Donald Trump

LorMal

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

For the same reason that it is unwise to juggle with a chainsaw or pour petrol over yourself and light a cigarette. If you do it right, you will be OK, but if it goes wrong, the consequences will be dire. Yes, the numbers look better for Hill Dog, but there is a possibility he could win. Why on Earth would anyone want that?
And the utter morons cheering him on will soon realise that they are fiddling whilst Rome is burning.
All I can say is:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uG0Mmy4eOjI/maxresdefault.jpg

You need to read up on this a bit. All this 'utter morons' and 'knuckledraggers' is pretty meaningless. The real worry is that normal, intelligent and tolerant people are beginning to see merit in Trumps arguments.

Billy86

Which arguments would these be?

swimming in a sea

Billy86 wrote: »

As a matter of interest, which of his policies, stances and proposals would you prefer to Clintons?

I don't think you can have much faith in Trumps current policies as he flip flops so often.
He has been critical of Americas wars while Clinton is as we all know a warmonger. Trump may turn out to be a bigger hawk than anybody but you can only go on history and what they say now.

RJPala

Trump doesn't know what policy is.

Samaris

Wow, I'm having trouble believing that someone is seriously backing up calling random people fascists based on "or intolerant views". Just ignore the main part of the definition there.

Also, I'm pretty curious too as to which policies the Trump supporters in here actually are advocating. So far, not one (that I've seen) has actually managed to articulate a position. It's mostly "LOL TRUMP WILL WIN!" without the slightest indication of being aware of what he wants to do.

Fortunately, the majority of us are Irish and can't vote in their lunatic elections anyway so it probably doesn't matter that the Trump supporters in here seem somewhat unaware of whether Trump's arse or his mouth is talking at any given time.

Billy86

swimming in a sea wrote: »

I don't think you can have much faith in Trumps current policies as he flip flops so often.
He has been critical of Americas wars while Clinton is as we all know a warmonger. Trump may turn out to be a bigger hawk than anybody but you can only go on history and what they say now.

Well to be fair on that front...

"I say we should take it [Iraq's oil] and pay ourselves back"
- Trump, 2013

---

POST: How do you keep it without troops, how do you defend the oil?

TRUMP: You would... You would, well for that— for that, I would circle it. I would defend those areas.

POST: With U.S. troops?

TRUMP: Yeah, I would defend the areas with the oil.

- Trump, 2016

---

"Qaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people, nobody knows how bad it is, and we’re sitting around," Trump said. "We should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives."
- Trump, 2011

---

"if you don’t get rid of Gaddafi, it’s a major, major black eye for this country."
- Trump, 2011

---

"I would take the oil — and stop this baby stuff," Trump declared. "I’m only interested in Libya if we take the oil. If we don’t take the oil, I’m not interested."
- Trump, 2015


And that's before going into his open calls for war crimes.

swimming in a sea

Billy86 wrote: »

Well to be fair on that front...

"I say we should take it [Iraq's oil] and pay ourselves back"
- Trump, 2013

---



And that's before going into his open calls for war crimes.

War Crimes!! only one of the candidates for US president has actually I think committed war crimes and its not Trump.

PopePalpatine

swimming in a sea wrote: »

War Crimes!! only one of the candidates for US president has actually I think committed war crimes and its not Trump.

What were Sanders's war crimes?

Billy86

swimming in a sea wrote: »

War Crimes!! only one of the candidates for US president has actually I think committed war crimes and its not Trump.

"And that's before going into his open calls for war crimes."

For emphasis.



Torture is a war crime, as is torturing innocents. Or do you disagree?

swimming in a sea

Billy86 wrote: »

"And that's before going into his open calls for war crimes."

For emphasis.



Torture is a war crime, as is torturing innocents. Or do you disagree?

I didn't disagree, but the way I see it you have two candidates(ex sanders) Trump and Clinton who both advocate war crimes.
Clinton has already shown she has no problems with this and Trump has a policy of changing positions. It is highly possible a president Trump could be an isolationist president and so pose far less treat to innocents in the third world than a hawk like Clinton.

beach_walker

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What were Sanders's war crimes?

Ah here, would he not accept it by now?


Edit: And still not seeing that Trump pulled out of the Sanders debate, anywhere...

KomradeBishop

LorMal wrote: »

Some terms being overused here. None of the candidates are fascist - thats ridiculous hyperbole. None of the candidates are actually racist. Some of the comments made by Trump are ignorant, boorish and intolerant.

The terms aren't being overused, but they aren't being used appropriately.

The one common defining thing we can all say about Trump is that we don't know what he stands for or what he'll do, if he gets into power - and it's exactly right to remember that it's similar levels of extremist rhetoric and such, which helped to get Fascists into power in the past - and for all we know, Trump could turn out to be some variety of that - or he may not.

The primary extremely worrying point, is that we don't know if he is or isn't that - that's what makes him so dangerous, he could be anything, and if he gets into power, people won't find out what he is until after he's already in control.

So people are perfectly rational to be talking and worrying about, the extreme possibilities (i.e. the potential for Fascism) here - it's a very real possibility, and the US actually does have a history of Fascism in the past (which today exists in a modified more politically-palatable form), with the present carrying a lot of echo's of the 1920's/30's.

Billy86

swimming in a sea wrote: »

I didn't disagree, but the way I see it you have two candidates(ex sanders) Trump and Clinton who both advocate war crimes.
Clinton has already shown she has no problems with this and Trump has a policy of changing positions. It is highly possible a president Trump could be an isolationist president and so pose far less treat to innocents in the third world than a hawk like Clinton.

She is pretty odious in a number of ways, but what war crimes did she commit?

Billy86

beach_walker wrote: »

Ah here, would he not accept it by now?


Edit: And still not seeing that Trump pulled out of the Sanders debate, anywhere...

He never pulled out because he never accepted. He brought it up, and when Sanders took him up on the offer, the backpedaling went into overdrive.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-debate-young-turks-223636

While appearing on ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live” on Wednesday evening, Trump said he would debate Sanders if the proceeds went to charity. Within minutes of his appearance, Sanders emphatically accepted on social media.

“Game on. I look forward to debate Donald Trump in California before the June 7 primary,” Sanders tweeted.

In subsequent comments, Trump seemed to back-pedal, saying that he’d require that $10 million go to charity to participate.

Uygur called that demand “unrealistic” and an “excuse.”

“Our offer is an actual million dollars for charity,” he said. “If Donald Trump actually is a man of his word and he cares about that it’s not pie in the sky, it’s real, come and take it.”

He's basically pulling a Floyd Mayweather.

beach_walker

Billy86 wrote: »

He never pulled out because he never accepted. He brought it up, and when Sanders took him up on the offer, the backpedaling went into overdrive.

How's it backpedalling? He said he'd debate if there was money going to charity, he tweets to confirm that. What am I missing here guys?


And yes, a few pages back were falling over themselves to give out and lampoon about how he reneged on it. Hence why I asked. From my own searching, the only place that seems to imply he wasn't serious is the Guardian (lol) using an "anon. Trump campaign staffer" as a source. So colour me suspicious. The reuters link I posted earlier is much more recent and implies there's at least something going on behind the scenes.

Billy86

beach_walker wrote: »

How's it backpedalling? He said he'd debate if there was money going to charity, he tweets to confirm that. What am I missing here guys?

There was money going to charity - a million dollars - and he still refuses.

And yes, a few pages back were falling over themselves to give out and lampoon about how he reneged on it. Hence why I asked. From my own searching, the only place that seems to imply he wasn't serious is the Guardian (lol) using an "anon. Trump campaign staffer" as a source. So colour me suspicious. The reuters link I posted earlier is much more recent and implies there's at least something going on behind the scenes.

There could be, and I hope there is, but Trump doesn't have a great track record of honest.

LorMal

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The terms aren't being overused, but they aren't being used appropriately.

The one common defining thing we can all say about Trump is that we don't know what he stands for or what he'll do, if he gets into power - and it's exactly right to remember that it's similar levels of extremist rhetoric and such, which helped to get Fascists into power in the past - and for all we know, Trump could turn out to be some variety of that - or he may not.

The primary extremely worrying point, is that we don't know if he is or isn't that - that's what makes him so dangerous, he could be anything, and if he gets into power, people won't find out what he is until after he's already in control.

So people are perfectly rational to be talking and worrying about, the extreme possibilities (i.e. the potential for Fascism) here - it's a very real possibility, and the US actually does have a history of Fascism in the past (which today exists in a modified more politically-palatable form), with the present carrying a lot of echo's of the 1920's/30's.

Really, Fascism is a very extreme ideology which places the state totally over any individual human rights, completely removes democracy outright, allows no opposition - arresting any dissenters and requires a totalitarian dictatorship backed by complete militarism.
Now, please point me to where any of the candidates have placed these positions amongst their policies.
Ridiculous nonsense.

phantom_lord

Billy86 wrote: »

There was money going to charity - a million dollars - and he still refuses.

When has he refused?

dr.fuzzenstein

LorMal wrote: »

Really, Fascism is a very extreme ideology which places the state totally over any individual human rights, completely removes democracy outright, allows no opposition - arresting any dissenters and requires a totalitarian dictatorship backed by complete militarism.
Now, please point me to where any of the candidates have placed these positions amongst their policies.
Ridiculous nonsense.

And you should know that fascists don't get into power on that platform.
The will spout simplistic nonsense like "Make America Great Again", whilst muddling all the issues and making outlandish promises regarding jobs and the economy. No fascist dictator has ever gotten into power by stating "I will suppress dissent and become an evil dictator".
They will however blame minorities for all the countries ills and get elected on a wave of popular opinion because they scapegoat one or more particular groups.

Having said that, I don't think Trump is a fascist, but he certainly is using their tactics to get into power. Now to finally Goodwin this thread:

http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2015/12/10/12/hitler-donald-trump.jpg

He undeniably bears all the hallmarks...

Billy86

phantom_lord wrote: »

When has he refused?

When he refused to do it for $1mn, after previously saying he would do it if the proceeds went to charity.

LorMal

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

And you should know that fascists don't get into power on that platform.
The will spout simplistic nonsense like "Make America Great Again", whilst muddling all the issues and making outlandish promises regarding jobs and the economy. No fascist dictator has ever gotten into power by stating "I will suppress dissent and become an evil dictator".
They will however blame minorities for all the countries ills and get elected on a wave of popular opinion because they scapegoat one or more particular groups.

Having said that, I don't think Trump is a fascist, but he certainly is using their tactics to get into power. Now to finally Goodwin this thread:

http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2015/12/10/12/hitler-donald-trump.jpg

He undeniably bears all the hallmarks...

It cant and wont happen. Thats over dramatic nonsense. The American constitutional system includes the Separation of Powers. In this system, several branches of government are created and power is shared between them. At the same time, the powers of one branch can be challenged by another branch. This is what the system of checks and balances is all about.
There are three branches in the United States government as established by the Constitution. First, the Legislative branch makes the law. Second, the Executive branch executes the law. Last, the Judicial branch interprets the law. Each branch has an effect on the other.
This is what hamstrung much of Obama's term in office. The President alone isnt all that powerful

Billy86

A few days ago: "He will win because he appeals to the working class American who is suffering for the last 10 years and who Obama ignored."

Today: "This is what hamstrung much of Obama's term in office. The President alone isnt all that powerful."

Uh... huh.

timmyntc

Billy86 wrote: »

A few days ago: "He will win because he appeals to the working class American who is suffering for the last 10 years and who Obama ignored."

Today: "This is what hamstrung much of Obama's term in office. The President alone isnt all that powerful."

Uh... huh.

Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive you know...

LorMal

timmyntc wrote: »

Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive you know...

I have no idea what this lads issue is. I don't like Trump one bit - I just think he will win.

dr.fuzzenstein

LorMal wrote: »

I have no idea what this lads issue is. I don't like Trump one bit - I just think he will win.

I bet you 100 internet points he won't.

KomradeBishop

LorMal wrote: »

Really, Fascism is a very extreme ideology which places the state totally over any individual human rights, completely removes democracy outright, allows no opposition - arresting any dissenters and requires a totalitarian dictatorship backed by complete militarism.
Now, please point me to where any of the candidates have placed these positions amongst their policies.
Ridiculous nonsense.

Yes - all created over many years (decades even), within a system of parliamentary democracy - that form of Fascism was not built overnight, and didn't exactly advertise all of its very worst traits when trying to gain power through the democratic system...

Do you really think past fascist governments got in power, by actually publicly stating all of their true intentions/policies, when heading for power? That's very naive. They are almost always built upon lies/propaganda.

Such forms of government get into power, and then consolidate/solidify that power, usually very gradually/incrementally - in the last 15 years, the US has gone a long way to softening its standards of civil liberties and beefing up privatized military forces, as well as having an extensive and pretty much racist prison system - and that trend can be driven a lot further in the next 8.

We don't know if that will happen - as we've no idea what Trump stands for - but if he (and his successors, if he gets into power) wants to push the country down that path, he'll have ample ability to do so, and it won't happen overnight, but over a decade or two.

KomradeBishop

LorMal wrote: »

It cant and wont happen. Thats over dramatic nonsense. The American constitutional system includes the Separation of Powers. In this system, several branches of government are created and power is shared between them. At the same time, the powers of one branch can be challenged by another branch. This is what the system of checks and balances is all about.
There are three branches in the United States government as established by the Constitution. First, the Legislative branch makes the law. Second, the Executive branch executes the law. Last, the Judicial branch interprets the law. Each branch has an effect on the other.
This is what hamstrung much of Obama's term in office. The President alone isnt all that powerful

Presidential executive powers in the US have only grown over the last 15 years - what makes you think that trend is going to change?

Germany had such separation of powers, and it didn't do them any good - all systems of 'checks and balances' can be eroded and corrupted over time, to the point that the group holding the most power just starts ignoring/rewriting the laws - all it takes is time.

LorMal

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Presidential executive powers in the US have only grown over the last 15 years - what makes you think that trend is going to change?

Germany had such separation of powers, and it didn't do them any good - all systems of 'checks and balances' can be eroded and corrupted over time, to the point that the group holding the most power just starts ignoring/rewriting the laws - all it takes is time.

Okay - you want me to accept that Trump is likely to start the Fourth Reich. He is never going to find lederhosen to fit.

LorMal

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I bet you 100 internet points he won't.

and 100 fourthreichmarks.

Billy86

timmyntc wrote: »

Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive you know...

On their own? Not necessarily. But when someone is trying to say it is Obama's fault Trump is gaining popularity, because he did the same things the other previous presidents did, and then want to turn around and say Obama couldn't do much in office because he was hamstrung by the other branches of government, all the while giving out about people mentioning Obama, then it becomes comical.