Donald Trump

[Fleetwood Mac]

Seems to be typical of him.

With him as President I wonder how long to war.

I would have thought The Don is less likely to get into a war than Hillary.

Hillary is part of the system, and she will be governed by the same people who have been governing the United States of America for a long time.

The Don is more likely to retreat into Isolationism.

For some strange reason, because he said something like: "fewer Mexicans", he is branded 'far-right'.

What is wrong with saying that? That is their country which they have built up over time, and they have values which have served them well; so what on earth is wrong with saying we want fewer people from Central and South America here with a different outlook on life? It doesn't make anyone racist; it simply means we want to preserve what we have and value - and why not?

[ChrisGeorge]

Trump is getting into some serious hot water with his escalating feud with Khizr and Ghazala Khan, whose son was killed by a car bomb in Iraq in 2004. Trump questioned why Ghazala Khan did not speak at last week's Democratic convention and then fired off tweets to rebut Khizr Khan. So he is alienating Muslims, women and veterans all at the same time. His ego won't let him back down. Several Republicans have come out and publicly rebuked him as a result.

c.d.

Hi all

Yes, I think it might well be that Trump has now gone too far. The military in this country these days is revered, and Americans value the sacrifices made by the members of the U.S. armed forces and their families.

Democratic VP nominee Senator Tim Kaine is correct: Americans are living a journey through Donald Trump's mind. And it's a weird and frightening experience to watch and listen as moment-by-moment Trump increasingly shows that he is unfit to serve as President. Donald Trump is Sarah Palin with trousers and a bigger, bullying voice.

Now, unprecedented, the President at a news conference with the leader of Singapore, has pronounced his harshest criticism yet of Trump, saying that he has shown that he is unfit for office and questioning why top Republicans continue to support him. As you know, a number of leading Republicans have not endorsed the GOP candidate, including Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Lindsey Graham.

Trump surrogates are rightly pointing out that President George W. Bush did not criticize Obama in any way when the current President was running for the White House in 2008. Indeed, to his credit, the former President has never expressed any public criticism of the present office holder. But, as many observers have stated, Trump is in no way a conventional candidate and has never held public office of any kind. He is currently demonstrating daily that while he is an entertaining Reality Television star, he doesn't have the needed temperament or the knowledge to be President of the United States of America, and, yes, Leader of the Free World.

Although I am a registered Democrat, I would agree that as a candidate Hillary is seriously flawed. Yet, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have been shown to lie and tell untruths. Even in the aftermath of the scathing criticism of her by FBI Director James Comey, in which the FBI head verified that she had classified information in some of the emails on her home email server, Clinton continues to lie about the situation -- making assertions that don't correspond with the FBI findings. But she does possess the qualifications and temperament to be President while Trump is increasingly showing that he is too changeable and ignorant to be President. To the extent that some observers are beginning to question his sanity. For example, the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson, who asks, "Is Donald Trump just plain crazy?" See http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...856_story.html

Best regards

Chris

[Pcdunn]

But, Fleetwood, he's not saying merely we should have fewer immigrants from Mexico and points south, he's suggesting we build an enormous Wall along the southern border to keep out "illegal undesirables"-- AND bill the Mexican government for the cost of the thing.

That's something his far-right followers eat up, but it's impractical, would interfere with the migration patterns of some wildlife along the Rio Grande (which forms part of the USA's southern border, in fact), plus getting Mexico to pay for it is unrealistic.

It's one thing to lower legal immigration quotas-- America has done so in the past, notably for the Chinese and Japanese -- and quite another to cope with the "illegals" in such a flamboyant manner. Let's put that money into more patrols for the border-- not building a wall.

[GUT]

I would have thought The Don is less likely to get into a war than Hillary.

Hillary is part of the system, and she will be governed by the same people who have been governing the United States of America for a long time.

The Don is more likely to retreat into Isolationism.

For some strange reason, because he said something like: "fewer Mexicans", he is branded 'far-right'.

What is wrong with saying that? That is their country which they have built up over time, and they have values which have served them well; so what on earth is wrong with saying we want fewer people from Central and South America here with a different outlook on life? It doesn't make anyone racist; it simply means we want to preserve what we have and value - and why not?

He might not want to go to war, but if he continues with some of his statements may have no choice.

[Karl]

I would have thought The Don is less likely to get into a war than Hillary.

Hillary is part of the system, and she will be governed by the same people who have been governing the United States of America for a long time.

The Don is more likely to retreat into Isolationism.

He is on record saying he thinks the NATO alliance should be re-evaluated. He is also on record saying he won't intervene if Russia attacks a NATO country which has not paid its due. He is this close to telling Putin, "go ahead, have fun. I'll be over later and pick up the pieces." I really don't see what motivation Hillary would have for entering yet another unpopular war. Trump is the loose cannon, here. We don't really know what he's going to do, because he flip-flops all the time.

For some strange reason, because he said something like: "fewer Mexicans", he is branded 'far-right'.

It's actually mostly to do with his anti-Muslim statements, and his radical proposals in that regard which leaves a rather bitter taste in the mouths of those who know a bit more history than he does.

What is wrong with saying that? That is their country which they have built up over time, and they have values which have served them well; so what on earth is wrong with saying we want fewer people from Central and South America here with a different outlook on life? It doesn't make anyone racist; it simply means we want to preserve what we have and value - and why not?

What does that say to American citizens of Mexican descent? It tells them, "we don't want your kind"; "you are not wanted". Now, you may say, "No, that's not what he means". Be that as it may, that IS how he comes across.

[Mayerling]

Hi all

Yes, I think it might well be that Trump has now gone too far. The military in this country these days is revered, and Americans value the sacrifices made by the members of the U.S. armed forces and their families.

Democratic VP nominee Senator Tim Kaine is correct: Americans are living a journey through Donald Trump's mind. And it's a weird and frightening experience to watch and listen as moment-by-moment Trump increasingly shows that he is unfit to serve as President. Donald Trump is Sarah Palin with trousers and a bigger, bullying voice.

Now, unprecedented, the President at a news conference with the leader of Singapore, has pronounced his harshest criticism yet of Trump, saying that he has shown that he is unfit for office and questioning why top Republicans continue to support him. As you know, a number of leading Republicans have not endorsed the GOP candidate, including Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Lindsey Graham.

Trump surrogates are rightly pointing out that President George W. Bush did not criticize Obama in any way when the current President was running for the White House in 2008. Indeed, to his credit, the former President has never expressed any public criticism of the present office holder. But, as many observers have stated, Trump is in no way a conventional candidate and has never held public office of any kind. He is currently demonstrating daily that while he is an entertaining Reality Television star, he doesn't have the needed temperament or the knowledge to be President of the United States of America, and, yes, Leader of the Free World.

Although I am a registered Democrat, I would agree that as a candidate Hillary is seriously flawed. Yet, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have been shown to lie and tell untruths. Even in the aftermath of the scathing criticism of her by FBI Director James Comey, in which the FBI head verified that she had classified information in some of the emails on her home email server, Clinton continues to lie about the situation -- making assertions that don't correspond with the FBI findings. But she does possess the qualifications and temperament to be President while Trump is increasingly showing that he is too changeable and ignor<script id="gpt-impl-0.005023074036879349" src="http://partner.googleadservices.com/gpt/pubads_impl_92.js"></script>ant to be President. To the extent that some observers are beginning to question his sanity. For example, the Washington Post's Eugene Robinson, who asks, "Is Donald Trump just plain crazy?" See http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...856_story.html

Best regards

Chris

Hi Chris,

I'm glad you feel better enough to write a bit on the Trump thread here.

When you mention the serious flaw is Hillary as a candidate, I have to admit it is something that concerns me as well. I cannot recall an election in my lifetime where I really felt lost regarding both of the major party candidates. I have been voting in national elections since 1972, and in retrospect the most troubling elections I had participated in were probably 1972 (when the Eagleton Affair so badly hurt McGovern's credibility), 1980 (when I could not support Carter for a second term, nor wanted Reagan, but voted for Anderson as the alternative to both), and 1996, when I voted (for the only time in my life) for the Republican candidate, Robert Dole, because I seriously questioned if Bill Clinton had done sufficiently enough as President to merit a second term). I find myself willing (as of now) to vote for Hillary (despite not liking her nor trusting her) because I find Trump so abominable. Yet at the same time I can understand why Trump has a large number of supporters who are fed up with Hillary and with so-called "politics as usual". The irony (to me) is that "politics as usual" has been manipulated by Trump with both parties to get advantages for his business enterprises - he really has no clean hands in the matter. Put another way, he gives out the bribes to politicos, while getting back the advantages, and has never actually been bribed in the normal sense of the word himself.

As a result I find that while praying for a Democratic victory, given the characters in the leads of both parties I can't really push people to support either of them like I might have in the past.

By the way, despite Eagleton, I voted for George McGovern in 1972. If you recall public attention regarding "Watergate" did not really get underway until after the election that year, so it did not affect Nixon's landslide.

Jeff

[Svensson]

I would have thought The Don is less likely to get into a war than Hillary.

Hillary is part of the system, and she will be governed by the same people who have been governing the United States of America for a long time.

The Don is more likely to retreat into Isolationism.

For some strange reason, because he said something like: "fewer Mexicans", he is branded 'far-right'.

What is wrong with saying that? That is their country which they have built up over time, and they have values which have served them well; so what on earth is wrong with saying we want fewer people from Central and South America here with a different outlook on life? It doesn't make anyone racist; it simply means we want to preserve what we have and value - and why not?

His comments regarding Mexicans in general are extremely offensive and probably racist.

His comments about the Judge in the Trump University case are most definitely racist:

Trump is suggesting that due to his heritage, the American Judge with a Mexican name is biased. He is suggesting that due to his ethnicity, he is unable to do his job properly and be impartial about the Trump case.

This is a text-book definition of racism IMO.

Ergo, Donald J. Trump is a racist.

[Fleetwood Mac]

But, Fleetwood, he's not saying merely we should have fewer immigrants from Mexico and points south, he's suggesting we build an enormous Wall along the southern border to keep out "illegal undesirables"-- AND bill the Mexican government for the cost of the thing.

That's something his far-right followers eat up, but it's impractical, would interfere with the migration patterns of some wildlife along the Rio Grande (which forms part of the USA's southern border, in fact), plus getting Mexico to pay for it is unrealistic.

It's one thing to lower legal immigration quotas-- America has done so in the past, notably for the Chinese and Japanese -- and quite another to cope with the "illegals" in such a flamboyant manner. Let's put that money into more patrols for the border-- not building a wall.

True, the Mexicans are hardly going to pay for someone else's enterprise.

But, the point remains: what is wrong with wanting to keep those who Americans term "illegal aliens" out of the country?

It's not a term I like, because it's dehumanising in my opinion but that's a term widely used in the United States, not just by Trump.

Boil it down to its bare bones and he is saying we don't want people coming here who haven't been vetted through the system. What is wrong with that?

That's very sensible in my opinion, regardless of whether you think his method is practical.

[Fleetwood Mac]

He is on record saying he thinks the NATO alliance should be re-evaluated. He is also on record saying he won't intervene if Russia attacks a NATO country which has not paid its due. He is this close to telling Putin, "go ahead, have fun. I'll be over later and pick up the pieces."

So what? He's far from the only American who feels it is not a good idea to get into joint military ventures, which of course only have one mission and that must involve war at some point. Plus, the Americans pump more of their money into it, so what's wrong with saying our tax dollars should go elsewhere?

This is the thing: you can't have a United States that picks and chooses its invasions, ventures into other people's countries and incursions when you feel it is a good idea. It's all or nothing. In the event you want the United States to prop up 'world peace' then you will inevitably end up with an Iraq.

I agree with him. I think the United States should spend its money on innovation and research within her own borders, not on maintaining 'world peace'. It actually causes more problems than it alleviates.

Why should the United States intervene in a problem between say Russia and Germany? Why should the American people's tax dollars go into these sorts of military ventures when the average American probably couldn't care less about what happens in Russia and Germany?

And, its not the same thing as saying: "go ahead, have fun" at all. He's basically saying: "We're not your Mothers. In the event you can't sort out your problems through diplomacy then why should we spend money to sort it out for you". I agree with him.

I really don't see what motivation Hillary would have for entering yet another unpopular war.

She'll do what she's told in return for a position in power. She has it written all over her.

What does that say to American citizens of Mexican descent? It tells them, "we don't want your kind"; "you are not wanted". Now, you may say, "No, that's not what he means". Be that as it may, that IS how he comes across.

No it doesn't. It says that they have certain values in the United States, probably not shared by people trying to enter the country illegally. People have been brainwashed to the extent they think its racist to say: "this is our country and we're keeping it the way it is". Strange world.

[Fleetwood Mac]

His comments regarding Mexicans in general are extremely offensive and probably racist.

His comments about the Judge in the Trump University case are most definitely racist:

Trump is suggesting that due to his heritage, the American Judge with a Mexican name is biased. He is suggesting that due to his ethnicity, he is unable to do his job properly and be impartial about the Trump case.

This is a text-book definition of racism IMO.

Ergo, Donald J. Trump is a racist.

We're all biased to an extent, on the grounds that we each see the world according to our experiences.

Put the quote up as I haven't seen/read it.

[Karl]

So what? He's far from the only American who feels it is not a good idea to get into joint military ventures, which of course only have one mission and that must involve war at some point. Plus, the Americans pump more of their money into it, so what's wrong with saying our tax dollars should go elsewhere?

This is the thing: you can't have a United States that picks and chooses its invasions, ventures into other people's countries and incursions when you feel it is a good idea. It's all or nothing. In the event you want the United States to prop up 'world peace' then you will inevitably end up with an Iraq.

I agree with him. I think the United States should spend its money on innovation and research within her own borders, not on maintaining 'world peace'. It actually causes more problems than it alleviates.

That's something else entirely. I am talking about the defensive obligations of the alliance, ie. what should the response be if someone else declares war on us. For the mightiest nation of the alliance - the mightiest by far - to say it may not intervene, is tantamount to telling our potential enemies: "Go ahead. We won't stop you, you don't need to worry about that." It is much like Germany's carte blanche to Austria-Hungary, just in reverse.

Why should the United States intervene in a problem between say Russia and Germany? Why should the American people's tax dollars go into these sorts of military ventures when the average American probably couldn't care less about what happens in Russia and Germany?

What affects Europe affects America, directly so. USA is not served by a destabilised Europe. And we are not talking about "problems" between Russia and whatever nation. We are talking about declaration of war, and the general fear of declarations of war. Trump would reduce that fear for Putin considerably.

And, its not the same thing as saying: "go ahead, have fun" at all. He's basically saying: "We're not your Mothers. In the event you can't sort out your problems through diplomacy then why should we spend money to sort it out for you". I agree with him.

No, that is not what he is saying at all. What he said was that he might not lift a finger if Russia bloody invaded.

She'll do what she's told in return for a position in power. She has it written all over her.

So who's going to tell her to go to war? The last time it was Bush who instigated the whole thing, it's not like he was told by anyone to invade Iraq.

No it doesn't. It says that they have certain values in the United States, probably not shared by people trying to enter the country illegally. People have been brainwashed to the extent they think its racist to say: "this is our country and we're keeping it the way it is". Strange world.

I suggest you try and place yourself in the shoes of your average Mexican-American. How would you not be offended by someone saying they don't want YOUR values in the country? Because whether Mexicans are entering legally or illegaly, they are still going to have the same cultural background. You can't say, "we don't want illegal Mexicans here, because their values are different" and then at the same time be OK with whatever number of legal Mexicans, because there is absolutely no reason to assume their values are any different. As a Mexican-American, whose parents may well have been illegal, you are naturally going to take offense. And with damned good reason.

[Pcdunn]

We're all biased to an extent, on the grounds that we each see the world according to our experiences.

Put the quote up as I haven't seen/read it.

Some links on the topic of Trump and Latinos in general:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-donald-trump-has-said-about-latinos_us_55e483a1e4b0c818f618904b

http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/donald-trump-speech-debates-and-campaign-quotes-1.11206532

(See "On Mexican Immigrants")

About the judge in his case:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/trump-mexican-judge/485429/

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/article/2016/jun/08/donald-trumps-racial-comments-about-judge-trump-un/

[Svensson]

I see Paul Ryan borrowed my line about "text-book racism"

[Wickerman]

Ergo, Donald J. Trump is a racist.

Absolutely, and a misogynist, he's also ignorant, arrogant, a juvenile, a draft-dodger, a narcissist, I mean, this is the most entertaining political race we have ever had and it isn't over yet.

He wants to bring jobs back to America, these jobs that have gone overseas, from Bangladesh to China, and jobs that pay a dollar-a-day, so we in the civilized world can buy a shirt for $5.

What he hasn't told the American worker is, that they are going to have to accept a dollar-a-day in wages. After all, Trump is in the business of making money and he can't make money if he has to pay $35 dollars for a shirt.

Be careful what you wish for, everything has a price.

From the moment Hillary Clinton said she would run for office I predicted she will be the next president, Donald Trump appears to be doing all he can to make that a surety. No wonder the GoP are taking to the hills.

You couldn't make this stuff up.

[Svensson]

His comments regarding Mexicans in general are extremely offensive and probably racist.

His comments about the Judge in the Trump University case are most definitely racist:

Trump is suggesting that due to his heritage, the American Judge with a Mexican name is biased. He is suggesting that due to his ethnicity, he is unable to do his job properly and be impartial about the Trump case.

This is a text-book definition of racism IMO.

Ergo, Donald J. Trump is a racist.

Maybe I should be clearer on my view on racism: It's one thing to have a view on a particular group, it is however a completely different thing to try and suggest that every single member of that group behaves in this same way.