blonde poker forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 09:21:58 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
2272476 Posts in 66752 Topics by 16944 Members
Latest Member: Blader
* Home Help Arcade Search Calendar Guidelines Login Register
+  blonde poker forum
|-+  Community Forums
| |-+  The Lounge
| | |-+  The Next President of the United States
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 ... 308 Go Down Print
Author Topic: The Next President of the United States  (Read 664576 times)
MintTrav
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3401


View Profile
« Reply #420 on: May 06, 2016, 07:48:25 PM »

Hey Y'All!

Donald Trump wants to deport illegal immigrants.

Diamond and Silk feel the same.

Logged
MintTrav
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3401


View Profile
« Reply #421 on: May 08, 2016, 10:55:35 PM »

With Trump and Clinton being disliked by such a high percentage of the electorate, the choice of running-mate is likely to be more important than in previous years.

Agree, kind of a good cop bad cop dealy.

Who do you think Clinton will pick?

Tim Kaine is top of everyone's list, but there are still a lot of possible good running mates. Some of the names being mentioned most:

Julian Castro and Cory Booker are both former multi-term mayors, Castro of San Antonio and Booker of Newark. They are both in their forties, Castro is Hispanic and Booker is black. They both turned down job offers in Obama's cabinet to remain in charge of their cities (Booker at the start of Obama's first term and Castro at the start of the second), though they both ended up in DC, Booker becoming a Senator in 2013 and Castro eventually accepting a cabinet role in 2014. Castro has been a leading figure in Clinton's campaign and she has previously stated that she might choose him. His identical twin is in the House of Representatives. Booker may be too conservative.

Tim Kaine and Mark Warner are older, both sixtyish, have both been Governor of Virginia and are both Senators now. Kaine may go down well with Hispanics. He made the first ever all-Spanish speech in the Senate, having become fluent during a year spent as a missionary in Honduras. Former head of the DNC, he made it to Obama's Veep shortlist in 2008, along with Biden, Clinton and two others. Warner is seen as a friend of business, not an advantage. He is a leading name of the New Democrat section of the party (think Third Way), like Bill Clinton. Virginia could be a battleground State, so locking up its delegates would be attractive. 

Elizabeth Warren is more liberal than Clinton, closer to Sanders. Some of Sanders' voters say they won't vote for Clinton, but they will in the end, so Warren doesn't add liberal voters. Also, she is from Massachusetts, which is safely Democrat. On the other hand, she has massive name recognition and is hugely respected. Some voters might not be keen on a two-woman ticket, and Trump would try to exploit that, though that could backfire. But Warren is no Sarah Palin - she used to be a Harvard law professor. If you were going to pick someone who could pull off the two-women ticket, it would be her, though she may be too progressive for Clinton's taste.

Bernie Sanders seemed to indicate in an interview on Friday that he could be open to the possibility. The US media are all over it but I can't see it myself.

All the talk is about Kaine and it seems that Clinton's team has given an indication that he is in the running, but he hardly represents progress. Booker, Kaine and Warner are all just too establishment in my view. I would narrow it down to Elizabeth Warren or Julian Castro, though there are several other possibles who have been mentioned but, so far, haven't been discussed as much as these.
Logged
Marky147
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 22796



View Profile
« Reply #422 on: May 08, 2016, 11:20:15 PM »

Watched a clip of Elizabeth Warren ripping some banker to pieces  last week.


Logged

MintTrav
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3401


View Profile
« Reply #423 on: May 09, 2016, 04:19:26 AM »

There may be a bit more elbow room at the GOP Convention this year, as several of the party's senior members have decided to stay away. Quite a few well-known Republicans have made their position known:
 
Supporting Trump
Chris Christie
Ben Carson
Jeff Sessions, Alabama Senator
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker
Rick Perry, former Texas Gov
Pete Ricketts, Nebraska Gov
Rick Scott, Florida Gov
Paul LePage, Maine Gov
John Boehner, former Speaker
Mike Pence, Indiana Gov

Anti-Trump, but "Supporting the Nominee"
Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader
Marco Rubio
Dick Cheney, former VP
Nikki Haley, South Carolina Gov
Bob Dole
John McCain
Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire Senator under pressure for her seat in Nov
Rand Paul

Not Ready to Endorse
Paul Ryan, current Speaker

Not Supporting Trump
George H Bush
George W Bush
Mitt Romney
Lindsey Graham
Jeb Bush
George Pataki, former New York Gov
Ron Paul

Ryan will fall in line later. It is up to him to unite the party. He just wants to make a show that people remember so he doesn't catch blame for the expected seat losses down the card.


There are plenty of less well-known figures who won't be supporting Trump, such as:

Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse - “Why are we confined to these two terrible options? This is America. If both choices stink, we reject them and go bigger. That’s what we do.”

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan - “I said I was not going to get involved, and I would not endorse any candidate and that I was going to stay focused on Maryland. And I’m not going to take any more stupid questions about Donald Trump.”
Logged
Rexas
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1963


View Profile
« Reply #424 on: May 09, 2016, 11:43:41 PM »


Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse - “Why are we confined to these two terrible options? This is America. If both choices stink, we reject them and go bigger. That’s what we do. We're not British

Logged

humour is very much encouraged, however theres humour and theres not.
I disrepectfully agree with Matt Smiley
MintTrav
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3401


View Profile
« Reply #425 on: May 10, 2016, 02:43:41 AM »

Trump's team has been talking again about needing a Washington insider as VP. And guess who is favourite now? Newt Gingrich! Hahaha! Yes, the scourge of Bill Clinton is back. He has been popping up in support of Trump and has criticised the Bushes' and Romney's withholding of support as "offensive". And everyone is taking him seriously - all the media are talking him up. This is the guy who wanted to set up a colony on the moon by 2020. Also the guy who obsessively pursued Clinton's impeachment over his affair, while having one at the same time himself.

Clinton was once asked why he picked Gore as his VP, and he said it was "because I might die". With Gingrich as Veep, we will be able to rest assured that if the Nutter-in-Chief dies, we have Nutter Two already in place ready to take over. If he gets it, I would expect it to be the first time that one party's two nominees have had six marriages between them.

Also getting a lot of attention is John Kasich. No Republican has ever won the White House without winning Ohio. Kasich is still a very popular Governor and is probably the only one who could deliver the State for the party.

And some people persist in bringing up Rubio and Cruz. Those guys are not going to do it, so stop discussing it. First, they would have to row back from so much nasty stuff that was said. And secondly, they have their eyes on 2020 now. There are plenty of reasons to think that Hillary could be a one-term President and here we are, with only four years left until the election. They don't have any time to spend on undermining their reputations by being associated with a possible landslide defeat.

The search is in safe hands - Ben Carson has been put in charge of it.......
« Last Edit: May 10, 2016, 02:56:02 AM by MintTrav » Logged
TightEnd
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: I am a geek!!



View Profile
« Reply #426 on: May 15, 2016, 09:33:16 AM »

Romney recruiting Kasich and Sasse for third-party run http://hill.cm/Sa8dSdY
Logged

My eyes are open wide
By the way,I made it through the day
I watch the world outside
By the way, I'm leaving out today
MintTrav
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3401


View Profile
« Reply #427 on: May 15, 2016, 12:39:06 PM »

The biggest fear for Democrats has been that a new scandal involving Hillary emerges or, worse, she gets indicted by the FBI over the email thing. If that happened, who would they turn to? Not Bernie Sanders. If Hillary has to drop out, the replacement would be Joe Biden.

Journalists have been convinced that it wasn't going to happen by the establishment's argument that if the Administration felt Clinton was going to be indicted, they would have Biden out there on show as an option, in case Clinton had to withdraw, but Biden has been staying quiet. Therefore, it's not happening.

Now, the FBI investigation is building, with several of Clinton's key advisors about to be interviewed. And, suddenly, Biden is visible, popping up in interviews. So far, he is just playing the role of genial Uncle Joe talking wistfully about what might have been. He says he would have loved to have run; he regrets not running every day; he would have been the best candidate and the best President. He has made no mention of jumping in, but he is clearly available and, it has to be said, looking very Presidential, having avoided all the mud-slinging.

Sanders' supporters, and many others, would obviously be furious if Biden was dropped in ahead of Bernie. One of the stories leaked this week was that Biden and Elizabeth Warren discussed running as a pair last year. Warren confirmed that they had had long meetings, didn't say what they discussed, but didn't deny the rumour. She is one of the most progressive big-name politicians around, so they would hope that having her on the ticket would assuage some of the Sanders people.

It might not happen. The FBI hasn't interviewed Hillary yet, much less come to its conclusion. But the back-up plan is in place. The suspicion is that the Administration has had a tip-off because, previously, there was no issue and no back-up. Now there is.
Logged
TightEnd
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: I am a geek!!



View Profile
« Reply #428 on: May 15, 2016, 12:49:13 PM »

The biggest fear for Democrats has been that a new scandal involving Hillary emerges or, worse, she gets indicted by the FBI over the email thing. If that happened, who would they turn to? Not Bernie Sanders. If Hillary has to drop out, the replacement would be Joe Biden.

Journalists have been convinced that it wasn't going to happen by the establishment's argument that if the Administration felt Clinton was going to be indicted, they would have Biden out there on show as an option, in case Clinton had to withdraw, but Biden has been staying quiet. Therefore, it's not happening.

Now, the FBI investigation is building, with several of Clinton's key advisors about to be interviewed. And, suddenly, Biden is visible, popping up in interviews. So far, he is just playing the role of genial Uncle Joe talking wistfully about what might have been. He says he would have loved to have run; he regrets not running every day; he would have been the best candidate and the best President. He has made no mention of jumping in, but he is clearly available and, it has to be said, looking very Presidential, having avoided all the mud-slinging.

Sanders' supporters, and many others, would obviously be furious if Biden was dropped in ahead of Bernie. One of the stories leaked this week was that Biden and Elizabeth Warren discussed running as a pair last year. Warren confirmed that they had had long meetings, didn't say what they discussed, but didn't deny the rumour. She is one of the most progressive big-name politicians around, so they would hope that having her on the ticket would assuage some of the Sanders people.

It might not happen. The FBI hasn't interviewed Hillary yet, much less come to its conclusion. But the back-up plan is in place. The suspicion is that the Administration has had a tip-off because, previously, there was no issue and no back-up. Now there is.

Biden's price in betting markets has tumbled in the last week

any price you like, 200/1+ now to below 50/1 in places
Logged

My eyes are open wide
By the way,I made it through the day
I watch the world outside
By the way, I'm leaving out today
Doobs
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 16570


View Profile
« Reply #429 on: May 17, 2016, 03:00:34 PM »

<3 Obama

https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/731900496085016576
Logged

Most of the bets placed so far seem more like hopeful punts rather than value spots
MintTrav
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3401


View Profile
« Reply #430 on: May 22, 2016, 07:00:42 PM »

The election has been much more squalid and nasty  than any in living memory, but it's about to get worse. This week, we saw the first serious signs of how low it's going to get over the next months.

The Clintons have many exposed areas where they can be attacked; whether 'scandals' or just decisions that others disagree with. There are financial scandals, legal scandals, government scandals, patronage scandals. There is Whitewater, which some will remember was a massive scandal at the time. There is Vince Foster's suicide. There are Bill's mistresses and which ones got paid off. Never mind the new issues like Benghazi and the emails. We could write a list that would fill this whole page. However, they have all been gone over so many times that the public has already absorbed them into its opinions. New discussion is unlikely to change anyone's mind in either direction.

So what have the websites and channels been focussing on this week? Sex. They started with the straightforward Paula Jones / Monica Lewinsky type last week, casting Hillary as an enabler because she accepted Bill's actions and, because it was so public, she may have caused other women in the general population to have to go through similar situations or even sexually abused. So far, not much new.

This week, it has stepped up dramatically. Paedophilia. Bill has been friends with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell for years and they are trying to associate him (Bill C) with underage sex by association. The only evidence so far is that he accepted several flights on Epstein's plane and visited his island once, but they are repeating that incessantly to try to force the connections. The Clintons are still openly close with Maxwell, eg she was at Chelsea's wedding, which even the Obamas didn't get to attend. They're not so close with Epstein these days.

The chances of there being anything in these rumours is remote. But they are new, so they could change minds. Also, they are potentially more damaging than other rumours if the public reacts badly.

What makes it all much more distasteful is that the candidate hasn't been staying above it all, as you would expect. Usually, if you want to ship some dirt, you get others to do it, so you don't look so nasty. Also, you can disown it if it goes wrong. Not Donald Trump. He is in there, mixing it up himself, as well as the others who are doing it on his behalf. Sean Hannity put some of the points to Trump this week and Trump volunteered "And rape!", referring to an old allegation against Bill. Newt has also been sticking his oar in.

And we are still in May. Six months to go. Because of the way Trump is, all the old sexual allegations are likely to get mainstream airings again. There have also been some very lurid allegations against both Clintons on conspiracy sites (but not mainstream channels) for years. Surely Trump wouldn't go to that level? Who knows how low he would go? Most of the mainstream allegations are unproven anyway, so why not mix it up with some more spicy stuff?

This is what American politics has become.
Logged
MintTrav
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3401


View Profile
« Reply #431 on: May 22, 2016, 08:52:29 PM »

Having disparaged candidates who accept donations and have SuperPacs, as he was self-funded and, therefore, couldn't be bought, Trump has discovered that even his wealth isn't enough to buy a Presidency. He has underspent several of his opponents so far. Without checking it back, I am sure that he underspent Bush, Cruz, Clinton and Sanders, maybe others (not Kasich). He now reckons that he needs to spend $1bn on the general election and he either doesn't have it or doesn't want to spend it. He said something to the effect that he could sell some buildings but that he doesn't want to. There has been a suspicion for ages that he isn't as rich as he makes out, but no-one really knows. Maybe the buildings are  financed. Maybe not.

Anyway, he is now taking donations. Actually, he always did, but didn't make it very public. Now he is openly collecting. Also, he has had two SuperPacs start recently and a third one is about to begin. So much for not being beholden to donors or special interests. This week, he had a meeting with our old friend Sheldon Adelson. Adelson is a big fan of Newt Gingrich. He entirely financed Gingrich's campaign in 2012. Now he is going to donate $100m to Trump, probably through the new SuperPac. He has also encouraged other Jewish Republicans to do the same http://www.timesofisrael.com/adelson-implores-republican-jewish-leaders-to-support-trump/. The odds on Gingrich getting the VP job just got shorter.

Apparently, Adelson and the Republican Jewish Coalition have suggested that it would be a good idea for Trump to pay a visit to Israel, probably in July, and Trump is going. So he is already doing what special interests want to get the money. He has previously said he would be neutral in Israeli-Palestinian discussions, which didn't go down well with those in America who care about this. His neutrality is a bit less likely now - Adelson says Trump will be a "tremendous president when it comes to the safety and security of Israel". This isn't new - Adelson switched his funding to Romney after Newt was eliminated, but made Romney do the Israel trip first too.

Things have certainly changed since October:
✔  ‎‎@realDonaldTrump 
Sheldon Adelson is looking to give big dollars to Rubio because he feels he can mold him into his perfect little puppet. I agree!
11:46 AM - 13 Oct 2015

http://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/653884577300267008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

 Click to see full-size image.

Adelson with Shimon Peres and Bush 43.
Logged
MintTrav
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3401


View Profile
« Reply #432 on: May 23, 2016, 09:58:21 PM »

Who is the more untrustworthy candidate? It's neck and neck..

CBS / NYT Poll 13-17 May:   Honest and Trustworthy?
                                                         Yes   No   
                                                            Hillary Clinton    32%   64%   
                                                            Donald Trump    31%   64%   
Logged
RED-DOG
International Lover World Wide Playboy
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 46911



View Profile WWW
« Reply #433 on: May 24, 2016, 12:46:26 AM »

Hi Minty.

Just wanted to say that I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread.

Thank you.
Logged

The older I get, the better I was.
MintTrav
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3401


View Profile
« Reply #434 on: May 24, 2016, 02:30:40 AM »

I've realised that people may not be familiar with Epstein and Maxwell.

Jeffrey Epstein is a billionaire who owns the largest private property in New York and has a conviction for sex with an under-age teenager. There have been numerous other allegations, but he has paid off more than a dozen girls. He has many high-ranking friends and there are allegations that he supplied under-age girls to several world leaders, though it is hard to know where reality ends and conspiracy theories start.

Ghislaine Maxwell is a daughter of Robert Maxwell and ex-girlfriend of Epstein. She is alleged to have secured young girls for him and others, but I'm not aware that any evidence has come out to support that.

The most prominent person linked to them is Prince Andrew, who has been a close friend of Epstein's for years, and they are known to have holidayed together (in Thailand), There have been allegations but, while I wouldn't be surprised if Ghislaine ensured that there were some willing women around when Andrew came to visit, I can't imagine there is anything more to it than that. Bill  and Andrew are far from being the only prominent names associated with Epstein - I know that Kevin Spacey's name came up, and there were some Presidents/Prime Ministers supposedly involved, but I don't remember who and it's not something I'm bothered to research. No evidence has been made public about anyone except Epstein.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 ... 308 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.315 seconds with 21 queries.