Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump

Options
1…171172174176177…186

Comments

  • Options
    #5192
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    bajer101 wrote: »
    Does anyone have good source for a comprehensive history of Trumps' candidacy, right from the beginning of the GOP primaries to current day?

    The following is not a compendium of the history of his campaign but does give an insight into the madness has been the last year and bit.

    http://theweek.com/articles/623349/here-are-95-actual-news-headlines-weve-published-about-donald-trump-real-life


  • Options
    #5193
    fryup
    Registered Users Posts: 18,067 ✭✭✭✭fryup


    his election will be great for unemployed bricklayers > with the great big mexican wall


  • Options
    #5194
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    oik wrote: »
    See the fact that you zero in on that when I'm contrasting it with the prospect of nuclear war is exactly what I'm talking about. In a few months you won't even remember these scandals, but you will be dealing with the prospect of another major war on the horizon.

    See the fact that you are willing to blithely dismiss sexual violence against women as 'the odd grope' is what I am talking about. That you can bat away such things is profoundly unsettling, most especially when they are merely the very ugly top of the mound of smoldering human waste that has been Trump's campaign.

    What exactly would it take for you to renounce this atrocious man? What level of awfulness are you willing to sallow so you can believe the man who tells you he is your only hope?

    As for nuclear weapons. Only one candidate has questioned why they can't be used in Syria and only one candidate has encouraged other nations to acquire nuclear weapons, undermining and threatening the foundational principle of global security for the last half a century, non-proliferation. And its the candidate you want to cling to as he dives albatross like into the abyss.


  • Options
    #5195
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    jem wrote: »
    Have been watching the different news programs and while i know that in the USA all of the channels have some bias but FOX news takes it to a new level altogether.
    The positive spin on trump and the negative spin on clinton is unreal.Likewise the negatives to any republicans who disagrees with trump is severe.
    They may as well come out altogether and say that they are supporting trump only.
    What's even more ridiculous is that, at least post-pussygate this is BY FAR the most even handed I have ever seen FOX. How they are hosting one of the debates is beyond a farce (though personally I think they should all be on the public access channels, not the news networks like nbc, cnn, etc).


  • Options
    #5196
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    when you create an account purely to defend trump then you have to expect that.
    That's why I have had them on ignore since if I recall, a day or two after the first debate. Why engage someone who defends sexual assault and laughs off paedophilia? Not really any better than the sex offender of paedophile themselves at that point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5197
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 13,005 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    fryup wrote: »
    his election will be great for unemployed bricklayers > with the great big mexican wall
    Unemployed Mexican bricklayers, sure - since they'll be the ones building it. The USA won't be paying for it, remember ..? :rolleyes:

    Here's the thing: we have the opposing campaign and the media saying "this should disqualify Trump from the Presidency". However, theirs are not the voices that count on Election Day. There are millions of voters who are prepared to overlook Trump's personality and only care about what his campaign promises mean for them.

    Ever since Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960, the media seems to have latched on to the idea that personality and media savvy decides elections. Just don't remind them that Nixon did get elected, 8 years later. Trump, meanwhile, *is* media-savvy, but is riding roughshod over the mainstream media in the USA. He doesn't even care about keeping Fox News on his side any more.

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Options
    #5198
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,780 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    bnt wrote: »
    Unemployed Mexican bricklayers, sure - since they'll be the ones building it. The USA won't be paying for it, remember ..? :rolleyes:

    Here's the thing: we have the opposing campaign and the media saying "this should disqualify Trump from the Presidency". However, theirs are not the voices that count on Election Day. There are millions of voters who are prepared to overlook Trump's personality and only care about what his campaign promises mean for them.

    Ever since Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960, the media seems to have latched on to the idea that personality and media savvy decides elections. Just don't remind them that Nixon did get elected, 8 years later. Trump, meanwhile, *is* media-savvy, but is riding roughshod over the mainstream media in the USA. He doesn't even care about keeping Fox News on his side any more.

    Trump, credit where it's due, used the media to his absolute advantage to get the nomination for Republican candidate during the primaries. He said whatever he wanted, the media always ran with it, and the election became so much about Trump that no one heard or cared about any of the other Republicans. Even though most of the media wasn't on his side, he got ratings and kept providing them with content.

    Trouble is, now that more and more people, both domestically and globally are paying more attention to what he says and does, the actual content he provides and the ratings stories about him get are shining far too bright a light on him, and he can't put that genie back in the bottle. His spokespeople are on news channels constantly, constantly having to defend what he's said. The same 3 or 4 faces having to defend Trump, such as Guiliani, KellyAnne Conway, Katrina Pierson.

    Trump can talk about the dishonest media etc all he wants, but he puts himself in the spotlight by, well... just being him... which means the media keep running with negative stories about him. Meanwhile, I'd say the vast majority of people couldn't name one Hillary spokesperson.


  • Options
    #5199
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 18,024 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    bnt wrote: »

    Here's the thing: we have the opposing campaign and the media saying "this should disqualify Trump from the Presidency". However, theirs are not the voices that count on Election Day. There are millions of voters who are prepared to overlook Trump's personality and only care about what his campaign promises mean for them.

    It's a combination of populism, celebrity, showmanship and political incorrectness...

    Trump is not the issue, it's the large swathe of people who buy into the above

    A significant portion of the population is racist, ignorant, bigoted, backward, etc. He's just tapping right into that vein. Expect future Republican candidates to borrow heavily from Trump's playbook


  • Options
    #5200
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    From hearing bits of his last rally Trump has whittled down his Good Media list to Breitbart (who are running his campaign) and fecking Infowars (which for those who've never heard of it is pretty much the nadir of conspiracy-peddling lunacy.) Even FoxNews is on is Bad list now, he even cancelled an interview with Sean Hannity who is one of his main cheerleaders there.


  • Options
    #5201
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 18,024 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Penn wrote: »
    Trouble is, now that more and more people, both domestically and globally are paying more attention to what he says and does, the actual content he provides and the ratings stories about him get are shining far too bright a light on him,

    Yup but Pew polls put him at 9% in Europe for example. So despite all the media attention.. it means little or nothing to e.g. European voters.

    Unfortunately in the US, the electorate is very different


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5202
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Is that why they let a mad man into their party and have for the most part continued to support him even in spite of the myriad scandals and outrages?


  • Options
    #5203
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 18,024 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    band_leader wrote: »

    one thing his ticket has shown is that there is no difference between how GOP washington insiders think and democrats like hillary clinton , the number of republicans who came out for hillary shows you that maintaining the status quo was the number one priority , wall st is 100% behind hillary

    No politician has come out with concrete changes they would make to Wall St. e.g. Bernie claimed he wanted to break up larger banks, but when pressed couldn't go into details

    The reality is that a lot of reform and regulation has already been pushed through, there have been record fines. That not many actual laws were broken, people can't be prosecuted for crimes they didn't commit.

    The thing is that many people in the US still have a residual distrust of banking after the crash... therefore it's more of a populist issue than a tangible one


  • Options
    #5204
    B0jangles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    He's not doing well out of it either, apparently bookings at his hotels are down up 50% and his new DC hotel is having to sell rooms at week below cost and are still not fully booked. The Trump brand becoming increasingly toxic.

    http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-brand-229768


  • Options
    #5205
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    O'Reilly's "non-scientific" poll has The Donald well ahead. Get in!


    https://twitter.com/harrysiegel/status/786723204542922752


  • Options
    #5206
    ChikiChiki
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,950 ✭✭✭ChikiChiki


    Some polls spew out such nonsense.


  • Options
    #5207
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Anyone else getting deja vu with h all this polling stuff and Mitt Romney. Remember all the same arguments from that campaign. The good pollsters are very accurate these days especially yer man Nate Silvers. Looks like trump is in for a serious loss this time.


  • Options
    #5208
    Cienciano
    Registered Users Posts: 14,296 ✭✭✭✭Cienciano


    Trump deserves credit for the entertainment he provided for the last 2 months. He was neck and neck across all polls a while ago and then complete and total melt down train wreck of the last 2 months has been great to watch. I hope it continues for the next 4 weeks


  • Options
    #5209
    A Little Pony
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,875 ✭✭✭A Little Pony


    The tyrant Hillary Clinton if she wins will aim for another foreign conflict to feed the bankers wallets via war profits.


  • Options
    #5210
    captbarnacles
    Registered Users Posts: 1,972 ✭✭✭captbarnacles


    I am looking fwd to Fox news coverage on election night immensely.


  • Options
    #5211
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »
    O'Reilly's "non-scientific" poll has The Donald well ahead. Get in!
    It's the O'Reilly factor.

    You could put "Resurrected Hilter" or "Muhammed" where Trump's name is, and Clinton would still be at 14%. The shrill lunatics like O'Reilly just hate her beyond comprehension.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5212
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    captbarnacles wrote: »
    I am looking fwd to Fox news coverage on election night immensely.

    I would say the same about brexit art, but I genuinely believe they might pretend there is I election going on one the results start flooding in, and refuse to cover it. Pretty standard for them.

    The_Donald subreddit will also be fun, but also likely an exercise in spotting where the potential shooters will be looking to hit. The FBI and CIA will have their eyes firmly on that website, I reckon.


  • Options
    #5213
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    A Little Pony wrote: »
    The tyrant Hillary Clinton if she wins will aim for another foreign conflict to feed the bankers wallets via war profits.

    better then trump , that would nuke everyone, The US military will not engage in another foreign war quickly anyway, they are incapable at present


  • Options
    #5214
    oik
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭oik


    BoatMad wrote: »
    better then trump , that would nuke everyone, The US military will not engage in another foreign war quickly anyway, they are incapable at present

    That's all the more reason why they might end up at war. If they were perfectly capable of war no country would give them a reason to.


  • Options
    #5215
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    oik wrote: »
    That's all the more reason why they might end up at war. If they were perfectly capable of war no country would give them a reason to.

    Clinton is an experienced politician , Trumpo wouldn't know a politicians job if he fell on it

    I want professionals to treat me for my health issues, my money matters and also my political outlook and the running of my country. Clinton has acknowledged drawbacks, but if a professional politician with decades of experience , Trump is just some guy with a bad attitude to women and funny hair.


  • Options
    #5216
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    oik wrote: »
    That's all the more reason why they might end up at war. If they were perfectly capable of war no country would give them a reason to.

    PS; Armies that were weaker only get attacked if they go into other peoples countries, the US might find staying at home to be a policy both the us peoples, and the worlds populations applaud


  • Options
    #5217
    oik
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭oik


    BoatMad wrote: »
    PS; Armies that were weaker only get attacked if they go into other peoples countries, the US might find staying at home to be a policy both the us peoples, and the worlds populations applaud

    The danger is that they would have to go to war to defend an ally or for some other red line issue.


  • Options
    #5218
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    oik wrote: »
    The danger is that they would have to go to war to defend an ally or for some other red line issue.

    naw, US never defends allies per se, only its own interests


  • Options
    #5219
    oik
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭oik


    BoatMad wrote: »
    naw, US never defends allies per se, only its own interests

    Well I can see there's not much point in continuing this conversation.


  • Options
    #5220
    swimming in a sea
    Registered Users Posts: 937 ✭✭✭swimming in a sea


    BoatMad wrote: »
    Clinton is an experienced politician , Trumpo wouldn't know a politicians job if he fell on it

    I want professionals to treat me for my health issues, my money matters and also my political outlook and the running of my country. Clinton has acknowledged drawbacks, but if a professional politician with decades of experience , Trump is just some guy with a bad attitude to women and funny hair.

    Is calling Clinton an experienced politician a good thing? I have a colleague in my work and he is experienced, he is fu*king useless and I wouldn't let him make the tea if I had my way but he is still has experience at his job.

    The fact that Clinton won't have to wonder around the White-house aimlessly on her first day looking for a toilet is hardly going to make her a better President.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5221
    BoatMad
    Registered Users Posts: 13,702 ✭✭✭✭BoatMad


    oik wrote: »
    Well I can see there's not much point in continuing this conversation.

    all large military powers ultimately dont have allies just interests ( not me that said that ) . Thats not a good or bad thing , its merely a statement of reality

    the US foreign policy is not based on esoteric morals or evaluations of angels on the head of a pin, its primarily designed to serve its long term interests

    That, when you look at it ,is right and proper and realistic

    whats sold to the " common man" is of course just propaganda


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement