I don't think this will be true. Republicans love their wars, and there's no way Trump is going to overrule his advisors, like Gen. Flynn, who are likely to advocate using military force at every opportunity.

I would say within three years there will be a signficant US military force in some foreign country, especially if Trump tears up the Iran nuclear deal, which is the one random crazy idea he seems likely to go through with.

Trump is just far more unpredictable. Hillary was neither going to be an isolationist, nor was she going to deploy 100k troops anywhere.

Except it isn't isolationism when trump has been communicating and working with the Russian government who has helped him win the election and get into power.

Trump isn't engaging Russia. He is a puppet of Russia.

Today he is taking of working with Russia and the Syrian government to take out moderate rebels and maybe ISIS if they get around to it.

Ukraine, who America has a legal obligation to defend, is next. Turkey is in the sights of Putin. Trump has already been learning to destabilising the EU for him. Loosening the control over Russian ally Iran seems to be on the agenda too, tearing up the peace deal.

None of this ends well. Certainly not for an isolationist. To say nothing of the fact trump is openly in favour of war crimes and has spend decades backing violent putting down of peaceful protesters.

Democrats have a deep bench of potential choices. Especially when you keep in mind in 2004 Obama was largely under the radar.

They won't struggle to find an inspiring leader. Maybe it is someone well known today like Warren, Booker, Cuomo, Castro or Duckworth. Maybe someone largely unknown could win over the party between now and then.

Conway says announcement of Trump's Chief of Staff is "imminent" as she was walking into trump tower.

for such a specific word, imminent is extremely vague in some contexts.

Some variation of this scenario is pretty much guaranteed to happen.

The easiest way to test my theory that Trump is susceptible to well reasoned arguments even if they go against his previously held beliefs (eg Obama moving him on Obamacare solutions) would be to have someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson explain the details of climate change to him.

I think there's a good chance you're being too bullish on how permanent his position on Obamacare is. I also think it's likely that, if his new position is permanent, it's probably not new.

Meh. While AWice was correct that Trump would be elected, he was still totally wrong about how it would happen. Trump did not pivot and change his rhetoric in the GE. He was still more or less the same Trump as the primaries. He did not, for the most part, persuade voters from the other side. He had his base show up and Clinton didn't get hers.

I was, of course, totally wrong about what would happen in the election, but that doesn't make me wrong about who Trump is and continues to be.

His pivot is extraordinary. He cleaned up on Twitter, acted way more presidential. Every rally for the last hundred was his five point plan on ethics, six point plan ten point plan on economy healthcare what he will do in his first hundred days etc.

He moved the needle. Not just in minority votes but Democrat votes and independent votes overall. This seems like nothing because we compare it to previous elections where the media wasn't totally rigging it for one party. When you instead compare to where Clinton was, she blew a massive, massive lead. When you look at the 20% independents or whatever, they break 2:1 for trump, when it was 2:1 the other way. I don't know how you could say that's anything but a massive change of votes to the other side.

Also we blame a lack of enthusiasm, but did you ever wonder why that is? A lot of why people who otherwise would vote Clinton didn't show up to vote, is because they thought she was crooked and they had second thoughts. That was all trump. Btw RNC contributed $0, he was outspent something like 7:1 in total.


Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

I didn't stop reading here, but I wish I had. Just that you're even prepared to entertain the notion People think Clinton is crooked because of Trump proves you're no savant.

"Trump doesn't understand climate change" is a hoax. He can listen, for example he listened to his campaign manager, he listened to Obama on healthcare, he listened to the prez of Mexico.

What they want is for USA to pay out billions via the UN where that money doesn't even go to help the environment. It's a scam. Under the agreement China gets to pollute at will until 2030 (at that time they can just say F U), while America has to pay out. What kind of ****ing deal is that?

They then promote these types of bs narratives in the media to guilt people into going along with the scam, while they laugh. Today, there are these garbage petitions done by the cdn govt like "sign if you agree that global warming is a real problem" but it's a straw man and what they want is tacit public approval so they can rope-a-dope you into agreeing to pay out foreign entities with your tax dollars.

Trump has been saying recently, I want crystal clean water, I want immaculately clean air, but **** the UN we ain't paying them ****, let's use the money to instead rebuild our environment and clean up our water at home. Good, the money benefits America like it should. **** the UN, how about let Flint MI have their water back finally.

Large entities are astroturfing media to shape public opinion constantly for their benefit. None of the biggest players give a **** about the environment, just like they don't care about racism or abortion or paying for violent rioters whatever. It's always seen as just, how can this be spun as an opportunity to profit?

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

He invented the association a year ago, and called her "Crooked Hillary Clinton" so many tens of thousands of times that it stuck despite no accusations directly on her prior to that.

In the past, people thought she was merely dishonest, and it wasn't that many. There were many surveys done in the past where people named a word they associate with her, so we do have snapshots of public opinion at those times.

Everyone on every side of the aisle now associates her with corrupt. That is a death blow.

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

The one thing no one is talking about is how great a Trump administration is going to be for traffic in the 2+2 Politics forum. A forum dominated by lefties going ape**** and becoming unhinged at every little thing will provide a massive amount of content and trolling opportunities. I would say we gonna party like it's 2006, but this time the AC crowd won't be all up in this piece with teh ROADZZZZZZ threads. MAGA.

The association of the Clintons with corruption goes back to the '90s, if not beyond. Does 'Whitewater' mean anything to you? Ever heard the name Vince Foster? Sure, Trump exploited the already existing perception, as would any opponent. But you don't even take the stance that Trump was uniquely effective at it. You think Daddy invented it. That is straight ****ing laughable.

Is AWice a luckbox at actual poker tables and other gambling ventures?

Because that is one of the funniest quoted posts I have ever read.

I predict Trump gets assassinated, but by somebody on the Right for having too many liberal ideas. Pence and the rest of the wingnut asshats assume control of the gubmint.

You have moved the goalposts like crazy here. Let's go to the tape:

Donald Trump circa July 2016 on BLM:

Trump got this guy to speak at the RNC:

While Trump occasionally and clumsily tried to address black voters, this wholesale pivot towards the BLM movement that you expected did not happen. The only way you're still claiming he pivoted is by not being specific about what you mean and then interpreting just about anything as a pivot. Can you point to any SPECIFIC claims you made during the primaries about what Trump was going to do in the GE that turned out to be right?

Edit: What were these "strong, policy-based, pro-minority moves" that Trump made? Was it the bit recently where he promised a return to stop and frisk?

First, the part about Russia is propaganda, there has been no evidence. Wikileaks, the most credible source on the planet now (because they don't filter anything and have a ten year unblemished record of accuracy) says there is zero evidence of Russia's involvement.

Trump is not a puppet of Russia. He wants America first, not Russia first. He will work with Syria, Russia, and even Iran, to excise ISIS quickly because it is a common goal. That's what America should be doing. What the status quo has left is a doctrine of endless war. Today, America is in military engagements in 7 other foreign countries. There has been no end to foreign wars. It is a key part of the global hegemony imposed by America.

What your govt didn't tell you is that since the Syrian airstrike "mistake" that aided ISIS substantially, it has become abundantly clear to all other international parties that America is aligned with ISIS. This has three major motivations: they desire an overthrow of Assad as he is unfavorable in regards to the pipeline which continues the petrodollar, a key nexus of control for globalist central bankers; at the behest of KSA and other foreign powers to destabilize the middle east for their benefit in regards to oil, minerals, and other assets; and to continue the prospect of an ephemeral foreign enemy that enriches the interests of the military-industrial complex.

In regards to the defense of some ****hole country, if it comes to that, then **** NATO. I'd rather not be in nuclear WW3 over something we have no interest in. The rest of Europe should be handling something that's in their court, many of those nations have plenty of money and influence. America is crumbling at home and we don't need to fight stupid foreign wars, why is it always our business? Amazingly, in the same breath that you criticize Trump for not being isolationist, you suggest that he should be fighting these wars. Which is it?

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk

Yes, a giant swastika being drawn on the front door of one of the founders of this website is definitely a "little thing" that we shouldn't get "unhinged" about. Bravo.

Clarke is black, FYI.

he didnt say 'only' little things.

obviously big things will still be discussed too.

When the cops catch the guy who did it wearing a MAGA hat you can blame Trump for it. Until then it could just as likely have been a vengeful edfurlong striking out in hate at his unjust deletion from 2+2.

This is arguing over a semantic difference. The net result is that a huge psychological shift happened. You could look at Clinton net favorability, for example. Who could the culprit be? It ain't the Clinton camp, and it ain't the msm who was in the pocket of the Clinton's. It was Trump who was on TV calling her "Crooked" every day for a year straight.

In mid 2015, polls were done and the words commonly associated with Clinton were about honesty, words like liar, dishonest, untruthful, etc. Yes, there were some people that said crook. And yes, some people knew about whitewater and Vince foster. But this was a very slim minority.

Fast forward to late 2016. The word has changed into "crooked." This was due to a massive media campaign, much of it earned media and social media. Still, most people don't know and/or don't care that she was kicked off whitewater or what happened with Vince. The major defining factor was Trump's ability to brand his opponent and reinforce that brand.

Sent from my SM-G925W8 using Tapatalk