Donald Trump for President?

Tools    





As usual, I'm not defending Trump or supporting him, but I don't think he ever said he wanted to "kill" terrorists families.
I know he said we should "take them out" at one point - to most people that means eliminate or kill them. But he later went on to explain that what he meant was put pressure on them, deport them, de-fund them, expose them or whatever it would take to take them out of the equation: stop their participation, remove them from the country if they are in any way complicit, and / or force them to divulge information.

Trump is inflammatory, but he's also misquoted. I heard a reporter the other day say, "Trump says all Mexicans are rapists" - he never said "all." He's said that Mexicans coming here illegally are committing crimes, engaging in drug trafficking and committing rape. He later went on to say that he obviously didn't mean ALL Mexicans do this, but among those entering the country illegally, there is a contingent that engage in crime. This is true - but the man is terrible at phrasing so that statements don't come out sounding like broad, prejudiced generalizations.

Unfortunately, he hasn't really elaborated much on his banning Muslims comment (aside from saying it is a "temporary" measure). I understand his sentiment, but he needs to clarify and avoid generalizations (otherwise people will think that he wants allies in the war on terror like the King of Jordan to be stopped from coming to the U.S.)



Epiphany's Avatar
BANNED
The problems at Trump's events are entirely Trump related.
That is a little oversimplifying, don't you think? Trump did not organize protests against himself and his right to speak and be heard. It's hypocritical for liberals to feel they have the right to impinge on the 1st Amendment.



Okay, I looked that up and he walked away from that "taking out families" a few days ago, but he has been asked directly about it for months and this is the first time he qualified the remarks. And this certainly isn't the first time he's done that, claimed to have not said something he said. He's trying to get slightly more diplomatic as he gets closer to being nominated.



Trump is not moderate, he's unprincipled, and that's an important distinction. It's myopic and dangerous to force fit him onto the liberal-conservative spectrum and prefer him simply because he's not to the right of the alternatives. It moves us off the shared premises of arguing policy altogether.

It's not a lateral move for progressives if the Republican nominee is moderate on healthcare but authoritarian in temperament. Policy fights can and should go on, but there may not be a way to put this genie back in the bottle, if it even comes close to working.

And there's little in his business history to indicate that he's "pragmatic." To the contrary, each of his four highest profile failures shows the opposite: going into massive debt based on grandiose promises that never materialize. He's not an efficient, pragmatic businessman. He's an easily bored flamboyant salesman.



That is a little oversimplifying, don't you think? Trump did not organize protests against himself and his right to speak and be heard.
If I'd said he was solely responsible, yes. But I said it was all Trump related.

This doesn't happen to other candidates, because other candidates don't explicitly encourage violence. I'm not talking about the silly accusations of "inciting people" we've heard in the past that have been applied merely to fervent rhetoric. I mean literally encouraging it. Literally saying he wants to physically harm people. Literally saying someone else should. Literally offering to pay someone's legal fees if they do it for him.

It's hypocritical for liberals to feel they have the right to impinge on the 1st Amendment.
I don't see how protesting can be an impingement, but physically threatening protestors can't.

Anyway, if you care about the First Amendment, that makes it pretty hard to support the guy who's threatened to modify it to make it easier to sue journalists. Or who praised the Chinese crackdown on Tiananmen Square.



Trump is not moderate, he's unprincipled, and that's an important distinction. It's myopic and dangerous to force fit him onto the liberal-conservative spectrum and prefer him simply because he's not to the right of the alternatives. It moves us off the shared premises of arguing policy altogether.
Strongly agree with this.

there may not be a way to put this genie back in the bottle
This is my going concern. Even if Trump loses the nomination, he's a major player now. And honestly a GOP beholden to Trump is good for nobody. Even if he's not a good business man, he's going to throw that leverage around.



Trump is not moderate, he's unprincipled, and that's an important distinction. It's myopic and dangerous to force fit him onto the liberal-conservative spectrum and prefer him simply because he's not to the right of the alternatives. It moves us off the shared premises of arguing policy altogether.

It's not a lateral move for progressives if the Republican nominee is moderate on healthcare but authoritarian in temperament. Policy fights can and should go on, but there may not be a way to put this genie back in the bottle, if it even comes close to working.

And there's little in his business history to indicate that he's "pragmatic." To the contrary, each of his four highest profile failures shows the opposite: going into massive debt based on grandiose promises that never materialize. He's not an efficient, pragmatic businessman. He's an easily bored flamboyant salesman.

I think he's both pragmatic and a flamboyant salesman. The system we have he can't be the authoritarian strong man he may want to be and I think he knows it. If he doesn't, he'll just end up getting impeached and it will probably be bipartisan. His big problem is he has no real base in the Republican Party among elected officials in Congress. They will go along with him reluctantly up to a point. But if he goes too far, he'll be out of office.


I think to say he's unprincipled is simplistic. Up to a point that's true, but he's not unique in that regard. I think Romney was unprincipled with his massive flip flops, but he did it differently, with careful rhetoric because Romney was an old school politician. Trump certainly isn't. I don't think Trump thinks out anything. It's all gut with him. That is why he is all over the map ideologically. But he has tapped into something that is problematic for the Republican Party. He has exposed the fact a third of their voters are like him. They are very, very angry and unpredictable. The GOP has to figure out how to come up with a platform that deals in a positive way with their displeasure and still win presidential elections. Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio couldn't do it. Ted Cruz taps into that anger to some extent, but he has been unable to expand his appeal beyond Republicans who define themselves as very conservative. He has no answer to the folks who think free trade is bad and costing them their jobs.



I'll make a prediction: if Trump doesn't get the Republican nomination, he'll declare himself an Independent and continue his bid for the presidency that way.



Again, where is the evidence of this pragmatism? It's not in his personal or business history, both of which are made up almost entirely of (often needlessly) reckless gambits.

What you really mean is that he doesn't really mean all he says. But that doesn't make him a pragmatist any more than randomly throwing conservative positions under the bus makes him a moderate.



I'll make a prediction: if Trump doesn't get the Republican nomination, he'll declare himself an Independent and continue his bid for the presidency that way.
There are "sore loser" laws that prevent candidates who lose in the primary from getting on the ballot in a number of states, so he'd be doing it purely to spite the party.



Isn't it too late to get on the ballot on many states as an independent?


I doubt he'll do it.


Republicans used to be protectionist. And it is only really very recently as a party they have become hostile to Social Security and Medicare with talk of slashing benefits and privatizing it.


Giving money to both parties is pragmatic. Ben Carson says there are two Donald Trumps and the one campaigning is different than the one behind the scenes.



Epiphany's Avatar
BANNED
It's not about what Trump represents or what he says, it's his right to assembly, peaceful rally and free speech and when a bunch of protesters get verbally and physically abusive they impinge those rights. He did have to cancel Chicago because of them. It's often the media who spurs things on by approving or disapproving special interests that they cater to.
Even a group like KKK is constitutionally allowed to hold a peaceful rally. Ironically, it is almost always their protester opponents that start with the violence.
It is the governments duty to ensure that all peaceful rallies and assemblies are protected from violent protesters and if they have to use force to ensure that, they should. Yes, Trump is a polarizing individual but so is Obama and no one protested violently while he campaigned.



I'm not sure what you're responding to. No one is saying he isn't allowed to hold his rallies. What I did say was that, if you're actually championing the First Amendment, that would put you at odds with Trump, too, and not just his protestors.

And while he has the right to have people kicked out, that doesn't explain, say, a protestor being sucker punched on their way out. The broad principles you're advocating are unobjectionable, but they don't describe what's actually taken place.



Epiphany's Avatar
BANNED
We are in agreement. I was advocating the principle and not the person. As far as the truth goes i.e. who got sucker punched and by whom, that I couldn't tell you. I was not there.
In this country in the past couple of years there have been a number of unfounded mass protests. These were not a spontaneous mob reaction but rather planned and organized events. When that extends to politicians that we may not like, and we do nothing about it, we quickly find ourselves on the road to anarchy.
My point is that civil disobedience should not be tolerated by any government that strives to maintain law and order unless of course it's the government itself that is causing unrest for political gain.



We are in agreement. I was advocating the principle and not the person. As far as the truth goes i.e. who got sucker punched and by whom, that I couldn't tell you. I was not there.
We have video of it. We also have video of the man who hit him saying "next time, we might have to kill him."

In this country in the past couple of years there have been a number of unfounded mass protests. These were not a spontaneous mob reaction but rather planned and organized events. When that extends to politicians that we may not like, and we do nothing about it, we quickly find ourselves on the road to anarchy.
My point is that civil disobedience should not be tolerated by any government that strives to maintain law and order unless of course it's the government itself that is causing unrest for political gain.
Agree on all counts. But I disagree with the way this is being used (not necessarily by you) to give Trump cover: the fact that these protesters are going too far doesn't excuse anything he's done. But this is how people rally around: overreach by one's ideological opponent becomes an excuse to ignore their own side's problems. It's an old trick.



Speaking from the other side of the Atlantic, and relying on news media, I have to say Trump looks unpredictable, aggressive, hot headed and egomanaical. I veer between shaking my head in amusement, then realising it's actually not funny. This guy might be in charge of America.... and the nuclear briefcase. My heart quails



lol
America's being ridicularized right now all over the world for even considering voting for Trump, so I don't see that happen! And Russia and China don't usually respond well to someone like him.

Trump should be locked in a basement forever.
Indeed. That guy is crazy.

1 - Trump gets elected.
2 - Says China should stop manufacturing cheap things to export to the US.
3 - China tells him to.....
4 - Trump declares war on China.
5 - 100 million people die

The US shouldn't try to be aggressive anymore in foreign policy because the US is not the economic superpower it used to be. That's natural since the rest of the world is indusrializing and so the old powers become less and less powerful relatively. They should learn their place or they will suffer severe consequences.



Indeed. That guy is crazy.

1 - Trump gets elected.
2 - Says China should stop manufacturing cheap things to export to the US.
3 - China tells him to.....
4 - Trump declares war on China.
5 - 100 million people die
6 - Walmart goes out of business



Indeed. That guy is crazy.

1 - Trump gets elected.
2 - Says China should stop manufacturing cheap things to export to the US.
3 - China tells him to.....
4 - Trump declares war on China.
5 - 100 million people die

The US shouldn't try to be aggressive anymore in foreign policy because the US is not the economic superpower it used to be. That's natural since the rest of the world is indusrializing and so the old powers become less and less powerful relatively. They should learn their place or they will suffer severe consequences.
Trump might enact a trade war on China, not an actual one. Criticize him for what he is, not what he isn't.


He is essentially an isolationist, not the type who would be engaging in a nuclear standoff.



I want to see if the sand glows. That's why I'm going with Cruz for now.

But seriously, his gaining Fiorina's endorsement helped.
I grew to like her during the debates. I'd vote for her. I acknowledge that she seems like she could be a real b*tch, but as I said before - she'd be a major b*tch to America's enemies, whereas Hillary will remain one to anyone who disagrees with her or calls her out on her many many lies.