Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 19

Status
Not open for further replies.
BrooklynBaby said:
I don't have time to respond to all of these right now, but check this out:

"Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez raised nearly $2 million over the final three months of last year, according to the star House freshman's campaign.

Ocasio-Cortez’s sizable cash haul — $1.97 million in the fourth quarter of 2019 and over $5.3 million for the entire year — is one of the largest revealed so far among members of Congress, and the size of her fundraising base will likely stoke speculation about the New Yorker's ambitions.

She is expected to report entering 2020 with $3 million cash on hand, according to her campaign, even though she is running for reelection in an overwhelmingly blue district. But POLITICO recently reported that whispers have already started about a presidential run for the 30-year-old, and there’s also talk of a potential Senate run in 2022 or 2024."

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/13/ocasio-cortez-campaign-cash-congress-098018
Click to expand...

Is your argument that politicians raising money is a bad thing? We might make you a liberal yet!
 
JoeMorgue said:
President Trump: "We've decided to boycott the Mexican Pole Vaulting Team in this years Olympics!:"
Aide: "First of all Sir this isn't an Olympic year and we aren't hosting the Olympics. Secondly Sir the Mexican Pole Vaulting Team made it over the wall."
President Trump: "What? How?!"
Aide: "..."
President Trump: "Right, right I realized it as soon as I said it."
"I never said we were going to...FAKE NEWS!"
Click to expand...
FIFY
 
BrooklynBaby said:
When Trump is re-elected in November, there are going to be a lot of very sad people in here. Best to start preparing for it now so it doesn't come as a big surprise. Not only do the Democrats have a very weak group of candidates, but the Durham report will be coming out and it's going to be a real bummer for y'all, with the spotlight being shined on all of the corruption and other illegal activities. Meanwhile, Dems might want to push their current leaders like Schiff and AOC aside, because, well...you know...they are completely out of touch with Middle America. Also, it's time to acknowledge that Pelosi appears to be almost certainly losing her mind, and I find that very troubling. Dems should, too, because it is only going to get worse. Change or get schlonged, that's pretty much the choice. Hope this helps.

Oh, you might want to tune into Tucker Carlson tonight at 11 PM Central to see some tapes of Bernie campaign radical Marxists talking about torching Milwaukee. It might be a good idea to distance yourselves from them. Just saying...
Click to expand...

Someone needs their programming updated. Their database is obsolete.
 
Ziggurat said:
The concrete hadn't cured yet. I suspect the wind load was accounted for in the finished design, but maybe not all the intermediate stages.



That's not clear to me. It may be that the risk of damage during construction was low enough that it wasn't worth the extra cost of reinforcing it during the curing stage.
Click to expand...

It's typical of today's US technical capability. (See also the 737.)
 
Ladewig said:
Wait, what!?
Click to expand...


It was originally in this post, quoting this article.

Rene Hollan, a Monroe, Wash., man who is a regular participant in events organized by Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys in the Pacific Northwest, posted a screed (later removed by Facebook) vowing that he would even detonate a nuclear bomb in a major liberal city:
"As a naturalized U.S. citizen who swore the Oath of Allegiance, if President Trump orders me to drive a truck with a nuke into a city with Facebook offices or an illegal sanctuary city, and detonate it, killing myself, everyone in the city, and rendering it a sheet of glass, it would be my honor to comply."
Click to expand...
 
Ziggurat said:
The concrete hadn't cured yet. I suspect the wind load was accounted for in the finished design, but maybe not all the intermediate stages.
Click to expand...

Even in the outbacks of Greece we have these things called "weather forecasts". I consult them whenever I'm planning a major job around the garden or outdoor painting etc
 
Armitage72 said:
It was originally in this post, quoting this article.
Rene Hollan, a Monroe, Wash., man who is a regular participant in events organized by Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys in the Pacific Northwest, posted a screed (later removed by Facebook) vowing that he would even detonate a nuclear bomb in a major liberal city:
"As a naturalized U.S. citizen who swore the Oath of Allegiance, if President Trump orders me to drive a truck with a nuke into a city with Facebook offices or an illegal sanctuary city, and detonate it, killing myself, everyone in the city, and rendering it a sheet of glass, it would be my honor to comply."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I hope there is more action taken then Facebook simply 'removing his message.' I think he should be taken into custody and questioned by the FBI. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some agency does pay him a little visit. Who the hell is this maniac to even threaten something like that?

According to LinkedIn, a Renee Hollan of Monroe Washington is a software engineer employed by General Electric.That is not exactly reassuring. :(
 
BrooklynBaby said:
When Trump is re-elected in November, there are going to be a lot of very sad people in here. Best to start preparing for it now so it doesn't come as a big surprise.
.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. I’m sure you’ll be drinking liberal tears just like that one forum resident in November of 2018.
 
Sorry for late answer ....

Segnosaur said:
Well, what exactly do you define as a 'trump type'?

Boris Johnson is often seen as the U.K. equivalent of Trump (seen as buffonish and dishonest). He got a majority even though he only got 43.6% of the vote. And here in Canada, Doug Ford got a majority in the Ontario election despite getting only 40.5% of the vote.

Granted, neither of these politicians were quite as bad as Trump, but they certainly show how a 'populist' can gain power in a multi-party system.

Lets say the U.S. election was a 3-way race between Trump, Clinton and Sanders... Ok, anti-clinton voters now have an alternative to Trump. His vote count drops. But then Anti-Trump voters also have an alternative to Clinton in Sanders.
Click to expand...

"Trump type": Irresponsible populist.

UK election system is not fundamentally different from that of the US. It can put people in power that are not in majority, and voters are often left having to vote for what they see as the least evil.

End result: Probably a 40(Trump)-35(Clinton)-25(Sanders) split in the popular vote, and a Trump presidency.
Click to expand...

No, that's not the way it works in a lot of countries. First of all, if they are not monarchies, the president has limited power. The executive power is with the premier minister and the leading party. But with, as in your example, 40%, such a party must either form coalition with one of the other parties, or fight their way from case to case. This sounds worse than it is, because in a system like that, parties are routinely forced to, and normally ready to, cooperate to a great degree.

Hans
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
No, that's not the way it works in a lot of countries. First of all, if they are not monarchies, the president has limited power. The executive power is with the premier minister and the leading party. But with, as in your example, 40%, such a party must either form coalition with one of the other parties, or fight their way from case to case. This sounds worse than it is, because in a system like that, parties are routinely forced to, and normally ready to, cooperate to a great degree.
Click to expand...
At least when there is a single winner, that winner has won on the basis of a programme that they, to some degree, own. Typically when a prime minister is replaced there are then questions of legitimacy of the successor as his or her programme hasn't been "approved" by the public. With coalition, the programme of the government becomes a backroom compromise. No system is perfect.
 
Last edited:
Re: Multi-party systems and how 'vote splitting' might happen...
MRC_Hans said:
Sorry for late answer ....
K election system is not fundamentally different from that of the US. It can put people in power that are not in majority, and voters are often left having to vote for what they see as the least evil.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know. That was kind of my point. Someone suggested having more than 2 parties might keep someone like Trump at bay... I was pointing out that it might make it even EASIER for someone like him to gain power.

End result: Probably a 40(Trump)-35(Clinton)-25(Sanders) split in the popular vote, and a Trump presidency.
Click to expand...
No, that's not the way it works in a lot of countries. First of all, if they are not monarchies, the president has limited power. The executive power is with the premier minister and the leading party. But with, as in your example, 40%, such a party must either form coalition with one of the other parties, or fight their way from case to case. This sounds worse than it is, because in a system like that, parties are routinely forced to, and normally ready to, cooperate to a great degree.
Click to expand...
Sorry, maybe I should have been clearer... [/QUOTE]

I was not talking about a sort of hypothetical parliamentary system involving Trump/Clinton/Sanders. What I was referring to was a hypothetical system where multiple parties are contending for the presidency, and the numbers I gave were either for the popular vote or for the electoral college.

Meaning that when you have a multi-party election, a Trump-like figure needs even less support to gain power than he does under a 2 party system.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
T
he GOP nominally controls the army but has the support of less than half the officer corps.
Click to expand...
Which is why Trump has quietly been meeting with enlisted soldiers for months without their officers present.
Click to expand...
Even if Trump has been meeting with enlisted soldiers, it should be noted that his approval rating among active service personnel has been dropping pretty steadily since he came into office.

He currently sits at 42% Favorable/50% unfavorable. (And while he does seem to have more support among enlisted men, his favorable rating there is only 43%).

It should also be noted that many of Trump's decisions have also been seen negatively by the military... 58% disagree with him removing troops from Syria, and 59% disagree with him using military money to build a border wall.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/...ppy-with-trump-new-military-times-poll-shows/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom