The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pogue Mahone said:
And refusing to vote for the only candidate capable of keeping him out of the whitehouse is as good as giving him a vote. Or as close as makes no difference.
Click to expand...

Can you try to consider the possibility that people don't want to vote for a person they detest and don't want to see lead their country?
 
Eboue said:
Can you try to consider the possibility that people don't want to vote for a person they detest and don't want to see lead their country?
Click to expand...

Not when the alternative is Donald fecking Trump, no, I can't consider that for one moment. I regard it as disgraceful that any right-minded person deliberately turned down an opportunity to make it harder for him to get elected. They've got four long years to regret that decison ahead of them.
 
I've finally made myself look at the full exit poll. One interesting finding:

In your view, were supreme court appointments:
The most important factor (21%) - Clinton 41-56 Trump (Other 3)
An important factor (48%) - 48-47 (5)
A minor factor (14%) - 50-41 (9)
Not a factor at all (14%) - 55-39 (6)

A sign that conservative messaging on that paid off.

Red Dreams said:
someone mentioned on tv that about 15% of people who approved of job Obama was doing voted for Trump.
Click to expand...
10%
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Not when the alternative is Donald fecking Trump, no, I can't consider that for one moment. I regard it as disgraceful that any right-minded person deliberately turned down an opportunity to make it harder for him to get elected. They've got four long years to regret that decison ahead of them.
Click to expand...

all the DNC had to do was put forward a decent candidate.

No one is entitled to the Presidency. You have to earn it.

She did not do this.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Not when the alternative is Donald fecking Trump, no, I can't consider that for one moment. I regard it as disgraceful that any right-minded person deliberately turned down an opportunity to make it harder for him to get elected. They've got four long years to regret that decison ahead of them.
Click to expand...

I guess you can just post whiny comments on the internet for four years then.
 
Eboue said:
Can you try to consider the possibility that people don't want to vote for a person they detest and don't want to see lead their country?
Click to expand...
You were also voting for (at least one) new Supreme Court justice. Shame.
 
I for one enjoy the shock horror that the media has suffered from this. In Norway you have big newspapers and tv channels running headlines and segments featuring psychologists that outline how you should explain and soften the shock of Trump being elected for your children.

Perhaps if you feckwits didn't ignore all the shit about Hillary and gave her a free pass, while simultanously painting a picture of Trump being Satan and Hitlers illegitimate love-child that will cast us all into nuclear doom, then this wouldn't be necessary.
 
Should the next President:

Continue Obama's policies (28%) - Clinton 91-5 Trump (Other 4)
Be more conservative (48) - 13-83 (4)
Be more liberal (17) - 70-23 (7)


Who are these morons.
 
SwansonsTache said:
I for one enjoy the shock horror that the media has suffered from this. In Norway you have big newspapers and tv channels running headlines and segments featuring psychologists that outline how you should explain and soften the shock of Trump being elected for your children.

Perhaps if you feckwits didn't ignore all the shit about Hillary and gave her a free pass, while simultanously painting a picture of Trump being Satan and Hitlers illegitimate love-child that will cast us all into nuclear doom, then this wouldn't be necessary.
Click to expand...
I don't know about Satan and Hitler, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that the odds of nuclear weapons being used goes up significantly under a Trump presidency. As a society we've inevitably become complacent about the danger of nuclear weapons and the relative ease with which the world can be destroyed. It's not an unfounded fear.
 
Carolina Red said:
Actually a lot of stuff in that article...

1) he says the GOP wants Pence, so that'll help lead to impeachment
2) he says the loss wasn't Hillary's fault
3) he doesn't like Nate Silver - "For all his acclaim, Nate Silver is only a clerk, not a scientific analyst"
Click to expand...

I find the bit about impeachment entirely plausible. Trump has an enourmous capacity for conflicts of interest, and in many instances, he probably doesn't even know it. He hasn't released his taxes, is currently dealing with a lot of lawsuits, has been accused of loads of groping and who knows what else. If another Access Hollywood type tape comes out after he's sworn in, the GOP good will and mandate will quickly go tits up.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
I don't know about Satan and Hitler, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to conclude that the odds of nuclear weapons being used goes up significantly under a Trump presidency. As a society we've inevitably become complacent about the danger of nuclear weapons and the relative ease with which the world can be destroyed. It's not an unfounded fear.
Click to expand...

Will it really though? Between who? Wouldn't Hillarys hard-on for a no-fly zone over Syria, which in effect would have been an order to shoot down Russian airplanes over Syria be a bigger risk?

Also didn't she flirt with the thought of a rocket shield around China?
 
Raoul said:
I find the bit about impeachment entirely plausible. Trump has an enourmous capacity for conflicts of interest, and in many instances, he probably doesn't even know it. He hasn't released his taxes, is currently dealing with a lot of lawsuits, has been accused of loads of groping and who knows what else. If another Access Hollywood type tape comes out after he's sworn in, the GOP good will and mandate will quickly go tits up.
Click to expand...
"It's rigged!!"
 
Carolina Red said:
Actually a lot of stuff in that article...

1) he says the GOP wants Pence, so that'll help lead to impeachment
2) he says the loss wasn't Hillary's fault
3) he doesn't like Nate Silver - "For all his acclaim, Nate Silver is only a clerk, not a scientific analyst"
Click to expand...

Also, Putin is already making requests of Trump a mere 68 days before he's even sworn in.

Imagine if Trump decides to not oblige Putin's requests and Vlad gets ahold of Trump's taxes. There is a potential avalanche of blackmailable material out there.

 
SwansonsTache said:
Will it really though? Between who? Wouldn't Hillarys hard-on for a no-fly zone over Syria, which in effect would have been an order to shoot down Russian airplanes over Syria be a bigger risk?

Also didn't she flirt with the thought of a rocket shield around China?
Click to expand...

You seriously think she would be a greater threat to world peace than Trump?
 
SwansonsTache said:
Will it really though? Between who? Wouldn't Hillarys hard-on for a no-fly zone over Syria, which in effect would have been an order to shoot down Russian airplanes over Syria be a bigger risk?

Also didn't she flirt with the thought of a rocket shield around China?
Click to expand...
As I see it, the biggest risk of nuclear war under Trump is either an overreaction to an attack against the United States (1), or enemy states taking advantage of an American withdrawal from protection of its allies (2).

For example: (1) There is a major terrorist attack on US soil, killing thousands of people. The public anger, fanned by the anti-Islamic rhetoric of the Trump campaign, is demanding a military response. Some evidence points to a link between some Middle Eastern rogue state and the attack. Can Trump resist the popular anger and stupidity? He hasn't shown these traits in the past.

Or (2) Trump indicates a cooling of support for South Korea, pulling out some of the US troops stationed there after South Korea don't 'pay up' as demanded by Trump in the campaign. With the militarised border always on the brink of war and North Korea emboldened by Trump's actions, some miscalculation/accident/aggression triggers a heavy artillery assault on Seoul from the North. Trump responds with a nuke, risking war with China.

And a million other possibilities where Trump's rash temperament, lack of clear thought and short-sightedness result in a mushroom cloud.
 
I still don't get people who blame others that didn't voted or did vote for third party for the Hillary loss.
Hillary lost because of herself and Democratic party lost because they decided to go with the wrong person.
Hillary had one of the most popular president as her husband standing behind her, she had the current president who was also popular backing her and had media backing her. She had one of the least popular candidate competing against her and she still managed to lose. It is her fault and there is little to wonder why. In her campaign Obama had more good speeches then she had ffs.
And I even read a post that Hillary was a good candidate from one of the posters...

If she would tried to explain why she is the right one instead of explaining all the time why Trump is the wrong one people who didn't decide to vote for her would probably change their mind and would vote for her. And people who didn't voted for her are not guilty that she didn't even try to convince them that they should vote for her. It is her fault, simple as that.
 
Last edited:
SwansonsTache said:
If she intented to effectuate a no-fly zone over Syria and a rocket shield around the South-China sea, then yeah.
Click to expand...

There's loads of ways American foreign policy can kick off an apocalypse. Whatever decision Clinto makes it will be with a view to preventing that eventuality. And I'm a million times more confident about her - and the people around her - thinking things through than that petulant manchild and his team of nationalist hawks.
 
Jerch said:
I still don't get people who blame others that didn't voted or did vote for third party foe the Hillary loss.
Hillary lost because of herself and Democratic party lost because they decided to go with the wrong person.
Hillary had one of the most popular president as her husband standing behind her, she had the current president who was also popular backing her and had media backing her. Ahe had one of the least popular candidate competing against her and she still managed to lose. It is her fault and there is little to wonder why. In her campaign Obama had more good speeches then she had ffs.
And I even read a post that Hillary was a good candidate from one of the posters...

If she would tried to explain why she is the right one instead of explaining all the time why Trump is the wrong one people who didn't decide to vote for her would probably change their mind and would vote for her. And people who didn't voted for her are not guilty that she didn't even try to convince them that they should vote for her. It is her fault, simple as that.
Click to expand...

indeed. no vision.
 
MikeUpNorth said:
As I see it, the biggest risk of nuclear war under Trump is either an overreaction to an attack against the United States (1), or enemy states taking advantage of an American withdrawal from protection of its allies (2).

For example: (1) There is a major terrorist attack on US soil, killing thousands of people. The public anger, fanned by the anti-Islamic rhetoric of the Trump campaign, is demanding a military response. Some evidence points to a link between some Middle Eastern rogue state and the attack. Can Trump resist the popular anger and stupidity? He hasn't shown these traits in the past.

Or (2) Trump indicates a cooling of support for South Korea, pulling out some of the US troops stationed there after South Korea don't 'pay up' as demanded by Trump in the campaign. With the militarised border always on the brink of war and North Korea emboldened by Trump's actions, some miscalculation/accident/aggression triggers a heavy artillery assault on Seoul from the North. Trump responds with a nuke, risking war with China.

And a million other possibilities where Trump's rash temperament, lack of clear thought and short-sightedness result in a mushroom cloud.
Click to expand...

This is all fictional and possible scenarios though. While the no-flight zone making the allied nations and US effectively having to shoot down regime and Russian airplanes over Syria would have been very real.

Also a nuclear decision is a strategic decision not decided by a presidents hissy-fits or rashness. It is something carefully considered and discussed heavily, if you don't have faith in them considering it from a ethical standpoint then be certain that they will from a strategical standpoint.

And the possibillity of clashing with China would have been higher than ever if Clinton's rocket shield came in effect in the South-China sea. It isn't like NK is sitting there waiting with their artillery until the US perhaps withdraws some troops, they are very aware of the consequences.

I know that the doom and gloom angle is all the rage these days, but my guess is that he will largely be an uneventful president, and when all is said and done he will be something like a slightly less hawkish Bush Jr.
 
Eboue said:
That guy is a fraud and it's junk science.
Click to expand...
Yup. It was supposed to predict the popular vote win (that's how he claims he got it right when he predicted a Gore win in 2000), now it's miraculously changed to EC.
 
Carolina Red said:
Literally can be decided by 2 men in a matter of minutes.. One of which can be fired by the other on the spot
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is putting it in effect and actually launching it, but the decision leading up to it will most likely be one subjected to heavy discussion and scrutinizing.

Sometimes these days you feel like people expect Trump to have a slightly bad day and launch the nukes due to Melania not putting out and his combover not falling into place.
 
SwansonsTache said:
Yeah, that is putting it in effect and actually launching it, but the decision leading up to it will most likely be one subjected to heavy discussion and scrutinizing.

Sometimes these days you feel like people expect Trump to have a slightly bad day and launch the nukes due to Melania not putting out and his combover not falling into place.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's the part that matters.
 
SwansonsTache said:
Yeah, that is putting it in effect and actually launching it, but the decision leading up to it will most likely be one subjected to heavy discussion and scrutinizing.

Sometimes these days you feel like people expect Trump to have a slightly bad day and launch the nukes due to Melania not putting out and his combover not falling into place.
Click to expand...

I mean...it's not going to be quite that silly, but why is the idea of Trump irrationally doing something like this being scoffed at? He showed himself throughout the campaign to be a man who lacks rational thought, who has a short attention span and who acts on impulse.

Personally I think he's too self-preserving to ever actually go ahead and do it, but the possibility is there when you have a petulant, childlike-minded man in charge.
 
SwansonsTache said:
This is all fictional and possible scenarios though. While the no-flight zone making the allied nations and US effectively having to shoot down regime and Russian airplanes over Syria would have been very real.

Also a nuclear decision is a strategic decision not decided by a presidents hissy-fits or rashness. It is something carefully considered and discussed heavily, if you don't have faith in them considering it from a ethical standpoint then be certain that they will from a strategical standpoint.

And the possibillity of clashing with China would have been higher than ever if Clinton's rocket shield came in effect in the South-China sea. It isn't like NK is sitting there waiting with their artillery until the US perhaps withdraws some troops, they are very aware of the consequences.

I know that the doom and gloom angle is all the rage these days, but my guess is that he will largely be an uneventful president, and when all is said and done he will be something like a slightly less hawkish Bush Jr.
Click to expand...
I suspect any no-fly zone Clinton sought to implement over Syria would have been a small corridor to provide a safe haven for refugees. Certainly that's what has been discussed at the Senate Armed Services Committee by people like John McCain. They would have tried to get Russian backing for a geographically limited no-fly zone, without trying to enforce it over Aleppo or the rest of the country. It obviously carries risks of confrontation or prolonged military commitment, but they would have sought to minimise the risks through continued military-to-military contact with the Russians as is currently occurring. There are no real good options in Syria - each option carries risks.

The biggest risk in North Korea is internal politics threatening Kim Jong Un, meaning he tries to head it off with some show of force which gets out of hand. It's a real threat, hence the large US military presence in South Korea and frequent military exercises to try and deter any escalation. They're not just there on a holiday.

Regarding your opinion that any nuclear strike would be 'carefully considered and discussed heavily' - it certainly doesn't have to be. The president can effectively launch a strike independently of the JCS and military chain of command. Trump is not always one for seeking or taking advice on board. As I say, he is the archetype of a rash and impetuous leader. Plus, you're assuming Trump will always be in his currently upbeat state of mind... what if he's cornered, or on the verge of being impeached, or being widely mocked after some embarrassing leak and then one of these dangerous situations presents itself? His finger is on the button - let's hope he can put his ego and instinct to lash out wildly at opponents to one side.

Where we probably disagree at a fundamental level is that I am relatively hawkish about US foreign policy, especially when it comes to Russia. I think the real threat of overwhelming US military power and support of its allies generally stops the strongmen and unruly neighbours of the world getting too many crazy ideas.
 
Last edited:
Cheesy said:
I mean...it's not going to be quite that silly, but why is the idea of Trump irrationally doing something like this being scoffed at? He showed himself throughout the campaign to be a man who lacks rational thought, who has a short attention span and who acts on impulse.

Personally I think he's too self-preserving to ever actually go ahead and do it, but the possibility is there when you have a petulant, childlike-minded man in charge.
Click to expand...

It's so weird that this needs to be said.
 
There's a saying something like : "We are the master of our silences but the slave of our words"

Trump's words have not been encouraging so far. Not one.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
It's so weird that this needs to be said.
Click to expand...
His campaign staff had to take his Twitter account away from him because he couldn't be trusted with it. But there's no need to worry about him having access to nuclear weapons.

Especially not when he's discussed them in such diplomatically astute terms as "why have them if we're not going to use them'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.