World, Writing, Wealth discussion

28 views
World & Current Events > Barack for Hillary and Donald

Comments Showing 1-38 of 38 (38 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13090 comments What's Obama's weight in recent elections results?
Was Hillary so closely associated with the current president that those dissatisfied saw no other choice but to go with Trump and Trump generally benefited from all 'change-seekers'? Or only to a minimal, insignificant degree, not beyond usual dem/rep association?


Tara Woods Turner | 2063 comments No. This would only be the case if Obama Democrats turned around and voted for Trump. This was not the case. But there were some Obama Republicans who quickly reverted back to the GOP platform for the election. Obama yes, they said, Hilary no.


message 3: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9229 comments I think part of the problem was that Hillary was associated with Obama's policies, and people wanted something different. "Yes, we can!" actually ended up a little like, "Sorry, but we didn't," and I think that a big hurdle for Hillary was Bernie's campaign. He argued there were a number of things that should be done, and Hillary seemed to ignore them. Once she got nominated, she should have tried to take on some of Bernie's best ideas. They were, after all, nominally in the same party.


message 4: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2103 comments The Democratic Party was decimated during his Presidency and yet his personal poll numbers remain high. I think a lot of people like the man, but hate the politics. The thing about Obama is that he was able to keep a certain distance between him and the scandals that came out of his administration in ways past presidents couldn't do. Couple that with the fact you have a man who remained faithful to his wife and devoted to his daughters - who doesn't love a family man?


message 5: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13090 comments J.J. wrote: " I think a lot of people like the man, but hate the politics. ..."

I guess I'm this category -:)
I'm probably unimpressed by his presidency (but then I shouldn't be as I'm not a US citizen), but seeing his public appearances and interviews, he comes through as a very intelligent, charismatic, sensitive and likable dude


message 6: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9229 comments Like Nik, I am not a US citizen, so I don't really know what is impact has been, but my impression is that Obama is intelligent and likable, but unlike people like Johnson, not very effective. It is true that he seemed to have a Republican dominated Congress that gave the impression of dissing everything Obama wanted on principle, but I feel he could have been more effective.


message 7: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13090 comments Ian wrote: "I feel he could have been more effective.."

As Trump has no political background and it was evident throughout his campaign and comes from business, it should be interesting to see the difference in approaches, if there will be one. Politicians are associated with "talking", while biz with "doing", but that's just stereotypes.
Another question, stimulating lots of speculations, is "doing what"


message 8: by Ian (last edited Jan 20, 2017 01:20PM) (new)

Ian Miller | 9229 comments Yes, there is a lot of speculation regarding "what?"


Tara Woods Turner | 2063 comments Nik wrote: "Ian wrote: "I feel he could have been more effective.."

As Trump has no political background and it was evident throughout his campaign and comes from business, it should be interesting to see the..."


That's the thing though. He is actually a terrible businessman.


message 10: by Matthew (last edited Jan 20, 2017 08:06PM) (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Tara wrote: "Nik wrote: "Ian wrote: "I feel he could have been more effective.."

As Trump has no political background and it was evident throughout his campaign and comes from business, it should be interestin..."


You're quite right. His run as a real-estate magnate was very nearly ruined during the 90s as several of his casinos and hotels went bankrupt and he posted losses close to a billion dollars in 1995. After that he recovered by letting Russian mob bosses buy his condos for way more than they were worth, and putting his name on all kinds of shitty products and services.

Trump University, Trump Steaks, Trump Vodka, Trump radio, Trump Magazine, Trump Ice, Trump the game, Trump Mortgage, Trump Airlines... the list goes on. These business ventures which he started all tanked because they were stupid ideas he either was willing to put his name on, or because he thought he could make them work because he's just that arrogant and stupid. Beyond that, the only money he's made was through the Apprentice and the lucky fact that his family's wealth is in NY real estate, which can always be expected to go up.

The idea that the name Donald Trump is somehow synonymous with success is the biggest con ever pulled. He's a complete failure who got where he was thanks to daddy's money, his business connections, and his ability to save his son from his own incompetence. Now we're all stuck with him!


Tara Woods Turner | 2063 comments Matthew wrote: "Tara wrote: "Nik wrote: "Ian wrote: "I feel he could have been more effective.."

As Trump has no political background and it was evident throughout his campaign and comes from business, it should ..."


And declaring bankruptcy when it was time to pay his creditors, laughing about it and bragging to the media about it as well. His contractors were hard-working, honest day laborers and he gloated about cheating them. But sure, he'll make America great again. He cares about the little guy.


message 12: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Tara wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Tara wrote: "Nik wrote: "Ian wrote: "I feel he could have been more effective.."

As Trump has no political background and it was evident throughout his campaign and comes from busi..."


I know, right? The con goes on! I can't believe anybody was willing to put their faith in him. He's got sleazy, lying, disgusting, used-car-salesman written all over him!


Tara Woods Turner | 2063 comments Matthew wrote: "Tara wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Tara wrote: "Nik wrote: "Ian wrote: "I feel he could have been more effective.."

As Trump has no political background and it was evident throughout his campaign and co..."


He only settled his Trump University barage of lawsuits a week before the election although litigation had been dragging on for over a year. Settled out of court, of course. I refuse to normalize this man and will not lower my standards to make him seem even remotely qualified to lead a nation.


message 14: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Tara wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Tara wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Tara wrote: "Nik wrote: "Ian wrote: "I feel he could have been more effective.."

As Trump has no political background and it was evident throughout his..."


I am hoping and praying that the smoking gun in this intelligence investigation is revealed soon! That, or that Anonymous will deliver on their threat and reveal his tax returns (which will no doubt reveal said smoking gun!)


Tara Woods Turner | 2063 comments Matthew wrote: "Tara wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Tara wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Tara wrote: "Nik wrote: "Ian wrote: "I feel he could have been more effective.."

As Trump has no political background and it was evident t..."


It's too late. It won't be impeachable.


message 16: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Tara wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Tara wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Tara wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Tara wrote: "Nik wrote: "Ian wrote: "I feel he could have been more effective.."

As Trump has no political background and ..."


It should if there's a case for the President being a threat to national security, or compromised in some way. And there's also good old fashioned treason! But if all else fails, there's always the rule against a convicted felon being president (he's still being accused with sexual assault).


message 17: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9229 comments I agree with Matthew that he should be able to be removed if he is compromised sufficiently, BUT there would have to be fairly good evidence for it - not merely allegations from the disgruntled. Similarly, a threat to national security or treason - but how can you prove it? There might be extreme examples, but in many cases the defence might be that the act that is allegedly a threat to national security was in the nation's best interests. For example, bringing troops back from NATO.

The real issue here is how efficient is Congress going to be? Obama had trouble here, but even though it is GOP predominantly, there are still future elections to worry about. Hopefully that will keep some sort of restraint on at least some silliness.


message 18: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) I don't see how bringing troops back from NATO countries would be I the US' interests right now. Now when NATO allies are frightened about Russian annexationism. But yes, proving anything would require showing complicity between himself and Moscow with regards to the DNC hack, not just hints and allegations. Still, his low low approval fasting because of such things is encouraging. He's in a weakened spot, which is good for any future impeachment attempts.


message 19: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9229 comments Trump might argue that bringing back the troops would help the balance of payments problem. Others may not agree, but the President must have the right to advocate policy, and it does not hurt America. Even if Russia annexed half of Europe (hardly likely) that does not hurt the US because it is still by far the strongest country, and nobody else can get at it.. Of course it has to be policy, not the consequences of some bad behaviour in Russia.


message 20: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13090 comments Matthew wrote: "The idea that the name Donald Trump is somehow synonymous with success is the biggest con ever pulled...."

Never said he was a successful biz, just a biz -:) Don't know his business achievements, however anyone can fall and go bankrupt and then get up again (if indeed)...


message 21: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13090 comments Matthew wrote: "President being a threat to national security, or compromised in some way..."

Like if a president took another oath in Moscow before taking one in Washington -:) But I don't think anything like that ever happened.
Presuming innocence, if Putin likes him it's indeed an asset not a liability -:)


message 22: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13090 comments Ian wrote: "Even if Russia annexed half of Europe (hardly likely) that does not hurt the US..."

But that would undermine the entire notion of mutual defenses and existing treaties...


message 23: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2103 comments Matthew wrote: "I don't see how bringing troops back from NATO countries would be I the US' interests right now. Now when NATO allies are frightened about Russian annexationism. But yes, proving anything would req..."
The thing is the US had a largely America First policy when it came to foreign entanglements prior to WWII. We've always maintained a small military and waited until there was a war to build up our war machine. Even after WWI we essentially disbanded our military and when the second war came around, we had to build our force almost completely from scratch.

If you want to look at history a little differently than we're used to, consider the US was still friendly with France and hostile towards Britain during the Napoleonic Wars. While we stayed out of the European campaign, we certainly took advantage when Napoleon wanted to raise cash and put the Louisiana territories on the block. And though there were many reasons for the War of 1812, most of the issues sprang out of the European conflict, and in a sense our war with Britain became our entry into the larger Napoleonic conflict. Looking at it in that light, it is kind of funny that we fought on the losing side, but managed to get a stalemate on our continent and reaffirm our strength as an independent nation.


message 24: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2103 comments Ian wrote: "Like Nik, I am not a US citizen, so I don't really know what is impact has been, but my impression is that Obama is intelligent and likable, but unlike people like Johnson, not very effective. It i..."

What liberals don't want to understand is that politicians, no matter the party, are needy animals who need constant ego stroking. Those presidents who were best able to work across the aisle understood that gave them all the ego stroking their needy hearts desired. But Obama isn't like that. He didn't invite the Republican leaders to the White House for dinner once a week, or care too much how their families are or spend half the morning asking how their days went. He was all business and that doesn't work in Washington.

The Madisons set the tone for politicking in Washington at the start of the 19th century when they used to invite members of the opposition to social events at the White House. The First Family believed their adversaries were less likely to say no when it came to business after partaking of their hospitality.

There's talk about how the Republicans will control all three branches once Trump's Supreme Court pick is installed, but in reality, the Democrats still hold enough seats in the Senate to filibuster and prevent Trump and the Republicans from fast-tracking their agendas. Whether he likes it or not, he will have to deal with the Democrats and how much he gets done will depend on what kind of relationships he builds with them, just as the interactions between Obama and the Republican Congress was a reflection of the kinds of relationships he built or didn't build.


Tara Woods Turner | 2063 comments Matthew wrote: "Tara wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Tara wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Tara wrote: "Matthew wrote: "Tara wrote: "Nik wrote: "Ian wrote: "I feel he could have been more effective.."

As Trump has no political ba..."


The House has to approve an impeachment vote and the GOP will protect him. Also a president can't be impeached for actions done before his swearing in. Now if he is charged with and found guilty of a felony that is different - there could be something there. But I believe the assault charges were dismissed, unfortunately. If Trump angers the House I don't doubt they could cook something up...


Tara Woods Turner | 2063 comments Nik wrote: "Matthew wrote: "The idea that the name Donald Trump is somehow synonymous with success is the biggest con ever pulled...."

Never said he was a successful biz, just a biz -:) Don't know his busines..."


And again and again and again lol


message 27: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Nik wrote: "Matthew wrote: "President being a threat to national security, or compromised in some way..."

Like if a president took another oath in Moscow before taking one in Washington -:) But I don't think ..."


And if Putin considers him a puppet, its not an asset to anyone. And if Putin's liking him is predicated on Trump abandoning NATO allies and giving him a pass on annexing territory, its not an asset.


message 28: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Nik wrote: "Ian wrote: "Even if Russia annexed half of Europe (hardly likely) that does not hurt the US..."

But that would undermine the entire notion of mutual defenses and existing treaties..."


Whoops, didn't see this follow-up. Yes, you've got it perfectly. To Putin, having a friendly US president means undermining the defensive network that surrounds him.


message 29: by Matthew (last edited Jan 21, 2017 11:49AM) (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) J.J. wrote: "Matthew wrote: "I don't see how bringing troops back from NATO countries would be I the US' interests right now. Now when NATO allies are frightened about Russian annexationism. But yes, proving an..."

Yes, I am familiar with that fact. However, I don't see the relevance to this. Since WWII, the America First policy and its sense of isolation diminished out of necessity. America ascending to the position of superpower came with great responsibility. This is the spot it finds itself in still, and Trump proposing to abandon that could have terrible repercussions.


message 30: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Nik wrote: "Matthew wrote: "The idea that the name Donald Trump is somehow synonymous with success is the biggest con ever pulled...."

Never said he was a successful biz, just a biz -:) Don't know his busines..."


Except that he's failed at everything he did and the only area in which he's maintain any modicum of success was in his real estate holdings that his daddy passed onto him. And he didn't get up on his own. He did so with the help of Russian criminals looking for a place to launder their money and hucksters looking to cash in off his illusion of success.


message 31: by Matthew (last edited Jan 21, 2017 11:54AM) (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Ian wrote: "Trump might argue that bringing back the troops would help the balance of payments problem. Others may not agree, but the President must have the right to advocate policy, and it does not hurt Amer..."

Russia annexing half of Europe would indeed hurt the US. Not only would it lose many of its closest allies, but the shift in the balance of power would have terrible consequences for the US economy and the US' standing in the world. The US faces competition from both Russia and China, and any loss of face or influence would be seen as weakness.

Also, what "balance of payments problem" are you referring to?


message 32: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13090 comments Haven't heard of 'help of Russian criminals'. Are these facts, rumors or allegations?


message 33: by Matthew (last edited Jan 21, 2017 01:04PM) (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Nik wrote: "Haven't heard of 'help of Russian criminals'. Are these facts, rumors or allegations?"
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...#

They are the result of independent investigations into Trump's finances conducted by the Financial Times and other sources. It was also part of the intelligence briefing issued to Congress, investigating Trump's tries to Russia.

https://www.ft.com/content/33285dfa-9...
https://assets.documentcloud.org/docu...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2...


message 34: by Mike (new)

Mike | 181 comments If any evidence is uncovered that Trump colluded with the Russian government, or that he is compromised, I have a slight, maybe naive, belief that at least a few Republicans, John McCain among them, would support impeachment. I hope there are some Woodwards and Bernsteins working on it right now.


message 35: by Mike (new)

Mike | 181 comments Nik wrote: "Ian wrote: "Even if Russia annexed half of Europe (hardly likely) that does not hurt the US..."

But that would undermine the entire notion of mutual defenses and existing treaties..."


Thing is, I don't think it will be this overt. Images of Russian tanks overrunning the capitals of NATO members is not going to be politically tenable here- I don't think so, anyway. But there are French elections this year, and Dutch elections, and German elections. I recently read that Merkel has already been the target of hackers- she may get the Hillary Clinton treatment next.


message 36: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13090 comments Thanks for the links. Will take a closer look on computer, as I'm now on mobile. Kazakh is not exactly Russian, but interesting-:) All is 'alleged' from what I see, so probably a little early to draw conclusions ...


message 37: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9229 comments When I said "annexing half of Europe would not hurt the US" that was predicated on the policy that the US was happy enough to go isolationist. "America first, second and third!"

As for balance of payments, the US spends a huge amount of money on troops in Europe. Bringing the troops back home would relieve those payments, and the US government currently has a huge export of dollars. It is true that since the US prints them, this could arguably be considered harmless, but Trump has said that he wants to see Europe pay for its own defence, so we might assume that irrespective of whether it is a problem, Trump thinks it is.


message 38: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Ian wrote: "When I said "annexing half of Europe would not hurt the US" that was predicated on the policy that the US was happy enough to go isolationist. "America first, second and third!"

As for balance o..."


It is true that many NATO allies don't meet their defense spending commitments. But those allies committed to doing so in 2014, and the balance of payments issue is thrown off by the fact that US defense spending went up substantially after 9/11. If they want to save money, they could start by not wasting anymore on programs like missile defense, which has never worked and only inflamed tensions with Russia in the first place.


back to top