Donald Trump for president?

[Abu3baid]

10 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

It might from before this. The reference is when the mob put a "hit" out on someone to take them out (kill).

When he referenced hit job it's basically meaning the GOP establishment used Fox to try to do damage to Trump to take him out of the race. The GOP put a political hit out on Trump.

 

Thanks :) , I know what a mob hit job is, but a political one in a debate?  Isn't that what they are suppose to do in debates?  Basically try and make them selves look better than the other candidates?  Even if they have to gang up on any one of them?

I have never really considered Trump as a stable personality, he just a throws shit out there as if the rest of us are a bunch of idiots..  Just a couple weeks ago he told a story about how a general dipped bullets in pigs blood to shoot 50 Muslim terrorists and instead of killing the 50th told him to go tell his buddies and then there was no Islamic terrorism for 25 years after that.  Never mind that this story was proven as a myth, why would a presidential candidate mention such a dumb story?  To show he is ready to deal with terrorists?  

 

+1 to Randels post as well!

[Elmer]

53 minutes ago, RandallT said:

As a former Naval officer, I cringed about the part where they asked Trump about issuing illegal orders to the military. The word "cringe" is not even close to strong enough.

The only answer is to say that you'd never ever ever give an order that is illegal. But Trump says something to the effect that his subordinates will bend to his will, or something like that, implying that he would insist on it even if the order is illegal. Transcript below.

http://time.com/4247496/republican-debate-transcript-eleventh-detroit-fox-news/

And the last bit about the families of the 9/11 terrorists being sent back home before the event has been shown to be mostly a myth, if not fully a myth. But that's secondary to my point.

I can put up with a lot of bluster from Trump (I feel I've been pretty fair to Trump in this thread, although he didn't get my primary vote), and I get that he is mostly staking out initial negotiating positions so that he can get the best deal he can on issues he thinks are important. But to stake out an initial position that giving an illegal order like the murder of a terrorist's family member is in the realm of possibility? Hmmm.

The best I can come up with is that he assumed any order would be legal, so he felt no need to clarify that. Maybe he would only order the killing of a family member if it were proven that the family members were involved in a plot? You can parse the answers in bold above a way where he is not advocating issuing illegal orders... but he comes pretty close. He surely doesn't go out of his way to comfort us that he'd never give an illegal order.

@RandallT Spot on take!
If Trump were to order troops to waterboard or something more Illegal, Does he open himself and troops up to potential war crimes?

I am curious what Trump thinks he can do to a general or troops who refuse to follow his illegal order?

[acerimusdux]

2 hours ago, Jeremie Boop said:

How is that counted though, who is taking note of when someone sent an resume/application or asked someone about work? Seems like a pretty impossible thing to really track to me.

A large survey (conducted by Census Bureau), of 60,000 households (about 110,000 individuals) is taken each month. 

 

 

[Lihu]

3 hours ago, RandallT said:

As a former Naval officer, I cringed about the part where they asked Trump about issuing illegal orders to the military. The word "cringe" is not even close to strong enough.

The only answer is to say that you'd never ever ever give an order that is illegal. But Trump says something to the effect that his subordinates will bend to his will, or something like that, implying that he would insist on it even if the order is illegal. Transcript below.

http://time.com/4247496/republican-debate-transcript-eleventh-detroit-fox-news/

And the last bit about the families of the 9/11 terrorists being sent back home before the event has been shown to be mostly a myth, if not fully a myth. But that's secondary to my point.

I can put up with a lot of bluster from Trump (I feel I've been pretty fair to Trump in this thread, although he didn't get my primary vote), and I get that he is mostly staking out initial negotiating positions so that he can get the best deal he can on issues he thinks are important. But to stake out an initial position that giving an illegal order like the murder of a terrorist's family member is in the realm of possibility? Hmmm.

The best I can come up with is that he assumed any order would be legal, so he felt no need to clarify that. Maybe he would only order the killing of a family member if it were proven that the family members were involved in a plot? You can parse the answers in bold above a way where he is not advocating issuing illegal orders... but he comes pretty close. He surely doesn't go out of his way to comfort us that he'd never give an illegal order.

 

The point Trump is trying to make is that we (the United States) appear really weak to the terrorists, and thus make ourselves easy targets.

His appeal is that he does not seem to be mired in all the political baggage of everyone else running for POTUS. For example, Ted Cruz would be a terrible president in dealing with terrorists. He and most of the people already in office are part of the reason we have so many issues with terrorists.

[nevets88]

The key difference between how Trump and Romney made their money

Quote

Trump's sub-par record as a businessman has been widely discussed, but a recent analysis suggests the extent of Trump's underperformance is vastly greater than previously recognized. The new results emphasize the degree to which Trump has relied on his family's wealth and connections in order to create his fortune.

...

Fred Trump's connections helped Donald Trump get his start. Since then, he has consistently underperformed relative to the real-estate industry as a whole.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/04/the-key-difference-between-how-trump-and-romney-made-their-money/?tid=pm_business_pop_b

The real reason Donald Trump is so rich

Quote

Yet perhaps the most telling comparison is between Trump and his golf buddy, Richard LeFrak. The LeFraks and the Trumps have been rivals in New York's real estate business for generations. LeFrak's father, Samuel LeFrak, took a no-nonsense approach to the business. He focused on minimizing risk and making money, according to a 1992 profile in Business Week, before the magazine became Bloomberg Businessweek.

"He might be strutting around like a peacock today, but he's gonna be a feather duster tomorrow," the elder LeFrak told Business Week when asked about Trump.

Over time, the LeFraks came out ahead of their competitors. LeFrak is worth $7 billion today, and he's 181st on Bloomberg's list of the world's richest people. Bloomberg puts Trump's wealth at just $2.9 billion -- far less than Forbes's estimate. He doesn't even make the list.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/09/03/if-donald-trump-followed-this-really-basic-advice-hed-be-a-lot-richer/

[boogielicious]

3 minutes ago, Lihu said:

 

The point Trump is trying to make is that we (the United States) appear really weak to the terrorists, and thus make ourselves easy targets.

His appeal is that he does not seem to be mired in all the political baggage of everyone else running for POTUS.

That is his opinion and not a fact. It is the same rhetoric used in every election. The fact is the US Military is the strongest, most advanced, best equipped, best trained military the world has ever seen. No one even comes close past or present. With satellites and drone technology, there is no place to hide. That is not weakness.

But we are a free society and a large population. Same with our allies. Of course terrorists can try and make small attacks, sometimes successful. And yes, Paris was a small attack in hundreds and not thousands of dead. But no amount of force is going to fully eliminate them everywhere. Large scale occupations of countries is not the answer either. Their target becomes our military with roadside and suicide bombs. Look at Afghanistan as a perfect example. It has been tried to be occupied many times in history from Alexander the Great and the Romans, to Britain, Russia and us. No one succeeds in eliminating the threats.

There has always been and always will be groups like ISIS or al Qaeda or other paramilitary groups. As long as there are countries with dictators or repressive regimes or massive amount of greed, corruption and income inequality, groups like this will come out of the woodwork. We even have our own American born terrorists. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed more people than ISIS did in Paris.

The question that needs to be asked is are you willing to commit ground troops in perpetuity to Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and any other hostile area. We are talking 1MM to 2MM US soldiers permanently in the area. That is what Trump, et al are suggesting. Or would you rather Europe, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi and other allies take up the chase. Eventually, you would have to start the draft back up because the willingness of people to volunteer will wane. Try reinstating the draft as see how popular sending ground troops to Iraq would be. Are you willing to have your kids drafted into the army to fight ISIS in Iraq?

I am not willing to do this. I don't think it is our responsibility. I think for ISIS, Turkey, Saudi, Jordan and Iraq need to commit to eliminating them. It is their region and their borders. In Africa, the local countries need to step in a fight ISIS and Boko Haram. 

That is what Trump is suggesting. He is not just going to talk really tough to them and they will stop. He'll have to commit many thousands of American soldiers. Let his kids go first.

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, boogielicious said:

That is his opinion and not a fact. It is the same rhetoric used in every election. The fact is the US Military is the strongest, most advanced, best equipped, best trained military the world has ever seen. No one even comes close past or present. With satellites and drone technology, there is no place to hide. That is not weakness.

But we are a free society and a large population. Same with our allies. Of course terrorists can try and make small attacks, sometimes successful. And yes, Paris was a small attack in hundreds and not thousands of dead. But no amount of force is going to fully eliminate them everywhere. Large scale occupations of countries is not the answer either. Their target becomes our military with roadside and suicide bombs. Look at Afghanistan as a perfect example. It has been tried to be occupied many times in history from Alexander the Great and the Romans, to Britain, Russia and us. No one succeeds in eliminating the threats.

There has always been and always will be groups like ISIS or al Qaeda or other paramilitary groups. As long as there are countries with dictators or repressive regimes or massive amount of greed, corruption and income inequality, groups like this will come out of the woodwork. We even have our own American born terrorists. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols killed more people than ISIS did in Paris.

The question that needs to be asked is are you willing to commit ground troops in perpetuity to Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and any other hostile area. We are talking 1MM to 2MM US soldiers permanently in the area. That is what Trump, et al are suggesting. Or would you rather Europe, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi and other allies take up the chase. Eventually, you would have to start the draft back up because the willingness of people to volunteer will wane. Try reinstating the draft as see how popular sending ground troops to Iraq would be. Are you willing to have your kids drafted into the army to fight ISIS in Iraq?

I am not willing to do this. I don't think it is our responsibility. I think for ISIS, Turkey, Saudi, Jordan and Iraq need to commit to eliminating them. It is their region and their borders. In Africa, the local countries need to step in a fight ISIS and Boko Haram. 

That is what Trump is suggesting. He is not just going to talk really tough to them and they will stop. He'll have to commit many thousands of American soldiers. Let his kids go first.

Oops, I didn't mean our military seemed weak, our country appears weak and indecisive to terrorists.

Yes, I totally agree that our military is the most advanced in the world, by far.

 

[acerimusdux]

Quote

Trump's sub-par record as a businessman has been widely discussed.......

Really? I'm sorry, but the argument that Trump has "underperformed" because he is only worth $2.9B, and hasn't done as well a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, is laughable. This is like arguing Stephen Hawkings isn't really all that bright, because he hasn't accomplished as much as Albert Einstein.

 

[dchoye]

I find Trump is more of an entertainer than a politician.

If he is to be taken seriously, shouldn't  he have to hold public office and have some experience with policy making before trying to be President?

Im Canadian and  I really don't participate in the voter system in the US , so just my 2 cents.

Edited March 4, 2016 by dchoye

[rehmwa]

I have nothing to here....except this meme which is a really just a bit too spot on for comfort

[Lihu]

15 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

I have nothing to here....except this meme which is a really just a bit too spot on for comfort

Two old people who think they can solve all our problems. . .I prefer the one on the left because he'll screw the politicians and the not so liberal and liberal press that are screwing us.

[nevets88]

Mainline Washington DC heads are exploding.

 

[Rainmaker]

I am not very political but I've been watching this whole thing unfold in awe.  I was never really up to date on a lot of issues.  I'm still not . .but certain things stand out to me as unbelievable,really.

1.  The lack of respect the Republican's have for the current President.  I did not really realize this . .or maybe I did but thought it was being exaggerated . . but "I disagree with *anything* Obama says just because Obama said it" (And that is not far from a direct quote) . .is something I would expect from a high school class, not from publicly elected officials wielding great (and obviously too much) power.  

2.  The Republican party may not like Trump, but they have not put up *ANYBODY* that is electable.  Cruz?  Carson?  Are you kidding me?  Hilary will win because she is the only electable (barely) candidate.

 

I hear talk lately that the future of the Republican Party is bleak.  I hope so and it's about time.  They have disrespected this country and behaved like children.  They've obviously lost sight of the fact that they are here to serve the American people - not themselves or to advance some kind of arbitrary "Anti-Obama" agenda.  

And none of this is to say that the Dems are great.  They are all politicians and all politicians are bad.  But I think the Republicans have really stepped out of bounds over the last several years and completely discredited themselves.  All politics are disgusting but the Republican's really are the turd-icing on the cake.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[newtogolf]

1 minute ago, Rainmaker said:

I am not very political but I've been watching this whole thing unfold in awe.  I was never really up to date on a lot of issues.  I'm still not . .but certain things stand out to me as unbelievable,really.

1.  The lack of respect the Republican's have for the current President.  I did not really realize this . .or maybe I did but thought it was being exaggerated . . but "I disagree with *anything* Obama says just because Obama said it" (And that is not far from a direct quote) . .is something I would expect from a high school class, not from publicly elected officials wielding great (and obviously too much) power.  

2.  The Republican party may not like Trump, but they have not put up *ANYBODY* that is electable.  Cruz?  Carson?  Are you kidding me?  Hilary will win because she is the only electable (barely) candidate.

 

I hear talk lately that the future of the Republican Party is bleak.  I hope so and it's about time.  They have disrespected this country and behaved like children.  They've obviously lost sight of the fact that they are here to serve the American people - not themselves or to advance some kind of arbitrary "Anti-Obama" agenda.  

And none of this is to say that the Dems are great.  They are all politicians and all politicians are bad.  But I think the Republicans have really stepped out of bounds over the last several years and completely discredited themselves.  All politics are disgusting but the Republican's really are the turd-icing on the cake.     

 

The lack of respect was even more apparent when GW Bush was in office, Obama is just suffering the same treatment the democrats gave to Bush.  

As for Hillary, her aide was just given immunity which means there were criminal charges discussed and the aide chose to take protection from prosecution so it may not be too long before Hillary gets fitted for an orange jumpsuit.  

As for Trump, he's a wild card but his run for POTUS has demonstrated that Rubio and Jeb are not presidential material which I see as a positive.  I see this going between Cruz and Trump and hoping Kasich gets a V.P offer.  

[Rainmaker]

2 hours ago, newtogolf said:

The lack of respect was even more apparent when GW Bush was in office, Obama is just suffering the same treatment the democrats gave to Bush.  

As for Hillary, her aide was just given immunity which means there were criminal charges discussed and the aide chose to take protection from prosecution so it may not be too long before Hillary gets fitted for an orange jumpsuit.  

As for Trump, he's a wild card but his run for POTUS has demonstrated that Rubio and Jeb are not presidential material which I see as a positive.  I see this going between Cruz and Trump and hoping Kasich gets a V.P offer.  

You could be right  -  I was old enough to be paying attention when GW was president . .but I wasn't.  Still, though, it's troubling because using the balance of power to effectively cancel out any and all initiatives is not a good thing for the country.  We might be Republicans or Democrats but we're all supposed to be Americans.  When did they get so far apart?  There is absolutely nothing they agree on?    

I'm going back to not paying attention.  All it's doing is giving me heartburn. 

 

[Dave2512]

2 hours ago, newtogolf said:

The lack of respect was even more apparent when GW Bush was in office, Obama is just suffering the same treatment the democrats gave to Bush.  

Except Bush mostly deserved it and despite some shortcomings Obama has been IMO unfairly criticized. He's done a lot right despite constant resistance. Most of it show from the GOP establishment to mislead and please the conservative base while making deals with the POTUS.

[nevets88]

1 hour ago, Dave2512 said:

Except Bush mostly deserved it and despite some shortcomings Obama has been IMO unfairly criticized. He's done a lot right despite constant resistance. Most of it show from the GOP establishment to mislead and please the conservative base while making deals with the POTUS.

Let's stay on topic - it's Trump for President - not the Presidencies of Bush 43 or Obama.

Donald Trump and the Central Park Five: the racially charged rise of a demagogue

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/17/central-park-five-donald-trump-jogger-rape-case-new-york

[jamo]

Holy shit. Imagine the inauguration speech if Trump were to win.