The Trump Presidency

First topic message reminder :

Galted wrote:

Pal Joey wrote:Just between us few on here... I have a feeling the Queen likes Trump.

Don't ask me to explain why but their body language seemed to be in a sort of comfortable harmony when they stood beside each other in June or whenever it was. And I think he quite likes all of that pomp and ceremony... as someone who likes being the centre of attention would.

He's a cross between a court jester and a village idiot so she would love him. Probably lets him run round the grounds with the corgis.

Yes... and also the fact that he has just a touch of olde worlde charm (probably brutally drummed into him from the NY Military Academy) despite his apparently frightening unpredictability in this day and age.

Speaking briefly to the press before he flew from his golf club (naturally) back to Washington, the president declared that 'hate has no place in our country.'

The man is fuelled by hatred. Hatred and greed.

He recently tweeted about the prospect of “marrying” gun reform legislation with inmigration legislation. Essentially he’s saying ‘give me what I want or I’ll let more people die’. Isnt that terrorism? Like, by definition?

Samo wrote:He recently tweeted about the prospect of “marrying” gun reform legislation with inmigration legislation. Essentially he’s saying ‘give me what I want or I’ll let more people die’. Isnt that terrorism? Like, by definition?

Well there have already been many killings by undocumented immigrants.... indeed I think I recall one particularly nasty character committed murder after sneaking back into the USA having already been deported before.

So Trump's political opponents?  'Give us gun reform and we might give you the immigration reforms you want to stop foreign MS13 gangland style killers into our country'? Terrorism?

Two sides of the one coin?  But of course can't do.  There can be no two sides when the name Trump is involved.

SecretFly wrote:

Samo wrote:He recently tweeted about the prospect of “marrying” gun reform legislation with inmigration legislation. Essentially he’s saying ‘give me what I want or I’ll let more people die’. Isnt that terrorism? Like, by definition?

Well there have already been many killings by undocumented immigrants.... indeed I think I recall one particularly nasty character committed murder after sneaking back into the USA having already been deported before.

So Trump's political opponents?  'Give us gun reform and we might give you the immigration reforms you want to stop foreign MS13 gangland style killers into our country'?  Terrorism?

Two sides of the one coin?  But of course can't do.  There can be no two sides when the name Trump is involved.

If the number of Americans killed by illegal immigrants was matched or higher than the number of Americans killed by other Americans w/ a gun you would could almost have a point on your hands.

I saw someone on Twitter point out that had the 2 shootings been carried out by muslims under the ISIS badge the response would have been massive. Instead we just get the usual gun nuts saying that talking about gun control at this time is insensitive.

Oh yeah - that and 'thoughts and prayers' which has been proven at being highly effective at stopping more gun violence.

And I do know that gun control is an incredibly difficult task in the USA even without the gun lobby, but it doesn't mean it should be ignored.

Samo wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Samo wrote:He recently tweeted about the prospect of “marrying” gun reform legislation with inmigration legislation. Essentially he’s saying ‘give me what I want or I’ll let more people die’. Isnt that terrorism? Like, by definition?

Well there have already been many killings by undocumented immigrants.... indeed I think I recall one particularly nasty character committed murder after sneaking back into the USA having already been deported before.

So Trump's political opponents?  'Give us gun reform and we might give you the immigration reforms you want to stop foreign MS13 gangland style killers into our country'?  Terrorism?

Two sides of the one coin?  But of course can't do.  There can be no two sides when the name Trump is involved.

If the number of Americans killed by illegal immigrants was matched or higher than the number of Americans killed by other Americans w/ a gun you would could almost have a point on your hands.

Well if you include State Sanctioned self hits like 911, of which it isn't by any means alone, then you have a brilliant point.

But back to the 'crazed' killer mass shootings/killings.  They haven't all happened under Trump's watch, have they?  What excuses did the other Presidents have then?  If Trump is responsible for the ones under his time because of his rhetoric.... well, who was responsible for the others?

lostinwales wrote:I saw someone on Twitter point out that had the 2 shootings been carried out by muslims under the ISIS badge the response would have been massive. Instead we just get the usual gun nuts saying that talking about gun control at this time is insensitive.

Oh yeah - that and 'thoughts and prayers' which has been proven at being highly effective at stopping more gun violence.

And I do know that gun control is an incredibly difficult task in the USA even without the gun lobby, but it doesn't mean it should be ignored.

Clearly, not praying hard enough; or, perhaps, sinners in a former life. I'm not really advocating it, but you almost want the families of the Senators etc to be intimately involved with the business end of some assault rifles....

navyblueshorts wrote: I'm not really advocating it, but you almost want the families of the Senators etc to be intimately involved with the business end of some assault rifles....

You see if you typed that on Twitter or Facebook etc, as a known Trump supporter...... you'd get at the very least a hate speech ban because language like that can incite crazy anti establishment people to do bad things to politicians.
But 'normal' folks - who've proven themselves decent, hard working Anti-Trumpeteers, they can do that juice all day long and not a tweet directed at him/her in anger.

The paradox of tolerance, I guess.

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:  I'm not really advocating it, but you almost want the families of the Senators etc to be intimately involved with the business end of some assault rifles....

You see if you typed that on Twitter or Facebook etc, as a known Trump supporter...... you'd get at the very least a hate speech ban because language like that can incite crazy anti establishment people to do bad things to politicians.    
But 'normal' folks - who've proven themselves decent, hard working Anti-Trumpeteers, they can do that juice all day long and not a tweet directed at him/her in anger.

The paradox of tolerance, I guess.

I don't really care, SF. I'm not on Tw@tter or Faceache. I'm not sure I see the link with Trump; I certainly never made one. I'd make a similar remark, no matter who the demonstrable muppets were. The point I was rather obviously trying to make is that they're nice and safe and are unlikely to look at anything surrounding gun ownership until, and unless, they or their own are directly affected.

I had to laugh at the fact that some company are saying they were going to remove 8chan from the InterWeb as a result of this. Let me get this straight - happy to impinge on the First Amendment, but the Second Amendment is, apparently, sacrosanct? Couldn't make it up. Thank God/Allah/Anubis/Buddha/Ahura Mazda/Asmodeus/the Flying Spaghetti Monster/the Orbiting Teapot^* that we don't have quite the same firearms issue in the UK.

FWIW, I get what you're saying about hypocrisy surrounding this sort of thing; I agree with you. Leftys advocating violence against Rightys is just as bad - can't say anything in jest these days; have to be consistent.

^*Other imaginary Deities are also available.

A company is free to cease trading with whoever they choose. They’re not infringing on anyone’s rights by doing so.

Pr4wn wrote:A company is free to cease trading with whoever they choose. They’re  not infringing on anyone’s rights by doing so.

Fair point; I guess. And if all 'companies' take the same approach?

People can set up their own company.

JuliusHMarx wrote:People can set up their own company.

Sure they can, but I'm willing to bet that if all of the social media companies, MSM etc all took it upon themselves to curb what many might describe as 'free speech' there'd be more than just "Well, they can form their own company" said about it. Never mind. It was an aside re. the recent U.S. slaughters, the utter stupidity of which was what I was commenting on.

They're not curbing anything. They own their platforms. They're allowed to do whatever they want with them.

If a government mandated that these changes happen, that would be a different situation.

But if these companies even decide en masse to withdraw their service from 8chan, for example, they're entitled to do so.

8chan can just go on the dark web, or set up their own hosting platforms, or find another solution.

Yeah, as if a load of them curbing people saying whatever they like would be simply waived through with no 'outrage'; private companies or not. I get it though - as this is about curbing what many, rightly, say is hate-filled, xenophobic and murderous nonsense, it's OK. As I said, never mind.

The incident in Texas is shocking and will probably be swept under the carpet, that image itself should be Trumps legacy.

Hot August.

Isn't that what Pelosi promised?  When politicians are on their holidays?

Soothsayer indeed!

Wonder what Nancy's legacy will be when all this era's madness is over and the 'history' books are being written?

This poker game isn't over yet - unfortunately it seems to be a very serious game indeed, underneath the facade of politics, claims and counter-claims.

Indeed, some think it already a version of genuine civil war in all but name, with strange missile launches in Alaska and military helicopter missions in downtown LA.

Mad times, unsettling times....to be honest, exciting times too because it seems big games are being played in the hidden spaces underneath the veneer of public divulgence.  A serious game, and yes, people are dying.  Real blood being spilled and not just in the publicised mass shooting events.

But perhaps a point to think about in such a tense era and under such a divisive environment  Without a doubt, Trump is one of the most hated - and yes, that's the accurate word; Hate, from before his Presidency itself right up to today - one of the most hated Presidents in US history.  
So, at a guess, just how many real, verifiable assassination attempts do people here feel might have been made on him so far?  They won't be divulged openly in public so you'll not be reading about them readily, just as we don't read about every terror plot that is foiled.
But given the levels of Hate and given that the law of averages on such a President means attempts have been considered, planned and maybe even attempted at this point, and given too the levels of surveillance that military intelligence and others have at their disposal these days (for example a simple mobile phone, that can read, hear and see immediate environments, realtime), it might be very interesting what turns up over the next few years.
People who still want to believe this is all just still a regular Republican v Democrat race and immigration show (as regular as clockwork actually over the decades) as told by their mainstream media, are missing so much...well it has to be said - fun.  Missing so much fun.  Yes, it's serious, yes there is violence but seems like a truly defining period in our collective history is happening as we speak.

I would imagine every President for decades has had assassination attempts on multiple occasions - quite how far those attempts got is anyone's guess.

When is any period not 'truly defining'?

Average of polls since last debate (Five thirty Eight)

Biden........28 -2
Sanders....17 +2
Warren......15 +2
Harris........11 -3

Harris momentum has hit a wall...

Even more noticeable is Warren has just gone favourite...

The comb over vs Pocahontas....Would be an interesting showdown.

Biden still the one to catch...But as New Hampshire is the first big showdown and in Warren territory....Interesting times ahead.

I really like Warren. Highly intelligent and she's been a champion of the less well off her whole political career.

I've seen a clip of a speech Joe Biden gave yesterday that was apparently well-received  - Trump trashed it of course, but then who needs the head of state to be solemn when he's visiting the survivors of two mass shootings?

It happens every time. Trump makes a worthy speech (written by someone else) calling for unity, and within hours he's back with the usual asinine jibes at opponents. Couldn't he just once try and lead by example?

This might not be widely known, but the press were not permitted to accompany the president and the first lady into the hospitals in Dayton and El Paso, as the White House press secretary said the visits were not 'a photo op' - yet within hours, Trump had posted a video of the president smiling and shaking hands with hospital staff. Not a photo op, you say?

I hear the eight hospitalised survivors of the El Paso shooting refused to meet the president.

National polls are all well and good but obviously swing states are where the ball game takes place..

Latest matchup in North Carolina polls...

Biden.....49 - 41 Trump
Sanders 47 - 43 Trump
Warren...44 - 43 Trump
Trump....44 - 43 Harris

They added a couple of names to the survey...

Obama...50 - 43 Trump
Oprah.....47 - 45 Trump

'Unofficial' footage filmed by someone at the hospital in El Paso shows the president bragging about how many more people attended his rally there than attended Beto O'Rourke's counter-rally.

Of course he made it all about him.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:National polls are all well and good but obviously swing states are where the ball game takes place..

Latest matchup in North Carolina polls...

Biden.....49 - 41 Trump
Sanders 47 - 43 Trump
Warren...44 - 43 Trump
Trump....44 - 43 Harris

They added a couple of names to the survey...

Obama...50 - 43 Trump
Oprah.....47 - 45 Trump

I've heard it argued that O'Rourke should be the running mate (to Biden, probably), given how closely-run it was between him and Cruz for the senate seat. Apparently most of the population of Texas is urban or suburban. Take Texas, and the Democrats are in business.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:'Unofficial' footage filmed by someone at the hospital in El Paso shows the president bragging about how many more people attended his rally there than attended Beto O'Rourke's counter-rally.

Of course he made it all about him.

Also some interesting rumors saying the people in the pictures at the hospital with fat Joffrey were not actual staff members, and that none of the survivors still being treated wanted to meet him.

Can't see the Democrats winning Texas...

Not been blue for decades..Carter 76.

All white male ticket isn't going to happen either.....Hillary wasted time in the Lone star state when the real battle is the rust belt..

Biden/Warren Would be my guess....Right/left....Male/female.

Democrats need to keep visiting..Pennsylvania. Michigan and Ohio..

Better if Biden wasn't so accident prone...Another howler today..

Yeah that was a real clanger.

Is Lord Kinnock still working for Biden?

Only Bill Clinton in the last 47 years has lost Iowa and gone on to win the Dem nomination...Iowa is first port of call..

Latest Iowa poll..

Biden 28
Warren 19
Harris 13
Sanders 9...

Sanders struggling with its demographics....Sanders does better in National polls which isn't a good thing..

Need early wins and momentum.

Second state in the race New Hampshire and first Primary...(Iowa is a Caucus)

GMP poll....

Sanders 21
Biden 15
Warren 12...

Buttigieg moves above Harris with 8% to 7%...

Must be said this poll contradicts others....

In other National matchup polling....

Biden........53 - Trump 40
Sanders....51 - Trump 41
Buttigieg...49 - Trump 42
Warren......49 - Trump 44
Harris........47 - Trump 44

Since Tulsi Gabbard's takedown....Harris has struggled...

Warren still slight favourite with the oddsmakers.

Buttigieg supporters heartened.

I still think that Warren and Sanders are hurting each others' campaigns. After a few votes, they should meet and consolidate with the front runner being the sole candidate.

Their policies are extremely similar and I think we may end up with Warren running and Sanders as running mate.

Two New Englanders won't be on the same ticket...

Iowa poll..

Warren 28
Sanders 17
Biden 17
Buttigieg 13
Harris 8

Warren surging...Biden falling....and no delegates for Harris on these numbers..

Nighty Night.

Trump's odds of winning in 2020 are drifting.....

Interesting in a Politico poll..........That 47% of Americans now think White Nationalism is a threat.......Compare it to 49% that think Islamic extremism is a threat and it is quite revealing....Interesting to note that a quarter more Republicans see White Nationalism as a threat than last time they were asked..

1/3 of Americans on the poll blame Trump's rhetoric for the rise in Mass shootings...

Any how Trump is down to 40% on his latest rating which is nearly as bad as 2017 when he was staring impeachment in the face..

A recession won't help his cause either....

The good thing for the Dems in 2020 is they know what they have to beat......As Trump has the most static ratings in Presidential history...

Highest 46.....Lowest 35..........(43 at the moment)..

Amazing in itself........

Obama.. 69/38
Bush......90/25......(90 the week after 9/11)
Clinton...73/37
Bush sr...89/29......(Iraq war)
Reagan...73/35
Carter.....74/28
Ford.......70/36
Nixon.....66/24
Johnson..79/24.....(Vietnam)
Kennedy..83/56

Like I said before... Truman at 45 going into an Election is the lowest rating of any President since records began to retain office....

America has made up its mind about Trump.....Only hope is like 2016 he fights someone just as loathed..

There is a theory that enough Americans won't vote for Trump because they're just so tired of the daily drama surrounding him. Trump Fatigue, they're calling it.

So now the man-baby won't visit Denmark because they don't want to sell Greenland? Had to check if I'd banged my head. Whatever next I wonder? The gift that keeps on giving.

He's also said that any American Jews that vote for the Democrats show 'either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty'. Which is a disgrace.

navyblueshorts wrote: So now the man-baby won't visit Denmark because they don't want to sell Greenland? Had to check if I'd banged my head. Whatever next I wonder? The gift that keeps on giving.

He also promised he wouldn't put a Trump tower right in the middle of a picture postcard Greenland village ... with meme and all.  

He's trolling the hell out of Denmark/Greenland..... he's having a ball with this one.  Explanation will come down the line.  I'm sure it will be sweet.  There are already discussions about the possible connections/reasons
(He's nuts, Fly!!! That's the only reason). Yeah, he and Scaramucci are having a ball on that score too.  

Most Fun President Evah!!  

You'll all miss him when he's gone.  You won't admit it... but you will.  Back to boring autocue 'love the world' platitudes from wooden men/or woman held aloft with puppetry coat-hangers. Oh God no....we can't go back to that crap!

SecretFly wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote: So now the man-baby won't visit Denmark because they don't want to sell Greenland? Had to check if I'd banged my head. Whatever next I wonder? The gift that keeps on giving.

He also promised he wouldn't put a Trump tower right in the middle of a picture postcard Greenland village ... with meme and all.  

He's trolling the hell out of Denmark/Greenland..... he's having a ball with this one.  Explanation will come down the line.  I'm sure it will be sweet.  There are already discussions about the possible connections/reasons
(He's nuts, Fly!!! That's the only reason). Yeah, he and Scaramucci are having a ball on that score too.  

Most Fun President Evah!!  

You'll all miss him when he's gone.  You won't admit it... but you will.  Back to boring autocue 'love the world' platitudes from wooden men/or woman held aloft with puppetry coat-hangers.  Oh God no....we can't go back to that crap!

Err, no; we won't.

Trump is a lucky Man and as Napoeon once said you should be more wary of lucky people than good ones..

Got given the worst opponent since 1864 to run against..Inherited a recovering Economy...Survived Mueller and his racist and inciteful diatribes should have disqualified him already...

My heart tells me 2020 should be the Dems to lose...But my head tells me he may get lucky again..

It may be the economy that swings it. It the economy's doing well, enough Americans might vote for the status quo despite all the ridiculousness (for want of a better word) that Trump brings to the White House. If the country's in recession, then they might wonder what benefits he's actually brought them as president. In other words, has it been worth it?

If the country's in recession, he'll just say 'No it isn't - fake news - the economy is doing great' and tons of people will believe him and vote for him.

JuliusHMarx wrote:If the country's in recession, he'll just say 'No it isn't - fake news - the economy is doing great' and tons of people will believe him and vote for him.

He'll blame the Fed. He's already planting those seeds.

Biden has a clear lead in the hunt for the Democratic Nomination...BUT he only has his lead because he is well ahead with Black and Hispanic voters...

Polls show they are the most undecided of the primary voters...

Warren leads with white voters....Sanders leads with younger voters...Though Biden still performs okay in those brackets much depends on whether he can retain his lead with minority groups..

Enjoy the Bank Holiday..

Dem breakdown by age group...

(18-49)

Sanders 27%
Warren..19%
Harris....12%
Biden......6%
Yang.......6%
Buttigieg 4%

(50+)

Biden......33%
Warren....19%
Sanders...11%
Buttigieg...5%
Harris.......4%

Warren doing well in both brackets is encouraging for her....Over 50s more likely to vote..

New Monmouth National poll out......

Warren 20%
Sanders 20%
Biden 19%
Harris 8%

Obvoiusly National polls aren't as important as State by State indicators..

As much as I like Sanders I think Warren would be the dems best shot. Especially if she has Sanders as her running mate.

Warren does well with Sanders voters....So it would make more sense to find a right wing running mate to nail down Centrists..

Also Sanders is a fellow New Englander and isn't from a swing state..

Generally preferred option is the North and South represented on a ticket and preferably a swing state VP choice.

For example.. Tim Kaine who was from Virginia (South East) and represented a swing state was Clinton's running mate.

Harris will be the running mate... Florida is the South...She is on the right... Florida is in play and Black voters were a struggle for Clinton in 2016.

No brainer...Harris will be VP..

Isn't Harris a California rep?