Can Trump win a second term ?

[CrimsonKing]

A Trump re-election thread already... 

Can he win?...depends on the economy and if the Dems try to hand polish a couple of old turds into gold nuggets again 

[Aquila King]

14 minutes ago, maxcred said:

I think he can win a 2nd term if he can get Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels to campaign for him.

[Space Commander Travis]

1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

Hillary had way more filthy rich and extremely powerful people on her side.

I'm not sure we have ever had a fair election. I'm pretty sure Trump won in spite of that.

I mean honesty, anyone with this person as one of their major supporters 

has the backing of perhaps the most powerful person in the world. 

[Space Commander Travis]

54 minutes ago, simplybill said:

There are several anti-Trump Republicans that have been opposing him from the beginning. They don't seem to have discovered any impeachable offenses. Mr. Trump announced his candidacy on Tuesday, June 16, 2015. That was 2 1/2 years ago. Give them a few more years, and they might find something.

Let's not forget that a lot of the time, the Republican party - in fact nearly all the Republican establishment - seems to hate him just as much if not more than the Democrats.  

[NightScreams]

If you listen to social media then it would seem the answer is no because hate mongering is all you really hear and the Democrats, liberals and social justice groups are winning in that regard and they all get grouped into the same lump sum, likely because they are more emotionally sensitive or emotionally driven and unable to seperate that from policies. The same reason why so many thought Hilary was going to win the election was because there were so many hateful comments against Trump but they didn't consider the silent majority. Social media has basically become a digital bully with people forcing opinions, dismissing others, contradicting others, insulting others, accusing others...etc. You can't just go around doing that and expect a positive result from others that have a different viewpoint on governing policies.

The hypocrisy and irony in political discussions is what I find most humorous  personally, such as haters hating on the hate groups or resulting to violence..with a dash of hate for example but ultimately whether Trump can win or not in a second term is going to be based on the success of all of his policies, not what he says on Twitter. I have doubts as to whether he'll actually want to run again. 

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

Of curse Trump could win again.

No matter how much that thought disgusts me.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

That's a good example of why large groups ban together in opposition. You can't just go around insulting people for their policy beliefs. In your context you literally insulted everyone that wanted some or all of Trump's policy solutions as Trump himself is irrelevant, it's his ability to lead that matters. that type of thing tends to make them more stubborn. I believe that's why the silent majority became silent and stuck with Trump despite it all, because they were consistently being accused of racism, bigotry...etc just because they see solutions in policies such as tax reform and their opinions consistency being dismissed. That's how you start an opposition, you can do with your own spouse for example if you want. Start accusing him/her of something or call him/her stupid and take notice of their opposition and resentment. Think about it, if every married person that disagrees with something performed all the hatred that we see on social media or at political events and protest rally's then they would kill each other or get divorced which is why most successful couples work out disagreements without resorting to such. That's why both sides of a debate need to find common ground, that means accepting some policies if the other side accepts other policies...if something doesn't work, then try another policy, that's what ends up happening anyway.

If you are disgusted, regardless of what your political standing is, then you are too emotionally involved to make an informed decision for solving a problem. But we don't decide on individual policies, we vote for someone to make those decisions and it appears that every individual human makes good decisions while talking trash just as they make bad decisions while speaking politely. The only thing everyone should care about is supporting policies that has the most likely chance of succeeding, regardless of political standing and how it makes you feel. For example, I don't like abortions, but I also don't like the govt intruding on individual freedoms just because I don't like something. I don't like euthanizing animals, I don't agree with hunting unless theres no other food source but I also respect their individual decisions to perform or enjoy those endeavors and they deserve the freedom despite my feelings. If you don't agree, I don't care because I can separate my feelings from it.

[Agent0range]

Who knows?  But, I will say, that I do not know anyone that wasn't a Trump supporter prior to the election all of the sudden switch over in support of him.  However, I know DOZENS of Trump supporters that regret their vote.  I also don't believe that he will get anywhere close to half of the vote of the 14-17 year olds that couldn't vote last election.

 

[CrimsonKing]

15 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

Who knows?  But, I will say, that I do not know anyone that wasn't a Trump supporter prior to the election all of the sudden switch over in support of him.  However, I know DOZENS of Trump supporters that regret their vote.  I also don't believe that he will get anywhere close to half of the vote of the 14-17 year olds that couldn't vote last election.

 

I myself wasn't a Trump supporter when i held my nose and voted for him,hell i still am not a full blown "he can do no wrong" type...but he is TRYING in several areas to get things done that have been kicked down the road by several previous administrations.

I know several dozens of people myself who work in areas of industry who don't like the guy on a personal level,but really like what he has been doing for their day to day lives...being fully employed and watching their paychecks increase can do wonders on how one makes their decision when entering a voting booth.

[Vorg]

3 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

But we also know why she was so unpopular, and it had a lot to do with a smear campaign against her.

 

 

You mean this smear campaign?

If the emails of hers that got released supposedly by Russian hackers were so damaging, then that proves she was trying to hide that server from the Freedom of information Act to which a legal server would have been subjected, Her "soccer mom" excuse as as to why she deleted "personal" emails while under subpoena to congress proves she knew it was illegal and she flat out lied.

She smeared herself, and she is filthy.

Edited February 25, 2018 by South Alabam

[Vorg]

2 hours ago, ChaosRose said:

Not true.

Putin, Russian oligarchs, Pro-Putin Ukrainian oligarchs, the Mercers...I'd venture to say those people are more wealthy and powerful.

And when you're getting into international organized crime figures, you see that opposition members meet untimely deaths in odd ways.

Poisoning, getting thrown off roofs, getting shot in front of the Kremlin, etc. 

It's kinda scary. 

Sounds more like the Clinton death list.

[+and-then]

1 hour ago, CrimsonKing said:

really like what he has been doing for their day to day lives...being fully employed and watching their paychecks increase can do wonders on how one makes their decision when entering a voting booth.

THIS^ will determine if he's president in 2021.  The "stuck on stupid" party seems not to have realized this or they REALLY have nothing else to offer.  His support hardens every time they tell new lies that are exposed.  Oh, sure, Mueller will create a report that casts "grave doubt or questions" about the election and Trump's role but in the end, a Porcine Transvestite is still just a pig in lipstick  

[Duke Wellington]

5 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Well, what are peoples thoughts ? 

I was inspired to post this by an article by an article in the Washington Post from last year. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-on-track-to-win-reelection/2017/10/06/91cd2af0-aa15-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.58d433b60741

The reason I found it interesting is that - 10 months after the inauguration of President Trump - the "left" still seem to be living in a fantasy world. This article - by one of the two pre-eminent anti-Trump newspapers - prints an article by a former Clinton advisor (albeit Bill, not Hillary). Please do read it..... it is a classic in reality denial. At no point is the Democrat Campaign - let alone Hillary Clinton - criticised... or even analysed. It was all the 'fault' of independent voters. Or aliens. Or moonbeams. Or something. 

Could President Trump win in 2020 ? Well, if this is the best than the Pro-left media can do, then... possibly. By default. 

Yes, he will win. Instead of listening to why people voted for him the first time they are still devaluing those voters and trying to find any reason to impeach him. Such negative politics doesnt win them votes it alienates them further.

Respect on immigration. Respect on Conservative values. Respect on jobs. Respect for the voters. Whether it be these or more issues the lack of Respect for what the majority of Americans want is why the left wont be getting back in power anytime soon.

[ExpandMyMind]

3 hours ago, and then said:

From the article:   "We saw a targeting of 21 states and an exceptionally small number of them were actually successfully penetrated."

And if that isn't enough:  

He tells the truth beginning at 3:15.  When HE says it, what more can be said?

'you don't break into a house to admire the carpet'.

[Hankenhunter]

But, but, her emails. Lol, almost twenty years of Hillary is guilty. Multiple investigations by Republicans, marathon grilling sessions of Hillary by Republicans, but no evidence.  Either you lot are the most bumbling inept investigators in history or she just isnt guilty. Yet you keep trotting out the same old whargarble. Over and over. Isn't this the definition of stupidity? America is waking up to the stupid, lying, bumbling fool in the white house. His approval rating is the lowest in American history regardless of what Fox entertainment spews. Naw, he hasn't got a chance.

Hank

 

[Paranormal Panther]

Some polls indicate that he's more popular than Obama was at this time in their respective administrations. Some progressives and their media friends are quadrupling down on the things that kept Hillary from her crown and throne. They meet the proverbial definition of insanity. Their repetitive mistakes may cause even more people to support Trump, even former political allies. 

[Paranormal Panther]

6 hours ago, Vlad the Mighty said:

holy moses, you're not still trying to keep that punctured old football inflated, are you? You really don't think the population was able to see what his rival was like for themselves without the aid of Shadowy Foreigners^(TM)? 

They act like she was a mix of JFK and MLK and that her loss was some kind of unprecedented mystery of history. The fact is that the Democrats ran the least appealing candidate in the race, the one that Trump actually could beat. A million Russian trolls riding on the backs of a million Russian bots wouldn't have changed that fact, and Clinton's poor campaign tactics just made the Trump presidency that much more likely. They should learn from this monumental mistake, but my guess is that they will just do more of the same. 

[Vorg]

3 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

But, but, her emails. Lol, almost twenty years of Hillary is guilty. Multiple investigations by Republicans, marathon grilling sessions of Hillary by Republicans, but no evidence.  Either you lot are the most bumbling inept investigators in history or she just isnt guilty. Yet you keep trotting out the same old whargarble. Over and over. Isn't this the definition of stupidity? America is waking up to the stupid, lying, bumbling fool in the white house. His approval rating is the lowest in American history regardless of what Fox entertainment spews. Naw, he hasn't got a chance.

Hank

 

No evidence? She deleted 33,000 "personal" emails, had her staff destroy the blackberries with hammers, all while under subpoena. She had classified emails on her server, Comey admitted that, but said no charges would be bought. So your "no evidence" claim is invalid.

 

 

[acidhead]

4 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

But, but, her emails. Lol, almost twenty years of Hillary is guilty. Multiple investigations by Republicans, marathon grilling sessions of Hillary by Republicans, but no evidence.  Either you lot are the most bumbling inept investigators in history or she just isnt guilty. 

Hank

 

lol

 

 

[Paranormal Panther]

4 hours ago, Mystic Crusader said:

Christosascism 

It's this kind of marginalization of Evangelicals that put Trump in the White House. Hillary learned that the hard way with her "deplorables" bigotry.

[Aquila King]

2 hours ago, NightScreams said:

If you listen to social media then it would seem the answer is no because hate mongering is all you really hear and the Democrats, liberals and social justice groups are winning in that regard and they all get grouped into the same lump sum, likely because they are more emotionally sensitive or emotionally driven and unable to seperate that from policies. The same reason why so many thought Hilary was going to win the election was because there were so many hateful comments against Trump but they didn't consider the silent majority. Social media has basically become a digital bully with people forcing opinions, dismissing others, contradicting others, insulting others, accusing others...etc. You can't just go around doing that and expect a positive result from others that have a different viewpoint on governing policies.

Well if this isn't the pot calling the kettle black...

Trump and his supporters continually insult Mexicans, Muslims, Immigrants in general, women, pretty much everyone except old rural white voters. Yet it's the 'liberals' who are hate mongering? Uh huh, riiiiiight...

Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty I suppose.

As for the whole bit about you caring about policy substance and democrats being 'emotional', do you not realize that when we point out the hatefulness of Trump it often times ties into his specific policies? Temporarily banning all Muslims from entering the country for example. That's a policy he proposed that is objectively prejudiced to the core, and so when we call that hateful and prejudiced that is a critique of the policy itself. The fact that some of us actually empathize with the millions of innocent people such policies would adversely affect does not mean that we're weak and 'emotionally driven', it simply means we actually give a s**t about the lives of innocent people who are being victimized by these BS policy proposals.

If you lack empathy when promoting policies, then you shouldn't be promoting policies in the first place. That's not being 'emotionally driven', that's being morally driven.

2 hours ago, NightScreams said:

The hypocrisy and irony in political discussions is what I find most humorous  personally, such as haters hating on the hate groups or resulting to violence..with a dash of hate for example but ultimately whether Trump can win or not in a second term is going to be based on the success of all of his policies, not what he says on Twitter. I have doubts as to whether he'll actually want to run again. 

What I (and many others) oppose is senseless hatred of innocent people. Unjustified hatred. That doesn't mean we should be so loving that we love hate groups. That would be a contradiction. If you love haters, then you love their hate in some sort of a way. I don't advocate violence of any kind against them, nor do I think their right to believe and express such hatred should be infringed upon. However in the case of hate groups of any kind, liberal or conservative, I think we are fully justified in hating every bit of what they stand for.

You're dancing a bit too close to outright defending hate groups here, which I highly doubt you would actually do.

2 hours ago, NightScreams said:

That's a good example of why large groups ban together in opposition. You can't just go around insulting people for their policy beliefs. In your context you literally insulted everyone that wanted some or all of Trump's policy solutions as Trump himself is irrelevant, it's his ability to lead that matters. that type of thing tends to make them more stubborn.

The road goes both ways buddy.

Many of Trump's policy beliefs are insulting by their very nature. As I said above, banning Muslims for example, building a wall to keep the Mexicans out, torturing potential terrorists, nuking North Korea thereby murdering millions of innocent people, etc.

These policy beliefs are utterly disgusting, and if you don't like me calling it that then you can just go cry in your soup like the triggered snowflake that you are. I refuse to pretend like these horrendous policies are a mere 'difference of opinion.' They aren't, they're a difference in morals.

If you find that insulting then too bad. I'd say Trump supporters need a good taste of their own medicine once in a while.

2 hours ago, NightScreams said:

I believe that's why the silent majority became silent and stuck with Trump despite it all, because they were consistently being accused of racism, bigotry...etc just because they see solutions in policies such as tax reform and their opinions consistency being dismissed.

They aren't dismissed, they're refuted by facts and rational argument. There's a difference there.

And if you don't like being called bigots all the time, then perhaps you should stop acting like bigots all the time. Just a thought.

2 hours ago, NightScreams said:

That's how you start an opposition, you can do with your own spouse for example if you want. Start accusing him/her of something or call him/her stupid and take notice of their opposition and resentment. Think about it, if every married person that disagrees with something performed all the hatred that we see on social media or at political events and protest rally's then they would kill each other or get divorced which is why most successful couples work out disagreements without resorting to such. That's why both sides of a debate need to find common ground, that means accepting some policies if the other side accepts other policies...if something doesn't work, then try another policy, that's what ends up happening anyway.

If Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave his 'I Have a Dream' speech centered around finding 'common ground', the civil rights movement of the 60's would have no where near the impact that it did, and lord knows if people would have the rights that they have today.

No, what you really mean by that is that we should just give in and concede to your whims. Hell no. We're not gonna cheer for a tie. We're going all the way to the finish line. It's all or nothing. You're either with us or against us. There is no middle ground.

We are not gonna settle for some innocent Muslims being banned for no reason, we're gonna protect the rights of all Muslims. We're not gonna settle for some honest hardworking illegal immigrants having their families torn apart and deported for such a minor crime, we're gonna protect all immigrants. We're not gonna settle for some billionaires and big corporations influencing politicians for their own political gain while screwing over hardworking American citizens, we're gonna end all government corruption. We're not gonna settle for some innocent people and children being killed because you refuse to do anything to combat gun violence, we're going to ban all automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles and enact all reasonable safety measures necessary that have already been proven to work to prevent as many mass shootings as possible. The list could go on and on.

We are not going to go halfway. We're implementing the right policies to do the job, because there's too much at stake to do otherwise. If you don't like and 'disagree', then beat us in an election, because otherwise I and many others have had it and are not giving an inch.

3 hours ago, NightScreams said:

If you are disgusted, regardless of what your political standing is, then you are too emotionally involved to make an informed decision for solving a problem.

Oh please. Every single civil rights movement, whether it be women's rights, end of slavery, the end of Jim Crow, LGBT rights, etc. has been driven not just on hope for a better future but also out of a complete and utter disgust towards the social injustices that came as a result of their oppression. Some of the biggest and most positive political movements in history have stemmed from a deep-seated emotional reaction to the suffering and injustices of innocent people.

What you're arguing here sounds on the surface to be a good idea, better to let your head inform your decisions then your heart.

However what you seem to actually be arguing here is to divorce yourself from any sort of empathy, and allow cold harsh policies that screw over the lives of millions to take control.

You're essentially asking us for example, to not empathize towards the innocent hardworking illegal immigrants who contribute greatly to our society and who simply came here for a better life, but who's family is being torn apart by a political policy that fails to empathize with their situation and causes unnecessary pain and suffering without addressing any real issue.

Sorry, but I don't think so.

3 hours ago, NightScreams said:

But we don't decide on individual policies, we vote for someone to make those decisions and it appears that every individual human makes good decisions while talking trash just as they make bad decisions while speaking politely.

Speak for yourself.

Trump isn't just talking trash and being insulting. He supports horrendous policies as well.

The fact that he insults people while doing so is just icing on the cake.

3 hours ago, NightScreams said:

The only thing everyone should care about is supporting policies that has the most likely chance of succeeding, regardless of political standing and how it makes you feel. For example, I don't like abortions, but I also don't like the govt intruding on individual freedoms just because I don't like something. I don't like euthanizing animals, I don't agree with hunting unless theres no other food source but I also respect their individual decisions to perform or enjoy those endeavors and they deserve the freedom despite my feelings. If you don't agree, I don't care because I can separate my feelings from it.

I think we can all agree that the government shouldn't enact policies based on what we simply 'don't like', but that's not what we're arguing here.

We're talking about policies that screw over people's lives. It's more than a simple 'I don't like that'.

By your logic here, the government shouldn't make laws against rape simply because women don't like to be raped. "Their emotions are too involved in their support for anti-rape laws. They need to think more rational about it and keep their emotions out of it."

I mean this argument of yours is just dismissive and downright silly.

These policies of Trumps are horrendous. They screw over millions of people royally, and it's not a mere matter of 'opinion.' My objection to such policies are not emotional, they're moral. Therefore it's perfectly reasonable for me to be completely and utterly disgusted by Trump and his supporters. It's as simple as that.

[GoldenWolf]

7 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

It's this kind of marginalization of Evangelicals that put Trump in the White House. Hillary learned that the hard way with her "deplorables" bigotry.

I stated fact, not marginalization.

----------

I made a typo earlier, it is supposed to be Christofascism.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Mystic Crusader

[Paranormal Panther]

1 minute ago, Mystic Crusader said:

I stated fact, not marginalization.

Get used to losing. Keep up the bad work.

[GoldenWolf]

1 minute ago, Paranormal Panther said:

Get used to losing. Keep up the bad work.

Everybody loses with a fascist leader.

[Paranormal Panther]

Just now, Mystic Crusader said:

Everybody loses with a fascist leader.

That's why Hillary was defeated. We dodged a bullet. 

[Aquila King]

8 minutes ago, Paranormal Panther said:

That's why Hillary was defeated. We dodged a bullet. 

Dodged right into an oncoming semi.

[Vorg]

22 minutes ago, Mystic Crusader said:

Everybody loses with a fascist leader.

Why did Trump focus on mental health instead of taking guns away if he is a fascist leader?