Jump to content
Paul Bearer

Donald J Trump

Recommended Posts

Yay. We don't need anymore shitheads like you Mr Spicer. :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, YoungWillz said:

Probably good for Trump, Spicey was pretty poor.

 

Sarah Sanders is much better, and Scarramucci seemed calm, cool and collected too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2017 at 14:49, LilyForrester said:

Sarah Sanders is much better, and Scarramucci seemed calm, cool and collected too.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders is a lousy press secretary - she has no control, can't stop shooting off at the mouth, and antagonizes everyone - so, there's no difference there between her and Spicer. 

 

Sacarramucci is a clown, but a dangerous one. He's manic as hell until he gets crossed, then he rips everyone wide open. Go back and watch some of his shows from his Fox Business days. The one good thing is that he isn't likely to bow to Trump. The question is whether he or Trump will wave the white flag first. 

 

And don't forget Scaramucci is a lawyer and hedge fund manager by profession. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, CarolAnn said:

Sarah Huckabee Sanders is a lousy press secretary - she has no control, can't stop shooting off at the mouth, and antagonizes everyone - so, there's no difference there between her and Spicer. 

 

Sacarramucci is a clown, but a dangerous one. He's manic as hell until he gets crossed, then he rips everyone wide open. Go back and watch some of his shows from his Fox Business days. The one good thing is that he isn't likely to bow to Trump. The question is whether he or Trump will wave the white flag first. 

 

And don't forget Scaramucci is a lawyer and hedge fund manager by profession. 

 

 

I'm taking on board all of the above but wondering:

 

1 - If Trump is capable of doing something truly presidential like actually running a country in a way that increases the ebbing support.

 

2 - If the constant ratcheting up of the Russian-link allegations will do for this lot regardless of their ambitions to maintain power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/23/2017 at 11:29, maryportfuncity said:

 

 

I'm taking on board all of the above but wondering:

 

1 - If Trump is capable of doing something truly presidential like actually running a country in a way that increases the ebbing support.

 

2 - If the constant ratcheting up of the Russian-link allegations will do for this lot regardless of their ambitions to maintain power.

To give my humble opinion in reverse order:

 

2. I think "I did not collude" is going to rank up there with "I did not have sex with that woman." 

1. I don't think he is. He will not lose the support of a certain hard core piece of the populace, but for everyone else he is burning bridges right and left. I hate to say it, but the only thing that might shore him up for a little while is another 9/11 or a war. Either way, though, he's probably going down like Nixon.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 40% will vote, the Republicans want power and power alone - he's safer than houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CarolAnn said:

To give my humble opinion in reverse order:

 

2. I think "I did not collude" is going to rank up there with "I did not have sex with that woman." 

1. I don't think he is. He will not lose the support of a certain hard core piece of the populace, but for everyone else he is burning bridges right and left. I hate to say it, but the only thing that might shore him up for a little while is another 9/11 or a war. Either way, though, he's probably going down like Nixon.

Nixon, Lewinsky, Lovelace, my god , you Yanks are obsessed with 'going down'..

Im going to emigrate! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, CarolAnn said:

To give my humble opinion in reverse order:

 

2. I think "I did not collude" is going to rank up there with "I did not have sex with that woman." 

1. I don't think he is. He will not lose the support of a certain hard core piece of the populace, but for everyone else he is burning bridges right and left. I hate to say it, but the only thing that might shore him up for a little while is another 9/11 or a war. Either way, though, he's probably going down like Nixon.

 

 

Aye, but a war or another 9/11 would oblige him to behave like a president. He can't manage the entire US military to attack another country via Twitter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with another 9/11 or War, Trump's victory would still be uncertain,

George W. Bush barely defeated John Kerry even with a 90% approval rating and being a wartime president. 

With Trump innately being an idiot, he most likely won't be able to handle a 9/11 in a manner that would assure his re-election. 

If Trump gets a challenger more passionate and engaging than paint drying (John Kerry), he will have trouble preserving the rust belt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uncertain I can go for, but it's a mistake to underestimate the American propensity for rallying around the president in times of crisis. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, CarolAnn said:

Uncertain I can go for, but it's a mistake to underestimate the American propensity for rallying around the president in times of crisis. 

 

 

Interesting point. Given they are watching every butt kissing loyal Trumpist being hung out to dry every 5 minutes, that has to stick, surely?

 

Spicey gone, Sessions on the verge, Flynn gone....he'd sell Barron to a Thai boy brothel if it meant he'd stay in power, grabbing some sweet intern pussy....

 

I'm just guessing...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's only in danger himself as long as the House will act against him. As long as the House is run by Mitch McConnell and co, that's not going to happen. The 2018 midterms don't look like changing that.

 

So, he's in no danger whatsover, and can do anything he likes without any repercussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, msc said:

He's only in danger himself as long as the House will act against him. As long as the House is run by Mitch McConnell and co, that's not going to happen. The 2018 midterms don't look like changing that.

 

So, he's in no danger whatsover, and can do anything he likes without any repercussion.

Hate to be that person, But McConnell runs the senate... Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan run the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, House, Congress, Senate - you know what I meant.

 

Anyhow, last I heard, the one Ryan runs, the seats are all gerrymandered to hell, so unlikely to shift much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, msc said:

Ah, House, Congress, Senate - you know what I meant.

 

Anyhow, last I heard, the one Ryan runs, the seats are all gerrymandered to hell, so unlikely to shift much.

It's not that gerrymandered, I've never seen an experience with it and i've moved all across the country in Louisiana, Arizona, and North Carolina. They're all reliably red states and from what I notice they're all pretty straightforward with their congressional districts. 

I have heard that the most gerrymandering occurs in states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Where some states' congressional districts are shaped like the picture below.

I personally think a 3rd party commission needs to be set up (not by the house leadership) to draw districts and accurately use census data to determine where the districts should be. However it is ambitious nowadays to want any bipartisanship in the way our elections are held.

IMG_0311.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hah - just look at those boundaries!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No transgender in the US Military.

 

Do you think he grabbed someone by the testicles by mistake and never got over it?

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed... 

He really needs to stop, his tweets are going to Cher levels of tweeting. May I remind you all of these gems :P?

My personal favorite is "Wtf is mdna"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chers dementia is getting worse by the day.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Zsa Zsa's leg said:

It's not that gerrymandered, I've never seen an experience with it and i've moved all across the country in Louisiana, Arizona, and North Carolina. They're all reliably red states and from what I notice they're all pretty straightforward with their congressional districts. 

I have heard that the most gerrymandering occurs in states like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Where some states' congressional districts are shaped like the picture below.

I personally think a 3rd party commission needs to be set up (not by the house leadership) to draw districts and accurately use census data to determine where the districts should be. However it is ambitious nowadays to want any bipartisanship in the way our elections are held.

IMG_0311.PNG

Have you looked at the Texas congressional map? The one that's been hung up in federal  court for years and may get the state smacked back under DOJ supervision? Gerrymandering is a contact sport in the south. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, CarolAnn said:

Have you looked at the Texas congressional map? The one that's been hung up in federal  court for years and may get the state smacked back under DOJ supervision? Gerrymandering is a contact sport in the south. 

Yep. It's also big in California too!

Rep. Maxine Waters doesn't even live in her own congressional district!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The districts in California are done by a Nonpartisan committee

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Zsa Zsa's leg said:

 

 

Yeah, if we assume Trump is the full-blown Narcissistic Personality Disorder in action then he needs targets/enemies all the time because he sees every situation as being about himself. So firing good people who are doing their best is likely to be one area in which he will build up a backlog of consequences - well, that and constantly fighting old battles like the one against Obama's legacy.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

Your use of this forum is subject to our Terms of Use