xepherys

I dunno... I support this to some degree... just like I think things may have come out for the better had Perot won back in the day. Trump (like Perot) is more aligned with business than with any political affiliation. Maybe someone not so wrapped up in politics is the kind of person we need running for Prez in '08...?!


~X

Mephisto2

So please explain to me his position on

- Social Security reform
- Foreign Policy
+ Afghanistan
+ Iraq
+ Korea
+ Iran
+ South East Asia
+ Engagement with China on human rights reform
+ Democratization in general
- Environment
+ Oil exploitation in Alaska
+ Kyoto protocol
+ Promotion of alternative power sources
+ Reform of EPA guidelines
- Fiscal policy
+ Plans to "balance the budget"
+ Corporate Law reform
- Social issues
+ Same sex marriages
+ Abortion
+ Stem cell research
- National science policy
+ Government funding of research
+ NASA
+ FDA and pharmaceutical policy

What?

You don't know?

He's just a "trumped up" celebrity with silly hair, a popular TV show and a bankrupt hotel?

Oh, OK....


Trump as President of the United States, and being elected to the position of most powerful man on Earth, is a joke. A joke of the worst kind. I'd vote for Jeb Bush and a desklamp as running mate before him.*


Mr Mephisto

* - If I had a vote.

MoonDog

Jeb Bush probbly has the base qualifications for a presidential run, like him or not. But I think it is safe to say that the Bush name has too much controversey for a run anytime soon. Besides, he says he doesn't want to run, just like HIllary says she doesn't want to run.

I think that a McCain-Powell ticket, McCain-Rice, would work nicely. Giuliani is apparently too moderate, according to pundits, and Schwarzenegger is the supposedly the same (and has that naughty Austrian birthright to overcome Constitutionally!).

As for waht the Democrats have in store...I honestly don't have a clue! I think that they will back Clinton into a corner and ask her to break her promise to us New Yorkers and run anyway. I hate to say this, but Hillary Clinton has probably done a decent job representing us here in NY, and I was in the front row calling her a carpetbagger when her plane landed for a campaign stop! The people I know who dislike her have that feeling because of what she allowed her husband to do to her, and get away with, and the generally "cold as ice" exterior that she presents.

Of course, Rice seems to be just as cold on occasion, so maybe I'm throwing the hypocrisy on too thick. But it is easier to do it to a person who's views aren't in agreement with your own, no?

BOttom line: Gimme a GOP Moderate in '08 and I'll be juuuust fine.

analog

I'd go for a Rice-McCain ticket (or the other way, perhaps- but i'd much ratehr see Rice as pres than McCain). I just don't see anyone on the Dem front who's even slightly interesting.

shakran

As one of the chief architects of the tower of lies used to trick the country into going to war, I'm afraid I could not vote for Ms. Rice.

xepherys

McCain would be a good choice ( <3 McCain )

Mr Mephisto, your question is a perfect example of what is so wrong with American politics today. Positions aren't everything... ability is just as, if not more, important. Name a U.S. President in the last 100 years that hasn't changed his mind about something during his presidency. It happens almost every term, and almost every president. Why? Because the world changes. Since life in the global community is dynamic, so must be a U.S. President. But even so, you can have all the great ideas in the world, you'll still be a crappy prez if you can't make any of them happen.

Bush, Bush, Kerry, Rice, et al are just political puppets. They know how to make things LOOK like they're happening. They know how to grease a palm or two, or outwit their opponent on the podium. WTF has GWB actually DONE? Gone to war and spent billions upon billions of dollars MORE than estimated on a war that doesn't benefit his country? Hmmm... I thought the primary responsibility of the President of the United States was to worry about the United States... I guess not. *shrug*

Sure, Trump has bad hair and a TV show. So the hell what? Reagan was half dead and used to act with a monkey. If you take the extreme, most presidents haven't been particularly qualified... Maybe we can have Rice and Bonzo ticket (the monkey WAS a republican, right?).

My point in all this is that platforms, positions and politics have really screwed up the way my country is run, so I'd like to see a different approach, even if for just four years. Aren't there any James K. Polk's that could run?

*grumble*

Mephisto2

Your response is a perfect example of what is so wrong with American politics today. Image isn't everything. Ability is just as, if not more, important.

He has shown his ability to bankrupt businesses and to host a TV show. Nothing else. Dislike Reagan as much as I do, he was a consumate politican with a long history of success in California. The comparision between Trump and he is useless.

What makes you think a complete amateur, with no political experience, acumen or ability, famous for his ex-wife and a pithy catch-phrase, would make a better President than anyone of the other potential candidates?

I can't believe you think wondering what a person's ability, background, experience and position on the major issues of the day is an example of what you call "what's wrong with politics". The exact opposite is true.

You're fired.




Mr Mephisto

seretogis

Don't worry, if California goes bankrupt he can just sell it off. I mean, it's just one of the states -- there are 49 others!

__________________
seretogis - sieg heil
perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost
no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

pan6467

First why are you so upset at the mere mention of Trump??????? Sounds more personal than just "he's not qualified".

Secondly, when I was younger my dad told me the president is a figurehead, he surrounds himself with advisors and they help him make decisions. While the decision is ultimately the President's the advisors (cabinet) are far more qualified in their fields. NO MAN can know everything, and my belief is Trump (who has never had to come forward with any political stance because he has never run for office) would surround himself with the most qualified people possible regardless of party.

Plus, Trump has what 2 years and a few months, before primary season, to come forward on his policies?

What was Bush's or Kerry's or whomever's stance on those issues????? Weren't they all pretty much partyline dictated????? My belief is Trump would cross party lines, find people who are the best in their fields and let them do their job and advise him..... then take that advice weigh the options and make educated decisions NOT based on party lines but based on what is BEST for the country as he sees it (which is what the president's office is all about).

Would Trump make mistakes????? Most certainly (every president does), however, he admits his mistakes and he given his history he has always corrected them, learnt from them and has come back stronger.

Granted his ego is extreme, but so was everyone else's who ever has become president.

I just firmly believe that Trump is the man who could put partisan politics aside and get what was needed done...... done. AND THAT IS WHY YOU VOTE FOR A PRESIDENT, YOU VOTE FOR WHO WILL GET THINGS DONE.

The only problem........... Trump probably (99.99% sure of this) will never run for president, so all this is a moot point anyway.

And speaking of California, what were Schwarzenegger's qualifications to run the state with the world's 8th largest economy?????

In the high office, it's truly not the stance (anyone can say anything and take a stance just to win), it is ACTIONS that are most important, and Trump IMHO has shown time and time again that even through adversity he knows how to get things done and surrounds himself with the best people to make sure they get done...... and to me that IS THE greatest presidential trait any man can have. When Trump has fucked up, he says, "I fucked up." he doesn't blame publicly the advisor because he is man enough to accept responsibility. And when Trump fucks up, after he admits it, he works his damnedest to correct the fuck up.

He may not be perfect but I would rather see Trump than some manicured, well versed, groomed from birth politician who knows what to say and how to say it, become president. Trump isn't perfect, but he isn't a career politician that has spent his lifetime saying whatever he needs to to get elected.

I would rather elect a man on principle and my belief he can get the job done, than some guy who takes his party's line and says whatever he has to, to get elected. I don't think Trump would ever kowtow to anyone, Trump has proven to me time and time again he is his own man and if that is not what a true president needs to do, then let's keep electing by party..... and going down the shitter.

I don't want a man selling me piss and saying it's lemonade and having a political party tell him to add sugar or Nutra-sweet. I'd rather have a man say, "don't drink the piss, let me get some real lemonade." And IMHO that man is Trump.

DRAFT TRUMP IN '08............DRAFT TRUMP IN '08............DRAFT TRUMP IN '08

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

Of course you could read:
"The America We Deserve by Donald Trump, Dave Shiflett, Donald J. Trump"

and perhaps find what his political stances would be.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Mephisto2

All I know about this book is that his first choice for Vice President would be Oprah Winfrey.

Let's just leave it at that, shall we?


Mr Mephisto

pan6467

That was hype and he had a list of whom he thought would be good in office.... her name appeared and Limbaugh had a field day with it. LOL didn't mention the others on the list did he?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Mephisto2

Well, I stand corrected, in that he has obviously penned a book of his political thoughts. At least that's something more than Arnold did!

But I just don't think he'd make a good President.

Call me an old fashioned cynic if you will...

Mr Mephisto

PS - I actually respect and like Ms Winfrey a great deal. But that doesn't qualify her for the job of VP!

Ustwo

The last thing I want is a camera whore president.

No Trump, no Arnold, no Hilary, no McCain.

Yes, McCain is a camera whore. When a politician is worried about their image I worry about the job they are doing. Sometimes a president would need to do things which would make people unhappy somewhere.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

pan6467

I don't think Trump would have a problem doing that.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Mephisto2

Aren't ALL politicians like this? The only ones I can think of who act more in line with their beliefs than that which they believe is most popular are the likes of Tony Blair, Kim Beazley (I don't expect you to know who this is) and JFK.

Mr Mephisto

xepherys

I fail to see this about McCain... to me he seems like just a normal guy... that's why I like him.

pan6467

McCain's strength is also what the right dislikes about him.... he's his own man. Pure and simple, he stands up for what he believes and because he has a mind of his own and truly knows long term politics is compromise, ordinary people like his honesty. The right however dislike the fact that he can see through their bullshit and calls them on it.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

host

Mr Mephisto, I would like to know why you still take the opinions of Americans seriously enough to justify engaging us in this forum. After "electing" in recent times, presidential tickets that relegated us to live under 20 years of the "leadership" of Reagan, Quayle, and finally, Bush, why the "God help us", in your thread title?

A signifigant number of us our proud of our choices, and most of the rest of us seem accepting enough of these choices. You witnessed the media reaction to the homage, reverence, tribute, and praise, paid to mediocrity here, one year ago during the week of "all Reagan, all of the time", on the occasion of his passing.

Outside of our cultural influence on the rest of the world, is there any other incentive that draws you to us, other than a need to keep tabs on our potential to use our military power in an increasingly ill conceived or reckless manner? Your "God help us" reaction to "more Bush", IMO, should be to this:
It is advisable to keep an eye on us, Mr Mephisto. Our lack of judgment exhibited by who we choose to lead us, and the choices that these "leaders" have made and are making, as well as the caliber of their public "performances", insinuates that the people who prevail at the voting booth or at the Supreme Court, the ones trotted out to speak to the TV cameras, cannot possibly be the decision makers. The people that make the decisions apparently are largely unseen, and it matters little who we vote for, if we keep the staus quo of our two party system and a press that provides the "in depth" coverage of examples like "CONPLAN 8022"!

Ustwo

At what point do you tell someone enough is enough and its time to get a job?

Hunger is the best sauce.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Ustwo

You mean GWB is running on whta keeps him the most popular?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Mephisto2

This is rather a simplistic question.

What if there are no jobs?
What if the jobs are so badly paid as to be "sweat shops" or "slave labour"? Just because someone makes a profit out of explotitive work-practices, doesn't make them right you know.

Hah. My mother used to say that to me all the time. I find myself repeating it to my wife when she's impatient with my cooking.

But I would never have used it to justify an uncaring, profit-oriented, exploititive socio-economic industrial work policy.

Go figure...


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

Erm... What do you think Karl Rove does? Water the flowers in the White House?


Mr Mephisto

shakran

I would say that at the point where all the jobs that were lost due to Bush's bumbling around with the economy are available again, you can start bitching at people to get jobs.

I certainly agree that America needs welfare reform, but that does not mean welfare destruction. Part of that welfare reform would be removing laws that penalize people who get minimum wage jobs in an attempt to get off of welfare. If you're pulling in $1000 a week on welfare, and you get a job where you're pulling in $900 a week, but that $900 disqualifies you to receive ANY welfare, then you don't have much incentive to get that job now do you?

After all, while you might certainly want to be independent, that extra $100 can be the deciding factor in whether or not you eat.

So we have people who can't get off welfare because starting at the bottom and working your way up isn't an option, since you'd starve before you could work your way up.

In other words, sure, reform welfare.

But it's very easy for you, Ustwo, to sit there with all your money and all the food and clothing and shelter you need, and plenty of extras, and cast judgement on the poor. It's very easy to forget that sometimes you wind up in that situation through no fault of your own. It's very easy to forget that a shocking number of American citizens are one illness, one car wreck, one paycheck away from being on the streets. It's not that they're lazy, as anti-welfare people love to portray them. They work damn hard. In fact, I'll tell you right now that the poor goober unloading pallettes at Walmart works a HELL of a lot harder than you or I do, and he makes a lot less than we do as well. But he's an hourly employee who's scheduled at odd hours that make it next to impossible for him to even try to interview for a better job. He cant' go in for an interview by skipping a day of work because that again would mean the difference between him buying food or not. So he's trapped in this ultra low wage job from which escape is terribly difficult. And if he gets sick or hurt off the job or let go for whatever reason, then he'll find himself in a terrible situation, and could even have to go on welfare in order to make ends meet.

And keep in mind that a lot of the people working at jobs like Walmart, Home Depot, and Kmart used to have well paying jobs. Last year I interviewed a guy stocking lightbulbs at a hardware store who had been a well paid vice president at a major manufacturing company, but was downsized when the economy soured. Now he's trying to support a wife and 3 kids on a salary that's a tiny fraction of what he used to have.

That's never happened to you, and in all likelihood you've never bothered to talk to people to whom it HAS happened. That makes it very difficult for me to accept your passing judgement on them.

Ustwo

Please don't tell me you are still doing 'the recesssion was Bush's fault' line.

It didn't work very well in 2004, its no better now.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Ustwo

Really so Tony Blair does what he thinks is right, but Bush is out for popularity.

Interesting.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

xepherys

Sorry to get between you two, but they both are off their rockers... Bush and Blair care less for their countrymen than your average nihilist. They DO, however, care about their appearances more than Mary Kate and Ashley.

shakran

Yes. I am. Because it's the truth.

I don't care how well "it worked" in 2004 - I'm not trying to get someone elected here. I'm stating facts. And when I said it in 2004, it wasn't just an election tactic, it was a fact. Trickledown economics is a flawed, stupid system. It does not work. You had 12 years of Reagan/Bush I to try it, and it tanked on you.

It's a moronic concept, it has no hope of working, and in fact one of its chief implementers famously called it voodoo economics.

When you reduce income while increasing spending, bad things happen to the economy. Smart investors know this and start pulling their money out of the economy to keep it safe. That has the snowball effect of doing worse things to the economy, and suddenly you're in the middle of a recession.

Macro economics isn't about money, it's about confidence. If investors aren't confident in the economy, they're not gonna risk their cash in it.

And cutting income while increasing spending is the wrong way to go about trying to increase confidence in an economy.

Mephisto2

That's categorically not what I said, or what I meant.

If you are familiar with UK politics, then Peter Mandelson fills a role similar to that of Rove. And he did it before Rove ever became (in)famous.

With regards to the Blair vs Bush argument, let's look at some specifics.

US public supported the war. Bush invaded.
US public supported the "war on terror". Bush initiated it.

UK public overwhelmingly opposed the war. Blair invaded.
UK public overwhelmingly believe the US "Ware on terror" is a crock of shit. Blair is an active ally in the so-called war.


So yes, Blair does what he thinks is right, regardless of public opinion. He got a very bloody nose in the recent election, proving that point.

Bush adopted populist politics, and modified his stance based upon appealing to particular groups; I accept everyone one does this, but I believe Rove pushed this further than heretofore.


Mr Mephisto

Ustwo

So Blairs motive for invading Iraq was pure while Bush's was based on popularity politics? Yet it was Blair who joined Bush on this?

So either Blair is an honest idiot who followed Bush (I know that thought is popular among some) to war.

or

Perhaps Bush did what he thought was best as well and it just so happens the American people supported it.

Regardless of motive though there is one thing I really find amusing, and that people keep trying to find the 'strings' on GWB. First it was Cheney, then after the 'surprising (to the press)' interim elections in 2002 it became Rove, he is the evil genius!

One thing that people need to come to grips with, is like him or loathe him, its Bush who is in charge, and as long as his political opponents underestimate him, they will continue to loose to him.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

matthew330

"That's categorically not what I said, or what I meant."

But...

"US public supported the war. Bush invaded.
US public supported the "war on terror". Bush initiated it.

UK public overwhelmingly opposed the war. Blair invaded.
UK public overwhelmingly believe the US "Ware on terror" is a crock of shit. Blair is an active ally in the so-called war.


So yes, Blair does what he thinks is right, regardless of public opinion. He got a very bloody nose in the recent election, proving that point."

you just said it again.

Not to mention i think you have a very misguided perception of American public opinion about President Bush. Because he won the election doesn't mean he's getting free rides. Nobody has gotten their "nose bloodied" more than Bush, he feels the heat right here in America. I suppose you could see this politics board as a microcosm of America. Though liberal voters are small minority they are very vocal, fierce, and in a strange sort of way...cute.

EULA

Hillary is against gay marriage. She wins 2008.

I'm sorry, but if the media was the way it is now, JFK would top the camera whore list. Come on, people! It's Camelot!!

Look at his "greatest" achievement: getting Kruschev to take those nukes back from Cubano. Having nukes in Cuba in no way changed the balance of power or the threat of destruction. It was chiefly an image problem for his presidency and the Democratic Party.

This guy didn't even finish his first term, yet he is probably one of history's most "visible" presidents. His assasination MADE him....like Jesus on the cross.

Mephisto2

Sheesh... for an intelligent man, you really like the "let's put words into people's mouths" act.

First of all, I never said Bush only does what is popular. YOU said, or at least implied that. I simply mentioned Rove, when I was agreeing with you, that most politicans are more concerned with their image than unpopular policies. I mentioned three politicians who have taken unpopular positions because they believed in it; one from the UK, one from Australia and one from the US. Then you made a saltatious jump and asked if I was asking if GWB only did what was popular.

WTF?!

So let's get this clear.

YOU said it. Not me.

I simply made a passing, amusing comment about Karl Rove, in support of your original statement, and you jumped all over it. It's kinda embarrassing actually, as it's a perfect example of how you will argue with your own position, trying to put words into people's mouths, just to make a point... erm.. that you... erm, kinda already made... but want to argue with.

Kinda whacky, eh?

When did I say otherwise? In fact, I've gone on record as saying I believed Bush did what he thought was best, and continues to do what he thinks is best. The fact that I don't agree with him doesn't mean anything. The fact that you are trying to put words into my mouth, and failing, also means nothing.


Find it as funny as you like. Behind the scenes "fixers" are always viewed with suspicion. Rove is the architect of Bush's success, as Mendelson was for Blair. That's the way it is in any democracy. People don't like unelected strategists "pulling the strings". It goes the the terroritory and is no different in the US than the UK or anywhere else I can think of.

It's nothing to do with your usual bugbears of bias in the "liberal media" etc etc. It's just people.

Erm... no they won't. He's gone for good in about three years.


Mr Mephisto

Mephisto2

Huh?

Well, if "the right wing media" are to be believed... heck, if Ustwo is to be believed, then most US people love him and support his policies. Besides, wasn't he returned with a higher percentage of the vote than his first term?

Sure sounds like a "bloody nose" to me...



Mr Mephisto

shakran

Mephisto, your facts are a few months behind

Bush used fabricated evidence to trick the people into supporting his little war. Now that it's not so little, people are dying, we're running out of money, and it's patently obvious to all but the ones with their heads in the sand that the war was waged on false pretenses, the people are getting pissed.

Bush is currently at his lowest approval rating. He's pretty much in the toilet, and even some republicans are pissed off at him.

analog

Man we're off-topic in here.

1. A few of you danced (or crossed) the line of "personal", but have retracted and gone back to fighting opinions, not each other. The next personal comment gets removed and a PM sent explaining why.

2. As for the comment about bush starting a war on fabricated evidence (shakran)... Been there, had 5000 threads on it, this isn't one of them. Don't respond to that part, just respond to the rest of his post and move on.

From me personally, not as a mod...

Blair had to go along with Bush, Blair doesn't dare sour the US/UK relationship by not playing along with Bush in his war games. When a post-9/11 Bush says if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists, you choose your opposition carefully- and once you say you're on board to avoid being labelled as uncaring, you have to stay the course or you're a deserter. You know that's how the headlines would read, and so does he. Don't make Blair out to be some selfless "do-right". He was protecting himself from being seen as indifferent to terrorism- and like I said, once you agree at the beginning, you can't pull out until Bush is done with you.

jorgelito

In light of the interesting hypotheticals raised in here, whatever did happen to Steve Forbes? I don't remember much other than his flat tax proposal.

I think Trump should try mayor first and move up from there if he really wants to play (sorry Pan!). Politics isn't always like business. Personally, egomania aside, I don't think Trump would be interested in the job anyways. Too much red tape LOL!

On another point, I don't think he "gets" how politics, especially foreign affairs "works".

Mephisto2

What? The way France did? The way Germany did? The way Russia did?

Blair knew from the start that any action against Iraq, without explicit UN approval (and probably even then), was extremely unpopular with the public. I'm at a loss if you don't realize that.

Don't you remember the anti-war marches and demonstrations? The largest the world have ever seen?

Blair went ahead anyway.

What?

Like Poland? Like Bulgaria? Like Spain?

The facts speak for themselves.


Mr Mephisto

shakran

I said those comments to explain WHY the people are pissed. Just saying "the people are pissed" without explaining why wouldn't have made any sense. It wasn't intended to start a debate on whether the evidence is fabricated or not.