Well I can see trump leaving office via impeachment or stepping down when on a high as we all know trump doesn't want to be seen as going out as a loser.
I find all this Trump impeachment, stepping down, going down in flames in the next election, 35% approval rating, blah, blah, blah kinda funny. I can think of one way he stays president for another term. Guess what, it involves Hillary running again. If you think it can't happen don't believe it. She's not going away and she's still popular with the left for some unfathomable reason. If you want to see two full terms of Trump, have the candidate with the charisma of a potato run against him again in 2020...
I find all this Trump impeachment, stepping down, going down in flames in the next election, 35% approval rating, blah, blah, blah kinda funny. I can think of one way he stays president for another term. Guess what, it involves Hillary running again. If you think it can't happen don't believe it. She's not going away and she's still popular with the left for some unfathomable reason. If you want to see two full terms of Trump, have the candidate with the charisma of a potato run against him again in 2020...
This is.....not going to happen. And she pretty much has gone away besides a few speeches. Considering she got 3 million more votes, I'd say she's been practically invisible.
I very much doubt Clinton is going back up to bat in 2020. I think she would win (electoral and popular votes both), but the reality is, a political party virtually never puts up a candidate who already lost a general election before.
I'm not sure she's personally up for it, either. I think she will be too tired.
I very much doubt Clinton is going back up to bat in 2020. I think she would win (electoral and popular votes both), but the reality is, a political party virtually never puts up a candidate who already lost a general election before.
I'm not sure she's personally up for it, either. I think she will be too tired.
Regardless of anyone's personal opinion on her, I can't think of a public figure who has had as many arrows aimed at her for as long as Hillary Clinton. If the opposition hated Bill in the '90s, they hated Hillary with a fire that burned at least twice as bright. After being First Lady of Arkansas and the United States, she somehow managed to NOT get tagged as a carpetbagger while running for New York Senate and convincing voters in that State to overwhelming elect her to that position, which was a monumental task.
Did she have a sense of entitlement to the Presidency that especially revealed itself in 2008?? Yeah, hard to deny that. She took her lumps there, got back on her horse, and served as Secretary of State to her main political rival for the past year, eventually becoming very close with him. Then, as the first woman to run as a major candidate on a party's ticket, she drew the biggest misogynistic asshole on Earth as her opponent, and had to battle the media, Russia and the FBI all at once. And it was simply too much to overcome. And yet, after it was all said and done, she won by more than 2% and by 3 million votes, basically exposing the Electoral College as a broken system, and exposing most of the Republican Party's "values" as expendable as long as she could be beaten.
So yeah, they finally put her in the ground politically after 30 years. She has alot of flaws. But I've never seen a tougher figure on the public stage.
So yeah, they finally put her in the ground politically after 30 years. She has alot of flaws. But I've never seen a tougher figure on the public stage.
Her main flaw to me was turning into a Republican. She accepted a lot of corporate money just like the Republicans too and started representing the rich donors like Republicans more than Unions, workers, and the like.
That and she wasn't an inspiring figure. Someone said personality of a potato. Well at any rate, she didn't inspire a lot of folks. She might have high wisdom and intelligence but her Charisma wasn't more than 12.
Still she woulda been much better for the country than what we got.
There is something about the presidency that bugs me for some reason. it does not have any restrictions as to family members. That is just something that nags at me about having various family members being in the same spot. Parents, then kids , wives and husband switchcing places, esp when one (and a dodgy on at that) has already been in that office like with the Clintons. I would not care WHO the pair was for the record. TBH, that was what bugged me the most about it. If she had divorced him back when, and was running without his dilly-dallying about baggage it would not have bugged me as much.
I am not talking or referring to anything but that connection here (TRY to ignore political leanings and such)forget any other issues. Just starts seeming more like a monarchy (or the mafia)when we have multiple family members and previous presidents (two termers- in ANY capacity) back in White House.
I would like to see that questionnaire seen for some contests or jobs (you probably know what I mean) "Have you or any of your family been employed here in the past."
I was just surprised in this last election as I never heard the issue brought up ONCE. Not by the hard left or the hard right. I cannot be the only one that gets suspicious of these 'dynasty' like setups. Shoot, if Jeb had got in in we would have three from the same family on with that crew.
I suppose it is new ground, Trump has adult family members in roles as well. I don't suppose there are rules for it but I am just asking the question. I have first hand experience with the positives and negatives of a family business so I ask.
Maybe it's just me. Anybody else have those thoughts about families switching or 'passing down' roles as president?
@FinneousPJ Uhm, yeah, seems like we are straying a bit back into that. Course I GUESS voters vote for it to happen I spose. ( well, electoral college seems a bit of a mess at times but I don't want to stray from the issue here). Well at least I am not the only one that thinks it is getting strange in regards to this. (Again, I wouldn't care WHO it was)
Seems like there aught to be a box candidates have to check yes or no to. Have any of your immediate family been President before. If no, please continue. It yes, please stop now, do not pass NO, and don't collect $200.
Name recognition is a big factor in getting re-elected for all sorts of institutions. In combination with the predilection for children to follow their parents' career path one can see why so many political dynasties exist.
Name recognition is a big factor in getting re-elected for all sorts of institutions. In combination with the predilection for children to follow their parents' career path one can see why so many political dynasties exist.
I can see it, yep, just something bugs me about it.
I don't mind a dynasty, some families just have certain aptitudes above others. The Clintons, Trumps and Bush family all have a knack for politics. Yes it is unfair they will still get more opportunities than others regardless of skill level, but this could be said about any job with family/race/famous people being catered first.
I find all this Trump impeachment, stepping down, going down in flames in the next election, 35% approval rating, blah, blah, blah kinda funny. I can think of one way he stays president for another term. Guess what, it involves Hillary running again. If you think it can't happen don't believe it. She's not going away and she's still popular with the left for some unfathomable reason. If you want to see two full terms of Trump, have the candidate with the charisma of a potato run against him again in 2020...
....or even worse Chelsea Clinton
If I were to invent a conspiracy theory right now it would be I cannot help but think the left are grooming Chelsea to be their next leader. Starting to notice a lot of progressive media outlets singing praises of Chelsea more and more...
She can also add in her resume to the democrats that she is not only Woman's "champion" of the year but she has also just been honored a "Lifetime impact" award at a "Power of woman" gala... (lol where do they come up with these ridiculous titles >.>)
I don't mind a dynasty, some families just have certain aptitudes above others. The Clintons, Trumps and Bush family all have a knack for politics. Yes it is unfair they will still get more opportunities than others regardless of skill level, but this could be said about any job with family/race/famous people being catered first.
I find all this Trump impeachment, stepping down, going down in flames in the next election, 35% approval rating, blah, blah, blah kinda funny. I can think of one way he stays president for another term. Guess what, it involves Hillary running again. If you think it can't happen don't believe it. She's not going away and she's still popular with the left for some unfathomable reason. If you want to see two full terms of Trump, have the candidate with the charisma of a potato run against him again in 2020...
....or even worse Chelsea Clinton
If I were to invent a conspiracy theory right now it would be I cannot help but think the left are grooming Chelsea to be their next leader. Starting to notice a lot of progressive media outlets singing praises of Chelsea more and more...
She can also add in her resume to the democrats that she is not only Woman's "champion" of the year but she has also just been honored a "Lifetime impact" award at a "Power of woman" gala... (lol where do they come up with these ridiculous titles >.>)
@Teo_live A knack for getting elected yeah, navigating the political world (some better than others) yeah. As to how 'good/effective' the various presidents of past and present have been is definitely up in the air, with different answers for different folks.
I just always figured the job of POTUS was and should have a little something different to it in regards to this dynasty stuff. Well, does to me anyway.
Navigating the political world (or distinctly understanding it) is not necessarily a bad thing. FDR was among the most consequential Presidents in history because he instinctively knew how to turn the levers of power, perhaps better than anyone who ever held the office. And the country probably wouldn't exist today if not for his 4 terms. And he was from a dynastic family.
Furthermore, his marriage to Eleanor was almost entirely one of being mutually beneficial to each's political goals. It's something that would never be accepted today. Yet Eleanor Roosevelt is without question one of the most admired women in American history.
I found out yesterday that one of France's presidential candidates' (Le Pen) father ran for president (5 times), and her niece is a politician. That's 3 generations of politicians. Although there might be a bit of bad blood given the daughter kicked the father out of his own political party for extremism.
As far as U.S. goes, we're a pretty incestuous lot. Just in the Presidency there's 2 Adams (father and son), 2 Harrisons (grandfather and grandson), 2 Roosevelts (fifth cousins, but FDR's wife Eleanor was Teddy Roosevelt's niece), 2 Bushes (father and son). Jefferson Davis, president of the Conferderacy, was son-in-law to Zachary Taylor, former U.S. President. Although to be fair, the marriage was before Taylor was president and even further before the Civil War.
I don't mind a dynasty, some families just have certain aptitudes above others. The Clintons, Trumps and Bush family all have a knack for politics. Yes it is unfair they will still get more opportunities than others regardless of skill level, but this could be said about any job with family/race/famous people being catered first.
I find all this Trump impeachment, stepping down, going down in flames in the next election, 35% approval rating, blah, blah, blah kinda funny. I can think of one way he stays president for another term. Guess what, it involves Hillary running again. If you think it can't happen don't believe it. She's not going away and she's still popular with the left for some unfathomable reason. If you want to see two full terms of Trump, have the candidate with the charisma of a potato run against him again in 2020...
....or even worse Chelsea Clinton
If I were to invent a conspiracy theory right now it would be I cannot help but think the left are grooming Chelsea to be their next leader. Starting to notice a lot of progressive media outlets singing praises of Chelsea more and more...
She can also add in her resume to the democrats that she is not only Woman's "champion" of the year but she has also just been honored a "Lifetime impact" award at a "Power of woman" gala... (lol where do they come up with these ridiculous titles >.>)
Good points in general. I wouldn't say the Trump's have a knack for politics since isn't Donald is the first to get in any kind of political office and he subsequently pulled in family members. So when there's a disagreement between Presidental advisor Bannon and Presidental advisor Son-in-law Kushner, who do you think is going to win?
I have not heard any progressive channels singing the praises of Chelsea Clinton. I don't consider MSNBC progressive. And outlets like the Young Turks aren't fans as far as I know.
I don't mind a dynasty, some families just have certain aptitudes above others. The Clintons, Trumps and Bush family all have a knack for politics. Yes it is unfair they will still get more opportunities than others regardless of skill level, but this could be said about any job with family/race/famous people being catered first.
I find all this Trump impeachment, stepping down, going down in flames in the next election, 35% approval rating, blah, blah, blah kinda funny. I can think of one way he stays president for another term. Guess what, it involves Hillary running again. If you think it can't happen don't believe it. She's not going away and she's still popular with the left for some unfathomable reason. If you want to see two full terms of Trump, have the candidate with the charisma of a potato run against him again in 2020...
....or even worse Chelsea Clinton
If I were to invent a conspiracy theory right now it would be I cannot help but think the left are grooming Chelsea to be their next leader. Starting to notice a lot of progressive media outlets singing praises of Chelsea more and more...
She can also add in her resume to the democrats that she is not only Woman's "champion" of the year but she has also just been honored a "Lifetime impact" award at a "Power of woman" gala... (lol where do they come up with these ridiculous titles >.>)
Please just shoot me now!
About the whole family thing, I was happy as a clam to see Jeb go down in the primary. I agree about name recognition being huge in politics but I find it a distasteful reminder of how little thought goes into most people's votes...
I know nothing about Chelsea Clinton except that she supposedly has/had a friendship with Ivanka Trump. I think if anything the Democrats want to get as far away from any association of the big Ts as they can.
There is something about the presidency that bugs me for some reason. it does not have any restrictions as to family members. That is just something that nags at me about having various family members being in the same spot. Parents, then kids , wives and husband switchcing places, esp when one (and a dodgy on at that) has already been in that office like with the Clintons. I would not care WHO the pair was for the record. TBH, that was what bugged me the most about it. If she had divorced him back when, and was running without his dilly-dallying about baggage it would not have bugged me as much.
I am not talking or referring to anything but that connection here (TRY to ignore political leanings and such)forget any other issues. Just starts seeming more like a monarchy (or the mafia)when we have multiple family members and previous presidents (two termers- in ANY capacity) back in White House.
I would like to see that questionnaire seen for some contests or jobs (you probably know what I mean) "Have you or any of your family been employed here in the past."
I was just surprised in this last election as I never heard the issue brought up ONCE. Not by the hard left or the hard right. I cannot be the only one that gets suspicious of these 'dynasty' like setups. Shoot, if Jeb had got in in we would have three from the same family on with that crew.
I suppose it is new ground, Trump has adult family members in roles as well. I don't suppose there are rules for it but I am just asking the question. I have first hand experience with the positives and negatives of a family business so I ask.
Maybe it's just me. Anybody else have those thoughts about families switching or 'passing down' roles as president?
I'm the opposite, sorta.
I don't like term limits. If the best person to run the country is already running the country, let that person continue. Why force the population to choose between to lesser options because the person in charge already had their turn.
Having people who have been indirectly involved, or who saw first hand what someone goes through while leading a country can be a positive, especially if the leader they were around had a positive impact on the country.
@Balrog99 Yeah, I think that at least some vote on name recognition alone only and don't bother to research more closely.
@deltago A good point. But if we get some terrible figures in, and this is more prevalent in congress, they keep getting voted in with seemingly no competition. But, I can only blame voters for this in the end.
I wouldn't have felt comfortable for Ex. having Nixon's wife in office with him right along with her. And in recent times, having Slick Willie go through that impeachment process and shenanigans in the the white house made me feel uncomfortable wanting him anywhere near the WH and having influence with Hillary in ANY capacity.
Just want some new blood. And NO tag teams (family's n couples)
That feeling of wanting new blood was probably one of the factors which has helped figures like Trump, Modi, & Duterte. Implicitly if people want an alternative to the elites who have held power then they are likely to choose figures who (rhetorically at least), seem to have the potential to be disruptive (or even destructive) with regard to the current power groupings.
The Spanish have been trying to invade British waters again....
The sheer bewilderment of Brexiters that Gibraltar (and it's slightly shady tax regime) could become an issue is something to behold...
Yep, Britain appears to be weakening their bargaining power with Brexit, maybe not a great plan to leave a powerful team to go be on your own.
Hasn't Britain , I think, always had that 'part of/ but not part of' Europe thing for a long time?
Most of my history studies of Britain and Europe were in medieval and renaissance studies in in college WAY back when, so not as sure of the more recent centuries. I always found that interesting.
Anyway, a little chaos is not always a bad thing, IMO. Time will tell.
You'll see arrogance and obliviousness from most politicians at one time or another, but this guy from Oklahoma reaches an entirely new level on the asshole scale, claiming that because he was so successful in his business, his constituents taxes didn't pay his salary, he paid it himself.
Just for the record, Mr. Bootstraps here inherited his plumbing business from his dad (what a go-getter) and even though he criticized the stimulus, his own business got almost $400,000 in contracts tied to government funds from the bill.
You'll see arrogance and obliviousness from most politicians at one time or another, but this guy from Oklahoma reaches an entirely new level on the asshole scale, claiming that because he was so successful in his business, his constituents taxes didn't pay his salary, he paid it himself.
Just for the record, Mr. Bootstraps here inherited his plumbing business from his dad (what a go-getter) and even though he criticized the stimulus, his own business got almost $400,000 in contracts tied to government funds from the bill.
And... why does it matter?
The video was way too short to put into context but whatever I will roll with it. It didn't look like an arrogant person boasting success but rather it looked much more like self-defense against an idiotic public forum that virtue signaled to him that they "pay his taxes".
I don't know who this politician is but I support him in this instance. Whether you are born rich with inheritance or born poor and forced on the public payroll it should make absolutely no damn difference to your level of criticism as a politician.
"we pay your taxes" means "hey you have to be responsive to us, serve our interests".
But he makes so much from legalized bribery of campaign donations that he is saying no I don't care what you tax payers say. Citizens United thanks to the conservative Supreme Court says his taxpayer salary is insignificant in his total compensation. He's saying he doesn't serve the people he serves his corporate masters.
Apparently this is shocking to Republicans that their politicians are completely bought off. Both parties are to an extent but Republicans have taken corruption to the extreme.
And we see here some Republicans are not even willing to pretend to serve their constituents now that Trumps official policy is corruption.
Comments
I'm not sure she's personally up for it, either. I think she will be too tired.
Did she have a sense of entitlement to the Presidency that especially revealed itself in 2008?? Yeah, hard to deny that. She took her lumps there, got back on her horse, and served as Secretary of State to her main political rival for the past year, eventually becoming very close with him. Then, as the first woman to run as a major candidate on a party's ticket, she drew the biggest misogynistic asshole on Earth as her opponent, and had to battle the media, Russia and the FBI all at once. And it was simply too much to overcome. And yet, after it was all said and done, she won by more than 2% and by 3 million votes, basically exposing the Electoral College as a broken system, and exposing most of the Republican Party's "values" as expendable as long as she could be beaten.
So yeah, they finally put her in the ground politically after 30 years. She has alot of flaws. But I've never seen a tougher figure on the public stage.
That and she wasn't an inspiring figure. Someone said personality of a potato. Well at any rate, she didn't inspire a lot of folks. She might have high wisdom and intelligence but her Charisma wasn't more than 12.
Still she woulda been much better for the country than what we got.
I am not talking or referring to anything but that connection here (TRY to ignore political leanings and such)forget any other issues. Just starts seeming more like a monarchy (or the mafia)when we have multiple family members and previous presidents (two termers- in ANY capacity) back in White House.
I would like to see that questionnaire seen for some contests or jobs (you probably know what I mean) "Have you or any of your family been employed here in the past."
I was just surprised in this last election as I never heard the issue brought up ONCE. Not by the hard left or the hard right. I cannot be the only one that gets suspicious of these 'dynasty' like setups. Shoot, if Jeb had got in in we would have three from the same family on with that crew.
I suppose it is new ground, Trump has adult family members in roles as well. I don't suppose there are rules for it but I am just asking the question. I have first hand experience with the positives and negatives of a family business so I ask.
Maybe it's just me. Anybody else have those thoughts about families switching or 'passing down' roles as president?
Seems like there aught to be a box candidates have to check yes or no to.
Have any of your immediate family been President before.
If no, please continue.
It yes, please stop now, do not pass NO, and don't collect $200.
Or something to that effect.
If I were to invent a conspiracy theory right now it would be I cannot help but think the left are grooming Chelsea to be their next leader. Starting to notice a lot of progressive media outlets singing praises of Chelsea more and more...
She can also add in her resume to the democrats that she is not only Woman's "champion" of the year but she has also just been honored a "Lifetime impact" award at a "Power of woman" gala... (lol where do they come up with these ridiculous titles >.>)
I just always figured the job of POTUS was and should have a little something different to it in regards to this dynasty stuff. Well, does to me anyway.
Furthermore, his marriage to Eleanor was almost entirely one of being mutually beneficial to each's political goals. It's something that would never be accepted today. Yet Eleanor Roosevelt is without question one of the most admired women in American history.
As far as U.S. goes, we're a pretty incestuous lot. Just in the Presidency there's 2 Adams (father and son), 2 Harrisons (grandfather and grandson), 2 Roosevelts (fifth cousins, but FDR's wife Eleanor was Teddy Roosevelt's niece), 2 Bushes (father and son). Jefferson Davis, president of the Conferderacy, was son-in-law to Zachary Taylor, former U.S. President. Although to be fair, the marriage was before Taylor was president and even further before the Civil War.
http://familypedia.wikia.com/wiki/Genealogical_relationships_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States shows a LOT more.
It's probably a bad sign that Wikipedia has multiple pages for "List of United States political families", it's up to 1 per alphabetical letter.
(But still bugs me
I have not heard any progressive channels singing the praises of Chelsea Clinton. I don't consider MSNBC progressive. And outlets like the Young Turks aren't fans as far as I know.
About the whole family thing, I was happy as a clam to see Jeb go down in the primary. I agree about name recognition being huge in politics but I find it a distasteful reminder of how little thought goes into most people's votes...
I don't like term limits. If the best person to run the country is already running the country, let that person continue. Why force the population to choose between to lesser options because the person in charge already had their turn.
Having people who have been indirectly involved, or who saw first hand what someone goes through while leading a country can be a positive, especially if the leader they were around had a positive impact on the country.
http://time.com/4740499/white-house-visitor-logs-public-record-trump/
Of course there's a hypocritical tweet from Trump exactly opposite of this:
@deltago A good point. But if we get some terrible figures in, and this is more prevalent in congress, they keep getting voted in with seemingly no competition. But, I can only blame voters for this in the end.
I wouldn't have felt comfortable for Ex. having Nixon's wife in office with him right along with her. And in recent times, having Slick Willie go through that impeachment process and shenanigans in the the white house made me feel uncomfortable wanting him anywhere near the WH and having influence with Hillary in ANY capacity.
Just want some new blood. And NO tag teams (family's n couples)
Most of my history studies of Britain and Europe were in medieval and renaissance studies in in college WAY back when, so not as sure of the more recent centuries.
I always found that interesting.
Anyway, a little chaos is not always a bad thing, IMO. Time will tell.
Just for the record, Mr. Bootstraps here inherited his plumbing business from his dad (what a go-getter) and even though he criticized the stimulus, his own business got almost $400,000 in contracts tied to government funds from the bill.
The video was way too short to put into context but whatever I will roll with it. It didn't look like an arrogant person boasting success but rather it looked much more like self-defense against an idiotic public forum that virtue signaled to him that they "pay his taxes".
I don't know who this politician is but I support him in this instance.
Whether you are born rich with inheritance or born poor and forced on the public payroll it should make absolutely no damn difference to your level of criticism as a politician.
But he makes so much from legalized bribery of campaign donations that he is saying no I don't care what you tax payers say. Citizens United thanks to the conservative Supreme Court says his taxpayer salary is insignificant in his total compensation. He's saying he doesn't serve the people he serves his corporate masters.
Apparently this is shocking to Republicans that their politicians are completely bought off. Both parties are to an extent but Republicans have taken corruption to the extreme.
And we see here some Republicans are not even willing to pretend to serve their constituents now that Trumps official policy is corruption.