The Next American President Thread (2016)

16465676970198

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I just watched an interview Charlie Rose had with Tom Barrack Jr., founder of Colony Capital, who spoke before Ivanka yesterday and who has known Trump for 40 yrs. He also interviewed Steven Mnuchin, who is in charge of his fundraising activities.

    There were some fascinating insights into the inner workings of the man and the effort. These guys are serious and are not messing about.
  • edited July 2016 Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    I just watched an interview Charlie Rose had with Tom Barrack Jr., founder of Colony Capital, who spoke before Ivanka yesterday and who has known Trump for 40 yrs. He also interviewed Steven Mnuchin, who is in charge of his fundraising activities.

    There were some fascinating insights into the inner workings of the man and the effort. These guys are serious and are not messing about.

    These guys are serious in.....winning yes. Absolutely. But when it comes to clearly defined solutions I'm seriously oubting their knowledge, temperament and diplomacy.

    I mean, The Donald wants to get.....rid of NATO membership. How stupid can you be. How...insane can you be. For me Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson are all very much the same. They appeal perfectly to the populi...to the people (hence 'populism'). But when it comes to leading the country with complex solutions to all the narrative........they let you down. Just look at Nigel Farage.

    Winning is one thing, staying in power is perhaps part of it, but actually solving complex problems that's a thing certain people don't care about. But anyway, it is how it is. If the people want Donald, then so be it.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    What we have here is a segment of society whose anger is misunderstood. This isn't about the economy or jobs or even ISIS, really. Those are just the surface issues. What it's all about is deep-seeded fear: that everything conservatives base their lives on (their values, beliefs, perceptions, faith) is nothing but a big pile of dog doo.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I mean, The Donald wants to get.....rid of NATO membership. How stupid can you be.
    That is not quite what he wants to do by the way.
    For me Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson are all very much the same.
    Not quite. They are quite different in their life experiences and abilities. Where they may be similar is in appearance (Trump/Johnson perhaps) and appeal to populism/nationalism.
  • MyNameIsMyBondRnMyNameIsMyBondRn WhereYouLeastExpectMeToBe
    Posts: 221
    bondjames wrote: »
    I mean, The Donald wants to get.....rid of NATO membership. How stupid can you be.
    That is not quite what he wants to do by the way.
    For me Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson are all very much the same.
    Not quite. They are quite different in their life experiences and abilities. Where they may be similar is in appearance (Trump/Johnson perhaps) and appeal to populism/nationalism.

    Note; The MUTUAL ASSISTANCE CLAUSE is centric to the US Defence Doctrine; One Of Its Main TOOLS - NATO- is TOOTHLESS without it; It has costed US Taxpayers-Republicans and Democrats ALIKE Many ZILLIONS of Billions Of USD to put it in place; to make It what it is-And It has Done Great Service For The USA, Now aswell as in the Past.
    DONALD TRUMP are giving You COMPLETE NONSENSE on That.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I mean, The Donald wants to get.....rid of NATO membership. How stupid can you be.
    That is not quite what he wants to do by the way.
    For me Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson are all very much the same.
    Not quite. They are quite different in their life experiences and abilities. Where they may be similar is in appearance (Trump/Johnson perhaps) and appeal to populism/nationalism.

    Note; The MUTUAL ASSISTANCE CLAUSE is centric to the US Defence Doctrine; One Of Its Main TOOLS - NATO- is TOOTHLESS without it; It has costed US Taxpayers-Republicans and Democrats ALIKE Many ZILLIONS of Billions Of USD to put it in place; to make It what it is-And It has Done Great Service For The USA, Now aswell as in the Past.
    Everyone is aware of that.
  • Posts: 1,631
    bondjames wrote: »
    I mean, The Donald wants to get.....rid of NATO membership. How stupid can you be.
    That is not quite what he wants to do by the way.
    For me Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson are all very much the same.
    Not quite. They are quite different in their life experiences and abilities. Where they may be similar is in appearance (Trump/Johnson perhaps) and appeal to populism/nationalism.

    Note; The MUTUAL ASSISTANCE CLAUSE is centric to the US Defence Doctrine; One Of Its Main TOOLS - NATO- is TOOTHLESS without it; It has costed US Taxpayers-Republicans and Democrats ALIKE Many ZILLIONS of Billions Of USD to put it in place; to make It what it is-And It has Done Great Service For The USA, Now aswell as in the Past.
    DONALD TRUMP are giving You COMPLETE NONSENSE on That.

    That could apply to a good amount of what spews out of Trump's mouth.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,183
    This is interesting:

  • bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I mean, The Donald wants to get.....rid of NATO membership. How stupid can you be.
    That is not quite what he wants to do by the way.
    For me Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson are all very much the same.
    Not quite. They are quite different in their life experiences and abilities. Where they may be similar is in appearance (Trump/Johnson perhaps) and appeal to populism/nationalism.

    Note; The MUTUAL ASSISTANCE CLAUSE is centric to the US Defence Doctrine; One Of Its Main TOOLS - NATO- is TOOTHLESS without it; It has costed US Taxpayers-Republicans and Democrats ALIKE Many ZILLIONS of Billions Of USD to put it in place; to make It what it is-And It has Done Great Service For The USA, Now aswell as in the Past.
    Everyone is aware of that.

    "Everybody Knows This is Nowhere" -- Neil Young.

    There is NOTHING that Everybody is aware of. I can assure you of that. If you believe nothing else I've ever said, believe this: there is NOTHING, absolutely nothing, that "Everybody" agrees on, or knows, or is aware of.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    I mean, The Donald wants to get.....rid of NATO membership. How stupid can you be.
    That is not quite what he wants to do by the way.

    He said that the USA may not assist in helping another NATO country when it's under attack.
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-fires-back-after-donald-trump-questions-value-of-defending-allies-1469120175

    That kind of talk definately weakens the NATO. How can you....utter such ludicrous, reckless, ridiculous language.

    You know, I can understand that people want to leave the EU these days. But what's next? Going back to medieval times where every nation is locked up within its own borders and doesn't give a shit about.....NATO allies? Then we might as well get rid of NATO (Article 5....remember?).

    It's not only that, but the very notion that Donald Trump hasn't got a clue about international politics. They have to manage their own stuff'. And although I do agree that America should not create wars......without a strong USA that comes into action when NATO-members ask for their help, NATO is doomed and we let China and Russia walk all over us.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I mean, The Donald wants to get.....rid of NATO membership. How stupid can you be.
    That is not quite what he wants to do by the way.

    He said that the USA may not assist in helping another NATO country when it's under attack.
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-fires-back-after-donald-trump-questions-value-of-defending-allies-1469120175

    That kind of talk definately weakens the NATO. How can you....utter such ludicrous, reckless, ridiculous language.

    You know, I can understand that people want to leave the EU these days. But what's next? Going back to medieval times where every nation is locked up within its own borders and doesn't give a shit about.....NATO allies? Then we might as well get rid of NATO (Article 5....remember?).

    It's not only that, but the very notion that Donald Trump hasn't got a clue about international politics. They have to manage their own stuff'. And although I do agree that America should not create wars......without a strong USA that comes into action when NATO-members ask for their help, NATO is doomed and we let China and Russia talk all over us.
    All I will say is that there is a reason why our politics is discussed at the most base level.

    EDIT: Hillary's VP pick is imminent. Those who were not selected are presently being informed.

    2nd EDIT: Tim Kaine it is, as expected.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    bondjames wrote: »

    2nd EDIT: Tim Kaine it is, as expected.
    Not a terrible choice.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    2nd EDIT: Tim Kaine it is, as expected.
    Not a terrible choice.
    No, he's not bad at all. Doesn't shake anything up, but I don't think that's what either campaign was looking for this year for their VP picks. He's experienced in multiple roles, and can be president if required.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I mean, The Donald wants to get.....rid of NATO membership. How stupid can you be.
    That is not quite what he wants to do by the way.

    He said that the USA may not assist in helping another NATO country when it's under attack.
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/nato-fires-back-after-donald-trump-questions-value-of-defending-allies-1469120175

    That kind of talk definately weakens the NATO. How can you....utter such ludicrous, reckless, ridiculous language.

    You know, I can understand that people want to leave the EU these days. But what's next? Going back to medieval times where every nation is locked up within its own borders and doesn't give a shit about.....NATO allies? Then we might as well get rid of NATO (Article 5....remember?).

    It's not only that, but the very notion that Donald Trump hasn't got a clue about international politics. They have to manage their own stuff'. And although I do agree that America should not create wars......without a strong USA that comes into action when NATO-members ask for their help, NATO is doomed and we let China and Russia talk all over us.
    All I will say is that there is a reason why our politics is discussed at the most base level.

    You are echoing Donald Trump himself; a man who also refuses to go into the specifics.

    Anyway, it seems Donald Trump is inspiring a lot of people these days:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/kkk-leader-david-duke-plans-run-us-senate-40802984
    Former Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, David Duke, will run for the US Senate for the state of Louisiana. Obviously he won't stand a chance, but something or someone must have inspired the man.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    bondjames wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    2nd EDIT: Tim Kaine it is, as expected.
    Not a terrible choice.
    No, he's not bad at all. Doesn't shake anything up, but I don't think that's what either campaign was looking for this year for their VP picks. He's experienced in multiple roles, and can be president if required.

    Agreed.
    But he's no Bernie. 8-|
  • edited July 2016 Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    2nd EDIT: Tim Kaine it is, as expected.
    Not a terrible choice.
    No, he's not bad at all. Doesn't shake anything up, but I don't think that's what either campaign was looking for this year for their VP picks. He's experienced in multiple roles, and can be president if required.

    That's because both candidates themselves, Hillary and Donald, have shaken things up themselves already quite a bit.

    I'm not surprised it's not Elizabeth Warren or any other more 'younger' left-wing Democrat, like Deval Patrick or Julian Castro.

    The Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton have already appealed enough to Bernie Sanders and his base last month. Resulting in a substantial endorsement from Bernie (Hear hear Donald, at least Hillary succeeds a bit better in unifying a party).

    But now it's time to appeal to swing voters, independents and moderates. And then it's better to have Tim Kaine as VP. On top of that he could be helpful in making Virginia vote for the 3rd time in three elections for the Democratic Party.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »

    2nd EDIT: Tim Kaine it is, as expected.
    Not a terrible choice.
    No, he's not bad at all. Doesn't shake anything up, but I don't think that's what either campaign was looking for this year for their VP picks. He's experienced in multiple roles, and can be president if required.

    Agreed.
    But he's no Bernie. 8-|
    Not even close, but Hillary was never going there after she beat him.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    bondjames wrote: »
    Hillary was never going there after she beat him.
    She beat him?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Hillary was never going there after she beat him.
    She beat him?
    Perhaps with just a little help from the DNC, according to recent WikiLeaks revelations.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    bondjames wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Hillary was never going there after she beat him.
    She beat him?
    Perhaps with just a little help from the DNC, according to recent WikiLeaks revelations.

    ;))
  • edited July 2016 Posts: 725
    Excellent choice. Hillary was never, ever going to win the extreme Bernie element over. They will go down the rabbit's hole to vote for Stein or stay home, and possibly help elect Trump, just as they did when they voted for Nader and single handedly elected Bush. The choice is binary, not multiple choice. The Susan Sarandon's of the US (and other Hollywood far lefties can sit on her 20 million dollar balconies, fly out of the US on private jets when the country burns) after helping to elect Trump. Sarandon's son didn't serve in Iraq, and she and most of her ilk will not pay the dues when Trump screws the little guy and the country if elected.

    The more moderate, idealistic Bernie backers would back any decent VP candidate to beat trump, the key priority. Kaine is calm, mostly liberal, has excellent management experience as a mayor and Governor and foreign affairs exp. in the Senator on the FA committee, Catholic, pro gun control, goes to an African American church, a fluent Spanish speaker (from service in SA), with a reputation as a very decent, well respected guy, he will also help carry a potential swing state with a Dem. governor to appoint a Dem senator if they win etc. etc. etc. Most importantly, he can step up and take over the Presidency on a dime. He's a very smart choice.
  • Posts: 11,119
    You know who is one of my favourite Democrats? The late Governor of Texas, Ann Richards. Just watch her keynote speech during the DNC of 1988. Absolutely stunning. She was so charismatic....but ALWAYS positive:
  • Posts: 725
    I am amazed at all of the Bernie bashing of teeth over the DNC being pro Hillary. Hello - Earth to mars. Bernie has been a Dem. for 5 minutes. Clinton has raised 100s of million for the DNC to elect 100s of Democrats down ballot for decades. Bernie hasn't done a damn thing for the Democrat party other than use it to run for President. He was always an independent, and ran as a Democrat strictly because he could not gain important traction by running as an independent. He used the Democratic party. He is now trying to kill off the DNC Chair in a primary, which won't work. Clinton carried that district by a wide margin in the FL primary. How could the DNC not distrust and dislike him.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    smitty wrote: »
    I am amazed at all of the Bernie bashing of teeth over the DNC being pro Hillary. Hello - Earth to mars. Bernie has been a Dem. for 5 minutes.
    He was playing the game, and he played it well. He used the party to make a statement, and DID IT WELL. By rigging the game, the DNC is taking an awful risk- it had better work.
  • edited July 2016 Posts: 725
    The DNC did not rig the game. The rules were in place well in advance of Sanders run for Pres. Sanders and his team knew the rules going in and they exploited them to their advantage, particularly in the caucus states (which they dominated), and which are rather undemocratic. They had small turn outs, and were totally dominated by college students, and other non working voters who could camp out all day to vote during the endless caucus process. Sanders played those caucus states well, but it was hardly NY, FL, CA, NJ etc, with huge primary populations, almost all of which Clinton won.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489

    That kind of talk definately weakens the NATO. How can you....utter such ludicrous, reckless, ridiculous language.

    You know, I can understand that people want to leave the EU these days. But what's next? Going back to medieval times where every nation is locked up within its own borders and doesn't give a shit about.....NATO allies? Then we might as well get rid of NATO (Article 5....remember?).

    It's not only that, but the very notion that Donald Trump hasn't got a clue about international politics. They have to manage their own stuff'. And although I do agree that America should not create wars......without a strong USA that comes into action when NATO-members ask for their help, NATO is doomed and we let China and Russia walk all over us.

    Getting rid of NATO would be a huge improvement.
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2016 Posts: 15,718
    So, basically @Gustav_Graves and the people who are very Anti-Trump, are actually Trump's biggest supporters, as they are doing the same negative campaign on him that they also did on the Brexit.

    The more negative you are about Trump, the more you are doing him a favour. If you want him to not get elected, you should be positive on what Clinton would be as President, and not complain about every ideas from Trump. Yes I know it's not very fair, but the more Trump's crazy ideas are mentioned, the more they'll 'stick' and get people talking about it.

    Our very own Gustav's behaviour in this thread would get Trump elected if this discussion was visible to millions of American voters. Being endlessly negative on the side you are against is the perfect way to undermine your own camp. In the UK, the remain side would have had bigger chance of winning is they were more positive on the EU benifits, instead of doing a smear campaign on the Leavers.
  • Posts: 7,507
    The problem is that there is not much to there to be enthusiastic or positive about concerning Clinton. The best thing I can say of here is that she is an experienced politician and, unlike Trump, expresses a decent understanding of how the world works. But it basically boils down to a 'lesser of two evils' scenario. The reason to vote for Hillary is that she is not a Republican and not Donald Trump. Its really quite sad...
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    edited July 2016 Posts: 15,718
    @jobo I agree, but the other problem is that the more insane Trump's ideas are, the more they stick. The more the media talks about his ideas, the more they stick. It gets everyone talking about it, so they stick even more. And we live in a time where being negative on far-right candidates only manages to give them further free publicity, and they actually get out stronger from it.

    It's been going on for a few years now. Every single time politicians, journalists or whoever are critical of far right ideas, it backfires on them, and not on those they are trying to criticize. That's the key problem, there is nothing massively positive that has been said about EU benifits/Hillary Clinton, and being critical on the other side only backfires on you.
  • edited July 2016 Posts: 4,619
    He said that the USA may not assist in helping another NATO country when it's under attack.

    This is the reason he said that: https://i.sli.mg/TIAoq1.png

    Trump is thinking ahead. As a presidents, one of his goals will be to convince all NATO members to do more to meet the 2% defense spending goal. Why would countries like Latvia or Lithuania spend more on defense if the US says: "don't worry about ignoring the defense speding goal, if someone attacks you, we will save you anyway".

    Trump is clearly a master negotiator.
    That's because both candidates themselves, Hillary and Donald, have shaken things up themselves already quite a bit.
    http://tinyurl.com/ndnf3a2
    Are you for real? What has Rodham Clinton shaken up? She is THE establishment candidate. She is the complete opposite of "shaking things up".

This discussion has been closed.