Hillary and Trump

[Wells]

.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Wells

[ralis]

I have yet to see any proof for these claims.

 

 

Watch what he says in the myriad videos that are available on YouTube and other sites online, not infowars. If you care to participate in my new thread you are welcome to join in. 'Why Trump Won'.

[Wells]

.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Wells

[dawei]

Celebrities Getting Cold Feet About Leaving the U.S. After Trump's Victory

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/11/12/celebrities-getting-cold-feet-about-leaving-us-after-trumps-victory

 

"Before Donald Trump's stunning election victory, dozens of celebrities - including Chelsea Handler, Whoopi Goldberg and Amy Schumer - said they would leave the country if he won the presidency.

Now, they're not so sure..."

 

The entire election cycle is not just full of drama but lots of BS.... from every possible corner.  One has to realize and accept it on some level else one is little more than having their head stuck in the sand.

 

Who truly believed these celebs were serious enough to truly keep their word? 

In fact, maybe a lot of younger folks who look up to these celebs as model citizens with integrity and honesty and willing to risk living in the US for a greater cause....   NOT.

 

So character flaws abound in everyone and it is very telling how much we are seeing that in the Dems now that HC lost.

 

This is not to excuse or diminish the point about DT... but to be fair, we could find lots of issues on both sides of the aisle. 

 

 

[redcairo]

Well the left clearly votes for personality and social issues, and the right for constitution and economic issues, I know that's a generalization but it seems to be so.

 

The left made a huge effort to focus on his assumed personality failings, backed up by a number of public comments on his part, then exponentially increased both by putting some of them out of context and overvictimizing on the rest, sure that having proved he was the devil everyone would reject him. But they already had those voters. It's preaching to the choir, marketing to existing customers.

 

People on the right that I know (and I know a lot given where I live. All my workmates online around the country are lib, the people local are greatly cons) could look at a person, determine they were a total jerk they wouldn't have a beer with and wouldn't let marry into the family, but still observe that they got a job done and might accomplish what they need to hire. It's just a difference in priorities in a major way.

 

I have promoted people who clearly disliked me and were even competitive with me solely because I recognized that they were competent and that's what mattered, it was a business decision more than a personal decision. Voting is a government decision -- what best serves the constitution, infrastructure, integrity of government and security of the nation are my first priorities. Whether someone is an obnoxious cretin comes second in consideration.

 

Had there been a vastly less obnoxious cretin running against Trump who had many of the same platform issues he promoted, and who was not campaigning on a promise to gut the Bill of Rights like HRC was, maybe the left would have inspired me. But we only have the choices we have in any given election. I didn't vote for either Trump or Clinton but actually feel bad about that in retrospect, and after reconsidering his 100 day plan. It has issues and it'll be a miracle if the gov't itself lets him do even a fraction of it, but it seems a sincere and really important effort.

 

RC

Edited November 13, 2016 by redcairo

[redcairo]

I watched a lot of Trump videos from a lot of sources and I saw no hints whatsoever of any of these characteristics

 

Since I always assume most people are rational (which keeps turning out to be wrong), I have kept assuming that I must have just missed a lot of stuff. Now that the election is over, and I've been ill so it's kinda like, I feel crappy I might as well watch politics ha, I've been looking for video of the various "horrible things" DJT said that were advertised during HRC's campaign.

 

I'm finding a lot of things taken wildly out of context. For example if in the process of an outright fight with/about someone specific, he would say, that person is a slob, the claim would be, "D-T said that women are slobs!" because that person happened to be a woman. Several of the 'insults about women' attributed to him are off the cuff comments he made about an individual which were promptly made into something he said broadly about the entire gender of womanhood, which is ridiculous.

 

I don't know anybody who has never in their life, when irate at someone they had cause to dislike, not said something negative about them or dissed them with some term of reference. Most the people I know use far harsher and more epithet-laced wording than he does.

 

He did say numerous things about individual women and most were demeaning in terms of what they looked like. Some I found amusing, and not so much injust as too horribly honest, such as:

 

 ...in November 1992, Trump said that German gold-medal winning Olympic ice skater Katarina Witt was: "Wonderful looking while on the ice but up close and personal, she could only be described as attractive if you like a woman with a bad complexion who is built like a linebacker."

 

His personal relationship with women romantically seems to be partly as a mentor, and to some degree he keeps them in a degree of designed dependence -- but they become independent as part of his interaction with them, which is to say they grow and change and become successful -- saying it feels a little like a project or buiding and at that point he is done, and it's a little sad. I actually understood that -- I suspect he is simply more conscious of this process than most people, but I know many women and men both who operate like that to some degree with other people romantically.

 

He is quoted as saying -- in the context of some to-other-men offhand communications -- things like "you have to treat them like s****." I remember actually crying when I read Crowley's commentary on treating women like dogs when I was younger, not because I hated him for it, but because I recognized that humans are animals, and this goes for both men and women not just women, and that humans really do respond to this sort of thing in that way (animal training) and it was just so sad to realize we are not nearly as gloriously above the animal kingdom as we'd like to think. (Of course we hate anybody who recognizes that.) As for women -- read any good pick-up artist book and you'll see the sync with some of his comments. Men who go through a lot of women don't so much say these things because they are horrible -- they say these things because they are experienced, and sometimes the truth just happens to be horrible, though obviously nothing applies to every person ever. It is not for no reason that there are whole cultural memes about why woman friend-zone nice guys and sleep with jerks.

 

One thing I found repeated in a few articles was this: "D-T joked about dating girls under 17." What he actually said was in some humor

...said he'd promised his daughter, Ivanka, that he'd never date anyone younger than her: "I have a deal with her. She’s 17 and doing great ― Ivanka. She made me promise, swear to her that I would never date a girl younger than her," Trump said. "So as she grows older, the field is getting very limited." At the time, Trump was dating 29-year-old Melania, who would become his third wife. He was 53.

 

Some people have no sense of humor.

 

He is also well known for being extremely supportive and flattering of his daughter in many ways including her beauty -- she worked as a model and made a ton of money, which he referenced (and was then insulted for the allegedly creepy reference to his daughter having 'a great figure') and then quoted with much hysteria about this:

TV: What would you do if Playboy put Ivanka on the cover of the magazine?

Ivanka: This is going to be an interesting answer!

TV: See he doesn't even want you to have a drink, I know it, so --

Donald: It would be really disappointing -- not really. -- but it would depend on what was inside the magazine.

TV: So if she posed, it would be fine, but if they put her picture on --

Donald: Yeah but it depends on what goes inside the magazine.

TV2: Well that's her (no idea who she's talking about here - rc) gripe, that's this girl's gripe, people "assume" there will be nude photos --

Donald: You do assume that with Playboy.

TV: But if there weren't, you wouldn't have an issue then. If they were using her --

Donald: I don't think Ivanka would do that inside the magazine, although she does have a very nice figure. I've said that if Ivanka weren't my daughter perhaps I'd be dating her.

(Everybody laughs. Then TV says "Stop it. That's so weird!" more laughter, "You know, you are a sick --")

Donald: Is that terrible?

TV2: You're known for saying outrageous things --

Donald: Is that terrible?

TV2: Who are you, Woody Allen?

{much laughter, from everyone including Trump, then applause, then he taps her for attention and says laughing:}

Donald: That's very good!  {meaning her joke}

 

I guess if you're backseat driving things it could seem inappropriate but it was literally marketed as "joking about incest" in a way that is in my view totally injust. {Woody Allen was reported by a judge in an investigation to have fondled (and 'looked at naked') his 7 year old adoptive daughter.} He was on TV and trying to make light of what to ME was actually an inappropriate reference on TV2's part, more than his.

 

He was dissed for having said in his book, because he was "comparing women to buildings":

 

Beauty and elegance, whether in a woman, a building, or a work of art, is not just superficial or something pretty to see.

 

And that's on the list of BAD things he said. Go figure.

 

Many of the things he's attacked for were said a> before the campaign and b> in the "shock jock radio" setting with Howard Stern, which is a "say outrageous controversial stuff" kind of environment frankly. Taking stuff from the past and from that environment and acting as if he said this on the campaign trail (how inappropriate!) is itself disingenuous.

 

Sometimes though it doesn't matter what you say, you burn for it. Howard Stern asks if he's ever "reduced himself" to "sleeping with a fat woman." (Howard you jerk! - rc) In response, DJT said he is actually attracted to women who are a bit chunky. He was attacked for referring to a woman's size like that.

 

He's said worse -- Howard got him talking about women's breasts, he said he'd been with women who had 'terrible boob jobs' and 'pancake tits' and that he thought any woman who had a breast reduction was insane. Not surprisingly that got press ad nauseum.

 

He was accused of calling women 'gold diggers' in response to his comments, when asked, on actor Anne Hathaway, who married an extremely successful man, but then left him following his publicized "financial and legal troubles." He said, "So when he had plenty of money, she liked him. But then after that, not as good, right?"  I personally have no problem with him saying that. Maybe that wasn't the cause, but for a rich man, seeing that a young beautiful starlet marries an older rich guy then abandons him when he's not doing so well anymore is hardly a novel observation. Calling her, or calling women, "gold diggers" may be implied there but to me accusing him of this for a comment in response to a question like that is just unfair.

 

Some of his comments that got lots of "applied to women" as opposed to an individual were about Rosie O'Donnell, that he said is, "...disgusting, both inside and out. If you take a look at her, she's a slob. How does she even get on television? If I were running The View, I'd fire Rosie. I'd look her right in that fat, ugly face of hers and say, 'Rosie, you're fired.' We're all a little chubby but Rosie's just worse than most of us. But it's not the chubbiness - Rosie is a very unattractive person, both inside and out." Well he clearly despises the woman but that doesn't make me think he hates the entire gender.

 

He allegedly insulted the LGBT movement by saying, "Rosie's a person who's very lucky to have her girlfriend. And she better be careful or I'll send one of my friends over to pick up her girlfriend, why would she stay with Rosie if she had another choice?"  It was assumed he was referring to a man not a woman as 'the friend' and that he was implying a woman would only be with another woman if a man didn't want her. I think that's reading a whole lot into something he didn't say. And again this was part of a brief but harsh rant about an individual. Not a commentary on gayness.

 

In 2011 during a court proceeding the opposing female attorney said she had to take a break to breastfeed her 3 month old infant. (Why she would volunteer the reason, and/or why she would not have a solution for this -- I used a breast pump ahead of time and my husband fed my baby if I were not available -- is beyond me. - rc) DT's legal team objected to the timing of the break (perhaps it seemed too convenient given the situation) and she pulled out her breast pump and apparently there was some argument about all of it. Eventually DT walked out of the room telling the woman she was disgusting.

 

Why he said that is unclear, he doesn't dispute any of it at all in fact, but this was promoted as "DJT says breastfeeding is disgusting."  Really? A family man like that, and who openly loves big breasts on women? -- ha, I don't assume he thinks that at all. There is no more detailed context that I could find, than what I provided, on what he said or why. Only a couple factoids in a larger discussion within a larger issue. But you see what I mean about how every possible thing from every point in his highly public history is basically removed from most context, and then overapplied generally to "everyone" not just one person or one situational moment, and then used as the alleged basis for why he is so horrible.

 

He's an overmacho jerk sometimes, show me a highly aggressive highly successful man who is not. I'm sure they exist I've just never met one. A pronounced sexuality, tendency to be critical even verbally, and focus on physical appearance has always come with those traits with the men I've known, for whatever reason.

 

He owned multiple "beauty pageants." The contestants are said to have "complained that Trump consistently objectified women." Bwahahahaha!  Women in a beauty pageant complain that a man is objectifying women? Are they not doing this themselves by even BEING in that kind of thing? What the heck?! Mahsa Saeidi-Azcuy says: So much of the boardroom discussion concerned the appearance of the female contestant - discussing the female contestants' looks - who he found to be hot. He asked the men to rate the women - he went down the line and asked the guys, 'Who's the most beautiful on the women’s team?'" -- oh brother. Of course he wanted to know their top choices of candidates beauty personally. It's a pageant about beauty. Their views likely reflect the views of future watchers to some degree. Of course they discussed the contestants. I've had board meetings where we discussed our products in the same way, they weren't people but they definitely came up in discussion, that's usually how these things work. It's like every possible attempt was made to "find" a reason to say this guy was horrible --

 

-- and make no mistake he said plenty of bonehead things on his own --

 

-- but the "Help" given making him look bad via lack of context, over-offense, invented offense, broadly-applied out of context offense, and more, is really just ridiculous.

 

He is essentially a rock star as far as women throwing themselves at him goes, and some of his comments reflect this.

 

He was blamed for "not asking why so many sex assaults go unreported or so many men are not brought to justice", just because he tweeted this:

 

26,000 unreported sexual assaults in the military -- only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together?

If anything it seems to me he was more on the side of women in that statement, but of course if he didn't write a whole term paper on the victimized woes of women then he isn't sympathetic "enough" and is said to be blaming rape not on rapists but on the mere fact that people were living together. Again, a lot of assumption about something he didn't even say.

 

He referred to a very harsh, out-for-blood female interviewer a bimbo after the fact, and at another point in referring to the interview said "...you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever." This was held up as an example of him saying that the interviewer being 'tough on him' was merely because she was on the rag, or menstruating. He said that wasn't what he meant at all. You won't be surprised to learn the feminists don't believe him. 

 

He pretty much wiped out a huge chunk of women's votes with:

 

...said he has "evolved" on the issue of abortion. He was pro-choice for years before changing his position and backing a ban. He believes the Supreme Court ruling legalising abortion should be overturned and that individual states should be allowed to ban it. His campaign said he believes abortion should be legal only in instances of rape, incest or when the life of the mother was at stake.

 

His VP is religiously rabid about it so I imagine that was his compromise, but even if true, if there is ever any question about moving a decision to state level rather than federal level I am nearly always for it -- I see that as only better empowering the people to truly cause effect within their governing and to locate themselves in the nation-state they relate to best.

 

He was accused of unfairly 'reacting' to Hillary's direct insults about his comments on women, by pointing out her own behavior toward the (many) women her husband had accuse him of outright rape. At a rally he said:

 

 

"Bill Clinton was the worst in history, and I have to listen to her talking about it?!  Just remember this: She was an unbelievably nasty, mean enabler. And what she did to a lot of those women is disgraceful."

 

I am boring even myself at this point so I will stop.

 

But I just don't think that even when he did say something rude, that it is so horrific as to literally be more important than him being the first NON-SYSTEM, SELF-FUNDED person who truly wants to change the system and restore important constitutional elements to the country.

 

Funny, I like him better now than I did before the election, because I've gone and read and watched a lot more of his actual stuff and specifically searched for the things he is publicly accused of. If anything I am even more shocked that such trivial BS and most of it years prior and in specific off-the-cuff environments would be used like they had ANYTHING TO DO WITH important political, government issues. And bottom line, he employs lots of women, he gives them ranking positions, he gives them good money -- the very thing that feminists have long said is such an important metric on how well a man truly validates a woman.

 

RC

Edited November 13, 2016 by redcairo

[bax44]

I find it hilarious these supposed powerful and revered celebrities we idolize and worship in this society playing the pathetic victims and pretending theyd leave the country because the wrong person won. Just hilarious. And then you have the lemmings posting the same thing on social media sites about their Fave celeb being fed up and then they themselves say their gonna leave too. Itd be funny if it wasnt so pathetic.

Edited November 13, 2016 by bax44

[redcairo]

Quote of the day:

 

 

And renewed calls emerged after Election Day 2016, on Tuesday, in large part because voters think the system is no longer needed to safeguard the country from a dangerous president.

 

Did I not just suffer eons of people ranting about how DJT would be so dangerous as a president? That he was the next Hitler? Yet now a system designed to ensure a moment of popularity in a few densely populated areas (greatly influenced by media putting their money there) alone can't get someone in office, is unneeded because we don't need to safeguard the country from a dangerous president. This is so contradictory to what was said constantly up to the point of the vote it's just -- oh man.

 

My mind boggles. So I guess we have a month while all of the efforts to talk the electorals into changing their mind if the media can encourage enough people stridently whining to lean on them goes on.

 

At this point, in this issue, I would consider anybody who did so to be literally a traitor to the entire country's political process and hence its people. This would be regardless of which side had won.

 

And maybe partly because it is like training a child or a dog. Even if you decide later you might agree with them, if you discipline them and they start kicking, screaming, insulting, begging, etc., at that point if you do anything they want you to do then you have done nothing but entrain them to do that whenever they want their way, and detrained them from taking any answer seriously in the future.

 

RC

Edited November 13, 2016 by redcairo

[Karl]

This is the danger of collectivist philosophy. It destroys the perception of reality. In a nutshell 'you can choose to evade reality, but you can't choose to evade the consequences of doing so'. Yuri Bezmehov showed how soviet mind control could be used to demoralise a country, to kill its ability for the people to protect themselves and turn generations into zombies that have been evading reality and living in a self reinforcing conceptual bubble of wishes and whims. The press have been an echo chamber creating an illusion and it's perpetuated in every aspect of Government. It has failed to give the people a correct view of existent reality, now their world has broken, reality has hit them smack in the face and they are unable to understand what has occured.

 

I expect the democrats are shortly to become like our own Labour Party, lots of soul searching and navel gazing in the wilderness of a reality outside of the one they have been living in. Nursery school day dreaming is over for the snowflake people, politicians and press. A big wet Trump shaped towel just got smacked across their delicate little skins.

[bax44]

This is the danger of collectivist philosophy. It destroys the perception of reality. In a nutshell 'you can choose to evade reality, but you can't choose to evade the consequences of doing so'. Yuri Bezmehov showed how soviet mind control could be used to demoralise a country, to kill its ability for the people to protect themselves and turn generations into zombies that have been evading reality and living in a self reinforcing conceptual bubble of wishes and whims. The press have been an echo chamber creating an illusion and it's perpetuated in every aspect of Government. It has failed to give the people a correct view of existent reality, now their world has broken, reality has hit them smack in the face and they are unable to understand what has occured.

 

I expect the democrats are shortly to become like our own Labour Party, lots of soul searching and navel gazing in the wilderness of a reality outside of the one they have been living in. Nursery school day dreaming is over for the snowflake people, politicians and press. A big wet Trump shaped towel just got smacked across their delicate little skins.

 

haha something about that last paragraph was just superb. I can sense the dry British wit coming across the soft bluish  glow of my computer screen.

[dawei]

I expect the democrats are shortly to become like our own Labour Party, lots of soul searching and navel gazing in the wilderness of a reality outside of the one they have been living in. Nursery school day dreaming is over for the snowflake people, politicians and press. A big wet Trump shaped towel just got smacked across their delicate little skins.

 

Didn't the Republic party do the navel gazing after Romney's run... and did they really come up with something??? or was it Trump who was a voice in the wilderness that emerged?

 

I guess what I'm saying is, I don't know that the political parties are really that capable of figuring out where they went wrong and how to fix it... 

[redcairo]

He was independent, the Republicans were pathetic for options, the left had people already, and he needed to be with one of the parties. So he took to the right, they didn't want him but nobody on their team could beat him, so they had to let him take the nomination. But definitely against their will. There was weeping and gnashing of teeth. I thought George Will was gonna have a nervous breakdown over it and he's like William F. Buckley's soultwin.

 

Both parties are corrupt and a total disaster in my view. In the process of coming in Trump basically kicked over the red side, and in the process of winning out Trump basically kicked over the blue side. We can all hope that both parties take a hard look at the things he is proposing and why that apparently made a difference to a lot of people.

 

The reality is that if he could do half what he wants, whomever is president next will be able to do other things -- even things all about what the left wants -- far better as a result, I think.

 

RC

[Karl]

Didn't the Republic party do the navel gazing after Romney's run... and did they really come up with something??? or was it Trump who was a voice in the wilderness that emerged?

 

I guess what I'm saying is, I don't know that the political parties are really that capable of figuring out where they went wrong and how to fix it...

It's important to head back to reality here. All parties create internal narratives and then those are fed to the public. It's as if they created a dream world in which things function in certain approximate ways that mirror some parts of reality but counterfeit others. Eventually these dreams get punctured and the stronger the dream is, the more disorienting reality is.

 

Parties that are looking for why they failed, or won are recreating the narrative dream world. They think they can just alter things a bit and dream normality will be restored. So, when they lose they can remain in this self contained bubble. It's only when it is broken on the rocks of reality that they are faced with two options: recreate the dream from scratch, or accept they were dreaming and face reality.

 

This is human day dreaming and it only works to the point the dream ends and then rationalisation begins. People want to avoid the truth, they always have, they live in a mystic dream from which they refuse to escape as long as it works for them. The problem is that it doesn't work for everyone and that's reality coming home.

 

Our Labour Party is over and done. It no longer stands a chance at achieving election and that truth is beginning to dawn on it. At present we have a Conservative party riding high on the back of having no competition. The Conservatives are believing their own hype, but reality is waiting. The truth is that rulers don't actually do anything for anyone, it's an illusion, they create nothing, the more interventionist they are, the worse the people suffer. These politicians create dream bubbles amongst groups who buy into the dream narrative, but these groups are deluding themselves, as are the politicians that minister to them.

 

There are certain facts of life. One is that no one can avoid reality, they can evade, but they cannot avoid the consequences of that evasion. The second is that to survive man must produce. The third is that it is mans mind, his faculty of reason that is his only tool of survival. Forth is that reason needs total freedom, complete Liberty to function at maximum effectiveness-that a gun to the head is not an argument. Fifth, that the right to ones own life, to the freedom to live it, to enjoy the fruits of that life and any happiness as a result of that life must be sanctified under a common law. Any attempt to apply force to any individual or group will cost everybody eventually.

[dust]

Can't believe the continued insistence that he hasn't said a lot of stupid and scary things.

 

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/Donald-Trump/a/Donald-Trump-Quotes.htm

 

“When Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water."

Donald Trump threatening to go to war with Iran over rude hand gestures, Pensacola, Florida, (Sept. 9, 2016)

 

"Iraq and Iran were very similar militarily, and they’d fight, fight, fight, and then they’d rest. They’d fight, fight, fight, and then Saddam Hussein would do the gas, and somebody else would do something else, and they’d rest."

Donald Trump demonstrating his knowledge of foreign policy at a town hall meeting in Virginia Beach, VA (Sept. 6, 2016)

 

"[Vladimir Putin] is not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He’s not gonna go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down."

Donald Trump apparently unaware that Russia had already annexed Crimea in a 2014 intrusion into Ukraine that left thousands dead (July 31, 2016)

 

"I think I am, actually humble. I think I'm much more humble than you would understand."

60 Minutes interview, July 17, 2016

(haha!)

 

"We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated."

Donald Trump on his performance with poorly educated voters who helped him win the Nevada Caucus, Feb. 23, 2016

 

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Donald_Trump_Abortion.htm

 

"As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned, I'm pro-life. I'm totally against abortion, having to do with Planned Parenthood. But millions and millions of women -- cervical cancer, breast cancer -- are helped by Planned Parenthood. So you can say whatever you want, but they have millions of women going through Planned Parenthood that are helped greatly. And I wouldn't fund it. I would defund it because of the abortion factor, which they say is 3 percent. I don't know what percentage it is. They say it's 3%. But I would defund it, because I'm pro-life. But millions of women are helped by Planned Parenthood."

2016 CNN-Telemundo Republican debate on eve of Texas primary Feb 25, 2016

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-torture-works-ok-folks/article/2001124?custom_click=rss

 

"Torture works. OK, folks? You know, I have these guys—"Torture doesn’t work!"—believe me, it works. And waterboarding is your minor form. Some people say it’s not actually torture. Let’s assume it is. But they asked me the question: What do you think of waterboarding? Absolutely fine. But we should go much stronger than waterboarding."

Sun City, SC, Feb 17 2016

(NB: no, it doesn't work)

 

...and this is just a selection I've found with 3 quick searches.

 

And..

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSH6pf4miEc

Edited November 14, 2016 by dust

[Wells]

.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Wells

[Karl]

Who is insisting ?

[dust]

The post just above yours seems to be, for a start.

[dust]

I don't see any scandal at first sight.

Please point out your problems with his statements one by one

so we can discuss them.

Btw, regarding the false Trump statements invented by snowflakes lately,

I hope you made sure that every source you quoted was legit.

 

I've verified the first few with videos, and the others are easy to believe. But a key point in his campaign is that Trump supporters don't appear to care whether or not what he says is true, so I'm not sure why you're bothered now.

 

If you can (be bothered to) prove that he didn't say a thing, I'll edit it out.

 

 

“When Iran, when they circle our beautiful destroyers with their little boats, and they make gestures at our people that they shouldn’t be allowed to make, they will be shot out of the water."

Donald Trump threatening to go to war with Iran over rude hand gestures, Pensacola, Florida, (Sept. 9, 2016)

 

 

 

A world leader can't go around threatening deadly military action because some guys "make gestures". It's reckless, to say the least.

 

 

"Iraq and Iran were very similar militarily, and they’d fight, fight, fight, and then they’d rest. They’d fight, fight, fight, and then Saddam Hussein would do the gas, and somebody else would do something else, and they’d rest."

Donald Trump demonstrating his knowledge of foreign policy at a town hall meeting in Virginia Beach, VA (Sept. 6, 2016)

 

 

 

from 17 mins

 

 

 

He doesn't appear to have any point, any idea what he's trying to say. A president should be able to string a coherent sentence together where it concerns recent history and military behaviour of hostile nations.

 

 

"[Vladimir Putin] is not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He’s not gonna go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down."

Donald Trump apparently unaware that Russia had already annexed Crimea in a 2014 intrusion into Ukraine that left thousands dead (July 31, 2016)

 

Russian action in Ukraine was an important and well-known incident, and he apparently had no idea about it. A potential president should have some idea of current acts of war, especially globally-famous ones.

 

 

"I think I am, actually humble. I think I'm much more humble than you would understand."

60 Minutes interview, July 17, 2016

(haha!)

 

I found it amusing. He's absolutely not humble, and this is irony at its finest -- but I really doubt that he was being intentionally ironic.

 

 

"We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated."

Donald Trump on his performance with poorly educated voters who helped him win the Nevada Caucus, Feb. 23, 2016

 

Well...he said it. He wins the uneducated vote. Up to you to decide whether that's good or not.

If I were running for office, I'd be aiming for the decent person vote -- any level of education, as long as the people are decent.

 

 

"As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned, I'm pro-life. I'm totally against abortion, having to do with Planned Parenthood. But millions and millions of women -- cervical cancer, breast cancer -- are helped by Planned Parenthood. So you can say whatever you want, but they have millions of women going through Planned Parenthood that are helped greatly. And I wouldn't fund it. I would defund it because of the abortion factor, which they say is 3 percent. I don't know what percentage it is. They say it's 3%. But I would defund it, because I'm pro-life. But millions of women are helped by Planned Parenthood."

2016 CNN-Telemundo Republican debate on eve of Texas primary Feb 25, 2016

 

He admits that PP is beneficial for millions, but says he will defund it anyway because he's "pro-life". In an interview,

 

 

Well this is a very contentious issue but for me, this alone is enough to make me want to kick him in the nuts.

 

 

"Torture works. OK, folks? You know, I have these guys—"Torture doesn’t work!"—believe me, it works. And waterboarding is your minor form. Some people say it’s not actually torture. Let’s assume it is. But they asked me the question: What do you think of waterboarding? Absolutely fine. But we should go much stronger than waterboarding."

Sun City, SC, Feb 17 2016

(NB: no, it doesn't work)

 

Torture doesn't work but he's in favour of it anyway. Seems pretty simple why I don't like this one.

 

 

There. I've explained each one. I will not respond to anything less than an equally point-by-point response.

Edited November 14, 2016 by dust

[Karl]

The post just above yours seems to be, for a start.

Isn't it just asking the question about the facts of what Trump actually said in the context in which he said it and not whether those comments are good or bad ?

 

Isn't what is being asked is the discussion of the factual statements that have been made rather than the out of context media skewing of those comments.

 

Personally everything I have heard seems more neo Keynesian protectionist and new deal. He hasn't even suggested he will remove any greater quantity of illegal aliens than is already carried out under Obama. He will cut taxes, increase infrastructure spending, keep welfare spending the same, expand military spending, use tarrifs to prevent free trade. That sounds to me exactly like our 1970s Labour Government which was of course left wing.

 

None of that is encouraging.

[dust]

I said there's an insistence that Trump doesn't say stupid and scary things.

spacester asked what the problem was with the things I posted, refusing to acknowledge any problem with any of them.

That was an insistence, that was an attempt to contradict the notion that Trump says stupid things.

 

And you know it.

[Karl]

I said there's an insistence that Trump doesn't say stupid and scary things.

spacester asked what the problem was with the things I posted, refusing to acknowledge any problem with any of them.

That was an insistence, that was an attempt to contradict the notion that Trump says stupid things.

 

And you know it.

I've said several times that I wouldn't have voted for either of those candidates. However, no matter how many stupid things he might have said, I'm afraid people happily voted for it. People are going to have to shut up and accept this new paradigm and not keep re-running the election as if it didn't happen, or can simply be re-run until the Clinton supporters get the right result.

 

The people have spoken. They at fed up of liberalism, multiculturalism, globalism, TG toilets and safe spaces, they are sick of seeing their jobs go abroad and their living standards going down the pan whilst they are forced to sweat out an existence paying for a Government pushing policies they don't agree with.

 

The stupid things Trump has said are mirrored by the stupid things Obama and Clinton have done. In a world of the stupid and irrational then one type of irrational is no worse than any other kind of irrational. I suggest Americans start educating themselves so they can avoid these situations in future.

[dust]

I've said several times that I wouldn't have voted for either of those candidates. However, no matter how many stupid things he might have said, I'm afraid people happily voted for it. People are going to have to shut up and accept this new paradigm and not keep re-running the election as if it didn't happen, or can simply be re-run until the Clinton supporters get the right result.

 

The people have spoken. They at fed up of liberalism, multiculturalism, globalism, TG toilets and safe spaces, they are sick of seeing their jobs go abroad and their living standards going down the pan whilst they are forced to sweat out an existence paying for a Government pushing policies they don't agree with.

 

I will not shut up. I'll speak my mind, I'll continue to be bemused and sometimes even frightened at the things some people are willing to say and do. You can continue to use democracy as a reason for restricting free speech if you like, but I'll continue to use my free speech to point out silliness where I see it.

 

And once more: people in the West are living better than ever before. Stop lying.

[Karl]

I will not shut up. I'll speak my mind, I'll continue to be bemused and sometimes even frightened at the things some people are willing to say and do. You can continue to use democracy as a reason for restricting free speech if you like, but I'll continue to use my free speech to point out silliness where I see it.

 

And once more: people in the West are living better than ever before. Stop lying.

What will you say ? That Trump shouldn't have won, that he won fraudulently, that Clinton was cheated ? I'm saying to you that there is no point imagining a re-running of the election, it's been and gone and you need to accept the result of it.

 

In what context are people 'living better than before' ? Tell that to the blacks living in ghettoes that are parading around with BLM flags, talk to the college graduates who can't get a good job or leave their parents basement, talk to the people that lost a well paying manual job in construction or engineering and are having to manage a couple of low paying part time jobs, tell it to the pensioners who have seen their savings destroyed by low interest rates and have had to return to the labour market to make ends meet, look at the decaying cities with broken factories, split families, crumbling roads and increased crime.

 

America has seen very little progress and where it has occured it has been amongst the wealthy and corrupt. It's now harder to find a job, buy a house, get healthcare, get a cheap car, heat the house, or start a business. America is decaying morally and materially. 8 years of Obama and Hillary have resulted in stagnating economy and food banks for millions. It is no wonder that 'make America great again' was such a rallying cry.

[blackstar212]

I've said several times that I wouldn't have voted for either of those candidates. However, no matter how many stupid things he might have said, I'm afraid people happily voted for it. People are going to have to shut up and accept this new paradigm and not keep re-running the election as if it didn't happen, or can simply be re-run until the Clinton supporters get the right result.

 

The people have spoken. They at fed up of liberalism, multiculturalism, globalism, TG toilets and safe spaces, they are sick of seeing their jobs go abroad and their living standards going down the pan whilst they are forced to sweat out an existence paying for a Government pushing policies they don't agree with.

 

The stupid things Trump has said are mirrored by the stupid things Obama and Clinton have done. In a world of the stupid and irrational then one type of irrational is no worse than any other kind of irrational. I suggest Americans start educating themselves so they can avoid these situations in future.

Most of that will not change. They were sold a lie.

 

Last night Trump called Clinton a good person BWHAHAHAHAHAHA. I actually feel bad for the people he duped.

[Karl]

Most of that will not change. They were sold a lie.Last night Trump called Clinton a good person BWHAHAHAHAHAHA. I actually feel bad for the people he duped.

The whole thing is a lie, not just Trump, nor Clinton, it's the economy they told you was great and the education that was improving, the inflation that was low, the just wars, the evil Russia, that there are no genders, that everyone can be equal, that all inflation is good, that all immigration is good, that free speech is dangerous, that rights are priviliges and security means mass surveillance and the curtailing of Liberty. That if you wish it, that it can be and they can make it so.

 

Reject it all. Think for yourselves, don't rely on Governments, be independently productive, stop trying to obtain values by force and substituting altruism for reality.

 

This was always the inevitable outcome of an irrational, evasive and wilfully ignorant people. Eventually a Trump would come. Maybe this isn't yet the final iteration, perhaps a lot worse is yet to appear.