Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
IBelieveWhatIWant

Trump wants to become president for life?

306 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Space Commander Travis

Trump wants to become president for life?

Indeed, I mean look what he's done already; outlawed opposition parties, taken the press totally under his control. It's appalling, seeing the way that the entire US press marches in lockstep with him, and these endless sycophantic headlines about the Dear Leader. :no: And the appalling sight of the Leader Who Should Have Been, dear Hillary, being marched off by a phalanx of Secret State Police to ... well, who knows where. There have been the odd message supposedly smuggled out from the internment camp, but can we be sure they're genuine? :( 

Edited by Vlad the Mighty
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis
4 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

Well, I just heard today that Putin pretty much gave his acceptance speech yesterday, before the election.

And what does the Evil One have to do with this? Unless it's the rule that in any mention of Trump, his evil master in Moscow must also be mentioned, just to remind people whose control he's under. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis
4 hours ago, IBelieveWhatIWant said:

Yep and I'm sure if Obama made the same comments (or spent roughly 1/3rd of his presidency golfing) and Dems said "Obama's humour is dry humour" Repubs would have just accepted that, right? Either you are native or ignorant.

It puzzles me that people seem to see this as something to criticize. I mean, if he was a would-be dictator, the more time he spends out of the office the better, I'd have thought. In fact, the more time that any politicians spend golfing rather than in the office doing things the better for everyone, surely. When politicians to try to do something it always leads to trouble. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis
2 hours ago, Astra. said:

That's interesting Hammer. So it was Franklin Roosevelt, ( i just did a quick wiki search). That's a very long time to serve. I'm wondering tho, if he was such a terrible president. Then why did the people keep electing him for office at the time ? 

 

To many (particularly Winston Churchill) he was one of the greatest leaders in American history .. 
 

In the months prior to the July 1940 Democratic National Convention, there was much speculation as to whether Roosevelt would run for an unprecedented third term. The two-term tradition, although not yet enshrined in the Constitution,[g] had been established by George Washington when he refused to run for a third term in the 1796 presidential election. Roosevelt refused to give a definitive statement as to his willingness to be a candidate again, and he even indicated to some ambitious Democrats, such as James Farley, that he would not run for a third term and that they could seek the Democratic nomination. However, as Germany swept through Western Europe and menaced Britain in mid-1940, Roosevelt decided that only he had the necessary experience and skills to see the nation safely through the Nazi threat.

Some might suggest that that was, at the very least, somewhat egotistical ...

Edited by Vlad the Mighty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
7 minutes ago, Vlad the Mighty said:
To many (particularly Winston Churchill) he was one of the greatest leaders in American history .. 
 

In the months prior to the July 1940 Democratic National Convention, there was much speculation as to whether Roosevelt would run for an unprecedented third term. The two-term tradition, although not yet enshrined in the Constitution,[g] had been established by George Washington when he refused to run for a third term in the 1796 presidential election. Roosevelt refused to give a definitive statement as to his willingness to be a candidate again, and he even indicated to some ambitious Democrats, such as James Farley, that he would not run for a third term and that they could seek the Democratic nomination. However, as Germany swept through Western Europe and menaced Britain in mid-1940, Roosevelt decided that only he had the necessary experience and skills to see the nation safely through the Nazi threat.

Some might suggest that that was, at the very least, somewhat egotistical ...

Some might suggest, given the “none of our businessism” going on prior to the Day That Shall Live In Infamy (and, in fact afterwards toward the war in Europe) the fact FDR thumbed his nose at tradition might be the only reason the US joined the war against Nazi Germany and engaged in Lend Lease etc. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Yes, what would the consequences have been then? Hitler in charge of all of Europe (the parts that weren't under the control of his friends Mussolini and Franco), at best a stalemate if Britain still managed to hold out, and Adolf would have been able to devote nearly all his attention to Russia. So who knows what the world might have looked like. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
6 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I think most all of us agree that vulgar speech is not a disqualifier for the office of the presidency. I honestly don't care about that. What I care about is the fact that when someone brags about assaulting women on tape, and then numerous other women come forward claiming it to be true, it shouldn't be poo-pooed with claims of 'locker room talk' and whataboutisms.

 

6 hours ago, joc said:

Just tell me you were as appalled by the actions in the Oval Office of Slick Willy Clinton....

I mean, you couldn't script this.. 

 

1 hour ago, Vlad the Mighty said:
To many (particularly Winston Churchill) he was one of the greatest leaders in American history .. 
 

In the months prior to the July 1940 Democratic National Convention, there was much speculation as to whether Roosevelt would run for an unprecedented third term. The two-term tradition, although not yet enshrined in the Constitution,[g] had been established by George Washington when he refused to run for a third term in the 1796 presidential election. Roosevelt refused to give a definitive statement as to his willingness to be a candidate again, and he even indicated to some ambitious Democrats, such as James Farley, that he would not run for a third term and that they could seek the Democratic nomination. However, as Germany swept through Western Europe and menaced Britain in mid-1940, Roosevelt decided that only he had the necessary experience and skills to see the nation safely through the Nazi threat.

Some might suggest that that was, at the very least, somewhat egotistical ...

To be fair, it was pretty much what every country did then. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Astra.
2 hours ago, Vlad the Mighty said:
To many (particularly Winston Churchill) he was one of the greatest leaders in American history .
 
However, as Germany swept through Western Europe and menaced Britain in mid-1940, Roosevelt decided that only he had the necessary experience and skills to see the nation safely through the Nazi threat.

Some might suggest that that was, at the very least, somewhat egotistical ...

Well they were horrific times back then with Nazi Germany. I'm sure due to the circumstances both leaders did their best at the time..regardless of who was the greater one of the two, or the most egotistical.

I read somewhere tho, that Winston Churchill could be a stubborn and impetuous man who was normally driven by ego, and sometimes unsympathetic to the plight of others, especially if they weren't British. I'm not sure if this is actually true though.  

Edited by Astra.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
6 hours ago, Agent0range said:

What's funny is that the term "locker room humor" is actually a thing now.  I don't know...8 years in the Army in an all male combat arms unit, and we never joked about sexually assaulting women.  I guess we weren't up on our "locker room humor", or, we just realized that sexual assault isn't funny, no matter what company you are in.  But, hey, you can joke about that with your male friends...if that's what floats your boat.

That's the thing though. If you listen to it, it clearly wasn't a joke. I'm not sure why people keep calling it locker 'humour'. Sure, people night have laughed, but Trump wasn't joking. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
6 hours ago, Aquila King said:

It's amazing how you can call someone a hypocrite whilst stating one of the most hypocritical things imaginable.

You want to complain about the Clinton's misconduct all while defending Trump's. I've already said that I have no love for the Clintons, and I strongly oppose their actions, as well as any misconduct on the part of any democrat in Washington. What I oppose is sexual misconduct on anyone's part, and I refuse to defend anyone just because I agree with them politically. Unlike you, I actually care about principles as opposed to just being a partisan political hack.

I just wish to god one of you Trump supporters would get it through your head that you don't have to defend someone incessantly, just because they're on your 'team.' But then again if you could do that, you probably wouldn't be supporting Trump in the first place... One can only hope...

 

Mmm Clinton actually RAPED women. Trumps comment had nothing to do with assault. He was talking about how women throw themselves at rich people like himself. Not one women has ever accused him of anything before he ran for office, and every one of them dropped their law suits soon as it was over. Not only that but the dems were PAYING women to say he assaulted them. To compare him to the true monster that is Bill Clinton is a injustice.

In turn, you don't have to believe every lie told about him either. Especially when they have been directly caught lying about him several times. I mean do you believe he tried to kill fish when he was in Japan?

What he said regarding China was a clear sarcastic joke. I cant understand for the life of me how you could believe otherwise.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76
6 hours ago, Agent0range said:

What's funny is that the term "locker room humor" is actually a thing now.  I don't know...8 years in the Army in an all male combat arms unit, and we never joked about sexually assaulting women.  I guess we weren't up on our "locker room humor", or, we just realized that sexual assault isn't funny, no matter what company you are in.  But, hey, you can joke about that with your male friends...if that's what floats your boat.

None of you were billionaires with women throwing themselves at you. He never said anything about assault.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
38 minutes ago, Astra. said:

Well they were horrific times back then with Nazi Germany. I'm sure due to the circumstances both leaders did their best at the time..regardless of who was the greater one of the two, or the most egotistical.

I read somewhere tho, that Winston Churchill could be a stubborn and impetuous man who was normally driven by ego, and sometimes unsympathetic to the plight of others, especially if they weren't British. I'm not sure if this is actually true though.  

Churchill is generally known to have been a terrible Prime Minister but a great leader during the war. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
8 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

From the link:

"Trump also praised China's President Xi Jinping for recently consolidating power and extending his potential tenure, musing he wouldn't mind making such a maneuver himself.

"He's now president for life. President for life. No, he's great," Trump said. "And look, he was able to do that. I think it's great. Maybe we'll have to give that a shot some day."
 
What in the hell did they put in that "big, beautiful chocolate cake" they had?

Still think that private gun ownership in case of necessary revolution isn't a good idea? :lol:

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
8 hours ago, Aquila King said:

Just sittin' back here waiting to see how many Trump supporters will actually support the idea of Trump being president indefinitely...

Especially given the number of right-wing conspiracies there were of the mythical Obama third-term...

I've learned not to ever assume the Trump cult 'surely wouldn't support him after that', cause they always do...

I certainly wouldn't support that. Similarly, I don't think we need Senators who are in office 50 years. Or Supreme Court Justices who are in office for 50 years. The government should represent the people, and the people change fast enough that long term politicians are not favorable, IMHO. And... Don't pretend that the Justices of the SCotUS are not politicians....

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
8 hours ago, IBelieveWhatIWant said:

Can you blame them, they supported (and still support) a child molester. Poor things were probably feed lead as toddlers.

Come on. The other choice was a woman who defended her husband who very likely made Trump look like a choir boy.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
8 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

No, actually he's only spent 100 days of his 407 day old presidency golfing.

Would you rather have him WORKING for those 100 days? Isn't he doing less harm by being out there on the golf course? Democrats and Progressives should be BEGGING him to go golf more and work less.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IBelieveWhatIWant
9 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Come on. The other choice was a woman who defended her husband who very likely made Trump look like a choir boy.

Don't get me wrong I hate the Democratic Party for how they screwed over Bernie Sanders (The president America needs). But let's be honest, (as much as I hate her) Hillary is the evil we know, not the one we didn't know. Look at how Trump filled his cabinet, with people who donated to him (on a campaign he stated over and over again was going to be self funded). Put in a creationist as Secretary of Education, seriously? This is only 1 example.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis
1 hour ago, Astra. said:

Well they were horrific times back then with Nazi Germany. I'm sure due to the circumstances both leaders did their best at the time..regardless of who was the greater one of the two, or the most egotistical.

I read somewhere tho, that Winston Churchill could be a stubborn and impetuous man who was normally driven by ego, and sometimes unsympathetic to the plight of others, especially if they weren't British. I'm not sure if this is actually true though.  

Oh,I'm not saying it was a bad thing. It's hard to think that any other candidate would have been remotely concerned about the Brits, in fact there was a good deal of sympathy for Germany .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lilly

Dictators don't want the population to be armed at all. Dictators don't reduce regulations, they increase them. Dictators don't joke about their dictatorial pursuits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Unicorn
9 hours ago, Astra. said:

I actually find Trump hilarious on many levels (sad but true) even with his narcissistic traits, I've picked up on some of his dry humour over time. But I'm sure that on some level (in his own mind at least)...that he'd like to see himself as being a president /ruler for life. Ditch elections, ditch four / eight year terms....and hail America's Julius Caesar.

download_7.jpg

:P..

And keep in mind that Freudian slips in talking tells a lot about a person! 

 

Edited by White Unicorn
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Don't get me wrong I hate the Democratic Party for how they screwed over Bernie Sanders (The president America needs). But let's be honest, (as much as I hate her) Hillary is the evil we know, not the one we didn't know. Look at how Trump filled his cabinet, with people who donated to him (on a campaign he stated over and over again was going to be self funded). Put in a creationist as Secretary of Education, seriously? This is only 1 example.

It was hard to determine who he was going to hire when people voted for him, I guess.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Unicorn
1 hour ago, DieChecker said:

I certainly wouldn't support that. Similarly, I don't think we need Senators who are in office 50 years. Or Supreme Court Justices who are in office for 50 years. The government should represent the people, and the people change fast enough that long term politicians are not favorable, IMHO. And... Don't pretend that the Justices of the SCotUS are not politicians....

 I used to be against professional politicians in the Congress and Senate who had indefinite term limits. 

My view changed as I became older. They can be voted out if they aren't representing the people who voted for them. 

They have more experience to be more effective, even though some of them become corrupt while holding office. That's when the press plays an important role by informing their supporters. 

The office of the presidency has far greater powers then they do and can be a threat to our democracy and Constitition itself. 

That's why George Washington was wise enough to not hold a third term. Future Presidents could be corrupt and power hungry enough change our country to a monarchy or dictatorship. That's also why impeachment can be part of the public office of the presidency. If the people like the way the president is doing his job for us. We can vote for the VP or another person with his same ideals. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80

A blast from the past to reflect upon.. Not saying there are any direct parallels, or.. well, there are some; but they dont have to result to a similar endstate, obviously.
 

Quote

[..]

But the main way that the press defanged Hitler was by portraying him as something of a joke. He was a “nonsensical” screecher of “wild words” whose appearance, according to Newsweek, “suggests Charlie Chaplin.” His “countenance is a caricature.” He was as “voluble” as he was “insecure,” stated Cosmopolitan.

When Hitler’s party won influence in Parliament, and even after he was made chancellor of Germany in 1933 – about a year and a half before seizing dictatorial power – many American press outlets judged that he would either be outplayed by more traditional politicians or that he would have to become more moderate. Sure, he had a following, but his followers were “impressionable voters” duped by “radical doctrines and quack remedies,” claimed The Washington Post. Now that Hitler actually had to operate within a government the “sober” politicians would “submerge” this movement, according to The New York Times and Christian Science Monitor. A “keen sense of dramatic instinct” was not enough. When it came to time to govern, his lack of “gravity” and “profundity of thought” would be exposed.

In fact, The New York Times wrote after Hitler’s appointment to the chancellorship that success would only “let him expose to the German public his own futility.” Journalists wondered whether Hitler now regretted leaving the rally for the cabinet meeting, where he would have to assume some responsibility.

[..]

“No people ever recognize their dictator in advance,” she reflected in 1935. “He never stands for election on the platform of dictatorship. He always represents himself as the instrument [of] the Incorporated National Will.” Applying the lesson to the U.S., she wrote, “When our dictator turns up you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American.”
 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-journalists-covered-rise-mussolini-hitler-180961407/

 

Although the risk of Trump becoming a full blown dictator probably hails from similar fiction as the supposed Iraqi mobile WMD threats we were inundated with through our trusted government & mainstream media outlets.. There is an important lesson to be gleaned from these historic events. And that is that there is a real danger in portraying your heads of state, the (crazy) things they say and do, as a joke if and when they 'exceed the norm'. Trivializing this sort of behaviour might get you in a real bad fix.. extremely easy to get in, but excessively hard to get back out of.

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
16 minutes ago, White Unicorn said:

 I used to be against professional politicians in the Congress and Senate who had indefinite term limits. 

My view changed as I became older. They can be voted out if they aren't representing the people who voted for them. 

They have more experience to be more effective, even though some of them become corrupt while holding office. That's when the press plays an important role by informing their supporters. 

The office of the presidency has far greater powers then they do and can be a threat to our democracy and Constitition itself. 

That's why George Washington was wise enough to not hold a third term. Future Presidents could be corrupt and power hungry enough change our country to a monarchy or dictatorship. That's also why impeachment can be part of the public office of the presidency. If the people like the way the president is doing his job for us. We can vote for the VP or another person with his same ideals. 

The problem with voting is that it requires a Tremendous amount of money in the modern age to campaign and get elected. The longer a politician is in office the more resources they can draw upon and if they are corrupt, it often can be covered using those resources. Thus long term politicians hardly are ever voted out, at least not by their own voter base.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Unicorn
2 hours ago, IBelieveWhatIWant said:

Don't get me wrong I hate the Democratic Party for how they screwed over Bernie Sanders (The president America needs). But let's be honest, (as much as I hate her) Hillary is the evil we know, not the one we didn't know. Look at how Trump filled his cabinet, with people who donated to him (on a campaign he stated over and over again was going to be self funded). Put in a creationist as Secretary of Education, seriously? This is only 1 example.

I agree with you on that one! 

This is the first election that I ever saw where people were voting for the candidate that they hated less. There were so many better picks to choose from but the major parties didn't give much of a choice. 

Trumps said that he'd surround himself with good people. He didn't. 

It seems that everyone he nominates is someone who is unqualified and against the agency that they are to lead and represent! 

It's much like the 1984 novel where the ministry of love actual represents hate. Our leader of HUD for example says that the poor shouldn't be provided housing that's too comfortable. He's never been in the projects and got the nomination of Trump because he was a supporter and seemingly because he is a black man no less! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.