No one is surprised at any level of boorishness now. He interrupted Hillary more than 30 times last night. His supporters probably wanted more.
I think one of the most interesting things that happened last night was that international stock market futures went up, based on the impression that Clinton won the debate. Foreigners are not desensitized....they are pretty much uniformly terrified. Except Putin. If Trump is elected, the global financial panic that will occur will be interesting to watch, to say the least. It would take years to recover.
I can see hating Hillary, but I cannot see how any thinking person could vote for this guy. I am not one that is open to much hyperbole, and I don't think it is a hyperbole to say that Trump represents the biggest threat to this republic since the Civil War. If he brings his reliably self-obsessed wreckage to the White House, God knows where it goes.
(no message)
(no message)
The Iraqis wanted us to sign an agreement that would let them arrest American troops that broke Iraqi laws, try them in an Iraqi court, sentence them under Sharia Law, and send them to an Iraqi prison. Rightfully so, George Bush wouldn't sign the agreement and a date was set for all Americans to be out of Iraq. That was in December 2008 and Obama became POTUS in January 2009. We could have stayed in Iraq another 500 years and the Sunnis would still hate and fight the Sheites and both would hate and fight the Kurds. That religious war has been going on for 1400 years and we can't stop it with our military. During the debate, Trump twice blamed the rise of ISIS on Obama pulling out of Iraq. There would be no ISIS if Bush/Cheney hadn't invaded Iraq. Trump also wanted to confiscate all of the Iraqi oil to pay for our military costs in Iraq. Another dumb idea that would inflame Islam all over the world.
(no message)
It may not matter though.
(no message)
In this position than Trump. He behaves like a 12 year bully sometimes, pout sometimes, and say anything in a delusional way. I am not a Hillary fan at all but Trump is scary
(no message)
(no message)
with Trump as the president, despite all of her fear-mongering. In fact, she said she would support him. It's time to change your underwear and get in line with your candidate.
Actually, I would love to talk to him. The guy is like an encyclopedia of political culture for the last 50 years, lib or not.
(no message)
You should not underestimate the threat this man poses to the republic. He has no respect for the system of governance, whether it be the judiciary (Mexican judges need to recuse themselves!), legislature (if Paul Ryan didn't endorse him, he was going to "pay a big price"), opposition parties (lock her up!) or press (the first amendment does not allow them to print whatever they want).
Example of potential issue: Just last night he denied that stop and frisk had been found unconstitutional. It is not hard at all to imagine a Trump administration utterly ignoring rulings he does not like. And it is all about him, make no mistake.
This is how fascism comes to countries.
And don't respond with the Obama-did-this-stuff bullshit unless you want to display ignorance. He didn't - not even close - and no president has.
constitutional question on the issue is still open for consideration.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Either you are just being partisan about Trump, and I would be being partisan, too, with my post about Obama.
Or...
We are both right, and both Obama and Trump are a danger. (And, I would add, so is Clinton.)
If you want to argue for consistency, then do so. But right now, you are just being partisan.
Boorish indeed.
(no message)
You should not underestimate the threat this man poses to the republic. He has no respect for the system of governance, whether it be failing to comply with court orders, ignoring laws on immigration (after acknowledging he didn't have that power), refusing to enforce laws he doesn't like, using the IRS to audit the opposition, refusing FOIA requests at the greatest rate ever, hacking journalist computers, illegally obtaining journalists phone records, supporting the Patriot Act to spy on US citizens, using banking laws to shut down gun stores, inciting voters to "punish their enemies," ordering Boeing to fire non-union workers, intentionally mislead the nation on the fundamental aspects of his signature legislation, handed out money to supporters in the form of stimulus, hid meetings with lobbyists, auctioned off government positions, made illegal payments to terrorist supporting organizations and governments (e.g., Hezbollah, Iran), had a movie maker arrested in blame for something he didn't do (thereby suppressing free speech, just so he could get away with a mistake), selectively gave exemptions to Obamacare restrictions to unions and other favorite people (read: donors), made recess appointments when Congress was not in recess, ignored Constitutional requirement to submit a budget multiple times, blah, blah, blah.
Example of potential issue: He claimed in a state of the union address that the Supreme Court got its own precedent wrong. It is not hard at all to imagine an Obama administration utterly ignoring rulings he does not like...he does it all the time. And it is all about him, make no mistake.
This is how fascism comes to countries.
And don't respond with the Trump-will-do-this-stuff bullshit unless you want to display ignorance. He didt - not even close - and Trump has done none of this yet.
But pretty foolish, overall. Unless you think fascism is coming in the next 4 months.
Everything you listed comes under the heading "executive branch politics as usual."
If we could be assured that Trump would recognize the limits that his predecessors have, then I would not be worried.
(no message)
(no message)
This is what it will take to change things.
Want to stop people like Trump? Then the powers that be need to get off their collective asses and start doing things that serve the people. I don't want Trump. But I understand why he exists. And, I'm not convinced that whatever destruction he brings will be worse than continuing to do things they way we've always done them. If we are to have a president who ignores the Constitution, then why not him instead of Hillary? Both will ignore it. He may be better than she is on the economy and immigration and social issues.
[I probably should not have included immigration in that list, because it will be misunderstood by the whackos. I'm for largely open immigration, but well regulated immigration. I'm also for a form of "purchasable amnesty" or "earned amnesty." But we do need to control the border before we can start processing those who are here for citizenship.]
A whacko. Why can't the message of change bring forth a semi solid candidate. And I guess the message is so critical it is worth supporting a total ass where words have no meaning. Ian no Hillary fan but there is a different in the dangers they bring to the Republic. Trump is a clear and present danger
(no message)
"Does the agent of change candidate have to be a whacko?" No, of course not.
"Why can't the message of change bring forth a semi solid candidate." It could, but the process we have for selecting candidates is very imperfect. Do you not agree?
"And I guess the message is so critical it is worth supporting a total ass where words have no meaning." Words have no meaning with Hillary. That aspect is a wash between the two candidates. No difference.
"Ian no Hillary fan but there is a different in the dangers they bring to the Republic. Trump is a clear and present danger" Please elaborate.
How that makes someone desirable I don't get.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
By the way who do you think those voters will be choosing?
like the Dem voter of today. I have no idea how they would vote, or if they would, they were just a bunch of stupid, uninformed folks in my opinion.
(no message)
Again a false narrative.
(no message)
doesn't mean they aren't a wacko with wacko ideas.
Change for changes sake alone isn't the answer.
The Czar was bad, Lenin was worse. Batista was bad, Castro was worse. The Shah was bad, the mullahs are worse. Sadaam was bad, ISIS is worse.
Unfortunately, we do. Which is why Chrissy's posts about "THE END OF THE REPUBLIC!" ring so hollow. We haven't had a Constitutional Republic for some time.
I don't think Trump is the right guy at any time, much less now, but I am sympathetic to the view that something different, anything, is at least worth a shot. Still not voting for him though.
Sidenote: One question I keep coming back to is, which of these candidates would be more apt to enrich themselves after being elected? In my mind, it's still Hillary. As shady as Trump is, she's worse.
The concern is that Trump would usher in a far worse version of it or something else that is even worse.
History is replete withchanges from bad systems to something worse. In fact if the system was working and things were good there is no need for change.
I do think there needs to be significant change. Just not what he would bring.
(no message)
(no message)
uninformed governance change he would bring.
Policy. But he then did an end-run around Congress, issued an executive order, and changed US policy. Does that bother you? Isn't that exactly what you are railing about when it comes to Trump?
I am not comparing the two, just noting that every president issues them. The extent that they bother you is usually directly related to your political views. There has not been much deviation from a general trend on them; presidents try to stretch the rules, always, but they follow them.
Hillary would be the same.
Would Trump? Who knows. That is not a risk we should take.
Read it:
- The slaves that were within rebelling territories were released. That did nothing for the slaves.
- The slaves that were within non-rebelling territories were not relseased. That also did nothing for the slaves.
The only way to free the slaves was to pursue the Civil War to its conclusion, and pass the 13th Amendment, and Lincoln knew it. The proclamation was a propaganda document, and was clearly unconstitutional as an executive order, and Lincoln knew it (or he would have ordered all slaves to be freed, not just the ones he had no power over). Now, you are using that political document to justify unconstitutional executive orders today, because of the emotional attachment all (even me) have for the document.
I suspect you have thought this through, and you are just counting on us not realizing you are being disingenuous.
--
You said, "The extent that they bother you is usually directly related to your political views." Indeed, the extent to which Trump bothers YOU is directly related to your political views. If you were logically consistent and not partisan, you would be bothered about Obama, but you are not.
All presidents issue executive orders. Conservative panties are all out-of-whack about Obama's. That is not a surprise.
Trump's might be of a whole different magnitude. There is plenty of reason to fear that would be true, and if you weren't blinded by partisanship, you might see that.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Don't get me wrong, Trump is a boor and I'm no fan of the way he conducts himself generally, however the Clintons have done their fair share for the cause of boorishness..
Also, since the debates are, by and large, rigged for the Democrats, I have somewhat less of a problem with boorishness in that environment.
(no message)
(no message)
"desensitizing" us. Just pointing out that he's not the only contributor to the PROCESS you wanted to attribute wholly to him...while ignoring the elephant in the room...
(You did see where I said Trump was a boor and I don't approve of that behavior? Try harder...)
You are misremembering the blow-job details, by the way. It was Dick Morris who was getting the BJs while on the phone with the prez.
And I don't think boorishness covers private sexual behavior. Boorishness is public. Trump is Mr. Boorish; Clinton was never that way in public.
(no message)
was doing herself with the cigar and Clinton was keeping Arafat waiting in the Rose Garden.
The Clintons have done their part in the desensitization of America to boorishness, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. And I'll reiterate, since you have trouble grasping finer points, that I also consider Trump to be quite a boorish person.
Now, I'll leave you to the Boor wars on your own...
(no message)
Enough with the ridiculous scare tactics. Trump is a trainwreck, but he would be a total sideshow if the Dems had nominated someone worth a damn instead of a talking amoral establishment puppet.
I also said it would be temporary. It was temporary.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
has occupied the white house for the last 8 yrs.
wondering how trump feels about moving into a (much) smaller abode soon
(no message)
(no message)