The Official Former President Trump thread

[JamieThomas]

4 minutes ago, Buddist Monk said:

I get annoyed with Bernie's claim to be a socialist. To any European he is a left leaning social democrat. He is nowhere near a socialist.

Made similar points a few times before. The American blindness to what constitutes socialism/communism is, for want of a better word, bananas.

[BFTD]

8 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I thought so too until they elected an idiot reality TV presenter who was recorded saying he just grabs random women by the pussy because he's famous, just before the election. The old rules don't apply.

It's really not that surprising after Reagan and Dubya, when you think about it.

Here's a question: considering Trump did a lot of flirting with the Democrats in the past, would he have been elected if he'd stood on their platform?

[Buddist Monk]

1 minute ago, JamieThomas said:

Made similar points a few times before. The American blindness to what constitutes socialism/communism is, for want of a better word, bananas.

Don't get me wrong, I think a good dose of social democracy would do the US and the rest of the world a bit of good considering what we have now. The sad fact is that to a certain tranche of Americans, they could not accept such policies coming from their president. Obama tried it, and had the temerity to be black while doing it. Part of Trump's success, is a backlash to Obama.

I speak to quite a lot of Americans who claim Obama was more divisive than Trump and I find that, even at the height of political myopia, an incredible position to hold. Mind you, this is a country where a large percent of the people expect the Government to allow gun ownership to all, while refusing universal health care.

Obama recently said this.. "I know there are Republicans who believe government should only perform a few minimal functions but that one of those functions should be making sure nearly 3,000 Americans don’t die in a hurricane and its aftermath."  While that is clearly a dig at Trump's pathetic action on the Puerto Rico hurricane you would think that even the most politically biased could agree that at the bottom line the Government should at least try and save the lives of those in need, yet you will still get dissenting voices claiming that is too much involvement.

The bizarre thing is that should anarchy be introduced by having no actual government, it's these same people who would be robbed and killed within the first hours because they are unaware of the level of protection they already get from a Government they despise.

 

[welshbairn]

7 minutes ago, BigFatTabbyDave said:

It's really not that surprising after Reagan and Dubya, when you think about it.

Here's a question: considering Trump did a lot of flirting with the Democrats in the past, would he have been elected if he'd stood on their platform?

Interesting thought experiment. Doubt if he could have persuaded the snooty Coastal liberals but driving the American jobs for American workers angle without the racist element might have worked. He's just been fucking with the evangelical right, he would swivel on a second with social conservative stuff.

[banana]

4 hours ago, Buddist Monk said:

Watching this underlines exactly why Trump went for Obama policies. Not because they were good or bad, but because he had absolutely and mercilessly ruined the guy publicly and he wanted revenge. His anti Obama bullshit is a personal vandetta not some political or financial agenda.

Lord Trump going after policies he deems good, for no other reason than to satisfy a 'personal vandetta', is my favourite TDS conspiracy theory of the week, kudos! 

The Phone Drop is the best Obama-on-Trump video imo:

Followed closely by The Gulp at 0:12...

 

[Buddist Monk]

Could I bring people's attention to this sort of shit.. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/09/12/karl-rove-by-attacking-trump-obama-shows-hes-self-absorbed-partisan-warrior-not-senior-statesman.html

Now, it's Fox News, so you expect bias, but this particular op-ed is particularly pernicious and insidious. It is jam packed with errors, assumptions and hypocrisy*. There are people I know who will only watch Fox, who will only believe Fox and who will defend Fox even when they have no actual experience or understanding of the subject at hand.

Even some of the most vitriolic xenophobes I've met in the UK have at least been willing to bend to certain arguments when provided with all the relevant facts. Sure they will construct another narrative that suits but you can see you are actually getting through to them. The issue with a large part of his base is that they simply refuse to accept anything other than what they have been told to believe by a very bias source.

* I am more than happy to detail these, I don't think people need me to fire out 4 pages of rebuttal though and should be able to spot them themselves.

 

[Buddist Monk]

6 minutes ago, banana said:

for no other reason than to satisfy a 'personal vandetta', is my favourite TDS conspiracy theory of the week, kudos! 

 

Not sure where you got that idea from. It's certainly not what I wrote and to try and claim it is does you a disservice.

It's clear that Obama rattled Trump, Trump admitted as much. It's certainly not the only reason, but there is a certain level of motivation from him to sully Obama's legacy.

Obama is no saint. He was ludicrously awarded the Nobel Peace prize in the same week he launches missile attacks on Houthi rebels in Yemen - a conflict still on the go where the only beneficiaries are the arms dealers - notably Britain France and the US. Don't try and create a false dichotomy here by claiming that because I can find fault with Trump - and trust me I can - that somehow Obama gets a free pass.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Buddist Monk

[banana]

13 minutes ago, Buddist Monk said:

Not sure where you got that idea from. It's certainly not what I wrote and to try and claim it is does you a disservice.

It's clear that Obama rattled Trump, Trump admitted as much. It's certainly not the only reason, but there is a certain level of motivation from him to sully Obama's legacy.

I'm not sure how that wasn't what you were saying...

Quote

Watching this underlines exactly why Trump went for Obama policies. Not because they were good or bad, but because he had absolutely and mercilessly ruined the guy publicly and he wanted revenge. His anti Obama bullshit is a personal vandetta not some political or financial agenda.

...but I accept your clarification and agree that Obama would've irked Trump with not only that speech, nor only the videos I linked to. Not only Obama either, not by a long shot. Recall the tone at the NY gentleman's/charity dinner when he was president elect.

Edited September 12, 2018 by banana

[The OP]

To be fair to Trump he already hated Obama when he went on an incredibly mental and probably racist campaign of insistence that Obama was born in Africa.

[Buddist Monk]

1 minute ago, banana said:

I'm not sure how that wasn't what you were saying...

II think you are confusing the words "underlines why" with "this is the only reason". When you underline something, it's enhancing an already existing situation.

 

Allow me to offer up a cheeky example. Csaba Lazlo won't get Dundee United promoted. Not being able to motivate his team underlines why Csaba Lazlo won't get Dundee United. See the subtle difference?

[banana]

4 minutes ago, Buddist Monk said:

II think you are confusing the words "underlines why" with "this is the only reason". When you underline something, it's enhancing an already existing situation.

 

Allow me to offer up a cheeky example. Csaba Lazlo won't get Dundee United promoted. Not being able to motivate his team underlines why Csaba Lazlo won't get Dundee United. See the subtle difference?

Well now who's doing themselves a disservice? You didn't only say underlined, you said underlined in the context of / because of <see rest of what I bolded>.

Anyway, Lazlo for VP 2020.

[welshbairn]

12 minutes ago, The OP said:

To be fair to Trump he already hated Obama when he went on an incredibly mental and probably racist campaign of insistence that Obama was born in Africa.

A timely reminder of Trump's early legal troubles of refusing tenancies to black people, because they were black people.

[Buddist Monk]

1 minute ago, banana said:

Well now who's doing themselves a disservice? You didn't only say underlined, you said underlined in the context of / because of <see rest of what I bolded>.

Anyway, Lazlo for VP 2020.

I think you may find the semantic gap you are trying to squeeze down is a little too tight, even for those who intend it in jest.

I have written in length on this thread regarding how and why Trump goes about his business, I suggest you might go back and read that before picking out one quote. It's clear the motivations he has, what is also clear is that Obama riled him. You only need to see the tweets he made before he became president and the claims he made before he got in the White House to see the that this hatred "underlines" the actions he takes now.

There have been occasions when he has revoked bills where there was no actual political or financial gain from him doing so, including times when his own party advised against it, the only obvious motive is because Obama had his hand on it last. Does Trump's almost pathological obsession with Obama chime with general dislike of his policies in the GOP? Sure, of course it does. It always would.

[Buddist Monk]

23 minutes ago, The OP said:

To be fair to Trump he already hated Obama when he went on an incredibly mental and probably racist campaign of insistence that Obama was born in Africa.

Exactly my point. Trump was very clear about his intentions before hand so for people now to claim, "no no it's nothing to do with him" seem to hold a somewhat short memory.

Lets take the discussion away from the personality politics and look at some of his tweets before and his actions now. So this is a genuine tweet:

I am sort of hoping there isn't anyone here who thinks this isn't anything other than "fake news", but it's telling that it is the same line trotted out during his election, along with all sorts of stupid hyperbole like the Chinese are "raping" America. This is just one, but it's a fairly decent example.

Are we to somehow believe that Trump denied global warming (ok, climate change is the better term, but still..) then, and continued to do so now and demonstrates that by his actions with the EPA. Yet on the other hand dismiss the idea that tweets about how he hates Obama and wanting to reverse his policies if he ever got into power are no longer Trump's opinion when yet again we have evidence of him doing the very thing he said he would before?

You can call this Occam's Razor or even quote Conan Doyle but whatever way you slice it the obvious is.... well... obvious.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Buddist Monk

[banana]

27 minutes ago, Buddist Monk said:

I think you may find the semantic gap you are trying to squeeze down is a little too tight, even for those who intend it in jest.

Given the quote and the bolded parts, I think not... but I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on that we've already agreed, so I'll accept this second clarification and leave it here.

[Paco]

He will be out by 2020, of that there is no doubt. There simply isn't the numbers to sustain him and those numbers are lessening as time goes on

I don’t see why millions who voted Trump will be regretting their decision. They knew he was an arsehole on a personal level, and they also knew his priorities were immigration, the economy and reinforcing American power globally. Whether you love him or loathe him he’s broadly delivering on those things - whether he can take credit, particularly with the economy, is another matter but do you really think that matters to voters in towns and cities where unemployment was awful and now it’s much better? Of course it doesn’t.

Where he ‘should’ be defeated is with a more inspiring candidate from the Democrats. Trump could of course theoretically get exactly the same amount of votes and lose, with his thin margins in several states, so it’s all about getting a few extra thousand out to vote. I don’t even think the bar needs to be especially high for the Democrats, someone who doesn’t call 30 million Americans ‘deplorable’ in the middle of an election campaign should probably just about manage it.

But ‘no doubt’? Sounds suspiciously like the people who said there was ‘no doubt’ he’d be nowhere near the Republican nomination. ‘No doubt’ he’d screw up the debates and lose handsomely in the election. ‘No doubt’ it was game over after Access Hollywood. ‘No doubt’ he’d be impeached after Flynn/Manafort/Charlottesville/Stormy Daniels/shithole countries/Trump Jr’s meeting/Cohen/Comey/whatever’s next. He’s here til 2020 and complacency might just keep him in longer.

[Granny Danger]

22 minutes ago, Paco said:

 

I don’t see why millions who voted Trump will be regretting their decision. They knew he was an arsehole on a personal level, and they also knew his priorities were immigration, the economy and reinforcing American power globally. Whether you love him or loathe him he’s broadly delivering on those things - whether he can take credit, particularly with the economy, is another matter but do you really think that matters to voters in towns and cities where unemployment was awful and now it’s much better? Of course it doesn’t.

Where he ‘should’ be defeated is with a more inspiring candidate from the Democrats. Trump could of course theoretically get exactly the same amount of votes and lose, with his thin margins in several states, so it’s all about getting a few extra thousand out to vote. I don’t even think the bar needs to be especially high for the Democrats, someone who doesn’t call 30 million Americans ‘deplorable’ in the middle of an election campaign should probably just about manage it.

But ‘no doubt’? Sounds suspiciously like the people who said there was ‘no doubt’ he’d be nowhere near the Republican nomination. ‘No doubt’ he’d screw up the debates and lose handsomely in the election. ‘No doubt’ it was game over after Access Hollywood. ‘No doubt’ he’d be impeached after Flynn/Manafort/Charlottesville/Stormy Daniels/shithole countries/Trump Jr’s meeting/Cohen/Comey/whatever’s next. He’s here til 2020 and complacency might just keep him in longer.

 

Mmmm....   Not everyone who voted for Trump need to regret their decision, just enough of them.

There is certainly continual and prolonged polling to show that a sufficient number of previous supporters will change or just stay away.  Also when the effects of the tariffs begin to bite people will see the impact on the economy, jobs and general living standards.

 

[RiG]

10 hours ago, welshbairn said:

I thought so too until they elected an idiot reality TV presenter who was recorded saying he just grabs random women by the pussy because he's famous, just before the election. The old rules don't apply.

And mocking a disabled reporter. That really should have been the end of it yet here we are...

[dorlomin]

https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/groups-voted-2016/

 

Age, race and education level demographics all mean that if everyone still alive votes as they did in 2016 and the new voters tilt towards their repsepctive age\race and education splits as of 2016, then Trump would likely lose. i.e. more Dem voters leaving collage, turning 18 than dying. 

While no election works another way to look at it is that a relatively small number of Trump voters in key states need to become "discouraged" and just not turn up or for Green, Bernie write in voters to hold their noses and go for Continuity Democrat candidates. 

These are not strategies to win an election just showing that it does not take a huge swing against Trump to oust him. 

[Buddist Monk]

1 hour ago, Paco said:

I don’t see why millions who voted Trump will be regretting their decision.

Because they do, all the studies show this. Not all of them of course, but enough that it will have a detrimental effect on his chances. His support in every metric except white Christian males has dropped way below what was needed for him to win. Now let's remind ourselves that he already lost the popular vote by some 3 million* and only won via the Electoral College. I'm not going to say the EC is a bad thing, both candidates knew the rules before the elections started, but its a bit of a pyrrhic victory.

The idea that he is delivering on what he says is not really true. If you look back at his campaign and detail every claim he made about what he'd do once in office there is a massive gap between what he said and what he has done.

I'd also say that he has made America weaker. He has no understanding or respect of soft power. He has no understanding or respect for multinational bodies. Yet America has spent billions of dollars generating those and tilting them so that they are beneficial to the American agenda. He is simply wasting all that time effort and money.

He has shown via twitter absolutely no decorum what so ever, and even some of his most ardent followers accept he has not acted in any way presidential

Trump can rail all he wants about leaving the WTO or NAFTA or NATO or the UN or the Paris agreement or any other body for that, it simply makes America poorer. Now it's up to the American citizens to accept that or not, but the two key problems is that one, the effects of Trump's actions are not immediate and so will not land at Trump's desk, it will land at the desk of the next president in 2020 and secondly the creation of the false narrative by the White House which claims anything that runs contrary to their official stance is simply "fake". I shared a Rove op-ed earlier and that underlines the way in which double standards and lies constitute, for some, acceptable commentary.

* did anyone else see his claim that it was actually harder to win the Electoral College than the popular vote? His ego does not like that he lost, I find it quite funny he is, to use a parlance of our times, such a "butthurt snowflake" on the issue.

9 hours ago, banana said:

Given the quote and the bolded parts, I think not... but I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on that we've already agreed, so I'll accept this second clarification and leave it here.

You may continue to contest that, but I am still of the mind that you picked one particular quote, saw it one way and ran that as the sole reason. That's fine, that's Internet forums, but in context with my other comments it just doesn't really validate. Most of my posts have been quite lengthy so I fully understand why someone wouldn't necessarily wade through one in order to get context for another.

However.. I am equally happy not to continue to argue the point. I think in the grand scheme of things, it's a pretty minor issue of whether Obama annoys Trump into acting in a certain way or it's just Trump acting in a certain way, because the problem is his volition not his motivation.

 

 

 

The one thing I would say is that Trump has "won". No matter what happens from this point on, he has won because his personal fortune and the personal fortunes of all his family, have massively increased. His brand name is now worldwide when before it really wasn't despite his claims on this. He has used the office for his personal vandetta and his personal enrichment, and while you might argue all politicians do the same, not all politicians use such insidious language and policies to achieve that.