The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wednesday at Stoke said:
Those three Indian bozos were too stupid to keep their mouths shut weren't they? Had to brag about meeting the president elect on twitter. I love it, he does have aa way to pick from the bottom dregs of human intellect.
Click to expand...
Gotta be seen with the president elect. When I first read that they were Indian I just knew that they must of given newspaper interviews.
 
Eriku said:
I really hope Trump isn't impeached, Pence is scarier :(
Click to expand...

I don't mind Pence at all. At least you have the certainty of knowing what you are getting policy wise and you are not having to deal with a Banana Republic cult of personality.
 
Ubik said:
Even if he's not impeached, then a continual focus on a story like this, where he's flouting the constitution and engaging in corruption (and hypocrisy accordingly) should help in cementing his unpopularity.
Click to expand...

That's always the ideal. Don't want him becoming a martyr, but you want the coverage to have a negative tinge always.

Less than a year after her arrest, our PM came back with a huge majority., talking about her sacrifice for the nation.
 
Raoul said:
That's bizarre logic. If he's exposed as corrupt, a vast majority of Congress will be under extreme pressure by the public and media to get rid of him. They are not going to double down on rampant corruption as if that is a winning strategy for them. They will get voted out of Congress in a heartbeat. Getting rid of Trump in favor of a true and likeable by their standards, Conservative like Pence, will be the far more politically expedient action.
Click to expand...

There's nothing bizarre about it. What he's proven so far is that he's Teflon, and with how gerrymandered Congress is, it's safer for them to toe the line and keep their frothing base happy than risk alienating Drumpfkins.

We speculated for months that they would maneuvre to get him out of the race, well they didn't, and that paid off. He owns that party now. Haven't you seen their 'endorse but don't agree with then retract then re-endorse' bonanza?
 
senorgregster said:
What is the definition of successfully impeached? For example, would they consider Bill Clinton to have been successfully impeached?
Click to expand...

I presume it means a majority is reached by the senate, so in Bill's case it wasn't successful.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
There's nothing bizarre about it. What he's proven so far is that he's Teflon, and with how gerrymandered Congress is, it's safer for them to toe the line and keep their frothing base happy than risk alienating Drumpfkins.

We speculated for months that they would maneuvre to get him out of the race, well they didn't, and that paid off. He owns that party now. Haven't you seen their 'endorse but don't agree with then retract then re-endorse' bonanza?
Click to expand...

He doesn't own the party now - it only seems as such because he just won the election and there is always a honeymoon period immediately after Presidential elections where the incoming President and his party members in Congress rally together to advance the party's agenda. If there's one thing we know about Trump is he has little patience for disloyalty and disobedience, which may work within his company but won't fly in the Congress. The only thing that is missing is an inciting incident where conflict of interest or overt corruption impugns him, at which point the rats will begin jumping off the ship. As it stands, he already faces a lot of pushback from within the GOP on foreign policy; specifically free trade and and Syria/Putin. Once that event happens, things will begin to get interesting.
 
We'll see. After Chaffetz's 'I couldn't look my daughters in the eyes while still endorsing him' retraction, then promptly re-endorsed a short while later, I'm unconvinced any of them has the cojones to be seen as going against him, let alone actually being against.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
We'll see. After Chaffetz's 'I couldn't look my daughters in the eyes while still endorsing him' retraction, then promptly re-endorsed a short while later, I'm unconvinced any of them has the cojones to be seen as going against him, let alone actually being against.
Click to expand...

During the election it was all about getting into power at all costs and avoiding a Supreme Court going to the Dems. Now that they are in power, there is a growing sentiment that Trump doesn't have as many loyalists as he needs to stave off a corruption scandal with Pence waiting in the wings.
 




The trouble with being a corrupt, narcissistic, arrogant, petulant, nasty, spiteful, devious, disingenuous, malicious, argumentative, untrustworthy, cheating, conniving, pathetic, sociopathic, compulsively lying conman is that it's guaranteed you will have pissed off a lot of people throughout your life and all those people you lied to, conned and ripped off, took to court, stepped on, treated like shit, bribed and destroyed, or tried to destroy, well all those people will want revenge and be watching every single move you make waiting for you to slip up. And in this idiots case you have over half the country on top of everyone else just watching and waiting. The more I think about it, the more I think the big moron has bitten off more than he can chew and is getting in well over his head. There's a long list of people against him and some of those are exceptionally rich and powerful (Mark Cuban for example) and when you factor in everyone he's fecked over and then half the country of Dem supporters and those Republicans who want to see him fail and on top of that pretty much the entire press aside from Faux News, well, that's a lot of people before he's even started, I certainly wouldn't fancy those odds. It begs the question again as to why he would want the hassle? As I said the other day, I really don't think he's thought about this much at all. It's more hassle than it's worth to someone like him, because he couldn't give a shit about anyone else, just his family and himself.
 
Raoul said:
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Click to expand...


Just googled him...

In his first book, On My Honor, published in 2008, Perry drew a parallel between homosexuality and alcoholism, writing that he is "no expert on the 'nature versus nurture' debate" but that gays should simply choose abstinence.

Do they just have such nutcases in the republican party? It is 2016... We blame the islamic states for their LBGT policies... Germany had an openly gay foreign secretary in Westerwelle from 2009 to 2011.

I grew up with a US that somehow was the example for our country and economy. We did not adapt with everything but in a lot ways the USA was that for us.
 
Ironic thing about Perry is that in the 2012 GOP debates, he was one of the few that acknowledged building a border wall was a stupid idea. Because he had actual knowledge of the issue for once.
 
It's basically a big boo-hoo for white working-class folk who are finally finding out what it's like to be an underprivileged group in society.

Should democrats coddle that self-pity party or continue with the big tent strategy?
 
Grinner said:
It's basically a big boo-hoo for white working-class folk who are finally finding out what it's like to be an underprivileged group in society.

Should democrats coddle that self-pity party or continue with the big tent strategy?
Click to expand...

I don't suppose Democrats will change. Identity politics is now part of their DNA: they can't see beyond it. They'll continue to use their control of academia and the media to force that narrative on the rest of the country, which is likely to become ever more alienated.

From the outside, at least, it looks as if US society is fracturing, perhaps even becoming unstable. Thanks largely to liberalism, Americans now seem to have more that divides than unites them. The 21st century is going to be very different to the 20th.
 
Will Absolute said:
I don't suppose Democrats will change. Identity politics is now part of their DNA: they can't see beyond it. They'll continue to use their control of academia and the media to force that narrative on the rest of the country, which is likely to become ever more alienated.

From the outside, at least, it looks as if US society is fracturing, perhaps even becoming unstable. Thanks largely to liberalism, Americans now seem to have more that divides than unites them. The 21st century is going to be very different to the 20th.
Click to expand...
Can you explain what you mean there?
 
Will Absolute said:
I don't suppose Democrats will change. Identity politics is now part of their DNA: they can't see beyond it. They'll continue to use their control of academia and the media to force that narrative on the rest of the country, which is likely to become ever more alienated.

From the outside, at least, it looks as if US society is fracturing, perhaps even becoming unstable. Thanks largely to liberalism, Americans now seem to have more that divides than unites them. The 21st century is going to be very different to the 20th.
Click to expand...

What do you mean 'is'? Social stratification has existed since the origin of this nation. It came close to getting better until opportunistic pols realised that pitting groups against each other got them elected.

But sure, go ahead and blame liberalism.
 
Member 5225 said:
It's as if people like yourselves are just not learning from what the people are saying (whether it's Brexit, Trump or other extreme movements both sides of the political spectrum)!
Click to expand...

Member 5225 said:
Did that happen everytime Obama or any other leader goes out?!
Give me a break - the patronising 'listen to me my point of view is soo important' is what turns people off (see Brexit, Trump and other extreme movements both sides of the political spectrum).
Click to expand...
Look you're like our very own Trump, unable to build a coherent argument which doesn't contradict itself. Is the lesson from these events that we need to listen or that expecting people to listen is stupid? Is they key point who the "the" is in this argument? Let me guess: Historically disenfranchised groups and their supporters should shut up while we all get out our violins out for the working class whites and their supporters, who often seem to be extremely wealthy white people whose intentions are certainly pure.
 
Conrad said:
Look you're like our very own Trump, unable to build a coherent argument which doesn't contradict itself. Is the lesson from these events that we need to listen or that expecting people to listen is stupid? Is they key point who the "the" is in this argument? Let me guess: Historically disenfranchised groups and their supporters should shut up while we all get out our violins out for the working class whites and their supporters, who often seem to be extremely wealthy white people whose intentions are certainly pure.
Click to expand...
*sigh* never mind
No energy to highlight the problem.

Let's all just eat our popcorn and watch Brexit, Modi, Trump, and other movements in France, Austria, Holland, etc and keep the blinkers on?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.