Trump

[Revoltingest]

Yes, I think he is relishing this matchup. There are going to be some entertaining debates this year!

I think he was right about one thing; Hillary lacks his energy, enthusiasm for this stuff, I get the impression she's a little tired already, dragging herself through this process. I don't think she's ever had to work this hard for anything.

Love or hate him, Donald is a dynamo even at his age, I certainly couldn't do it

Aye, tis an interesting point that Hillary has been almost handed her political positions.
Stiff & scripted speechifying works when one is anointed for a role.
But Trump is far better at extemporaneous speaking, & she is the perfect target.

Moreover, if we believe what we hear from her supporters, she's never failed or been wrong.
The email controversy, Benghazi, defending Bill's sexual assaults by attacking the victims, etc, etc.....
All of these things are "manufactured scandals".
If she's never faced personal or professional failures, she cannot have learned what the rest of us have from adversity.
With The Donald, we see that he's had both failure & success. This is valuable experience.

 

[Demonslayer]

I think he was right about one thing; Hillary lacks his energy, enthusiasm for this stuff, I get the impression she's a little tired already, dragging herself through this process. I don't think she's ever had to work this hard for anything.

Love or hate him, Donald is a dynamo even at his age, I certainly couldn't do it

I agree with this Threepster. I'll probably vote for Hillary but she just BORES me. Trump is entertaining, at the very least.

 

[Sunstone]

I agree with this Threepster. I'll probably vote for Hillary but she just BORES me. Trump is entertaining, at the very least.

I see them as both uninspiring, but for different reasons. Clinton because she doesn't have many exciting ideas, and the few she has, she'll probably put away as soon as she's elected, and Trump because it's so hard to get inspired by a spoiled brat.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Aye, tis an interesting point that Hillary has been almost handed her political positions.
Stiff & scripted speechifying works when one is anointed for a role.
But Trump is far better at extemporaneous speaking, & she is the perfect target.

Moreover, if we believe what we hear from her supporters, she's never failed or been wrong.
The email controversy, Benghazi, defending Bill's sexual assaults by attacking the victims, etc, etc.....
All of these things are "manufactured scandals".
If she's never faced personal or professional failures, she cannot have learned what the rest of us have from adversity.
With The Donald, we see that he's had both failure & success. This is valuable experience.

True, it's difficult for most of us to relate to billionaires, but I think even most Dems would acknowledge Donald's greater personal achievements.
Plenty people inherit wealth and lose it

I started with nothing and I still have most of it left!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I agree with this Threepster. I'll probably vote for Hillary but she just BORES me. Trump is entertaining, at the very least.

It seems we all agree we are not thrilled with the choices. Maybe this is one step towards more of a true democracy.

Why are we not casting our votes on the issues themselves, instead of for middle men to do it for us? do we still really need that in this day and age?

 

[Demonslayer]

It seems we all agree we are not thrilled with the choices. Maybe this is one step towards more of a true democracy.

Why are we not casting our votes on the issues themselves, instead of for middle men to do it for us? do we still really need that in this day and age?

I've thought about this and it's an interesting idea. Just put issues on a ballot and let the public vote yea or nay on each.

I fear the realistic application of this though. What if "teaching Creationsim in schools" gets on the ballot and the wingnuts come out in drove? I recognize there are enough rational religious people that might vote against this, but Christians DO still very much outnumber the rest of us. A popular vote on abortion may very well go Pro-Life if the religious groups are driven to the polls in greater numbers than the more pro-choice folks.

We'd NEVER go to war if the people had a vote. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, being very anti-war myself, but taking the option off the table could have negative results.

I like and fear this idea at the same time.

 

[Demonslayer]

instead of for middle men

Middle PEOPLE, you damn sexist!

 

[metis]

OK, so a guy who continually insults people, lies most of the time with his political statements (76%, according to Politico), is clearly bigoted, knows next to nothing about foreign policy, has been divorced two times and brags about his many affairs, allegedly raped his wife using as an excuse that a husband cannot be found guilty of rape, etc. is fit to be president? Sorry, but that falls under the "You Gotta Be Kidding!" category.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I've thought about this and it's an interesting idea. Just put issues on a ballot and let the public vote yea or nay on each.

I fear the realistic application of this though. What if "teaching Creationsim in schools" gets on the ballot and the wingnuts come out in drove? I recognize there are enough rational religious people that might vote against this, but Christians DO still very much outnumber the rest of us. A popular vote on abortion may very well go Pro-Life if the religious groups are driven to the polls in greater numbers than the more pro-choice folks.

We'd NEVER go to war if the people had a vote. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, being very anti-war myself, but taking the option off the table could have negative results.

I like and fear this idea at the same time.

No system can be perfect, especially for everyone. if people want to vote to keep evolution in schools, I don't really agree with it. But I can accept that democratic decision from a straight majority of ordinary people like your good self, a little easier than an appointed 'authority'.

I understand your point, but 'we cant trust the people to make good, honest, informed, decisions' has been a major argument for politicians calling the shots instead of people.

We've given that a good shot, anyone still think that politicians are more capable of making good, honest, informed decisions than the common citizen? that are really aimed at our benefit- that have nothing to do with their voters, voting record, party standing?

There is a reason we appoint juries to make the final decision in serious legal cases, instead of lawyers, because the impartial common sense of the public, beats the cynical, tainted, strings attached opinion of lawyers any day, even if they are 'experts' compared to us.


The other big argument was logistics, we can't possibly gather that amount of data from individuals. Well that's utterly redundant now, we can do that far more cheaply, quickly, efficiently than having 100's of politicians meet in 50 state replicas of the Vatican, racking up millions in catering bills alone!

Just a thought, I'm one of those people that are too lazy to do anything about it, I'll just vote and shut up!

have a great long weekend!

 

[Revoltingest]

True, it's difficult for most of us to relate to billionaires, but I think even most Dems would acknowledge Donald's greater personal achievements.
Plenty people inherit wealth and lose it
I started with nothing and I still have most of it left!

I don't think most Dems see Trump as successful.
What I hear is that he inherited his wealth, failed often, & got a poor return.
The analysis behind this is lacking (despite their claims to the contrary).

 

[Revoltingest]

OK, so a guy who continually insults people, lies most of the time with his political statements (76%, according to Politico), is clearly bigoted, knows next to nothing about foreign policy, has been divorced two times and brags about his many affairs, allegedly raped his wife using as an excuse that a husband cannot be found guilty of rape, etc. is fit to be president? Sorry, but that falls under the "You Gotta Be Kidding!" category.

You really ought'a try to back some of these claims.
(I couldn't find such a claim by Politico.)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't think most Dems see Trump as successful.
What I hear is that he inherited his wealth, failed often, & got a poor return.
The analysis behind this is lacking (despite their claims to the contrary).

I guess you are right unfortunately...


apparently if you are failed carpenter and writer, (Bernie) and spent the rest of your life on the public payroll, you're beyond reproach on personal achievement.

But build a multibillion dollar multinational company, and you're a loser!

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess you are right unfortunately...
apparently if you are failed carpenter and writer, (Bernie) and spent the rest of your life on the public payroll, you're beyond reproach on personal achievement.
But build a multibillion dollar multinational company, and you're a loser!

One key to Obama's election was that he had no record of failure.
That he had no accomplishments either is of less significance.
Romney was vulnerable because he made business decisions which could be spun as anti-labor.
To have done nothing, but to make inspiring promises is to be invulnerable.

 

[suncowiam]

One key to Obama's election was that he had no record of failure.
That he had no accomplishments either is of less significance.
Romney was vulnerable because he made business decisions which could be spun as anti-labor.
To have done nothing, but to make inspiring promises is to be invulnerable.

When did politics require actual qualifications?

Hillary is best qualified to spin people to her point.

Trump is best qualified to bully people to his point.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You really ought'a try to back some of these claims.
(I couldn't find such a claim by Politico.)

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

• True3 (%)(3)
• Mostly True9 (%)(9)
• Half True21 (%)(21)
• Mostly False22 (%)(22)
• False62 (%)(62)
• Pants on Fire28 (%)(28)

Also, Ivana does claim he raped her, and it was his lawyer that stated a husband cannot rape his wife. Not something he said himself, but he definitely keeps unsavory company.

 

[metis]

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

• True3 (%)(3)
• Mostly True9 (%)(9)
• Half True21 (%)(21)
• Mostly False22 (%)(22)
• False62 (%)(62)
• Pants on Fire28 (%)(28)

Also, Ivana does claim he raped her, and it was his lawyer that stated a husband cannot rape his wife. Not something he said himself, but he definitely keeps unsavory company.

Thanks for that correction, and more can be read about this here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...nald-trump-made-feel-violated-during-sex.html

 

[Revoltingest]

When did politics require actual qualifications?
Hillary is best qualified to spin people to her point.
Trump is best qualified to bully people to his point.

It's a tough call.
We each have different objectives, & weight different merits & shortcomings differently.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

• True3 (%)(3)
• Mostly True9 (%)(9)
• Half True21 (%)(21)
• Mostly False22 (%)(22)
• False62 (%)(62)
• Pants on Fire28 (%)(28)

Also, Ivana does claim he raped her, and it was his lawyer that stated a husband cannot rape his wife. Not something he said himself, but he definitely keeps unsavory company.

Everyone in real estate keeps unsavory company.....lawyers.
But the same is true for politics.
Anyway, I saw the stats you cite, but not the more outrageous claim by our fellow poster.
Tis good to criticize, but not for things exaggerated or invented.

 

[metis]

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

• True3 (%)(3)
• Mostly True9 (%)(9)
• Half True21 (%)(21)
• Mostly False22 (%)(22)
• False62 (%)(62)
• Pants on Fire28 (%)(28)

Also, Ivana does claim he raped her, and it was his lawyer that stated a husband cannot rape his wife. Not something he said himself, but he definitely keeps unsavory company.

Oh, btw, on my post #148, I inadvertently said "Politico" whereas it should have been "Politifact".

Our numbers are slightly different, but maybe when they were composed may be somewhat different. Mine I ran across on CNN one day last week.

 

[Sunstone]

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

• True3 (%)(3)
• Mostly True9 (%)(9)
• Half True21 (%)(21)
• Mostly False22 (%)(22)
• False62 (%)(62)
• Pants on Fire28 (%)(28)

Ok, ok, you've made your point Trump's a pathological liar. But all the same, he's a pathological liar who refreshingly speaks his mind! How can you argue with that?