To be fair, a lot of what Trump says and writes is incoherent jibberish with no clear meaning.
Trumped 202
- Thread starter cloudsurf
- Start date
- Status
To be fair, a lot of what Trump says and writes is incoherent jibberish with no clear meaning.
True but the media should not play his game. Let's not give meaning to his nonsense.
Cheers,
He speaks like a stream of consciousness, whatever thought pops into his head comes out without any editing.
This is why I would love to see him in a tightly controlled debate, one on one, with Hillary.
Ask him something about the Russian annexation of Crimea: can he give a clear concise answer? Without nattering on about his wall or raising money for veterans? And no shouting or complaining about the media picking on him. Just give an informed answer to the question.
I don't think he has any clue about how the world outside his little bubble works. People need to see how out of touch with reality he is.
He thinks he can go into the White House and change the way the government works as easily as rearranging his office furniture. That is not possible. He is misleading the public when he promises to do things that he cannot.
This is why I would love to see him in a tightly controlled debate, one on one, with Hillary.
Ask him something about the Russian annexation of Crimea: can he give a clear concise answer? Without nattering on about his wall or raising money for veterans? And no shouting or complaining about the media picking on him. Just give an informed answer to the question.
I don't think he has any clue about how the world outside his little bubble works. People need to see how out of touch with reality he is.
He thinks he can go into the White House and change the way the government works as easily as rearranging his office furniture. That is not possible. He is misleading the public when he promises to do things that he cannot.
This is why his fans, that's what they are, FANS, love him. He's just like them, a talk show caller who just goes off as he pleases, not caring what he says, emotionally, little coherence, shouting from the gut without conscience of what he sounds like and thinking he's the one who has all the answers. No rules, no ethics, no civility, little rationality, just primal emotion and actions. That's his fans.
You see the same sort of simplistic naivete in Trump's supporters.
They don't want to be bogged down by details of policy or legality. It's all emotion for them, not reason. Nobody wants to talk about the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act...let's just make America great again eh?
That is why they chant things like "Killary"or "Put the bitch in jail". But if asked exactly for details they get vague and revert to name calling.
The saddest thing about Trump's candidacy is the disgusting level of debate. Rants and soundbite instead of detailed policy analysis. No platforms or sensible arguments, just disjointed promises that could never be kept. Instead of critiquing Hillary's platform he makes general accusations of her being a crook. or makes funny faces.
President=Serious Job. Selection of a President should be taken seriously.
They don't want to be bogged down by details of policy or legality. It's all emotion for them, not reason. Nobody wants to talk about the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act...let's just make America great again eh?
That is why they chant things like "Killary"or "Put the bitch in jail". But if asked exactly for details they get vague and revert to name calling.
The saddest thing about Trump's candidacy is the disgusting level of debate. Rants and soundbite instead of detailed policy analysis. No platforms or sensible arguments, just disjointed promises that could never be kept. Instead of critiquing Hillary's platform he makes general accusations of her being a crook. or makes funny faces.
President=Serious Job. Selection of a President should be taken seriously.
Well what do you expect from us? As you said we are all Sandy Hook and Oklahoma City Murderers. Remember you said that?
She set up her own private server so she could side step congressional oversight. She uses a BlackBerry when the State Dept. told her not to because they could not make it secure. She said she didn't have any top secret/classified documents on her server and when Trump jokes about lets see if the Russians can retrieve the emails she deleted you left wing communists have a fit. Why should you? If it is only harmless emails about Chelsea's wedding who cares? Don't worry Westwoody. This is the US election. You'll still get your Canadian socialism ans so-called free medical. You can still come over to the US and pay out of your pocket for emergency open heart surgery if you need it.
BTW - that comment about Trump supporters being mass murders was really low. Even for you. But it shows your true colors.
Oh Snap! Great post 101! If you would only come over and be a Yankees fan you would be my hero my brotha from another mother! :yo:
One thing is for sure..... if the WITCH wins in November, lets see how many of these so called "supporters" of hers stick around a year or two from now when things are worse than what obama left, which btw will no doubt be the case with the same policies as his in place. What a joke how she has so many fooled. Drink the kool aid boyzzzzzz
One thing is for sure..... if the WITCH wins in November, lets see how many of these so called "supporters" of hers stick around a year or two from now when things are worse than what obama left, which btw will no doubt be the case with the same policies as his in place. What a joke how she has so many fooled. Drink the kool aid boyzzzzzz
Games Without Frontiers!
Yesterday I heard the classic 1980 Peter Gabriel song "Games without Frontiers", and it occurred to me that it could be a theme song for this election:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xZmlUV8muY
IMHO this was Gabriel's best song, with the possible exception of "Shock The Monkey".
Yesterday I heard the classic 1980 Peter Gabriel song "Games without Frontiers", and it occurred to me that it could be a theme song for this election:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xZmlUV8muY
IMHO this was Gabriel's best song, with the possible exception of "Shock The Monkey".
Altough I could wake up at night to hate Trump even more (but I dont because he is not worth it) 12 years of democrats in the office would be so bad... Just like in any system there needs to be a balance from left to right and right to left. If the republicain had a decent candidate they would have won this election hands on. It's true that the pro Trump have little to say. How can they defend his rants and polemic? They cannot play his game so they just follow along...
Cheers,
Cheers,
In the first place this is politically motivated rhetoric that has no resemblance to the facts as the investigations (9 of them), including all Republican-led investigations showed. It's a politically self-serving spin.
This link gives a very detailed account of what happened in Benghazi step by step before, during, and afterward.
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/12/9489389/benghazi-explained
"I blame Hillary Clinton personally for the death of my son. Personally," Pat Smith, mother of State Department officer Sean Smith, said.
Smith's speech was visceral, raw, and important to empathize with. But no official inquest into Benghazi — and there have been many — has found evidence that Clinton is personally responsible for the events of that night.
Take the House Select Committee on Benghazi report, the most recent investigation led by Republicans whose findings were released in late June. After two years of investigation and millions of dollars spent, the report has uncovered no new evidence of wrongdoing by either the Obama administration or Hillary Clinton.
"Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued its final report on Tuesday, finding no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton in the 2012 attacks in Libya that left four Americans dead," David Herszenhorn reported in the New York Times after its release.
What have the investigations into Benghazi found?
- Three bipartisan investigations — the Senate Committee On Homeland Security And Governmental Affairs, the House Select Committee on Intelligence, and the Senate Select Committee — focused on intelligence and mission security. They concluded that there were ample warnings that Benghazi was a dangerous operating environment, and that the mission was not properly secured. They also found that there was no specific intelligence predicting the attack.
- The House Select Committee, led by Republicans, came to similar conclusions. It found strong evidence that US government agencies underestimated the threat environment in Benghazi, and thus was inadequately prepared for an event like the coming attack.
- The Senate Select Committee's report concluded that the CIA did, in fact, believe the attack was in response to Innocence of Muslims — in other words, Rice had accurately described the CIA's assessment. The report faulted the CIA for poor analysis and for relying on bad intelligence (as did the House Select Committee).
- The State Department's Accountability Review Board (ARB) detailed the department's bureaucratic failures to provide the Benghazi mission with proper security.
- The Majority Staff Report for the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Staff Report for the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, both written by Republicans, focused on criticizing the ARB. Both argued it should have given more scrutiny to then-Secretary of State Clinton and other more senior State leaders, but neither uncovered compelling evidence that she or other top Obama officials were personally culpable for the failures surrounding the attack.
- A separate Democratic House Oversight staff report broadly supported the State Department investigation's conclusions.
- A House Armed Services Committee report, written by Republican Rep. Buck McKeon, found no real evidence that the US military could have responded in time to stop the attacks.
- One final report, prepared by five House Republican committee chairs for the House Republican Conference, simply restates the Republican conventional wisdom on Benghazi circa 2013, repeating several now-debunked allegations, for example that the talking points had been improperly altered. It is considered a partisan and political document.
Trump's speech yesterday.
Let's try to be non-partisan. What did he mean? We can't be certain. On it's own the main implicating phrase looks ambiguous enough to leave plenty of doubt about his meaning. "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know." It could mean a number of things including his campaign's explanation that he was trying to speak to the millions of registered gun owners as a powerful voting block. Then why not say: Get out there to use your great voting block to make a difference.
The problem is the context of the statement preceding the group "2nd Amendment people" . "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks". In other words she is already elected. In the context of what Trump said the election is over. The opportunity for the block of "2nd Amendment People to vote has been over. Referring to all gun owners in that context and leaving what they should do open makes charges of inciting violence far more reasonable to conclude.
Also, regardless of the context, if Trump's intent was to motivate this strong block why show a lack of confidence in them with..."I don't know". Trump is always very definite about what his side will do. The phrase fits better as a suggestion of doing something he doesn't want to be specific about, own up to, or be blamed for.
The real problem is Trump left his inference wide open as he often does. It might be a deliberate strategy to deepen his appeal with certain voter interests by tapping into the kind of thoughts people often entertain but would never go through with. But it's exactly what makes him responsible for every possibility anyone might think of. It's his fault people see him as dangerous.
Remember - Many Republicans also agree the Trump statement was an inference to violence.
Let's try to be non-partisan. What did he mean? We can't be certain. On it's own the main implicating phrase looks ambiguous enough to leave plenty of doubt about his meaning. "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is. I don't know." It could mean a number of things including his campaign's explanation that he was trying to speak to the millions of registered gun owners as a powerful voting block. Then why not say: Get out there to use your great voting block to make a difference.
The problem is the context of the statement preceding the group "2nd Amendment people" . "If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks". In other words she is already elected. In the context of what Trump said the election is over. The opportunity for the block of "2nd Amendment People to vote has been over. Referring to all gun owners in that context and leaving what they should do open makes charges of inciting violence far more reasonable to conclude.
Also, regardless of the context, if Trump's intent was to motivate this strong block why show a lack of confidence in them with..."I don't know". Trump is always very definite about what his side will do. The phrase fits better as a suggestion of doing something he doesn't want to be specific about, own up to, or be blamed for.
The real problem is Trump left his inference wide open as he often does. It might be a deliberate strategy to deepen his appeal with certain voter interests by tapping into the kind of thoughts people often entertain but would never go through with. But it's exactly what makes him responsible for every possibility anyone might think of. It's his fault people see him as dangerous.
Remember - Many Republicans also agree the Trump statement was an inference to violence.
Last edited:
I already said that was not my intent at all.
I said there are disenfranchised people who are attracted to Trump's message of change. I did not mean to imply that Trump supporters as a group are violent or mass murderers. I should whip up a Venn diagram next time.
Your points about Clinton are clear and concise and I appreciate that. So much better than simple name calling.
It is strange that she did not have secure server installed. Proving intent to evade oversight is difficult but it was clearly negligent. Surely the government could have put in a secure server had she wanted one. Did she already have a server as a Senator, and not upgrade it? If she already had a server, how much more secure would a department one be in actual use?
The same for her Blackberry: was it a phone she used as a Senator or a personal phone? Again, surely the department would have provided their own phone for her, so why would she not use it? Maybe she didn't like it or was more comfortable with her own phone? Understandable but bad judgement, for sure.
Could you give an example where she has specifically had an individual killed? And for what purpose?
Hey folks,
Vince Foster comes to mind as well as the DNC staff member that leaked emails who was just found murdered. Let's see how truthful she really is. Her auto biography tells of her high school days playing lacrosse and the lesions that taught her, only problem there is that her HS did not have a lacrosse team. She claims her parents named her Hillary in honor of Sir Edmonds climbing of Mount Everest, but that did not happen until she was 5 years old. She also swore up and down that her husband was being framed in a vast right wing conspiracy concerning Monica Lewinsky. Her life spent as a liar is well documented, if you choose not to see it, then there is no helping you.
Vince Foster comes to mind as well as the DNC staff member that leaked emails who was just found murdered. Let's see how truthful she really is. Her auto biography tells of her high school days playing lacrosse and the lesions that taught her, only problem there is that her HS did not have a lacrosse team. She claims her parents named her Hillary in honor of Sir Edmonds climbing of Mount Everest, but that did not happen until she was 5 years old. She also swore up and down that her husband was being framed in a vast right wing conspiracy concerning Monica Lewinsky. Her life spent as a liar is well documented, if you choose not to see it, then there is no helping you.
There's a guy climbing up the outside of Trump Tower in NYC as we speak
I can confirm that I visually saw the face on TV, and yes indeed, it is Doc Holliday :rapture:
Best Regards
Smuler
HaHaHa! good one
Watch as NYPD police roughly arrest a man who scaled Trump Tower to the 21st floor in an effort to see Trump:
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37040361
You could say his climb was Trumped.
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37040361
You could say his climb was Trumped.
- Status
