M
Michael68
Guest
Nice try. FEC has said something was wrong with his mic
- Status
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Then he should have complained at the time and not wait until scientific polling showed he lost and blame his poor performance on the mic after the fact.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
The truth, concise. There is no way he would be able to lead the nation, and he certainly shouldn’t have access to the nuclear codes.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
There’s an article in the New York Times about Mr. Trump that talks about his cruel side:
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Obviously she and Obama cut some kind of deal. The powers that be decided it was time America had their first Black president before it was time for the first woman president.
S
sallybutler
Guest
The powers that be in this case being the voters.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Well if that were the case maybe the powers will now get both. But unlike 2016 when Clinton won the primary vote by a huge margin, in 2008 Obama had more votes than Clinton unless Michigan is counted where Obama did not appear on the ballot. So I’m quite suspicious of any deal.
factcheck.org/2008/06/clinton-and-the-popular-vote/
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
Nope! The powers that be are the ones who decided Hillary was going to be the democrat nominee and Bernie Sanders never had a chance.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
They will resort to anything to make that happen.
E
Expatreprocedit
Guest
It’s hard to decide which adjective is most fitting for Trump: churlish or superficial.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
But Clinton won more votes in the primaries than what Sanders did. There were no “powers” that forced more Democrats to vote for Clinton than Sanders. More Democratic voters just felt that Clinton would be a better candidate and a better President. I suspect that Sanders was perceived to be too far to the left even for many Democrats or they felt that someone that far left could not win a general election. Considering that Sanders calls himself a “democratic socialist,” that word “socialist” would have been a hard sell for him in a general election in the US.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
I decided to do so and no power tried to stop me from voting for Sanders. The voters had their say and Clinton won the popular vote by a landslide. By over 3 million votes and a 55%-45% nationwide tally.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Exactly.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
So why did Debbie Wasserman Schultz lose her job and why was there a lawsuit filed on behalf of Bernie Sanders voters?
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Donald Trump:
fortune.com/2016/09/26/presidential-debate-transcript/
By all intentions, these are well respected individuals that have given these endorsements. For all these people to have given their endorsement to Donald Trump, with all the expertise these individuals have in regards to military and national security, I think it makes the argument that Donald Trump can not be trusted with nuclear, difficult. I don’t think all these individuals would give their endorsement if they didn’t think Donald Trump could be trusted with nuclear.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
No doubt there were some embarrassing comments in the DNC emails that came out (and Ms. Wasserman Shultz lost her job as a result), but there is no real evidence that anything the DNC did had a significant impact on the outcome of the primaries.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Ms Wasserman Shultz also won her primary against a Sanders backed opponent. Again the voters were the deciding power.
Just as the will of voters prevailed in the Presidential nomination process. As hard as some might try, it simply can’t be argued otherwise when the winner received over 3 million more votes and received 55% of the primary vote. 
T
Tomdstone
Guest
I wouldn’t trust Hillary with anything, including nuclear. How much trust do you have in Hillary to protect the life of an unborn child?
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
There have been all kinds of breakdown of judgment and willful blindness around Donald Trump’s candidacy. Even miltary leaders are not immune from that. They are also not immune from breakdown of proper judgment on other issues. The generals wanted to militarily confront the Sovjet Union during the Cuban missle crisis, President Kennedy refused. If he hadn’t, we all might not be here to have this discussion. A few years later, military leaders consistently made bad judgments about Vietnam. We know how that turned out.
More than 80 military leaders and national security experts have endorsed Hillary Clinton, with one prominent reason not just being that Clinton would be competent on national security, but that, as explicitly stated, Trump would be a menace to national security. In my view, they are right.
A
Al_Moritz
Guest
Washington Post Editorial Board:
The clear and present danger of Donald Trump
IF YOU know that Donald Trump is ignorant, unprepared and bigoted, but are thinking of voting for him anyway because you doubt he could do much harm — this editorial is for you.
Your support of the Republican presidential nominee may be motivated by dislike of the Democratic alternative, disgust with the Washington establishment or a desire to send a message in favor of change. You may not approve of everything Mr. Trump has had to say about nuclear weapons, torture or mass deportations, but you doubt he could implement anything too radical. Congress, the courts, the Constitution — these would keep Mr. Trump in check, you think.
Well, think again. A President Trump could, unilaterally, change this country to its core. By remaking U.S. relations with other nations, he could fundamentally reshape the world, too.
Of course, in many areas Mr. Trump would not have to act unilaterally. If he won, chances are Republicans would maintain control of Congress. GOP majorities there would be enthusiastic participants in much of what Mr. Trump would like to do: gutting environmental and workplace regulations, slashing taxes so that the debt skyrockets, appointing Supreme Court justices who oppose a woman’s right to have an abortion. In areas where Republican officeholders such as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) imagine themselves acting as a brake on Mr. Trump’s worst instincts, skepticism is in order. If these supposed leaders are too craven to oppose Mr. Trump as a candidate, knowing the danger he presents, why should we expect them to stand up to the bully once he was fully empowered?
But say they did — or imagine, also improbably, that Mr. Trump faced a Democratic Congress. The president would appoint officers — a budget director, an attorney general, a CIA chief — who were disposed to let him have his way. And in the U.S. system, the scope for executive action is, as we will lay out in a series of editorials next week, astonishingly broad. At times we have questioned President Obama’s sweeping use of those powers even when we agreed with his goals, such as his broad grant of amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants. Mr. Trump could push it much further.
Could he tear up long-standing international agreements? Round up and expel millions of longtime U.S. residents? Impose giant tariffs? Waterboard terrorist suspects? Yes, yes, yes and yes — all without so much as an if-you-please to Congress. Could he bar the media from covering him? To a large extent, yes. Could he use the government to help his businesses and, as he has threatened, injure those he perceives as enemies? Yes, he could.
Given Mr. Trump’s ever-evolving positions, and the apparent absence of fundamental beliefs other than in his own brilliance, it would be foolish to make flat predictions of how he would behave. Nor do we underestimate the resilience of the U.S. system or the devotion that U.S. government workers bring to the rule of law.
But it would be reckless not to consider the damage Mr. Trump might wreak. Some of that damage would ensue more from who he is than what he does. His racism and disparagement of women could empower extremists who are now on the margins of American politics, while his lies and conspiracy theories could legitimize discourse that until now has been relegated to the fringe. But his scope for action should not be underestimated, either. In our upcoming editorials, we will examine some arenas where Mr. Trump has been relatively clear about his intentions — and where presidential powers are mighty. We hope you will read them before you vote.
The clear and present danger of Donald Trump
IF YOU know that Donald Trump is ignorant, unprepared and bigoted, but are thinking of voting for him anyway because you doubt he could do much harm — this editorial is for you.
Your support of the Republican presidential nominee may be motivated by dislike of the Democratic alternative, disgust with the Washington establishment or a desire to send a message in favor of change. You may not approve of everything Mr. Trump has had to say about nuclear weapons, torture or mass deportations, but you doubt he could implement anything too radical. Congress, the courts, the Constitution — these would keep Mr. Trump in check, you think.
Well, think again. A President Trump could, unilaterally, change this country to its core. By remaking U.S. relations with other nations, he could fundamentally reshape the world, too.
Of course, in many areas Mr. Trump would not have to act unilaterally. If he won, chances are Republicans would maintain control of Congress. GOP majorities there would be enthusiastic participants in much of what Mr. Trump would like to do: gutting environmental and workplace regulations, slashing taxes so that the debt skyrockets, appointing Supreme Court justices who oppose a woman’s right to have an abortion. In areas where Republican officeholders such as House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (Wis.) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) imagine themselves acting as a brake on Mr. Trump’s worst instincts, skepticism is in order. If these supposed leaders are too craven to oppose Mr. Trump as a candidate, knowing the danger he presents, why should we expect them to stand up to the bully once he was fully empowered?
But say they did — or imagine, also improbably, that Mr. Trump faced a Democratic Congress. The president would appoint officers — a budget director, an attorney general, a CIA chief — who were disposed to let him have his way. And in the U.S. system, the scope for executive action is, as we will lay out in a series of editorials next week, astonishingly broad. At times we have questioned President Obama’s sweeping use of those powers even when we agreed with his goals, such as his broad grant of amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants. Mr. Trump could push it much further.
Could he tear up long-standing international agreements? Round up and expel millions of longtime U.S. residents? Impose giant tariffs? Waterboard terrorist suspects? Yes, yes, yes and yes — all without so much as an if-you-please to Congress. Could he bar the media from covering him? To a large extent, yes. Could he use the government to help his businesses and, as he has threatened, injure those he perceives as enemies? Yes, he could.
Given Mr. Trump’s ever-evolving positions, and the apparent absence of fundamental beliefs other than in his own brilliance, it would be foolish to make flat predictions of how he would behave. Nor do we underestimate the resilience of the U.S. system or the devotion that U.S. government workers bring to the rule of law.
But it would be reckless not to consider the damage Mr. Trump might wreak. Some of that damage would ensue more from who he is than what he does. His racism and disparagement of women could empower extremists who are now on the margins of American politics, while his lies and conspiracy theories could legitimize discourse that until now has been relegated to the fringe. But his scope for action should not be underestimated, either. In our upcoming editorials, we will examine some arenas where Mr. Trump has been relatively clear about his intentions — and where presidential powers are mighty. We hope you will read them before you vote.
- Status