President Donald J. Trump

[136 or 142]

Do you have anything to say that demonstrates critical thinking or are you just going to keep repeating mass media memes?

Do you have anything to say that demonstrates critical thinking or are you just going to keep repeating anti-mass media memes?

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Do you have anything to say that demonstrates critical thinking or are you just going to keep repeating anti-mass media memes?

What's the point of wasting the time to take you seriously when you don't have serious arguments?

[136 or 142]

How did Hillary's well thought out Middle East policy as Secretary of State work out?   That region is always a mess but she brought several supertankers of gasoline and dumped them on the dumpster fire.

The Middle East latest mess is mostly based on W's illegal invasion of Iraq.  An invasion that Hillary Clinton stupidly voted for, but that Donald Trump has repeatedly lied that he always opposed.  In fact, he also initially supported it.

[136 or 142]

I wouldn't know since I haven't talked to all eight million of them but if their online traffic is any indication a significant amount of them. As that tweet demonstrated.

Yup, one of the main things the God Emperor wants to address. Why do you hate America and want us to lose to China?

You're off in woo land yelling at clouds now. No idea what you're even talking about.

All he said was that his daddy and LHO were buddies which is an established fact, you're the one who created that. 

I think you're a little turned on.

If not, why don't you check out the interview Trump did with Wolf Blitzer before trying to debate with me an interview you clearly haven't seen.

Ok, at this point I have to assume you're just trolling me.  I suspect you're really a hardcore Hillary Clinton supporter making idiotic (and in this case completely nonsensical) posts to try to highlight just how stupid Trump supporters are.

[whoozit]

The Middle East latest mess is mostly based on W's illegal invasion of Iraq.  An invasion that Hillary Clinton stupidly voted for, but that Donald Trump has repeatedly lied that he always opposed.  In fact, he also initially supported it.

I am talking about the support of the Arab Spring movement and regime change in the region.

[ItsOver]

...On balance, I think Hillary Clinton is the vastly superior choice.

The FBI certainly seems to like her.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Ok, at this point I have to assume you're just trolling me.  I suspect you're really a hardcore Hillary Clinton supporter making idiotic (and in this case completely nonsensical) posts to try to highlight just how stupid Trump supporters are.

Running scared eh? How dare you would insultate me. VoteQuimby and it's parent company Quimby Q. Quimby are posters of peace.

[136 or 142]

I am talking about the support of the Arab Spring movement and regime change in the region.

Libya is still a mess but apparently not as bad as Iraq, and Egypt is back to where it was before the Arab Spring.  Of course, Syria is a mess, however...

Syria is a mess due mainly to ISIL and ISIL would not exist were it not for W's illegal invasion of Iraq, as the backbone of ISIL are former Iraqi military officers.

[136 or 142]

Running scared eh? How dare you would insultate me. VoteQuimby and it's parent company Quimby Q. Quimby are posters of peace.

Is it 136 or 142? PICK ONE!

You even wrote "how dare you!" this sounds exactly like JC.  Admit it, you're either just trolling or you are JC. Insultate?

[GuerrillaUnReal]

You even wrote "how dare you!" this sounds exactly like what JC would say.  Admit it, you're either just trolling or you are JC. Insultate?

Me sound like JC after hearing the juicy clips of him yesterday on BellPhiles? You're just a pornographer and a purveyor of the devil's toe jam.

I would never troll anyone. VoteQuimby and it's parent company Quimby Q. Quimby are posters of peace.

Your arguments are so weak, what do you want? Hurr durr Trump supporters are stupid hurr durr. Hillary Clinton hurrr durrrr.

Could we get RealCool Daddio on? At least there's intelligence there behind his Canadian handicap.

[ItsOver]

Could we get RealCool Daddio on? At least there's intelligence there behind his Canadian handicap.

RealCool is pretty cool, for a flaming socialist Canuck.   

[chefist]

I live on the border with Mexico...there are several hundreds of miles of wall just like this one already built...I don't see Democrats calling for the current walls to be torn down! Therefore, completing it should not really be an issue...

[VtaGeezer]

It's possible that U.S troops are stationed in Japan as a means to defending Taiwan from Chinese invasion.  Even if that is the case though, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, South Korea and the Philippines all have reasons to put their historical differences aside and ally together to stop China.  So, again, Chinese aggression should not necessitate the United States being the defenders of its allies.

We have less than 20K US combat troops in Japan, mostly Marines, to surge into S. Korea if the North invades.  20K troops won't even give the Chinese pause when they decide to take Taiwan by force, which is probably coming in the next ten years. The US Navy has a lot of force in the region, but they're not eager to send a carrier group within range of the Chinese carrier-killer DF-21D missiles, for which they have no defense.

In the 1950's the case could be made, though weakly, that Chiang Ki-shek could perhaps mount a US-backed return to the mainland.  Now that's not even a fantasy in Taiwan. Carter ended US obligations to defend Taiwan; relabeling our posture a "commitment".  Taiwan is undefendable against modern China, short of using nuclear weapons and that would end badly...especially for Taiwan. To those under 50, Taiwan is some vague Asian place of little significance and the American public won't accept significant (if any) US losses over it.  Japan, yes. S Korea, yes.  Taiwan, no. 

But the Chinese have also said they won't "tolerate" a war on the E Asian mainland, so it could be 1950 and the Yalu revisited if NK starts something and the US is heavily drawn in.

[VtaGeezer]

Do you have anything to say that demonstrates critical thinking or are you just going to keep repeating anti-mass media memes?

Anyone using the word "memes" in normal discourse is begging to be ignored. 

[ItsOver]

I live on the border with Mexico...there are several hundreds of miles of wall just like this one already built...I don't see Democrats calling for the current walls to be torn down! Therefore, completing it should not really be an issue...

Maybe we should have Elon Musk and SpaceX do it.  Crap, if they can land rockets on barges now, what the hell challenge is a wall?  To bad Mr. Musk leans to the left.  Money seems to interest him, though.

[ItsOver]

Anyone using the word "memes" in normal discourse is begging to be ignored.

Hehehe.  That or "nuances."  "Fuchsia" is OK, though.

[136 or 142]

We have less than 20K US combat troops in Japan, mostly Marines, to surge into S. Korea if the North invades.  20K troops won't even give the Chinese pause when they decide to take Taiwan by force, which is probably coming in the next ten years. The US Navy has a lot of force in the region, but they're not eager to send a carrier group within range of the Chinese carrier-killer DF-21D missiles, for which they have no defense.

In the 1950's the case could be made, though weakly, that Chiang Ki-shek could perhaps mount a US-backed return to the mainland.  Now that's not even a fantasy in Taiwan. Carter ended US obligations to defend Taiwan; relabeling our posture a "commitment".  Taiwan is undefendable against modern China, short of using nuclear weapons and that would end badly...especially for Taiwan. To those under 50, Taiwan is some vague Asian place of little significance and the American public won't accept significant (if any) US losses over it.  Japan, yes. S Korea, yes.  Taiwan, no. 

But the Chinese have also said they won't "tolerate" a war on the E Asian mainland, so it could be 1950 and the Yalu revisited if NK starts something and the US is heavily drawn in.

According to wiki based on the most recent Department of Defense statistics there are 52,060 members of the various armed forces in Japan and 24,899 in South Korea.    The U.S Air Force stationed in Japan would just stand around doing nothing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments

There are officially none in Taiwan so I guess the U.S troops are in Japan to defend Taiwan.  I can see some use for the troops in South Korea but I see no reason why the South Koreans shouldn't pay for their own defense.  The North Korean army is large in numbers but has completed outdated equipment and not all of their soldiers don't even have full supplies.  If they actually attacked South Korea with a conventional army the South Korean military should be able to wipe them out.  I can see the U.S troops as backup to ensure that the North Korean army doesn't get to Seoul.

The danger of a North Korean attack would be if, in response to losing, the North Korean leader decided to launch missiles or chemical weapons.

I have no idea if China has any interest in taking over Taiwan.  They tend to get very threatening when the Taiwanese people vote in officially separatist parties into power.  While I don't doubt that the people being groomed for power in China at least express the same opinions as their bosses, as the Chinese leadership now changes every ten years, I have no idea how you could know what the next group of Chinese leaders would actually do once they got into power. The present leadership will be in office for six or seven more years.   So, your comment that you think China will take over Taiwan in the next ten years is likely based on the same nothing that your comment that air power would be of no use against a Chinese invasion is.

[136 or 142]

Anyone using the word "memes" in normal discourse is begging to be ignored.

I guess you have Vote Quimby on ignore.  I just rewrote the exact same sentence he wrote and added anti before the 'm' word you dislike.

[136 or 142]

I live on the border with Mexico...there are several hundreds of miles of wall just like this one already built...I don't see Democrats calling for the current walls to be torn down! Therefore, completing it should not really be an issue...

Do these walls actually prevent the Mexicans from getting past them? Before you spend millions if not billions more on building more walls you might want to know the answer to that.

[VtaGeezer]

There are two major candidates. Neither is perfect, but to say they are as bad as each other is simple minded false equivalency bull-shit.

Hillary Clinton had detailed well thought out policy on many issues and panders to the voters far less than Donald Trump panders to his base.  Of course, Clinton does make a few specific silly promises like offering to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour while Trump seems to have made virtually no specific commitments to his base.  So, not only are Trump's supporters stupid, they're bought off with vague promises that are  mostly ridiculous and often contradictory.  Proving even more how stupid they are.

On balance, I think Hillary Clinton is the vastly superior choice.

Stop listening to stump speeches and sound bites; Trump is a terribly inartful speaker new to political ambush and HRHH is an overly capable one who conceals her intent with skill.  Look instead at what they've actually done in their plainly visible  histories. 

Trump's history is 40 years of hooge self-made success as a developer and entrepreneur, nurturing a devoted family, management and decision-making acumen, demonstrated ability to assemble and lead a successful goal-oriented team, and loyalty from his business peers and employees. No parade of harrassed female employees.  No wronged minorities.  And his opponents had almost a year to find any.

Clinton's is a lifetime of NASCAR-level drafting on her husband's influence, enabling his philandering, becoming part of the NY bucket brigade for federal money after 9/11, maintaining a coterie of far left sycophants and ideologues, a vote for an illegal war that killed hundreds of thousands, and the most telling....being the SecState through the catastrophic hat-trick of premature withdrawal from Iraq, installing anarchy in Libya, and pushing political ideology before human costs in Syria.  She obsessively conceals her personal life and used influence to secure her never-worked-a-day-in-her-life daughter a six-figure salary on Wall S.  She and her husband somehow parleyed his ex-Presidency into personal incomes of an astonishing $120 million since 2001. 

The comparison is stark.  Yes, DT's verbal howitzer rounds are unfortunate, but compared to hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, Syrians and Libyans killed so she could push a naive ideology and put SecState on her resume for this election? Who's the fake?

"Well thought out policies"? So was the Iraq Invasion.  How about well-executed for a change?

[136 or 142]

Stop listening to stump speeches and sound bites; Trump is a terribly inartful speaker new to political ambush and HRHH is an overly capable one who conceals her intent with skill.  Look instead at what they've actually done in their plainly visible  histories. 

Trump's history is 40 years of hooge self-made success as a developer and entrepreneur, nurturing a devoted family, management and decision-making acumen, demonstrated ability to assemble and lead a successful goal-oriented team, and loyalty from his business peers and employees. No parade of harrassed female employees.  No wronged minorities.  And his opponents had almost a year to find any.

Clinton's is a lifetime of NASCAR-level drafting on her husband's influence, enabling his philandering, becoming part of the NY bucket brigade for federal money after 9/11, maintaining a coterie of far left sycophants and ideologues, a vote for an illegal war that killed hundreds of thousands, and the most telling....being the SecState through the catastrophic hat-trick of premature withdrawal from Iraq, installing anarchy in Libya, and pushing political ideology before human costs in Syria.  She obsessively conceals her personal life and used influence to secure her never-worked-a-day-in-her-life daughter a six-figure salary on Wall S.  She and her husband somehow parleyed his ex-Presidency into personal incomes of an astonishing $120 million dollars since 2001. 

The comparison is stark.  Yes, DT's verbal howitzer rounds are unfortunate, but compared hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, Syrians and Libyans now killed so she could push a naive ideology and put SoS on her resume for this election?

"Well thought out policies"? So was the Iraq Invasion.  How about well-executed for a change?

Is this cut and pasted from the Donald Trump website?  This is so full of inaccurate comments and lies of omission I don't even know where to begin. So, I want an answer to my question first.

[21st Century Man]

Stop listening to stump speeches and sound bites; Trump is a terribly inartful speaker new to political ambush and HRHH is an overly capable one who conceals her intent with skill.  Look instead at what they've actually done in their plainly visible  histories. 

Trump's history is 40 years of huge self-made success as a developer and entrepreneur, nurturing a devoted family, management and decision-making acumen, demonstrated ability to assemble and lead a successful goal-oriented team, and loyalty from his business peers and employees. No parade of harrassed female employees.  No wronged minorities.  And his opponents had almost a year to find any.

Clinton's is a lifetime of NASCAR-level drafting on her husband's influence, enabling his philandering, becoming part of the NY bucket brigade for federal money after 9/11, maintaining a coterie of far left sycophants and ideologues, a vote for an illegal war that killed hundreds of thousands, and the most telling....being the SecState through the catastrophic hat-trick of premature withdrawal from Iraq, installing anarchy in Libya, and pushing political ideology before human costs in Syria.  She obsessively conceals her personal life and used influence to secure her never-worked-a-day-in-her-life daughter a six-figure salary on Wall S.  She and her husband somehow parleyed his ex-Presidency into personal incomes of an astonishing $120 million dollars since 2001. 

The comparison is stark.  Yes, DT's verbal howitzer rounds are unfortunate, but compared hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, Syrians and Libyans now killed so she could push a naive ideology and put SoS on her resume for this election?

"Well thought out policies"? So was the Iraq Invasion.  How about well-executed for a change?

Some food for thought here.  I wouldn't call Trump a devoted family man though.  He's far more devoted to the fulfillment of his sexual desires, divorcing his old wives and marrying younger models.  Still, an excellent post.

[VtaGeezer]

According to wiki based on the most recent Department of Defense statistics there are 52,060 members of the various armed forces in Japan and 24,899 in South Korea.    The U.S Air Force stationed in Japan would just stand around doing nothing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments

There are officially none in Taiwan so I guess the U.S troops are in Japan to defend Taiwan.  I can see some use for the troops in South Korea but I see no reason why the South Koreans shouldn't pay for their own defense.  The North Korean army is large in numbers but has completed outdated equipment and not all of their soldiers don't even have full supplies.  If they actually attacked South Korea with a conventional army the South Korean military should be able to wipe them out.  I can see the U.S troops as backup to ensure that the North Korean army doesn't get to Seoul.

The danger of a North Korean attack would be if, in response to losing, the North Korean leader decided to launch missiles or chemical weapons.

I have no idea if China has any interest in taking over Taiwan.  They tend to get very threatening when the Taiwanese people vote in officially separatist parties into power.  While I don't doubt that the people being groomed for power in China at least express the same opinions as their bosses, as the Chinese leadership now changes every ten years, I have no idea how you could know what the next group of Chinese leaders would actually do once they got into power. The present leadership will be in office for six or seven more years.   So, your comment that you think China will take over Taiwan in the next ten years is likely based on the same nothing that your comment that air power would be of no use against a Chinese invasion is.

I said combat troops. There are 20K Marines, and that's generous because 30% or more are support billets.  The rest of the 50K you mention are Navy and Air Force personnel.  The rest of your post is wishful rationalizing.  We have no treaty obligation to defend Taiwan.  We do with S Korea and with Japan.  The US troops in Korea are a trip wire in case NK moves, those in Japan are their reserve.  US air power in the region is carrier based, and the US won't risk a carrier group to Chinese missiles and submarines and is most unlikely to attack China directly over Taiwan.  China isn't Iraq.

[chefist]

Do these walls actually prevent the Mexicans from getting past them? Before you spend millions if not billions more on building more walls you might want to know the answer to that.

They work...that's why the Border Patrol Union for the first time ever supported a Presidential candidate...I know, I have very close friends in the BP...

Oh, and these walls were approved by both Reps and Dems...

[chefist]

Maybe we should have Elon Musk and SpaceX do it.  Crap, if they can land rockets on barges now, what the hell challenge is a wall?  To bad Mr. Musk leans to the left.  Money seems to interest him, though.

These walls are baby time...you can build ones much more difficult to breach...

[starrmtn001]

They work...that's why the Border Patrol Union for the first time ever supported a Presidential candidate...I know, I have very close friends in the BP...

Oh, and these walls were approved by both Reps and Dems...

Good to know Chefist. I'd be interested to learn any new information that you can ethically release.

[21st Century Man]

  I have mixed feelings about a wall on the border.  We spent 25 years trying to bring down the Berlin Wall.  Now we are talking about building a wall along the Mexican border.   At the same time, something needs to be done to stop illegal immigration so we don't go the way of The Western Roman Empire.  I support the building of the wall with much trepidation.  Too bad it has come to this though.

[RealCool Daddio]

RealCool is pretty cool, for a flaming socialist Canuck.   

I have a very good brain.

[136 or 142]

Stop listening to stump speeches and sound bites; Trump is a terribly inartful speaker new to political ambush and HRHH is an overly capable one who conceals her intent with skill.  Look instead at what they've actually done in their plainly visible  histories. 

Trump's history is 40 years of hooge self-made success as a developer and entrepreneur, nurturing a devoted family, management and decision-making acumen, demonstrated ability to assemble and lead a successful goal-oriented team, and loyalty from his business peers and employees. No parade of harrassed female employees.  No wronged minorities.  And his opponents had almost a year to find any.

Clinton's is a lifetime of NASCAR-level drafting on her husband's influence, enabling his philandering, becoming part of the NY bucket brigade for federal money after 9/11, maintaining a coterie of far left sycophants and ideologues, a vote for an illegal war that killed hundreds of thousands, and the most telling....being the SecState through the catastrophic hat-trick of premature withdrawal from Iraq, installing anarchy in Libya, and pushing political ideology before human costs in Syria.  She obsessively conceals her personal life and used influence to secure her never-worked-a-day-in-her-life daughter a six-figure salary on Wall S.  She and her husband somehow parleyed his ex-Presidency into personal incomes of an astonishing $120 million since 2001. 

The comparison is stark.  Yes, DT's verbal howitzer rounds are unfortunate, but compared to hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, Syrians and Libyans killed so she could push a naive ideology and put SecState on her resume for this election? Who's the fake?

"Well thought out policies"? So was the Iraq Invasion.  How about well-executed for a change?

To start, on Trump
1.He's been divorced what two or three times and has admitted to being an adulterer.  I believe Ted Cruz is correct that Trump once called Herpes his 'personal Vietnam.'  Were Trump's wives to blame for his philandering like you claim Hillary Clinton was with Bill Clinton?  I'd say that's a totally sexist and repulsive comment but apparently it's politically correct or something to now call out sexism.,

So, that's one example of a totally false comment.

2.Successful businesses.  Nobody has a clue what his actual net worth is.  It's been stated that had he merely put the money he received from his parents into a trust fund that was invested in the Fortune 500 index fund, he'd have the same net worth that is the best guess of what he's actually worth. 

Many of his businesses have either gone bankrupt or are no longer going concerns.  His totally failed Atlantic City operations are the most high profile.

I don't doubt that he's a brilliant marketer, but that, along with buying politicians is about all he's recognized as being brilliant at.  I'm not even sure that aside from his own bragging that there is any actual evidence he's all that good a negotiator. 

As has also been said, it's a lot easier to make a billion when you already have a million (or several million) than when you're just starting out.  He's hardly a self made person like Steve Jobs, for instance.

He's a brilliant marketer. If he wants to run the service that does tourism advertisements for the United States, I can't imagine there would be too many people better.

There are multiple instances of shady business practices and allegations of shady or illegal business practices.  Trump University is the most well known but there is also a realtor news website that I found a while ago that said Trump was or still is under FBI investigation for some Real Estate Transaction.

These are recent examples, I've been told by a friend, but I havent' seen it that there is a video on Youtube from the 1980s 1990s that pointed out how crooked he was back then as well.  I haven't seen it so I don't know how accurate it is.  Unfortunately all the videos that come up on youtube are newer, so I'll see if he remembers the name of it.

Like Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump has never been criminally charged with anything, but in addition to Trump University, like any good businessperson, if he had been sued civilly he would have settled out of court and would have insisted on having the records sealed.  So, there is no way of either knowing or not knowing if he's ever been sued before.

The rest of your defense of Trump is totally idiotic.  He's never been involved in elected politics before, but how many serious candidates for any office make the sort of outrageous statements that he does? 

His business skills are of limited use in politics.  As A CEO he never had to work with any of his subordinates, he just told them what to do.  Good luck if he tries that with Congress.  While he obviously negotiated some deals, in business any successful deal is based upon two parties with mutual interests reaching an agreement.  That's of no use negotiating with world leaders with opposing interests or negotiating with a reluctant Congress. How many negotiations has he failed to conclude?

This line of argument of yours is based on the false notion that business people make the best government leaders.  While business people can be pragmatists, which I like very much, there is no inherent reason for them to be so.  Few people seem to remember it, but George H W Bush, unlike his son, was also a very successful businessperson.  The disasterous governors of Florida and Michigan were also successful people before going into politics.

In contrast, many successful politicians come from many different walks of life.  Bill Clinton was a lawyer with a degree in economics.

In terms of what Trump would actually do in office, you suggest disregarding his campaign speeches.  I hate to bring up Hitler and all that, but the same thing was said about Mein Kampf "this is so crazy, he can't actually mean it."  All we have are his speeches.  He wants to build a wall at the cost of billions that he says he'll force Mexico to pay for that will likely be totally ineffective.  He wants to bring back torture.  He's an authoritarian so who knows how he's ramp up domestic spying programs (not that I know what Hillary Clinton would do there either.)  He wants to disengage military at the same time as he says he wants to somehow 'quickly defeat ISIS.'  He wants to ban certain groups from somehow coming into the country.

Do, you seriously think that right after getting elected he's going to say "all that stuff that I promised, I was just kidding about all of it."  Given some of his supporters, he knows that would start off riots.

So, that's the more nuanced position on Donald Trump.  Not the copy and paste you took from his website.

[ItsOver]

These walls are baby time...you can build ones much more difficult to breach...

We should also build a wall around D.C., The District of Corruption, cut-off the water and food supply, and surround the stink hole with Patriot batteries to prevent any air escapes.  Their caviar and filet mingon will eventually run out.