Donald Trump

InTheTrees

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

It is not much of legacy after all the hype is it? As for Obamacare it is really light stuff by our standards.

Huh? What are you trying to say?

"After all the hype"? Thats a simplistic way of dismissing something you dont understand isnt it?

Obamacare was a massive achievement.

What do you mean "Light stuff by our standards"?

LorMal

RobertKK wrote: »

The problem with Obama and Clinton are the lies, and the lies they told to other countries.
Clinton was the person that convinced Obama to intervene in Libya. They told Russia and the world it was to protect civilians in Benghazi which was a terrorist haven but made out to be innocent people only.
The Russians saw on their TV screens the lies of the Secretary of State and of Obama when Gaddafi was murdered on the streets of Tripoli.
These lies backfired when warmonger Hillary Clinton wanted to do the same thing in Syria and bomb Assad.
The lies of Clinton and Obama got Russia actively involved to prevent Clinton again helping terrorists like she did in Libya, where a lot of weapons including heavy weaponry ended up in the hands of Al Qaeda and subsequently Isis.

The foreign policy of the Obama administration particularly when it had Clinton as Secretary of State was a pure foreign policy disaster. Obama again showed poor judgement when he said Hillary was one of the most qualified ever to run for presidency.
All the Clintons do is help and assist terrorism, Bill too busy being a sex addict as AQ were attacking US interests like their embassies and the USS Cole while building up to 9/11, as if a few cruise missiles would solve the problem. They had the chance to arrest or kill Bin Laden but did nothing as they knew exactly where he was at one point.
Hillary as Secretary of State too busy wanting dictators removed to be replaced with terrorists. Hillary supporting the Muslim Brotherhood as they encouraged a civil war against Egyptian Christians which led to the coup by the army to stop the destruction of their country.
People talk about Trump, but the Clintons have been an absolute disaster, all they bring are scandals and poor judgement. That is why they have a serious trust issue.
Hillary Clinton couldn't satisfy Bill, what makes people think she can satisfy America?
Hillary just showed a blood thirst when she had a bit too much power, and now she wants the presidency.

So, here we go again. First few paragraphs are arguable (I dont agree fully but at least they within reason).
Then we get 'all the Clintons do is help and assist terrorists', ' absolute disaster' and 'blood thirst'............hysterical nonsense.

Foxtrol

stefanovich wrote: »

I doubt very much if he is any of those things. Just because the media tell you that doesn't make it true.

Are you actually trying to deny he has made sexist, racist, bigoted, and regular generally hateful comments? Have you had your head totally in the sand?

If not then he either is all of those things or has been making those comments in order to rile up and get votes from the lowest common denominator, both are terrible indictments of a person's character.

Foxtrol

Bazzo wrote: »

Full link to a couple of interviews(difficult to read because Trump speaks like a 12 year old) where he continues doubling down on his race baiting: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/jun/08/donald-trumps-racial-comments-about-judge-trump-un/

Presumably you'll now be reasonable and denounce his comments as the racist bile they are.

Oh wait, you're a Trump fanboy, you'll probably just double down on your horse****

He doubled down again by stating that he believe a Muslim judge would have issues doing their job too (pity there are no Muslim judges in the USA, but of course Trump wouldn't know a thing like that).

Billy86

stefanovich wrote: »

And you made that assessment by not watching it? Or did you watch a little and just presume he was lying? Very easy to bolster up your dislike for an individual if you dream up how you imagine they are thinking rather than listening to them.

You still haven't answered my questions from yesterday.

And here I was getting excited about actually talking policy in some depth with a Trump fan for literally the first time in the entire election cycle.

Foxtrol

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

What happened there the vested interests won. Similarly the vested interests and lobbying will keep any president in check. House of cards may be a drama but it accurate as it shows how tied up an American president is by their own system.

You’re just showing up you lack of knowledge of how the US political system, their ‘checks and balances’, work. The areas where Trump is the most dangerous, such as foreign policy, is one of the where the President has the most power to do/say what he wants, vested interests can do little.

Depp

Foxtrol wrote: »

You’re just showing up you lack of knowledge of how the US political system, their ‘checks and balances’, work. The areas where Trump is the most dangerous, such as foreign policy, is one of the where the President has the most power to do/say what he wants, vested interests can do little.

no way in hell trump is more dangerous in that regard than hillary, do some research

Foxtrol

Michah wrote: »

It seems that not all Latinos dislike Trump. Come to think about, people who came to the US legally are likely to reasonate with his anti illegal immigration stance.

So you're basing this on information that "Trump Reports"? It's not even a poll, it's 'big data'.

Trump was trailing Clinton with Latinos by 39 points before the last 2 weeks of comments about them not being able to do their job, so call me skeptical of your post.

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2016/05/20/latinos-favor-clinton-over-trump-by-3-point-margin-fox-news-latino-poll-finds/

Dohnjoe

Depp wrote: »

no way in hell trump is more dangerous in that regard than hillary, do some research

He's a businessman and reality TV star with almost zero experience in the field of politics. His foreign policies (that he constantly flipflops on) have been labeled stupid and dangerous by many foreign leaders and their opposition

His policies are designed around populism and getting free air-time by being deliberately extreme and sensationalist. Great for getting votes from low-information voters, but bad for just about everything else

N365

Bazzo wrote: »

Full link to a couple of interviews(difficult to read because Trump speaks like a 12 year old) where he continues doubling down on his race baiting: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/jun/08/donald-trumps-racial-comments-about-judge-trump-un/

Presumably you'll now be reasonable and denounce his comments as the racist bile they are.

Oh wait, you're a Trump fanboy, you'll probably just double down on your horse****

Firstly,I'm not a Trump "fanboy"(Or fangirl?) whatever that is. If you read my earlier posts I merely questioned whether Trump as POTUS might actually be a good thing. I asked whether or not he is racist as he has been accused of that(this happens often when people haven't a clue what they are talking about)
I don't see anything in the article where he says anything racist. He is paraphrased a lot. His answers sound stupid i'll grant you that.

tigger123

N365 wrote: »

Firstly,I'm not a Trump "fanboy"(Or fangirl?) whatever that is. If you read my earlier posts I merely questioned whether Trump as POTUS might actually be a good thing. I asked whether or not he is racist as he has been accused of that(this happens often when people haven't a clue what they are talking about)
I don't see anything in the article where he says anything racist. He is paraphrased a lot. His answers sound stupid i'll grant you that.

Saying that someone can't fulfil the duties of their position due to their ethnic background isn't racist?

Foxtrol

Depp wrote: »

no way in hell trump is more dangerous in that regard than hillary, do some research

Don't worry, I’ve done plenty of research.

Trump’s foreign policies are insane. Just two examples (there are plenty more), he wants expanded nuclear proliferation, including Saudi Arabia FFS, and wants to bomb the families of terrorists. The latter is against Geneva Convention and a war crime, when confronted by the fact that it would be likely that the military would refuse to follow illegal orders he stated that he would force them to do it.

Hillary, in hindsight, made some poor choices as Secretary of State but you think a man who idolises the hard man tactics of Putin and has a policy to be a War Criminal is a superior choice? That doesn’t even start on his total lack of any foreign policy experience, aside from opening hotels and running beauty pageants.

Billy86

Foxtrol wrote: »

Hillary, in hindsight, made some poor choices as Secretary of State but you think a man who idolises the hard man tactics of Putin and has a policy to be a War Criminal is a superior choice? That doesn’t even start on his total lack of any foreign policy experience, aside from opening hotels and running beauty pageants.

You left out outsourcing jobs abroad (foreign experience) and hiring illegal foreign workers at home (experiencing foreigners), he's been quite experienced at those two also.

beach_walker

Foxtrol wrote: »

That doesn’t even start on his total lack of any foreign policy experience, aside from opening hotels and running beauty pageants.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but how much foreign policy experience had Obama before becoming President? It was a constant attack vector by the Clinton's. Arguably from his business dealings and whatnot, it seems Trump has a bit more international experience than then-Senator Obama (only his first term, not finished either so not much there).



But yeah more nukes and killing families is nuts.

tigger123

beach_walker wrote: »

Just playing devil's advocate here, but how much foreign policy experience had Obama before becoming President? It was a constant attack vector by the Clinton's. Arguably from his failed business dealings and whatnot, it seems Trump has a bit more international experience than then-Senator Obama (only his first term, not finished either so not much there).



But yeah more nukes and killing families is nuts.

beach_walker

tigger123 wrote: »

Meh, still more dealings on the worldwide scene than the current guy had. That's my point.

N365

tigger123 wrote: »

Saying that someone can't fulfil the duties of their position due to their ethnic background isn't racist?

You're quoting Paul Ryan.

Trump told the journal the judge’s background was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border.

tigger123

N365 wrote: »

You're quoting Paul Ryan.

Trump told the journal the judge’s background was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border.

Did you watch the interview?

tigger123

N365 wrote: »

You're quoting Paul Ryan.

Trump told the journal the judge’s background was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border.

The judge is a US citizen btw.

N365

tigger123 wrote: »

The judge is a US citizen btw.

I know.I read the article.

tigger123

N365 wrote: »

I know.I read the article.

Watch the interview. You'll see Trump for what he is; a racist.

Billy86

N365 wrote: »

You're quoting Paul Ryan.

Trump told the journal the judge’s background was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border.

Which all stems from Trump saying he has never met a Mexican that was a good person - hence, "some, I assume, are good people".

If he had ever met a single Mexican he deemed to be a good person, no 'assumptions' would have to be made.

K-9

RobertKK wrote: »

Maybe she gave them to the press because she said she feared she would end up dead in some 'accident', and if the press were exposing it, then she would be high profile and the Clintons could do nothing.

The Clintons have already being accused of murder during this campaign...

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the conspiracy theories will be popular. Trump quotes National Enquirer articles as truth.

Yep, that is actually happening. The Enquirer is now a source in a Presidential campaign.

Foxtrol

beach_walker wrote: »

Just playing devil's advocate here, but how much foreign policy experience had Obama before becoming President? It was a constant attack vector by the Clinton's. Arguably from his business dealings and whatnot, it seems Trump has a bit more international experience than then-Senator Obama (only his first term, not finished either so not much there).

But yeah more nukes and killing families is nuts.

Originally I would have put Obama (first term) probably be weaker than Trump is now on international trade but ahead of Trump on international relations. However, Trump has shown practically no understanding, nor care, of the consequences of his policies in either area so I have to say on evidence he is far by far worse than Obama on both. When you add in that by all accounts Obama is much better read, even tempered, and open to listening to the opinions of his advisors (he even kept on Republican advisors to get all sides) which more than puts him well over Trump.

Obama’s foreign policy experience was something constantly attacked by republicans against McCain but Trump supporters are noticeably silent on it now.

N365

Billy86 wrote: »

Which all stems from Trump saying he has never met a Mexican that was a good person - hence, "some, I assume, are good people".

If he had ever met a single Mexican he deemed to be a good person, no 'assumptions' would have to be made.

In which article did he say that he has "never met a Mexican that was a good person"?

K-9

Michah wrote: »

It seems that not all Latinos dislike Trump. Come to think about, people who came to the US legally are likely to reasonate with his anti illegal immigration stance.

A small percentage of the Hispanic vote will vote Republican, there's nothing new or enlightening in that.

Women will vote Trump, that doesn't change the fact he has very high unfavourable ratings amongst women.

Billy86

N365 wrote: »

In which article did he say that he has "never met a Mexican that was a good person"?

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Do you have to assume what you name is when someone asks? Or your home address when ordering something for delivery? Do you assume 8pm follows after 7pm?

You don't, because assuming is only done when you have not done that before or have no evidence of it. If Trump had ever met a Mexican who he deemed a good person, he would not have to assume "some are good people" - he would know so from Jorge and Guillermo (or whatever 'good' Mexicans he has met) who he knows to be good people.

N365

Billy86 wrote: »

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Do you have to assume what you name is when someone asks? Or your home address when ordering something for delivery? Do you assume 8pm follows after 7pm?

You don't, because assuming is only done when you have not done that before or have no evidence of it. If Trump had ever met a Mexican who he deemed a good person, he would not have to assume "some are good people" - he would know so from Jorge and Guillermo (or whatever 'good' Mexicans he has met) who he knows to be good people.

In which article did he say that he has "never met a Mexican that was a good person"?

Billy86

N365 wrote: »

In which article did he say that he has "never met a Mexican that was a good person"?

Been pointed out to you already, why is it that you're trying to avoid engaging the text in the answer given?

RobertKK

LorMal wrote: »

So, here we go again. First few paragraphs are arguable (I dont agree fully but at least they within reason).
Then we get 'all the Clintons do is help and assist terrorists', ' absolute disaster' and 'blood thirst'............hysterical nonsense.

It is all true.

Remember the WTC was bombed during the presidency of Clinton in 1993. All the terrorist attacks in Africa and the Middle East on US interests from attacks on a US warship, to attacks on US embassies to an attack on a US barracks.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/218683/facts-about-clinton-and-terrorism-byron-york

So Clinton talked tough. But he did not act tough. Indeed, a review of his years in office shows that each time the president was confronted with a major terrorist attack — the February 26, 1993, bombing of the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers attack, the August 7, 1998, bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole — Clinton was preoccupied with his own political fortunes to an extent that precluded his giving serious and sustained attention to fighting terrorism. At the time of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, his administration was just beginning, and he was embroiled in controversies over gays in the military, an economic stimulus plan, and the beginnings of Hillary Clinton’s health-care task force. Khobar Towers happened not only in the midst of the president’s re-election campaign but also at the end of a month in which there were new and damaging developments in the Whitewater and Filegate scandals. The African embassy attacks occurred as the Monica Lewinsky affair was at fever pitch, in the month that Clinton appeared before independent counsel Kenneth Starr’s grand jury. And when the Cole was rammed, Clinton had little time left in office and was desperately hoping to build his legacy with a breakthrough in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Whenever a serious terrorist attack occurred, it seemed Bill Clinton was always busy with something else. The First WTC Attack Clinton had been in office just 38 days when terrorists bombed the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring more than 1,000. Although it was later learned that the bombing was the work of terrorists who hoped to topple one of the towers into the other and kill as many as 250,000 people, at first it was not clear that the explosion was the result of terrorism. The new president’s reaction seemed almost disengaged. He warned Americans against “overreacting” and, in an interview on MTV, described the bombing as the work of someone who “did something really stupid.”

Clinton was weak on terrorism and allowed it to grow, Hillary as secretary of state was against dictators who had kept terrorists in their boxes. She then complained when the Egyptian army had the coup against the Muslim Brotherhood terrorists that she supported.
Clintons have been an absolute disaster when it has come to terrorism and did and have made it far worse.