Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 23 Jan 2017, 7:49 am

Some of you have come to recognize that I have successfully predicted the last several US Presidential Elections over the years here on Redscape..

Well here's another for the record and just remember, you heard it here live on Redscape this Monday, January 23, 2017 first...

Ivanka Trump will become the first female President of the United States.

Let that sink in a minute and you will see it.

I make this prediction because this family of business savants are going to pour over how our country works in the next 4 years. They are going to figure out where the real waste is. They are going to figure out how best to operate more efficiently and they will do so, NOT as politicians, but as business men and women. And I say "they" because I want to highlight the roles and responsibilities that the Chump will give his kids and their partners.

But back to Ivanka. I can't say for sure yet whether The Chump will do another 4 years. I suspect he will run again and win again. But after that, Ivanka will be primed and ready to make a go of it.

Think about it. She's got everything the country would want. First, she is a woman. And our country enjoys throwing the dice on new experiments. We want a woman as President. If only to say we did it. And we all know we're desperately late to have a female as President. We just want to make sure that whoever she is, she is the right woman for the job.

Next, by the time she does run for the office, she will have the political experience she needs to succeed and carry on what her father started. She already has the business experience which very few politicians can boast so I don't see how anyone would be able to argue her resume in 8 years.

And finally there is that "swagger" I've written about before. This "swagger" is hard to put into words but it has everything to do with how a President carries himself/herself. They've got to look the part. There needs be an attitude of confidence and some modicum of poise mixed with genuine humanity. And on that note, Ivanka has it all. She is very easy on the eyes which is something our shallow country will go for in a New York minute and she just looks and sounds good. In the end, like all Presidents in the US, she will need to win the swing voters. And she will do that with grace and grit.

So, in case any of you were wondering who our first female President of the United States will be, I've just summed it up for you.

Keep an eye on Ivanka Trump. She will eventually become the country's next President. And by the way, I think she already knows this.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 23 Jan 2017, 8:03 am

makes sense to me ...
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Jan 2017, 9:26 am

Ray Jay wrote:makes sense to me ...


If we're here in 8 years, I'm going to check on this. I think Dag is not likely to be correct. The odds of us going to boldly into dynasty mode are slim, I believe.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 23 Jan 2017, 11:44 am

I'm hopeful for Condi Rice...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 23 Jan 2017, 11:59 am

I like Rice a lot!
Ivanka is more than a long shot but from the little I know of her, I do like her. That has ZERO to do with politics and only on personality and that she seems reasonable and well spoken. I also like her brother Don Jr a lot for the same reasons. The only way a Trump has any chance whatsoever is if their dad does well and with the media and so many liberals so set against him no matter what he does, it will be unlikely.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 23 Jan 2017, 6:25 pm

There is a zero percent chance of this happening in any and all possible worlds and dimensions. First, we will be lucky to get through Trump without civil strife. That's all we can hope for. We have never had a president like this. He's a joke--you just hope he cannot do that much damage. Historians may well write that the election was the beginning of the fraying of US democracy. Obviously, we don't care about our democracy that much if we are willing to elect him--his press secretary just threatened to hold the press to account. When in the friggin' hell has that EVER happened in the United States. For marginal gains in things likes taxes Republicans have put the Republic at risk. And the absurdity of saying that Ivanka will be president--whose sole qualifications are that she was groomed to be an upper-class lady who was articulate and looked good--is appalling to me, as if Trump will go in and do a good job. This is the kind of analysis that caused people to equate Hillary and Trump are just as bad. No they're not. One threatens our way of life; the other does not. If Ivanka is president there will be tanks escorting her to the inauguration. I am assuming that won't happen, but that's the only way.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 23 Jan 2017, 6:35 pm

freeman3 wrote:There is a zero percent chance of this happening in any and all possible worlds and dimensions. First, we will be lucky to get through Trump without civil strife. That's all we can hope for. We have never had a president like this. He's a joke--you just hope he cannot do that much damage. Historians may well write that the election was the beginning of the fraying of US democracy. Obviously, we don't care about our democracy that much if we are willing to elect him--his press secretary just threatened to hold the press to account. When in the friggin' hell has that EVER happened in the United States. For marginal gains in things likes taxes Republicans have put the Republic at risk. And the absurdity of saying that Ivanka will be president--whose sole qualifications are that she was groomed to be an upper-class lady who was articulate and looked good--is appalling to me, as if Trump will go in and do a good job. This is the kind of analysis that caused people to equate Hillary and Trump are just as bad. No they're not. One threatens our way of life; the other does not. If Ivanka is president there will be tanks escorting her to the inauguration. I am assuming that won't happen, but that's the only way.


Valium. Quick.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 23 Jan 2017, 8:33 pm

So you disagree then Freeman? :smile:
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 24 Jan 2017, 6:55 am

Here's an Op Ed in today's WSJ that provides an interesting perspective. Since many cannot access it, I provide it here. The comments are also very insightful.

I can’t keep up with the stream of social-media neologisms. What does “derp” mean, and how do you even pronounce “pwn”? But one word I know is “troll.” A troll is someone who deliberately kindles acrimony by making outrageous, offensive or confusing remarks. Often it’s used as a verb, as in: Donald Trump has spent the past year and a half trolling the news media.
And he has. But few journalists have appreciated the degree to which Mr. Trump’s entire political and governing strategy depends on trolling them. They’ve mostly assumed his penchant for exaggeration and invention was the result of psychosis, or just ego. By now, though, it ought to be apparent that he’s doing it intentionally, and strategically.
On Saturday the president, in a visit to the CIA, claimed that up to 1.5 million people attended his inauguration (evidently this is not the case) and that journalists—especially, one assumes, those he thinks lowballed the attendance numbers—are “among the most dishonest human beings on earth.” Later that day, press secretary Sean Spicer appeared at a White House press briefing to claim, among other things, that last Friday’s inauguration was “the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration—period—both in person and around the globe.”

As many media outlets reported immediately, fewer people seem to have attended the event than watched Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration. TV ratings, though higher than Mr. Obama’s second inauguration, were lower than his first.
Many journalists responded to these remarks, predictably, with outrage. “Do citizens in dictatorships recognize what’s happening right here, right now?” CNN’s Brian Stelter asked on Sunday morning. “Are they looking at the first two days of the Trump administration and saying, ‘Oh, that’s what my leader does?’ . . . Will President Trump deny reality on a daily basis? Will he make up his own false facts and fake stats? What will the consequences be?”
It is a kind of dictatorship, but not the kind Mr. Stelter imagines—an inchoate autocracy ready to metastasize into a propaganda-driven tyrannical state. No, this is the dictatorship of the trolletariat—a tyranny in which the media, and only the media, are subject to the ruler’s whims.
Mr. Trump has little but contempt for the mainstream media. Or at least he wants the media to think so. He realized some time ago, as many a Republican presidential candidate realized before him, that most journalists covering his campaign would interpret his pronouncements and decisions in the worst possible light. Mr. Trump decided not to play their game. Instead, he would troll them. Constantly, mercilessly troll them.
The effect was to stop them from covering his candidacy in the usual ways—with the kind of one-sided analysis guaranteed to make his Democratic opponent look superior—and instead to send them off on crazy “fact checking” errands in search of intrinsically worthless data. Did “thousands and thousands” of Muslims celebrate the 9/11 attacks in New Jersey? Did he really oppose the Iraq war, and when? Is “The Art of the Deal” really the bestselling business book of all time?
Now that he is president, reporters assigned to Mr. Trump are in a tough position. They have to pay close attention to what the White House says, but they know the White House may give them garbage and dare them to spend an entire working day trying to verify or debunk it. Meanwhile Mr. Trump will make the ordinary decisions any president must make—court nominations, executive orders, negotiations with foreign leaders—while reporters are off trying to disprove some idiotic claim about the president’s approval ratings. They’ll feel as if they’re in an impossible bind, trolled into looking the other way, futilely insisting on their authority as the nation’s guardians of truth.

I find Mr. Trump’s way of handling the news media highly disorienting and regrettable. But it is a strategy, and the news media had better regroup and figure out how to deal with it. One obvious way is to ask whether each truth-claim the administration’s giving them is important or not. All administrations fudge the truth, mislead and sometimes just lie. But is it an important lie, one calculated to evade the law or expand executive power? For claims about inaugural viewership, the answer is surely no.
Mr. Trump has decided, rightly or wrongly, that the press is not the people. A ridiculous “lie” to the press, in his view, is not a lie to the people. The press rejects that distinction, believing themselves to be the crucial link between the people and the government—indeed, between the people and reality itself. Right now, though, it doesn’t matter what they think. They must deal with reality.
Mr. Swaim is author of “The Speechwriter: A Brief Education in Politics” (Simon & Schuster, 2015). He writes about political books for the Weekend Journal.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 24 Jan 2017, 8:33 am

Thanks for posting Ray Jay. Fascinating. I knew he was playing them but couldn't figure out how. Maybe there's something to this. I will be watching for this sort of strategy from here on out.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 Jan 2017, 12:46 pm

Ray, the op ed is interesting. But Trump isn't the first politician to act this way. This isn't as new as Seltzer or the WSJ think it is...
Think of Hugo Chavez.
Think of Erdogan in Turkey.
They act exactly as Trump does, creating their alternative facts... There's a deeper purpose and a deeper effect than "trolling"

Spicer’s words were not lies, Trump counsellor Kellyanne Conway said on NBC the next morning. They were, she said, “alternative facts.”
The instantly immortal piece of spin triggered another round of mockery on social media and beyond. For watchdogs in countries that have slid away from democracy, it was not a laughing matter in the slightest. Phillip Gunson, an International Crisis Group senior analyst in Caracas, wrote on Twitter: “This is how it begins: casting doubt on the veracity of things you can see with your own eyes. After a while, you start to doubt your eyes.”
It doesn’t take long before the ordinary citizen, who is not best equipped to investigate each and every lie (especially when they are coming thick and fast and daily), starts to doubt everything, and even those who don’t necessarily believe the government no longer have a firm grip on reality,” Gunson, a former journalist, said in an email.
“This also makes political debate virtually impossible. Not only is it difficult to reach consensus when the two sides believe diametrically opposite things, (but) the very rules of evidence have been undermined, so there can be no appealing to any agreed means of establishing the truth. Domination is much easier under these circumstances.”
Fomenting doubt about the traditional providers of facts helps inoculate politicians such as Erdogan and Trump against future stories about their wrongdoing, Zeynalov said. He said they are especially sensitive to truths that call into question the supposed popular support they use to justify their governing.


https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017 ... efore.html

And today Trump put a gag order on all EPA employees...
The start of a wonderful strong man regime.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 24 Jan 2017, 6:59 pm

rickyp wrote:Ray, the op ed is interesting. But Trump isn't the first politician to act this way. This isn't as new as Seltzer or the WSJ think it is...
Think of Hugo Chavez.
Think of Erdogan in Turkey.
They act exactly as Trump does, creating their alternative facts... There's a deeper purpose and a deeper effect than "trolling"

Spicer’s words were not lies, Trump counsellor Kellyanne Conway said on NBC the next morning. They were, she said, “alternative facts.”
The instantly immortal piece of spin triggered another round of mockery on social media and beyond. For watchdogs in countries that have slid away from democracy, it was not a laughing matter in the slightest. Phillip Gunson, an International Crisis Group senior analyst in Caracas, wrote on Twitter: “This is how it begins: casting doubt on the veracity of things you can see with your own eyes. After a while, you start to doubt your eyes.”
It doesn’t take long before the ordinary citizen, who is not best equipped to investigate each and every lie (especially when they are coming thick and fast and daily), starts to doubt everything, and even those who don’t necessarily believe the government no longer have a firm grip on reality,” Gunson, a former journalist, said in an email.
“This also makes political debate virtually impossible. Not only is it difficult to reach consensus when the two sides believe diametrically opposite things, (but) the very rules of evidence have been undermined, so there can be no appealing to any agreed means of establishing the truth. Domination is much easier under these circumstances.”
Fomenting doubt about the traditional providers of facts helps inoculate politicians such as Erdogan and Trump against future stories about their wrongdoing, Zeynalov said. He said they are especially sensitive to truths that call into question the supposed popular support they use to justify their governing.


https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017 ... efore.html

And today Trump put a gag order on all EPA employees...
The start of a wonderful strong man regime.

Chavez? The role model for all leftists?

Anyway, you're entertaining. Ridiculous, but entertaining.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 25 Jan 2017, 2:06 pm

Fate
Chavez? The role model for all leftists?


A role model for populist demagogues who rule by creating "alternative facts", by controlling media access and the media, and by attempting to de- legitimize authoritative sources of information that don't serve their purpose.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 25 Jan 2017, 2:51 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
Chavez? The role model for all leftists?


A role model for populist demagogues who rule by creating "alternative facts", by controlling media access and the media, and by attempting to de- legitimize authoritative sources of information that don't serve their purpose.


Are you saying that liberals were not enthralled with Chavez?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Jan 2017, 7:32 am

fate
Are you saying that liberals were not enthralled with Chavez?


Here's a couple of opinions from people who answered this question elsewhere. I think they are valid.

In the first place, exactly how are you defining "liberal"?
Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans who identify as "conservative" appear to define conservatism as simply opposing whatever they believe liberals support and vice versa.
This leaves them dependent on progressive views (as the Right perceives them) for their own opinions--for which any supporting "evidence" must then be cherry-picked and appended post hoc.
However, it hardly defines liberalism (except as "those people self-described 'conservatives' hate").
(b) In the second place, America has upwards of 300 million citizens.
If you define "liberal" as every American whose political views are left of a theoretical median, that's 150 million people.
Do you actually suppose that so many people all have the same view about anything, let alone a foreign politician about whom most Americans probably think about less often than they do their big toes?

marla bunker..

American liberals are of mixed opinion regarding Chavez, but they have tended to regard him with animosity due to his authoritarianism. The New York Times and the Washington Post, for example, rarely have anything positive to say about Chavez, or his successor, Nicolas Maduro, for example.

james keilkopf.

Do you deny that Trump is an authoritarian?