Trump.....what do ya'll think???

Post Reply New Topic

I think it's all a big publicity stunt.

I am endorsing either Ron Paul or Mitch Daniels.

Trump pulls out from Presidential race as expected to focus on other commercial businesses.

Ya he filled for an exception to the campain law that requires him to reveal all his finances, and 3 days before he quit, the court ordered him to release them anyway. Coinidence??? I think not.
According to Msnbc, he is being sued by many people for comercal licence fraud. Aparently, he doesn't own all these buildings with his name on them, but he did take folks money who were investing in the building projects. I guess his ego got the best of him since he thought that he was too high and mighty to have to play by the rules.

It's actually happening this time!! !

Trump: The baby boomer's solution for f*****g everybody before they die.

The Donald is the reductio ad absurdum of the Republican Party. The Republican party has been dysfunctional since the time of RWR and has ceased to be an effective control against the extremities of the Liberal Democrats. We need to replace the Republicans with a party that can bring in many of the Independent voters which would be a counterforce against the Liberal Democrats, who, if allowed to run rampant, will bring ruination to the Republic.

R. Crumb on Trump in 1989:

http://drawblr.tumblr.com/post/13434313 ... nald-trump

It looks like he'll get the Repub nomination but he has no chance of winning a gen election. I think for Trump this is all just a PR stunt.

I hate the idea of Clinton becoming President though. I was hoping Sanders would build on the momentum from his win in Michigan, this doesn't seem to have materialised. I personally think Sanders would be the best President in the history of America. He will tackle the corruption in political finance, make large corps pay people a living wage, furthermore, he will help save future generations from extinction due to his strong stance on climate change.

Very much like an abuser in a relationship. Says we need unity then says if the party robs me there will riots, be nice then threaten, be nice again then insult. Pretty much a combination of every bully I have known but much more skilled at it. The man has life long politicians many of them bullies themselves completely intimidated and flustered.

I am an evangelical Christian and a registered Republican but I will not be supporting Donald Trump. Here is why:

First of all, I have several friends and family members across the political spectrum (Hillary Clinton supporters, Bernie bros, people trumping with Trump, libertarians, NeverTrumpers, NeverVoting, Cruzers, Jeb Bush/ John Kasich centrists, etc.). I have nothing against Trump supporters. I respect the views of people like Jesse Lee Peterson who believe he is best candidate. I respect the views of people who don’t like Donald Trump but believe he is lesser of two evils between him and Hillary Clinton. I also have no hatred towards Donald Trump at all. I used to enjoy watching the Apprentice.

Secondly, I fully understand the concept of the lesser of two evils. There are times you should shallow your pride and vote for a less ideal choice to prevent a greater evil. One example from history was the 1948 South African election. In the 1948 South African election both the major candidates D.F. Malan (Reunited National Party) and Jan Smuts (United Party) believed that blacks and coloureds (mixed-race) were inferior to whites and both supported segregation. The book “Cry, the Beloved Country” was published a couple of months before the 1948 election and was based Alan Paton’s observations of the racial laws of South Africa. The difference was that Jan Smuts while believing that blacks and coloureds were inferior, he also believed that eventually through education and economic progress non-whites could be gradually integrated into white society and gradually be given the right to vote. Under the United Party, the upper/elite class of blacks and coloureds could live in white areas and could vote. Intermarriage between whites and non-whites while rare and looked down upon was legal (although sex outside of marriage between whites and blacks was outlawed). The Nationalist Party believed that blacks and whites were inferior and could never integrate with whites. They must live in a permanent state of apartheid (apart-hood). The vast majorities of the blacks and coloureds who could vote decided to not to vote because both choices were terrible. The Nationalist Party won and one of the first things they did was outlaw intermarriage. Many mixed race couples had their marriage retroactively invalidated and their families were separated. The upper class of blacks lost their right to voted and coloureds lost their right to vote in 1960s. There was demolishing of neighborhoods that were mixed and rigid segregation system implemented. So yes, there are times when voting for the lesser of two evils is important. However in this case Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are equally bad (Donald Trump might be worse).
My first choice for the presidency was Rand Paul but I was also prepared to support Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, or Scott Walker if they won the Republican nomination. But I cannot support Donald Trump for president because he supports many unconstitutional/foolish policies. The following is not a complete list of the bad policies he supports:

1. Eminent Domain: Traditionally the government has the right to expropriate private property for public usage (forcing you to sell your house so the government can build a highway) provided you are provided with just compensation. Rindge Co. v. County of Los Angeles (1923 Supreme Court decision) This is questionable under the Constitution. In fact this concept of eminent domain was used to take land away from Native American tribes even when it violated signed treaties. In recent years the land developers have lobbied the government to use eminent domain to take private property so they can develop the land for commercial development. In the mid-1990s, there was a real estate developer who wanted to expand his casino in Atlantic City. There was a small problem. In the area where he wanted to build the expanded parking lot there was a elderly widow, Vera Coking, who lived there and a small business that was located nearby. The real estate developer went to a government agency – the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority to force the widow and the small business owner off their land. The small business owner Peter Banin had bought the land a couple of months before for $500,000, the CRDA offered $174,000 in compensation. Yes, the small business owner was given only 34.5% of what he paid for as compensation. On what planet is this just compensation? Luckily, Peter Banin and Vera Coking won a 1998 court case that stopped the real estate developer from taking their land. The real estate developer was Donald Trump. http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...
In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. City of New London that government agencies can seize land for commercial usage. Had the Kelo decision been in effect in 1998, Donald Trump would have been able to expand his casino. Not surprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of the Supreme Court decision. If you are alright with the government being able to take private property for 35% of its value then Donald Trump is your man.

2. First Amendment: Donald Trump is for opening up libel laws so he can sue newspapers who publish articles against him. http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/26/med... Traditionally newspapers were protected from being held libel for publishing articles about public figures like Donald Trump if they acted in good faith. Libel laws to compensate people whose reputation has been falsely damaged by reportings. In the South during the Civil Rights movement often times the perpetrators of Jim Crow would sue newspapers who tried to expose them. Now Donald Trump seems to want to use the libel laws against the Washington Post for exposing him including doing an article on his usage of eminent domain. http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/22... Donald Trump has praised the Russian leader Vladimir Putin as a strong leader even after Joe Scarborough three times pointed out that Putin has assassinated journalists who talked bad about him (Donald Trump then made a half-hearted condemnation of the assassinations after the 3rd time). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdS... If you are against investigative reporting then Donald Trump is your man.

3. Temporary travel ban on all Muslims: To be fair to Donald Trump he never said he would permanently ban all Muslims from the United States just ban them until he can figure out what was going on. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh7... When asked about what Constitutional authority he had to do this he compared himself to FDR and his policy of interning Japanese Americans without trial during WW2. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-... Let’s even assume that Donald Trump’s travel ban was Constitutional, how would this ban be implemented. Would he get the TSA to use racial profiling to question all passengers from the Middle East? That would not work so well because the vast majority of Arab immigrants have been Christians. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct... Would Donald Trump get the TSA to check passengers for Qurans when they enter the United States? Have everyone entering the U.S. fill out a questionaire then have the police to follow the passengers off the plane and check to see if they attend a mosque? Would the TSA turn away all families that have members who wear burqas? A Muslim ban would be ineffective, lead to airports grinding to a halt, and empower the TSA to abuse their powers even more than they do now. This also shows Donald Trump’s lack of sophistication. He could have advocated restrictions for people traveling from areas where ISIS is known to operate. He could have supported restriction Syrian refugees until a proper screening procedure could be put in place. He could have talked about screening passengers based on intelligence data of ISIS members. No, instead he talked about a blank ban on all Muslims from any country. The good news is that Congress is highly unlikely to let Donald Trump do a travel ban. Actually his praise of FDR and his internment without trial 160,000 Japanese is even more alarming If you want someone as president who believes he has the authority to issue travel bans based solely on religion and intern people without trial, Donald Trump is your man.

4. 45% tariff on Chinese goods, 35% tariff on Mexican goods: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-u... Now I am not against a tariff on imported goods and Donald Trump has the Constitutional authority to set this is up if he gets Congressional approval. However setting tariffs this high would be a disaster for the United States economy. A similar policy was tried in 1930 during the Great Depression to save American jobs and companies it was called the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. This ended up backfiring as other countries responded to high tariffs by passing their own tariff laws. This cost American jobs because sales of American goods overseas significantly fell. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act is recognized by both liberal and conservative economists as prolonging and worsening the Depression. https://fee.org/articles/the-smoot-... To Donald Trump’s credit, he has backtracked and now says these rates are just threats to get Mexico and China to the negotiating table however based on his blunt talk it is highly unlikely that Mexico and China will be in a much of a mood to negotiate. If you want a repeat of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act then Donald Trump is your man.

why are none of his supporters correcting him when he spouts off?