Donald Trump Presidential Campaign Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GaryTaylor said:
There is no such thing as discussing issues in a two minute time sequence so lets be clear no one here elaborated on any point to any degree of satisfaction, not Bernie not Hillary not no one. Thats utter nonsense. In fact the WH has been feeding us daily lies about policy like with Iran.
Click to expand...
I agree. The Hillary/Bernie debates were “sound bite vs. sound bite” without any real analysis. The Repub debates were about the same, just on different subjects.

It’s really a shame. And it’s a shame too that there are so many facts we don’t know and won’t know in time for the election.

People focus on Behghazi, either attacking or defending Clinton’s actions or inactions, negligence or insouciance. But nobody ever really goes into why Amb Stevens was there, why local militias were used for security, why we were running guns to doubtful groups in Syria from Libya, why we used an ambassador for such a nefarious commerce, why we gave arms to the rebels at all, and who actually stood to gain by our going to war on Libya in the first place. We know Blumenthal was a Clinton Foundation employee. We know Obama didn’t want him anywhere around the State Department or communicating “intelligence” to Hillary. But why? Why didn’t Obama want her talking to Blumenthal? And knowing he didn’t, why did she do it anyway? He was there to make oil deals, but for whom? Did the success of that depend on Khaddaffi being out and someone else being in? Did Blumenthal’s counterparty prevail, or did someone else? What did Blumenthal tell Clinton and why?

And Trump. Yes, we know he wants to renegotiate trade deals, and we understand he doesn’t really want to disclose what, exactly he wants changed. But when it comes to employment otherwise, what’s his plan? he might have one and it might be reasonable and it might not be, but we’re not going to hear it in any debate.

I realize people would howl, but I think if I were trump, I would skip the debates entirely and spend my time on the campaign trail. I’m sure preparing for debates takes an enormous amount of time. One remembers Harry Truman’s “whistle stop” campaign in which he visited practically every little burg in the country. I think I would be doing that.
Hillary Clinton and her media would taunt him endlessly for it, but she, herself would probably be relieved. Memorizing focus-grouped lines prepared by others is one thing, but there is always the possibility of a slipup no matter how well she knows her lines.

Now Obama admits attacking Libya was a mistake. Why does he only now think that?

No, we’re not going to hear any real policy debates in this election cycle.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I agree. The Hillary/Bernie debates were “sound bite vs. sound bite” without any real analysis. The Repub debates were about the same, just on different subjects.

It’s really a shame. And it’s a shame too that there are so many facts we don’t know and won’t know in time for the election.

People focus on Behghazi, either attacking or defending Clinton’s actions or inactions, negligence or insouciance. But nobody ever really goes into why Amb Stevens was there, why local militias were used for security, why we were running guns to doubtful groups in Syria from Libya, why we used an ambassador for such a nefarious commerce, why we gave arms to the rebels at all, and who actually stood to gain by our going to war on Libya in the first place. We know Blumenthal was a Clinton Foundation employee. We know Obama didn’t want him anywhere around the State Department or communicating “intelligence” to Hillary. But why? Why didn’t Obama want her talking to Blumenthal? And knowing he didn’t, why did she do it anyway? He was there to make oil deals, but for whom? Did the success of that depend on Khaddaffi being out and someone else being in? Did Blumenthal’s counterparty prevail, or did someone else? What did Blumenthal tell Clinton and why?

And Trump. Yes, we know he wants to renegotiate trade deals, and we understand he doesn’t really want to disclose what, exactly he wants changed. But when it comes to employment otherwise, what’s his plan? he might have one and it might be reasonable and it might not be, but we’re not going to hear it in any debate.

I realize people would howl, but I think if I were trump, I would skip the debates entirely and spend my time on the campaign trail. I’m sure preparing for debates takes an enormous amount of time. One remembers Harry Truman’s “whistle stop” campaign in which he visited practically every little burg in the country. I think I would be doing that.
Hillary Clinton and her media would taunt him endlessly for it, but she, herself would probably be relieved. Memorizing focus-grouped lines prepared by others is one thing, but there is always the possibility of a slipup no matter how well she knows her lines.

Now Obama admits attacking Libya was a mistake. Why does he only now think that?

No, we’re not going to hear any real policy debates in this election cycle.
Click to expand...
There was plenty of information out there to address the questions you pose. I read a lot. If you are going to continue to only read slanted sources you will never get a full picture of any situation.
 
Good_Tidings said:
There was plenty of information out there to address the questions you pose. I read a lot. If you are going to continue to only read slanted sources you will never get a full picture of any situation.
Click to expand...
Oh good! Glad you know, and I trust that you’ll share.

So, who was Blumenthal negotiating oil contracts for? Was it an American company? French? Italian? Some consortium? Who? And what was he to get for doing it and what oil fields was he working to get contracts on? Was the oil to be shipped and refined elsewhere, or was it going to be refined in Libya and shipped as products? To where and for whom?

And were any advance payments made to him, and by whom, and how much? And was there any coincidental contribution by any related party to the Clinton Foundation, or did any of the related parties pay Bill Clinton for a speech? If so, who was the related party and how much did he get?

Same with any shippers or refiners or, for that matter, commodity brokers? Blumenthal wasn’t doing that for nothing.

Was Blumenthal still on the Clinton Foundation payroll at the time of the war on Libya? If so, what was he getting paid, and to do what, exactly? And what “intelligence” did Blumenthal communicate to Hillary? What were his recommendations as to attacking Libya, and what were the foundations of his recommendations?

Which parties were being negotiated with for the repurchase of arms, and why was the Turkish government involved in Amb Stevens’ negotiations? We do know that at least some of the arms were to be shipped through Turkey, but who was the ultimate buyer and who were the middlemen? And did any of those intermediaries or the principals make any contributions to Blumenthal, the Clinton Foundation or Bill Clinton?

And who were the buyers, and who paid the money? Were the ultimate receivers the payers or was some other country or entity paying for them? Saudis, perhaps? Qatar? Turkey? They all had an interest in arming the Syrian rebels, a very big interest, and were supporting them in other ways. Those arms couldn’t have been cheap. Somebody was spending a lot of money. Who? And, of course, there was ammunition, food, boots, socks, hired mercenaries to guard those doing the dealing, all kinds of stuff. What all did we provide and who paid for it and the shipping?

Just as a minor point, whose idea was it to have rebel militia guard Amb Stevens, and why did the Brits’ warnings about them go unheeded?

Those are just preliminary questions, I’ll follow up when you have let us know the answers to these questions. Not talking points, real answers.
 
lynnvinc said:
Sorry about that. For various other reasons early on in my childhood I realized what went on in society just didn’t jive at all with what they taught in (Presbyterian) Sunday School. At first for a long time I thought it was just a matter of people being hypocrites … as I often am – we all fall short. Then it occurred to me that they were not hypocrites but following a different underlying religion (even if they went to a Christian church on Sundays). Let’s call it “Americanism,” which means climb the ladder crushing anyone in the way – self and wealth is all that counts and others be #&%$#-ed.

As for life issues Trump is exceedingly pro-death (whether or not he understands or realizes that). When he denies climate change and other environmental problems and wants to trash all env regs, he is basically for annihilating life on earth. No one with a good Christian conscience would be able to vote for him.

I do understand the abortion issue, but I don’t think simply passing laws and making abortion illegal would do much to reduce abortion. Didn’t do much pre 1972 – I knew plenty of cases of women getting illegal abortions, including some relatives…it was very easy. At that time it was more a matter of the stigma attached to being an unwed mother, as well as economic considerations.

It’s pretty clear to me that progressive policies would do much more to reduce abortion by reducing economic considerations in abortion deliberations. The carrot approach, rather than the stick approach.

And there are dozens of other reasons a good Christian would not vote for Trump.
Click to expand...
I knew a wonderfully caring Presbyterian pastor yrs ago back in my hometown who was beloved by many, Presbyterians and others alike. He and the Catholic priest were best of friends. But beyond that I don’t have much experience with Presbyterianism. So I can’t comment on that part. I certainly can agree with much of the rest of what you say though with regard to the environment and that making abortion illegal will not end abortion. It will make it less safe for the health and the lives of the women who as you say will still find a way to abort. Lives of women no less sacred. As the sanctity of life encompasses their lives as well. Or does to me. In addition, I agree with what you have said about progressive policies. God bless.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Oh good! Glad you know, and I trust that you’ll share.

So, who was Blumenthal negotiating oil contracts for? Was it an American company? French? Italian? Some consortium? Who? And what was he to get for doing it and what oil fields was he working to get contracts on? Was the oil to be shipped and refined elsewhere, or was it going to be refined in Libya and shipped as products? To where and for whom?

And were any advance payments made to him, and by whom, and how much? And was there any coincidental contribution by any related party to the Clinton Foundation, or did any of the related parties pay Bill Clinton for a speech? If so, who was the related party and how much did he get?

Same with any shippers or refiners or, for that matter, commodity brokers? Blumenthal wasn’t doing that for nothing.

Was Blumenthal still on the Clinton Foundation payroll at the time of the war on Libya? If so, what was he getting paid, and to do what, exactly? And what “intelligence” did Blumenthal communicate to Hillary? What were his recommendations as to attacking Libya, and what were the foundations of his recommendations?

Which parties were being negotiated with for the repurchase of arms, and why was the Turkish government involved in Amb Stevens’ negotiations? We do know that at least some of the arms were to be shipped through Turkey, but who was the ultimate buyer and who were the middlemen? And did any of those intermediaries or the principals make any contributions to Blumenthal, the Clinton Foundation or Bill Clinton?

And who were the buyers, and who paid the money? Were the ultimate receivers the payers or was some other country or entity paying for them? Saudis, perhaps? Qatar? Turkey? They all had an interest in arming the Syrian rebels, a very big interest, and were supporting them in other ways. Those arms couldn’t have been cheap. Somebody was spending a lot of money. Who? And, of course, there was ammunition, food, boots, socks, hired mercenaries to guard those doing the dealing, all kinds of stuff. What all did we provide and who paid for it and the shipping?

Just as a minor point, whose idea was it to have rebel militia guard Amb Stevens, and why did the Brits’ warnings about them go unheeded?

Those are just preliminary questions, I’ll follow up when you have let us know the answers to these questions. Not talking points, real answers.
Click to expand...
I’m not doing the research for you. Sorry.
 
Good_Tidings said:
Too bad he didn’t feel like that sooner. That boat has already sailed.
Click to expand...
The judge’s race had nothing to do with it. It’s his membership in and support of an explicitly racist organization - La Raza - that caused Mr. Trump to question his impartiality.

Would you trust a judge who was a known member of the “Caucasian Lawyers’ Klavern” to rule impartially when the defendant is black?
 
Monkey1976 said:
The judge’s race had nothing to do with it. It’s his membership in and support of an explicitly racist organization - La Raza - that caused Mr. Trump to question his impartiality.

Would you trust a judge who was a known member of the “Caucasian Lawyers’ Klavern” to rule impartially when the defendant is black?
Click to expand...
You make a point that many Republicans make. It doesn’t make it correct. Would a radical racist risk his life to bring down Mexican cartels and have to go into hiding for a year? Why does Mr Trump bring his personal business to a presidential campaign? Also, what kind of man says he’s going to go after the judge once he is president? It’s a disgrace.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Oh good! Glad you know, and I trust that you’ll share.

So, who was Blumenthal negotiating oil contracts for? Was it an American company? French? Italian? Some consortium? Who? And what was he to get for doing it and what oil fields was he working to get contracts on? Was the oil to be shipped and refined elsewhere, or was it going to be refined in Libya and shipped as products? To where and for whom?

And were any advance payments made to him, and by whom, and how much? And was there any coincidental contribution by any related party to the Clinton Foundation, or did any of the related parties pay Bill Clinton for a speech? If so, who was the related party and how much did he get?

Same with any shippers or refiners or, for that matter, commodity brokers? Blumenthal wasn’t doing that for nothing.

Was Blumenthal still on the Clinton Foundation payroll at the time of the war on Libya? If so, what was he getting paid, and to do what, exactly? And what “intelligence” did Blumenthal communicate to Hillary? What were his recommendations as to attacking Libya, and what were the foundations of his recommendations?

Which parties were being negotiated with for the repurchase of arms, and why was the Turkish government involved in Amb Stevens’ negotiations? We do know that at least some of the arms were to be shipped through Turkey, but who was the ultimate buyer and who were the middlemen? And did any of those intermediaries or the principals make any contributions to Blumenthal, the Clinton Foundation or Bill Clinton?

And who were the buyers, and who paid the money? Were the ultimate receivers the payers or was some other country or entity paying for them? Saudis, perhaps? Qatar? Turkey? They all had an interest in arming the Syrian rebels, a very big interest, and were supporting them in other ways. Those arms couldn’t have been cheap. Somebody was spending a lot of money. Who? And, of course, there was ammunition, food, boots, socks, hired mercenaries to guard those doing the dealing, all kinds of stuff. What all did we provide and who paid for it and the shipping?

Just as a minor point, whose idea was it to have rebel militia guard Amb Stevens, and why did the Brits’ warnings about them go unheeded?

Those are just preliminary questions, I’ll follow up when you have let us know the answers to these questions. Not talking points, real answers.
Click to expand...
“Answers? Answers? We ain’t got no -------- answers!” Sounds like the Sopranos?
Wrong, its the Obama/Clinton crew.

Before my computer locked up reading the released emails - it was getting rather interesting to say the least regarding Sid Blumenthal and Hillary. He seems to be staying somewhere that precludes his accepting a visit with the FBI. There are so many, many people that have met with Hillary and Bill, and they are always being asked if they would accept a donation to the now called, Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Foundation. What a lovely little foundation that tries to do so much all over the world.

:hey_bud:
 
Good_Tidings said:
You make a point that many Republicans make. It doesn’t make it correct.
Click to expand...
Then show me where it’s wrong.
Good_Tidings said:
Would a radical racist risk his life to bring down Mexican cartels and have to go into hiding for a year?
Click to expand...
Why not? Even the KKK and MLK would agree that drugs are bad.
Good_Tidings said:
Why does Mr Trump bring his personal business to a presidential campaign?
Click to expand...
Welcome to the US election process. Once one is a candidate, there is no such thing as “personal business”.
Good_Tidings said:
Also, what kind of man says he’s going to go after the judge once he is president? It’s a disgrace.
Click to expand...
Source for that?

I’ll note that the question I asked was not actually answered: Would you trust a judge who was a known member of the “Caucasian Lawyers’ Klavern” to rule impartially when the defendant is black?
 
Monkey1976 said:
The judge’s race had nothing to do with it. It’s his membership in and support of an explicitly racist organization - La Raza - that caused Mr. Trump to question his impartiality.

Would you trust a judge who was a known member of the “Caucasian Lawyers’ Klavern” to rule impartially when the defendant is black?
Click to expand...
Yes, I would

Or are you also saying that if a judge belongs to the Knights of Columbus, they should not judge cases where one or more of the parties is Protestant? Members of an Italian American society can not judge a case involving the Mafia? Members of the Federalist society can not rule on issues that are of a liberal bent?
 
sallybutler said:
Yes, I would

Or are you also saying that if a judge belongs to the Knights of Columbus, they should not judge cases where one or more of the parties is Protestant? Members of an Italian American society can not judge a case involving the Mafia? Members of the Federalist society can not rule on issues that are of a liberal bent?
Click to expand...
Do the Knights of Columbus believe that Protestants should be driven out of the country? Do Italian American societies explicitly support the Mafia? Do Federalist society members believe liberals stole their land and believe it needs to be reconquered?

Being a member of an organization directly affiliated with La Raza is on par with being a member of an organization directly affiliated with the Black Panther Party, the Nation of Islam, or the KKK.

Still think that a judge who is a member of an organization like that would be impartial?
 
adowcday said:
I watched the debates between Hillary and Bernie, and the focus was on issues and policy, not ad hominum attacks. The contrast between the Democratic and Republican debates was stark.
Click to expand...
Very true. I remember the GOP debate that was held soon after President Obama’s SOTU speech. Watching the President was like watching the grown-up in the room, and then seeing the GOP debate was like watching all of the kids misbehaving and making a mess of the living room and not cleaning up. The contrast in tone and substance was stark.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top