Donald Trump for President?

...a user.

He used his supporters and now is tossing them aside like wilted lettuce. Trump, king of the salad bar.

Whenever I see him I think of Chris Hedges:

Follow-up on the Lewandowski thing:

So he runs Trump's campaign for awhile, then starts a consulting firm, then personally arranges a meeting with Trump for someone he wants to have hire him.

If his supporters didn't expect this kind of thing to keep happening, then they're admitting they didn't understand what kind of person he was, while his critics did. And if they did expect it, then it means they were lying when they said their support was about things like fighting corruption. That's the corner Trump's put them in.

Keeping that nose clean. No special interests for this president.

__________________
Letterboxd

Please, explain to me how naming the RNC's President and Communications Director as Chief of Staff and Press Secretary is "taking on the establishment."

I was hoping to be shocked, and see Trump was authentic. Sadly thats not been the case. What scares me the most is his complete dismissal of global warming, If thats not destroying our childrens future, then I dont know what is.

I was hoping Trump wasn't authentic but we will see how that translates to policies soon enough.

Trump is inline with many Republican's views that global warming isn't real. I believe it's real. But I'm not surprised Trump doesn't.

Plainly put, its not profitable to believe in Global Warming. Even though its happening at such a rapid pace we can actually slow it (at least) there are many companies that dont want to have to pay the money necessary to properly protect the atmosphere. Obama forced them, and now Trump will oblige them, cause hes all about the $$$.

Well he is an authentic ass, but I meant how he wouldnt serve special interest groups, then he turns around and empowers them. Just...everything is consistently disappointing coming from him. Even Dubya had his moments, but Trump makes George W look like Ronald Reagan.

I do want to say the debate among serious people is not whether global warming is real, it's what effect we are having on it and how effective we can be in slowing it. As far as I can tell both sides of the debate are having a pretty tough time answering either of those questions.

It's amazing reading the first couple of posts on this thread from 2011.

Honestly man Im not educated on the subject other than seeing Al Gores An Inconvenient Truth. Too many respected scientists have voiced what is occurring, but too many corporate scientists are disputing those claims. To properly protect the atmosphere must be expensive if theyre willing to pervert science to save money. Corporations will pervert the news and science if theres no regulations, and this goes beyond the importance of money.

I'm by far not well versed in this either but I have read enough that there are things that bother me. The science says the earth is warming but there are a lot of unexpainables as well. I hate sounding like science denier, I am not at all, but it bothers me when scientists allow for filling in blanks logically and then accuse skeptics of being science deniers. The same thing happens in evolution arguments constantly.

Politically my problem with the left on this issue is they seem completely unwilling to take baby steps in capping emissions and phasing out fossil fuels. It is an all or nothing proposition for them. It was why I respected John McCain so much. He had ideas on this and healthcare that would eventually lead the left where it would like to be. He was laughed off the stage though. In my opinion it is because most politicians are in love with the big splash. They want to change the world now. That's rarely how it works.

Well said Sean.

It just keeps coming and coming...

Trump on nuclear weapons tweet: "Let it be an arms race" - MSNBC

WASHINGTON, Dec 23 (Reuters) - U.S. President-elect Donald Trump said: "Let it be an arms race," when asked for clarification of his Thursday Twitter post calling for an expansion of U.S. nuclear weapon capabilities, MSNBC said on Friday.
"We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all," Trump said in an interview with MSNBC, the network reported one day after the tweet that alarmed non-proliferation experts.

On Thursday, Trump said: "The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes."

Trump, who takes office on Jan. 20, gave no further details. It was not clear what prompted his comment, which came the same day Russian President Vladimir Putin said his country needed to boost its nuclear forces.

Trump spokesman Sean Spicer said in several television interviews on Friday that there would not be an arms race because the president-elect would ensure that other countries trying to step up their nuclear capabilities, such as Russia and China, would decide not to do so.

"He's going to ensure that other countries get the message that he's not going to sit back and allow that," Spicer told NBC. "And what's going to happen is they will come to their senses, and we will all be just fine."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...jzc?li=BBnb7Kz

I feel like having small hands would put one at a severe disadvantage in an arms race.

That's a hot tweet.

Where's my Spagett picture?

Trump wants to dissolve his charity foundation to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. LOL. Yeah, that'll do it. Nothing to see here, no conflicts of interest to investigate, just you never mind the dozens of business deals around the world or the $600 million in bank loans, half of which are owed to a German bank. It's all good now. Now mind you, this is a personal charity foundation, which is a different animal than the Clinton Foundation, which was a major charity foundation that Hillary didn't actually run. A personal charity foundation is generally set up for the rich person to put his own money into to use for charity causes. There's no record Trump has put any of his own money into it for nearly a decade and many of its charity causes were simply causes that directed benefited Trump. Using other people's money. It's currently under investigation. But not, I believe, for the self-dealing accusations... i.e. paying his own legal fees, buying portraits to use on his for-profit companies.* Nor for his use of the foundation as an income tax evasion, in which people who owed him money were encouraged to donate it to a charity. His charity. (Thankfully for him, there is no law covering his acceptance of an award for his giving when in actuality it was someone else's money he donated. I'll donate a million dollars to a good cause, too, if you give me the money to donate.)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKBN14D0IZ

*It's possible it is for self-dealing, but I know it was being investigated in New York for its solicitation of donations without the proper status, or whatever. Pardon me if I'm not a 100% accurate, it's hard to keep up with everything.

On a similar note, Trump rants about his son Eric's pay-to-play scheme with this tweet:

“My wonderful son, Eric, will no longer be allowed to raise money for children with cancer because of a possible conflict of interest with my presidency. Isn't this a ridiculous shame?” he stated. “He loves these kids, has raised millions of dollars for them, and now must stop. Wrong answer!”

It's the very same thing he accused Clinton of doing! I'm flabbergasted. He just doesn't get it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...c-tweet-232943

__________________
I may go back to hating you. It was more fun.

This is apparently a friend/acquaintance of Trump's:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.0a5cd3bf0ddd

And then some wonder why Trump gets labeled the things he does. Sometimes the people you associate with says a lot about you. I don't like labeling Trump a racist or anything else, because it's far more powerful to describe the actions than using a lazy shortcut label. Though I'll say this, that Paladino guy is a racist.