Senate The US Politics discussion

Trump shares poll that shows the Democrats are ahead, while saying the GOP is ahead
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-read-president-shares-poll-212900495.html

 

A Presidential election, between two rich celebrities, would be the final nail in the United States democracy.

https://news.sky.com/story/trump-ch...-presidency-to-expose-and-defeat-her-11257412

 

This guy has never progressed beyond the playground stage of development.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...6a950029788_story.html?utm_term=.763385c39593

I just can't think of anything more embarrassing.

 

I think it would be certainly more embarrassing to not only have a boss that was such an idiot that I could make such remarks publicly but then to subsequently in spite of acknowledging how awful it is and how plainly wrong Nonetheless dedicate myself to actualizing those half coherent bigoted Twitter statements as policy even though I just denounced them.

Trump officials are awful people. Full stop.

 

We’re back to this again.

Go for it, Donny. Please.

 

Moron tweeted: “Just watched a very insecure Oprah Winfrey, who at one point I knew very well, interview a panel of people on 60 Minutes. The questions were biased and slanted, the facts incorrect. Hope Oprah runs so she can be exposed and defeated just like all of the others!”

You know what, I've changed my mind. I hope Oprah sees this as her sign from God and runs-as a Republican. And I hope she primaries him right out of office. It would be worth it to watch the GOP fully tear itself apart.

I watched the 60 minute interview both the first one and this follow up. She could not have been more fair. Only Trump, she actually listens to people. She gave each side time to speak and she discussed how she understood what they were saying but was careful not to agree/disagree with either side. For that skill alone, she is more qualified to be president than Trump. Thankfully however, she is smart enough not to run and will let other seasoned politicians try- but if come 2020, my choices on Election Day were Trump or Oprah- I wouldn't waste it on a write-in or third party- I'd vote Oprah. We are rapidly approaching the point where anything (yes that includes inanimate objects as president) is better than Trump

 

I'd vote for a candidate with political experience, you know, which America desperately needs right now. But I'm old fashioned.

 

Did you read what I wrote fully or just assume I want Oprah as president? I wrote that "thankfully she is smart enough not to run." I've already stated, on multiple occasions, my preference for a Democratic candidate who is a seasoned politician. This said, if my only choices in 2020 are Oprah or Trump, I won't write in a candidate- I would vote the lesser evil. If 2016 taught anyone anything, let it be that it is better to vote the lesser of two evils than not vote at all. Sure in an ideal world, it wouldn't come down to that, but that may not always be the case. In 2016, people opted not to vote or wrote in Harambe because to them both were "just as bad". A year in, I think we've seen that no, one was by far worse than the other.

 

I read what your wrote and didn't assume anything. Just my own personal comment on the matter.

If your only choice if either Trump or Oprah, then I'd advise leaving and moving to Mexico instead.

 

Lack of political experience is not what is wrong with Trump and it's not what's wrong with Oprah. In the former case, a smarter man or someone who cared would have oriented himself much better upon taking office. Lack of experience in the federal government is not unusual for a president (Obama only did 4 years as a senator, Clinton and Dubya had no federal government experience).

 

Yes it is.

 

Why? You would rather Trump be more competent at his agenda? Mitch McConnel has decades of experience, and he's happily using it.

 

More stable administration, which doesn't descend into chaos every 5 minutes? Of course. But, I'd prefer the system overthrown and replace....which is not going to happen.

 

Did anyone happen to see this 60 Minutes piece (aired last night)?

Oprah follows up with the partisan voters in Michigan

Intro: Last fall, Oprah Winfrey spoke with 14 Michigan voters, seven of whom voted for Donald Trump. Winfrey sat down with the voters again to get their thoughts on Trump's first year in office. One year into Donald Trump's presidency, Americans remain divided, often unwilling to listen to what the other side has to say. It's happening in families, among friends and at the workplace. We witnessed that schism first-hand last fall when we went to Grand Rapids, Michigan, and gathered 14 people - seven who voted for Mr. Trump, seven who did not - for a wide-ranging discussion about politics, policy and the president himself. To mark President Trump's first year in office we decided to repeat the experiment. We never intended to go back to Grand Rapids. But then we learned that, after disagreeing on virtually everything, our group stayed in close touch. Members from opposite sides of the divide actually became friends, organizing outings and talking every day in a private facebook chat group. All of that made us want to go back.

The video is about 25:00 minutes long, but quickly scrolling down the page, it looks like the entire print transcript is there as well. I found myself quite engaged by watching it, though I was often angered by what I saw (there was one moment that literally made me start yelling expletives at my laptop screen...*)

It left me wondering: Can anything lasting/meaningful/impactful actually happen from these types of exchanges? The participants seemed to agree that they "learned a lot" and they can say now that they "want to understand" as well as be understood.

But I'm not so sure. It seemed like that the discussion never included the introduction of actual facts/data/evidence that would be highly relevant to the points being discussed (though perhaps that was edited out in order to focus on the more "dramatic" moments of the conversation). Though of course many studies show that the introduction of facts rarely ends up changing people's deeply-held political beliefs anyway. I also found myself wondering how I would respond to participating in such a group. The idealist in me would like to believe that somehow this type of thing could produce some kind of significantly positive outcome, but I find myself doubting that.

I'd be interested in the thoughts of anyone who saw the piece or who ends up reading/watching it.

*******************************************************************************************************
*the part where I really thought my head was gonna explode (bolded below with surrounding context):

Tim: I work with global students that wanna come to the United States. Well, ever since Trump got elected in 2016, the numbers of incoming global students have gone down. They do not feel safe. That's a shame.

Laura: What are they afraid of?

Paul: Trump.

Kim: Yes.

Tim: They're afraid of how they're being, they're gonna be treated. I mean look turn on the news.

Laura [a middle-aged white woman:] I feel safer now than I ever did the last eight years
of Obama. Oh my God.

Oprah Winfrey: How do you feel safer? Tell me how you feel safer?

Laura: Well, I feel like I can say Merry Christmas to anyone I want wherever I want.

Jennifer: You could anytime!

Tim: You could! Spare me the fake outrage!

Jennifer: Obama always said Merry Christmas.

Maggie: I don't think Laura has fake outrage but like, I do think some of the things that you believe, I don't think really make that much sense. Like, I don't think Obama's a Muslim.

Oprah Winfrey: Let her finish telling us why she feels safer.

Laura: Safer means that I'm not gonna have regulations after regulations after regulations that are gonna outdo my budget. I don't make any money. I'm poor. So when I mean I don't make, I probably make less than anyone at this table. You know, my heat bills go up. My electricity goes up. I guess it makes me feel economically safer that Trump's in office.
***************************************************************************************************************

 

The chaos prevents a more focused, more competent agenda. A more competent administration-- say, led by Pence-- would have been able to craft a travel ban that would get through the courts, they would have gotten sufficiently xenophobic immigration "reform" because they wouldn't be so insistent on a ****ing wall, they would have repealed the ACA in full, they wouldn't be under investigation for allegedly collaborating with a foreign power, and they certainly wouldn't call attention to what they're doing by tweeting stupid bull**** every weekend.

 

Consider that "experience" has implications broader than the benefits it offers to the candidate themselves. Experience in office means that the candidate has a public track record that the voters can look to, something to prove the person will behave in a certain way once in office. It reveals those who are all talk and no substance, or those who are incompetent.

I suppose you could argue that Trump already had a public track record, as a public figure. But it wasn't as transparent as a tenure in office (mayor, governor, whatever) would have been.

 

Many members of the administration have long, awful track records in public office, such as Pence, Perry, Haley, Kelly and Sessions. They're still in office anyway.

 

Trump is also anything but inexperienced. He's been in politics for several decades, and first ran for president in 2000.

Pardoning anyone related to Mueller's investigation would be a dumb move for many reasons, not the least of which is that attorneys-general like Eric Schneiderman and local prosecutors in some areas would pick up the investigations and be able to indict and convict, free of any threat of presidential pardons.

 

I’d make a distinction between campaigning for office and actually trying to do the work of government. Of course, we are over a year into things and Trump still hasn’t grasped this.

 

Nitpick: only Pence was elected to this administration; the rest were appointed. But, yes, sure, people with awful track records can still be voted or appointed to high office. Experience is secondary to ideology, as people will almost always choose an inexperienced person they mostly agree with over an experienced person they completely disagree with. That decision is made in a heartbeat.

I suppose I was thinking more of a primary or something similar. A situation where the choice might be between an experienced person you kinda agree with versus an inexperienced person you sorta agree with. That decision is less clear cut, giving experience more weight. Has candidate shown that they can deliver results or is their rhetoric enough?

 

I'm sure Trump will think of something.

 

You’ll tell me when Trump actually starts thinking?

 

I'd prefer experience over no experience (as long as there aren't obvious scandals of course) but more than that I'd prioritize competence and good judgment and a willingness to learn. Like Obama was a new Senator but generally he adapted, whereas for Trump its a point of pride that he ignores conventional wisdom (and common decency and such).

Which is why I thought Trump was the appropriate accurate representative of the Republican party- corrupt, racist and greedy. He just doesn't bother to hide it unlike say Ryan and McConnell. Not to mention appointing plenty of people just like him, happy to bill the government for any and everything. In terms of legislation, not like Pence would be much different, he would just go about it in a quieter and more competent manner, and probably wouldn't be as obsessed with that inefficient wall. And less tweeting of course. Seeing Republicans in Congress defending Trump helps show their true colors, but we'll see if voters are paying enough attention (or whether they're still obsessing over about certain issues more than the future of America).

So apparently Trump polled Mar-A-Lago members on whether he should support a gun control law. Because people paying a $200k membership are obviously such an important demographic of America. Well, for Trump it is, but usually politicians are a bit more subtle about asking for their orders from their backers. Which is why its still up in the air whether Trump is just that egotistical about the possible illegitimacy of his presidency or whether Russia has blackmail material on him. With that personality its just hard to tell.

 

He hates a strong, black woman of power who won't kiss his ass 100%. I would want her to run only to see her win and watch his reaction to being a loser.