Donald John Trump

The Prime Minister's speech today says it too.
You're going to tell the British Prime Minister you know more about Trump than her?

It's a message of caution from Donald Trump, that's all that story you shared is. A warning.

It's not my article but I did cite it.

You seem to be pro EU, so any further discussions with yourself seems to fall on deaf ears.
You can keep asking me to produce whatever you want and then ask for it again and again only to deny it again and again.
I can show you all the evidence of EU expansion and Germany's stance and how Trump seeks to not buy into Chinese or Mexican exports, and you're going to go on about how good the failing EU is and how bad Trump is.

 

Interesting testament of faith that will require something of a miracle to instantiate. In most ways that America could be considered "Great" we still are. That means he can't possibly "Make America Great Again". While some of his efforts might indeed result in improvements based on his history and his proclamations it's far more likely that the net result at least short term will be negative. Long term he may be an example of what we don't want to see again that will be at least somewhat beneficial.

That you are both rational intelligent individuals who may have some philosophical differences.

Unfortunatly I suspect it is you who doesn't understand him. Trump is more properly viewed as a conman than a businessman. He may understand some of the problems associated with both our current laws and politics but his history has been using those to his advantage not to solving them. He may indeed understand, to some extent anyway, how to solve some of those problems, how dedicated he is to fixing them is an open question though. You need to remember that Trump has admittedly not only lied to "Seal the Deal" he has advocated doing so. That highlights the big question right now as to how far Trump can be trusted and what his real intentions are.

I'm not at all sure that is the worse case. As pointed out he can't do some of the things he has said he'll do and some of the others would get him impeached. The potential to mess things up internationally can hardly be underestimated. Domestically, well that's an open question in my book.

Many of those questioning your proclamations are not Democrats by any means all though there are some of those here as well.

I can't see any real way he is a "fresh start" and there is a significant chance his presidency will indeed by a catastrophe.

Well based on the pre election polls there were quite a few in the "held their nose" category in both camps. Trump certainly wasn't a "far right" candidate indeed by any reasonable definition I'm not even sure he qualifies as a conservative candidate. Hillary was more "main stream" if you will but had an awful lot of negatives attached including from some points of view the fact that she was "main stream".

I call BS on this. Please note that neither candidate got the majority of the votes and Clinton actually got more votes than Trump. So what was the "decision of the people"? By the rules in place Trump did indeed win. That doesn't mean that he is immune to criticism. To take that position is indeed the height of stupidity.

 

McCain is a hero?

 

All I chose to respond to friend. The rest is just a bunch of liberal "girly" man talk (said in an Arnold accent) No pun intended.

 

That isn't the argument that's being made here though is it? So a bit of strawman.

A rather classic case of someone trying to lie with statistics. Hillary won several states selecting the one where she had her largest edge and subtracting that is a rather extreme example of cherry picking.

Yep utter rubbish. Hillary had the majority in several states not just California. Singling out California is simply not warranted but the fringe right like to pick on California ... at least when they don't vote the way they want. California does not have a "huge Democrat majority". A large majority did vote for Hillary this time but they have voted for Republicans in the past and had a Republican governor not that long ago.

 

Indeed but you seam to think that's a good thing. Assad is quite clearly one of the worst terrorist at large. The fact that he also leads a country and has the backing of Russia and Iran is the only reason he's still around.

But the Syria that is hardly warrants saving does it?

For areas under Assad's control while civilians and their support facilities like hospitals are considered prime targets by Assad's forces at least and there is a fair amount of evidence that the Russians are following his targeting philosophy at least to some extent.

 

Lwd is correct. Hillary won the majority in 13 states. With that said, it was still the poorest performance by a candidate since Bob Dole in 96'.

The reason why California is such a big deal is because Hillary won that state by more than 2 million votes (her largest margin of victory). If California is made null and void, then Trump wins the majority vote of the country as well as Electoral.

 

Since Hillary was perhaps the worst candidate the Democrats have ever fielded that's hardly surprising is it.

It does not however make sense to cherry pick states for exclusion. California has gone to the Republicans in the not too distant past. The fact that it went as heavy as it did for Hillary suggest they at least saw the problems with Trump as a candidate. By the way by my calculations even eliminating California doesn't give Trump the majority. I just did a rough off the cuff calculation though.

 

Syrians think it's a good thing. The very same ones that voted him BACK into office in 2014.... International election monitors confirmed this. Assad is no angel but he is surely not as bad as the main stream media presents him to be. The reporting on White Helmets is a good example.

With Assad gone who takes over? Who is the oppositions candidate? Cabinet? What do they want? These are just some of the simplest questions asked for which there is no coherent answer.

?

This is factually incorrect. Why do you think that Russia intentionally bombs hospitals, schools etc.? Do we value life less than others? I'm sorry but I don't understand this logic.

Do the Syrians under Assads control have no need for aid? Syria is destroyed. Aid dropped in occupied territory is quickly confiscated by the Jihadis. This was quickly reaffirmed with the liberation of Aleppo. Numerous storage areas were discovered filled with everything you can think of yet the civilians suffered. Upon finally being freed, all received the necessary aid/help. Dancing and celebration ensued... No one made them do it either .

 

Yes, he served honorably and spent 6 years in a POW camp that left him with life long physical disabilities.

 

POW = Heroic?

 

The ......."inauguration"

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/1/16/1621063/-A-desperate-Donald-Trump-records-a-message-on-Facebook-offering-free-Inauguration-tickets?detail=email&link_id=1&can_id=aa2b564de91811bddf0d0c3e1c5857a8&source=email-a-desperate-donald-trump-records-a-message-on-facebook-offering-free-inauguration-tickets-2&email_referrer=a-desperate-donald-trump-records-a-message-on-facebook-offering-free-inauguration-tickets-2&email_subject=a-desperate-donald-trump-records-a-message-on-facebook-offering-free-inauguration-tickets

 

Well, we know what the Soviets did with returning PoWs... other cultures have a decidedly different take than that...

 

Some of them. Pretty clearly it's not the majority.

Really? And how many of those were real votes and what choices did they have?

Again really? The 2014 vote was deeply flawed in the way it was executed and there's pretty strong evidence that the reported numbers were fabricated. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_presidential_election,_2014
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/02/syria-election-vote-for-assad-or-else
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-elections-2014-voters-turn-out-for-ballot-denounced-as-a-sham-by-west-9475721.html
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/06/bashar-al-assad-re-elected-syrian-president-20146419457810751.html
Please provide some sources for your statement.

Or not. I've certainly seen nothing to elevate him above the level of say Osama at least in regards to the treatment of his own citizens. Indeed he may be worse. The attacks against civilians with bombs and artillery both conventional and chemical are pretty well documented as are his treatment of those arrested because they didn't fully support him.

I disagree. That's a question that the Syrians need to answer but not one they can answer while he is in power.

Is it? The only alternative is to ascribe an incredible level of incompetence to the Russian military. Of course they have denied the attacks but the evidence is pretty clear. Then again you trust Russian sources so you've probably never seen the real evidence or don't believe it. Just like you probably believe that Daesh is the primary target of the Russian forces there.

 

Frankly no.
Many who served were POWs.

However his conduct and sacrifice while held in Vietnam should be seen as heroic.

 

And what did the Soviets (post Stalin) do with their returning POWs?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IIrzJcEWAU - Video Tube for YouTube - iPhone/iPad


Trumps foreign policy on the issue is backing her results not what's reported on regularly here in the states.

 

Trump does not have foreign policies...He has hashtags.

 

now that's funny!

 

Brian Smith, on 15 Jan 2017 - 2:17 PM, said:

I call BS on this. Please note that neither candidate got the majority of the votes and Clinton actually got more votes than Trump. So what was the "decision of the people"? By the rules in place Trump did indeed win. That doesn't mean that he is immune to criticism. To take that position is indeed the height of stupidity.


As you say by the constitution in place in the US the electorate gave the Presidency to Trump, this vote never has been about who gets the most votes as explained in some of the other posts. So first people should be showing some respect for those who did not vote the way would have liked and second their country's election arrangements. No one has said criticism of decision making and policy is wrong but the guy has not started in the job yet.

In the UK there are still those who believe they can overturn the Brexit vote and the Scots want a second vote on leaving the UK, Brexit will happen no matter how many issues are placed in the way. As for the Scots well they are even more determined to leave the UK because the UK is going to leave the single market. Not sure what the driving force is there because Scotland will not remain in the single market by leaving the UK?

It is the neurotics who act as if they need counselling because their side did not win that need to get a grip - these decision have been made and are not going to change.