45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. (Vol 4)

[p1stonhead]

frankenstein12 said:

Greg66 said:

Explain this please. Why does Trump need the democrats’ help when the GOP controls both houses?

And why should American politicians vote to pay for a wall that Trump told them Mexico would pay for?

Not an expert in American politics and law but my understanding is laws need to be passed by Congress/House of representatives before passing into Senate for a final vote.

While Republicans control both by majority in Senate it's a tiny majority and in Congress it's not quite so small but is small enough that laws can be blocked due to individual Republicans voting against the party which they are of course allowed to do.

Given there are plenty of republican representatives who dislike Trump it is not hard to imagine enough of them voting with the Democrats more because of Trump than issue with any law.

As such it is not as easy to pass laws as you and others may wish to perceive it to be.

He is 9 votes short (60 needed, he has 51) to pass legislation if Dems say no.

[frankenstein12]

sugerbear said:

There is no reason why the cannot, if identified as asylum seekers, be deported back together straight away (you can argue the constitution does or doesn’t require due process all day long) but there is no reason why adults need to be removed / separated from their children.

The only reason for doing it is so pictures will be released and deter future people from seeking asylum. If anything the process of splitting up families is more expensive to the US taxpayer.

So basically being a for s sake.

Actually no. According to the BCA there are a lot of kids coming over unaccompanied and in some cases being used to smuggle adults over by pretending to be the parents.

As such keeping those kids with the adults who are not related or allowing those adults to be kept in a facility with other children puts kids at risk of unnecessary harm.

[p1stonhead]

frankenstein12 said:

sugerbear said:

There is no reason why the cannot, if identified as asylum seekers, be deported back together straight away (you can argue the constitution does or doesn’t require due process all day long) but there is no reason why adults need to be removed / separated from their children.

The only reason for doing it is so pictures will be released and deter future people from seeking asylum. If anything the process of splitting up families is more expensive to the US taxpayer.

So basically being a for s sake.

Actually no. According to the BCA there are a lot of kids coming over unaccompanied and in some cases being used to smuggle adults over by pretending to be the parents.

As such keeping those kids with the adults who are not related or allowing those adults to be kept in a facility with other children puts kids at risk of unnecessary harm.

You are promoted to Vice President with that take on it one. Congratulations.

[Challo]

Byker28i said:

Germany is lying when they report crime is down 10% says trump, the persistent liar


Donald J. Trump
?Verified account @realDonaldTrump
26m26 minutes ago

Crime in Germany is up 10% plus (officials do not want to report these crimes) since migrants were accepted. Others countries are even worse. Be smart America!

So he knows the real story and what Germany is officially reporting is just FAKE NEWS..!!

The guy is an idiot.

[Tallow]

frankenstein12 said:

As to paying for the wall. It's not the politicians paying for it. That aside it is a bit of an ask given Trump said Mexico will pay for it however it was one of the promises he made when running that he would build the wall and he is keeping it or trying to.

Who pays for it is simply a sticking point as it's possible he will get Mexico to pay for it indirectly via taxes.

Sweet Jesus, you're deluded. You think he's somehow going to introduce taxes (presumably tarriffs) that will cover this? The wall is estimated to cost $22bn.

That's assuming he gets sufficient backing of course. The wall is a massive white elephant. Ironically, as unpalatable as it is, his current strategy of seperating children from parents is probably much more effective at stopping illegal immigration on the southern border than his wall idea.

[frankenstein12]

Halb said:

=Joe Rogan - Trump Will Win in Again 2020=
https://youtu.be/FocigzMZ9wc

And he is right imo and looking at bookies they don't think it's unlikely either.

[p1stonhead]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I had some posts today removed because someone cried about it

There were a few over the day obviously so I dont even know which ones they were.

[frankenstein12]

vonuber said:

I wonder if this has finally lost republicans the Hispanic vote.

Nope because I suspect they aren't stupid enough to buy into all this emotive crap some of which has already been disproven.

This is simply another cog in the wheel of American politics. Trump tries to force the Democrats hand so the Democrats begin their bleeding heart campaign rather than dealing with the problem because they know that Trumps plans if implemented will cost them immigrant voters.

Trump does not do these things because he is some sadistic monster as you all seem to believe. He does it because he wants change but the declare point blank refusing to agree to it.

Everyone seems to miss that one of the Democrats big things was to call for an amnesty on those already in the states.

Trump has said he will consider agreeing to it providing they agree to end catch and release, chain migration, lottery and fund his wall.

Their response is to refuse to do any of that and to go on the attack. Trump therefore responds and the Democrats stupidly think they will be able to spin it in their favour by this sort of nonsense where they run a campaign tugging at people's heart strings AGAIN.

It didn't work during the election I really don't know why they think it will work now.

[vonuber]

Objecting too very young children being forcibly removed from their parents for days = emotive crap.
Gotcha.

[captain_cynic]

vonuber said:

Objecting too very young children being forcibly removed from their parents for days = emotive crap.
Gotcha.

Now you're begining to understand Trumplish. Language of 'Murica.

Seriously though, I doubt Trump had the hispanic vote, at least not by much. Maybe in Florida with the Dems pushing softer policies with Cuba but even then that's a stretch.

Trumps main audience is white, religious rednecks. Pictures like that are the spanking material.

What Trump has lost, that the Reps will miss is the vote of middle class educated white Americans.

[turbobloke]

captain_cynic said:

What Trump has lost, that the Reps will miss is the vote of middle class educated white Americans.

Just out of interest, was Trump a total unknown first time around to these educated white middle class but apparently naive voters... your post begs the question as to why Billary isn't in the White House right now.

[p1stonhead]

turbobloke said:

captain_cynic said:

What Trump has lost, that the Reps will miss is the vote of middle class educated white Americans.

Just out of interest, was Trump a total unknown first time around to these educated white middle class but apparently naive voters... your post begs the question as to why Billary isn't in the White House right now.

Two words why. Electoral College.

3m more votes than Trump remember.

[Escapegoat]

captain_cynic said:

Trumps main audience is white, religious rednecks. Pictures like that are the spanking material.

What Trump has lost, that the Reps will miss is the vote of middle class educated white Americans.

I hope so. Even at the height of the "deplorables" thing, I don't think any Republicans expected their government to be associated with such photos and stories. Yesterday, Ann Coulter (spit) had to say the children were actors as the only way to deal with it.

But this isn't so much Trump - this is just more Murica Gone Wild. Like the photo of the napalm-bombed girl in Vietnam, and those images from Abu Ghraib.

[captain_cynic]

turbobloke said:

Just out of interest, was Trump a total unknown first time around to these educated white middle class but apparently naive voters... your post begs the question as to why Billary isn't in the White House right now.

There were a lot of factors in play. The WH tends to change party after a 2 term Prez to begin with but there was a well orchestrated smear campaign against Clinton. Hillary also made some key mistakes in ignoring Florida.

I've spoken to many Trump voters in my travels, they fit broadly into two types.
1. The hard core white supremacist type.
2. The Trump was the least worst choice type.

Number 2 are the most common and represent the white, educated middle class, most of Trumps votes came from the idea that they just couldn't vote for Hillary. They knew full well what he was, they just thought Hillary was worse (and I don't envy them this choice, even though I would have voted Clinton). Hillary's gone now, so Trump cant use the same rhetoric or smear tactics he used against Hillary against someone like Delaney or Braun.

There's a saying about elections, "oppositions do not win elections, governments lose them". Trump was a prime example of this.

Edited by captain_cynic on Tuesday 19th June 16:56

[Tallow]

p1stonhead said:

Two words why. Electoral College.

3m more votes than Trump remember.

IMO the Electoral College argument is a bit of a red herring. Both candidates had the same set of rules to campaign to, and the same set of rules that have always existed for the election.

People just didn't like Hillary or want to vote for her in a large part. I've heard plenty of people say they considered Trump to be the lesser of two evils (believe it or not!)

If the Democrats had fielded a different candidate, there's a good chance they'd have won. I think, rightly or wrongly, that the Clinton brand is pretty toxic for many voters.

[Davos123]

p1stonhead said:

Two words why. Electoral College.

3m more votes than Trump remember.

The popular vote number is totally irrelevant. If the election results were decided on the popular vote it is not reasonable to assume the results would have been the same. Trump would have campaigned heavily in California if it were, but it's not so he didn't.

[p1stonhead]

Tallow said:

p1stonhead said:

Two words why. Electoral College.

3m more votes than Trump remember.

IMO the Electoral College argument is a bit of a red herring. Both candidates had the same set of rules to campaign to, and the same set of rules that have always existed for the election.

People just didn't like Hillary or want to vote for her in a large part. I've heard plenty of people say they considered Trump to be the lesser of two evils (believe it or not!)

If the Democrats had fielded a different candidate, there's a good chance they'd have won. I think, rightly or wrongly, that the Clinton brand is pretty toxic for many voters.

I mean, yes she was a terrible candidate, but its not a red herring. She was more popular. The rules were of course known by all, but it is one of the reasons she isnt in the white house.

Davos123 said:

The popular vote number is totally irrelevant. If the election results were decided on the popular vote it is not reasonable to assume the results would have been the same. Trump would have campaigned heavily in California if it were, but it's not so he didn't.

Yes they would have campaigned differently, but Hillary got over 60% of the vote in California. He couldn't have made a difference there.

Edited by p1stonhead on Tuesday 19th June 17:00

[minimoog]

turbobloke said:

Billary

fking hell. You're still using this wkers phrase?

[Tony427]

frankenstein12 said:

Greg66 said:

Explain this please. Why does Trump need the democrats’ help when the GOP controls both houses?

And why should American politicians vote to pay for a wall that Trump told them Mexico would pay for?

As to paying for the wall. It's not the politicians paying for it. That aside it is a bit of an ask given Trump said Mexico will pay for it however it was one of the promises he made when running that he would build the wall and he is keeping it or trying to.

Who pays for it is simply a sticking point as it's possible he will get Mexico to pay for it indirectly via taxes.

So how will Trump get Mexicans to pay taxes for a wall they dont want and refuse to pay for?

[Davos123]

p1stonhead said:

She was more popular.

The popular vote results do not definitively prove that at all. The voting system fundamentally dictates how people campaign and how they vote, you cannot draw anything meaningful from the popular vote in an electoral college system. More votes does not equal more popular in this context - you can't quantify popularity amongst those that didn't vote and many of those people (for example, Republicans in California) may well have not bothered voting because their vote wouldn't make a difference. If the election result was decided by who was most popular the results would have been different - Trump might have won, Clinton might have - neither of us know and the popular vote results don't help us to understand what would have happened.