45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. Vol 2
Discussion
Balmoral said:
I've got nowt, but at least I can look down on rich people with no taste 
Unwittingly so perhaps, but you've summed it up in the broad sense. Reminds me of that WaPo opinion piece I posted not long ago where the author came to the conclusion that much of what the neoprogressives on the street loathe about Trump comes down to the superficial.
roachcoach said:
His personal tastes aside I think at some point people who rely on the services he proposes cutting might start asking if the constant Florida trips are maybe a bit much and that money might be better spent elsewhere rather than being funnelled into his own companies.
Like Meals on Wheels for the elderly estimated to cost $2,500 a YEAR per person while his wife stays in New York and costs $150k (conservative) a DAY in security so she doesnt have to live in the giant mansion provided with her husbands job.scherzkeks said:
FN2TypeR said:
It didn't stop him from being elected in fairness.
He was elected because Democrat apparatchiks conspired to oust a perfectly good candidate in Sanders. The steady flow of establishment neoliberal tears since Trump's election may make up for losing Sanders, however.
Mr Tracy said:
scherzkeks said:
FN2TypeR said:
It didn't stop him from being elected in fairness.
He was elected because Democrat apparatchiks conspired to oust a perfectly good candidate in Sanders. The steady flow of establishment neoliberal tears since Trump's election may make up for losing Sanders, however.
Mr Tracy said:
scherzkeks said:
FN2TypeR said:
It didn't stop him from being elected in fairness.
He was elected because Democrat apparatchiks conspired to oust a perfectly good candidate in Sanders. The steady flow of establishment neoliberal tears since Trump's election may make up for losing Sanders, however.
There is also the fact that Wikileaks exposed Hillary, and probably had little to nothing on Sanders. The fact that mainstream America now accepts what Wikileaks publishes is seismic in and of itself. Times are changing.
I don't think that Sanders would have won - he would never have gotten the establishment, financial or media backing that Clinton got as he wasn't a democrat, he would never have been able to steamroll or subsume the DNC or its gargantuan support in the way that Trump did with the GOP and frankly, he's easy pickings for the whole "weak/pacifist/commie pinko" shenanigans and that wouldn't sit well in the swing states IMO, do you really think the hicks in Florida would turn out to support him? I doubt it.
He was however, abysmally treated by the DNC, this much is true.
He was however, abysmally treated by the DNC, this much is true.
FN2TypeR said:
I don't think that Sanders would have won - he would never have gotten the establishment, financial or media backing that Clinton got as he wasn't a democrat, he would never have been able to steamroll or subsume the DNC or its gargantuan support in the way that Trump did with the GOP and frankly, he's easy pickings for the whole "weak/pacifist/commie pinko" shenanigans and that wouldn't sit well in the swing states IMO, do you really think the hicks in Florida would turn out to support him? I doubt it.
He was however, abysmally treated by the DNC, this much is true.
Perhaps not but he might not have lost the swing rust-belt states that Trump got in the end from the traditional Democrat voters?He was however, abysmally treated by the DNC, this much is true.
Who knows, but as said, Hillary was a terrible choice and the Democrats paid for it.
p1stonhead said:
FN2TypeR said:
I don't think that Sanders would have won - he would never have gotten the establishment, financial or media backing that Clinton got as he wasn't a democrat, he would never have been able to steamroll or subsume the DNC or its gargantuan support in the way that Trump did with the GOP and frankly, he's easy pickings for the whole "weak/pacifist/commie pinko" shenanigans and that wouldn't sit well in the swing states IMO, do you really think the hicks in Florida would turn out to support him? I doubt it.
He was however, abysmally treated by the DNC, this much is true.
Perhaps not but he might not have lost the swing rust-belt states that Trump got in the end from the traditional Democrat voters?He was however, abysmally treated by the DNC, this much is true.
Who knows, but as said, Hillary was a terrible choice and the Democrats paid for it.
Are they learning any lessons from that defeat, I wonder?
FN2TypeR said:
I don't think that Sanders would have won - he would never have gotten the establishment, financial or media backing that Clinton got as he wasn't a democrat, he would never have been able to steamroll or subsume the DNC or its gargantuan support in the way that Trump did with the GOP and frankly, he's easy pickings for the whole "weak/pacifist/commie pinko" shenanigans and that wouldn't sit well in the swing states IMO, do you really think the hicks in Florida would turn out to support him? I doubt it.
Yes that establishment backing sure worked out well for Hillary. And Sanders posed a significant threat without it, to the point that they had to rig the system. I agree that he may have struggled with the issue of being labelled a "commie" or some other nonsense, but that would have been no more effective than casting Trump as Hitler.
On that note, I think his biggest hurdle was simply physical appearance. Trump while comical for any number of reasons, still has presence and can play to an audience. Bernie doesn't have that aura. Since the advent of the TV presidency, it has often been possible to pick the next president simply by looking at him.
scherzkeks said:
FN2TypeR said:
I don't think that Sanders would have won - he would never have gotten the establishment, financial or media backing that Clinton got as he wasn't a democrat, he would never have been able to steamroll or subsume the DNC or its gargantuan support in the way that Trump did with the GOP and frankly, he's easy pickings for the whole "weak/pacifist/commie pinko" shenanigans and that wouldn't sit well in the swing states IMO, do you really think the hicks in Florida would turn out to support him? I doubt it.
Yes that establishment backing sure worked out well for Hillary. And Sanders posed a significant threat without it, to the point that they had to rig the system. I agree that he may have struggled with the issue of being labelled a "commie" or some other nonsense, but that would have been no more effective than casting Trump as Hitler.
On that note, I think his biggest hurdle was simply physical appearance. Trump while comical for any number of reasons, still has presence and can play to an audience. Bernie doesn't have that aura. Since the advent of the TV presidency, it has often been possible to pick the next president simply by looking at him.
Corbyn has unwavering support in the Labour Party (or did pre Brexit carry ons anyway) - it isn't doing him many favours, I know the two situations aren't totally compatible but it has to be said that broad support within a defined voter base isn't a guarantee of anything else.
He would almost certainly have made a better President than either Clinton or Trump though, imo.
p1stonhead said:
Mr Tracy said:
scherzkeks said:
FN2TypeR said:
It didn't stop him from being elected in fairness.
He was elected because Democrat apparatchiks conspired to oust a perfectly good candidate in Sanders. The steady flow of establishment neoliberal tears since Trump's election may make up for losing Sanders, however.
The democrats screwed up royally by effectively having a presumptive candidate from 2012. Had that not been the case and had someone like Corey Booker decided to run things may have been different. As it is they left themselves in a very bad position where nobody of real substance would run against Clinton and by the time they realized that wasn't ideal it was too late. Having said that she was the best candidate running and 100 times better than what we have now.
scherzkeks said:
On that note, I think his biggest hurdle was simply physical appearance. Trump while comical for any number of reasons, still has presence and can play to an audience. Bernie doesn't have that aura. Since the advent of the TV presidency, it has often been possible to pick the next president simply by looking at him.
Not seen him in action with a hostile audience, I think many politicos do not like it. I don't worry about appearances, it is the ability that counts for my personal liking or not. Bit different in the US where it is GOP or Dem. The rest don't count really.Has he been in front of a hostile audience? One that will tax him, I don't mean booing and hissing but asking awkward questions and one he will not like answering.
e.g. I had never heard of Gisela Stewart until I heard her speak for brexit and for my money she trounced the lot infant of awkward audiences and coped well. How would Trump fare under pressure?
The fun continues!
New documents show Trump aide laundered payments from party with Moscow ties, lawmaker alleges
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/new-documents...
This isnt one of his 'aides' by the way - its his CAMPAIGN MANAGER
New documents show Trump aide laundered payments from party with Moscow ties, lawmaker alleges
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/new-documents...
This isnt one of his 'aides' by the way - its his CAMPAIGN MANAGER
Edited by p1stonhead on Tuesday 21st March 15:02
p1stonhead said:
The fun continues!
New documents show Trump aide laundered payments from party with Moscow ties, lawmaker alleges
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/new-documents...
This isnt one of his 'aides' by the way - its his CAMPAIGN MANAGER
"Allegations" from an "lawmaker and journalist" in a US-installed puppet govt. concerning "unconfirmed documents" stemming from a former campaign manager ousted nearly a year ago. New documents show Trump aide laundered payments from party with Moscow ties, lawmaker alleges
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/new-documents...
This isnt one of his 'aides' by the way - its his CAMPAIGN MANAGER
Edited by p1stonhead on Tuesday 21st March 15:02
Good luck with that.
scherzkeks said:
p1stonhead said:
The fun continues!
New documents show Trump aide laundered payments from party with Moscow ties, lawmaker alleges
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/new-documents...
This isnt one of his 'aides' by the way - its his CAMPAIGN MANAGER
"Allegations" from an "lawmaker and journalist" in a US-installed puppet govt. concerning "unconfirmed documents" stemming from a former campaign manager ousted nearly a year ago. New documents show Trump aide laundered payments from party with Moscow ties, lawmaker alleges
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/new-documents...
This isnt one of his 'aides' by the way - its his CAMPAIGN MANAGER
Edited by p1stonhead on Tuesday 21st March 15:02
Good luck with that.
Are you going to show us blurry photos of military-looking people and show us a link to some infoloon site that claims the BND had intelligence that Blackwater operatives did it?The puppet government in Ukraine was that of Yanukovich, beginning with the election he tried to steal in 2004 and the attmepted murder of Yushchenko.
You really do support some unpleasant people.
unrepentant said:
Sanders would not have won. He turned off as many democrats as republicans. He wasn't even a member of the Democratic Party and I believe that is still the case. You also have to remember that he was given a very easy ride. The GOP didn't attack him at all as they wanted him around to muddy the waters for Clinton as long as possible. Had he won the nomination they would have crucified him. There's a lot of stuff in his past and his wife has a very chequered history. Receiving a golden parachute after mismanaging Burlington College to the point where it went bust soon after is not exactly "man (or woman) of the people" stuff. Nor is Bernie's ownership of 3 houses including a nice $600k "holiday" home he purchased last year.
The democrats screwed up royally by effectively having a presumptive candidate from 2012. Had that not been the case and had someone like Corey Booker decided to run things may have been different. As it is they left themselves in a very bad position where nobody of real substance would run against Clinton and by the time they realized that wasn't ideal it was too late. Having said that she was the best candidate running and 100 times better than what we have now.
Didn't Bernie once write an article about a woman enjoying being raped by three (3) men? That would have gone down well with the ladies, even Trump couldn't have topped that. The democrats screwed up royally by effectively having a presumptive candidate from 2012. Had that not been the case and had someone like Corey Booker decided to run things may have been different. As it is they left themselves in a very bad position where nobody of real substance would run against Clinton and by the time they realized that wasn't ideal it was too late. Having said that she was the best candidate running and 100 times better than what we have now.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff