The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
GiddyUp said:
Yep, and I have been told that an Eastern European former nude model )who most likely began her life in the US working illegally and by all accounts a bit of a liar) is an elegant smart woman deserving of the title of First Lady, not an intelligent well educated African American super mom who wants to add years of on to you're life through exercise and healthy eating.
You just have to look at the female presenters on Fox News to see they have a type. They would rather spend a weekend with someone like Ann Coulter than princess Diana.
Click to expand...

That says it all right there, I mean you can't even only pin it on race because Hillary is probably the most qualified person who's eligible to be president of the US, yet even she gets reduced and mocked because her husband cheated on her.
But the irony is, had she divorced him and ran as a divorced woman, or possibly remarried and ran as a woman who's had multiple marriages she probably wouldn't have even gotten as far as she did. Compare that with Trump's 3 (?) marriages.
 
GiddyUp said:
I would like to see a center right conservative like John Huntsman leave that shite party and run on the ticket as an independent with Warren/Biden until Gavin Newsome has one governor term under his belt. Show some republicans that you can actually use intelligence for the betterment of the country and not put up with a trump/ Cruz figure just because they have an R beside their names.
Cuban I could live with but O' Malley is sooooo boring but ideal for an important cabinet position.
Click to expand...

Huntsman is now pro-Trump. He was on TV the other day running interference for Trump's bungled Taiwan call (presumably to get a job in the administration).

I don't think Newsome needs a full term as Gov, just as Obama didn't require a full term as a U.S. Senator before running. California is the 6th largest economy in the world and being Lt. Gov is a pretty big job, which when you add to his background as mayor of SF gives him a lot of exposure. I think he would stand a pretty good chance in the Dem primaries.
 
Will Absolute said:
No super rich oligarch has ever been elected president of the US. The closest to that description was probably Thomas Jefferson, a rich plantation owner and member of the Virginia ruling elite. Ironically, the richest US president before Trump may have been John F Kennedy, who never worked a day in his life, and inherited his wealth from his unscrupulous father.
Click to expand...

You should brush up on your history before making such a patently untrue claim. Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts, Johnson, Hoover were extremely wealthy men, let alone the founding trio of Washington, Madison and Jefferson who were richer men in their time than Vom Clownstick compare to his peers.

Kennedy would be fairly close to the latter group had he lived to inherit the wealth, alas. Agree re: his father.
 
Raoul said:
Huntsman is now pro-Trump. He was on TV the other day running interference for Trump's bungled Taiwan call (presumably to get a job in the administration).

I don't think Newsome needs a full term as Gov, just as Obama didn't require a full term as a U.S. Senator before running. California is the 6th largest economy in the world and being Lt. Gov is a pretty big job, which when you add to his background as mayor of SF gives him a lot of exposure. I think he would stand a pretty good chance in the Dem primaries.
Click to expand...

Even if Huntsman is running interference for Trump, if he stays clear of supporting crazy stuff Trump says, he can be a reasonable candidate in the future. I always though he was the best chance the Republicans had.
 
Raoul said:
I wouldn't exactly call serving in WW2 and earning a Purple Heart never having worked a day.
Click to expand...

He won the Congressional Medal of Honour, largely as a result of a campaign conducted by his father!

Serving in your countries armed forces in time of war is hardly 'work'. And I'm not sure how a political career should be categorized - public service, self-employment, hobby, scam.. After all you don't have to do anything! - and Kennedy wasn't noted for his diligence.
 
Will Absolute said:
No super rich oligarch has ever been elected president of the US. The closest to that description was probably Thomas Jefferson, a rich plantation owner and member of the Virginia ruling elite. Ironically, the richest US president before Trump may have been John F Kennedy, who never worked a day in his life, and inherited his wealth from his unscrupulous father.
Click to expand...


I see you conveniently missed his military service. You also don't seem to think that a 13 year career in the house and senate counts as work.

Trolling again.
 
Will Absolute said:
He won the Congressional Medal of Honour, largely as a result of a campaign conducted by his father!

Serving in your countries armed forces in time of war is hardly 'work'. And I'm not sure how a political career should be categorized - public service, self-employment, hobby, scam.. After all you don't have to do anything! - and Kennedy wasn't noted for his diligence.
Click to expand...

Did his Dad also drive him around in a PT109 in the middle of the Pacific and earn him a Purple Heart ?

https://www.jfklibrary.org/Exhibits/Past-Exhibits/JFK-in-WWII.aspx
 
Red Dreams said:
Even if Huntsman is running interference for Trump, if he stays clear of supporting crazy stuff Trump says, he can be a reasonable candidate in the future. I always though he was the best chance the Republicans had.
Click to expand...

He may be considered a "reasonable" candidate among reasonable observers like you and I, but that's simply not where the GOP base is at the moment. They are way off to the right and are now emboldened through Trump's win, that they were right all along that the likes of McCain and Romney were too establishment and centrist to win. Therefore, someone like Huntsman will wouldn't fare any better than Jim Gilmour or George Pataki did this time.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
You should brush up on your history before making such a patently untrue claim. Andrew Jackson, both Roosevelts, Johnson, Hoover were extremely wealthy men, let alone the founding trio of Washington, Madison and Jefferson who were richer men in their time than Vom Clownstick compare to his peers.

Kennedy would be fairly close to the latter group had he lived to inherit the wealth, alas. Agree re: his father.
Click to expand...

There were a lot of wealthy American presidents - but no oligarchs. JFK's wealth has been estimated at 1B$, which makes him easily the richest US president.

Believe it or not a book has been written on this subject, and I'm basing my account on the author's conclusions. Frankly, I'm not sure how he estimated Kennedy's wealth, but all the brothers were lavishly endowed by their father while he was still alive.
 
Will Absolute said:
There were a lot of wealthy American presidents - but no oligarchs. JFK's wealth has been estimated at 1B$, which makes him easily the richest US president.

Believe it or not a book has been written on this subject, and I'm basing my account on the author's conclusions. Frankly, I'm not sure how he estimated Kennedy's wealth, but all the brothers were lavishly endowed by their father while he was still alive.
Click to expand...


More nonsense seeing as Joe died in 1969. JFK never inherited the money.
 
Pexbo said:
There's going to be grumbles from Republican Senators that he's not working hard enough, choosing business interests or TV gigs over official duty throughout his tenure. They will grow louder and louder. I won't be surprised if it's what unravels him.
Click to expand...

Didn't George W set the record for number of vacation days? How was he received by his party?
 
vi1lain said:
I knew she was never going to run, besides even if she did can you imagine just how brutal they would be towards her?
She can't even wear a sleeveless dress without being heavily scrutinised for it!
Click to expand...

I don't think America's ready for a female president. As Obama said she was held to a completely different standard to other candidates. She had her faults but they're faults many others haven't been attacked for. No one attacks how male candidates look or dress like, her dress/looks was constantly highlighted.
 
WackyWengerWorld said:
I don't think America's ready for a female president. As Obama said she was held to a completely different standard to other candidates. She had her faults but they're faults many others haven't been attacked for. No one attacks how male candidates look or dress like, her dress/looks was constantly highlighted.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I think Dems are going to have to play along if they want to take office again and get a youngish (late 40's/50s') white male to run.
 
vi1lain said:
Unfortunately I think Dems are going to have to play along if they want to take office again and get a youngish (late 40's/50s') white male to run.
Click to expand...

Actually a black male candidate who also appeals to white lower and middle income families and liberals would get their base out. IE black people would be bothered to vote en mass, which would bump them over the edge in swing states.

The SNL Chappelle/Rock skit when they ask 'why aren't black people out voting for Hillary' where Chris sarcastically replies 'yes why wouldn't they vote for an old white woman', as if it is so negative that someone is A) Old B) White and C) a Woman. Especially when they're nigh on as politically identical as possible. Maybe Hillary should have ran with Michelle as her VP to get the black vote out.

On another note how important is appearance to winning? If someone looks A) Attractive and B) Strong are they more likely to win? That's partly why Corbyn won't ever win, he looks too weak, his body language is weak. As irrelevant as it is to the job it doesn't shout 'leader'.
 
Grinner said:
More nonsense seeing as Joe died in 1969. JFK never inherited the money.
Click to expand...

Hence 'while he was still alive'. His father established a trust.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/12/top-10-richest-us-presidents.html?slide=1

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/generalmoney/10-richest-us-presidents/ar-BBxgafU

This subject is hardly worth fighting about. I simply make the point that even though US presidents were usually well-off and often wealthy, they weren't movers and shakers in the world of business and finance.
 
WackyWengerWorld said:
Actually a black male candidate who also appeals to white lower and middle income families and liberals would get their base out. IE black people would be bothered to vote en mass, which would bump them over the edge in swing states.

The SNL Chappelle/Rock skit when they ask 'why aren't black people out voting for Hillary' where Chris sarcastically replies 'yes why wouldn't they vote for an old white woman', as if it is so negative that someone is A) Old B) White and C) a Woman. Especially when they're nigh on as politically identical as possible. Maybe Hillary should have ran with Michelle as her VP to get the black vote out.
Click to expand...

Not gonna happen that easy for 2 reasons

1 - Whites are unlikely to vote for another black president so soon after Obama and especially after Trump considering the racial vitriol he's come out with. Regardless of Trump's performance the "deplorables" will either feel justified in voting for Trump (if he does well) and therefore reject any "politically correct" candidate. Or, if Trump performs badly, they'll feel resentful and still reject the "corrupt" media et all, and still reject any politically correct candidate. The best way to get around this is to get someone who fits their idea of a success (powerful white male, preferably rich with a good looking wife and kids). 61 million voters who voted for Trump is nothing to be sniffed at or ignored, and the Dems need someone who can take quite a handful of those votes back.

2 - Obama didn't accommodate black people in quite the way he said he would while he was campaigning, and in the aftermath of a Trump presidency I doubt black people believe another black person can win, or they won't believe them even if they run anyway. Most black people I've spoken to voted for Hillary because the prospect of Trump was too scary, but actually preferred Bernie.
If the Dems can get a younger version of Bernie, who can still appeal to the blue collar bible belt, they'll be onto a winner.
 
vi1lain said:
Not gonna happen that easy for 2 reasons

1 - Whites are unlikely to vote for another black president so soon after Obama and especially after Trump considering the racial vitriol he's come out with. Regardless of Trump's performance the "deplorables" will either feel justified in voting for Trump (if he does well) and therefore reject any "politically correct" candidate. Or, if Trump performs badly, they'll feel resentful and still reject the "corrupt" media et all, and still reject any politically correct candidate. The best way to get around this is to get someone who fits their idea of a success (powerful white male, preferably rich with a good looking wife and kids). 61 million voters who voted for Trump is nothing to be sniffed at or ignored, and the Dems need someone who can take quite a handful of those votes back.

2 - Obama didn't accommodate black people in quite the way he said he would while he was campaigning, and in the aftermath of a Trump presidency I doubt black people believe another black person can win, or they won't believe them even if they run anyway. Most black people I've spoken to voted for Hillary because the prospect of Trump was too scary, but actually preferred Bernie.
If the Dems can get a younger version of Bernie, who can still appeal to the blue collar bible belt, they'll be onto a winner.
Click to expand...

That would be racism
 
Will Absolute said:
I didn't make the phrase up. That's how the medal was described in accounts I've read.
Click to expand...

I know you didn't make the phrase up, it's a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. It's the Medal of Honor and it's awarded by Congress, just not called the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Anyway, enough pedantry, as you were. :lol:
 
The Dems could easily win with a black woman, the identity isn't the important part. Clinton's flaws were her inability to inspire and well raked-over past. She still won by 3 million votes.

Get someone that can connect in the manner of Obama (doesn't have to be as well as he does it, they just need the skill), you can build the personal story around that later.
 
Raoul said:
His level of insecurity about everything from his hands, to who parodies him, to who rates his restaurants, to whether or not someone called him or whether it was him who initiated the call is quite staggering. I can see the public growing tired of this quickly.
Click to expand...

It's bizarre. I thought it was a bit of an act for a while, but now I'm convinced that it isn't. He actually is a man-child. I've never seen anything like it.
 
langster said:
I know you didn't make the phrase up, it's a common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. It's the Medal of Honor and it's awarded by Congress, just not called the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Anyway, enough pedantry, as you were. :lol:
Click to expand...
To be fully pedantic, I don't think JFK won the Medal of Honor anyway :lol:
 
Will Absolute said:
Hence 'while he was still alive'. His father established a trust.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/12/top-10-richest-us-presidents.html?slide=1

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/generalmoney/10-richest-us-presidents/ar-BBxgafU

This subject is hardly worth fighting about. I simply make the point that even though US presidents were usually well-off and often wealthy, they weren't movers and shakers in the world of business and finance.
Click to expand...


So he wasn't the wealthiest POTUS and he actually did a lot of work. What was your point again?
 
WackyWengerWorld said:
I don't think America's ready for a female president. As Obama said she was held to a completely different standard to other candidates. She had her faults but they're faults many others haven't been attacked for. No one attacks how male candidates look or dress like, her dress/looks was constantly highlighted.
Click to expand...
I think the 2 names people didn't want to see for a long time Bush and Clinton.
 
Ubik said:
The Dems could easily win with a black woman, the identity isn't the important part. Clinton's flaws were her inability to inspire and well raked-over past. She still won by 3 million votes.

Get someone that can connect in the manner of Obama (doesn't have to be as well as he does it, they just need the skill), you can build the personal story around that later.
Click to expand...

It fecks me off that the personality and image are now more important than the ability.
 
Will Absolute said:
No super rich oligarch has ever been elected president of the US. The closest to that description was probably Thomas Jefferson, a rich plantation owner and member of the Virginia ruling elite. Ironically, the richest US president before Trump may have been John F Kennedy, who never worked a day in his life, and inherited his wealth from his unscrupulous father.
Click to expand...
I always admired rich people who wants to serve their country and JFK had a very rich father who could find him a desk job but his son wanted to serve and he volunteered to go to the pacific, unlike Bush son and Clinton who voided the war but they had no problems to send our young men to war.
 
Grinner said:
So he wasn't the wealthiest POTUS and he actually did a lot of work. What was your point again?
Click to expand...

One of the links I quoted recognizes Kennedy as the wealthiest president, the other doesn't as he had yet to inherit the trust money when he died. As I said, it's not worth arguing about. How much 'work' he did depends on your view of the life of a rich, playboy politician.
 
vi1lain said:
How would it be racism?
Click to expand...
If you benefit a specific race I would call racism, actually a few years ago a white teacher from New Jersey sued and I believe she won when they fired her because they realized they didn't have enough black teachers in their district - black Hispanics doesn't count. Racism would be over when we apply for a job and they don't ask the persons race, never understood why they need to know the person's race.
 
barros said:
If you benefit a specific race I would call racism, actually a few years ago a white teacher from New Jersey sued and I believe she won when they fired her because they realized they didn't have enough black teachers in their district - black Hispanics doesn't count. Racism would be over when we apply for a job and they don't ask the persons race, never understood why they need to know the person's race.
Click to expand...

Well it's not like he would only be looking out for black people and ignoring everybody else - that doesn't even sound plausible or make sense, but he didn't tackle things such as education funding in poor income cities, or unemployment in poor income cities, over-policing etc these aren't exclusive to black people only, they apply to Hispanics, and Whites too, but during his campaign he did say he wanted to work on improving those disparities.

You could argue that he wasn't able to do so, because of the way it would be spun.
 
vi1lain said:
If the Dems can get a younger version of Bernie, who can still appeal to the blue collar bible belt, they'll be onto a winner.
Click to expand...
Although as we saw in the primaries that's something the democratic party will actively try and stop happening.
 
Sweet Square said:
Although as we saw in the primaries that's something the democratic party will actively try and stop happening.
Click to expand...

I think that was more to do with the fact that Clinton was on the ticket and this was "her turn", she was supposed to be the democratic nominee after Bush, not Obama.
Now that the legacy of Bush's & Clinton's is over (hopefully) I think the Dems will be open to nominate a fresh young face to lead the party. I hope so anyway, Sanders and Biden will both be pushing 80 in 4 years time, that's way too old.
 
barros said:
I always admired rich people who wants to serve their country and JFK had a very rich father who could find him a desk job but his son wanted to serve and he volunteered to go to the pacific, unlike Bush son and Clinton who voided the war but they had no problems to send our young men to war.
Click to expand...

In fairness to Bush and Clinton, it was a different era and a much less equivocal war. That's not to say their actions were morally justifiable.

As for JFK's war service, I may be overly cynical here but you have to remember that the Kennedy's were super competitive, both within the family and outside it, and saw the war as another arena in which to compete and excel.
 
Will Absolute said:
In fairness to Bush and Clinton, it was a different era and a much less equivocal war. That's not to say their actions were morally justifiable.

As for JFK's war service, I may be overly cynical here but you have to remember that the Kennedy's were super competitive, both within the family and outside it, and saw the war as another arena in which to compete and excel.
Click to expand...
But he had the balls to do it and believe me I'm not a JFK fan he was the one who started the colonial wars (Portuguese)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.