The Official Former President Trump thread

[NotThePars]

From what I’ve read she’s not anti-intervention in general just specific cases. Her takedown of Kamala was superb though. Just a total fatality from out of nowhere. Bernie will win. Whether he lasts the years is another question but stick someone decent in the VP and hope he Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s his way to 2028.

[Detournement]

A huge astro turf operation is going to kick in for Mayor Pete soon. He's got Wall St and Military Industrial complex behind him. 

[welshbairn]

From what I've read she's quite happy about droning or bombing foreign people from 30,000 feet or higher, just isn't keen about giving them the chance of shooting back at American soldiers or airmen. And she switches policies at a stroke depending on the opinion polls, see gay rights and marriage.

Edited December 1, 2019 by welshbairn

[Savage Henry]

It's getting worrying, with Bernie's heart attack too, for a credible Democrat candidate to emerge. Bloomberg's the same age, and has next to zero chance of making it through the primaries despite his billions. Warren's 70 and a bit dipsy. Thought Harris might have a chance but she's dropped off the radar and didn't come out the debates well (imo from the tiny bits I watched). Gabbard's pretty well a Trumpet herself. Anyone out there who can beat Trump, or will he have to implode?

Biden would beat Trump... and then do very little to redress the last four years.

[BFTD]

3 hours ago, Savage Henry said:

Biden would beat Trump... and then do very little to redress the last four years.

 

I'd love to watch the debates. Trump pulling "are you serious?" faces while the doddery auld c**t rambles about the price of his stewed prunes and the coloured folks he used to know during the Great Depression.

Actually, scrub that. It would only be funny for the first few minutes.

[Zetterlund]

Biden is dreadful. Trump would have a field day with him in the debates and I can't imagine voters being inspired to get out and vote for him. It'd be the complete opposite of Obama's 'hope & change' platform. Surely the Dems are scrambling behind the scenes to find a better alternative.

Eta - anyone who isn't Bernie is literally Hitler anyway imo.

Edited December 2, 2019 by Zetterlund

[Savage Henry]

Biden is dreadful. Trump would have a field day with him in the debates and I can't imagine voters being inspired to get out and vote for him. It'd be the complete opposite of Obama's 'hope & change' platform. Surely the Dems are scrambling behind the scenes to find a better alternative.
Eta - anyone who isn't Bernie is literally Hitler anyway imo.

The polls consistently have Trump losing - by a wide margin - to Biden in the swing states, which is all the Dems need. Policy wise, you may well be right, but in terms of getting rid of Trump, he’s comfortably the safest bet.

Removing the no-hopers like Gabbard and Beto from the race really leaves you with Bernie, Biden or Mayor Pete.

I think there’s a real difficulty for the Democrats between choosing someone to represent progressive politics, and someone to beat Trump.

[Zetterlund]

3 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

 

The polls consistently have Trump losing - by a wide margin - to Biden in the swing states, which is all the Dems need. Policy wise, you may well be right, but in terms of getting rid of Trump, he’s comfortably the safest bet.

Removing the no-hopers like Gabbard and Beto from the race really leaves you with Bernie, Biden or Mayor Pete.

I think there’s a real difficulty for the Democrats between choosing someone to represent progressive politics, and someone to beat Trump.

 

No doubt. The polls show all leading candidates beating Trump comfortably, which seems unlikely, as does Biden's continuing lead in most polls. Early days though.

You're clearly no Tulsi fan but not so long ago she was a bit of a golden girl for the Dems, and obviously she was vice chair of the DNC before rebelling. If she had stayed onside she could have been a dream candidate for them - woman of colour, veteran, lots of experience and (shock horror) cross-party appeal. Deciding to lob the truth bombs around meant she was always going to be a fringe no-hoper though sadly.

[welshbairn]

Andrew Yang could be the slow burner in the campaign, raising loads of money in small donations. Don't know much about him, but advocates a Universal Basic Income which is could be too radical to sell unless he frames it as a long term goal. Seems to be mainly Internet campaigning.

[Zetterlund]

30 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

Would be worth it just to engineer a situation where Trump does this:

There would  be entire floors of the NYT & WaPo buildings dedicated to trawling through his past to find examples of this.

[dorlomin]

49 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

Would be worth it just to engineer a situation where Trump does this:

 

 

Wow.

Just wow. 

[Dunning1874]

1 hour ago, Savage Henry said:

 

The polls consistently have Trump losing - by a wide margin - to Biden in the swing states, which is all the Dems need. Policy wise, you may well be right, but in terms of getting rid of Trump, he’s comfortably the safest bet.

Removing the no-hopers like Gabbard and Beto from the race really leaves you with Bernie, Biden or Mayor Pete.

I think there’s a real difficulty for the Democrats between choosing someone to represent progressive politics, and someone to beat Trump.

 

Just as polls consistently showed Clinton beating Trump?

There’s no reason to believe going for the ‘safest’ (read: most centrist) candidate available is the route to victory for the Democrats. It didn’t work the last time and Biden’s experience of being Vice President is more likely to work against them than in their favour with allowing Trump to portray himself as  the anti-establishment candidate with no history of being part of the elite again. Complete bollocks of course, but it worked for him before and Biden will be vulnerable to the same attack, whereas it wouldn’t work at all against Sanders.

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

No doubt. The polls show all leading candidates beating Trump comfortably, which seems unlikely, as does Biden's continuing lead in most polls. Early days though.

You're clearly no Tulsi fan but not so long ago she was a bit of a golden girl for the Dems, and obviously she was vice chair of the DNC before rebelling. If she had stayed onside she could have been a dream candidate for them - woman of colour, veteran, lots of experience and (shock horror) cross-party appeal. Deciding to lob the truth bombs around meant she was always going to be a fringe no-hoper though sadly.

 

Pretty much every poll showed Clinton winning the last election. Polls are getting less and less accurate (US and UK) and especially so when Trump is involved.

 

I’d say Biden would be the best candidate but not entirely convinced he’d beat Trump. I think he’s a bit plain, which isn’t what people want these days in the new ‘speak your mind’ world. Think Warren might be the best one to stand up to Trump in the debates, and I quite like Buttigieg. Bernie is a no-hoper, guy has stood for what seems to be about 100 years, but he’ll always get the grandpa love.

[J_Stewart]

32 minutes ago, Tarmo Kink said:

 

Pretty much every poll showed Clinton winning the last election. Polls are getting less and less accurate (US and UK) and especially so when Trump is involved.

 

I’d say Biden would be the best candidate but not entirely convinced he’d beat Trump. I think he’s a bit plain, which isn’t what people want these days in the new ‘speak your mind’ world. Think Warren might be the best one to stand up to Trump in the debates, and I quite like Buttigieg. Bernie is a no-hoper, guy has stood for what seems to be about 100 years, but he’ll always get the grandpa love.

The correct answer is Bernie. It's always been Bernie. They lost 2016 because they didn't select Bernie. They'll lose 2020 if they don't select Bernie.

All roads lead to Bernie:

[Granny Danger]

5 minutes ago, J_Stewart said:

The correct answer is Bernie. It's always been Bernie. They lost 2016 because they didn't select Bernie. They'll lose 2020 if they don't select Bernie.

All roads lead to Bernie:

Bernie would have won in 2016 but after having a maverick (nut job really) in office I’m not sure that’s what folk will want in 2020.

So long as it’s not Biden.

[welshbairn]

It's just the kind of thing I could imagine Trump doing, especially when he was slagging off Cruz's wife as being ugly. It would be fabulous if he gets found out.

[ICTJohnboy]

Trump having to field a million questions as to whether the NHS will be up for grabs once Brexit is done.

If I was in his shoes I would simply respond thus :

"No way, the NHS is completely fucked - no one in their right mind would want to buy it"

Maybe I should apply to be a speech writer for him.

[Stevieda]

Trump having to field a million questions as to whether the NHS will be up for grabs once Brexit is done.
If I was in his shoes I would simply respond thus :
"No way, the NHS is completely fucked - no one in their right mind would want to buy it"
Maybe I should apply to be a speech writer for him.

It's not about buying it, it's about selling it stuff

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Officer down.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/03/kamala-harris-drops-out-of-2020-presidential-race.html

[Jacksgranda]

On 02/12/2019 at 12:35, Dunning1874 said:

Just as polls consistently showed Clinton beating Trump?

There’s no reason to believe going for the ‘safest’ (read: most centrist) candidate available is the route to victory for the Democrats. It didn’t work the last time and Biden’s experience of being Vice President is more likely to work against them than in their favour with allowing Trump to portray himself as  the anti-establishment candidate with no history of being part of the elite again. Complete bollocks of course, but it worked for him before and Biden will be vulnerable to the same attack, whereas it wouldn’t work at all against Sanders.

But he's a god damn commie...