We were a good few beers in at this point, so we didn't really focus on the details.
We were a good few beers in at this point, so we didn't really focus on the details.
I see. The Donald pierced the blue wall to win the White House, I doubt the GOP would be forgiven if they knifed him before the end of his term.
Depends what's on his last return. Or on the books of his campaign funds.Quote:
Originally Posted by mokbull
Russian connections?Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
But what connections? You can't just impeach him because you don't like him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernanke
I doubt it, somehow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernanke
He won, lads. There's no point pretending there's somehow a way to avoid four years of President Trump.
Do you think he'll last four years?Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
If he enacts the shite he was spouting there's no way he isn't targetted. If he doesn't then it's a giant fuck you to the American public and a giant pat on the back for how stupid and niaive they are.
In reality they'll have to just get the White House team to do literally everything for him, and he can just do the stuff which involves shaking people's hands and going on the telly.
Wonder how dated The West Wing is now :drool:
I do, yes. He has limited scope to enact domestic legislation without congressional approval. He has executive action, but it's limited. Therefore, anything he is enacts will have the GOP behind him (insofar as they need to be), thus tying them into its success or failure. There's more chance that he resigns the office because he's bored and wants to return to his businesses, than there's a successful impeachment because of his success or otherwise in enacting his campaign promises. Speaking right now, I doubt he wins a second term but fuck knows what'll happen over the course of the next four years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Foe
As an additional point, sneering at the voters who disagree with you hasn't been a particularly successful strategy this year - so it's probably not sensible to cite "stupidity and naivety" as key character traits of his voters. I doubt they give a fuck what you think - and nor should they.
It'll be very interesting to see how it works. I agree that he'll be more the face of the operation, but he'll still ultimately be the man in charge and having to decide what he wants to do. It'd be great fun watching the west FUME if he strikes a deal with Putin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
Trump's wall is now a fence. :D
Parts of it are going to be a fence which, if you're serious about building a physical barrier, make sense given there are also huge fucking deserts which people aren't going to be able to get across anyway.
I think everybody needs to stop raking over every little shift or nuancing of policy. It hasn't been a week yet and already everybody is desperate to discredit it - you'll have run out of material by the time 2020 rolls around.
Fuck that noise. If we let this slide then we're basically saying we're okay with a campaign run devolving into a farce. Presidents need to be held accountable for what they spout on the trail.
The wall was a stupid idea from pretty much any angle you want to look at it, the scope will be pared back until it can be quietly forgotten because you'd have to be batshit insane to actually do it. It's already done as much as it's going to do as a talking point during the campaign, better to take some heat for binning it than get crucified for spending billions on a pointless white elephant.
They are, they're called elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shindig
If I asked for a wall and got a fence / wall hybrid, I'd be livid. Much like if I enrolled in a college and paid fees, expecting to be educated. Only to find the college mysteriously defunct.
What's all this about Trump University? People suing him for fraud and it going to trial in December? Among other pending lawsuits apparently.
75 pending lawsuits. Some from him, some in his direction. Mostly from the University, sexual assault charges and some campaign funds shenanigans.
I'm sure you're familiar with the refrain "you campaign in poetry, you govern in prose". Such is the democratic process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shindig
It hasn't been a week yet, and if you're going to claim FRAUD! every time there's a more nuanced position taken on something then you're going to have a hell of a four years.
He has four years. There are checks and balances within the system. He has a mandate for those four years. If he doesn't hold to his promises, it will be up to the electorate to decide next time if he deserves another four years or gets replaced. That's accountability.
The structure of 'Trump University' (lol) will surely have been designed specifically to prevent people suing President Trump himself.
Wall is getting built. It's going to be huge.
It's just a good job both countries don't have large coastlines.
ftfyQuote:
Originally Posted by Mert
I'm more worried about the religious maniacs and Randians that Trump is appointing than the man himself at this point.
ftfyQuote:
Originally Posted by Henry
Do you agree with Mike Pence that the theory of evolution is a hoax, mert?
On a separate point, the EU convening an EMERGENCY meeting to address Trump, in fact, winning the election is a laugh. Boris has refused to go, so at least we look vaguely sensible amidst the alarm.
We should definitely be leveraging Farage's relationship, such as it is, with Trump - it's not as if we have anyone else on the inside. It appears cabinet are split on the issue, presumably between the pragmatists and the virtue signallers.
The last year and a half must be particularly gutting for someone with your political view. The forum is here for you, even if the electorate isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
The electorate is there. The Electoral College isn't. Trump can't claim popular validation for his policies, and neither can you. The majority of Americans rejected him.
That's irrelevant. Both sides knew the system, and both campaigns were specifically tailored to winning the Electoral College. Had they engaged in a straight fight for popular votes, the campaign strategies would've been wildly different and nobody can say how it would have washed out. It's therefore illegitimate to claim he doesn't have a mandate or 'popular validation' - that's just another attempt to delegitimise the result because you don't like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by elth
When you include children and the people who didn't vote it's something like three quarters who rejected him. Once you factor in the dead you're looking at, what, one per cent support for his policies?
The Pence criticism is valid though. It's a pretty big problem to have politicians at such high levels who believe these things.
My girlfriend was taught in medical school that the theory of evolution is only a theory which many reasonably believe is inadequate in explaining the complexities of molecular biology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry
The experts also told me that there was a 99% probability Clinton would be elected and scoffed and shamed anyone who deviated from that belief. I think every potential explanation should be explained.
Eh. Take out New York and California and Trump won the popular vote handily. It would have been an entirely different election, the candidates weren't campaigning to see who would win the popular vote, it's just not a valid analogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by elth
Yep. If you don't hold the views liberals have decided are acceptable to believe in, you're unfit to hold public office. Makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by mokbull
Jesus Christ. I've tried to be restrained and not engage you Mert, but when you start peddling out the "just a theory" line about evolution, then you deserve the ridicule.
That's just your theory.
That's what they literally teach at my girlfriends very prestigious medical school, despite the certainty with which the secular media elites have tried to suppress any speculation to the contrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by SvN
Why should I trust the academic establishment's view on anything? They have handily exposed themselves as partisan hacks whose conclusions are influenced just as much by their own ideology as it is any pursuit of objective Truth.
And no they didn't. Noone said that Trump had a 1% chance. The odds on the day of the vote were more like 80/20 in Hillary's favour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
A survey from the Princeton Election Consortium has found that Hillary Clinton has a 99 per cent chance of winning the election over Donald Trump:Quote:
Originally Posted by SvN
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7399671.html
Don't be dense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Since when did one individual count as "the experts"? It was well acknowledged that Hillary was the strong favourite, but noone with any real credibility really thought it was anything close to a 99% certainty. I'm sure you can find some idiot saying Trump had a 99% chance of winning if you look hard enough,Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
Liberals aren't driven by a desire to find the truth, only a desire to add credibility to the arguments made by their preferred brand of politics. I don't believe them.
Don't react to that. It's clearly baiting. Mert's not that stupid, I'm pretty sure.
I did enjoy Gingrich's quote:
At least they're honest that you can say anything you want in a campaign, without even having a smidge of intention to follow through. A "campaign device" is even better than John Howard's classic "non-core promise". :DQuote:
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a close adviser to Trump, told the Washington Post: “He’ll spend a lot of time controlling the border. He may not spend very much time trying to get Mexico to pay for it, but it was a great campaign device.”
The wall was always understood as symbolic, even by his supporters. It's getting built anyways mind you.
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by GS
That first part is a lie. He said it would be made of pre-cast concrete, and costed it (incorrectly) at $12 billion. He's talking about a physical wall.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
It's rolling back a campaign promise. Which is fine - every politician does it. But don't go rewriting history, either.
Not according to the Washington Post:Quote:
Originally Posted by ItalAussie
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...b54_story.html
Quote:
Ian Carney, who works in construction and came to the Albuquerque rally with his girlfriend, described the wall as simply a “rhetorical device” that Trump uses.
“Personally, I think it’s symbolic. I mean, a physical wall?” said Carney, 26. “It’s just such a strong vision and idea, but I just care about the border being secure.”
Nonsense. As are the ideas of mandates - you implement the policies you can implement, nobody owes you anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by GS
Trump is entitled to attempt to implement anything he wants, he's going to legitimately be the leader. That doesn't mean he wasn't rejected by the majority of Americans who voted, and it doesn't mean sycophants like you can claim popular validation for his platform. It was popularly rejected.
Yeah, and take out the Midwest and Clinton would have won the Electoral College easily as well as the popular vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mert
I have no problem with Trump implementing his platform as best he is able, but dickheads like GS justifying demagoguery and reactionary policies on the basis of popularity, when Trump lost the popular vote, have no validity.