Trump is "a clear and present danger"

Trump has a long history of dealing with and partnering with a host of nefarious characters around the globe. If, God forbid, Trump were to become POTUS he would automatically be in conflict with the interests of the nation.

Trump's business partner in Turkey has been caught up in allegations of corruption and as a result is on the outs in Turkey. If Trump were to become POTUS the Turkish president has promised to deny access to Turkish military bases the US currently enjoys.

"Trump would be in direct financial and political conflict with Turkey from the moment he was sworn into office. Once again, all his dealings with Turkey would be suspect: Would Trump act in the interests of the United States or his wallet? "

Trump has similar problems in many other countries around the globe. It's know Trump wants to do more business in Russia. That cannot be made unknown. The Donald has a long history of dealing with nefarious characters around the globe. The Donald knows he wants to do business in Russia.

And here is the thing, Trump doesn't build stuff. He hasn't built stuff for at least a decade. He makes his money licensing his name and as a reality TV star. So for all his blusters about being a builder, he isn't. He sucked as a builder, e.g. his casinos.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081.html

It looks like Trump's biggest asset, his golf courses are worth about half what he paid for them and the most of them aren't profitable. That's how great a businessman The Donald is. :) Trump's UK golf courses aren't profitable. Add to that the huge investments he has made and the expected downturn in the British economy resulting from Brexit, Trump may have some additional bankruptcies in his future.

http://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/trump-golf/
 
Last edited:
iceaura said:
So the problem is not reading comprehension - there's no way you can misread a simple list of things like "Iraq War Vote" and "Betrayal of Wellstone's Health Care Proposal" and "Consistent Capitulation to Bankers" four or five or six times.
Click to expand...

Iceaura, I have several times tried to discuss history with you, and inquire about historical contexts, but you just pitched incomprehensible hissy-tantrums, screeching in all caps about how ">HILLARY CLINTON ISN'T ON YOUR SIDE<" as if that actually means anything.

And along the way you have managed to demonize generations of Democratic voters; you presume to judge their decisions according to your pretentious, ignorant luxury.

So I ask you again: Where was the liberal revolution back then?

The fact that you have been unable to address this issue honestly renders the whole of your critique unreliable. You don't get to judge the history of decades past according to your recently adopted "principles" of convenience.
 
Tiassa said:
Iceaura, I have several times tried to discuss history with you, and inquire about historical contexts
Click to expand...
Bullshit. You have a screw loose on the topic of Clinton, is all - you don't discuss Clinton's history, you by turns deny and ignore it.
Tiassa said:
but you just pitched incomprehensible hissy-tantrums, screeching in all caps about how ">HILLARY CLINTON ISN'T ON YOUR SIDE<" as if that actually means anything.
Click to expand...
You need to consider the following fact very, very, carefully: I have never written and posted anything in "all caps" on this forum. Not that, not anything. You put that in quotes - it is not a quote, as presented there.

Included in that reconsideration of what is going wrong with you, mentally, in this matter, take notice of the fact that I do no "screeching", or anything reasonably described as such by a sane reader. Neither do I "demonize" Democratic voters of the past, and so forth. Neither do I lie, or attempt to deceive. Your entire post there is a symptom, not a meaningful address to me.

Or this:
Tiassa said:
You don't get to judge the history of decades past according to your recently adopted "principles" of convenience.
Click to expand...
And that is how recounting the contemporary assessments of events as they happened by those who were there, in accordance with the principles they held then and ever since, is described by someone attempting to "discuss history".

The clear and present danger of Trump is a manifold wonder indeed, kneecapping reason in all directions - but it's a familiar one. It's what was lost with Reagan, drawn with Bush, drawn with Clinton, lost with W, and pretty much drawn with Obama. We can't win this year. But we can, if we play it right, draw again, hold some ground - another Clinton, less able and more corporate but essentially status quo. Not a disaster, outside of the accelerating circumstances. A competent chooser of Supreme Court justices. It could be worse. If we spin off into wishful thinking and forget to mind the stove, it will be.
 
When I see and hear extreme partisans of any ilk, I'm always reminded of the the adage below:

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

And that's what we are facing in the US with all these Republican supporters, especially the Trump supporters. Who would have thunk (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thunk) it? We are witnessing the emergence of fascism within the Republican Party courtesy of Republican media sources who insulate the Republican base from truthful information and feed them a constant diet of misinformation.

The Donald wants to:

1) Remove civil rights of individuals at his discretion; remove the right to legal counsel and to humane treatement
2) Restore and expand upon Bush's 2.0 torture program
3) Bring back expanded search and seizure laws which have been ruled unconstitutional
4) Expand the practice of profiling
5) Create a huge forced deportation police force to serve at his discretion, given Trump has refused for years to recognize Trump's birth certificate, how many more birth certificates will he and his deportation force refuse to recognize?
6) Plunder other countries. Basically, Trump wants to turn the world into his piggy bank, just like Putin. Is it any wonder Trump admires autocrats like Putin?
7) Retard/control freedom of the press, the Donald wants to and has limited the press by blackballing certain individuals and press organizations because he didn't like what they published about him, and only appearing in friendly media outlets like Fox News.

Fascism in alive and well in the Republican Party. Somebody needs to wake up, and the few remaining responsible Republicans e.g. Bush, Kasich, et al. need to find some balls and they need to do it soon.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tobias-stone/history-tells-us-what-will-brexit-trump_b_11179774.html
 
Last edited:
joe said:
Fascism in alive and well in the Republican Party. Somebody needs to wake up, and the few remaining responsible Republicans e.g. Bush, Kasich, et al. need to find some balls and they need to do it soon.
Click to expand...
The desperate scraping of the barrel reflected in referring to the likes of Florida "Gitmo Mob" Jeb or Ohio "Vote Lehman" Kasich as a "remaining responsible Republican" is all one needs to see, to recognize the situation.

There is no such thing. After watching 2004 play out, all responsible, morally centered, ethically grounded Republican politicians had about two years to extricate themselves from that Party - anyone who didn't, we know who they are.
 
Last edited:
Skittle Me This

​

It makes for a fine appeal, if you're into the whole white supremacist thing. Because that's the whole problem. Stop-and-frisk [SAF] is supposed to be a color-blind practice, but it just hasn't worked out that way. Besides, as plenty have pointed out, it's unconstitutional.

Nothing like boasting of how you would violate the Constitution as part of your pitch for the job of preserving and protecting it. Steve Benen↱ cracked a pretty obvious joke:

When Trump recently told African-American communities, ‘What do you have to lose?' he neglected to mention the answer: Fourth Amendment rights.​

And this is the part where racism comes in, because, well, it's Trump ... and institutional police racism ... and guns. It is, after all, only halfway a joke to wonder if black Americans have Second Amendment rights.

I suspect that's why Benen went with the Fourth; otherwise, why not run with the Second?

Nearly as important, however, is how the Republican candidate tried to clean up his latest mess, calling into Fox News yesterday to elaborate on his preferred approach.

“[Police officers are] proactive, and if they see a person possibly with a gun or they think they have a gun, they will see the person and they'll look and they'll take the gun away. They'll stop, they'll frisk and they'll take the gun away, and they won't have anything to shoot with.”​

I have a strong hunch Trump doesn't appreciate how interesting his comments are.

Trump, who's never demonstrated any real understanding of criminal-justice policy, apparently likes the idea of police being able to stop-and-frisk Americans―including those who've done nothing wrong and have been accused of no crimes―effectively at the discretion of individual officers. If the police find a gun, under Trump's vision, it will be taken away.

In other words, the NRA's favorite presidential candidate―the Republican who's benefiting from millions of dollars in NRA campaign money and claims to be a great champion of the Second Amendment―is on board with a policy in which government officials approach random American pedestrians and confiscate their firearms without due process.​

That's right: Donald Trump is comin' for your guns. He said so himself.

Right? What's that? Oh, you mean SAF really is only intended for people of color?

No, it's not? So sketchy white people will be searched for guns? Law enforcement "stop, they'll frisk, and they'll take the gun away"?

Really?

I'm still not convinced that, "I bet I can get away with it", is properly described as strong campaigning, but we'll see what the NRA and legion come up with along the way.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Donald Trump’s stop-and-frisk policy raises eyebrows". msnbc. 23 September 2016. msnbc.com. 23 September 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/2cyXaQ2
 
It makes for a fine appeal, if you're into the whole white supremacist thing.
Click to expand...
Why yes, it does. That's currently being described by the Republican media operations, btw, as the "American people" thing. So in the media barrage, it's a fine appeal if you're into the American people thing.

A Google on "stop and frisk" and Trump turns up a preponderance of media references framed (in the headlines, etc) as Trump saying this while appealing to black voters, as a mistake in "outreach". So they bought it, essentially, regardless of the disclaimers in paragraph 17 - fish took the bait.
 
I am gong to sound awfully paranoid with the following but....
Lets see what we have...
  • Trump beating the "racial discrimination" drum.
  • 2nd amendment right to bear arms.
  • 12% + of the USA population is considered as Afro American.
  • Mass protests by Afro Americans due to a perception of excessive force and killings by law enforcement officers. (Many places)
  • Mass protests against Trump.
  • 2nd amendment right to bear arms. ( repeated for emphasis )
  • Trump declares his love or war...but only if he wins them (Idiocy!)
I reckon that if you guys don't have a armed revolution ( or at the very least an attempt at such ) on your hands within 12 months it'd be a miracle.

The degree of enmity and fear directed towards law enforcement combined with the right to bear arms MUST be a major concern.

The person who manages to placate the racial tensions with a solid bit of "the voice of reason" will be the leader the USA desperately needs. Is Hillary that leader?
Idea:
Perhaps if Obama stays on in some sort of effective consultant role to the next president you may avoid the fall out associated with the USA's first Afro American President leaving office.
 
Last edited:
sculptor said:
psst
HRC is the known warmonger.
Click to expand...
So is Trump... however maybe Hillary looks over seas to entertain a fight. Trump looks at his own neighbor in his own country to entertain a fight.

Are you suggesting that Hillary may be responsible for an Afro American armed revolution?
 
sculptor said:
psst
HRC is the known warmonger.
Click to expand...
Trump has never had the opportunity to do what he says he wants to do, so you think he wouldn't actually do it? Or are you thinking that Trump's lack of capability and understanding of the military will prevent him from starting wars?

That, historically, is a bad bet. In the historical record we see that lack of experience and familiarity and practiced skill only constrains the humble and wary and wise.

Meanwhile, Clinton has partly overseen, from a position of actual influence, a notable overall diminution of US military involvement in wars already started (by Republican administrations); and no new wars started. All of her military doings have been in dealing with the horrible mess created by W&Cheney's gratuitous invasion of Iraq.
 
7a759171082f35c6f73698852b940966.jpg


Will the real B. Anne(Annie) Hall please stand up.
 
Last edited:
Alternately
Child molester Woody Allen is for HRC.
Are all child molesters for HRC?
Does that mean that everyone who is not a child molester is deplorable?
 
sculptor said:
Alternately
Child molester Woody Allen is for HRC.e e
Are all child molesters for HRC?
Does that mean that everyone who is not a child molester is deplorable?
Click to expand...
Except Allen isn't a child molester. He married a younger woman. The Donald married a younger woman too. The Donald married a woman about half his age. Does that make The Donald a child molester?
 
joepistole said:
Except Allen isn't a child molester. He married a younger woman. The Donald married a younger woman too. The Donald married a woman about half his age. Does that make The Donald a child molester?
Click to expand...
No, I have enough evidence to believe the claim that he is a child molester; you should too.

However, that is not a reason to vote for Trump. And it is despicable to try to use the abuse of a child as part of a cheap distraction tactic. But it's about the level of sculptor's ability and character.
 
PhysBang said:
No, I have enough evidence to believe the claim that he is a child molester; you should too.

However, that is not a reason to vote for Trump. And it is despicable to try to use the abuse of a child as part of a cheap distraction tactic. But it's about the level of sculptor's ability and character.
Click to expand...

Yeh.
It is a cheap trick-------------------- I borrowed it from the HRC supporters.
How deplorable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top