Donald Trump - Opinions?

[Federberg]

let's see whether they get momentum from this. The results were widely expected, although perhaps the margin has been better than forecast

 

[EdbergsGhost]

Trump v. Sanders? It seems Americans on both sides of the political spectrum are weary with establishment candidates.

 

[Moxie]

Trump v. Sanders? It seems Americans on both sides of the political spectrum are weary with establishment candidates.

Yes, that's the main takeaway with both, though their solutions to fixing things is very different. However, we have only 2 small states weighing in, so far, so there's a long way to go.

 

[calitennis127]

Since you've messed up the formatting of this thread, I will respond without quoting. Your take on Obama is based on your prejudice, and I don't mean racially.

No, it is because I think the man is an ignorant fool. Don't put words in my mouth.

He is widely admired by many, including internationally.

Right. There are many stupid people in the world.

the unemployment rate is the lowest in 8 years, as is the national deficit. Remember what a mess he inherited from GWBush? We have 71 months of steady job growth, the most in history.

You would be such a saphead. Those numbers are distorted nonsense. They take no account of how many people have left the work force, nor do they take account of the stagnation of wages or the loss of well-paying manufacturing jobs or the increase in poverty rates. There are more Americans living off food stamps than at any time in American history. If you actually think Obama has been a good economic president, then you simply know nothing about the issue. Why do you think Americans across the political spectrum are furious with the state of the economy? Neither Trump nor Sanders would be getting the support they are if Obama had been successful as an economic president.

I have no reason to stop telling you you're a sexist. It's not "over-sensitive." Insisting that Megyn Kelly is merely a mouthpiece of more powerful men is sexist, on its face.

No, it is simply unpleasant to your ears and it is a statement at odds with your ingrained prejudices, so you rule it out as a possibility. The question Megyn Kelly posed had nothing to do with serious policy discussions or any significant matter to the president of the United States. It was intended to disparage and embarrass Trump. The reason why I say that Kelly was put up to it is that on her show she has generally been very fair to Trump. But all of a sudden in the debate she went for the jugular. It is no secret to anyone who knows about the neocon establishment that they detest Trump. The Fox execs are part of the establishment. We all, whether we are male or female, work for someone and have to take orders. Megyn Kelly is no different.

Don't forget, she's considered the one who actually came out the best in the last debate. I'm not a fan, but she has held candidates' feet to the fire, and that doesn't make her a "smart aleck." It makes her a journalist.

Please tell me how what she asked here had anything to do with policy or a serious political discussion. The entire purpose of the question was to show up Trump. Now you may like what she did, but it had nothing to do with policy and was indeed a "smart aleck" question:

What she asked Trump was fair, and pressing the other candidates in the last debate is her job. If you're disturbed by the sexual assaults perpetrated by Muslims in Europe, then I hope you would be disturbed by the many sexual assaults, and indignities perpetrated against women around the world. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have made a specific effort against them.

By doing what? Defending the greatness and mythical peacefulness of Islam as ISIS and Boko Haram rape Christian girls as they cite verses from the Qu'ran and praise Muhammad?

 

[calitennis127]

I admire your willingness to try to get him to listen to your argument Moxie. You have greater patience than I do. Every response has to include an insult, it's not dialectic, it's just childish. By the way did you see Marcobot? Absolutely hilarious!

LOL.....and you try to defend American blacks against cops? You have obviously never been in a black environment in your life. For your sake, I hope you never find yourself on an American football field because you would run away in horror.

 

[calitennis127]

Yes he'll probably bail out. He'll say something like "I'm happy I've been able to influence the debate, and I didn't really want to be President anyway, I'm a business man!" Good riddance! I'm sure the Democrats would be gutted though, the surest way to to ensure a victory is to have Trump in there

Yeah, because Bernie Sanders' message will really appeal to entrepreneurs across the country, and everyone just loves Hillary Clinton, especially as she is under FBI investigation. How could either of them possibly be defeated?

 

[Moxie]

No, it is because I think the man is an ignorant fool. Don't put words in my mouth.



Right. There are many stupid people in the world.



You would be such a saphead. Those numbers are distorted nonsense. They take no account of how many people have left the work force, nor do they take account of the stagnation of wages or the loss of well-paying manufacturing jobs or the increase in poverty rates. There are more Americans living off food stamps than at any time in American history. If you actually think Obama has been a good economic president, then you simply know nothing about the issue. Why do you think Americans across the political spectrum are furious with the state of the economy? Neither Trump nor Sanders would be getting the support they are if Obama had been successful as an economic president.



No, it is simply unpleasant to your ears and it is a statement at odds with your ingrained prejudices, so you rule it out as a possibility. The question Megyn Kelly posed had nothing to do with serious policy discussions or any significant matter to the president of the United States. It was intended to disparage and embarrass Trump. The reason why I say that Kelly was put up to it is that on her show she has generally been very fair to Trump. But all of a sudden in the debate she went for the jugular. It is no secret to anyone who knows about the neocon establishment that they detest Trump. The Fox execs are part of the establishment. We all, whether we are male or female, work for someone and have to take orders. Megyn Kelly is no different.



Please tell me how what she asked here had anything to do with policy or a serious political discussion. The entire purpose of the question was to show up Trump. Now you may like what she did, but it had nothing to do with policy and was indeed a "smart aleck" question:





By doing what? Defending the greatness and mythical peacefulness of Islam as ISIS and Boko Haram rape Christian girls as they cite verses from the Qu'ran and praise Muhammad?

Sorry, but this is your usual insulting people without providing substance. The world is full of stupid people, because they don't agree with you? Nice effort at debate. As usual, your argument falls apart because you think insult is a rhetorical strength.

 

[calitennis127]

Sorry, but this is your usual insulting people without providing substance. The world is full of stupid people, because they don't agree with you? Nice effort at debate. As usual, your argument falls apart because you think insult is a rhetorical strength.

Then read the rest of my post - which has plenty of substance. You accused me of disliking Obama over prejudice, to which I said "no, I just think he is an ignorant fool". You were not being substantive in accusing me of having certain motives, so you got a similar statement in kind. If you want to dish it out, be ready to take it.

As for my overall point about Obama and his admirers, I stand by it. I think the man is an historical ignoramus. Everything he says is a hollow textbook cliche from the American public education system. I think he is very activist and doctrinaire, without having much substantial knowledge behind his positions. But he gets away with it because his admirers in the media and education system suffer from the same inadequacies. He is one of them and they love him for it.

 

[Moxie]

Then read the rest of my post - which has plenty of substance. You accused me of disliking Obama over prejudice, to which I said "no, I just think he is an ignorant fool". You were not being substantive in accusing me of having certain motives, so you got a similar statement in kind. If you want to dish it out, be ready to take it.

As for my overall point about Obama and his admirers, I stand by it. I think the man is an historical ignoramus. Everything he says is a hollow textbook cliche from the American public education system. I think he is very activist and doctrinaire, without having much substantial knowledge behind his positions. But he gets away with it because his admirers in the media and education system suffer from the same inadequacies. He is one of them and they love him for it.

You're really digging your own grave. "Ignorant fool," and "historical ignoramus" as ways of describing Obama expose your position. Which is one-dimensional and prejudiced against him. I've offered you positions and you offer insults. I refuse to address the rest, as it's more of the same. It's really very sad, your inability to engage in proper debate.

 

[calitennis127]

You're really digging your own grave. "Ignorant fool," and "historical ignoramus" as ways of describing Obama expose your position. Which is one-dimensional and prejudiced against him.

No, I am calling it like it is, and in case you didn't see it, I justified my assessment by explaining what his educational influences are. I think the American education system does a very poor job of teaching history, which is essential for any public leader to know. It has been very clear with both Bush and Obama. Each has demonstrated a starry-eyed view of the Middle East that no one with any serious knowledge of history would ever have. They each have meddled in clumsy ways. The result is the rise of ISIS, the mayhem in Syria and Libya, and the mass displacement of millions of people. Yes, I stand by my position that both Bush and Obama are woefully ignorant and that they have done immense harm to the Middle East that another generation will have to pay for.

 

[Moxie]

I don't see how a person can be both activist and doctrinaire. Bush and the neocons destabilized Iraq, allowed for the resurgence of Al Qaeda there, and the Taliban in Afghanistan. This is what Obama inherited. Their options have not been the same. And I doubt either of them, however different their approaches to the Middle East, have been "starry-eyed." But of the two, Bush and the neocons were the ones that thought they had a solution. Obama has been playing clean-up from that mess. And the rise of ISIL comes from the same destabilization that we got from the Bush administration. Just when we had the world at our feet in terms of empathy, Bush went into Iraq, for what proved to be all the wrong reasons, and for what looked to be personal vendetta. The more we looked to be trying for reworking the Middle East in our ham-fisted model, the more we fed the seeds of ISIL. This came from Bush, not Obama. To paint them with the same brush is to wildly misunderstand who they are, and what their administrations aimed for.

 

[Billie]

I don't know what kind of clean up Obama did, but the world will have looked far more worse off when his time in the office is up. Now we have whole Middle East in dire straits, Africa has become terrorist hunting ground as well, and not to mention worsening of the relations with Russia.

 

[Federberg]

I don't know what kind of clean up Obama did, but the world will have looked far more worse off when his time in the office is up. Now we have whole Middle East in dire straits, Africa has become terrorist hunting ground as well, and not to mention worsening of the relations with Russia.

Africa a terrorist hunting ground? Do tell?

 

[Billie]

Two words Federberg: Boko Haram.

 

[Moxie]

I don't know what kind of clean up Obama did, but the world will have looked far more worse off when his time in the office is up. Now we have whole Middle East in dire straits, Africa has become terrorist hunting ground as well, and not to mention worsening of the relations with Russia.

Far worse than what? Than if GW Bush hadn't sent us into Iraq, essentially upsetting the whole apple cart? For the record, I think Cali is right about the neocons and their evil and wildly misguided agenda. It started a lot of messes. It would be a mistake to blame all that on Obama, who has gotten us out of Iraq, and reduced our presence in Afghanistan. It has been done with some integrity, since we went in on false pretenses, in the first place, and not on Obama's watch. Once Bush had destabilized the region with the misguided invasion of Iraq, I'm not sure what you think Obama was to do but keep mopping up, especially with an obstructionist Congress. And the worsening relations with Russia are down to Putin. He's a megalomaniac.

 

[britbox]

Far worse than what? Than if GW Bush hadn't sent us into Iraq, essentially upsetting the whole apple cart? For the record, I think Cali is right about the neocons and their evil and wildly misguided agenda. It started a lot of messes. It would be a mistake to blame all that on Obama, who has gotten us out of Iraq, and reduced our presence in Afghanistan. It has been done with some integrity, since we went in on false pretenses, in the first place, and not on Obama's watch. Once Bush had destabilized the region with the misguided invasion of Iraq, I'm not sure what you think Obama was to do but keep mopping up, especially with an obstructionist Congress. And the worsening relations with Russia are down to Putin. He's a megalomaniac.

Putin probably is a megalomaniac - but he looks after Russian interests... largely ignored or sneered at by the western states.

The worsening relations with Russia were largely down to western interference in the Ukraine (imagine if the Russians started interfering on the American border states)... well they did that once with Cuba and it nearly caused a nuclear war... Furthermore, sanctions on Russia, an oil war to weaken their economy and military encirclement by the west may have a lot more to do with it that Putin's ego. He's also got a far bigger mandate with the Russian people than any western leader have with their own. To say, worsening relations with Russia are down to Putin is a very flimsy argument.

 

[Moxie]

I can't believe you really want to defend Putin. He looks after Russian interests...with an iron/ham-fist. Condemnation of Russia's attempted annexation of the Crimea is not singular to US. Billie brought it up as a bullet-points argument to say it was a failing of Obama that the relations were poor, and I treated it as such, so I don't think it's "flimsy" to put it down to Putin's megalomania, but rather a short-hand, so as not to redirect the whole argument. It would be naive to think that the West ignores Russia. And as relations have soured, yes, I put it more squarely on Putin, who has all the trappings of a tyrant, (if you want to call that a "mandate") than on Obama or any other western leader.

 

[britbox]

I can't believe you really want to defend Putin. He looks after Russian interests...with an iron/ham-fist. Condemnation of Russia's attempted annexation of the Crimea is not singular to US. Billie brought it up as a bullet-points argument to say it was a failing of Obama that the relations were poor, and I treated it as such, so I don't think it's "flimsy" to put it down to Putin's megalomania, but rather a short-hand, so as not to redirect the whole argument. It would be naive to think that the West ignores Russia. And as relations have soured, yes, I put it more squarely on Putin, who has all the trappings of a tyrant, (if you want to call that a "mandate") than on Obama or any other western leader.

Crimea has a largely Russian populace Moxie. There was one death in the succession of Crimea into Russian hands. It was a widely popular move amongst the locals. One death.... compare that with the western "regime changes".... where we are talking of millions of deaths in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya... Putin isn't stupid, he let the "no fly zone" go ahead in Libya on a security council notion and false pretext of protecting the innocent... Nato bombed the crap out of Gadaffi and caused a civil war that is still raging today... and the death toll is incredible.

 

[Moxie]

I understand why the Crimea is distinct, but Ukraine is a sovereign nation. In any case, the original point was about what was Obama's doing. None of what you otherwise point out was created on Obama's watch. You've deflected the argument. I was merely making the point that if relations between Russia and the US are not great now, I wouldn't put it down to Obama.

 

[britbox]

The point I was arguing about wasn't about Obama, it was Putin. I think the American president (as a role) has a lot less influence over foreign policy than they are often credited with. Obama couldn't even close Gautanamo Bay... and yes, I think he did have intentions to do so.