The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

Status
Not open for further replies.
langster said:
Just go to the TYT YouTube page. Pretty much all his election videos over the last 18 months have him predicting a muppet win, and there's so many election night video's so his apology will be in at least two of them, I watched it live on the night so can't say which one it's likely to be in or not.



Worst WUM on the forum. Dropped this stinker then ran off in to the woods. Piss poor effort 1/10

The Anointed one (well spray tanned at least) just said he will leave the Gays alone and Gay marriage is safe but he's going all out against abortion. I presume that's to appease Pence who wanted both, but had to settle for one, so he's just going after women's rights.

If the USA isn't careful these feckers will take you back to the middle ages and it might take years to catch back up again. Seriously being against abortion in this day and age is just so very sad. I fear for those poor women who might now be forced to give birth to a rapists baby, or to a seriously deformed one, or even when it could easily endanger their lives by doing so. Obviously it's not an easy task, but if they make it their mission, then they have 4 years to do so, and to what aim? All they are doing is causing severe pain and suffering for no fecking reason other than it goes against something they believe in, yet it's completely the opposite of how the country feels. It's shameful! Archaic and disgusting. Fecking annoys the shit out of me too how it's always MEN! that want to control what women do. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: Fascist cnuts!
Click to expand...

Giving other posters a mark out of 10? You're not in school (or maybe you still are judging by your language). You sound angry - no-one enjoys discussing issues with people unable to contain their anger. Calm down.
 
Cal? said:
This probably has the least impact on me out of Trump's ideas, but it really is infuriating how backwards half of America is. Why do the government feel the need to get involved in what a woman chooses to do to her own body? :mad:
Click to expand...

I agree completely. If you look at it from the bigger picture, you clearly have an extreme right wing (some would say fascist) regime waiting in the wings to take charge. No nationalised free healthcare service, and I don't care what the Orange one says, simply because I don't believe a word he says, I reckon he will go after Obamacare at some point. Talk of changing laws for abortion and dropping climate change regulations AND obviously no change to gun laws, if anything relaxing them further. Meh, it's all speculation at the moment but it appears to me that the USA isn't a free country at all, and the next 4 years are going to be all over the place. No real experience in many of the people in charge, extreme right wing views across the board, some wanting to be right up Israel's arse and some anti-Semites which is no doubt going to cause problems. It's just scary as hell. Glad I don't live there, but my heart goes out to my family that do, and of course everyone else there. It's looking less like a beacon of hope across the Western World and far more like a backwards ass third world country headed for turmoil.

SteveJ said:
Question for people who actually understand U.S. politics: why are citizens (like Trump, for example) who have never held political office allowed to run for President?
Click to expand...

Simple answer. Because that sums up the USA. Anyone can achieve anything they want, and if you are born there you can run for President. Well, that's what the flyers say anyway, the truth, as we all know is rather different.
 
langy said:
Simple answer. Because that sums up the USA. Anyone can achieve anything they want, and if you are born there you can run for President...
Click to expand...
Even in a land where it seems you can buy anything, that's bloody ludicrous.
 
SteveJ said:
Question for people who actually understand U.S. politics: why are citizens (like Trump, for example) who have never held political office allowed to run for President?
Click to expand...

Just curious, is there a law in England stating the PM needs to have previously held political office?
 
SteveJ said:
Even in a land where it seems you can buy anything, that's bloody ludicrous.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. More to the point though, it's fecking dangerous, as we are all going to find out. I wouldn't care so much if the USA were like Australia or somewhere that kept themselves to themselves, but they aren't, and Bush and Cheney showed last time how dangerous one countries actions can be, and like pathetic sheep, we followed them all the way and are still paying for it now. The irony being, with someone as petulant and thin skinned as their soon to be new President, it's not the time to fall out, or cut your ties with them because he could easily take serious offence to it. Feck, we will have to wait and see I suppose.
 
Just got back from my brothers place in Manchester. Managed to avoid most of this crap after the election but sadly back in Florida again to the craziness.

Have some thoughts here.
  • Trump is all over the place right now. Still no consistency. Obviously still pandering to where he will get the most hate. Says that Same sex marriage is "settled law" (Supreme Court 2015) but when it comes to abortion will try to repeal (Supreme Court 1973). Both are what he would consider "settled law" but in general same sex marriage is generally more accepted outside the Christian Right that Abortion which seems to have less wider appeal
  • Seeing a lot of people say this is an election for change. Yet congress has barely shifted. Marco Rubio sent back to Congress. The fellow with the worst absentee record in the whole of congress. President can be very weak domestically, Congress can make or break progress
  • Anecdotally, I am seeing a lot of people pro Trump who are more elderly and white. Even within my family. Yet these people are the ones most reliant on social welfare of some sort (Social Security 1935, passed when Dems had all 3; Medicaid 1965, passed when Dems had all 3; Disabilities Act 1990, passed when Dems had both Chambers). It's odd that a lot of the older white population tends to vote conservative yet barely survive on what Dems programs the Dems have carved out. Again, this is anecdotal based upon my own observations. I am sure more research has bee done into why people tend to be more conservative the older they get
  • Large swathes of Americans don't seem to care about sexual violence and misogynistic attitudes. It is there. I work in Corporate world with C levels, I see it all the time. Hard to marry up the idea Trump is "Gods answer" given his possessive attitude to women. It is so casually disregarded if someone is "on your message". It's a problem. Throwing randon names out there like John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, Jameis Winston is the reason I won't watch the Buccaneers any more. This is a problem that transcends party afiliation
  • By far the biggest problem though was Clinton. She couldn't mobilize voters to go out vote for her. The Bernie screwjob has cast a long shadow. There is no doubt in my mind that many who voted for her wished there was a better GOP candidate to switch. The Dems need to learn from this or they are in danger of becoming another irrelevant elitist party who thinks they should tell us hoe to vote and end up suffering the fractures the GOP has with the so called Tea Party. I don't think Bernie would have won this to be fair. But we will never know. I know my wife went independent, she was strongly in favour of Bernie. The Dems should put Bernie on the DNC and actually listen to him now. This is not a Trump thead though, not the Clinton one
 
kps88 said:
Just curious, is there a law in England stating the PM needs to have previously held political office?
Click to expand...
Our PM isn't directly elected to that position, he or she is simply the leader of the party who is in government.

It's basically the same situation as your majority leader in the House.
 
Rado_N said:
Our PM isn't directly elected to that position, he or she is simply the leader of the party who is in government.

It's basically the same situation as your majority leader in the House.
Click to expand...

But technically you can have a PM without any prior political experience right? I know the comparisons are clunky since the systems are different, but does any democracy have a requirement of prior political experience for their top position?
 
kps88 said:
Just curious, is there a law in England stating the PM needs to have previously held political office?
Click to expand...
You need to be a standing Member of Parliament (MP) and then be elected as party leader (and those rules vary between political parties) and then that party be in government. Technically, you could get elected as an MP specifically to become PM, however it'd be pretty unlikely and it is hard to conceive it could ever happen, not least because you'd be up against the political ambitions of the members of the party you were joining.
 
kps88 said:
But technically you can have a PM without any prior political experience right? I know the comparisons are clunky since the systems are different, but does any democracy have a requirement of prior political experience for their top position?
Click to expand...
Well the party leader would always be someone with experience but I'm not sure whether there's a specific legal requirement for such.
 
kps88 said:
Just curious, is there a law in England stating the PM needs to have previously held political office?
Click to expand...

As others have said, it's not remotely the same, and highly unlikely, near impossible for anything to happen like just has in the USA. Also, another massive difference is that once elected, it's just a case of picking cabinet positions for members of your party, from your party, unlike the USA where it appears although that is usually the case, the trend can be bucked and almost anyone can be awarded positions in Government. I'd never truly thought how dangerous the USA's system actually is until now.

I think for a better comparison though, you are better off looking elsewhere in Europe, or somewhere else there is a President, France maybe? Although they too have a Prime Minister too, so different again.
 
McUnited said:
She's a formidable woman. Articulate, intelligent, gracious, (and beautiful)!
It's a shame she receives so much unwarranted invective from people clearly nowhere near as informed about the issues she talks about.
Click to expand...
I'd say the vast majority of people know more about her than evolution and climate change, seeing as she denies both of them.
 
fcbforever said:
First of all, the 6 Trillion dollars is, like much what he says, not directly a lie but still false. Take into consideration it's a number conducted by experts taking long term costs into account. Not all of it has been spend by now, but it is covering a span of 20 years. So when he talks about spending half of that in 4, yeah...go figure.
Also, a lot o this money hadn't to be raised, it was already in the budget as part of the defense budget. The 3 trillion dollars he is talking about, he would need to raise out of thin air since he also plans on lowering taxes.
Sorry to say, but this won't happen.
Click to expand...

Defecit spending is not new.
 
langster said:
As others have said, it's not remotely the same, and highly unlikely, near impossible for anything to happen like just has in the USA. Also, another massive difference is that once elected, it's just a case of picking cabinet positions for members of your party, from your party, unlike the USA where it appears although that is usually the case, the trend can be bucked and almost anyone can be awarded positions in Government. I'd never truly thought how dangerous the USA's system actually is until now.

I think for a better comparison though, you are better off looking elsewhere in Europe, or somewhere else there is a President, France maybe? Although they too have a Prime Minister too, so different again.
Click to expand...

I guess the point I was making is there is never a barrier to entry in terms of qualifications. If Trump was British, he would have been free to form his own party, run a bunch of loonies with zero political experience and become PM if they won.
 
OldTrevil said:
Democrats sold out to the moneyed elite and have been doing the same things, while maintaining their public position as the party of the working class, tolerance and inclusion, making them the official fraud party :lol:
Click to expand...
Now you're just indulging in fanboy talk. This herd mentality is probably why the crazy one can somehow end up as America's president.
 
kps88 said:
I guess the point I was making is there is never a barrier to entry in terms of qualifications. If Trump was British, he would have been free to form his own party, run a bunch of loonies with zero political experience and become PM if they won.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I suppose so, but that would be next to impossible. The best comparison would be UKIP I suppose, a British party that was created to get Britain out of Europe and stop what they perceived to be under European control from the European Court of Human Rights. They were unhappy with Brussels dictating so many of the UK's laws. Ironically, their most recent leader Nigel Farage is now over in the USA, but can't be seen because he is so far up the President elect's arse. The point being though is that it has taken UKIP years and years to even be remotely considered as a serious party and gain MP's, let alone actually contend for becoming the leading party in the UK. But your assumption is entirely correct, just extremely unlikely.
 
Drifter said:
Sounds like dictatorship to me. Trump said as much at one of his rallies that he would open up libel laws to sue news outlets.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and he quoted our laws here regarding the press and it's freedom. Basically he wanted to sue the press for saying nasty things about him, but none of it was lies and all of it could be backed up with video evidence. Like just last night again on Twitter he said the New York Times said he wanted more countries to obtain nuclear weapons and he ranted at them saying he didn't when there is clear evidence to show he did. This is why I know, and say he is stupid and thick because anyone with any intelligence would just shut up. I still can't fathom how nothing like this ever sticks to him though. That really is insane. He best be careful though because he could end up with serious egg on his face as the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for. However, the point still stands, what on earth is the President Elect doing having a war with a newspaper on a Social Media site?
 
Red Dreams said:
Defecit spending is not new.
Click to expand...

3 trillion would be new. If Trump is acting according to the bit of policy he actually formulated at this point, he will double the debt of the United States within 4 years. He could do that and probably banks would finance it, but the effect would be a state deficit way above the level of countries like Greece. It's just not feasible.
 
sammsky1 said:

One of the craziest things about his win was his unprecedented low spending in political advertising. Trump only spent $74million vs Hillary's $211million. So in this sense, he never 'bought' the election and it seems thats what Hillary tried to do (and Obama succeeded in doing)

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-tv-ads/
Click to expand...

I think this has a lot to do with the "old" media not being that relevant anymore. The stuff that costs a lot is mainly the TV advertisement. The thing is that the mistrust of the establishment media these days is so high that it keeps losing relevance when it comes to people forming their political opinions, if that's a good or a bad thing I'm not quite sure but one positive is that the people who have the most money don't automatically win the election because they are capable of reaching a much broader audience. If anything I think Trump won this election on the internet.
 
He got lots of free media coverage as he was on TV either as a guest or being mocked. All publicity is good ?
 
Classical Mechanic said:
It really isn't. Since he has got in he has said that the gay marriage law will not be repealed, parts of Obamacare will be retained and that abortion will not be made illegal by the federal government.
Click to expand...

And you honestly believe a man who lies 74% of the time? And someone who flip flopped on his original immigration policy 8 times in the space of 3 days? He has already flip flopped on the abortion claims as he said last night that he was going all out after abortion laws. You can't trust him, and he's weak! exceptionally weak! He will go with whoever praises him the most, and he will change laws based on how popular they are rather than on his own convictions or beliefs. I mean, for fecks sake, the man actually wants to continue holding political rallies around the country because he enjoys the adulation and having his ego stroked that much! and some of his people are looking in to the possibility. It's like electing a child. Actually worse.

Say they do hold pointless rallies just to appease him, what happens when they start to turn nasty when people realise how full of shit he is, and that they have been duped? what then? I bet they would suddenly stop and an excuse like he is far too busy to hold them anymore.

Insanity is the only way to describe his election win.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.