’re all rich and this is just a warmup for his pardon of Roger Stone!

eire4

SeamusFX wrote: »

Trump has just pardoned former Illinois governor Rob Blagojevich, a Democrat who tried to sell Obama’s Senate seat. Former NYPD commissioner Bernard Kerik. Junk bond trader
Michael Milken. Former 49’s owner Edward J. DiBartolo, who was in for sexual assault and corruption.

Far from draining the swap, especially since Blagojevich is a Democrat and someone everyone agrees is a crook, but he was on Celebrity Apprentice. Kerik is buddies with Trump’s bagman Rudy Guiliani. The other common denominator is, they’re all rich and this is just a warmup for his pardon of Roger Stone!

Technically these pardons are not illegal. But the way that the pardon power of the president is currently being used is so morally corrupt that it begs looking at in terms of finding some mechanism to limit the presidents power in this regard.

SeamusFX

eire4 wrote: »

Technically these pardons are not illegal. But the way that the pardon power of the president is currently being used is so morally corrupt that it begs looking at in terms of finding some mechanism to limit the presidents power in this regard.

Not illegal, but as you said immoral, as they are all serious criminals, so totally wrong and disgusting and far from draining the swamp! That’s why this type of power never should have been given to someone that who’s such a low-life criminal scumbag!

TomOnBoard

RIGOLO wrote: »

Your points are just opinion that have no bearing in the reality of what has actually happened under the Trump administration as born out by the facts and the numbers.

Women have made up over 70% of new jobs in America. Women have recovered 70% of the decline in their participation rate from 2000 to 2015.
If you ask me thats doing ALOT for Women

Launching Space Force, return to the Moon, Made In America program , The 2017 Trump Executive order for improved Apprenticeship program, clampdown on China IP theft, rejection of non-US 5G technology, driving US companies to have US based/friendly supply chains ... just some of the many measures made to advance US technology

Debt is spiraling cos Obama spent 9Trillion getting 2% GDP, Trump has spent 1trillion getting over 3%. As soon as the non-discretionary spending controls they want kick in in the second term, things will balance a bit better. And now that the Fed is playing ball also.

Improved Tax credits for working people with children, increasing their allowance, and more importantly making it a refundable tax credit.

Tensions with China , have resulted in a more balanced US-China Trade Deficit it fell by over 50billion in 2019 and thats even with Boeings woes.

Tensions with Canada, not a problem, the USMCA Trade deal announced and signed

He undid crippling regulations - thats why buisness is booming . New Regulations were growing by some measures at 8% a year. Trumps EO that for every one new regulation, 3 had to be removed was instrumental in this.

Support for minority communities, well jobs are exploding in that demographic , you can goggle The Young Black Leadership Summit at White House, they seem happy.

The IEA announced that CO2 emmissions for the US were down in 2019 . Thats the international energy Agency The United States saw the largest decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019 on a country basis – a fall of 140 Mt, or 2.9%, to 4.8 Gt. US emissions are now down almost 1 Gt from their peak in the year 2000, the largest absolute decline by any country over that period.

north Korea - They had 4 nuclear tests during OBAMAs reign and we had no summits, going from 5 to 25 kiloton.
Under Trump they had one , but have had 3-4 summits. Thats progress.
The list goes on and on ..

What Trump has done is a long term legacy that the Democrats and the left can never take away from him and his administration. The histroy has already been written on it, its too late. Its over Trump won round 1, lets see if the Dems can take Round 2 with Bernie Sanders .

As I read this, I recalled a conversation in my youth with my Grandfather (a great Gentleman and an honest Irish hero who had fought in France during WWI along with thousands of other patriotic Irishmen, and was gassed by the Bosch for his service ) telling me about how Lord Haw Haw betrayed his country, its heritage and its people, by spouting propaganda for and on behalf of Adolf Hitler and his evil empire before and during WWII. The main message my Grandad had was that, when you support the position of a despot, even though you might not be aware of the depth of evil being perpetrated by that despot, you are actually complicit in that despot's evil actions. You are providing support and comfort, so that, if he commits an atrocity, you too are complicit in that atrocity. Later attempts at covering over one's own personal responsibility and guilt on the grounds of "we didn't know"or "we were just following orders" failed absolutely as a defense for participation in war crimes during the Nuremberg Trials.

Such is the context that overhangs all purveyors of propaganda even today. And, just like in Nuremberg, a day will come when support for the evil despot cannot and will not be excused

briany

aloyisious wrote: »

Do you really think the average Dem supporter will throw the election and give Don another 4 years? One of the things about Mike is that before he switched to the republican party, he was a Democrat so he's returned to the fold, as it were. I readily admit the fact that he and Don are very rich New Yorkers, with all that carries, cant be ignored.

Trump to Bloomberg would be a bit like a guy who doesn't like his job and complains about it, gets the sack, doesn't have any money, panics and goes begging back to his old job and is rehired at a lower rate of pay. It's not really a positive change, but a somewhat less sh*tty one, and not so much a cause for celebration as a reason to be less sad.

It would really be just a clever way for the masters behind the whole American political scene to the American public content with the status quo that they previously complained about.

aloyisious

SeamusFX wrote: »

Trump has just pardoned former Illinois governor Rob Blagojevich, a Democrat who tried to sell Obama’s Senate seat. Former NYPD commissioner Bernard Kerik. Junk bond trader
Michael Milken. Former 49’s owner Edward J. DiBartolo, who was in for sexual assault and corruption.

Far from draining the swap, especially since Blagojevich is a Democrat and someone everyone agrees is a crook, but he was on Celebrity Apprentice. Kerik is buddies with Trump’s bagman Rudy Guiliani. The other common denominator is, they’re all rich and this is just a warmup for his pardon of Roger Stone!

As pardons go, I reckon even the most cynical of GOP senators would blink at the brass neck shown by the pardons.

Don also had pity for Rod after he was convicted. Don on Tuesday "that was a tremendously powerful, ridiculous sentence". His prosecutor, Pat Fitzgerald is a friend of James Comey. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-49377676

aloyisious

briany wrote: »

Trump to Bloomberg would be a bit like a guy who doesn't like his job and complains about it, gets the sack, doesn't have any money, panics and goes begging back to his old job and is rehired at a lower rate of pay. It's not really a positive change, but a somewhat less sh*tty one, and not so much a cause for celebration as a reason to be less sad.

It would really be just a clever way for the masters behind the whole American political scene to the American public content with the status quo that they previously complained about.

Wow, that's outside even the cynical view I have of politics. So Don might just yet get back in due to players outside and beyond his sphere, with a little bit of help from one of those players acting as a prospective nominee for the opposition and turning off voters from the party he allegedly represents. It'd make Don a patsy into the bargain, something that'd hit his ego hard if he knew, way beyond what he'd feel losing office to the actor.

TomOnBoard

everlast75 wrote: »

Trunp pardoning two white collar criminals.

Weird flex for someone who hates corruption...

Simply a precursor to pardoning Stone (and possibly Manafort), It's all Fugazi, at the end of which Trump will have liberated dozens of evil criminals (predominantly white and male) to re-up their criminal activity, while at the same time, thousands of black men, youths at the time of their misdemeanor marijuana arrests, continue to serve out their multi-decade sentences for so-called 'crimes' that no longer exist!

Of course, if Kim Kardashian and Kanye West can identify a single black man as having had a 'raw deal' from the Justice system, and the President pardons one woman as a result, Trump-Land is vindicated. They have reversed any/all wrongs. But don't mention the millions of other outrageous incarcerations that Kim/Kanye have no interest in...

everlast75

The thing to note here is the abuses of power are becoming more and more flagrant.

This is what i would be worried about if i wanted his reelection.

The admin are barely keeping a lid on his impulses. Each day there's another scandal. Reliable reporting says trump was warned not to pardon Blago and others - he did it anyway.

It looks like he will pardon Stone and others. No doubt Reps will try stop him from doing that too but he will go ahead.

He won't be checked by them. Combine that with his natural self and you have a nasty combination that will not win over any new supporters but will more likely turn people off him. You can see how it's playing out for Collins for example.

The best thing Trump can do between now and November is keep a low profile and avoid scandal. Thanks to the Senate Republicans, there's bugger all chance of that happening.

Stallingrad

everlast75 wrote: »

The best thing Trump can do between now and November is keep a low profile and avoid scandal.

I lol'd at that! He couldn't do that between today and Friday!

Quin_Dub

SeamusFX wrote: »

Trump has just pardoned former Illinois governor Rob Blagojevich, a Democrat who tried to sell Obama’s Senate seat. Former NYPD commissioner Bernard Kerik. Junk bond trader
Michael Milken. Former 49’s owner Edward J. DiBartolo, who was in for sexual assault and corruption.

Far from draining the swap, especially since Blagojevich is a Democrat and someone everyone agrees is a crook, but he was on Celebrity Apprentice. Kerik is buddies with Trump’s bagman Rudy Guiliani. The other common denominator is, they’re all rich and this is just a warmup for his pardon of Roger Stone!

If you look at the people he has pardoned , they are all people that have been jailed for the kinds of crimes that Trump himself is repeatedly accused of.

Corruption , Bribery , Fraud etc.

It's his way of de-legitimising the crimes he's accused of..

He's also pardoned a few people to appease his base - Arrpaio & DeSouza for example.

Oh and a few randomers that he saw on twitter or from Kim Khardashian.


Also setting the scene for Mike "5 Minute POTUS" Pence pardoning Trump for any potential crimes when Trump stands down 5 minutes early before he leaves office..

briany

Trump might court more scandal. He could use this to fuel his and his supporters' persecution complex and thus energise the base.

everlast75

briany wrote: »

Trump might court more scandal. He could use this to fuel his and his supporters' persecution complex and thus energise the base.

I am sick to my back teeth with people talking about his base.

Firstly, they are approx 35% of the population. The Democrats have at least 35% of the population too yet no one talks about that base.

Secondly, with regards to energising them, they are as energised as they will ever be. On a scale of 1 to 10, they walk around at 10. They are constantly angry, they are at worship level all of the time. There is literally nothing Trump could do more to wind them up.

So as far as I'm concerned, the Dems shouldn't give one damn about his base. They should concentrate on mobilising the 30% of the population that fall into neither "base" category and that means talking about medicare, infrastructure, education etc.

everlast75

Stallingrad wrote: »

I lol'd at that! He couldn't do that between today and Friday!

That's my point. It's getting worse and he can't help himself.

The fact is each scandal is making it harder for Reps to defend him when there is a direct knock on effect on their reelection.

Making the assumption he is invulnerable is like saying that there is never a straw that breaks the camel's back.

Penn

everlast75 wrote: »

That's my point. It's getting worse and he can't help himself.

The fact is each scandal is making it harder for Reps to defend him when there is a direct knock on effect on their reelection.

Making the assumption he is invulnerable is like saying that there is never a straw that breaks the camel's back.

After the Senate impeachment vote, they're all in too deep regardless. None of them can turn away from him now even if they're tanking in polls and unlikely to be re-elected. They'll just saunter into cushy lobbying or consultancy roles for big companies, using their political connections.

They'll defend Trump right up to election night, maybe with the odd "It's very disappointing that the President shot someone on 5th Avenue. This is not the action a President should take, but the Democrats shouldn't be making this a political issue just because the President shot Bernie Sanders. That's un-American of them."

briany

aloyisious wrote: »

Wow, that's outside even the cynical view I have of politics. So Don might just yet get back in due to players outside and beyond his sphere, with a little bit of help from one of those players acting as a prospective nominee for the opposition and turning off voters from the party he allegedly represents. It'd make Don a patsy into the bargain, something that'd hit his ego hard if he knew, way beyond what he'd feel losing office to the actor.

It's not cynical to say that there is a class of very rich people in the states who donate to political campaigns and have a vested interest in their hegemony being maintained.

Anyway, Bloomberg v. Trump wouldn't be that different to 2016. It would be round 2 of Trump v. Blandness Personified, essentially.

Largely, the backers want a stable system with themselves at the top of it. Trump has been erratic, but his political ignorance and shallowness has neutralised him quite a bit, too, and he's still been largely pro-business. Bloomberg, also, would be pro-business. Therefore it would be win-win for the CEOs.

briany

everlast75 wrote: »

So as far as I'm concerned, the Dems shouldn't give one damn about his base. They should concentrate on mobilising the 30% of the population that fall into neither "base" category and that means talking about medicare, infrastructure, education etc.

Think about this for a second - Hillary won the popular vote in the 2016 Dem primary. She didn't even need those super delegates. It would appear that there are a lot of Dem voters who are perfectly happy to vote for an empty suit. The Democratic establishment probably view Sanders and his supporters as wing-nuts hijacking their corporate party.

Any democratic candidate talking passionately about things that benefit the public is in danger of being labelled a socialist/communist/marxist. The question as to why America has so much bomb money but acts like it has not the money to fund public health seems to be almost taboo. When you have that kind of social/political landscape, you have to say that any progressive left-wing candidate really has their work cut out.

Leroy42

Largely pro-business? He has been 100% pro-business. Massive CT cuts, huge cuts in regulations. Open fight against white collar crime. Not only open to, but actively advocating for, the ability to make bribes etc for foreign contracts.

If you like making money, and nt caring too much about the people left behind, Trump is the person you want in the WH.

That is not to say any DNC would be any different!

pixelburp

I've heard it said a few times from a number of US mouthpieces in passing that the country's infrastructure was crumbling and in desperate need of rebuilding or modernisation to manage to larger numbers. Watching this video, I hadn't realised just how bad the problem was, thinking it was merely grumbling from commuters; obviously caveats apply as being one source, but the numbers and scale thrown around is eye watering. It's sometimes remarkable the country is regarded as top of the heap, as much of its internal economy often appears barely above Third World.

Of course it was one of Trump's big promises, and while the Transition Team put together a hit-list of 50 big infrastructure projects, they were all shelved in 2017; Trump saying they wouldn't happen 'til after 2020. The author of the list itself, Daniel Slane - who modelled it on China's approach to economic downturns & infrastructure - arguing that it was a tactic to push it all onto the States, and consequently, the private sector.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdvJSGc14xA