ForumGarden

Ignore me, I'm just booking the thread title for 2019.

You're just trying to give me nightmares.

spot;1495390 wrote: Ignore me, I'm just booking the thread title for 2019.


OK, you're ignored.

spot;1495390 wrote: Ignore me, I'm just booking the thread title for 2019.I think you're a year too early.

The more pressing issue is what shade of orange will he be and what will his hair look like?

Haha. It is to laugh.

It would only take one term for Trump to destroy America and the world . The thought of Donald Chump (my spelling ) is absolutely terrifying ! He is a loose cannon and must be stopped ! Anyone who votes for him this November is either an imbecile, hopelessly naive and ignorant or just plain evil !

Imperfect as she is, Hillary Clinton is America's only hope .

superhorn;1496258 wrote: It would only take one term for Trump to destroy America and the world .


How could he destroy the world any more efficiently than the current Administration? Or the one before that?

What he'll do to America, on the other hand, is a beacon of hope to the rest of us.

posted by spot

How could he destroy the world any more efficiently than the current Administration? Or the one before that?

What he'll do to America, on the other hand, is a beacon of hope to the rest of us.




Not if he picks a fight with china it isn't.

If Trump were to get in I could imagine him introducing Internment for Muslims, in the same way as America did with the Japanese during WW2, followed by all out war with all Islamic countries.

spot;1496259 wrote: How could he destroy the world any more efficiently than the current Administration?


Nuclear war.

What he'll do to America, on the other hand, is a beacon of hope to the rest of us.


You hope for radioactive destruction?

Saint_;1496279 wrote: Nuclear war.What I asked was "How could he destroy the world any more efficiently than the current Administration?". You answer ignores the "any more efficiently" aspect. Any US Administration could use nuclear weapons. I can see nothing Donald Trump has said that shows him more likely to cause such an event, and I didn't have nuclear war in mind when I wrote the sentence. The current Administration has been busily destroying the world since it took office, mainly through its policy of destabilization.



You hope for radioactive destruction?


Good lord no. You're ascribing thoughts to me for no reason, this is sheer calculated prejudicial defamation on your part. What I hope for is a reasonable US foreign policy.

I do have good reason to expect President Trump to adopt a reasonable foreign policy. His five main heads are listed coherently at https://consortiumnews.com/2016/05/22/t ... gn-policy/

Here are the five core elements:

Cohen said: “Let me just rattle off the five questions he has asked. [First] why must the United States lead the world everywhere on the globe and play the role of the world’s policeman, now for example, he says, in Ukraine? It’s a question. It’s worth a discussion.

“Secondly, said, NATO was founded 67 years ago to deter the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union ended 25 years ago. What is NATO’s mission? Is it obsolete? Is it fighting terrorism? No, to the last question, it’s not. Should we discuss NATO’s mission?

“Thirdly, asks, why does the United States always pursue regime changes? Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, and now it wants a regime change in Syria, Damascus. When the result is, to use Donald Trump’s favorite word, the result is always “disaster.” But it’s a reasonable question.

“Fourthly, why do we treat Russia and Putin as an enemy when he should be a partner?

“Fifth, Trump asks, about nuclear weapons – and this is interesting. You remember he was asked, would he rule out using nuclear weapons – an existential question. He thought for a while and then he said, ‘No, I take nothing off the table.’ And everybody said he wants to use nuclear weapons! In fact, it is the official American nuclear doctrine policy that we do not take first use off the table. We do not have a no first use of nuclear weapons doctrine. So all Trump did was state in his own way what has been official American nuclear policy for, I guess, 40 or 50 years. …

“It seems to me that these five questions, which are not being discussed by the other presidential candidates, are essential.”



I would be delighted to see Donald Trump elected to office with that standpoint. The existing, testable record of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, by contrast, is an opportunistic litany of kill, kill, kill.

I'm pleased to note that my arguments in favor of a Trump presidency have significant echoes around the world.

Leading Antiwar Progressives Speak Favorably of Aspects of Trump's Foreign Policy: Information Clearing House - ICH

It's short, it's exactly on topic, it's what I've been saying here since the primaries started.

A very apt summation.

Isolationism. Yeah, that worked really well for us at Pearl Harbor...

Pfft.

You prefer paying all that tax money to "defend" foreigners by wrecking their economies and infrastructure?

I'm never quite sure why apologists for US foreign policy invariably have to go back to World War Two for their examples but I do think it's significant.

I note the Republican Convention has selected Donald Trump as the 2016 party candidate for President.

The idea he might lose the November election is becoming more remote.

I look forward to his eight years in office. The world can look forward to a pause in US-commissioned violence abroad, something a Hillary Clinton administration would perpetuate.

Seriously, Spot. You do understand that he is a psychopath, right? Not only would he enlarge current wars, remember his "carpet bombing" remarks? He would start new wars, probably even nuclear war.

He really is that guy from, "The Dead Zone." For real.

Saint_;1498761 wrote: Not only would he enlarge current wars, remember his "carpet bombing" remarks?That was Ted Cruz. Go and check - perhaps you know a better authentic-quote site than I do, or even a trustworthy newspaper.

He would start new wars, probably even nuclear war.That's speculation. Hillary Clinton as Secretary of War - or State, if you prefer euphemisms - already started a dreadful war which has killed more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined by destabilizing Libya in order to topple the non-aligned government. "We came, we saw, he died", remember? That authentic quote is my Hillary-definition.

The nuclear bit is speculation too.

The psychopath bit really ought to have a practitioner supporting the diagnosis. As before, you may have a quote from someone qualified and respectable.

What aspect of post#12 in this thread do you find difficult to accept?

The man makes it up as he goes along, he is a chancer.

The same sort of 'perfect storm' that put Hitler into power is contriving to put this gob sh*te into the most powerful job in the world.

He is that encyclopedia salesman that you had to be rude to, just to get him off your front doorstep, who immediately knocks on the back door with a different story.

He will "Get rid of ISIS,Big League And we're going to get rid of 'em fast"

He, apparently recently slagged off Clinton for voting for the Iraq war......yet his second in command is forgiven for doing the same because....."It's a long time ago. And he voted that way and they were also misled."

He is going to ban Muslims from entering 'The Land of the Free'................Extreme vetting for everybody, and no one from 'Terror States'

The Trump and his mate Video Interview

Transcript of five main points

Bolting tight the borders of The Homeland is one of his great attractions, as is his promise to scrap all the non-treaty US trade agreements which are keeping Americans unemployed and to pour enough money into the US military to make it absolutely invincible while reducing US debt and taxes.

The extent to which the man's budget is irreconcilable seems to faze nobody.

Oh - and he's not just banning Muslims from entry, he's going to expel all US Muslim citizens who refuse to take an individual oath regarding the absolute supremacy of the US legal system. Rather like what sent Sir Thomas More to the executioner.

There's no 2 ways about it, the man is a total Head Case. However, he's a very dangerous Head Case - particularly when he has the support of a Nation of Head Cases who want to believe in his KKK style rantings. A Nation that is, once again, being riled against Muslims, an anger that he is making use of to the full. He is a rabble rouser, with no fixed manifesto. No economic policy. Nothing. He is just pushing to "Let's go kick somebody's Ass". The real danger is that he will succeed.

I just played this week's Panorama since I've never seen Trump speak before and the iPlayer program was entirely about him from the viewpoint of local residents in Bakersfield California.

It baffles me there's anyone who thinks he's not going to win. Of course he's going to win, you just need to listen to all the whites living in race-defined enclaves on $20 an hour. Donald Trump is the Messiah.

spot;1498773 wrote: I just played this week's Panorama since I've never seen Trump speak before and the iPlayer program was entirely about him from the viewpoint of local residents in Bakersfield California.

It baffles me there's anyone who thinks he's not going to win. Of course he's going to win, you just need to listen to all the whites living in race-defined enclaves on $20 an hour. Donald Trump is the Messiah.


Of course, if Trump wins Blacks probably won't even be allowed to vote. They'll have to use different buses, etc., and Slavery will probaly be reinstated.

spot;1498773 wrote:

Of course he's going to win, you just need to listen to all the whites living in race-defined enclaves on $20 an hour. Donald Trump is the Messiah.


There IS more to America than people living in "race-defined enclaves on $20 an hour"

FourPart;1498776 wrote: Of course, if Trump wins Blacks probably won't even be allowed to vote. They'll have to use different buses, etc., and Slavery will probaly be reinstated.


This is supposition on your part with no basis in anything he's said or done. You're writing fiction. You're also endowing the new President with more power than any President has ever possessed, I think you might need to explain where he's going to get it from.

I don't like "probably", least of all when it stands for unfeasibly. Besides, if you're looking for endemic prejudice you needn't leave the United Kingdom. It's the uniform that does it.



Bruv;1498777 wrote: There IS more to America than people living in "race-defined enclaves on $20 an hour"


I'm sure there is, yes. I was discussing where the core of his popular majority mandate to serve exists.

spot;1498787 wrote: I'm sure there is, yes. I was discussing where the core of his popular majority mandate to serve exists.


Like.................Mosques are the core of the popular mandate for ISIS ????

$20.00 an hour? I wish..............

Bruv;1498790 wrote: Like.................Mosques are the core of the popular mandate for ISIS ????


I'm not aware of any region in the world which has elected a majority ISIS government, so I'm not sure what "popular" or "mandate" means in this context.

If you feel Donald Trump has no core support which will provide a popular majority mandate to serve then that's a reasoned assessment based on the evidence you've seen, we merely differ on the likely outcome of the November election. But if he is elected President, he will definitely have a core voter profile which enabled him to reach a majority and I do think I've identified it.

If you know of any core ISIS voters you might name the election, but I don't. It has backers, certainly. And I bet a significant component of them work for the US intelligence community. White House administrations need easily identifiable blatantly repellant "enemies" to the extent that they're quite happy to invent them from scratch. How would they win support for their foreign policies without them.

For Context.

Mandate........Give (someone) authority to act in a certain way.

Popular..........liked or admired by many people or by a particular person or group.

Sure enough Trump has popular support, I am sure it is far wider than your narrow parameter, otherwise your prediction just wont work out.

I doubt there's any wide civil group who have given - the first key word - authority - the second - to ISIS. They may well be popular, I've not been and asked.

AnneBoleyn;1498793 wrote: $20.00 an hour? I wish..............


I went back read and read it several times. I dunno what he is talking about.

I had it in mind that $20 an hour approximates the lowest US working wage which allows an independent unassisted living for a family, and that tens of millions of working Americans get by on it so long as they stay in regular work.

spot;1498802 wrote: I had it in mind that $20 an hour approximates the lowest US working wage which allows an independent unassisted living for a family, and that tens of millions of working Americans get by on it so long as they stay in regular work.


Thanks for explaining. It is just my experience 20 bucks an hour is an exceptionally good wage.

I like what I've seen of Trumps family.

I actually thought Trump running for Pres. was a joke.:yh_rotfl

I was OMG to his comments, who talks like that? Trump does.

Well the jokes on me.:yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

I will say - Trump will be President - he will win over Clinton.

like it or not.

Flop

I agree the Trump Family has been impressive.

Patsy

P.S. $20.00 @ hour is good pay.

Jokes on us all, ignorant people will rule the world. Could this be the dawn of a new Dark Age?

Saint

I don't know if it's a Dark Age - it's a start of a New absolutely different.

The New - the unknown.

I'm actually scared of both Trump & Clinton - the unknown.

I certainly Do Not want Clinton as Pres. - so who's left?

Trump grew in popularity - my community/ neighbors are full of Trump signs.

Maybe wealth can buy you anything?

Patsy

If you really think that a Trump presidency is a viable option, I don't think you're paying attention.

I am no fan of Hilary, but I believe that the odds of us having an opportunity to elect a replacement in four years are in our favor with her in the White House.

I don't think we can turn the keys to the asylum over to the Stormtrumpers, and have any hope of keeping our country intact for long.

The only real hope this year is to elect a responsible bunch into Congress in November.

I am no fan of Trump or Clinton.

The stormtrumpers are growing in volume - like a swarm of bees you can't run from.

I have been paying attention - I've watched - listened - discussed.

I do not want Clinton - as I said then who's left?

Is our Country strong & intact now? NO

I think we're all scared.

Patsy

There's still time for an Executive Order allowing President Obama to stand for a third term, you know.

Spot

I've never heard of that?

Patsy

It would definitely enliven an already exciting campaign year.

spot;1498921 wrote: There's still time for an Executive Order allowing President Obama to stand for a third term, you know.


Not really.

An executive order cannot be in violation of the Constitution, as amended by the 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951. It would take an amendment to the constitution voted on by both congressional houses to amend that amendment.

I don't see the Republican majority ever going for that.

And even if he tried to do it, the rowdies would be in arms before the ink dried on the thing.

spot;1498926 wrote: It would definitely enliven an already exciting campaign year.


If you like exciting..........go to Alton Towers.

Some types of exciting are not for me.

LarsMac;1498927 wrote: Not really. Is there no state of emergency provision to enable it? The Turks have no problem suspending reality whenever they see fit, for example.

Alternatively, could Hillary Clinton select President Obama as her Vice Presidential candidate? I'd be surprised if there were any legal bar to that, Constitutional or otherwise.

Spot

I can't see any President wanting to be a Vice President.

Interesting twist though.

Lars

Republican party agreeing -:yh_rotfl

OMG that cracks me up..

I believe only Roosevelt was on his 3rd term & died during his 3rd term as Pres.

Patsy

it's terrifying either way for us here in Canada too,

If Clinton is in, that will make 2 weak leaders leading North America

If Dump is in, we here are doomed, he will eat our golden boy up and spit him out and take over Canada

Bleh what a mess.

Patsy Warnick;1498912 wrote: I do not want Clinton - Patsy, you obviously have the right to vote or not to vote for whomever you please, or not to vote at all.

The Clinton administration was the best since FDR, "Help Wanted" signs everywhere, the economy operating at full tilt. A new Clinton administration will return us to those times.

The Democratic Party convention begins next week. Donald Trump will be absolutely demolished, exposed for the nutcase that he is.

Even apart from that, how many African-American votes do you think that Trump will get? How many Hispanic-American votes? We are talking about millions of votes here, and of course that's not even counting the millions and millions of non-minority votes.

What about the pre-election debates, where Clinton will talk sense and Trump will simply rant and rave nonsense?

Yes, it's going to be an interesting year for US politics.