Donald Trump - Opinions?

[britbox]

 

[Federberg]

Ugh... I feel embarrassed for her. It's a tough choice America faces! Rather her than the Donald though

 

[britbox]

Ugh... I feel embarrassed for her. It's a tough choice America faces! Rather her than the Donald though

After watching that, it re-enforced my own view that 90% of politicians are only in it form themselves and will say virtually anything to get elected.

 

[Moxie]

I wish Hillary had just said that she'd evolved on the issue. Barack Obama did, and said it, and the country evolved on it, too.

 

[isabelle]

I pity American people, they have Trump as a possible futur president...it's just terrible !!!

 

[britbox]

I pity American people, they have Trump as a possible futur president...it's just terrible !!!

On what basis is it terrible? I'm not saying I particularly like Trump but all I'm hearing is cheap and easy statements like "He's a racist/Xenophone", "He's sexist"... really? Is that really the counter argument?

 

[Federberg]

I'm holding out for the hope that this is just campaigning, and if (IF) he gets to the White House he'll end up being more pragmatic. Ironically there were concerns about Reagan when he started his journey to the WH. Look what happened in the end.

 

[britbox]

I'm holding out for the hope that this is just campaigning, and if (IF) he gets to the White House he'll end up being more pragmatic. Ironically there were concerns about Reagan when he started his journey to the WH. Look what happened in the end.

He'd have to be more pragmatic or there would be riots on the streets. I'd imagine he'd start softening his tone once he secured the republican nomination... which isn't a done deal yet.

 

[Federberg]

He'd have to be more pragmatic or there would be riots on the streets. I'd imagine he'd start softening his tone once he secured the republican nomination... which isn't a done deal yet.

The republican nomination looks a lot closer to being done now than the democrat one. Never thought I would say that. Hillary stealing defeat from the jaws of victory again!

 

[britbox]

The republican nomination looks a lot closer to being done now than the democrat one. Never thought I would say that. Hillary stealing defeat from the jaws of victory again!

Yeah, Michigan was a huge surprise. I believe she blew a 20 point lead?

 

[Federberg]

Yeah, Michigan was a huge surprise. I believe she blew a 20 point lead?

something like that. I'm looking forward to California. It's getting tight!

 

[calitennis127]

Cali, I respond to you because I am responding to the thread. Neither you nor I think we're going to change each others' opinions. Britbox has asked for opinions on Trump. Our opinions conflict. If he wants to read what Ann Coulter has to say, well, you've put it up there. For my money, she's too biased by far to be worth reading any more.

You want to compare Obama and Trump on substance? When asked by Stephanopolous if he would disavow white supremacists, Trump said this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...y_thats_done_more_for_equality_as_i_have.html

Compare this to Barack Obama on race:

https://video.search.yahoo.com/sear...=e2c95a34c851e05c97d62299b676340c&action=view

Trump's claim to substance on race questions is that he created a great club in Palm Beach, and it's "open to everyone." Yeah, if you have $100,000. It's a very weird response, but I wouldn't say it was "substantial," especially compared to Obama, who has been poignant on the issue in speeches, in his book, and in his policy comments.

LOL.....goodness gracious.

Allow me to comment on Obama's race speech at the Constitution Center in Philadelphia, a wretched political venue if ever there was one. The ugliness of the building is matched only by the dishonest propaganda on the displays. It is fitting that Obama gave his speech at that place.

When Obama speaks of his multiracial origins, he comes across to the likes of Moxie as a near-erotic fantasy, as the wet dream of emotionally tepid leftists. There could be a book about Obama and the white left called "50 Shades of Rainbow". It could detail the level of erotic stimulation felt by white Democrats when they hear Obama, with his yawn-inducing speaking style, talk about how he is biracial and has an Islamic middle name. Obama does not represent historic black America. It is inaccurate to call him, in any meaningful sense, an "African-American". His father was born in Kenya, his mother was a white American from Kansas. He admitted that his white grandmother spent a great deal of time raising him and, as Ben Carson has said, his formative years were spent in Indonesia, not in the United States. He is neither of African-American ancestry nor of African-American experience. He is the product of white leftist culture in America. He was raised and influenced by whites. He is a puppet for the white leftist regime. So to call him an "African-American" is trivial, as well as meaningless in an experiential sense.

Now, as for his supposed poignancy on the issue of race. There is nothing unique about what he has said. He just repeats standard white leftist lines. But what Obama has a remarkable penchant for, especially with his insipid demeanor and bland delivery, is giving the credulous masses the impression that he is not taking a hard-line position when he actually is. When you combine this leftist trait with his biracial make-up and Islamic middle name, 50 Shades of Rainbow gets really steamy for the likes of Moxie. It really, really heats up.

In the Philadelphia speech, he voiced a standard white leftist view: namely, that America has come a long way on race, but discrimination is still very real; it's just that now it is less overt. He was denouncing some extreme comments from the infamous Rev. Wright, who shares the view of many blacks that America has been and remains a 400-year conspiracy of black oppression. His message was "hold your horses, Rev. Wright. America may still be very racist but it's not as unthinably racist as it once was". So, again, Obama was just saying what white leftists like Moxie believe about American history. It was nothing exceptional, nothing unique, and certainly nothing profound. It is a mythology that rejects the past up until very recently but gives white leftists some reason to be proud of America based on what they say are its "ideals".

Now, here is a dose of reality: the white left, which Obama is an exemplar of, is responsible for the degradation and severe struggles of black America in the last 50 years. The policies of the left have ruined numerous black communities and created environments of crime, drug abuse, family breakdown, educational failure, and poverty. Obama and other white leftists have done nothing to fix any of this, but have only made it worse and continued to blame conservative white America for the problem. The point of Obama's speech was to say "Yes, white conservatives, you have made progress but you still are quite racist and you need to improve your ways." There is nothing unique about this. It is just the same nonsensical view leftists express all the time.

It is not accurate to call Obama the first black president so much as the first rainbow-fantasy president of white leftists. He is not black in any meaningful cultural sense.

 

[Moxie]

Ick, I had to stop by the 5th sentence. What is wrong with you?! It takes you 2 weeks to compose responses to posts that some of us put up right away. And you come up with this trope?

 

[calitennis127]

Ick, I had to stop by the 5th sentence. What is wrong with you?! It takes you 2 weeks to compose responses to posts that some of us put up right away. And you come up with this trope?

Maybe some people spend some time away from the board and do not check it everyday. I am sorry for pointing out the truth about Obama. There is nothing unique or profound in his worldview, and, as I explained, it is completely dishonest of him to act like he connects with the historic American black experience or represents black America.

 

[Moxie]

You have no right to criticize or judge Barack Obama's experience as a black man in the US. Nor, for that matter, any African American person in this country. Take your own view, but don't criticize theirs from where they sit in their brown skin. There is no one position of the African-American experience and its authenticity. Perhaps you need to rewatch "School Daze" by Spike Lee. And if you don't think that we can all connect to the "historical American black experience," then you are missing an empathy gene, because it is deeply a part of our shared history. Not an "us v. them," but the history of all of us.

 

[calitennis127]

You have no right to criticize or judge Barack Obama's experience as a black man in the US. Nor, for that matter, any African American person in this country. Take your own view, but don't criticize theirs from where they sit in their brown skin. There is no one position of the African-American experience and its authenticity. Perhaps you need to rewatch "School Daze" by Spike Lee. And if you don't think that we can all connect to the "historical American black experience," then you are missing an empathy gene, because it is deeply a part of our shared history. Not an "us v. them," but the history of all of us.

Why don't you make that argument to Ben Carson? He grew up in inner-city Detroit and made himself into a rousing success out of nothing. He grew up in the ghetto and went on to become a prominent neurosurgeon and eventual presidential candidate. Does he have the "right" to judge Barack Obama's experience (or demonstrable lack thereof) as a black man in the United States? Carson said that it was disingenuous for Obama to pretend that he was raised black or connected with the historic black American experience. And Carson's position is entirely logical. If your mother was white and you spent your formative years in Indonesia, don't act like you grew up in the ghetto and know what it means to be a black American who had it tough. Obama was coddled his entire life and, as Carson said, he was indeed "raised white". Obama said nothing back to Carson because he had nothing to say. It was the truth. Obama was raised, bred, and molded by white hippies.

You say there is no one position of the African-American experience and its authenticity? Okay, well how about we start with the idea that your black ancestors should actually be from the North American continent before you start talking about the historic oppression of your people (as Obama has done his whole life)? And, better yet, if there is no one position of the African-American experience, then why don't we dispense with the generalized notion, shared by all leftists, that blacks as a group are historic victims of oppression, discrimination, and racism? Clearly, if there is "no one position of the African-American experience and its authenticity", then it would not make sense to say that all African-Americans are victims of racism. That would only be fair.

But, more to the point - Obama is not a black American in the traditional sense. This is borne out by the facts of his ancestry and early life. He is, as I have said, the multiracial rainbow fantasy of the white leftists that he is a puppet for. They bred him and propped him up as their precious little stuffed animal. He is biracial, he has an Islamic middle name, and he holds extreme leftist views. What could make a white leftist feel more wholesome inside than that? Beats Grandma's apple pie any day of the week, especially since Grandma is likely an old white bigot guilty of having doubts about gay marriage.

 

[teddytennisfan]

I haven't been following the early stages of electioneering in the US too closely, but can't miss the odd headline I catch - usually bagging Trump.

I've been catching up with some coverage the last few days.... is he really that bad? Obviously, he's very raw but he's also hard to ignore and quite engaging in many respects... The biggest one is that he comes across as genuine in his beliefs - unlike many of the other contenders. I always like conviction politicians even if I disagree with some of their politics.

Would be interested in the views of others, particularly Americans.

the elections are of course likely about the CROWNING of EMPRESS KILLARY ..who can't wait to get started with HER turn to bomb disobedient countries to smithereens - some more as she already did with libya (it's all exposed now in internal e mal exchanges as to the PRE-planning years before the ''gaddafi is the new hitler" meme 0-- which ALWAYS precedes an american ''regime change operation". -=- to the USA -- IT'S ALWAYS 1939 -- U SEE -- it's always :

"''if we don't bomb some country RIGHT NOW -- we are appeasing a HITLER..")...

but abhorrent as TRUMP might be -- being about the ''other" candidate of what passes for a country that has ''freedom of choice, stands for human rights, justice, fairness...blah, blah" --

i DO agree with Britbox - that whatever HIS potential presidency might yet be - not forgetting that they say one thing in campaign and have a 180 degree turn upon ascendance -- at least some of his positions are different than

empress "it's my turn to make the world OBEY" KILLARY.

ONE can disagree with his character or his boorishness , even racist notions - but teh OTHERS were never any LESS anyway.
notwithstanding the mendacious' ''first black Face" president who is nothing more (and always has been so) but a water boy for HIS white racist masters that , really, are what america REMAINS since its ''founding" whoever fancifully that is couched in highsounding words and proclmations as ''shining city on the hill".

but -- it it IS TRUE that the ''established political machines" are really concerned that he LOSE - N THE gop or n the general elections...

because he worries their bloodlust for more wars represented by their beloved QUEEN KILLARY -- OR that TED CRUZ --

THEN THAT alone makes TRUMP the ''better" choice out of a field of human mediocrities for ''leaders" -- of a country -- let alone one that extols its ''global leadership and exceptionality".

 

[teddytennisfan]

i agree with this .

there is NO reason why obama should be given the velvet gloves treatment as critique - just because he has a ''black face" ...and it has no bearing on whether one is being racist to point out that HIS presidence EXACTLY follows the long line of american presidents of IMPERIAL AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALIST WAR AND MONEY RACKETEERING...

HIS 8 years -- what HAS he dojne for the blacks ? the hispanics? the ''coloreds?

absolutely nothing - the moment HIS own reverend REV, WHITE who marched with martin luther king jr -- DARED say ''disallowed" words about america

"we do nothing but make war on others -- DAMN america, NOT bless america"..

obama SWIFTLY threw him right under the bus...

and that was during CAMPAIGN -- that OUGHT TO HAVE PUT A RED FLAG -- even to the black community...and we saw its CONFIRMATION AS the nobel peace prize winner -- RIGHT THERE nf ront of theworld in accpeting his ''trophy" --

SLEAZILY STOMPED on the very memory and grave of the greaT martin luther king jr...

by INSERTING this clever little obama typical phrase:

"but the world is differen tNOW than when king was aive:"


TO prepare THE WORLD FOR OBAMA'S WARS ''to achieve peace" ...

how anyone could have missed THAT very revealing thing right in front of the world...is beyond me -- let alone to continue top defend this WAR CRIMINAL

no different than HIS WHITE MASTERS are.

HE HAS killed more , DEPORTED MORE, PUSHED INTO POVERTY MORE, DESTROYED MORE countries, rendered homeless and country-less more

and threatens to destroy MORE economies with his TPP - TIPP

than his predecessor ever did...

obama is nothing more than a PAMPERED HOUSE SERVANT n the

''white house" of his WHITE MASTERS and their war and imperial and profit racket calling itself

the USA.

and now -- that his ''authority" usefulness is about to finish -- KNOWING his own legaccy of BLOOD and profits for his masters --

he is busy - beyond his golf -- and his tuesday morning ''assassination" meetings that he BRAGGED ABOUT...

trying to DUST OFF the blood from himself - while talking about how he ''tried to buck the system"....

since the WAR AND BLOOD SYSTEM HE SO EAGERLY SERVED

is getting exposed even more today for the ROTTEN thing that it is -- as the ''american way" of global ''FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE" THE PENTAGON and his pay masters love so much.

and he wants to be remembered as somehow some ''maverick" who ''opposed" destroying libya or syria or being in cahoots with ISIL - or ''terror factory" TURKEY...

and the disasters he has brought upon UKRAINE or georgia or yemen and syria..

where DO PEOPLE who have been so enamored of obama because he is somehow \\not george buish"

get the notion that obama was anyTHING BUT AN IMPERIALIST WITH BLOOD ON HIS HANDS

no less than bill clinton, reagan, bushes, carter, and just about EVERY american leadership has been?

Why don't you make that argument to Ben Carson? He grew up in inner-city Detroit and made himself into a rousing success out of nothing. He grew up in the ghetto and went on to become a prominent neurosurgeon and eventual presidential candidate. Does he have the "right" to judge Barack Obama's experience (or demonstrable lack thereof) as a black man in the United States? Carson said that it was disingenuous for Obama to pretend that he was raised black or connected with the historic black American experience. And Carson's position is entirely logical. If your mother was white and you spent your formative years in Indonesia, don't act like you grew up in the ghetto and know what it means to be a black American who had it tough. Obama was coddled his entire life and, as Carson said, he was indeed "raised white". Obama said nothing back to Carson because he had nothing to say. It was the truth. Obama was raised, bred, and molded by white hippies.

You say there is no one position of the African-American experience and its authenticity? Okay, well how about we start with the idea that your black ancestors should actually be from the North American continent before you start talking about the historic oppression of your people (as Obama has done his whole life)? And, better yet, if there is no one position of the African-American experience, then why don't we dispense with the generalized notion, shared by all leftists, that blacks as a group are historic victims of oppression, discrimination, and racism? Clearly, if there is "no one position of the African-American experience and its authenticity", then it would not make sense to say that all African-Americans are victims of racism. That would only be fair.

But, more to the point - Obama is not a black American in the traditional sense. This is borne out by the facts of his ancestry and early life. He is, as I have said, the multiracial rainbow fantasy of the white leftists that he is a puppet for. They bred him and propped him up as their precious little stuffed animal. He is biracial, he has an Islamic middle name, and he holds extreme leftist views. What could make a white leftist feel more wholesome inside than that? Beats Grandma's apple pie any day of the week, especially since Grandma is likely an old white bigot guilty of having doubts about gay marriage.

 

[teddytennisfan]

QUESTION MORE
live

Trump and Clinton: Censoring the unpalatable - John Pilger
Published time: 29 Mar, 2016 11:42Edited time: 29 Mar, 2016 13:18

Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump ,Democratic U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton © Scott Audette, Javier Galeano / Reuters
1.1K1
A virulent if familiar censorship is about to descend on the US election campaign. As the cartoon brute, Donald Trump, seems almost certain to win the Republican Party's nomination, Hillary Clinton is being ordained both as the "women's candidate" and the champion of American liberalism in its heroic struggle with the Evil One.
This is drivel, of course; Hillary Clinton leaves a trail of blood and suffering around the world and a clear record of exploitation and greed in her own country. To say so, however, is becoming intolerable in the land of free speech.

The 2008 presidential campaign of Barack Obama should have alerted even the most dewy-eyed. Obama based his "hope" campaign almost entirely on the fact of an African-American aspiring to lead the land of slavery. He was also "antiwar".

Obama was never antiwar. On the contrary, like all American presidents, he was pro-war. He had voted for George W. Bush's funding of the slaughter in Iraq and he was planning to escalate the invasion of Afghanistan. In the weeks before he took the presidential oath, he secretly approved an Israeli assault on Gaza, the massacre known as Operation Cast Lead. He promised to close the concentration camp at Guantanamo and did not. He pledged to help make the world "free from nuclear weapons" and did the opposite.

As a new kind of marketing manager for the status quo, the unctuous Obama was an inspired choice. Even at the end of his blood-spattered presidency, with his signature drones spreading infinitely more terror and death around the world than that ignited by jihadists in Paris and Brussels, Obama is fawned on as "cool" (the Guardian).

On March 23, my article, "A World War has Begun: Break the Silence", was published across the web. As has been my practice for years, I had syndicated it to an international network, including Truthout.com, the liberal American website. Truthout publishes some important journalism, not least Dahr Jamail's outstanding corporate exposes.

Read more
A world war has begun. Break the silence – John Pilger
Truthout rejected the piece because, said an editor, it had appeared on Counterpunch and had broken "guidelines". I replied that this had never been a problem over many years and I knew of no guidelines.

My recalcitrance was then given another meaning. The article was reprieved provided I submitted to a "review" and agreed to changes and deletions made by Truthout's "editorial committee". The result was the softening and censoring of my criticism of Hillary Clinton, and the distancing of her from Trump. The following was cut:

"Trump is a media hate figure. That alone should arouse our scepticism. Trump's views on migration are grotesque, but no more grotesque than David Cameron. It is not Trump who is the Great Deporter from the United States, but the Nobel
Peace Prize winner Barack Obama... The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton. She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system... As presidential election day draws near, Clinton will be hailed as the first female president, regardless of her crimes and lies - just as Barack Obama was lauded as the first black president and liberals swallowed his nonsense about hope."

The "editorial committee" clearly wanted me to water down my argument that Clinton represented a proven extreme danger to the world. Like all censorship, this was unacceptable. Maya Schenwar, who runs Truthout, wrote to me that my unwillingness to submit my work to a "process of revision" meant she had to take it off her "publication docket". Such is the gatekeeper's way with words.

At the root of this episode is an enduring unsayable. This is the need, the compulsion, of many liberals in the United States to embrace a leader from within a system that is demonstrably imperial and violent. Like Obama's "hope", Clinton's gender is no more than a suitable facade.

This is an historical urge. In his 1859 essay On Liberty, to which modern liberals seem to pay unflagging homage, John Stuart Mill described the power of empire. "Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians," he wrote, "provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end." The "barbarians" were large sections of humanity of whom "implicit obedience" was required.

"It's a nice and convenient myth that liberals are the peacemakers and conservatives the warmongers," wrote the British historian Hywel Williams in 2001, "but the imperialism of the liberal way may be more dangerous because of its open ended nature - its conviction that it represents a superior form of life [while denying its] self righteous fanaticism."

He had in mind a speech by Tony Blair in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, in which Blair promised to "reorder this world around us" according to his "moral values". The carnage of a million dead in Iraq was the result.

Blair's crimes are not unusual. Since 1945, some 69 countries - more than a third of the membership of the United Nations - have suffered some or all of the following. They have been invaded, their governments overthrown, their popular movements suppressed, their elections subverted and their people bombed. The historian Mark Curtis estimates the death toll in the millions. With the demise of the European empires, this has been the project of the liberal flame carrier, the "exceptional" United States, whose celebrated "progressive" president, John F Kennedy, according to new research, authorised the bombing of Moscow during the Cuban crisis in 1962.

"If we have to use force," said Madeleine Albright, US secretary of state in the liberal administration of Bill Clinton and today a passionate campaigner for his wife, "it is because we are America. We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future."

One of Hillary Clinton's most searing crimes was the destruction of Libya in 2011. At her urging, and with American logistical support, NATO, launched 9,700 "strike sorties" against Libya, according to its own records, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. They included missiles with uranium warheads. See the photographs of the rubble of Misurata and Sirte, and the mass graves identified by the Red Cross. Read the UNICEF report on the children killed, "most [of them] under the age of ten".

In Anglo-American scholarship, followed slavishly by the liberal media on both sides of the Atlantic, influential theorists known as "liberal realists" have long taught that liberal imperialists - a term they never use - are the world's peace brokers and crisis managers, rather than the cause of a crisis. They have taken the humanity out of the study of nations and congealed it with a jargon that serves warmongering power. Laying out whole nations for autopsy, they have identified "failed states" (nations difficult to exploit) and "rogue states" (nations resistant to western dominance).

Whether or not the targeted regime is a democracy or dictatorship is irrelevant. In the Middle East, western liberalism's collaborators have long been extremist Islamists, lately al-Qaeda, while cynical notions of democracy and human rights serve as rhetorical cover for conquest and mayhem - as in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Haiti, Honduras. See the public record of those good liberals Bill and Hillary Clinton. Theirs is a standard to which Trump can only aspire.

johnpilger.com - the films and journalism of John Pilger

Biography

Journalist, film-maker and author, John Pilger is one of two to win British journalism’s highest award twice. For his documentary films, he has won an Emmy and a British Academy Award, a BAFTA. Among numerous other awards, he has won a Royal Television Society Best Documentary Award. His epic 1979 Cambodia Year Zero is ranked by the British Film Institute as one of the ten most important documentaries of the 20th century. His Death of a Nation, filmed secretly in East Timor, had a worldwide impact in 1994. His books include Heroes, Distant Voices, Hidden Agendas, The New Rulers of the World and Freedom Next Time. He is a recipient of Australia’s international human rights award, the Sydney Peace Prize, “for “enabling the voices of the powerless to be heard” and “for fearless challenges to censorship in any form”.

“John Pilger unearths, with steely attention to facts, the filthy truth and tells it as it is” – Harold Pinter.

“Pilger’s work has truly been a beacon of light in dark times” – Noam Chomsky.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

I haven't been following the early stages of electioneering in the US too closely, but can't miss the odd headline I catch - usually bagging Trump.

I've been catching up with some coverage the last few days.... is he really that bad? Obviously, he's very raw but he's also hard to ignore and quite engaging in many respects... The biggest one is that he comes across as genuine in his beliefs - unlike many of the other contenders. I always like conviction politicians even if I disagree with some of their politics.

Would be interested in the views of others, particularly Americans.

 

[isabelle]

On what basis is it terrible? I'm not saying I particularly like Trump but all I'm hearing is cheap and easy statements like "He's a racist/Xenophone", "He's sexist"... really? Is that really the counter argument?

USA deserves much better than this stupid clown IMO