Donald Trump for President?

Because they're desperate for change, and desperation sees things that aren't there.

Well I know a damn more intelligent option and respectable one. My guy was anti-establishment before anti-establishment was cool.

The idiot still hasnt chosen a running mate. Anyone Trump is leaning towards? I betcha hes approached some and was told No. His best bet would be to try and get Colin Powell, but Im confident he wont.

Well, yeah, but your guy isn't a conservative. Not that there's reliable evidence Trump is, either.

I don't think he's an idiot for not choosing a running mate; it's rare to choose one this early. Anyway, there's discussion about who he might pick on the previous page.

Yeah, i'd be shocked if he had picked a running mate yet. Even though it is inevitable he still isn't technically the nominee yet. I just looked it up and Mitt didn't name Ryan as his running mate until August 11th and Obama didn't pick Biden til August 22nd.

It'll have to be earlier this time because the convention is a full month earlier, but yeah, probably at least a few weeks. One exception might be if (when?) he crosses some line or says something he has to walk back, in which case maybe he rushes the announcement to blunt the mistake.

The media's witch hunt on Trump continues, he adjusted to a better position on Libya promptly, years ago.

Re: VP Pick, I anticipate that even if he decides on a VP, he'll keep it in his back pocket until the media coverage turns against him. Like he's done with endorsements.

Witch hunt = quoting someone's own words back to them.

Then why did he say, in October, that the region would've been better off with Gaddafi still in power?

And leaving aside the dizzying amount of spin contained in "adjusted to a better position"...when was this "adjustment"? Please show me the quote. All I've found is him opposing it after it started. Just like he did with Iraq.

Regardless, he lied about this in a debate. In response to Cruz: "He said I was in favor of Libya? I never discussed that subject." So it's just as I said: he makes sh*t up.

This one, it would appear.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

the whole situation is really fascinating...

i guess now everything depends on how much press you can get...and it doesnt matter if its bad or good.

america really needs to stop with the kardashians/hilton reality shows and go back to 90s shows that promoted something good and were educational.

i see that alot of people are using the "we`re tired of politicans who lie" as an excuse...so its better with someone who`s openly racist,misogynist,narcissistic and in all honesty "not quite there"? he just seems to spew out whatever comes to mind wether it makes sense or not.
i cant believe any self respecting person (esp woman) would ever even consider voting for him.

It's a witch hunt because the media is quoting words that haven't represented his stance for years. They're just doing it to dig up dirt. Which is all this thread is too, really. This thread is a Trump witch hunt too, endorsed by you

Because it's worse now than it was with Gaddafi in control, one Barack Hussein Obama II's methods made Libya worse by removing Gaddafi.

You're full of it in regards to the Iraq War, fact check doesn't echo your slant.

The adjustment is right here, in front of you. The video your media mogul provided showed Trump saying he was okay with America going into Libya to remove Gaddafi in 2011. Although under Obama's care, the transition failed to bring a positive effect in one of the most tumultuous regions of the world. And Trump's stance now is we shouldn't have gone into Libya because the transition of power failed under Obama's care. But the media is trying to spin it into something to use against Trump, ie witch hunt. Libya is an Obama failure. Maybe you're more okay with an extension of Obama in Hillary. Here's a video of her lying for 13 minutes straight.

Sounds like you're more okay with that

I find it odd that you set the censor and then take the extra effort to spell it in a way so as to fool the censor.

Because he was lying about what his initial stance was. Please explain how "here's a video of you saying we have to go into Libya" is not a valid response to "I would never have gone into Libya."

Vague brush offs about "the media" and "witch hunts" don't have any weight if you can't actually refute or explain them.

So, if it's worse without him...and Trump demanded we remove him...? Complete that syllogism for me, please.

Yes it does: that timeline has him saying we should go in, calling the war a success early on, changing his mind when things didn't go as well, and then pretending that was his stance all along.

You said he adjusted it "promptly, years ago," so it can't be whatever he said the other day. And I'm asking when because, if it's post-invasion, then it's meaningless.

"Okay with"? Nope: he was adamant:

"Now we should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives. This is absolutely nuts ... It’s horrible what’s going on; it has to be stopped."

So, it "has to be stopped," but he never would have gone in. What?

Trump did not say "we shouldn't have gone in." He said "I never would have gone in." That's an important distinction. Anyone can say "Oh, it didn't work out, I guess in retrospect it was a bad idea." What you don't get to do is say "Now that I know it's a bad idea, that means I retroactively wasn't wrong when I demanded it." You also don't get to pretend you never said it.

I'm okay with neither, which is why I'll vote for neither. And I'm definitely not okay with using Hillary Clinton as the metric of comparison for the Republican nominee.

I notice you didn't respond to the thing he said in the debate. He said "I never discussed Libya." We have him on tape demanding we go into Libya. So...that's a lie, right?

Sometimes you want emphasis without resetting forum precedent. That's the best balance I can manage, though I admit it can look silly.

Not being an American I don't know the politics of the paper or Robert Kagan very well, but I found this to be a fascinating read
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...3e7_story.html

Then I suggest setting the censor to *ing out vowels by default.

Honestly I think the censor's pretty silly overall, especially in regards to certain godSPACEdamn words.

__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel

Thanks for posting that link Christine. It's an accurate analysis of the dangers of a Trump presidency.

I'm ashamed of my fellow Americans who looked the other way when Trump made his hate filled, bigoted-prejudice statement that 'he would ban all Muslims from entering the USA'. Even Adolf Hitler at the start of his reign of terror did not make such a bold, hateful statement!

I'm shocked that the media has more or less let Trump slide on this with,...and that many in the Republican party are starting to endorse him. There are far worse things for the Republican party than loosing the next Presidential election. Trump has the demeanor of someone who respects nothing, and thinks nothing of lying repeatedly to get his way. He's immature, he's an eco maniac.

As president he could use his executive powers to curtail freedoms in America. And what could we do to stop him. In many ways what is happening in America with people cheering on the bully to win, is what happened in Germany in the early 1930s. Trump is a dangerous man and a real threat to America and the world.

"Are you Muslim?"

"No."

"Alright, move along."

Anybody remember Al Gore? You know, that one guy who lost to this?:

So, the only person who can complain about mistreatment and discrimination is from someone in the group being discriminated? Boulder-dash.

I think he means that the policy is easily circumvented.