Will President Trump run for a second term?

Post by **spot** » Tue May 02, 2017 12:09 am

One hopes he can meet with his Russian counterpart before the year's out.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Fri May 05, 2017 12:30 pm

And starts with deploying MOAB - the next one down from Nuclear. I wonder how he's likely to escalate things further? He's already threatened Nuclear war on North Korea & refuses to negate the possibility of opting for a 1st Strike Nuclear Attack.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri May 05, 2017 1:24 pm

I wonder if the Las Vegas sports book places allow you to bet on how long he will stay in office. He keeps saying 8 years, while some insiders have expressed surprise that he made it through 100 days without finding a reason to quit.

Post by **spot** » Thu May 11, 2017 12:14 pm

There appears to be turmoil among the lower classes at President Trump's dismissal of the head of the FBI.

Why these people rock the boat baffles me. Is there really anyone who would prefer to see Mike Pence inherit the office?

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Thu May 11, 2017 3:29 pm

spot;1509061 wrote: There appears to be turmoil among the lower classes at President Trump's dismissal of the head of the FBI.

Why these people rock the boat baffles me. Is there really anyone who would prefer to see Mike Pence inherit the office?

Both options are both scary and depressing.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu May 11, 2017 3:30 pm

spot;1509061 wrote: There appears to be turmoil among the lower classes at President Trump's dismissal of the head of the FBI.

Why these people rock the boat baffles me. Is there really anyone who would prefer to see Mike Pence inherit the office?From a domestic policy standpoint I can't see much difference in Pence's and Trump's. I'm thinking it might boil down to who is more controllable from a foreign policy perspective. My bet is that that's beginning to look like Pence.

If only Trump understood that there's a groundswell of untapped support for his foreign policy if he'd quit being so extreme domestically. Trump's got a real hard-on for Obama. Not that I blame him much, but he needs to control his anger better. That isn't going to happen apparently. He's right to fire Comey but needs better style.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Thu May 11, 2017 3:35 pm

Really, I think the only thing holding the republicans back from firing Trump is the stock market and what might happen there should Pence take office. Since Trump has taken office the stock market has responded mostly favorably. If that changes, it might be curtains for Trump.

HarryH · Post by **HarryH** » Thu May 11, 2017 4:21 pm

First post on forum, so I thought here would be a good(?) place to start.

I did read the first 7 pages and the last 6 or 7. Sorry to all between.

Did Trump really want a 1st term?

Suggesting Pence as an alternative if Trump were impeached/removed, etc. is an interesting proposition. Obviously it would require democrat support, but given democrats are placing their bets in 2018 on a Trump backlash, would they drag their feet on any impeachment proceedings?

The possibilities are fun to think about, imo.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu May 11, 2017 8:21 pm

Mike Pence worries me more than Trump.

Trump is a person that can be predicted

Post by **spot** » Fri May 12, 2017 1:18 am

HarryH;1509068 wrote: Suggesting Pence as an alternative if Trump were impeached/removed, etc. is an interesting proposition. Obviously it would require democrat support, but given democrats are placing their bets in 2018 on a Trump backlash, would they drag their feet on any impeachment proceedings?.
Perhaps I have misunderstood the American constitutional arrangement. I had thought the Vice President. if there is one at that moment, was the only, and automatic, contender for President if the President leaves office for any reason before the next Presidential election, and that he gets sworn in as President by a justice of the Supreme Court before the previous President even reaches his padded cell, his backwoods retreat or his autopsy slab. I don't think it needs the support or the permission of anyone at all.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri May 12, 2017 4:09 am

I believe HarryH is suggesting that democrats would prefer The Donald remain in office in order to continue to fuel the drive to elect more democrats in 2018.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 12, 2017 4:27 am

I have two problems with it then.

Firstly, it can be reasonably assumed that every Democrat in Congress would happily vote to impeach President Trump if plausible grounds can be invented. The issue is whether any Republicans will join them, and the Republicans form the majority.

Secondly, I would have thought support for Republican candidates will build as the 2018 mid-term elections approach, during a more and more popular Trump presidency. The only backlash I've seen so far has been anti-Trump media coverage, I've seen no indication that his core support among US voters has diminished at all.

President Obama faced bogus attacks over his US birth credentials, President Trump is facing equally bogus attacks over his allegedly conspiring with Russian Intelligence. No proof for this conspiracy is possible, or necessary for the media frenzy to continue, but you'd think a congressional vote on impeachment would require at least some undeniable evidence.

It may be true - I've no idea - that the WikiLeaked 20,000 2015/16 emails from and to Democratic National Committee officials were stolen and forwarded by Russian Intelligence. What's undeniable is that the leaked emails conclusively showed the Democrat primaries to have been rigged internally with the intention of promoting Hillary Clinton's candidacy. If Russian Intelligence was responsible then it should be thanked for performing a vital public service. The leak may demonstrate a partisan intention on the part of the Russian government to sway the US presidential election in Donald Trump's favor. That doesn't make the interference Donald Trump's responsibility, it doesn't make him culpable, it doesn't demonstrate complicity on his part.

HarryH · Post by **HarryH** » Fri May 12, 2017 5:24 am

Ahso!;1509077 wrote: I believe HarryH is suggesting that democrats would prefer The Donald remain in office in order to continue to fuel the drive to elect more democrats in 2018.

Yes, and apologies for not being clearer. The Democrats appear to be in a position to gain a few seats in the House, although at this early stage is about 12 possible. The Senate might even see a 2 or 3 seat gain for the Republicans.

To be blunt, the Democrats are hoping that Trump "chaos" will reverse the Senate tendency and increase the gains in the House. The "chaos" in this instance being the nature and tenor of Trump's statements, even with his policy approach that is all over the political map. Pence more than likely would not be as "vocal", but underlying policies would shift hard right. It would be hard to tell if a President Pence would have higher approval ratings than Trump, but currently they are much higher than Trump's. Plus Pence would appear a near saint to the American Public after all the accusations regarding Trump.

As it would take 2/3 of the senate to remove Trump, calls for his resignation will most likely come from House Democrats that are in very safe (D) districts. Everything else will be calls for investigations upon investigations.

Our politicians generally start out with the notion that their ideas are what is best for the nation and its people. To further that pursuit, a re-election becomes the #1 priority, imo.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri May 12, 2017 5:37 am

Why do I get the impression Trump performs like he's in a reality TV show all the time ?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Fri May 12, 2017 6:07 am

What he's very good at is hitting the government establishment where it hurts. The corporate media appears to be hysterical over the Comey firing.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 12, 2017 6:35 am

Bruv;1509083 wrote: Why do I get the impression Trump performs like he's in a reality TV show all the time ?

I'd need to watch a reality TV show to be able to answer that. The only one I've watched, for educational reasons, is Masterchef, and President Trump's style is not at all evident in that program.

What I find surprising so far is the extent to which President Trump has been honest, often contradicting the on-message lies and prevarications of his aides. I don't think he's often credited for that degree of openness, he's merely mobbed by ill-wishers when his comments are crass hyperbole. Didn't Peter Sellers portray a similar character, Chauncey Gardiner, in a film? I ought to watch that, I keep refusing to.

As for his interaction so far with the Pentagon it's almost as though he's mocking them. The US military is constantly being shown to be impotent whenever he lets slip their leash. Please may we show off our MOAB? Sure, use it, bang away. And please may we fling $100 million worth of Tomahawks at that Syrian airfield? Go ahead, make it sparkly. That's lots of fireworks and nothing in Afghanistan or Syria changed at all. Even George Bush knew better - "When I take action, I’m not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt" - but the decorated warriors still want to make loud ineffectual noises at a distance and declare the result a triumphant success.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri May 12, 2017 12:33 pm

Bruv;1509083 wrote: Why do I get the impression Trump performs like he's in a reality TV show all the time ?

There is nothing real about reality shows, as there is nothing real about that compulsive liar, Drump.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri May 12, 2017 3:02 pm

Ahso!;1509084 wrote: What he's very good at is hitting the government establishment where it hurts. The corporate media appears to be hysterical over the Comey firing.

I'll bet he misses the team of video editors that would would very hard to go through the raw footage of his babble, attempting to make him sound somewhat cogent and intelligent, before the public ever saw it.

HarryH · Post by **HarryH** » Fri May 12, 2017 3:45 pm

Bruv;1509083 wrote: Why do I get the impression Trump performs like he's in a reality TV show all the time ?

I would have to disagree with that statement. Reality shows are semi-scripted, with the aim of controlling a message. Every Presidential Administration I have seen, attempts to stay on script and vigorously control the message.

Trump is none of the above. It's a whole new television experience, imo.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat May 13, 2017 3:08 am

HarryH;1509094 wrote: I would have to disagree with that statement. Reality shows are semi-scripted, with the aim of controlling a message. Every Presidential Administration I have seen, attempts to stay on script and vigorously control the message.

Trump is none of the above. It's a whole new television experience, imo.

You sure he hasn't got one eye on ratings ?

Post by **spot** » Sat May 13, 2017 3:34 am

FourPart;1508943 wrote: & refuses to negate the possibility of opting for a 1st Strike Nuclear Attack.

This keeps cropping up. Please name one US President who has ever negated that possibility - to the best of my knowledge there are none - or at least admit he's done exactly what every other President has done in this regard. Why do you want him to be the first? Why do you expect him to be the first?

HarryH · Post by **HarryH** » Sat May 13, 2017 7:07 am

Bruv;1509096 wrote: You sure he hasn't got one eye on ratings ?

Has he provided any evidence that he cares about ratings, other than state they are false, etc.?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat May 13, 2017 9:22 am

HarryH;1509100 wrote: Has he provided any evidence that he cares about ratings, other than state they are false, etc.?

I am talking TV ratings.

HarryH · Post by **HarryH** » Sat May 13, 2017 9:37 am

Bruv;1509102 wrote: I am talking TV ratings.

Okay, understand. It does appear that the WH press conferences have turned into "must see tv". And watching the press chase administration officials does remind me of those black Friday crowds bursting through the doors. You may be on to something.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 17, 2017 1:36 am

The thing which puzzles me is how these anti-Trump supporters hope to benefit from terminating the Trump presidency early, either by impeachment or by forcing a resignation.

What is the result going to be? Fresh elections? No, the US system doesn't allow for that. What happens is that America will be led by President Mike Pence supported by a reunified Republican Congress and a conservative majority in the Supreme Court.

That is an improvement on the current state of affairs? I would like suggestions as to how it's an improvement. I'd like to discuss it here.

The American press and TV are uniformly baying for blood, bringing down President Trump before the natural conclusion of this term is an end in itself, it's driving ratings and sales. That bit I understand. What puzzles me is why anyone in the American electorate is encouraging it.

Would anyone like to throw in a reason or two?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed May 17, 2017 3:44 am

1) Neoliberals want Trump shamed throughout history.

2) Belief on both sides that Pence would bring back obedience to the Deep State as well the predictability in the return of the status quo.

From a domestic perspective, whether it's Trump, Pence or Ryan, American society is headed to the right. Though perhaps it represents the last gasp of old white privileged Americanism.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 17, 2017 4:33 am

I don't think President Trump represents the right wing of anything, I think he has a strong desire to reset the clock on a host of international crises regardless of party politics.

On healthcare, every American proposal is uniformly right wing. There are two stances on healthcare, one involves guaranteed universal health cover underwritten by taxation and the other is right-wing.

On guaranteeing that nobody in the USA on any given day lacks recognized government authority to be there, there's lots of ways of achieving that. What's been lacking for the last fifty years is a willingness to implement any such scheme. I think it's absolutely essential that an effective scheme should be implemented immediately. Nobody but President Trump is going to do that. I'd prefer an alternative scheme to the one he's proposed but his is the only one on the table.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed May 17, 2017 5:48 am

spot;1509203 wrote: I don't think President Trump represents the right wing of anything, I think he has a strong desire to reset the clock on a host of international crises regardless of party politics.Domestically, Trump wants to reset the clock on just about everything including the environment, education (though American education has always been a mess, in my opinion), his AG pick of Sessions and that agenda of returning to mandatory sentencing, re-engaging in drug war mentality. Jeff Sessions is a dangerous authoritarian Christian fundamentalist, very much like Mike Pence.

Trump has the vision of allowing business interests to set policy more or less by allowing the market to direct policy decisions. While every President in my lifetime is guilty of this, Trump's style is uniquely raw, unabashed and completely unrestrained. This is alarming.

spot;1509203 wrote: On healthcare, every American proposal is uniformly right wing. There are two stances on healthcare, one involves guaranteed universal health cover underwritten by taxation and the other is right-wing.Agreed! Outside of Medicaid and the VA Americans have never been allowed access to any options other than what the right offers. This is evidence of the power of the Insurance industry. Though there are lots of players involved in keeping Americans from any fair alternatives.

spot;1509203 wrote: On guaranteeing that nobody in the USA on any given day lacks recognized government authority to be there, there's lots of ways of achieving that. What's been lacking for the last fifty years is a willingness to implement any such scheme. I think it's absolutely essential that an effective scheme should be implemented immediately. Nobody but President Trump is going to do that. I'd prefer an alternative scheme to the one he's proposed but his is the only one on the table.I need more clarification on your meaning.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 17, 2017 6:11 am

Ahso!;1509205 wrote: I need more clarification on your meaning.Anyone can invent a workable scheme that guarantees everyone within the Homeland is authorized to be there. You could do it, I could do it. What's always been lacking is an American politician willing to achieve it.

President Trump offers to at least lay the groundwork by walling off the US southern border and deporting more undocumented people than arrive. I still think that's only a low-achieving stop-gap.

I think the entire issue of having government permission to be on US soil needs sorting out completely because at the moment, undocumented people are suffering because there's inadequate enforcement and it's the luck of the draw from one year to the next whether they draw the short straw or not. The threat of deportation is always over the heads of more than ten million US residents throughout their lives and that's unjust. It prevents their participating fully in the country they live in. Any solution is better than that, so long as it's enforced immediately and stops the problem from recurring.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Wed May 17, 2017 6:44 am

HarryH;1509068 wrote:

Did Trump really want a 1st term?

Nope. He admitted to a close campaign manager that he wanted to run a "good second place" campaign. He wanted the publicity and status, but never the responsibility.

Suggesting Pence as an alternative if Trump were impeached/removed, etc. is an interesting proposition.

"Interesting" is not the word I would have used. "Nightmarish, heinous, detestable, and despicable" come to mind instead. Trump is a bumbling Mussolini. He's a blowhard, bully, and a blustering fool, but he's not actually dangerous other than accidentally causing chaos through incompetence.

Pence, on the other hand, is truly evil. He's the actual Hitler. He would destroy the world on purpose like a James Bond villain.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed May 17, 2017 6:48 am

You trying to cheer us all up Saint ?

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed May 17, 2017 7:08 am

spot;1509206 wrote: Anyone can invent a workable scheme that guarantees everyone within the Homeland is authorized to be there. You could do it, I could do it. What's always been lacking is an American politician willing to achieve it.I don't think the majority Americans are that worried about this, nor do I think they ever had been.

That said, nearly 63 million Americans voted for Trump and his rhetoric, and while that might not be a majority it's still a significant number of supporters.

Post by **spot** » Wed May 17, 2017 7:36 am

Ahso!;1509212 wrote: I don't think the majority Americans are that worried about this, nor do I think they ever had been. That's not at issue. The ones who are worried about this, and will be until it's fixed, are the undocumented residents of America. I agree they're a minority.

The majority of Americans are just pleased at least some of their neighbors are having a worse time than themselves.

Ahso! · Post by **Ahso!** » Wed May 17, 2017 7:50 am

spot;1509216 wrote: That's not at issue. The ones who are worried about this, and will be until it's fixed, are the undocumented residents of America. I agree they're a minority.Ah! Yes, I'm sure you're right about that.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Thu May 18, 2017 4:06 pm

Yea, he didn't know the job was so hard. It wouldn't be so hard if he had any qualifications for it.

This job is not a reality show he produced.

The worst job in Washington right now: Working for Trump

As Donald Trump has grown increasingly angry and frustrated with his White House staff, the beleaguered targets of his ire have a quietly roiling gripe of their own — their boss, the president himself.

Since he fired FBI Director James B. Comey, Trump has lurched through crises of his own making — from the explosive report Monday that he had revealed highly classified intelligence to Russian officials to the bombshell Tuesday that he had urged Comey to end the federal investigation into Michael Flynn, his former national security ï¿½*adviser.

In his wake remain his exhausted aides and deputies, the frequent targets of Trump’s wrath as they struggle to control an uncontrollable chief executive and labor to explain away his stumbles.

Wednesday evening brought yet another challenging development for the White House, as the Justice Department announced a special counsel to investigate possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government to interfere with the 2016 presidential ï¿½*election.

Some White House staffers have turned to impeachment gallows humor. Other mid-level aides have started contacting consultants, shopping their résumés. And at least one senior staffer has begun privately talking to friends about what a post-White House job would look like, according to two people close to the staffer.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 19, 2017 2:50 am

tude dog;1509293 wrote: Yea, he didn't know the job was so hard. It wouldn't be so hard if he had any qualifications for it.

Remind me, I may have forgotten some essential aspect of the 2016 election.

There were primaries? America didn't forget to run primaries in 2016?

The Republican Party ran primaries?

And then after that the Republican Party ran a convention, with lots of cheering and bragging and humiliation of anyone who wasn't a Republican?

What I'm not sure about is who won the Republican Party primaries, and who won the Republican Party nomination, and who the Republican Party convention cheered to the rafters, and what that insane Republican Party "Make America Great Again" thing was all about.

Eventually, if we can agree the answers to all that, we might consider who's damned fault this Washington car crash is. The word Republican Party keeps springing into my mind, that's all, because the only active opposition party in Washington this year has been the Republican Party.

JohnAlexGardeners · Post by **JohnAlexGardeners** » Fri May 19, 2017 6:48 am

Trump is support islamic countries. Never

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri May 19, 2017 7:01 am

spot;1509301 wrote: Remind me, I may have forgotten some essential aspect of the 2016 election.

There were primaries? America didn't forget to run primaries in 2016?

The Republican Party ran primaries?

And then after that the Republican Party ran a convention, with lots of cheering and bragging and humiliation of anyone who wasn't a Republican?

What I'm not sure about is who won the Republican Party primaries, and who won the Republican Party nomination, and who the Republican Party convention cheered to the rafters, and what that insane Republican Party "Make America Great Again" thing was all about.

Eventually, if we can agree the answers to all that, we might consider who's damned fault this Washington car crash is. The word Republican Party keeps springing into my mind, that's all, because the only active opposition party in Washington this year has been the Republican Party.

The Democratic Party had its candidate who won the most popular votes and still lost.

I'll spare you the details of that fiasco. I also do not care to relive that whole election cycle.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 19, 2017 11:21 am

tude dog;1509305 wrote: The Democratic Party had its candidate who won the most popular votes and still lost.

I'll spare you the details of that fiasco. I also do not care to relive that whole election cycle.

And who's the opposition party running interference at the moment? Who's fighting tooth and nail, and with a majority in both Congressional chambers, against the White House?

Post by **spot** » Fri May 19, 2017 2:41 pm

If I were of the Islamic persuasion I would be waiting for his address to the Saudis this weekend with bated breath. From all I can gather on reputable news channels President Trump intends to tell an audience of high-ranking Princely Custodians of the Holy Places precisely what Muslims ought to believe. I may have misheard, we'll see.

concerns may not be completely laid to rest by a men-only concert after Trump’s speech by the country star Toby Keith – known for such hits as I Like Girls that Drink Beer and The Angry American.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... -relations

Presumably Mr Keith will sing "American Soldier" as his encore, after which "Make America Great Again" Trump will introduce the word "pussy" to the shell-shocked Saudi royals. One hopes his minders are keeping potential victims far out of his reach.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri May 19, 2017 3:07 pm

spot;1509322 wrote: If I were of the Islamic persuasion I would be waiting for his address to the Saudis this weekend with bated breath. From all I can gather on reputable news channels President Trump intends to tell an audience of high-ranking Princely Custodians of the Holy Places precisely what Muslims ought to believe. I may have misheard, we'll see.

concerns may not be completely laid to rest by a men-only concert after Trump’s speech by the country star Toby Keith – known for such hits as I Like Girls that Drink Beer and The Angry American.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... -relations

Presumably Mr Keith will sing "American Soldier" as his encore, after which "Make America Great Again" Trump will introduce the word "pussy" to the shell-shocked Saudi royals. One hopes his minders are keeping potential victims far out of his reach.

Oh my! This should be interesting.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu May 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Trump addressing NATO members today.

HarryH · Post by **HarryH** » Thu May 25, 2017 5:19 pm

Bruv;1509597 wrote: Trump addressing NATO members today.

Dues payment? Everyone in NATO agreed to up their defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2024 and countries already above that would maintain current ratios. I am in the camp that the U.S. should reduce defense spending, but that would be a violation of the NATO agreement. I would rather our president stand up and say the U.S. will begin reduction of defense spending if NATO members appear unwilling to uphold their agreement.

That money saved, could be used on infrastructure.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri May 26, 2017 5:36 am

I wouldn't disagree H.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri May 26, 2017 5:42 am

Here is a classic from the leader of the free world...........

Post by **spot** » Fri May 26, 2017 6:31 am

HarryH;1509614 wrote: I am in the camp that the U.S. should reduce defense spending, but that would be a violation of the NATO agreement.

Does "the NATO agreement" mean "defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2024" here? US defense spending is already double the 2% target, of course the US could reduce defense spending without violating any 2% NATO agreement.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri May 26, 2017 7:00 am

This may be a stupid question......but.......Who is America defending themselves against ?

HarryH · Post by **HarryH** » Fri May 26, 2017 7:21 am

spot;1509631 wrote: Does "the NATO agreement" mean "defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2024" here? US defense spending is already double the 2% target, of course the US could reduce defense spending without violating any 2% NATO agreement.

The agreement stipulates that countries at or above 2%, should maintain those levels. The U.S. would need to maintain the current percent to GDP.

Clodhopper · Post by **Clodhopper** » Fri May 26, 2017 7:25 am

Well, a most disappointing tour. There was nothing of substance anywhere in it and with trumpolini not apparently accessing his twitter (does he know you can, outside the States?) very dull as well. He's going to have to do something soon if he wants to keep his ratings. Policy (if he has any) is not a good substitute for a flaming twitter.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 26, 2017 7:52 am

HarryH;1509637 wrote: The agreement stipulates that countries at or above 2%, should maintain those levels. The U.S. would need to maintain the current percent to GDP.

I'd quite like to read it, if you know of an online copy.