Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trebuchet said:
According to many on the right, Obama has spent eight years as a dictator with unlimited power.
Click to expand...

And believe that he's completely ineffectual. It's the Truther mindset. The gubmint's all-powerful, but completely incompetent.

Steve S
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
IOW you are blind to the disasters Bush caused or at a minimum oversaw with incompetence:

9/11 -- ignored warnings, alseep at the wheel
Iraq War -- lied us into, seriously mismanaged
Katrina devastation -- appointed an incompetent head of FEMA, responded too slowly
Collapsed economy -- ignored warnings, alseep at the wheel
Click to expand...

Granting all that without rebuttal, you make my point: we survived 8 years of Bush2, we can take 4 years of Trump.

Remember, I'm not arguing Trump would be a good president, nor that he is a better candidate than Hillary. Just that it isn't doom and gloom and a nightmare, end-of-the-world scenario.

Georgie Bush had the "nooclar" football. Senile Reagan had it. Kim Jong Un has a version. Pakistan and India have theirs. And I'm supposed to worry about Trump?
 
BobTheCoward said:
Really? He has the thinking of a teenage bully. So embarrassing.
Click to expand...

And what do you think about the Clinton campaign's decision to use Mark Cuban to troll Trump during the debate? I would say that both invitations are equally trollish. I have no problem with Trump responding by inviting Gennifer Flowers, although I doubt it will actually come to fruition.
 
sunmaster14 said:
And what do you think about the Clinton campaign's decision to use Mark Cuban to troll Trump during the debate? I would say that both invitations are equally trollish. I have no problem with Trump responding by inviting Gennifer Flowers, although I doubt it will actually come to fruition.
Click to expand...

I said highschool bully. Both are trollish, but mark Cuban is a more adult pick that actually relates to areas where Trump lacks. Trump's pick is somebody bill cheated with.
 
sunmaster14 said:
And what do you think about the Clinton campaign's decision to use Mark Cuban to troll Trump during the debate? I would say that both invitations are equally trollish. I have no problem with Trump responding by inviting Gennifer Flowers, although I doubt it will actually come to fruition.
Click to expand...

A businessman commenting on a businessman whose business acumen is his main "qualification."
The candidate's spouse's ex lover.

Yup, a direct equivalency.
 
sunmaster14 said:
And what do you think about the Clinton campaign's decision to use Mark Cuban to troll Trump during the debate? I would say that both invitations are equally trollish. I have no problem with Trump responding by inviting Gennifer Flowers, although I doubt it will actually come to fruition.
Click to expand...


Mark Cuban is a powerful and influential business man who has made billions with his ideas and insights. Flowers is someone I have to google ever time her name is mentioned (the entire twice in the last ten years). Mark Cuban has much, much more reason to be there than Flowers.

I'm not claiming they aren't doing it mainly to piss of Trump, but Cuban is a peer and legitimate political critic of Trump. Flowers simply isn't either of those things. No, that's not an insult to the woman herself. I don't belong there either. Just because they're both being done for primarily the same reason, doesn't make them equal.

EDIT: BobTheCoward said it better and shorter.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I said highschool bully. Both are trollish, but mark Cuban is a more adult pick that actually relates to areas where Trump lacks. Trump's pick is somebody bill cheated with.
Click to expand...

Cuban has been trolling Trump for quite a while. He said something about the only way Trump would have $10 billion is if he [Cuban] paid Trump to wash his [Cuban's] balls. He is not there to provide a critique of Trump (how could he? - it's a Presidential debate - there is no question and answer with the audience). He is there to try to distract Trump or throw him off his game. It seems like good strategy for Trump to do the same to Hillary. This isn't about policy arguments. This is about trying to get under somebody's skin and make him or her perform worse in the debate.
 
tyr_13 said:
<snip>

EDIT: BobTheCoward said it better and shorter.
Click to expand...

Yes, he did. His answer was also disingenuous. Everybody knows why Cuban is going to be in the front row. It's to try to get under Trump's skin, which strikes me as unbalancing the debate. Adding Gennifer Flowers to the mix evens the playing field.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I said highschool bully. Both are trollish, but mark Cuban is a more adult pick that actually relates to areas where Trump lacks. Trump's pick is somebody bill cheated with.
Click to expand...

This can also damage Donald's attempt to recapture white college educated women by trying to taunt Hillary with someone her spouse cheated on her with. All class that Donald.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Yes, he did. His answer was also disingenuous. Everybody knows why Cuban is going to be in the front row. It's to try to get under Trump's skin, which strikes me as unbalancing the debate. Adding Gennifer Flowers to the mix evens the playing field.
Click to expand...


He's not going to be in the front row, Flowers doesn't even the playing field, and your rejoinder doesn't actually address the substance of the criticism of the choice. Flowers is not an equivalent pick as Cuban. I don't believe for a second Cuban is being used in that he's basically in the same 'peer group', except that he actually is a successful business man.
 
marplots said:
Granting all that without rebuttal, you make my point: we survived 8 years of Bush2, we can take 4 years of Trump.

Remember, I'm not arguing Trump would be a good president, nor that he is a better candidate than Hillary. Just that it isn't doom and gloom and a nightmare, end-of-the-world scenario.

Georgie Bush had the "nooclar" football. Senile Reagan had it. Kim Jong Un has a version. Pakistan and India have theirs. And I'm supposed to worry about Trump?
Click to expand...
Well there's are more than 10,000 people that didn't survive if you count 9/11, Katrina, and the Americans lost in Iraq. According to one source, 7 million people lost their homes, millions lost retirements savings, my son lost a good chunk of his college fund, not to mention how many students are today left with the largest collective student debt in history, outstripping even the total credit card debt.

Where were you under a rock? Or did it just not affect you personally so you don't give a rip about anyone else. Elect Trump so you can have a laugh over it all. :mad::mad::mad:

Rule 10 and 12 prevent me from telling you what I really think of your nonsense that Trump won't be the biggest disaster this country has known maybe short of two world wars (and frighteningly maybe not).
 
sunmaster14 said:
Cuban has been trolling Trump for quite a while. He said something about the only way Trump would have $10 billion is if he [Cuban] paid Trump to wash his [Cuban's] balls. He is not there to provide a critique of Trump (how could he? - it's a Presidential debate - there is no question and answer with the audience). He is there to try to distract Trump or throw him off his game. It seems like good strategy for Trump to do the same to Hillary. This isn't about policy arguments. This is about trying to get under somebody's skin and make him or her perform worse in the debate.
Click to expand...

No. Flowers is bush league. You get someone like the security dude for her server that posted on Reddit and has some immunity from the Senate.
 
tyr_13 said:
He's not going to be in the front row, Flowers doesn't even the playing field, and your rejoinder doesn't actually address the substance of the criticism of the choice. Flowers is not an equivalent pick as Cuban. I don't believe for a second Cuban is being used in that he's basically in the same 'peer group', except that he actually is a successful business man.
Click to expand...

Yes, she is. Cuban has been trolling Trump for ten years. Lately he's been particularly profane about it. There is only one reason Hillary's campaign invited Cuban to be there. I'm sorry that you can't admit that.

As for being in Trump's peer group, I'll admit that Cuban and Trump do have an awful lot of similarities. That doesn't mean that Cuban has any particular insight into Trump that is useful. Gennifer Flowers and Hillary Clinton have some similarities too. They both were attracted to Bill, for one. They might have both even had sex with Bill more than once.
 
tyr_13 said:
He's not going to be in the front row, Flowers doesn't even the playing field, and your rejoinder doesn't actually address the substance of the criticism of the choice. Flowers is not an equivalent pick as Cuban. I don't believe for a second Cuban is being used in that he's basically in the same 'peer group', except that he actually is a successful business man.
Click to expand...

Lol

Why does it have to be an equivalent pick? You're another one so used to dems getting their way. I want to see him knock her out! Politically of course. :)
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
No. Flowers is bush league. You get someone like the security dude for her server that posted on Reddit and has some immunity from the Senate.
Click to expand...

Hilarious, thanks for the best laugh of the night. If you understood what this woman means to Hillary, you'd understand why she is the best pick. That security dude doesn't mean **** to Hillary!
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Well there's are more than 10,000 people that didn't survive if you count 9/11, Katrina, and the Americans lost in Iraq. According to one source, 7 million people lost their homes, millions lost retirements savings, my son lost a good chunk of his college fund, not to mention how many students are today left with the largest collective student debt in history, outstripping even the total credit card debt.

Where were you under a rock? Or did it just not affect you personally so you don't give a rip about anyone else. Elect Trump so you can have a laugh over it all. :mad::mad::mad:

Rule 10 and 12 prevent me from telling you what I really think of your nonsense that Trump won't be the biggest disaster this country has known maybe short of two world wars (and frighteningly maybe not).
Click to expand...


We probably disagree on just how much of that litany of woes can be put on the president serving at the time instead of a laundry list of contributing factors.

As for Trump, I suppose we'll see - or not, depending on how the election goes. All I can say for sure is that whoever gets elected there are plenty of people who think that person will trash America, even end it. I think both sides are wrong, because of hyper-inflated fears.

Is this the vaunted, evolutionary-driven, "something is moving in the bushes" psychology in play? Maybe it is.

Stay tuned. Get out and vote. That's our role here.
 
Last edited:
Fast Eddie B said:
I'm no fan of either candidate, but I must admit the Flowers Gambit elicited a wry smile from me.
Click to expand...

It's pathological. He can't stand to be bested by anyone, particularly people with power. His fixation on Obama is because he got trashed at the WHC dinner five years ago. Cuban has been trolling him, successfully, all year. And the Trump-Bully can't fight Cuban*, so he goes for a wild-assed below the belt Tu Quoque.

The great thing is that in Paleo World they've got to ratchet up the defense and pretend this is a brilliant strategy. Sleazy school cafeteria bullying tactics? Have fun. He just lost another few hundred thousand educated voters.

*Ever notice that Cuban, who's said the worst and meanest things about Trump, doesn't get the lawsuits? Trump sues Betty Sue Miss USA contestant or John The Reporter from Dubuque. He's not going after anyone with his resources, but people he can cower with his phalanx of attorneys and his money.
 
marplots said:
We probably disagree on just how much of that litany of woes can be put on the president serving at the time instead of a laundry list of contributing factors.
Click to expand...
Yes there were other contributing factors but also major Bush missteps and missed opportunities to intervene. I said specifically what Bush's contributions to the tragedies were.

9/11 -- ignored warnings, alseep at the wheel​
If you read Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies, ignoring the PDB was not the only thing Bush and Rice dropped the ball on when it came to Bin Laden.
Iraq War -- lied us into, seriously mismanaged​
The Iraq war is almost 100% Bush et al's personal doing.
Katrina devastation -- appointed an incompetent head of FEMA, responded too slowly​
Bush appointed a crony without relevant experience to head FEMA. He failed miserably after Katrina as did Bush.
Collapsed economy -- ignored warnings, alseep at the wheel​
This is the only one I listed that Bush was not driving the Bus, but he certainly wasn't well served by his appointed economic advisors.

These were things that would have been significantly different if Gore and not Bush were POTUS. That you are in denial about it, is not an evidence based position.
 
Foolmewunz said:
It's pathological. He can't stand to be bested by anyone, particularly people with power.
Click to expand...

I thought that was why she invited Cuban: force him into an own goal. Success, I'd say.

*Ever notice that Cuban, who's said the worst and meanest things about Trump, doesn't get the lawsuits? Trump sues Betty Sue Miss USA contestant or John The Reporter from Dubuque. He's not going after anyone with his resources, but people he can cower with his phalanx of attorneys and his money.
Click to expand...

He has threatened. Cuban called his bluff:

He has an ongoing public feud with Donald Trump that began when the real estate mogul called Cuban's "The Benefactor" television show a blatant copycat of the "The Apprentice." It escalated when Cuban claimed he could write a bigger check, based on his cash flow rather than net worth, than Trump could. Trump, Cuban said, threatened to sue him.

"I have no debt," Cuban told Playboy. "I told my lawyer, 'Let's pray to God he does sue,' because how much fun would that be? He would have to disclose everything. It was 'I'll show you mine, you show me yours.' But he never pursued it."
Click to expand...
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
(good supporting material snipped)

These were things that would have been significantly different if Gore and not Bush were POTUS. That you are in denial about it, is not an evidence based position.
Click to expand...

But wouldn't your analysis be the same for any of the Republican candidates who were running but didn't win the nomination? (This time around.)

Is there something about Trump which triggers an even deeper sense of animus and trepidation? I put it to you that if Cruz were the nominee we'd have almost the exact same argument; meaning it isn't so much about Trump the man, as the Republican party and neo-conservatism (the more radical flavor).

I don't want to seem a Bush apologist, but I would disagree that he acted unilaterally and if we wanted to check the numbers, would find he enjoyed significant support among the populace - even if not a majority - for most if not all of his 8 years. And I'll repeat that the charge of Bush (or any other president) ruining the country goes too far.

"Changed the country" is not the same as ruining it. And moving the country in one direction or another isn't either. It's just as misleading as the charge that Obama ruined the country with Obamacare - putting aside the rather limited role Obama actually had in instituting it. I'll reassert that Presidents are not emperors, not even close.
 
marplots said:
But wouldn't your analysis be the same for any of the Republican candidates who were running but didn't win the nomination? (This time around.)

Is there something about Trump which triggers an even deeper sense of animus and trepidation? I put it to you that if Cruz were the nominee we'd have almost the exact same argument; meaning it isn't so much about Trump the man, as the Republican party and neo-conservatism (the more radical flavor).

I don't want to seem a Bush apologist, but I would disagree that he acted unilaterally and if we wanted to check the numbers, would find he enjoyed significant support among the populace - even if not a majority - for most if not all of his 8 years. And I'll repeat that the charge of Bush (or any other president) ruining the country goes too far.

"Changed the country" is not the same as ruining it. And moving the country in one direction or another isn't either. It's just as misleading as the charge that Obama ruined the country with Obamacare - putting aside the rather limited role Obama actually had in instituting it. I'll reassert that Presidents are not emperors, not even close.
Click to expand...
No, your standard GOP POTUS will likely screw the country up, by comparison Trump will destroy it.

I don't want either one but Trump is uniquely dangerous, the thing you appear to be in denial about, the same way you are in denial about the damage Bush did to the country.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Yes, she is. Cuban has been trolling Trump for ten years. Lately he's been particularly profane about it. There is only one reason Hillary's campaign invited Cuban to be there. I'm sorry that you can't admit that.

As for being in Trump's peer group, I'll admit that Cuban and Trump do have an awful lot of similarities. That doesn't mean that Cuban has any particular insight into Trump that is useful. Gennifer Flowers and Hillary Clinton have some similarities too. They both were attracted to Bill, for one. They might have both even had sex with Bill more than once.
Click to expand...


I was wondering if you'd go there, but thought not. Then you surprise me. Rather than tell you how you're wrong with the knowledge that most anyone would accept the simple explanation, I'll go right into the more in-depth one.

Trump is running in large part on his abilities as a well-regarded and successful business man. Mark Cuban, who is actually a very successful business man (much, much more successful than Trump). Cuban also argues against Trump's business acumen. His view is pertinent. His status alone explains why he might be in the audience. His fame and the reasons for his interests don't need additional justification. That he's a vocal critic of Trump is not the only plausible reason he's going to be there (although obviously it is the reason he's going to be there).

Hillary Clinton is running in large part on her husband's fidelity. Wait, no, that's absurd and stupid. She's running on her ability to pick quality sexual partners. Wait, no, that's also absurd and stupid. She's running on her husband's ability to pick quality sexual partners. Wait, no, that's also absurd and stupid. Flowers' experience is simply not related to the race.

In short: Business acumen that one candidate is running on is pertinent to presidential debates in a way that the sexual partners of the spouse of a candidate are not.

logger said:
Lol

Why does it have to be an equivalent pick? You're another one so used to dems getting their way. I want to see him knock her out! Politically of course. :)
Click to expand...


I didn't say they had to be, but sunmaster 14 thought they were. It just shows how stupid Trump actually is. Oh, Trump wants to talk about marriage infidelity? Really? Trump? And not even Hillary's infidelity?

His pick was moronic on several levels. It's bad trolling. It's also, as said, high school bully thinking of going below the belt. The fact that he lacks the respect of his fellow billionaires (if he is one) for his business 'skills' is actually related to the race. Flowers is not. It's the equivalent of simply calling Bill a whore.

It will backfire.
 
Maybe someone like a Colin Powell would be a good fit for Trump's side.

Who represents everything Clinton is not? A politician that Clinton compares herself unfavorably to?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
No, your standard GOP POTUS will likely screw the country up, by comparison Trump will destroy it.

I don't want either one but Trump is uniquely dangerous, the thing you appear to be in denial about, the same way you are in denial about the damage Bush did to the country.
Click to expand...

Maybe so. I can't tell if your position is generated by a deeper perception of the situation or a wilder imagination.

Could you give just one (perhaps the most concrete) example of what you think Trump might do as president that would constitute his uniquely dangerous likelihood of damaging the country? (Please no Gish-list, just one so I know what you are predicting. An example of the type from the previous election might be, "Obama will confiscate our guns.")
 
BobTheCoward said:
Maybe someone like a Colin Powell would be a good fit for Trump's side.

Who represents everything Clinton is not? A politician that Clinton compares herself unfavorably to?
Click to expand...

At a certain point in the evening in America, posts stop making sense. This one's the bellwether for today.

Just what would make you think that Colin Powell would show up in support of Trump?
 
marplots said:
Maybe so. I can't tell if your position is generated by a deeper perception of the situation or a wilder imagination.

Could you give just one (perhaps the most concrete) example of what you think Trump might do as president that would constitute his uniquely dangerous likelihood of damaging the country? (Please no Gish-list, just one so I know what you are predicting. An example of the type from the previous election might be, "Obama will confiscate our guns.")
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with my imagination. Why you ignore the fact Trump is wholly unqualified to be POTUS is rather amusing, as if you think he actually is more than a reality show star and dishonest business con.
 
marplots said:
Maybe so. I can't tell if your position is generated by a deeper perception of the situation or a wilder imagination.

Could you give just one (perhaps the most concrete) example of what you think Trump might do as president that would constitute his uniquely dangerous likelihood of damaging the country? (Please no Gish-list, just one so I know what you are predicting. An example of the type from the previous election might be, "Obama will confiscate our guns.")
Click to expand...

Declare America bankrupt.
 
Have we discussed Trump's assertion that he will appoint a pro-life/pro-religious-freedom Justice? The evangelicals are very happy with announcement. That may be a mistake on their part because Trump doesn't always back up his assertions with action.
 
Ladewig said:
Have we discussed Trump's assertion that he will appoint a pro-life/pro-religious-freedom Justice? The evangelicals are very happy with announcement. That may be a mistake on their part because Trump doesn't always back up his assertions with action.
Click to expand...

And "pro-religious-freedom" is just another way to say "pro-bigotry."
 
Foolmewunz said:
At a certain point in the evening in America, posts stop making sense. This one's the bellwether for today.

Just what would make you think that Colin Powell would show up in support of Trump?
Click to expand...

Party loyalty ? After all, Cruz has now come crawling back to the Trump fold after all his brave words :rolleyes:

Then there are the people who have bought into "Crooked Hillary" to the extent that they think anyone would hold their nose and throw their lot in with Trump just to stop Hillary becoming President.
 
The Don said:
Party loyalty ? After all, Cruz has now come crawling back to the Trump fold after all his brave words :rolleyes:

Then there are the people who have bought into "Crooked Hillary" to the extent that they think anyone would hold their nose and throw their lot in with Trump just to stop Hillary becoming President.
Click to expand...

Powell crossed that line eight years ago, having voted twice for Obama; once against a military hero. If "loyalty" was more important to him than personal beliefs surely he would've supported the party favorite and fellow military man.
 
Ideologically, Trump has neatly dissected the GOP into the proles and intelligentsia.
All top conservative military, journalistic, economic and fiscal thinkers come out strongly against Trump.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
"I don't think this necessarily makes Republicans stupid or dumb but it does testify that they a depressingly large percentage of them are woefully ignorant and apparently uninterested in becoming more informed."

If those surveys are correct, I would agree with that as modified.
Click to expand...

Your modification is an improvement. I agree.
 
Foolmewunz said:
At a certain point in the evening in America, posts stop making sense. This one's the bellwether for today.

Just what would make you think that Colin Powell would show up in support of Trump?
Click to expand...

I never said he would. I'm just trying to think of people Clinton might compare herself to unfavourably. John Kerry might also be one. Can you think of one?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom