Is it too late to stop the Donald Trump machine?

[up2u2]

In here is the latest from Crooked HRC - in response to the Eqypt Air attack/bombing:

Showing her internationalist instincts and tendency to reach for policy solutions in a time of crisis, the former secretary of state proposed a multi-national commitment to redouble the struggle against terrorism, pushed European nations to do more and recommended probes of how aviation security could be further improved.

This is exactly what the people of USA have had a gutful of - politically correct bureaucratic and hollow statements.

Trump is a man of action and will take action. He aint gonna say what he will do stupids - that would tell the terrorists what to prepare for. But he will take action and do something. Crooked HRC will give another speech and condemn them, Trump will take actions against them - serious actions.

The Trump train is coming - Islamic terrorists and politically correct hollow politicians and Liberals with a social change agenda can either get off the tracks or get run over.

Yes Democracy and oversight of Governments are terribly over rated. History has shown that unfettered Dictatorships are far more successful. Our 'Dear Leader' Trump will solve all issues globally.

You just have to go by Trump's experience and successful track record on addressing International crises. Peace in the Middle East, North Korea embraces Democracy, Climate Change solved, Israel / Palestine conflict resolved.

You sure are a dreamer BB

[chuckd]

"1)Obama did not have a senate house majority for 710 days of his adminstration. The Republicans took the House in 2010. I can't believe that you don't know this.I mean this is an amazing piece of ignorance!!! Were you off an an interstellar journey form 2010 to 2012?

What exactly is a "senate house majority"? You have the Senate and you have the House. Collectively it is called the US Congress.

You have just given us a classic case of...Open mouth, insert foot.

1. President Obama was sworn into office on 20 January 2009.

2.. 111th Congress sworn in on 3 January 2009

Senate had 56 Democrats and 42 Republicans with 2 Independents caucusing with the Democrats

House of Representatives had 257 Democrats and 178 Republicans

3. 112th Congress sworn in on 3 January 2011

Senate had 51 Democrats and 47 Republicans with 2 Independents caucusing with the Democrats.

House of Representatives had 193 Democrats and 242 Republicans.

4. The 113th Congress was sworn in on 3 January 2013 and the Democrats still had control of the Senate.

There are 713 days from 20 January 2009 to 3 January 2011.

My suggestion is the next time you decide to call somebody ignorant, you had better be dead certain you are right. You blew this one big time.

Another suggestion I might make is for you to stick to politics in your own country if you don't even know the election cycles and when swearing in ceremonies take place in the US.

Here is a link you might want to bookmark, before you make any more ignorant posts calling others...ignorant..

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

you got me there. on my very bad arithmetic big time. but it was only one term that he had the senate and the house. and in that term he passed a stimulus, massive health reform a bailout for GM. Big moves. But only one term do them in. Now you may not like the programs, but he did achieve a lot when he had the chance. After that there was no chance. in fact the house of representative went so insane they seriously threatened to default on the debt. Still, you did get me on the arithmetic. And as for the other points I raised, I think you better stay in retreat.

"and in that term he passed a stimulus, massive health reform a bailout for GM."

The bailout of BOTH GM and Chrysler was done under TARP, which was signed into law by George Bush.

The stimulus was signed into law by Obama and, contrary to promise, failed to deliver shovel ready jobs.

The massive health reform was also an Obama creation which is in its death throes as we speak. It won't last much longer in its present condition. Insurers leaving the program and premiums going up annually along with the family deductibles. The state exchanges are dropping like flies and the program is a mess.

I would suggest you go into retreat on this thread.

The bailout of BOTH GM and Chrysler was done under TARP, which was signed into law by George Bush.

What you don't say is that Bush only acceded to the bailout under pressure from Obama. Bush was against it before he was for it. And Bush tried to tie it to a free trade deal for Colombia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11auto.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html

In addition to which the total bailout amounted to about 80 billion. The original bill passed under Bush was 17.6 billion. By the way, the overwhelming majority of Republicans in the house and the senate opposed the bailouts.. In other words, even the bill the Bush offered under duress, would not have passed without overwhelming Democratic support. And of course the bulk of the bailout occurred under Obama with very little Republican support in the House and Senate.

The stimulus was signed into law by Obama and, contrary to promise, failed to deliver shovel ready jobs.

I guess you’re going to stick with that silly talking point. Isn’t there a saying about not seeing the forest for the trees? Or in this case, the tree? The point of the stimulus was to save the economy from going under. An overwhelming majority of top economists say it did. http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_5bfARfqluG9VYrP By the way, this poll comes courtesy of an organization associated with the university of Chicago. Hardly a bastion of liberal econonmic thought. And the didn't totally fail to deliver shovel ready jobs but admittedly it didn't deliver enough. It did do things like save lots of public state employees like teachers, police and firemen from getting fired. So it wasn't a 100% success? It was good enough. Econonomists overwhelmingly agree that it saved a lot of jobs an got the economy through a very dicey time.

The massive health reform was also an Obama creation which is in its death throes as we speak. It won't last much longer in its present condition. Insurers leaving the program and premiums going up annually along with the family deductibles. The state exchanges are dropping like flies and the program is a mess.

Actually no. What is the truth is that it is growing slower than expected. The biggest single reason for this is that contrary to the expectations of CBO and all the doomsayers, companies discontinued health insurance for workers at a far far lower rate than expected. So people who might otherwise have been expected to get their policies through the ACA didn't have to. Yes, some insurance companies have left. They cover about 5% of all policy hoders. I guess you're not aware that other insurance companies are joining it. As for state exchanges, failing really? It's true that Matt Bevins shut down the state exchange in Kentucky even though it's been a huge success. By the way, Matt Bevins campaigned against the Medicaid portion of the ACA. And as soon as he got into office her reversed himself He has decided to accept Obamacare funded Medicaid. There's talk the Oklahoma might do the same. And the ACA has been such a huge failure that the uninsured rate in the USA is at record lows. And would be a lot lower if the rest of the states followed suit and adopted the Medicaid portion., As for customer satisfaction. For the ACA, the latest poll showed 61%/ For employer funded insurance the number was 65%. For the VA it was 78%, For Medicare 80%.

I noticed you dropped your defense of Trump’s birtherism.. What makes it even more ludicrous is that you actually seem to think that it was rational to doubt Obama’s birthplace before the birth certificate was produced.

You need to learn to quit when you are behind.

You keep saying things that you appear to believe are facts yet when I have proven them wrong you keep coming back with..."Yeah, but...yeah, but...yeah, but..."

I never claimed Bush liked the bailouts. That's simply more spin on your part. You claimed Obama got the GM bailout and I pointed out you were wrong. You were wrong then and your continued attempt to deflect from your error only makes you appear even less informed than you seem to be.

Obama is the one that promised his stimulus bill would provide shovel ready jobs, not me. He even admitted later he was wrong yet, somehow, you can't even agree with that. So it saved some government jobs. A few less bureaucrats wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

And now on to Obamacare. I say it's a failure and you say ..."Actually no. What is the truth is that it is growing slower than expected."

The classic case of spin.

When projects are growing slower than expected, that often leads to failures. Obamacare is just like nearly all federally run ventures. It is destined to be a failure, just like the US Postal Service.

I never defended the birther movement. I merely pointed out the fact that it was started by some of Hillary's supporters and, unlike your facts, mine are normally correct.

Anyway, keep tilting at this windmill. Who knows, you may even wear it down or kill it.

PS: Another small suggestion for you...get spell check.

[boomerangutang]

Lost it

I hope you don't mind me saying this, but your avatar looks like the face Trump makes when he's asked a question and he's flummoxed, fishing around for an answer. ....half the time, Trump comes up with a string of incomplete sentences which don't address the question. I would advise Trump: It's ok to say "I don't know" if he doesn't know. .....or to say, "I'll have to check in to that." Trump builds himself up to be such a big shot ("I have a great memory" "I'm great with words" "I'm very rich") ....that he thinks he needs to have an answer for every question. He doesn't. If he doesn't know, he can say he doesn't know. ....but he's not able to say that, because he self-inflates his ego bigger than the Goodyear Blimp (with an orange haystack on top).

America may run a trade deficit but it enjoys a big capital surplus. You know why that is? Because investors around the world have faith in the American economy.

Not if Trump gets to become prez. He has recently said he would consider redeeming Treasury Bonds for less than face value.

Excerpt from The Economist:Trump told CNBC: "I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal."

It seems Trump would try to get creditors to accept less than 100 cents on the dollar. It sounds like Trump accepts the US (or the world's) economy crashing.

This happens with corporate bankruptcies; if the market price has fallen to 60 cents on the dollar, and been snapped up by specialist hedge funds, then redeeming the debt at 70 cents on the dollar may be a good deal. Emerging economies have done the same in the past when they have fallen on hard times; it happened in Greece.

But with Treasury bonds, investors expect to get 100 cents on the dollar. It is the risk-free asset that underpins the entire global financial system.

SOURCE

[ilostmypassword]

"and in that term he passed a stimulus, massive health reform a bailout for GM."

The bailout of BOTH GM and Chrysler was done under TARP, which was signed into law by George Bush.

The stimulus was signed into law by Obama and, contrary to promise, failed to deliver shovel ready jobs.

The massive health reform was also an Obama creation which is in its death throes as we speak. It won't last much longer in its present condition. Insurers leaving the program and premiums going up annually along with the family deductibles. The state exchanges are dropping like flies and the program is a mess.

I would suggest you go into retreat on this thread.

The bailout of BOTH GM and Chrysler was done under TARP, which was signed into law by George Bush.

What you don't say is that Bush only acceded to the bailout under pressure from Obama. Bush was against it before he was for it. And Bush tried to tie it to a free trade deal for Colombia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11auto.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html

In addition to which the total bailout amounted to about 80 billion. The original bill passed under Bush was 17.6 billion. By the way, the overwhelming majority of Republicans in the house and the senate opposed the bailouts.. In other words, even the bill the Bush offered under duress, would not have passed without overwhelming Democratic support. And of course the bulk of the bailout occurred under Obama with very little Republican support in the House and Senate.

The stimulus was signed into law by Obama and, contrary to promise, failed to deliver shovel ready jobs.

I guess you’re going to stick with that silly talking point. Isn’t there a saying about not seeing the forest for the trees? Or in this case, the tree? The point of the stimulus was to save the economy from going under. An overwhelming majority of top economists say it did. http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_5bfARfqluG9VYrP By the way, this poll comes courtesy of an organization associated with the university of Chicago. Hardly a bastion of liberal econonmic thought. And the didn't totally fail to deliver shovel ready jobs but admittedly it didn't deliver enough. It did do things like save lots of public state employees like teachers, police and firemen from getting fired. So it wasn't a 100% success? It was good enough. Econonomists overwhelmingly agree that it saved a lot of jobs an got the economy through a very dicey time.

The massive health reform was also an Obama creation which is in its death throes as we speak. It won't last much longer in its present condition. Insurers leaving the program and premiums going up annually along with the family deductibles. The state exchanges are dropping like flies and the program is a mess.

Actually no. What is the truth is that it is growing slower than expected. The biggest single reason for this is that contrary to the expectations of CBO and all the doomsayers, companies discontinued health insurance for workers at a far far lower rate than expected. So people who might otherwise have been expected to get their policies through the ACA didn't have to. Yes, some insurance companies have left. They cover about 5% of all policy hoders. I guess you're not aware that other insurance companies are joining it. As for state exchanges, failing really? It's true that Matt Bevins shut down the state exchange in Kentucky even though it's been a huge success. By the way, Matt Bevins campaigned against the Medicaid portion of the ACA. And as soon as he got into office her reversed himself He has decided to accept Obamacare funded Medicaid. There's talk the Oklahoma might do the same. And the ACA has been such a huge failure that the uninsured rate in the USA is at record lows. And would be a lot lower if the rest of the states followed suit and adopted the Medicaid portion., As for customer satisfaction. For the ACA, the latest poll showed 61%/ For employer funded insurance the number was 65%. For the VA it was 78%, For Medicare 80%.

I noticed you dropped your defense of Trump’s birtherism.. What makes it even more ludicrous is that you actually seem to think that it was rational to doubt Obama’s birthplace before the birth certificate was produced.

You need to learn to quit when you are behind.

You keep saying things that you appear to believe are facts yet when I have proven them wrong you keep coming back with..."Yeah, but...yeah, but...yeah, but..."

I never claimed Bush liked the bailouts. That's simply more spin on your part. You claimed Obama got the GM bailout and I pointed out you were wrong. You were wrong then and your continued attempt to deflect from your error only makes you appear even less informed than you seem to be.

Obama is the one that promised his stimulus bill would provide shovel ready jobs, not me. He even admitted later he was wrong yet, somehow, you can't even agree with that. So it saved some government jobs. A few less bureaucrats wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

And now on to Obamacare. I say it's a failure and you say ..."Actually no. What is the truth is that it is growing slower than expected."

The classic case of spin.

When projects are growing slower than expected, that often leads to failures. Obamacare is just like nearly all federally run ventures. It is destined to be a failure, just like the US Postal Service.

I never defended the birther movement. I merely pointed out the fact that it was started by some of Hillary's supporters and, unlike your facts, mine are normally correct.

Anyway, keep tilting at this windmill. Who knows, you may even wear it down or kill it.

PS: Another small suggestion for you...get spell check.

The bailout of BOTH GM and Chrysler was done under TARP, which was signed into law by George Bush.

Here is exactly what you originally wrote about the automobile bailout:

The bailout of BOTH GM and Chrysler was done under TARP, which was signed into law by George Bush.

This is at best less than 25% true. The bill that Bush signed into law was 17.6 billion.: It was a partial bailout. The total bailout cost was 80 billion. Most of that was passed by the democratic senate and signed by Obana. In addition, as the links I provided showed, Obama had to twist Bush's arm to get that 17.6 billion partial bailout done. If you twist someone's arm to get something done, how much credit do they truly deserve? And, as I pointed out Bush only provided less than 25 percent of the bailout. So it wasn't the bailout. It was only part of the bailout.. Better get a better grasp of the use of the article in English.

[ilostmypassword]

to Chuckd

The stimulus was signed into law by Obama and, contrary to promise, failed to deliver shovel ready jobs.

Again, this is untrue, even on its own terms. The stimulus did deliver shovel ready jobs, just not as many as hoped for. Your statement means that it didn't deliver any. Which is absolutely false. Absolutely false. And to take the larger view of your statement it's like someone saves a ship from sinking and all you do is complain that the shuffleboard set went overboard. It's a pity but the ship was saved. Or let's put it this way. You tell your water guy you didn't deliver water yesterday. He says no I did deliver some, but not all of it. You say, that's what it means when someone says You didn't deliver water.it means you didn't deliver all of it. I think most people know who would be talking sense and who wouldn't be.

So it saved some government jobs. A few less bureaucrats wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

About 300,000 and they were mostly teachers, police, and firefighters. Every time you say government worker to a right winger. out pops the word bureaucrat. It's positively Pavlovian.

Edited May 22, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[Jingthing]

I understand and consider it fair play that supporters of the vile orange beast are GLOATING now that so early there are indeed some polls showing him beating the honorable Hillary R. Clinton.

The pundits (including me) have been very, very wrong in underestimating the resonance of this historic American fascist movement.

So GLOAT while you can, but get real, as far as the general election goes, it's very, very early.

We've got major events coming up, both conventions, both Clinton and the vile orange beast need to pick their strategic V.P. picks and then on the full on one to one campaigns, and assuming DEBATES as well, including VP debates, which sometimes make a difference as well.

Also keep in mind Clinton is a normal candidate and she and indeed no other presidential nominee has EVER run against a candidate like trump.

Her campaign is working on how to deal with him and has yet to craft the game plan. Will the same game of vicious personal insults work for the vile orange beast as it did when he craftily played his REALITY GAME SHOW vote them off the island thingie in the republican primary? Maybe, or maybe not. Generally, general elections are a different animal.

Consider the republican primary had been a one on one from the start, say Rubio vs. Trump. Arguably, Rubio probably would have won that. So the DYNAMICS of a direct one on one are different by definition, but the problem the democrats have of course is that Clinton is a less than stellar candidate herself.

I would still stay the BETTING ODDS favor Clinton, but of course nobody should be complacent about that. It's clear the vile orange beast and his American fascist supporters are indeed a force to be reckoned with.

Edited May 22, 2016 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

JT, is it your prediction that the vile orange beast will lose to the pathological lying Wall Street favoring witch of Chappaqua?

[ilostmypassword]

JT, is it your prediction that the vile orange beast will lose to the pathological lying Wall Street favoring witch of Chappaqua?

Donald Trump has just come out against Dodd Frank. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/banking-financial-institutions/280245-trump-id-repeal-dodd-frank-not-an-enemy-of-feds The Banks and Wall Street hate Dodd-Frank.

Who is the real lying Wall Street favoring potential candidate here?

Edited May 22, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[OMGImInPattaya]

I understand and consider it fair play that supporters of the vile orange beast are GLOATING now that so early there are indeed some polls showing him beating the honorable Hillary R. Clinton.

The pundits (including me) have been very, very wrong in underestimating the resonance of this historic American fascist movement.

So GLOAT while you can, but get real, as far as the general election goes, it's very, very early.

We've got major events coming up, both conventions, both Clinton and the vile orange beast need to pick their strategic V.P. picks and then on the full on one to one campaigns, and assuming DEBATES as well, including VP debates, which sometimes make a difference as well.

Also keep in mind Clinton is a normal candidate and she and indeed no other presidential nominee has EVER run against a candidate like trump.

Her campaign is working on how to deal with him and has yet to craft the game plan. Will the same game of vicious personal insults work for the vile orange beast as it did when he craftily played his REALITY GAME SHOW vote them off the island thingie in the republican primary? Maybe, or maybe not. Generally, general elections are a different animal.

Consider the republican primary had been a one on one from the start, say Rubio vs. Trump. Arguably, Rubio probably would have won that. So the DYNAMICS of a direct one on one are different by definition, but the problem the democrats have of course is that Clinton is a less than stellar candidate herself.

I would still stay the BETTING ODDS favor Clinton, but of course nobody should be complacent about that. It's clear the vile orange beast and his American fascist supporters are indeed a force to be reckoned with.

Sounds to me like one soldier in Hillary's army is already shell-shocked from a little incoming Donald artillery fire...I can't wait to see this lot after a sortie of 1000 pound Donald bombs have been dumped on them ?

[OMGImInPattaya]

JT, is it your prediction that the vile orange beast will lose to the pathological lying Wall Street favoring witch of Chappaqua?

Donald Trump has just come out against Dodd Frank. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/banking-financial-institutions/280245-trump-id-repeal-dodd-frank-not-an-enemy-of-feds

Who is the real lying Wall Street favoring potential candidate here?

The one coverning up her speeches to the wolves of Wall Street; giving them a pat on the back and telling them how important they are to the economy no doubt.

[Jingthing]

JT, is it your prediction that the vile orange beast will lose to the pathological lying Wall Street favoring witch of Chappaqua?

I would indeed bet a considerable sum of money (IF it was legal) on Hillary Clinton beating the vile orange beast. Yes.

[Jingthing]

Following on my post about Hillary Clinton's tactics against the vile orange beast still being a work in progress, I think aside from his constant shape shifting on issues ever five minutes a very big part of it will be how to respond to TROLL stuff.

In other words, in internet terms the vile orange beast is a SUPER TROLL. That's been pretty much his entire game. Looking at the republican primary, those who fell for his BAITS lost, and those who mostly didn't ALSO lost.

So Hillary Clinton's advisers need to learn from that but I reckon they're confused, as both tactics lost.

It's pretty obvious Hillary Clinton herself won't be very skilled at responding to his BAITS ... so the question really is, how else (or IF) to respond to them?

Through the VP, through campaign people, or not much at all?

I don't know yet and I don't think the Hillary Clinton campaign does either yet.

That will be something very interesting to watch for.

Also, a big question is whether the vile orange beast will go into SUPER TROLL mode when he's actually one on one LIVE in debates against Clinton. He did that in the republican debates. Clinton will be prepared for that of course, and those moments, if they ever happen, could turn out to be very important.

Not sure what she will do at this point.

Above my pay grade ... but it seems to me at that high level, responding something like ... is this really the kind of TEMPERAMENT you want in the oval office? may be the way to go.

No, that tactic didn't work for any republican, but this is a different ballgame now.

Jon Stewart: Donald Trump Is An Internet Troll Running For President

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jon-stewart-donald-trump-troll_us_5643ead2e4b045bf3dedc827

Edited May 22, 2016 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

to Chuckd

The stimulus was signed into law by Obama and, contrary to promise, failed to deliver shovel ready jobs.

Again, this is untrue, even on its own terms. The stimulus did deliver shovel ready jobs, just not as many as hoped for. Your statement means that it didn't deliver any. Which is absolutely false. Absolutely false. And to take the larger view of your statement it's like someone saves a ship from sinking and all you do is complain that the shuffleboard set went overboard. It's a pity but the ship was saved. Or let's put it this way. You tell your water guy you didn't deliver water yesterday. He says no I did deliver some, but not all of it. You say, that's what it means when someone says You didn't deliver water.it means you didn't deliver all of it. I think most people know who would be talking sense and who wouldn't be.

So it saved some government jobs. A few less bureaucrats wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

About 300,000 and they were mostly teachers, police, and firefighters. Every time you say government worker to a right winger. out pops the word bureaucrat. It's positively Pavlovian.

1. " The stimulus did deliver shovel ready jobs, just not as many as hoped for."

Well, you finally got me. I missed the word "many" when describing Obama's pitch on the stimulus. I forgot about that highway construction job in Pennsylvania somewhere that hired five flagmen to help with traffic and move the traffic cones. My bad.

2. " About 300,000 and they were mostly teachers, police, and firefighters."

Of course those fired would have been teachers, police and firefighters. Sort of reminds me that when the government shut down for funding a couple of years ago, the first thing that got closed were the National Parks. Nothing hypocritical in the Obama administration.

However there are some 21,995,000 local, county, state and federal employees. Laying off some 300,000 of them would only represent 0.0136%. That's fewer than the number of transgenders that are storming our scholastic bathrooms today.

3. Now since you failed to heed my advice to quit while you were behind, let me point out a couple of items from one of your previous posts.

You claimed:

'In addition to which the total bailout amounted to about 80 billion. The original bill passed under Bush was 17.6 billion. By the way, the overwhelming majority of Republicans in the house and the senate opposed the bailouts.. In other words, even the bill the Bush offered under duress, would not have passed without overwhelming Democratic support. And of course the bulk of the bailout occurred under Obama with very little Republican support in the House and Senate."

The total bailout under TARP amounted to $619 Billion, of which $50,744,648,329 went to GM. Another $10,748,284,222 went to Chrysler.

I have no idea, nor I expect do you, where your figures of $80 Billion for the total bailout or the original bill being passed under Bush was $17.6 Billion. How about offering a clarification of this little problem?

As far as the legislation itself is concerned...of course it required Democrat help. After all, they had virtually the same majority in Congress during Bush's last two years that they had during Obama's first 713 days. The Iraq War Resolution was in the same condition. It could not have been passed without the help of the Democrats...and we all know how she voted.

Anyway, I'm through with you on this, unless of course you have another spasm in your typing fingers and decide to send another flurry of misinformation to the poor unsuspecting reading public.

Ta.

PS: Of the $61.49 Billion donated to the auto industry, GM and Chrysler still owe $12.61 Billion

[chuckd]

JT, is it your prediction that the vile orange beast will lose to the pathological lying Wall Street favoring witch of Chappaqua?

Donald Trump has just come out against Dodd Frank. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/banking-financial-institutions/280245-trump-id-repeal-dodd-frank-not-an-enemy-of-feds The Banks and Wall Street hate Dodd-Frank.

Who is the real lying Wall Street favoring potential candidate here?

Who is the real lying Wall Street favoring potential candidate here?

My guess is that would be the one who has been receiving millions in payment holding 20 minute pep rallies for them.

[ilostmypassword]

JT, is it your prediction that the vile orange beast will lose to the pathological lying Wall Street favoring witch of Chappaqua?

Donald Trump has just come out against Dodd Frank. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/banking-financial-institutions/280245-trump-id-repeal-dodd-frank-not-an-enemy-of-feds The Banks and Wall Street hate Dodd-Frank.

Who is the real lying Wall Street favoring potential candidate here?

Who is the real lying Wall Street favoring potential candidate here?

My guess is that would be the one who has been receiving millions in payment holding 20 minute pep rallies for them.

Really? ANd not the one who promises to let them return to their bad old ways and plunge the USA once again into a massive recession. In other words, we now know Donald Trump wants to give them what they want above all else. Even when the fact stare you plainly in the face you prefer innuendo and unprovable assertions over hard cold facts. That she has taken money from them doesn't mean she will give them whatever they want. But Trump has promised to do just that.

[chuckd]

"and in that term he passed a stimulus, massive health reform a bailout for GM."

The bailout of BOTH GM and Chrysler was done under TARP, which was signed into law by George Bush.

The stimulus was signed into law by Obama and, contrary to promise, failed to deliver shovel ready jobs.

The massive health reform was also an Obama creation which is in its death throes as we speak. It won't last much longer in its present condition. Insurers leaving the program and premiums going up annually along with the family deductibles. The state exchanges are dropping like flies and the program is a mess.

I would suggest you go into retreat on this thread.

The bailout of BOTH GM and Chrysler was done under TARP, which was signed into law by George Bush.

What you don't say is that Bush only acceded to the bailout under pressure from Obama. Bush was against it before he was for it. And Bush tried to tie it to a free trade deal for Colombia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/11/us/politics/11auto.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/business/20auto.html

In addition to which the total bailout amounted to about 80 billion. The original bill passed under Bush was 17.6 billion. By the way, the overwhelming majority of Republicans in the house and the senate opposed the bailouts.. In other words, even the bill the Bush offered under duress, would not have passed without overwhelming Democratic support. And of course the bulk of the bailout occurred under Obama with very little Republican support in the House and Senate.

The stimulus was signed into law by Obama and, contrary to promise, failed to deliver shovel ready jobs.

I guess you’re going to stick with that silly talking point. Isn’t there a saying about not seeing the forest for the trees? Or in this case, the tree? The point of the stimulus was to save the economy from going under. An overwhelming majority of top economists say it did. http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_5bfARfqluG9VYrP By the way, this poll comes courtesy of an organization associated with the university of Chicago. Hardly a bastion of liberal econonmic thought. And the didn't totally fail to deliver shovel ready jobs but admittedly it didn't deliver enough. It did do things like save lots of public state employees like teachers, police and firemen from getting fired. So it wasn't a 100% success? It was good enough. Econonomists overwhelmingly agree that it saved a lot of jobs an got the economy through a very dicey time.

The massive health reform was also an Obama creation which is in its death throes as we speak. It won't last much longer in its present condition. Insurers leaving the program and premiums going up annually along with the family deductibles. The state exchanges are dropping like flies and the program is a mess.

Actually no. What is the truth is that it is growing slower than expected. The biggest single reason for this is that contrary to the expectations of CBO and all the doomsayers, companies discontinued health insurance for workers at a far far lower rate than expected. So people who might otherwise have been expected to get their policies through the ACA didn't have to. Yes, some insurance companies have left. They cover about 5% of all policy hoders. I guess you're not aware that other insurance companies are joining it. As for state exchanges, failing really? It's true that Matt Bevins shut down the state exchange in Kentucky even though it's been a huge success. By the way, Matt Bevins campaigned against the Medicaid portion of the ACA. And as soon as he got into office her reversed himself He has decided to accept Obamacare funded Medicaid. There's talk the Oklahoma might do the same. And the ACA has been such a huge failure that the uninsured rate in the USA is at record lows. And would be a lot lower if the rest of the states followed suit and adopted the Medicaid portion., As for customer satisfaction. For the ACA, the latest poll showed 61%/ For employer funded insurance the number was 65%. For the VA it was 78%, For Medicare 80%.

I noticed you dropped your defense of Trump’s birtherism.. What makes it even more ludicrous is that you actually seem to think that it was rational to doubt Obama’s birthplace before the birth certificate was produced.

You need to learn to quit when you are behind.

You keep saying things that you appear to believe are facts yet when I have proven them wrong you keep coming back with..."Yeah, but...yeah, but...yeah, but..."

I never claimed Bush liked the bailouts. That's simply more spin on your part. You claimed Obama got the GM bailout and I pointed out you were wrong. You were wrong then and your continued attempt to deflect from your error only makes you appear even less informed than you seem to be.

Obama is the one that promised his stimulus bill would provide shovel ready jobs, not me. He even admitted later he was wrong yet, somehow, you can't even agree with that. So it saved some government jobs. A few less bureaucrats wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

And now on to Obamacare. I say it's a failure and you say ..."Actually no. What is the truth is that it is growing slower than expected."

The classic case of spin.

When projects are growing slower than expected, that often leads to failures. Obamacare is just like nearly all federally run ventures. It is destined to be a failure, just like the US Postal Service.

I never defended the birther movement. I merely pointed out the fact that it was started by some of Hillary's supporters and, unlike your facts, mine are normally correct.

Anyway, keep tilting at this windmill. Who knows, you may even wear it down or kill it.

PS: Another small suggestion for you...get spell check.

The bailout of BOTH GM and Chrysler was done under TARP, which was signed into law by George Bush.

Here is exactly what you originally wrote about the automobile bailout:

The bailout of BOTH GM and Chrysler was done under TARP, which was signed into law by George Bush.

This is at best less than 25% true. The bill that Bush signed into law was 17.6 billion.: It was a partial bailout. The total bailout cost was 80 billion. Most of that was passed by the democratic senate and signed by Obana. In addition, as the links I provided showed, Obama had to twist Bush's arm to get that 17.6 billion partial bailout done. If you twist someone's arm to get something done, how much credit do they truly deserve? And, as I pointed out Bush only provided less than 25 percent of the bailout. So it wasn't the bailout. It was only part of the bailout.. Better get a better grasp of the use of the article in English.

Are you really this ignorant or is this all somehow a plot to make me angry at my keyboard?

"The bill that Bush signed into law was 17.6 billion.: It was a partial bailout. The total bailout cost was 80 billion. Most of that was passed by the democratic senate and signed by Obana."

The bailouts of Chrysler and GM were done under legislation called "The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" and was initially authorized not to exceed $700 Billion. The legislation was signed into law by George Bush on 3 October 2008.

Obama was still a Senator when the legislation was signed by the President.

This legislation also was used to bail out banks and other lending institutions, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

President Bush only authorized the disbursement of a limited amount to Detroit saying the incoming administration should decide on any remainder. He released $17.4 Billion to Detroit prior to leaving office, but the total bailout was still enacted under his administration and begun under his administration. Obama had nothing to do with the passage of TARP other than his one single vote in the Senate.

I have a fine grasp of English. You need to gain an understanding how legislation is passed in the US.

Maybe these will help:

https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/TARP-Programs/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122969367595121563

https://projects.propublica.org/bailout/list

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41427.pdf

[iReason]

The Self Funded Bloviator licking the boots of his new masters: Wall Street.

Trump pledges to roll back Wall Street reforms

"Donald Trump promised on Tuesday to overturn most of the financial reform codified in the Dodd-Frank bill."

"The presumptive Republican nominee told Reuters he will release an economic policy plan by the end of the month that will "be close to a dismantling of Dodd-Frank."

"While, overall, Wall Street has been wary of the New Yorker, some top financiers have come to his side. Anthony Scaramucci of SkyBridge Capital,

penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed this week praising the candidate after saying he would help a pro-Trump super PAC called the Great America PAC."

"During the half-hour interview, Trump said he is "not an enemy" of Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, but he would want a Republican to ultimately lead the system if he were elected president."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-wall-street-dodd-frank-223286#ixzz49NKKAcHc

The fat cat establishment is "educating" the "outsider".

While in addition, he sucks up to the private banking system that is the cancer on America.

Edited May 22, 2016 by iReason

[BB24]

You are about the only one worth responding to - the other Libs seem to be like children complaining they don't want to go to Grandma's

Even though deep down inside they know they will have to - they just don't like doing what they don't like doing - me me me me

In answer - let me say you are 'right' but that you are not correct. Try reading up on a guy called Ludwig Erhard. He was an anti-Nazi businessman and academic that was given the role of 'managing' Germany's economy post WW2. He ignored all the 'experts' and 'politicians' and did it his way - and created the German economy that still leaves the rest of Europe for dead.

What Trump is so inarticulately saying (yep - he aint no smooth talking PC politician) is that he will not accept any PC bulldust and that the foreign affairs 'experts' are wrong. Ask yourself - has the foreign affairs policies of any of the previous POTUS in 10 years (both Rep and Dem) been successful? Has their policies in areas of foreign trade been successful? And at home have their policies in regards to law and order and terrorism worked? If like more and more people you realise they haven't really - then you will understand what Trump is saying, and why the Trump train is rolling on and on.

Whereas Crooked HRC is surrounded by disgruntled Dems, because even they know she forced the Dens powerbrokers to support her after she 'saved' the POTUS's job after Lewinski (and before and afterwards), AND after she withdrew her campaign and allowed Obama to take over in 2008. She is DEMANDING the Dem nomination, and she is OWED the POTUS job - that is how she sees it. But more and more people are seeing her for what she really is. A scheming conniving shrew - for years and years she has been able to put aside all other things and do anything, in order to become POTUS. Putting aside her husband's issues, the worst two being her distain for national security (emails/calls) and ignoring the Bengahzi situation because she didn't see any 'gain' for herself in taking action being requested (she only saw downsides if they failed). Actually, I am thinking that how she handled the post-Benghazi situation deserves mention too. How she suddenly had 'medical' issues and could not appear to be held account - how she delayed any appearances until she was fully prepared - how she went off her face at the hearings and denied any wrongdoing - how she then left the role as Sec State less than a month alter (and therefore could not be called back). AND how she claimed to be fine and 100% a month later, but Bill when defending her later on, said she took 6 months to get over the medical issue. They are both deceptive manipulative schemers and liars - they make the couple in House of Cards jealous. Actually, many feel they are who the show was based on - but not in public - the Clinton Foundation has millions and would sue.

Thanks for a well written post. And, no, I am not a liberal, (well, yes socially, but not otherwise), and I too have little use for Clinton, apart from thinking that she is at least a stable steward for the good ship USA in terms of governance, trade, and foreign policy. Certainly she is a deceptive, manipulative schemer, liar and blinded by her raw ambition and lust for power. But, she is also smart, and together with Bill's oversight and Constitutional protections, hopefully won't abuse power too much. Bill is less of a House of Cards character than she is, though not much. She is not as crooked and evil as everyone makes her out to be, she is too pragmatic for that. She will push whatever she thinks she can get away with. And, because voters, and everyone in Congress and elsewhere knows this about her, she will be on everyone's watch list for abuse of power.

But Trump is just too much...really. He is incompetent, as well as the long list of other non-Presidential qualities that have been listed. He is a bumbling Forrest Gump of a candidate and would make a dangerous President. He's so inarticulate he makes George W. look like Bill Buckley Jr.. That in itself is not bad, because similarly challenged Presidents like Reagan can be effective, but Trump is no Reagan.

Agreed the choice is the most horrible I can recall in my lifetime.

I can see what you are saying - especially regarding HRC not being as bad as she comes across. But I will also say that maybe Trump would be a better POTUS that many people think. Although I have said it many times that HRC has the advantage (the woman card) and is more likely to win, Trump just keeps going and going. It is far too far to call it yet, but Trump may just get enough women to support him and make it there.

Many times in life, I have found that the skills someone has and the support someone obtains, will often win them a job - but many people are often inneffective and/or incompetent once in the job. In summary what that means is that sometimes the skills and knowledge needed to get the job, are not what is required to do the job. Obama is clearly in that category IMO - for whatever reasons - and he has been inneffective. HRC is IMO the same type of candidate as Obama - not in terms of intellect or class - but in having the necessaries to win the job, but she would be both incompetent and inneffective once in it. Trump on the other hand is someone that IMO will actually do a good job once in the role - despite the lack of the 'perceived/accepted' necessaries - he is against the mold, but that does not mean he will be a failure once in the role.

[BB24]

Ludwig Erhard. Yes. He did a great job. He is credited with creating something called the social market economy. In other words he combined capitalism and socialism. Good man. But Donald Trump is now embracing extreme right wing economic positions. Can't imagine he has much use for socialism.

As for foreign trade...is the situation really so bad. America may run a trade deficit but it enjoys a big capital surplus. You know why that is? Because investors around the world have faith in the American economy. As for terrorists. In 2015 more Americans were killed by toddlers than by terrorists. Admittedly it was mostly toddlers shooting themselves but still. I think the total number of Americans killed by terrorists was 22. About 30,000 died in car accidents.

As for your talk about HRC, it's just speculation and rubbish and conspiratorial gobbledook.. Even Trey Gowdy the chairman of the current farcical committee investigating Benghazi has said that there's no way help could have arrived in time. Lots of assertions - no evidence. Just empty speculation..

Erhard was 'against the grain' - he was very much his own man and did it his way. All the experts and politicians said he was wrong - but he was actually right. How he did was to make pragmatic and rational common-sense decisions - he was the first to successfuly combine economic capitalism with a positive social agenda. Trump is proposing to take the same type of approach - he is going against the grain and calling it as he sees it (politically correct or not).

Terrorism is a worldwide issue - not just confined to the streets of USA. Whilst actions taken since 9/11 have signficantly reduced the threat of 'home grown/planted' Terroristsin USA, the problems still exists worldwide and Trump is saying USA was part of the cause of it - he blames Obama and Clinton for the unchecked rise of ISIS - many people agree.

Help would not have arrived to save those initially killed - but it would have saved those later killled - and perhaps apprehended/killed the aggressors (those directing their activities). Speculation indeed - how else does one investigate and surmise what could have happenned as opposed to what did happen ?

[up2u2]

lol they sure are educating Trump the 'outsider'. He is as close to the establishment, wealthy elite, Wall Street and Corporate America as two coats of paint.

A back flip of Olympic proportions.

It never crossed my mind but Trump never had the kind of money it takes to run a General Election campaign. He was always going to have to come 'cap in hand' to the RNC and GOP to get access to the Superpac Citizens United slush funds. The RNC had no choice either. Trump appealed to the redneck, racist and bigoted base of Republican supporters. It's a little like leaving the door ajar at the old folks home. Before you know it your knee deep in old folks trying to round em up.

It actually showed Trump doesn't have the belief in himself to take the Presidency because no way was he going to put up $1B+ to back himself.

Can Trump balance the rednecks and Wall Street and fight an effective General Election? Will the American people be fooled? The thing that haunts me is the American people voted W Bush in twice already knowing he was a complete fool. Have they learnt that mistakes like this cost dearly?

Voting in Obama was a smart choice. Was that because the electorate learnt from the poor choice they made in W Bush?

An electorate always gets the President they deserve.

You would have to think that China, Russia, Europe and Asia are betting on a Trump Presidency as it knocks America's standing out of the global Powers and leaves them sidelined. Externally Trump is as toxic as Idi Amin. If he thinks the RNC drives a hard bargain and he has had to backflip wait till he tries to negotiate with Nations that are Nuclear Armed. He could just backflip right up his own a....

Can Trump be stopped? Damn straight he can be. If the American People don't the rest of the world will in no uncertain terms. Dead in his tracks. Trump will be the biggest 'Lame Duck' President America ever elected.

[OMGImInPattaya]

You are about the only one worth responding to - the other Libs seem to be like children complaining they don't want to go to Grandma's

Even though deep down inside they know they will have to - they just don't like doing what they don't like doing - me me me me

In answer - let me say you are 'right' but that you are not correct. Try reading up on a guy called Ludwig Erhard. He was an anti-Nazi businessman and academic that was given the role of 'managing' Germany's economy post WW2. He ignored all the 'experts' and 'politicians' and did it his way - and created the German economy that still leaves the rest of Europe for dead.

What Trump is so inarticulately saying (yep - he aint no smooth talking PC politician) is that he will not accept any PC bulldust and that the foreign affairs 'experts' are wrong. Ask yourself - has the foreign affairs policies of any of the previous POTUS in 10 years (both Rep and Dem) been successful? Has their policies in areas of foreign trade been successful? And at home have their policies in regards to law and order and terrorism worked? If like more and more people you realise they haven't really - then you will understand what Trump is saying, and why the Trump train is rolling on and on.

Whereas Crooked HRC is surrounded by disgruntled Dems, because even they know she forced the Dens powerbrokers to support her after she 'saved' the POTUS's job after Lewinski (and before and afterwards), AND after she withdrew her campaign and allowed Obama to take over in 2008. She is DEMANDING the Dem nomination, and she is OWED the POTUS job - that is how she sees it. But more and more people are seeing her for what she really is. A scheming conniving shrew - for years and years she has been able to put aside all other things and do anything, in order to become POTUS. Putting aside her husband's issues, the worst two being her distain for national security (emails/calls) and ignoring the Bengahzi situation because she didn't see any 'gain' for herself in taking action being requested (she only saw downsides if they failed). Actually, I am thinking that how she handled the post-Benghazi situation deserves mention too. How she suddenly had 'medical' issues and could not appear to be held account - how she delayed any appearances until she was fully prepared - how she went off her face at the hearings and denied any wrongdoing - how she then left the role as Sec State less than a month alter (and therefore could not be called back). AND how she claimed to be fine and 100% a month later, but Bill when defending her later on, said she took 6 months to get over the medical issue. They are both deceptive manipulative schemers and liars - they make the couple in House of Cards jealous. Actually, many feel they are who the show was based on - but not in public - the Clinton Foundation has millions and would sue.

Thanks for a well written post. And, no, I am not a liberal, (well, yes socially, but not otherwise), and I too have little use for Clinton, apart from thinking that she is at least a stable steward for the good ship USA in terms of governance, trade, and foreign policy. Certainly she is a deceptive, manipulative schemer, liar and blinded by her raw ambition and lust for power. But, she is also smart, and together with Bill's oversight and Constitutional protections, hopefully won't abuse power too much. Bill is less of a House of Cards character than she is, though not much. She is not as crooked and evil as everyone makes her out to be, she is too pragmatic for that. She will push whatever she thinks she can get away with. And, because voters, and everyone in Congress and elsewhere knows this about her, she will be on everyone's watch list for abuse of power.

But Trump is just too much...really. He is incompetent, as well as the long list of other non-Presidential qualities that have been listed. He is a bumbling Forrest Gump of a candidate and would make a dangerous President. He's so inarticulate he makes George W. look like Bill Buckley Jr.. That in itself is not bad, because similarly challenged Presidents like Reagan can be effective, but Trump is no Reagan.

Agreed the choice is the most horrible I can recall in my lifetime.

I can see what you are saying - especially regarding HRC not being as bad as she comes across. But I will also say that maybe Trump would be a better POTUS that many people think. Although I have said it many times that HRC has the advantage (the woman card) and is more likely to win, Trump just keeps going and going. It is far too far to call it yet, but Trump may just get enough women to support him and make it there.

Many times in life, I have found that the skills someone has and the support someone obtains, will often win them a job - but many people are often inneffective and/or incompetent once in the job. In summary what that means is that sometimes the skills and knowledge needed to get the job, are not what is required to do the job. Obama is clearly in that category IMO - for whatever reasons - and he has been inneffective. HRC is IMO the same type of candidate as Obama - not in terms of intellect or class - but in having the necessaries to win the job, but she would be both incompetent and inneffective once in it. Trump on the other hand is someone that IMO will actually do a good job once in the role - despite the lack of the 'perceived/accepted' necessaries - he is against the mold, but that does not mean he will be a failure once in the role.

Can you please explain this "woman card" thing and what benefit, if any, it's supposed to be? Does it mean all women are going to vote for The Pantsuit and therefore she wins because women make up a slight majority of the electorate? Because all I read and hear is many women can't stomach her.

I agree in the abstract many women, and men for that matter, would like (and expect) to see a woman President in their lifetime. However, the question now is not abstract but: "Do you want THIS woman, Hillary Clinton, to be President?" and to that question, many woman are answering a resounding NO!

Edited May 22, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[Jingthing]

It's more about trump being a sexist misogynist. Women mostly may not love Hillary but most correctly find the vile monster horrific. Yep it's a lesser of two evils choice. That part isn't really novel.

[keemapoot]

Many times in life, I have found that the skills someone has and the support someone obtains, will often win them a job - but many people are often inneffective and/or incompetent once in the job. In summary what that means is that sometimes the skills and knowledge needed to get the job, are not what is required to do the job. Obama is clearly in that category IMO - for whatever reasons - and he has been inneffective. HRC is IMO the same type of candidate as Obama - not in terms of intellect or class - but in having the necessaries to win the job, but she would be both incompetent and inneffective once in it. Trump on the other hand is someone that IMO will actually do a good job once in the role - despite the lack of the 'perceived/accepted' necessaries - he is against the mold, but that does not mean he will be a failure once in the role.

Sorry to snip and redact your post, but wanted to respond to just these points. First, it's refreshing to have someone supporting Trump who actually makes some sense. I suspect you also have experience hiring and managing people, as do I (in fact I have hired and managed many top managers across the world and what you write is often true).

Also true that academics, lawyers & politicians are not in themselves impressive nor fit for duty to manage the world's largest corporation, the USA. And, we've seen many instances of bad management and leadership in Presidents and politicians.

And, true, good CEOs, are both good leaders and good managers. What they are not good at, unless they apply themselves and learn, is governance, economics, diplomacy, history and policy. Furthermore, there are many types of effective leaders, including coercive or bully ones. And, those types (like Trump), can also be effective, but need some grooming and most importantly, some humility to listen to others. Trump does not show that to date. He shows intolerance for the views of others, and anyone other than himself.

So, my bottom line is that if he is elected, I will keep my fingers crossed, but I have been watching him for many years, and he has never shown me he is fit to be President. In any event, it won't be the end of the world as we know it.

[Jingthing]

You're wrong. A president trump would be disastrous.

[iReason]

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree...

How Donald Trump's fortune was founded by his tax-dodging, brothel-keeping lawless migrant grandpa

Loudmouth Donald Trump is rarely silent – except on the subject of his ­dodgy grandpa.

"What he doesn’t shout about is that his grandad was a poor ­economic migrant – Friedrich Drumpf.

Born in Germany, old man Trumpf dodged army service, ran brothels and failed to pay the taxman his dues.

Donald has virtually ­disowned him by pretending his family came from Sweden."

"Drumpf was a fortune-seeking huckster of a type that abounded in 19th century America.

He opened his first ­establishment, a saloon and ­brothel called the Poodle Dog, in Seattle, Washington State.

Trumpf built cubicles draped in heavy curtains, where his girls could entertain clients in ­privacy.

Then when the Klondike goldrush began in 1896, 100,000 miners headed for the Yukon in north-west Canada – and Trumpf went with them."

"But by 1901 things were ­getting too hot as the Canadian Mounties began cracking down on prostitution, gambling and illegal booze.

Trumpf returned to Germany and married his former ­neighbour Elizabeth Christ. He planned to settle down.

but the German authorities had other ideas. Trumpf had avoided military service when he ­emigrated.

There was also the not ­inconsiderable matter of tax he had failed to pay.

His ­repatriation application was turned down and he was sent back to America with his wife."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/how-donald-trumps-fortune-founded-7503228

Lack of character appears to be a family trait.

Edited May 22, 2016 by iReason

[BB24]

I can see what you are saying - especially regarding HRC not being as bad as she comes across. But I will also say that maybe Trump would be a better POTUS that many people think. Although I have said it many times that HRC has the advantage (the woman card) and is more likely to win, Trump just keeps going and going. It is far too far to call it yet, but Trump may just get enough women to support him and make it there.

Many times in life, I have found that the skills someone has and the support someone obtains, will often win them a job - but many people are often inneffective and/or incompetent once in the job. In summary what that means is that sometimes the skills and knowledge needed to get the job, are not what is required to do the job. Obama is clearly in that category IMO - for whatever reasons - and he has been inneffective. HRC is IMO the same type of candidate as Obama - not in terms of intellect or class - but in having the necessaries to win the job, but she would be both incompetent and inneffective once in it. Trump on the other hand is someone that IMO will actually do a good job once in the role - despite the lack of the 'perceived/accepted' necessaries - he is against the mold, but that does not mean he will be a failure once in the role.

Can you please explain this "woman card" thing and what benefit, if any, it's supposed to be? Does it mean all women are going to vote for The Pantsuit and therefore she wins because women make up a slight majority of the electorate? Because all I read and hear is many women can't stomach her.

I agree in the abstract many women, and men for that matter, would (and expect) to see a woman President in their lifetime. However, the question now is not abstract but: "Do you want his woman, Hillary Clinton, to be President?" and to that question, many woman are answering a resounding NO!

Good point - I should explain what the 'woman card' means. So far, in every western democracy that I can think of - UK, Aust, NZ, Germany, Argentina, Phillipines, Ireland - whenever a woman has first been a candidate for the head of State, she has been elected. Although it is not PC to say so, the reality is that in every one of those elections a large percentage of women voted for her just because she was a woman. Some would say fair enough - why not give a woman the chance to lead - and the realiity is that many of them did an OK job (or no worse than any man previously).

This is the advantage/card that HRC has, and her 'advantage' is one of the reasons she was chosen as the 'establishment' candidate - despite her perceived shortcomings - and also because of her previous actions that have helped the Dems in the past (supporting Bill and letting Obama be the candidate). However the Dems didn't count on the GOP actually getting a candidate that could beat HRC - she would have smashed Jeb. And there are more and more in the GOP establishment beginning to realise this - they are more and more supporting their 'Trump' card against HRC's card

Some would even say that the Dems had a plan to take advantage of the current PC climate in USA and use the 'system' to firstly get an articulate and intelligent black man elected POTUS and to then get the first woman elected POTUS - creating 16 years of Dems in power. I wouldn't be so cynical - but then again they are very devious those Libs/Socialists

Hopefully (for us all) the Trump card will beat the HRC card. Hopefully Trump selects a woman as VP, who will then run as the next GOP candidate and become the first woman POTUS. Trump would select a woman of substance and quality who would be a credit to the USA as their first female POTUS. She would be her 'own woman' - not like HRC who is a woman who is the wife of a popular POTUS and who has ever since used that just to further her own political career.

[OMGImInPattaya]

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree...

How Donald Trump's fortune was founded by his tax-dodging, brothel-keeping lawless migrant grandpa

Loudmouth Donald Trump is rarely silent except on the subject of his ­dodgy grandpa.

"What he doesnt shout about is that his grandad was a poor ­economic migrant Friedrich Drumpf.

Born in Germany, old man Trumpf dodged army service, ran brothels and failed to pay the taxman his dues.

Donald has virtually ­disowned him by pretending his family came from Sweden."

"Drumpf was a fortune-seeking huckster of a type that abounded in 19th century America.

He opened his first ­establishment, a saloon and ­brothel called the Poodle Dog, in Seattle, Washington State.

Trumpf built cubicles draped in heavy curtains, where his girls could entertain clients in ­privacy.

Then when the Klondike goldrush began in 1896, 100,000 miners headed for the Yukon in north-west Canada and Trumpf went with them."

"But by 1901 things were ­getting too hot as the Canadian Mounties began cracking down on prostitution, gambling and illegal booze.

Trumpf returned to Germany and married his former ­neighbour Elizabeth Christ. He planned to settle down.

but the German authorities had other ideas. Trumpf had avoided military service when he ­emigrated.

There was also the not ­inconsiderable matter of tax he had failed to pay.

His ­repatriation application was turned down and he was sent back to America with his wife."

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/how-donald-trumps-fortune-founded-7503228

Lack of character appears to be a family trait.

Actually he was very forward thinking and progressive...you do know that Amnesty International has come out for the legalization of prostitution. It was a nice, if pathetic, effort to slander someone for what some distsnt ancester may have done of which you apparently don't approve.

[OMGImInPattaya]

I can see what you are saying - especially regarding HRC not being as bad as she comes across. But I will also say that maybe Trump would be a better POTUS that many people think. Although I have said it many times that HRC has the advantage (the woman card) and is more likely to win, Trump just keeps going and going. It is far too far to call it yet, but Trump may just get enough women to support him and make it there.

Many times in life, I have found that the skills someone has and the support someone obtains, will often win them a job - but many people are often inneffective and/or incompetent once in the job. In summary what that means is that sometimes the skills and knowledge needed to get the job, are not what is required to do the job. Obama is clearly in that category IMO - for whatever reasons - and he has been inneffective. HRC is IMO the same type of candidate as Obama - not in terms of intellect or class - but in having the necessaries to win the job, but she would be both incompetent and inneffective once in it. Trump on the other hand is someone that IMO will actually do a good job once in the role - despite the lack of the 'perceived/accepted' necessaries - he is against the mold, but that does not mean he will be a failure once in the role.

Can you please explain this "woman card" thing and what benefit, if any, it's supposed to be? Does it mean all women are going to vote for The Pantsuit and therefore she wins because women make up a slight majority of the electorate? Because all I read and hear is many women can't stomach her.

I agree in the abstract many women, and men for that matter, would (and expect) to see a woman President in their lifetime. However, the question now is not abstract but: "Do you want his woman, Hillary Clinton, to be President?" and to that question, many woman are answering a resounding NO!

Good point - I should explain what the 'woman card' means. So far, in every western democracy that I can think of - UK, Aust, NZ, Germany, Argentina, Phillipines, Ireland - whenever a woman has first been a candidate for the head of State, she has been elected. Although it is not PC to say so, the reality is that in every one of those elections a large percentage of women voted for her just because she was a woman. Some would say fair enough - why not give a woman the chance to lead - and the realiity is that many of them did an OK job (or no worse than any man previously).

This is the advantage/card that HRC has, and her 'advantage' is one of the reasons she was chosen as the 'establishment' candidate - despite her perceived shortcomings - and also because of her previous actions that have helped the Dems in the past (supporting Bill and letting Obama be the candidate). However the Dems didn't count on the GOP actually getting a candidate that could beat HRC - she would have smashed Jeb. And there are more and more in the GOP establishment beginning to realise this - they are more and more supporting their 'Trump' card against HRC's card

Some would even say that the Dems had a plan to take advantage of the current PC climate in USA and use the 'system' to firstly get an articulate and intelligent black man elected POTUS and to then get the first woman elected POTUS - creating 16 years of Dems in power. I wouldn't be so cynical - but then again they are very devious those Libs/Socialists

Hopefully (for us all) the Trump card will beat the HRC card. Hopefully Trump selects a woman as VP, who will then run as the next GOP candidate and become the first woman POTUS. Trump would select a woman of substance and quality who would be a credit to the USA as their first female POTUS. She would be her 'own woman' - not like HRC who is a woman who is the wife of a popular POTUS and who has ever since used that just to further her own political career.

Plus there's the fact that she's just very conservative in many areas...certainly more so that a large portion of her own Democratic party, which isn't surprising considering she started out her political life as a "Goldwater Girl." Edited May 22, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[BB24]

Many times in life, I have found that the skills someone has and the support someone obtains, will often win them a job - but many people are often inneffective and/or incompetent once in the job. In summary what that means is that sometimes the skills and knowledge needed to get the job, are not what is required to do the job. Obama is clearly in that category IMO - for whatever reasons - and he has been inneffective. HRC is IMO the same type of candidate as Obama - not in terms of intellect or class - but in having the necessaries to win the job, but she would be both incompetent and inneffective once in it. Trump on the other hand is someone that IMO will actually do a good job once in the role - despite the lack of the 'perceived/accepted' necessaries - he is against the mold, but that does not mean he will be a failure once in the role.

Sorry to snip and redact your post, but wanted to respond to just these points. First, it's refreshing to have someone supporting Trump who actually makes some sense. I suspect you also have experience hiring and managing people, as do I (in fact I have hired and managed many top managers across the world and what you write is often true).

Also true that academics, lawyers & politicians are not in themselves impressive nor fit for duty to manage the world's largest corporation, the USA. And, we've seen many instances of bad management and leadership in Presidents and politicians.

And, true, good CEOs, are both good leaders and good managers. What they are not good at, unless they apply themselves and learn, is governance, economics, diplomacy, history and policy. Furthermore, there are many types of effective leaders, including coercive or bully ones. And, those types (like Trump), can also be effective, but need some grooming and most importantly, some humility to listen to others. Trump does not show that to date. He shows intolerance for the views of others, and anyone other than himself.

So, my bottom line is that if he is elected, I will keep my fingers crossed, but I have been watching him for many years, and he has never shown me he is fit to be President. In any event, it won't be the end of the world as we know it.

Yes indeed I have - and anyone who claims to have always got it right, never has hired people in positions of responsibility (for others) and accountability (for themselves).

I see you have the understanding that many lack when talking about performing in such a role - and you have hit the nail on the head regarding Trump's weakness. Trump's weakness (perceived) is that he may not have the strength of character to bring in others who know what they are talking about - and to listen to them even though he disagrees. But IMO Trump has shown this a little in the past, and he is now also showing that this to the GOP (Ryan and other GOP Leaders) and he is also meeting people like Kissinger, etc. However, the reality is that the POTUS role is far more challenging that anyone ever realises - and no one can ever fully prepare themselves for the role.

You previously raised the issue of Reagan and whether Trump could follow his steps - IMO he will (I hope). I think Trump is a lot smarter than most people think - and I think he will realise he will need the best people around him in order to be a successful POTUS. And therein lies one of the main differentiatoirs between the Dems (HRC) and Trump. As POTUS the Dems are always shackled by the need to look after Party hacks who more often than not are ineffective and/or incompetent (trade unions and Liberals causes types). There is no way Obama selected some of those he has in senior roles - he is an intelligent man - they were Party appointments. However Trump will have no such issue - aside from maybe a few minor roles he will agree to in order to get the GOP machine behind him. Therefore he has the opportunity to follow Reagan, who was also as you know, independent of the GOP establishment and was not their preferred candidate (initially) and he therefore surrounded himself with the best people in the key senior roles.

Speaking of Reagan - there are many who like me see him as one of the best ever POTUS. One of the reasons was that he did just that - he created the best team and he took their advice (mostly). This allowed him to be able to see things with perspective and not get sucked into the daily grind that is being the POTUS. Proof of that? Check out these before anbd after photos of Reagan, and then go and look at the others. They got too involved and too close to things - Reagan was a leader and managed his team more than he managed the issues (Trump will follow that lead):

[up2u2]

Reagan 'trickle down economics' described as 'voodoo economics' by Bush Senior. Absolutely economically the worst President America ever elected. Destroyed the middle class, transferred the Nations wealth to the 1%'ers and left the most vulnerable workers surviving on Food Stamps. Tax cuts for Corporate America transferred funds in the US treasury to Corporations who both shifted the money offshore into Tax havens. Began the attack on worker representation dismantling Unions who represented the working class.

It will take generations to undo the damage caused by Reagan's economic management if ever. It really is coming to the point whether America can survive his policies. An absolute disaster is his legacy.

A dog of a President by any measure.