2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Billy86

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You've a funny habit of snipping out bits of posts that don't suit your agenda. So nothing then about the absurd and dangerous stance the Texas board of Education and corrupt stances they and the GOP take in regard to education then, after your comments on democrats and education?

KingBrian2

alastair wrote: »

The endorsement of any papers for one candidate or another doesn't imply any bias or misleading information in any of those papers.
There was no propaganda campaign on behalf of Hillary, and Trump's negative press coverage was entirely the creation of one Donald Trump.

The Media only gave the additional coverage to Trump in order to disqualify him as President. The voters would be turned off and gallop to Hillary. Hillary was meant to win by a landslide not just beat Trump. Democrats will be hurting and pressing their media handlers for getting the message so badly wrong. Instead of courting celebrities they should have paid attention to what the electorate was saying.

aloyisious

I'm reading that Betsy DeVos has been appointed Sec of Education. She's very pro Charter School, so my first question is what place do charter schools have within the US education system.

Not residing in the US, I'm relying on wikipedia for info: that charter schools are outside the local school system, are open to all comers and are funded by taxes.

How much independence do charter schools have regarding their choosing or refusing to accept children as pupils?

There's an ongoing discussion here in Ireland of some schools placing requirements (at local level) on parents to have their children baptized to get them into schools in the neighbourhood (even if they are of different or no faith) even when the schools are nominally National Schools.

RobertKK

B0jangles wrote: »

Ah there you are Robert!

https://twitter.com/PostRoz/status/800694688844017664?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

I'm assuming you're going to have a LOT to say about how appalling this is, given how often you cited Saudi donations to the Clinton Foundation as evidence of some kind of corruption?

Hotels it seems.

It is the Trump business.

I don't have a problem with Ireland selling food to Saudi Arabia, people have to eat, unlike what the Saudi's are trying to do to Yemen which is starve them.
People who travel need hotels.

You only need weapons to kill people...which doubled what was sold when Clinton was secretary of state versus under the Bush administration...

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

It's strange how some Trump fans are still obsessed with the election that happened over two weeks ago, rather than what they want to see come next now that their candidate won it. You'd almost swear as if they don't know what they want, and essentially stand for nothing due to their complete inability to actually articulate what it is they expect from Trump's presidency over the next few years, and are just waiting for their next cue from the likes of Breitbart in terms of being told what to say.

People have asked repeatedly, and absolute credit to the (very) few Trump fans who have given a response, but they are in the serious minority while the others continue still obsess over an election that has long since passed. It's hardly surprising that fake news played such a large role, in light of this.

Personally I was more against Hillary than pro-Trump, but being anti-Clinton meant I did want Trump to win as I feel Trump is a less of a danger to the world than someone who wants to implement Saudi foreign policy in Syria.
I don't think Trump should undo the Iran deal, one could argue the Iran deal was done to counteract Saudi Arabia as both vie for regional dominance.
I think both nations have a lot of issues, but give me Iran any day.
Trump seems to be backing away from a lot of the more controversial stuff during the election which is no surprise, combined with signs that he doesn't hold grudges - not going after Clinton, looking to bring Romney into the inner circle.
I never got this 'I'm terrified' which some in the media talked about with Trump's election win. I think some people were too far into the Hillary camp to see the reality, to read the signs.
For me I think a lot of the signs are positive, Trump does not seem to be a vindictive person.
There are questions over his businesses and how they will operate.
The stock markets have reacted very positively to Trump's election - lower business taxes and less regulation. One can argue less regulation is bad but then it depends on what regulations he wants to remove.
The dollar has strengthened based on what the markets see as policies that will increase economic growth, increase inflation and a stronger economy.
One can question how all this work and what effect it will have negatively or positively on the national debt.

I hope he lives up to his far more pacifist talk compared to Hillary. Too many wars in the past 15 years that have not worked out positively for the planet.
At the present time, I am hopeful for the Trump presidency.

RobertKK

aloyisious wrote: »

In respect of accepting the validity of the vote result and a Trump presidency, are you glad that Hillary is taking that version of democracy?

CNN just had a news report there that Clinton people are urging her to ask for an audit of the results from Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Hillary backed herself into a corner during the election by saying not accepting the election result is horrific, that was a mistake on her behalf as she thought she would win.
I don't think she will will look for an audit as the thing the US needs now is unity after a very divisive election, I don't think anyone wants a repeat of the 2000 election.
btw I thought Trump was wrong the way he went on about a rigged election when the polls didn't suit, and how he might not accept the election result.

On a separate note, Trump has been warned that North Korea is a grave near term threat and is the number 1 international issue for the US.
That North Korea will have intercontinental nuclear ballistic missiles that will be able to reach Washington DC during Trump's presidency.

FatherTed

RobertKK wrote: »

CNN just had a news report there that Clinton people are urging her to ask for an audit of the results from Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Hillary backed herself into a corner during the election by saying not accepting the election result is horrific, that was a mistake on her behalf as she thought she would win.
I don't think she will will look for an audit as the thing the US needs now is unity after a very divisive election, I don't think anyone wants a repeat of the 2000 election.
btw I thought Trump was wrong the way he went on about a rigged election when the polls didn't suit, and how he might not accept the election result.

On a separate note, Trump has been warned that North Korea is a grave near term threat and is the number 1 international issue for the US.
That North Korea will have intercontinental nuclear ballistic missiles that will be able to reach Washington DC during Trump's presidency.

Clinton is a politician so it would be no surprise if she did a U-turn and contested these results. After all Trump is doing U-turns on most of his campaign promises - building the wall, locking her up, getting rid of Obamacare, etc.

Now Jill Stein is trying to raise money so she can contest some results. Strange times.

TheOven

If NASA climate research gets cut researchers need to be careful not to do anything that draws attention from republicans and trump or we could be next.

eire4

RobertKK wrote: »

CNN just had a news report there that Clinton people are urging her to ask for an audit of the results from Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan.
Hillary backed herself into a corner during the election by saying not accepting the election result is horrific, that was a mistake on her behalf as she thought she would win.
I don't think she will will look for an audit as the thing the US needs now is unity after a very divisive election, I don't think anyone wants a repeat of the 2000 election.
btw I thought Trump was wrong the way he went on about a rigged election when the polls didn't suit, and how he might not accept the election result.

On a separate note, Trump has been warned that North Korea is a grave near term threat and is the number 1 international issue for the US.
That North Korea will have intercontinental nuclear ballistic missiles that will be able to reach Washington DC during Trump's presidency.

Whether Clinton does or does not (and I think she will not) the boat has already sailed on a divided country. The dysfunctional and corrupt duopoly on power in Washington DC which operates at the expense very often of the vast majority of Americans is simply not capable IMHO of healing what to my mind is a country that is getting worse not better and I say that in a non partisan way. I think the US has been becoming more and more fractured for a generation or so now and I see no signs that that trend is going to stop any time soon.

Overheal

Count Dooku wrote: »

If he will try to prosecute, then liberals will start "unfit to be jailed" campaign

she got what she deserved on election night

By the way what is the source for this photo? There is no context, time, date, or place. It's validity is questionable.

B0jangles

RobertKK wrote: »

Hotels it seems.

It is the Trump business.

I don't have a problem with Ireland selling food to Saudi Arabia, people have to eat, unlike what the Saudi's are trying to do to Yemen which is starve them.
People who travel need hotels.

You only need weapons to kill people...which doubled what was sold when Clinton was secretary of state versus under the Bush administration...

Ah, so special pleading it is then. The contortions you are willing to put yourself in to keep trying to convince yourself that Clinton is the antichrist and the unstable narcissist surrounded by lunatics that is Trump is somehow the safer option are astonishing.

The north pole is reportedly 36 degrees hotter than it ought to be and the president elect is planning to cut climate research funding and bring the US back to fossil fuels.

This presidency is not just a political disaster, it could quite literally cause catastrophic physical damage to the planet we all live on.

Christy42

B0jangles wrote: »

Ah, so special pleading it is then. The contortions you are willing to put yourself in to keep trying to convince yourself that Clinton is the antichrist and the unstable narcissist surrounded by lunatics that is Trump is somehow the safer option are astonishing.

The north pole is reportedly 36 degrees hotter than it ought to be and the president elect is planning to cut climate research funding and bring the US back to fossil fuels.

This presidency is not just a political disaster, it could quite literally cause catastrophic physical damage to the planet we all live on.

Don't bother. We will just end up with several more pages of him talking about the sun and ignoring all man made climate change.

Brian?

"RobertKK wrote: »

I hope he lives up to his far more pacifist talk compared to Hillary. Too many wars in the past 15 years that have not worked out positively for the planet.
At the present time, I am hopeful for the Trump presidency.

Pacifist talk???????

You can't be serious

B0jangles

B0jangles wrote: »

According to Argentinian reporters, Trump used his congrats call from the Argentinian president to ask him get a building permit for him in Buenos Aires.



Not even President yet and already abusing the office for personal gain.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/cashing-in-bigly-in-argentina

http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1958082-revelan-que-trump-le-pidio-permiso-a-macri-para-hacer-una-torre

(Crossposting because I think it's quite important)

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/801457065189376000/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

What an amazing coincidence!!!

Now who here can define the word 'Corruption'?

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Personally I was more against Hillary than pro-Trump, but being anti-Clinton meant I did want Trump to win as I feel Trump is a less of a danger to the world than someone who wants to implement Saudi foreign policy in Syria.

I actually backed up that contention of yours... right up until you started saying working with the Clintons, who you had previously been having a go at as raping murderers involved in conspiracy with the likes of Saudi Arabia (where Trump opened 8 businesses during the campaign) and seemingly the biggest threat to the world... could be a good thing - seemingly for no other reason than to defend Trump, who I do not recall you having brought yourself to criticise once during the entire campaign.

I don't think Trump should undo the Iran deal, one could argue the Iran deal was done to counteract Saudi Arabia as both vie for regional dominance.
I think both nations have a lot of issues, but give me Iran any day.

Clinton played a big role in the Iran deal, Trump has pledged to rip it apart.

Trump seems to be backing away from a lot of the more controversial stuff during the election which is no surprise, combined with signs that he doesn't hold grudges - not going after Clinton, looking to bring Romney into the inner circle.

I will give you credit for having said you expected him to back down from certain things, but it still makes him no different to any other politician. Which is counter to the entire centre point of his entire campaign.

I never got this 'I'm terrified' which some in the media talked about with Trump's election win. I think some people were too far into the Hillary camp to see the reality, to read the signs.

Because now we are facing massive threats to the planet in terms of fossil fuels etc, while he has been filling his cabinet with the types of people that have a history and mindset likely to only make the Islamic terrorism issue even worse.

For me I think a lot of the signs are positive, Trump does not seem to be a vindictive person.

History says otherwise, and so does Trump both in his history of litigious and vindictive actions, and in his own philosophy - "Get even with people. If they screw you, screw them back 10 times as hard. I really believe it."

There are questions over his businesses and how they will operate.
The stock markets have reacted very positively to Trump's election - lower business taxes and less regulation. One can argue less regulation is bad but then it depends on what regulations he wants to remove.
The dollar has strengthened based on what the markets see as policies that will increase economic growth, increase inflation and a stronger economy.
One can question how all this work and what effect it will have negatively or positively on the national debt.

Weren't you one of the more critical people about Clinton's relationship with Wall Street? Do you know why Wall Street has reacted positively? It's because they anticipate less regulation and more elbow room for dodgy dealings under a Trump presidency. And Trump has looked to want to follow through on that early, stating he will rip up two regulations for every new one made.

Now where has that attitude got us in the past... I know I don't want a return to 2009.

I hope he lives up to his far more pacifist talk compared to Hillary. Too many wars in the past 15 years that have not worked out positively for the planet.
At the present time, I am hopeful for the Trump presidency.

Other posters have addressed this fallacy already, from "bombing the sh*t" out of the middle east, to torturing innocent people. He also has continued to be as thin skinned as a teenager over any slights he deems to be made against him or those in his administration, which is what was continuously pointed out from Democrats and Republicans alike as a very serious worry for who also has such a vindictive nature, to be in control of the nuclear option.

First Up

Billy86 wrote: »

Other posters have addressed this fallacy already, from "bombing the sh*t" out of the middle east, to torturing innocent people. He also has continued to be as thin skinned as a teenager over any slights he deems to be made against him or those in his administration, which is what was continuously pointed out from Democrats and Republicans alike as a very serious worry for who also has such a vindictive nature, to be in control of the nuclear option.

Apparently one conversation with an army general was all it took for him to change his views on water boarding. The guy is charlatan and a joke.

26000 Elephants

RobertKK wrote: »

I hope he lives up to his far more pacifist talk compared to Hillary. Too many wars in the past 15 years that have not worked out positively for the planet.
At the present time, I am hopeful for the Trump presidency.

And in the very next post.....

RobertKK wrote: »

On a separate note, Trump has been warned that North Korea is a grave near term threat and is the number 1 international issue for the US.

He didnt even miss a beat.

TheOven

Pacifist talk such as killing the families of terrorists and attacking sailors.

But remember guys, it's a no fly zone that will cause WW3.

PopePalpatine

Overheal wrote: »

By the way what is the source for this photo? There is no context, time, date, or place. It's validity is questionable.

Probably either Infowars or /r/the_donald.

Igotadose

If you wait, the media's tracking 'Trump Campaign Promises' vs. 'Trump's newest tales' (paraphrasing). Here's a good summary:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/11/23/how-long-before-the-white-working-class-realizes-trump-was-just-scamming-them/?utm_term=.12544495a29a&wpisrc=nl_az_most

From the article: "Or maybe Trump will find a way to actually improve the lives of working class voters. That’s theoretically possible, but absolutely nothing he has done or said so far suggests that he has any idea how to do it, or even the inclination. So he may try to keep the fires of hatred, resentment, and fear burning, in the hopes that people forget that he hasn’t given them the practical things he said he would"

He won't in my opinion. He's shown zero signs throughout his entire life of actually wanting to work hard. He's a bad reality show star, good at getting publicity by saying and doing outrageous things. Now he's surrounded by lowlifes and bigots, and we can all see a return to 2009 economics and late 2001/2002 world peace.

RobertKK

B0jangles wrote: »

Ah, so special pleading it is then. The contortions you are willing to put yourself in to keep trying to convince yourself that Clinton is the antichrist and the unstable narcissist surrounded by lunatics that is Trump is somehow the safer option are astonishing.

The north pole is reportedly 36 degrees hotter than it ought to be and the president elect is planning to cut climate research funding and bring the US back to fossil fuels.

This presidency is not just a political disaster, it could quite literally cause catastrophic physical damage to the planet we all live on.

Maybe weapons sales which have and are being used to kill people in Yemen is a much lesser deal to you, and it is hotels that kill people.
Maybe Hillary Clinton and her Saudi policies toward Syria are what you want.

Then you divert to climate change to change the topic away from Saudi Arabia.
Maybe you think we should not sell food to the Saudis, or Trump and his hotels kill people, but dare say a word against Hillary and her support for the record breaking arms deal with Saudi Arabia and it is but Trump...
When Trump hotels are responsible for specifically being used to kill people, I might then care about your weak argument.

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

Maybe weapons sales which have and are being used to kill people in Yemen is a much lesser deal to you, and it is hotels that kill people.
Maybe Hillary Clinton and her Saudi policies toward Syria are what you want.

Then you divert to climate change to change the topic away from Saudi Arabia.
Maybe you think we should not sell food to the Saudis, or Trump and his hotels kill people, but dare say a word against Hillary and her support for the record breaking arms deal with Saudi Arabia and it is but Trump...
When Trump hotels are responsible for specifically being used to kill people, I might then care about your weak argument.

Come on , this is a basic definition of double standards . Either they are both wrong or it ok '

You could just as easily argue that his businesses are helping to enrich the Saudi regime and thus allowing them to buy even more weapons to kill even more people

RobertKK

TheOven wrote: »

Pacifist talk such as killing the families of terrorists and attacking sailors.

But remember guys, it's a no fly zone that will cause WW3.

The Saudi Arabia policy that Russia will not accept, and which Hillary wanted.
Hillary is the stupid person who gave Russia an actual button that was to symbolise a reset button and ended up having the reset going back to the cold war.
Yet people supported someone who gets most things wrong:
Voted for the Iraq war.
Lobbied Obama over Libya and got her way, another disaster.
Reset relations with Russia back to the cold war.

She is so incompetent and being incompetent she lost the election to a reality star who owns hotels and other properties.
The world didn't need her incompetence, anything was possible including WW3...given her sheer level of incompetence.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

The Saudi Arabia policy that Russia will not accept, and which Hillary wanted.
Hillary is the stupid person who gave Russia an actual button that was to symbolise a reset button and ended up having the reset going back to the cold war.
Yet people supported someone who gets most things wrong:
Voted for the Iraq war.
Lobbied Obama over Libya and got her way, another disaster.
Reset relations with Russia back to the cold war.

She is so incompetent and being incompetent she lost the election to a reality star who owns hotels and other properties.
The world didn't need her incompetence, anything was possible including WW3...given her sheer level of incompetence.

Whether this is all true or not is irrelevant. She lost, we've moved on. You haven't. The time for comparison with Hillary is over.

You said Trump was talking like a pacifist. When? In between talking about water boarding and bombing the **** out of the Middle East?

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

The Saudi Arabia policy that Russia will not accept, and which Hillary wanted.
Hillary is the stupid person who gave Russia an actual button that was to symbolise a reset button and ended up having the reset going back to the cold war.
Yet people supported someone who gets most things wrong:
Voted for the Iraq war.
Lobbied Obama over Libya and got her way, another disaster.
Reset relations with Russia back to the cold war.

She is so incompetent and being incompetent she lost the election to a reality star who owns hotels and other properties.
The world didn't need her incompetence, anything was possible including WW3...given her sheer level of incompetence.

You said you hoped Trump would stick to his pacifist talk.

When questioned on him not being warlike due to his statements your defense does not mention him.

I would also point out that Trump is unlikely to go against Saudi's wishes very much given they could take action to make his new buildings unprofitable. He gave them leverage over him in his pursuit of money. Even if they don't go after his hotels any financial action against them would hurt the nations economy and thus his buildings. I can't imagine he aquire these properties right before the election if he expected to hurt the Saudis well before he had a chance of a profit

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

I actually backed up that contention of yours... right up until you started saying working with the Clintons, who you had previously been having a go at as raping murderers involved in conspiracy with the likes of Saudi Arabia (where Trump opened 8 businesses during the campaign) and seemingly the biggest threat to the world... could be a good thing - seemingly for no other reason than to defend Trump, who I do not recall you having brought yourself to criticise once during the entire campaign.

Clinton played a big role in the Iran deal, Trump has pledged to rip it apart.

I will give you credit for having said you expected him to back down from certain things, but it still makes him no different to any other politician. Which is counter to the entire centre point of his entire campaign.

Because now we are facing massive threats to the planet in terms of fossil fuels etc, while he has been filling his cabinet with the types of people that have a history and mindset likely to only make the Islamic terrorism issue even worse.

History says otherwise, and so does Trump both in his history of litigious and vindictive actions, and in his own philosophy - "Get even with people. If they screw you, screw them back 10 times as hard. I really believe it."

Weren't you one of the more critical people about Clinton's relationship with Wall Street? Do you know why Wall Street has reacted positively? It's because they anticipate less regulation and more elbow room for dodgy dealings under a Trump presidency. And Trump has looked to want to follow through on that early, stating he will rip up two regulations for every new one made.

Now where has that attitude got us in the past... I know I don't want a return to 2009.


Other posters have addressed this fallacy already, from "bombing the sh*t" out of the middle east, to torturing innocent people. He also has continued to be as thin skinned as a teenager over any slights he deems to be made against him or those in his administration, which is what was continuously pointed out from Democrats and Republicans alike as a very serious worry for who also has such a vindictive nature, to be in control of the nuclear option.

Was Trump required to put his businesses on hold during the elction?
What rules did the Trump organisation break?

John Kerry was there for the most important part of the deal - the final two years.

There has been a trend in how Trump operates, he attacks like hell, but when he has his battle won - it is like the battle never happened. People talk about Trump being erratic and all other negative things, but I see a pattern that is quite stable in how he reacts - lots of determination to the point it can be extreme, and some of the stuff in the election was extreme but when he achieves his goal, he is not vindictive.
I think George W Bush was vindictive, and one of the reasons he went after Saddam was due to Saddam's attempt to have his father killed.
I think Hillary Clinton is vindictive, and to laugh at the death of Gaddafi was sick, given he was killed with a knife inserted up his back passage, the cruelty involved was a symbol of the path Libya was on, Hillary laughed as she said "We came, we saw, he died".
I don't like vindictive people, they are dangerous to society.

Trump has said in recent days about a connection between humans and the climate.
China is the biggest polluter with coal.
Personally I would not mind coal being used, if the offset was coal users pay for the preservation and restoration of rain forests in the topics rather than chopping them down.

I dealt with vindictiveness, talk is Romney could be Secretary of State, he allowed Ted Cruz speak at the Republican convention but that was Cruz shooting himself, he is not going after Hillary.
I would not care about him suing people or people suing Trump when it comes to his businesses. The law is there to deal with disputes.

I don't think it is being pro-Wall street with wanting to reduce corporation tax. It makes absolute sense, 35% which Hillary wanted to keep is excessive just like our capital tax gains of 33% is excessive.
It might not be the best for Ireland, but Trump is there to govern the US and lower corporation tax and a low tax to allow the estimated $2 trillion plus held offshore by US multinationals makes complete sense - it is the mess of high taxes that in the end helped to get Ireland into the Apple tax mess. Ireland says the taxes are not ours but the US, but Apple are using Ireland because the US has tax rates that are too high and they say they plan on taking that money back to the US to be taxed in the future.
Trump could help Ireland by sorting out this mess, which Hillary had no intention of touching which has allowed huge corporations to hold billions and billions of dollars abroad where it goes untaxed, because they say it will be sometime back in the US.

People seem to be quick to hear the bad stuff but not the U turns - Trump has ruled out using torture including waterboarding.
They even said on CNN that Trump said lesser involvement in the middle east could be a good thing as they are not liked in the region.

Like with any new presidency we have to wait and see, it is easy for all sides to have a set view and be wrong.

RobertKK

Christy42 wrote: »

You said you hoped Trump would stick to his pacifist talk.

When questioned on him not being warlike due to his statements your defense does not mention him.

I would also point out that Trump is unlikely to go against Saudi's wishes very much given they could take action to make his new buildings unprofitable. He gave them leverage over him in his pursuit of money. Even if they don't go after his hotels any financial action against them would hurt the nations economy and thus his buildings. I can't imagine he aquire these properties right before the election if he expected to hurt the Saudis well before he had a chance of a profit

The biggest threat to the US according to a briefing Trump received from intelligence is North Korea, and that it is a near term threat as they will likely have an intercontinental ballistic missile that will be able to send a nuclear weapon as far as Washington DC.
That is the biggest threat for a war it seems as it is a direct threat. It was being discussed in breaking news on CNN last night, where they said Kim Jong Un has shown he is far more hard line than his predecessors as he has executed family members and the signs are he is far more dangerous.

I don't see Trump starting any new wars in the middle east, he has talked about bringing peace in the region, so I think he will be pacifist in nature, but the dangers posed by North Korea could come to a head as concerns grow over the abilities of NK to deliver a nuclear bomb via a ballistic missile.

Most of the world would love to see the fall of North Korea but the task to simply contain North Korea is a huge task in itself.

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

Trump has said in recent days about a connection between humans and the climate.

Yeah, let's have a look at what he said about climate change.

I’m looking at it very closely, Tom. I’ll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. We’re going to look very carefully. It’s one issue that’s interesting because there are few things where there’s more division than climate change. You don’t tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think, don’t even …

[...]

...a lot of smart people disagree with you. I have a very open mind. And I’m going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and we’re going to look at it very carefully. But I have an open mind.

[...]

You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind.

My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject. It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about. I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.

And you know, you mentioned a lot of the courses. I have some great, great, very successful golf courses. I’ve received so many environmental awards for the way I’ve done, you know. I’ve done a tremendous amount of work where I’ve received tremendous numbers. Sometimes I’ll say I’m actually an environmentalist and people will smile in some cases and other people that know me understand that’s true. Open mind.

[...]

I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies.

As for his pledge to pull out of the Paris Agreement:

I’m going to take a look at it.

I don't think people for whom climate change is a priority is going to be particularly reassured by any of that word salad.

RobertKK

Brian? wrote: »

Whether this is all true or not is irrelevant. She lost, we've moved on. You haven't. The time for comparison with Hillary is over.

You said Trump was talking like a pacifist. When? In between talking about water boarding and bombing the **** out of the Middle East?

I have moved on, it doesn't change the fact that some here have been unable to criticise Hillary Clinton during the election, and the arguments comes with their bias from previous arguments/debates.

RobertKK

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yeah, let's have a look at what he said about climate change.



As for his pledge to pull out of the Paris Agreement:

I don't think people for whom climate change is a priority is going to be particularly reassured by any of that word salad.

Does the Paris agreement stop the cutting down of rain forests and restoring some of what has been destroyed.
I personally hope it does.

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

Does the Paris agreement stop the cutting down of rain forests and restoring some of what has been destroyed.
I personally hope it does.

What has that got to do with Trump ?

RobertKK

marienbad wrote: »

Come on , this is a basic definition of double standards . Either they are both wrong or it ok '

You could just as easily argue that his businesses are helping to enrich the Saudi regime and thus allowing them to buy even more weapons to kill even more people

It is their oil that pays for military purchases and weapons, and helps them fund terrorism.
Trump wants to use fracking.
Fracking which went gung ho under the Obama administration, and it led to accusations that Saudi Arabia was driving down oil prices to out US fracking out of business so they could then make more for their oil and gas.

The Saudis are building the tallest building in the world, they could afford to build their own hotels and take all the money if they want.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

I have moved on, it doesn't change the fact that some here have been unable to criticise Hillary Clinton during the election, and the arguments comes with their bias from previous arguments/debates.

Who on here has been unable to criticise Clinton during the election?

RobertKK

marienbad wrote: »

What has that got to do with Trump ?

It was in realtion to the Paris agreement which I was replying to which was about Trump having a look at the Paris agreement.
It is no good reducing carbon emissions if we are removing carbon collectors and the biggest intake of CO2 is from rain forests.
I think it is a crime against nature to be destroying rain forests.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Who on here has been unable to criticise Clinton during the election?

During the election it was quite a few people, we are suppose to forget that people had biased opinions before, now the election is over.

I thought both candidates were poor, but Hillary was worse so I ended up with a bias towards Trump.
People here did not lose their bias when the election ended, and people are not stupid to forget who supported who, and the bias has not gone away even if people like to pretend it has.

KingBrian2

Brian? wrote: »

Whether this is all true or not is irrelevant. She lost, we've moved on. You haven't. The time for comparison with Hillary is over.

You said Trump was talking like a pacifist. When? In between talking about water boarding and bombing the **** out of the Middle East?

Some people have not moved on. Heard it on the Pat Kenny show, 2 million desperate liberal democrats want a rerun of the election. Those are voters the Democrats won't get back in a hurry. Lied to by the establishment.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

During the election it was quite a few people, we are suppose to forget that people had biased opinions before, now the election is over.

I thought both candidates were poor, but Hillary was worse so I ended up with a bias towards Trump.
People here did not lose their bias when the election ended, and people are not stupid to forget who supported who, and the bias has not gone away even if people like to pretend it has.

There weren't, that's the thing. You could point to, at most, maybe one or two posters on all of boards who were unable to criticise Clinton. Please don't pretend otherwise.

Christy42

Billy86 wrote: »

There weren't, that's the thing. You could point to, at most, maybe one or two posters on all of boards who were unable to criticise Clinton. Please don't pretend otherwise.

And despite saying he thinks both are poor the poster never seems to criticized Trump beyond both are poor.

Christy42

RobertKK wrote: »

The biggest threat to the US according to a briefing Trump received from intelligence is North Korea, and that it is a near term threat as they will likely have an intercontinental ballistic missile that will be able to send a nuclear weapon as far as Washington DC.
That is the biggest threat for a war it seems as it is a direct threat. It was being discussed in breaking news on CNN last night, where they said Kim Jong Un has shown he is far more hard line than his predecessors as he has executed family members and the signs are he is far more dangerous.

I don't see Trump starting any new wars in the middle east, he has talked about bringing peace in the region, so I think he will be pacifist in nature, but the dangers posed by North Korea could come to a head as concerns grow over the abilities of NK to deliver a nuclear bomb via a ballistic missile.

Most of the world would love to see the fall of North Korea but the task to simply contain North Korea is a huge task in itself.

He has also talked about war and escalating things in the middle east. I don't get why you continue to ignore the traditional war like phrases of "bomb the **** out of them".

Also advocating torture and gitmo. I know both happened under Obama and is something I consider to be a flaw in his presidency but both seem likely to get worse as well as making targeting families of terrorists an out and out policy seems like it will increase casualties with regard to civilians.

Despite all this you still refrain from critisizing him beyond "both were poor".

His personality is also insanely thin skinned. While Congress should stop it going too far you have to admit it could lead to worsening relations if he goes off the handle at some leader at the wrong time.

KingBrian2

Christy42 wrote: »

He has also talked about war and escalating things in the middle east. I don't get why you continue to ignore the traditional war like phrases of "bomb the **** out of them".

Also advocating torture and gitmo. I know both happened under Obama and is something I consider to be a flaw in his presidency but both seem likely to get worse as well as making targeting families of terrorists an out and out policy seems like it will increase casualties with regard to civilians.

Despite all this you still refrain from critisizing him beyond "both were poor".

His personality is also insanely thin skinned. While Congress should stop it going too far you have to admit it could lead to worsening relations if he goes off the handle at some leader at the wrong time.

He did talk about war, however Clinton had the neocons voters so vote Clinton, vote war. The neocons were making multiple suggestions to go to war.

Brian?

RobertKK wrote: »

I have moved on, it doesn't change the fact that some here have been unable to criticise Hillary Clinton during the election, and the arguments comes with their bias from previous arguments/debates.

A fine deflection. When was Trump talking like a pacifist?

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Some people have not moved on. Heard it on the Pat Kenny show, 2 million desperate liberal democrats want a rerun of the election. Those are voters the Democrats won't get back in a hurry. Lied to by the establishment.

I don't care. I want to know when Trump talked like a pacifist.

I no longer care about Hillary Clinton's suitability for the off of President. It's irrelevant to any discussion.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

He did talk about war, however Clinton had the neocons voters so vote Clinton, vote war. The neocons were making multiple suggestions to go to war.

Absolute hogwash. Hillary Clinton was never a conservative, never mind a neoconservative.

KingBrian2

Brian? wrote: »

Absolute hogwash. Hillary Clinton was never a conservative, never mind a neoconservative.

She surrounded herself with neocons and took their advice. She did a full un-turn on relations with Russia. That was an Obama promise that he broke for whatever reason but it fell on her and she took a completely different route. Confrontation with Russia and a return to the cold war.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

She surrounded herself with neocons and took their advice. She did a full un-turn on relations with Russia. That was an Obama promise that he broke for whatever reason but it fell on her and she took a completely different route. Confrontation with Russia and a return to the cold war.

She did not surround herself with neocons. Where do you get this from?

marienbad

KingBrian2 wrote: »

She surrounded herself with neocons and took their advice. She did a full un-turn on relations with Russia. That was an Obama promise that he broke for whatever reason but it fell on her and she took a completely different route. Confrontation with Russia and a return to the cold war.

Well somebody had to stand up to Russia .

KingBrian2

Brian? wrote: »

She did not surround herself with neocons. Where do you get this from?

Good old Neocons. Wanting their wars, killing innocent people.

oscarBravo

I guess that makes Trump a Nazi, so - after all, they supported him.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Good old Neocons. Wanting their wars, killing innocent people.

There is a huge difference between "surrounding herself with neocons" and having some neocons voted for her. You actually have no idea if she sought their advice.

KingBrian2

Brian? wrote: »

There is a huge difference between "surrounding herself with neocons" and having some neocons voted for her. You actually have no idea if she sought their advice.

Wouldn't call all the liberal Republicans voting for Hillary some neocons. The opposite of what they want is less American troops around the world. If they had their way America would have boots in every country in the world. They also are fairly okay with the Imperial Presidency. The idea that the President makes executive decisions without consulting Congress.

We all know why that was the case, can't slip war in through Congress quietly. The media would ape **** and protestors would be aghast at the prospect.