Why Trump ?

logger said:
But not the executive experience Trump has.
Click to expand...
Say what? What executive experience does Trump have? Hillary, on the other hand, has been four years Secretary of State. That's the highest position in the US executive save POTUS and VP.

logger said:
He on the other hand will be surrounded by advisors who have the experience Hillary has.
Click to expand...
Someone like Paul Manafort, the Putin lobbyist? :rolleyes:

But Trump has said himself: he's his own best advisor, because he knows everything and he has a very good brain. So no, he won't surround himself with experienced advisors, but with yes-men and sycophants.
 
logger said:
It's hilarious to read that you think Trump is a fascist. That position is more suited to politicians on the left since they are willing to commingle business and government, Obamacare being your clue. Leftists claim Trump has no concrete positions, yet somehow he's already a fascist.

I suppose it would be worth knowing what fascistic policies you think he would create?
Click to expand...

And Mike Pence never met with his large donors? Did Trump just like Bondi's politics?
 
logger said:
Trump got the nomination because of his strong early stance on immigration. Many rural and rust belt people like his take on NAFTA and trade. Combine that with his outsider status and you have the reason.

His team figured this out early and now you're seeing his swing to the middle. It will certainly be a long shot if he wins it. But if Hillary loses it to him, it will be the greatest upset in American politics ever!
Click to expand...

Well then, since you are already so kindly conceding the upcoming election, then I guess that means that the Forum will have the pleasure of your constant bitching and complaining about liberal this and liberal that until at least January 20, 2021.

It should be quite fun and familiar.
 
logger said:
But not the executive experience Trump has. He on the other hand will be surrounded by advisors who have the experience Hillary has.
Click to expand...

Some of his advisors think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, and that Ted Cruz' dad was involved in the shooting of JFK. He and his advisors haven't met an asinine conspiracy they won't peddle. These people have no business in the ear of the manager of your local Chuck-e-Cheese, nevermind a seat at the table with POTUS.
 
Fudbucker said:
With our separation of powers, there's a limit to the damage an incompetent president can do. We've had bad presidents before and we'll have them again.

Trump really could be Chance the gardener. It wouldn't make a different to a lot of Trump supporters. The goal is not to elect Trump, but to fundamentally change the established parties. Trump is seen as a means, not an end.
Click to expand...

Trump 2016! He can't do anything anyway!

Pathetic.
 
Fudbucker said:
I swear some of you have never met a rational Trump supporter. They exist, trust me. They don't necessarily like Trump, but they do a risk/reward assessment, like we all do, and they decide that the risk of Trump is worth the reward of tearing down the established political order, which they see as having totally sold out the American people.

When you look at the decay of the middle class over the last 30 years, the obscene concentrations of wealth that both parties have allowed to happen, the border policies that have created an exploited underclass that live in the shadows and work for sweatshop wages, the corrupt influence of money on politics...I understand how they feel. I think they have the risk/reward assessment backwards, but that doesn't make them idiots or bigots.
Click to expand...

Actually, every rational Trump supporter that I have met has become an ex-Trump supporter.

I expect that the reason for such a thing is that there is nothing rational about supporting some stupid, idiotic, greedy, theiving, liar like Trump.
 
NoahFence said:
....and there is the most likely candidate in the list of why people are against Hillary.
Click to expand...

This is projection. Do you really think most anti-Hillary's would be similarly against a Condi Rice or Maggie Thatcher type female candidate?
 
Giz said:
This is projection. Do you really think most anti-Hillary's would be similarly against a Condi Rice or Maggie Thatcher type female candidate?
Click to expand...

I don't know about penises, but I do look for a President to have balls. Fortunately, Hillary's got 'em. Unfortunately, our current President doesn't.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I don't know about penises, but I do look for a President to have balls. Fortunately, Hillary's got 'em. Unfortunately, our current President doesn't.
Click to expand...

Name for me one instance US military involvement in the Middle East has resulted in a stable environment.

None. Nada. Ziltch.

Maybe try something different than puffy-chested bravado?
 
logger said:
But not the executive experience Trump has. He on the other hand will be surrounded by advisors who have the experience Hillary has.
Click to expand...

logger said:
But not the executive experience Trump has. He on the other hand will be surrounded by advisors who have the experience Hillary has.
Click to expand...

This topic has been discussed in other threads.

All available evidence points to the exact opposite.

Trump claimed to know more about ISIS than the generals.
When asked who he turned to to keep up to date on foreign relations, he answered, "Me. I have a big brain."
When the RNC offered foreign policy advisors to help Trump become more knowledgeable, he responding by telling them you can send all the foreign policy advisors you want, but I will be advising them.

He has been unable or unwilling to listen to the campaign experts that he selected..
He has described himself as not being a data-oriented person; he likes to trust his gut.

No, there is no evidence that Trump has the desire or even the disposition to listen to experts. But I will gladly examine your evidence on this issue if you present it.

ETA
I almost forgot one of the most noticeable pieces of evidence. When Trump advisors tell him that the way to win is to not respond to every post that baits him, he asserts that he is not being baited, instead he is using his tweets to hit hard at the opponents.
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
Name for me one instance US military involvement in the Middle East has resulted in a stable environment.

None. Nada. Ziltch.

Maybe try something different than puffy-chested bravado?
Click to expand...
Gulf War 1 turned out pretty well. A conventional military response to a conventional military invasion, and when it was over we imposed some sanctions and left.
 
NoahFence said:
Name for me one instance US military involvement in the Middle East has resulted in a stable environment.
Click to expand...

Stability is a relative measure. We've seen what non-intervention in Syria has done, for example, and, frankly, it looks a lot worse than Iraq.

Short-sighted people with little ability to comprehend alternative scenarios might think that US involvement in the Middle East has created more problems than it has solved, but I disagree. I think if the US washed its hands of the place decades ago, the entire Middle East would look a lot like Syria does today, and Western economies would have been saddled with an extremely high price of oil and a flood of desperate refugees who do not share our values.
 
Fudbucker said:
I swear some of you have never met a rational Trump supporter. They exist, trust me. They don't necessarily like Trump, but they do a risk/reward assessment, like we all do, and they decide that the risk of Trump is worth the reward of tearing down the established political order, which they see as having totally sold out the American people.

When you look at the decay of the middle class over the last 30 years, the obscene concentrations of wealth that both parties have allowed to happen, the border policies that have created an exploited underclass that live in the shadows and work for sweatshop wages, the corrupt influence of money on politics...I understand how they feel. I think they have the risk/reward assessment backwards, but that doesn't make them idiots or bigots.
Click to expand...

I want those things too. I am disgusted by how political power is gained and held in this country. I want someone to attack the system. But when I do my risk/reward calculation, I see a guy who knows nothing about the current system - and has no desire to learn anything about the current system - and has no idea how to install a new system. I see a braggart and a bully. And I understand that to overthrow or even influence the current system some tough talk and even some bullying might need to take place. But those tactics should be used judiciously. The iconoclast that hopes to change the course of this country needs many, many tools at his or her disposal. The problem is that those are the only two tools that Trump owns.
When I do my risk/reward calculation i see the chances of Trump making progress as vanishingly small.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Gulf War 1 turned out pretty well. A conventional military response to a conventional military invasion, and when it was over we imposed some sanctions and left.
Click to expand...

Gulf War 1 had a strategic end goal which was achieved. The end goal may have been insufficient but there was on.

"Shock and Awe" had no strategic end goal. Tactical success was touted as "mission accomplished."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom