• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: The Trump Presidency X: 10-10 'til we do it again

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sideroxylon said:
Trump leads Saudi PR lies to protect the leadership. That has to be causing a bit of tension among Trumpists. His base are unlikely to be big fans of the relationship of convinience with that country.
Click to expand...

The Trump cult seems to be a fan of anything Trump does. I wouldn't think they would approve of him sucking up to the old enemy Russia either, yet here we are.
 
Trebuchet said:
Obviously not Jackie. And "background" is where the party thinks women belong.
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
To be entirely fair... there hasn't been a woman president so far.
Click to expand...

I think if I were going to make a bet, I’d put my money on the Democrats getting a woman elected before the Republicans do. Democratic women out number Republican women 3:1 in both the House and Senate. In the House women represent almost a third of the Democrats and women represent just under 10 percent of the Republicans. Neither number is anything to be proud of.

Plus the man that the Republicans chose to be their candidate mocked (with impunity) the looks of the woman who ran for the nomination. I think the background comment is not unfair.
 
Ladewig said:
I think if I were going to make a bet, I’d put my money on the Democrats getting a woman elected before the Republicans do. Democratic women out number Republican women 3:1 in both the House and Senate. In the House women represent almost a third of the Democrats and women represent just under 10 percent of the Republicans. Neither number is anything to be proud of.
Click to expand...
The republicans are definitely the party of sexism.

However, I could (in theory) see the republicans nominating (and eventually winning) with a woman before the democrats. Why? Because as bigoted as the republican base is, they like winning and would hold their nose to vote for a woman if it keeps them in power. Meanwhile, it would possibly cut into the Democrat's voter base, since at least a few of them may not look at the issues (where the republicans are largely anti-female) but just look at the candidate herself.

Kind of like Margaret Thatcher... who was a right-wing prime minister of the U.K., yet who had very few if any women in her cabinet.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The fact that Trump junior and senior as well as Kushner are all claiming that Saudi Arabia is basically innocent strongly indicates that there is more at stake than the freedom and safety of the Press: personal wealth.
Click to expand...
I wonder if this might have something to do with it...

From: https://qz.com/1424637/saudi-arabia-paid-trump-campaign-veterans-5-4-million/
The kingdom spent more than $19 million with Washington lobbying groups from the beginning of 2017 until now, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Topping that list is Sonoran Policy Group—a lobbying firm headed by Robert Stryk, an Oregon winery owner and West Coast advisor to the Trump campaign—which was essentially paid $5.4 million by the Saudi government to do nothing.

How's that swamp? Getting drained?
 
The Trump Clan isn't the only one the Saudi's have bought - with the inevitable decline of oil revenue, the House of Saud has gone on an investment spree as an alternative income source. In addition, by a weird law, the Federal Reserve doesn't publish how much US debt the Kingdom holds.
In other words, like China, the Saudis can trigger a recession whenever they want, provided they are willing to share the pain.
 
Segnosaur said:
However, I could (in theory) see the republicans nominating (and eventually winning) with a woman before the democrats. Why? Because as bigoted as the republican base is, they like winning and would hold their nose to vote for a woman if it keeps them in power. Meanwhile, it would possibly cut into the Democrat's voter base, since at least a few of them may not look at the issues (where the republicans are largely anti-female) but just look at the candidate herself.
Click to expand...


They already tried something similar once.
"Hey, all you Democrat women who are disappointed that Hillary didn't get the nomination. We have a woman as our Vice President candidate. Come vote for us instead."
 
Armitage72 said:
They already tried something similar once.
"Hey, all you Democrat women who are disappointed that Hillary didn't get the nomination. We have a woman as our Vice President candidate. Come vote for us instead."
Click to expand...

Lets hope the best candidate wins, regardless of sex or party.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
The Trump Clan isn't the only one the Saudi's have bought - with the inevitable decline of oil revenue, the House of Saud has gone on an investment spree as an alternative income source.
Click to expand...
Side note (and a bit off topic)... one of the companies that has Saudi money is... Tesla.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/07/tes...audi-arabia-sovereign-wealth-fund-has-2-.html

So the company that makes electric cars is partly owned by investors from one of the biggest oil producing companies.
 
Armitage72 said:
However, I could (in theory) see the republicans nominating (and eventually winning) with a woman before the democrats.
Click to expand...
They already tried something similar once.
"Hey, all you Democrat women who are disappointed that Hillary didn't get the nomination. We have a woman as our Vice President candidate. Come vote for us instead."
Click to expand...
Yeah but there were a few problems:
- It was only a vice president, and people are less likely to change their votes based on someone who has very little real political power/influence
- Palin was not really a good candidate. (Yes, a republican female candidate would have some advantages, she has to have at least some talent/ability)
- It was the 2008 (first Obama) election, and given the general dislike that Bush Jr. managed to obtain, I figure that anyone the Democrats nominated would probably still have beaten whomever the Republicans nominated.
 
ShadowSot said:
Do I remember correctly that while selling oil they are moving to a more renewable energy source like solar they can supply to local regions?
Click to expand...

You are 100 percent correct. Saudi Arabia has built some of the biggest solar fields in the world. Oil is to be sold, not used.
 
Saudi Arabia is having a number of Nuclear Reactors build.
The finished one had significant cost overruns, and can't properly run because there are not enough Saudis qualified to operate a nuclear power plant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom