if Trump is elected president ?

Randy · Post by **Randy** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 12:10 am

I will be forced to question the deteriorating intelligence of Americans

RaisinCain · Post by **RaisinCain** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 3:44 pm

Well, they fell for Obama's crap twice so it wouldn't surprise me.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 6:42 pm

Randy wrote:I will be forced to question the deteriorating intelligence of Americans

I get the impression that you are against Trumpt, but by the wording of your post you are actually saying that if Trumpt is elected you'll see that as a reason to doubt if Americans really have a deteriorating intelligence.

So are you for, or against Trumpt?

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 6:45 pm

Whoever is elected I bet Keystone tries to push their pipeline again. Seeing how Obama will no longer be there to veto it.

Debbie · Post by **Debbie** » Wed Aug 19, 2015 8:27 pm

Donald Trump just likes all the hype he is creating. God forbid he becomes our next President.

Humboldt · Post by **Humboldt** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 2:38 am

jeremyboycool wrote:I get the impression that you are against Trumpt, but by the wording of your post you are actually saying that if Trumpt is elected you'll see that as a reason to doubt if Americans really have a deteriorating intelligence.

So are you for, or against Trumpt?

Eh...
It's an ambiguous statement that can be read either way if you try hard enough, given the wording. You're just pushing buttons

Humboldt · Post by **Humboldt** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 2:44 am

Debbie wrote:Donald Trump just likes all the hype he is creating. God forbid he becomes our next President.

Agreed.
Obviously he's smart and talented at what he does, morals aside, but if he gets anywhere close to being elected I'll be f*cking ashamed.

Have you looked at the demographics of who supports him?
It's not the wealthy morons, exceptions excluded of course.

Nor is it the educated.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 5:25 am

Humboldt wrote:Eh...
It's an ambiguous statement that can be read either way if you try hard enough, given the wording. You're just pushing buttons

If I was just pushing buttons, I would have said something about the title as well. Is it a question or a statement? But please, let's continue on with the deteriorating intelligence of Americans. I blame it on a lack of effort.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 9:25 am

Really don't think we have to worry about it.
He's got the giant hurdle of getting ahead of round 3 Bush.

Easto · Post by **Easto** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 9:46 am

YeOldeStonecat wrote:Really don't think we have to worry about it.

Exactly. Even entertaining the idea I find silly.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Easto wrote:Exactly. Even entertaining the idea I find silly.

I think his upper seat in the polls now...is simply because people like the idea of "shaking up" things...sending a message to the regular politicians/candidates, and he represents that....albeit in a clumsy manner.
But when it comes down to getting serious, and the actual nomination...and then votes...people will distance themselves from him.

Although I enjoy his jabs at the others, and briefly enjoy the idea of such an outsider...non-politician at the helm, I'd rather see Fiona Carly at the helm over Trump.

Debbie · Post by **Debbie** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 6:59 pm

I'm still reading up on the backgrounds of the other candidates and what they have voted/supported on in their political careers, but I find myself leaning towards Bernie Sanders. He has been consistent on the issues from Mayor, to Congress, and now U.S. Senator.

As for Hillary Clinton, if people vote for this witch, you know they did not do their homework or they are just plain brain dead. She will kill us in more ways than you can imagine.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... ry-clinton

http://www.globalresearch.ca/hillary-cl ... to/5450985

Randy · Post by **Randy** » Thu Aug 20, 2015 7:52 pm

jeremyboycool wrote:I get the impression that you are against Trumpt, but by the wording of your post you are actually saying that if Trumpt is elected you'll see that as a reason to doubt if Americans really have a deteriorating intelligence.

So are you for, or against Trumpt?

who is Trumpt?

Humboldt · Post by **Humboldt** » Fri Aug 21, 2015 1:16 am

Randy wrote:who is Trumpt?

One guess.

<hint>He's being witty</hint>

Pray to whatever he's right.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 3:45 pm

It's fun though to watch those that love him. It really makes them stand out.. They are the Morton Downy Jr. crowd..looking for answers and someone to look up too , and lacking in any meaningful curiosity to figure out how Congress or even state legislators work or the truth of such matters from Watergate to the new Hilliary scandel. They love a good rumor and the real truth of things isn't a part of any of it.

cybotron r_9 · Post by **cybotron r_9** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 5:41 pm

Randy wrote:I will be forced to question the deteriorating intelligence of Americans

I don't think we could get any more retarded than reelecting GWB, Electing Obama twice or having Hilary Clinton as the front runner of the Democratic party... nope dont' get no worse than that.

cybotron r_9 · Post by **cybotron r_9** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 5:43 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote:Really don't think we have to worry about it.
He's got the giant hurdle of getting ahead of round 3 Bush.

Give me Trumpt over Jeb any day of the week!

cybotron r_9 · Post by **cybotron r_9** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 5:44 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote:I think his upper seat in the polls now...is simply because people like the idea of "shaking up" things...sending a message to the regular politicians/candidates, and he represents that....albeit in a clumsy manner.
But when it comes down to getting serious, and the actual nomination...and then votes...people will distance themselves from him.

Although I enjoy his jabs at the others, and briefly enjoy the idea of such an outsider...non-politician at the helm, I'd rather see Fiona Carly at the helm over Trump.

cybotron r_9 · Post by **cybotron r_9** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 5:46 pm

downhill wrote:It's fun though to watch those that love him. It really makes them stand out.. They are the Morton Downy Jr. crowd..looking for answers and someone to look up too , and lacking in any meaningful curiosity to figure out how Congress or even state legislators work or the truth of such matters from Watergate to the new Hilliary scandel. They love a good rumor and the real truth of things isn't a part of any of it.

My theory is, Trumpt is a Clinton plant in the Rep. party... I know it's far fetched but that's what I believe.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Sun Aug 23, 2015 6:25 pm

Lots do simply because he won't rule out running if he looses the nomination. I can sure see that mindset. It'll divide the rep vote. That said with Clinton's email scandal not being over till AFTER the election.. I don't think she'll get the nomination either. About that. . Stupid on her part but I can't believe it's any bigger than the Bush Email controversy that got little news coverage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

Debbie · Post by **Debbie** » Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:24 pm

jeremyboycool wrote:Whoever is elected I bet Keystone tries to push their pipeline again. Seeing how Obama will no longer be there to veto it.

The Koch brothers will see to that.

blacklab · Post by **blacklab** » Fri Aug 28, 2015 3:02 am

jeremyboycool wrote:Whoever is elected I bet Keystone tries to push their pipeline again. Seeing how Obama will no longer be there to veto it.

I can't figure out why people would rather see oil shipped by rail than a pipeline. Those refineries in Texas need heavy oil and one way or another they are going to get it.

Far fewer accidents by pipeline than by car.

blacklab · Post by **blacklab** » Fri Aug 28, 2015 3:17 am

I think it would be great if the US elected Donald Trump as President and Canada could elect Rob Ford as Prime Minister.

I think the whole attitude in the US and Canada would change, heck I bet the worlds attitude to North America would change.

Just think about it.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Fri Aug 28, 2015 9:24 am

blacklab wrote:I can't figure out why people would rather see oil shipped by rail than a pipeline. Those refineries in Texas need heavy oil and one way or another they are going to get it.

Far fewer accidents by pipeline than by car.

Well, it is not all about how oil is shipped. Most the oil will not go to America, as it is just being shipped through America, so that it can be sold elsewhere. The jobs it will create are being grossly over-hyped, and most will only be temporary. The actual gains to America for building this pipeline across our entire country, is minimal. But in the process of doing that it will cause several ranchers, farmers, and regular hardworking folk to surrender their land. President Obama; however, did not veto it for those reasons, as I understand it, he vetoed it because the gains are not all that great, yet there are significant risks and environmental concerns.

My main objection to the whole thing is the problem with the Sioux. The pipeline goes directly through Sioux land. Land that is suppose to be protected by treaties signed in the 1800s, treaties that the American government seems to conveniently forget about whenever it is a minor problem for them. This is Siouxland, it does not belong to the US, and they can't just build a pipeline through it. In fact legally it constitutes an act of war, yet the American government has failed to uphold this treaty time and time again.

Eminent domain does not apply here, and the treaty forbids any use of that land by the US without Sioux permission. But, and this is the kicker, both the House and Congress approved the building of the pipeline without even talking to the Sioux. They didn't even contact them, at all, and that is the part that really pissed the Sioux people off. The Sioux made a public announcement that they considered this an act of war, and the part they were most upset over, was that the US government didn’t even talk to them. The Sioux is a sovereign nation, and the American government can not legally decide to build on their land without their permission.

So you see my problems with it is not so much focused on what we stand to gain, or what the impact on the environment is, but with the people that are being trampled over to build this pipeline. The building of the pipeline, as it is currently planned is not legal, and it is not ethical. If they build this pipeline, then many people in the path of it will get screwed, and if they don't change their plans for the path of the pipeline, once again the US government will be responsible for stealing Native American land. I just can not wrap my head around the idea of taking more land from the Native Americans, and I am just flabbergasted that both the House and Congress approved it without even considering the Sioux.

Debbie · Post by **Debbie** » Sat Aug 29, 2015 8:39 am

blacklab wrote:I think it would be great if the US elected Donald Trump as President and Canada could elect Rob Ford as Prime Minister.

I think the whole attitude in the US and Canada would change, heck I bet the worlds attitude to North America would change.

Just think about it.

I believe Trump will bring us back into war.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Sat Aug 29, 2015 11:30 am

Debbie wrote:I believe Trump will bring us back into war.

No diplomacy skills at all.. . 4 failed huge ventures who he blame on others.... rubs elbows big time with Wallstreet.. Not just war but probably if he got half his way with congress.... which he would with all the money sliding under the tables with pacs.... a collapsed stock market which I 'd predict he'd make money on.

cybotron r_9 · Post by **cybotron r_9** » Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:36 pm

downhill wrote:No diplomacy skills at all.. .

You must be joking

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Wed Sep 02, 2015 11:26 am

Umm yeah right. You really think he could fight his way out of a wet paper bag?

Randy · Post by **Randy** » Sun Dec 13, 2015 7:43 pm

wow he's not even president yet and he's already screwing up the country

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Mon Dec 14, 2015 7:45 am

Don't make up your minds about who to vote for until Vegas releases its final picks. Trump's business savvy is what we need in a leader, but he's got some quirky thinking. Clinton is as cuckoo as they come. Bush is an obvious pawn. Sanders is a moronic socialist, socialism has not succeeded anywhere in the world yet. If don't believe that go live in a socialist country for a year and see what it's really like. What sux is having to vote for the candidate that will do the least damage, because they are all backed by vested interests.

jeremyboycool · Post by **jeremyboycool** » Tue Dec 15, 2015 12:42 pm

TonyT wrote:Don't make up your minds about who to vote for until Vegas releases its final picks. Trump's business savvy is what we need in a leader, but he's got some quirky thinking. Clinton is as cuckoo as they come. Bush is an obvious pawn. Sanders is a moronic socialist, socialism has not succeeded anywhere in the world yet. If don't believe that go live in a socialist country for a year and see what it's really like. What sux is having to vote for the candidate that will do the least damage, because they are all backed by vested interests.

If it was not for socialist movements in American history, all but the very wealthy would be living as slave labor to big business. We have a hisotry of child labor with kids missing fingers and limbs, becuase no one was standing up for worker rights, and capitalism had too few restrictions. At one point in our history nearly 1/3 of the people supported socialism, and if it was not for that support America would have not succeded. This idea that if something can be spun as "socialist" then it must be bad is not realistic. Like everything in life, it is not black and white, and requires a balance; even America cannot be 100% capitalism.

And if Trump wants to bring his "business savvy" to the White House, he can act as an advisor, and maybe gain a bit of experience before we crown him our leader.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Wed Dec 16, 2015 11:48 am

TonyT wrote:Don't make up your minds about who to vote for until Vegas releases its final picks. Trump's business savvy is what we need in a leader, but he's got some quirky thinking.

LOL

"I'm running for office in a country that's essentially bankrupt, and it needs a successful businessman," he told Rolling Stone.

Yet Trump has not done nearly as well as other American business magnates, or even a typical middle-class retiree following sound financial advice, as a review of the numbers over the past four decades shows. He is a billionaire today despite this poor performance because when he started his career, his father had already built a colossal real-estate empire. And the wealth Donald Trump has accumulated since then has at times come at the expense of taxpayers or the banks and investors who have lent him money.

Using Trump's preferred estimates of his wealth, he has still performed worse than our hypothetical Main Street retiree. He told The New York Times he was worth $200 million in 1976, an amount that would be worth $12 billion today.

"That a purely un*man*aged in*dex fund’s re*turn could out*per*form Trump’s hands-on wheel*ing and deal*ing calls in*to ques*tion one of Trump’s chief selling points on the cam*paign trail: his busi*ness acu*men," writes S.V. Dáte in National Journal.

Source

You surprise me Tony. I thought you honestly read a lot.

Berliner89 · Post by **Berliner89** » Mon Feb 01, 2016 5:27 am

Debbie wrote:I believe Trump will bring us back into war.

I actually think the same... it could easily lead into a World War III

Randy · Post by **Randy** » Sat Feb 27, 2016 8:08 pm

Just my opinion >Trumps going to win and here's why. Most Americans voting for him think because he's a billionaire he will bring a strong economy and everyone will have wads of cash is their pockets. The problem is billionaires get billionaire status from taking wads of cash out of the pockets of the masses.

I just don't think the general voting population is
1)intelligent enough think outside the box
2 intelligent enough to understand there are six sides to the box Not 4

Preacher_still_1.jpg

Humboldt · Post by **Humboldt** » Sun Apr 17, 2016 12:29 am

Looks like his 2 kids won't be able to vote for him in the upcoming primary...they forgot to register.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Mon Apr 18, 2016 9:56 am

Randy wrote:Just my opinion >Trumps going to win and here's why. Most Americans voting for him think because he's a billionaire he will bring a strong economy and everyone will have wads of cash is their pockets. The problem is billionaires get billionaire status from taking wads of cash out of the pockets of the masses.

I just don't think the general voting population is
1)intelligent enough think outside the box
2 intelligent enough to understand there are six sides to the box Not 4

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1242[/ATTACH]

I don't know anyone that thinks he will be good because he is a millionaire...
Most Americas know that he's had many failed businesses in his past, and a few bankruptcies, and started out life easy by being handed his fathers fortunre.

The reason he is doing well in the polls...
Americans like how he is "anti-establishment"...he is an outsider, not a typical politician
Americas like how he "says it like it is"...he doesn't sugar coat things
Americans like how he will not be in the pockets of major big corps.
Americans like how he is sounding like Reagan, with the building up of America again with pride...it brings back those good times and he's playing that emotion card well.

I don't think he will win, nor do I want him to win. He'll just get stonewalled and will effectively be neutered. Remember..the President doesn't have all much power. As an outside he'll have no backing of his party in the Senate or Congress.

And remember...in reality..it is not who wins the votes of the people, it's who wins the votes of the super delegates. We already see this working right now...as the two top candidates as far as super delegate votes are up top.

I said it in the beginning of this race, it'll be down to Clinton and Cruz. And here we are. I don't want either of them either.
It's a horrible choice of candidates this time around...absolutely horrible. Sad what America is coming down to. And this election has lowered the whole presidential election process down to a pathetic joke.

Humboldt · Post by **Humboldt** » Sun May 15, 2016 11:53 pm

YeOldeStonecat wrote:this election has lowered the whole presidential election process down to a pathetic joke.

That just about sums it up.

blacklab · Post by **blacklab** » Mon May 16, 2016 12:42 am

I am curious as to why so much money is spent on getting elected to President. It can't be the salary, or the perks after. It just doesn't add up.

If Trump is truly spending his own money, wouldn't he be the logical choice. He shouldn't be in the pocket of Big Business, and who knows, maybe he would put some banking laws in place that really work.

If Trump gets elected I truly think the American Constitution, and other federal laws would prevent him from doing anything really stupid.

It is fun to watch American politics.

Humboldt · Post by **Humboldt** » Mon May 16, 2016 1:04 am

blacklab wrote:
It is fun to watch American politics.

Not if you live here.

Post by **Philip** » Mon May 16, 2016 9:08 am

He has some crazy, borderline juvenile and unconstitutional ideas from what I've seen on TV, I wouldn't like him to represent the U.S. to the World.. not that I like the competition much.

As to the amount of money that goes into political campaigns, it is out of control. You'd imagine that they plan on making the money back (and then some) once they win... Goes to tell exactly who is represented, doesn't it ? I believe we'd get a much more fair government if campaign contributions were severely limited, but I don't expect we'll see any legislation to that effect from the beneficiaries of such contributions