• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

The 2019 Trump Presidency Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
if he was just doing what others had done, it would be just washington b.s. as usual.

but he ran on being the world's greatest negotiator and slammed his predecessor for so many things that he now does freely and the irony and hypocrisy of that is obviously lost of him and many of his supporters.

and it's not just this. it's draining the swamp, being the best at business, healthcare politics, the military, vacations and spending, cutting social security,, medicare and medicaid and a hundred other campaign claims and promises.

so if you have a big problem with judicial activism and voted for trump because of his position, who were you actually voting for? rhetorical question.

alasdair
 
if he was just doing what others had done, it would be just washington b.s. as usual.

Is he doing what others have done? He seems to be using the same tools, but in a different way, or a different direction at least. Regardless of his platform promises and statements (I'll agree the hypocrisy runs deep). But it appears he is most certainly NOT Washington b.s. as usual, correct?

I'm ok with a hypocritical wrecking ball changing the game - maybe using the same tactics that work in Washington, but shaking those structures and embedded circles of trust if it means making my country better than it was. For some of us, that's acceptable.

who were you actually voting for? rhetorical question.

I was voting against Hillary. Rhetorical answer.
 
Last edited:
Can't say I blame anyone for not wanting to vote for Hillary Clinton. But that doesn't mean you have to vote for Trump instead.
 
the answer i hear most commonly is that they voted for him either because he was different - a washington outsider who would drain the swamp and usher in a new era of non-corrupt politics. and that he was a straight-shooter - you might not like what he was saying but you would always know exactly where he stood on an issue.

to me, both of those are simply laughable at this point.

alasdair
 
I was voting against Hillary. Rhetorical answer.
LOL but there were other excellent anti-hillary candidates, like What's Aleppo or Vaccines Cause Autism. I went with What's Aleppo.

TLB if you really want to grind alasdairm's gears just tell him Hillary should have gone to Michigan and Wisconsin and post a pic or quote of Trump saying that. And a pic of him having a manic meltdown hugging the US flag.
 
Can't say I blame anyone for not wanting to vote for Hillary Clinton. But that doesn't mean you have to vote for Trump instead.

I was sick of the inbred politicians, and preferred ...

the answer i hear most commonly is that they voted for him either because he was different - a washington outsider who would drain the swamp and usher in a new era of non-corrupt politics

I wanted a wrecking ball strong enough to disrupt the status quo and not be corrupted by it. I've gotten what I asked for, good and bad.
 
It's not my nature to intentionally antagonism someone like that. Even for the lulz.
Well, I poked at least 2 crazy sized holes in your "I was just voting against Hillary" defense. I felt that was intentional antagonizing if anything was. *shrugs*

I think he takes it well because you're smart and not a troll right? I think we are all open-minded adults here.

I wanted a wrecking ball strong enough to disrupt the status quo and not be corrupted by it. I've gotten what I asked for, good and bad.
And you didn't think Sanders was the man for the job?
 
That's hilarious. Not an option in my book, even if he had beaten out Hillary. Yes, he would absolutely rewrite America. But the direction he'd take it is not one I'd be in favor of.
:ROFLMAO: yeah I know man. You and me agree on that front, but he would be a bigger wrecking ball than Trump.

Trump is an establishment politician. He stands to gain a lot from not rocking the boat too much and I thought of all people you'd understand that. And like I said a million times, he won't win my vote unless we go to war with North Korea. Iran isn't enough but I'd gain a lot of sympathy for him if we did. It looks like it won't go that far though and I'm losing hope, again, just like I did with the DPRK thing.

In fact if he fumbles this one too I might vote for SANDERS just to irk a bunch of people including myself. I'll probably have nightmares over it and shit. Maybe I'll vote for "What's Aleppo?" again.
 
I'm curious how far Trump is going to push things internationally. I don't think he'd go to war, except for two paths. First, he just totally fumbles and stumbles his way into a war by being a dolt. Very possible. Secondly, if the economy were struggling and he saw the military complex as a mechanism to gain him national support (American Pride) and a means to generate economic spending (by the gov't) and thereby win re-election. I'm hoping neither comes to fruition as I'd rather take any energy and effort from war abroad (and possibly inviting it to our doorstep) and redirect that internally to fixing America.

With trade, I think he's playing Mr. Businessman, pushing for deals that are more in his (and America's) favor. Will he bork those up? Possibly. Could it work out for us? Possibly. What will happen, will he push too hard or win out? I have no idea. My livelihood is tied to manufacturing, globally, so I am sensitive to trade relations with other countries, China in particular. Right now, I see him pushing, but I don't know how far he'll go. I think he's right to push, as things have been status quo for a long time and I believe we could do better. But I don't know how this aspect is going to work out.
 
TLB if you really want to grind alasdairm's gears...
that's a curious comment. i don't think tlb's trying to grind my gears at all - i appreciate his different perspective and i believe he's discussing/debating in good faith.

i agree with c.h. that trump is an establishment politician and he's not really disrupting anything (with the possible exception of international relations and i think he's doing damage there with his mercurial approach, his lack of consistency with members of his own administration and the lack of continuity in his staff).

i agree he's not been corrupted by the status quo. he was already corrupt.

alasdair
 
The latter would be beautiful to me but it has to be war with DPRK. Total humanitarian nightmare situation and we need to invade. Iran has been a target of the US and we've done nothing but wait it out and it's going to need our intervention too. Do I trust Trump to start shit in the middle east? No. The Democrats will get all anti-war and hate him for it. DPRK is too evil to not want to go after and if the D's went soft on DPRK they know they'd lose votes and push people into the arms of the Republican party.
that's a curious comment.
I have platitudes for all sorts of situations just to gauge others' reactions. You know I think very highly of you and was just joking. :)

I'm still sympathetic of the Dems and probably will hope they win this election, though I'm predicting a Trump re-election, sadly.
 
Does anyone think the states legalizing marijuana and mushrooms would be allowed to proceed (or even start) what they're doing if Hillary Clinton, or any Republican besides Trump, had won?

I'm not so sure.

Plus, hemp? I dunno. I can't wait to see if Elizabeth Warren, Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, Buttigieg, or Biden (lol!) wins the primary. Should be interesting.

If HRC had won, I'm not sure the Left/DNC would've ... Well. I don't want to count chickens.
 
Does anyone think the states legalizing marijuana and mushrooms would be allowed to proceed (or even start) what they're doing if Hillary Clinton, or any Republican besides Trump, had won?

I'm not so sure.

Plus, hemp? I dunno. I can't wait to see if Elizabeth Warren, Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, Buttigieg, or Biden (lol!) wins the primary. Should be interesting.

If HRC had won, I'm not sure the Left/DNC would've ... Well. I don't want to count chickens.
Hillary would have like FOR SURE shut it down with her breasts.

She wants to take away our HANDGUNS and DRUGS, run for the hills!
 
Omg im trolling lol can no on can have a proper discussion here unless its one sided i give up
 
Dude, I really don't think much is being asked of you. Just to either not make completely outlandish claims shielding being the words "look it up" when there's nothing to find. Or to provide SOMETHING to see with your claim.

I mean wouldnt you be frustrated if I told you something like "trumps a child molester, it's a well known fact. No I won't provide any evidence, go look it up yourself. Oh you couldn't find any proof? Guess you didn't look hard enough."

You can't have even remotely worthwhile discussions even by the low standards of politics if you do that.

And yeah, it makes you look like a troll. Because a lot of people aren't going to buy that you honestly can't see the issue here.
 
If i did bring up some links whats the point when they Will instantly get dismissed and yes their is a lot of media anti trump propoganda on the net so its hard to make an argument, even if I am right which I am
 
They might well get dismissed depending on what they say. But that's the nature of political discussion sometimes. It's still better than just claiming something as fact and then ignoring any request to elaborate on it.

I mean, if you're gonna do that it only makes it more pointless than how pointless it might have been if you'd at least presented something as evidence.

At that point, you might as well take the, in my opinion totally valid approach, of just saying nothing at all. I don't reply to every debate that goes on. Sometimes I feel the discussion is so one sided that there's no point saying anything at all.

Simply stating something as a fact then leaving is the worst option of all IMO. Saying nothing at all is perfectly valid, and probably the best choice sometimes. But if you're gonna say something, no matter what it is, you should really back it up with something.

Sure, everyone might dismiss it, but it's less likely to be seen as just deliberate trolling than just claiming something as a fact then telling people to look it up. Then ignoring it when they do.

If you find a debate pointless, that's fine, I do too sometimes. But it's probably best to just say nothing in those instances. If you're gonna say something, you can't be surprised if people get pissed off if you then won't back up your claim at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top