CDZ Donald Trump's Top Ten Failures

[mudwhistle]

Christ! I knew Kennedy was, but Souter and Stevens have been so liberal.

Really goes to show how hard it is to find trustworthy conservative judges.

So, all dems voting for this abuse of power, and the repubs dividing up fairly evenly.

Crappy for both sides, but still crappier for yours.

If by "Liberal" you mean anyone that is not at the far right extreme where you are, yeah, they are liberal.

Liberal meaning Socialist/Marxist/Progressive.

You do understand that those are three different political philosophies? Never mind. You understand very little.

Socialism and Marxism work hand in hand.
Progressives use them to gain power.

Yes....I understand them very well.

You THINK you do. That is the heart of being ignorant. Thinking you know something when you don't.

I think you don't understand anything but absolutes.
You think you can parse words and change the meaning of sentences.
Progressives use socialism and Marxism as tools to achieve their goals. They not purists by any standard

 

[Liminal]

A corporation is a very ingenuous legal construct for obtaining profit without any individual responsibility. A corporation should not be treated as an individual in any way because it is not an individual.

WHy not?

A corporation is not now, nor has it ever been, a constitutional person with voting rights; it is not, not has it ever been, a democratic citizen; nor has it ever been a constituent member of "We the People " The founders did not mention the word "corporation" in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, and only a handful of corporations were even in existence at the time the Constitution was written.

A corporation isn't a membership organization but an "artificial entity," as the Supreme Court has called it, chartered by either the state or federal governments to serve public purposes. Legally speaking, it has no independent constitutional standing outside of the rights of the people who own it and they already have the right as citizens to contribute and spend on campaigns. The idea now being promoted that CEOs have a First Amendment right to take other people's money out of corporate treasuries to spend on politics is outlandish.

Funny, you left out that Corporations are allowed to own property, sign contracts and are required to pay taxes.

Legally speaking.

Taxing "entities" that are not even allowed to complain about their taxes.

A liberal's dream.

Corporations have no need to complain, their lobbyist take care of that.

"Need"? Rights are suddenly about "Need"?

Interesting.

That follows the lib believe that Rights are granted by the Government instead of God.

Thus, you can pick and choose who gets what.

The God given rights of corporations........is that in Thessalonians?

 

[Correll]

As long as the rule enforcers were honest and unbiased.

Oops.

So throw tons of money at elections - that'll keep things honest.

I trust random chance, chaotic free speech and the decision making of the voters more than some government bureaucrat.

Are you talking about government funded campaigns?

That would be campaign finance reform. I am talking about the same amt of given for every to who wants to run & how well & effective it is spent getting out their message about the issues is totally on them. I doubt most of it spent will not be on negative bullshit ads & phone calls.

Given by who from what funds?

Logical Fallacy of Begging the Question.

Roe v Wade is only about a "woman's autonomy" if you assume as a premise that the fetus/unborn child is not a person with no rights.

It's ALL about a woman's autonomy, & it's not a premise.

'smaller less intrusive' government.... but with conditions, when it suits *you*

someone has to have that final right & decision & you just answered that it's 'Uncle Sam'.

I just explained who that opinion is based on the assumption that your opinion is right.

If it is not, then there is another person who's rights need to be considered.

You just repeated your opinion without addressing my point at all.

LIbs generally have very closed minds.

I don't believe that anybody has the right to tell me my body isn't mine & as long as that embryo/fetus isn't viable outside my body- the decision is mine to make what I want to do about it.

That is all that needs to be said.

I lean left, but I am not a liberal. You enjoy being wrong a lot.

You just tried to refute my point about you begging the question, by begging the question.

Insisting that your premise be the basis of the debate is not debating.

Your mind is completely closed, and your logic is completely circular.

You are wrong. I'm giving an answer, not begging a question.

My body My choice. Nobody gets to decide otherwise based on what they feel, think, or want to do. It's as logical as it can get. You want to change reasoning based on what you think, feel & wanna do.

YOu are insisting that the debate be based on accepting your opinion and perspective as fact.

That is begging the question.

If I demand that the debate be based on the "fact" that the "unborn child" is a person who's is only dependent on your body for life because of YOUR "CHOICE" then that would be me doing what you are doing now.

You are a normal lib, a completely closed mind, with completely circular logic and completely convinced that you are being fair and open minded.

 

[Correll]

As long as the rule enforcers were honest and unbiased.

Oops.

So throw tons of money at elections - that'll keep things honest.

I trust random chance, chaotic free speech and the decision making of the voters more than some government bureaucrat.

Are you talking about government funded campaigns?

That would be campaign finance reform. I am talking about the same amt of given for every to who wants to run & how well & effective it is spent getting out their message about the issues is totally on them. I doubt most of it spent will not be on negative bullshit ads & phone calls.

Given by who from what funds?

Public Funding of Presidential Elections Brochure

Screw that. Give me your answer in your words. Who and what, how hard it that?

 

[Correll]

Does it bother you that in recent Supreme Court rulings, it has been the Dem appointees that have sided with Big Business/Big Government against the Citizens?

So far from the truth it is laughable

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All the dem appointees joined by the moderate Kennedy, outvoted the rest of the GOP appointees to rule in favor of taking land from one private citizen to give to another.

Souter, Kennedy and Stevens were appointed by Republicans. Bush, Reagan and Ford.

Christ! I knew Kennedy was, but Souter and Stevens have been so liberal.

Really goes to show how hard it is to find trustworthy conservative judges.

So, all dems voting for this abuse of power, and the repubs dividing up fairly evenly.

Crappy for both sides, but still crappier for yours.

If by "Liberal" you mean anyone that is not at the far right extreme where you are, yeah, they are liberal.

LIke I said, all the dems voted for this abuse of power. At least most of the gop voted against it.


The divide is less than I thought, but still looks far worse on your side than mind.

And yes. If NOT using government power to take property from one private individual so another more politically connected individual can make money, is a "far right extreme" position than sure, fine, I can work with that definition of Liberal.

It is sad that such a position is not considered Mainstream in today's US, but that is where we are at, I guess.

 

[Correll]

WHy not?

A corporation is not now, nor has it ever been, a constitutional person with voting rights; it is not, not has it ever been, a democratic citizen; nor has it ever been a constituent member of "We the People " The founders did not mention the word "corporation" in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, and only a handful of corporations were even in existence at the time the Constitution was written.

A corporation isn't a membership organization but an "artificial entity," as the Supreme Court has called it, chartered by either the state or federal governments to serve public purposes. Legally speaking, it has no independent constitutional standing outside of the rights of the people who own it and they already have the right as citizens to contribute and spend on campaigns. The idea now being promoted that CEOs have a First Amendment right to take other people's money out of corporate treasuries to spend on politics is outlandish.

Funny, you left out that Corporations are allowed to own property, sign contracts and are required to pay taxes.

Legally speaking.

Taxing "entities" that are not even allowed to complain about their taxes.

A liberal's dream.

Corporations have no need to complain, their lobbyist take care of that.

"Need"? Rights are suddenly about "Need"?

Interesting.

That follows the lib believe that Rights are granted by the Government instead of God.

Thus, you can pick and choose who gets what.

The God given rights of corporations........is that in Thessalonians?

If it makes you feel better, you can consider then "Inherent Rights" instead of God Given.

The intent, and the meaning is pretty much that same.

I note you don't deny that you think such Rights flow from the State, nor that you believe that you can pick and choose who gets what.

 

[Liminal]

A corporation is not now, nor has it ever been, a constitutional person with voting rights; it is not, not has it ever been, a democratic citizen; nor has it ever been a constituent member of "We the People " The founders did not mention the word "corporation" in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, and only a handful of corporations were even in existence at the time the Constitution was written.

A corporation isn't a membership organization but an "artificial entity," as the Supreme Court has called it, chartered by either the state or federal governments to serve public purposes. Legally speaking, it has no independent constitutional standing outside of the rights of the people who own it and they already have the right as citizens to contribute and spend on campaigns. The idea now being promoted that CEOs have a First Amendment right to take other people's money out of corporate treasuries to spend on politics is outlandish.

Funny, you left out that Corporations are allowed to own property, sign contracts and are required to pay taxes.

Legally speaking.

Taxing "entities" that are not even allowed to complain about their taxes.

A liberal's dream.

Corporations have no need to complain, their lobbyist take care of that.

"Need"? Rights are suddenly about "Need"?

Interesting.

That follows the lib believe that Rights are granted by the Government instead of God.

Thus, you can pick and choose who gets what.

The God given rights of corporations........is that in Thessalonians?

If it makes you feel better, you can consider then "Inherent Rights" instead of God Given.

The intent, and the meaning is pretty much that same.

I note you don't deny that you think such Rights flow from the State, nor that you believe that you can pick and choose who gets what.

Corporations have no rights that are not codified in law. Corporations are not individual citizens.

 

[Liminal]

Top 10 Donald Trump Failures - TIME

This doesn't seem like someone who should be leading the most powerful, influential and wealthiest country on earth.

Trump isn't exactly the classic American story of the self made man.

 

[Correll]

Funny, you left out that Corporations are allowed to own property, sign contracts and are required to pay taxes.

Legally speaking.

Taxing "entities" that are not even allowed to complain about their taxes.

A liberal's dream.

Corporations have no need to complain, their lobbyist take care of that.

"Need"? Rights are suddenly about "Need"?

Interesting.

That follows the lib believe that Rights are granted by the Government instead of God.

Thus, you can pick and choose who gets what.

The God given rights of corporations........is that in Thessalonians?

If it makes you feel better, you can consider then "Inherent Rights" instead of God Given.

The intent, and the meaning is pretty much that same.

I note you don't deny that you think such Rights flow from the State, nor that you believe that you can pick and choose who gets what.

Corporations have no rights that are not codified in law. Corporations are not individual citizens.

In your opinion do "individual citizens" have rights that are not codified in law?

 

[Liminal]

Corporations have no need to complain, their lobbyist take care of that.

"Need"? Rights are suddenly about "Need"?

Interesting.

That follows the lib believe that Rights are granted by the Government instead of God.

Thus, you can pick and choose who gets what.

The God given rights of corporations........is that in Thessalonians?

If it makes you feel better, you can consider then "Inherent Rights" instead of God Given.

The intent, and the meaning is pretty much that same.

I note you don't deny that you think such Rights flow from the State, nor that you believe that you can pick and choose who gets what.

Corporations have no rights that are not codified in law. Corporations are not individual citizens.

In your opinion do "individual citizens" have rights that are not codified in law?

Certainly. But their opportunities to enjoy those rights only exist so long as we have a system of government and laws to interpret those rights.

 

[Correll]

"Need"? Rights are suddenly about "Need"?

Interesting.

That follows the lib believe that Rights are granted by the Government instead of God.

Thus, you can pick and choose who gets what.

The God given rights of corporations........is that in Thessalonians?

If it makes you feel better, you can consider then "Inherent Rights" instead of God Given.

The intent, and the meaning is pretty much that same.

I note you don't deny that you think such Rights flow from the State, nor that you believe that you can pick and choose who gets what.

Corporations have no rights that are not codified in law. Corporations are not individual citizens.

In your opinion do "individual citizens" have rights that are not codified in law?

Certainly. But their opportunities to enjoy those rights only exist so long as we have a system of government and laws to interpret those rights.

There is no need to minimize your defense of individual rights.

 

[kaz]

Normal Person: "You know, Trump has had many business failures"

Nutter: "Obaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamaaaaaaaaaaa!"

Does this sound familiar? dubbauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

 

[LoneLaugher]

Normal Person: "You know, Trump has had many business failures"

Nutter: "Obaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamaaaaaaaaaaa!"

Does this sound familiar? dubbauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Rocko

Another one.

 

[playtime]

So throw tons of money at elections - that'll keep things honest.

I trust random chance, chaotic free speech and the decision making of the voters more than some government bureaucrat.

Are you talking about government funded campaigns?

That would be campaign finance reform. I am talking about the same amt of given for every to who wants to run & how well & effective it is spent getting out their message about the issues is totally on them. I doubt most of it spent will not be on negative bullshit ads & phone calls.

Given by who from what funds?

It's ALL about a woman's autonomy, & it's not a premise.

'smaller less intrusive' government.... but with conditions, when it suits *you*

someone has to have that final right & decision & you just answered that it's 'Uncle Sam'.

I just explained who that opinion is based on the assumption that your opinion is right.

If it is not, then there is another person who's rights need to be considered.

You just repeated your opinion without addressing my point at all.

LIbs generally have very closed minds.

I don't believe that anybody has the right to tell me my body isn't mine & as long as that embryo/fetus isn't viable outside my body- the decision is mine to make what I want to do about it.

That is all that needs to be said.

I lean left, but I am not a liberal. You enjoy being wrong a lot.

You just tried to refute my point about you begging the question, by begging the question.

Insisting that your premise be the basis of the debate is not debating.

Your mind is completely closed, and your logic is completely circular.

You are wrong. I'm giving an answer, not begging a question.

My body My choice. Nobody gets to decide otherwise based on what they feel, think, or want to do. It's as logical as it can get. You want to change reasoning based on what you think, feel & wanna do.

YOu are insisting that the debate be based on accepting your opinion and perspective as fact.

That is begging the question.

If I demand that the debate be based on the "fact" that the "unborn child" is a person who's is only dependent on your body for life because of YOUR "CHOICE" then that would be me doing what you are doing now.

You are a normal lib, a completely closed mind, with completely circular logic and completely convinced that you are being fair and open minded.

Actually it is law. That's what you cannot accept.

 

[Correll]

I trust random chance, chaotic free speech and the decision making of the voters more than some government bureaucrat.

Are you talking about government funded campaigns?

That would be campaign finance reform. I am talking about the same amt of given for every to who wants to run & how well & effective it is spent getting out their message about the issues is totally on them. I doubt most of it spent will not be on negative bullshit ads & phone calls.

Given by who from what funds?

I just explained who that opinion is based on the assumption that your opinion is right.

If it is not, then there is another person who's rights need to be considered.

You just repeated your opinion without addressing my point at all.

LIbs generally have very closed minds.

I don't believe that anybody has the right to tell me my body isn't mine & as long as that embryo/fetus isn't viable outside my body- the decision is mine to make what I want to do about it.

That is all that needs to be said.

I lean left, but I am not a liberal. You enjoy being wrong a lot.

You just tried to refute my point about you begging the question, by begging the question.

Insisting that your premise be the basis of the debate is not debating.

Your mind is completely closed, and your logic is completely circular.

You are wrong. I'm giving an answer, not begging a question.

My body My choice. Nobody gets to decide otherwise based on what they feel, think, or want to do. It's as logical as it can get. You want to change reasoning based on what you think, feel & wanna do.

YOu are insisting that the debate be based on accepting your opinion and perspective as fact.

That is begging the question.

If I demand that the debate be based on the "fact" that the "unborn child" is a person who's is only dependent on your body for life because of YOUR "CHOICE" then that would be me doing what you are doing now.

You are a normal lib, a completely closed mind, with completely circular logic and completely convinced that you are being fair and open minded.

Actually it is law. That's what you cannot accept.

I'm well aware it is the law. I accept that it is a law.

That does not mean it is right.

What you just did that was the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

 

[playtime]

That would be campaign finance reform. I am talking about the same amt of given for every to who wants to run & how well & effective it is spent getting out their message about the issues is totally on them. I doubt most of it spent will not be on negative bullshit ads & phone calls.

Given by who from what funds?

I don't believe that anybody has the right to tell me my body isn't mine & as long as that embryo/fetus isn't viable outside my body- the decision is mine to make what I want to do about it.

That is all that needs to be said.

I lean left, but I am not a liberal. You enjoy being wrong a lot.

You just tried to refute my point about you begging the question, by begging the question.

Insisting that your premise be the basis of the debate is not debating.

Your mind is completely closed, and your logic is completely circular.

You are wrong. I'm giving an answer, not begging a question.

My body My choice. Nobody gets to decide otherwise based on what they feel, think, or want to do. It's as logical as it can get. You want to change reasoning based on what you think, feel & wanna do.

YOu are insisting that the debate be based on accepting your opinion and perspective as fact.

That is begging the question.

If I demand that the debate be based on the "fact" that the "unborn child" is a person who's is only dependent on your body for life because of YOUR "CHOICE" then that would be me doing what you are doing now.

You are a normal lib, a completely closed mind, with completely circular logic and completely convinced that you are being fair and open minded.

Actually it is law. That's what you cannot accept.

I'm well aware it is the law. I accept that it is a law.

That does not mean it is right.

What you just did that was the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

It's my body.
You - anybody like you - have no right over it.
That's ALL that is to it.
YOU have a right over YOUR own body.
That's all that is to IT.
Don't worry
I don't want it.
And you can't dictate over mine.
And I'm the communist? LOL.
End of Debate.

Now peddle you think you can speak for God - your God - to somebody else you want to tell -dictate- it to.
& who'll listen.

 

[Correll]

Given by who from what funds?

You just tried to refute my point about you begging the question, by begging the question.

Insisting that your premise be the basis of the debate is not debating.

Your mind is completely closed, and your logic is completely circular.

You are wrong. I'm giving an answer, not begging a question.

My body My choice. Nobody gets to decide otherwise based on what they feel, think, or want to do. It's as logical as it can get. You want to change reasoning based on what you think, feel & wanna do.

YOu are insisting that the debate be based on accepting your opinion and perspective as fact.

That is begging the question.

If I demand that the debate be based on the "fact" that the "unborn child" is a person who's is only dependent on your body for life because of YOUR "CHOICE" then that would be me doing what you are doing now.

You are a normal lib, a completely closed mind, with completely circular logic and completely convinced that you are being fair and open minded.

Actually it is law. That's what you cannot accept.

I'm well aware it is the law. I accept that it is a law.

That does not mean it is right.

What you just did that was the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

It's my body.
You - anybody like you - have no right over it.
That's ALL that is to it.
YOU have a right over YOUR own body.
That's all that is to IT.
Don't worry
I don't want it.
And you can't dictate over mine.
And I'm the communist? LOL.
End of Debate.

Now peddle you think you can speak for God - your God - to somebody else you want to tell -dictate- it to.
& who'll listen.

Repeating your demand that your premise be the basis of the debate, ie begging the question,

MORE EMPHATICALLY, does not make it a stronger argument.

NOr does declaring the debate over.

Your mind is completely closed, and your logic is completely circular

 

[Flopper]

Ok, I won't vote for Obama in the next election. Now getting back on topic, why do you think Trump is up to job.

Several reasons:

He loves people - You can tell just by watching his interaction with the public at his events, that he loves being around people. Can't say the same with Hillary. She avoids them like the plague. Obama seems to only like rubbing elbows with the rich and powerful. Trump seems to be more at home with the average person. Gosh.....who'd a tunk.....a rich man who loves the poor.

Unlike Obama, he's a workaholic - Anyone who's read his books knows he has unbelievable energy. He multi-tasks like crazy. His energy level comes out when he talks. He has a tendency to put everything into words like "Isn't this wonderful.....this is going to be so big and so great...it's unbelievable".

He loves this country - This is quite a change when we've been spending the last almost 7 years listening to Big-ears tell everyone how sorry America is for destroying their countries. Trump's America comes first ideology is refreshing.

He's a leader - He's an alpha male that's used to being in charge. He lays out a mission to his people and tells them what he wants to happen, and they make it happen. Obama was never in charge of anything other than training people to steal elections. That was what he taught in college. The best way to be radical without appearing radical. Using words that won't cause conflict or anger in an exchange of ideas. Obama specializes in organizing turmoil. Trump specializes in doing things others felt was impossible.

He knows how to hire the right people to do that job, not because they donated to his campaign - The biggest problem with Obama is he puts people in important positions that gave him big donations.....not because they're skilled in that arena.

He cannot be bought by anyone trying to make themselves rich while making life worse for Americans - Trump doesn't take people's money. He gives to everyone he feels is worth it. Hillary has already sold us out. Trump seems to be above that sort of thing. He's used to living in more wealth and comfort than what the office offers, so being treated like royalty isn't one of his reasons for running for the position. He probably has a better jet than Air Force One. The White House is probably smaller than one of his mansions. Like Reagan did, I expect he won't cash a single check he earns in office. Right now, that's almost all Obama claims on his taxes. This makes it very easy to buy the president. Obama declares $400k per year but somehow he was able to acquire a $40 million dollar beachfront property on Oahu HI. He can't pay the taxes on that property, much less buy it.....so he's doing some big favors for some very rich people.

He won't sell us out to Democrats - This is the number one reason I support him. I don't feel I can trust anyone else. The fact that everyone in the political establishment hates him and is trying to undercut him, shows me that he's not in with them in this socialist criminal conspiracy that seems to be going on all over the world.

He's a fighter - He doesn't take shit off of anyone. This is one of his greatest strengths and at times his biggest liability. He fights his battles in the open, while others fight theirs behind closed doors. He says things that some find offensive.....but they more times than not, turn out to be true. He never swears, but he calls his critics clowns and lightweights. Trust me.....they're privately calling him much worse. Also, he likes dealing from a position of strength rather than a position of weakness. Obama deals from weakness with other world leaders but deals with Republicans and business owners like a ruthless dictator. Obviously he hates Americans and America and everything it stands for. To be a good president, you have to honor your office and not bring disgrace to that office. You have to love America first.

Loves people, works hard, a fighter, a leader, and is hated by most of the people he will have to work with as president. Trump wouldn't hire someone with those qualifications and neither would the American voters.

Yes, voters are sick of professional politicians who don't delivery on their promises but that doesn't mean they're ready to hire a president that thinks bombing the Iraqi oil fields will stop ISIS, doesn't know the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah, and uses the term immigrant and illegal immigrant interchangeably. Voters have elected commander and chiefs who weren't veterans, but not draft dodgers. Almost every promise Trump has made requires strong support from Congress, yet his experience with Congress has been limited to name calling and lobbying.

From the guy that supports the president that can't seem to get anything done without bribes or threats, this seems a little hollow.

Obama proved he can't work with anyone. His entire presidency revolves around the premise that Congress won't work with him, so he's gonna tear up the Constitution and do whatever the hell he wants.

Trumps fights with Republicans have already produced results. Behner quit. McConnell may be next if he doesn't straighten up. I suspect that most of the people that are trying to undercut Trump will be gone as well if they don't start doing what they promised to get elected.

And what Trump plans on doing about ISIS is let the Russians kill them. So basically, you're a liar.

Get serious. Boehner's resignation had nothing to do with Trump. He was ineffective at bringing together far right conservatives and more moderate conservatives. Considering congress's views on Trump, condemnation by Trump would have probably helped Boehner rather hurt him. Republicans in congress have been going after Trump like jackals after raw meat.

Putin has no plan for ISIS. He plans to protect Assad and Russian interest in Syria against several faction including ISIS that threatens Assad.

Consider Trump's almost unintelligible comment on 60 minutes, "Now let me just say this: ISIS in Syria, (Syrian President Bashar el) Assad in Syria, Assad and ISIS are mortal enemies. We go in to fight ISIS. Why aren't we letting ISIS go and fight Assad and then we pick up the remnants?" Pickup the remnants? Does the idiot think Putin is gong to wipe out ISIS in Syria and Iraq and head back to Russia.

Trump: Draw down in fight against ISIS in Syria - CNNPolitics.com

I think if we had stayed in Iraq Assad would have wiped ISIS out by now. If we hadn't fed them weapons they'd be out of ammo by now. Instead, we leave Iraq, and inter-tribal squabbles led to mass desertion and a massive handover of weapons to ISIS.

I thinks it's hilarious the way you criticise Trumps comments considering the fact that Obama has turned what was a stable situation into a total clusterfuck.

You're critical of Obama for leaving Iraq and you applaud Trump's statement that the US should leave the fight with ISIS to Putin.

 

[mudwhistle]

Several reasons:

He loves people - You can tell just by watching his interaction with the public at his events, that he loves being around people. Can't say the same with Hillary. She avoids them like the plague. Obama seems to only like rubbing elbows with the rich and powerful. Trump seems to be more at home with the average person. Gosh.....who'd a tunk.....a rich man who loves the poor.

Unlike Obama, he's a workaholic - Anyone who's read his books knows he has unbelievable energy. He multi-tasks like crazy. His energy level comes out when he talks. He has a tendency to put everything into words like "Isn't this wonderful.....this is going to be so big and so great...it's unbelievable".

He loves this country - This is quite a change when we've been spending the last almost 7 years listening to Big-ears tell everyone how sorry America is for destroying their countries. Trump's America comes first ideology is refreshing.

He's a leader - He's an alpha male that's used to being in charge. He lays out a mission to his people and tells them what he wants to happen, and they make it happen. Obama was never in charge of anything other than training people to steal elections. That was what he taught in college. The best way to be radical without appearing radical. Using words that won't cause conflict or anger in an exchange of ideas. Obama specializes in organizing turmoil. Trump specializes in doing things others felt was impossible.

He knows how to hire the right people to do that job, not because they donated to his campaign - The biggest problem with Obama is he puts people in important positions that gave him big donations.....not because they're skilled in that arena.

He cannot be bought by anyone trying to make themselves rich while making life worse for Americans - Trump doesn't take people's money. He gives to everyone he feels is worth it. Hillary has already sold us out. Trump seems to be above that sort of thing. He's used to living in more wealth and comfort than what the office offers, so being treated like royalty isn't one of his reasons for running for the position. He probably has a better jet than Air Force One. The White House is probably smaller than one of his mansions. Like Reagan did, I expect he won't cash a single check he earns in office. Right now, that's almost all Obama claims on his taxes. This makes it very easy to buy the president. Obama declares $400k per year but somehow he was able to acquire a $40 million dollar beachfront property on Oahu HI. He can't pay the taxes on that property, much less buy it.....so he's doing some big favors for some very rich people.

He won't sell us out to Democrats - This is the number one reason I support him. I don't feel I can trust anyone else. The fact that everyone in the political establishment hates him and is trying to undercut him, shows me that he's not in with them in this socialist criminal conspiracy that seems to be going on all over the world.

He's a fighter - He doesn't take shit off of anyone. This is one of his greatest strengths and at times his biggest liability. He fights his battles in the open, while others fight theirs behind closed doors. He says things that some find offensive.....but they more times than not, turn out to be true. He never swears, but he calls his critics clowns and lightweights. Trust me.....they're privately calling him much worse. Also, he likes dealing from a position of strength rather than a position of weakness. Obama deals from weakness with other world leaders but deals with Republicans and business owners like a ruthless dictator. Obviously he hates Americans and America and everything it stands for. To be a good president, you have to honor your office and not bring disgrace to that office. You have to love America first.

Loves people, works hard, a fighter, a leader, and is hated by most of the people he will have to work with as president. Trump wouldn't hire someone with those qualifications and neither would the American voters.

Yes, voters are sick of professional politicians who don't delivery on their promises but that doesn't mean they're ready to hire a president that thinks bombing the Iraqi oil fields will stop ISIS, doesn't know the difference between Hamas and Hezbollah, and uses the term immigrant and illegal immigrant interchangeably. Voters have elected commander and chiefs who weren't veterans, but not draft dodgers. Almost every promise Trump has made requires strong support from Congress, yet his experience with Congress has been limited to name calling and lobbying.

From the guy that supports the president that can't seem to get anything done without bribes or threats, this seems a little hollow.

Obama proved he can't work with anyone. His entire presidency revolves around the premise that Congress won't work with him, so he's gonna tear up the Constitution and do whatever the hell he wants.

Trumps fights with Republicans have already produced results. Behner quit. McConnell may be next if he doesn't straighten up. I suspect that most of the people that are trying to undercut Trump will be gone as well if they don't start doing what they promised to get elected.

And what Trump plans on doing about ISIS is let the Russians kill them. So basically, you're a liar.

Get serious. Boehner's resignation had nothing to do with Trump. He was ineffective at bringing together far right conservatives and more moderate conservatives. Considering congress's views on Trump, condemnation by Trump would have probably helped Boehner rather hurt him. Republicans in congress have been going after Trump like jackals after raw meat.

Putin has no plan for ISIS. He plans to protect Assad and Russian interest in Syria against several faction including ISIS that threatens Assad.

Consider Trump's almost unintelligible comment on 60 minutes, "Now let me just say this: ISIS in Syria, (Syrian President Bashar el) Assad in Syria, Assad and ISIS are mortal enemies. We go in to fight ISIS. Why aren't we letting ISIS go and fight Assad and then we pick up the remnants?" Pickup the remnants? Does the idiot think Putin is gong to wipe out ISIS in Syria and Iraq and head back to Russia.

Trump: Draw down in fight against ISIS in Syria - CNNPolitics.com

I think if we had stayed in Iraq Assad would have wiped ISIS out by now. If we hadn't fed them weapons they'd be out of ammo by now. Instead, we leave Iraq, and inter-tribal squabbles led to mass desertion and a massive handover of weapons to ISIS.

I thinks it's hilarious the way you criticise Trumps comments considering the fact that Obama has turned what was a stable situation into a total clusterfuck.

You're critical of Obama for leaving Iraq and you applaud Trump's statement that the US should leave the fight with ISIS to Putin.

Hate to break it to you, but things have changed. Obama fucked up and made a mess.I have no problem with Russia cleaning it up...because I don't think Obama is up to it. All he wants to do is talk about Glowbull Fucking Warming.

 

[playtime]

You are wrong. I'm giving an answer, not begging a question.

My body My choice. Nobody gets to decide otherwise based on what they feel, think, or want to do. It's as logical as it can get. You want to change reasoning based on what you think, feel & wanna do.

YOu are insisting that the debate be based on accepting your opinion and perspective as fact.

That is begging the question.

If I demand that the debate be based on the "fact" that the "unborn child" is a person who's is only dependent on your body for life because of YOUR "CHOICE" then that would be me doing what you are doing now.

You are a normal lib, a completely closed mind, with completely circular logic and completely convinced that you are being fair and open minded.

Actually it is law. That's what you cannot accept.

I'm well aware it is the law. I accept that it is a law.

That does not mean it is right.

What you just did that was the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

It's my body.
You - anybody like you - have no right over it.
That's ALL that is to it.
YOU have a right over YOUR own body.
That's all that is to IT.
Don't worry
I don't want it.
And you can't dictate over mine.
And I'm the communist? LOL.
End of Debate.

Now peddle you think you can speak for God - your God - to somebody else you want to tell -dictate- it to.
& who'll listen.

Repeating your demand that your premise be the basis of the debate, ie begging the question,

MORE EMPHATICALLY, does not make it a stronger argument.

NOr does declaring the debate over.

Your mind is completely closed, and your logic is completely circular

bullshit. I can't 'debate' logically with someone who thinks another person can & should decide medical decisions about my personhood & I demand it stay that way. You are coming from a skewed & dictatorial POV. You certainly are cemented in what you believe & it will make no difference in what I say, no matter that the final say IS mine. That is what the fact is, jack. A female that has had a history, a life that has lived, has people & things that on depend her will never take a back seat & be used as an incubator because others 'feel' she needs to be based on what they want. Once that embryo grows & a baby does form & is delivered- then another battle ensues. Then, it does become HER problem to deal with right? Then SHE needs to feed, clothe, provide shelter, medical care, & education. 'YOUR' role in that birth is fini... 'YOUR' job is done. That's when the pro birthers- (they are NOT pro 'life') turn their backs & vote down all the entitlements that are needed for that precious little 'life', while calling the mama a welfare leech.

If you don't believe in abortion, then don't have one. It's as simple as that.

It's your mind that is closed.