Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cove_Sheep

Is Donald Trump's Campaign A Spoof?

Recommended Posts

Which other republican can they chose now? The public will not accept anyone but Trump.

Trump is not even a Republican, He is a third party in disguise. He will suck in votes from everywhere. The more publicity he gets he will snowball. Make America great again...he is like a bullshit machine that presses all the right buttons.

Why do any of you think Clinton will beat him? Why!

Because she's the safe option for corporate America.

She'll also attract votes from moderate republicans who think trump is too controversial.

And minorities are surely more likely to vote for her than trump.

Trump may motivate previous non voters to turn out for him but he could motivate just as many to vote against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont but i guess the main reasoning would be the blacks, hispanics and particularly muslims are unlikely to vote for him

Because she's the safe option for corporate America.

She'll also attract votes from moderate republicans who think trump is too controversial.

And minorities are surely more likely to vote for her than trump.

Trump may motivate previous non voters to turn out for him but he could motivate just as many to vote against him.

Well the bookies are usually right with the odds so I dare say you have a point. I just have this mad hunch if he gets the nomination he will go on to win somehow.

Edited by thplinth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont but i guess the main reasoning would be the blacks, hispanics and particularly muslims are unlikely to vote for him

Thank **** for that. It's goodnight for us all if he gets in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank **** for that. It's goodnight for us all if he gets in.

Alternatively there are a lot of people in all of these communities, yes even among hispanics, (maybe not Muslims) that feel the time is right for someone like Donald Trump

Sometimes i think that myself then feel guilty

History is just repeating itself

The politicians have made such an arse of things mainly through greed and corruption that its a fruitful time for extreme politicians and parties

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump has zero chance of president. None

I agree with Mario, if we raise it just a smidge above absolute zero. As i'm against absolute statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2008 Obama spoke about regulating Wall Street. 2 terms and what's he done? Nothing.

Just one example of I'm sure there's many.

Maybe trump will be different if he's elected but more likely he'll be brought sharply into line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2008 Obama spoke about regulating Wall Street. 2 terms and what's he done? Nothing.

Just one example of I'm sure there's many.

Maybe trump will be different if he's elected but more likely he'll be brought sharply into line.

The belief that people have about one man being able to change things is laughable. Corporations decide what happens. It's that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The belief that people have about one man being able to change things is laughable. Corporations decide what happens. It's that simple.

Plus the way that the legislative process is constituted in the United States. The power of the presidency far more restricted than that of the prime minister despite the entire electorate being able to vote on the Pres. compared to a handful of thousands for the PM.

Edited by DonnyTJS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus the way that the legislative process is constituted in the United States. The power of the presidency far more restricted than that of the prime minister despite the entire electorate being able to vote on the Pres. compared to a handful of thousands for the PM.

Well the three branches of government were meant to be separate, however, with executive actions and a weak congress the lines have blurred. President is more powerful than ever in the US these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the three branches of government were meant to be separate, however, with executive actions and a weak congress the lines have blurred. President is more powerful than ever in the US these days.

Yet I can't think of one that's had much impact on American society since FDR. Even Reagan was a reflection of the society that elected him rather than t'other way round. It was after FDR's election for a third term that the two-term amendment was passed. That's an example of a curtailment of power right there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet I can't think of one that's had much impact on American society since FDR. Even Reagan was a reflection of the society that elected him rather than t'other way round. It was after FDR's election for a third term that the two-term amendment was passed. That's an example of a curtailment of power right there.

Well it all depends on what "impact" means in this setting. How does Power relate to impact?My meaning is able to do things autonomously regardless of what impact they have. Presidents can just up and bomb the shit out of places now, If certain narratives are to be believed FDR had to engineer situations to get into World War 2.

Although that's certainly a good point about term limits, hadn't considered it when i made my statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it all depends on what "impact" means in this setting. How does Power relate to impact?My meaning is able to do things autonomously regardless of what impact they have. Presidents can just up and bomb the shit out of places now, If certain narratives are to be believed FDR had to engineer situations to get into World War 2.

Although that's certainly a good point about term limits, hadn't considered it when i made my statement.

The constitutional situation regarding the rights of the Executive when it comes to war seem to reflect the situation in Britain. The Executive has the right to enter or initiate the conflict but the Legislature can withhold the funds needed to pay for it.

Cameron made a big step in terms of precedent by asking for a parliamentary vote on Syria. Obama did something similar in asking for Congressional authorization. Although the US constitution isn't necessarily affected by precedent, it could, I suppose, sway the Supreme Court if it were asked to interpret the constitutional role of the Executive.

TBH I'm not sure what you meant about a 'weak congress' as the powers of Congress are also constitutionally defined and there's been no amendment to curtail them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH I'm not sure what you meant about a 'weak congress' as the powers of Congress are also constitutionally defined and there's been no amendment to curtail them.

"Congress holds the power to declare war. As a result, the president cannot declare war without their approval. However, as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, many presidents have sent troops to battle without an official war declaration.."

they don't use the powers. Look at back in Regans day Congress shut down his aid of the Contras by refusing to fund it. Now him Olllie North and the CIA funded it by selling drugs. using Iran and foreign country A (Israel) for the weapons. However Congress moved to stop it.

Nothing like that will happen now. Apart from a few congressmen, they pass laws without even reading them these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Congress holds the power to declare war. As a result, the president cannot declare war without their approval. However, as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces, many presidents have sent troops to battle without an official war declaration.."

they don't use the powers. Look at back in Regans day Congress shut down his aid of the Contras by refusing to fund it. Now him Olllie North and the CIA funded it by selling drugs. using Iran and foreign country A (Israel) for the weapons. However Congress moved to stop it.

Nothing like that will happen now. Apart from a few congressmen, they pass laws without even reading them these days.

Yeah, I see what you mean. Iran/Contra was a classic case of the Executive branch trying to subvert the Constitution. You can't legislate for shite legislators ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I see what you mean. Iran/Contra was a classic case of the Executive branch trying to subvert the Constitution. You can't legislate for shite legislators ...

Yeah, i was also taking it away from the original discussion,went back and read, and was applying the president is more powerful in a different context to the original conversation.

Plus the more i thought about FDR ,as you said, that dude was pretty powerful, see what happens when you make absolute statements. the exception comes and bites you on the bum.

Edited by phart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not read the link yet, but Clinton was ba' deep in Iran/Contra, Mena Arkansas was one of the runways used by Barry Seal, guess who was Governor ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Clinton ?

http://www.ornery.org/essays/2001-01-26-1.html

Ignore the religious guff at the end

Didn't phart suggest you give relevant quotes rather than this 'debate-by-link' technique a day or two ago?

Without reading all that, I'm not arguing that the US president is powerless, obviously. I was pointing out that his power is restricted by the US Constitution. This happens to be particularly the case in domestic matters (which was the context of my initial post). In foreign affairs (a legacy of its debt to the Westminster model) the Executive has considerably more power, but still works within restrictions, particularly fiscal ones.

Edit: Just scrolled down to the section you asked us to ignore ... :lol::ok:

Edited by DonnyTJS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. I was pointing out that his power is restricted by the US Constitution. This happens to be particularly the case in domestic matters (which was the context of my initial post). In foreign affairs (a legacy of its debt to the Westminster model) the Executive has considerably more power, but still works within restrictions, particularly fiscal ones.

Yeah i was thinking on international stage as opposed to domestic, that's my fault though as the conversation was clearly about domestic. I just waded in (no like me)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't phart suggest you give relevant quotes rather than this 'debate-by-link' technique a day or two ago

Yes

Guess what i thought of that suggestion ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes

Guess what i thought of that suggestion ?

:lol: Aye, but it'd've enabled you to avoid posting the slavering God-bothering if you'd gone the selected-quote route ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: Aye, but it'd've enabled you to avoid posting the slavering God-bothering if you'd gone the selected-quote route ...

Agreed

Ill try better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're going to sub-contract out your thinking/arguments, I'm as well debating with the guy who wrote the blog than his evangelical preacher on the TAMB. As big Winston would say take me to organ grinder not the monkey :ok:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was Iran/Contra really that bad from a US perspective?

The US didn't want anything in their hemisphere that was a threat to freedom.

The Cubans were bad enough, another regime amenable to the USSR on America's doorstep was a danger.

Congress blocked direct support so the CIA did what they had been set up to do - they operated outside the US, got the guns they needed and gave them to the regime they were trying to support.

Yes there was cocaine involved, but cocaine is fine in moderation. It's when you start cooking it to make crack that the problems start.

And who came up with the recipe for crack cocaine? Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton invented crack cocaine and flooded black communities throughout the USA with cheap moreish street rock.

The consequent rise in gang activity, the decline of the black civil rights movement and the rise of charlatans like Al Sharpton, the huge levels of crime, the murder rate, the destruction of the family unit within black society as overwhelming numbers of young black fathers were either jailed or killed for their low level involvement in the drug trade, piss poor g rap, crack babies, crack whores, higher HIV and AIDS rates, poor levels of attainment in education, not bothering to vote are all down to Hillary Clinton.

But the looney liberal media give her a free pass and agree with her 90s assertion that her husband was the first black president.

Instead they stigmatise real American heroes like the Oregon farmers and Anders Breivik.

Makes me sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×