oportet: (Default)
[personal profile] oportet
Do we really have to start talking about this now? Didn't we just finish up? Don't we need a little bit of a break?

What do you think?

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK!

No - it isn't nonsense Friday - this shit is real. The most electrifying man in sports entertainment has tossed his hat into the ring (kind of...).

Not many details at the moment though. He is a registered Republican - but with the incumbent party being Republican, maybe he'll go indy. Will this turn our political process into a circus? If you don't think it is already, it shouldn't be too hard to convince you the answer is no.

Obama may be the best speech-giver to be President, Trump may be the biggest celebrity to be President - but those titles will be short-lived if this works out.

Is there anyone - anyone at all - politician, celebrity, any household name, more well known AND liked than The Rock? Q scores are hard to come by - seems they don't actually release lists - I'm not entirely sure who 'they' even are - but he appears to be near, next to, or even above Tom Hanks and Peyton Manning at times.

Sure, it can't last - he'll have to pick sides on issues, guaranteeing around half the country loses a little respect for him, one issue at a time. If he makes it through the gauntlet - he'll likely drop from 'loved by everyone' to 'OMG literally Hitler', but for the time being - he's one of the frontrunners.
[identity profile] nairiporter.livejournal.com
Oprah for prez? Well, now I'm thinking!

Why don’t we run beloved people? We have so many of them. The Republicans do this – they run Reagan and the Terminator and other people. Why don’t we run somebody that the American people love and are really drawn to, and that are smart and have good politics and all that?” -- Michael Moore

Really, why not? I mean, she has repeatedly brushed off such a possibility, but really? After 4 years of Trump, she might reconsider. Really, what could possible go wrong? I mean, wronger than it already is? EH?

If a Hollywood actor can make one of the most revered presidents (at least by his side), then why not the most prominent and successful person in the world of show-biz?

She surely wouldn't be the sociopathic megalomaniac that the US is now having, would she? She's smart, capable, dedicated to her work, she has empathy for people, and she's respected. She has also held political views on many subjects. She knows how to organise people, how to run people to a cause, and how to run a team.

Besides... everyone will get a car! :-)
[identity profile] ddstory.livejournal.com
Leaks Suggest Trump’s Own Team Is Alarmed By His Conduct

"...A brooding commander in chief, wandering the White House alone in a bathrobe at night, watching too much cable television and venting his frustrations through angry tweets."

I know this sounds a bit too desperate from some people, but these are shaping up to become desperate times indeed. The thing is, as disparaging about science as he may be, in fact medical science might have a certain higher authority over the POTUS and the ability to stop him if necessary - by declaring him insane.

See, protests are a nice thing - people speaking their mind, standing up to authoritarianism and all that jazz. On the other hand, anti-Trump protesters may be wasting their breath, and indeed if they start to get too angry or disorderly that will be playing into Trump's hands as a would-be dictator. Fortunately, the world-wide Women's March was a peaceful affair.

Trump seems intent on causing trouble (with his latest gestures), and he has shrewdly tapped into, or created, a general division and discontent for his "popularity", even though everything he does is motivated by transparent self-interest. I would classify him as a delusional narcissistic megalomaniac with a lot of charisma, which is an extremely dangerous blend for a POTUS. The idea of the building of the wall for example, coming from a man who has some knowledge of building, is especially nuts on three counts. 1) It is an impossibly huge building project. 2) There is no chance Mexico would pay for it. 3) Since the invention of ropes, ladders, ramps, cranes, tunnels, planes and boats no wall along such a long border will keep people out (it will instead create a great business for dangerous criminal traffickers). The idea comes out of Trump's narcissistic delusions; he wants a historical monument to his own ego that might be seen from outer space.

More evidence for his delusional narcissism came when he lost the argument on the size of the inauguration crowd. He is certifiably mad enough not to be a POTUS - but we already knew that, didn't we. So if scientists (and psychologists) are as concerned about the safety of their country and the world as much as they may be about their research project funding under this anti-scientific new administration, perhaps they should not stand by and leave it to protesters, marches, armies of lawyers and politicians. Impeachment takes too long. Have him psychologically examined before it's too late.
[identity profile] policraticus.livejournal.com
I did not vote for Donald Trump. Nor did I vote for Hillary Clinton. I stood aloof this cycle, unwilling to lend my endorsement to any candidate. I could not lend my support to either of such a despicable pair. God help us.

Blah, blah, blah. )

If Donald Trump can do this, then I think he will have done our country a great service, even if he didn't mean to do it
[identity profile] mahnmut.livejournal.com


The day has come. From now on, America is going to be made great again. So do tell, how do you feel about that?

Inauguration cartoons galore! )
[identity profile] luzribeiro.livejournal.com
The speech-reader in chief has spoken. Some say it was touching and inspiring. Others, that it was a show of hypocrisy and good riddance.

So what do you guys think about Obama's farewell speech?

[Error: unknown template video]

Frankly, I'm more concerned with the fate of the next Nobel Peace Prize. I hope handing it to the next US president-elect won't be somehow turned into a tradition.

As for the speech, I'd say it was so-so. Nothing too different from the usual eloquent mainstream stuff. The part about his love of his family was the most genuine one, of course. I couldn't help shedding a tear, myself - even if I don't agree even with about a quarter of the man's policies (particularly in foreign policy). Not bad on domestic policy, though, especially considering the country he inherited from Bush. Unfortunately, we can't say much good in terms of foreign policy. Even if he tried not to, he actually leaves the world in much more chaos than before. But we should put that in a more global context, of course.

Anyway, America, where to, from now on? Any predictions on domestic and foreign policy, America's economic future, and the further development of world affairs under Trump?
[identity profile] luzribeiro.livejournal.com
Trump's biz dealings with his Indian biz pals at a time he's supposed to be transitioning from businessman to president are already raising quite a few eyebrows, and pointing attention to the potential myriad of conflicts of interest he may be facing in the years to come. 4 to 8 long years in which his detractors may wear themselves out of whining, by the way (they've had quite a kick-start in the first weeks). And for a good reason. This is a unprecedented time in many respects, including the president-elect's blurring of the line between personal and public interest.

What's he going to be, commander-in-chief or real-estate mogul in chief? He's got to make up his mind, and quick.

On the other hand, the most surprising thing would be if anyone acted surprised that this is happening - they've elected a real-estate billionaire mogul for prez, remember? What do you expect from a billionaire mogul?

On the other hand, his former opponent's shady links and ties to persons and organizations with questionable reputations (including nations that she knew for sure have funded America's enemies), might have been the main torpedo that sank her ship. But I digress. Right back to Trump now.

All his nightmare appointments aside (climate deniers for environment, WTF?), this is a guy who has put all his three adult children on his transition team. They're also going to be running his businesses. And this, just for starters. He's got 4 years and 1 month left (at least) to keep it up in the same style, and thus remain in history as the most corrupt president ever. Or not. We shall see. But the first signs are not very promising.
[identity profile] johnny9fingers.livejournal.com
What next?

After calling Hills the most corrupt candidate ever to seek office I guess there must now be a show-trial. Also, I'd assume all those harrassment cases now have to be dropped, never mind the business ones.

Another guess is that K Street's golden four years lie ahead of them as lobbying becomes the only way of getting things done. Will the Donald's family somehow magically acquire oil-extraction rights on federal land?

What do folk think happens next in our all-new reality POTUS show?

Someone must have an Idea. Satirical responses most welcome.
[identity profile] luzribeiro.livejournal.com
The easier (lazier?) answer could be that there simply hasn't been a single female presidential candidate offered by either of the two main parties. Two women have, however, won nominations for VP candidates: Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin. In other words, few if any qualified women have campaigned for the job. On the other hand...

"When men are more than 80 percent of Congress, almost 90 percent of governors, and 100 percent of past presidents, the message is clear: Women are at the periphery of leadership and men?—?almost always white men?—?are at the center. We haven’t had a woman in the White House because there are systemic barriers between women and the oldest old boys clubs."

Good old sexism, yep.

But things are quickly changing in the US as it has changed in a number of countries around the world already (including Third World countries, by the way). Precedents are being smashed and new doors are being opened. The US has finally had their first non-white president, and while he may not have reached all expectations, he's done a pretty bang-up job. As it stands with the current election race, Hillary is coming out as the obvious winner. So obvious that the Republican party has had to settle for Trump (and much of it still won't do it). If all goes well, America will have her first female president right after her first black president.
[identity profile] ddstory.livejournal.com
While we're about hypothetical future scenarios, the most obvious one right now seems to be: how would a Trump presidency look like? Not that it's too likely to happen, but still. After all, a Trump nomination didn't seem likely at the time he was announcing his candidacy, either. And yet, here we are.

Admittedly, it's been curious to observe various folks getting worked up about the thought of a potential Trump presidency - from defiant speeches of the "let's show'em! let's dismantle Teh Establishmunt" speeches, to almost-apocalyptic "he's gonna destroy this country for good" sermons, to Schadenfreude-type "good, goood! at last the GOP will be damaged beyond repair by Trump and the collapse of the American empire will be accelerated" sort of gloating.

Some breakdowns of the possible consequences of Trump getting elected president have been surprisingly comprehensive and succinct, by the way. Like maybe this one. Others are more hyperbolic, almost constructing a parallel reality where all (or almost most) of Trump's current utterances would somehow magically transform into reality - this overview goes as far as to envision an almost Mussolini-type fascist regime befalling America.

Not gonna happen, of course. While a President has the highest office in the land, and does wield significant influence upon the political process, there's a great deal of checks-and-balances around them to halt them from becoming a Hitler. Or a Mao. Or Stalin. So, take it easy with that Godwin thingy already, will ya?
[identity profile] dreamville-bg.livejournal.com
Incumbents do tend to show a proneness to self-introspection and reflection upon their (now almost finished) tenure. Obama is no exception. In a recent interview, when prompted to point out what he believes was the biggest blunder of his presidency, he cited the Libya debacle, more specifically the lack of an exit plan:

Obama Reveals His Biggest Foreign Policy Mistake

Some would instantly claim coyness, even disingenuousness here, I'm sure. I mean, was that his biggest blunder? Really? The US wasn't even the driving force behind that intervention. France and Britain were. As soon as Sarko's former buddy Gaddafi threatened to reveal some inconvenient secrets about the former's campaign donors, Sarko suddenly started to push for a military intervention and a removal of the Gaddafi regime. Even despite the threat that without anyone solid and ruthless enough in Tripoli to contain the migrant pressure from North Africa and the Sahel, Europe would be having a huge problem on its hands, once chaos inevitably started reigning in Libya. Which is what really happened. But nobody seemed to care at the time.

But here is my point )
[identity profile] mahnmut.livejournal.com
"If Trump or Sanders wins, it would be bad for everyone", is what I've been hearing from some corners quite frequently these days.

Serious question. Why?

I mean, the president doesn't make decisions unilaterally, do they? There's a whole horde of advisors, secretaries of departments, aides, even teleprompter-speech-writers. There's also Congress, which largely keeps the president in check (often blocks them completely from achieving any of their goals). There are also the mere circumstances of both domestic and international politics that provide a framework and limitations to a president's actions. Domestic example: NRA and the gun lobby regarding the gun control debate; international example: ISIS and the fact that the US is already too stretched militarily to embark on yet another adventure, and get stuck into yet another quagmire. The list could go on.

Let`s face it, folks... )
[identity profile] luzribeiro.livejournal.com
Cruz' douchebag-ey remarks about "New York values" aside (for the record, he's an asshole), it now seems The Donald is trying to troll Ted hard. There's this old trope about birth certificates, not being American enough, etc, that he has pulled out of the closet once more. It never gets old, does it?

Here's the thing. Ted Cruz was born in Canada, and was automatically granted US citizenship because his mother is a US citizen. Most interpretations of "Natural born citizen" are focused on whether a person is entitled to citizenry at birth, not at the place of birth.

So Trump is using that vagueness in the interpretation to plant doubt in the minds of the electorate about Ted's chances to run for prez, and cause a concern that the Democratic rival (Hillary, most likely) would use that to hurt Ted's campaign. Smart move indeed. Worn-out, but smart. Because it works flawlessly every single time it's used - like the last time. ;-)

My opinion is that ultimately, it wouldn't matter if he is or isn't US citizen, legally speaking. If it comes down to it, the Supreme Court will rule that he is, because they don't want to be in the business of disqualifying democratically elected presidents. They may find some way to avoid answering the constitutional question, but there's no way the Supreme Court would dare to disqualify Cruz if he gets elected.

Anyway, here`s a poll for ya. )
[identity profile] rob515.livejournal.com
Originally posted by [livejournal.com profile] rob515 at Bernie's Health

The Clinton campaign has gone after Sanders by trying to plant doubts about his ability to serve as President, due to his health. I don't know about Bernie's health, but I have great concerns about his age.

I have other doubts as well. I ask if someone as far left as he appears to be, could ever win in places like the Midwest and the South. I don't think he has much of a chance. As far as being President is concerned, with all his angry screaming about the inequality in the country and the piracy of big business and corporations (things, which incidentally I agree with), I don't think he would make much headway with a Congress that is likely to be Republican dominated.

Bernie Sanders reminds me of Ralph Nader, the destoyer of Democratic Candidates, and the on of the main reasons that George Bush got into office, and Al Gore lost. Bernie will never win the votes of most people in this country, but like Ralph Nader, whose supporters blissfully believed that they would buck all odds, Bernie's followers will lead us into the pits, but as they do so, they will be cheering wildly. A vote to make him our candidate is the surest way to assure that Donald Trump, or maybe worse yet Ted Cruz will be our President.

Sure, what Sanders preaches makes sense, but the chances of his getting his agenda through congress are exactly null. Even Democrats in Congress may not support his agenda. As far as the health issue is concerned, Bernie is currently 74 years old. That would make him 75 by the time he is inaugurated. If he is lucky enough to get through his first term and was elected a second time, that would make him 83 by the time he left office. I really can't think of someone in his 80's having enough energy to cope with the hostile complexities that surround us these days. The likelihood that he would become non-functional while in office is great, and who we are voting in as Vice-President may next hold the office. Clinton would be 76 by the time she finished her 2 terms – merely 2 years older than Sanders is now.

If the world suddenly turned into a fantasy land, Bernie would be my choice for President. But as things are, I figure that despite some of her faults, faults which the press has so gleefully broadcast, I think she would make an excellent President. I think she has a far better chance of being alive at the end of her 2 terms, and a much better chance of challenging the vicissitudes of the modern world.

[identity profile] mahnmut.livejournal.com
This just in: White House says Donald Trump's call for ban on all Muslims entering US disqualifes him from top job

No no no, and no. I think that's exactly the thing that qualifies him for the top job. Hell, if he somehow, by some miracle, fails to snatch the election (shit happens, you know... the Lamestream Establishment(TM) having their last say and uniting against The Maverick(TM); a smear campaign unraveling against the guy who can't be bothered by bad publicity; voter machine fraud of unprecedented proportions; Jeb Bush being, well, Jeb Bush... or the majority of the American voters *gasp* suddenly coming to their senses), he could still apply for the second-best job in the Free And Noble World: President of the European Commission! After all...


Look, I`ve even got some compelling arguments with me! )
[identity profile] luzribeiro.livejournal.com
AP FACT CHECK: On climate science, most GOP candidates fail

"When it comes to climate science, two of the three Democratic presidential candidates are 'A' students, while most of the Republican contenders are flunking, according to a panel of scientists who reviewed candidates' comments."


..."In point of fact anyone that scored less than a "C" (i.e. below 70) exhibited "ignorance would be dangerous in a doorman, let alone a president.""

What a shock, eh? )
[identity profile] mahnmut.livejournal.com

Obama: Golfing after condemning James Foley's execution was a mistake

No shit? When even your own peeps tell you that you've fucked up, things must really be stinking. But, dear Mr President, are you sure you're not making this half-assed apology only because the shit has already hit the fan, outrage-wise? ;-)

Given this, and Bush's "now watch this drive" moment, perhaps it's time the US sigil was finally changed a little bit...


But that's probably not the point )
[identity profile] luvdovz.livejournal.com
Recep Tayyip Erdogan wins Turkish presidential election

On election night, Erdogan pointed out in his speech that he'll be president of all Turks. That is, of those 48% who didn't vote for him, too. That's a timely promise, since he was often being accused of only favoring his base with his policies, and turning his back on the rest. Well, now the first commitment he did was to "a new societal accord". And, well, constitutional changes of course. Because he wants to change the political structure of the country, and establish a US-style presidential system, where the most important prerogatives will belong to... him, of course. Any surprises?

I bet he ultimately wants to see himself like this:

Read more... )
[identity profile] luzribeiro.livejournal.com

(*SWCM = straight white Christian male)

OK, we've had our share of Hillary talk, even Warren talk, and for a while we might've imagined that a female US president was even a viable scenario. Heh.

I've wondered at times how come a developed society (presumably the most developed, actually) which often likes to declare itself the paragon of freedom and democracy in the world, has not had any female president, religious minority president (hell, even openly atheist president to that matter), or why not, openly gay president (hm, Buchanan doesn't count as "open", right?)

I've heard all sorts of excuses reasons for this curious fact, and now that the US has got its first black president (even a two-term one, wow!), we might as well be delving into the naive belief that anything is possible from here on.

I'm sure we could find all sorts of excuses, errr, I mean reasons for all that )

All that said, here's a poll for ya )

Credits & Style Info


Talk Politics.
A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

https://v.dreamwidth.org/10920353/2729172

MONTHLY TOPIC:

Conflict of Interest


DAILY QUOTE:

It's said that "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." Sadly most people think being outraged is the point, and the paying attention part is optional.
(garote)

July 2017

M T W T F S S
      1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24252627282930
31      

Summary