The Next American President Thread (2016)

14546485051198

Comments

  • Posts: 12,506
    Trump versus Clinton it is then! Let the mud slinging begin!
  • Posts: 11,119
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Trump versus Clinton it is then! Let the mud slinging begin!

    It seems Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren have been meeting quite often these days. So betting on an all female Clinton-Warren ticket might be quite realistic :-).
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Trump versus Clinton it is then! Let the mud slinging begin!

    It seems Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren have been meeting quite often these days. So betting on an all female Clinton-Warren ticket might be quite realistic :-).
    I don't think so- Elizabeth is too anti-bullshit for her...

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Trump should get a man, then. How about you?
  • Actually, if you've been watching the Twitter wars, Hillary & Elizabeth seem to be on the same page. Hit him with his own words & let him try to claim he never said what the record can demonstrate he did indeed say. Delete your account, Donnie!
  • edited June 2016 Posts: 11,119
    chrisisall wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Trump versus Clinton it is then! Let the mud slinging begin!

    It seems Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren have been meeting quite often these days. So betting on an all female Clinton-Warren ticket might be quite realistic :-).
    I don't think so- Elizabeth is too anti-bullshit for her...

    To counteract Tracy's quote: "I WOULD go banco on that" ;-)
    http://www.people.com/article/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren-meet-fueling-vp-speculation

    In case you have forgotten, Elizabeth Warren endorsed Hillary Clinton. And they indeed have been meeting a lot lately.

    Personally, I think it's a master's stroke of a genius :-). Every kind of attack on the Clinton-Warren ticket would inevitably seen as an attack on women :-).
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    chrisisall wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Trump versus Clinton it is then! Let the mud slinging begin!

    It seems Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren have been meeting quite often these days. So betting on an all female Clinton-Warren ticket might be quite realistic :-).
    I don't think so- Elizabeth is too anti-bullshit for her...

    To counteract Track's quote: "I WOULD go banco on that" ;-)
    http://www.people.com/article/hillary-clinton-elizabeth-warren-meet-fueling-vp-speculation

    In case you have forgotten, Elizabeth Warren endorsed Hillary Clinton. And they indeed have been meeting a lot lately.

    Personally, I think it's a master's stroke of a genius :-). Every kind of attack on the Clinton-Warren ticket would inevitably seen as an attack on women :-).

    A Clinton-Warren ticket would be awesome.

    It would not surprise me if HRC served one term and decided not to run for a second, opening the door for Warren in 2020.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited June 2016 Posts: 17,687
    Not about Presidency but something every one should know about present day US war...
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    OUR FATE RESIDES IN THE PURVIEW OF THE SUPERDELEGATES.

    The vote must be for Bernie, Superdelegates. It has therefore now become your decision. You alone will condemn us to a Trump Presidency, if you wish, and you alone will be held responsible by US. My numbers indicate that Bernie supporters will not yield. Hillary cannot have our vote. Meaning simply... she cannot win against Trump. But Bernie CAN. Choose my friends. But choose wisely.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    chrisisall wrote: »
    RogueAgent wrote: »
    Trump versus Clinton it is then! Let the mud slinging begin!

    It seems Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren have been meeting quite often these days. So betting on an all female Clinton-Warren ticket might be quite realistic :-).
    I don't think so- Elizabeth is too anti-bullshit for her...

    "Anti-bullshit" and "I'm a Native American" don't go hand-in-hand, though.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Pocohontas?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,372
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Pocohontas?

    The Trump quote? I'm talking about Warren claiming to be a 'Native American,' which is bullshit.
  • Posts: 5,774
    I wonder if the recent events in Orlando are going to benefit Trump or hurt him. Benefit, more likely.
  • edited June 2016 Posts: 11,119
    I think, today, we need to keep this topic a bit silent.
  • Posts: 1,631
    Gerard wrote: »
    I wonder if the recent events in Orlando are going to benefit Trump or hurt him. Benefit, more likely.

    In a perfect world, these events would benefit the left, especially those desiring to overturn the decisions in DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago, but in all likelihood you're right in that it'll benefit Trump much more.

    Then again, in a perfect world, this nonsense wouldn't be happening in the first place.

  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    I can legally purchase an AR-15 here, but not a pair of nunechucks.
    Let that sink in...
  • edited June 2016 Posts: 1,631
    chrisisall wrote: »
    I can legally purchase an AR-15 here, but not a pair of nunechucks.
    Let that sink in...

    The gun situation in America is disgusting, that's just a fact. It's going to be the shameful legacy of both the Republican and Democratic parties (the GOP for standing in the way of a correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and the Dems for not having the guts to stand up on the issue) when the history books are written 100 years from now.

    The one bit of good that could come from a Clinton administration is maybe getting some justices on the Supreme Court that could correctly interpret the 2nd Amendment and reverse DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago.

  • Posts: 372
    Still sad about Bernie. Now it's about choosing the lesser of two evils. I'm sensing loads of Merkel/Clinton fanfics in the future.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,687
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    chrisisall wrote: »
    Pocohontas?

    The Trump quote? I'm talking about Warren claiming to be a 'Native American,' which is bullshit.
    Sadly, I think she's sold out. Hillary somehow got to her.... sad.
  • edited June 2016 Posts: 1,631
    Donald's tweet this morning might have been his most disgusting yet. Just saw it on Politico.

    We've got 50+ dead in Orlando and he's worried about tweeting about how he's been congratulated for being right on the terrorism issue.

    Absolutely disgusting. Sadly, we have 4.5 months to see just how far this man can sink the political process.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,548
    Gerard wrote: »
    I wonder if the recent events in Orlando are going to benefit Trump or hurt him. Benefit, more likely.

    I will set aside that this is the last thing we need to be worried about: it will hurt Trump, as he is against gun laws.

    This shooting will likely be the one that forces congress's hand to create more stringent background checks.
  • edited June 2016 Posts: 11,119
    We Americans, Europeans, Australians, New-Zealanders, Canadians need to hug each other tightly by singing a song with the lyrics "FUCK Islamophobia!"
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/07/ten-things-outspoken-european-politicians-are-saying-about-islam/
  • Posts: 1,631
    TripAces wrote: »
    Gerard wrote: »
    I wonder if the recent events in Orlando are going to benefit Trump or hurt him. Benefit, more likely.

    I will set aside that this is the last thing we need to be worried about: it will hurt Trump, as he is against gun laws.

    This shooting will likely be the one that forces congress's hand to create more stringent background checks.

    I think it'll depend on how the candidates and the media frame the issue. If it gets framed as a terrorism issue, which Donald will try his hardest to make sure it is, it will help him because he's managed to trick the voting public into believing that he's strong on terrorism.

    If it's framed as a gun issue, which I think is less likely, then it might marginally help Clinton, but not as much as it would help Donald on the other side because the public doesn't get riled up as much for the gun issue as they do for terrorism.

    Sadly, and I wish I could share your optimism, I don't see this as the event that forces Congress' hand on the gun issue. Both parties, in perhaps the only area they seem to be able to agree on, are beholden to Wayne LaPierre and the NRA and, despite somewhere near 90% of the electorate favoring "common sense" gun control, they vote against it because they're told to be LaPierre.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2016 Posts: 23,883
    dalton wrote: »
    Both parties, in perhaps the only area they seem to be able to agree on, are beholden to Wayne LaPierre and the NRA and, despite somewhere near 90% of the electorate favoring "common sense" gun control, they vote against it because they're told to be LaPierre.
    Israel is the other area where there is unanimous agreement, as evidenced by Netanyahu's display a few years back in advance of the Iran vote. In both cases, intense lobbying efforts are at work behind the scenes.
  • Posts: 1,631
    bondjames wrote: »
    dalton wrote: »
    Both parties, in perhaps the only area they seem to be able to agree on, are beholden to Wayne LaPierre and the NRA and, despite somewhere near 90% of the electorate favoring "common sense" gun control, they vote against it because they're told to be LaPierre.
    Israel is the other area where there is unanimous agreement, as evidenced by Netanyahu's display a few years back in advance of the Iran vote. In both cases, intense lobbying efforts are at work behind the scenes.

    I'm not sure that both parties are really in lockstep with each other on Isreal. The current administration has seen its relationship with Israel become a bit frayed when compared to previous administrations. The speech to Congress was really a Republican-led thing. The Democrats, or at least a good number of them, were quite angry at his receiving an invitation from the Congressional GOP leadership to speak before them. 58 Democratic members of Congress skipped the speech, including the Vice President.

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2016 Posts: 23,883
    dalton wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    dalton wrote: »
    Both parties, in perhaps the only area they seem to be able to agree on, are beholden to Wayne LaPierre and the NRA and, despite somewhere near 90% of the electorate favoring "common sense" gun control, they vote against it because they're told to be LaPierre.
    Israel is the other area where there is unanimous agreement, as evidenced by Netanyahu's display a few years back in advance of the Iran vote. In both cases, intense lobbying efforts are at work behind the scenes.

    I'm not sure that both parties are really in lockstep with each other on Isreal. The current administration has seen its relationship with Israel become a bit frayed when compared to previous administrations. The speech to Congress was really a Republican-led thing. The Democrats, or at least a good number of them, were quite angry at his receiving an invitation from the Congressional GOP leadership to speak before them. 58 Democratic members of Congress skipped the speech, including the Vice President.
    They may have skipped it, but try to get them on camera in unison saying anything against Israeli polices under Netanyahu, or more importantly, doing anything for that matter. That is the power of the underlying lobby, which is similar to guns imho, where many Dems probably don't agree with LaPierre but won't go on record.
  • Posts: 11,119
    I'm surprised that not even 24 hours after this massive shooting we can't keep this topic a bit more silent.....out of respect for the victims.
  • Posts: 1,631
    I'm surprised that not even 24 hours after this massive shooting we can't keep this topic a bit more silent.....out of respect for the victims.

    I look at it from a much different perspective. Respect for the victims would be finally solving the gun issue that has been ignored by the American public and politicians for far too long. Each time we allow one of these events to pass and not truly debate the issue and try to work towards a solution, as we often do because of a well-intentioned desire to be respectful to the victims, we're really doing them a disservice, IMO. I feel like we, as a country, disrespect the victims of such tragedies when we sit on our hands and do nothing about something that is so clearly a problem in this country.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I remember when Obama came into office claiming he was going to put an end to lobbying. They shut that down rather quickly. This is where the problem really lies - money in politics (& the media) and the inability therefore to have proper, intelligent & detailed debates and discussions on underlying issues in a mature fashion.
  • Posts: 11,119
    dalton wrote: »
    I'm surprised that not even 24 hours after this massive shooting we can't keep this topic a bit more silent.....out of respect for the victims.

    I look at it from a much different perspective. Respect for the victims would be finally solving the gun issue that has been ignored by the American public and politicians for far too long. Each time we allow one of these events to pass and not truly debate the issue and try to work towards a solution, as we often do because of a well-intentioned desire to be respectful to the victims, we're really doing them a disservice, IMO. I feel like we, as a country, disrespect the victims of such tragedies when we sit on our hands and do nothing about something that is so clearly a problem in this country.

    What good will it be if we're in essence talking about a 2-party-oligarchy. And what difference does it make that in the end humans will revert to fear instead of rationalism, thus giving Trump a serious opening to win the US elections.

    The world is fucked up. And we're fucking it up more ourselves........simply by screaming, and not once applying some self-criticism and rationalism.

    All useless anyway. Let's keep on destroying. Let's continue the anti-Muslim-fear, so that IS can say "Yeah baby, we can continue our cause".
This discussion has been closed.