Trump

[Le Rascal de Boleyn]

If the rumours about Crimea/Eastern Ukraine are correct then God help us. That said, I'll be interested to hear what Sturgeon and Salmond have to say about it, since they were so supportive of Catalan independence.

I'm not as up to date on the news as I should be. Are these new rumors? Dodgy shenanigans going on I assume?

[EvilC]

Putin suggested to Trump a referendum in East Ukraine.

[WCpete]

I think Trump's problem isn't the case as such, more that the payoff may well be counted as undeclared election spending which is apparently a biggie in Americashire.

Yeah, the issue is whether he used campaign funds. Nobody cares about who he's snogging, when he did it or how much they cost. Whatever the case, I don't think his extra curricular activities is what people are worried about at the moment. The press would lead you to believe it is, but no one I know gives a ****. Russia on the other hand.... that's going to continue to be a hot topic.

[Cuenca 'ammer]

Some people seem to have forgotten about the Kennedy brothers and Bill Clinton.

Chappaquiddick anyone ?

This bloke actually left the woman to die, lied about everything, cover ups galore and still kept his job in government.

Amazing..

But Trump paid of some Playboy (if he did it with campaign funds we have yet to find out) is this a worse crime that Ted Kennedy perpetrated ????

[WCpete]

Russian aggression is the thing. Trump’s thing is not the thing.

[last.caress]

Nobody cares about who he's snogging, when he did it or how much they cost. Whatever the case, I don't think his extra curricular activities is what people are worried about at the moment. The press would lead you to believe it is, but no one I know gives a ****.

In my ignorance as to exactly how America seems to be working at present, I would've assumed that the the bible-belt tubthumpers - all of whom seem to be 100% aboard the Trump Train - would care about this greatly ("bigly", even?). But, it seems they don't.

I honestly can't understand why anybody would be in favour of him at this point. I'm not talking about being in favour of Hillary (whom I find to be even grubbier than her bellend husband, an utterly gormless pick for the Dems in the first place and imo literally the only person on Earth who could've actually lost to Donald ****ing Drumpf; ****ting crikey, a bag of cat litter could've beaten him), or becoming a Democrat, or abandoning the Republican party or its principals (leastways, any it held before following Drumpf off of the edge of reality), or even abandoning those policies which, on the face of it, sounded sincere enough and in the interest of the good folk of the USA which Trump espoused on his campaign trail. I'm taking about the man himself. Drumpf. Isn't it obvious that he's not fit for the office? Or do decent people - and I'm talking about decent people who remain pro-Trump, not the racist misogynist bigots who have become empowered by him - still truly believe he's a good man getting a bum steer by a global deep state media conspiracy?

Some people seem to have forgotten about the Kennedy brothers and Bill Clinton.

C 'a, I never understand this "what about" line of defence that's often trotted out. How do the wrongs of the past bear upon the wrong happening now, in front of us? John and Bobby were both in their crypts long before I was born and I'm a middle-aged man. Ted Kennedy/Chappaquiddick was almost fifty years ago too; again, before I was born (Just because you're older than ****ing Yoda, Cuenca, doesn't mean anybody else still alive on Earth is ). Clinton was a leering mansausage who may as well left his trousers off for the entirety of his presidency. If you're about to tear a strip off of the bloody Clintons you'll hear no argument from me, that's for sure. But... What are you saying? That there have been c**** before, so let's have some more (I'm honestly not being flippant, I honestly don't understand the merit of the "what about" defence of the current president)? If the best defence of Drumpf's behaviour is that others have been pricks too, well, isn't that like finding someone pissing up the wall in your stairwell and them saying, "Sorry mate, but somebody else had already pissed here first"?

You've said earlier in the thread that you're not a proponent of Donald Trump per se, so I'm going to assume (apologies if I'm getting it wrong) that it's elements of his message which you support? If so: okay, cool, I get that. Two sides to every coin etc. etc. But, in that case, wouldn't you guys (again I'm talking in a general sense about decent people who are still on the Trump side of the coin) find it easier and more palatable to have a Republican president who was... Well, more consistent, a president who could unite the country and whose message wasn't skewed by all the dogshit which follows Trump around (and of which, let's be honest, he's largely the author)? Somebody who doesn't lie even when it would've been easier to tell the truth? The polarising doesn't seem in any way good for America or for anybody but America's enemies. I keep reading that the only way to beat this celebrity light-entertainment president is by having a celebrity light-entertainment candidate oppose him. This sounds monstrous to me! Who beats him? Oprah? Then who beats her? Clint Eastwood? Then who beats him? Tom Hanks? Then who? Jennifer Lawrence? Then Bruno Mars? Ariana Grande? Honey bloody Boo Boo? That guy on YouTube who kept bawling "LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!!"?

I'm genuinely curious here, I'm not digging you out in any way.

[Cuenca 'ammer]

Elsie

I am not trotting out the line "well what about" - sorry if it came across that way.

It's that the Dems are chucking their collective hands up about how dreadful this is....when the Kennedy's and the Clinton's were of their party.

Just seems very hypocritical to me....

I actually thought that some of the best Republican candidates were chucked aside. Not just because he is from Texas but I thought that Ted Cruz was one of the best of all the viable candidates but for some reason he didn't seem attractive to the rest of the voters. I cannot vote not being a citizen, merely a Resident. But I tried to listen to the candidates and how they came across.

Of all of the possibilities he seemed to me the most sensible, had decent policies and again that he was a conservative Republican more in tune with what the party stood for and the Constitution and how it should be applied.

Unfortunately the country is so vast, that what is important to the southern states isn't as important to the northern states and vice versa. Also the ones in the middle have things that matter neither to the east or west coast.

California for example is the WORLD'S fifth largest economy surpassing the U.K. So how does all this figure into who is running the country ?

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now I understand that the individual States manage their own needs, but it cannot usurp the National policy.

Trying to manage all of this is an almost impossible job. How is it possible that California went from staunch Republican to Democrat state in such a short time ?

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-pol- ... g-history/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's now verging on the edge of bankruptcy some might say. The homeless in San Fransisco is a massive health concern if nothing else..

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/homele ... seattle/4/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't mean to wander but trying to give an idea of some of the difficulties inherent to running the country.

In general the population are tired of the career politicians as Pete alluded here. Term limits should be imposed. I think that Trump was the lesser of two evils and he appealed to a large number of people who say that immigration has to be controlled. It isn't. Bit like the U.K. I think in that people do have a concern if not all can agree on how to achieve it.

Remember that once the candidates fell by the wayside there was no alternative other than Trump - because at least there are primaries here, whereas the U.K. do select the candidate for Prime Minister is done by the party itself.

The country had I feel reached a bit of a tipping point. Trump isn't even popular with his own party (or some of those in it) and Hillary is, as you said, even worse.

Maybe the country is in a state of flux and has now reached a point where it might sort itself out.

The Republican party as Pete so eloquently stated, is way too far right, and the Dems way too far left.

Maybe Trump is EXACTLY what the country needs to try to get both parties back more to represent their bases. Maybe not.

Not sure if that answered your questions or not.

I tried though

[last.caress]

.

Not sure if that answered your questions or not.

I tried though

Thank-you. I can't ask for more than a measured response and you always give that. Do I agree with you? No, in the main. Do I respect you, your point of view and your right to your point of view? Absolutely! 100%. I'll be amazed if I'll ever be convinced that Trump is anything but a chancer prepared to turn his country over for a few pieces of silver and an hours-worth of aggressive watersports with a Russian hardbody sex worker, and I believe fervently that a lot of very ****ing nasty people are foursquare behind Trump for some wholly unsavoury reasons, but I don't believe for one minute that everybody who voted Trump is evil or hateful, just as I don't believe that every Leave voter is a sieg-heiling I'm-Alright-Jack Bullingdon ****er. The vast, vast majority of people on both sides of the Atlantic on both sides of their respective national divides simply want what they believe is best for all of us. I believe that, balls to bones. If we tried to bear that in mind a little instead of defaulting to "You're left-wing so you're a ****," "Well, you're right-wing so YOU'RE a ****", we might find some common ground and then, God forbid, be able to make some ****ing progress somewhere.

The Republican party as Pete so eloquently stated, is way too far right, and the Dems way too far left.

I certainly agree with this, alas, and it's not a uniquely American problem by any means. Evermore impassable partisan lines are being drawn all over the planet. Politics of hatred and division. Battles. Winners and losers. Civil war. ****ing depressing.

Maybe Trump is EXACTLY what the country needs to try to get both parties back more to represent their bases. Maybe not.

Can't see that myself mate, unless he eventually unites the nation (less his fringe outlier base) in all coming together to oust him, even if it's for entirely disparate reasons (Dems hate him, Reps are sick of being dismissed as extremist because Trump is a racist pussy grabbing self-aggrandizing puppet to an enemy state who should have fallen on his sword for the good of his nation if he'd had half an ounce of genuine presidential concern or love for the USA). The country seems miles away from unity right now, though, and blame for that lies on both sides. "If you vote GOP, you're evil", "If you wear a MAGA hat, you're a racist" (I saw a woman on YouTube barking this exact line to a restaurant full of kids a day or two ago, and I thought it was ****ing horrific, not least because one poor bemused lad was wearing such a cap), "Libtards" "Liberalism is a disease" etc. etc. Same goes over here btw of course along Leave/Remain lines (or Corbyn-Momentum/Rees Mogg-Johnson lines if the Leave/Remain fight is too binary for you and you'd rather get into a Leave-Remain/Leave-Leave Ultimate Fuckstick Royal Rumble).

I'm really sick of everyone hating everyone else. Like so genuinely dog-tired with it. How did we get here? Who benefits? Shouldn't we all be turning on those ****ers? I am 46 years of age and even if I live to see 100 (Dear God I hope not) I swear to ****ing Christ we'll still be arguing about Brexit and about Trump and whatever follows him as a result of his presidency until the day I die. I just know it. Doesn't that thought depress the f*** out of every bloody one of us?

Anyway, that's enough of that. I'm two more sentences away from standing up and breaking into a stirring rendition of The Greatest Love of All.

[sendô]

Are the Dems left wing? I'm not really one to take a detailed interest in American politics, but I'd always viewed them as more centrist-liberal, given America's deep seated suspicion of anything remotely "socialist".

[Cuenca 'ammer]

Are the Dems left wing? I'm not really one to take a detailed interest in American politics, but I'd always viewed them as more centrist-liberal, given America's deep seated suspicion of anything remotely "socialist".

@ Elsie

Maybe i wasn't quite clear about the parties deciding to move more centrist. Te Republicans who dislike Trump need to find a candidate that will be more acceptable to the base. Their last lot of choices have been awful.

The Democrats need to get back to the worker based party that it began as.

@ Sendo, the Democratic party began as a worker's party. I suppose that initially the Republicans = Conservatives and the Democrats=Labour.

There is no third party which to some extent would help, but they would never get the funding needed to run a serious campaign. Bernie Sanders who ran opposing Hillary is an Independent and more of a socialist than a democrat. He might have gotten the nomination if the Democratic machine hadn't have spiked his campaign.

A mere four years later, for the 2012 election, President Obama spent $775.4 million to win re-election; the DNC added an additional $285.8 million, while PAC spending on his behalf totaled $74.7 million, making the total spent to re-elect the president came to $985.7 million. Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, in a losing effort, spent $460.2 million on his White House bid, with another $378.8 million coming from the RNC and $153 million from PACs, bringing the total to $992 million.

The 2016 Election
At the time, many estimates for the presidential election in 2016 said it would cost at least $3 billion; some even put the number as high as $10 billion. At $2.4 billion, it fell a bit short of that, but was still a staggering amount. Among the two nominees, Hillary Clinton's campaign spent a total of $768 million, vastly more than the $398 million Donald Trump's campaign spent, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That $1.16 billion total is actually lower than the 2012 election's $1.97 billion total, the first decline in decades – though it doesn't take into account the value of "earned media" (that is, free media) coverage that the candidates (especially Trump) benefited from. Federal Election Commission filings show that Trump personally contributed a total of $66 million toward his campaign, while Clinton contributed $1.4 million of her own money.

A job that basically pays the president is paid $400,000 a year, plus an extra expense allowance of $50,000 a year, a $100,000 non-taxable travel account and $19,000 for entertainment.

It doesn't compute to me and I imagine many man more Americans.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexand ... 5a08d07a16" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Since Bill and Hillary Clinton left the White House in 2001, they have turned political fame into a personal fortune, raking in more than $240 million, according to a FORBES analysis of 15 years of their tax returns.

Bill made most of the money, earning $189 million by writing books, giving speeches, consulting private companies and advising billionaire Ron Burkle. Days after his presidency ended, he earned $125,000 for a speech at Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co. in New York, according to a financial disclosure form Hillary filed as a senator in 2002. It was the first of hundreds of paid speeches that collectively made him an estimated $106 million over 15 years.

How much did the Clinton Foundation generate ?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 065d396d61" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The total, representing cash and pledges reported in tax filings, includes $262 million that was raised in 2013 — the year Hillary Rodham Clinton stepped down as secretary of state and began to devote her energies to the foundation and to a likely second run for president.

And many of the foundation’s biggest donors are foreigners who are legally barred from giving to U.S. political candidates. A third of foundation donors who have given more than $1 million are foreign governments or other entities based outside the United States, and foreign donors make up more than half of those who have given more than $5 million.

[WCpete]

I guess this is how we do diplomacy now.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 5626609666

To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!

[EvilC]

Cuenca/anyone - how on earth did it ever come to pass that in a country of 350 million people, many of which are highly educated and talented, that both parties managed to field two (IMO) terrible candidates at the previous election?

[DasNutNock]

Cuenca/anyone - how on earth did it ever come to pass that in a country of 350 million people, many of which are highly educated and talented, that both parties managed to field two (IMO) terrible candidates at the previous election?

My last boss - a talented, kind, open-minded, intelligent and affable boss told me he had to vote Trump because Hillary wanted to take his gun away.

[Johnny Byrne's Boots]

I guess this is how we do diplomacy now.

.....................

Or like this



Yes, I know it's a parody account, as is this one

[sendô]

Cuenca/anyone - how on earth did it ever come to pass that in a country of 350 million people, many of which are highly educated and talented, that both parties managed to field two (IMO) terrible candidates at the previous election?

The real question is, were Trump/Clinton 2016 any worse than May/Corbyn 2017?

[fjthegrey]

Cuenca/anyone - how on earth did it ever come to pass that in a country of 350 million people, many of which are highly educated and talented, that both parties managed to field two (IMO) terrible candidates at the previous election?

Because what talented, intelligent, balanced person would want to be President?

I bet Obama, who you can level justifiable criticisms towards and who, in spite of those criticisms, is clearly a good man, regardless of his politics, must have regrets about doing the job when he considers the monstrosity that has followed him.

[EvilC]

Our population is 20% of the size so our chances of landing two dimwits is far higher.

That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

[Cuenca 'ammer]

Cuenca/anyone - how on earth did it ever come to pass that in a country of 350 million people, many of which are highly educated and talented, that both parties managed to field two (IMO) terrible candidates at the previous election?

If you had the answer to that question, you might want to buy lottery tickets this weekend...

I have tried to reason it out and not sure I answered it well....

The entire country is tired of the politicians in Washington.

Hillary was in the position of taking over from Obama. She is part of the "establishment" a lying, money grabbing cover up merchant.

Bernie Sanders was threatening the Hillary campaign so they fixed it so he couldn't win.

All of the Republican candidates are a part of the establishment.

Trump's two real main policies that people could relate to (as far as I can see):

Immigration - which is really out of control. Look up sanctuary cities

He promised to "drain the swamp" which alluded to the status quo in Washington.

The only thing is he won't and can't drain the swamp. Only voters can do that. And as with the U.K. (not a great analogy but the only one I can come up with) each party puts up candidates in places where they can guarantee a win (in general). Only the places where they go back and forth do the candidates come close to what is needed (until they get in of course).

Hillary neglected the true old style Democrat states feeling that they would be a given and NEVER vote for Trump. But in those states (again this is general) Trump resonated with the "rust belt" voters. The issues they felt were significant were: immigration and draining the swamp. The Don had no record of a political past so many felt voting for him would be the only way that they could get Washington to change.

Over simplified of course but there are so many issues which change according to the region/state/even cities.

Both parties have moved away from their base, more so perhaps for the Democrats.

Not sure that answers the question and am not sure that it can be answered in an exact way. This is the only generalisation that I can come up with from the "outside." Too many years of inaction from politicians who are only out for themselves.

They voted for Obamacare (this isn't a pro or con) and were told "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

Members of Congress are treated differently under Obamacare, but they're not exempt. In fact, by forcing them to purchase health insurance through publicly run exchanges, they're impacted more by that key provision than similar employees in private sector — or even in government.

But members of Congress will also be able to purchase their insurance under terms that are more favorable than other employees — in government or in business — who have access to employer-provided health care.


On the back of all of this, I am pretty sure that the mum and dad somewhere in mid America said, We're on board with Trump if he can effect change. Ergo he got in.

Not sure that is specific for everyone who voted for Trump or Hillary - there will always be those who are died in the wool Dems and Republicans and some who will always listen to issues and vote their conscience. The voters who can swing the votes are areas where the candidates usually put emphasis on "stumping." Hillary neglected those areas.

She would have been even worse than the Don imvho.

[EvilC]

Hold your nose and vote for Hilary looks like a poor plan from the Democrats in hindsight.

[Cuenca 'ammer]

Hold your nose and vote for Hilary looks like a poor plan from the Democrats in hindsight.

I think it was quite noticeable that (at least from my perspective) even Obama distanced himself from her at crucial times. Seemed like it wasn't the usual "incumbent endorses party choice" the majority of the time.

I really thought that Ted Cruz was the best candidate - from where I sat - but Trump hit him hard as "being part of the problem with Washington" and as I say, resentment ran very high with the populace (at least on the Republican side) about getting the fat lazy doing nothing Washington politicians out. When Trump got elected it should have sent a warning shot to most incumbents. But it didn't. They're career politicians and it doesn't really to most which party is in power. They're still going to be in Washington, still going to be re-elected so they just have to wait 4 or 8 years for Trump to go.

it's just business as usual for that lot.

Trump’s presidential victory is barely 48 hours old, and the federal government has already begun pouring cold water on any real change in Washington, D.C.

Immediately following Trump’s election, Senate Majority Leader Mitch Mcconnell stated in no uncertain terms that the Senate will not consider a term limits amendment:

“We have term limits,” Mcconnell said. “They’re called elections.”

Interestingly enough, many conservative talk show hosts have been pushing this:

An Article V Convention of States can propose a term limits amendment -- among others -- without Congress’s approval. Article V of the Constitution stipulates that a “convention for proposing amendments” can be held if 34 states call for one. Under the Convention of States Project call, these amendments can mandate term limits for federal officials, impose fiscal restraints on Congress, and limit the power and jurisdiction of federal regulators.

Trump may well propose policies that limit the federal government, but in 2020 federal bureaucrats will still control the majority of the decisions D.C. makes. Our nation will still be in debt, and the Courts will still hold an unprecedented amount of power. A Convention of States provides the only solution to these structural problems, problems that one president cannot tackle alone.

In the coming months, a number of states are likely to consider resolutions that call for a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget, and possibly to shrink federal authority in other, often unspecified, ways. Proponents of these resolutions claim that 28 of the 34 states required to call a constitutional convention already have passed such resolutions.

I can't find confirmation of that number however.....