The Trump Presidency...

Not a fan of soccer then?
We Brits love Alpha male sports stars. Only the other week a soccer player got the Prime Minister of the UK to change his mind on summer holiday school dinners for those in need. ;0)

We, as a nation, even forgave Rooney for banging our grannies.... We love a sports jock!
Not really "jocks" in the American sense though are they? The first example is if anything the altruistic opposite of the jock ideal while the second is just sad.
 
It is what happens when a civilised human being with some morals, ethics and education sees someone without any of those abusing his powers to hurt the helpless.

The British, on the whole, don't buy into the American alpha male jock culture.
We just see a worthless, crass, spiteful, crooked bully.
What puzzles us is why you fail to see this, and actively applaud him.

Where does this spineless adoration of a man not fit to clean public toilets come from?
I mean, seriously, where?
If you think that the USA can be characterized as an “alpha male jock culture” then you deserve the inevitable derision. Of course there are alpha males, as there are in any society, from apes and dogs to humans and even politicians. That doesn’t make it a pervasive culture. What you see on the TV is not reflective of reality so much as reflective of sensationalist journalism with a leftist agenda.

Apparently they’re doing a grand job of it too. At some point (like when DJT was elected), it will come crashing down round their ears, as the dawn of reality hits them that the man in the street really isn’t reflective of their agendas and coverage. Bit like when BoJo utterly trounced the Labour Party in the biggest Parliamentary drubbing in living memory and they still maintained “we didn’t get our message across”.

Don’t believe everything you read.
 
NATO has previously stated as a warning to Russia, China, Iran and DPRK that a cyber attack could be considered as a trigger for Article 5 in the same way as a conventionally-armed attack. But now we have this; either a lie (not that POTUS has form for that!) or another cause for grievance and victimhood by Russia with more 'do as I say, not as I do' from those that are supposed to be championing the international rules-based order.

'President Trump took credit late last week for a cyberattack on Russia’s Internet Research Agency two years ago, citing it as evidence that he has responded strongly to Russian provocations, despite considerable evidence that he has often excused Moscow’s aggressions in cyberspace and on European territory.

'Mr. Trump’s statement came in an interview with Marc A. Thiessen, a conservative columnist for The Washington Post who is a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. In the Oval Office interview, Mr. Thiessen asked whether Mr. Trump had launched the attack that shut down the Internet Research Agency, a troll farm in St. Petersburg, Russia, that was behind much of the 2016 election influence campaign that ran on Facebook and other social media sites. “Correct,’’ Mr. Trump said, but he added no other details.

'The move against the Internet Research Agency, though classified, has been widely reported over the past two years. While not especially sophisticated — United States Cyber Command knocked the group offline for a few days around the 2018 midterm elections — it is often cited as a prime example of American cyberwarfare making use of new leeway to take limited offensive actions under a presidential order that Mr. Trump signed in August of that year.

'Before Mr. Trump’s assertion in the interview, there had not been any evidence that he was aware of the operation in advance or had specifically ordered it. In fact, Mr. Trump has often questioned the evidence that Russia was involved at all in trying to influence the 2016 election, and regularly calls the investigations into possible Russian connections with his campaign part of the “Russia Hoax.”


 
If you think that the USA can be characterized as an “alpha male jock culture” then you deserve the inevitable derision. Of course there are alpha males, as there are in any society, from apes and dogs to humans and even politicians. That doesn’t make it a pervasive culture. What you see on the TV is not reflective of reality so much as reflective of sensationalist journalism with a leftist agenda.

Apparently they’re doing a grand job of it too. At some point (like when DJT was elected), it will come crashing down round their ears, as the dawn of reality hits them that the man in the street really isn’t reflective of their agendas and coverage. Bit like when BoJo utterly trounced the Labour Party in the biggest Parliamentary drubbing in living memory and they still maintained “we didn’t get our message across”.

Don’t believe everything you read.
You may just be a whippersnapper but, in my living memory, I believe the 179 seat majority by Blair in 1997 could count as the biggest Parliamentary drubbing in living memory.
 
More evidence, not that there's any needed, that POTUS sees things purely on a transactional basis, with no sense of obligation or loyalty to anyone; which must be of concern to NATO Allies.

'US President Donald Trump is reported to have considered selling the island of Puerto Rico after it was devastated by a hurricane in 2017.

'In an interview with the New York Times, Elaine Duke, who was acting Secretary of Homeland Security during the storm, said Trump raised selling Puerto Rico in the aftermath of the natural disaster. “The President‘s initial ideas were more of as a businessman, you know,” Ms Duke said. “‘Can we outsource the electricity? Can we can we sell the island? You know, or divest of that asset?’” She said Trump told her.'


 
More evidence, not that there's any needed, that POTUS sees things purely on a transactional basis, with no sense of obligation or loyalty to anyone; which must be of concern to NATO Allies.

'US President Donald Trump is reported to have considered selling the island of Puerto Rico after it was devastated by a hurricane in 2017.

'In an interview with the New York Times, Elaine Duke, who was acting Secretary of Homeland Security during the storm, said Trump raised selling Puerto Rico in the aftermath of the natural disaster. “The President‘s initial ideas were more of as a businessman, you know,” Ms Duke said. “‘Can we outsource the electricity? Can we can we sell the island? You know, or divest of that asset?’” She said Trump told her.'


I'm sure the Puerto Ricans would be delighted to be part of a civilised country.
 
I'm sure the Puerto Ricans would be delighted to be part of a civilised country.
Rather 'damaged goods' post-Hurricane Maria though, so they'd be one for the discount bin.
 
The grifting continues for the crime family.


President Donald Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign is coming under fire over campaign fundraising emails which some supporters are calling “gross” and “scary.”

Most of the emails — which typically claimed to be from the president himself or one of his children — attempted to shame Trump supporters for not donating enough money, and used manipulative language to guilt recipients into giving more, prompting social media users to make comparisons to “mob collections” and “slumlord” eviction notices.

1594735406774.png

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently the Chump Campaign has spent almost $800 MILLION promoting the Liar in Chief over the past 4 years. In that time Captain Covids popularity has remained in 'dumpster' level territory, never rising above 51% and continually hovering around the 40% mark. This leads to the question if $800 mill doesn't help what the f will more money do for the fatty in charge?

A serious question for Americans, what happens to unused Campaign funds after an election when the incumbent(s) lose?
 
Apparently the Chump Campaign has spent almost $800 MILLION promoting the Liar in Chief over the past 4 years.
Whilst that email looks suspiciously like Spam, and I wouldn't click on the links - what have other presidencies spent in their 4 years in promoting / supporting their leader?
 
The grifting continues for the crime family.

A serious question for Americans, what happens to unused Campaign funds after an election when the incumbent(s) lose?
Her's what's meant to happen.

Here's what a campaign committee is allowed to do with any lingering cash: it can donate the funds to charities or political parties; it can contribute $2000 per election to other candidates; and it can save the money in case the candidate chooses to run again. However, those regulations don't apply to the relatively new super PACs (Political Action Committees); this is only the third election where they have played a role, and there are currently no rules to stipulate what happens to that money beyond that it cannot go to fund another federal candidate. Much of that money tends to be returned to its original donors, used to wrap up the failed campaign, or donated to back a state-level candidate. The goal, however, is always to spend all of that money.​
As for winning (or sometimes losing) politicians, they'll often put their leftover funds toward their next race. If they choose not to run, they have to abide by the same FEC rules. Wonder why this law is in effect? Until 1993, U.S. Representatives who took office before January 8, 1980, were allowed to keep any leftover campaign cash when they retired, but a study showed that a third of Congress kept and spent millions in campaign donations on personal items like clothing, jewelry, artwork, personal travel, and dry cleaning. Embarrassed, Congress passed a law negating this custom for the House; the Senate already had provisions in place so this wouldn't happen.​
In reality though, officials can usually find a way to make that cash still work for them (and state laws differ from federal ones). After Chris Christie won reelection as New Jersey's governor in 2014, his campaign was granted permission to use some of its remaining war chest to cover the legal fees Christie incurred during the Bridgegate scandal. And this was well before he dropped $26.7 million on his failed 2016 presidential bid.​
So it seems to depend on who you are.

Donny Dettol will almost certainly try to pocket it (as he thinks it's his money - at least based on what Chris Christie said about the legally mandated Transition fund).
 
Whilst that email looks suspiciously like Spam, and I wouldn't click on the links - what have other presidencies spent in their 4 years in promoting / supporting their leader?
This is the 3rd time the story about overly aggressive fund raising messages have appeared so it's more than likely true.

As for how how much other presidencies spent, I would imagine around the same, the difference is that other Presidents have managed to increase their popularity whereas the current one has only spiraled downwards.

One could argue that spending $800 mill was a colossal waste of money, or how low would chumps popularity % be if they had not spent anything at all.

I also agree with Tedsson, any left over $$ will end up in the grifter family pockets.
 
More evidence, not that there's any needed, that POTUS sees things purely on a transactional basis, with no sense of obligation or loyalty to anyone; which must be of concern to NATO Allies.

'US President Donald Trump is reported to have considered selling the island of Puerto Rico after it was devastated by a hurricane in 2017.

'In an interview with the New York Times, Elaine Duke, who was acting Secretary of Homeland Security during the storm, said Trump raised selling Puerto Rico in the aftermath of the natural disaster. “The President‘s initial ideas were more of as a businessman, you know,” Ms Duke said. “‘Can we outsource the electricity? Can we can we sell the island? You know, or divest of that asset?’” She said Trump told her.'


And he was told it was not possible, what's the rumpus?

This was less talked about in US gov circles, than giving the Falklands to the Argies Pre invasion was
 
The grifting continues for the crime family.


President Donald Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign is coming under fire over campaign fundraising emails which some supporters are calling “gross” and “scary.”

Most of the emails — which typically claimed to be from the president himself or one of his children — attempted to shame Trump supporters for not donating enough money, and used manipulative language to guilt recipients into giving more, prompting social media users to make comparisons to “mob collections” and “slumlord” eviction notices.

View attachment 489621
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apparently the Chump Campaign has spent almost $800 MILLION promoting the Liar in Chief over the past 4 years. In that time Captain Covids popularity has remained in 'dumpster' level territory, never rising above 51% and continually hovering around the 40% mark. This leads to the question if $800 mill doesn't help what the f will more money do for the fatty in charge?

A serious question for Americans, what happens to unused Campaign funds after an election when the incumbent(s) lose?
Damned good question

This is probably the most neutral site and explains the options-


Trump could theoretically keep any excess

this site also has good info on money and donors, etc includes finance reports for candidates, etc.



Apparently Obama raised over US$ 1.4 Billion the most in US campaign history


But for months his campaign was shadowed by speculation that it would face an enthusiasm slide and far fewer contributions than in his first run. The Obama campaign played into this narrative by stating, repeatedly, in campaign emails to supporters that Obama would be outspent by Romney. In the end, this was only true when including the party committees, super PACs and non-profits that filled the gap for Romney during crucial periods in the summer and in the final weeks of the campaign.

The scare tactic in the fundraising emails worked, though, with the campaign raking in $690 million online, mostly through the emails, according to BusinessWeek.
 
An interesting bit of commentary for Europeans on Trump v Biden, but also justification for greater EU participation in defence, which the USA opposes under any banner but NATO.

'The European Union should prepare for the possibility of a gradual disengagement by the United States from the continent, even if Democratic challenger Joe Biden beats President Donald Trump in the November election, according to Germany’s defense minister.

'Speaking before the European parliament on Tuesday, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said she believes only the “tone” in trans-Atlantic relations would change following a Biden win. The reorientation of America’s foreign policy toward China as a global rival would remain a key driving force in Washington, possibly at the expense of Europe, she said.

“If that is the case, it means we Europeans must become able to act more so than is the case today,“ she said in testimony meant to lay out Germany’s defense agenda during a six-month turn at the helm of the European Council of the EU that began July 1.

'To be sure, Kramp-Karrenbauer stressed that Europe remains dependent on U.S. and NATO support, and that there’s no sign of that equation changing anytime soon. German leaders have consistently held up the trans-Atlantic alliance as a cornerstone of their geopolitical calculus, even as Trump took shots at Berlin for the its lackluster defense spending.

'But the defense minister’s assessment that nothing other than the style of discourse would change with Trump’s exit — he is trailing Biden in recent polls — may be a sign that Germans suspect bigger forces at play on the other side of the Atlantic.

'In that light, the Defence Ministry’s defense agenda for the EU reads as something of a toolkit to avoid getting caught flat-footed. Creating a “strategic compass“ for the bloc, as Kramp-Karrenbauer called it, would be a key step in ensuring all member states back a common foreign and defense policy.'


 
An interesting bit of commentary for Europeans on Trump v Biden, but also justification for greater EU participation in defence, which the USA opposes under any banner but NATO.

'The European Union should prepare for the possibility of a gradual disengagement by the United States from the continent, even if Democratic challenger Joe Biden beats President Donald Trump in the November election, according to Germany’s defense minister.

'Speaking before the European parliament on Tuesday, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer said she believes only the “tone” in trans-Atlantic relations would change following a Biden win. The reorientation of America’s foreign policy toward China as a global rival would remain a key driving force in Washington, possibly at the expense of Europe, she said.

“If that is the case, it means we Europeans must become able to act more so than is the case today,“ she said in testimony meant to lay out Germany’s defense agenda during a six-month turn at the helm of the European Council of the EU that began July 1.

'To be sure, Kramp-Karrenbauer stressed that Europe remains dependent on U.S. and NATO support, and that there’s no sign of that equation changing anytime soon. German leaders have consistently held up the trans-Atlantic alliance as a cornerstone of their geopolitical calculus, even as Trump took shots at Berlin for the its lackluster defense spending.

'But the defense minister’s assessment that nothing other than the style of discourse would change with Trump’s exit — he is trailing Biden in recent polls — may be a sign that Germans suspect bigger forces at play on the other side of the Atlantic.

'In that light, the Defence Ministry’s defense agenda for the EU reads as something of a toolkit to avoid getting caught flat-footed. Creating a “strategic compass“ for the bloc, as Kramp-Karrenbauer called it, would be a key step in ensuring all member states back a common foreign and defense policy.'


You could also argue that because of China's rise in world dominance the U.S may need a lot of backup instead of trying to go alone.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top