Anyone who by now doesn't realize that Drumph is dangerously unqualified is every bit as scary as he is. This is, itself, the real problem. Not Drumph, but the number of people in this country who actually believe he's a viable candidate for the White House.
I wondered for 7 years where the vehement anger against Obama would go when he's gone, and it looks like it's lining up with the Trump supporters. Again, looking to the future, what happens when he's not elected?
Especially if he continues his habit of saying things like "it's rigged" or insulting people around him who take him to task... What will that do to our nation? Are we doomed for another 4-8 years of gridlock while the rest of the world moves on?
Aside, to say something about 'Merica - I just spent a brief period in France and London and noticed that there was no place where I could say that we do it better in the States.
Trains were fully automated and came every 3-4 minutes, so I never needed to run to catch one. Just wait 3 minutes and the next one shows. I could always use Apple Pay to check out - or a Contactless Visa, if I'd ever heard of them before. Why don't we have them in the States? And the French are perturbed right now about a possible 35 hr work week instead of their 30 hr one. Some of my favorite restaurants there opened at 7pm and closed at midnight, which was fantastically comfortable.
We are plenty behind, even though we keep hearing we're the greatest.
In fact, I began to think we're just living in North Korea, cut off from the reality of our ineptitude by our government and media. Of course, I don't think electing Trump (or even Hillary) will make it any better.
Anyone who by now doesn't realize that Drumph is dangerously unqualified is every bit as scary as he is. This is, itself, the real problem. Not Drumph, but the number of people in this country who actually believe he's a viable candidate for the White House.
Anyone who by now doesn't realize that Drumph is dangerously unqualified is every bit as scary as he is. This is, itself, the real problem. Not Drumph, but the number of people in this country who actually believe he's a viable candidate for the White House.
I don't see Trump's substantive qualifications. I'm not anti-GOP, either. Would've voted without hesitation for Huntsman over Obama. He's qualified. It's just that - without being comparative to Hillary or Cruz - Trump's not fit to be President for the same reason Jesse Jackson or Ralph Nader aren't.
If Trump was really the right man for the job, he'd have some accolades instead of promises. Lastly, Obama's bar - regardless of how low you'd consider it - wasn't lying on the ground at zero. He'd done a few things.
Trying to wean myself off of this thread but...
Douchebag Don is making up promises and "policies" as he goes along. People accused John McCain of shooting from the hip, but Trump is totally unprepared and winging it (wasn't that you, Steely_D, who came up with that description?).
Obama did not have a lot of experience as an elected politician but he had an army of experienced advisors behind him. I know some here loathe him but I think he's been a very good president. Even if you just skim these two articles
you realize that he accomplished a great deal in the face of harsh opposition and, at the beginning of his administration, one of the worst economic crises this country has ever faced.
Finally, as I've said before: Trump has spent his whole life promoting himself and trying to maximize his own return from investments. It's always been All About Don.
According to Segal and other social-justice advocates who keep tabs on racist groups and hate speech, the jingoism of Trump's presidential campaign has fueled this sort of harassment. Trump's xenophobic and Islamophobic rhetoric and policy proposals have resonated with the rebellious, belligerent, flag-waving alt-right.
No it is the real question because everyone (the royal we) is acting like the ones they like and don't like are the perfect or the worst possible choice in the broadest terms as used in discussions.
No, not you because you state Hillary is acceptable, although not the best we could do ... Is Trump a good Presidential choice? No. There are also a lot of people who feel the opposite of you and are just as calm about it as you are.
They are no more crazy than you are either.
. edit: That said, with the election of Obama, we certainly lowered the bar for how much and what kind of actual experience is needed to be POTUS. Trying to raise standards for Obama's successor doesn't say much good for Obama and kind of leaves him with an * by his record.
I don't see Trump's substantive qualifications. I'm not anti-GOP, either. Would've voted without hesitation for Huntsman over Obama. He's qualified. It's just that - without being comparative to Hillary or Cruz - Trump's not fit to be President for the same reason Jesse Jackson or Ralph Nader aren't.
If Trump was really the right man for the job, he'd have some accolades instead of promises. Lastly, Obama's bar - regardless of how low you'd consider it - wasn't lying on the ground at zero. He'd done a few things.
I think that's a distracting question, trying to get folks to settle. The real questions involve competency, which includes a knowledge of how the government gets things done, as well as an ability to work within those boundaries. As we saw with Obama, if Congress isn't wanting to do what you think needs doing, you're going to have a hard time of it.
So back to the primary issue:Hillary is acceptable, although not the best we could do. If there is someone better, can they fight their way through the process? Is Trump a good Presidential choice? No.
No it is the real question because everyone (the royal we) is acting like the ones they like and don't like are the perfect or the worst possible choice in the broadest terms as used in discussions.
No, not you because you state Hillary is acceptable, although not the best we could do ... Is Trump a good Presidential choice? No. There are also a lot of people who feel the opposite of you and are just as calm about it as you are.
They are no more crazy than you are either.
. edit: That said, with the election of Obama, we certainly lowered the bar for how much and what kind of actual experience is needed to be POTUS. Trying to raise standards for Obama's successor doesn't say much good for Obama and kind of leaves him with an * by his record.
So who is out there that can make all of us happy all of the time ?
I think that's a distracting question, trying to get folks to settle. The real questions involve competency, which includes a knowledge of how the government gets things done, as well as an ability to work within those boundaries. As we saw with Obama, if Congress isn't wanting to do what you think needs doing, you're going to have a hard time of it.
Do we really want to elect someone who is fighting Congress again? Four or eight more years of obstructionism?
So back to the primary issue:Hillary is acceptable, although not the best we could do. If there is someone better, can they fight their way through the process? Is Trump a good Presidential choice? No.
I think the "bully" part is what's making him so attractive to the folks that support him. They seem to think that a man who "tells it like it is" and who rejects "political correctness" (which is somehow different than manners and politeness) is the kind of guy who can lead the country out of its failure. I think "failure" is a placeholder for "multi-ethnicity."
So, hiring a bully white man who says that those foreigners are the problem - that's the selling point. Of course, when the foreigners leave, who has to get off their ass and build the better nation?
When contrasted with Ms Clinton, there is a clear choice between the two. And so with Sanders. Right now those are the electable choices. Shortly it narrows down to 2.
All of us are faced with the same choices. Pick one of the two electable choices or vote for a 3rd party and try to get the House to pick our next POTUS, which if it goes to the House can be anybody, including someone we do not even know at present.
Is what it is. We all have to deal with it and live with the result. All of us.
So who is out there that can make all of us happy all of the time ?
I think the "bully" part is what's making him so attractive to the folks that support him. They seem to think that a man who "tells it like it is" and who rejects "political correctness" (which is somehow different than manners and politeness) is the kind of guy who can lead the country out of its failure. I think "failure" is a placeholder for "multi-ethnicity."
So, hiring a bully white man who says that those foreigners are the problem - that's the selling point. Of course, when the foreigners leave, who has to get off their ass and build the better nation?
I do not endorse Trump. What I do endorse is thinking and clear analysis. The day Trump announced his candidacy on June 16th, 2015, was the day the media began exposing its aversion to clear analysis and thinking. Let’s examine Trump’s seemingly controversial statement, that he still to this day, nearly a year later, is labeled a “racist” for.
Each statement that requires the reader to dig further and inform themselves on will be provided with a link for you to click on in this article. Please take the time to read through each one, to get a sense of what Trump meant when he made this statement. Anything in is something I added, to add commentary or make room for additional links. All of the links are from mainstream, leftist media groups, except one long, in-depth piece by Breitbart going into gruesome details that other publications refuse to.
Then, please share this article with anyone you know who calls Trump a “racist” and believes he is divisive, a joke, an idiot, etc. This isn’t meant to convince anyone to vote for someone, it’s meant to bring the discourse back to clear, calm, rational discussion about major issues.
“When Mexico (meaning the Mexican Government) sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you (pointing to the audience). They’re not sending you (pointing again). They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems to us.
But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting.
And it only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people. It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast.”
What are your thoughts on his speech now? Leave a comment below, and don’t forget to share this with someone who could be steered back on the path of discussing these issues without calling people “racists” for wanting to talk about them.
if its all that, then break out the RICO charges. They should be easy to prove.
In a separate civil lawsuit, Art Cohen v. Donald J. Trump, filed in mid-February 2014 in federal district court in California, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel allowed claimants in California, Florida, and New York to proceed as a class action and rejected Trump's request to dismiss their racketeering claim. As of May 2016, trial was scheduled to begin on November 28, 2016. On May 27, 2016, Curiel granted a request by The Washington Post for public release of certain internal Trump University documents. The released information included "playbooks" documenting instructions for employees to use a hard-sell approach, as well as testimony from some former employees that Trump University had defrauded or lied to its students.
Despite Trump's claim to have won much of the lawsuit, all three lawsuits are still pending.
The topic was highlighted during the Republican primaries and at the March 3, 2016 Republican Party presidential nomination debate in Detroit, Michigan.
Trump has repeatedly attacked Curiel* in campaign speeches, calling the judge a "hater" and describing him as "Spanish" or "Mexican". Trump has said that Curiel should recuse himself from the case. Curiel says Trump has “placed the integrity of these court proceedings at issue.”
*Curiel was born in the United States to Mexican parents.
