Obama: Trump ‘woefully unfit’ to be President

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The topic is "Trump is woefully unfit to be President" and I am pointing out how true that is.  I am not using unoriginal nonsense, I am reminding people of undisputed facts.  Get over it.

 

Nope, homie, YOU need to get over it. Nothing you can say or do will change the outcome. 

[Opl]

  beautiful portrait of 44th and 45th ("unbelievable outcome")

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by Opl

[Guest]

To be fit to became potus is all about mental fitness. To be able to bear the burden of all the different aspects of different views is what the job is all about.

 

Being physically fit helps a lot in this task. Look at Obama. He is physically fit and always had been. However he got from youngish man to gray haired president in 8 years.

 

That shows the level of burden the job offers, when done right.

 

After the first talk, the very first talk, with Obama, Trump looked like a kid who had done something bad and then have learned something he didn't knew before. Trump faced his father. Trump had just learned something very new to him about the world.

 

 I hope Trump will be smart enough to really listen to the people who are smarter than he is. I really hope so, for all of us. 

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by Guest

[heybruce]

45 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Nope, homie, YOU need to get over it. Nothing you can say or do will change the outcome. 

 

The outcome, tragic though it is, is not part of the topic.

[heybruce]

47 minutes ago, Strange said:

 

Investigate away. Have at it. 

 

If I was you I would at least try to find some stuff that will either stick, or is at the very least "new". 

 

Otherwise you just continually parrot things that have been debated to death. 

 

I'm not doing the investigation, and there is no debate.  He's accused of sexual assault, he's in court over Trump U matters, and he's being audited by the IRS.  There's probably more, but these things are facts, not open to debate.

[Ulysses G.]

1 minute ago, oilinki said:

 

 I hope Trump will be smart enough to really listen to the people who are smarter than he is. I really hope so, for all of us. 

 

 

 Me too, but that is neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton. They disgraced themselves to get her elected. He needs to listen to people like Charles Krauthammer and John Bolton.

[Ulysses G.]

Just now, heybruce said:

 

He's accused of sexual assault, he's in court over Trump U matters, and he's being audited by the IRS.  

 

 Don't you realize these were political hits? They will most likely vanish now that Trump has won. You people remind me of the democrats who still think Romney is the devil, because of dishonest political hype from the last election. Even Bill Marr admits that was a lie, but some people just don't want to admit it.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 Me too, but that is neither Obama nor Hillary Clinton. They disgraced themselves to get her elected. He needs to listen to people like Charles Krauthammer and John Bolton.

In my country we have multi party governments. For this reason we talk about issues, not persons. It's much better for the country itself. 

 

President has far less power over the country as it does in USA. Cabinet is selected by the parliament votes, not by the presidential votes. 

The again we do respect our president to have the wisdom of the people. He or she has the ability to dissolve the cabinet, if there would ever be a need for it. 

We also have had rather bad presidents (female one) and very good ones as well.

This is just to give a broader view how things are handled in different parts of the world. I'm a strong supporter to adopt best practises from outside to be implemented to my country. 

[heybruce]

11 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 Don't you realize these were political hits? They will most likely vanish now that Trump has won. You people remind me of the democrats who still think Romney is the devil, because of dishonest political hype from the last election. Even Bill Marr admits that was a lie, but some people just don't want to admit it.

 

Trump U and the IRS audit predate the campaign by years.  Do you think Trump U was investigated by the New York AG in 2011 in anticipation of the 2016 election?

 

I assume all of these events are also political hits: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/donald-trump-scandals/474726/   Get a cup of coffee, there's a lot to read.

 

[Ulysses G.]

Apparently Trump has been audited e very year since 2002. It is pretty normal for such a big, profitable business.The political hit is pretending that it is somehow unusual. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Ulysses G. said:

Apparently Trump has been audited e very year since 2002. It is pretty normal for such a big, profitable business.The political hit is pretending that it is somehow unusual. 

I assume you are happy to have Trump as your next president.

 

Please tell us all, why. 

[ClutchClark]

1 minute ago, oilinki said:

I assume you are happy to have Trump as your next president.

 

Please tell us all, why. 

 

I am going to jump in here until UG has a chance to respond. 

 

I am happy the Republican ticket won because a hillary defeat means an end to the obama agenda.

 

 

[heybruce]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

Apparently Trump has been audited e very year since 2002. It is pretty normal for such a big, profitable business.The political hit is pretending that it is somehow unusual. 

 

I see, you maintain that only the audit is a political hit, the rest is legitimate.  However in view of the fact that he broke the precedent of releasing tax returns, and his unusual approach to taxes  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donald-trump-tax.html?_r=0  I think there is a good chance this audit will show massive tax fraud.

[Ulysses G.]

3 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I assume you are happy to have Trump as your next president.

 

Please tell us all, why. 

 

I would have preferred another candidate, but he actually WON. Between his Supreme Court picks and trashing Obama's executive orders, he will set back the screwy progressive agenda by 20 years. He gets a lot of credit for that.

 

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

I am going to jump in here until UG has a chance to respond. 

 

I am happy the Republican ticket won because a hillary defeat means an end to the obama agenda.

The no new wars agenda?

The fastest growing developed economy agenda?

The reducing the deficit agenda?

 

Please be more specific.

[Ulysses G.]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

 

I see, you maintain that only the audit is a political hit, the rest is legitimate.  

 

Nope. The sex charges are probably malarkey and Trump U will possibly be decided in court. I could care less about that.

[Ulysses G.]

10 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

I am happy the Republican ticket won because a hillary defeat means an end to the obama agenda.

 

 

 

An end to Obama's agenda is the best part. This man and his corrupt political party were almost was allowed to damage our country badly. That is not going to happen now. Trump set them back decades.

Edited November 12, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[heybruce]

17 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

An end to Obama's agenda is the best part. This man and his corrupt political party were almost was allowed to damage our country badly. That is not going to happen now. Trump set them back decades.

 

"This man and his corrupt political party"?  What corruption are you referring to?  Why do you think Trump will be different?  You are wildly optimistic if you think Trump is going to "drain the swamp", he's going to foul the waters:

 

"Trump has packed his transition team with a who’s who of the K Street lobbying trade, according to Politico. Among those in charge of staffing the new administration are people who have lobbied for or represented Altria, Visa, Anthem, Coca-Cola, General Electric, HSBC, Pfizer, PhRMA, United Airlines, Southern Company, Dow Chemical, Rosemont Copper Company, Boeing, Duke Energy and Nucor."  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/will-donald-trump-be-herbert-hoover-all-over-again/2016/11/11/8e533600-a820-11e6-8042-f4d111c862d1_story.html 

 

However my biggest concern about Trump is his ignorance about nuclear weapons issues.  When George W. Bush was elected (sort of) one of his first acts was to discontinue the negotiations the Clinton administration had with North Korea to prevent N. Korea from developing nuclear weapons.  Five years later North Korea tested its first of many weapons.

 

Donald Trump is threatening to repeat this appalling mistake with Iran--breaking the nuclear deal and replacing it with...he won't say, probably nothing.  If Iran goes on to develop a nuclear weapon then other countries in the region will follow suit, and these aren't countries we want to have nuclear weapons.

 

I have a lot of reasons to not want Trump as president, but being an ignorant and unpredictable guardian of the nuclear codes and the country's nuclear policies is at the top.

Edited November 12, 2016 by heybruce

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

I would have preferred another candidate, but he actually WON. Between his Supreme Court picks and trashing Obama's executive orders, he will set back the screwy progressive agenda by 20 years. He gets a lot of credit for that.

 

So you never wanted Trump to win, but changed your view to whatever won the competition?

I guess this is the difference between Europeans and folks from USA. 

 

Don't you think Trump's pics for supreme court are more than vague at this point?

Do you really wish to push USA 20 years backwards while the rest of the world, leading by China, is going full steam ahead?

That is the problem I have difficulties to understand about US politics. Maybe you are working as safetypin for the rest of us? Most likely not.

 

[Ulysses G.]

Just now, oilinki said:

So you never wanted Trump to win, but changed your view to whatever won the competition?
 

 

Brush up on your reading skills. I wanted Trump to win over Hillary. They were the only two realistic choices and she belongs in the pokey - not the Oval Office.

[Jingthing]

trump has a specific list of supreme court picks in mind which he made public and pledged he would only pick from that list. He did that to appeal to the right wing Christian fundementalist crowd because all of those picks have records that indicate they would vote to outlaw abortion, reverse legal same sex marriage, degrade any mild attempt at gun control, uphold Citizens United (google it if you don't know what that is), and degrade voting rights for minorities. That's one of the promises that I happen to believe trump on. It's so easy to do it!

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Brush up on your reading skills. I wanted Trump to win over Hillary. They were the only two realistic choices and she belongs in the pokey - not the Oval Office.

And the rest of my question? 

[Ulysses G.]

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

"This man and his corrupt political party"?  What corruption are you referring to?

 

He earned Lie of the Year from Politifact and Hillary conspired against Bernie with the DNC. Hillary cheated in the debates. The list goes on and on.

[Ulysses G.]

3 minutes ago, oilinki said:

And the rest of my question? 

 

The same old BORING Liberal talking points that have already been discussed ad nauseum. They did not work before and they will not work after Hillary has already LOST. Get over it.

[SimpleChap]

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

trump has a specific list of supreme court picks in mind which he made public and pledged he would only pick from that list. He did that to appeal to the right wing Christian fundementalist crowd because all of those picks have records that indicate they would vote to outlaw abortion, reverse legal same sex marriage, degrade any mild attempt at gun control, uphold Citizens United (google it if you don't know what that is), and degrade voting rights for minorities. That's one of the promises that I happen to believe trump on. It's so easy to do it!

 

From the election results it looks like his pledges appealed to a lot of people.

Edited November 12, 2016 by SimpleChap

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

The same old BORING Liberal talking points that have already been discussed ad nauseum. They did not work before and they will not work after Hillary has already LOST. Get over it.

I'm perfectly over of the lost of sanity. You still failed to give reasonable answer to my original questions. Are you ever going to do that?

[Jingthing]

Just now, SimpleChap said:

 

Looks like his pledges appealed to a lot of people.

They did indeed.

But don't you think it's kind of disgusting to win at the expense of gay civil rights, women's right to choose, minorities right to vote, and reasonable gun control in a nation with a horrifically high gun violence rate? 

[SimpleChap]

Just now, Jingthing said:

They did indeed.

But don't you think it's kind of disgusting to win at the expense of gay civil rights, women's right to choose, minorities right to vote, and reasonable gun control in a nation with a horrifically high gun violence rate? 

 

What I think only counts if the majority of other people thinks the same.

 

 

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, SimpleChap said:

 

What I think only counts if the majority of other people thinks the same.

 

 

Interesting. Well, that's not so relevant here in U.S. electoral politics because of all the issues I mentioned, most Americans are on the other side of the far right positions I mentioned that trump is going to change the court with for 50 years or so. So it's not that simple.

 

I'm not young but young Americans are really, really screwed by this. A stupid move BACKWARDS. 

 

 

But really, nothing personal, but talking to you is going nowhere. I find it boring and low level and imagine readers do too. You claim you're informed but really, you're not. I can say this in a non--partisan way in this case, even though it's obvious you're pro trump, that isn't my point.  I'm not up to do basic education one on one with a stranger like you. 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by Jingthing

[SimpleChap]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Interesting. Well, that's not so relevant here in U.S. electoral politics because of all the issues I mentioned, most Americans are on the other side of the far right win. So it's not that simple. But really, nothing personal, but talking to you is going nowhere. I find it boring and and imagine readers do too.

 

47.3% voted for Trump while 47.8% voted for Hilary.

 

You call that most of the Americans are for the other side. Talking with you doesn't get boring, it gets laughable.