D(er) Trump(ino) Thread

[funhusker]

^^^^

suspending regularly scheduled/timed elections...this doesn't seem like it could ever lead to corruption and abject tyranny...

 

In all honesty, what are you going to do when Mr. Trump assumes office of January 20, 2017? Whine and keep repeating the "they should just give Obama 4 more years" mantra that you seem to have adopted (without providing any rationale as to why) every time he does or says something cool over the following 8 years?

No...but it does seem like obvious sarcasm....

[It'sNotAFakeID]

^^^^

suspending regularly scheduled/timed elections...this doesn't seem like it could ever lead to corruption and abject tyranny...

 

In all honesty, what are you going to do when Mr. Trump assumes office of January 20, 2017? Whine and keep repeating the "they should just give Obama 4 more years" mantra that you seem to have adopted (without providing any rationale as to why) every time he does or says something cool over the following 8 years?

 

I'm going to move to Canada when that happens. But fortunately, it won't. Even if it does, I'm willing to bet Trump would be way more left-leaning than anybody on the right is giving him credit for. In all honesty, there are some aspects of Trump's policies that really aren't all that bad. However, with all of the vile, offensive, "non-PC" (the most ridiculous claim of the past year), things that he has espoused, electing him as our leader sends a bad message.

 

That's not the spirit of America. That's not what makes America great.

[Creighton Duke]

 

^^^^

suspending regularly scheduled/timed elections...this doesn't seem like it could ever lead to corruption and abject tyranny...

 

In all honesty, what are you going to do when Mr. Trump assumes office of January 20, 2017? Whine and keep repeating the "they should just give Obama 4 more years" mantra that you seem to have adopted (without providing any rationale as to why) every time he does or says something cool over the following 8 years?

 

I'm going to move to Canada when that happens. But fortunately, it won't. Even if it does, I'm willing to bet Trump would be way more left-leaning than anybody on the right is giving him credit for. In all honesty, there are some aspects of Trump's policies that really aren't all that bad. However, with all of the vile, offensive, "non-PC" (the most ridiculous claim of the past year), things that he has espoused, electing him as our leader sends a bad message.

 

That's not the spirit of America. That's not what makes America great.

 

No you won't, but if you do for some reason, tell your boy Justin I say "hello"!

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Like I said, not everything Trump believes and stands for is batsh#t insane, and I think his primary audience will be in for a surprise if he somehow manages to win the election. He's just said some wildly offensive things that, because of social media, have gone worldwide. It sends a bad image to every other country (where negative opinions of him abound) if the "American people" (put in quotes because not everybody in America is going to vote), elect him to lead our country.

[Danny Bateman]

I don't think he'll win a general election, Fake. His base isn't large enough, and I doubt there are enough undecided or politically disenchanted moderates or liberals that would opt for Trump over a much less offensive, more reasonable democrat to bridge the gap.

 

I agree some of his platform isn't terrible. I have a strong inkling he'd be good for the economy... It's his forte. But he'd be a disaster in foreign policy. He's already alienated half of the Muslim world and Mexico. And thinking about him being commander-in-chief when he clearly fumbled that nuclear triad question two debates ago scares bejeezus out of me.

[Moiraine]

I don't think he'll win a general election, Fake. His base isn't large enough, and I doubt there are enough undecided or politically disenchanted moderates or liberals that would opt for Trump over a much less offensive, more reasonable democrat to bridge the gap.

 

I agree some of his platform isn't terrible. I have a strong inkling he'd be good for the economy... It's his forte. But he'd be a disaster in foreign policy. He's already alienated half of the Muslim world and Mexico. And thinking about him being commander-in-chief when he clearly fumbled that nuclear triad question two debates ago scares bejeezus out of me.

 

Maybe. My argument before ever seeing the article below was that he'd be good for rich people. He doesn't have experience with doing anything for anyone but rich people. He inherited millions.

 

The economy has already been great for him and other rich people. They've recovered the most since the recession. Their share of total income is more than it ever has been. I've seen no evidence that he would be better for the economy in general than any other candidate.

 

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-youre-probably-better-investing-than-donald-trump/

[Creighton Duke]

 

I don't think he'll win a general election, Fake. His base isn't large enough, and I doubt there are enough undecided or politically disenchanted moderates or liberals that would opt for Trump over a much less offensive, more reasonable democrat to bridge the gap.

 

I agree some of his platform isn't terrible. I have a strong inkling he'd be good for the economy... It's his forte. But he'd be a disaster in foreign policy. He's already alienated half of the Muslim world and Mexico. And thinking about him being commander-in-chief when he clearly fumbled that nuclear triad question two debates ago scares bejeezus out of me.

 

Maybe. My argument before ever seeing the article below was that he'd be good for rich people. He doesn't have experience with doing anything for anyone but rich people. He inherited millions.

 

The economy has already been great for him and other rich people. They've recovered the most since the recession. Their share of total income is more than it ever has been. I've seen no evidence that he would be better for the economy in general than any other candidate.

 

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-youre-probably-better-investing-than-donald-trump/

 

Really? I suggest you read the first 3 chapters of "Art of the Deal" and also the chapter on the Wollman Ice Skating rink. Do it with an open mind now

[Moiraine]

 

 

I don't think he'll win a general election, Fake. His base isn't large enough, and I doubt there are enough undecided or politically disenchanted moderates or liberals that would opt for Trump over a much less offensive, more reasonable democrat to bridge the gap.

 

I agree some of his platform isn't terrible. I have a strong inkling he'd be good for the economy... It's his forte. But he'd be a disaster in foreign policy. He's already alienated half of the Muslim world and Mexico. And thinking about him being commander-in-chief when he clearly fumbled that nuclear triad question two debates ago scares bejeezus out of me.

 

Maybe. My argument before ever seeing the article below was that he'd be good for rich people. He doesn't have experience with doing anything for anyone but rich people. He inherited millions.

 

The economy has already been great for him and other rich people. They've recovered the most since the recession. Their share of total income is more than it ever has been. I've seen no evidence that he would be better for the economy in general than any other candidate.

 

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-youre-probably-better-investing-than-donald-trump/

 

Really? I suggest you read the first 3 chapters of "Art of the Deal" and also the chapter on the Wollman Ice Skating rink. Do it with an open mind now

 

 

I don't have it. Maybe you can summarize the thing on the ice skating rink. But while having an open mind it's hard for me to ignore the fact when you have a lot of money you can take risks, and for every success he's had there are probably failures as well. When you can take those risks, it's okay to have failures. But you're bound to do it right some of the time, too.

[Creighton Duke]

 

 

 

I don't think he'll win a general election, Fake. His base isn't large enough, and I doubt there are enough undecided or politically disenchanted moderates or liberals that would opt for Trump over a much less offensive, more reasonable democrat to bridge the gap.

 

I agree some of his platform isn't terrible. I have a strong inkling he'd be good for the economy... It's his forte. But he'd be a disaster in foreign policy. He's already alienated half of the Muslim world and Mexico. And thinking about him being commander-in-chief when he clearly fumbled that nuclear triad question two debates ago scares bejeezus out of me.

 

Maybe. My argument before ever seeing the article below was that he'd be good for rich people. He doesn't have experience with doing anything for anyone but rich people. He inherited millions.

 

The economy has already been great for him and other rich people. They've recovered the most since the recession. Their share of total income is more than it ever has been. I've seen no evidence that he would be better for the economy in general than any other candidate.

 

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-youre-probably-better-investing-than-donald-trump/

 

Really? I suggest you read the first 3 chapters of "Art of the Deal" and also the chapter on the Wollman Ice Skating rink. Do it with an open mind now

 

 

I don't have it. Maybe you can summarize the thing on the ice skating rink. But while having an open mind it's hard for me to ignore the fact when you have a lot of money you can take risks, and for every success he's had there are probably failures as well. When you can take those risks, it's okay to have failures. But you're bound to do it right some of the time, too.

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345479173?keywords=art%20of%20the%20deal&qid=1453085602&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1 (not an affiliate link)

 

Only $4.83 (and free shipping!) with Prime

 

Don't read before bedtime; you'll be up for another 3 hours still reading!

[Danny Bateman]

That's a good point, Moiraine. There is a line in the sand between doing what is best for the economy on the whole and protecting one's own interests. What's interesting is we haven't had a billionaire non-politician ever this close to the presidency (in my lifetime), and it would directly benefit Trump to ensure the tax loopholes for the wealthiest stay open and we leave Wall Street operations alone.

 

You're right when we say Trump has done very little to help the disadvantaged or even middle-class:

 

http://newsexaminer.net/politics/donald-trump-the-least-charitable-billionaire/

 

For as much as he loves to bring up 9/11, he's reportedly only given $1000 to any kind of relief. Total.

 

Also, I'll just leave this here:

 

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

 

Politifact does a very thorough, objective job researching claims from candidates, including extending back way past the election cycle.

 

By their metric, 77% of what Trump says is "mostly false," "false," or "pants on fire."

[zoogs]

Politico: Trump supporters & authoritarianism

 

Authoritarianism is not a new, untested concept in the American electorate. Since the rise of Nazi Germany, it has been one of the most widely studied ideas in social science. While its causes are still debated, the political behavior of authoritarians is not. Authoritarians obey. They rally to and follow strong leaders. And they respond aggressively to outsiders, especially when they feel threatened. From pledging to “make America great again” by building a wall on the border to promising to close mosques and ban Muslims from visiting the United States, Trump is playing directly to authoritarian inclinations. (...)

 

So, those who say a Trump presidency “can’t happen here” should check their conventional wisdom at the door. The candidate has confounded conventional expectations this primary season because those expectations are based on an oversimplified caricature of the electorate in general and his supporters in particular. Conditions are ripe for an authoritarian leader to emerge. Trump is seizing the opportunity. And the institutions—from the Republican Party to the press—that are supposed to guard against what James Madison called “the infection of violent passions” among the people have either been cowed by Trump’s bluster or are asleep on the job.

I thought that was at the least, an interesting take. The author, Matthew MacWilliams, is a graduate student in political science at UMass Amherst whose dissertation work is on authoritarianism.

 

On another note, I wonder how the free-market and pro-corporate guys (to an extent, I am one!) feel about Trump's absurd policy proposal whereby he forces Apple to move all manufacturing stateside.

[HuskerNation1]

 

^^^^

suspending regularly scheduled/timed elections...this doesn't seem like it could ever lead to corruption and abject tyranny...

 

In all honesty, what are you going to do when Mr. Trump assumes office of January 20, 2017? Whine and keep repeating the "they should just give Obama 4 more years" mantra that you seem to have adopted (without providing any rationale as to why) every time he does or says something cool over the following 8 years?

 

I'm going to move to Canada when that happens. But fortunately, it won't. Even if it does, I'm willing to bet Trump would be way more left-leaning than anybody on the right is giving him credit for. In all honesty, there are some aspects of Trump's policies that really aren't all that bad. However, with all of the vile, offensive, "non-PC" (the most ridiculous claim of the past year), things that he has espoused, electing him as our leader sends a bad message.

 

That's not the spirit of America. That's not what makes America great.

 

 

And electing a leader who in his first year went around the world apologizing for America is the type of President we need? Trump is definitely not my top choice on the GOP side, but his success is a direct result of the failed and weak leadership we have seen with Obama. Iran is much stronger today than they were when Obama came into office. ISIS has formed and thrived under Obama's leadership. The entire Middle East is in greater disarray than when Obama took office. If Obama's goal was to make America weak an an international power/player, he has succeeded in that goal.

[zoogs]

Although I disagree with the characterization, America has a lot to apologize for, with torture and the Iraq "oops" maybe at the top of the list. Acting macho doesn't erase these things.

[HuskerNation1]

Although I disagree with the characterization, America has a lot to apologize for, with torture and the Iraq "oops" maybe at the top of the list. Acting macho doesn't erase these things.

 

Umm...if you think America had a lot to apologize for when Obama took office, it really has a lot to apologize for now. Other countries were looking for our leadership as the middle east began to erupt, and we took a back seat. We have essentially abandoned Israel as a key ally, and all of the peace-loving Muslims in the region are now fearful of ISIS...a group we could have slowed tremendously with a US President that chose not to take a position of weakness.

[zoogs]

Certainly. Every time a drone strike results in collateral there's something to apologize for.

ISIS is nuts, but again, I don't think an American posture of machismo was going to prevent any of the craziness in the middle east. That's a debatable point, especially if you have political blaming interests. I guess to me, it underscores the futility of heavy-handed intervention (such as regime change) and continuing down that path doesn't seem like the logical next step.