TRUMP: Yes, He Even Branded A MAGAthread

by **Big Jim P** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:47 am

Corrian wrote:
Liriena wrote:If the Democratic Party ends up with a Clinton-type candidate? He could definitely get himself re-elected.

They better not be that stupid.

They put up clinton after two terms of obama. Three for three, so I wouldn't bet money on them not being stupid enough to try again.

by **St Salvador** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:50 am

Valrifell wrote:
Liriena wrote:If the Democratic Party ends up with a Clinton-type candidate? He could definitely get himself re-elected.

To be entirely honest I don't put it past Trump to pull a Teddy Roosevelt and go nuclear after getting tired of politics but not liking who the Republicans picked to follow him.

You mean start his own party?

by **Valrifell** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:50 am

St Salvador wrote:
Valrifell wrote:
To be entirely honest I don't put it past Trump to pull a Teddy Roosevelt and go nuclear after getting tired of politics but not liking who the Republicans picked to follow him.

You mean start his own party?

Then split the vote and lead to a Democratic landslide, yes.

by **Ifreann** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:54 am

Uxupox wrote:
Ifreann wrote:I didn't mean America by "we".

The concept of warring against ISIS is one of self-defense.

Keeping control of Iraq and Syria seems like a political goal to me.

by **Nerotysia** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:54 am

St Salvador wrote:
Valrifell wrote:
To be entirely honest I don't put it past Trump to pull a Teddy Roosevelt and go nuclear after getting tired of politics but not liking who the Republicans picked to follow him.

You mean start his own party?

Yea, it's the next logical step in his evolution. Trump-brand political parties. It'll be huge.

by **Mad hatters in jeans** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:55 am

Corrian wrote:Has he even mentioned the whole "lock her up" thing anymore?

That was just showmanship I imagine.

He was probably going to continue harping on about Hillary if she won and make a big noise about a revolution because everything was RIGGED.

But now that he won he can't do that without attracting extremely negative responses for no reason. He's already got the presidency, no need to anger the moderates.

He knows he won through the primaries and lost the public vote. This isn't how he wanted to win, he wanted to win on the back of public support across all of America because the silent majority was with him in his mind.

Except they aren't, they aren't with anyone. Over 90 million people choose not to vote election after election. Perhaps this should be looked into more closely?

by **Liriena** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:59 am

Big Jim P wrote:
Corrian wrote:They better not be that stupid.

They put up clinton after two terms of obama. Three for three, so I wouldn't bet money on them not being stupid enough to try again.

Obama won. Twice. And he's far more popular than either Clinton or Trump. Nothing particularly stupid about that.

by **Wulfcastle** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:05 am

Liriena wrote:
Big Jim P wrote:
They put up clinton after two terms of obama. Three for three, so I wouldn't bet money on them not being stupid enough to try again.

Obama won. Twice. And he's far more popular than either Clinton or Trump. Nothing particularly stupid about that.

WAS more popular. Obama managed to alienate a lot of people who voted for him with the failure of Obamacare, his embracing of the TPP, and his anti-gun rhetoric.

Last.FM · by **Corrian** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:12 am

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
Corrian wrote:You know, I'm not exactly for intervening in everything either, but this idea of it "not being our problem" sounds equally like a terrible idea, and likely WILL lead to it being our problem in the future.

I mean, I would have thought we learned our lesson in World War 2 about being isolationists.

Apparently many people didn't get the memo that it is easier to contain than it is to draft everyone in order to stop a threat.

We just elected Trump. We don't learn shit from history, despite that supposed reasoning to know history in the first damn place. I know jack shit about history and I know not to repeat it better than people who supposedly should know better.

by **Valaran** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:14 am

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:I mean, I would have thought we learned our lesson in World War 2 about being isolationists.

Too long ago in the national memory. Hell, even 1991 is distant past rn.

Iraq is a much more potent and evocative memory.

Last.FM · by **Corrian** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:15 am

Big Jim P wrote:
Corrian wrote:They better not be that stupid.

They put up clinton after two terms of obama. Three for three, so I wouldn't bet money on them not being stupid enough to try again.

Hopefully me and fellow progressives can knock some sense in them and realize that in the anti establishment era, that is a very shitty idea.

Last.FM · by **Corrian** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:17 am

Wulfcastle wrote:
Liriena wrote:Obama won. Twice. And he's far more popular than either Clinton or Trump. Nothing particularly stupid about that.
WAS more popular. Obama managed to alienate a lot of people who voted for him with the failure of Obamacare, his embracing of the TPP, and his anti-gun rhetoric.

Obama had like a 55 to 59% approval rating. Or I should say HAS.

by **Liriena** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:24 am

Wulfcastle wrote:
Liriena wrote:Obama won. Twice. And he's far more popular than either Clinton or Trump. Nothing particularly stupid about that.
WAS more popular. Obama managed to alienate a lot of people who voted for him with the failure of Obamacare, his embracing of the TPP, and his anti-gun rhetoric.

He's still more popular than Clinton and Trump right now. Check his approval ratings.

by **Valaran** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:25 am

Worth pointing out that those figures for his approval rating was often taken in conjunction with the same polls that gave Clinton mildly exaggerated leads.

Obama remains popular, but I think we've been overstating it slightly.

by **Soldati Senza Confini** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:27 am

Valaran wrote:Worth pointing out that those figures for his approval rating was often taken in conjunction with the same polls that gave Clinton mildly exaggerated leads.

Obama remains popular, but I think we've been overstating it slightly.

I think he's more popular than Bush Jr. for sure.

He is not, however, as popular as people think.

by **Valaran** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:28 am

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
Valaran wrote:Worth pointing out that those figures for his approval rating was often taken in conjunction with the same polls that gave Clinton mildly exaggerated leads.

Obama remains popular, but I think we've been overstating it slightly.

I think he's more popular than Bush Jr. for sure.

He is not, however, as popular as people think.

Oh no doubt. And as Liri mentioned above, wildly more popular than Trump/Clinton.

But I agree, and do feel like it has been mildly overstated - I feel like even the man himself thought it was higher, too.

by **Aelex** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:33 am

Corrian wrote:Obama had like a 55 to 59% approval rating. Or I should say HAS.

>tfw when your own president has around 12%

by **Valaran** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:36 am

Aelex wrote:
Corrian wrote:Obama had like a 55 to 59% approval rating. Or I should say HAS.

>tfw when your own president has around 12%

I saw one poll saying Hollands only had 4%...

(after the most recent debacle, that is)

by **Aelex** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:39 am

Valaran wrote:I saw one poll saying Hollands only had 4%...

(after the most recent debacle, that is)

I'm actually surprise anyone beside himself and his family still support him.
He basically killed the left in France for the next three decades to come, at least, and made the F.N even more relevant than it was before so it's not like he didn't deserve it, tho.

by **Liriena** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:39 am

Aelex wrote:
Corrian wrote:Obama had like a 55 to 59% approval rating. Or I should say HAS.

>tfw when your own president has around 12%

Ugh. Please tell me he's not going to try and get reelected? That there's a decent Socialist candidate out there?

by **Liriena** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:42 am

Aelex wrote:
Valaran wrote:I saw one poll saying Hollands only had 4%...

(after the most recent debacle, that is)

I'm actually surprise anyone beside himself and his family still support him.
He basically killed the left in France for the next three decades to come, at least, and made the F.N even more relevant than it was before so it's not like he didn't deserve it, tho.

I haven't been paying much attention to his presidency, but from here it looks like he tried to pull a Tony Blair 2.0 and gave up on staunchly socialist economics in favor of centrist, neoliberal-ish mediocrity sprinkled with some social progressivism. Would that be correct?

by **Valaran** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:44 am

Liriena wrote:
Aelex wrote:>tfw when your own president has around 12%

Ugh. Please tell me he's not going to try and get reelected? That there's a decent Socialist candidate out there?

The rumour mill is that Valls or Macron might also run.

Liriena wrote:I haven't been paying much attention to his presidency, but from here it looks like he tried to pull a Tony Blair 2.0 and gave up on staunchly socialist economics in favor of centrist, neoliberal-ish mediocrity sprinkled with some social progressivism. Would that be correct?

This was after he went for the 75% top tax rates and stuff. The centrism came later.

Last.FM · by **Corrian** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:46 am

...Wow, and I thought Bush' approval rating was low.

by **Aelex** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:47 am

Liriena wrote:Ugh. Please tell me he's not going to try and get reelected? That there's a decent Socialist candidate out there?

Well, he's more than likely to try to present himself again simply because no one wants to go after him.
As for a decent candidate in the P.S, there is Valls who I support whole-heartedly. Not only is he the only sane guy left but he's quite popular (way more than the polls make it looks like) so he will probably get elected in 2022 when the right will have fucked up once more.
It's a common joke in France than to ask weither he's on the right of the left or the left of the right but he's really what our country need to stop the rise of the far-right and make the economy run again.

by **Liriena** » Sat Nov 12, 2016 10:48 am

Valaran wrote:
Liriena wrote:Ugh. Please tell me he's not going to try and get reelected? That there's a decent Socialist candidate out there?

The rumour mill is that Valls or Macron might also run.

Valls calls himself a "Clintonien", so ewwww.

*googles Macron*

Ewwwwww. An investment banker?

TRUMP: Yes, He Even Branded A MAGAthread

Who is online