Donald Trump

[Strontium]

He's gonna shake up washington

 

Cabinet meetings could be interesting if he fires a member after every one.

[skend04]

Cabinet meetings could be interesting if he fires a member after every one.

Watch out for the UK Sir Alan version in 2020.

[Section_31]

[SasaS]

I don't think anyone would disagree that there is a big difference, it's more about drawing a line in the sand. It's not as extreme, as whoever the next Tory leader is they won't be as mental as Trump, but if Corbyn wasn't elected leader of the Labour party I wouldn't be voting Labour at the next election. I won't vote for a neo liberal. Just wondering how many people this applies to in the states with Sanders/Clinton.

 

The short term effect of voting for Clinton over Trump is that you have a bought off, banking stooge, war hawk as leader rather than an out and out fascist. The long term effect is that you allow the political spectrum to keep moving further and further to the right. The next Democrat establishment leader can be even further to the right than Clinton if someone even more mental and racist than Trump stands for the Republicans.

 

I agree that everyone has there own line in the sand, but doubt very much that millions of Sanders supporters would sooner allow Trump to win and become the president of their country than vote for Hillary. And I even think you would probably vote for a centrist Labour candidate, a winner over Corbyn,  if the alternative was a big swing to the right, a scenario with somebody worse than UKIP taking over.

 

[Stu Monty]

I don't think anyone would disagree that there is a big difference, it's more about drawing a line in the sand. It's not as extreme, as whoever the next Tory leader is they won't be as mental as Trump, but if Corbyn wasn't elected leader of the Labour party I wouldn't be voting Labour at the next election. I won't vote for a neo liberal. Just wondering how many people this applies to in the states with Sanders/Clinton.

 

The short term effect of voting for Clinton over Trump is that you have a bought off, banking stooge, war hawk as leader rather than an out and out fascist. The long term effect is that you allow the political spectrum to keep moving further and further to the right. The next Democrat establishment leader can be even further to the right than Clinton if someone even more mental and racist than Trump stands for the Republicans.

 

Read a very interesting article the other day indicating that there's actually currently a shift to the left on a lot of issues from the electorate and that it's hard to see how that isn't going to continue into the next presidency. One interesting point was that Clinton won't be able to talk the talk, like Obama does, so she'll have to actually have progressive results to show if she wants to make out she's delivered.

[Jairzinho]

I agree that everyone has there own line in the sand, but doubt very much that millions of Sanders supporters would sooner allow Trump to win and become the president of their country than vote for Hillary. And I even think you would probably vote for a centrist Labour candidate, a winner over Corbyn, if the alternative was a big swing to the right, a scenario with somebody worse than UKIP taking over.

I actually wouldn't, but yeah, I understand it's a personal decision.

[VladimirIlyich]

The Americans elected a B Movie actor whose most noted role was alongside a chimp,and he also had dementia. Nothing will surprise me.

[Strontium]

The Americans elected a B Movie actor whose most noted role was alongside a chimp,and he also had dementia. Nothing will surprise me.

 

He left office in 1989 and started showing symptoms of Alzheimer's in 1992.

 

The only thing that would surprise me is you being accurate, ever.

[magicrat]

Reagan turned out a lot better than expected, He didn't do anything massively stupid and engaged the Russians in a meaningful way

He compares favourably to his successors  . 

[Rico1304]

Reagan turned out a lot better than expected, He didn't do anything massively stupid and engaged the Russians in a meaningful way

He compares favourably to his successors  .

 

I read an article a few weeks ago where the White House staff talked about how stupid he was and how he didn't have a grasp of anything going on in the world. He cancelled briefings to watch his favourite films. In fact they had to make little films for him as it was the only way he could understand anything. I'll try and remember where it was.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Reagan didn't run the country he read his lines the bamboozled fuck.

[Nunavut Patrick]

Nancy and her astrologer ran the show.

[Evelyn Tentions]

Reagan turned out a lot better than expected, He didn't do anything massively stupid and engaged the Russians in a meaningful way

He compares favourably to his successors  . 

Which is more a reflection of how fucking awful his successors were than how good he was.

[littletedwest]

He left office in 1989 and started showing symptoms of Alzheimer's in 1992.The only thing that would surprise me is you being accurate, ever.

I've watched a documentary that says he started showing symptoms around 84. It was pretty conclusive to be fair.

That said I'd rather have the chimp from bedtime for bonzo than trump.

[Anubis]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-suttle/koch-brothers-2016_b_9307616.html?utm_hp_ref= politics

 

 

Did the Koch Brothers Just Choose Their Candidate?

 

On the list of the richest people in America, Charles and David Koch stand tied for 5th, each sitting on top of a $41 billion fortune. If you counted them together their $82 billion would easily win them first place, besting Bill Gates by over $6 billion. Bill and Melinda Gates have pledged, and are in the process of giving away nearly all of their fortune to charity. The Koch brothers have pledged to spend $900 million electing the presidential candidate who can best protect the fossil fuel industry.

 

It's hard to imagine the Koch's spending nearly a billion dollars to elect Donald Trump president of the United States. (Although, if you are an aspiring screenwriter looking for inspiration, that scenario would make a phenomenal slapstick comedy.)

 

The Koch brothers have kept a low profile during the primary season, but a new hire by Marco Rubio might signal the end of their impartiality. Politico reported yesterday: "Marc Short, the Koch brothers' top political adviser in Washington and a trusted member of their inner circle for five years, is making a surprise move to the Marco Rubio campaign as a senior adviser as the Republican establishment ramps up efforts to stop Donald Trump."

 

As the president of Freedom Partners, the hub of the wheel for the Koch's political empire, Marc Short may have the greatest donor list in all of politics, and even better data. Short will now be the Koch brothers' man on the inside of Rubio's campaign, which means Rubio now has access to the most money and one of the best data-mining operations in politics. The money is good, but the data might be even better. It's a "sophisticated databank of voter information that has been augmented with personal information gathered by campaigns and commercial groups. The group has data on millions of American voters and its voter files have become one of the must-have tools for most Republican campaigns." (Mother Jones)

 

You can bet that Donald Trump doesn't have access to that spreadsheet.

 

Seemingly on cue, another story emerged yesterday on Politico that Ted Cruz's top backers have asked him to stop going after Marco Rubio and go after Trump instead. The move could be a change in strategy for a candidate whose unfavorables climb every time he hits Rubio from the right. It could be a signal that the Republican establishment is currently marshaling every available resource to try and halt the Donald Trump vanity-project-slash-presidential-campaign that continues to pick up more and more delegates, and that the candidate they have anointed to do so is Marco Rubio. Cruz's only utility to the Republican establishment at this point is to fire all his guns at Trump.

 

Marc Short is an amazing hire by the Rubio campaign, and if other Republicans pick up the signal we could see a massive shift of resources and attention away from Ted Cruz and toward Marco Rubio. I would not be at all surprised if Marco Rubio begins to pick up some serious steam nationwide. Cruz is all but done. There's only room for one loose canon at a time atop the national stage, and Trump has confounded all experts, not to mention all good logic and decorum, by sucking all the oxygen from the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" room. Cruz is out. Rubio is in.

 

If we see a miracle run by Rubio and he unseats the Donald for the Republican nomination, then we should point to yesterday and the Marc Short hire as the turning point. We should also realize that the Koch Brothers may have finally reverse engineered the American political process with enough precision and power to anoint their own presidential candidates and ensure his or her success.

[VladimirIlyich]

He left office in 1989 and started showing symptoms of Alzheimer's in 1992.

 

The only thing that would surprise me is you being accurate, ever.

You really are an arrogant person at times and one who starts arguments and then complains when people argue back.

If you'd have seen the Chimp remark then you'd realise it was mostly sarcasm. Even so a diagnosis and symptoms can occur years apart,as you have indicated with your reply.

As for accuracy,I'd say we are ALL wide of the mark at times. A stopped clock is correct twice a day so I have a chance of being right occasionally.

[VladimirIlyich]

Reagan didn't run the country he read his lines the bamboozled fuck.

As a famous Not the Nine O'Clock News sketch parodied.

[Stu Monty]

I love the idea that the Rubio campaign have "hired" the Koch's man. 

 

No, they chose him. Rubio is the employee that will be doing as he's told here. 

[Anubis]

I love the idea that the Rubio campaign have "hired" the Koch's man.

 

No, they chose him. Rubio is the employee that will be doing as he's told here.

In fairness, I think the headline acknowledges just that. I'm not sure it's quite the shift the writer thinks. I suspect Trump will be calling Rubio out as a money puppet in short order. He'll turn it into a battle for America between the Kochs v the ordinary citizen, much the way he's done so far.

[SasaS]

Interesting article on Slate yesterday on Trump's electability for president, essentially, it is becoming a realistic possibility, since the unfavourable split is down and all Republicans, article believes, will turn out to vote for him.

 

“He went from trailing Clinton in the head-to-head polls by 20 points last summer to down only 4 points today. His favorability ratings tell a similar story. Last May, when few actually believed he’d give up his reality television career to run for president, his favorable-unfavorable split among all Americans—not just Republicans—was at negative-47 points. Today, after eight months of demagogy, it’s improved to negative-21. (In that same period, Hillary’s split moved in the opposite direction, from negative-3 to negative-12.)”

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/24/donald_trump_could_beat_hillary_clinton_in_the_general.html

[Section_31]

Interesting article on Slate yesterday on Trump's electability for president, essentially, it is becoming a realistic possibility, since the unfavourable split is down and all Republicans, article believes, will turn out to vote for him.

 

“He went from trailing Clinton in the head-to-head polls by 20 points last summer to down only 4 points today. His favorability ratings tell a similar story. Last May, when few actually believed he’d give up his reality television career to run for president, his favorable-unfavorable split among all Americans—not just Republicans—was at negative-47 points. Today, after eight months of demagogy, it’s improved to negative-21. (In that same period, Hillary’s split moved in the opposite direction, from negative-3 to negative-12.)”

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/02/24/donald_trump_could_beat_hillary_clinton_in_the_general.html

 

I honestly think voting for Trump is a symptom of a malaise to the point where people would rather embark on the unknown than just continue with the same groundhog day shit. I think Corbyn benefited from the same attitude. People looked at Burnham and Cooper and just thought 'fucking hell, same old shit'. Same with Hilary Clinton, same old shit. I think the masses are genuinely starting to think it's better to burn out than fade away. 

[Strontium]

I thought Scott Walker was the Kochs' man, and he limped out of the contest with 0.5% support. But I guess that doesn't fit the narrative.

[Biscao]

I honestly think voting for Trump is a symptom of a malaise to the point where people would rather embark on the unknown than just continue with the same groundhog day shit. I think Corbyn benefited from the same attitude. People looked at Burnham and Cooper and just thought 'fucking hell, same old shit'. Same with Hilary Clinton, same old shit. I think the masses are genuinely starting to think it's better to burn out than fade away. 

 

It's what this (long) article makes the case for. He's exposing the campaign-system, and he's very good at it. The problem is that the guy doing it is more or less insane.

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-unstoppable-20160224?page=13

[setreal]

I thought Scott Walker was the Kochs' man, and he limped out of the contest with 0.5% support. But I guess that doesn't fit the narrative.

 

It does fit the narrative because it is much more difficult to buy national elections than other ones because of the insane amount of free media coverage you get. The Kochs focus on specifically chosen races on more regional levels and flood them with ads. Trump blowing their puppets Walker, Rubio and Cruz out of the water on the national stage has got nothing to do with that.

[Stu Monty]

I thought Scott Walker was the Kochs' man, and he limped out of the contest with 0.5% support. But I guess that doesn't fit the narrative.

What narrative?

 

You'll note your unprovoking tone again.