It's obvious that charisma works miracles if you can pair with some intellect (Reagan, Clinton, Obama) and it seems both have that down to some degree. But you re right - I hope we learned our lesson when it comes to evaluating the character and merits of someone. At least on the extreme end.
US Politics
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
Don't know if he is republican are ever was he has attended republican and democrat conventions for a long time so has probably been thinking about getting into politics for years .
Wow I'm debating the Rock and George Clooney running for President.. This is what Trump has done to us
Look at it this way, if there is any lesson to learn from trump, it is that you don’t have to be a politician inorder to become the president. That in itself opens the door for a whole new world of possibilities.
Don't know that much about him, but from what I've heard/read Clooney's already quite into his political activism etc...if he genuinely wanted to run for Congress and then decided to go for a Presidential run in the future I don't think there'd necessarily be much wrong with that.
Ayo make sure to hit my boi Mitt up on Instagram and snap as well.
You could argue that being an actor and some sort of activist isn't sufficient background to make laws though. He could obviously educate himself and I don't know him and his views at all, just seems like an obvious concern that would need to be addressed.
I'd largely agree, yeah, although it's certainly happened plenty of times in the past where someone's used their fame/celebrity to launch themselves into politics, ala Reagan, Arnold etc. If we are going to have celebrities doing it I'd rather it be Clooney (from what I know of him) than Oprah or The Rock, and I'd rather see him either go for Congress or another position of governance instead of trying to jump right into the Presidency.
Edit: And you could argue he's no less qualified than plenty of other Senatorial candidates who might genuinely know feck all compared to what they're meant to, but still get in anyway.
Agreed. Your initial post didn't read like a relative statement and more like some sort of endorsement.
Its definitely possible. Look at Schwarzenegger, who made a successful transition from acting to being the head of the world's sixth biggest economy. It does the right personality to do it and I'm not too sure Clooney would have what it takes.
From the survey from which the above article was drawn:
One set of issues seems to stand out...
And the usual:
One set of issues seems to stand out...
And the usual:
As one who has every sympathy for this view - I do feel the need to offer my personal reasoning for believing Trump to be unacceptable, even by the standards of the horrors of free-market fetishism. I think every day this bloke remains president of America, it normalises sexual assault and overt racism. It tells people they are a thing that can just be brushed aside. And this is a global affect.
I understand the argument that Pence could potentially do more direct damage, through legislation, but I believe that to be considerably less harmful than what is currently happening to not just your country but to the rest of the world, by Donald Trump being the President of the United States of America.
He's not the first rapist in the White House. People still talk about the Hastert Rule as if he isn't a child molester. Bill Clinton is still adored by most of the Democratic Party.
Whatever our society thinks about sexual assault (and it's not a very enlightened view), it isn't because of Donald Trump. This stuff was already normalized.
I doubt he is.
That does not stop his bragging about claiming to have sexually assaulted women to be an extremely dangerous thing to tolerate.
This is 2016. As a society we have blown past tolerating it long before Trump.
I was fully aware what you were getting at.This is 2016. As a society we have blown past tolerating it long before Trump.
The societal impacts are not the same, in my view. Bill Clinton's treatment of women has never been interwoven in to a generic appeal to disaffected young men, in the way Trump's is.
I think that's a stretch. Clinton won young voters by a wide margin.
I imagine he did. I don't think he had much hardcore support based on how appalling to women he was. Trump does.
No, I mean Hillary Clinton won young voters by a wide margin over Trump.
I see.
I was not suggesting Trump is widely popular among young voters. I am suggesting he is influential upon a dangerous minority of young men and every toleration of him is seen by them as toleration of their attitudes.
That's probably true. I personally think the damage Pence would bring about by being a clear eyed Republican politician would be worse than Trump bumbling about the way he has so far.
I get that, entirely, and I feel a bit offensive in saying things that a less fair poster than yourself could characterise as a foreigner saying 'America should take the hit because otherwise this effects us too' - not to mention the fact I also entirely understand fears over what happened regarding the effect on the rest of the world, the last time you had a republican president who was in sync with his party.
Just wanting to offer an explanation as to why I personally feel scared by Trump in a way that I haven't by any major world leader in my lifetime and as such why I do find it important that his story ends in disgrace - hopefully through this investigation (not that I really know what the chances are there).
Whether I'm right or wrong in my fears about his impact I think they are bloody understandable and being the insecure sort I am it would bother me a bit if folks with your take wouldn't give me that much.
Apologies to people wanting to read discussions of Russia btw... I know I'm only barely scraping relevance to the topic here.
EDIT - Thanks, whoever took the time (guessing Raoul) to move all this in to this thread.
Last edited:
I understand that. I understand the visceral hatred of such an obscene person in a place of power. And the time may come when he will prove me wrong. But for now, I think his damage is less than Bush and less than Pence would be if the ticket was reversed.
Trump-Pence ticket is doing plenty of damage. Trump is seriously underrated by some of you lot it's unbelievable. Mike Pence is a politician with zero personality that would be instantly forgotten by the pepe frog meme crowd. After all the stuff Trump has said and done, his base is solidly behind him. He's much more popular than McConnell and Paul Ryan, both hard-nosed, clear eyed politicians who hide behind Trump's approval ratings. Trump is able to sell shit policies as if he's the savior of America. The Republican party can pass any law right now and put a Trump tag on it and it will sell. It's shit on a stick politics, but yet... The damage is less if some other Republican was on the ticket is repeated often enough.
"Oh what if Trump is removed... but Pence, he'll succeed him... he's the child killer of Indiana, he'll be worse"
"Oh what if Trump is removed... but Pence, he'll succeed him... he's the child killer of Indiana, he'll be worse"
Who was it that argued that Trump is the shock treatment that the country needed and then moaned about DACA getting ended. If you are willing to accommodate a shock treatment president, you should surely be ready for the disastrous policies instead of hoping for the neoliberal Democratic party to defend? Maybe DACA children getting kicked out and I140 Chinese and Indian families deported will kick-start the real cathartic process.
So given all this memo hullabaloo how likely is cooperation and compromise from the dems and reps over the next month... I'm guessing not very so has another shutdown just become a lot more likely?
Shutdown is a real possibility, especially since Trump has now poisoned the well by attempting to politicize intel to protect his own hide.
I do think that's an important part.
Pence is extreme in his views - probably more extreme in most of them than Trump (definitely socially) but as you say his personality is non-existent and I'm not sure he'd be able to fire up the Trump base to the same extent that Trump himself has. Especially since they'd already be partly disillusioned after his impeachment.
He's not wrong! Nothing worse than a ranting vlogger.
Maybe it's a age thing but there is more to the internet than vloggers and cats playing the keyboard. TYT politics has actually done some very good reporting on things like the dakota access pipeline and the inner workings of the Democratic Party.
For those that think a blue wave is coming for certain, while donny distracts, things are being put in place to make sure it doesnt.
Take this one.
After being bound by a consent decree for 35 years, the Republican National Committee is now free to continue its “ballot security” campaign.
from here
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ed-another-tool-for-suppressing-votes/550052/
Take this one.
After being bound by a consent decree for 35 years, the Republican National Committee is now free to continue its “ballot security” campaign.
from here
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ed-another-tool-for-suppressing-votes/550052/
Wait...but...I...who...
Judge: "Stealing is illegal!"
Judge: "I now rule you have been convicted of theft."
Thief: "You said before you thinking stealing is illegal, you are clearly biased!"
Reply:
1. This shows how stupid adhering to "the law" as a standard of justice is. Gerrymandering is obviously a perversion of democracy, and if you can find a constitutional scholar who can argue otherwise it is an indictment of the constitution and language, not of the self-evident principle that gerrymandering is bad.
2. But in this case, she's wrong even in the limited legal sense, based on SC precedent (AFAIK).
Ha, that's the tweet I had posted just above. Stunning lack of self-awareness to the point that I had to check if it was a parody account.
Yeah, not sure if it was a typo or what. $1.50 has to be a joke or a mistake.