The Next American President Thread (2016)

1100101103105106198

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2016 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    What we are told to believe? By who?
    I'm sorry, but that is what I saw on two networks early this morning. That's who.
    ----

    Phase 1 was winning the primaries. That was Lewandowski.

    As soon as that was wrapped up the next phase was delegate retention and ensuring a smooth (relatively speaking given what was predicted to happen with the never Trumpites) convention, as well as Washington inside ball. Also soaking up pressure during the 'dead summer months of the Olympics' while they built their campaign operation. That was Manafort.

    Now they are in the final stretch of trying to win an election. That is Conway and Bannon.

    Different skills for different stages of the campaign.

    If you think this campaign manager reshuffle was all part of a giant big strategy, then you are deluded really. You forget to mention that, like Lewandowski before him, Manafort also became a negative assett to the campaign. His involvement in pro-Russian enterprises is another blow to me.

    Regarding the prime-advantage for Putin on the world stage? I agree with you. And you could have responded to that I was making the similar worrysome about a 'merger' of nations like Russia, Turkey, Iran, China as a big dictating world power.

    Now the big question to you: Do you think that's good or bad?

    Alas, you'll probably never answer my questions. Because you refuse to admit 'political color'. You just observe and twist things, so that Trump's campaign looks like one of the biggest succesful TV programs ever. All that could be true, but again, you simply refuse to say if you think it's good or bad for politics.
    I never said it was a 'strategy'. There could very well have been a tactical element to it, and even a necessity. Having said that, it is the right (and common sense) move for now, as was Manafort's hiring earlier. That's all that matters.

    Manafort's Ukraine scenario was well known prior to his being hired. It was in articles in April. Nothing new here. If the press wanted to do him in, they should have focused more on this prior to the convention. They didn't. Coincidence? I don't think so.

    I never believed that Trump intended to go into the finish line with Manafort only. I also didn't believe that he wouldn't change his campaign approach in the final stretch. I expected a push to the finish line, and have said that for weeks. I believe we are seeing the beginning of that. Moreover, I stated that Trump has one eye on a post-election strategy should he lose, and mentioned that some weeks back as well. Hiring Bannon and leaning on Ailes suggests that this is in fact the case, although I don't know what his plan is yet.

    I also said that he would take an unconventional approach with his funds. I don't know what that plan is yet either, but look for some innovation when it comes to how he uses that cash hoard on the networks. That is what I mean by asymmetric.

    Regarding, Russia, China, Turkey, Iran etc. That is inevitable. Get used to it. The days of Western Imperialism running rampant is over. Again, get used to it. Nuclear weapons means the end of one sided western hegemony. Unless you want to start a third world war and have more people killed without success. The only scenario now is how to coexist within the new world order that is developing. Attempts to bully and circumvent in other countries back yards will be met by severe resistance (from recent evidence). Attempts to divide and conquer likely will fail as well. So new approaches must be found. New paradigms must be considered. Give and take.
  • edited August 2016 Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    What we are told to believe? By who?
    I'm sorry, but that is what I saw on two networks early this morning. That's who.
    ----

    Phase 1 was winning the primaries. That was Lewandowski.

    As soon as that was wrapped up the next phase was delegate retention and ensuring a smooth (relatively speaking given what was predicted to happen with the never Trumpites) convention, as well as Washington inside ball. Also soaking up pressure during the 'dead summer months of the Olympics' while they built their campaign operation. That was Manafort.

    Now they are in the final stretch of trying to win an election. That is Conway and Bannon.

    Different skills for different stages of the campaign.

    If you think this campaign manager reshuffle was all part of a giant big strategy, then you are deluded really. You forget to mention that, like Lewandowski before him, Manafort also became a negative assett to the campaign. His involvement in pro-Russian enterprises is another blow to me.

    Regarding the prime-advantage for Putin on the world stage? I agree with you. And you could have responded to that I was making the similar worrysome about a 'merger' of nations like Russia, Turkey, Iran, China as a big dictating world power.

    Now the big question to you: Do you think that's good or bad?

    Alas, you'll probably never answer my questions. Because you refuse to admit 'political color'. You just observe and twist things, so that Trump's campaign looks like one of the biggest succesful TV programs ever. All that could be true, but again, you simply refuse to say if you think it's good or bad for politics.
    I never said it was a 'strategy'. There could very well have been a tactical element to it, and even a necessity. Having said that, it is the right (and common sense) move for now, as was Manafort's hiring earlier. That's all that matters.

    Manafort's Ukraine scenario was well known prior to his being hired. It was in articles in April. Nothing new here. If the press wanted to do him in, they should have focused more on this prior to the convention. They didn't. Coincidence? I don't think so.

    I never believed that Trump intended to go into the finish line with Manafort only. I also didn't believe that he wouldn't change his campaign approach in the final stretch. I expected a push to the finish line, and have said that for weeks. I think it's quite clear that this was my opinion. I believe we are seeing the beginning of that. Moreover, I stated that Trump has one eye on a post-election strategy should he lose, and mentioned that some weeks back as well. Hiring Bannon and leaning on Ailes suggests that this is in fact the case, although I don't know what his plan is yet.

    I also said that he would take an unconventional approach with his funds. I don't know what that plan is yet either, but look for some innovation when it comes to how he uses that cash hoard on the networks. That is what I mean by asymmetric.

    Regarding, Russia, China, Turkey, Iran etc. That is inevitable. Get used to it. The days of Western Imperialism running rampant is over. Again, get used to it. Nuclear weapons means the end of one sided western hegemony. Unless you want to start a third world war and have more people killed without success. The only scenario now is how to coexist within the new world order that is developing. Attempts to bully and circumvent in other countries back yards will be met by severe resistance (from recent evidence). Attempts to divide and conquer likely will fail as well. So new approaches must be found. New paradigms must be considered. Give and take.

    Long story, but like always, you keep evading the question I was asking:

    Do you think the current geopolitical facts are ethically good or bad? Do you think it will harm the lifes, and with it the prosperity and welfare, of western citizens?

    You know, I know what the facts are. Stop teaching me those facts. I know that in the end I have to swallow the current geopolitical affairs as granted. But there's a difference in accepting a new kind of geopolitical status-quo and ethically agreeing on it.

    So does that mean I need to throw away my ethical and moral beliefs? Is this how far we have come? Just swinging over, and not having the balls to stand for your core beliefs and be vocal about them? Obviously you will say "There's nothing you can do!", and that is true to a large extend. But for me, following a new outsider, populist status-quo blindly, or following the new balance-of-power shift on this planet blindly, without ethically questioning these developments, have historically been proven to be flawed.......and even dangerous.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    What we are told to believe? By who?
    I'm sorry, but that is what I saw on two networks early this morning. That's who.
    ----

    Phase 1 was winning the primaries. That was Lewandowski.

    As soon as that was wrapped up the next phase was delegate retention and ensuring a smooth (relatively speaking given what was predicted to happen with the never Trumpites) convention, as well as Washington inside ball. Also soaking up pressure during the 'dead summer months of the Olympics' while they built their campaign operation. That was Manafort.

    Now they are in the final stretch of trying to win an election. That is Conway and Bannon.

    Different skills for different stages of the campaign.

    If you think this campaign manager reshuffle was all part of a giant big strategy, then you are deluded really. You forget to mention that, like Lewandowski before him, Manafort also became a negative assett to the campaign. His involvement in pro-Russian enterprises is another blow to me.

    Regarding the prime-advantage for Putin on the world stage? I agree with you. And you could have responded to that I was making the similar worrysome about a 'merger' of nations like Russia, Turkey, Iran, China as a big dictating world power.

    Now the big question to you: Do you think that's good or bad?

    Alas, you'll probably never answer my questions. Because you refuse to admit 'political color'. You just observe and twist things, so that Trump's campaign looks like one of the biggest succesful TV programs ever. All that could be true, but again, you simply refuse to say if you think it's good or bad for politics.
    I never said it was a 'strategy'. There could very well have been a tactical element to it, and even a necessity. Having said that, it is the right (and common sense) move for now, as was Manafort's hiring earlier. That's all that matters.

    Manafort's Ukraine scenario was well known prior to his being hired. It was in articles in April. Nothing new here. If the press wanted to do him in, they should have focused more on this prior to the convention. They didn't. Coincidence? I don't think so.

    I never believed that Trump intended to go into the finish line with Manafort only. I also didn't believe that he wouldn't change his campaign approach in the final stretch. I expected a push to the finish line, and have said that for weeks. I think it's quite clear that this was my opinion. I believe we are seeing the beginning of that. Moreover, I stated that Trump has one eye on a post-election strategy should he lose, and mentioned that some weeks back as well. Hiring Bannon and leaning on Ailes suggests that this is in fact the case, although I don't know what his plan is yet.

    I also said that he would take an unconventional approach with his funds. I don't know what that plan is yet either, but look for some innovation when it comes to how he uses that cash hoard on the networks. That is what I mean by asymmetric.

    Regarding, Russia, China, Turkey, Iran etc. That is inevitable. Get used to it. The days of Western Imperialism running rampant is over. Again, get used to it. Nuclear weapons means the end of one sided western hegemony. Unless you want to start a third world war and have more people killed without success. The only scenario now is how to coexist within the new world order that is developing. Attempts to bully and circumvent in other countries back yards will be met by severe resistance (from recent evidence). Attempts to divide and conquer likely will fail as well. So new approaches must be found. New paradigms must be considered. Give and take.

    Long story, but like always, you keep evading the question I was asking:

    Do you think the current geopolitical facts are ethically good or bad? Do you think it will

    You know, I know what the facts are. Stop teaching me those facts. I know that in the end I have to swallow the current geopolitical affairs as granted. But there's a difference in accepting a new kind of geopolitical status-quo and ethically agreeing on it.

    So does that mean I need to throw away my ethical and moral beliefs? Is this how far we have come? Just swinging over, and not having the balls to stand for your core beliefs and be vocal about them? Obviously you will say "There's nothing you can do!", and that is true to a large extend. But for me, following a new outsider, populist status-quo blindly, or following the new balance-of-power shift on this planet blindly, without ethically questioning these developments, have historically been proven to be flawed.......and even dangerous.
    Keep your ethical and moral beliefs. Nobody said not to. Just don't impose your view of the world as you see it on me. Don't impose 'your hypothetical view of my view' on me either. Don't keep throwing up opinions that you read as fact and then expect me to agree with you. I won't.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,335
    I somehow feel detached from this world. The Turks are rallying behind a Hitler impersonator (yes, that's right GG, this is a Godwin. But he's been actively killing Kurds for a long time now, so he's closer to one AH then anyone before), millions of people are fleeing war zones where a FU group of human-hating creatures are actively creating hell, millions of people join these refugees for a better life and risking not just everything they have but their lifes too, The EU is falling apart and instead of trying to listen to it's people this bureacratic monster is even more detached from the world, still wanting to make a deal with this Hitler-impersonator, and the last beacon we had of Western 'civilisation' has an ogre running for President and a presidential race that's so far below par it's even hard to see what's going on..

    And the 21st century is only in it's second decade. Thirty years ago we all thought by now we'd heve shuttle transport between here and the moon and we'd be setting foot on Mars. This is one of those 'what the hell happened'moments in history.

    I share your sentiment completely @CommanderRoss. But it's only logical. 'The West' as we know it is rapidly loosing power on this planet and with it prosperity and welfare. The first people who feel this are the people who are forced out of middle class situations. And we know what people usually see that first. On top of that, despite all the hate on other continents about 'The West', many poor people on those continents still realize that 'The West' could give them the best possible future. Hence the insane and uncontrollable immigration crisis. Make no mistake, I see this as simple natural redistribution of wealth. If you want it or not, new powers come...and go. And with it growth in population.

    I have been saying this for years. And it saddens me when I think about it. But I'm afraid there's not much you can do about it. Even the Trump's and Wilders' will become disappointed if they have governed our nations for four years.

    Hey @CommanderRoss, still curious what you think of this.
    Well it's in here really:
    First of all I don't believe in Western supremacy as something to hang on to, I think that's a very twentieth-century way of thinking. I welcome any nation with humanitarian and enlightened leaders to join in to the 'governing'of this little blue ball out in space.
    There's absolutely no need for western prosperity to decline because others become more prosperous. So there you are. The middle-class problem in the US (In Europe it isn't that bad at all, whatever the press want you to believe, just check the numbers) is a result of neo-liberal market policies, and the country is reaping the wind it sowed decades ago.
  • Posts: 11,119
    I don't impose my views and my political beliefs on you @BondJames. You can continue feeling angry with me. That's your choice. But so far you keep being silent on what you think of Russia or Trump from an ethical viewpoint. The only thing you do is observing and stating facts with regard to Russia and Trump. You never mention any worry with regard to Russia and Trump. Never. Or you use some vague words that should be read as 'worries'. And as long as you don't address that it makes you look like a silent bystander.

    To me personally, no matter how futile my criticism will be, I condemn everything that Putin and Trump are standing for, morally and ethically. It scares me how our ideas of democracy and enlightenment (Rousseau, Montesqieu) are being brought to the crematoriums. And it scares me how people like you @BondJames stay silent on it.

    I do have my fair bit of criticism about establishment politicians, about The West, about the EU and NATO. They are self-destructive too. But the pace how they do it makes me less worried and leaves open space for solutions. Russia, Trump, Wilders, e.o. are IMO only speeding up that self-destruction to an extend that may be irreparable.

    The West may be loosing big time. But as long as I post in here I shall defend those values, how flawed they may seem at this very moment, and I will keep comparing them with other values from an ethical viewpoint (the 'values' of Putin, Trump, Wilders, Erdogan) that offer way way worse prospects for humankind. I stand up for my democratic rights and will use them at my best ability, as opposed to active silence (supporting Trump or Wilders), passive silence (accepting the dire situation of democracy in Russia and Turkey) or mocking our democratic values ('crooked Hillary' will rig the elections, 'journalists are a-holes').

    You stay silent on that @BondJames. Your choice. But stop acting like a verbally more sane version of Trump by constantly evading my questions.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I have not stayed silent at all. My views have been quite clear on a number of threads here over the years, including this one. I have also been quite clear about the way I am approaching this election in a post a few weeks back which I will not repeat. I don't like to jump from the rooftops about things that I can't control.

    Regarding Putin, Trump and the west. These are flawed people. Deeply flawed. As are Obama, Clinton, Bush etc. etc. None of them are saints. In fact, I believe the US is responsible (directly and indirectly) for more deaths in the world since 911 than Russia is. I don't think the numbers are even close. You may be able to condone that. I don't. It's unacceptable. Iraq was unacceptable. Allowing the mess in Syria to occur (by partially funding the anti-Assad arm without giving them sufficient weapons or political cover to win the fight) is unforgivable and has resulted in a human catastrophe of unimaginable proportions that has occurred over the past 5 odd years. It has been a crime against humanity due to political expediency and prevarication. The same applies to how the US created a vacuum in Iraq due to the hamfisted method in which they withdrew (after having gone in there and created the mess to being with).

    Trump is a loud mouth and divisive. He's also a media manipulator. However, he makes very valid points about the political class and the system as part of his campaign rhetoric. His opponent is corrupt and is riddled with conflict of interests. She also doesn't appear to speak her mind. The American people will make a decision as to which of these two candidates they prefer in 82 days. You've committed to one side quite clearly. I have not. I continue to watch events unfold with interest. I am certainly leaning Trump because I would like a shake up of that political class (particularly on the foreign policy side). I would have been happy with Bernie for the same reason. The system as it stands is untenable, and you will see that over the next four years even if Hillary wins.

    Putin is a nationalist. He puts Russia and Russian interests first, as he sees it. He believes Russia was played by the West post-Soviet Union and he is clear that this will not happen again under his watch. I can understand his point of view. I don't know enough about the truth of the matter to have an opinion on it, but I can understand it.

    Putin is not the enemy here. The real enemy is China, but the US political class will not admit that publicly. Putin was supposed to play ball with the EU and West in containing China and soon India. He has refused to. New alliances are being formed because the West has lost credibility in the past. Old tools of 'control' like the IMF & World Bank have been discredited. China is creating a new 'string of pearls' Silk Road strategy that has the foreign policy establishment awake at night. It makes the Marshall Plan look like a joke. A reported $4 trillion of investment. Soft power personified.
  • Posts: 15,233
    So far Trump's "plan" hasn't worked so well: he's behind in the polls and keeps trailing, his program has been denounced even by prominent Republicans and he seems incapable to appeal to anyone else than a bunch of loud mouth fanatics and some desperate GOP voters. And I'm not even talking of the intrinsic vacuity of his arguments or what passes as argument in his narcissistic mind.
  • Posts: 11,119
    @BondJames I'm a bit appalled that you say my posts are more one-sided than yours. Especially since I posted VERY clearly some pro-Trump news articles in here a few pages back.

    At best, we both lean to a certain candidate. You lean to Trump. I lean to the 'new' Clinton that tried hard to bring Bernie's ideas onboard to the Democratic Party platform.

    I wonder though @BondJames how much of an idealist you are and even if you put some thought in how a perfect society should look like. Personally, I think you give a damn. You don't even think in a way how Trump may improve the USA during a 4-year term or an 8-year period. And by definition I think that's flawed. You only support shaking up the system for the sake of shaking up. Nothing else. As long as you can maintain both of your apartments in Canada and the USA.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Personally, I think you give a damn. You don't even think in a way how Trump may improve the USA during a 4-year term or an 8-year period. And by definition I think that's flawed. You only support shaking up the system for the sake of shaking up. Nothing else. As long as you can maintain both of your apartments in Canada and the USA.
    Again you discredit yourself with your personal attacks @Gustav_Graves. Enough is enough. I'm done with you from now on.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    Personally, I think you give a damn. You don't even think in a way how Trump may improve the USA during a 4-year term or an 8-year period. And by definition I think that's flawed. You only support shaking up the system for the sake of shaking up. Nothing else. As long as you can maintain both of your apartments in Canada and the USA.
    Again you discredit yourself with your personal attacks @Gustav_Graves. Enough is enough. I'm done with you from now on.

    Fair enough. Just keep evading, keep staying away from certain core issues that you don't care about. I'm also done with you @BondJames.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,454
    Seriously? This feud is still going on?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    No feud. Not anymore. Moving on. He can accost others from now on.
  • Posts: 315
    9754201a907a6e08f2e34ad9bbc718b86a1105ed2760138a05b851a41e3080fd.jpg
  • Posts: 315
    bondjames wrote: »
    No feud. Not anymore. Moving on. He can accost others from now on.

    Three minutes later.

    McDonalds-fat-kid.jpg

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Obesity is a serious health problem which I hope the next president comments on. Cute though.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Feuds can results in serious troubled forum relationships. Like @BondJames is fed up with me, I'm fed up with his behaviour on this forum. He is who he is. And indeed, let's move on.
  • bondjames wrote: »
    Obesity is a serious health problem which I hope the next president comments on. Cute though.

    Do you recall Michelle Obama's comments on obesity and the American diet early on in her husband's administration? The right wing did not receive those comments well. Perhaps your preferred candidate will take the topic up in the course of his next job -- as the host of an third-rate cable TV show. We shall see...
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    Obesity is a serious health problem which I hope the next president comments on. Cute though.

    Do you recall Michelle Obama's comments on obesity and the American diet early on in her husband's administration? The right wing did not receive those comments well. Perhaps your preferred candidate will take the topic up in the course of his next job -- as the host of an third-rate cable TV show. We shall see...

    Well, we do know that Donald Trump is a lover of fast-food. And he doesn't really have a high opinion about ecologically and biologically friendly produced food. 'Fast Food' is his message, not 'Fair Food'.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    Obesity is a serious health problem which I hope the next president comments on. Cute though.

    Do you recall Michelle Obama's comments on obesity and the American diet early on in her husband's administration? The right wing did not receive those comments well. Perhaps your preferred candidate will take the topic up in the course of his next job -- as the host of an third-rate cable TV show. We shall see...
    Yes, I remember it well. It's a serious problem that should be addressed, for the sake of the population and for the sake of that little fella above. It's unacceptable that his health is being put at risk from such an early age with that processed rubbish. Bloomberg focused on it in New York as Mayor as well.
  • Posts: 315
    Cjg81oBVEAAAohe.jpg
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited August 2016 Posts: 23,883
    At least he's using his hands for that. He uses a fork and knife for KFC & pizza. A clean hands freak too. He's no messiah, this one. Not even close.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2016 Posts: 12,480
    Trump is still the same. Don't expect him to be able to change. God forbid he is elected.

    Here is a look at the last few months of his campaign:


    And info on Steve Bannon, just brought in. He likes to take the extreme approach, which should fit like a glove with what Trump is most comfortable with.
  • Posts: 11,119
    Trump is still the same. Don't expect him to be able to change. God forbid he is elected.

    Here is a look at the last few months of his campaign:


    And info on Steve Bannon, just brought in. He likes the take the extreme approach, which should fit like a glove with what Trump is most comfortable with.

    What worries me most is how the forces behind Trump try to turn his likely loss into one big 'Hillary Clinton coup d'état'. I find that damaging and destructive for the state of the American democracy. Loss is a loss. Deal with it after November 8th.
  • Posts: 1,296
    I don't understand how those gross little burgers from McDonald's are supposed to mean anything in 2016. Maybe in the past, but not now....
  • What they mean is that he's got no taste. Richer than Croesus (or so he claims) and marketing everything branded "Trump" as the epitome of class ... but in actuality, he's just a vulgarian with the taste of Mayor McCheese.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Interesting ... the taco lunch tweet ... some background on it showing Trump's attitude
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    bondjames wrote: »
    At least he's using his hands for that. He uses a fork and knife for KFC & pizza. A clean hands freak too. He's no messiah, this one. Not even close.

    I don't think it's a clean hands thing. I believe he just thinks that the wealthy and well-off are supposed to eat even fast food like they would devour a feast in a mansion. Silver spoons are difficult things to remove from your mouth after you've choked on them for so long.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    edited August 2016 Posts: 12,480
    Good one, Tuulia. :)

    Trump recently on Muslims. So if you have had enough, just skip this:
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,335
This discussion has been closed.