DonLever

Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

I have to say, the very fact he IS being passive in the fight against Clinton is actually a bright spot.

 

Running for leadership roles is not about blaming or whining about the other persons' track record and making every effort to impugne their character.  it is about setting oneself apart from what is the norm, it is about being a better person, showing your ideas and detailing your plan on how you will be better.

 

After 11 weeks of pissing and moaning about track records, hair and failures in our own election just 4 months ago i find it VERY refreshing to see politicking being done without the typical flinging of fecal material in an effort to make yourself look better by pointing out your opponents flaws.

 

If Sanders somehow earns the POTUS, the ONLY issue he will have making these changes will be the republicans and of course the fact he'd be assassinated before he got the chance

So when the Black Lives Matter group hijacked Sanders' own event and humiliated him, he stood there and took it, because he was afraid he would be labeled a racist for standing up to a group that bullied him out of his own platform.

Tells me that he is a great guy with some great ideas, but he's a bit lacking in the courage department. Call the Wizard of Oz up.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Mustapha said:

So when the Black Lives Matter group hijacked Sanders' own event and humiliated him, he stood there and took it, because he was afraid he would be labeled a racist for standing up to a group that bullied him out of his own platform.

Tells me that he is a great guy with some great ideas, but he's a bit lacking in the courage department. Call the Wizard of Oz up.

Uhhh....what?

 

Are you SURE that's what happened?

 

They took the mic after jumping the barricade, at which point Sanders could have had them forcibly removed instead he allowed them their 4+ minutes of silence for Brown, he allowed them to speak and he allowed them to have their say before finally just closing the event until the nights events kicked off.  He understood within seconds that nothing was going to get them to leave peacefully and instead let them have their childish moment.

 

That doesn't make him weak, that doesn't make him less of a man.  This is where you tell us Trump would be tough ebcause he'd have security tase and throw them trouble makers out.

 

Right?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/08/politics/bernie-sanders-black-lives-matter-protesters/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-black-lives-matter_us_55c68f14e4b0923c12bd197e

 

To sum it up, blaming Bernie Sanders and "holding him accountable" is a joke as he had NOTHING to do with any of the issues in ferguson, Florida or california in recent times.  Holding a guy accountable and claiming he's a racist when he full on stood shoulder to shoulder with martin Luther frigging King only shows how ridiculous that is.  It would have been like a man arguing with a full voiced feminist.

 

The only thing more ludicrous is how people claim he's not "strong" for allowing them to spout off without understanding the ONLY way that would have been halted would have been forcible violence which would have only damaged his credibility and appearance.

 

Hell if anything, bernie did literally everything right in a losing situation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Uhhh....what?

 

Are you SURE that's what happened?

 

They took the mic after jumping the barricade, at which point Sanders could have had them forcibly removed instead he allowed them their 4+ minutes of silence for Brown, he allowed them to speak and he allowed them to have their say before finally just closing the event until the nights events kicked off.  He understood within seconds that nothing was going to get them to leave peacefully and instead let them have their childish moment.

 

That doesn't make him weak, that doesn't make him less of a man.  This is where you tell us Trump would be tough ebcause he'd have security tase and throw them trouble makers out.

 

Right?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/08/politics/bernie-sanders-black-lives-matter-protesters/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-black-lives-matter_us_55c68f14e4b0923c12bd197e

 

To sum it up, blaming Bernie Sanders and "holding him accountable" is a joke as he had NOTHING to do with any of the issues in ferguson, Florida or california in recent times.  Holding a guy accountable and claiming he's a racist when he full on stood shoulder to shoulder with martin Luther frigging King only shows how ridiculous that is.  It would have been like a man arguing with a full voiced feminist.

 

The only thing more ludicrous is how people claim he's not "strong" for allowing them to spout off without understanding the ONLY way that would have been halted would have been forcible violence which would have only damaged his credibility and appearance.

 

Hell if anything, bernie did literally everything right in a losing situation

You're right, I remembered it wrong. They didn't just embarrass him by making him stand off to the side while they did their ridiculous routine, they forced him to end the event as well.

 

I never even mentioned Ferguson, Florida, California, let alone blame Bernie for those events. Not sure why you would bring that up.

There was nothing stopping him from keeping his microphone. He willingly gave it up because he knew if he didn't they would have become louder, agitated and possibly more aggressive towards him. Classic bullying. "Give me your lunch money, Bernie, or I will beat you up, or even worse, label you a racist"

 

you said "This is where you tell us Trump would be tough ebcause he'd have security tase and throw them trouble makers out."

I don't know what Trump would do, but there's nothing wrong with tossing out troublemakers. I can understand that it's harder to toss out black troublemakers, because identity politics dictates that such actions are automatically racism, but if I were running an event for my supporters, I would think that taking reasonable steps to ensure the event is held in an orderly fashion is prudent (and no, that doesn't mean tasing people)

To further my point, it would be nice to see Sanders illustrate why he is a better candidate than Clinton. He doesn't have to stoop to personal attacks, but he can focus on why his policy regarding money in politics and the corporate expectation of 'ROI' by their funding of Clinton. It's never underhanded to point out the truth, and Clinton is a corporate shill, it isn't even a secret.

I don't think many Americans are well informed on the corruption in government, and Bernie needs to make it clear that his presidency would rise above that.

He is very idealistic with his intentions, but he needs to be more pragmatic with his actions if he expects to win the nomination.

Clinton has the people's emotions, because right now it seems more progressive to vote for the person with female genitalia than it is to elect someone who has desires to overhaul social services and corporate taxation.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Mustapha said:

You're right, I remembered it wrong. They didn't just embarrass him by making him stand off to the side while they did their ridiculous routine, they forced him to end the event as well.

 

I never even mentioned Ferguson, Florida, California, let alone blame Bernie for those events. Not sure why you would bring that up.

There was nothing stopping him from keeping his microphone. He willingly gave it up because he knew if he didn't they would have become louder, agitated and possibly more aggressive towards him. Classic bullying. "Give me your lunch money, Bernie, or I will beat you up, or even worse, label you a racist"

 

you said "This is where you tell us Trump would be tough ebcause he'd have security tase and throw them trouble makers out."

I don't know what Trump would do, but there's nothing wrong with tossing out troublemakers. I can understand that it's harder to toss out black troublemakers, because identity politics dictates that such actions are automatically racism, but if I were running an event for my supporters, I would think that taking reasonable steps to ensure the event is held in an orderly fashion is prudent (and no, that doesn't mean tasing people)

To further my point, it would be nice to see Sanders illustrate why he is a better candidate than Clinton. He doesn't have to stoop to personal attacks, but he can focus on why his policy regarding money in politics and the corporate expectation of 'ROI' by their funding of Clinton. It's never underhanded to point out the truth, and Clinton is a corporate shill, it isn't even a secret.

I don't think many Americans are well informed on the corruption in government, and Bernie needs to make it clear that his presidency would rise above that.

He is very idealistic with his intentions, but he needs to be more pragmatic with his actions if he expects to win the nomination.

Clinton has the people's emotions, because right now it seems more progressive to vote for the person with female genitalia than it is to elect someone who has desires to overhaul social services and corporate taxation.

 

No worries man, I recalled it wrong too, I actually recall bernie literally handing them the mic and stepping abck.  But that woman...wow she's a piece of work eh?  I only brought up the ferguson events etc because of the context of the BLM movement that took over his rally.

 

You're exactly right.  he could not win.  Give up the mic and be labeled a coward, keep the mic and have them removed and be labeled a racist hater or worse.  Again a no win scenario, at least be ceding the mic he avoided confrontation and those uglier labels.

 

Yes, i figured you'd have a segue in to why or how Trump would have handled it differently as Trump has had the most "troublemakers" of the candidates.  Sadly his "troublemakers" are by and large quite peaceful and while being removed face ridicule and worse both from Trump and his attendees.  But then Trump hasn't really held a rally where he is at arms length from the people where he's openly accessible in the same manner Sanders has been at the rally where the BLM took the stage

 

I think in fact Sanders is doing just what you have said.  he is not addressing Clinton personally in anything but the debates and even then is doing it in a very acceptable and democratic manner.  he is pointing out her flaws and her record on everything she claims to champion which is in effect doing far more than those baseless and expected personal attacks ever could.  To be honest, I cannot honestly recall the last time we saw an election where any 1 single candidate had made it this far while still maintaining a modicum of professionalism and not resorting to said attacks.

 

His platform he has been very outspoken on, it is still a framework as is all of the candidates' at this stage but his is the only one thus far that outlines a plan and measures to meet that plan including cuts/increases and taxation.  Sanders thus far in fact is the only 1 of the 4 front runners thus far to step up and tell them what he'd do in everything from budgets, taxes to education and the armed forces.  He's also talked about how to best work with the GOP in both the house and the senate.

 

The main reason we haven't heard much of or anything of the sort in MSM is because I personally think main stream media fears what bernie is doing.  An old white guy with nothing to lose and a genuine mission to try to save the country from the death spiral it is in.

 

You're very apt to point out the gender card with Clinton though, as she really has little to nothing else going for her that differentiates her from any of the other candidates or the current regime.  Which sadly is why she'll probably get the DNC nod.

 

I think we stand to see an exciting race between Trump and Sanders, two people so outside of the establishment that it beggars belief.  A truly democratic race instead of the cookie cutter garbage we've seen since the 70s

 

Thanks for the actual spirited debate and conversation on this

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

 

I think we stand to see an exciting race between Trump and Sanders, two people so outside of the establishment that it beggars belief.  A truly democratic race instead of the cookie cutter garbage we've seen since the 70s

 

 

 

This sums up my view of it as well. Like him or not, Trump isn't pretending to be someone he's not, and Bernie is not like any candidate I have ever seen. It would be refreshing to have an election that wasn't sponsored by Goldman Sachs or the Koch Bros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Mustapha said:

This sums up my view of it as well. Like him or not, Trump isn't pretending to be someone he's not, and Bernie is not like any candidate I have ever seen. It would be refreshing to have an election that wasn't sponsored by Goldman Sachs or the Koch Bros.

All I know is that the last US president that even closely resembled Sanders in theory, ideas and behaviour/record in office was a guy named Franklin Roosevelt and closely following him a fellow named Truman.

 

Things turned out pretty good for the US after no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

All I know is that the last US president that even closely resembled Sanders in theory, ideas and behaviour/record in office was a guy named Franklin Roosevelt and closely following him a fellow named Truman.

 

Things turned out pretty good for the US after no?

The Internet has broken my sarcasm meter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

All I know is that the last US president that even closely resembled Sanders in theory, ideas and behaviour/record in office was a guy named Franklin Roosevelt and closely following him a fellow named Truman.

 

Things turned out pretty good for the US after no?

Roosevelt didn't live long enough to see those 'socialist' policies through in the US, but they definitely helped transform Japan and war ravaged Germany into modern nations, that's for sure.

Had FDR lived, the US might well have had some of the subsidized college and universal healthcare etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could Lynden B. Johnson push through way more social programs than Roosevelt did.

from Wikipedia:

The Great Society was a set of domestic programs in the United States launched by Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964–65. The main goal was the elimination of poverty and racial injustice. President Johnson first used the term "Great Society" during a speech at Ohio University, then unveiled the program in greater detail at an appearance at University of Michigan. New major spending programs that addressed education, medical care, urban problems, and transportation were launched during this period. The program and its initiatives were subsequently promoted by him and fellow Democrats in Congress in the 1960s and years following. The Great Society in scope and sweep resembled the New Deal domestic agenda of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Some Great Society proposals were stalled initiatives from John F. Kennedy's New Frontier.[citation needed] Johnson's success depended on his skills of persuasion, coupled with the Democratic landslide in the 1964 election that brought in many new liberals to Congress, making the House of Representatives in 1965 the most liberal House since 1938.[1]

Anti-war Democrats complained that spending on the Vietnam War choked off the Great Society. While some of the programs have been eliminated or had their funding reduced, many of them, including Medicare, Medicaid, the Older Americans Act and federal education funding, continue to the present. The Great Society's programs expanded under the administrations of Republican presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.[2]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, DonLever said:

You could Lynden B. Johnson push through way more social programs than Roosevelt did.

 

Yeah, like I said, if Roosevelt hadn't died in office during wartime, he might have had time to enact more social programs in the US.

As nice as programs like Medicaid and Medicare are, they pale in comparison to the social system enjoyed by modern Germany.

The US has a relatively poor social safety net when compared to its Western peers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mustapha said:

Yeah, like I said, if Roosevelt hadn't died in office during wartime, he might have had time to enact more social programs in the US.

As nice as programs like Medicaid and Medicare are, they pale in comparison to the social system enjoyed by modern Germany.

The US has a relatively poor social safety net when compared to its Western peers.

It is doubtful Roosevelt could have gone any further with social programs even if he had lived because society in the 1930's and 1940's was very conservative compared to coming decades.  During that there was still segregation in the US even the arm forces were not integrated during WWII.

it was only social unrest in the 1960's that brought in social programs.  Including Civil Rights legislation brought in by Johnson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Mustapha said:

Rhymes with 'Shillary'. Also happens to be a corporate shill.

If you say so...

However, if you're saying that Trump would be preferable to Clinton as POTUS, I'll have to respectfully disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

If you say so...

However, if you're saying that Trump would be preferable to Clinton as POTUS, I'll have to respectfully disagree.

 

Here's a question: How will Hillary's administration differ from Obama's?

The answer: Basically not at all. They both serve the same master, and that master demands, you guessed it, the status quo. 

If you are an American and need to vote against Trump,  I would recommend Sanders. He has actual principles and ideas that could benefit the people.

Hillary is by far the worst candidate in the race. No substance, no change, just the same old same old. Changes her policies to reflect which ever way public opinion goes, absolutely nothing there whatsoever.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mustapha said:

 

Here's a question: How will Hillary's administration differ from Obama's?

The answer: Basically not at all. They both serve the same master, and that master demands, you guessed it, the status quo. 

If you are an American and need to vote against Trump,  I would recommend Sanders. He has actual principles and ideas that could benefit the people.

Hillary is by far the worst candidate in the race. No substance, no change, just the same old same old. Changes her policies to reflect which ever way public opinion goes, absolutely nothing there whatsoever.

To be clear, I would prefer Sanders. However, I don't see a continuation of the way Obama has run things as the negative that you seem to. I certainly don't see a blowhard like Trump as an improvement.

As I said earlier, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mustapha said:

 

Here's a question: How will Hillary's administration differ from Obama's?

The answer: Basically not at all. They both serve the same master, and that master demands, you guessed it, the status quo. 

If you are an American and need to vote against Trump,  I would recommend Sanders. He has actual principles and ideas that could benefit the people.

Hillary is by far the worst candidate in the race. No substance, no change, just the same old same old. Changes her policies to reflect which ever way public opinion goes, absolutely nothing there whatsoever.

 

 

I'd actually put her exactly on the same level as Cruz and Rubio

 

While I think Trump is by far the more dangerous for America and the world really between Sanders and himself, I also think he'd be the one to most keep up the current path the US is on.  War spying xenophobia anger outsourcing jobs and more.

 

He is talking a good game, but how will he bring jobs home when he outsources labour and manufacturing of his brand to asia and mexico?  Sanders might do the most good but he'd either be shot by a fanatic or blocked by the GOP and even right leaning Dems on the dole.

 

One of his largest promises was to make lobbying illegal and force senators governors and congressmen to divulge where they derive their income from as well as what they are expensing and how.

 

That will get him nothing but heat flack and inevitably shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most ridiculous thing about New Hampshire is that despite Sanders having the popular vote, Clinton will walk away with at least half of the delegates because of the projected preferences of the superdelegates.

The system is broken. It's the opposite of a democratic vote - in a party that calls itself 'democrats' as well.

Edited by Scottish⑦Canuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is so much i love about the US and yet so much I dislike at the same time.

Their Constitution allows personal freedoms that make the ones in Canada pale in comparison. For better or worse, Americans have uninhibited free expression. Thanks, First Amendment. 

Yet, their tax system has been corrupted by corporate interests to the point that expanded social services will not be sustainable until the tax laws are overhauled.

In order for that to occur, I honestly believe that the US needs to undergo a modern French revolutionary-esque revolt. Even in France, it took a series of terrible events and fiscal blunders coupled with abysmal harvests to bring this about. Months of starvation and years of bitterness...

 

As wage inequality rises, I  have to ask, how poor does the public need to be? Can people today rise up and overthrow their government when its too easy to buy a McDouble for a buck, turn on 'The Voice' and worry about their mounting diabetes another day? 

I don't know how bad it will have to be this time around.

If you think Trump is bad for America, wouldn't you want to hasten the inevitable by electing him? Hillary might be their Diocletian,  holding the Empire together for a bit longer,  but only delaying its demise,  not saving it from destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DonLever said:

It is doubtful Roosevelt could have gone any further with social programs even if he had lived because society in the 1930's and 1940's was very conservative compared to coming decades.  During that there was still segregation in the US even the arm forces were not integrated during WWII.

it was only social unrest in the 1960's that brought in social programs.  Including Civil Rights legislation brought in by Johnson.

There are other factors, including the US' relationship with the Soviets, and public opinion denouncing communism.

In the 1930's, there was a lot of support for unions and workers rights, even here in Canada communist ideology spread like wildfire. 

Conservatives have been swayed by socialist programs in decades past,  look no further than our own ' Greatest Canadian' : Tommy Douglas.

Post WW2, Roosevelt might have pursued the programs he endorsed in West Germany Europe and Japan...but we will never know, because he died before the end of the war.

Not sure how segregation is involved,  by social programs i mean universal healthcare, subsidized education, workers'  rights and support for unions.

Racial equality is a different discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scottish⑦Canuck said:

The most ridiculous thing about New Hampshire is that despite Sanders having the popular vote, Clinton will walk away with at least half of the delegates because of the projected preferences of the superdelegates.

The system is broken. It's the opposite of a democratic vote - in a party that calls itself 'democrats' as well.

Agreed, was just reading up on that.  even though bernie techincally won iowa and New Hampshire with 22%+ of the overall vote, Clinton owns the super delegates comprised of former politicians, congressmen, past presidents (many of which remaining and viable are republican and would vote clinton over snaders 10/10 times) senators and more.

 

Clinton all but owns them all and as such she literally will walk away with the democratic vote against the wishes of the people as proven by current polling.

 

"Democratic"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   1 member