What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

rossie1977

Thing with Republicans is they have all but abandoned policy at this stage. Trump didn't run on a single policy past election instead focusing on talking about 'far left' taking over America and other nonsense.

Right wingers are now obsessed with censorship and 'wokism'. They see it everywhere. Covid was just a tool of the 'far left' to hurt Trump.. Its beyond crazy at this stage.

Another reason I don't see a Republican president for at least a decade. Democrats are at least trying to tackle the issues that ordinary people are dealing with, Republicans especially these newly elected ones are just there to disrupt.

namloc1980

rossie1977 wrote: »

Thing with Republicans is they have all but abandoned policy at this stage. Trump didn't run on a single policy past election instead focusing on talking about 'far left' taking over America and other nonsense.

Right wingers are now obsessed with censorship and 'wokism'. They see it everywhere. Covid was just a tool of the 'far left' to hurt Trump.. Its beyond crazy at this stage.

Another reason I don't see a Republican president for at least a decade. Democrats are at least trying to tackle the issues that ordinary people are dealing with, Republicans especially these newly elected ones are just there to disrupt.

The Republican Party didn't present any policy platform to voters for the 2020 election besides get Trump elected and stick it to the libs. They stand for nothing positive.

duploelabs

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

I dont see how that is relevant.

Project Veritas released tapes of CNN’s morning briefing calls with CEO Zucker and other staff members that were recorded over a number of months.
Its their own words.

If a 'news agency' can't follow the rules of twitter then I hold little faith in them holding on to any journalistic integrity elsewhere

joe40

extra gravy wrote: »

“I've never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.”

― Mark Twain

Agree with the sentiment, unfortunately I don't think Mark Twain actually said it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/mark-twain-didnt-say-thing-about-obituaries/350238/

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

rossie1977 wrote: »

Thing with Republicans is they have all but abandoned policy at this stage. Trump didn't run on a single policy past election instead focusing on talking about 'far left' taking over America and other nonsense.

Right wingers are now obsessed with censorship and 'wokism'. They see it everywhere. Covid was just a tool of the 'far left' to hurt Trump.. Its beyond crazy at this stage.

Another reason I don't see a Republican president for at least a decade. Democrats are at least trying to tackle the issues that ordinary people are dealing with, Republicans especially these newly elected ones are just there to disrupt.

It's more a case of Democrats are trying to fix thigs, Republicans are just trying to make it look like they're trying to fix things.

I wouldn't say there's be no Republican president, though. There are some genuine honest and intelligent people in the party. They need to abandon Trumpism, but that'll be like coming off a hard drug.

osarusan

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

In a statement that will surprise nobody, Trump has turned on McConnell bigly

https://twitter.com/lachlan/status/1361795296590770176

I've said this before but it's the Republicans that need to fear Trump, more than the Democrats. For Trump's base, the Democrats have always been the enemy, the ideological opposite, but the Republicans have stopped showing him the undying blind loyalty they showed for so long, and his base are rabid. Them turning on the Republicans is a real issue.


Should Trump himself run again, or somebody else with his endorsement, either as an independent or in some other/new party, there's always the question of how many of his voters will stay with him and how many will vote for the Republican candidate. They have to be very concerned about him splitting their vote, so if they can't crush him completely somehow, they'll continue to pander to some extent.

briany

briany wrote: »

Ah well, at least the channel was forced to back-handedly insult a large swathe of its viewership.

Seeing as they were forced to admit that, maybe they could put it as a disclaimer at the start of Carlson and Hannity's shows.

They are just a level above the online conspiracy theorist and similar grifters that also appeal to the same type of person.

Rjd2

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Do you think CNN opinion programmes like Andersen Cooper, Don Lemon, Amanpour, Erin Burnett and Cuomo are in anyway objective ??

Cooper is fine and they have other really good people like Zakaria, Jones and Blitzer.

Tapper however is their crown jewel, a little tedious but easily one of the few titans on media who is fair . This is the man who Andrew Cuomo ran from as he knew Tapper was onto how he ****ed Covid. That took immense courage.

You can call MSNBC the left wing version of Fox for sure, but not CNN. I will admit that Lemon is useless though.

And no I don't think CNN is perfect either.

everlast75

He is on hannity, and according to social media, belly aching, bloviating, and pining after his presidency.

It's absolutely fantastic not to have to deal with him daily.

ILoveYourVibes

He will run again in four years.

everlast75

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He will run again in four years.

I truly hope so

scruff monkey

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He will run again in four years.

I'd love to see him try to run four yards.


He will be nowhere in 4 years assuming he's still alive. What ever political capital he might have will be long forgotten at that point.
Some new shiny psychopath will have taken his place on the far right.

Fr Tod Umptious

frag420 wrote: »

No loss, terrible human!

Read this line about him in The Boston Globe.

When a woman accused Duke University lacrosse players of rape, he derided her as a “ho,”

Well he was dead right.

People should familiarize themselves with the Duke lacrosse case as an example of how dangerous it is to rush to judgement.

briany

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He will run again in four years.

Hopefully. If he ran again in four years, he'd be kicking off his campaign in Feb 2025, missing the election by over 3 months, losing it by default.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Read this line about him in The Boston Globe.


Well he was dead right.

People should familiarize themselves with the Duke lacrosse case as an example of how dangerous it is to rush to judgement.

A quick look at his Wiki tells me he said the same thing about Sandra Fluke, so we're not exactly talking concistency here.

ILoveYourVibes

scruff monkey wrote: »

I'd love to see him try to run four yards.


He will be nowhere in 4 years assuming he's still alive. What ever political capital he might have will be long forgotten at that point.
Some new shiny psychopath will have taken his place on the far right.

Wouldn't it be lovely if in four years ....the right had become softer ....and none of this mattered anymore?

scruff monkey

Let's be clear, there's no way back (outside of extreme gerrymandering) for the right in the States, the only way for them is more batsh1ttery in terms of radicalization.

There is no softer, they will split and the woolier elements will be absorbed to the center left (such as it is), but Trump and Trumpism will get worse but hopefully split the conservative vote..

Quin_Dub

everlast75 wrote: »

He is on hannity, and according to social media, belly aching, bloviating, and pining after his presidency.

It's absolutely fantastic not to have to deal with him daily.

Indeed - And in classic Trump style he made what was supposed to be a eulogy to Rush Limbaugh all about him.

"Rush loved me" , "Rush was really angry when they stole the election from me"

everlast75

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Indeed - And in classic Trump style he made what was supposed to be a eulogy to Rush Limbaugh all about him.

"Rush loved me" , "Rush was really angry when they stole the election from me"

I understand that this could be interpreted as an insult by me, and in the past and no doubt future *will* be meant as an insult, but I mean this as a matter of fact - he is an extremely damaged, selfish and deeply, deeply insecure man. Under no circumstances was he ever mentally or ethically fit for office.

rossie1977

scruff monkey wrote: »

Let's be clear, there's no way back (outside of extreme gerrymandering) for the right in the States, the only way for them is more batsh1ttery in terms of radicalization.

There is no softer, they will split and the woolier elements will be absorbed to the center left (such as it is), but Trump and Trumpism will get worse but hopefully split the conservative vote..

Yes like we saw unionism move more the extremes in Northern Ireland with the DUP becoming most popular party similar thing is likely to happen in the US.

Only one Republican has won the popular vote since 1988 so the country as a whole is moving on from conservativism so Republicans will need new methods to win elections.

Ahwell

scruff monkey wrote: »

Let's be clear, there's no way back (outside of extreme gerrymandering) for the right in the States, the only way for them is more batsh1ttery in terms of radicalization.

That extreme gerrymandering is going to happen though. Redistricting alone could be enough to regain control of the House in the 2022 congressional elections.

everlast75

scruff monkey wrote: »

Let's be clear, there's no way back (outside of extreme gerrymandering) for the right in the States, the only way for them is more batsh1ttery in terms of radicalization.

There is no softer, they will split and the woolier elements will be absorbed to the center left (such as it is), but Trump and Trumpism will get worse but hopefully split the conservative vote..

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1362590227349577732?s=19

ExMachina1000

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1362590227349577732?s=19

A real good news story. Those voting laws require some serious scrutiny

Timberrrrrrrr

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

A real good news story. Those voting laws require some serious scrutiny

Which voting laws need "some serious scrutiny"?

Which laws in particular and what's wrong with them?

ExMachina1000

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Which voting laws need "some serious scrutiny"?

Which laws in particular and what's wrong with them?

All of them. Total overhaul of the system required

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

All of them. Total overhaul of the system required

So you can't specify anything...

HalloweenJack

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Which voting laws need "some serious scrutiny"?

Which laws in particular and what's wrong with them?

The ones that cost Trump the election, of course.

But seriously, there should be a standardised electoral law for federal elections, at least. Any position that is to do with representing the country or involves sending representatives to DC should follow the same rules in every district to guarantee that there's less chance of 'But they're counting it the wrong way in PA because in Texas you can only count mail-in ballots that arrive before the day of the election' and that politicians throughout the country have a level playing field (in terms of the rules, at least).

ExMachina1000

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

All of them. Total overhaul of the system required

Aka I don't know what they are.

Cybersecurity experts and state and federal officials say it was the most secure election ever. A narcissistic insecure reality TV star says it wasn't. Which are you going to believe?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-11-13/election-was-most-secure-in-american-history-u-s-officials-say

everlast75

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

All of them. Total overhaul of the system required

*searches back to 2015 for your post stating the same thing*

Leroy42

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

All of them. Total overhaul of the system required

I always find it odd that a country so proud of its democracy such that it believes it has the duty to spread it to the rest of the world has such a low opinion of its own system.

A country that deems its Constitution as almost sacred and unchangeable and yet is so quick to allow changes to be made on such a piecemeal and individual basis.

Before a complete overhaul, which of course is not what is actually being done, perhaps a review of the system itself and a consideration of whether in a federal voting process it is best practice to allow such local variations under the sole control of the very politicians which rely on the outcome of the system.