Donald Trump General Discussion thread

Trumps is just obama 2.0

Lol, seriously, i knew he would turn out like this. There are no differents presidents, only differents names.

Why the hell is the victory and voting being brought up again? It's bad enough Trump keeps bringing it up! Move on people!

@dcuwins: So you are saying you would vote for someone to be enshrined in the baseball hall of fame even after learning that they broke the rules of the sport? You shouldn't be a blind follower because you voted for something, if there is something that comes a long to change your view you should be able to change your mind, not become a sycophant for everything that they do.

Let's face it, no matter what Trump does, he is not going to be able to govern or get anything done, he has burnt so many bridges in and out of his own party, in and out of his own country. He needs to realize that he can't do all of this without a coalition behind him.

That makes no sense. In fact Trump has tried his hardest to destroy everything Obama did... Obamacare, the Paris Climate Deal, DACA, transgender people in the military, the nuclear agreement with Iran, the flood-protection regulations that Obama tried to implement (rescinded 10 days before hurricane Harvey hit), and the list just goes on and on.

He didnt just burn the bridges, he firebombed the entire city as well.

@willpayton: Exactly, I don't see how anyone can think Trump is anything like Obama.

He's pretty much the anti-Obama, not just by his personality and lifestyle, but by his policies and actions of trying to destroy everything Obama did.

@dcuwins: You are full of shyte , here is the quote not whatever you have.

"When Mexico sends it people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,"

What is even worse he tried to use this as justification for building the wall.

@black3stpanth3r:

And some, I assume, are good people,"

snowflakes dont read? show me where potus trump states all Mexicans are racist dullard. that is what you originally posted. that is a lie.

u.s. needs secure borders snowflake. duh!

Problem is when Trump categorizes Mexicans coming here as criminals and rapists, and only "some, I assume" as being good people, that means that he's saying that most are criminals and rapists and only a minority are good people... maybe. He assumes it, but he's not saying it's a fact.

He doesnt have to say that "all" are that way to be extremely offensive and racist. He's already casting almost all of them in that light.

People need to stop trying to defend Trump and his offensive and divisive rhetoric. When Trumps says that he sexually assaults women, you people defend him. When he makes fun of a crippled person, you defend him. When he attacks POW's and the family of a dead war veteran, you defend him. When he makes racist comments, you defend him. When he says he wants to bomb innocent civilians and torture prisoners "even if it doesnt work" you defend him.

There seems to be no low that Trump can reach where his supporters wont defend him. It's sad.

@willpayton:

lies

trump never said all Mexicans are bad . trump never said the majority of Mexicans are BAD EITHER. POTUS TRUMP WAS ALSO REFERRING TO ILLEGAL CROSSINGS AS WELL.

OPEN BORDERS NOT GOOD . DUH!

@dcuwins:

^This, if you can't see anything wrong with what the President said , it means you are part of the problem unfortunately.

@dcuwins: of course you don't see anything wrong with it because you lack basic empathy, what if I told you that all the Mexicans I know think that the statement was offensive? Just because you don't find it offensive, doesn't mean it isn't.

@dcuwins: why would he have to assume that some of them are good? When has there ever been a case to categorize a group of people in the same exact box especially when it comes to things like that.

@dcuwins: What about what Trump said about the American born Judge in Indiana, that has Mexican Parents, I guess you don't find anything wrong with that either do you?

@black3stpanth3r:

LIBERAL MEDIA ROTS YOUR BRAIN. you yo yourself are guilty of spreading lies. trump never said all mexicans are racist. he said some that illegal cross the border are. that is fact snowflake. there are bad of all colors and creeds. duh!

Trump’s statement. It is not racist.

Trump did not say that a judge of Mexican heritage cannot treat him fairly. He said that this judge isn’t treating him fairly, and he implied that the reason is that Trump has made unfriendly comments about Mexico and immigrants from Mexico. (Ben Carson tried to make this distinction on Megyn Kelly’s program last night, but Kelly didn’t seem interested in letting him explain).

The difference is obvious and crucial. Consider two hypothetical statements by an inner-city Black: (1) white policemen can’t treat me fairly because of my race and (2) the white policeman who arrested me treated me unfairly because of my race.

I doubt that anyone would say the second statement represents “the textbook definition of a racist comment.” Most would deny that it is racist at all.

So too with Trump’s statement. It is baseless (just as the inner-city Black’s hypothetical statement #2 might be) and it is unfortunate, but it is not racist.

Is hypothetical statement #1 is racist? Arguably. However, it has long been a premise of many a radical Black activist. I’ve rarely heard it labeled “racist” by liberals or members of the mainstream media.

In any case, Trump made no such statement about Judge Curiel. Later, Trump said a Muslim judge might not be fair to him. He didn’t say Muslim judges couldn’t be fair to him; just that a given one might not be. Moreover, his doubt is based on the fact that he suggested a temporary ban on Muslim entry into the U.S.

In our analogy, this is the equivalent of an inner-city Black questioning whether white policemen can treat him fairly given that he advocates, say, the removal of white policemen from the inner-city. Would the Black in this hypothetical be guilty of racism by virtue of his doubts about being treated fairly in this context? I don’t think so. Nor, I suspect, would many liberals or mainstream media members condemn the Black as racist for putting forth that proposal.

Naturally, leftist partisans like the venomous Dana Milbank are portraying Trump’s misguided attack on Judge Curiel as racist. Republican leaders should not join the chorus.

Due to what I believe are unfair and mistaken rulings in this case and the Judge’s reported associations with certain professional organizations, questions were raised regarding the Obama appointed Judge’s impartiality. It is a fair question. I hope it is not the case.

But there may be other factors to consider in determining whether Trump’s concerns about getting an impartial trial are reasonable. Curiel is, reportedly, a member of a group called La Raza Lawyers of San Diego. Trump’s aides, meanwhile, have indicated that they believe Curiel is a member of the National Council of La Raza, a vocal advocacy organization that has vigorously condemned Trump and his views on immigration.

Coupled with that question is the fact that in 2014, when he certified the class-action lawsuit against Trump, Curiel appointed the Robbins Geller law firm to represent plaintiffs. Robbins Geller has paid $675,000 in speaking fees since 2009 to Trump’s likely opponent, Hillary Clinton, and to her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Curiel appointed the firm in the case before Trump entered the presidential race, but again, it might not be unreasonable for a defendant in Trump’s position to wonder who Curiel favors in the presidential election. These circumstances, while not necessarily conclusive, at least raise a legitimate question to be considered

cheating?

like hillary who got debate questions in advance. smh at the hypocrisy.

@dcuwins: Again you are so full of shyte, all you have to do is look at the video and his own tweets to see what was said. You don't have any legs to stand on. You are putting words in his mouth.

@dcuwins: Trump did not say that a judge of Mexican heritage cannot treat him fairly. He said that this judge isn’t treating him fairly, and he implied that the reason is that Trump has made unfriendly comments about Mexico and immigrants from Mexico. (Ben Carson tried to make this distinction on Megyn Kelly’s program last night, but Kelly didn’t seem interested in letting him explain).

^You even admitted that he made unfriendly comments, you are contradicting yourself, try harder.

@dcuwins: On June 2, 2016, Trump told the Wall Street Journalthat Curiel had "an absolute conflict" in presiding over the litigation given that he is "of Mexican heritage" and a member of a Latino lawyers’ association. (When Trump said in a separate interview that Curiel "is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican" in referfence to the group, PolitiFact National rated his statement Mostly False.) Trump told the journal the judge’s background was relevant because of his campaign stance against illegal immigration and his pledge to seal the southern U.S. border. "I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest,"

@dcuwins: You guy's are always reaching , what's next he's going to claim that it's a joke? Everything about your boy is a joke.

@dcuwins: You just have to face the facts that people were offended by what he said, everyone here has the right to be offended by what he or she deems to be offensive so why diminish that? Seems to me you are offended by people being defended and their feelings are none of your business.

@black3stpanth3r:

POLICTOFACT LIES AND TWISTS THE TRUTH. MANY EXAMPLES OF THIS.

PolitiFact advertised on its home page an article on “Fact checking” Hillary’s campaign book What Happened. Don’t be shocked: PolitiFact didn’t find anything that they would call “False,” let alone “Pants on Fire.” This isn't that surprising, since the website has only evaluated Hillary once since last November -- a "Mostly False" in a complaint about voter suppression in Wisconsin in June.

Her overall count of "Pants on Fire" rulings is only 7...compared to 69 for Donald Trump. PolitiFact started by noting that Hillary cites them in the book to defend her own honesty:

Okay, first we did what anyone did and searched for our name. We found it!

The mention of PolitiFact comes in reference to a March 2016 column by former New York Times editor Jill Abramson, who said Clinton was "fundamentally honest."

The truth is Clinton is right depending on how you calculate truth. [That’s saying a mouthful about PolitiFact.]

We fact-checked Clinton 196 times from the moment she announced her candidacy in the spring of 2015 through Election Day 2016.

Of those 196 fact-checks, 100 rated True or Mostly True. That means 51 percent of Clinton claims we fact-checked were basically accurate.

Of candidates we fact-checked at least 50 times, only one did better: Sen. Bernie Sanders….Clinton, however, does better if you only count True statements that we rated.

Last point, and it’s a big one: We don’t check every statement a politician makes. So any comparison is problematic.

I don’t think PolitiFact emphasized that when the Jill Abramsons of the world were hailing Hillary’s “fundamentally honest” nature by citing their tilted "Truth-o-Meter" ratings system.

As usual, PolitiFact was very selective and helpful in picking out claims from the book...they skipped over Hillary suggesting the media favored Trump, for example. Here's the list of what they evaluated, from serious to silly:

I did better with white women that Obama in 2012. True, but less than Obama in 2008 and her husband in 1996.

Fewer Americans are moving than ever before. True.

In 2008, Donald Trump sold a mansion to a Russian oligarch for an inflated price, $54 million more than he paid for it four years earlier. True.

The Women’s March was the biggest single protest in American history. True, if you add up all the march estimates around the country, even if the estimates of protest crowds are “imprecise.”

Hot sauce boosts the immune system. They actually took that on, sort of. “Take it with a grain of salt…We don’t think the link to hot sauce per se has been peer-reviewed.”

No non-incumbent Democrat has been elected to succeed a two-term Democrat president since Martin Van Buren in 1836. True. (The "non-incumbent" part gets you past Harry Truman, who succeeded a four-term president by concluding his fourth term and then getting elected.)

When you type “Pat Schroeder” into Google, the very first suggestion of “Pat Schroeder crying.” True. She withdrew from a brief presidential campaign in 1987 by weeping during her speech. However, when I typed in Patricia Schroeder, it comes up “Patricia Schroeder Facebook.” Plain Patricia Schroeder sends you straight into Rep. Pat Schroeder.

Meanwhile, even Trump-bashers can find a Hillary whopper as the grants book interviews. Yashar Ali of The Huffington Post noted Hillary addressed the Kathy Griffin controversy by claiming people sold Trump-holding-Hillary's-severed-head souvenirs at the Republican convention in Cleveland. Canadian journalist Daniel Dale, a serious anti-Trumper, tweeted that was untrue:

We certainly remember MSNBC host Rachel Maddow cautioning her safe-space audience they may want to look away when she showed the Worst of Cleveland Hillary Merchandise: buttons with messages like "Hillary for Prison," and "Life's a B--ch: Don't Vote for One." Maddow would have shown a beheaded Hillary thing if it had been sold on site.

We noted last summer that leftists were selling T-shirts with Hillary holding Trump's severed head, and one of Trump shooting himself in the head.

@dcuwins: Common tactic changing the subject it's on tape and on tweet. You are delusional.

I asked a question on this board a few weeks ago about what it will take for Trump supporters to stop supporting him, and they could barely even come up with anything. Well it hasn't stopped other Trump supporters from burning his hat because of him backing down from his word. Some of the Trump supporters here would still back him no matter what because they lack any conviction or backbone, in fact they are the real sheep, who fall for stupid rhetoric.

Just face it already. Trump could wipe his rear with the Declaration of Independence, and then wank off with the American flag; all on live television. An people will still support him and defend his actions, if not do their best to justify them.

@dark_stranger:

you mean like all the pay for play clinton did? or her receiving 2 debate questions prior and people still voted for her?

@black3stpanth3r:

lies

i posted what trump said about judge curiel. you again lie about his words.

politcofact as stated prior is biased, and spins half truths. you rebutted with it and i pointed out that they are a faulty source of facts.

Politifact decided to fact-check one of President Donald Trump’s tweets Sunday and found that “the numbers check out.” The fact-checking site then rated the tweet “mostly false.”

“The media has not reported that the National Debt in my first month went down by $12 billion vs a $200 billion increase in Obama first mo,” Trump tweeted.

The tweet from Trump came after Gateway Pundit reported on the change in the national debt under the two respective presidents and after former Godfather Pizza CEO Herman Cain brought up the figures on Fox News.

Politifact wrote: “The numbers check out. And in fact, the total public debt has dropped another $22 billion since the Gateway Pundit article published, according to data from the U.S. Department of Treasury.”

Despite this, Politifact still gave Trump a rating of “mostly false” and titled its article, “Why Donald Trump’s tweet about national debt decrease in his first month is highly misleading.”

the numbers check out means trump tweet is accurate 100 percent! period!

@dcuwins: Talking about lying about his words it was you who did that a few posts back when you added "some" Mexicans and we all know that's not what he said. There was even a follow up interview with Trump about the Mexican Judge thing and he doubled down on what he said, please try harder.

You must have had some reasons for voting for Trump, so what are they? What would it take for him to lose your support? How many failures, how many F ups will it take, how many bridges does he have to burn down to lose your support? So far he hasn't gotten anything done that he said he would, why would you support someone that can't deliver? The problem is, Trump isn't half as smart as he thinks he is.

Trump sucks

There's a new sequel in the works, Idiocracy 2: The Trump Years

Hey, I'm no Trump fan. I didn't support him in the primaries But in understanding why someone would support Trump you have to ask the question "What's the alternative?" Trump was a more moral being than Hillary. That doesn't mean I think Trump is a moral being, he's not. But compared to Clinton, he's Mother Teresa.

If my options are Trump and "Democratic" Socialist Bernie Sanders., I go for Trump. He at least will not destroy our healthcare like Sanders wants to do and make ours as crappy as Canada's and England's - where you can wait up to 6 months to see a doctor and be denied treatment if the government finds you overweight, too old, or too strung out.

Don't speak about healthcare like you have any clue what you are talking about. You practically summoned me here with that shit post and my thesis is due in two weeks. If you want me to take time out of my day to expose your ignorance on healthcare systems, wait until after I am officially declared a master of it. While you are waiting, maybe you can do more than find clit-bait headlines to parrot.

Trump is more moral than Hillary Clinton? What alternate universe did you come from, and where do I get some of the drugs that you get there?

Your thesis? I'm confused, I thought you were doing the final arguments for your dissertation months ago?

Since we are waiting for you to finish your paper, watch this which addresses the long lines in Canada and England, and how you have to wait to even get into the ICU:

20/20 John Stossel Exposes Canada Care and Socialized Medicine

Or this undercover video of a guy trying to see a Canadian doctor.

The TRUTH About Universal Healthcare! (from a Canadian)

Or these inconvenient factoids about wait times in Canada for 2016:

@black3stpanth3r:

you are delusional

your own post shows trumps statement about illegal mexicans crossing the border , AND SOME I ASSUME ARE GOOD PEOPLE..

millions voted for potus trump and want him to succeed. period.

@willpayton:

you are delusional and the world would have laughed at grandma clinton as potus. lol

red reset buttons for all countries like she tried and failed with russia. lmao. she is clueless.

The State Department continues slowly to roll out the emails under court order in the lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act. Last week Judicial Watch released an additional 1,617 pages procured through its FOIA lawsuits along with an accompanying cheat sheet declaring “It’s amateur hour at State.” Judicial Watch emphasizes the additional evidence of classified information on display.

The New York Post devotes an editorial to the newly released emails. The editorial notes that the emails show Clinton Foundation honcho Doug Band “working with Clinton aide Huma Abedin to get favors for donors, from visas to Cuba to meetings in Singapore.”

The Post quotes Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton: “It’s there in black and white. And I don’t understand why the Justice Department hasn’t gotten its act together and reinitiated an investigation as to what went on here. Because we all know [Jim] Comey’s investigation was a sham. They need to restart it up.”

The conclusion of Judicial Watch’s summary alludes to Madam Hillary’s new memoir: “These emails show ‘what happened’ was that Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin obviously violated laws about the handling of classified information and turned the State Department into a pay for play tool for the corrupt Clinton Foundation. The clear and mounting evidence of pay for play and mishandling of classified information warrant a serious criminal investigation by an independent Trump Justice Department.”

It's kind of funny when a Trump supporter calls people "delusional".

To Trump and his supporters, real science = "Chinese hoax", lies = "alternative facts", real facts = "fake news", and Trump constantly lying = "more honest than Bernie and Hillary combined".

George Orwell would be surprised how well he predicted the modern Republican Party.

@dcuwins: he called Elizabeth Warren Pocahontas

You certainly are confused. I never said I was in a doctorate program. Working on a thesis takes months. The culmination of my work is due in less than two weeks. This isn't rocket science but if you can't figure out how a series of YouTube videos are nowhere near the quality of evidence as scientific research, how could you possibly figure out the difference between a doctoral dissertation, a master's thesis, or the length of time both require? Since you really want to do this, why don't you go back and read through our previous argument from 2 months ago, where I already proved that you are ignorant to the issues of healthcare and that you completely lack the ability to think beyond your own dissonance and preferred misinformation. You got shamed right out of that argument and didn't return with this shit until I got busy with school again. Bringing the same bullshit from different websites changes nothing.

Best of luck to you on your thesis.

I'm surprised that you don't think the wait times in Canada are long. The Frasier Institute's report that it takes an average of 20 weeks to see a physician for medically necessary surgeries seems to be accepted by the Canadian doctors (I have no doubt you can find a government bureaucrat declaring that they are doing a tremendous job and that anyone who says they aren't is biased). The Canadian Medical Association, which represents the doctors in Canada, concedes the fact about longer wait times and have made suggestions for how to improve the system. To quote them, "[Long wait times are] usually a symptom of poor health system performance or poor coordination between systems that need to be addressed.” The Canadian Medical Association's conclusion that wait times in Canada are long is in agreement with Factcheck.org's assessment that wait times in Canada are significantly longer than in the US.

Again, best of luck to you.

I was not aware that you knew every Trump supporter or had talked to them all first hand.

I realize most of your post was about something else, but I was a little taken aback by the beginning of your post, which seems to be suggesting that Hillary Clinton is "clueless" in regards to diplomacy and foreign affairs.

I recently saw Clinton effortlessly answer questions about North Korea and the complications of world diplomacy, with depth and intelligence, in some of the interviews she's been doing to support her book, and then having seen yesterday's debacle of a speech President Trump gave to the U.N., I find it preposterous that anyone could think, even for a second, that Hillary Clinton's diplomatic skills are somehow less than Donald Trump's.

If you think the world would have rolled their eyes at Clinton as president, then perhaps you need to open your own. From everything I have seen, the world has rolled their eyes and then some at the willfully-ignorant, man-baby Narcissus that we have elected to the presidency. Clinton may not be perfect, but she can certainly be counted on to at least pay attention to what is going on, a bar that is far too high for Trump.

@hatutzeraze:

Libyan and Syrian Civil War (which leads to ISIS taking the center stage and cause the massive refugee cisis in modern history), is a direct result of Hillary Clinton messing with foreign policies.

Note also that the current North Korean mess is a product of poor policies of previous administrations, which includes Clinton administration.

The one thing that i find ridiculously bizarre is how most Hilary Clinton supporters whines and complains about their government being flawed and corrupt and yet they still support a long time career politicians like Hillary who never did anything substantial to correct the "flawed" system while she rot away her life as a public official for years.

I wanted to respond to these parts in particular.

First of all, her service as a Secretary of State should not be considered "messing with foreign policies." Her job was to help shape and to conduct foreign policies.

Second, when bringing this up in the context of a comparison between the diplomatic work of Clinton and Trump, it begs the question what would Trump have done differently? Thus far, his diplomatic tools seem to be limited to petulant demands and vague threats. He employs a Secretary of State who seems utterly dismissive of the department he runs, working as diligently as he can to dismantle and hobble the center of U.S. diplomatic strength. With all his tough talk, I can't imagine Trump. for a second, being less bellicose in Libya. And what is it he would have done in Syria?

Hillary Clinton doesn't hold any special responsibility for the state of North Korea. If her and her husband had never entered politics at all, we'd still have the North Korea we have now. The tracks for that particular crazy train were born laid down as a result of the Korean War.

@hatutzeraze:

I don't like Trump, but I don't get how Trump's policy suddenly become an issue when the previous administrations did the same exact things... rhetorics, demands, threats, bomber fly-bys, and military exercise in the peninsula...

I mean didn't Obama did the same thing when Kims is testing of his missiles during his time as a president? If anything Trump is just repeating what Obama had done.

With regards to Libya, its a well known fact that the reason why they remove Gaddafi from power is because Gaddafi is planning to create a Pan-African Currency that will replace the French Francophone money in North Africa. This was all detailed in Hillary's email correspondence with Blumenthal.

Hillary had a huge role on that Libyan mess, hell she even bragged about it in an interview with her "We came, we saw, he die" after which she laugh like a demented witch.

Hillary Clinton doesn't hold any special responsibility for the state of North Korea. If her and her husband had never entered politics at all, we'd still have the North Korea we have now. The tracks for that particular crazy train were born laid down as a result of the Korean War.

Thats a pretty screwed up logic. Its like saying even if the Police force didn't do their work it wouldn't matter because criminals will exist anyway.

The point is that, the problem in North Korea is a result of poor policies. Clinton didn't do anything substantial to make a positive effect of the situation.

Doing nothing substantial to resolve a problem when your job is to make that sure that the problem is contained and resolved would still count as part of your failure. It doesnt matter whether the problem would be there even if you don't

Also Hillary did serve as a senator and as a Sect of state and for the most part she did support these failing policies while she was on the job.

So yeah she is part of the same gang that brought the Americans to where they are now.