Will President Trump run for a second term?

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 4:09 am

spot;1501055 wrote: FDR ran the country from a wheelchair, I see no reason why Mrs Clinton shouldn't do the same so long as her mind remains as clear as his did. What America has to decide is whether she appears to have eight - or even four - years of mental stamina remaining.

She's not offering to run marathons, she's offering to navigate America over the horizon into unknown territory with no map.

Wearing those blue-tinted spectacles does her no favors either. If people need them they're ill and if they don't need them the tinting is an affectation.

If she does get elected and take office before standing down then Tim Kaine might turn out to be a far more interesting alternative President, so there's no health reason not to vote the pair of them in. And he can appoint absolutely anyone he wants as Vice President, that would be interesting too - it's the only way I can imagine Coolio reaching the Presidency, something I've long advocated. Coolio would make an inspirational President worth ten of any of the others.OK, I give up - who the **** is Coolio?

If you mean the entertainer, he has a rather long rap sheet.

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 4:50 am

Mark Aspam;1501058 wrote: If you mean the entertainer, he has a rather long rap sheet.Really?

I'm unaware of it, I can find no reference on the obvious Internet sites, perhaps you could tell me what it consists of. I've always considered him an excellent role model. What did I miss?

While I've never actually advocated his Presidency I've certainly said in the past that he should be put in charge of America's education policy. Many disconnected people would listen to him who would listen to just about nobody else.

Mark Aspam · Post by **Mark Aspam** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 6:50 am

spot;1501059 wrote: What did I miss?Just a little word play. The word being played upon was "rap".

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Tue Sep 13, 2016 6:11 pm

I have a question

What happens if Hillary cannot continue her run for Pres.?

Will the Democrats appoint or does it fall on to Bernie Sanders?

I don't know what the steps/protocol would be?

any one know?

Patsy

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 7:32 am

Patsy Warnick;1501108 wrote: I have a question

What happens if Hillary cannot continue her run for Pres.?

Will the Democrats appoint or does it fall on to Bernie Sanders?

I don't know what the steps/protocol would be?

any one know?

Patsy

Apparently, it would be up to the party to present a new candidate for election. The Democratic Party has a process in place. The problem is that each state has its own process for getting the candidate on the ballot and there is no uniform process among all the states.

In some states, it is already too late to get a new candidate on the ballot.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 9:05 am

Lars,

So Bernie wouldn't be the next candidate in line?

it's not a automatic step - next in line?

I thought it might fall back onto Bernie.

I really don't know in this short amount of time left.

Patsy

Post by **spot** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 9:11 am

Patsy, you need to ask what might stop the present candidates from contesting the election. It's what - eight weeks to go? The chances of either becoming incapacitated for health reasons during the next eight weeks are pretty slight, I'd have thought. If they reach election day then one of them is definitely elected, and if that one subsequently becomes incapacitated for health reasons then there's a vice-president reddy and waiting to step up to the mark.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 9:42 am

If, after the election, the President Elect falls ill, or dies, or becomes unable to perform his/her job, it falls to the VP. That is simple, and well defined.

It is in the pre-election period that the problem exists. And each party has some process in place, but none are really well defined. Simple answer, the party must post a new candidate for the office of President to all the state election boards, and each state must accept that candidate for its ballot.

And, each state has its own process for adding candidates to its ballot. Such an event could be a nightmare.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 11:01 am

Lars

That process from state to state would be a nightmare & that would allow very little time before election date.

Bill Clinton gave a interview with Scott Pelley - question regarding Hillary's health and present issue - Bill stated : Hillary has had this happen in the past several times - this comes from being dehydrated.

When the interview aired - the dehydration statement was aired - the part of happening several times in the past was erased.

Which made me think what would be the process if Hillary was not capable to continue her run for Pres.?

and I haven't heard any update on Hillary's condition?

Patsy

Post by **spot** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 1:04 pm

So long as she's alive on 8th November they'll hold the election with her name on the ballot paper, it might even attract sympathy votes.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 1:34 pm

Spot

That would be a pity party not the Democratic party..:wah:

NO - we need some one strong - healthy to run our Country.

Patsy

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 1:52 pm

Patsy Warnick;1501131 wrote: Spot

That would be a pity party not the Democratic party..:wah:

NO - we need some one strong - healthy to run our Country.

Patsy

Yes, we do. But none of them seem to want the job.

Post by **spot** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 2:19 pm

I'd sit back and watch with interest if Tim Kaine ends up in the hot seat. Perhaps he's capable of saying no to flint-faced ribbon-decorated warriors advocating the whupping of some sorry foreign bottom.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 3:01 pm

Spot

I don't believe we've had this type of situation in the past.

Not sure if any one would really know the protocol to this situation.

interesting isn't it?

Patsy

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 3:02 pm

spot;1501055 wrote: Wearing those blue-tinted spectacles does her no favors either. If people need them they're ill and if they don't need them the tinting is an affectation.

My father-in-law was blind most all of his life. At about age of 60 he got them fixed and could see but when outside always wore shades to protect his optical nerve. Wasn't an illness.

spot;1501055 wrote: If she does get elected and take office before standing down then Tim Kaine might turn out to be a far more interesting alternative President, so there's no health reason not to vote the pair of them in. And he can appoint absolutely anyone he wants as Vice President, that would be interesting too - it's the only way I can imagine Coolio reaching the Presidency, something I've long advocated. Coolio would make an inspirational President worth ten of any of the others.

That's dumb.

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 3:07 pm

LarsMac;1501132 wrote: Yes, we do. But none of them seem to want the job.

Sad but true.

:wah: :-5

Post by **spot** » Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:55 pm

tude dog;1501137 wrote: That's dumb.Coolio in charge of American education policy? He made a video about it, I was impressed.

when outside always wore shades to protect his optical nerve. Wasn't an illness. Perhaps we understand different things by "illness" then. Perhaps people who wear blue-tinted spectacles have a medical condition instead of an illness, how's that.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:36 am

Tonight's the night - here we go

Everybody looking forward to tonight's debate?

I am

Patsy

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Mon Sep 26, 2016 3:31 pm

Patsy Warnick;1501460 wrote: Tonight's the night - here we go

Everybody looking forward to tonight's debate?

I am

Patsy

I set it to record. I haven't decided yet about watching.

ZAP · Post by **ZAP** » Mon Sep 26, 2016 4:16 pm

Ill be watching. I set Monday Night Football to record.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:00 am

Between Trump's snorting and Hillary turning her red power tie into an entire Santa Claus looking pant suit it was hard to watch. They both acted like a couple of smug spoiled brats.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:01 am

I noticed Trump had a An American flag lapel pin.. Clinton has nothing.

Post by **LarsMac** » Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:04 am

I find that the less time I look at, or listen to The Donald, the better my disposition remains.

Besides. New episodes of Longmire are up on Netflix, so we had to watch those.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:17 am

Grow up people. These are your candidates. One, Hillary Clinton, is qualified the other not. Stop complaining and ask which one would you want to represent you on the World Stage. If it's Trump, then you are as immature as he is.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:49 am

I think Trump must have not been paying attention in his first grade class when the teacher explained that he has had his chance to speak and now it's the other person's turn. He was constantly interrupting Clinton and the moderator.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Sep 27, 2016 1:47 pm

Wandrin;1501488 wrote: I think Trump must have not been paying attention in his first grade class when the teacher explained that he has had his chance to speak and now it's the other person's turn. He was constantly interrupting Clinton and the moderator.

Will that be seen as him being in charge or just pig ignorant and a bully?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:01 pm

gmc;1501495 wrote: Will that be seen as him being in charge or just pig ignorant and a bully?

There are far too many Americans who admire this arrogant behavior. I'm totally disgusted.

Saint_ · Post by **Saint_** » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:44 pm

AnneBoleyn;1501496 wrote: I'm totally disgusted.

As am I. This is pretty much literally an election between the ignorant and the educated. Which are there more of in the country? We're going to find out. Spot's not worried. He actually thinks it would be a good idea to have a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-NATO, aggressive megalomaniac in charge of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Why? I'm not sure, but I do know that Trump and his stormtrumpers are fascists:

Post by **spot** » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Saint_;1501498 wrote: Why? I'm not sureBecause I'm quite sure a Trump presidency would focus on internal affairs and avoid external conflict.

All these foreign adventures destabilizing sovereign countries has to end, that is the one absolute essential. I'm quite convinced that Hillary Clinton would carry on as she did when Secretary of State and that foreigners will die in droves as they have every year since Dubya, Rumsfeld and the guy with the shotgun got their New Pearl Harbor moment thanks to their Saudi Arabian friends.

I think there's a reasonable chance that President Trump will rein in America's death squads in the Middle East. I think there's no chance that Hillary Clinton would. My support for President Trump is entirely legitimate regardless of what he does to his fellow Americans over the next eight years. If he pulls America out of NATO because nobody else pays their way for their own defense that would be a bonus.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:43 am

I saw the clip where Hilary pointed out that Trump doesn't pay a penny in tax. Trump replied "That makes me smart". I'm surprised that Hilary didn't come back to that by pointing out that it makes him a drain on the honest taxpaying citizen, and that Al Capone was essentially convicted of the same charge.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:40 pm

spot;1501499 wrote: Because I'm quite sure a Trump presidency would focus on internal affairs and avoid external conflict...........I think there's a reasonable chance that President Trump will rein in America's death squads in the Middle East.

In his own words "I would bomb the **** out of em"

Charming fellow.

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:16 am

Bruv;1501524 wrote: In his own words "I would bomb the **** out of em"
Let's put it in context at least.U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he "would bomb the hell out of ISIS" before a campaign rally in Worcester, Massachusetts on Wednesday (November 18 [2015]). Trump went on to explain his position with the Syrian refugee crisis, saying if he became president, they would all go back. "If we take in thousands and thousands, if we have five that come in that are ISIS -- look at the damage they did, a small number, in Paris. Look at the damage they've done. So I said very strongly if I win, if I become president, they're going back. We're going to do it nicely, we're going to do it humanely, they'll probably be happy to go back in a certain way..." Trump told the media.

Trump: I would bomb the hell out of ISIS | Reuters.com

I've no problem with any of that. There's nothing there about regime change. ISIS is the direct descendant organization of those the US set up to kill Russians in Afghanistan and if President Trump orders the killing of its ground forces where they're currently fighting - Syria and Iraq - that seems more of a belated US apology to the region than an attack. It reverses the current US policy of attacking Syrian forces, it's a step toward stabilizing Syria under the existing government and he's quite right that if Syria were stabilized under the present government then a large proportion of Syrian refugees would be happy to return to Syria.

Nobody in ISIS is an unarmed civilian or a conscript, they're America's "freedom fighters" and the US did a lot of bankrolling to keep them in the field regardless of what name they went under. These people don't wage war for free, you know. Some combination of nations has paid a fortune to enable ISIS and it's not just the Saudi Arabians, it has on and off been the US too. ISIS is Reagan's construct decades after it didn't disband and go home. If President Trump finally puts an end to them he deserves a medal. All President Obama has done for the past eight years is used them while occasionally stabbing a few in the back when public opinion insisted. It was primarily ISIS I was thinking of when I said "there's a reasonable chance that President Trump will rein in America's death squads in the Middle East". ISIS is and always has been an arm of US foreign policy. What gets changed occasionally is the label.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:19 am

So how I wonder is President Trump going to distinguish ISIS from their raghead neighbours ?

Have the Americans got a smart bomb that selects it's victims ?

Do you seriously believe that the volunteer foot soldiers of ISIS have no ideological drive ?

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:21 am

Bruv;1501526 wrote: So how I wonder is President Trump going to distinguish ISIS from their raghead neighbours ?

Have the Americans got a smart bomb that selects it's victims ?

Do you seriously believe that the volunteer foot soldiers of ISIS have no ideological drive ?
There's two problems with that post.

Firstly, ISIS volunteers and their leaders are idealists with religious motivation and a determination to establish a fundamentalist Islamic Caliphate, they're none of them witting dupes of the West. Osama bin Laden was much the same as a leader of the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. He still accepted American arms and finance. The Americans wanted him to do it, he wanted to do it, their motives differed but they took advantage of each other. ISIS and America have been in the same relationship. If it happened in the 1980s why would you think it can't happen now?

Secondly, I would be startled if the US didn't have access to the entire foot-soldier volunteer ISIS database complete with biometric passport ID. Rolling up ISIS isn't a problem. Closing ISIS down isn't a problem either, it just involves cancelling their credit and demolishing their arms dumps. For as long as ISIS is considered an asset by the White House it's not going to happen, and if it ever does happen they'll have other such organizations to fall back on. The underlying problem isn't ISIS, it's their backers.

Osama bin Laden was America's "freedom fighter" too, don't you remember? Isn't that what Reagan called him?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 8:35 am

Ever heard the 'Riding a tiger' dilemma ?

You readily mount the tiger, and all the time you can hang on you are safe.

As soon as you tire, you realise the tiger is angry and will eat you......you want to dismount, but how ?

(Have you joined the katsung47 school of thought ?)

Post by **spot** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 9:47 am

Bruv;1501533 wrote: (Have you joined the katsung47 school of thought ?)Nope, he's delusional. I could show you articles which agree with the position I've described, by John Pilger, Patrick Cockburn, Robert Fisk just to name respected names off the top of my head.

Nobody climbed on this tiger with my blessing.

What was in my post that you think is untrue?

eta to clarify a detail: my comment about Reagan designating 21st March 1982 as Afghanistan Day and proclaiming that "the freedom fighters of Afghanistan are defending principles of independence and freedom that form the basis of global security and stability", in reference to the Mujaheddin, doesn't explicitly name Osama bin Laden though his group was one of those being funded and armed by Reagan's agencies at the time.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 12:23 pm

spot;1501535 wrote: Nobody climbed on this tiger with my blessing.

What was in my post that you think is untrue?

Let me throw another story at you.......I use this one often.......my wife talks of spilled milk, same idea really.

The Irishman when asked for directions after careful consideration tells the enquirer "If I wanted to go there, I wouldn't start from here"

We are where we are, knowing how we got into this situation doesn't help anyone........except as a lesson in life.

Your latest hero telling the world he will "Bomb the **** out of them" while getting the Mexicans to build a wall is not the best plan for worldwide peace.

Look into the man's eyes he is an opportunist bombast playing to the cheap seats......remind you of Hitler......infamy infamy....the whole world has it in for me....and all us upstanding American Patriots.....vote for me and I shall give you the world........the pratt.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:13 pm

We'd love to send the Donald over to you, so he can make Great Britain great, again.

"It'll be great!"

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:49 pm

LarsMac;1501541 wrote: We'd love to send the Donald over to you, so he can make Great Britain great, again.

"It'll be great!"

We already have our own idiots thank you.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:15 pm

Bruv;1501543 wrote: We already have our own idiots thank you.

Oh, no. You do not have a idiot like our idiot. He is the idiot's idiot. There has never been an idiot like this one. There will never be another idiot as great as this one. Did I mention that he has small hands?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:10 pm

LarsMac;1501546 wrote: Oh, no. You do not have a idiot like our idiot. He is the idiot's idiot. There has never been an idiot like this one. There will never be another idiot as great as this one. Did I mention that he has small hands?

Just who are the idiots?

I am not going to fall into name calling like his followers being a ‘basket of deplorables’.

During the debate, I sat there amazed that he made Hillary look good. Sobered up and purged myself of that awful sensation.

I am constantly amazed at the people for this guy I once thought rational.

It is funny I don't have the same attitude towards Clinton fans.

Please don't distort my comments as my having any ease about Clinton being President, she is just the one who belongs in prison and the Don needs a lot of couch time with a professional.

All things considered, often polls ask if the nation is in the wrong direction, I wonder just what direction the people want us to go?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:00 pm

tude dog;1501569 wrote: Just who are the idiots?

Since you asked........may I suggest, the electorate ?

tude dog · Post by **tude dog** » Fri Sep 30, 2016 1:33 pm

Bruv;1501572 wrote: Since you asked........may I suggest, the electorate ?

How about the elected who fail to do the job the electorate expected them to perform?

We (Republicans) had the House and Senate and not even the slightest challenge to that stain which occupies the White House., then along comes along the Trumphhole, a saviour. A reality show star at the same time everybody knows there is no reality in Reality Shows.

He knew how to suck the air out of the room. Say something stupid and the press is all over it the exclusion of real news.

All about Trumphohle all the time.

It was, and is quite a performance.

Wandrin · Post by **Wandrin** » Fri Oct 07, 2016 6:45 pm

How is it possible that some women are still planning to vote for Trump?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Oct 08, 2016 9:29 am

Wandrin;1501743 wrote: How is it possible that some women are still planning to vote for Trump?

Are you sexist? Are you saying women can't be stupid? Are you saying some don't WANT their pussies grabbed by arrogant men?

Post by **Momus** » Sat Oct 08, 2016 10:41 am

Wandrin;1501743 wrote: How is it possible that some women are still planning to vote for Trump?

For heavens sake, get over it. It was a private conversation between men years ago. If you think that is unacceptable, then go to Blackpool and observe a typical hen night, Trump is a man being a man talking as men talk. You think women never talk like that? I've heard school girls on buses that would put Trump to shame. Give me a man who talks like a man over a proven liar.

Also remember, Americans are not voting Trump because they want Trump. They are voting Trump because the alternative is just too frightening to even think of.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Oct 08, 2016 11:43 am

Momus;1501748 wrote: For heavens sake, get over it. It was a private conversation between men years ago. If you think that is unacceptable, then go to Blackpool and observe a typical hen night, Trump is a man being a man talking as men talk. You think women never talk like that? I've heard school girls on buses that would put Trump to shame. Give me a man who talks like a man over a proven liar.

Also remember, Americans are not voting Trump because they want Trump. They are voting Trump because the alternative is just too frightening to even think of.

An expert on American politics now ?

Post by **Momus** » Sat Oct 08, 2016 12:20 pm

Bruv;1501749 wrote: An expert on American politics now ? No, but i recognise desperation in the Clinton camp when i see it.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Oct 08, 2016 12:35 pm

Bruv;1501572 wrote: Since you asked........may I suggest, the electorate ?

You are generalizing just a wee bit, no? Well, perhaps not so wee, but not all.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Oct 08, 2016 12:40 pm

tude dog;1501569 wrote: I sat there amazed that he made Hillary look good...........

I am constantly amazed at the people for this guy I once thought rational.

It is funny I don't have the same attitude towards Clinton fans.

You mean like your wife? Pretty sure you once said.......... :yh_rotfl