• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Why Donald Trump Should Not Be President

Newenglanddeac

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
13,135
Reaction score
390
When Donald Trump began his improbable run for president 15 months ago, he offered his wealth and television celebrity as credentials, then slyly added a twist of fearmongering about Mexican “rapists” flooding across the Southern border.

From that moment of combustion, it became clear that Mr. Trump’s views were matters of dangerous impulse and cynical pandering rather than thoughtful politics. Yet he has attracted throngs of Americans who ascribe higher purpose to him than he has demonstrated in a freewheeling campaign marked by bursts of false and outrageous allegations, personal insults, xenophobic nationalism, unapologetic sexism and positions that shift according to his audience and his whims.

Now here stands Mr. Trump, feisty from his runaway Republican primary victories and ready for the first presidential debate, scheduled for Monday night, with Hillary Clinton. It is time for others who are still undecided, and perhaps hoping for some dramatic change in our politics and governance, to take a hard look and see Mr. Trump for who he is. They have an obligation to scrutinize his supposed virtues as a refreshing counterpolitician. Otherwise, they could face the consequences of handing the White House to a man far more consumed with himself than with the nation’s well-being.

Here’s how Mr. Trump is selling himself and why he can’t be believed.

A financial wizard who can bring executive magic to government?

Despite his towering properties, Mr. Trump has a record rife with bankruptcies and sketchy ventures like Trump University, which authorities are investigating after numerous complaints of fraud. His name has been chiseled off his failed casinos in Atlantic City.

Mr. Trump’s brazen refusal to disclose his tax returns — as Mrs. Clinton and other nominees for decades have done — should sharpen voter wariness of his business and charitable operations. Disclosure would undoubtedly raise numerous red flags; the public record already indicates that in at least some years he made full use of available loopholes and paid no taxes.

Mr. Trump has been opaque about his questionable global investments in Russia and elsewhere, which could present conflicts of interest as president, particularly if his business interests are left in the hands of his children, as he intends. Investigations have found self-dealing. He notably tapped $258,000 in donors’ money from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits involving his for-profit businesses, according to The Washington Post.

A straight talker who tells it like it is?

Mr. Trump, who has no experience in national security, declares that he has a plan to soundly defeat the Islamic State militants in Syria, but won’t reveal it, bobbing and weaving about whether he would commit ground troops. Voters cannot judge whether he has any idea what he’s talking about without an outline of his plan, yet Mr. Trump ludicrously insists he must not tip off the enemy.

Another of his cornerstone proposals — his campaign pledge of a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslim newcomers plus the deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants across a border wall paid for by Mexico — has been subjected to endless qualifications as he zigs and zags in pursuit of middle-ground voters.

Whatever his gyrations, Mr. Trump always does make clear where his heart lies — with the anti-immigrant, nativist and racist signals that he scurrilously employed to build his base.

He used the shameful “birther” campaign against President Obama’s legitimacy as a wedge for his candidacy. But then he opportunistically denied his own record, trolling for undecided voters by conceding that Mr. Obama was a born American. In the process he tried to smear Mrs. Clinton as the instigator of the birther canard and then fled reporters’ questions.

Since his campaign began, NBC News has tabulated that Mr. Trump has made 117 distinct policy shifts on 20 major issues, including three contradictory views on abortion in one eight-hour stretch. As reporters try to pin down his contradictions, Mr. Trump has mocked them at his rallies. He said he would “loosen” libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations that displease him.

An expert negotiator who can fix government and overpower other world leaders?

His plan for cutting the national debt was far from a confidence builder: He said he might try to persuade creditors to accept less than the government owed. This fanciful notion, imported from Mr. Trump’s debt-steeped real estate world, would undermine faith in the government and the stability of global financial markets. His tax-cut plan has been no less alarming. It was initially estimated to cost $10 trillion in tax revenue, then, after revisions, maybe $3 trillion, by one adviser’s estimate. There is no credible indication of how this would be paid for — only assurances that those in the upper brackets will be favored.

If Mr. Trump were to become president, his open doubts about the value of NATO would present a major diplomatic and security challenge, as would his repeated denunciations of trade deals and relations with China. Mr. Trump promises to renegotiate the Iran nuclear control agreement, as if it were an air-rights deal on Broadway. Numerous experts on national defense and international affairs have recoiled at the thought of his commanding the nuclear arsenal. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell privately called Mr. Trump “an international pariah.” Mr. Trump has repeatedly denounced global warming as a “hoax,” although a golf course he owns in Ireland is citing global warming in seeking to build a protective wall against a rising sea.

In expressing admiration for the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, Mr. Trump implies acceptance of Mr. Putin’s dictatorial abuse of critics and dissenters, some of whom have turned up murdered, and Mr. Putin’s vicious crackdown on the press. Even worse was Mr. Trump’s urging Russia to meddle in the presidential campaign by hacking the email of former Secretary of State Clinton. Voters should consider what sort of deals Mr. Putin might obtain if Mr. Trump, his admirer, wins the White House.

A change agent for the nation and the world?

There can be little doubt of that. But voters should be asking themselves if Mr. Trump will deliver the kind of change they want. Starting a series of trade wars is a recipe for recession, not for new American jobs. Blowing a hole in the deficit by cutting taxes for the wealthy will not secure Americans’ financial future, and alienating our allies won’t protect our security. Mr. Trump has also said he will get rid of the new national health insurance system that millions now depend on, without saying how he would replace it.

The list goes on: He would scuttle the financial reforms and consumer protections born of the Great Recession. He would upend the Obama administration’s progress on the environment, vowing to “cancel the Paris climate agreement” on global warming. He would return to the use of waterboarding, a torture method, in violation of international treaty law. He has blithely called for reconsideration of Japan’s commitment not to develop nuclear weapons. He favors a national campaign of “stop and frisk” policing, which has been ruled unconstitutional. He has blessed the National Rifle Association’s ambition to arm citizens to engage in what he imagines would be defensive “shootouts” with gunmen. He has so coarsened our politics that he remains a contender for the presidency despite musing about his opponent as a gunshot target.

Voters should also consider Mr. Trump’s silence about areas of national life that are crying out for constructive change: How would he change our schools for the better? How would he lift more Americans out of poverty? How would his condescending appeal to black voters — a cynical signal to white moderates concerned about his racist supporters — translate into credible White House initiatives to promote racial progress? How would his call to monitor and even close some mosques affect the nation’s life and global reputation? Would his Supreme Court nominees be zealous, self-certain extensions of himself? In all these areas, Mrs. Clinton has offered constructive proposals. He has offered bluster, or nothing. The most specific domestic policy he has put forward, on tax breaks for child care, would tilt toward the wealthy.

Voters attracted by the force of the Trump personality should pause and take note of the precise qualities he exudes as an audaciously different politician: bluster, savage mockery of those who challenge him, degrading comments about women, mendacity, crude generalizations about nations and religions. Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for them?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/opinion/why-donald-trump-should-not-be-president.html?referer=
 
Last edited:
When Donald Trump began his improbable run for president 15 months ago, he offered his wealth and television celebrity as credentials, then slyly added a twist of fearmongering about Mexican “rapists” flooding across the Southern border.

From that moment of combustion, it became clear that Mr. Trump’s views were matters of dangerous impulse and cynical pandering rather than thoughtful politics. Yet he has attracted throngs of Americans who ascribe higher purpose to him than he has demonstrated in a freewheeling campaign marked by bursts of false and outrageous allegations, personal insults, xenophobic nationalism, unapologetic sexism and positions that shift according to his audience and his whims.

Now here stands Mr. Trump, feisty from his runaway Republican primary victories and ready for the first presidential debate, scheduled for Monday night, with Hillary Clinton. It is time for others who are still undecided, and perhaps hoping for some dramatic change in our politics and governance, to take a hard look and see Mr. Trump for who he is. They have an obligation to scrutinize his supposed virtues as a refreshing counterpolitician. Otherwise, they could face the consequences of handing the White House to a man far more consumed with himself than with the nation’s well-being.

Here’s how Mr. Trump is selling himself and why he can’t be believed.

A financial wizard who can bring executive magic to government?

Despite his towering properties, Mr. Trump has a record rife with bankruptcies and sketchy ventures like Trump University, which authorities are investigating after numerous complaints of fraud. His name has been chiseled off his failed casinos in Atlantic City.

Mr. Trump’s brazen refusal to disclose his tax returns — as Mrs. Clinton and other nominees for decades have done — should sharpen voter wariness of his business and charitable operations. Disclosure would undoubtedly raise numerous red flags; the public record already indicates that in at least some years he made full use of available loopholes and paid no taxes.

Mr. Trump has been opaque about his questionable global investments in Russia and elsewhere, which could present conflicts of interest as president, particularly if his business interests are left in the hands of his children, as he intends. Investigations have found self-dealing. He notably tapped $258,000 in donors’ money from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits involving his for-profit businesses, according to The Washington Post.

A straight talker who tells it like it is?

Mr. Trump, who has no experience in national security, declares that he has a plan to soundly defeat the Islamic State militants in Syria, but won’t reveal it, bobbing and weaving about whether he would commit ground troops. Voters cannot judge whether he has any idea what he’s talking about without an outline of his plan, yet Mr. Trump ludicrously insists he must not tip off the enemy.

Another of his cornerstone proposals — his campaign pledge of a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslim newcomers plus the deportation of 11 million undocumented immigrants across a border wall paid for by Mexico — has been subjected to endless qualifications as he zigs and zags in pursuit of middle-ground voters.

Whatever his gyrations, Mr. Trump always does make clear where his heart lies — with the anti-immigrant, nativist and racist signals that he scurrilously employed to build his base.

He used the shameful “birther” campaign against President Obama’s legitimacy as a wedge for his candidacy. But then he opportunistically denied his own record, trolling for undecided voters by conceding that Mr. Obama was a born American. In the process he tried to smear Mrs. Clinton as the instigator of the birther canard and then fled reporters’ questions.

Since his campaign began, NBC News has tabulated that Mr. Trump has made 117 distinct policy shifts on 20 major issues, including three contradictory views on abortion in one eight-hour stretch. As reporters try to pin down his contradictions, Mr. Trump has mocked them at his rallies. He said he would “loosen” libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations that displease him.

An expert negotiator who can fix government and overpower other world leaders?

His plan for cutting the national debt was far from a confidence builder: He said he might try to persuade creditors to accept less than the government owed. This fanciful notion, imported from Mr. Trump’s debt-steeped real estate world, would undermine faith in the government and the stability of global financial markets. His tax-cut plan has been no less alarming. It was initially estimated to cost $10 trillion in tax revenue, then, after revisions, maybe $3 trillion, by one adviser’s estimate. There is no credible indication of how this would be paid for — only assurances that those in the upper brackets will be favored.

If Mr. Trump were to become president, his open doubts about the value of NATO would present a major diplomatic and security challenge, as would his repeated denunciations of trade deals and relations with China. Mr. Trump promises to renegotiate the Iran nuclear control agreement, as if it were an air-rights deal on Broadway. Numerous experts on national defense and international affairs have recoiled at the thought of his commanding the nuclear arsenal. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell privately called Mr. Trump “an international pariah.” Mr. Trump has repeatedly denounced global warming as a “hoax,” although a golf course he owns in Ireland is citing global warming in seeking to build a protective wall against a rising sea.

In expressing admiration for the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, Mr. Trump implies acceptance of Mr. Putin’s dictatorial abuse of critics and dissenters, some of whom have turned up murdered, and Mr. Putin’s vicious crackdown on the press. Even worse was Mr. Trump’s urging Russia to meddle in the presidential campaign by hacking the email of former Secretary of State Clinton. Voters should consider what sort of deals Mr. Putin might obtain if Mr. Trump, his admirer, wins the White House.

A change agent for the nation and the world?

There can be little doubt of that. But voters should be asking themselves if Mr. Trump will deliver the kind of change they want. Starting a series of trade wars is a recipe for recession, not for new American jobs. Blowing a hole in the deficit by cutting taxes for the wealthy will not secure Americans’ financial future, and alienating our allies won’t protect our security. Mr. Trump has also said he will get rid of the new national health insurance system that millions now depend on, without saying how he would replace it.

The list goes on: He would scuttle the financial reforms and consumer protections born of the Great Recession. He would upend the Obama administration’s progress on the environment, vowing to “cancel the Paris climate agreement” on global warming. He would return to the use of waterboarding, a torture method, in violation of international treaty law. He has blithely called for reconsideration of Japan’s commitment not to develop nuclear weapons. He favors a national campaign of “stop and frisk” policing, which has been ruled unconstitutional. He has blessed the National Rifle Association’s ambition to arm citizens to engage in what he imagines would be defensive “shootouts” with gunmen. He has so coarsened our politics that he remains a contender for the presidency despite musing about his opponent as a gunshot target.

Voters should also consider Mr. Trump’s silence about areas of national life that are crying out for constructive change: How would he change our schools for the better? How would he lift more Americans out of poverty? How would his condescending appeal to black voters — a cynical signal to white moderates concerned about his racist supporters — translate into credible White House initiatives to promote racial progress? How would his call to monitor and even close some mosques affect the nation’s life and global reputation? Would his Supreme Court nominees be zealous, self-certain extensions of himself? In all these areas, Mrs. Clinton has offered constructive proposals. He has offered bluster, or nothing. The most specific domestic policy he has put forward, on tax breaks for child care, would tilt toward the wealthy.

Voters attracted by the force of the Trump personality should pause and take note of the precise qualities he exudes as an audaciously different politician: bluster, savage mockery of those who challenge him, degrading comments about women, mendacity, crude generalizations about nations and religions. Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for them?

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/26/opinion/why-donald-trump-should-not-be-president.html?referer=

Couldn't say it better myself. 😜
 
Good read

Related, why Donald Trump should be President: Hilary Clinton
 
Definitely needed a new thread for the 4,000th anti-trump article.
 
Definitely needed a new thread for the 4,000th anti-trump article.

03vpIJz.gif
 
Your new president

Just like the prescient designated survivor

Let's hope townie survives
 
Is Donald Trump qualified to be president?

H.L. Mencken declared there was only one way to look at a politician – “down.”

Likewise, there’s really only one way to look at the first presidential debate on Monday: as the first serious job interview for potential President Donald John Trump – an opaque candidate who has hidden behind a steel curtain of one-liners, faux familiarity and universal celebrity.

Story Continued Below

Yeah, yeah, yeah, it’s a big night for Hillary Clinton too. She’s got a lot to prove, for real, namely that she’s not the lying, self-dealing crook many Americans think she is – or at least convince the 55 percent of voters who don’t like her that her virtues (temperament and experience) compensate for decades of assorted ick. She needs to prove she can stand up to Trump, answer the usual email/foundation questions, convince whoever’s still sellable on the idea (Stop Instagramming a picture of your lunch, Millennials, and listen up) that she’s not some scheming granny who will just sell everybody out the second John Roberts drops the swearing-in Bible.

But the spotlight belongs on Trump, who is in need of a rigorous job interview. Clinton deserves the same, but she is already the single most scrutinized, parsed, vetted, investigated, attacked and plaudited non-incumbent to ever seek the presidency. She’s been around forever, making enemies since the internet was dial-up, cell phones were the size of skateboards and Trump was engaged to Marla Maples.

Everyone makes the orange jokes, but Trump is something of a black box – running on a few big and broad ideas (curbing illegal immigration, ditching bad trade deals, restoring American prosperity to the working class and obliterating political correctness). He’s bad with facts and the truth, and perhaps worse, takes perverse pride in being a D student who doesn’t read books, has the sketchiest sense of history, doesn’t read briefing materials, and, according to aides and ghostwriters, can’t even sit still long enough to be given a thorough verbal briefing.

These are not nasty, biased, liberal opinions – they are facts based on reporting and Trump’s own public performances. Here are five questions Trump needs to address on Monday – but taken together they add up to one big one: Is Donald Trump qualified to be President of the United States?

1. Does he actually know – or care to know – the basic information needed to competently run the country?

Only one verdict of presidential fitness counts, of course, and that’s a candidate’s capacity to get to 270 electoral votes. In recent days, Trump – who swooned after Clinton’s superb convention in Philly – has closed to within the margin of error in many (though not all) national polls, and leapt to serious leads in battlegrounds like Ohio and Iowa since August 1st. He’s still the most unpopular candidate in recent history (although Clinton is number two with a bullet) and seems to have a ceiling of between 40 and 44 percent nationally. But he can win. Fivethirtyeight.com, the arch-aggregator, gives Trump a four in ten chance of prevailing.

His resurgence proves three political points – two of them we knew, the third is a surprise to everyone except Trump and his team: The country (especially the white working-class parts) is pissed, Clinton is a perennially lousy candidate and – lastly, but not leastly – Trump has proven to be a resilient and flexible candidate with the capacity (developed late in the game) to shift shape and shut up when he needs to.

The first debate should be a pivot – from politicking to president-ing. Being a cunning candidate isn’t remotely the same thing as being ready to rule – and we should be moving to the Doris Kearns Goodwin phase of the campaign, where the top priority is fitness to govern in a time of trial. It probably won’t happen, but a boy can dream.

This is not to suggest that Trump can’t do the job (Ronald Reagan, another entertainer who forayed into politics, was mostly a success), but he’s been judged as a performer up to this point, and not subjected to the cold fluorescent scrutiny of managerial competence.

Trump has repeatedly flubbed tests of his basic understanding of domestic and foreign affairs – apparently he wasn’t aware Russia had annexed the Crimea until George Stephanopoulos informed him recently. He obliterated Jeb Bush, that humbled patsy of the GOP establishment, in the debates -- but Bush (if anyone had cared to listen) punctured Trump’s bully-boy promise to impose tariffs on Chinese products, correctly pointing out that such a move would certainly spark countermeasures by Beijing that could lead to a global depression. Trump wasn’t aware of that fact, or just didn’t care.

The caring part is kind of important, if history is any guide. In April, I sat down with one of his longtime advisers, Roger Stone, who described what it was like to brief an executive whose prime attributes were supreme self-confidence and supreme impatience. “All you can do is present information and let him either assimilate it or not,” said Stone, who has known the GOP nominee for decades. “When you write something for him, keep it short and staccato. He's not going to read a 40-page white paper on the economy; zero chance of that. It's just too boring. Don't blame him; I don't like it either. So keep it simple and direct because that's the way he communicates.”

Stone argued that Trump isn’t an ignoramus – just a cut-to-the-chase decision-maker who is a lightening quick study. But George W. Bush’s advisers, speaking to biographer Peter Baker, said that Bush’s unwillingness to ask probing, informed questions led to some of his disastrous decisions in Iraq. And during the nadir of the 2009 global economic meltdown, President Obama added a daily economic briefing to his daily national security rundown to keep tabs on the rapidly shifting metrics of crisis.

Trump’s capacity to intuitively assimilate information might render such processes useless – but there’s not a single presidential historian drawing oxygen who believes a lack of intellectual curiosity is an asset for the job.

Many Americans might not give a damn that he knows what HUD’s Section 8 program is – and his failure to answer informational questions that Clinton would parry with ease will endear him to his screw-the-media base. But don’t people have the right to know what he actually knows? Trump has gleefully trashed the rules of presidential campaigns, so why should a moderator treat him with the deference of someone who abides by the norms – by assuming he possesses the basic knowledge traditionally required of a presidential candidate?

2. Does Trump understand and respect the basic principles and traditions of American Constitutional government?

Again, this is not a given. Hillary Clinton despises the press, and dodges them as if they were a pack of feral rats, but she has never suggested they be stopped from doing their jobs through the courts. Trump (who banned news outlets, including this one, from his press conferences for most of the campaign) routinely threatens litigation against publications that publish unflattering articles and, in February, went so far as to say: “We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace … we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected.”

That’s a new one for a presidential nominee. As Corey Brettschneider wrote in POLITICO Magazine last month: “For more than 50 years, the Supreme Court has held that for a public figure to prove libel against a news outlet, they must show that the outlet acted with ‘actual malice’ — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

During a private meeting with Hill Republicans earlier this year, the populist real estate developer expressed his fondness for “Article 12 of the Constitution.” The framers stopped at seven. “He was just listing out numbers,” said Congressman Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), a Trump backer at the time. “I think he was confusing Articles and Amendments.”

Okay, let’s write that one off as a gotcha – you can understand Constitutional principles without citing literal chapter and verse. But consider his reaction to the Paris bombings last November when Trump told FOX News he thought the government should shutter some mosques where “some bad things are happening.” The comment was decried by Constitutional scholars of all stripes as a radical measure that would violate the “Free Exercise” clause of the First Amendment, a pillar of protection for faiths of all kinds.

3. Why won’t Trump forthrightly answer the most basic questions about his businesses and debts?

Hillary Clinton has, appropriately, has come under intense scrutiny for her six-figure speeches to big Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs – and has refused to release the transcripts of her prattles to the plutocrats. And serious questions remain about the lack of boundaries between the Clinton Foundation, the State Department, and big-money foreign donors who blurred the line between influence peddling and altruism.

But the Clintons have released all of their tax returns (in part because, for many years, they were required to do so as government employees) and Trump is the first major presidential candidate in the modern era to thumb his nose at handing over a single one.

Why does it matter? Because a guy whose purchase on the presidency is rooted in his private-sector acumen needs to back up his claims with proof, in the same way that Clinton needs to be held accountable for her purported record of accomplishment in the White House, Senate and State Department. At issue is Trump’s fundamental personal narrative, and his claim that he’s “very, very rich.” He is, but maybe not quite as much as he claims (He says he’s good for $11 billion; Forbes and other outlets say he’s worth less than half that much).

More serious is the issue of Trump’s debts: The Clinton campaign, citing press reports that he owes large sums to overseas creditors in China and elsewhere, has attacked him for being in the pocket of foreign financial overlords. If that’s a lie, there’s an easy way to prove it – by releasing the returns.

This isn’t a liberal media witch-hunt: Many Republicans, including supporters like House Speaker Paul Ryan, say he needs to cough them up, and fast.

4. What’s the deal with his charitable foundation? Then there’s the matter of Trump’s sloppily run, and less-than-magnanimous foundation. In expose after expose, Washington Post reporter David Fahrenthold has reported on a pattern of over-promising donations and the misuse of funds (including a quarter-million payment to cover legal fees for Trump’s businesses and sports memorabilia) that Trump himself has conceded might be illegal.

The problem, yet again, is that Trump has refused to release a comprehensive accounting of his giving, and his surrogates have routinely misstated the magnitude of his generosity, according to the reporting of Fahrenthold and others.

5. Why lie? These days, the polygraph is used sparingly as part of the vetting process for employment, mostly for sensitive national security or law enforcement jobs. If presidential candidates were subjected to that level of scrutiny, the only person allowed on the debate stage at Hofstra would be the technician testing the sound system.

But if Trump is to be vetted for the presidency, he needs to be asked not only about individual statements he’s made in the past, but his pattern of lying, stretching the truth and bungling facts.

Hillary Clinton (“Crooked Hillary” in Trump’s parlance) it bears repeating, is no saint – far from it – and her early answers on the email scandal were misleading, bordering on the untruthful, and flat-out lies in the view of GOP congressional investigators.

But it’s a crowning irony of 2016 that the Republican Party, whose base revolted against its leadership for untruthfulness – especially George W. Bush’s claims about Iraq – would nominate the most brazenly truth-challenged candidate in recent history. [A recitation of Trump’s whoppers would take up too much space – read POLITICO’s comprehensive “Donald Trump’s Week of Misrepresentations, Exaggerations and Half-Truths” for a taste.]

In an attempt to defend Trump, buddy Newt Gingrich, who lobbied to be Trump’s running mate, tweeted what amounted to an indirect admission that his man has a trouble with all those pesky facts. “Clinton,” the former speaker wrote, “is a fox who knows many things you can fact check. Trump is a hedgehog who knows one big thing…”

But getting the facts right – and telling the truth – is a big thing. It’s the only way citizens will ever look up to, and not down on, their leaders.


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/is-donald-trump-qualified-to-be-president-228657
 
Americans are waking up to what globalists have done to the nation. We don't care that Trump's likely gonna get btfo in tonight's debate. We're sick of your immigration policies which you falsely claim benefit everyone but which in reality cost American workers $500 billion in lost wages (recent NAS report estimates wages were lowered 5.2%) and your lobbyist written trade agreements which also mainly benefit the elites and harm workers. We see the rigged system for what it is and we loudly shout "ENOUGH!"
 
Luddites like bsf4l are always on the losing side of history. And they never learn.
 
Luddites like bsf4l are always on the losing side of history. And they never learn.

Opposition to unfair trade agreements that primarily benefit the elites, not to mention immigration policies which harm native born workers, does not make one a luddite.
 
I'd wager a big portion of rural voters voting for Trump are not doing so because of what "globalists" have done to this country. They see things like the new anti-Hillary NRA ad and get scared.
 
Americans are waking up to what globalists have done to the nation. We don't care that Trump's likely gonna get btfo in tonight's debate. We're sick of your immigration policies which you falsely claim benefit everyone but which in reality cost American workers $500 billion in lost wages (recent NAS report estimates wages were lowered 5.2%) and your lobbyist written trade agreements which also mainly benefit the elites and harm workers. We see the rigged system for what it is and we loudly shout "ENOUGH!"

There is a difference between shouting ENOUGH and saying "FUCK IT" and then burning the whole thing down out of spite.

Trump supporters are the political equivalent of the people that turn BLM protests from peaceful demonstrations seeking to effect change into violent riots seeking to exact revenge.

Donald Trump is a cruel, narcissistic, pathological liar that does not care about you or this country. If you think the system is so broken that you want to say "fuck it, burn it all to hell," that is certainly your choice. Just be careful what you wish for.
 
I'd wager a big portion of rural voters voting for Trump are not doing so because of what "globalists" have done to this country. They see things like the new anti-Hillary NRA ad and get scared.

In a related question, how many posters on this board have been negatively effected by globalism. I didn't think we had such a large contingent of unemployed, rural, working-class, white men.
 
I'd wager a big portion of rural voters voting for Trump are not doing so because of what "globalists" have done to this country. They see things like the new anti-Hillary NRA ad and get scared.

Yeah, and nobody has spent any money on negative Trump ads.
 
RE: Globalism- until Americans are willing to put Wal-Mart and big box stores out of business, those jobs are never coming back. Exactly how can Americans live on making $3-15/day?

Further as long as radical RWers continue the hatred of science and their insane denial of climate change, we won't be creating and funding an entire of high paying jobs that should exist in our nation today.
 
Americans are waking up to what globalists have done to the nation. We don't care that Trump's likely gonna get btfo in tonight's debate. We're sick of your immigration policies which you falsely claim benefit everyone but which in reality cost American workers $500 billion in lost wages (recent NAS report estimates wages were lowered 5.2%) and your lobbyist written trade agreements which also mainly benefit the elites and harm workers. We see the rigged system for what it is and we loudly shout "ENOUGH!"

Bob how do you reconcile your beliefs here with the fact that Trump has repeatedly outsourced operations and manufacturing of many of his random business dealings to places like China? Also how do you feel about Trump routinely gaming the system for his benefit as evidenced by the way he's used his charities as a place to funnel other people's money to his own businesses.

I don't fault you for your political beliefs whatsoever...they are perfectly legitimate and we as a country should be discussing these things. What I and a lot of other people have a problem with is the fact that you're comfortable giving a pass to a man who is practicing the very same things you denounce.
 
Yeah, and nobody has spent any money on negative Trump ads.

The difference between the NRA ads and "negative" Trump ads is that the NRA ads tell lies about Hillary Clinton versus using Donald Trump's own words, 100% in context.
 
Back
Top