• Welcome to PASOTI (Sponsored by GA Solictors and Lang & Potter)

Donald Trump

A

andyr1963

Guest
Ten weeks or so to go.

Trump goes to Mexico and makes a mostly sensible speech. :shock: Fightback?

Has the electorate been suitably primed for an astonishing win? I have given up trying to second guess anything to do with this Presidential election now.

Both ridiculous and amazing and baffling in equal measures.
 
Aug 3, 2008
1,840
0
Plymouth
andyr1963":jawdxoyf said:
Ten weeks or so to go.

Trump goes to Mexico and makes a mostly sensible speech. :shock: Fightback?

Has the electorate been suitably primed for an astonishing win? I have given up trying to second guess anything to do with this Presidential election now.

Both ridiculous and amazing and baffling in equal measures.


He then comes back to the US and reverts to type.
 

Andy S

Administrator
Staff member
Kate Sponsor
Lowey Sponsor
50/50 Sponsor
Pasoti Donor
Sep 15, 2003
3,891
137
70
pilgrimage":frcnmy8i said:
andyr1963":frcnmy8i said:
Ten weeks or so to go.

Trump goes to Mexico and makes a mostly sensible speech. :shock: Fightback?

Has the electorate been suitably primed for an astonishing win? I have given up trying to second guess anything to do with this Presidential election now.

Both ridiculous and amazing and baffling in equal measures.


He then comes back to the US and reverts to type.

And the Mexican President reckons that everything Trump said happened is all crap!

He's a fantasist and bloody dangerous.
 
Apr 15, 2004
2,823
57
East Devon
I stumbled on an interesting article on an American business website giving a different perspective to Trump’s Presidential bid. The gist is that Trump is really not that bothered about actually winning – he’d like to for his own ego but never expected to anyway as he is playing a longer game and his ‘consolation prize’ for losing will be the creation of a new “right wing media juggernaut” led by himself. The argument runs that the social & economic divisions in the US are now so deep & profound it is irreparable so Clinton will have an impossible task and civil unrest will be so great the country will actually fragment. Trump calls himself the Brexit candidate and he’d be happy to see large parts of the Southeast, Southwest and Rockies secede – still in a trade zone with the rest but with their own social laws. Trump, according to this theory, sees this coming and is using it further his own cause and can present himself as ‘the-man-who-told-it-straight’ as the country inevitably declines under Clinton due to deep social tensions and economic turmoil.

I’m not sure I quite buy it – it seems too cataclysmic to me – I think the US is still too strong economically to fracture to that extent. But there are certainly elements that ring true. Trump keeps ignoring advice to tone it down – even after his Mexico visit when he sounded almost normal, literally a few hours later he was playing to his usual gallery brazenly contradicting what he’d said earlier. He seems keener keeping his own core support on side than actually trying to win. I’ve mentioned it before but the social divisions in the US are quite staggering – I don’t just mean economically either but more profoundly the social attitudes are light years apart on issues of race, sexuality, gun ownership, religion, nationalism & gender equality – and these have clearly defined geographical regions. In the UK we have our differences for sure but there is a basic & widespread consensus on such things. So if there were to be a major economic crisis – then, who knows, maybe such a prophecy is not inconceivable.
 
Jul 3, 2014
101
0
49
Bere Alston
Ave_IT":212ipz1x said:
I stumbled on an interesting article on an American business website giving a different perspective to Trump’s Presidential bid. The gist is that Trump is really not that bothered about actually winning – he’d like to for his own ego but never expected to anyway as he is playing a longer game and his ‘consolation prize’ for losing will be the creation of a new “right wing media juggernaut” led by himself. The argument runs that the social & economic divisions in the US are now so deep & profound it is irreparable so Clinton will have an impossible task and civil unrest will be so great the country will actually fragment. Trump calls himself the Brexit candidate and he’d be happy to see large parts of the Southeast, Southwest and Rockies secede – still in a trade zone with the rest but with their own social laws. Trump, according to this theory, sees this coming and is using it further his own cause and can present himself as ‘the-man-who-told-it-straight’ as the country inevitably declines under Clinton due to deep social tensions and economic turmoil.

I’m not sure I quite buy it – it seems too cataclysmic to me – I think the US is still too strong economically to fracture to that extent. But there are certainly elements that ring true. Trump keeps ignoring advice to tone it down – even after his Mexico visit when he sounded almost normal, literally a few hours later he was playing to his usual gallery brazenly contradicting what he’d said earlier. He seems keener keeping his own core support on side than actually trying to win. I’ve mentioned it before but the social divisions in the US are quite staggering – I don’t just mean economically either but more profoundly the social attitudes are light years apart on issues of race, sexuality, gun ownership, religion, nationalism & gender equality – and these have clearly defined geographical regions. In the UK we have our differences for sure but there is a basic & widespread consensus on such things. So if there were to be a major economic crisis – then, who knows, maybe such a prophecy is not inconceivable.

It's worrying to think that could actually happen, does make me wonder how the US would split up and how many nations could come out of it.
 
Aug 17, 2011
8,196
1
55
Kings Tamerton
Tamar Raider":w7dqqjhx said:
Ave_IT":w7dqqjhx said:
I stumbled on an interesting article on an American business website giving a different perspective to Trump’s Presidential bid. The gist is that Trump is really not that bothered about actually winning – he’d like to for his own ego but never expected to anyway as he is playing a longer game and his ‘consolation prize’ for losing will be the creation of a new “right wing media juggernaut” led by himself. The argument runs that the social & economic divisions in the US are now so deep & profound it is irreparable so Clinton will have an impossible task and civil unrest will be so great the country will actually fragment. Trump calls himself the Brexit candidate and he’d be happy to see large parts of the Southeast, Southwest and Rockies secede – still in a trade zone with the rest but with their own social laws. Trump, according to this theory, sees this coming and is using it further his own cause and can present himself as ‘the-man-who-told-it-straight’ as the country inevitably declines under Clinton due to deep social tensions and economic turmoil.

I’m not sure I quite buy it – it seems too cataclysmic to me – I think the US is still too strong economically to fracture to that extent. But there are certainly elements that ring true. Trump keeps ignoring advice to tone it down – even after his Mexico visit when he sounded almost normal, literally a few hours later he was playing to his usual gallery brazenly contradicting what he’d said earlier. He seems keener keeping his own core support on side than actually trying to win. I’ve mentioned it before but the social divisions in the US are quite staggering – I don’t just mean economically either but more profoundly the social attitudes are light years apart on issues of race, sexuality, gun ownership, religion, nationalism & gender equality – and these have clearly defined geographical regions. In the UK we have our differences for sure but there is a basic & widespread consensus on such things. So if there were to be a major economic crisis – then, who knows, maybe such a prophecy is not inconceivable.

It's worrying to think that could actually happen, does make me wonder how the US would split up and how many nations could come out of it.


The South shall rise again!
 
Jul 3, 2014
101
0
49
Bere Alston
Ade the green":1rzbjhvt said:
Tamar Raider":1rzbjhvt said:
Ave_IT":1rzbjhvt said:
I stumbled on an interesting article on an American business website giving a different perspective to Trump’s Presidential bid. The gist is that Trump is really not that bothered about actually winning – he’d like to for his own ego but never expected to anyway as he is playing a longer game and his ‘consolation prize’ for losing will be the creation of a new “right wing media juggernaut” led by himself. The argument runs that the social & economic divisions in the US are now so deep & profound it is irreparable so Clinton will have an impossible task and civil unrest will be so great the country will actually fragment. Trump calls himself the Brexit candidate and he’d be happy to see large parts of the Southeast, Southwest and Rockies secede – still in a trade zone with the rest but with their own social laws. Trump, according to this theory, sees this coming and is using it further his own cause and can present himself as ‘the-man-who-told-it-straight’ as the country inevitably declines under Clinton due to deep social tensions and economic turmoil.

I’m not sure I quite buy it – it seems too cataclysmic to me – I think the US is still too strong economically to fracture to that extent. But there are certainly elements that ring true. Trump keeps ignoring advice to tone it down – even after his Mexico visit when he sounded almost normal, literally a few hours later he was playing to his usual gallery brazenly contradicting what he’d said earlier. He seems keener keeping his own core support on side than actually trying to win. I’ve mentioned it before but the social divisions in the US are quite staggering – I don’t just mean economically either but more profoundly the social attitudes are light years apart on issues of race, sexuality, gun ownership, religion, nationalism & gender equality – and these have clearly defined geographical regions. In the UK we have our differences for sure but there is a basic & widespread consensus on such things. So if there were to be a major economic crisis – then, who knows, maybe such a prophecy is not inconceivable.

It's worrying to think that could actually happen, does make me wonder how the US would split up and how many nations could come out of it.


The South shall rise again!

Maybe, although i'd assume it would be without Texas as they would probably go it alone, out west I think California would go by them selves as well.
 
A

andyr1963

Guest
Tamar Raider":j10yqygm said:
Ade the green":j10yqygm said:
Tamar Raider":j10yqygm said:
Ave_IT":j10yqygm said:
I stumbled on an interesting article on an American business website giving a different perspective to Trump’s Presidential bid. The gist is that Trump is really not that bothered about actually winning – he’d like to for his own ego but never expected to anyway as he is playing a longer game and his ‘consolation prize’ for losing will be the creation of a new “right wing media juggernaut” led by himself. The argument runs that the social & economic divisions in the US are now so deep & profound it is irreparable so Clinton will have an impossible task and civil unrest will be so great the country will actually fragment. Trump calls himself the Brexit candidate and he’d be happy to see large parts of the Southeast, Southwest and Rockies secede – still in a trade zone with the rest but with their own social laws. Trump, according to this theory, sees this coming and is using it further his own cause and can present himself as ‘the-man-who-told-it-straight’ as the country inevitably declines under Clinton due to deep social tensions and economic turmoil.

I’m not sure I quite buy it – it seems too cataclysmic to me – I think the US is still too strong economically to fracture to that extent. But there are certainly elements that ring true. Trump keeps ignoring advice to tone it down – even after his Mexico visit when he sounded almost normal, literally a few hours later he was playing to his usual gallery brazenly contradicting what he’d said earlier. He seems keener keeping his own core support on side than actually trying to win. I’ve mentioned it before but the social divisions in the US are quite staggering – I don’t just mean economically either but more profoundly the social attitudes are light years apart on issues of race, sexuality, gun ownership, religion, nationalism & gender equality – and these have clearly defined geographical regions. In the UK we have our differences for sure but there is a basic & widespread consensus on such things. So if there were to be a major economic crisis – then, who knows, maybe such a prophecy is not inconceivable.

It's worrying to think that could actually happen, does make me wonder how the US would split up and how many nations could come out of it.


The South shall rise again!

Maybe, although i'd assume it would be without Texas as they would probably go it alone, out west I think California would go by them selves as well.


Have a vague recollection of Californian independence would make it the tenth richest nation in the world.
 
Aug 17, 2011
8,196
1
55
Kings Tamerton
So what was everyone's thoughts on the first presidential debate?

Judging from the remarks streaming along the screen there is no movement on the Partisan voters. As a neutral, it's worrying that these are the best two nominees on offer to the strongest country in the world. Certainly on the subject of his tax returns he came across as extremely worried and shifty. By contrast, Clinton did seem to meet the inevitable subject of e-mails head on.

I do wonder how anyone has bought into his style of campaign which is a worry into itself. Hilary has to be the candidate to beat, she is at least an experienced diplomat and can relate to world affairs.

To me, she nailed it when she reduced his financial plan to doing what is best for Donald.
 
Nov 11, 2012
954
7
51
Keyham
It's shows what a poor candidate Clinton is because anyone half decent what be miles ahead in the polls but the last one I saw she was only ahead by 4 points. I know polls are taken with a large pinch of salt but I can't believe it is even close. I have seen many American commentators shaking their head in disbelief that these 2 candidates are the best both parties can come up with.