Hilliary vs. Trump: The 2016 US Presidental Election

Took Pelosi long enough...

 

The (potential) Ukraine interference, probably not. But remember that there are a whole pile of ongoing investigations (mostly into financial dealings) from other federal agencies and state investigators that have been chugging along quietly - barring a few references in the Mueller report to 'we didn't conclude on this because X department's ongoing investigation' - that are now being folded into the impeachment proceedings. There's a good chance that in the scattergun of potential impeachment proceedings that could be launched simultaneously, there's enough that some of the Republican party decide "**** this, **** that guy" for some to pass the Senate.

 

He is losing it.

 

He lost it many, many, years a go. For those who already thought he wasn't fit to be the POTUS, or even a human being, watching him is pretty entertaining as it's more of the same, those who think he can do no wrong won't be able to fathom why everyone's on his case, but for those in the middle it may just sway them.

BTW when are the 2020 elections, how many months do we have to wait for the really fun to begin?

 

Did he ever have it to lose?... this isn't some Reagan-esque losing of marbles, Trump's bag of marbles was always empty.

 

Thought Trump wouldn't find a way to top his own lunacy? Think again:

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

Incoming Trumpton Twitter meltdown in 3... 2... 1...

 

Who had money on "He'll threaten a random country as a distraction"?

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

I still maintain he never had it to lose... i'm no @Nexxo but imo the man has always been this unhinged.

 

That's more to save face over his other f~£&up of the day: screwing over the Kurds in Syria.

 

The Oval Office is just a pile of dead cats.

 

Now that ISIS is almost eradicated, they abandon the guys who did the fightings? Some mighty allies the US are. Thank God, the Orange wasn’t President during WWII.

 

At lot of those in the Hoover and FDR govts relatively trumpian in their attitudes, Hence the US not joining proceedings from the outset. Many in the US govt of the day didn't see what the problem with Hitler was [you could argue they still don't]. Hell, Jim Crow-era US segregationism was held up as an inspiration and an exercise in 'racism done properly' by the Nazis [and by apartheid-era South Africa].

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

It's continued decimation of the US' 'soft power' (following on from their near-dismantling of the State Department). By proving that the US is a 100% unreliable partner, they push nations towards unscrupulous - but reliably unscrupulous - partners like Russia, and even moreso China. Rip up the TPP, and handle pacific trade negotiations over to China. Slash African humanitarian aid, China is happy to step in and provide infrastructure-now-cost-later (very British colonial tactics, but it still works). Abandon allies in messy internecine conflicts, those former allies will align with your adversaries and become adversaries themselves (gee, when did that happen before...).
In losing their 'soft power', America needs to increasingly rely on 'hard power' (direct military or economic action) which is much less effective in that it is nearly impossible to use without escalation and very likely to lead to asymmetric escalation. Impose punitive economic sanctions (that are clear to anyone are intended to target companies competing directly with American corporations) and find American companies become less competitive in non-US markets (because access could be curtailed at any time) and force those sanctioned companies to lose their reliance on American components & R&D and become self-sufficient. Impose sanctions on allies and receive at a minimum tit-for-tat sanctions in return and gain nothing (e.g. EU trade sanctions. A repeat of the old 'chicken tax' wars).

 

So, apparently, the Kurds did not help USA in Normandy...

 

.... nope, got nothing.

 

If the International Trade Secretary of the UK isn't required to know when the WTO was founded then can we really expect the President of the USA to have heard about the Treaty of Lausanne?
Or WW1?
Or the fall of the Ottoman Empire?
Or have any familiarity with Ataturk?
Or have a clue about what Saddam did in North Iraq?