Trump Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeanne_S said:
The alternative is frightening :eek:
Click to expand...
I should add, the thought of Trump ‘renegotiating’ our trading agreements and pulling out of NATO are very frightening to me; the first action would start a trade war, and the second one most likely a real war!
 
tomarin said:
I guess it’s a question of which scenario you find more frightening, ultimately. I think of her more as a mediocrity than a failure. I regard him as an unpredictable person who often doesn’t seem to understand how things work outside of the real estate business. He runs businesses, but they go bankrupt; a lot of times when one aspect of his business empire is in trouble he makes it clear that he only rented his name to it and had nothing to do with actually running it (as with the casinos in Atlantic City). It may be true but it seems at odds with the way he routinely boasts about his business acumen (it also seems somewhat irresponsible). So I can’t say I’m a believer in his ability to run things, least of all something as complicated as the federal government, which he seems to not quite grasp the nuances of (the balance of powers).

He just seems to me more like a megalomaniac than anything else; at least Hillary is a known quantity, for all her flaws. I don’t relish the idea of voting for her, but I can’t in good conscience vote for someone as shallow and self-involved as Trump either. It’s quite a pickle we’re in!
Click to expand...
So basically,what you are saying is the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know! What a crazy election cycle.:eek:
 
tomarin said:
I should add, the thought of Trump ‘renegotiating’ our trading agreements and pulling out of NATO are very frightening to me; the first action would start a trade war, and the second one most likely a real war!
Click to expand...
Why is renegotiating trade deals frightening? Happens all the time in other contexts and (for all I know) in international trade as well. There is no particular reason to expect a business deal to remain cast in stone forever.

Renegotiating does not mean complete abandonment. Let’s take a small example. American beef producers, starting in 2017, will have to get veterinarians’ prescriptions for antibiotic use on cattle. Basically, that means not using antibiotics as a growth stimulant, which they are. Concern with the environment and the diet have caused this regulatory measure. But Mexican producers are not subject to it at all. This gives them a competitive advantage and, if it’s truly a hazard, then we shouldn’t be allowing Mexican beef to be imported unless Mexico can reliably demonstrate that it is complying with the very same non-use.

But Mexico isn’t required to do it, and there is nothing that compels Mexico to do it. Now, I’m not an international trade negotiator, but I think there is surely a way to renegotiate that part of NAFTA in order to eliminate importation of antibiotic-laden beef into this country.

Not everything has to be renegotiated in order to get a fairer deal put together.
 
Peter_Plato said:
If Americans have anything to be embarrassed by as a nation it is the fact that the wife of a former President, while selected to be Secretary of State, habitually traded state secrets via her email server and indiscriminately sold political favours to whomever would pony up the requisite cash irrespective of what would be done with the information and favours she sold to them.

The fact that Americans are very likely on the verge of electing her in as their next president when she flagrantly did her best to profit obscenely from the last political post she held. You are right, Americans SHOULD be embarrassed, but not about Trump playing the role of the small child pointing out the stark nakedness of the incoming POTUS; they ought to be embarrassed about the Empress parading about, with all her “parts” hanging out, but obsequiously hailed for pretending to be robed in splendor. It is the people, not Trump, who “did this to themselves,” or, at least, about to.
Click to expand...
She ‘traded state secrets’ I’m quite sure if that were true or at least provable she would have to be charged with treason
 
Republicans who have held high office can see he’s unfit for office
 
_Abyssinia said:
If he incited violence that would be reprehensible but where one person sees incitement to violence, another does not. Seeing some kind of incitement for violence into Donald Trump’s comments is a matter of interpretation into his comments.

Paul Ryan, who has his fair share of criticism for past remarks from Donald Trump said according to this, “It sounds like it was a joke gone bad. I hope he’ll clear it up.”

Trump himself has has clarified what he meant:

twitter.com/rubycramer/status/763140769377087488

Did the New York Daily News say anything when Joe Biden said in 2008 regarding Barack Obama, “If he tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem,”

Did the New York Daily News say anything when Barack Obama in 2008 said, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”

Jake Tapper said earlier this what that that was a a quote from a film, and it means being unprepared… But how are many people supposed to have known that?

If Trump incited violence that would be totally wrong, but it’s not definitive that he did.
Click to expand...
Well said, 👍
 
Peter_Plato said:
Straining out gnats but swallowing a camel is an appropriate depiction.
Click to expand...
So outrage over Trump joking about assassination of his political opponent is “straining a gnat”, huh? The biblical quote that comes to my mind “If your light (meaning the moral sense) is darkness, how great will that darkness be?”
 
Al_Moritz said:
Indeed.

See also this link:

Anyone who thinks Trump was “just joking” about shooting Clinton is missing the point
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting this. That has to be one of the most well thought out set of tweets I’ve seen. He makes a very good point. I’ve never been comfortable with the idea that joking about anything is fine. Personally I do think he was joking* but I’m not too sure about some of his supporters. They may not get the joke.

What I mean by this is that he didn’t think it through. I doubt it was something that was planned ahead of time.
 
truetofaith said:
Trump was making a sarcastic joke but liberals are too uptight for HUMOR! 😛
Click to expand...
I don’t think you know what “sarcasm” means, but he may have been making a joke. Making a joke about the assassination of a political opponent used to be considered off-limits. But I understand that nothing is off-limits for Trump or his supporters.

What happens when President Trump makes a “sarcastic joke” about going to war with Iran?
 
Expatreprocedit said:
I don’t think you know what “sarcasm” means, but he may have been making a joke. Making a joke about the assassination of a political opponent used to be considered off-limits. But I understand that nothing is off-limits for Trump or his supporters.

What happens when President Trump makes a “sarcastic joke” about going to war with Iran?
Click to expand...
This is the serious concern of course. He is so easily offended and takes it all personally. Y
 
J_Peterson said:
Thank you for posting this. That has to be one of the most well thought out set of tweets I’ve seen. He makes a very good point. I’ve never been comfortable with the idea that joking about anything is fine. Personally I do think he was joking* but I’m not too sure about some of his supporters. They may not get the joke.

What I mean by this is that he didn’t think it through. I doubt it was something that was planned ahead of time.
Click to expand...
Pretty serious condemnation of “his supporters”. They might actually be smart enough to know the obvious; that it was not an invitation to kill anybody. Come to think of it, they might be the smartest of all in rejecting an obvious misrepresentation of what he said.

And the suggestion that “his supporters” might kill somebody thinking Trump was suggesting that to them is incredibly derogatory. But then “…people who cling to their guns and their bibles…” was pretty derogatory and pretty much tells people how despised they are by the Democrat elites.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
Right before this he states that she wants to abolish the second amendment.

The supreme court can’t do that.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court can’t “abolish the 2nd amendment” however, the Supreme Court and determine what the 2nd amendment was meant for.

It could determine that people are not allowed to have certain kinds of guns. For example: if Hillary’s team decided that people can only have rifles and shotguns for hunting and all other guns are illegal, a lawsuit would happen. A leftist Supreme Court would most likely agree with Hillary and say it’s ok to limit the guns to just for hunting.

The main purpose of the 2nd amendment wasn’t just to provide people with the means to hunt and protect their homes from criminals and wild animals; it was also meant to protect the people from a future tyrannical government.

If you take the guns away, or limit them to non-practical guns, you reduce the ability of revolution. While the founders hoped another revolution wasn’t necessary, they believed in the people’s right to revolution against tierney. So they built into the Bill of Rights the 2nd Amendment so the people could fight against the army the same way the colonies did against the British Army. But if you take away the guns, it makes it much harder for the people to wage a revolution.

In order for the Left to push more radical laws on the people, they need to take the guns away first. This is their plan. Not everyone is on it, but the radicals who want to impose communism know they need to take the guns before forcing a communist government on Americans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top