Will Trump be Re-elected?

[stuper1]

I'd love to see an example also.

On a different note, I think a lot of people dislike Trump because he's attacked various people say on Twitter. I recall somebody doing some checking on that and finding that Trump hadn't attacked anyone until he had been attached by them first, but when he does hit back, he hits back hard. Of course, you never hear it reported about the initial attack against Trump. I'm not from the east coast, but it seems to me that this is just your stereotypical New Yorker attitude. If somebody attacks you, then attack them back even harder. I say good for him, and I'm probably one of the least pugilistic type of people around. At least he's not a mealy mouthed wimp. If the American people don't like it, they can vote him out of office next year. I have my suspicions that more people like it than what some people realize.

[dualstow]

It's all posturing and tough talk until he wimps out / gives away the store to the adversary without getting anything in return for us.

Are you talking about N Korea?

[ochotona]

N Korea
Bolton is out, Iran sanctions may go away
Getting kissy-face right now with Xi so stocks don't crash
Maduro still there
Mexico still isn't paying

[Libertarian666]

N Korea
Bolton is out, Iran sanctions may go away
Getting kissy-face right now with Xi so stocks don't crash
Maduro still there
Mexico still isn't paying

Is N Korea not still talking with S Korea?
I don't know about Iran or Xi.
Maduro isn't our problem.
Mexico is helping reduce the severity of the invasion.

[stuper1]

And who cares if Bolton is gone? He always seemed like a war-mongering psychopath to me, but that's not based on any substantive conversations that I've had with him. If the president decides that an advisor is no longer the right fit, he should get rid of him. Isn't that what the American people wanted when they voted for him?

[ochotona]

And who cares if Bolton is gone? He always seemed like a war-mongering psychopath to me, but that's not based on any substantive conversations that I've had with him. If the president decides that an advisor is no longer the right fit, he should get rid of him. Isn't that what the American people wanted when they voted for him?

I don't think a quality attribute of a President is how readily he fires people who no longer fit his mercurial whims. Certainly the Constitution doesn't say anything about that.

The problem with Trump is that no one of quality is going to want to serve under him. You'd have to be a complete idiot / masochist to want to have him as a boss.

So it'll just be Trump alone in a room with a little red button.

[stuper1]

That's your read of the situation.

My read is that the guy has made billions of dollars during his lifetime. Have you ever seen someone do something like that without being able to work with other people? We know oh so little about what really goes on in politics. Basically everything we get comes third- or fourth-hand and through a media filter.

[Libertarian666]

And who cares if Bolton is gone? He always seemed like a war-mongering psychopath to me, but that's not based on any substantive conversations that I've had with him. If the president decides that an advisor is no longer the right fit, he should get rid of him. Isn't that what the American people wanted when they voted for him?

I don't think a quality attribute of a President is how readily he fires people who no longer fit his mercurial whims. Certainly the Constitution doesn't say anything about that.

Actually the Constitution does say something about that, namely:

"The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. " (Article II, section 1)

Of course there is more about how he is elected, who is eligible, appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate, and so on.

But none of that changes the fact that the powers of the executive branch are vested in him.
Legally, he is the executive branch, just as in England, legally the King is England.
Anyone who serves in the executive branch gets power only by delegation from the President.

[stuper1]

Yup, and remember that Trump just fires people. Obama was more likely to have people offed with a drone strike -- judge, jury, and executioner.

[ochotona]

Ah, the old "King Can Do No Wrong" chestnut.

Have all drone strikes ended with Trump?

[moda0306]

Yup, and remember that Trump just fires people. Obama was more likely to have people offed with a drone strike -- judge, jury, and executioner.

Trump expanded drone strikes and the Afghan war and vetoed ending the Yemen war.

You’re really a great example of how a fucking moron could get elected President.

[ochotona]

That's your read of the situation.

My read is that the guy has made billions of dollars during his lifetime. Have you ever seen someone do something like that without being able to work with other people? We know oh so little about what really goes on in politics. Basically everything we get comes third- or fourth-hand and through a media filter.

He must've made billions (but we don't know because his finances have never been released) so he must work well with others. Wow, that is a stretch. Making billions is not a measure of much.

"Prosecutors estimated the size of the (Madoff) fraud to be $64.8 billion, based on the amounts in the accounts of Madoff's 4,800 clients as of November 30, 2008."

[dualstow]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_of ... erformance

A 2016 analysis of Trump's business career in The Economist concluded that his performance since 1985 had been "mediocre compared with the stock market and property in New York."[42] A subsequent analysis in The Washington Post similarly noted that Trump's estimated net worth of $100 million in 1978 would have increased to $6 billion by 2016 if he had invested it in a typical retirement fund, and concluded that "Trump is a mix of braggadocio, business failures, and real success."[43]

He should have just bought Vanguard's 2015 Target Retirement Fund!

[stuper1]

I feel very confident in saying that he's not an idiot.

If I were a voting person, which I'm not, the main criterion I would vote on is just this: is this person likely to make the government bigger or smaller? The more areas that government infiltrates, the worse off we are. I know we'll never be back to a small government, but at least hopefully the scope creep can slow down.

Based on that criterion, I would vote for Trump over Biden, Sanders, Warren, or Harris.

[shekels]

Yup, and remember that Trump just fires people. Obama was more likely to have people offed with a drone strike -- judge, jury, and executioner.

Trump expanded drone strikes and the Afghan war and vetoed ending the Yemen war.

You’re really a great example of how a fucking moron could get elected President.

Do you have Hard Data, and not just someones Opinion/Guess on drone strike/ death toll?

Drone strike Casualty Reports have been cancelled.

Also when Trump vetoed ending the Yemen war, why did not CONgress succeed in overturning the Veto?
https://www.justsecurity.org/63855/gett ... n-succeed/

Another question, is how many American Troops are stationed or have Died in Yemen during Yemen's Civil War?

Now the Afghan war has been going on for 18 YEARS... Do you just turn out the lights and go home?

[Kriegsspiel]

Yup, and remember that Trump just fires people. Obama was more likely to have people offed with a drone strike -- judge, jury, and executioner.

Trump expanded drone strikes and the Afghan war and vetoed ending the Yemen war.

You’re really a great example of how a fucking moron could get elected President.

Do you have Hard Data, and not just someones Opinion/Guess on drone strike/ death toll?

Drone strike Casualty Reports have been cancelled.

Also when Trump vetoed ending the Yemen war, why did not CONgress succeed in overturning the Veto?
https://www.justsecurity.org/63855/gett ... n-succeed/

Another question, is how many American Troops are stationed or have Died in Yemen during Yemen's Civil War?

moda has posted this link in an earlier thread:

Trump also expanded the war in Afghanistan...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207

"During Mr Obama's eight years in office, 1,878 drone strikes were carried out, according to researchers. Since Mr Trump was elected in 2016, there have been 2,243 drone strikes." It doesn't say where she got those numbers from. Several stories about drone strikes reference a Daily Beast article, which states that it uses numbers provided by CENTCOM and the Bureau Of Investigative Journalism. It looks like you can comb through the press releases on www.centcom.mil and add up how many drone strikes they acknowledge, but I don't feel like doing it.

On the Bureau Of Investigative Journalism's drone strike site, setting the parameters to # of strikes since Jan 2017 gives these results:

6 Pakistan
166 Yemen (these were relatively high at the beginning of Trump's term, but haven't been above 15 a month since April 2017)
98 Somolia
4582 Afghanistan
4852 Total

Their numbers look suspect though. For instance, here is one example of a strike:

An airstrike in Badakhshan killed 16 Taliban fighters, Khaama Press reported - though it was not clear whether US or Afghan forces were responsible.

The Ministry of Defence reportedly said that security forces conducted the strike in the Wardoj district.

While the report says that the security forces conducted the strike, we cannot definitely rule out US involvement as the security forces often call in US air support.

Khaama Press did explicitly give a date for this strike so we have recorded it as the date that it was reported on.

Type of strike: Possible US strike
Location: Wardoj district, Badakhshan province
Reference: Khaama Press

They're very transparent, which I am grateful for because it helps me determine that this isn't something I can trust (or, not without going over each incident in detail).

https://merip.org/2018/02/trumps-drone-surge/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-ram ... hadow-wars


And military activity in Africa in-general...

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/ ... ver-africa

Now the Afghan war has been going on for 18 YEARS... Do you just turn out the lights and go home?

That's kind of what we've been doing. When I was in Afghanistan, we briefly conducted operations out of a semi-abandonded outpost. It still had all the generators and huts and stuff like that, but nobody was using it. We were just paying some dudes to watch it. It was nerve-wracking as fuck in there because we had no idea if the guards had let insurgents emplace booby traps or infiltration points or map it out for indirect fire or what have you. When we were done I can't remember if we turned it over to the ANA or if we airlifted all the recoverable shit back to the big FOB. Also, I believe every base/outpost I was on except Bagram has been closed down or turned over to the ANA, which is as close to turning out the lights and leaving as you'd think.

[dualstow]

ANA - Afghan Nat'l Army, I guess.
FOB - ?

[D1984]

ANA - Afghan Nat'l Army, I guess.
FOB - ?

FOB = Forward Operating Base

[dualstow]

Aha, thanks
—-

Headline in WSJ today:

“Slow Growth Hasn’t Hurt Trump in Key Midwest Counties
While local job growth lags behind the nation’s, president’s approval rating has risen since 2017”

Hmm

[Kriegsspiel]

Aha, thanks

Sorry about that. Also, COPS are combat outposts, "terps" are interpreters, RAID is a camera on a pole, and the donkeys are frightened.

Headline in WSJ today:

“Slow Growth Hasn’t Hurt Trump in Key Midwest Counties
While local job growth lags behind the nation’s, president’s approval rating has risen since 2017”

Hmm

*shrug*

[Kriegsspiel]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLM9p8m7BBM

Strong ad work by the Republicans. Have they ever made an ad this good, or relevant?

[dualstow]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLM9p8m7BBM

Strong ad work by the Republicans. Have they ever made an ad this good, or relevant?

There was one like this, although I could have sworn it had lions. At least, it was longer.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_s71-Q2XBZg

[shekels]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLM9p8m7BBM

Strong ad work by the Republicans. Have they ever made an ad this good, or relevant?

At the Time this was a powerful ad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRPZQ3UEN_Q

[jhogue]

Everything will be exactly the same, except different.

In 2020, Dems will nominate Elizabeth Warren who will rail against plutocrats in banks, Wall Street, and offshore tax havens; but for taxes on Roth IRAs over $1 million, tighter capital controls, and Obamacare Plus Free Everything. Ironically, the Russians -- who will be found to have had nothing to do with the outcome of the 2016 election -- will be inspired to seriously hack the 2020 election, thereby assuring the return of the chaotic Donald to office for another 4 years. Only in America, baby!

You heard it here first! Happy New Year!!

I predict that we will look back on the Robert Mueller hearings yesterday as a critical milestone in Trump's re-election:

1. Russian Hack 2020 is already well under way.

2. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer can count to 51 and they now know for certain that impeaching Trump is an exercise in futility, even for the most partisan in their caucus. Worried that Ruth Bader Ginsburg will not last another 5 years on the Supreme Court, influential groups like NARAL will demand that the Dems drop impeachment and focus on electoral victory in November 2020.

This just in:
Elizabeth Warren (a.k.a. Pocahontas) leads Des Moines Register’s Iowa Poll for the first time, besting Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story ... 370015001/

[dualstow]

So far, damn accurate, Mr Hogue.
I'm glad the resurfacing of Warren's scandalous paleface photos haven't harmed her in the polls.