Donald Trump Didn’t Want to Be President

SheWolf said:

Why change the name? Trump will still be earning money on it, won't he? I always avoid staying in Trump hotels. I would never buy a condo either.

Click to expand...

Is that because you can't afford them in the first place?!? :lol:

volsrock said:

Than why did he collude with Russia to help him WIN?!!

The fake news for a YEAR has been peddling that Trump COLLUDED WITH RUSSIA to win. Buttt wait the left says he didn't want to win, My God u folks need help

Another day in the bizzarro world of deranged Trump hating. It getting stranger and stranger.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I've never been on the Russia bandwagon. I've probably never denied it, either, I've taken no position one way or another. So, unless you can provide a previous post of yours where you unequivocally claim that you do believe he colluded with the Russians your faux indignation, hysterical as it is, is denied.

Bizarro and deranged, indeed. :roll:

Perotista said:

what exactly is President Obama's legacy? One can say Obamacare passed when the Democrats had huge majorities in both chambers, but lead to a 63 seat House loss in 2010. Obamacare remained unpopular until the Republicans made it popular last summer with their no way was it better replacement. The Iranian deal? A treaty that isn't a treaty because Obama bypassed congress. The Dream act, pen and a phone, bypassing congress once more. Adding 10 trillion to the national debt?

I think Obama was fine for the times. I also think if Obama had done a Bill Clinton and tracked a very different legislative course, he would have accomplished quite a lot more. Positive things I mean. The thing with Obama is most Americans respected and liked him as a person. I personally wish there hadn't been any 22nd Amendment. I sure would have voted for him over Trump. I was comfortable under Obama's leadership, not so under Trump. That doesn't mean I agreed with a lot of his policies, I didn't.

I think Obama left himself open as far as his legacy goes. When one governs via EO and does things via increased regulations of the different agencies, the next president if the next president has a mind too, can repeal, change, revise, add, to the next president's heart content.

Still, I think Obama served us well.

Click to expand...

"Legacy" is obviously subjective, and I'd argue how good people view a president is very subjective as well. Some people like Reagan, some don't. Some like Clinton, some don't. You can't please everyone.

However, I don't remember anyone being so obsessed with Bush "erasing" Clinton's "legacy" when Bush won in 2000, nor do I remember any obsession with "erasing" Bush's "legacy" when Obama won in 2008. But with Trump, ever since he was elected, there seems to be a loud vocal group of Republican voters who want Trump's entire presidency to be based on reversing anything Obama did, whether it was good or bad. IMO, this is setting a dangerous precedent, because when the next Democrat president is elected, they could very well do the same thing. Do we really want to start electing presidents just for the sole reason of undoing everything their predecessor did?

Pretty sure we are ALL shocked when he won in November. Don't you all remember poll after poll, article after article, expert after expert saying he would lose soundly to Hillary? MSNBC started the night super chipper and upbeat and ended the night looking like their puppy just died. I don't know if Trump ever wanted to be President, but I think we can all agree that he was probably shocked that he actually won.

Barnacle said:

Is that because you can't afford them in the first place?!? :lol:

Click to expand...

Most Trump properties are blatant rip-offs, these days the only guests are there to kiss Trumps ass and curry favors from him. Trump sells favors daily and reaps the rewards. It's good to be king...

Josie said:

Pretty sure we are ALL shocked when he won in November. Don't you all remember poll after poll, article after article, expert after expert saying he would lose soundly to Hillary? MSNBC started the night super chipper and upbeat and ended the night looking like their puppy just died. I don't know if Trump ever wanted to be President, but I think we can all agree that he was probably shocked that he actually won.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid that is how a rigged election would look but don't take my word for it. The way Trump won was quite unprecedented, hence the polls failure.

Donald Trump’s victory wasn’t written in the stars. He didn't even win a plurality, much less a majority, of the national popular vote. With relatively small changes in big states – 73,000 votes in Pennsylvania, 27,000 in Wisconsin, 12,000 in Michigan – Hillary Clinton, not Trump, would have been the 45th U.S. president.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/11/10/how_donald_trump_won_132321.html

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Puigb said:

"Legacy" is obviously subjective, and I'd argue how good people view a president is very subjective as well. Some people like Reagan, some don't. Some like Clinton, some don't. You can't please everyone.

However, I don't remember anyone being so obsessed with Bush "erasing" Clinton's "legacy" when Bush won in 2000, nor do I remember any obsession with "erasing" Bush's "legacy" when Obama won in 2008. But with Trump, ever since he was elected, there seems to be a loud vocal group of Republican voters who want Trump's entire presidency to be based on reversing anything Obama did, whether it was good or bad. IMO, this is setting a dangerous precedent, because when the next Democrat president is elected, they could very well do the same thing. Do we really want to start electing presidents just for the sole reason of undoing everything their predecessor did?

Click to expand...

Very true on legacy and presidential ratings being subjective to each individuals whims. I go back to Eisenhower when I first got interested in politics. I can't remember any talk of legacy one would leave as during the Obama presidency. I don't think legacy was all that important back then or at least not talked about. Not until the Obama presidency. Regardless of one's personal views, I also think Reagan, both Bush's, Clinton and on back pretty much govern in the mainstream of the politics and situation of their times. The hard core of the opposing party would think different of course.

I have heard newscasters, pundits, state Clinton's legacy would be womanizing, Reagan's Iran-Contra, Bush I, Desert Storm, Bush II 9-11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama's was Obamacare. If Obamacare is done away with, does that destroy his legacy? I think not. I think historians will look back over his presidency 20 years after Obama left office and come up with their own view of his legacy and presidency. I am in pretty much agreement with how the historians rank the presidents. Not so much how people do during or immediately after a president. I also think approval ratings are useless in rating a president. Truman left office with a 32% approval rating and a rank in the bottom third of presidents. But by 1962 Truman had climbed to 9th and is now 5th on the historians rankings, a near great president. I would say history after 20 years out of office does a decent job of accurately rating the presidents.

Yes, the genie is out of the bottle. There is no putting the toothpaste back into the tube once the precedence has been set. Destroying the legacy of the previous president if the next president is of a different party has become the norm. Much like senator Reid's first use of the nuclear option, once used, it will be used by everyone and every party that can use it.

The big difference is previous president's had their legislation passed by congress and signed into law. Very hard to undo that type of legacy of legislation and or treaties etc. When one bypasses congress as Obama did on quite a lot of things, there is no legislative process to stop the next president from undoing whatever the next president wants. Look at Obamacare, passed by congress, still not repealed, still active and alive. The dream act, gone because it was an EO. The Iranian deal could be done away with completely because Obama didn't make it a treaty via the senate ratification. It is nothing more than a deal between the Iranians and president Obama. Much like the deal between President Thieu of South Vietnam and Nixon that we would come to South Vietnam's aid if North Vietnam violated the Paris Peace Pact. We didn't as it wasn't a treaty ratified by congress. Just a deal between a president of one country and a president of another.

Regulations can be rolled back or added to by any president. Legislation passed by congress can't unless congress agrees. It is here where I say Obama left himself open to having his legacy wiped out. The other presidents went through congress, Obama bypassed congress. Easier to reverse whatever Obama did than any of the other presidents, both Bush's, Reagan, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, even Nixon or LBJ.

Puigb said:

"Legacy" is obviously subjective, and I'd argue how good people view a president is very subjective as well. Some people like Reagan, some don't. Some like Clinton, some don't. You can't please everyone.

However, I don't remember anyone being so obsessed with Bush "erasing" Clinton's "legacy" when Bush won in 2000, nor do I remember any obsession with "erasing" Bush's "legacy" when Obama won in 2008. But with Trump, ever since he was elected, there seems to be a loud vocal group of Republican voters who want Trump's entire presidency to be based on reversing anything Obama did, whether it was good or bad. IMO, this is setting a dangerous precedent, because when the next Democrat president is elected, they could very well do the same thing. Do we really want to start electing presidents just for the sole reason of undoing everything their predecessor did?

Click to expand...

I've been seeing this, too, and I agree it is a bad precedent. I think Trump has run out of legit things to repeal, so he's repealing just anything Obama did, possibly to keep his small-but-loyal base loyal.

And like you say, what goes around comes around. In just the last 10-ish years we have had the process for confirming judges completely changed. It started out as one side when the Dems did it for expediency, then the Reps took that precedent and applied it to the SC for expediency. And do the Reps really not get that this may now happen to them in return, too, when they just did it themselves?

iguanaman said:

Most Trump properties are blatant rip-offs, these days the only guests are there to kiss Trumps ass and curry favors from him. Trump sells favors daily and reaps the rewards. It's good to be king...

Click to expand...

Pretty much. You only gain from Trump if you give to Trump first.

radcen said:

I've been seeing this, too, and I agree it is a bad precedent. I think Trump has run out of legit things to repeal, so he's repealing just anything Obama did, possibly to keep his small-but-loyal base loyal.

And like you say, what goes around comes around. In just the last 10-ish years we have had the process for confirming judges completely changed. It started out as one side when the Dems did it for expediency, then the Reps took that precedent and applied it to the SC for expediency. And do the Reps really not get that this may now happen to them in return, too, when they just did it themselves?

Click to expand...

I've read that a lot of Trump's "policy" is just "if Obama did it, i'll do the opposite". And yes, it's obvious it's to placate his angry base, especially the birthers who despise Obama with a seething passion.

But the GOP and Trump won't be in power forever, and Democrats eventually will have the presidency, the house and senate again, so I'm not sure why Trump and his followers think he's immune to having the next Democrat president do to him what he's doing to Obama now. I guess they simply don't think too far ahead, or they simply don't care.

Puigb said:

I've read that a lot of Trump's "policy" is just "if Obama did it, i'll do the opposite". And yes, it's obvious it's to placate his angry base, especially the birthers who despise Obama with a seething passion.

But the GOP and Trump won't be in power forever, and Democrats eventually will have the presidency, the house and senate again, so I'm not sure why Trump and his followers think he's immune to having the next Democrat president do to him what he's doing to Obama now. I guess they simply don't think too far ahead, or they simply don't care.

Click to expand...

Trump himself probably doesn't care. He's a "get what I can while the opportunity is there" kind of person. His followers, on the other hand, should care. And they're going to be the whiners when it happens to them as you say, and it probably will.

radcen said:

Trump himself probably doesn't care. He's a "get what I can while the opportunity is there" kind of person. His followers, on the other hand, should care. And they're going to be the whiners when it happens to them as you say, and it probably will.

Click to expand...

I agree with this, however I do think he would care. Trump is all about image. I can't imagine him sitting back and watching a Democrat president reverse everything he did, and him not say anything about it. It will surely piss him off. Trump definitely won't be an ex president who will keep his mouth shut, similar to the way his predecessors have done.

Like I said though, it's a bad precedent Trump and the GOP voters are setting. To elect someone to solely reverse everything their predecessor did is not how we should be electing presidents, but the GOP voters may have started a very bad trend here.

Puigb said:

I agree with this, however I do think he would care. Trump is all about image. I can't imagine him sitting back and watching a Democrat president reverse everything he did, and him not say anything about it. It will surely piss him off. Trump definitely won't be an ex president who will keep his mouth shut, similar to the way his predecessors have done.

Like I said though, it's a bad precedent Trump and the GOP voters are setting. To elect someone to solely reverse everything their predecessor did is not how we should be electing presidents, but the GOP voters may have started a very bad trend here.

Click to expand...

Thinking about it more, I think you're right. He wouldn't have really cared beforehand, but now that he's in, and with him being so fragile and thin-skinned, he would now care a great deal.

radcen said:

This is what I've said from pretty much the beginning. I have never believed that he actually wanted to win, and may have seen running and losing as bolstering his brand and making him more money and more famous. And possibly a bit entertaining to boot.

I also have come to believe that winning may end up being the absolute worst thing that will have ever happened to him and his family. They, and especially he, are destroying the brand.

Click to expand...

Well like your post/thread I am sure there will be more to come in the future in what Wolff has written.

But I don't think anyone puts themself through a presidential election unless their desire is to win.

That is just Bull****. During that campaign Trump kept up a pace many 30 year olds would have a problem fulfilling in the number of campaign stops he made clear up to the end.

There's a lot of quotes in that book that have already been proved false. But people like yourself who hangs on anything that can trash Trump are the type of people that hang on every word that might trash him. That's well documented on this forum.

Well let me leave you with this video. President Trump gave a presser after the meeting with Republicans at Camp David. He seems rather confident and so do the people standing behind him. I think they all know a whole lot more than you think you do.

vesper said:

Well like your post/thread I am sure there will be more to come in the future in what Wolff has written.

But I don't think anyone puts themself through a presidential election unless their desire is to win.

That is just Bull****. During that campaign Trump kept up a pace many 30 year olds would have a problem fulfilling in the number of campaign stops he made clear up to the end.

There's a lot of quotes in that book that have already been proved false. But people like yourself who hangs on anything that can trash Trump are the type of people that hang on every word that might trash him. That's well documented on this forum.

Well let me leave you with this video. President Trump gave a presser after the meeting with Republicans at Camp David. He seems rather confident and so do the people standing behind him. I think they all know a whole lot more than you think you do.

Click to expand...

You say I hang on every negative word (which is false, but whatever), yet from my vantage point you are one of those that blindly believes everything the man says no matter how absurd or ridiculous. I guess we balance each other out.

radcen said:

You say I hang on every negative word (which is false, but whatever), yet from my vantage point you are one of those that blindly believes everything the man says no matter how absurd or ridiculous. I guess we balance each other out.

Click to expand...

No you are wrong, I have always taken Trump one day at a time. But I do know a pile of bull**** when I see it.

vesper said:

No you are wrong, I have always taken Trump one day at a time. But I do know a pile of bull**** when I see it.

Click to expand...

Uh huh.

SoulFire77 said:

I'm not sure why supporting the president means "blindly following" someone? I don't agree with everything the man says or does, and I know he is unlikable. What I'm saying, and I think most people from my point of view would tell you the same, is that I am OKAY with the fact that he is unlikable. Forget being nice and get the country back to work.

Click to expand...

"Blindly following" is not the same as just supporting. "Blindly following" is reflexively defending someone regardless what or why, even if deep inside you know it's wrong. And there are indeed some people who do do that. Supporting someone is approving in an overall sense, and approving most of the time, but also having the personal intellectual honesty to admit that not everything is worthy of defending, and some things may indeed be flat-out wrong.

It's a mistake to think the two are one and the same.

Velvet Elvis said:

So you've never...ever...changed your view on anything? You, as a teenager, said "I want to be [career]," and you never...ever...took a job that wasn't in that profession?

Weak article is weak. Nice illustrations too. Drawn by a clearly biased imbecile, just like the author of the article.

Click to expand...

It's not like he had a choice once elected :doh

Everyone one around him and himself, were all just planning on how to use the connections and exposure from the campaign to further their careers after Nov. 2017.

It's laid out pretty clearly in the book.

radcen said:

"Blindly following" is not the same as just supporting. "Blindly following" is reflexively defending someone regardless what or why, even if deep inside you know it's wrong. And there are indeed some people who do do that. Supporting someone is approving in an overall sense, and approving most of the time, but also having the personal intellectual honesty to admit that not everything is worthy of defending, and some things may indeed be flat-out wrong.

It's a mistake to think the two are one and the same.

Click to expand...

Thanks... I guess... You state the obvious with a lot of flair, at least.

Lursa said:

It's not like he had a choice once elected :doh

Everyone one around him and himself, were all just planning on how to use the connections and exposure from the campaign to further their careers after Nov. 2017.

It's laid out pretty clearly in the book.

Click to expand...

Well, he could have simply "resigned" before he was ever sworn in. Some people (not me) even suggested he might do so at the time. That would have been a major embarrassment, though, and one that his ego would never allow him to do.

radcen said:

Well, he could have simply "resigned" before he was ever sworn in. Some people (not me) even suggested he might do so at the time. That would have been a major embarrassment, though, and one that his ego would never allow him to do.

Click to expand...

Are you kidding? Having that kind of power and exposure? Just because he didnt believe he'd get it and 'realistically' didnt want it, didnt mean he'd give it up.

His ego wouldnt allow it. And really...what would he have said to the people that gave millions for his campaign?

I dont really see a way out where he could save face.