Donald Trump Thread aka End of Days

[OldRover]

Funny thing is Bernie is way too Far Left for me, so I'm almost totally ideologically opposed to him in every way

What ideologies of his are you opposed to?

[NightWolve]

Funny thing is Bernie is way too Far Left for me, so I'm almost totally ideologically opposed to him in every way

What ideologies of his are you opposed to?

Partly already answered here as to being generally opposed to the US democrat party. Using the state as an instrument/weapon of wealth redistribution, class warfare, looking at rich people as your personal piggy bank to rob their wealth and then spread it around to corrupt/bribe the citizenry with, buy votes (Marxist-Robinhood heroism), etc. Bernie is at least openly honest with his socialist label, but this has been true of democrats for most of the last century.

anti-charitable hypocritical "Christians" any day of the week.

I think it's easy to sit back, vote for people to automate "charity" via the power of the state and call opponents of such an ever-expanding system of theft and redistribution hypocritical. I have a heart, but I have a brain too. Inspiring people to donate voluntarily is an actual Christian teaching, but robbing Peter to pay for Paul's welfare, his schooling, his retirement, or his sex-change operation or his condoms, etc. is something else... That becomes a system of bribery with stolen money. Democrats are primarily the party of Santa Claus (and the GOP's RINO left-wing which could fully take over in a few decades), and I recognize it's a losing battle against such a party because who doesn't love "free" stuff ? Very effective tactic and voting blocks that are socially/culturally opposite of modern democrats vote for them in majorities thanks to it.

Another issue that comes to mind on the spot is his stated desire to pass a constitutional amendment to reverse the 1st amendment in some way to criminalize political dissent following the Citizens-United ruling.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421369/bernie-sanders-national-socialism

And criminalizing things is very much on Bernie's agenda, beginning with the criminalization of political dissent. At every event he swears to introduce a constitutional amendment reversing Supreme Court decisions that affirmed the free-speech protections of people and organizations filming documentaries, organizing Web campaigns, and airing television commercials in the hopes of influencing elections or public attitudes toward public issues. That this would amount to a repeal of the First Amendment does not trouble Bernie at all. If the First Amendment enables Them, then the First Amendment has got to go.

So that'd be a short answer. I could go down the list of where I differ with the democrat party. I prefer the Reagan model of small government, low taxes, less centralization, less one-size fits all model, a more honest, less corrupt judiciary instead of it being packed with Far Left hacks that rewrite the Constitution all the time to evade the will of elected representatives and those who elected them, etc. So I know exactly what kind of judges Bernie would appoint to the Supreme Court, same as Hillary, what we already got with Obama, and I would oppose every last one of them. And it's not just there, you have all the other federal bureaucracies, the FCC, IRS, EPA, FBI, etc. and the president is responsible for some appointments when it comes to that as well.

[OldRover]

Eh... not sure I'd trust an article about either Democrats or Socialists from a strong right-wing publication like National Review. I personally have no problem with wealth redistribution and you've got to be some kind of lunatic if you think that the rich don't get away with some seriously shady shit to stay rich. Manipulation of markets and using their buying power to sway legislation in their favor has been a mainstay in the USA for decades and yet I've yet to see a Republican politician take any kind of stance against it. In a nation of consumerism, money talks, and the rich are the ones holding the megaphone. While I don't agree that they deserve to be stripped of their wealth, I do agree that they need to place ethics above profits. It's this exact system that keeps people divided, and a divided populace is easy to conquer and control. The rich profit from the commoners fighting with each other, and they're the ones telling the commoners that their neighbor is their enemy. Yeah, it's class warfare... there's the ruling class and the peasant class. Guess what? We're the peasant class, and the ruling class is making us fight each other through manipulative doublespeak. That's why I have no allegiance to either the Democrats or the Republicans... nor do I align myself with any kind of libertarian or authoritarian groups.

The only thing that really bothers me about Sanders is how he keeps repeating the tired old wage gap argument... while I get that this is a ploy to win the votes of the unwashed feminists, it's still dishonest as fuck. But then again, Obama touts it too, so... yeah. It's supposedly a unifying tactic... except it doesn't work for those of us who are educated on such matters... it just pisses us off. The Republicans, on the other hand, are openly honest about wanting to divide people, which also pisses me off.

[NightWolve]

Eh... not sure I'd trust an article about either Democrats or Socialists from a strong right-wing publication like National Review.

National Review is one of the more respected right-leaning publications founded by William F. Buckley, I found many great reads there over the years, that is, unless you wanna totally close yourself off to opposing viewpoints/analysis from the political Right. They've been angrily anti-Trump though which admittedly has turned me off a bit. In general, I find them far more intellectually honest than the mainstream news press.

I too can stop every time and state rejection of articles/info from several Far Left rags that were linked in here (so far we've had links from NY Times/Slimes, NewRepublic, Mother Jones [an old commie rag], Slate, Politico, HuffingtonPuffingtonPost), but they exist, they're here to stay, I can't wish them away anymore than Far Left hacks who pray for Talk Radio and Fox News to disappear, and I sometimes do in fact torture myself by reading/listening to what they have to say to better know/understand opponents.

Anyway, Bernie is done, Hellary pretty much secured the nomination, but you could always write him in as president come election time as jlued686 suggests doing to vote always on principle. And of course, that is also my suggestion, vote for Bernie Sanders regardless if he's on the ballot come this November, heh-heh.

Now for another episode of Bad Lip Reading:

[OldRover]

I don't care how well-respected they are... taking such a publication seriously is like asking a KKK member to write an honest article about black culture. I don't trust left-wing sources to write honest articles about the right either. Both Faux News and Huffingglue Post can fuck off. Don't even get me started on Mother Jones... holy fuck.

The thing is that I can read articles from both sides and easily see the bias, the cherry-picking, and the projection. Both sides are just echo chambers for their rabid fans. Also, Faux News is part of that mainstream media you seem to decry... in fact, they're a huge part of the mainstream media. They're not outcasts or rebels, they're just pandering to a different demographic. To paraphrase Henry Rollins, they're the same mouthful of mouthwash swishing to the other cheek.

As for Trump... eek. The President is supposed to be the face of the nation. Do we really want this buffoon representing us as a country? What the hell does that say about us to the rest of the world? Even worse... do we want Clinton as the face of our nation? Ugh. We're fucked either way. If it comes down to Trump vs Clinton and there was no other option to vote for, I'd abstain from voting. Clinton and Trump are two sides of the same coin that was swallowed by a baby with colitis and came out in its diaper.

[NightWolve]

I look at that quite the opposite. I don't trust left-wing sources to write honest articles about themselves, their policies, their favored political party, etc. If you want to find what they omitted, how they spun/distorted/manipulated the story in their favor, etc., you have to at times go to their opponents/critics... It's in that way that you get both sides, or all/multiple/more sides to an issue and then find where you come down on it, who/what you think is right.

Credibility is earned over time, and if someone keeps lying to you, you're not gonna keep returning... Everybody has a bias but how upfront/honest are they about it ? I have more respect for the op-ed writers/talking heads, like us here, people who just state their positions, preferences, thoughts, defend them to the best of their abilities, etc. and don't try to pretend they're objective, "right down the middle" to earn credibility that they don't deserve, then tilt the news coverage just a bit on behalf of their favored outcome/narrative/policy/agenda/etc.

On Fox News, yeah, it achieved mainstream status I would also say... Being "mainstream" wasn't the criticism, it was lack of ideological/political diversity in the mainstream press, Left and Far Left hacks running the show, shaping the news coverage by and large... Fox News broke that monopoly/dominance to an extent on Cable TV (and the butthurt/rage it caused continues!), but the REAL champion of diversity and democratization of news for any/all points of view came with the Internet, because now you have access to all sorts of information beyond the ABC/NBC/CBS/PBS that you grew up with as a kid which filtered out quite a bit! And that experience, the transition of it, was quite eye-opening I must say! The first time I ever got to watch Fox News, I was like, WOW, somebody analyzed or looked at this issue in terms of how I think of it, how come I've never seen that before ?? Same thing when I first heard a Talk Radio show.

Anyway, I'm hesitant to ask then but what is a Rover-approved publication/news source ? Not that I'm gonna take yours seriously, but curious since you raised the issue... ;)

[OldRover]

Anyway, I'm hesitant to ask then but what is a Rover-approved publication/news source ? Not that I'm gonna take yours seriously, but curious since you raised the issue... ;)

Therein lies the details, friend... I don't have a single approved publication or news source, because they all have their own version of the truth, especially when it comes to politics and social issues. The only way to figure out what's really going on is to listen to all sides of the same story, figure out where the bullshit is (usually easy, since each side paints a picture in favor of themselves), and piece together the reality of the issue at hand. It's so much easier to just take at face value the side you align with but since I don't align with any side and I prefer to have 100% of the story and 0% of the bullshit, I can't rely on a single source or even a single side. Believe it or not, even Fox News has surprised me in the past with an honest article or two... but then that modicum of respect I would gain for them gets annihilated by 10 more articles of pure filth. I used to watch The Young Turks on youtube because they would bring up issues that the mainstream media would largely ignore, but then they went full-on SJW so I said "fuck this shit".

My "problem", if you can call it that, is that I don't align with any ideologies... so all sides are my enemy by their own choosing. You will find that I will have plenty of things in common with you, and yet plenty of differences, and that's because I don't align with your side yet I don't align with your chosen opponent's side either. People like me are universally hated for this... and yet people like me also don't give a fuck if you hate us or not.

[BigusSchmuck]

In other news.. https://www.inverse.com/article/14577-confessed-time-traveler-andrew-basiago-is-running-for-president-knows-he-ll-win

Confessed time traveler is running for president. Hmmm

[esteban]

National Review.

Ha!

Fin.

[Emerald Rocker]

I'm with Rover in my distrust for every publication.  I can't name a single one that I actually trust.  Of course, some are worse offenders than others -- Mother Jones has always been a joke, and most of National Review's writers have gone on a real bender.  I seriously worry for their health; the amount of stress they're apparently feeling isn't good for the body.

Unfortunately, since everyone is terrible, that means I have to read everyone to have any clue what's going on.  Dammit.

[Otaking]

Just seen on the BBC that Ted Cruz is announcing he's out of the race. I guess that's it then, Trumpf will be the Republican nominee.

[NightWolve]

Yeah, I just learned of it, Trump in-it-to-win-it with a landslide win in Indiana, and Cruz calling it quits...

There's a live broadcast coming up here:

So, it's pretty official on both sides, Hellary "Rotten" Clinton will get a shot at "her turn" come November versus Da Trumpster. Pick your poison or none at all. ;)

I threw my vote to Cruz in our state's primary, but as I mentioned, it left a sour taste later. I know Trump is a watered-down New York [democrat]-republican at the end of the day, similar aspects to Rudy Giuliani, but it's interesting, I like the guy in certain ways and out of 2 choices, with alienation towards democrats, the choice is easy if I choose to show up and vote again (Illinois due to Chicago will go democrat for sure, so it don't matter). In terms of long-term aspects, seeing the republican party watered-down further isn't great to watch, but the RINOs/establishment types have done a bang-up job for so long, so it's like whatever at this point...

[BigusSchmuck]

Drumpf and Billary. Awesome. Looks like I'm voting third party this election cycle.

[DeshDildo]

It's not surprising it comes down to this... pretty much like any other election.  Would you rather have the worthless pile of shit or the runny puddle of shit?

[EvilEvoIX]

Drumpf and Billary. Awesome. Looks like I'm voting third party this election cycle.

The choice is left or right.  Same as before.  Tons of differences between them except Hilary has caused death from incompetence.  Trump is dirty as well but admits he played the system.  I like the "GRIP" method of voting.  Get Ride of Incumbent Politicians.  Whosever in throw them the fuck out that way nothing gets done.  Keep the system encumbered and counter intuitive.

[esteban]

Drumpf and Billary. Awesome. Looks like I'm voting third party this election cycle.

The choice is left or right.  Same as before.  Tons of differences between them except Hilary has caused death from incompetence.  Trump is dirty as well but admits he played the system.  I like the "GRIP" method of voting.  Get Ride of Incumbent Politicians.  Whosever in throw them the fuck out that way nothing gets done.  Keep the system encumbered and counter intuitive.

No, the choice is right or right.

Same as before.

[BigusSchmuck]

Drumpf and Billary. Awesome. Looks like I'm voting third party this election cycle.

The choice is left or right.  Same as before.  Tons of differences between them except Hilary has caused death from incompetence.  Trump is dirty as well but admits he played the system.  I like the "GRIP" method of voting.  Get Ride of Incumbent Politicians.  Whosever in throw them the fuck out that way nothing gets done.  Keep the system encumbered and counter intuitive.

No, the choice is right or right.

Same as before.

The time has come.

I hereby announce my candidacy for the office of President of the United States.

If dumb and dumber don't appeal to you, then vote for dumbest and write in "Nulltard" this November.

Or Deez Nuts.

[NecroPhile]

Anyone else get a chuckle out of Trump claiming Ted's dad was involved in the Kennedy assassination?

I like the "GRIP" method of voting.  Get Ride of Incumbent Politicians.

Riders gonna ride? 

Whosever in throw them the fuck out that way nothing gets done.  Keep the system encumbered and counter intuitive.

I thought you wanted to 'jerk the wheel' and change the system.  What's the point of getting rid of incumbents for the express purpose of the new guys/gals to get in, do nothing, and maintain the status quo?

[NightWolve]

Anyone else get a chuckle out of Trump claiming Ted's dad was involved in the Kennedy assassination?

Yeah, it's a story from the National Enquirer that just came out, that his dad was hanging around with Oswald at some point prior.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/ted-cruz-avoids-questions-about-dads-commie-photo-scandal-at-campaign-event/photo/155697/

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/ted-cruz-scandal-father-jfk-assassination/

So, they "found" an old "photo" with his dad and Oswald next to each other. If it's a smear job/hit-piece, that's f--ked up that they're faking/forging photos (a libel lawsuit should be easy then!), but this is a tabloid paper that puts out photos of aliens front page, so yeah, likely a smear job (they're not above fake/forged photos), though I'm tempted to look for other sources just in case. They do get some stories right, like the John Edwards scandal, but the track record of fake crap is the standard. Meanwhile, the smear-by-satire/sarcasm strategy continued elsewhere, Yahoo News asked his wife to answer the social media "accusations" that he's the Zodiac Killer...

EDIT: Well, I found a video of it, but it's not convincing. There could be a resemblance and if it's true he was living in New Orleans at the time, it may have been worth asking the father about, but just reporting it first as "fact" is a problem, a libelous one... There's also the fact that the father became a devout Christian preacher, so to go from joining Communists, one of the greatest terrorist groups in the world, which have a fanatical, Christian-hating atheist-wing, to then a preacher is very far-fetched, not totally unheard of, but very far-fetched...

[jlued686]

I can't wait to have a president who gets his news from the National Enquirer. What could go wrong?

[Otaking]

Just read this Trump article on the BBC website, quite a good summary.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34903577

Donald Trump: 26 things the Republican believes

Donald Trump is the frontrunner in the Republican race to be the presidential nominee for next year's election. What are his policies and beliefs?

1. Arab-Americans cheered the attacks on 9/11. Trump repeatedly claimed that on 11 September, 2001, there were thousands of Arab-Americans celebrating in New Jersey after two planes flew into the Twin Towers. He says such public demonstrations "tell you something" about Muslims living in the US. However, there are no media reports to back up the claim.

2. There should be surveillance on US mosques. Trump believes Muslims should be tracked by law enforcement as a counterterrorism initiative. He has walked back some comments about keeping a database on all American Muslims, but says he doesn't care if watching mosques is seen as "politically incorrect".

Demonstrators protest surveillance at New York mosques in 2013


3. The US should use waterboarding and other methods of "strong interrogation" in its fight against the Islamic State. The candidate said that these methods are "peanuts" compared to the tactics used by the militants, such as beheadings.

4. Trump would "bomb the hell" out of IS. He claims that no other candidate would be tougher on the Islamic State and he would weaken the militants by cutting off their access to oil.
Read more about Donald Trump
A Muslim Marine's retort to Donald Trump
Why does Trump refer to himself in the third person?
The strange Trump and Carson phenomenon explained
Donald Trump wants to deport every single illegal immigrant - could he?

5. Create a simpler tax code. Trump wants anyone who earns less than $25,000 (£16,524) to pay no income tax. They would submit nothing more than a single page tax form that reads "I win". He would lower the business tax to 15%. He would also allow multinational companies keeping money overseas to repatriate their cash at a 10% tax rate.

6. Hedge fund managers are "getting away with murder" under the current US tax code.Trump found common ground with Democrats like Senator Elizabeth Warren when he said that hedge fund managers and the ultra-wealthy do not pay enough taxes. However, after the campaign released specifics of his plan, analysts argued that hedge fund managers would actually get a tax cut along with the middle class.


7. He wants to build a "great, great wall" between the US and Mexico. In some of his earliest campaign comments, Trump suggested that Mexicans coming to the US are largely criminals. "They are bringing drugs, and bringing crime, and they're rapists," he said. A wall on the border, he claims, will not only keep out undocumented immigrants but Syrian migrants as well. He also believes that Mexico should have to pay for the wall, which a BBC analysis estimates could cost between $2.2bn and $13bn.

8. A mass deportation of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the US should go into effect. Despite criticism that this idea is both xenophobic and prohibitively expensive - the BBC estimates $114bn - Trump says his deportation plan is as achievable as it will be humane. In addition, his immigration reforms would end "birthright citizenship", the policy that grants the children of illegal immigrants citizenship so long as they are born on American soil. He does not support creating a new path to citizenship for undocumented workers.

9. He and Vladmir Putin would "get along very well". In an interview with CNN, Trump said that Putin and Obama dislike one another too much to negotiate, but that "I would probably get along with him very well. And I don't think you'd be having the kind of problems that you're having right now".


10. In order to end mass shootings, the US should invest in mental health treatment. However, Trump does not believe that more gun control is the answer. In a position paper on gun rights, Trump revealed he has a concealed carry permit and that when it comes to gun and magazine bans, "the government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own". He would also oppose an expansion of background checks.

11. China should be taken to task on a number of issuesin order to make trade with the US more equitable. If elected he says he will make China stop undervaluing its currency, and force it to step up its environmental and labour standards. He is also critical of the county's lax attitude towards American intellectual property and hacking.

12. The Black Lives Matter movement is "trouble". Trump mocks former Democratic candidates like Martin O'Malley for apologising to members of the protest movement against police brutality and casts himself as a pro-law enforcement candidate. "I think they're looking for trouble," he once said of the activist group. He also tweeted a controversial graphic purporting to show that African Americans kill whites and blacks at a far higher rates than whites or police officers. However, the graphic cites a fictitious "Crime Statistics Bureau" for its numbers, and has been widely debunked using real FBI data.
Donald Trump's controversial tweet about crime statistics


13. Current unemployment statistics are wrong. Trump has said repeatedly that unemployment in the US is at 20% - once commenting it may be as high as 42% - despite the fact that the Bureau of Labor Statistics pegs the number at 5.1%. Trump says he doesn't believe that figure is real.

14. His net worth is $10bn. Based on Trump's 92-page personal financial disclosure form, Bloomberg calculated that the real estate mogul is worth about $2.9bn and Forbes put Trump's worth at $4bn. In response, Trump insisted in a press release that he is worth "in excess of TEN BILLION DOLLARS". He is self-funding his campaign and describes his start in the business world as a "small loan of a million dollars" from his father.

15. Veteran healthcare in the US needs a major overhaul. Trump wants to clear out the executive level in the Department of Veterans Affairs, saying that wait times for doctor visits have only increased after previous interventions failed. Thousands of veterans have died while waiting for care, he says. He will invest in the treatment of "invisible wounds" like post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. He would also increase the number of doctors who specialise in women's health to help care for the increasing number of female veterans.

16. Obamacare is a "disaster". Trump says he favours repealing the president's Affordable Care Act, which aims at extending the number of Americans with health insurance, but he believes that "everybody's got to be covered". A spokesman for Trump told Forbes that he will propose "a health plan that will return authority to the states and operate under free market principles".

17. Climate change is just "weather". While Trump believes that maintaining "clean air" and "clean water" is important, he dismissed climate change science as a "hoax" and believes environmental restrictions on businesses makes them less competitive in the global marketplace. "I do not believe that we should imperil the companies within our country," he told CNN on the issue. "It costs so much and nobody knows exactly if it's going to work."

18. The world would be better off if Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddhafi were still in power. Trump told CNN that he believes the situation in both Libya and Iraq is "far worse" than it ever was under the two deceased dictators. While he concedes Saddam was a "horrible guy", he says he did a better job combating terrorists.

19. He would send back Syrian migrants seeking asylum in the US. He says that the Paris attacks prove that even a handful of terrorists posing as migrants could do catastrophic damage, and so he will oppose resettling any Syrians in the US, and deport those who have already been placed here.

20. Kim Davis should get another job. The Kentucky clerk became a conservative cause when she was jailed for refusing to issue marriage licences to gay couples because of her Christian faith. But Trump said: "I'm a very, very strong believer in Christianity and religion, but I will say that this was not the right job for her."

21. Muslims should not be admitted to the US. In a press release published in the wake of the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, California, Trump wrote that he is "calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on". The release created a huge backlash, including a petition submitted to British Parliament demanding that Trump not be allowed into the country.

22. He is a "really nice guy". In Trump's most recent book, Crippled America, he writes that "I'm a really nice guy, believe me, I pride myself on being a nice guy but I'm also passionate and determined to make our country great again". The news site Gawker points out that he calls himself a "nice guy" throughout the book, and Trump repeated that self-assessment in his opening monologue on Saturday Night Live and in an interview with the Washington Post.

23. Tokyo and Seoul should build up nuclear arsenals. He has said Japan and South Korea should not rely on the US so much and would benefit from having their own weapons. Nuclear war between Japan and North Korea may be "terrible" but it would be "pretty quick".

24. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) is a "rip-off" because the US pays more than anyone else.

25. Doctors should be punished for administering abortions - or should they?In an interview with MSNBC, Mr Trump said that if abortion were to become illegal, women should be punished for obtaining them. He then retracted, saying the doctor would be responsible and he or she should be punished instead.

26. The Republican National Committee's rules are "stacked against him". He has called the delegate system "crooked" and "unfair". He has repeatedly clashed with the RNC over its nomination process and how it has treated his candidacy. He has called rules that allowed Senator Ted Cruz to gain more delegates than him in some states "rigged".

[Otaking]

Just seen reported that John Kasich is out as well.

[Gredler]

The end really is near. I really can't believe these are our candidates. WWE is more legitimate and believable than our political system. How depressing.

[EvilEvoIX]

Anyone else get a chuckle out of Trump claiming Ted's dad was involved in the Kennedy assassination?

I like the "GRIP" method of voting.  Get Ride of Incumbent Politicians.

Riders gonna ride? 

Whosever in throw them the fuck out that way nothing gets done.  Keep the system encumbered and counter intuitive.

I thought you wanted to 'jerk the wheel' and change the system.  What's the point of getting rid of incumbents for the express purpose of the new guys/gals to get in, do nothing, and maintain the status quo?

I've voted for both Republican and Democrat for president.  Generally GRIP applies to NJ but could work on a national scale.  If Trump gets in you better believe that the House an Senate will swing left to stop him from passing laws.  GRIP at work.

[jlued686]

I like reading TheWeek.com. They're pretty straightforward and - the best part - they don't allow comments.

They just posted an interesting article on the Trump fiasco, basically leaning away from the "end of days" rhetoric and comparing him to Berlusconi, which I think is a pretty apt scenario. I don't think he's going to bring about end times. I just think he'll be a loudmouth, bumbling and embarrassing pig who'll eventually be taken down by his own ego and stupidity. It makes me more interested to see who his VP pick will be. If he goes with someone competent and somewhat thoughtful, I'm more optimistic. If he goes with an idiotic nitwit, a la Palin, then we're truly fucked.

Here's the article:
http://theweek.com/articles/622581/how-bad-president-trump

[BigusSchmuck]

Drumpf wants to default on the national debt.
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/king-debt-trump-suggests-hed-default
Wow, that'll piss off China.

[EvilEvoIX]

Drumpf wants to default on the national debt.
http://crooksandliars.com/2016/05/king-debt-trump-suggests-hed-default
Wow, that'll piss off China.

He see's the USA as a business being raped repeatedly.  He simply wants to wrestle back control and end trade deficits.  He does this by holding all the cards and threatening to burn the whole building down if he doesn't get his way.  China will more than likely play ball because if the USA defaults on debt (HIGHLY unlikely as we simply print money and mortgage the future) it'll collapse our dollar.  So owing China 1.4 trillion dollars with money that is now worthless would essentially wipe our debt.  It's a vicious cycle we are locked in.  As long as we keep borrowing and making payments our currency remains strong.  China keeps having to loan us money because if they don't we default.


An old adage...


If you owe a bank $50,000, you have a problem.

If you owe a bank $50,000,000, the bank has a problem.


FYI he isn't suggesting to default as a tactic, he's merely pointing out what would happen if interest rates would rise on the debt we owe in contrast to China devaluing their currency.  What a bullshit lying article, nowhere in that video does he say he'll default on US Debt.  So typical of the media.   Did you even watch the video or would that be too hard to actually listen to facts and make a decision vs parroting liberal talking points?

Don't like the man, think hes dangerous, vote against him.  That article is one of the many proofs of a lying, biased media and the people who don't read and take it as facts.

[wilykat]

Defaulting would really hurt us poor Americans.  The biggest debt holder is not China but Social Security.  The government had written so much IOUs to keep old people from going broke that the government themselves are terminally broke.  Something like 2/3 of total debt is owned by US and 1/3 by outside.  China only has about 7.5% of US total debt

[shawnji]

I just wanted to chime in and say that the Japanese guys at my workplace are terrified of Trump and what he's going to do to Japanese / American business relationships.  The fact that he's trying to get the Japanese government to pay for the military base in Okinawa (which they already take on some of the costs for) is a big issue too.  Some people I talk to are terrified that he'll pull the base out and Japan will suddenly be at the mercy of North Korea and China without having the resources to put up a real defense.  Alternatively, the people of Okinawa have been pushing for years to get the base removed because of the noise pollution, rowdy and disruptive soldiers, and cases of rape by said soldiers that have occured over the years.

Anyway, it's interesting to get their perspective and I thought I'd share.

[Otaking]

Deez Nuts would be far better candidate than Trump.
https://www.facebook.com/Deez-Nuts-for-President-2016-142303999436812/

[BigusSchmuck]

Deez Nuts would be far better candidate than Trump.
https://www.facebook.com/Deez-Nuts-for-President-2016-142303999436812/

Thank you, glad someone else agrees with me. It has a nice ring to it. Better than Drumpf.

[Otaking]

Just seen reported in the news that Trump has now officially won enough delegates (1,238) for the Republican nomination.

[Sadler]

 

Here's to hoping for a 1 term president, regardless of who wins.

[bob]

republicans are essentially voting for the VP, since i wouldnt be surprised if Trump was off'd not long into his term.

[NecroPhile]

I don't like the guy, but I hope to hell that don't happen.  We're not some middle eastern shit hole country where it's okay to kill the other guy if he wins.

[BigusSchmuck]

Don't care, voting third party. Fuck Drumpf and Billary.

[EvilEvoIX]

1237

[NightWolve]

Trumpster in-it-to-win-it, no turning back now! 

[jlued686]

I don't like the guy, but I hope to hell that don't happen.  We're not some middle eastern shit hole country where it's okay to kill the other guy if he wins.

I agree. I think impeachment is more likely as he'll do something completely illegal without even realizing it.

[bob]

my comment was more alluding to the fact his narrow view of every ethnicity is going to probably piss off just one crazy person

[jlued686]

I thought some crazy redneck might kill Obama, too. But it looks like he just might make it. ;)

The thing about Trump is I get why people are excited by him. They like what he represents, or at least what they think he represents. They've been fucked over so hard by the so-called "establishment" for so long that they want someone to come in, speak straight with them, and fuck shit up. A bull in a China shop, so to speak. They feel used, which they have been. Their beliefs and values have been used as a wedge and a political tool, only to be discarded once election day is over.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, Trump is not what they think he is. He's not doing this for them. He's doing it to feed his ego. They need someone who at least knows what the hell he's talking about and truly cares about them. Basically, they need a right-wing Bernie. You can disagree with Bernie's policies and views all you want (and I disagree with many of them). But he's informed, experienced, and you know what you're getting. With Trump, you don't know if he'll change his mind from one moment to the next, and that's because he  hasn't given anything more than a superficial consideration. It's all about his ego and his bluster.

But, like I said before, I don't think his election would signal the end of days. I think the most likely scenario is he would do something illegal - not out of malice, but out of sheer ignorance and ego - that would get him tossed out of office. This is why I think his VP pick is the most important VP pick of all time.

[NightWolve]

Eh, the vice president standards are pretty low, and democrats are hereby recused for 8 years in judging the worth of the VP pick on the republican side... The thing though that I like about "Plugs" Biden is that it's actually inspiring to all of us - when I look at him I think, gee, I could've been a VP too, or anybody else in this thread, the average Joe Blow Schmoe in other words, no big deal! If THAT guy could make it to being one heartbeat away from the presidency, then by God, I could do it too if I wanted...



You hear what I'm saying, bruh ? 



I get that you're totally opposed to Trump, but throwing it out there that HE would be the one to cross the impeachment line is pretty silly after what Obama's gotten away with in the face of a republican Congress and his unconstitutional executive orders ("Durrr, if Congress won't act, I WILL!!! FUNDAMENTAL TRANSFORMATION!!!"). Maybe if democrats take over the Senate certainly, but that remains to be seen. They wanted to with Bush and could've when they were in charge, but going by history and how that worked out with B.J. "Bubba" Clinton probably was the main deterrent.

Crazy Bernie would be more years of gridlock, he's even more Far Left than the democrat primary voters which is why they voted him down even in the face of a lying, corrupt politician like Clinton. It's funny, all she had to do is stay cool during her time as secretary of state, just sit there and by the end of it cite it as a "resume enhancer" (just as she did as a NY senator), but instead she had to go to the unusual step of setting up private email servers to evade some level of government accountability measures which got her into some legal and political trouble. Pretty dumb.

[EmperorIng]

I'll never get tired* of pictures of Biden awkwardly grabbing and fondling small girls. Did people really want him to run? Is he notable for anything, ever?

*tired of getting the heeby-jeebies, that is

[jlued686]

I like you, Nightwolve.

Just wanted to lead with that. ;)

I'm not pitting one side vs. the other here. I'm not looking to start a discourse that boils down to "Oh yeah?! Well what about what the other side did, HUH?!"

That said, you seem to have missed my point, which was simply this: Trump, with all his bluster and his ignorance of nearly everything to do with the office for which he's running*, there's probably a chance that he will inadvertently do something that will get him tossed out of office. Further, my point about his VP pick was not to say, "Because Biden is a genius!"** My point was that I hope his VP pick is capable because there's a chance he's gonna get called up to the big boy chair at some point.

We can talk Executive Order abuse (which is a legitimate concern) vs. unprecedented obstructionism (also legitimate) in a different thread if you'd like.

*Before anyone takes issue with my use of the word "ignorance" in relation to Trump, keep in mind that this ignorance is apparently one of his selling points with his supporters. Ignorance seems to fall into the "Pros" column as they take it to mean he's an "outsider".

**I would vote for Biden for President simply to get at least four more years of The Onion's Diamand Joe articles. Pure gold.

[NecroPhile]

Executive orders are tools of tyranny!   ..... but only when issued by Obama. 

As for Biden - as dumb as he is, he's not as retarded as the VP he ran against.

[NightWolve]

I'm not pitting one side vs. the other here. I'm not looking to start a discourse that boils down to "Oh yeah?! Well what about what the other side did, HUH?!"

That said, you seem to have missed my point, which was simply this: Trump, with all his bluster and his ignorance of nearly everything to do with the office for which he's running*, there's probably a chance that he will inadvertently do something that will get him tossed out of office. Further, my point about his VP pick was not to say, "Because Biden is a genius!"** My point was that I hope his VP pick is capable because there's a chance he's gonna get called up to the big boy chair at some point.

We can talk Executive Order abuse (which is a legitimate concern) vs. unprecedented obstructionism (also legitimate) in a different thread if you'd like.

*Before anyone takes issue with my use of the word "ignorance" in relation to Trump, keep in mind that this ignorance is apparently one of his selling points with his supporters. Ignorance seems to fall into the "Pros" column as they take it to mean he's an "outsider".

No, I see your point, I just disagree with it - I don't think it has much merit. I think you're just putting it out there as another insult to his character, much like this thread's title accuses him of being trigger-happy and most-likely-to-drop-another-nuke, a classic form of libel levied at republicans/right-leaning politicians.

Here's what I think: The system and current environment doesn't lend itself to the scenario you're putting out there. He's put forth policy ideas, but nowhere did that somehow imply that it'd be accomplished by hook or by crook via expanding/abusing presidential powers... It's like people are auto-accusing him of what Obama did with executive order abuse, when he'll have a republican Congress if elected for the most part and will be able to get some/most of it passed with them. There's nothing different of over-promising plans/ideas in the campaign trail and then having to get back down to reality and pragmatism if Congress isn't gonna go along on some here and there.

Obama is a solid ideologue unlike Trump, and going from full power in Congress with 60 senate seats for ~6 months to losing both chambers is what led to him and his regime looking for whatever means necessary to try to work around our system of divided power. And even with what he got away with, no serious thought of impeachment ever occurred. The judicial system pushed him back somewhat on immigration, and recess judicial appointments, but his excesses in Obamacare survived by one vote given John Roberts apparently flipped his vote the last minute, so now we live in a time where the federal government has expanded its power to being able to mandate that you go out and buy a product/service.

Point is though, some checks and balances occurred thanks to lawsuits and the judicial system to reign in Obama's authoritarianism/unilateralism/attempts to concentrate more and more power into the presidency despite falsely promising to reverse this trend which he accused Bush of when he was a candidate. See:

,

(but he did it anyway), and

Why would Trump be any different and not be subject to the same push backs and why would he even feel the inclination if Congress is in republican hands ? Your prediction is based on another prediction, democrats at least capturing the US senate.

On the issue of our system of transferring power and what the job of the presidency actually is, why it is that a "community disorganizer" lawyer hack like Obama and Joe "Plugs" Biden, formerly the dumbest man in the Senate, now THE dumbest man in the WhiteHouse, why is it that either one could transition into the position and the country not see any serious disruption somehow ? They all inherit the full-time WhiteHouse staffers and the party apparatus that comes with being apart of a political party, in other words, all the onboard experience that's ALWAYS there! The job entails making speeches, flying around at tax-payer expense, signing bills brought before you into law, an either yes/no decision, same when the military branch comes to you and says, we planned an op to capture/kill Osama Bin Laden, yes or no ?

First year, any candidate likely defers to Congress in the writing/advising of most bills. A president can submit his budget ideas eventually, but the House of Reps holds that power and ultimately writes the final version though it must be able to pass a veto threat if the 2/3 override majorities aren't there.

Trump would be subject to the same things, the party apparatus comes on board that has experience controlling the WhiteHouse, as well as the existing WhiteHouse staffers that are there to facilitate a smooth transition from outgoing president to new one, etc. If Hillary Clinton can do this, Trump can do it also... The position just isn't as powerful as it's made out to be and why a guy that's dumb as a box of rocks like "Plugs" Biden could do it... You'd pretty much just get the same democrat policies overall that you're used to...

So, my point is, Trump will be subject to all of this as anybody else would, and he'll want a good legacy, so he'll defer to the party apparatus starting off the first year, and as experience and confidence grows, then he'll start to submit his own particulars here and there... It's how the system works really.

The only way I would kind of agree with you on this point is if a 3rd Party candidate from say the Green, CPUSA, Socialist Worker's, Constitution, or Conservative parties won the presidency. In which case, the 2 main parties that have held the presidencies for most of the country's history do not come on board to advise/ensure a smooth power transition and maintenance of the party's brand. A truly independent candidate is less likely to be helped by the existing staff from the 2 party system. In other words, the learning curve for the job would be MUCH higher because you don't get the benefit of that, just the WhiteHouse staff system, again, that's always there by tax-payer expense...

So, the question is, how is Trump gonna run into something that'll "inadvertently" get him "impeached" by the party that's in charge, his party which he's running under, which would be advising him in some ways to AVOID making that a reality ? The GOP is not gonna impeach their party's candidate, which would lead to PR damage and electoral losses. Worst case, some laws passed under Congress or orders (IF they're legitimately an abuse/overreach) get tied up or thrown out by the courts as we saw with Obama several times... Other than that, this charge is just background noise/exaggeration to me.

[Otaking]

https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/10153779035896939/ - Trump reacts to Obama's Hiroshima visit

[OldRover]

If we can survive two Bushes, we can survive Trump. I'm not too worried either way.

[Otaking]

Top 10 Crazy Donald Trump Moments

[Otaking]

WTF
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36907541