Not making 180k/yr in the WH. She could easily make 10x that much consulting.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
- Status
Not making 180k/yr in the WH. She could easily make 10x that much consulting.
It would be the end of any sort of Republican/far right ideals in power IMO. Dems/left would likely dominate a while as taking per say 1/4 of the current GOP voting public would decimate it on a large scale. Lower levels of government might withstand a while but I think on the high state and federal levels it would take a generation or two for T̶r̶u̶m̶p̶'̶s̶ ̶D̶e̶p̶l̶o̶r̶a̶b̶l̶e̶ American Patriot Party and/or the Republican Ashes Party to gain steam and pick up votes.
Seems logical or am I overthinking?
She's made nearly 40M in her lifetime and was paid something like 2M in the runup to the GOP primaries and thereafter by a PAC supporting Trump. She's clearly motivated by wealth and spotlight, hence her working for whomever is willing to bid for her services.
I agree, but she wouldn't be working in the WH if she wanted more money. She would instead work for a PAC or polling (or consulting firm) as she did before.
Did you not say previously she'll turn this into a tell all book or other entertainment opportunities after?
She'll enrich herself again. She knew taking on this assignment could pull in more riches later on in life. She'll likely retire after this stint, sell a book or two, and hit the speaking/television pundit circuit.
Trump splitting will just split the GOP votes, I reckon. I don't see that faction voting Dems because Trump is not there. In senate, we could easily see something like...
40 - GOP
11 - Trump
47 - Dems
2 - Independant
It may only take a lesser fraction of the existing GOP base away but as close as these political races tend to be due to the polarization climate in the US, the GOP cannot afford to lose a tenth of their existing voter base. I'm not advocating present day GOP voters would jump to the DNC side. I'm saying pulling 10-30% of the present GOP base to a Trump party would effectively give the DNC full political power at the highest levels.
And if you get that rival faction that pulls the GOP apart, that could then allow a similar event to occur within the DNC if enough start to pull more left (or to the actual center with how the US politics is positioned on the spectrum).
Then a news outlet will carry the story of his tweet so he's back on twitter, Fox News/CNN/Failing New York Times said that so many lives have been ruined by the disgraced Bob Mueller! Lost's of media are angry about the ruined lives. WITCH HUNT!
He would definitely split the vote but I think a large percentage of the GOP base that support him, a large section of that “90% GOP approval”, are just partisan hacks who would support any GOP leader. If Trump was impeached and exiled from the party, he’d lose support of the likes of Fox and co and they’d rally behind whoever replaced him and soon forget Trump.
I think the narratives and emotions he has created will last a lot longer than he does unfortunately.
Honestly I think he never believed he'd win. It was all an exercise in publicity and creating political channels for himself and his family to further their "brand" and future business opportunities.
Nobody in that administration can top Miller for levels of inhumanity.
Perhaps that would be the best thing for the GOP, too many extreme voter issues have eroded the GOPs ability to be a true conservative party that can appeal across the spectrum of the US.
Let the libertarians , race supremacists and nativists create their own party and not take over the Republicans like a Trojan virus.
The Republicans used to be a truely great party whose input shaped the country to where it is now, it's a shame they're pissing it all away.
The reason the Republicans have gone this direction is because they don't have the numbers to win national elections with the classical conservative platform they used in the past. Younger voters are generally Dems, as are a majority of new citizens - so each year new waves of Dem voters are getting thrown into the system, which is precisely why the GOP are embracing things like gerrymandering, voter ID, limiting immigration etc. They know that is the only way to slow down the inevitable demographic changes that will over time move the country incrementally to the left.
If they stop pandering to evangelical conservatives, nativist right-wingers and instead double down on being fiscally lean conservative they can draw the widest net for educated, well earning part of the electorate to consciously support them. People are still voting libertarian in considerable enough percentages because there's no representation for social liberal - fiscal conservatives.
Bingo. If they returned to being a legit Tory party I'd guarantee they'd take democratic voters who currently feel forced to vote Democrat due to no other alternative, I mean you'd think that all the Latinos, Asians and Africans would naturally vote GOP due to family values but they won't due to the blatant xenophobia that emanates from the GOP.
Exactly. A more moderate and centrist GOP would surely attract some minority groups who are growing very fast in the USA. This thing would give them a better chance to win.
If they do all that, what differentiates them from the Dems? Just fiscal policy alone ain't gonna win elections.
You'd be more productive in finding some fiscal hawks within democrats.
Similarly, the Democrats would do very well if they moved even further right of centre.
It not really about moving across the spectrum to find a sweet spot though, it’s about progressing agendas and that is done by convincing the public of the merits of said agendas rather than adapting the agendas to attract the public.
I know and i do agree with you. It was just to say that the current GOP is not votable (not that i would vote for them in any case, but i would surely have a better opinion of them if they changed)
That's not true and here's how we know it isn't true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016
I don't think its about the money. She can make that outside the Whitehouse as Raoul mentions. But I wouldn't phrase it as higher service. I think its more that she wants to be part of history. I don't think its duty per se but her looking at her own legacy. I think the reason she is stumping for Trump is simply for the fact that it makes her a historical foot note. For instance, I would probably take a job in the next Democrat White House for 100K a year over some anonymous corporate job paying me 2 million per year just to be close to history if that makes sense
Agreed. And in her case, she and her husband have already made millions through his legal work and her consulting/polling work so this is basically a bit of "I want to do this for myself" type assignment.
Wtf?
Oh feck, please be true. Please!
Only a matter of time before the Russian oversight of QAnon is laid out in plain text...
Completely. And the QAnon nut too.
What a clever face!
Ever looked at a poll of priorities for voters?
#1 is almost always economy. So yes fiscal policy does win elections if they are consistent with it.
Immigration too. I am certain that immigration was the reason not only Trump got elected, but also why the UK (moronically) voted out of the EU.
A large percentage of the older generation live in a perpetual state of upset and fear over the changing demographics of their countries and that has caused people like Trump to be able to feed those fears and capitalise politically from them.
What's ironic about this, is that over the last 30 years, both parties have moved incrementally to the right. It's not a stretch to say that establishment dems are as conservative on most things as Reagan, and establishment republicans of that era were.
Migration is tied into fiscal conservatism, they could say we're not going to accept migration of individuals who are a net negative on the tax bracket, people who take more from the government than they pay in tax but we're open to people who work and contribute to the treasury's coffers so we can pay for government expenditure on infrastructure, reducing cost of education and healthcare etc.
4D Chess
That's surely a fake news
First few replies show other angles of it. He’s even coloured in the wrong lines.
Don’t worry. He’ll pivot to being smart any day now.
I know. Just making a mockery of him.
- Status