Donald Trump For President!

[FenixMike]

Originally Posted by ScottSinger

With not a single congressional republican voting for his 1993 Omnibus budget and Al Gore the deciding vote in his second budget - you sure Clinton doesn't deserve ANY credit ? Are you saying with a Democratic president for eight years any perceived accomplishments during that time were all Republican created ?
The explanation that republican negotiated policies during Clinton's two terms were the cause for economic expansion, lacks possibility.

No, I am saying regarding the balanced budget and leaving office with just a lot of negative instead of stupid amounts. Clinton gets some credit, especially for his assault weapon ban, not allowing firearms on military bases and plenty of other liberal ideas I dont agree with.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by BEMR

No not at all, fear mongering if that what your suggesting i mean is not what I'm saying. Unknown is fear to most, our present administration tells the enemy up front our every move, then apologizes for our past. We need more of the unknown factors that our opponents have to deal with. We need some sort unpredictability to instill in the opposition, our Country not only tells you how were going do it, but when. Trump I believe will bring that to the table, along with consequences for disrespect, instead of a couple sanctions that are deemed worthless.

3 ways to deal with the enemies in life, negotiate, agree, or confront. Radical Muslim Terrorists refuse the first two, which only leaves you one, confront! We've lost respect in the world today because our current admin of politicians believe the first 2 ARE our only options, and look at the spread of ISIS today. Trump has enough sense to act from a level of confrontation, and he's not afraid nor are any dollars telling him what to say or do, that's why he's blowing away the field with supporters.

Confrontation is the consequence that fear most, that's the fear I'm talking about.

TY for the clarification. Although I still do not see fear, even the sort you describe, as a tool that should be wielded for political purposes, I do at least realize you don't verge on insanity, which is essentially what I thought might be the case when I read your initial post, and thus why I asked the question I did.

There is a fourth course of action: consider objectively whether one's enemy might at least to some extent be correct and/ or alter one's behavior. That may seem like "agreeing," but it's not. I don't think everything the terrorists say is "on point," but I am saying that any objective examination of their statements and their actions show clearly that they do have a point. And I'm saying that U.S. policy fails to recognize that; moreover, it treats their actions as though they were the first terrorists when history shows they absolutely were not, but even if they were, what U.S. did to Middle Eastern citizens must surely have looked not one bit different from terrorism -- apart from there being a nation state behind the bombings and assassinations -- to the people and families who suffered our mililtant actions in the 20th century.

I offer that idea because it's not at all clear to me that U.S.' policy towards the citizens and nations of Middle Eastern countries has been fair to or good for anyone there except Israel's citizens. Even the U.S. DoD recognized as much in 1997 when it wrote that its own "historical data show a strong correlation between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States." A former U.S. President also stated "you only have to go to Lebanon, to Syria or to Jordan to witness first-hand the intense hatred among many people for the United States because we bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers -- women and children and farmers and housewives -- in those villages around Beirut. ... As a result of that ... we became kind of a Satan in the minds of those who are deeply resentful."

It's nice to think that U.S. foreign policy re: Middle Eastern nations is righteous and right, but I don't think it is. U.S., as a government, has never attempted to consider foreign policy in that region, the region from which most anti-U.S. terrorists hail, from any perspective except the one that most favors Israel. And why? Quite frankly, I don't know of any reason other than the American political process has huge sums of Jewish money fueling it and specific, power politician's desire to get reelected more than anything else. That and the prevailing prejudice during most of the 20th century view of Arabs and Muslims as "sand n*ggers."

The Cato Institute's director of defense policy studies wrote in his1998 essay "Protecting the Homeland: The Best Defense Is to Give No Offense:"

U.S. global intervention has increased the threat of terrorism to levels that are unacceptable according to any reasonable calculus of American interests....To avoid catastrophic terrorist attacks on the American homeland in this new and dangerous strategic environment, the United States must abandon its policy of being a military nanny in every area of the world....If the United States adopted a less interventionist foreign policy, it would be much less of a target for acts of both minor and mass terror. Using similar logic, the nation's Founders, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, fashioned a foreign policy that kept us out of Europe's conflicts so that the European powers would have little cause to intervene in America.
Source: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-306.html

And really, one has to ask, what exactly is it that we have to gain by meddling in Middle Eastern politics? It's not as though Middle Eastern nations don't want to sell us the two things they have lots of -- oil and sand -- and it's not as though we can get by without their oil. I have often wondered why my country is stuck in the middle of their mess when all we really need to be with those nations is trading partners? It's certainly not about maintaining stable nations. Middle Eastern oil nations want stability in the region, stable nations and governments, as much as anybody. They just don't believe that "stability" means that what's best for Israel is what's best for everyone else there.

All the best.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by BEMR

I don't completely agree with the chart since a couple of large factors aren't illustrated. What about the last 2 years of Bush 2, and the first 2 years of Obama, what party was represented as the majority in Congress? Hummm, could it of been the democrats? Easy to blame Bush for everything wrong and leave that part out. And that also is a good reason to get away from all politicians.

My prediction, TRUMP with Fiorina VP. Both nonpoliticians.

Well, here's the deal on that. If one is President, one get's to tout what happened that is considered good and one must bear the blame for what is seen as bad.

Congress is not there to be the whipping boy when one's favored President is thwarted. The fact is that the debt and budget belong to the President because it's the President's administration that asks for the money from Congress and it's the President's administration that spends it. Congress cannot unilaterally submit and approve a budget.

Of course, Congress has a role in all executive branch appropriations, and Congress members absolutely stick into the budget all sorts of spending that benefits their districts. I'm not saying they aren't in part to blame, but the fact is that in no recent President's administration has Congress simply said, "No, you can't have all that money. Here's what you get and you'll have to make do with it." That is something they could have said at any time, but they didn't, not Republican Congresses and not Democratic ones.

Also, your comments address the "why" of the data presented. The "why" is what it is, but the fact remains that the spending is exactly what was shown in the chart. In this case, the spending that happened is the point, not why it was spent.

All the best.

[Doc Oc]

Originally Posted by FenixMike

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-b...economy-2012-9

http://www.cato.org/publications/com...balance-budget

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

I got bored of reading after those, but there are plenty more if needed. Clinton didnt leave a balanced budget for bush, never had a surplus, and credit is due to the republican house for much of it, not clinton.

C'mon, anytime anything good happens under a dem prez you guys say he had nothing to do with it, but anytime something bad happens it's all on him. I'm tired of hearing that crap. Here's the debt from 96-2001 under Clinton:

2001 $5,770 $10,640 54% 9/11 attacks worsened the 2011 recession. Bush tax cuts further reduced revenue.
2000 $5,629 $10,357 54%
1999 $5,605 $9,712 58%
1998 $5,478 $9,147 60%
1997 $5,369 $8,692 62%
1996 $5,181 $8,159 64%

So in the last 6 years of Clinton's run the debt went up less than 5 hundred billion. I never said he had a surplus but compare that to GWB's last 6 years where debt went up 4.5 trillion. So maybe it wasn't absolutely zero'd out each year but we are talking about very small amounts as compared to the last two potus'. For this country only going over budget 20 billion is remarkable.

[Doc Oc]

Originally Posted by BEMR

I gave ya appreciate AND a lol. fkn funny!

Thanks. Its all f*cked really isn't it? There isn't an honest one in the bunch.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by Doc Oc

C'mon, anytime anything good happens under a dem prez you guys say he had nothing to do with it, but anytime something bad happens it's all on him. I'm tired of hearing that crap. ...

[Doc Oc]

Originally Posted by tony20009

[IMG]

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html


Ron Paul, the last Republican whom I would have voted for once asked:

How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together?

People on here think I'm a liberal and that I don't like Republicans. Neither is true. I'm not a liberal and what I don't like is stupidity and fiscal folly.

All the best.

I actually liked some of RP's ideas. Might've voted for him. I respected McCain too. Was planning to vote for him until he selected that fool as his running mate. Like you I am not tied to one party. However it seems that the last few times I have voted against a particular candidate rather than for one because I think we've had some pretty crappy options.

[NickyC]

Originally Posted by jgoens

Think you win the award for the longest post award.

Not even close, that's like 1/10 of his usual length. Please stop quoting him. Those of us who have him blocked don't need to see the quotes. Thank you.

[FenixMike]

Originally Posted by Doc Oc

C'mon, anytime anything good happens under a dem prez you guys say he had nothing to do with it, but anytime something bad happens it's all on him. I'm tired of hearing that crap. Here's the debt from 96-2001 under Clinton:

2001 $5,770 $10,640 54% 9/11 attacks worsened the 2011 recession. Bush tax cuts further reduced revenue.
2000 $5,629 $10,357 54%
1999 $5,605 $9,712 58%
1998 $5,478 $9,147 60%
1997 $5,369 $8,692 62%
1996 $5,181 $8,159 64%

So in the last 6 years of Clinton's run the debt went up less than 5 hundred billion. I never said he had a surplus but compare that to GWB's last 6 years where debt went up 4.5 trillion. So maybe it wasn't absolutely zero'd out each year but we are talking about very small amounts as compared to the last two potus'. For this country only going over budget 20 billion is remarkable.

Problem is, no one is defending republicans... they are just as much at fault as anyone, if not more and I side with neither currently. Clinton is an idiot (both of them), Bush is also an idiot (all of them). I just dont like seeing Clinton up on a pedastol as if he was handed down from the heavens and saved our economy, but a lot of people like to remember the past how they want instead of what history actually says.

[FenixMike]

Originally Posted by Doc Oc

I actually liked some of RP's ideas. Might've voted for him. I respected McCain too. Was planning to vote for him until he selected that fool as his running mate. Like you I am not tied to one party. However it seems that the last few times I have voted against a particular candidate rather than for one because I think we've had some pretty crappy options.

McCain is an idiot, and out of curiosity, what specifically dont you like about Palin?

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by Doc Oc

I actually liked some of RP's ideas. Might've voted for him. I respected McCain too. Was planning to vote for him until he selected that fool as his running mate. Like you I am not tied to one party. However it seems that the last few times I have voted against a particular candidate rather than for one because I think we've had some pretty crappy options.

1) I absolutely would have voted for Ron Paul.

“When the federal government spends more each year than it collects in tax revenues, it has three choices: It can raise taxes, print money, or borrow money. While these actions may benefit politicians, all three options are bad for average Americans.”
― Ron Paul

"Today’s events are reminiscent of the Old Testament story of how the Israelites demanded a king over God’s objection. They believed that a king would give them peace and security. The results proved otherwise.”
― Ron Paul

2) Yes. I can't actually recall ever voting for a President rather than against someone else's becoming President.

All the best.

[jgoens]

Originally Posted by NickyC

Not even close, that's like 1/10 of his usual length. Please stop quoting him. Those of us who have him blocked don't need to see the quotes. Thank you.

You can actually block a persons posts in a thread? So, when you read a thread the stuff people are talking about relating to that's person post would not make sense right? Or are you joking?

[Ali Shiralian]

Originally Posted by tony20009

TY for the clarification. Although I still do not see fear, even the sort you describe, as a tool that should be wielded for political purposes, I do at least realize you don't verge on insanity, which is essentially what I thought might be the case when I read your initial post, and thus why I asked the question I did.

There is a third course of action: consider objectively whether one's enemy might at least to some extent be correct and/ or alter one's behavior. That may seem like "agreeing," but it's not. I don't think everything the terrorists say is "on point," but I am saying that any objective examination of their statements and their actions show clearly that they do have a point. And I'm saying that U.S. policy fails to recognize that; moreover, it treats their actions as though they were the first terrorists when history shows they absolutely were not, but even if they were, what U.S. did to Middle Eastern citizens must surely have looked not one bit different from terrorism -- apart from there being a nation state behind the bombings and assassinations -- to the people and families who suffered our mililtant actions in the 20th century.

I offer that idea because it's not at all clear to me that U.S.' policy towards the citizens and nations of Middle Eastern countries has been fair to or good for anyone there except Israel's citizens. Even the U.S. DoD recognized as much in 1997 when it wrote that its own "historical data show a strong correlation between US involvement in international situations and an increase in terrorist attacks against the United States." A former U.S. President also stated "you only have to go to Lebanon, to Syria or to Jordan to witness first-hand the intense hatred among many people for the United States because we bombed and shelled and unmercifully killed totally innocent villagers -- women and children and farmers and housewives -- in those villages around Beirut. ... As a result of that ... we became kind of a Satan in the minds of those who are deeply resentful."

It's nice to think that U.S. foreign policy re: Middle Eastern nations is righteous and right, but I don't think it is. U.S., as a government, has never attempted to consider foreign policy in that region, the region from which most anti-U.S. terrorists hail, from any perspective except the one that most favors Israel. And why? Quite frankly, I don't know of any reason other than the American political process has huge sums of Jewish money fueling it and specific, power politician's desire to get reelected more than anything else. That and the prevailing prejudice during most of the 20th century view of Arabs and Muslims as "sand n*ggers."

The Cato Institute's director of defense policy studies wrote in his1998 essay "Protecting the Homeland: The Best Defense Is to Give No Offense:"

U.S. global intervention has increased the threat of terrorism to levels that are unacceptable according to any reasonable calculus of American interests....To avoid catastrophic terrorist attacks on the American homeland in this new and dangerous strategic environment, the United States must abandon its policy of being a military nanny in every area of the world....If the United States adopted a less interventionist foreign policy, it would be much less of a target for acts of both minor and mass terror. Using similar logic, the nation's Founders, including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, fashioned a foreign policy that kept us out of Europe's conflicts so that the European powers would have little cause to intervene in America.
Source: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-306.html

And really, one has to ask, what exactly is it that we have to gain by meddling in Middle Eastern politics? It's not as though Middle Eastern nations don't want to sell us the two things they have lots of -- oil and sand -- and it's not as though we can get by without their oil. I have often wondered why my country is stuck in the middle of their mess when all we really need to be with those nations is trading partners? It's certainly not about maintaining stable nations. Middle Eastern oil nations want stability in the region, stable nations and governments, as much as anybody. They just don't believe that "stability" means that what's best for Israel is what's best for everyone else there.

All the best.

Bravo...

[bmw1racer]

Originally Posted by BavarianDevil

This is a guy that runs a privately held company where he answers to no one. He is used to saying what he wants and it's clear that is part of his appeal. But his lack of any sort of filter and random comments about how easy it is to fix that and this is purely coming from a guy that loves to hear himself speak. He is a businessman used to donating to Politicians for favors and access. That does not work as a politician. He is very thin skinned and doesn't like to be criticized. When he is he simply tosses grenades in rooms and thinks that solves the discussion. He's not a good listener and he has a very elitist attitude. How many times can he say how rich he is, how smart he is and that he went to the best school in the country. Who says things like that without coming as a pompous as*hat. He's novel today but it won't hold up over the long hall. He may know how the "art of the deal" works in business but that does not overlay well in US politics. He is going to crash and burn very hard.

The sooner, the better... To see him get humiliated for all the world to see would be the proverbial icing on the cake.

[1MOREMOD]

He's faking it. Not smart. Not good at business. Just luck sob

[BEMR]

I actually hope he gets in, and puts the lazy entitlement community back to work.

[BEMR]

Originally Posted by tony20009

1) I absolutely would have voted for Ron Paul.

“When the federal government spends more each year than it collects in tax revenues, it has three choices: It can raise taxes, print money, or borrow money. While these actions may benefit politicians, all three options are bad for average Americans.”
― Ron Paul

"Today’s events are reminiscent of the Old Testament story of how the Israelites demanded a king over God’s objection. They believed that a king would give them peace and security. The results proved otherwise.”
― Ron Paul

2) Yes. I can't actually recall ever voting for a President rather than against someone else's becoming President.

All the best.

Tony your very well versed and appear to be a journalism major, could YOU answer this for me "what is the difference between a socialist and a democrat" quite a few having trouble answering that question these days.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by tony20009

... I've run out of fingers and toes to count how often I see one person say or intimate that another is stupid (or something akin to it) rather than engage in substantive discussion. Mr. Trump is little different, and that's why, at least right now, he's resonating with the general public.

All the best.

...and to that point, from just page two of this thread we have the following....

Originally Posted by Nick the Greek

If Mr Trump gets to be president, the USA will become the laughing stock of the world.

"President Trump".............

" President Fart"

"President loud expulsion of anal gas"......

Originally Posted by FenixMike

Problem is, no one is defending republicans... they are just as much at fault as anyone, if not more and I side with neither currently. Clinton is an idiot (both of them), Bush is also an idiot (all of them). I just dont like seeing Clinton up on a pedastol as if he was handed down from the heavens and saved our economy, but a lot of people like to remember the past how they want instead of what history actually says.

Originally Posted by Doc Oc

I actually liked some of RP's ideas. Might've voted for him. I respected McCain too. Was planning to vote for him until he selected that fool as his running mate....

Originally Posted by FenixMike

McCain is an idiot, and out of curiosity, what specifically dont you like about Palin?

Now here's thing. For all the conservatives who are so quick to call just about anyone whom they don't like an idiot, the data in one study show that in at least one dimension -- cognitive reflection -- conservative Republicans are less adept than are both Democrats and Libertarians. (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0042366)

What is cognitive reflection? Basically it's the ability and willingness to use reason over intuition, even when intuition seems to give a sound answer. Put another way, it's the greater predilection for logos over pathos. (The paper referenced above provides a scholarly and comprehensive explanation of what cognitive reflection entails.)

Another researcher at the London School of Economics and Political Science, Dr. Satoshi Kanazaw, studied why liberals are in general smarter than conservatives. His research, documented is here: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/SPQ2010.pdf .

Now I don't know anything objective about Mr. Trump's intelligence or that of other members here. I do know that disparagingly bandying about empty and unsubstantiated claims doesn't boost one's appearance of intelligence, neither is it a mark of intelligence. I don't mind that folks want to assert someone is stupid, but if one is of a mind to do so, then one must also present a cogent argument supporting that conclusion.

Originally Posted by FenixMike

No, I am saying regarding the balanced budget and leaving office with just a lot of negative instead of stupid amounts. Clinton gets some credit, especially for his assault weapon ban, not allowing firearms on military bases and plenty of other liberal ideas I dont agree with.

I know what you are referring to with the emboldened phrase above, but put as you have, it sounds like something only an idiot would do. Mr. Clinton may be many things, but stupid in the main is not among them. Mr. Clinton is also in fact the only President to have been a Rhodes Scholar.

(Here are some other Rhodes Scholars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rhodes_Scholars . Well known among them are Rachel Maddow, Cory Booker, Susan Rice, George Stephanopoulos, David Vitter (U.S. Senator), Russ Feingold, David Kendall, David Souter, and Bobby Jindal.)

For clarification, it was during the presidency of George H.W. Bush, not Bill Clinton, that the U.S. Department of Defense issued a directive in February 1992 affecting the carrying of firearms on bases by military personnel. That directive (http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf) was eventually implemented through a regulation (http://www.apd.army.mil/jw2/xmldemo/r190_14/head.asp), 190-14 issued by the Department of the Army (not via executive order) in March 1993, just two months after President Clinton assumed office.

Additionally, that change in regulations (which applied only to the Army, not other branches of the U.S. armed forces) did not ban the carrying of weapons by soldiers on Army bases; rather, it restricted the authorization to carry firearms to personnel engaged in law enforcement and security duties, and to personnel stationed at facilities where there was "a reasonable expectation that life or Army assets would be jeopardized if firearms were not carried."

Steven Bucci, a military expert for The Heritage Foundation who served 28 years in the Army and retired in 2005 with the rank of colonel, also [said] that Clinton is not to blame.

"I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you are looking to put blame on someone for disarming the military," said Bucci, when asked if Clinton was responsible. "I think that's kind of a bogus story." "We have never had our soldiers walking around with weapons all the time, other than in combat zones," he added, noting only Military Police have had that authority.

Yes, it happened during Clinton's presidency, so he get the blame/credit for doing it in exactly the same way and for the same reasons Regan gets credit for freeing the American hostages from Iran.

Originally Posted by FenixMike

Problem is, no one is defending Republicans... they are just as much at fault as anyone, if not more, and I side with neither currently.....

What defending do Republicans deserve if, as you write, they are "just as much at fault, if not more?" Why is the absence of outcries of support for a party one feels is as much or more blameworthy a problem, and specifically a problem in your mind?

All the best.

[tony20009]

Originally Posted by BEMR

Tony your very well versed and appear to be a journalism major, could YOU answer this for me "what is the difference between a socialist and a democrat" quite a few having trouble answering that question these days.

TY. I was not a journalism major.

Perhaps folks struggle with answering that question because it's a silly comparison to make because doing so is like trying to equate or compare apples and oranges. That said, any examination of the question must first consider what democracy and socialism are. Democracy is a political ideology whereas socialism is an economic system. Upon understanding what each of the two concepts are that one instantly realizes that the question asking "what is the difference between a socialist and a democrat?" is at at the worst inflammatory and at best a coy approach to entreating for a pointless debate.

There is nothing that stops socialism from existing within a democracy. Accordingly, socialist theory and practice can be applied or espoused by members of either American political party, Republican or Democrat.

There are socialist democracies and there is democratic socialism. There are also degrees of socialism and degrees of democracy. The flavor of extreme socialism, the authoritarian one that is, as Marx described, the socialism that may be a necessary step toward an ultimate goal of establishing a communist society, has little to nothing in common with democracy. Thus such a socialist also has little to nothing in common with a Democrat.

All the best.

[Doc Oc]

Originally Posted by FenixMike

McCain is an idiot, and out of curiosity, what specifically dont you like about Palin?

McCain is an idiot now, but in the early - mid 2000's doing his maverick thing I kind of liked him. He had some liberal views and seemed a bit above the bs. Not anymore though. What don't I like about Palin? Don't have time for all that. Main things-

Her town and family was/is a mess
She is corrupt
She was only chosen to pander to the females....to try and get some of HC's votes
She is mean spirited and stupid. Bad combo.
Has to write her 3-4 talking points on her hand.
She hunts animals from a helicopter
And like most politicians, she's as phony as a $3 bill.

I don't agree that BC was stupid. Weak and corrupt maybe, but the country did great during his terms. When he was president I hated him. Voted twice against him because I bought all the negativity the GOP was putting out there. However my business thrived under him and failed 5 years into the GWB term as we imported from Europe and up until 2004-5 the dollar was worth more than the euro. Then very quickly it went to being worth 30% less than the euro, driving my cogs through the roof and putting me out of biz. Haven't voted Republican since. I don't agree with everything BO does for sure, but for the last couple years my family has had good insurance at a great price (haven't had any for 10 years prior) and paid less taxes than I can ever remember, so I won't be complaining.

[SonnyJack]

Originally Posted by 1MOREMOD

He inherited one.

This!

[SonnyJack]

Originally Posted by csu87

He built a multibillion dollar empire. Id say he's a pretty good ceo

He increased the value of his father's name. Built on his father's hard work. Marketed the Trump name pretty well, but not much else.