Trump Is Giving This Country Its Identity Back

[Dill]

(04-17-2017, 03:10 PM)hollodero Wrote: In general, I can understand the appeal though. I've learned that Americans consider all career politicians to be total sellouts. Probably because they actually are.

The moment it's Trump vs. Hillary, one has to think about public campaign funding. Yet no one does. It remains Kochs and Soros and SuperPACs and lobbies and Wall Street. Trump actually could make the case that he doesn't need to be bought by those people, and although that's probably not true I really saw the point there.

Still, though, the ultimate, far over-riding issue should be COMPETENCE. When presidents make errors, people die, HUNDREDS of billions of dollars flow down the drain. The future is changed for millions of people.  The Iraq disaster is exhibit #1 (4,500 American dead, 150,000 Iraqi dead, 3 million refugees, and finally ISIS), but there may be damage from a thousand cuts as well, if a president starts tearing up EPA regulations and separating parents from children to deport the former and rolling back voter laws and appointing extremist supreme court justices. Damage in the policy pipeline just waiting to flow downhill. 

No single office in the world has the power to disrupt so many lives worldwide.

The difference between Trumpsters and the rest of is that they either don't care about all that if trump will just bomb someone and kick Mexican children out of the country, or they don't see any competence issue.  He is a "successful" businessman, right? If you don't believe so just ask him. If you don't know anything about foreign policy then kicking sand in China's face and teaming up with Russia to beat ISIS seems nifty and cool  rather than fatuous and short-sighted.  Competence is front and center of every debate about Trump in this forum; it is what divides the Trump vs anit-trump camps.

Throughout the campaign there were alarm bells about Trump's debts and assets in foreign lands, which are more troubling than a check or two from Soros. And people do think about campaign funding. Ask Bernie. Citizens United has been loudly criticized by liberals and leftists.

Finally, all Americans don't think all politicians are sell outs.  The late Paul Wellstone was a wonderful example of that. I don't view Bernie or E. Warren as sellouts either. I don't like Kasich, McCain or Graham, but I don't think they are sell outs. They are people the sellouts obstruct.  Many Trumpsters--incredibly--don't think Trump is a sell out. ANd even if he is on most issues, they will still back him if he persecutes Muslims and dreamers and drops the largest bomb in the world on someone. I met one who was willing to give up Medicare if it meant all those brown children would be sent back over the border.

[*bfine32*]

(04-17-2017, 01:16 PM)GMDino Wrote: Calling him the "perfect outsider" while denying you support him and missing the point of my comparison let's me know you just want to argue and not face the reality of who Trump was/is.

(04-17-2017, 01:54 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If Trump is the perfect outside then there literally isn't a single candidate outside of politics who is a better candidate.

What this dude says:

(04-17-2017, 02:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: But it's easier to focus on taking one thing and making it all about that than addressing the actual context of the post.  And the beat goes on...

Trump was the perfect outsider candidate and this was solidified by him winning the General Election. Not sure how either of you can deny that unless you want to play the semantics game of what perfect means.

[*bfine32*]

(04-17-2017, 01:54 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If Dino compared Trump to Manson then he also compared Trump to you. Arguably, both are equally ridiculous.

(04-17-2017, 02:02 PM)GMDino Wrote: Dino said that "outsider" applies to...everyone outside.

Manson (either one), me, you....etc.

Birds of a feather......

[hollodero]

(04-17-2017, 03:39 PM)Dill Wrote: Still, though, the ultimate, far over-riding issue should be COMPETENCE.

Well of course it should. I merely meant I understand the overall appeal an outsider might have. It doesn't have appeal for me, I prefer professionals. I'm sorry, these sentences look like bad English :) you get what I'm saying. I agree with your stance on (more or less) all levels, 10.000 lines of anti-Trump rhetorics should attest to that.

(04-17-2017, 03:39 PM)Dill Wrote: Finally, all Americans don't think all politicians are sell outs. 

That's a matter of perspective. I didn't mean to describe a common character flaw in politicians. But the situation as it is demands them to be on the phone half of their days in election times - calling someone for campaign money. It's baffling to see from the outside, and it sure looks like selling out. That it's done so openly doesn't make it any less sellout-y.
Probably not all Americans see that as selling out per se (I do, for it seems like the correct word), but it sure contributes to the horrendous image politicians have in the US. That image is all over the place (which is too big for me to really thoroughly check out, of course, so I just talk a lot here). But half the people do not even bother to vote. Seems like a message.
And I'm not so much talking about Citizens United, which I don't know much about. I understand it puts a whole new dimension of, dare I say perversion to the process. But private or corporate campaign funding on some level always seems to be like that, and it was like that before that act.

I talk public campaign funding, the state paying fixed amounts and at least strongly restricting the money that can be added by corporations or private citizens; which really seems like the way to go, at least for me.

[*bfine32*]

(04-17-2017, 03:10 PM)Dill Wrote: Dino was not comparing Trump to Manson--beyond the point both are Washington outsiders, as are most of the people in this forum.

He was arguing that the "outsider" criterion is broad and inadequate, by indicating that 
someone whom even most Trumpsters would reject could meet the standard.

If the criterion is "businessman", then Trump trumps him, of course. Trump may not be a great businessmen (and great businessmen have made very bad presidents in the past), but I agree he is likely a better businessman than Manson.


But if outsider is the criterion, then Manson's outsider status is every bit as "perfect" as Trump's.
Which well illustrates what a lousy criterion it is.

Welp color me as the only one that doesn't think he was comparing trump to Manson when he said Manson.

Is this like you not comparing him to Hitler when you use Hitler as a comparison example?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-17-2017, 03:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What this dude says:

Trump was the perfect outsider candidate and this was solidified by him winning the General Election. Not sure how either of you can deny that unless you want to play the semantics game of what perfect means.

If Trump was the perfect outsider, why did you vote for a different outsider?

[*bfine32*]

(04-17-2017, 04:11 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: If Trump was the perfect outsider, why did you vote for a different outsider?

Because I didn't trust him to be truly conservative.

[BFritz21]

(04-17-2017, 07:32 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The situations in Syria and North Korea are essentially unchanged. Assad isn't more hostile to his people. North Korea isn't more adamant or increasingly defiant. It's business as usual for both.

Are you serious?

Trump is finally standing up to Assad after so long of the US just letting him commit atrocities against his own people, and he did it without putting American lives in danger.  At some point you have to be the kid that stands up to the bully and says "enough is enough."

North Korea isn't more adamant or increasingly defiant?  They're continuing to build their nuclear program and testing missiles.  You can't let them gain all the power to strike and say "oh, now it's time to put our foot down."  That's too late.

(04-17-2017, 07:32 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Syria was a flip flop. The MOAB bomb in Afghanistan definitely wasn't. I'm not sure what position changed regarding North Korea, if any. 

Afganistan, once again, he's just eliminating a threat before it builds to a dangerous level, and he's doing so without putting American lives in danger.

(04-17-2017, 07:32 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Do you want to take a stab at the flip flops on NATO and China?

With China, he either evaluated it more and changed his mind (he's said that he was wrong), or he's just playing along with them because we need them in our conflict against North Korea.  Either way, he's being a smart leader.

It's not like he just promised one thing to become popular.  He's doing it in the best interest of the country.  Sounds like a good leader to me.

As far as NATO, he's realizing that NATO can help us and can help the world.  He's also doing that in the best interest of the country and world.  Sounds like a good leader to me.

[hollodero]

(04-17-2017, 04:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Welp color me as the only one that doesn't think he was comparing trump to Manson when he said Manson.

You're just wrong on that one. And this discussion is getting ridiculous. But never mind, I'm just saying it like it is. Carry on.

[*bfine32*]

(04-17-2017, 04:21 PM)hollodero Wrote: You're just wrong on that one. And this discussion is getting ridiculous. But never mind, I'm just saying it like it is. Carry on.

If you feel that way, that's on you. I'm of the opinion he chose Charles Manson as an example for a reason; you and others can suggest he did no such thing. The reason was to show how unqualified Trump was as an outside Candidate. But I will carry on.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-17-2017, 04:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Because I didn't trust him to be truly conservative.

In otherwords, you believed the other person was better suited for the job of President? If so, wouldn't he be a more perfect outsider than Trump?

If not, then I don't understand your point.

[hollodero]

(04-17-2017, 04:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you feel that way, that's on you. I'm of the opinion he chose Charles Manson as an example for a reason; you and others can suggest he did no such thing. The reason was to show how unqualified Trump was as an outside Candidate. But I will carry on.

Good :)
But really, he mentioned Manson... and then himself. That wasn't aimed at Trump, but the general value of "outsiders". He clearly questioned this outsider aspect using these examples.

In addition, when he specifically brought Trump into the picture he said that Trump in fact wasn't really an outsider (unlike Manson or himself). So it gets really a bit odd when you keep insisting he called Trump a Charles Manson. In that sense, he equally called Trump a GMDino - just in fact he did none of these things. 

I think you're deliberately misunderstanding this. Which reached a point where it's getting a bit laughable.

[*bfine32*]

(04-17-2017, 04:30 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: In otherwords, you believed the other person was better suited for the job of President? If so, wouldn't he be a more perfect outsider than Trump?

If not, then I don't understand your point.

Sure "I" did, but many, many, many others in the country felt Trump was the better outsider. He was the perfect outsider; perhaps not the preferred outsider for everyone but the perfect one (maybe even more so than Charles Manson). He was a successful businessman, that had expressed political views in the past. He is also charismatic and communicated/communicates with the average Joe on a level and in a way that no other the has done. Plus he has a family that brings folks to mind of the Kennedy "Camelot" days.

It's just now that an outsider has been elected the ramifications of electing an outsider are coming to light.

[GMDino]

(04-17-2017, 03:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Birds of a feather......

Can read and comprehend and not troll?

[GMDino]

(04-17-2017, 04:39 PM)hollodero Wrote: Good :)
But really, he mentioned Manson... and then himself. That wasn't aimed at Trump, but the general value of "outsiders". He clearly questioned this outsider aspect using these examples.

In addition, when he specifically brought Trump into the picture he said that Trump in fact wasn't really an outsider (unlike Manson or himself). So it gets really a bit odd when you keep insisting he called Trump a Charles Manson. In that sense, he equally called Trump a GMDino - just in fact he did none of these things. 

I think you're deliberately misunderstanding this. Which reached a point where it's getting a bit laughable.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-17-2017, 04:18 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Are you serious?

Trump is finally standing up to Assad after so long of the US just letting him commit atrocities against his own people, and he did it without putting American lives in danger.  At some point you have to be the kid that stands up to the bully and says "enough is enough."

North Korea isn't more adamant or increasingly defiant?  They're continuing to build their nuclear program and testing missiles.  You can't let them gain all the power to strike and say "oh, now it's time to put our foot down."  That's too late.

That's my point. Both countries are continuing to do what the have been doing. Nothing changed except Trump's 180 degree change of opinion. You've seen Trump's tweets about using force in Syria in 2013. What is different between then and now?

Quote:Afganistan, once again, he's just eliminating a threat before it builds to a dangerous level, and he's doing so without putting American lives in danger.

We have been involved in Afghanistan since 2001. We are way beyond eliminating a threat before it reaches a dangerous level. It was already dangerous. That's why they bombed the tunnels.

Quote:With China, he either evaluated it more and changed his mind (he's said that he was wrong), or he's just playing along with them because we need them in our conflict against North Korea.  Either way, he's being a smart leader.

First, He said China was a currency manipulator. Last week, He said China isn't a currency manipulator. What changed?

Quote:It's not like he just promised one thing to become popular.  He's doing it in the best interest of the country.  Sounds like a good leader to me.

Did you ever hear Him claim He was going to quickly repeal and replace Obamacare? That was for popularity. And votes.

Quote:As far as NATO, he's realizing that NATO can help us and can help the world.  He's also doing that in the best interest of the country and world.  Sounds like a good leader to me.

Until last week, Trump claimed NATO was obsolete. Nothing about NATO has changed. Only Trump's opinion has changed. But, based upon what? Certainly no change in NATO.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-17-2017, 04:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure "I" did, but many, many, many others in the country felt Trump was the better outsider. He was the perfect outsider; perhaps not the preferred outsider for everyone but the perfect one (maybe even more so than Charles Manson). He was a successful businessman, that had expressed political views in the past. He is also charismatic and communicated/communicates with the average Joe on a level and in a way that no other the has done. Plus he has a family that brings folks to mind of the Kennedy "Camelot" days.

It's just now that an outsider has been elected the ramifications of electing an outsider are coming to light.

Many people (I would venture to say subjectively the majority) weren't satisfied with both candidates. I don't think the perfect outsider would inspire such dissatisfaction, but rather the opposite.

[*bfine32*]

(04-17-2017, 05:08 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Many people (I would venture to say subjectively the majority) weren't satisfied with both candidates. I don't think the perfect outsider would inspire such dissatisfaction, but rather the opposite.

Next on "As The Board Turns"


Poster A places a sitting President in the same category as one of the most infamous mass-murders in our history and no one can say he has compared the two because doing so is ignoring the bigger picture that was presented.

Poster B states an outsider that won the Presidency of The United States was the perfect outsider; however, we cannot use the word perfect because we must ignore the bigger picture argued and focus on the narrow meaning of perfect.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-17-2017, 05:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Nest on "As The Board Turns"


Poster A places a sitting President in the same category as one of the most infamous mass-murders in our history and no one can say he has compared the two because doing so is ignoring the bigger picture that was presented.

Poster B states an outsider that won the Presidency of The United States was the perfect outsider; however, we cannot use the word perfect because we must ignore the bigger picture argued and focus on the narrow meaning of perfect.

How can the perfect outsider lose the popular vote if he is so damn popular?

I am focused on the big picture and overall the big picture was people on both sides of the aisle couldn't believe they had to choose between two poor choices. That's hardly the perfect outsider.

[BFritz21]

(04-17-2017, 04:59 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That's my point. Both countries are continuing to do what the have been doing. Nothing changed except Trump's 180 degree change of opinion. You've seen Trump's tweets about using force in Syria in 2013. What is different between then and now?

Syria crossed the line with the using of chemical weapons and it got to the point where it no longer can be annoyed.

A bad leader would keep ignoring it.  Trump took action.

North Korea also crossed a red line and took it to a point where it can no longer be ignored.

A bad leader would keep ignoring it.  Trump took action.

Good leaders adapt.

(04-17-2017, 04:59 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: We have been involved in Afghanistan since 2001. We are way beyond eliminating a threat before it reaches a dangerous level. It was already dangerous. That's why they bombed the tunnels. 

Exactly.  He's trying to limit the power of ISIS there and he saw an opportunity to significantly weaken them without putting any American lives in danger.

Sounds like the move of a good leader to me.



Either he adapted his position based on new information or research, or he's playing along with them because we need them as an ally against North Korea.

That's what good leaders do.

(04-17-2017, 04:59 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Did you ever hear Him claim He was going to quickly repeal and replace Obamacare?  That was for popularity. And votes. 

He's been in office for THREE MONTHS!


Quickly in government-talk doesn't mean you can just say "take it out and put this in!"

He's working on it.

(04-17-2017, 04:59 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Until last week, Trump claimed NATO was obsolete. Nothing about NATO has changed. Only Trump's opinion has changed. But, based upon what?  Certainly no change in NATO.

Once again, he's listening to those around him and adapting to best suit our country.

That's what great leaders do.