Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ericandblueboy

Theories on President Trump's Behavior and Agenda

Recommended Posts

Is Trump's hidden agenda to destroy the Republican party from within?  The only reason that I doubted that was that it would also bring down his brand.  However, a new thought occurred to me....by delivering 60 senate seats to the Democratic party, he'd do more for the Democratic party than any current Democrat.  He would be hailed as the savior of the planet by later walking back all the whacko things he said.  The last person who did as much for the Democratic party was W.

Not trying to start any political fights...Morning Joe (Scarborough) says Trump has been a Democrat for 65 years of his life, has been friends of the Clintons, and has basically been fighting the Republican establishment during his entire campaign, but can't explain how he would be willing be sacrifice his family/brand for the Democratic party.

Would people believe it if he said his true goal was to elect a Democratic super-majority in the Senate and a majority in the House?  Would Democrats hail him as a hero, which would burnish his brand? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect Hillary had something to do with Phyllis Schlafly's death. I don't know this for a fact, I'm just saying.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Al Dente said:

I suspect Hillary had something to do with Phyllis Schlafly's death. I don't know this for a fact, I'm just saying.

No, OTHER people are saying...YOU are never saying! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LauraB said:

No, OTHER people are saying...YOU are never saying! 

Oops, you're absolutely right! I think I read it on Breitbart or the National Enquirer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colbert was freakin' awesome last night with the whole birther bullshit.

This past Friday, Donald Trump finally brought himself to say the words, “President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period.”

“That’s what’s called a firm grasp of the obvious,” Stephen Colbert declared on Monday night’s Late Show. “Next I assume he’s going to announce that water is wet, that bears poop in the woods, and that Donald Trump is not qualified to be president.”

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Al Dente said:

Colbert was freakin' awesome last night with the whole birther bullshit.

I propose that anyone who declares themselves as "undecided" at this point be denied the right to vote. :)

Although they'd make for an interesting psychological study - I wonder if anybody is truly undecided right now. Meh, I suppose there are those who haven't even thought about all this nonsense yet - and they're probably the smart ones.

On a different note, I don't remember an ex-President ever supporting someone from the opposing party (assuming this is true):

"George H.W. Bush To Vote for Hillary Clinton" by Darren Samuelsohn on politco.com

(Related trivia)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/4/2016 at 2:02 PM, Al Dente said:

I'm really losing any remaining shred of faith in humanity. You can't fix stupid, and these folks will be around long after the election regardless of who wins. 

Depressing as hell...

‘Finally. Someone who thinks like me.’ by Stephanie McCrummen on The Washington Post.

Both men and women write to people on Death Row of their preferred gender.  This is fundamentally no different, and if anything, there's an extra layer to it, because some people love the idea of *telling* people they're for him (or in fairness, her, too) simply for the 'trolling effect' and/or the attention they get from people looking to 'convert' them to their way of thinking.  Evangelicalism and politics are the same damned thing now.

"Why don't you like ~my guy/gal/deity~?'  She/He/It works for me, so you must be *flawed* and in desperate need of fixing!  Here, let me give you the personalized attention I don't realize you secretly crave because I'm too intrigued and blinded by the idea of changing your mind!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm skeptical we'll have elections next year.

And if we do manage to have one, that the current occupant of the White House will win fairly.

And if by some chance he loses, that the transfer of power takes place.

Let's hope I'm wrong, shall we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TrelayneNYC said:

I'm skeptical we'll have elections next year.

And if we do manage to have one, that the current occupant of the White House will win fairly.

And if by some chance he loses, that the transfer of power takes place.

Let's hope I'm wrong, shall we?

We'll have an election next year.  Your second point is based on one's point of view - there's no way the Dems will think Trump will do anything fairly.  If Trump loses, he'll give up power.  I'm pretty objective since I'm ambivalent about who runs the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2019 at 4:36 PM, Ericandblueboy said:

We'll have an election next year.  Your second point is based on one's point of view - there's no way the Dems will think Trump will do anything fairly.  If Trump loses, he'll give up power.  I'm pretty objective since I'm ambivalent about who runs the country.

I'm glad you think that because this happened today:

https://publicintegrity.org/federal-politics/federal-election-commission-fec-to-effectively-shut-down/

Quote

Federal Election Commission Vice Chairman Matthew Petersen announced his resignation today. 

This means the agency that enforces and regulates the nation’s campaign finance laws will effectively shut down — something that hasn’t happened since 2008 — because it won’t have the legal minimum of four commissioners to make high-level decisions.

Maybe we should start to teach ourselves Russian.

---

In the meantime, Twitter will continue to be distracted by chicken sandwiches and the same with the general public.

Clock's ticking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this happened today

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/08/28/children-us-troops-born-overseas-will-no-longer-get-automatic-american-citizenship.html
 

Quote

Children born to U.S. service members and government employees overseas will no longer be automatically considered citizens of the United States, according to policy alert issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on Wednesday.

Previously, children born to U.S. citizen parents were considered to be "residing in the United States," and therefore would be automatically granted citizenship under Immigration and Nationality Act 320. Now, children born to U.S. service members and government employees, such as those born in U.S. military hospitals or diplomatic facilities, will not be considered as residing in the U.S., changing the way that they potentially receive citizenship.

but good on someone upthread for being and I quote

On 8/26/2019 at 4:36 PM, Ericandblueboy said:

ambivalent about who runs the country.

Because, you know, this would have totally happened under Obama if the Dear Leader's predecessor had just been given the opportunity.

#sarcasm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2019 at 4:36 PM, Ericandblueboy said:

We'll have an election next year.  Your second point is based on one's point of view - there's no way the Dems will think Trump will do anything fairly.  If Trump loses, he'll give up power.  I'm pretty objective since I'm ambivalent about who runs the country.

Sorry, I just to come “back” to agree and echo Eric’s sentiments. Sorry Trelayne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/28/2019 at 7:43 PM, TrelayneNYC said:

And this happened today

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/08/28/children-us-troops-born-overseas-will-no-longer-get-automatic-american-citizenship.html

but good on someone upthread for being and I quote

Because, you know, this would have totally happened under Obama if the Dear Leader's predecessor had just been given the opportunity.

#sarcasm

A *huge* deal was made about this USCIS policy change yesterday by people who didn't understand it. DOD estimates it's going to affect 100 people annually and worked with USCIS to develop the change, which brought USCIS policy in line with Department of State policy. It means that children born abroad to U.S. government or military employees who are U.S. citizens won't automatically be U.S. citizens as if they were born in the United States, but they can still acquire citizenship by filing an application. It's not great (an extra step, an application fee), but it's not one of the many OMG THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS SO EVIL immigration policies we've seen implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alan7147 said:

Sorry, I just to come “back” to agree and echo Eric’s sentiments. Sorry Trelayne

There's absolutely no problem with your agreeing with Eric's sentiments. Why are you apologizing to Trelayne? Intelligent discourse, which includes opposing points of view, is what we're all about.

That said, Eric has said *a lot* in this thread. Do you agree with every single thing? Part of what he has written? Or ... ?

As a starting point, here's his first post, much of which is in the form of questions - what do you agree with here?

On 8/3/2016 at 9:45 AM, Ericandblueboy said:

Is Trump's hidden agenda to destroy the Republican party from within?  The only reason that I doubted that was that it would also bring down his brand.  However, a new thought occurred to me....by delivering 60 senate seats to the Democratic party, he'd do more for the Democratic party than any current Democrat.  He would be hailed as the savior of the planet by later walking back all the whacko things he said.  The last person who did as much for the Democratic party was W.

Not trying to start any political fights...Morning Joe (Scarborough) says Trump has been a Democrat for 65 years of his life, has been friends of the Clintons, and has basically been fighting the Republican establishment during his entire campaign, but can't explain how he would be willing be sacrifice his family/brand for the Democratic party.

Would people believe it if he said his true goal was to elect a Democratic super-majority in the Senate and a majority in the House?  Would Democrats hail him as a hero, which would burnish his brand? 

(I'd be happy to move this into the Current Events forum, but I'm still not sure what this thread is about.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...