President Donald J. Trump

[Jackstar]

Corruption is using the rules to your benefit?

That's a good question. Let's find out.


---


Dear mv,


Can I black out the entirety of my picture, except for my nipples, and then use that? Asking for a friend who wants my vote.


Sincerely,

A Born Star

[Dr. MD MD]

Trump the US version of Brexit? Yeah? Yesterday the current Chancellor of the Exchequer projected a £59 billion shortfall in the UK GDP, and therefore will need to be borrowed to maintain current standards, because of the vote to leave. And we haven't even begun the process to leave yet.

Awww! You POOR babies!! 

Keep posting, pud! 

[Yorkshire pud]

Awww! You POOR babies!! 

Keep posting, pud! 

I'll be alright, but the irony is, those who voted out will be the worst affected...Do you want me to join the dots for you regarding Trump, or can you work it out yourself?

[Jackstar]

maintain current standards (Great Britain)

[Dr. MD MD]

I'll be alright, but the irony is, those who voted out will be the worst affected...Do you want me to join the dots for you regarding Trump, or can you work it out yourself?

I finally found a picture of you, pud! 

[Yorkshire pud]

I finally found a picture of you, pud! 

How are you feeling now Clinton isn't going to jail for things she hasn't been arrested, charged or convicted for? Betrayed by Orange face?

[Dr. MD MD]

How are you feeling now Clinton isn't going to jail for things she hasn't been arrested, charged or convicted for?

Keep chanting that over your spirit cooking. I'm sure it'll come true for you...one day. 

[Jackstar]

Clinton isn't going to jail

We don't even know if she's still alive. Look who knows so much.

[Yorkshire pud]

Keep chanting that over your spirit cooking. I'm sure it'll come true for you...one day. 

But you have been betrayed. Bad Donny. All those pledges he made to you, and he's gone back on his word, goddamit.

[Dr. MD MD]

But you have been betrayed. Bad Donny. All those pledges he made to you, and he's gone back on his word, goddamit.

No matter what they say about you, pud, it's fun watching you have a prolonged mental breakdown here. 

[Yorkshire pud]

No matter what they say about you, pud, it's fun watching you have a prolonged mental breakdown here. 

You're not a real doctor, let alone psychiatry, therefore unqualified to diagnose. Your insomnia needs to be addressed though; just like Kanya West, keep off the meth son.

[Jackstar]

Your insomnia needs to be addressed though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37k5fctec88

[SciFiAuthor]

Winning 😎

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/307489-trump-says-hes-working-hard-on-thanksgiving-to-keep-carrier-from-going-to#

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/801805564577808385

That's exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to see from Mr. Trump. If he focuses on jobs and keeping them here, he will be a success.

[Dr. MD MD]

You're not a real doctor, let alone psychiatry, therefore unqualified to diagnose. Your insomnia needs to be addressed though; just like Kanya West, keep off the meth son.

I know you think that but the real question is why does a desperately lonely British man with a love of autocracy post from about dinner your time till you just can't keep your widdle eyes open anymore around...well, looks like it's your bed time already, pud. 

[Jackstar]

it's fun watching you have a prolonged mental breakdown here.

It's been three years for me. It's stopped being fun when I realized this guy really is kinda slow.

[Jackstar]

That's exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to see from Mr. Drumpf.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hhxD11rFMY


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-JfHEg64dA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOF9nulI3NE

[ItsOver]

That's exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to see from Mr. Trump. If he focuses on jobs and keeping them here, he will be a success.

That's some kind of wonderful.

[SciFiAuthor]

This is the sort of thing we disagree on.  You have a problem with all liberals, whereas I think you are essentially grouping together everybody on the left into one broad stereotype, and I think it's certainly clear you are doing the exact same thing with all religion here, and not just Islam "religion is not rational."

You have to in a two party system. Individual views don't really amount to much other than someone's opinion. But their vote does matter, and in a two party system the ideology is defined by the candidate. Vote for that person, whether you agree with them or not, and you own that ideology.

I completely agree that the Islamic faith is, at its core, far more extreme than any other religion, and compounds that by rejecting Jesus' view of 'render under Caesar...'  however, the vast majority of Muslims are decent people and they deserve to be protected from prejudice as everybody else does.

I've known tons of them. The vast majority I've found to be at the very least flagrantly homophobic, even the moderates. Though, in fairness, about 25 percent or so were moderate but didn't actually believe in the religion and were happy to go get drunk when not around family, they just practiced because they were afraid of the people that do believe it.

I'm agnostic on whether religion is rational or not.  I've written before that I think it's much more likely than not that there is a creator behind the universe, but that doesn't mean this creator has anything to do with any of the thousands of Gods that Man has created in his image.  However, whether rational or not, for the vast majority of people their religious views are either harmless or cause them to do generally good things. 

I am also agnostic. I can't claim to know the nature of the universe and there's room for a creator in my view, though I'm gut punching the unethical fucker if I ever meet him. That said, I have no problem with religious beliefs per se, it's a good way to conquer the fear of death, but I view them similar to how I view alcoholism or drug addiction. It's a crutch. But each to his own.

I may be misinterpreting your arguments, but I think you yourself would normally argue that if you want to go after religious fundamentalists that you don't do so by alienating all people of faith or arguing that all faith is bad.

I'd have made that argument at one time, yes. The problem is the moderates have done nothing to rein in the extremists and Islamic violence seems like it will have no end. Remember, there were moderate Nazis, but that didn't make their ideology okay. It's the same with Islam. Now, I'm not advocating war, the opposite in fact, but they need to know that it's time for the middle east to grow up.

[PB the Deplorable]

Yes, I am aware.  I'm also aware that Congressional term limits aren't in your Constitution.

I didn't say they were.  What I did say was... wait for it... the Founders never envisioned career politicians.

You're not great on nuance, are you?

[Yorkshire pud]

New York: The city where Donald Trump hates being hated

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38019788

After a year of being greeted by fawning crowds in the American heartland, Donald Trump appears to be struggling with the hostility that now surrounds him in New York City.

In his eponymous skyscraper he resides, tweeting maniacally, as protesters swirl angrily below fearful that he poses a mortal threat to their city and their planet. Trump Tower also looks more and more likea gilded cage. Only twice since election nighthas the billionaire left its Louis XIV-inspired confines.

First off, it was the protesters themselves, whom he initially claimed were professional agitators and sore losers. Then came the New York Times, for what he claimed was itsinaccurate reporting about the chaos within the transition. Next in the cross-hairs were the cast of Hamilton, Broadway's hottest show, for its curtain call plea directed at Vice-President Mike Pence to respect the rights of all Americans.

Nothing lays bare Donald Trump's thin skin quite like criticism from his hometown.

Trump, who critics claim is a narcissist, feeds off adulation, but he receives little of that in Manhattan. The city's super-rich club has long regarded him as a vulgar self-publicist with questionable business acumen and, by their standards, a small bank balance.

Trump has never mustered the requisite wealth or displayed the requisite level of civic-minded altruism to join an elite whose surnames are found on hospitals, academic institutes and art galleries, rather than residential apartment buildings.

After spending much of the past year or so watching and travelling with Donald Trump, I've been struck by how his physical demeanour changes when he appears in public in New York City. Not in the atrium of Trump Tower, his personal fiefdom, where his incendiary rhetoric ricochets off the marble walls, but rather when he steps outside that self-congratulatory echo chamber.

[PB the Deplorable]

I don't believe I've ever referred to Donald Trump as a crook. What I've written is that despite your completely loony rants, Hillary Clinton has never been charged, yet alone convicted, of any crime and this includes being found by a number of Republican dominated Congressional Committees of having done nothing illegal.  The FBI director and possibly some of those Committees may have found some of her actions to be foolish or unethical, but not illegal.  So, your false claim that she is the most corrupt politician in the last 15 years, or whatever your idiotic rant is, is entirely baseless.

Donald Trump, in contrast, has been sued thousands of times, and, despite your lie, some of those lawsuits weren't honest mistakes made by a large corporation, but were a deliberate refusal to pay for services rendered.  Despite his lie, in most or all of these cases, it seems pretty clear that the courts found his claim that the services delivered were substandard to be false.  Of course, it is interesting for a supposedly supremely competent businessperson, it's kind of odd the number of times that he or his employees have hired contractors who supposedly produced substandard work for him.  You'd think he or they might have at least contacted the Better Business Bureau first before hiring.

Donald Trump has also been found criminally guilty, though just fined or ordered to work out a settlement on four separate occasions.  He was also recently found guilty of violating some election law by making a donation to the Florida Attorney General whose office was investigating Trump University through his 'charitable foundation.'   He claimed this was just an 'honest mistake' but, I find that a little hard to believe given that he is supposedly a supremely competent businessperson.

I believe he has since admitted to using his foundation for illegal purposes but I haven't read those stories and I agree that news article headlines are frequently misleading.  The writer of the headline is not the same person who writes the story and I understand that in many cases the headline writer only skims the article before writing the headline.

Are you even vaguely aware that things in Washington DC are often done solely for political purposes?  Ring any bells?  Or do you think the law is applied equally there with politics not a consideration, even during an election year?

Do you think the reason the Obama Administration, the Obama appointed Attorney General, did not indict and arrest the party's presidential nominee in the run-up to the election - despite multiple very public requests from the FBI Director to do so - was because they took a measured, non-partisan review of the evidence and found nothing?  For a statute requiring certain online security protocols for classified documents that she was clearly in violation of, a statute which does not require intent in order to establish guilt?  Do you truly believe that? 

You've been doing what Big Media routinely does - begin with the assumption the Ds (in this case Hilary Clinton) are innocent and good, then argue from that perspective; and with the assumption the Rs (in this case Trump) are guilty and evil, then argue from that perspective.  It's dishonest.

Have some of Trump's business and other interests violated the law?  Almost certainly.  Does all of it together add up to a hill of beans?  Not that I can see, and the American voters agree with that.  What about the Clintons?  We have 25 years to look back on, is that level of corruption truly not clear to you?

Sorry, I didn't read the rest.

[CornyCrow]

I've known tons of them. The vast majority I've found to be at the very least flagrantly homophobic, even the moderates. Though, in fairness, about 25 percent or so were moderate but didn't actually believe in the religion and were happy to go get drunk when not around family, they just practiced because they were afraid of the people that do believe it.

Just like the Boston bombers.  The wife wore her hajib dutifully and even sold drugs wearing it.  These people drank and took drugs.  There is a documentary that claimed most ISIS recruits did not really know the religion well.  They were like your buddies, temperate Muslims.  They just felt the call to violence and answered.  Some, later, studied the Koran and said ISIS was not following the religion.  These tried to drop out of the group.   

[Dr. MD MD]

New York: The city where Donald Trump hates being hated

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38019788

We don't care so much about the queen's official news here, pud. 

[mikuthing01]

We don't care so much about the queen's official news here, pud. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1w85qMqIjs

[Yorkshire pud]

We don't care so much about the queen's official news here, pud. 

It isn't just Brenda who uses the royal 'we'. You frequently assume you speak for the forum.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Trump said he would 'clear the swamp' of corrupt politicos; corporate corruption and nefarious but ostensibly legal practices, and oh, he also knows how to run the military because he knows more than the generals: (he has a good brain, apparently); he was throwing Clinton in jail, and on the first day deport 2 million criminal illegal immigrants in his first hour in office.

Of the above (and its nowhere near all he's promised to his disciples), I'll bet you $100 to a childrens charity of your choice that none of the above will happen. Ever.

I also bet you a similar wager, he'll use his new position to force through fiscal and administrative policies that will make him (and those pesky corporate globalists he hates so much) ), immeasurably wealthier than he is at present, and you and those like you, poorer in real terms.

Trump the US version of Brexit? Yeah? Yesterday the current Chancellor of the Exchequer projected a £59 billion shortfall in the UK GDP, and therefore will need to be borrowed to maintain current standards, because of the vote to leave. And we haven't even begun the process to leave yet.

You're rambling about several abstract things. Come up with a coherent bet.

Sounds like your system was fucked before Brexit.

[Dr. MD MD]

It isn't just Brenda who uses the royal 'we'. You frequently assume you speak for the forum.

Alright, I don't care for it. Any other real Americans are free to weigh-in with their opinions of it though. 

[Dr. MD MD]

You're rambling about several abstract things. Come up with a coherent bet.

Sounds like your system was fucked before Brexit.

He lost it. Farage was just the first crack in the dam. Trump sent the whole thing crashing and now he's a lost little lamb. 

[chefist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1w85qMqIjs

I actually have that CD from the 90's! lolz

[PB the Deplorable]

Yes, but I heard you got the lowest grade ever received in that class. 

For what it's worth, I also took the two basic logic courses, though at a University College and not a 'real university.'  In the introductory philosophy of logic course, the instructor told me that I received one of the highest marks he had ever given and in the symbolic logic course I received either a B or a B+.

My philosophy of logic instructor and both of the instructors of the two mandatory English courses (in both of those courses making logical arguments is part of the teaching) told me that my intelligence was 'off the charts' on the high side.  Of course, as those were all university college instructors and not university professors, I took their compliment in the same spirit that I'm sure most people here will.

If you don't want to read his posts, I'll  point out two of what I found to be his two most contradictory views.  Hyper partisanship may or may not be a mental disease, but in PB's case, I think these go beyond even hyper partisanship.

1.Lies constantly that he believes in the Constitution and argues that there is some phony 'originalist' approach to interpreting the Constitution, even though, for instance, two of the founders of the United States, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton frequently argued about what the words in the Constitution meant.  Although Hamilton was not at the Constitutional Convention (neither was John Adams though) and apparently his views on what should be in the Constitution had little impact at the Convention, he did subsequently come up with the concept that the Constitution gave the U.S Federal government 'implied powers' and this was an argument accepted by a Supreme Court that was likely comprised of Justices who were all adults during the writing of the Constitution. (So they all would have been familiar with the arguments of the writers of the Constitution at the time the document itself was being written.)

Jefferson strongly disagreed that the Constitution gave the Federal Government any implied powers.  I can't understand how there can be a strict originalist view when even those who originated the Constitution disagree as to how it should be interpreted.

Anyway, that argument aside.  The Constitution is quite clear on a number of things, and one of those is that no individual can detained or quarantined merely out of fear.  Yet, when Ebola sprang up in the U.S, the easily frightened PB, argued that Americans who had treated those with Ebola abroad should be detained until it was conclusive that they didn't have Ebola.  When I pointed out to him that that clearly violated the U.S Constitution that he lies that he cares so much about, he wrote something like (this isn't his exact phrase but I think it accurately reflected his sentiments) "In these cases the Constitution needs to be applied flexibly."

So, The U.S Constitution is sacrosanct to him, expect when it isn't.  Does that make him mentally challenged or psychotic?  Maybe not, but it certainly means that he has no consistent views on the Constitution.

2.He claims that the Republican Party passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over 'Democrat' objections and, of course, in this context always mentions the 'KKKer' Robert Byrd, and, at one time wrote something like 'thanks to Republicans the Civil Rights Act' ended a great miscarriage of justice caused by Democrats.  Yet, if you read some of his other posts, it's also quite clear PB actually opposes many if not all of the laws contained in The Civil Rights Act.  Mindless hyper partisanship is one thing, but this is a little extreme even for that, I think.

Again, does that make him mentally challenged or psychotic?  Maybe not, but again, it shows that all he really cares about is promoting his vision of the Republican Party and using any argument he can find, no matter how stupid or false, to attack the 'Democrat' Party and that he doesn't actually have any coherent opinions, at least not when it comes to policy issues.

when you take these enormous logical inconsistencies and add in his over the top rhetoric and his frequently silly defenses of politicians he supports who clearly 'have their hand in the cookie jar' and his juvenile retorts, at the end of all that, I can come to no either conclusion that PB is genuinely either mentally challenged or psychotic in some way.

Well, congratulations are clearly in order.  Your excellence in your introduction level logic classes may have given you a false sense of superiority though, when it comes to figuring things out in the real world.  Things aren't always spoon fed to you out here, with black and white clearly demarcated for you.

It's true, Robert Byrd began his career as a local KKK leader and led the Democrats in filibustering the Civil Rights Act.  As a true politician, he flip-flopped on his K-ness when it was politically advantageous to do so.  Throughout it all, the Ds always held him in the highest regard.  Make of that what you will.

You know who else wasn't at the Constitutional Convention?  Thomas Jefferson.  He was the ambassador to France at the time.  So what if people didn't agree on some of the issues, or even what they specifically meant in all situations?  Or on something like whether the federal government had 'implied' powers.  Do you really think everyone who was actually there agreed with all of it?  Was every possible scenario covered?  Doesn't 'implied' mean 'not actually included' in the final draft.

And what does this have to do with anything anyway?  Is your position that people disagreed, so there's no point in trying to understand why certain items were included (or excluded)?  If those on the Supreme Court decided to interpret things in a way that granted the Court (and therefore themselves) powers it was never meant to have, that's ok because they were around when it was written?  You don't really seem ''off the charts intelligent'' when it comes to logic in these matters to me.

As far as individuals being detained - please show me which part of the Constitution you are referring to, and we can read it together to determine whether there is any basis for temporarily detaining for quarantine those coming from abroad who possibly come into contact with highly infectious disease.

By the way, which parts of the Civil Rights Acts do you think I oppose?