Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Donald Trump, the road that might not lead to the White House!

Status
Not open for further replies.
littlebabyjesus said:
The vice-president candidate is a creationist.
Click to expand...
YE creationist? cos thats proper loon. You can sanely (sort of) say god created and evolution was the plan etc etc (for instance that elastic view could take in the discovery of life on europa. All gods plan right) but if you think the earth is 6000 years old, well. Well well.

I bet Trump would gold plate the Whitehouse and lay down rugs that are the pelts of endangered animals while installing a champagne fountain in the oval office. I love how incredibly fucking crass he is on this 'BIGGER! GOLD BUTTONS ON IT'!'

giant pictures of himself all over the place, the works. God this election is depressing.
 
I wonder how it's rubbing off on his "global brand"

I did see somewhere that his golf takings are down 17%

And he is massively over leaveraged to some very iffy people....(allegedly)..as US banks wouldn't provide capital after being stiffed over his 6 chapter 11's........
What are his debts ...$ 2.5 bn.....?
Entertainment really kicks off after the elections
 
DotCommunist said:
YE creationist? cos thats proper loon. You can sanely (sort of) say god created and evolution was the plan etc etc (for instance that elastic view could take in the discovery of life on europa. All gods plan right) but if you think the earth is 6000 years old, well. Well well.

I bet Trump would gold plate the Whitehouse and lay down rugs that are the pelts of endangered animals while installing a champagne fountain in the oval office. I love how incredibly fucking crass he is on this 'BIGGER! GOLD BUTTONS ON IT'!'

giant pictures of himself all over the place, the works. God this election is depressing.
Click to expand...
listen to this garbled nonsense



He even links it to the founding of the USA. Creationism is American - it's where our rights come from. Evolution is Unamerican.

He's a class-A idiot, and a dangerous one - teach evolution as a theory, but you must, and he emphasises this 'must', also teach creationism.

My favourite bit is probably the bit at the end. He's not afraid of science. One day, he believes, scientists will discover that faith was right. :D

I laugh but this stuff is serious in the US. The very word evolution is removed from school nature books in the US. It's an ongoing battle against people like Pence.
 
Last edited:
So who is going to stay up to watch the debate? It's going to be... Something. The wingnuts are still going to vote for him of course it is not about Trump persay. Be depressed about that all you want, personally I'm just going to enjoy the entertainment.
 
frogwoman said:
Could this Clinton stuff actually do any significant damage to them?
Click to expand...

Only if some new detail catches on with the media.

Absent that, I think the damage on this front was done decades ago and so was already well factored into the initial levels of support/dislike for Hillary. It certainly gives Trump supporters something to fire back with when trying to distract from the shit words of their man, but a lot of the political momentum on this front was used up long ago during the attempts to impeach Clinton.
 
I didn't want the Donald to go down because of a silly pussy comment 11 yrs ago. I want him to go down because of his & Pence's policy positions & bigotry. If he loses, the Repub takeaway will be he lost because of some offensive comments & next time we need to run a REAL conservative.....like Pence.
 
TomUS said:
I want him to go down because of his & Pence's policy positions & bigotry.
Click to expand...
While I understand the sentiment, I think the sad truth is that the whole problem is Trump and Pence's policy positions and bigotry aren't a turn off for millions of voters. That's one of the things that needs to be addressed, and not ignored or dismissed by politicians, the media, and the general public.

Hopefully, in time it those policies and bigotry will exclude serious consideration for stuff like this, but they don't at the moment. Millions of people still either agree with it or are happy to overlook it in favour of things that are more important to them.
 
WTF

Anyone has supported Trump up until this point is still disgusting. The only thing that has changed is here is his electoral chances, if they hadn't then the likes of Giuliani would be out there defending the comments made on the tape.
 
If Trump Weren’t a Monster, Clinton’s Leaked Speeches Would Be Devastating

If the Republican Party hadn’t nominated a man whose favorite pastimes (apparently) include committing sexual assault and then bragging about it, the Clinton campaign would be having a very bad Saturday.

Between the end of her tenure as secretary of State and the launch of her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton earned millions of dollars giving closed-door speeches to financial firms and other private entities. This was a risky enterprise for an aspiring presidential candidate to pursue. Nearly a decade after the financial crisis, Wall Street remains an object of scorn with a large swath of the American public; the idea that our government is too cozy with the big banks has purchase among voters of both parties. So, taking large sums of money to speak at the private functions of Wall Street banks — including ones that admitted to defrauding investors in the run-up to the crash — was never going to be a great look in 2016.

And then, Bernie Sanders made it a worse look. Or, at least, a more conspicuous one. Vermont’s favorite democratic socialist was uniquely well-positioned to exploit Clinton’s liability (leftwing gadflies don’t get many speaking invitations from Goldman Sachs and BlackRock). Throughout the Democratic primary, Sanders called on Clinton to make the transcripts of her remarks public. The front-runner refused, apparently deciding it was better to give credence to Sanders’s suggestion that she had something to hide, than to reveal the sentiments she shared with Lloyd Blankfein and friends.

But her campaign prepared for the possibility that those sentiments would become public, nonetheless. In January, Clinton’s research director Tony Carrk combed through the candidate’s paid speeches, flagged the most potentially damaging excerpts, and framed each as a rival opposition researcher might. He emailed this self-oppo to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, whose account would later be hacked.

And so, late Friday afternoon — as Billy Bush and Donald Trump were discussing the art of groping married women on every nightly newscast —Buzzfeed’s Ruby Cramer dug up those excerpts from Wikileaks’s latest trove of hacked emails.

Nothing in Clinton’s private remarks is more politically toxic than the worst of her opponent’s public ones. But in the alternative universe where the GOP nominated John Kasich, this is a rough October surprise.

First, there’s the stuff that threatens to demobilize her leftwing skeptics. After securing the nomination, Clinton sought to make peace with the Sandernistas by moving in the socialist senator’s direction on healthcare and higher education. But policy concessions only matter if the voters you’re hoping to win over trust you to pursue those policies. And, after Sanders spent much of the primary raising doubts about the sincerity of Clinton’s positions on trade and financial regulation, a portion of his base still distrusts the Democratic nominee.

Clinton’s remarks before the National Multi-Housing Council in 2013 could swell the ranks of such skeptics:

I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody’s watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position.
There are more and less benign ways of interpreting this quote. Vox’s Matt Yglesias provides one of the former, noting the beneficent role secrecy played in facilitating the passage of agreements on education policy and the federal budget in Congress last December:

The key to both pieces of legislation was to be worked on quietly out of public view. And in the case of the budget deal, members of congress tell me that absolute secrecy — not just from the public but from the not-involved members themselves — was critical to success. The problem is that a public debate would necessarily have become an exercise in position-taking, which is antithetical to compromise. In private, members can admit that they care about some things more than others and find a way to reach an accommodation.
But read in combination with other leaked excerpts, Clinton’s tribute to the virtues of betraying one’s public position while making back room deals becomes more damaging.

In her DNC speech, Clinton said she believed that “Wall Street can never, ever be allowed to wreck Main Street again.” But in a 2013 speech to Goldman Sachs, Clinton seemed to doubt that Wall Street had ever “wrecked Main Street” in the first place:

That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of ‘09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere. Now, that’s an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom. And I think that there’s a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening? You guys help us figure it out and let’s make sure that we do it right this time.
Imagining the worst possible frame a rival could put on this excerpt, Carrk titled it, “CLINTON TALKS ABOUT HOLDING WALL STREET ACCOUNTABLE ONLY FOR POLITICAL REASONS.” That may not be the fairest summary of the quote. As Slate’s Jordan Weissman notes, there’s a subtle criticism of the finance industry’s lack of transparency embedded in the remarks.

Nonetheless, the suggestion that outrage at the U.S. banking system for its role in the financial crisis was based in “misunderstanding” and “politicizing” is risible. Here’s what one U.S. bank was up to seven years before Clinton’s speech:

In April 2006, Goldman Sachs provided investors with a bullish report on Countrywide’s high-quality mortgage loans — loans the bank had helpfully packaged into AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities, thereby offering those lucky clients a low-risk way of profiting from America’s housing boom. When the bank’s head of “due diligence” saw the report, he typed a short email to his colleagues: “If only they knew…”
You need both a public and a private position.

In April 2015, Clinton announced her support for a Senate bill aimed at closing the “revolving door” between Wall Street and the agencies tasked with regulating it. “If you’re working for the government, you’re working for the people — not for an oil company, drug company, or Wall Street bank or money manager,” Clinton wrote, in an op-ed co-authored with senator Tammy Baldwin.

But speaking with Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein at the firm’s builders and innovators summit in 2013, Clinton suggested Wall Street money managers who wish to serve in government should face fewerregulatory obstacles than they currently do:

But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes very onerous and unnecessary.
In a separate speech to Goldman that same year, Clinton suggested thatonly Wall Street veterans were qualified to regulate their industry:

There’s nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry.
Clinton’s current platform calls for an expansion of Social Security, but in 2013 she praised the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan — which called for Social Security cuts — in remarks to Morgan Stanley.

...

If these speeches became public two weeks ago, they might have amplified fears that disaffected, left-leaning millennials would “throw away” their votes to third party candidates and, thus, throw the presidency to Donald Trump. But in the post-grab’em by the pussy world, the inclinations of such voters don’t seem to matter much
Click to expand...
 
Amazing stuff from the Republican party of 1956:

656bbe1a04bde10e31e0dfd5767df775.jpg
 
Trump's gotta drag Clinton to the gutter.

I want to see how dirty this can get. He made the mistake of trying to be regal in the last debate. His team is likely to feel massively under pressure so they may try a high risk strategy. I hope so.
 
I'm normally quite a fan of 'event' TV - wanna be part of the moment rather than seeing it second-hand on the news or whatever - but I honestly don't think I could stand to watch this. I'm still considering it, but I'm honestly not sure what I'd get out of it except for tiredness, impotent rage and depression.
 
DrRingDing said:
Trump's gotta drag Clinton to the gutter.

I want to see how dirty this can get. He made the mistake of trying to be regal in the last debate. His team is likely to feel massively under pressure so they may try a high risk strategy. I hope so.
Click to expand...
Presume Trump's going to go for it over Bill Clinton's behaviour. It will be interesting to see how Hilary plays that. Might ignore it and go on repeating her lines about Trump being not fit to be President - or could go some way down the road of 'there were well known difficulties in our marriage, now worked through - all a world away from repeated misogyny/sexual assaults'.
 
Wilf said:
Presume Trump's going to go for it over Bill Clinton's behaviour. It will be interesting to see how Hilary plays that. Might ignore it and go on repeating her lines about Trump being not fit to be President - or could go some way down the road of 'there were well known difficulties in our marriage, now worked through - all a world away from repeated misogyny/sexual assaults'.
Click to expand...
and also, surely, 'You're going after me because my husband cheated on me? Really, you're going to do that, blame me for that?' Maybe that would be best left just hanging unsaid in the air. Trump bringing up Bill Clinton could backfire massively on him - he can't call Bill C a shitbag without also calling himself a shitbag.
 
Wilf said:
Presume Trump's going to go for it over Bill Clinton's behaviour. It will be interesting to see how Hilary plays that. Might ignore it and go on repeating her lines about Trump being not fit to be President - or could go some way down the road of 'there were well known difficulties in our marriage, now worked through - all a world away from repeated misogyny/sexual assaults'.
Click to expand...
Gah! This is so frustrating. It's HIS behavior versus HER HUSBAND's behaviour. She is not her husband, nor should she have to answer for him. Sorry Wilf - not aimed at you, just a general frustration at the world. And the campaign. First Lady should NOT be a job title, and this stuff fucks me off no end. I also don't care whether Melania Trump forgives her husband - she doesn't speak for anyone except herself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
DONALD TRUMP
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
krtek a houby
krtek a houby
J
Choose Kamala Harris over Donald Trump
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
Kevbad the Bad
K
J
Choose Kamala Harris over Donald Trump
Replies
5
Views
488
frogwoman
frogwoman
Cloo
  • Poll
What was behind Trump shooting? make your bets now
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
164
Views
6K
Nylock
Nylock
mojo pixy
Give me a reason not to embrace the far-right
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
3K
Lotte
L
Back
Top Bottom