deskthority

Yeah I think so too. Chris Christie needs to watch more Frank Underwood to get some pointers. Especially if he's going to get a top post in the Trump administration.

All I saw was this :

That isn't representative of the whole endorsement... And even in that photo, it looks like his soul hurts.

True. I need to see the whole thing.

In other news, anyone excited for house of cards tomorrow today?

ohaimark wrote: If he naturally selects himself out of office, his running mate (who is hopefully a reasonable man) could take over.

Think carefully. Trump is going to need a running mate for VP. Who do you think is MOST like Trump among the Republicans, and also can get the female vote and make the Trump ticket look less sexist?

Sarah Palin

I am highly confident Congress will not try to impeach Trump to put Palin in office.

True, but the Palin/Trump card really disturbs me...so much that I have to post this:

If it's Palin... God help us all.

seebart wrote:
Obama went from a prophet like figure of hope to a hated looser.

It is very painful to imagine that people in Europe could see it that way. Obama has done an exemplary job cleaning up the mess that Bush Jr left him, and I believe that the only people who would describe him today as a "hated loser" are a small number of hard-core racists and right-wing-nut-jobs. Asked the question "Are you better off today than you were in 2008?" the only honest answer for 90%+ of Americans would have to be a resounding "yes" no matter how much bozos like Trump and Cruz whine about how bad "it" is.

My disappointments with him are that he did not go nearly far enough on the 2 truly important tasks of cleaning up Wall Street and getting us out of the Middle East. For that reason, I favor Sanders as a huge step forward and think that Hillary would be a large step back, with all the baggage she carries. But at this point in the history of the world, the Republican Party in the US could not be described as anything short of evil and insane, with a monumental shower of bastards populating their ticket, and pretty much any Democrat is 1,000X better than pretty much any Republican for any position of consequence.

I did not say that I see him that way. Also let me remind you fohat that I do not speak for anyone else on any side of the atlantic!

I see him that way. He didn't really do anything.

We know all about your political opinions already, Redmaus!

I think I generally agree with fohat on this one. He was a shining ray of light vs. George W's utter idiocy.

I don't know enough about George W. to accurately gauge that or not, but in my experience Obama didn't do anything beneficial to the United States in particular.

Redmaus wrote: I don't know enough about George W. to accurately gauge that or not, but in my experience Obama didn't do anything beneficial to the United States in particular.

May I ask how old you are?
Your statement sounds like "I was still a kid in the Bush days so I have no clue, now I am of voting age and I don’t like Obama because… because… oh well, I just don’t like him".

If I was an American I'd probably would vote for Trup just for the stirrup it would cause in the currently shitty and corrupt politics. Maybe it would beat some sense into other voters. As a European definitely Sanders. So far each time the US has had a republican president the rest of the world has had to suffer more or less.

Personally I'm a little confused of Trup's motives. Why does he run for president? He's a business man, not a politician. But maybe that's the reason for his popularity. still, confusing.
And why are so many Americans afraid of socialism, like it's the work of the devil? The majority of Americans would benefit from a more socialist country.
You pay a little more in taxes, but don't have to pay millions for a visit to the doctor. The rich pay a little more taxes, but are still rich, the poor pay a little less taxes and are still poor, but at least they don't have to live on the streets. Never mind the "pay for school" system. Oh well...

In 2002 in France, after in the first round of the presidential elections the socialist candidate Jospin had won less votes (16.2%) than the extreme right-wing racist candidate Le Pen (16.9%), the second round opposed President Chirac (who was best placed with 19.9%) and Le Pen.
The sheer possibility of Le Pen being elected president was so terrifying that nearly everybody who else wouldn’t have dreamed of giving Chirac his vote did.
In the end Chirac, whose re-election was far from being a matter of fact if opposed to Jospin, was re-elected with a never-seen before, overwhelming majority of over 82%.

I would expect a similar issue if in the US the presidential election was a direct ballot. Certainly a lot of people who cannot stand Clinton would give her their votes rather than risk a President Trump.

kbdfr wrote:

Redmaus wrote: I don't know enough about George W. to accurately gauge that or not, but in my experience Obama didn't do anything beneficial to the United States in particular.

May I ask how old you are?
Your statement sounds like "I was still a kid in the Bush days so I have no clue, now I am of voting age and I don’t like Obama because… because… oh well, I just don’t like him".

Essentially yes. The only things to come out of his administration are negative, and he is part of the reason Trump is so high in the polls.

My own personal beliefs probably align the best with the policies of Trump. However, he is a big-businessman. This is a positive in that he is less likely to be bought, however it is a negative in that he likely has motives other than the betterment of the country.

If I were a citizen of the USA my vote would go to Sanders, as I do think he is honest, and I do think that he only wishes to improve his country. I think that, despite my disagreements with his policy, a move towards honest presidents is the move that America (and most of the world) needs.

That said, I do believe we will be seeing Trump v Clinton, and in this case I see Trump as the far less harmful choice. Hillary's career is rife with corruption, deceit and warmongering. While Trump is a businessman and I wouldn't be surprised if he partook in some corruption, I doubt that he is malicious and power-hungry enough to delve to Clinton's level.

Redmaus wrote:
The only things to come out of his administration are negative

Which province of Pluto do you live in?

Can you remember 2008?

Anybody but Trump. He's not a real business man, and is just selling his name as a brand. If he can show a net worth of over 1 billion then I may reconsider, but not getting from 200 million to billion in the time he's been in business would be very revealing.



He has many more failed businesses than sucesses, and a lot of what people see a Trump projects are just other developers paying to use his name.



I think he'd be extremely bad for the USA.



I also think history will look very favorably on Obama. His teams policies allowed the USA to recover from the recesion better than most countries, whose belt tightening policies just prolonged the downturn.



People are upset with Obama for not delivering on his promises, but he can only do what the Congress and Senate allow.



I'm fiscally conservative, but socially libral, which leaves me with few options. Also, fiscally conservative does not necessarily mean averse to spending, only on wasteful spending. Some of the social services, and other safety nets can actually save money in the long run.



Sanders - Some good policies, can't see any making it to law.

Clinton - Questionable support from big business. Better than viewed by most.

Cruz - Slash and burn of Obama's policies without anying equivalent to replace them. Too politically extreme.

Rubio - Extreme, but seems to be a puppet for his backers.

Kasich - Probably the best Repubican option, but some worrying policies.

Trump - A total clown...



I just hope we can make it another four years. I can just see Trump's response to North Korea...



</rant>

Redmaus wrote:

kbdfr wrote:

Redmaus wrote: I don't know enough about George W. to accurately gauge that or not, but in my experience Obama didn't do anything beneficial to the United States in particular.

May I ask how old you are?
Your statement sounds like "I was still a kid in the Bush days so I have no clue, now I am of voting age and I don’t like Obama because… because… oh well, I just don’t like him".

Essentially yes. The only things to come out of his administration are negative, and he is part of the reason Trump is so high in the polls.

Let me defend Redmaus while calling him a kid at the same time...

In this case literally being a kid matters.

Young people always think that the president can do everything. Even in countries where the president is actually a figurehead (such as mine) it is a common misconception among the young that the president is the most powerful man in the country.

Obama is the equivalent of negative 0.2 Bush.

Since Bush was highly negative for the Entire Planet, because two negatives make a positive, Obama is moderately positive for the Entire Planet.

That said, Obama's leadership style was too professorial - too much like what he had been doing all his life, teaching. He was too dignified to beat down the obstructionists, call them at their game, etc unlike some of the US' more confrontational presidents. He is a positive force, but not positive enough to do many of the things he should have done. That's why Guantanamo remains open. That's why drone strikes have increased far beyond anything Bush ever did. That's why the US deficit ballooned.

I do not hate Obama or regret his presidency. But I am still disappointed. Obama came to power on a tidal wave of global hope and good will, but he has only done a small fraction of the good he could have done. A more experienced leader - not a law professor - might have found ways to coopt, manipulate or coerce the Republicans into doing things good for the country.

berserkfan wrote:
A more experienced leader - not a law professor - might have found ways to coopt, manipulate or coerce the Republicans into doing things good for the country.

Unfortunately, no. Newt Gingrich took care of that when he assumed the Speaker position. His 2 rules were (1) absolute and unconditional adherence to the party line and (2) no matter what "the other side" says or does, attack, attack, attack. Even if it was what you yourself attempted to promote last year.

Since then (mid-1990s) obstruction and gridlock has spiraled only downwards. Obama squandered his majorities in his first term by trying to be too nice and the one truly great accomplishment from that period was the Affordable Care Act.

The stimulus was successful in putting the economy back on track, but it was really a gargantuan giveaway to the very players who had wrecked the economy in the first place.

double post, sorry

berserkfan wrote: I originally made a similar post on geekhack where most forummers are US citizens. The response was practically 70% pro Trump, 20% pro Sanders, nearly 10% undeclared and one pro Clinton. Most geekhackers are young white males, so no surprise at the Trump demographic. I was only surprised at how overwhelming it was.

Good lord. 70% Trumpians on GH. Those jabronies don't have a clue.

photekq wrote: My own personal beliefs probably align the best with the policies of Trump. However, he is a successful businessman. This is a positive in that he is less likely to be bought, however it is a negative in that he likely has motives other than the betterment of the country.

If I were a citizen of the USA my vote would go to Sanders, as I do think he is honest, and I do think that he only wishes to improve his country. I think that, despite my disagreements with his policy, a move towards honest presidents is the move that America (and most of the world) needs.

That said, I do believe we will be seeing Trump v Clinton, and in this case I see Trump as the far less harmful choice. Hillary's career is rife with corruption, deceit and warmongering. While Trump is a businessman and I wouldn't be surprised if he partook in some corruption, I doubt that he is malicious and power-hungry enough to delve to Clinton's level.

In order to understand Trump, you need to understand narcissistic personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder. Neither of them works has much concern for the harm they cause, except to their ego: http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-cond ... n-20030111

Hillary isn't much better, but I think she is beholden to the party, first and foremost. She'll never turn her back on them, and they will never turn their back on her.

Redmaus wrote: I don't know enough about George W. to accurately gauge that or not, but in my experience Obama didn't do anything beneficial to the United States in particular.

I say all the following as an outside observer, because I did not vote for Obama in 2008 or 2012 (fyi, I didn't vote for the Republicans, either, I believe in voting for my conscious, which leads me to third party and independent candidates).

Acknowledging that LGBT individuals are human beings that should be protected from discrimination has been a positive part of his presidency.

Well, the economy is on fire right now, but I'm not sure how much the president has to do with that.

Oil is cheap. If you are a consumer, that is beneficial. But bad for the planet, bad for the oil industry.

Speaking of oil, if you actually understand science, his stance on climate change is beneficial for the future of the planet.

His continued acknowledgment of the gun homicide epidemic is important for public safety.

Those of us on Obamacare might feel that is beneficial. Those of us that care about the federal budget deficit may not feel the benefit.

[urlhttp://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2 ... clear-deal]Iran nuclear deal.[/url] Iran is a country will lots of potential and a hospitable population, from what I heard from those who have visited, despite whatever you hear in the media about Iran's leaders. A less isolated and more moderate Iran is great for the world.

Restoration of relations with Cuba. The beginning of the end of a stupid embargo.

That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are other benefits. Not to say everything he has done is great, I have many criticisms.

vivalarevolución wrote: In order to understand Trump, you need to understand narcissistic personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder.

Do you have any evidence to back up the fact that Trump possesses these personality traits?

vivalarevolución wrote:

berserkfan wrote: I originally made a similar post on geekhack where most forummers are US citizens. The response was practically 70% pro Trump, 20% pro Sanders, nearly 10% undeclared and one pro Clinton. Most geekhackers are young white males, so no surprise at the Trump demographic. I was only surprised at how overwhelming it was.

Good lord. 70% Trumpians on GH. Those jabronies don't have a clue.

What the heck, do you not know? Didn't you see my post in off topics, geekhack, a few weeks ago? I remember seeing you around then. Even I was deeply surprised at the one sidedly pro Trump stance.

photekq wrote:

vivalarevolución wrote: In order to understand Trump, you need to understand narcissistic personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder.

Do you have any evidence to back up the fact that Trump possesses these personality traits?

Got to go with Photekq on this. You seem to really fixate on Trumps negatives. Not that I don't like a good skeptic, you seem a little biased.

If the Americans elect Donald Trump as their president, they deserve him. I just hope they don't take down the rest of the world with them.

I saw a cooking show with Jamie Oliver just now ... He said that "summer savory works good with beans because it helps you not trump". I am not English... did I hear right? I had to look it up ...

Yes. Trump is English slang for Loud Fart. (there are many more sources than that if you search for it)
It is in the most common use in Midlands and Northern England, considered to be a milder, less vulgar word than "fart".
Some sources claim that the origin of the word is "trumpet", referring to the sound of farting. It has been
in common use for most of the 20th century, at least, in both older and younger generations.
(Jamie Oliver is from East England, not the Midlands)

photekq wrote: However, he is a successful businessman.

No.