Trump has been consistant with his views for thirty Years

[Indeependent]

Canycorn looks like humaabedin.con

I have CC on Ignore; a complete waste of bandwidth.

 

[oreo]

He said the same thing 30 years ago as he's saying today

I think the word "consistent" when talking about Donald Trump is an oxymoron.
Here are all of Donald Trump's flip-flops on big issues

And here's one of your favorites admitting something astounding.

 

[320 Years of History]

It's always good to post a link when you cut and paste.

Did you watch the video in the OP? You didn't notice that was Donald Trump to whom Oprah (the black woman with the microphone) was talking, right?

 

[Jroc]

He said the same thing 30 years ago as he's saying today

I think the word "consistent" when talking about Donald Trump is an oxymoron.
Here are all of Donald Trump's flip-flops on big issues

And here's one of your favorites admitting something astounding.

Weak NBC crap..

 

[Jroc]

It's always good to post a link when you cut and paste.

Did you watch the video in the OP? You didn't notice that was Donald Trump to whom Oprah (the black woman with the microphone) was talking, right?

You didn't watch it. What's Oprah's race have to do with anything?

 

[320 Years of History]

Of his remarks:

• Make our allies pay their fair share for U.S. military protection.
  1. That works for the dons of organized crime. I guess that's a model Trump likes. Maybe Trump was really, really moved by the Mafia movies of the 1950s to 1980s? Trump's first name is Don...maybe that's got something to do with it?
  2. He's for 30 some odd years thought that's something to implement into U.S. foreign policy (?), national defense policy (?), yet even now he's not developed his ideas about it to as to have a detailed plan for how to implement that vision.
     
     In case you're wondering what the question marks are for, well, they are there because I don't see any mention of this point until I get to a recycled speech from earlier this year. I guess that point, even though he's been making it for 30 years isn't worthy of making onto one of his webpages that one accesses prior to drilling down to a speech from six months ago.
• Japan makes it impossible for U.S. producers to sell their goods there.
  • I don't take exception with this in the main and as it applied to the 1980s. What I do take exception with is that even in the 1980s, just as with today, Trump does not provide anything other than unsubstantiated assertions. The man has had 30 years to become more knowledgeable and to learn to provide details and still doesn't do it. He doesn't even try, which is even more troublesome than that he just doesn't do it, which is nonetheless troublesome.
• He said he doesn't think he has the inclination to run for President.
  • Clearly he didn't know himself very well at all at the time of that interview. I know that Trump was at the time 39 and should have by that point in his life known what he is and is not inclined for. Alternatively, he should have known enough not to make a statement like that. He knew neither.
  • Then as now, he talked out of both sides of his mouth. No sooner had he said he lacked the inclination to run for President, he also said he wouldn't want to rule it out.
  • Can you imagine being a dissembling person for the entirety of your adult life of ~50 years? That's got to be tiring. How could you keep up with all those lies and all that doublespeak?
• "I can't promise you everything," he said.
  • He's clearly changed his mind on that. Promising "everything to everyone" and promising that he's the only one who can achieve "everything" is precisely what he's promised during his candidacy. The one intelligent, albeit trite, thing he said some 30 years ago, he's given up on now that he's indeed running for President.

It's always good to post a link when you cut and paste. Trump never ruled out running. He said if things got so bad he may run. Obviously they have gotten that bad, 20 trillion in debt would do it.. Making our allies pay their fair share seems very reasonable to me. When he's elected, he assembles his military team and they come up with the best way forward regarding strengthening our military. Whoever wrote that those comments, you cut and pasted, seems like a petty little person actually.

Red:
I guess I have to ask then. Are you in the "protection racket?: If so, I understand why that idea appeals to you.

 

[320 Years of History]

It's always good to post a link when you cut and paste.

Did you watch the video in the OP? You didn't notice that was Donald Trump to whom Oprah (the black woman with the microphone) was talking, right?

You didn't watch it. What's Oprah's race have to do with anything?

Oprah's race has nothing in particular to do with anything in the context of my post other than it's a physical trait that distinguishes her from other people, but seeing as someone wanted me to provide reference links for the stuff I noted Trump had said, I figured they may not have been aware that Trump and Oprah were the two main speakers in the video found in the OP.

What do you mean by saying I didn't watch it? How would I know what Trump said in the interview if I didn't watch it?

 

[Jroc]

Of his remarks:

• Make our allies pay their fair share for U.S. military protection.
  1. That works for the dons of organized crime. I guess that's a model Trump likes. Maybe Trump was really, really moved by the Mafia movies of the 1950s to 1980s? Trump's first name is Don...maybe that's got something to do with it?
  2. He's for 30 some odd years thought that's something to implement into U.S. foreign policy (?), national defense policy (?), yet even now he's not developed his ideas about it to as to have a detailed plan for how to implement that vision.
     
     In case you're wondering what the question marks are for, well, they are there because I don't see any mention of this point until I get to a recycled speech from earlier this year. I guess that point, even though he's been making it for 30 years isn't worthy of making onto one of his webpages that one accesses prior to drilling down to a speech from six months ago.
• Japan makes it impossible for U.S. producers to sell their goods there.
  • I don't take exception with this in the main and as it applied to the 1980s. What I do take exception with is that even in the 1980s, just as with today, Trump does not provide anything other than unsubstantiated assertions. The man has had 30 years to become more knowledgeable and to learn to provide details and still doesn't do it. He doesn't even try, which is even more troublesome than that he just doesn't do it, which is nonetheless troublesome.
• He said he doesn't think he has the inclination to run for President.
  • Clearly he didn't know himself very well at all at the time of that interview. I know that Trump was at the time 39 and should have by that point in his life known what he is and is not inclined for. Alternatively, he should have known enough not to make a statement like that. He knew neither.
  • Then as now, he talked out of both sides of his mouth. No sooner had he said he lacked the inclination to run for President, he also said he wouldn't want to rule it out.
  • Can you imagine being a dissembling person for the entirety of your adult life of ~50 years? That's got to be tiring. How could you keep up with all those lies and all that doublespeak?
• "I can't promise you everything," he said.
  • He's clearly changed his mind on that. Promising "everything to everyone" and promising that he's the only one who can achieve "everything" is precisely what he's promised during his candidacy. The one intelligent, albeit trite, thing he said some 30 years ago, he's given up on now that he's indeed running for President.

It's always good to post a link when you cut and paste. Trump never ruled out running. He said if things got so bad he may run. Obviously they have gotten that bad, 20 trillion in debt would do it.. Making our allies pay their fair share seems very reasonable to me. When he's elected, he assembles his military team and they come up with the best way forward regarding strengthening our military. Whoever wrote that those comments, you cut and pasted, seems like a petty little person actually.

Red:
I guess I have to ask then. Are you in the "protection racket?: If so, I understand why that idea appeals to you.

Rich countries should pay their fair share for their protection...You're not really into commonsense are you?

 

[Jroc]

It's always good to post a link when you cut and paste.

Did you watch the video in the OP? You didn't notice that was Donald Trump to whom Oprah (the black woman with the microphone) was talking, right?

You didn't watch it. What's Oprah's race have to do with anything?

Oprah's race has nothing in particular to do with anything in the context of my post other than it's a physical trait that distinguishes her from other people, but seeing as someone wanted me to provide reference links for the stuff I noted Trump had said, I figured they may not have been aware that Trump and Oprah were the two main speakers in the video found in the OP.

What do you mean by saying I didn't watch it? How would I know what Trump said in the interview if I didn't watch it?

Selective watching then..You watched, but you didn't hear..Watch it again, it might help you

 

[320 Years of History]

Sadly, Rush isn't the only person "playing" the grassroots GOP electorate.

 

[Jroc]

Sadly, Rush isn't the only person "playing" the grassroots GOP electorate.

"Sadly" you will side with Clinton corruption ..."sadly"

 

[320 Years of History]

Of his remarks:

• Make our allies pay their fair share for U.S. military protection.
  1. That works for the dons of organized crime. I guess that's a model Trump likes. Maybe Trump was really, really moved by the Mafia movies of the 1950s to 1980s? Trump's first name is Don...maybe that's got something to do with it?
  2. He's for 30 some odd years thought that's something to implement into U.S. foreign policy (?), national defense policy (?), yet even now he's not developed his ideas about it to as to have a detailed plan for how to implement that vision.
     
     In case you're wondering what the question marks are for, well, they are there because I don't see any mention of this point until I get to a recycled speech from earlier this year. I guess that point, even though he's been making it for 30 years isn't worthy of making onto one of his webpages that one accesses prior to drilling down to a speech from six months ago.
• Japan makes it impossible for U.S. producers to sell their goods there.
  • I don't take exception with this in the main and as it applied to the 1980s. What I do take exception with is that even in the 1980s, just as with today, Trump does not provide anything other than unsubstantiated assertions. The man has had 30 years to become more knowledgeable and to learn to provide details and still doesn't do it. He doesn't even try, which is even more troublesome than that he just doesn't do it, which is nonetheless troublesome.
• He said he doesn't think he has the inclination to run for President.
  • Clearly he didn't know himself very well at all at the time of that interview. I know that Trump was at the time 39 and should have by that point in his life known what he is and is not inclined for. Alternatively, he should have known enough not to make a statement like that. He knew neither.
  • Then as now, he talked out of both sides of his mouth. No sooner had he said he lacked the inclination to run for President, he also said he wouldn't want to rule it out.
  • Can you imagine being a dissembling person for the entirety of your adult life of ~50 years? That's got to be tiring. How could you keep up with all those lies and all that doublespeak?
• "I can't promise you everything," he said.
  • He's clearly changed his mind on that. Promising "everything to everyone" and promising that he's the only one who can achieve "everything" is precisely what he's promised during his candidacy. The one intelligent, albeit trite, thing he said some 30 years ago, he's given up on now that he's indeed running for President.

It's always good to post a link when you cut and paste. Trump never ruled out running. He said if things got so bad he may run. Obviously they have gotten that bad, 20 trillion in debt would do it.. Making our allies pay their fair share seems very reasonable to me. When he's elected, he assembles his military team and they come up with the best way forward regarding strengthening our military. Whoever wrote that those comments, you cut and pasted, seems like a petty little person actually.

Red:
I guess I have to ask then. Are you in the "protection racket?: If so, I understand why that idea appeals to you.

Rich countries should pay their fair share for their protection...You're not really into commonsense are you?

I don't have a problem with the idea that nations ought to pay their share. I have a problem with the consequence of non-payment Trump has implied whereby if they don't, we won't protect them from incursions from our mutual enemies. Even if they don't pay their fair share, allowing our enemies to invade or destroy them isn't a good thing for us or our (would be) allies....It's not my common sense that's amiss.

 

[320 Years of History]

It's always good to post a link when you cut and paste.

Did you watch the video in the OP? You didn't notice that was Donald Trump to whom Oprah (the black woman with the microphone) was talking, right?

You didn't watch it. What's Oprah's race have to do with anything?

Oprah's race has nothing in particular to do with anything in the context of my post other than it's a physical trait that distinguishes her from other people, but seeing as someone wanted me to provide reference links for the stuff I noted Trump had said, I figured they may not have been aware that Trump and Oprah were the two main speakers in the video found in the OP.

What do you mean by saying I didn't watch it? How would I know what Trump said in the interview if I didn't watch it?

Selective watching then..You watched, but you didn't hear..Watch it again, it might help you

Selective reading. Go back and read the entirety of my original (first) post.

 

[HnL]

He said the same thing 30 years ago as he's saying today

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Kuwaitis had a per capital income that was about ten times higher than the per capita income in Iraq.

We kicked Iraq out of Kuwait because the overwhelming majority (as in all) of Republicans thought is was in our national interest.

If Trump thinks we should have waited for Kuwait to hire us for the job, then he can send his money grubbing, ungrateful sons to be mercenaries.

But let's be clear who benefitted the most from Desert Storm. That would be people like Donald Trump. Because it certainly wasn't better for coal miners in Kentucky.

 

[Jroc]

Of his remarks:

• Make our allies pay their fair share for U.S. military protection.
  1. That works for the dons of organized crime. I guess that's a model Trump likes. Maybe Trump was really, really moved by the Mafia movies of the 1950s to 1980s? Trump's first name is Don...maybe that's got something to do with it?
  2. He's for 30 some odd years thought that's something to implement into U.S. foreign policy (?), national defense policy (?), yet even now he's not developed his ideas about it to as to have a detailed plan for how to implement that vision.
     
     In case you're wondering what the question marks are for, well, they are there because I don't see any mention of this point until I get to a recycled speech from earlier this year. I guess that point, even though he's been making it for 30 years isn't worthy of making onto one of his webpages that one accesses prior to drilling down to a speech from six months ago.
• Japan makes it impossible for U.S. producers to sell their goods there.
  • I don't take exception with this in the main and as it applied to the 1980s. What I do take exception with is that even in the 1980s, just as with today, Trump does not provide anything other than unsubstantiated assertions. The man has had 30 years to become more knowledgeable and to learn to provide details and still doesn't do it. He doesn't even try, which is even more troublesome than that he just doesn't do it, which is nonetheless troublesome.
• He said he doesn't think he has the inclination to run for President.
  • Clearly he didn't know himself very well at all at the time of that interview. I know that Trump was at the time 39 and should have by that point in his life known what he is and is not inclined for. Alternatively, he should have known enough not to make a statement like that. He knew neither.
  • Then as now, he talked out of both sides of his mouth. No sooner had he said he lacked the inclination to run for President, he also said he wouldn't want to rule it out.
  • Can you imagine being a dissembling person for the entirety of your adult life of ~50 years? That's got to be tiring. How could you keep up with all those lies and all that doublespeak?
• "I can't promise you everything," he said.
  • He's clearly changed his mind on that. Promising "everything to everyone" and promising that he's the only one who can achieve "everything" is precisely what he's promised during his candidacy. The one intelligent, albeit trite, thing he said some 30 years ago, he's given up on now that he's indeed running for President.

It's always good to post a link when you cut and paste. Trump never ruled out running. He said if things got so bad he may run. Obviously they have gotten that bad, 20 trillion in debt would do it.. Making our allies pay their fair share seems very reasonable to me. When he's elected, he assembles his military team and they come up with the best way forward regarding strengthening our military. Whoever wrote that those comments, you cut and pasted, seems like a petty little person actually.

Red:
I guess I have to ask then. Are you in the "protection racket?: If so, I understand why that idea appeals to you.

Rich countries should pay their fair share for their protection...You're not really into commonsense are you?

I don't have a problem with the idea that nations ought to pay their share. I have a problem with the consequence of non-payment Trump has implied whereby if they don't, we won't protect them from incursions from our mutual enemies. Even if they don't pay their fair share, allowing our enemies to invade or destroy them isn't a good thing for us or our (would be) allies....It's not my common sense that's amiss.

There's ways to make them pay. just as there's ways to make Mexico pay for at least part, if not all of the wall . Time to change the attitude, that we pay for everything.

 

[Jroc]

He said the same thing 30 years ago as he's saying today

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Kuwaitis had a per capital income that was about ten times higher than the per capita income in Iraq.

We kicked Iraq out of Kuwait because the overwhelming majority (as in all) of Republicans thought is was in our national interest.

If Trump thinks we should have waited for Kuwait to hire us for the job, then he can send his money grubbing, ungrateful sons to be mercenaries.

But let's be clear who benefitted the most from Desert Storm. That would be people like Donald Trump. Because it certainly wasn't better for coal miners in Kentucky.

Trump benefited? We just said we should have been paid back with a share of the oil revenue..Whats the problem?

 

[HnL]

He said the same thing 30 years ago as he's saying today

When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Kuwaitis had a per capital income that was about ten times higher than the per capita income in Iraq.

We kicked Iraq out of Kuwait because the overwhelming majority (as in all) of Republicans thought is was in our national interest.

If Trump thinks we should have waited for Kuwait to hire us for the job, then he can send his money grubbing, ungrateful sons to be mercenaries.

But let's be clear who benefitted the most from Desert Storm. That would be people like Donald Trump. Because it certainly wasn't better for coal miners in Kentucky.

Trump benefited? We just said we should have been paid back with a share of the oil revenue..Whats the problem?

Trump benefitted because the “national interests” in question were the interests of filthy rich international businesses, who don't have their wealth “trickle down” on the rest of us.

 

[oreo]

Sadly, Rush isn't the only person "playing" the grassroots GOP electorate.

Very True--We're going to see if FOX NEWS survives this, and any other right wing talk show hosts that promoted this Chimpanzee. But I imagine the fall out is going to be BIG.

After all it was they that gave Trump an unprecedented 2 billion in free news coverage during the primary. So much that Trump stated he felt he didn't need to do T.V. advertisements because he got so much free publicity.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/u...d-trumps-mammoth-advantage-in-free-media.html

Sean Hannity has literally turned into Trump's campaign adviser, and FOX NEWS has taken a major hit in ratings and viewership. Millions have turned off FOX and turned on CNN. FOX and these right wing talk show hosts are responsible for shattering the Republican party into pieces while turning what's left of the party into a conspiracy theory book for DUMMIES.

Fox News, meanwhile, has given Donald Trump the level of positive coverage that money could never (legally) buy, and as a result, they’ve dropped in the ratings. It’s no coincidence that as Trump enablers and outright supporters have focused more and more on Trump, their level of appeal has dropped. They don’t have the diversity of panelists CNN has managed to grab, and they don’t have hosts who allow both sides to speak freely. What’s more, the rising star of Fox News, Megyn Kelly, was fast becoming the most popular personality, and then Donald Trump not only insulted her, but the network on multiple occasions met with Trump to try to work things out and get him to come back on the air. If Kelly decided not to remain with Fox News when her contract is up, Fox News would fall even further – and they would deserve it. The quality of coverage is key, and Fox News is not providing it. What they have failed to realize is that Donald Trump is but a blip in the ratings. What people will perceive of you when he has come and gone is what will decide your fate. And, if the numbers continue to fall, you can pretty much guess what life is going to be like for them after Trump has gone. But WHY is CNN crushing Fox News in the ratings? | RedState

And here's a great article regarding these right wing talk show hosts, and what may happen in the aftermath of this incoming Tsunami on the Republican party.
Donald Trump broke the conservative media

 

[320 Years of History]

Of his remarks:

• Make our allies pay their fair share for U.S. military protection.
  1. That works for the dons of organized crime. I guess that's a model Trump likes. Maybe Trump was really, really moved by the Mafia movies of the 1950s to 1980s? Trump's first name is Don...maybe that's got something to do with it?
  2. He's for 30 some odd years thought that's something to implement into U.S. foreign policy (?), national defense policy (?), yet even now he's not developed his ideas about it to as to have a detailed plan for how to implement that vision.
     
     In case you're wondering what the question marks are for, well, they are there because I don't see any mention of this point until I get to a recycled speech from earlier this year. I guess that point, even though he's been making it for 30 years isn't worthy of making onto one of his webpages that one accesses prior to drilling down to a speech from six months ago.
• Japan makes it impossible for U.S. producers to sell their goods there.
  • I don't take exception with this in the main and as it applied to the 1980s. What I do take exception with is that even in the 1980s, just as with today, Trump does not provide anything other than unsubstantiated assertions. The man has had 30 years to become more knowledgeable and to learn to provide details and still doesn't do it. He doesn't even try, which is even more troublesome than that he just doesn't do it, which is nonetheless troublesome.
• He said he doesn't think he has the inclination to run for President.
  • Clearly he didn't know himself very well at all at the time of that interview. I know that Trump was at the time 39 and should have by that point in his life known what he is and is not inclined for. Alternatively, he should have known enough not to make a statement like that. He knew neither.
  • Then as now, he talked out of both sides of his mouth. No sooner had he said he lacked the inclination to run for President, he also said he wouldn't want to rule it out.
  • Can you imagine being a dissembling person for the entirety of your adult life of ~50 years? That's got to be tiring. How could you keep up with all those lies and all that doublespeak?
• "I can't promise you everything," he said.
  • He's clearly changed his mind on that. Promising "everything to everyone" and promising that he's the only one who can achieve "everything" is precisely what he's promised during his candidacy. The one intelligent, albeit trite, thing he said some 30 years ago, he's given up on now that he's indeed running for President.

It's always good to post a link when you cut and paste. Trump never ruled out running. He said if things got so bad he may run. Obviously they have gotten that bad, 20 trillion in debt would do it.. Making our allies pay their fair share seems very reasonable to me. When he's elected, he assembles his military team and they come up with the best way forward regarding strengthening our military. Whoever wrote that those comments, you cut and pasted, seems like a petty little person actually.

Red:
I guess I have to ask then. Are you in the "protection racket?: If so, I understand why that idea appeals to you.

Rich countries should pay their fair share for their protection...You're not really into commonsense are you?

I don't have a problem with the idea that nations ought to pay their share. I have a problem with the consequence of non-payment Trump has implied whereby if they don't, we won't protect them from incursions from our mutual enemies. Even if they don't pay their fair share, allowing our enemies to invade or destroy them isn't a good thing for us or our (would be) allies....It's not my common sense that's amiss.

There's ways to make them pay. just as there's ways to make Mexico pay for at least part, if not all of the wall . Time to change the attitude, that we pay for everything.

You can get away with merely saying "There's [sic] ways to make them pay," because you aren't running for President and I don't care too much at this point in the conversation what ways you think are viable. Trump, on the other hand, is running for President, and I want him to explain what way he finds acceptable and what the conditions are that he'd put on receiving U.S. protection in return for payment.

 

[Jroc]

It's always good to post a link when you cut and paste.

Did you watch the video in the OP? You didn't notice that was Donald Trump to whom Oprah (the black woman with the microphone) was talking, right?

You didn't watch it. What's Oprah's race have to do with anything?

Oprah's race has nothing in particular to do with anything in the context of my post other than it's a physical trait that distinguishes her from other people, but seeing as someone wanted me to provide reference links for the stuff I noted Trump had said, I figured they may not have been aware that Trump and Oprah were the two main speakers in the video found in the OP.

What do you mean by saying I didn't watch it? How would I know what Trump said in the interview if I didn't watch it?

Selective watching then..You watched, but you didn't hear..Watch it again, it might help you

Selective reading. Go back and read the entirety of my original (first) post.

You're focusing on this..Whats the problem with this comment again?

No sooner had he said he lacked the inclination to run for President, he also said he wouldn't want to rule it out.