H
Heat4Life
Guest
Do you love Trump or Do you hate Trump? and Why? #donaldTrump4Life
And you don't think turning million into billions is an accomplishment. As a developer Trump's father paled in comparison.With only a "small loan" of "just over a million dollars" from his father, too!
This topic is about Trump, I said nothing about thinking every rich person is intelligent.If you think every rich person is intelligent, npt, you're very naive.
I think Donald Trump (and I'm not just saying this to sidestep your little trap) is a helluva a lot more intelligent than I.Do you consider Trump to be more intelligent than you, npt? If not, are you a billionaire? If not, why do you think that is?
My question wasn't a "little trap" (lol). I was genuinely curious. For what it's worth, I think you're wrong, though. :'DI think Donald Trump (and I'm not just saying this to sidestep your little trap) is a helluva a lot more intelligent than I.
Look the guy is a boorish ***** (can I say that here) and yes, he's scary. But he is no dummy.
He won the Republican Nomination with:
- Virtually every party insider against him
- All the media against him
- More negative press than any candidate has ever had
- Virtually everybody outside of the US against him
- Continually lambasted on the Internet and every social media outlet.
And he beat it all.
Yeah, pretty much lolIs this gonna be one of those threads where a bunch of people who are:
go on about how stupid a man is who has:
- living in ther parent's basement,
- living from paycheck to paycheck,
- haven't accomplished anything
- etc
- built skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, golf courses,
- made billions.
"There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary."Frankly the most surprising thing to me is how willing he is to stake his reputation on an increasingly outrageous series of controversies.
The post wasn't edited in any way... it was simply a double post being merged into one.I respect the mods trying to keep things civil here by discreetly editing comments, but I'm curious about what was originally said above, and think it's good for posters to have to live with their original posts...especially when they'll probably help illustrate my point, haha.
Should we have a safe space where those people aren't allowed to talk?Is this gonna be one of those threads where a bunch of people who are:
go on about how stupid a man is who has:
- living in ther parent's basement,
- living from paycheck to paycheck,
- haven't accomplished anything
- etc
- built skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, golf courses,
- made billions.
Please tell me you are joking.Is this gonna be one of those threads where a bunch of people who are:
go on about how stupid a man is who has:
- living in ther parent's basement,
- living from paycheck to paycheck,
- haven't accomplished anything
- etc
- built skyscrapers, hotels, casinos, golf courses,
- made billions.
Yes chance did, and the one thing he didn't say was that he was an idiot [moron, stupid, dummy whatever].Please tell me you are joking.
Also, Trump. I'm not going to comment much on that guy, chance said pretty much everything. He is bad news. He should not be in power. And neither should Hillary.
Please re-read my comments. The paragraphs address separate issues.And BTW chance listing Steve Jobs as a true business leader in his discussion about integrity demonstrates his bias. Jobs lack of integrity, especially how he treated employees, friends and family is sickening.
Perhaps you should re-read my post. I didn't point out other's faults as if it had any kind of bearing on Trump's attributes. I pointed it out to demonstrate your bias. And no, your third paragraph is not just about innovation and creativity. Your statement about Trump lying very much ties it to integrity. It also makes claims about philanthropy, which Jobs was also heavily criticized about.Please re-read my comments. The paragraphs address separate issues.
- first paragraph is about lack of integrity and unscrupulous practices.
- second paragraph is about global economics.
- third paragraph is about innovation and creativity (That's where I mentioned Jobs and other businessmen).
I did not cite Jobs as an example of integrity.
But either way, pointing out other people's faults has no bearing on Trump's lack of integrity, problem-solving skills, or leadership ability.
The problem is - this is not entirely true. Through civil emergency or martial law, all of these checks and balances are nullified. If you were to read up on the Civil War, you would find Lincoln was able to imprison political opponents as well as the southern opponents. The real problem isn't "who gets in", since Goldman-Sachs owns both of them. Also, there are presidential orders which will casacade if an 'emergency' or martail law is declared. Such as Obama's 13603, and Bush's 1991 HJ Res 104, which could, under the right circumstances, destroy any legitimate civil rights protections and potentially create a police state. Things are not what they seem.And I also think it would not be the disaster people think it could be. The USA has too many checks and balances for a single "incompetant" or "dictator" like individual to ruin things. There are too many competent people who simply won't let that happen and the POTUS doesn't have the sweeping power to do what he wants.
I suppose you're right -- I am biased. I'm biased against Trump because I can't find a single redeeming quality in him. He's egotistical, reckless, dishonest, and lacks the ability to focus on one topic longer than the length of one sentence.I pointed it out to demonstrate your bias.
I'm guessing a lot of this has some basis in truth, but more complex and without context loses a lot of meaning.I suppose you're right -- I am biased. I'm biased against Trump because I can't find a single redeeming quality in him. He's egotistical, reckless, dishonest, and lacks the ability to focus on one topic longer than the length of one sentence.
He has no economic policy, other than deporting illegals and starting trade wars. And his strategy for defeating terrorism includes war crimes -- such as killing terrorist's family members. He even threatens to default on mutual defense obligations the US made to NATO partners.
Many of his current policies go against personal beliefs he held as recently as a few years ago.
- He was recently pro-choice, but now says that women should be punished for having abortions, if it becomes illegal (which he claims to want).
- He supported the Iraq invasion, but now lies that he was always against it.
- He supported gun control, but now falsely claims Hillary wants to "take away our guns".
Even the policies that he started the campaigned with, have changed. The "wall", the Muslim "ban", using US troops against ISIS, etc. All changed.
Granted, it's OK to change viewpoints over time as events unfold. But Trump's shifting views are without any reason or explanation. He even lies that he's changed them -- even though he's on record.
So, either he is personally dishonest... or he has the attention span of a goldfish. Maybe both.
This. This is the scariest thing about Trump.But it sounds like he is an apt representative for the values of tens of millions of people of the USA.
I mean, absolutely. Of course Trump should be able to sue people for disagreeing with him! After all, some of those want to censor him! So it's all absolutely ok....Absolutely nothing negative, nor anything that could ever be remotely interpreted as negative.
I mean, sure, as long as the articles are wrong and don't contradict themselves (which Trump has never done) and never tell things which could be incorrect (which Trump has never done) and we have a nice safe space for him. As long as he has the values of tens of millions of people behind him, we can feel comfortable in the fact free speech will always be protected, after all, he's a smart guy."One of the things I'm going to do if I win... I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money,"
Here's a pretty good reason; It's a right and I feel like having one. Seriously, I'm totally against free speech of any kind if there is no reason at all.Seriously, i'm totally against firearms possession of any kind if there is no reason at all
I agree. Especially because of the US global influence. Similar xenophobic demagogues are popular in Europe too -- but they have less potential for harm. Britain has Nigel Farage. And there's Le Pen in France, Geert Wilders in Netherlands and Frauke Petry in Germany. Most of them aren't as much a buffoon as Trump, but they share similar scare mongering about immigration. (OK, Wilders is a buffoon.)This. This is the scariest thing about Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rateHere's a pretty good reason; It's a right and I feel like having one.
Wow, cheap comparison here. Free speech doesn't actually wound people... well, sometimes it does but these are borderline cases by uncivil jerks. Generally, words don't kill people like bullets... oh why should i explain this, it's so obvious!Seriously, I'm totally against free speech of any kind if there is no reason at all.
There is, but unfortunately we'll never reach their state of homogeneity.Seriously, there is a reason Japan is an extremely safe country.