Trump Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
chero23 said:
Trump said that to black voters (which ironically, it was a white audience) to vote for him, that they had nothing to lose.

He also said, that in 4 years he will get 95% of the black vote.
abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-years-95-percent-black-vote/story?id=41522886

Nobody can blame this on the liberal media, these are words coming out of Trump’s mouth.
Click to expand...
I think that Trump sounds sooo naive regarding the black vote
I think that when Trump didn’t disavow the endorsement he received by David Duke and the KKK, he alienated his opportunity to gain any significant support from the black community. Strategically speaking, that was a very poor decision. The black community has been predominantly democrat since the 1960’s and the era of the civil rights movement. Trump should have been courting the black vote from the beginning of his campaign if he had any hope of gaining any significant amount of their support to win the election. If he thinks now is the time to start wooing the African Americans, I think he’s doing far too little and much too late.
 
Millie123 said:
I think that Trump sounds sooo naive regarding the black vote
Click to expand...
This statement was especially naive:

“Look how much African-American communities have suffered under Democratic control. To those I say the following: What do you have to lose? You’re living in poverty. Your schools are no good. You have no jobs - 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?”

He makes it sound as if all black people are living in poverty, send their children to bad schools and have no jobs.
 
Thorolfr said:
This statement was especially naive:

“Look how much African-American communities have suffered under Democratic control. To those I say the following: What do you have to lose? You’re living in poverty. Your schools are no good. You have no jobs - 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?”

He makes it sound as if all black people are living in poverty, send their children to bad schools and have no jobs.
Click to expand...
Who predominantly lives in the inner cities and have looked to Democrats who keep promising things during elections only to forget about them after election day?
 
Michael68 said:
Who predominantly lives in the inner cities and have looked to Democrats who keep promising things during elections only to forget about them after election day?
Click to expand...
But republicans don’t necessarily make an effort to help out. Ok, if it is true, that democrats don’t do a thing, republicans are just as guilt b/c they don’t do anything trying to fix things.
 
Thorolfr said:
This statement was especially naive:

“Look how much African-American communities have suffered under Democratic control. To those I say the following: What do you have to lose? You’re living in poverty. Your schools are no good. You have no jobs - 58 percent of your youth is unemployed. What the hell do you have to lose?”

He makes it sound as if all black people are living in poverty, send their children to bad schools and have no jobs.
Click to expand...
Trump tells them “what do you have to lose”.

I wonder, had Clinton gone to an evangelical group and said, “what do you have to lose” how the right would of seen her comment?
 
Millie123 said:
I think that Trump sounds sooo naive regarding the black vote
I think that when Trump didn’t disavow the endorsement he received by David Duke and the KKK, he alienated his opportunity to gain any significant support from the black community. Strategically speaking, that was a very poor decision. The black community has been predominantly democrat since the 1960’s and the era of the civil rights movement. Trump should have been courting the black vote from the beginning of his campaign if he had any hope of gaining any significant amount of their support to win the election. If he thinks now is the time to start wooing the African Americans, I think he’s doing far too little and much too late.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not so naive.

Why not take a crack at a huge “mission field” when it might be ripe for the reaping?

This is light years better than the “Obama and Hillary founded ISIS” line he kept repeating last week.

Not as funny (for those who enjoyed that raw meat), but better, IMO.

With 95% of the black population voting Democratic and even the usually left bias media showing how little positive results have been gained in many neighborhoods … Trump has a lot of ways to win. Suppose he doesn’t get 50% … suppose he gets 20% (that’s four times as many as Romney got, and could tip some states red). OR suppose he’s just convincing enough to get many of the RECORD number of blacks who came out for Obama … to stay home on election day. 🤷

I thought he made a strong, direct appeal to that community without pandering and promising to “get” another group on their behalf. He summed up how much they’d supported the Democrats in many cities … and how little they’d gotten back … with the rejoinder

" … what the hell have you got to lose …" (by voting for me … Make America Great Again etc., etc.).

Ignoring David Duke might also be more prudent than calling attention to him too come to think of it.

There are some very intelligent, well spoken black leaders who are supporting Trump (or touting the GOP) this cycle. There’s a good chance that that 95 - 5% voting deficit will change in Trump’s direction this time I think.

He should try that “What have you got to lose …” line out here in California in fact.

If Trump could win un-winnable California … inevitable Hillary would have trouble winning enough other red states to hit that 270 electoral college votes she needs to win.

In 1994 and 2008 “dark blue” California saw conservative landslides in passing Propositions 189 (on immigration) and 8 (on Defense of Marriage) … that got overturned in the courts. * < That can’t happen in a Presidential election and the electoral college.
*
Arnold Schwarzenegger’s election as Governor surprised some too (and Trump might have some of that mysterious ***celebrity effect *** that sometimes swings elections). I’m still processing that he won the GOP nomination by so much.

I DID think his departing line that HE was going to get " … 95% of the black vote (in the future) … believe me!" was … uh … *breathtaking. * Or maybe ***ISIS founder ***level funny again. :whistle:
 
chero23 said:
But republicans don’t necessarily make an effort to help out. Ok, if it is true, that democrats don’t do a thing, republicans are just as guilt b/c they don’t do anything trying to fix things.
Click to expand...
That’s not true.

Where the Republicans exist, they help a lot.

Mayor Giuliani did a fabulous job turning New York City around.

Rudy Giuliani’s policies brought down crime by 76 percent.

washingtonpost.com/video/politics/trump-rudy-giulianis-policies-brought-down-crime-by-76-percent/2016/08/19/799b0c02-65f3-11e6-b4d8-33e931b5a26d_video.html
 
While it didn’t receive alot of coverage from the mainstream media, several Trump supporters were assaulted by anarchists as they left a fundraiser in Minneapolis last night.
 
Padres1969 said:
True but Breitbart is now the new Campaign CEO.
Click to expand...
My experience of the Brietbart universe is that it is entirely stitched together by conspiracy theories. No big surprise that the standard-bearer of the Republican Party and this universe found each other, I guess. Trump was the biggest Birther around just a few short years ago.
 
Trump Said He’d Throw Orlando Shooter’s Dad, A US Citizen, Out Of Country
Click to expand...
Donald Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that he would force even U.S. citizens found to have extremist views to leave the country as president.
Click to expand...
Hannity asked Trump what he would do about individuals like Seddique Mateen, the Afghanistan-born father of the man who killed dozens in an Orlando nightclub in June and has criticized the U.S.
Click to expand...
“What do we do when we find somebody that has extreme views?” Hannity asked in a town hall that was taped Tuesday but aired Wednesday so that it wouldn’t interfere with the live broadcast of Trump’s speech in Milwaukee. “Do we throw them the hell out?
Click to expand...
“I’d throw him out,” Trump said of Mateen, who is a naturalized U.S. citizen. “If you look at him, I’d throw him out.”
Click to expand...
Interesting.
 
Thorolfr said:
I got a good laugh this morning when I saw that there is an opinion piece in the Washington Post endorsing Donald Trump by Jerry Falwell, Jr. , the president of Liberty University with the title, “Trump is the Churchillian leader we need”. The idea that Donald Trump is in any way comparable to Winston Churchill seems a little silly.

Not only did Winston Churchill prove his mettle as a leader during World War II, he also had a long history of public service before becoming prime minister, having served a number of years as a member of parliament and as First Lord of the Admiralty and Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Click to expand...
Well, if you want to ignore a great deal of history, you might be led to the conclusion that Churchill had a long and glorious career as member of parliament. The reality is a little different than you suppose.

A few of the more controversial aspects of his years as member of parliament include:
  1. Drafting legislation to amend the Mental Deficiency Act of 1913, which would have forced sterilization of anyone considered “feeble-minded.”
  2. Preventing a fire brigade from extinguishing the fire in a house where two robbers were trapped, justifying his decision by claiming it would be better to “let the house burn down” than risk the lives of fire fighters trying to rescuing the occupants. The robbers died in the fire.
  3. As minister of war and air and colonial secretary, Churchill ordered air power used against the Kurdish people in Iraq and suggested the use poisonous gas to put down the rebellion.
  4. After Churchill rejoined the Conservative Party in 1922 and subsequently lost his seat in 1929, he was generally considered a right-wing extremist and “out of touch” with the people.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Well, if you want to ignore a great deal of history, you might be led to the conclusion that Churchill had a long and glorious career as member of parliament. The reality is a little different than you suppose.

A few of the more controversial aspects of his years as member of parliament include:
  1. Drafting legislation to amend the Mental Deficiency Act of 1913, which would have forced sterilization of anyone considered “feeble-minded.”
  2. Preventing a fire brigade from extinguishing the fire in a house where two robbers were trapped, justifying his decision by claiming it would be better to “let the house burn down” than risk the lives of fire fighters trying to rescuing the occupants. The robbers died in the fire.
  3. As minister of war and air and colonial secretary, Churchill ordered air power used against the Kurdish people in Iraq and suggested the use poisonous gas to put down the rebellion.
  4. After Churchill rejoined the Conservative Party in 1922 and subsequently lost his seat in 1929, he was generally considered a right-wing extremist and “out of touch” with the people.
Click to expand...
So maybe Jerry Falwell Jr. is thinking of Winston Churchill’s flaws when comparing Mr. Trump to him, because I doubt that Mr. Trump has hardly any of the redeeming qualities and known leadership abilities of the British leader. 😉
 
Thorolfr said:
So maybe Jerry Falwell Jr. is thinking of Winston Churchill’s flaws when comparing Mr. Trump to him, because I doubt that Mr. Trump has hardly any of the redeeming qualities and known leadership abilities of the British leader. 😉
Click to expand...
The redeeming qualities and known leadership of the “British leader” didn’t make their appearance until the British leader was put to the test. If the Brits had gone with their initial impressions of Churchill, the world would be in a very different state.

So the question revolves around whether Trump, like Churchill, should be given the opportunity to prove himself, as Churchill eventually did, or whether he shouldn’t even be given the opportunity because of the “flaws” which were similarly apparent in Churchill early on?

Churchill was given the opportunity. You are advocating not giving Trump the opportunity, but going, rather, with someone who has not shown her mettle but has, instead, consistently shown a predilection for using political power as a source of lucre for herself and those close to her. It doesn’t appear that she is even interested in perusing her “redeeming qualities” unless there is money to be made from those.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Churchill was given the opportunity. You are advocating not giving Trump the opportunity, but going, rather, with someone who has not shown her mettle but has, instead, consistently shown a predilection for using political power as a source of lucre for herself and those close to her. It doesn’t appear that she is even interested in perusing her “redeeming qualities” unless there is money to be made from those.
Click to expand...
So why assume that Mr. Trump might be a great leader in spite of his many flaws, but not also assume the same thing about Mrs. Clinton?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top