American politics and news thread

Vesper wrote:

[Trump] probably has more balls than any US President from my lifetime. I mean, he might start World War III, but he also might do great things for the US.

Quote feels appropriate.

But even if he did start WWIII... with Trump getting there would be fun.

Heres more Trump gold:

Quote :

By Carl Bagh | April 19, 2011 10:14 AM EDT

Real estate tycoon, star of the popular TV show Apprentice and an aspiring Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump is currently on a media-blitz selling his cause to beat presidential contender and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Donald Trump's public relations (PR) campaign has been built around questioning the validity of President Obama's birth certificate. But recently Trump has also broached on foreign policy, adding another angle to his PR campaign. Here is a rundown:

Iraq:
Donald Trump speaking with CBN News about his foreign policy doctrine said: "My over-arching is number one, strong, strong military, stronger than ever before."

Speaking on Iraq, he stated: "I'm saying we take over the oil fields. We won the war. We take over the oil fields. We use the oil." Trump also revealed that he was not a big 'fan' of Iraq war. "Frankly, they are not the people that knocked down the World Trade Center. It was not Saddam Hussein and when they put people on the planes, when the terrorists attacked the trade center, their families. They all went back to Saudi Arabia. They didn't go back to Iraq but we spent $1.5 trillion."

Iran:
Trump further cited his concerns over retreating U.S. forces from Iraq, stating: "Iran, within 15 minutes after we leave Iraq, Iran is going to go over and take over, not only Iraq, but more importantly the great oil fields of Iraq; because you know they're second to Saudi Arabia in terms of reserves. They have $15 trillion worth of oil. Now, if Iran is going to take over the fields, and we've lost thousands of lives, and wounded and everything else, and spent $1.5 trillion, and Iran is going to take it over."

Saudi Arabia:
Speaking on spiraling oil prices, Trump targeted Saudi Arabia. Appearing in "Good Morning America" program, he said: "Gasoline prices are going to go to $5, $6, $7 and we don't have anybody in Washington that calls OPEC and says, 'Fellas, it's time. It's over. You're not going to do it anymore'." Elaborating further, Trump said: "I'm going to look 'em in the eye and say, 'Fellas, you've had your fun. Your fun is over.'"

China:
Speaking at Good Morning America, Trump spoke about trade with China: "China is going to make $300 billion this year, largely because our companies can't compete, because they manipulate their currencies."

Speaking about China in an interview with CNN in January Trump had said: "They're manipulating their currency. Intellectual property rights and everything else are a joke over there. They're making stuff that you see being sold all the time on Fifth Avenue, copying various, you know, whether it's Chanel or whatever it may be, the brands, and just selling it ad - ad nauseum. I mean this is a country that is ripping off the United States like nobody other than OPEC has ever done before."

Libya:
On his dealings with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Trump in an interview with Fox News said he "screwed Gaddafi over a land deal." In an interview with CNN Trump detailed as to how he will deal with Gaddafi: "The first thing I'd do with Gadhafi is I'd go to the Arab league and I'd say, 'we'll do things...we'll do plenty of things but you're going to pay us for it." He further said: "We're not going to send our missiles out at a million and a half dollars per missile, we're not going to spend $500 million dollars on getting rid off Gadhafi and then you guys go home to your 747s."

Speaking on his intelligent dealing with Gaddafi, he said: "I leased him a piece of land for his tent. He paid me more than I'd get in a whole year. And then, eh, he wasn't able to use the piece of land. So people would say did I take advantage, did I-so I got, in one night, more money than I would've gotten all year for this piece of land up in Westchester and then, didn't let him use it. That's called being intelligent."

South Korea:
Speaking on Good Morning America about out-sourcing, Trump said: "Does anybody make television in the United States? You know what the answer was. We can't find anybody. They're all from China, from Japan, from South Korea. And I said to 'em, because I bought thousands of them."

"And then we defend South Korea? Listen, George. And then we send the -- the great aircraft carrier George Washington, and destroyers to defend South Korea. They don't pay us? They don't pay us for it. We send all these ships, hundreds of millions of dollars to protect South Korea from North Korea. We have thou -- you know, we have what? 20,000-25,000 soldiers over there. They don't even pay us for this."

Georgia:
New York Post reported that recently Trump was in the former Soviet republic of Georgia where he announced his plans to build a luxury hotel and resort. Trump appeared with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and in a press conference said: "In terms of foreign relations I think this is really a great start because this is a country [Georgia] with amazing leadership. I'm dealing with one of the great leaders of the world," Trump said. "I understand how the world works. I deal with the world."

The statements certainly underscore Trump's worldview and if Trump - ever - reaches the goal of becoming the President of U.S., he will certainly usher in the days of cowboy diplomacy back in White House.

Read more: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/135983/20110419/donald-trump-diplomacy-geopolitics-foreign-policy-statements-real-estate-gop-republican-presdential.htm#ixzz1K2HFqJ8n

I dont think he's got a hope in hell of wresting economic control from China or any concesssion on oil from the Saudis, but it would be hilarious to see him try.

Though I'd love to go to his planned Luxury resort in Georgia.

As much as I feel like Trump could be the worst possible thing, I have to agree his "I don't give a damn" attitude is something that has been long missing in American politics. Especially with how awful things have been getting, we need someone with that kind of mentality in office. Someone who is a bit more aggressive but not in the wrong way (i.e., invading other countries).

Not saying Trump is the best bet, but I wouldn't mind seeing someone with that kind of attitude in office.

Trump as Prez and Walken as VP--now there's the ticket.

:)

Trump as the GOP candidate would make the presidential debates a lot of fun. His diva-esque traits would lend themselves well for such a huge platform. :D

Am I the only one who doesn't take Trump seriously? Am I the only one seeing him use this for publicity, and thinking that in two years he'll have another reality show?

I can't take him seriously, either. Can't imagine the GOP would be too fond of a candidate who isn't even a politician, but then again, after seeing what the GOP has done in the last few months, I wouldn't be surprised if they backed him.

Fuck the government. Republicans and Democrats are just as stupid as the other. The only way to go is anti-government.

Then you're on a short road to nationwide anarchy.

Small government - fine, but no government? That's a fairy tail.

idc, this country is going overboard way to fast. Nothing can stop it now, not even the beloved Obama, who people thought was the god damn Antichrist. I am sick of these puppets in Washington jacking off and fighting with each other, rather than protecting the people that they were elected for. God Damn, wheres my liquor.

Well, I can see why you'd think that, WW. However, I think government is necessary, but shouldn't get too large.

Neither side, no matter what Jon Stewart or Bill O'Reilly believe, is doing good for the nation. They're just as equally stubborn and dead-set on following their own beliefs and our economy's on its last leg because of it.


As Ambler would say: Sasha Grey 2012

Willard Whyte wrote:

Fuck the government. Republicans and Democrats are just as stupid as the other. The only way to go is anti-government.

You sound just like this doctor from Crab Key that I once knew.

Quote :

idc, this country is going overboard way to fast. Nothing can stop it now, not even the beloved Obama, who people thought was the god damn Antichrist. I am sick of these puppets in Washington jacking off and fighting with each other, rather than protecting the people that they were elected for. God Damn, wheres my liquor.

American puppets and antichrists are nothing compared to Russian ones. We've got a thousand-year history of that. You guys still got a long way to go to catch up. ;)

But yes, the alcohol does come in handy.

Americans are too in love with the sound of their own voice... to speak the truth. God help us all.

Did anyone watch the Republican debate?

Doubts about Obama even at the NYT:

Quote :

Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues.

What Happened to Obama? By DREW WESTEN

There were those who said he would prove a far better campaigner than president minutes after he won the election. The one surprising thing is how completely he has proven those people right...

The only way the GOP loses next year's election is if they fail to nominate a moderate. If he has to face Romney than he is toast.

The irony is that they might put him up against Palin. If so, the woman might end up losing the GOP not one but two elections...

The problem with Obama has been apparent from the outset. He's as near to being a socialist as one can be without actually identifying oneself as such. But I wouldn't be surprised if in private he did identify himself as such. There are no shortage of western politicians who have not been shy about attaching themselves to the label.

Obama is in love with government - with big spending - big government programs - lots of regulation, - entitlements, "social justice" etc.It's a recipe for disaster. It always has been. His failure was guaranteed. With sovereign debt threatening the, well sovereignty, of all western nations, the last thing America could afford was a President of Obama's ilk.

Personally I don't think the Repubs should waste much time over-strategizing this election ie being too careful.

Nominate the most small c, conservative leader whether it be Michelle Bachman or Palin or whoever. Basically nominate the Tea Party favourite. If the candidate loses a popularity contest to Obama so be it. Better to fight the good fight then overthink things. At least the candidate can make a lot of noise about reducing government spending and entitlements and then four years from now the next GOP candidate can do an "I told you so"

I don't care if the GOP wins or loses the next election, as long as they nominate a candidate whose willing to stand up for the right policies. Let the dems play the weasal game.

Obama would be gone in four more years. He's basically impotent anyway at this point. Congress can keep him somewhat in check, as might economic reality, until he's gone for good.

tiffanywint wrote:

Nominate the most small c, conservative leader whether it be Michelle Bachman or Palin or whoever. Basically nominate the Tea Party favourite. If the candidate loses a popularity contest to Obama so be it. Better to fight the good fight then overthink things. At least the candidate can make a lot of noise about reducing government spending and entitlements and then four years from now the next GOP candidate can do an "I told you so"

The Tea Party can make a lot of noise, sure, but it's not good noise. They need to relax and find a candidate who's not a PR nightmare before they can ever dream of taking the White House.

Jack Wade wrote:

The Tea Party can make a lot of noise, sure, but it's not good noise. They need to relax and find a candidate who's not a PR nightmare before they can ever dream of taking the White House.

But I don't care if the candidate is a "PR nightmare". I don't care if the GOP wins the election or not, but I do care that the candidate be a true conservative, both socially and fiscally conservative, and commited to the values that the Tea Party champions. The Tea Party is grass roots conservative. The noise they make, makes a lot of sense. I want the GOP candidate to articulate core conservative policies. I want these conservative solutions boldly plopped on the table, as opposed to McCain's half-assed approach. Give Americans a real choice. Let's have a real debate.

Bachman or Palin would be ideal because they both articulate core conservative values, and again that's all I want from them. That they make the noise, and they can both make a lot of noise. If they win, its a bonus. They are both perfectly capable politicians.

Truth is the American people may very well want to give Obama another chance. He is a popular President and basically a decent sort it seems, so he could very well get re-elected after he does his mea-culpas etc

We could ride out another 4 years. I think he's done his worst anyway. There are ways to keep him in check as well. He might even move right and get serious about reducing government spending. Clinton did it. Obama might even do it - if only to preserve his legacy.

tiffanywint wrote:

Nominate the most small c, conservative leader whether it be Michelle Bachman or Palin or whoever. Basically nominate the Tea Party favourite. If the candidate loses a popularity contest to Obama so be it. Better to fight the good fight then overthink things. At least the candidate can make a lot of noise about reducing government spending and entitlements and then four years from now the next GOP candidate can do an "I told you so"

To win the election, you need to attract a huge chunk of independents. If Bachmann or Palin is the candidate, that won't work no matter how badly Obama has performed. The independents will just hold their noses and vote for Obama again. If the GOP gives them someone like Romney, Obama will prove the second coming of Carter.

The only way they can mess up is by allowing the Tea Party to determine the outcome of their primaries. How ever much the Tea Party is a vocal minority in the republican party, it is still a minority. A minority that will vote Republican no matter what. The group that will swing this election the GOPs way are the independents. Make no mistake about it, Obama is hoping he can go up against Bachmann or Palin.

tiffanywint wrote:

Jack Wade wrote:

The Tea Party can make a lot of noise, sure, but it's not good noise. They need to relax and find a candidate who's not a PR nightmare before they can ever dream of taking the White House.

But I don't care if the candidate is a "PR nightmare". I don't care if the GOP wins the election or not, but I do care that the candidate be a true conservative, both socially and fiscally conservative, and commited to the values that the Tea Party champions. The Tea Party is grass roots conservative. The noise they make, makes a lot of sense. I want the GOP candidate to articulate core conservative policies. I want these conservative solutions boldly plopped on the table, as opposed to McCain's half-assed approach. Give Americans a real choice. Let's have a real debate.

Bachman or Palin would be ideal because they both articulate core conservative values, and again that's all I want from them. That they make the noise, and they can both make a lot of noise. If they win, its a bonus. They are both perfectly capable politicians.

Truth is the American people may very well want to give Obama another chance. He is a popular President and basically a decent sort it seems, so he could very well get re-elected after he does his mea-culpas etc

We could ride out another 4 years. I think he's done his worst anyway. There are ways to keep him in check as well. He might even move right and get serious about reducing government spending. Clinton did it. Obama might even do it - if only to preserve his legacy.

This makes no sense to me. You are okay with appointing a candidate who has no chance of winning, thus handing the White House to the Dems again for another four years? What on earth will conservative voters gain by that, other than some minor symbolic victory?

I'm really not sure who I'm going to vote for in 2012, either. The Conservatives have a pretty lame group of contenders, while Obama isn't exactly a prime choice, either.

People I promise not to vote for:

Mitt Romney (Frankly, I just think he's a fucking half-wit)
Michele Bachmann (A complete liability for Republicans)
Rick Perry (Another Texas governor?)
Herman Cain (Owned one of the worst pizza joints on the planet, and contradicts himself most of the time, even when he's on FOX )

I don't know enough about Pawlenty and Santorum, either.

Dr. Ron Paul is more American than any of them. Unfortunately, I think he has his priorities in the wrong areas.

Who knows.

tiffanywint wrote:

The problem with Obama has been apparent from the outset. He's as near to being a socialist as one can be without actually identifying oneself as such. But I wouldn't be surprised if in private he did identify himself as such. There are no shortage of western politicians who have not been shy about attaching themselves to the label.

Obama is in love with government - with big spending - big government programs - lots of regulation, - entitlements, "social justice" etc.It's a recipe for disaster. It always has been. His failure was guaranteed. With sovereign debt threatening the, well sovereignty, of all western nations, the last thing America could afford was a President of Obama's ilk.

Some of the best writing I have read regarding this topic on a forum. This sums up my thoughts pretty well. We were doomed when he one the election and now it shows even more.

Mr. Brown wrote:

Damn ... if ever I saw a dude mentally storing an image for future masturbatory use, it's that guy.

[quote="Salomé"]

tiffanywint wrote:

This makes no sense to me. You are okay with appointing a candidate who has no chance of winning, thus handing the White House to the Dems again for another four years? What on earth will conservative voters gain by that, other than some minor symbolic victory?

It makes perfect sense. I prefer an all or nothing approach. Like I said I don't care about winning the election. Its not simply symbolic if good ideas get a full airing out and manage to influence the public consciousness. Even Democrats would have to take notice.

I want the tea party ideas on the table and ideally a tea party candidate winning the nomination.

I'm not American but even if I was, I would be conservative first, Republican second. I care more about putting conservative solutions on the table than cheerleading the Republican Party and I really do like what I hear from the Tea Party. Any Republican that wants the nomination is going to have to address the Tea Party.



Here in Toronto last year, a populist conservative Mayor, who was given no chance by the pundits at the outset of the election won by a huge majority over the moderate who at first seemed like a slum dunk. Rob Ford boldly championed his respect for taxpayers agenda and cleaned up. If he was an Amercan he'd be a Tea Party champion.

If a guy like Ford can win in a major urban centre like Toronto, and if a very conservative PM like Stephen Harper can improve from zero to 10 seats in what seemed like a liberal bastion in Toronto on his way to a majority government this year, I think it bodes well for conservatives everywhere.

Now is not the time to be shy. It's better to press the advantage. People are fed up with government spending and debt. The tea party commitment to constitutional liberties and limited government is good policy. Get it out there and go for it. I don't care who the nominee is as long as they are making the right noise.