The Next American President Thread (2016)

16061636566198

Comments

  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Gustav_Graves, as normal you are getting worked up about something that I'm not. My comments on speeches were referring to Cruz as prospective president.

    As I said in my opening post of the day, Cruz's speech yesterday is a sideshow to me. I don't think the Trump campaign is too worried about it either. It made for good tv, and gave us a little more insight into Cruz the man, that's about it.

    I'm worked up because, like so many times recently, you simply beat around the bush.

    Again, what if Hillary Clinton had to 'suffer' a revolt like the one Cruz had. You would perhaps say "I fully understand why people are chanting "Shoot her" and this could be further proof of her shortcomings, and it could be damaging to the campaign". Like you 'understand' so many things.

    But once it's Trump......he's treated by you with satin gloves. That's how I see it. And I might be wrong. But never you firmly condemned Trump's vocabulaire. Never. Because it's all part of the 'Trump show' and "He doesn't really mean it". Still, at the RNC the following chants keep going: "Hillary should go to prison!" or, like one of the New Hampshire delegates yesterday said "Hillary should be shot by a firing squad!" or like another angry mother of a killed son shouted "Hillary, you killed my son!". And the audience loves it.

    But once ONE person even ignores to mention Trump during his speech, that person gets booed. And even security needs to accompany the man and his wife.

    I think it's sickening. And frankly, it reminds me of how Erdogan is surrounded by supporters who lack any slef-criticism.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    It is a farce.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    @Gustav_Graves, sorry you feel that way. Don't work yourself up into too much of a lather over it. I can assure you it's not worth it. Think of your health.
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Gustav_Graves, sorry you feel that way. Don't work yourself up into too much of a lather over it. I can assure you it's not worth it. Think of your health.

    So this is how you end a discussion these days :-).
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,694
    The RNC was/is a circus. But the public likes a show. Sadly, I think Trump just might win the brass ring. I blame YOU, DNC!!!! [-X
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Gustav_Graves, sorry you feel that way. Don't work yourself up into too much of a lather over it. I can assure you it's not worth it. Think of your health.

    So this is how you end a discussion these days :-).
    Well, you've hurled accusations about me on this and other threads, questioned my motives, my analysis etc. etc. I'm actually worried that if I was standing close to you right now you'd probably want to hit me or something (like those rowdy protesters at the Trump rallies).

    At the end of the day, I'm just a poster on the thread who happens to not think that Trump is the anti-christ. Probably one of the few as I recall who's been on here since inception. I've said that I think his inflammatory rhetoric is unacceptable and that he should tone it down. What more do you want me to do? Foam at the mouth every time a supporter of his acts like an idiot?

    If you have a problem with his supporters, then abuse them, like some others have been doing quite colourfully on here.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,694
    bondjames wrote: »

    At the end of the day, I'm just a poster on the thread who happens to not think that Trump is the anti-christ.
    You never did watch Omen 3.
    [-(
  • Posts: 11,119
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    @Gustav_Graves, sorry you feel that way. Don't work yourself up into too much of a lather over it. I can assure you it's not worth it. Think of your health.

    So this is how you end a discussion these days :-).
    I've said that I think his inflammatory rhetoric is unacceptable and that he should tone it down. What more do you want me to do?

    Well....this: ↑
  • edited July 2016 Posts: 11,119
    Anyway, to show everyone I'm also a very happy, swinging lad....I'd like all of you to watch this ;-). I'm sure going to miss the Obama's. You can disagree with president Obama's policy, but at least their spirit is so much more sincere and positive and....HAPPY :-)!

  • WillardWhyteWillardWhyte Midnight Society #ProjectMoon
    Posts: 784
    Donald Jr. and Mike Pence delivered excellent speeches. Looking forward to hearing/seeing Ivanka tonight.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,694
    My girl Michelle does rock!
  • jake24jake24 Sitting at your desk, kissing your lover, eating supper with your familyModerator
    Posts: 10,588
    family_guy_trump-large_trans++LyQuLaWi53vasyfRaiyWAVQYArzCZkfUqg3bUYglOXQ.jpg
  • Posts: 315
    bondjames wrote: »
    At the end of the day, I'm just a poster on the thread who happens to not think that Trump is the anti-christ. Probably one of the few as I recall who's been on here since inception.{/quote]

    [112012-110147.jpeg?itok=KDL7kisN
  • Posts: 1,631
    Agreed, Mike Pence did deliver a great speech last night. It's a shame it was overshadowed. Can't agree on Donald Jr, though. He just comes off well because the rest of his family (Ivanka excluded) are a bunch of clowns. He's lucky that his stepmother and Ted Cruz had controversies on either side of him, otherwise his own plagiarism scandal might have taken more of a foothold in the media.

    Ivanka, for whatever it is worth, is the only impressive Trump out there. I'd have much rather she ran for the presidency than her father. They probably have about the same level of expertise on the issues (little to none), but she seems to have a much better head on her shoulders. She's the Trump to watch out for in the future, I think. Not any of the Trump boys.

    And, for the record, @bondjames has repeatedly said that Trump's rhetoric is unacceptable and needs to be toned down.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,152
    Well, I agree that bondjames is the most even-handed when it comes to the candidates, I don't agree that Trump should 'tone it down'. By saying something is 'unacceptable' you are designating yourself the arbitor of what is and isn't allowed in political discourse. Trumps rhetoric has gotten him this far, against all expections. Besides, it won't be his presentation that will win or lose him this election.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited July 2016 Posts: 23,883
    Thanks @dalton, @Mendes4Lyfe.

    And yes, Pence was impressive. First time I'd seen him give a speech, and his style is engaging and relatable to the electorate. Much better in that respect in my view than Romney, Ryan, McCain or Palin. I'm sure he will connect with a lot of Republican voters in the next few months

    I'm looking forward to tonight. I wonder if there'll be any more drama or if it will go smoothly. Peter Thiel's (Paypal cofounder) speech is likely to get an interesting reaction from the crowd.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @Mendes4Lyfe, are you familiar with the storied history of Sedition Acts that've shaped the sphere of the political office, and been abused by people as high as the oval office since America was founded for their own gain? Our history is nothing but people taking on the role of "arbitors," shutting down and censoring anything and everything that doesn't support their cause. Men as recent in history as Woodrow Wilson passed acts that could have you thrown in jail if you so much as lightly questioned the military or his political action while hanging out at a bar with friends.

    Bit too late to change the tide of history now and what can and can't be said on both sides of the political spectrum, especially when the media does that job overtime.
  • WillardWhyteWillardWhyte Midnight Society #ProjectMoon
    Posts: 784
    But somebody being investigated by the FBI for some serious actions is running for President of the USA..go figure.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    @WillardWhyte, Hillary is quite a new breed of presidential hopeful. Most candidates wait until they're in office to engage in questionable activities. She on the other hand, is getting a great head start on it, and has been for a while now. At the end of this thing (if she makes it to 2020, I mean) she could rival Nixon or Reagan in troubled and controversial records.
  • Posts: 1,631
    It shouldn't be deemed inappropriate to call out someone's racist and bigoted rhetoric as being unacceptable. I don't agree with Trump on much, but it's perfectly fine to debate the merits of NATO, immigration, and so on.

    What is not fine, however, is to demonize large sections of the population based on their race, ethnic background, etc. That is unacceptable, period. It's not a case of getting on one's high horse to criticize someone for racist comments.
  • WillardWhyteWillardWhyte Midnight Society #ProjectMoon
    Posts: 784
    Absolutely, she will go down in history for all the wrong reasons, and she deserves it.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,694
    By saying something is 'unacceptable' you are designating yourself the arbitor of what is and isn't allowed in political discourse.
    Tell it to the KKK... ;))
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,152
    dalton wrote: »
    It shouldn't be deemed inappropriate to call out someone's racist and bigoted rhetoric as being unacceptable. I don't agree with Trump on much, but it's perfectly fine to debate the merits of NATO, immigration, and so on.

    What is not fine, however, is to demonize large sections of the population based on their race, ethnic background, etc. That is unacceptable, period. It's not a case of getting on one's high horse to criticize someone for racist comments.

    The problem is its very easy to act the alarmist when you hear Trump talk. What people have to understand is that he is attempting to tap into a demographic which has been neglected for decades. Your kind of Robot politics, where you say everything in platitudes simply won't work when you're trying to galvinize people that has been left by the way side by progressivism. So when Trump says we need a wall because to keep Mexicans out because 'they're rapists', its obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that he isn't talking about all Mexicans. But its easy to pretend like thats what he's saying and paint him as some sort of Hitler figure.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,152
    chrisisall wrote: »
    By saying something is 'unacceptable' you are designating yourself the arbitor of what is and isn't allowed in political discourse.
    Tell it to the KKK... ;))

    Or Black Lives Matter...
  • Posts: 1,631
    There is nothing alarmist about calling Trump on his racism.

    -He's been sued by the United States Justice Department twice for discrimination with his rental properties.

    -He's refused to disavow the KKK and white supremacist David Duke. He was fined $200,000 for racist activity at the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in 1992.

    -His birther movement against President Obama.

    -He has opined that it may have been appropriate to assault a protester at one of his rallies.

    -Supporters who assaulted a Latino man were called "passionate" by Trump.

    This doesn't even take into account the other ridiculousness he's spewed while on the campaign trail. It's not alarmist to call these things what they are: racist. And, if he himself is not actually racist, then he's been playing the part of one for a long time in an effort to get the right to vote for him, and quite honestly, that might be even worse.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    edited July 2016 Posts: 17,694
    chrisisall wrote: »
    By saying something is 'unacceptable' you are designating yourself the arbitor of what is and isn't allowed in political discourse.
    Tell it to the KKK... ;))

    Or Black Lives Matter...

    POS bait here, and I took it. Bad on me... but not being a compassionate 'liberal' I guess it's okay for me to say that you continue to display your ignorance in spectacular ways here, Dick. Can I call you 'Dick'? :))
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    dalton wrote: »
    It shouldn't be deemed inappropriate to call out someone's racist and bigoted rhetoric as being unacceptable. I don't agree with Trump on much, but it's perfectly fine to debate the merits of NATO, immigration, and so on.

    What is not fine, however, is to demonize large sections of the population based on their race, ethnic background, etc. That is unacceptable, period. It's not a case of getting on one's high horse to criticize someone for racist comments.

    The problem is its very easy to act the alarmist when you hear Trump talk. What people have to understand is that he is attempting to tap into a demographic which has been neglected for decades. Your kind of Robot politics, where you say everything in platitudes simply won't work when you're trying to galvinize people that has been left by the way side by progressivism. So when Trump says we need a wall because to keep Mexicans out because 'they're rapists', its obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that he isn't talking about all Mexicans. But its easy to pretend like thats what he's saying and paint him as some sort of Hitler figure.

    And Trump certainly wasn't talking about all Muslims when he agreed that we may have to look into creating a database to monitor those following the Islamic religion either. Oh wait...

    These half wits can spend all the money they want building a wall to protect us from these exterior threats, but they're missing the fact that the terrorism we really need to be watching out for will come from within the states, and that is the real threat we must face, whether it's cop killers on a bent mission or Americans enraptured and influenced by radical principles espoused from afar.

    But of course you're right, Mendes, progressiveness is the clear enemy that's left everyone behind. If only we didn't have advancements in science and technology, and we able to null and void all the civil liberties we've given to minorities and the LGBT community. Only then would we be right again. 8-|

    We can use all the empty, hollow language we want in pursuit of being pseudo-intellectuals, but when the dick measuring ends, either in the private discussions of American voters or amongst the top brass in government and the candidates for the presidency, and we strip away all the nonessential ad hominem bullshit and loud campaign slogans and ads, only two things remain: those who do good for our system, and those who don't. The real shame is that we're stuck with two people that do more of the latter than the former.
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,152
    dalton wrote: »
    There is nothing alarmist about calling Trump on his racism.

    -He's been sued by the United States Justice Department twice for discrimination with his rental properties.

    -He's refused to disavow the KKK and white supremacist David Duke. He was fined $200,000 for racist activity at the Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in 1992.

    -His birther movement against President Obama.

    -He has opined that it may have been appropriate to assault a protester at one of his rallies.

    -Supporters who assaulted a Latino man were called "passionate" by Trump.

    This doesn't even take into account the other ridiculousness he's spewed while on the campaign trail. It's not alarmist to call these things what they are: racist. And, if he himself is not actually racist, then he's been playing the part of one for a long time in an effort to get the right to vote for him, and quite honestly, that might be even worse.

    It's only worse If you're incredibly naive. Of course he is telling people what they want to hear, that's what all politicians do to attain power and influence.

    "Supporters who assaulted a Latino man were called "passionate" by Trump.

    What does the race of the man have to do with anything, in this instance? The guy happened to be non-white, therefore racism? Are we to assume Trump wouldn't have praised his supporters were the guy white?
  • Posts: 1,631
    What does the race of the man have to do with anything, in this instance? The guy happened to be non-white, therefore racism? Are we to assume Trump wouldn't have praised his supporters were the guy white?

    I'm not sure why I'm bothering, but the race of the homeless man was why he was beaten up in the first place. He was beaten with a metal pipe by two men who said "Donald Trump is right." "All these illegals need to be deported."

    The man was targeted because he was Latino and believed to be an illegal immigrant. He would not have been targeted had he been white.

    Trump's response: “It would be a shame. . . . I will say that people who are following me are very passionate. They love this country and they want this country to be great again. They are passionate.”
  • Mendes4LyfeMendes4Lyfe The long road ahead
    Posts: 8,152
    dalton wrote: »
    It shouldn't be deemed inappropriate to call out someone's racist and bigoted rhetoric as being unacceptable. I don't agree with Trump on much, but it's perfectly fine to debate the merits of NATO, immigration, and so on.

    What is not fine, however, is to demonize large sections of the population based on their race, ethnic background, etc. That is unacceptable, period. It's not a case of getting on one's high horse to criticize someone for racist comments.

    The problem is its very easy to act the alarmist when you hear Trump talk. What people have to understand is that he is attempting to tap into a demographic which has been neglected for decades. Your kind of Robot politics, where you say everything in platitudes simply won't work when you're trying to galvinize people that has been left by the way side by progressivism. So when Trump says we need a wall because to keep Mexicans out because 'they're rapists', its obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that he isn't talking about all Mexicans. But its easy to pretend like thats what he's saying and paint him as some sort of Hitler figure.

    And Trump certainly wasn't talking about all Muslims when he agreed that we may have to look into creating a database to monitor those following the Islamic religion either. Oh wait...

    These half wits can spend all the money they want building a wall to protect us from these exterior threats, but they're missing the fact that the terrorism we really need to be watching out for will come from within the states, and that is the real threat we must face, whether it's cop killers on a bent mission or Americans enraptured and influenced by radical principles espoused from afar.

    But of course you're right, Mendes, progressiveness is the clear enemy that's left everyone behind. If only we didn't have advancements in science and technology, and we able to null and void all the civil liberties we've given to minorities and the LGBT community. Only then would we be right again. 8-|

    We can use all the empty, hollow language we want in pursuit of being pseudo-intellectuals, but when the dick measuring ends, either in the private discussions of American voters or amongst the top brass in government and the candidates for the presidency, and we strip away all the nonessential ad hominem bullshit and loud campaign slogans and ads, only two things remain: those who do good for our system, and those who don't. The real shame is that we're stuck with two people that do more of the latter than the former.

    It baffles me how you continue to defend Islam and in the same post go on to mention civil liberties and the LGBT community.
This discussion has been closed.