Donald Trump

iLikeWaffles

Laois_Man wrote: »

It doesn't seem to be making news anywhere in the US at the moment except on Trump's own website

Isn't visiting that $3 website probably awash with viruses. Plus it will give him more reason to tooth his own horn 'I get 50,00 visters a day on my website'

Samaris

I suspect the only people who are going to care about this are Irish people. Putin, Hussein, bin Laden, those names will get attention. Some Irish business man who no-one in the US has ever heard of, who may be shady, but no-one's quite sure how, isn't going to be much of a blip on the radar.

iLikeWaffles

Samaris wrote: »

I suspect the only people who are going to care about this are Irish people. Putin, Hussein, bin Laden, those names will get attention. Some Irish business man who no-one in the US has ever heard of, who may be shady, but no-one's quite sure how, isn't going to be much of a blip on the radar.

Grasping at straws alright. I'd say if it was the shoe was on the other foot it would be settled in court.

Butters1979

Billy86 wrote: »

It's not magic or a genetic disposition that drives these people into the arms of terrorists and other groups, it's a feeling of alienation and confused anger, ironically enough the same confused anger your post is exhibiting.

You're basically giving terrorists, peope who kill innocent men, women and children, justification for being murderers.

Making them feel bad is not an excuse to get in a truck and run over whole families. It's their fault they're terrorists. It's your fault you condone it. You're part of the problem and you're a disgrace.

Samaris

Butters1979 wrote: »

You're basically giving terrorists, peope who kill innocent men, women and children, justification for being murderers.

No, he's looking for the why.

Butters1979 wrote: »

Making them feel bad is not an excuse to get in a truck and run over whole families. It's their fault their terrorists.

Yes, it is. Many people feel these things and the vast majority of them don't go shooting people.

But no-one said it wasn't, so that's a bit of a red herring.

However, we (Europeans in general, including the ones with parents born elsewhere) didn't ask to get shot at, but shootings are happening and it would seem wise to find out why. "They're Muslim" isn't good enough*, rationally or empirically; so it needs to be narrowed down.

That is how ISIS within our borders need to be ended, in honesty. Cut off the supply of recruits and converts by dealing with what it is that's making this or that person join a deeply repressive cult of murderers.

The alternative is deporting, statelessness or religious repression. And we'll keep seeing terrorist murders on the news, because there will remain converts as long the underlying cause isn't addressed.


*There is a related debate about Islam itself and compatibility to Europe, but that's a separate debate to why home-grown terrorist attacks are happening and how young men and women are rejecting the country they grew up in in favour of some fantasy ideal.

Butters1979

Samaris wrote: »

No, he's looking for the why.


Yes, it is. Many people feel these things and the vast majority of them don't go shooting people.

But no-one said it wasn't, so that's a bit of a red herring.

However, we (Europeans in general, including the ones with parents born elsewhere) didn't ask to get shot at, but shootings are happening and it would seem wise to find out why. "They're Muslim" isn't good enough*, rationally or empirically; so it needs to be narrowed down.

That is how ISIS within our borders need to be ended, in honesty. Cut off the supply of recruits and converts by dealing with what it is that's making this or that person join a deeply repressive cult of murderers.

The alternative is deporting, statelessness or religious repression. And we'll keep seeing terrorist murders on the news, because there will remain converts as long the underlying cause isn't addressed.


*There is a related debate about Islam itself and compatibility to Europe, but that's a separate debate to why home-grown terrorist attacks are happening and how young men and women are rejecting the country they grew up in in favour of some fantasy ideal.

Bull****. He's not looking for the why. When people go around slaughtering innocent people there is now 'why'. You think there's some sort of justification? Scumbag killers are just that. The likes of you sit around and try to think of reasons and excuses. No better than the terrorists themselves.

iLikeWaffles

What does any of this have to do with The Trump.

Butters1979

Quick recap of last nights posts and analysis of terrorism...

Butters on Billy...

Butters1979 wrote: »

You're part of the problem and you're a disgrace.

Butters on Samaris...

Butters1979 wrote: »

No better than the terrorists themselves.

Would be a shame if that little meltdown didn't get the laughs it merits...

Samaris

It is pretty hard to talk with someone who's method of debate is "I am right, despite not being entirely sure what I am right about*, you are wrong, you are a bad person who is wrong and if you deny it, you're even worse"

God forbid we treat it the only way solving such issues has worked before, by gaining a certain understanding of why this angry young man goes and joins ISIS and this one doesn't, or this young girl runs away from a country in which she was brought up free from religious persecution to join a force that treats women as sex rewards. You do understand that there's a difference between a reason and a justification, right?


Sorry Butters, but your arguments aren't even arguments, they're just assertations that anyone who doesn't agree with you is obviously talking rubbish and is a terrorist sympathiser. Needless to say, this is an argument that has convinced anyone approximately never.

Also, do you treat problems in your day to day life like this? Don't try to understand them, don't try to look at fixing them, but tell the plumber that he's wrong and a sympathiser with blocked toilets rather than getting out a plunger?

Winterlong

Thread has taken a very strange turn!

Samaris

It has a bit >.> It's easy to get sidetracked.

Trump. There's not that many things that I have pronounced opinions about that I'm not willing to concede ground to the "other side", but Trump is one of the few (actually, probably the only) where I feel I can say that he's an ignorant buffoon and not think it likely that I could be convinced otherwise.

Not to say I'm absolutely closed to it, but all the evidence from the horse's mouth so far suggests it's unlikely that anyone could improve the impression that Trump's own mouth has left.

Winterlong

Samaris wrote: »

Trump. There's not that many things that I have pronounced opinions about that I'm not willing to concede ground to the "other side", but Trump is one of the few (actually, probably the only) where I feel I can say that he's an ignorant buffoon and not think it likely that I could be convinced otherwise.

See I agree with you that he is a buffoon. But what I find absolutely fascinating about this election is that he is so close.
I know Clinton has more paths to the white house and it will take a lot of things to fall right (or wrong!) for Trump to get elected.

But I really think that the job he has (convincing more angry people and moderate conservatives to get out and vote for him) is easier than hers (convincing undecideds and democrats who just dont like her get out and vote)
I hope I am wrong.

We need a new poll in this thread in the days before the election.
Not who do you want to win. But who do you believe will win.

BoatMad

Butters1979 wrote: »

You're basically giving terrorists, peope who kill innocent men, women and children, justification for being murderers.

Making them feel bad is not an excuse to get in a truck and run over whole families. It's their fault they're terrorists. It's your fault you condone it. You're part of the problem and you're a disgrace.

You might take a trawl through history and see that many " terrorists" are now political pillars of the community. ( close to home too)

BoatMad

Butters1979 wrote: »

Bull****. He's not looking for the why. When people go around slaughtering innocent people there is now 'why'. You think there's some sort of justification? Scumbag killers are just that. The likes of you sit around and try to think of reasons and excuses. No better than the terrorists themselves.

can I ask what you're view is on the 100s of thousands of innocents killed by " coalition : forces in recent activities in the ME. can I ask of your opinion of the many 100,000s of innocent Vietnamese killed by US troops in a war where the US had no real interest other then purely ideological.

each side in a conflict believes it is in the right, typically thats why there is a conflict in the first place. I am not aware of many groups that enter combat thinking, " well, we're morally and ideologically wrong here , but hey lets shoot everyone up anyway "

ISIS exists because of a conflict , destroy it and another ISIS will spring to life, you must deal with underlying issues.

Christy42

Winterlong wrote: »

See I agree with you that he is a buffoon. But what I find absolutely fascinating about this election is that he is so close.
I know Clinton has more paths to the white house and it will take a lot of things to fall right (or wrong!) for Trump to get elected.

But I really think that the job he has (convincing more angry people and moderate conservatives to get out and vote for him) is easier than hers (convincing undecideds and democrats who just dont like her get out and vote)
I hope I am wrong.

We need a new poll in this thread in the days before the election.
Not who do you want to win. But who do you believe will win.

I don't think the system is built to allow a landslide this far out (it may happen on thE day though). All the networks want a close race and the fact that a large proportion will vote R or D no matter the candidate adds to this as well.

Hillary was favourite to win the primaries against Obama 8 years ago and would have had a chance against Romney. I think part of Hillary's unpopularity is down to the fact that she is currently on an even footing as Trump in that they are both major party candidates.

Bazzo

Does anyone find this "follow the money" campaign from Trump utterly bizzare? I mean I know nothing should surprise me at this stage but he's trying to link Clinton to wealthy businessmen, while he constantly reminds us that he is the epitome of a wealthy businessman??

"Don't trust her, she consorts with billionaire bussinessmen! Like me!"

seamus

Bazzo wrote: »

Does anyone find this "follow the money" campaign from Trump utterly bizzare? I mean I know nothing should surprise me at this stage but he's trying to link Clinton to wealthy businessmen, while he constantly reminds us that he is the epitome of a wealthy businessman??

"Don't trust her, she consorts with billionaire bussinessmen! Like me!"

Look, the whole thing is just bizarre.

Trump has been unable to attack any of his opponents through this campaign on their qualifications - because they're all more qualified than he. He's attacking credibility. It's how he eliminated all of the other Republican candidates, and it's the only thing he really has to use against Clinton.

So this is another part of that.

What makes it incredibly bizarre is how exposed he is on the trustworthy stakes. Virtually everything he says is a lie. And demonstrably so - he'll deny saying the sky is green, even if you have it recorded.
There's a long list of businesses who Trump has, or has attempted to, screw over by refusing to pay invoices and threatening those who demand payment.

The guy is an enormous con-man with absolutely zero credibility or trustworthiness, and yet that's the angle he's using to attack all of his opponents.

I don't expect the Clinton campaign to play fair on that front. The next few weeks and debates will be squarely focussed at absolutely shredding any claim to honesty and integrity that Trump might have.

Ultimately the bulk of Trump's support come from the fact that Clinton is intensely disliked. They just have to make it clear that Trump is an even more disgusting individual then Clinton and they have it won.

Though I am glad that Trump has made accusation about Dinny now. Sometimes it takes a big dirty stinking bully to call out another big dirty stinking bully.

In an just and fair world, they'd sue the living crap out of eachother and both end up penniless.

CdeC

Donald Trump is very entertaining.
Everyone loves talking about him. He's your morning chat over a coffee or chat to a taxi man on the way home from town. Media outlets love him and he sells papers.
He is ridiculous and his policies make no sense and he is an extremely dangerous person who for me represents the rich psychopaths who have managed to attain power and wealth at the expense of others.

I hope that like other fads he wears off and people come to their senses election day.

Hilary needs to keep herself together. She is disliked by many and It has been shown that men 30 and up are less likely to vote for her and paradoxically a lot of woman are also sexist and dislike the idea of a women president.

ebbsy

First Up wrote: »

I'm asking you who would be the "others" who will put him right.

Advisors I presume.

Still think he will win though.

ebbsy

CdeC wrote: »

Donald Trump is very entertaining.
Everyone loves talking about him. He's your morning chat over a coffee or chat to a taxi man on the way home from town. Media outlets love him and he sells papers.
He is ridiculous and his policies make no sense and he is an extremely dangerous person who for me represents the rich psychopaths who have managed to attain power and wealth at the expense of others.

I hope that like other fads he wears off and people come to their senses election day.

Hilary needs to keep herself together. She is disliked by many and It has been shown that men 30 and up are less likely to vote for her and paradoxically a lot of woman are also sexist and dislike the idea of a women president.

I think this fad will carry him over the line.

Good post tho.

Samaris

Winterlong wrote: »

See I agree with you that he is a buffoon. But what I find absolutely fascinating about this election is that he is so close.
I know Clinton has more paths to the white house and it will take a lot of things to fall right (or wrong!) for Trump to get elected.

But I really think that the job he has (convincing more angry people and moderate conservatives to get out and vote for him) is easier than hers (convincing undecideds and democrats who just dont like her get out and vote)
I hope I am wrong.

We need a new poll in this thread in the days before the election.
Not who do you want to win. But who do you believe will win.

I -think-, rationally, that Clinton will win, but with the hefty caveat that hey, I was totally wrong on Brexit.

Let's face it, facts don't really matter that much. The phrases that sum up this ..decade so far both came from this year "People are sick of experts" and "People don't -feel- safe" (in regards to statistics showing that violent crime is overall down in the USA). Saw it with a lot of Brexit voters (look, a lot of people voted for entirely rational reasons, but people ALSO voted for very silly ones, emotional ones. Fear, resentment, anger and betrayal. Saw it in the SSM referendum, fearmongering about the gays adopting babies (the horror), and surrogacy, which was so unbelievably irrelevant as to be hard to discuss.

Yeah, I'm biased in the above, I picked out the sides that I wasn't personally on to argue about, but tbh, that's what I saw and heard.

But my point is that facts are decidedly subservient to "gut instinct" and "feelings" in this election which the primary reason that Trump stands a chance. Looking at him absolutely logically (and I'd like to think that I'd be able to see the same if he was (still!) a democrat), he's a ridiculous and insane choice. But he speaks to the emotional side.

First Up

ebbsy wrote: »

Advisors I presume.

You presume? Which advisors and who is going to appoint them? You think a narcissistic ego-maniac like Trump is going to surround himself with people who disagree with him?

Yesterday you said only stupid people believe he would make decisions by himself but all you can offer to support this is a vague reference to advisers.

Not very good.

seamus

First Up wrote: »

You presume? Which advisors and who is going to appoint them? You think a narcissistic ego-maniac like Trump is going to surround himself with people who disagree with him?

In the last 24 hours, several advisors have expressed frustration with Trump's short temper, his inability to stay on-message (instead he responds to trolling) and failure to engage properly with the debate preparation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/politics/donald-trump-debate.html

Notwithstanding that this is innately part of Trump's personality so he won't be able to overcome his narcissism in order to win the next debates, could you imagine that kind of personality at an international level?

Meeting with master manipulators like Putin and Netanyahu, who'll be prepped to jab at Trump's ego in order to bait him into doing what they want. He'll either fall out with countries who disagree with him, or end up sucking some leader's dick under a desk because they mocked him for being no good at it.

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

In the last 24 hours, several advisors have expressed frustration with Trump's short temper, his inability to stay on-message (instead he responds to trolling) and failure to engage properly with the debate preparation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us/politics/donald-trump-debate.html

Notwithstanding that this is innately part of Trump's personality so he won't be able to overcome his narcissism in order to win the next debates, could you imagine that kind of personality at an international level?

Meeting with master manipulators like Putin and Netanyahu, who'll be prepped to jab at Trump's ego in order to bait him into doing what they want. He'll either fall out with countries who disagree with him, or end up sucking some leader's dick under a desk because they mocked him for being no good at it.

i'm trying to eat my lunch here, sheesh.

Billy86

seamus wrote: »

He'll either fall out with countries who disagree with him, or end up sucking some leader's dick under a desk because they mocked him for being no good at it.

Funniest thing I've read on boards in a long time! :pac:

BorneTobyWilde

Why would Clinton bring up Machado. She's not exactly a role model for women.
Trump may have called her MIss Piggy in a joking way, not a serious way with anger and disdain. He's the type to joke with anyone over a look, or a fashion choice. Didn't Machado end up in porn?

ohnonotgmail

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Why would Clinton bring up Machado. She's not exactly a role model for women.
Trump may have called her MIss Piggy in a joking way, not a serious way with anger and disdain. He's the type to joke with anyone over a look, or a fashion choice. Didn't Machado end up in porn?

it was not in a joking way. he was being his normal abusive self. that is just how he rolls.

eta: in what way is her future career relevant? assuming that was her future career. its the first i've heard it mentioned. i certainly wont be googling it. perhaps you think that demeans her in some way?

Billy86

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Why would Clinton bring up Machado. She's not exactly a role model for women.
Trump may have called her MIss Piggy in a joking way, not a serious way with anger and disdain. He's the type to joke with anyone over a look, or a fashion choice. Didn't Machado end up in porn?

Yes, she modelled do playboy. Not sure what your issue with that is, exactly if you care to elaborate?

You also conveniently left out Trump calling her "Miss Housekeeping". Given Trump's attitude toward Mexicans (calling them criminals and rapists, and implying he has never once met a 'good' one) is not even worth trying to claim that was a "joking" reference, which I think might have something to do with your omission.

ohnonotgmail

Billy86 wrote: »

Yes, she modelled do playboy. Not sure what your issue with that is, exactly if you care to elaborate?

You also conveniently left out Trump calling her "Miss Housekeeping". Given Trump's attitude toward Mexicans (calling them criminals and rapists, and implying he has never once met a 'good' one) is not even worth trying to claim that was a "joking" reference, which I think might have something to do with your omission.

Do people still describe playboy as porn? i only read it for the articles myself.

Trent Houseboat

They have articles?