TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile

View Poll Results: How long will Trump be President?

Voters
144. You may not vote on this poll
  • 1 Term (4 Years)

    26 18.06%
  • 2 Terms (8 Years)

    51 35.42%
  • 1st Term Impeachment/Assassination

    50 34.72%
  • 2nd Term Impeachment/Assassination

    4 2.78%
  • I don't know what's going on!

    13 9.03%

Thread: ✮✮✮ !Trump Dump! ✮✮✮

  1. #10951
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Trump delays tariffs on China to save Christmas! Yeah sure...



    Don. Jr. announces a Chinese backed real estate development in Indonesia.

  2. #10952
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    "The best people."

    https://www.apnews.com/122ae0b5848345faa88108a03de40c5a

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Before signing up with Donald Trump, former campaign manager Paul Manafort secretly worked for a Russian billionaire with a plan to “greatly benefit the Putin Government,” The Associated Press has learned. The White House attempted to brush the report aside Wednesday, but it quickly raised fresh alarms in Congress about Russian links to Trump associates.

    Manafort proposed in a confidential strategy plan as early as June 2005 that he would influence politics, business dealings and news coverage inside the United States, Europe and former Soviet republics to benefit President Vladimir Putin’s government, even as U.S.-Russia relations under Republican President George W. Bush grew worse.

    Manafort pitched the plans to aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska, a close Putin ally with whom Manafort eventually signed a $10 million annual contract beginning in 2006, according to interviews with several people familiar with payments to Manafort and business records obtained by the AP. Manafort and Deripaska maintained a business relationship until at least 2009, according to one person familiar with the work.

    “We are now of the belief that this model can greatly benefit the Putin Government if employed at the correct levels with the appropriate commitment to success,” Manafort wrote in the 2005 memo to Deripaska. The effort, Manafort wrote, “will be offering a great service that can re-focus, both internally and externally, the policies of the Putin government.”

    [...]

    Manafort’s plans were laid out in detailed documents obtained by the AP that included strategy memoranda and records showing international wire transfers for millions of dollars. How much work Manafort performed under the contract was unclear. The work appears to contradict assertions by the Trump administration and Manafort himself that he never worked for Russian interests.

    Manafort confirmed again Wednesday in a statement that he had worked for Deripaska but denied his work had been pro-Russian in nature. He added, “I look forward to meeting with those conducting serious investigations of these issues.”
    [...]
    And yes, this is the same Oleg Deripaska who Lord Dampnut's administration and the Senate leader fought to lift sanctions on over the objections of Congress and who afterwards made a significant investment in Kentucky, the home state of Moscow Mitch, thereby making the jobs of hundreds, if not thousands of US citizens depend on a Russian firm. And he has already been using it as leverage.

  3. #10953
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Make it so! Please!

    725 Barack Obama Avenue, NYC.

  4. #10954
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Will never happen.

  5. #10955
    Quote Originally Posted by demagogue View Post
    Which is worse, the fact he leaks national security intel like a Russian prostitute in a bed or the fact that he couldn't say an accurate sentence about a vital piece of national security intel to save his life?
    Which is worse, to see that Trump's still in office or to wonder if we might even re-elect him in 2020...?

  6. #10956
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeMaker View Post
    Which is worse, to see that Trump's still in office or to wonder if we might even re-elect him in 2020...?
    Bit of column A, bit of column B.

    Though maybe he is the greatest president who's ever lived, and all us libtard types are just jealous of his stupendously orange glory.

  7. #10957
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeMaker View Post
    Which is worse, to see that Trump's still in office or to wonder if we might even re-elect him in 2020...?
    This is the worst!...


  8. #10958
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Vae View Post
    This is the worst!...

    Hate to tell you this, Vae, but Trump probably only has 10-15 years left in him.

  9. #10959
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Okay, President to 2032, then...That's not as bad...

    ...but not a year longer than that!...

  10. #10960
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    ... Trump probably only has 10-15 years left in him.
    Um.... I so want to say something in response to that... frantically fishing for sound clip of Archie Bunker saying Stifle yourself, Edith!

  11. #10961
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeMaker View Post
    Um.... I so want to say something in response to that... frantically fishing for sound clip of Archie Bunker saying Stifle yourself, Edith!
    If you think about it, the liberals are probably conspiring with KFC to kill Trump with a heart attack. That's how the Deep State works, you know. They're a slow, subtle bunch. Insidious in their ways. They never do anything directly.

    ...unless you're someone like Seth Rich, or Jeff Epstein, then they'll just straight up kill you, and stage it in such a way that it looks triply suspicious, usually waiting until after you've spilled all their secret to make the whole thing look that much more like a big waste of our hard earned tax dollars. It's subtle in its brazenness.

  12. #10962
    LittleFlower
    Registered: Jul 2001
    Location: Netherlands
    I've predicted it before. If nothing changes, the Don will win the next election. If the Democrats don't come up with a better strategy, or better candidates, the sitting president will get re-elected. No surprise. 4 Out of the last 5 last presidents got re-elected when they ran for a 2nd term. After Trump goes away (maybe 2020, but probably 2024), the Democrats have another shot at 4 years of presidency. I expect a Democrat to win once, but not win his 2nd term.

    But in 2028, Ivanka Trump will run. And she will win. 2028-2036, 8 more years of Trump. She'll be 47 when she gets elected, and she'll be 55 when her 8 years are up. There's no escaping. She's the perfect Republican candidate. Prepare yourselves.

  13. #10963
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    But in 2028, Ivanka Trump will run. And she will win. 2028-2036, 8 more years of Trump. She'll be 47 when she gets elected, and she'll be 55 when her 8 years are up. There's no escaping. She's the perfect Republican candidate. Prepare yourselves.
    Save for the fact she's not a native born citizen.

    But then again, that whole Constitution thing is really more a bunch of basic guidelines and suggestions. It's probably not that big of a deal.

  14. #10964
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2009
    Location: The Spiraling Sea
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    Save for the fact she's [Ivanka Trump] not a native born citizen.
    Incorrect...Ivanka Trump was born in New York.

  15. #10965
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Looks like Lord Dampnut is trying to deport Melania (or as he calls her, Melanie):


  16. #10966
    Quote Originally Posted by Gryzemuis View Post
    I've predicted it before. If nothing changes, the Don will win the next election. If the Democrats don't come up with a better strategy, or better candidates, the sitting president will get re-elected. No surprise. 4 Out of the last 5 last presidents got re-elected when they ran for a 2nd term. After Trump goes away (maybe 2020, but probably 2024), the Democrats have another shot at 4 years of presidency. I expect a Democrat to win once, but not win his 2nd term.

    But in 2028, Ivanka Trump will run. And she will win. 2028-2036, 8 more years of Trump. She'll be 47 when she gets elected, and she'll be 55 when her 8 years are up. There's no escaping. She's the perfect Republican candidate. Prepare yourselves.
    They must have even better dope where you hail from than I could have imagined.

    First of all stuff changes every day with Trump: chaos is his signature even when it's drowning him. And lately when he stirs pots and spills boiling water, it doesn't even go well with all of his sometime now former supporters.

    So it could be only a matter of time before Donald Trump does something so monumentally stupid that the RNC pinkslips Ronna Romney McDaniel and installs a circus master at the RNC who remembers how politics works at conventions when push needs to come to shove. Then what could change for the GOP in 2020 is the name atop their piece of the ballot, primary or no. Sometimes "stuff happens" at conventions, there's just no telling. That's what used to make them exciting...

    Sure that's a pipe dream too, but then moving along, so is yours about Ivanka Trump ever running for President. She's not that kinda girl, methinks, and anyway should probably still be serving time when your scenario for her would be kicking in.

    But as the far right Republican crowd so amply demonstrated to the Democrats in 2016, a candidate for prez doesn't actually have to be a jailbird to end up in memes suggesting she should be one and so should not end up in the White House (again) in any role whatsoever.

    We're so suggestible in the USA. We do like familiar plots, too, makes it easier to focus on just swapping the correct photos into the memes as the campaign rolls on. Lock her up would look great pasted over Ivanka in her finest dresses... but see, she knows all this. So, she's not going to run for President because, um, let's see.... because it's beneath her. She is after all a princess.

  17. #10967
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Vae View Post
    Incorrect...Ivanka Trump was born in New York.
    Sorry. I always get these Ruskie names mixed up.

  18. #10968
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeMaker View Post
    We're so suggestible in the USA. We do like familiar plots, too, makes it easier to focus on just swapping the correct photos into the memes as the campaign rolls on. Lock her up would look great pasted over Ivanka in her finest dresses... but see, she knows all this. So, she's not going to run for President because, um, let's see.... because it's beneath her. She is after all a princess.
    Plus, there's the fact she's rather liberal leaning, even if she is, allegedly, peripherally involved in a number of "family situations." Anyone hoping that Ivanka will carry on Trump's grand MAGA plans are likely to be disappointed. The most they should expect is that she'll carry on Trump's tax breaks, and maybe possibly preemptively pardon her husband. No less, no more.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe all the Trump kids were registered Democrats up until Trump won the Republican primary. None of them are born and bred Red State Blooded Americans. I mean hell, Ivanka has no real interest in politics, Don Jr.'s primary concern is keeping in his dad's good graces so he won't get nixed from the will, and Eric is just...there. None of them are likely to be up on the podium, screaming about guns, god, and filthy illegals (hey, JK!) once Don Sr. kicks the bucket.

  19. #10969
    Trump himself is not really ideological either. He's more than willing to use ideological playbooks that suit his purpose, which is always and only about aggrandizing himself and paving the way to his next buck. He's more married to the Rs than the Ds only because of policy on deregulation and top tier tax cuts. But to get the nom and help keep the Rs in power he had to go their social platform route as well so there he is, reborn as anti-choice, for instance, and a true believer in Evangelical protestantism no less, but he has those few red lines on policy, and one of them is trade. It makes the Rs crazy that he won't let go of his outmoded ideas on tariffs.

    Otherwise it's almost amazing he didn't have to carry cue cards in his earlier run on the Reform Party line as he made the moves to where he has ended up today, practically a clone of everything Pat Buchanan ever scribbled in a playbook -- ideas that Trump used to mock him for in 2000 and then turned around and ran on the damn book in its entirety in 2016... go figure!

  20. #10970
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    It's amazing how popular Buchananism is these days, especially considering how it was outright rejected nearly 20 odd years ago. It makes me think what's changed. What is so different today, in Future World 2019, compared to 1999 and 2000. What's happened to shake up the conservative world so much that they've abandoned practically all their ideals to just walk lockstep with someone they've previously derided as uncouth, unprepared, and unfit for the presidency?

    Is getting rid of Roe v Wade and getting a few tax breaks so important that they're willing to burn the Republican party to the ground, alienating the moderates in their base, and outright pissing off roughly half the nation in the process just to have it done? That's kind of a Pyrrhic victory, isn't it? Especially when you consider that the tax breaks will be reversed at some point in an attempt to balance the budget, and the most they can ever possibly hope for concerning RvW is making it a states rights issue.

    Are the judges that important to them? I can see the advantages of having some of the courts on your side, but they won't serve any ideological advantage, considering that, historically, most judges tend moderate when they take the bench.

    It makes no sense to me why they'd go down this route.

  21. #10971
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    It makes no sense to me why they'd go down this route.
    No one gets lost on a straight road, right? I mean the GOP honchos made conscious decisions to end up where they are now. Yet their base is shrinking, and what's growing is the shocking disparity between their erstwhile "conservative principles" versus their actual major legislation and the character of their nominal party leader.

    In 2012 after Romney's defeat, the Rs were all about acknowledging the path they were on was not sustainable and they were reaching out to Hispanics in the electorate and also trying to scout up more female candidates etc. The lesson from the 2012 Hispanic vote was really important and they took the point. From Wikipedia:

    Hispanic vote: the United States has a population of 50 million Hispanic and Latino Americans, 27 million of whom are citizens eligible to vote (13% of total eligible voters). Traditionally, only half of eligible Hispanic voters vote (around 7% of voters); of them, 71% voted for Barack Obama (increasing his percentage of the vote by 5%); therefore, the Hispanic vote was an important factor in Obama's re-election, since the vote difference between the two main parties was only 3.9%

    The Republicans got that. They were working on it.

    But then 2016 comes along and out of the blue comes Trump having seen a populist moment he could bend to his own purposes by taking Buchanan's playbook and running on it from day one with his remarks about Mexicans. And the R honchos just let.him.do.it. They saw what Trump wanted them to see, a "winning move" and a chance at bumping up their vote count without having to expand the party's demographic reach.

    It was a conscious decision to go with the realization that identity politics didn't have to be how the Dems played it, eh? No, it could be how Pat Buchanan tried to play it from the convention podium in Houston back in 1992 when his actual job was to bring his flock into supporting re-election of Bush 41 but his chosen mission in delivering that extraordinary speech was to call for a cultural war and so to "take back America".

    The Rs had lost that 1992 general election up top but it kickstarted their grassroots effort to do exactly what Buchanan had suggested at local levels, and at that they proved monumentally successful, preaching from evangelical pulpits and getting candidates to stand for school boards and town councils and state legislative slots, to the point that by 2016 the Democrats weren't even bothering to run placeholders in some state assembly races. My own district was like that until 2018...

    So then comes 2016 and The Don's big mouth picks up where Pat's had left off in 1992. The 24-year interim was a series of two term presidencies with Democrats bookending Bush 43. Trump figured he could sell in the idea that America was a mess and he could "make America great again" -- and not least by pronouncing "political correctness" dead and xenophobic isolationism alive and well in the USA.

    Clinton proved a weaker candidate than one might have expected looking just at policy issues... but it was a populist year on both ends of the spectrum and both parties were caught off guard there. The Dems had better control over their party rules and managed to fend off the latecomer challenger Bernie... the Rs interestingly enough did their traditional wing in by having decided their problem in 2012 had been not frontloading the primary season... so they figured in 2016 to get their intraparty squabbles over sooner and could run on a traditional GOP general election platform for most of the remaining time. But who knew the strength of the anti-establishmentarian feelings? And who knew Trump would end up with big rally crowds and press coverage just as those primary dates crowded the calendar.

    What remains to be seen is how the respective rules flips post-2016 will work for either party in 2020. Delegates of both parties were unhappy with aspects of the outcome of their rules and so both actually tweaked them in the direction the other party had operated on in 2016. So in theory the Dems are relying less on superdelegates in 2020, and the Republicans are lending a little more power to party machinery. The question there is which party machinery... the Rs' caucus is still split even if the far right tail is long since wagging the dog now.

    Should be an interesting pre-convention season for the Republicans depending on whether serious primary contenders show up or the anti-Trump dissidents figure on a major third party effort, i.e. one mounted way before the late-to-plate Hail Mary pass of the Evan McMullin supporters in 2016.

    After all if the slightly more moderate Republicans/conservatives loathe Trump enough.... then splitting the vote and letting the Dem have the White House and just trying to hang onto the Senate is one way of getting to "never Trump" in 2020. There was talk about that for awhile in 2016, even McConnell was saying for awhile that he could work with Clinton... since the Rs held both houses, he figured she could be reined in.

    Sometimes the hard way is the only way: fall on sword, declare party dead, raise a new banner. The GOP's going down the toilet under Trump. They haven't a traditional Republican principle left on the table at this point short of litmus tests on the 2A and anti-abortion.

  22. #10972
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by Vae View Post
    Will never happen.
    So you read the headline at least...

  23. #10973
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    The cost of Lord Dampnut's inhumane policies:

    https://apnews.com/b44559a135654616aa0e69a3ec7d2339

    SANTA ANA, California (AP) — This story is part of an ongoing joint investigation between The Associated Press and the PBS series FRONTLINE on the treatment of migrant children, which includes an upcoming film.
    ___
    After local Guatemalan officials burned down an environmental activist’s home, he decided to leave his village behind and flee to the United States, hoping he’d be granted asylum and his little boy, whose heart was failing, would receive lifesaving medical care.

    But after crossing the border into Arizona in May of last year, Border Patrol agents tore the man’s 7-year-old son from his arms and sent the father nearly 2,000 miles (3,220 kilometers) away to a detention center in Georgia. The boy, now 8, went into a U.S.-funded foster home for migrant children in New York.

    The foster care programs are aimed at providing migrant children with care while authorities work to connect them with parents, relatives or other sponsors. But instead the boy told a counselor he was repeatedly sexually molested by other boys in the foster home.

    A review of 38 legal claims obtained by The Associated Press — some of which have never been made public — shows taxpayers could be on the hook for more than $200 million in damages from parents who said their children were harmed while in government custody.

    The father and son are among dozens of families — separated at the border as part of the Trump administration’s zero tolerance policy — who are now preparing to sue the federal government, including several who say their young children were sexually, physically or emotionally abused in federally funded foster care.

    [...]

    Janet Napolitano, who led Homeland Security from 2009 to 2013, said she recalled a number of tort claims were filed against the agency at the time, though she said family separations were rare. The delays in reunifying families and children under the Trump administration may have left the agency open to legal challenges, she added.

    “There very well may be some vulnerability there,” said Napolitano, now the president of the University of California.

    Lawsuits stemming from family separation policies under the Trump administration are expected to be filed by mid-August.
    [...]

  24. #10974
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeMaker View Post
    No one gets lost on a straight road, right? I mean the GOP honchos made conscious decisions to end up where they are now. Yet their base is shrinking, and what's growing is the shocking disparity between their erstwhile "conservative principles" versus their actual major legislation and the character of their nominal party leader.
    In fact, it has gotten so bad that they need to invent support:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...working-class/

    [...]
    [R]ight-leaning commentators depend on the voice of an imagined white working class to legitimize and advance their own viewpoints — viewpoints that are often opposed to those of the real working class.

    [...]

    There’s no precise metric for defining the “working class,” but studies show that among workers without a college degree, whites are underrepresented — their share is rapidly declining — and women make up nearly half of the group. A report from the Working Poor Families Project shows an even starker gap between media rhetoric and reality: People of color make up 58 percent of low-income families. And the working class is increasingly made up of nurses and waiters rather than construction workers like the imaginary Archie. Seventy-six percent of the group are in the service industry, while only 21 percent work in the industrial sector.

    The political and social views of the real working class could not be more out of step with how they’re often portrayed by the right: According to a recent poll by the Economist, low-income Americans are more likely than their middle- or upper-income counterparts to disapprove of President Trump’s immigration policies or call him a racist. They are also less inclined to think Trump cares about them at all. In 2016, working-class Americans swung for Hillary Clinton by a margin of roughly 10 percentage points.

    [The stereotype of a bigoted working class] allows the right to ascribe its own, often unpopular, ideas to an invented working class, hoping to rally broader support around what this fabled community of “real” Americans wants.
    [...]

    Quote Originally Posted by CoffeeMaker View Post
    They haven't a traditional Republican principle left on the table at this point short of litmus tests on the 2A and anti-abortion.
    Republican principles? What are those? Are they tasty?

    https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-amer...y-conservative

    A majority of Republican voters -- 62 percent -- identify as both fiscally and socially conservative, according to a new Hill-HarrisX poll released on Friday.

    The survey also found that 20 percent of likely Republican voters identified as fiscally conservative but socially liberal.

    [...]

    The poll comes just two weeks after President Trump signed into law a comprehensive two-year budget deal that increases federal spending and lifts the nation’s borrowing limit.
    [...]

  25. #10975
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Also, here's a video on that kind of postmodern conservatism that's so in vogue these days:


Page 439 of 558 FirstFirst ... 189339389394399404409414419424429434435436437438439440441442443444449454459464469474479484489539 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •