Obama: Trump ‘woefully unfit’ to be President

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

It seems Trump has no plans on leaving the swamp, much less draining it.

Donald Trump Raises Prospect of Keeping Ties to His Firms

Donald Trump indicated Tuesday he was unlikely to disentangle himself from his business empire as fully as he previously suggested, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest while president.

Mr. Trump and his representatives said during the campaign he would have nothing to do with his businesses if he became president, promising a “total and complete separation.”

 

On Tuesday, Mr. Trump told the New York Times that “the law’s totally on my side” and that “the president can’t have a conflict of interest.”

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-raises-prospect-of-keeping-ties-to-his-firms-1479860954

 

Reminiscent of the quote attributed to Louis XIV - L'Etat, c'est moi.

[Jingthing]

And Nixon.

Folks, he's turning out WORSE than our fears, even so early.

Optimists, give him a chance types ... forget about it.

He's a mental case and now he has the POWER to impose his particular ego issues on the entire world.

 

This is the single most dangerous thing Donald Trump said in his New York Times interview

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/22/this-is-the-single-most-dangerous-thing-donald-trump-said-in-his-new-york-times-interview/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_transitionprint-335pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

 

Edited November 23, 2016 by Jingthing

[heybruce]

16 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

And Nixon.

Folks, he's turning out WORSE than our fears, even so early.

Optimists, give him a chance types ... forget about it.

He's a mental case and now he has the POWER to impose his particularly ego issues on the entire world.

 

This is the single most dangerous thing Donald Trump said in his New York Times interview

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/22/this-is-the-single-most-dangerous-thing-donald-trump-said-in-his-new-york-times-interview/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_transitionprint-335pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

 

Disturbing but not surprising.  The man has no history of public service, loves publicity but hates scrutiny, and has a history of pushing or exceeding the limits of the law to further his own interests.  He won't make America great again, but he will make the family business much richer.

[Jingthing]

If that's ALL the damage he does, just make his family richer, then we would be getting off lightly. I have much darker expectations now. 

[Briggsy]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

If that's ALL the damage he does, just make his family richer, then we would be getting off lightly. I have much darker expectations now. 

The world cannot afford to underestimate the danger here.

 

The president is allowed access to the most sensitive information, the president can shape legislation, the president can make key appointments.

 

What if he "trades"  or "leverages" these powers and this information with say, foreign powers, to further the interests of Trump inc. against the interests of the American taxpayer, democratic values or even the security of NATO members.

 

This is ethics 101. Conflict of interest.

[notmyself]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

"Ummm.... we're not a democracy, we're a republic."

 

What makes you think our republic is not be a democracy?  The sooner you understand that two are not exclusive, the better.

 

555⁵

 

The U.S. is to democracy is what stupidity is to intellect And they wonder why places such as Iraq are not interested in what the U.S. system has to offer.

Edited November 23, 2016 by notmyself
People being offended

[ClutchClark]

2 minutes ago, notmyself said:

..... is what an ugly chick with good make-up is to beauty. 

 

If this is an attack on Chicog then I have to protest.

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Edited November 23, 2016 by ClutchClark

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, notmyself said:

 

555⁵

 

The U.S. is to democracy is what an ugly chick with good make-up is to beauty. And they wonder why places such as Iraq are not interested in what the U.S. system has to offer.

Given your evident attitude towards women, you might find yourself right at home in Iraq - at least in the part occupied by Isil.

[notmyself]

I apologize for my earlier comment for those who are sleight of mind. To consider the U.S. democratic system to be democratic per se is an insult to the very term and meaning itself.  

[notmyself]

43 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Given your evident attitude towards women, you might find yourself right at home in Iraq - at least in the part occupied by Isil.

 

...The U.S. is to democracy is what an ugly chick with good make-up is to beauty. ...

 

anachronistic

 

1. belonging to a period other than that being portrayed

 

2. belonging or appropriate to an earlier period, especially so as to seem conspicuously old-fashioned:

 

First person who gets why I used the 'make up' analogy has a free beer. 

[Opl]

How the Trump Organization's Foreign Business Ties Could Upend U.S. National Security

Almost every foreign policy decision D.Trump will make  will raise serious conflicts of interest and ethical quagmires.

"The Trump family rakes in untold millions of dollars from the Trump Organization every year. Much of that comes from deals with international financiers and developers, many of whom have been tied to controversial and even illegal activities."

This article by Newsweek of last September explains well the situation in which he finds himself and in which he places the country  he'll be at the head of:

 

http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081?rm=eu

 

No Morals, No values, No Ethics? No Problems!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MajarTheLion]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

"Ummm.... we're not a democracy, we're a republic."

 

What makes you think our republic is not be a democracy?  The sooner you understand that two are not exclusive, the better.

 

I assumed that a US citizen would be a supporter of democracy, but apparently I was wrong.  Winning in spite of losing the vote doesn't bother anti-democrats at all.  Not surprising, you did support the candidate who claimed big trouble if he lost the election.

 

re·pub·lic

rəˈpəblik/

noun

noun: republic; plural noun: republics

1. a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

   • archaic

     a group with a certain equality between its members.

      

 

I never said democracy and republic are mutually exclusive. The fact is, under the rules in place for centuries, Trump won and Hillary lost. The rest is just a matter of people accepting and getting over it.

 

Best of luck to you in doing so.

 

[MajarTheLion]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

 He won't make America great again, but he will make the family business much richer.

 

You mean like the Clintons and Obamas did?

[beechguy]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Here's another word, hilarious. 

Trump supporters go on about Trump about to "drain the swamp", and "lock her up".

Now it seems he ain't too keen on either, so the obvious(?) retort is but...but..but Hillary.

 

Yep, I like it. All the whining and bitching the losers are doing, and when Trump backs off, a bit to be conciliatory, he's a flip flopper.

 

I'll wait until the guy takes office before I pass judgement.

 

More than a one word answer, but if people are complaining about people like me, voting Republican, they should have given me a better choice. She's not ready yet, but I would give Tulsi Gabbard strong consideration. I don't necessarily agree with her on domestic issues, but she is far more intelligent than Hillary or Obama on Foreign Policy issues.

[beechguy]

11 hours ago, Opl said:

How the Trump Organization's Foreign Business Ties Could Upend U.S. National Security

Almost every foreign policy decision D.Trump will make  will raise serious conflicts of interest and ethical quagmires.

"The Trump family rakes in untold millions of dollars from the Trump Organization every year. Much of that comes from deals with international financiers and developers, many of whom have been tied to controversial and even illegal activities."

This article by Newsweek of last September explains well the situation in which he finds himself and in which he places the country  he'll be at the head of:

 

http://europe.newsweek.com/donald-trump-foreign-business-deals-national-security-498081?rm=eu

 

No Morals, No values, No Ethics? No Problems!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You mean like Hillary giving Russia access to Uranium?

[beechguy]

4 hours ago, Briggsy said:

The world cannot afford to underestimate the danger here.

 

The president is allowed access to the most sensitive information, the president can shape legislation, the president can make key appointments.

 

What if he "trades"  or "leverages" these powers and this information with say, foreign powers, to further the interests of Trump inc. against the interests of the American taxpayer, democratic values or even the security of NATO members.

 

This is ethics 101. Conflict of interest.

Again, you mean like Hillary did as Sec of State?

[Morch]

3 minutes ago, beechguy said:

Yep, I like it. All the whining and bitching the losers are doing, and when Trump backs off, a bit to be conciliatory, he's a flip flopper.

 

I'll wait until the guy takes office before I pass judgement.

 

More than a one word answer, but if people are complaining about people like me, voting Republican, they should have given me a better choice. She's not ready yet, but I would give Tulsi Gabbard strong consideration. I don't necessarily agree with her on domestic issues, but she is far more intelligent than Hillary or Obama on Foreign Policy issues.

 

Either people voted for a resolute Trump who means what he says or he's just another suit. Ordinary politician.

I never complained about you, or anyone else voting Republican. Disagreeing with the choice made, yes, of course. But I do understand not voting for HRC, which even from my perspective, was not a great option, but the lesser of two evils.

 

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, beechguy said:

Again, you mean like Hillary did as Sec of State?

Anything Clinton may have done that could be construed as a conflict of interest is dwarfed by the massive scale that Trump has already made clear he's about to embark on.  Such as his so-called "blind trust". 

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I think that other than his previous statements suggesting an existing bias, involving his SIL is yet another example of the blurred lines between official and personal, which seem to be a mystery for Trump.

 

Also, what specific qualifications as a diplomatic negotiator does Kushner posses? What specific reason to believe that his involvement would be helpful in promoting peace?

The professional politicians haven't been able to fix it for at least 30 years. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. Time to try something different.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

You mean like the Clintons and Obamas did?

Care to identify what conflicts of interest the Clinton or Obama families engaged in while in office?

[heybruce]

30 minutes ago, beechguy said:

You mean like Hillary giving Russia access to Uranium?

Is there any evidence of illegal actions or conflicts of interest?  Do you think the Russians wouldn't have uranium if that deal had not gone through?

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, notmyself said:

 

555⁵

 

The U.S. is to democracy is what stupidity is to intellect And they wonder why places such as Iraq are not interested in what the U.S. system has to offer.

Your opinion, unsupported by any fact, and off-topic. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, MajarTheLion said:

 

I never said democracy and republic are mutually exclusive. The fact is, under the rules in place for centuries, Trump won and Hillary lost. The rest is just a matter of people accepting and getting over it.

 

Best of luck to you in doing so.

 

You posted ""Ummm.... we're not a democracy, we're a republic."   Clearly you don't consider the US a democracy. 

 

The fact is that your description of his victory as an "electoral landslide" is ridiculous and misleading.  44 of 57  Presidential elections had a wider electoral victory margin.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_Electoral_College_margin 

 

He had a very narrow victory and lost the popular vote by a wide margin.  In view of this, and his total lack or experience and apparent lack of ethics, it is quite proper to watch him closely.

Edited November 23, 2016 by heybruce

[thaibeachlovers]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Either people voted for a resolute Trump who means what he says or he's just another suit. Ordinary politician.

I never complained about you, or anyone else voting Republican. Disagreeing with the choice made, yes, of course. But I do understand not voting for HRC, which even from my perspective, was not a great option, but the lesser of two evils.

 

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You posted ""Ummm.... we're not a democracy, we're a republic."   Clearly you don't consider the US a democracy. 

 

The fact is that your description of his victory as an "electoral landslide" is ridiculous and misleading.  He had a very narrow victory and lost the popular vote by a wide margin.  In view of this, and his total lack or experience and apparent lack of ethics, it is quite proper to watch him closely.

He won 279 EC votes compared to her 228 EC votes. A "narrow" victory would be 5 or less.

 

In the US people do not vote directly for politicians, ergo not a "democracy" as the rest of the world understands it.

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He won 279 EC votes compared to her 228 EC votes. A "narrow" victory would be 5 or less.

 

In the US people do not vote directly for politicians, ergo not a "democracy" as the rest of the world understands it.

Is that from the official narrow vs wide vs landslide handbook?

[thaibeachlovers]

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Care to identify what conflicts of interest the Clinton or Obama families engaged in while in office?

I have no interest in writing down such a long list.

 

Link deleted as possible virus.

Look on google for that information

Edited November 23, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He won 279 EC votes compared to her 228 EC votes. A "narrow" victory would be 5 or less.

 

In the US people do not vote directly for politicians, ergo not a "democracy" as the rest of the world understands it.

The President and Vice President are the only political offices that I am aware of that are not elected directly by the voters, and these offices are not far removed since electors required to vote as the voters in their state voted.

 

Care to provide the definition of democracy as "the rest of the world understands it"?

[heybruce]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I have no interest in writing down such a long list. you can look at http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-oe-0503-mcmanus-clinton-foundation-20150503-column.html for a start. Lots of other stuff on google

In other words, there are allegations of conflicts of interest while HRC was Secretary of State, none proven. You have no evidence of conflicts of interest under the Clinton or Obama presidencies.

 

Accusing people of crimes then refusing to specify the crimes and instructing skeptics to google the subject is a lazy way to post, and a good way to destroy your credibility. 

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Is that from the official narrow vs wide vs landslide handbook?

51 votes is not anyone's definition of narrow.

 

BTW he won .

[beechguy]

16 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Is there any evidence of illegal actions or conflicts of interest?  Do you think the Russians wouldn't have uranium if that deal had not gone through?

Would Russia have uranium wasn't the point, but the connection with Bill/Hillary is. Have a look at the link thaibeachlovers posted, but as usual the liberals will have a difficult time accepting it.