Donald Trump - Opinions?

[Billie]

I think it is refreshing to have a politician who speaks his mind and is not trying to be "politically correct" about everything.  I am so sick of smooth talking characters, who turn around and do whatever they want.  And I have yet to see a politician who doesn't have a big ego or doesn't try to get rich off the very same people who they want "to serve".   Charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for their precious speeches from the non-profit organizations?  Gives me the creeps.

 

[Moxie]

I think it is refreshing to have a politician who speaks his mind and is not trying to be “politically correct” about everything. I am so sick of smooth talking characters, who turn around and do whatever they want. And I have yet to see a politician who doesn’t have a big ego or doesn’t try to get rich off the very same people who they want “to serve”. Charging hundreds of thousands of dollars for their precious speeches from the non-profit organizations? Gives me the creeps.

Well, then you can have him. Have you listened to him much, or are you just reading the headlines? I know you to be a person who doesn't truck in insult, and doesn't care for those who do. Trump's version of not being "politically correct" runs mostly to playground-worthy insults against those who disagree with him, including his fellow candidates and debate moderators, and referring to illegal Mexicans as "rapists," for one example. He also said of Fox News' Megan Kelly, who asked him about speaking of women as "fat pigs," "slobs," "dogs," and "disgusting animals" that "She had blood coming out of her eyes, coming out of her...wherever." He also referred to her as a "lightweight," and said he had no respect for her as a journalist. And, he never addressed her question, btw. If you find any of this "refreshing," I'd say that it might be amusing theatre for those outside of the US, but consider those of us who might be governed by it, or represented to the rest of the world by it. Donald Trump may not be a politician, but I'm not sure how good of a businessman he is, either. He has declared bankruptcy more than once. He has no qualms about reneging on paying back deals that he made in good faith. Many business analysts in this country consider that that would make world leaders leery of making deals with him.

As to ex-politicians charging money to non-profits for their speaking engagements, those actually tend to be at corporations, so I'm not sure where you're right to say they are taking advantage of non-profits or those they serve. Here is a list of Bill and Hilary Clinton's speaking engagements, and how much they made, if that illuminates. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-03/every-hillary-and-bill-clinton-speech-2013-fees
Beyond the odd temple, not really so many non-profits. I didn't look up George W. Bush.

I know the designation "politician" has a rather negative connotation for a lot of people, but I don't mind people doing the job they are qualified for. I also believe there can be a noble aspect to it. Personally, I don't think Trump's motives are noble, nor do I think he's qualified to be the president of the United States.

 

[calitennis127]

Moxie wrote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430137/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace

Precisely. What a lot of conservatives seem to forget is that the man has no core principles. He’ll move whichever way he needs to, to get the populist vote. He’s an opportunist. I’m not even sure he can win the Republican candidacy, I’m guessing that the more candidates drop out the more likely someone else will win. He has to be hoping that he ends off running against more than one Republican candidate, that surely has to be his only chance. As for the presidential vote, I can’t see how the GOP can win this. He’ll have forced the other candidates so far to the right they will alienate the middle. But I guess this is politics in the West these days, candidates generally win because others cede the centre.

 

Never mind that the GOP ran the most centrist, left-wing Republican (John McCain) in 2008 against Obama and lost by a landslide with minorities. Never mind that the GOP lost a vast swath of midwestern middle-class white voters, particularly in Ohio and Michigan, to Obama because of the "bad trade deals" that Bush made which Trump has condemned.

McCain has been Mr. Amnesty his entire political career and he still got trounced in the area of the Hispanic vote by Obama. Republicans cannot win the Hispanic vote when the Hispanic vote is increasingly proletarianized and the Democrats are appealing to people's lowest instincts.

 

 

[calitennis127]

Federberg wrote:
<blockquote>
Moxie wrote:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430137/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace

Precisely. What a lot of conservatives seem to forget is that the man has no core principles. He’ll move whichever way he needs to, to get the populist vote. He’s an opportunist. I’m not even sure he can win the Republican candidacy, I’m guessing that the more candidates drop out the more likely someone else will win. He has to be hoping that he ends off running against more than one Republican candidate, that surely has to be his only chance. As for the presidential vote, I can’t see how the GOP can win this. He’ll have forced the other candidates so far to the right they will alienate the middle. But I guess this is politics in the West these days, candidates generally win because others cede the centre.</blockquote>
That is politics in the GOP these days: the other hopefuls are digging their own graves by following Trumps’s outrageous notions. One of those wimps should have taken his/her own path. As it is, they haven’t a prayer in the general election.

What are you talking about? Have you followed the campaign at all? Jeb Bush, Rubio, Kasich, and Fiorina have all objected to Trump and distanced themselves from him.

If Republicans don't stand a chance in the general election, it is because the Democrats exploit a new proletarianized and anti-Western electorate who they manipulate with the most base intentions and also because the Republicans undertook the disastrous war in Iraq, oversaw trade policies that have gutted the middle class, and failed to secure the border (all of which have alienated a number of white voters in the center). The Republican Party has not lost voters because of being too far to the right. The war in Iraq was a leftist project and Republican trade policies have been a leftist project.

 

[calitennis127]

Lol! Just noticed on my company’s twitter feed someone has said..”Donald Trump is to America what Islamic State is to Islam” Priceless!

Lol! You know nothing about Islam! Lol!

It is a wonder that Muslims from over 20 different countries, including the US and the UK, have gone to Syria to fight with the Islamic State. They must be misunderstanding their own religion. Lol! Lol!

 

 

[calitennis127]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430137/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace

Anyone who understands modern American politics knows that National Review is no longer a conservative publication but a tool of the leftist neoconservatives.

 

[calitennis127]

Sorry mate, which notion do you disagree with? His lack of core principles? I said that because he’s changed his tune over the years. Or do you mean something else? As for trying to capture the centre ground, he can’t do that yet. He has to win the Republican vote. There is no payoff trying to be a centrist in the GOP at the moment. Just look at Jeb

Obama, Kerry, and Hillary have all changed various views of theirs over the years. Why are you singling out Trump? Be consistent.....it is the first step on the road to intellectual maturity.

 

[calitennis127]

Not sure what you mean by “career criminal,” but she doesn’t have anywhere near the mouth or ego of Trump. (He’s off the charts, even compared to most politicians. I’m taking it you haven’t seen him on TV very much.) And Clinton at least has real experience in diplomacy and policy.

Hillary Clinton has been an absolute failure in the areas of diplomacy and policy. Her husband had over 10 opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden to prevent the 9/11 attacks, but failed to do so. The disaster in Libya is Ms. Clinton's fault through and through. She also voted for the war in Iraq. I could go on for days and days but there is no point.

 

[Moxie]

I posted that article without editorial comment. You added yours re: the National Review’s POV, which is your opinion. Though, as usual, you add “anyone who understands…” as a way of pre-diminishing disagreement. Your rhetorical skills have all the grace and generosity of

 

[Moxie]

Hillary Clinton has been an absolute failure in the areas of diplomacy and policy. Her husband had over 10 opportunities to kill Osama bin Laden to prevent the 9/11 attacks, but failed to do so. The disaster in Libya is Ms. Clinton's fault through and through. She also voted for the war in Iraq. I could go on for days and days but there is no point.

Bill Clinton's failures are not Hillary's. I don't know how you can blame Mrs. Clinton for the failure to add more security at Bengazi, as that was a mid-level decision, surely not something that had to go to the Secretary of State. If you don't like how it was handled afterward, that's another discussion, but "through and through," I don't buy. And yes, she is more hawkish than the President, or Sanders, but that's to be discussed. I know for a fact you can "go on for days and days," whether you have a coherent point, or not. We've seen the threads that you're spamming the this particular forum with, which no one has any interest in. Why? Because not only is your agenda too weird, but your dominating rhetorical flourish is insult. Who wants to engage with that? God, how you must love Donald Trump.

 

[calitennis127]

Bill Clinton's failures are not Hillary's. I don't know how you can blame Mrs. Clinton for the failure to add more security at Bengazi, as that was a mid-level decision, surely not something that had to go to the Secretary of State. If you don't like how it was handled afterward, that's another discussion, but "through and through," I don't buy. And yes, she is more hawkish than the President, or Sanders, but that's to be discussed. I know for a fact you can "go on for days and days," whether you have a coherent point, or not. We've seen the threads that you're spamming the this particular forum with, which no one has any interest in. Why? Because not only is your agenda too weird, but your dominating rhetorical flourish is insult. Who wants to engage with that? God, how you must love Donald Trump.

My reference to the disaster in Libya was not so much to Benghazi - which Hillary is culpable for - but to her overall policy of undermining the Ghaddafi regime, which was stupid and allowed IS to come in and wreak havoc. To this day, she defends that action. This shows she learned nothing from the mistake of supporting the Iraq war.

The reason I brought up Bill's failures is that her and Bill are on the same page with their worldview.

 

[Billie]

Moxie, since I don't live in the USA, I am more interested in your candidates foreign policies and views. I kind of like Trump's, not Clinton's.

As for "giving" Trump to us in Canada, I can tell you that there are worse here than him. They are on trial for one or the other reason, abuse of government funds, forging expense spending, sexual abuse. The decent ones stepped down by themselves. Maybe the new prime minister's cabinet members will fare better, at least in the beginning.

As for noble....honestly I really doubt there are such notions among politicians. Sure some of them (usually lower levels) might start with that idea, but the higher they go and longer they are in the game of politics, I highly doubt it.

Here is an interesting article about H. Clinton: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/329980-us-presidential-hillary-clinton/

 

[Moxie]

Moxie, since I don't live in the USA, I am more interested in your candidates foreign policies and views. I kind of like Trump's, not Clinton's.

As for "giving" Trump to us in Canada, I can tell you that there are worse here than him. They are on trial for one or the other reason, abuse of government funds, forging expense spending, sexual abuse. The decent ones stepped down by themselves. Maybe the new prime minister's cabinet members will fare better, at least in the beginning.

As for noble....honestly I really doubt there are such notions among politicians. Sure some of them (usually lower levels) might start with that idea, but the higher they go and longer they are in the game of politics, I highly doubt it.

Here is an interesting article about H. Clinton: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/329980-us-presidential-hillary-clinton/

You kind of lost me at the Russian propaganda site, though it was really the article's use of a Michael Bay film as a good example of what went down in Benghazi that put me off. At least I get now why we have such disparate political views. However, I am surprised at your cynicism about politicians. Is that the Canadian or the Serbian in you? I grew up in DC and I will tell you that I still believe that a lot of people are in it for noble reasons, including a lot of lobbyists, who are not, by some stretch, all shilling for some big corporation. A lot of them are in it to push for noble causes. And they barely make a pittance. And while I agree that it's likely the lowest rung in politics are the cleanest and most noble, I will not buy that along the way they all lose their scrupples. I still very much believe that Barack Obama holds up real ideals. And while I do think that the Clintons are career politicians, I think there is loads of hard work that got them there, and it came from a commitment to public service. And I'll take Hillary Clinton's world-view over Trump's. Which I don't believe he has illuminated, beyond broad racist and inflammatory strokes. But if you like that, as I said, you can have him.

 

[Billie]

Oh Moxie, they are all propaganda, they all have their own agenda. That doesn't mean that they are all untrue. Anyway, there are so many articles that I read even from Canada and USA that are trying to be neutral and give different opinions, but I highly doubt you would be interested in that. But I do like to read news from different sides. Maybe it wouldn't hurt you to see what the "enemy" says. Besides that article was written by an American politician.

In my opinion the state the world is in is at the critical point, worse than any other time in the last 50 years. I hate to see millions of people uprooted and seeking a place to live (even though I don't know them), thousands killed every day and for what? They don't agree with somebody else's agendas? The dollar rules everything, frankly I don't find anything noble in any of this. I think diplomacy should be the first goal of all politicians, but that is all but a fool's wish. If what's been happening in the Middle East and Africa doesn't affect you and doesn't make you question the policies of those who are responsible for it, then I really don't have anything else to say.

 

[Moxie]

Again, I'm surprised at your cynical view of political writing. I generally try to stick to the more responsible writing, though I can nip into the other side's "propaganda," just to see what they're up to. Or to my sides. Useful, as you say. But I don't know why you think that what's happening in the Middle East and Africa doesn't affect me, or make me question who's responsible for it, or who's more responsible in trying to change it. It does, and I do. IMO, Bush was the one who made a bigger mess out of the Middle East than there was before he sent troops. Obama has mostly gotten us out. And is working with diplomacy rather than bullets, including in Iran. I don't know why you think diplomacy is a "fool's wish". Committing troops is better? Against what, exactly, in terms of ISIL? As to Africa: Bush made good efforts in Africa in terms of AIDS aid, but the democrats have followed on, including making inroads in women's rights/health, which betters the situation for children's health, as well.

Politically, it comes down to who you most trust to effect the policies you have faith in. I always trust the Democratic agenda more. But against this particular batch of Republicans, I think it is no contest.

 

[Federberg]

Again, I'm surprised at your cynical view of political writing. I generally try to stick to the more responsible writing, though I can nip into the other side's "propaganda," just to see what they're up to. Or to my sides. Useful, as you say. But I don't know why you think that what's happening in the Middle East and Africa doesn't affect me, or make me question who's responsible for it, or who's more responsible in trying to change it. It does, and I do. IMO, Bush was the one who made a bigger mess out of the Middle East than there was before he sent troops. Obama has mostly gotten us out. And is working with diplomacy rather than bullets, including in Iran. I don't know why you think diplomacy is a "fool's wish". Committing troops is better? Against what, exactly, in terms of ISIL? As to Africa: Bush made good efforts in Africa in terms of AIDS aid, but the democrats have followed on, including making inroads in women's rights/health, which betters the situation for children's health, as well.

Politically, it comes down to who you most trust to effect the policies you have faith in. I always trust the Democratic agenda more. But against this particular batch of Republicans, I think it is no contest.

The current batch of Republican candidates are more populist than Republican to be perfectly honest. Glad I'm not American, I'm not sure if I would be able to bring my self to vote. Or if I did, I would relunctantly set aside self interest for the greater good!

 

[Moxie]

The current batch of Republican candidates are more populist than Republican to be perfectly honest. Glad I'm not American, I'm not sure if I would be able to bring my self to vote. Or if I did, I would relunctantly set aside self interest for the greater good!

The Republican party is having an identity crisis, which is probably what you're seeing. Trump has decided to snub the debate tonight, over Fox refusing to leave Megan Kelly off as a moderator, per his request. Again, I find his tactics to be bullying, and when that doesn't work, childish.

 

[calitennis127]

The current batch of Republican candidates are more populist than Republican to be perfectly honest. Glad I'm not American, I'm not sure if I would be able to bring my self to vote. Or if I did, I would relunctantly set aside self interest for the greater good!

George Bush was a conventional neoconservative-supported Republican and he gave us the Iraq war. Trump would be a far superior president. I have no problem with him breaking with the GOP establishment, as it consists of nothing but ultra-Zionist third-rate political intellectuals.

 

[calitennis127]

Again, I'm surprised at your cynical view of political writing. I generally try to stick to the more responsible writing, though I can nip into the other side's "propaganda," just to see what they're up to. Or to my sides. Useful, as you say. But I don't know why you think that what's happening in the Middle East and Africa doesn't affect me, or make me question who's responsible for it, or who's more responsible in trying to change it. It does, and I do. IMO, Bush was the one who made a bigger mess out of the Middle East than there was before he sent troops. Obama has mostly gotten us out.

Mostly gotten us out? What are you smoking? His administration is fully culpable for the situations in both Libya and Syria. And he has re-committed US troops for an indefinite stay in Afghanistan. His policy in the Middle East has been disastrous.

 

[Moxie]

Mostly gotten us out? What are you smoking? His administration is fully culpable for the situations in both Libya and Syria. And he has re-committed US troops for an indefinite stay in Afghanistan. His policy in the Middle East has been disastrous.

As if solving the problems of the Middle East were simple, and I don't buy that Obama is "fully culpable." He didn't get us into Afghanistan, and he did get us out of Iraq. And he's negotiated a deal with Iran to keep them from getting a nuke.