So America Decided - Page 2 - General Nonsense - TheMortonForum.com Jump to content
TheMortonForum.com

So America Decided


Bawheid

Recommended Posts

Just think if the president of the USA had went through with his take over bid. I love no matter what you lot can't control your love for speaking about a team from govan, if I didn't know some as well, I could swear there closet Nuns . No shame .

eat drink and be merry for tommorrow you may be radioiactive

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 493
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest David Edwards

It depends what your definition of "is" is.

That would be 'trustworthy'. I reckon the Donald is just about as trustworthy as the Clinton Gang, and of course that's not very trustworthy at all. I doubt very much if the wall will be built and even if it does Mexico won't pay for it. Just like the promised millions of new jobs in manufacturing, coal and steel will be most unlikely to materialise. Nothing much will change I reckon, for the good anyway, just as nothing much would change if the Clinton Gang were returned to power. Pity that, for a country so bitterly divided. Much like Britain, and most of Western Europe it would seem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be 'trustworthy'. I reckon the Donald is just about as trustworthy as the Clinton Gang, and of course that's not very trustworthy at all. I doubt very much if the wall will be built and even if it does Mexico won't pay for it. Just like the promised millions of new jobs in manufacturing, coal and steel will be most unlikely to materialise. Nothing much will change I reckon, for the good anyway, just as nothing much would change if the Clinton Gang were returned to power. Pity that, for a country so bitterly divided. Much like Britain, and most of Western Europe it would seem.

I agree, I may be wrong but even with Republican full control for the first time in a century, much of his platform won't happen. This will largely be down to inertia and opposition within his own party.

 

But I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the "Mexico will pay for it" thing. It's not a large novelty check to be handed over at Juarez one day in a gala ceremony - it's a tax on remittances.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone on another forum pointed out that because Trump is so wealthy, he isn't in the pockets of the usual power brokers, unlike Clinton.  He basically doesn't give a toss what they think.  I reckon he is extremely vain and will want to be seen as a success - why else would he have wanted to be president?  He's certainly not in it for the money.  I'm not so sure he's going to be the disaster that so many are predicting, provided that, having won the election using some pretty rough tactics, he is genuinely prepared to act like a statesman as far as he is able, rather than a Mafia boss. His USP is that he's not a career politician, which might be a good thing.  A half decent opponent would have beaten him though...

 

Interesting times.  Must get a big box of popcorn in.

"Any nation given the opportunity to regain its national sovereignty and which then rejects it is so far beneath contempt that it is hard to put words to it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone on another forum pointed out that because Trump is so wealthy, he isn't in the pockets of the usual power brokers, unlike Clinton. He basically doesn't give a toss what they think. I reckon he is extremely vain and will want to be seen as a success - why else would he have wanted to be president? He's certainly not in it for the money. I'm not so sure he's going to be the disaster that so many are predicting, provided that, having won the election using some pretty rough tactics, he is genuinely prepared to act like a statesman as far as he is able, rather than a Mafia boss. His USP is that he's not a career politician, which might be a good thing. A half decent opponent would have beaten him though...

 

Interesting times. Must get a big box of popcorn in.

I agree with all of this. Truth be told he's effectively been President since the day he went to Mexico and met with EPN. The rest was just a formality. And his Mexican visit was a success.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing that really worries me about Trump is his incredibly thin skin. Not really the sort of guy you want to have control of the nuke button.

It has been alleged - and I actually believe this - that during one of his defense briefings a few months ago, he asked more than once "wait, we have these nuclear weapons, but why can't we use them?" :lol: It's safe to say we're not dealing with an orthodox thinker here. In fact I expect the line "no option is off the table" to be used more than once during his Presidency with regards to war. However, I believe that, paradoxically, he's far less likely to commit to any nuclear action than is Clinton, who would absurdly hawkish over Russia and not-our-problem Syria (if Trump caves to the mainstream and starts meddling big league in Syria I'll be very disappointed). From my perspective Trump is infinitely more interested in the home front and on signature tangible issues - a wall, the infrastructure, and health care reform (the latter of which I believe is doomed to failure, but it's on the agenda.) His vanity as mentioned by Alibi is, I think, going to steer him towards big domestic projects with his name in lights above them, and these do not include nukes over Shanghai.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been alleged - and I actually believe this - that during one of his defense briefings a few months ago, he asked more than once "wait, we have these nuclear weapons, but why can't we use them?" :lol: It's safe to say we're not dealing with an orthodox thinker here. In fact I expect the line "no option is off the table" to be used more than once during his Presidency with regards to war. However, I believe that, paradoxically, he's far less likely to commit to any nuclear action than is Clinton, who would absurdly hawkish over Russia and not-our-problem Syria (if Trump caves to the mainstream and starts meddling big league in Syria I'll be very disappointed). From my perspective Trump is infinitely more interested in the home front and on signature tangible issues - a wall, the infrastructure, and health care reform (the latter of which I believe is doomed to failure, but it's on the agenda.) His vanity as mentioned by Alibi is, I think, going to steer him towards big domestic projects with his name in lights above them, and these do not include nukes over Shanghai.

I couldn't care less about his domestic polices as none of them will have any tangible effect on me or my family. 

 

It's is thin skin, volatility and unpredictability that worries me, he's a loose cannon when someone winds him  up (which is ridiculously easy to do), and his reactions could have global consequences. I hope he'll be as benign as you suggest but his track record during the campaign would suggest otherwise so I have my real doubts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Edwards

I couldn't care less about his domestic polices and none of them will have any effect on me or my family. 

 

It's is thin skin, volatility and unpredictability that worries me though, he's a loose cannon when he's wound up, and his reactions could have global consequences. I hope he'll be as benign as you suggest but his track record during the campaign would suggest otherwise so I have my real doubts. 

 

Trump did say in the first tv debate with Clinton that he would never contemplate a first strike, stating IIRC ' once you do that it's all over'. Couldn't agree more, but as you say, he's unpredictable and as such, doesn't inspire trust. Hopefully there will be wiser and cooler heads around him when and if situations become critical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serious question: do you maybe think you're not both underestimating him a bit? Spending far less than the likes of Jeb Bush, and with virtually the entire party against him, and with endorsements in the single figures, he easily won the Republican primary. He then ended the Clintons' political careers, again spending greater a fraction of what they did, with virtually the entire media and all of mass entertainment against him. You don't do that without having some understanding of what makes people tick.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Serious question: do you maybe think you're not both underestimating him a bit? Spending far less than the likes of Jeb Bush, and with virtually the entire party against him, and with endorsements in the single figures, he easily won the Republican primary. He then ended the Clintons' political careers, again spending greater a fraction of what they did, with virtually the entire media and all of mass entertainment against him. You don't do that without having some understanding of what makes people tick.

Where did I give you the impressions I was underestimating him?

 

I didn't actually follow the election campaign that closely, so I have no opinion about his policies or intentions. What he does to America is of absolutely no interest or concern to me. My worry is solely about his extreme reactions to people who upset him, and if you don't share that concern then I'm surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where did I give you the impressions I was underestimating him?

 

I didn't actually follow the election campaign that closely, so I have no opinion about his policies or intentions. What he does to America is of absolutely no interest or concern to me. My worry is solely about his extreme reactions to people who upset him, and if you don't share that concern then I'm surprised.

 

So you don't follow the campaign, and you're talking to someone who has followed it extremely closely, but I'm to accept your take on the candidate's (or candidates') personalities? Either you have some insight I don't or you're flying blind. Here's my take - if you disagree, tell me how you reached that opinion:

 

An absolutely huge percentage of what Trump does is an act. He is a salesman with a background in entertainment - including pro wrestling. He's written books with names like The Art of the Comeback. He set up a narrative and cast himself as half-national savior and half maverick anti-hero, and (almost) everything he's said and done needs to be viewed through that lens. His ultimate aim was to win the Presidency and that could only be done via a fifty-state campaign of constant headline-grabbing and bringing new constituencies to the polls. So when he freaks out on Twitter, that's another headline. When he calls a Saudi 'dopey' a month before Clinton's ties to Riyadh come out, that's not a knee-jerk reaction. When he says Anthony Weiner is a sleaze who's dangerous for the country and then it turns out he actually is, he's not shooting his mouth of. When he calls Clinton corrupt when everyone's supposed to be playing nice, he's winning votes.

 

And he can turn it off as quickly as he turns it on. He can say one day he's at war with his own party and the shackles are off, and literally the day after he's glad-handing with Reince Preibus, because everything he says is an initial bargaining position to be talked down. Nobody is getting dragged off to the gulag at his pronouncements. It's the same reason he can say (well, he didn't actually say this, but for the sake of simplification let's say it did) Mexicans are rapists, and then get a visit with ENP because Clinton did - because he's a good deal more diplomatic and non-extreme than you think he is. He understands people in a way that, I would venture, you or I don't. For better or worse.

 

I'm going to assume also that as you didn't really follow the campaign closely - and that's not a criticism, like you say it's going to have minimal impact on your life so you're under no obligation to do so - you were subjected to the same appalling media coverage that most of Europe and the US was. Not even during Indyref have I seen such a paucity of decent mainstream coverage. Journalists and publishers don't get Trump because he doesn't play by their rules. You're not going to get an accurate picture of what Trump is like from 98% of people in journalism today.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally, I know anecdotes aren't worth much, but I served as a driver in a secure vehicle in Trump's motorcade recently when he was in Dallas for a fundraiser. There were four other volunteers. One was a stereotypical Trump voter - ex-military, skinhead, very tough manner, ready to Make America Great Again. The other was a first-generation Chinese immigrant, an accountant. One was a housewife and substitute teacher. The other was a woman who ran a gourmet hot dog factory. This was after Pussygate. None were from Dallas itself except me. The city of Dallas is not Trump country - this is a Democratic city and the GOP that is here hates Trump because he totally BTFO'd the Bushes, who run things around here. Consider this an urban-rural divide on a small scale. Trump brought together previously disaffected constituencies from suburbs and the rust belt and rural areas and won. Because he knew what he was doing.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't follow the campaign, and you're talking to someone who has followed it extremely closely, but I'm to accept your take on the candidate's (or candidates') personalities? Either you have some insight I don't or you're flying blind. Here's my take - if you disagree, tell me how you reached that opinion:

I didn't say I didn't follow the campaign at all, it was impossible to avoid it completely, but I certainly didn't follow it avidly. I see you still like the straw man argument. 

 

His reaction to those who he perceives to have wronged him there for all to see, it doesn't need personality insight. If that doesn't give you even the slightest cause for concern then fair enough, batter on.

 

As I said, I have zero interest in his domestic policies. It's none of my business and I genuinely couldn't care less what he does to America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say I didn't follow the campaign at all, it was impossible to avoid it completely, but I certainly didn't follow it avidly. I see you still like the straw man argument. 

 

His reaction to those who he perceives to have wronged him there for all to see, it doesn't need personality insight. If that doesn't give you even the slightest cause for concern then fair enough, batter on.

 

As I said, I have zero interest in his domestic policies. It's none of my business and I genuinely couldn't care less what he does to America.

 

It absolutely does need personality insight. If you're relying on headlines you're completely missing the bigger picture. You're operating several degrees removed from the action here. I've given a couple of concrete examples of where he's supposedly said something ~absolutely outrageous~ yet he's landed on his feet: Mexico and Saudi Arabia. What evidence do you have for your point?

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The former Miss Universe who he (wrongly) accused in a 4am tweet of appearing in a porn movie.

 

He said sex tape, not porn movie. I'm not going to accuse you of erecting (fnarr) a straw man - I imagine you were either reading a headline or just misremembered. That said, maybe sex tape wasn't accurate either. What do you call it when someone has sex on TV? I don't know.

 

Machado was brought to the US by the ruling party and fast-tracked through the citizenship process - a privilege that wouldn't be granted the likes of me - specifically to oppose Trump. Did Trump treat her badly? In my view, not at the time of the alleged offense. His tweets certainly weren't very nice though. Should he have stayed out of it? Not in my view. Machado was weaponized by a feckless and nihilistic DNC and, like any weapon launched at you, was shot out of the sky.

EOho8Pw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...