The Official Former President Trump thread

[welshbairn]

2 hours ago, Bishop Briggs said:

Fascinating maps

 

Here's another map.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/map_of_the_week/2012/11/presidential_election_a_map_showing_the_vote_power_of_all_50_states.html

[welshbairn]

9 minutes ago, strichener said:

Obama is surely going to go down as one of the most ineffectual, hypocritical presidents of the US.  "Change we can believe in", don't make me laugh.

 

 

I was talking about his ability to inspire people to vote for him, twice. Given the utter shambles of the economy when he took over and the Republican Party blocking everything he tried to do for 6 years, even if they agreed with it, I think he'll go down in history as one of the better Presidents. He also managed to keep America out of a ground war in Syria which would have made Iraq look like a tea party.

[Granny Danger]

49 minutes ago, strichener said:

Obama is surely going to go down as one of the most ineffectual, hypocritical presidents of the US.  "Change we can believe in", don't make me laugh.

 

I think he will be proven to be have been more effective than his successor.

[Sooky]

I was talking about his ability to inspire people to vote for him, twice. Given the utter shambles of the economy when he took over and the Republican Party blocking everything he tried to do for 6 years, even if they agreed with it, I think he'll go down in history as one of the better Presidents. He also managed to keep America out of a ground war in Syria which would have made Iraq look like a tea party.

I don't think he's going be particularly well remembered for Syria, to be honest. Especially with his 'red line' speech.

Also worth remembering that Obama's approvals have soared ever since people realised he would be succeeded by Clinton or Trump. Beforehand, they really weren't brilliant. I don't particularly like him, but I'd have supported him for a hypothetical 3rd term against those two.

[welshbairn]

1 minute ago, Sooky said:

 

I don't think he's going be particularly well remembered for Syria, to be honest. Especially with his 'red line' speech.

Also worth remembering that Obama's approvals have soared ever since people realised he would be succeeded by Clinton or Trump. Beforehand, they really weren't brilliant. I don't particularly like him, but I'd have supported him for a hypothetical 3rd term against those two.

 

There were doubts about who was responsible for the chemical attack at the time, and not from RT. The chemical involved didn't have the Syrian State markers according to UN inspectors. But more to the point if he'd destroyed the Assad regime it's more than likely IS and other extremist groups would have taken over, and the only way to stop it would been an Iraq style invasion with hundreds of thousand GI's fighting an insurgent war worse than Iraq, imo. As it was the Syrians got rid of most of their chemical weapons to avert American attacks, which was about the only good result in the impossible shitstorm that is Syria. The worst mistake was probably arming the rebels in the first place and promising support, the vast majority of Syrians would have infinitely better off if Assad had quickly put down the rebellion. Interfering in a civil war rarely improves matters, however noble the motives.

[Paco]

1 hour ago, Baxter Parp said:

Pish.

Normal my arse. Kerry lost the popular vote, the electoral vote and there was a third candidate when Clinton ran, so why he's relevant is beyond me.

 

"Clinton allies" are "weasel words" that mean nothing and infer a lot.  "Trump allies" are suggesting muslim concentration camps and that Jews are evil, for instance.

 

You're fucking right there.

OK then, Kerry won over 8 million more votes than Gore, who won the popular vote. Is that a better example for you? Only four years apart. The logical conclusion must be that Kerry was a great candidate, right? More so than Gore? System failed him IMO. 

Maybe a more simple "Democrats" rather than Clinton allies would be more acceptable to you? Given the rogue college electors themselves are party members, elected into a position of responsibility. They are deliberately trying to organise a campaign to undermine the US constitution and steal the office of President for somebody other than the recognised winner of a democratic election. This has been all but backed by John Podesta, most definitely a "Clinton ally". I don't disagree that Trump is potentially dangerous but he's done nothing even approaching this so far.

[Wee Willie]

12 minutes ago, Paco said:

OK then, Kerry won over 8 million more votes than Gore, who won the popular vote. Is that a better example for you? Only four years apart. The logical conclusion must be that Kerry was a great candidate, right? More so than Gore? System failed him IMO. 

Maybe a more simple "Democrats" rather than Clinton allies would be more acceptable to you? Given the rogue college electors themselves are party members, elected into a position of responsibility. They are deliberately trying to organise a campaign to undermine the US constitution and steal the office of President for somebody other than the recognised winner of a democratic election. This has been all but backed by John Podesta, most definitely a "Clinton ally". I don't disagree that Trump is potentially dangerous but he's done nothing even approaching this so far.

Guid post.

Perhaps D.T's bark is worse than his bite.

[Baxter Parp]

8 minutes ago, Paco said:

OK then, Kerry won over 8 million more votes than Gore, who won the popular vote. Is that a better example for you? Only four years apart. The logical conclusion must be that Kerry was a great candidate, right? More so than Gore? System failed him IMO. 

Stop trying to pretend you've got something sussed when you clearly know f**k all.  Gore was even more fucked over then Clinton given what happened in Florida

18 minutes ago, Paco said:

Maybe a more simple "Democrats" rather than Clinton allies would be more acceptable to you?

"Republicans" are members of the "Ku Klux Klan".  See how that works? 

19 minutes ago, Paco said:

I don't disagree that Trump is potentially dangerous but he's done nothing even approaching this so far.

Jesus Christ, he's a racist, egotistical ignoramus tax avoider that's confessed to sexually assaulting women who also uses his charitable foundation as his personal wallet and declared that he would only accept the result if he won.  Get a grip.

[Baxter Parp]

9 minutes ago, Wee Willie said:

Guid post.

Perhaps D.T's bark is worse than his bite.

Yes, that's why he's filled his cabinet with rich neo-Nazi racists.

[Wee Willie]

Just now, Baxter Parp said:

Yes, that's why he's filled his cabinet with rich neo-Nazi racists.

But you're like lots of folk on here.

You dig up all the shite on El Presidente Elect and ignore the losing candidate.

Do you think Clinton (or Cameron or May, to bring it closer to home)  is squeaky clean?

It must be great to have foresight, I much prefer hindsight - it's easier.

Jesus Christ, he's a racist, egotistical ignoramus tax avoider that's confessed to sexually assaulting women who also uses his charitable foundation as his personal wallet and declared that he would only accept the result if he won.  Get a grip.

You could say the same about Mr & Mrs Clinton.

[Baxter Parp]

5 minutes ago, Wee Willie said:

But you're like lots of folk on here.

You dig up all the shite on El Presidente Elect and ignore the losing candidate.

Do you think Clinton (or Cameron or May, to bring it closer to home)  is squeaky clean?

It must be great to have foresight, I much prefer hindsight - it's easier.

Jesus Christ, he's a racist, egotistical ignoramus tax avoider that's confessed to sexually assaulting women who also uses his charitable foundation as his personal wallet and declared that he would only accept the result if he won.  Get a grip.

You could say the same about Mr & Mrs Clinton.

In a post about Trump, why would you need to bring up Clinton?  It's sheer whataboutery.  If the Clintons aren't squeaky clean, Trump is up to his neck in manure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

[Wee Willie]

11 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

In a post about Trump, why would you need to bring up Clinton?  It's sheer whataboutery.  If the Clintons aren't squeaky clean, Trump is up to his neck in manure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Fair do's but I'm trying tae think outside the box.

And why have you got a bee in yer bunnet about the President Elect?

You, I and others on here are outsiders looking in at American Politics.

Remember we cannae alter the result.

Let the man have his day and let's see how his Presidency turns out.

After he becomes President, and nae doubt the first time he does something wrong (in your eyes), you'll let us ken about it.

[Paco]

45 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

Stop trying to pretend you've got something sussed when you clearly know f**k all.  Gore was even more fucked over then Clinton given what happened in Florida

"Republicans" are members of the "Ku Klux Klan".  See how that works? 

Jesus Christ, he's a racist, egotistical ignoramus tax avoider that's confessed to sexually assaulting women who also uses his charitable foundation as his personal wallet and declared that he would only accept the result if he won.  Get a grip.

You're the one who a) won't recognise basic population/voter growth over time and b) claimed a false fact in the first place that Clinton got more votes than Obama. She didn't, and all I was proving is that even if she did it was essentially irrelevant. Gore should've had a recount in Florida, but Clinton hasn't been remotely "fucked over". 

If you can provide evidence of Republican members being KKK members then yes, you're entirely right. I wouldn't take issue with the statement. You for some reason are taking issue with it being pointed out that elements of the Democrats are trying to overthrow the result of an election. 

Most of your statements about Trump are correct.  He hasn't tried to overthrow an elected government (yet). there are elements of the Democrats doing just that right now. I guess they've done it abroad for years, may as well give it a whirl at home too. 

It's not about who's worse, it's about a basic recognition that both sides have very dangerous elements. People appear unwilling or unable to see that, because of the hatred of the opposition. That kind of mob mentality can be far more dangerous than any given politician. 

[Baxter Parp]

8 minutes ago, Paco said:

You're the one who a) won't recognise basic population/voter growth over time and b) claimed a false fact in the first place that Clinton got more votes than Obama. She didn't, and all I was proving is that even if she did it was essentially irrelevant. Gore should've had a recount in Florida, but Clinton hasn't been remotely "fucked over". 

If you can provide evidence of Republican members being KKK members then yes, you're entirely right. I wouldn't take issue with the statement. You for some reason are taking issue with it being pointed out that elements of the Democrats are trying to overthrow the result of an election. 

Most of your statements about Trump are correct.  He hasn't tried to overthrow an elected government (yet). there are elements of the Democrats doing just that right now. I guess they've done it abroad for years, may as well give it a whirl at home too. 

It's not about who's worse, it's about a basic recognition that both sides have very dangerous elements. People appear unwilling or unable to see that, because of the hatred of the opposition. That kind of mob mentality can be far more dangerous than any given politician. 

See you go on about "Clinton supporters" or "Democrats" trying to overthrow an elected government (even though Trump still hasn't been elected yet technically) then you say that Trump hasn't done this, hasn't done that. It isn't a logical or reasonable comparison and you're doing it because you know that "Trump supporters" are often extremists and capable of anything.  If I look hard enough (maybe not all that hard), I can find "Trump supporters" that have done all sorts of terrible things. Here's a "Trump supporter": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke now let's use him as a comparison against Clinton, eh?

If you want to make a reasonable argument you can't move the goal posts whenever it's convenient.

[Baxter Parp]

http://www.salon.com/2016/12/19/donald-trumps-secretary-of-state-pick-rex-tillerson-created-a-company-with-russia-using-the-bahamas-as-a-tax-haven/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

Donald Trump’s secretary of state pick Rex Tillerson created a company with Russia using the Bahamas as a tax haven

Nothing wrong with that though, right?

[banana]

Crackin meltdown potential brewing from Baxter Parp And His Unfeasibly Large Gullibilities.

[Paco]

55 minutes ago, Baxter Parp said:

See you go on about "Clinton supporters" or "Democrats" trying to overthrow an elected government (even though Trump still hasn't been elected yet technically) then you say that Trump hasn't done this, hasn't done that. It isn't a logical or reasonable comparison and you're doing it because you know that "Trump supporters" are often extremists and capable of anything.  If I look hard enough (maybe not all that hard), I can find "Trump supporters" that have done all sorts of terrible things. Here's a "Trump supporter": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke now let's use him as a comparison against Clinton, eh?

If you want to make a reasonable argument you can't move the goal posts whenever it's convenient.

I have at no stage mentioned supporters of either side, nor would I.

I presume you meant when I said allies. There is a clear distinction between allies, e.g. John Podesta and supporters, e.g. David Duke. I am not commenting on what a Trump "ally" may have previously done, but on what the Democrats are now doing - a completely unpresidented (!) move to rig the Electoral College against the winner of the election, because they don't like him. You should not mistake that as condoning people like Steve Bannon (amongst others) but I should not have to caveat criticism of one side by drawing comparisons with the other. Both have differing levels of danger, but I don't recall a more dangerous action by anyone Trump-related than the current one within a faction of the Democrats, aiming to undermine an election result. 

No goalposts being shited here. Clinton is the worst US Presidential candidate in history, and the Democrats/Clinton allies currently trying to steal the Presidency are far more dangerous than anything Trump has done so far. That might change of course but as I mentioned earlier on, mirror the situation in Russia and ponder how you'd see it...

Edited December 19, 2016 by Paco

[Baxter Parp]

 

41 minutes ago, Paco said:

I have at no stage mentioned supporters of either side, nor would I.

I presume you meant when I said allies. There is a clear distinction between allies, e.g. John Podesta and supporters, e.g. David Duke. I am not commenting on what a Trump "ally" may have previously done, but on what the Democrats are now doing - a completely unpresidented (!) move to rig the Electoral College against the winner of the election, because they don't like him. You should not mistake that as condoning people like Steve Bannon (amongst others) but I should not have to caveat criticism of one side by drawing comparisons with the other. Both have differing levels of danger, but I don't recall a more dangerous action by anyone Trump-related than the current one within a faction of the Democrats, aiming to undermine an election result. 

See, this is bullshit.  Bannon has been spraying out racist disinformation for literally years, who is it that's more dangerous than him and why?

[Bishop Briggs]

4 hours ago, Baxter Parp said:

Yes, that's why he's filled his cabinet with rich neo-Nazi racists.

So name Trump's cabinet members who are rich neo-Nazi racists. Provide concrete evidence to back your claims e.g. anti-Semitic quotes or proven membership of National Socialist organisations. 

[welshbairn]

15 minutes ago, Bishop Briggs said:

So name Trump's cabinet members who are rich neo-Nazi racists. Provide concrete evidence to back your claims e.g. anti-Semitic quotes or proven membership of National Socialist organisations. 

You mean the actual 1930's National Socialist Party or just people who espouse racist or anti semitic views? The first would be a bit tricky but Steve Bannon and Michael Flynn would certainly qualify for the latter. Just have a gander at Breitbart News under Bannon's editorship and Flynn's twitter feed if you want evidence.

P.S. You'll probably say that they're not cabinet members, and you'd be right, they're more than that, they'll be in the Whitehouse. But he's done pretty well on the cabinet, put people who don't believe in climate change in charge of Environment and Energy, someone who doesn't believe in public education in Education and someone who doesn't believe in universal health coverage in charge of Health. I'm sure you'll be pleased!

Edited December 19, 2016 by welshbairn