American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS (Archive)

[ResAlien]

Sigh, no. Not any Republican would be enacting the things Don is. This half cocked travel ban? Not so much. This ridiculous border wall project? Also not something any Republican would do.

The cabinet nominations of people who are so grossly unqualified for that position we needed a VP to break a deadlock for the first time in ages? A doctor who believes in grain silo pyramids to run HUD? An AG who was too racist in the 80s for a judgeship but is just racist enough now to be AG? No, these would not be the people nominated.

Let's not forget his adding political strategists to the NSC and his constant attacks on a free press. None of the things he's doing are what "any Republican" would be doing. Not by a long shot. To believe so is to either be content with keeping you head in the sand or being willfully disingenuous.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

I for one would've voted for just about any Democrat against a current Republican. The current GOP is completely detached from reality--they gleefully ignore science and logic. Any of the top GOP candidates would've been a disaster because they would in no way stop Paul Ryan and his cohorts from doing their best to dismantle the US healthcare system further, to roll back women's rights, roll back LGBT rights, roll back environmental protections.

But Ted Cruz would not likely be picking fights with our allies. Jeb Bush wouldn't be starting twitter wars over non-existent evidence of wiretapping. John Kasich wouldn't be going over classified material over the dinner table at Mar-a-Lago.

Any Republican at this point would be a disaster for the environment, for women, for the LGBT community, but Trump is unhinged enough to cause an international incident. Any bad policy put in place by one of those other GOP president could be fixed in the future--if Trump starts a nuclear showdown, that's a hell of a lot harder to recover from.

Fair points.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No, you're still missing the point. Mike Pence would be far more true-blue (or red) Republican as president than Trump. Nonetheless, he would be preferable. Republicans have policy positions we don't support, but they are still, for the most part, responsible, thinking adults (the Michelle Bachmann / Sarah Palin wing of the party notwithstanding).

Trump isn't an adult. He is a child with no sense of the importance of what he's doing and no regard for its impact on anyone. The volume knob being turned up to twelve on criticism is not about him being right wing - many of us object to that as well, being pro-choice, pro-gay rights and pro-health care for everyone among other things - but that's not it. Him being the sort of terrible person he is - self-obsessed, ignorant, quick to anger, and with no regard for democratic institutions except where they're serving his personal interests - is dangerous. As John Oliver put it, "This is just how things are going to work now - the President once saw a banana bruise that looked like a picture in an article he read in a dream, and that is why we're at ####ing war". That sort of insanity is a realistic scenario now.

Since being sworn in about a month ago, he has threatened the legitimacy of the rule of law, undermined the nation's intelligence services (the only basis upon which he could make informed foreign policy decisions), and undermined the electoral process, repeatedly, by claiming that he really won the popular vote. This is not just madness, it's highly destabilizing, and to answer your question again, no, it's absolutely not the case that "any Republican" would do these things. Not even remotely close to true.

Trump shoots first and asks questions later. The rest of the GOP candidates would have asked questions first and then shot... but still shot.

So responsible thinking adults would have thought through the problem, planned how to address it, and done it.

Trump addresses the problem, people criticize his action, his people re-do it, re-enact his solutions, then do it.

I do agree that many, if not all, of his public comments (specifically via twitter) are insane and un-presidential.

[GirlySports]

It's amazing how China no longer has any morals. It's not longer the People's
Republic. It's the Money's Republic.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

how?

By winning.

Sorry, that comes off as a pretty arrogant statement, but in the end, Trump won the election, which is the metric that counts in this case.

He had his talking points, as others have said were the key to success over Hillary, and whether they were true or not, he stuck to it, hammered it home, and convinced enough people to get out to vote.

I'm not sure who was really in charge of the campaign, because he seemed to fire and replace and rehire and refire campaign personnel on a daily basis. But someone in his camp is a genius because they were able to get him elected, flaws and all.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Trump shoots first and asks questions later. The rest of the GOP candidates would have asked questions first and then shot... but still shot.

No. Just no. You're simply wrong. Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, these guys would not have had their justice departments order federal law enforcement to disobey the court order or attempted to undermine the legitimacy of a judicial ruling they didn't like. They would simply have disagreed with the ruling. They certainly would not have started a fight with the FBI and CIA, that's just obvious, there's no conflict between them. None of them would have accused the former president of a crime without evidence, nor would they have tried to convince the public that millions of people voted illegally without evidence. They would not have declared the press to be the "enemy of the American people", and if you need proof of that, just listen to George W. Bush's response to that travesty.

You do not get that this guy is different. You're failing to grasp what should be obvious to you. That said, I think there are millions of people who were in a like position on election day, or he wouldn't have won. But it's really depressing to hear from one of them.

P.S. - you're also wrong on policy; none of the GOP nominees were proposing a physical border wall or mass deportations or immigration bans. But that's beside the point. Even if they had, they would be preferable to this. A run of the mill GOP presidency would be unpleasant for many people, but would be an easily survivable event. The Trump presidency, well, close your eyes and pray that the damage isn't irreparable.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

By winning.

Sorry, that comes off as a pretty arrogant statement, but in the end, Trump won the election, which is the metric that counts in this case.

He had his talking points, as others have said were the key to success over Hillary, and whether they were true or not, he stuck to it, hammered it home, and convinced enough people to get out to vote.

I'm not sure who was really in charge of the campaign, because he seemed to fire and replace and rehire and refire campaign personnel on a daily basis. But someone in his camp is a genius because they were able to get him elected, flaws and all.

But to go back to my example in my previous comment, that would imply that Madoff was some astute businessman because he was able to acquire a lot of wealth. No, he was a good liar and tricked people.

As another totally random fun example of winning not being a correlation with being the best: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2017...-marathon-run/

Hot tip: If you're going to cheat while running a marathon, don't wear a fitness tracking band.

And while that person got caught, it goes to show that you can bend rules to make yourself look like the winner when not being the best or even good at what you do.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

By winning.

Sorry, that comes off as a pretty arrogant statement, but in the end, Trump won the election, which is the metric that counts in this case.

Wait, you said he was a better politician and that's why he won, not that he won, so that made him a better politician.
I'm wondering what, in your opinion, made him a better politician, that ultimately gave him the win.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

By winning.

Two different metrics though.
By winning, I'd agree he was the better campaigner. It does not mean he's a better politician though.

You can get a really ####ty employee with a really good resume.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by ernie

Clearly he has tremendous respect for women. He includes them in lockeroom talk and games. Unexpectedly groping them is no different then, say, unexpectedly snapping a wet towel at your squash partners ass in the locker room.

He's a horrible, horrible person.

I always find the talk of Hillary not being "genuine" as quite funny. She's robotic and guarded and some would argue that is because as a woman in politics she needs to be (and likely be correct). She might even be interested in power for powers sake (like most politicians). But from a teenager she has dedicated her life to trying to help people. I can't for the life of me understand how her presidential campaigns didn't go to great efforts detailing all those things.

Good point, her campaign didn't emphasize these points and she fell into Trump's trap during debates and speeches. Trump was on point. Crooked Hillary became a thing.

Also I think her health played a role. Being 'Fit for President' is a common phrase which includes health. Hillary wasn't campaigning much whereas Trump was everywhere. That played a role.

Also I found it perplexing that Hillary named Kaine as her running mate and soon after pretty much dropped him. Her podium went from Clinton-Kaine to Stronger Together. He wasn't around much while Pence was also everywhere.

What makes people go to a conman? Because he sounds good? or the proper side doesn't?

[Senator Clay Davis]

"Trump was on point during the debates"

- said no one ever.

[REDVAN]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

Two different metrics though.
By winning, I'd agree he was the better campaigner. It does not mean he's a better politician though.

You can get a really ####ty employee with a really good resume.

Fair enough, I agree and I wasn't careful/correct in my previous posts. I don't mean that Trump is a better politician than Hillary (or some other GOP nominees whom he out-campaigned). That is clearly not true. He was a great campaigner, and he continues to be. But he is not a great politician at this time.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Sigh, no. Not any Republican would be enacting the things Don is. This half cocked travel ban? Not so much. This ridiculous border wall project? Also not something any Republican would do.

The cabinet nominations of people who are so grossly unqualified for that position we needed a VP to break a deadlock for the first time in ages? A doctor who believes in grain silo pyramids to run HUD? An AG who was too racist in the 80s for a judgeship but is just racist enough now to be AG? No, these would not be the people nominated.

Let's not forget his adding political strategists to the NSC and his constant attacks on a free press. None of the things he's doing are what "any Republican" would be doing. Not by a long shot. To believe so is to either be content with keeping you head in the sand or being willfully disingenuous.

While that may be true, not "any Republican" would have won this election. The one who did win was quite transparent and most of his detractors saw things playing out exactly who they are. Trump is sticking to his disgusting platform that got him voted in and I have no doubt that while some of the people who voted for him do not like the man, they still would vote for a similar platform. Almost half of the voters liked what Trump was selling, and while Trump should scare some people, the real problem is the people who voted for him in droves.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

What makes people go to a conman?

Being conned.

That's what a conman does -- con people.

Seeing all the bitching from Republicans today about Trumpcare and his lunatic ramblings about Obama wiretapping him, it looks like a few more Republicans are starting to realize they fell for it.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

It's amazing how China no longer has any morals. It's not longer the People's
Republic. It's the Money's Republic.

China hasn't had any morals since Mao.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by REDVAN

Fair enough, I agree and I wasn't careful/correct in my previous posts. I don't mean that Trump is a better politician than Hillary (or some other GOP nominees whom he out-campaigned). That is clearly not true. He was a great campaigner, and he continues to be. But he is not a great politician at this time.

He won because he's a celebrity. Any random joe millionaire who hadn't been in the public eye for the last 30 years, with his platform, would've been laughed out of the race 2 months in.

Trump is a celebrity, Trump is a brand, Trump is a name. He won because he's recognizable as much as anything else. He's convinced people that he's a Great Businessman and he's So Successful and his whole rhetoric played on the idea among poor Americans that The Man is just holding them down and if they could just stop that evil gub'ment, they could be billionaires just like Trump.

He tapped into that, he tapped into racism and fear, and he tapped into the percentage of voters who would check the box for an inanimate paper bag if it had (R) next to its name. It was a perfect storm for him. A non-celebrity isn't going to pull out the masses of normally non-voting Americans that Trump did. (This is something I definitely saw, plenty of people I know who never bothered to vote before voted Trump because he's not a politician and tells it like it is!)

[Flash Walken]

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Did you read the article? The trademark for escort services in China is approved. Also massage parlors as well. So no, it's not a hoax, he wants to make girlfriend experiences and rub and tugs great again.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.141725af3e3c

It was a "defensive" move

[Thor]

I love that this is going to be called Trumpcare, because its going to go down in flames and anger voters.

[DuffMan]

My only hope is that Trumpcare, I'd like it to be called Republicare, but whichever, my hope is that they finally get rid of the death panels. Those things were a disaster, frankly, a tremendous disaster.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Did you read the article? The trademark for escort services in China is approved. Also massage parlors as well. So no, it's not a hoax, he wants to make girlfriend experiences and rub and tugs great again.

Yeah, I read the article. That doesn't make it true. The President putting his name on a prostitution business seems like something other media outlets would pick up on. But hey, maybe they will if it is true.

I'd like to think even this nutcase would stay away from such a thing, but who knows?