Donald Trump

[Pcdunn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/do...errorism.html?http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/us/politics/donald-trump-terrorism.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&cli ckSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=2&mtrref=international.nytimes.comTrump's foreign policy recalls Cold War, suggests limits on immigration

Apparently he wants to subject prospective immigrants from countries hit by terrorism to "extreme vetting" to make sure they share "American values" -- guess we'll need to change the words on the Statue of Liberty: "Forget about sending us your tired, poor, huddled masses, and tempest-tossed until we make sure they understand the American Dream."

[Mayerling]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/do...errorism.html?http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/us/politics/donald-trump-terrorism.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&cli ckSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=2&mtrref=international.nytimes.comTrump's foreign policy recalls Cold War, suggests limits on immigration

Apparently he wants to subject prospective immigrants from countries hit by terrorism to "extreme vetting" to make sure they share "American values" -- guess we'll need to change the words on the Statue of Liberty: "Forget about sending us your tired, poor, huddled masses, and tempest-tossed until we make sure they understand the American Dream."

The Republican Party should start planning to throw his nomination out or have him lobotomized. The last idiot who tried to tamper with immigration on that scale was John Adams in 1798 with the "Alien and Sedition Acts" which would have required new Immigrants to wait fourteen years or more for legalization by the U.S. Adams (elected in 1796 by only 3 electoral votes over Thomas Jefferson) was defeated by Jefferson in the 1800 election. Adams would prove to be the last Federalist elected to the Presidency (the party died out in 1816 or so). Jefferson got rid of the Alien and Sedition Acts as soon as he was President.

Jeff

[John G]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/do...errorism.html?http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/us/politics/donald-trump-terrorism.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&cli ckSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=2&mtrref=international.nytimes.comTrump's foreign policy recalls Cold War, suggests limits on immigration

Apparently he wants to subject prospective immigrants from countries hit by terrorism to "extreme vetting" to make sure they share "American values" -- guess we'll need to change the words on the Statue of Liberty: "Forget about sending us your tired, poor, huddled masses, and tempest-tossed until we make sure they understand the American Dream."

I wonder if he's considered extending this test to existing American citizens, i.e. to determine whether they should retain their citizenship. If so, considering the comments he's made about some politicians, including a number of Republicans, there might end up being an awful lot of deportations under a Trump presidency!

In fact, maybe he should extend the test to himself, so that it can be objectively determined as to whether he shares "American Values"! In fact, given the fact that he seems to approve of Putin's illegal annexation of The Crimea, some might say that this is questionable: http://uk.businessinsider.com/paul-m...ea-memo-2016-8

I, of course, couldn't possibly comment!

[Wickerman]

"You're living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs..what the hell do you have to lose?"
(Donald Trump)


So this is how he attempts to garner Black votes, in other words, you have nothing, you know nothing, you do nothing,...so you might as well vote for me?

What a dumbass...

[Abby Normal]

"You're living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs..what the hell do you have to lose?"
(Donald Trump)


So this is how he attempts to garner Black votes, in other words, you have nothing, you know nothing, you do nothing,...so you might as well vote for me?

What a dumbass...

And what pray tell has Obama or clinton done for the poor and or black?

[barnflatwyngarde]

What I have never understood is why every US President, from day 1 of their first term concentrates solely on being elected for a second term.

Four years in charge of the richest and most powerful country in the world, is more than enough time to create deep and meaningful changes for the better.

The aim would conceivably be to improve housing, welfare, education for all.

Why dissipate your energies trying to please everyone in your first term, in order to get a second?

[Abby Normal]

And what pray tell has Obama or clinton done for the poor and or black?

And everyone keeps banging on about trump, and yes he's a maniac and I don't like him either, but you do realize the alternative is at least as bad if not worse!?! Hillary Clinton will be the most scandal ridden, ethically challenged borderline criminal(and is say borderline only because she hasn't been thrown in jail yet because she's too smart to get caught-like most really good con men)power hungry selfish liars the presidency has ever seen.

And like a slug, she leaves a nasty trail wherever she goes-death, suicide, ruined lives, scandal. I'd say she is a devil in disguise except that it's not really that good of a disguise. Same for her loser husband.


It's really a sad time in American politics.

[Wickerman]

And what pray tell has Obama or clinton done for the poor and or black?

You should be able to find the answer to that question if you were interested enough to look it up.
Trump's criticisms of Clinton/Obama have been shown to be false through fact-checker so don't believe what Trump is saying.
It wasn't too long ago he said quite openly "the National Enquirer doesn't get the credit it deserves", for goodness sakes!!!

Trump has yet to explain how he is going to provide all these "quick-fix" solutions to America's problems. It will be quick, it will be easy, "you will be amazed, ....believe me" he repeats often, yet never explains just how he intends to lower taxes, rebuild inner cities, fix the schooling system, and increase job opportunities, with reduced tax revenue.

The math just doesn't add up.
He's promising everything to everyone, just to get in the White House.

And everyone keeps banging on about trump,..

This is a Trump thread....

[Wickerman]

Hillary Clinton will be the most scandal ridden, ethically challenged borderline criminal......

Have you actually heard what the contents of those emails was?

There were three marked with a scribbled "C", they referred to a phone call reminder that Clinton should not forget to make - someone thought they should be included among the "Confidential" emails that were actually stamped "Confidential", so someone scribbled a "C" on them.
Nothing to do with National Security, just reminders to make a phone call.

That is how desperate Republicans are to paint Clinton as untrustworthy, they use trivial nonsense to push the point.
It's easier to paste it with a broad brush - "she lied about National Security", than to deal with the actual contents, which had nothing to do with endangering anyone.

I don't believe any long-term successful politician is squeaky clean, Clinton included, they all have to allow some give-and-take, make deals, Clinton has done no less. None of which makes her a criminal, it's just how modern politicians get things done.
The Clinton Foundation has done incredible work for the under privileged, which is more than can be said for Donald Trump.

[Pcdunn]

Hey, Jon,

Good post!

But don't forget-- Trump has made sacrifices, so he says, he hired thousands of people.

The thing I can't stand about Trump is how stupid he believes the voters are. Unfortunately, the folks at his rallies & speeches shouting "Lock her up!" do sort of provide support for his belief.

[Wickerman]

Hi Pat, thanks.

Now we hear Trump is entertaining the thought of creating his own TV channel - Trump TV, if he loses.
Seeing as Trump can't even get his facts straight when running for President, if he turned his attention to TV he would be competing with that other champion of the fringe media, Fox News.

The basic premise of his campaign when it first set out was agreeable, to me at least. The idea of exposing and changing the established "System" where too much back-slapping and pay-back deals exist. Where certain rules and traditions appear to keep the political arena exclusive to those same-old, same-old, types who have been in the "System" for decades needs to be revised. I agree totally, but where the premise fails is because it is being promoted by a bigot, an ignorant, arrogant, juvenile narcissist who lies and distorts any data he gets his hands on.

A justifiable cause has been scuttled by it's own promoter.

[Mayerling]

What I have never understood is why every US President, from day 1 of their first term concentrates solely on being elected for a second term.

Four years in charge of the richest and most powerful country in the world, is more than enough time to create deep and meaningful changes for the better.

The aim would conceivably be to improve housing, welfare, education for all.

Why dissipate your energies trying to please everyone in your first term, in order to get a second?

The only President who ever lived up to that particular viewpoint was James Knox Polk. He had four goals when elected President (he was our first "Dark Horse" candidate, as he was not even thought of as the choice originally): 1) An independent treasury (we still depended on banks in 1845!); 2) a reduced and fair tariff (we got the Walker Tariff in 1846, named for the Secretary of the Treasury, Robert Walker); 3) a settlement of the Oregon territory dispute with Great Britain (in the election there was a slogan, "54'40" or Fight" meaning we should have the whole territory (which would include British Columbia!) - Polk and the British divided it along the 49th Parallel, which was sensible; 4) acquiring California and the South West from Mexico by purchase (here Polk found problems with a Mexico still angry at the annexation of Texas - eventually we had the Mexican War, and won it, but Polk insisted on paying the Mexicans $15, 000,000.00 in the Treaty of Guadalupe - Hidalgo for the land, so technically we did purchase it). Also, with the aid of his first Secretary of the Navy, George Bancroft, Polk founded the Naval Academy at Annapolis. All was accomplished by Polk (a work-a-holic President) who decided to only seek one term. But it knocked the stuffings out of his delicate health. He left the Presidency in March 1849, and travelled by sea to New Orleans, and then up the Mississippi River by steamboat to his home in Tennessee. He died of cholera on June 8, 1849 after only three months of a post-Presidential career. It is the shortest post-Presidential career of all the Presidents who survived their terms.

There were discussions by other Presidents to push a one term tradition, but in time it became obvious that if you wanted proof from the public that you were actually doing well you needed a second term (if you succeeded to the Presidency a term on your own was required). None of the 19th Century "Accidental" Presidents (Tyler, Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Arthur) got renominated by their parties for a second term, although Fillmore tried to get the 1852 Whig nomination and Arthur allowed his name to be put up in 1884. Fillmore was stymied by supporters of his Secretary of State, Daniel Webster, and the nomination went to General Winfield Scott (who lost to Franklin Pierce). Arthur would have liked a term under his own name, but he knew he was dying of Bright's disease, and decided not to push it, figuring that having two Presidents who died in office in a row (Garfield, and theoretically himself) would demoralize the country. He retired back to his townhouse in New York City, and died in November 1886, a year and a half after his term ended (thus having the second shortest post-Presidential career). Fillmore did get a major party nomination in 1856 from the then important "American" / "Know Nothing" Party which was nativistic, against Catholic immigrants. He actually carried the state of Maryland (8 electoral votes) which was a record of sorts.

It is not until the present century that "Accidental Presidents" get nominated in their own right, and usually elected (Theodore Roosevelt in 1904; Calvin Coolidge in 1924; Harry Truman in 1948; Lyndon Johnson in 1964; and Gerald Ford in 1976, but he was not re-elected). In the 20th Century every incumbent was re-nominated for the Presidency (except those who died in office - although FDR was re-nominated three times and won three times). All but five did not get re-elected: Taft in 1912; Herbert Hoover in 1932; Gerald Ford in 1976; Jimmy Carter in 1980; and George H. W. Bush in 1992). Since then all the Presidents elected in the 21st century won re-election (George W. Bush, Barak Obama).

Some of the 19th Century Presidents did rule out a second term from the start. William Henry Harrison pledged himself to one term in 1840 (not realizing he would die one month into his one term). Tyler considered running in 1844, but neither party wanted him. Polk pledged himself to one term - and we saw he produced the only totally successful Presidency, but at the cost of his life. Franklin Pierce's dreadful one term Presidency led to the only time in our history that the ruling party (the Democrats) basically told the President to forget trying even to get a second nomination! James Buchanan, ineptly allowing the U.S. to slip into the American Civil War, was so heartily sick of the office he had sought on at least three prior occasions before getting it (1844, 1848, 1852) that he did not seek a second term. Rutherford Hayes actually showed great competence as President (1877 - 1881), but after all the corrupt shenanigans of the 1876-77 election imbroglio he thoroughly hated the thought of a second go around, and gave up any desire for a second term. Except for the assassinated Garfield, and poor Arthur, all the remaining Presidents of the 19th Century (Cleveland, Benjamin Harrison, William McKinley) were re - nominated (Cleveland twice!!), and Cleveland and McKinley served two terms (though the latter would die in 1901 from an assassin's bullet).

Only one President in the 20th Century would have liked one term: William Howard Taft (1909 - 1913). He had been talked into accepting the Presidency by his wife Helen and President Theodore Roosevelt in 1908, but hated the job (which he actually handled well). A series of misunderstandings between him and the hyper-active TR led to their break in 1912. Taft got re - nominated over TR. Actually he hoped to return to Yale University (his alma mater) to teach law (which he eventually did). But TR was promising all kinds of radical reforms, one of which was direct recall of justices from the Federal benches. Taft was a born jurist and hated that, and was determined to run to prevent TR from accomplishing that. So both men ran, the Republican vote was split down the center, and Woodrow Wilson became President. Taft was quite happy (even though he came in, in third place, after Wilson and TR, but ahead of Gene Debs - who was happy because his Socialist got 900,000 votes!). Taft taught at Yale, and then (in 1921) got the job he always dreamed of: Chief Justice of the United State. Accredited as a near-Great Chief Justice, the current judiciary we have was due to the reforms he pushed through Congress while on the Court, not as President. In fact he always called the White House, "the big White Jail!".

[There has been talk of a single six year term for the President, but only once has it been seriously considered: the government of the Confederate States of American put a solitary six year term for the President in their constitution, and Jefferson Davis got to serve that term, but only for a bit over four years. The Republic of Texas (1836 to 1845) had four Presidents (Stephen Austin, Sam Houston, Mirabeau Lamar; and Anson Jones). A term in office was two years, and you could not have consecutive terms. Houston served two terms around Lamar.]

[Abby Normal]

You should be able to find the answer to that question if you were interested enough to look it up.
Trump's criticisms of Clinton/Obama have been shown to be false through fact-checker so don't believe what Trump is saying.
It wasn't too long ago he said quite openly "the National Enquirer doesn't get the credit it deserves", for goodness sakes!!!

Trump has yet to explain how he is going to provide all these "quick-fix" solutions to America's problems. It will be quick, it will be easy, "you will be amazed, ....believe me" he repeats often, yet never explains just how he intends to lower taxes, rebuild inner cities, fix the schooling system, and increase job opportunities, with reduced tax revenue.

The math just doesn't add up.
He's promising everything to everyone, just to get in the White House.



This is a Trump thread....

As usual. Way to dodge the question and your preaching to the choir because I don't like trump either so save your wasted breath.

[Abby Normal]

Have you actually heard what the contents of those emails was?

There were three marked with a scribbled "C", they referred to a phone call reminder that Clinton should not forget to make - someone thought they should be included among the "Confidential" emails that were actually stamped "Confidential", so someone scribbled a "C" on them.
Nothing to do with National Security, just reminders to make a phone call.

That is how desperate Republicans are to paint Clinton as untrustworthy, they use trivial nonsense to push the point.
It's easier to paste it with a broad brush - "she lied about National Security", than to deal with the actual contents, which had nothing to do with endangering anyone.

I don't believe any long-term successful politician is squeaky clean, Clinton included, they all have to allow some give-and-take, make deals, Clinton has done no less. None of which makes her a criminal, it's just how modern politicians get things done.
The Clinton Foundation has done incredible work for the under privileged, which is more than can be said for Donald Trump.

Your delusional and the Clinton foundation is a total sham.
But I would expect no less from a knee jerk, the republicans/conservatives are to blame for everything liberal such as yourself.
That's the problem with politics today, most people on either side are so blinded by their own party's rightness they can't think straight.
Kind of like people on here who are blinded by their favorite suspect. Kind of like you and your well dressed man suspect and the fanatical logistical gymnastics you go through to support it and attack other people's suspect.

You really need to wake up.

[Pcdunn]

Michael Moore has figured it out! Writes that Trump ran as a publicity stunt, got carried away by his own ego, but now is trying to sabotage his own campaign, as he doesn't want to WORK as POTUS. Makes as much sense as anything else, really.

https://medium.com/@MMFlint/is-trump-purposely-sabotaging-his-campaign-91b11fe07a91#.v5t29yxup