Trump Talk™

I wish we had somebody who wasn't trying to be so polar, but then again, we need people who wish to have a leader who wasn't polar.

In order to change the government, we need to change ourselves first.

All in a days work, I'll be here till Friday.

Though you had to see that joke coming after posting that and realizing who was in the running.

Here's the problem with pulling the "you are with me or you are a *** idiot" as a bad thing here.

The answer, in this case, is yes. That is the case.

Forget Obama for a second.

Tally up, objectively, what Trump has going for him.

- Marginally skilled businessman (to the point some have projected that if he had simply let his inherited fortune accumulate standard interest he'd be better off than if he had gone into business with it.

- Bombastically arrogant to the point of being a bully. Exhibits classic bully behavior in that he says things he probably doesn't even really mean -- attacking people's physical appearance, disabilities, etc. -- just to get a reaction from other people.

- Lots and lots of catch phrases and jargon. Jingoism has always appealed to Americans, for some reason...

- No plans. For anything. No track record in any fashion as a statesman. Economic plans that economists look at and go, "he's utterly full of ***." They don't even say that about Bernie.

- ...?

He has nothing else. He has a reality television personality that appeals on the surface to a superficial population.

So in this case, yes. If you're in Trump's corner, you're a moron because you're confusing television with reality. This is exactly the same as the people who think we should just go out and shoot every bad guy, like Dirty Harry does, ignoring things like Constitutional Rights and due process.

Which means these are people who can literally not distinguish between fantasy and reality.

So...Rooks is right. If it is the will of the majority of Americans that such a man take office, how things actually turn out is irrelevant. Yes, America would survive a Trump presidency, probably just fine.

But we won't be any better for it, and it will have revealed a very, very disturbing fact about the majority of Americans.

Ah, I forgot to add the last part regarding what Rooks said.

And that is,

"America deserves everything bad that would happen to it as a result of electing Trump."

Well here's the thing about all this. Yes, I'm one of the many Republicans who has been complaining about Obama for years. And yes, I'm prone to blaming things on the Democrats. But really, the biggest people we have to blame are our own parties. Seriously. Look at who we have turned out as the champions of our parties since 2000.

Democrats:
Al Gore
John Kerry
Barack Obama
Hillary Clinton

Republicans:
George W. Bush
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Donald Trump


Since the dawn of the new millennium and with over 300 million people to choose from, these are the people that we have presented as our best and brightest to lead this country.

That is really, really sad.

I don't disagree with you.

But the only person -- with their vice presidents included in the mix -- who is worse than Donald Trump would have been Sarah *** Palin.

And even that hypocritical twit had some experience in governance.

People can't validate their vote for Trump by saying, "well, he's not part of the establishment that's dragged us down."

Because 1) That's not true. He is part of that establishment. and 2) Different doesn't mean "better." It just means different. Trump is not a vote for "better."

He's a vote for backward social views and questionable economic principles tied with completely untenable international policy.

Yes, he'd manage to salvage all of that into some semblance of passability. But if he was even as good of a president as Jimmy Carter that'd have to be considered a win.

Oh, I lied. Ted Cruz -- on paper -- is worse than Donald Trump. But the thing about Cruz is most of his crazy is tied up in religious rhetoric that he'd never get pushed through into law.

No, but there is a psychological need for "different". It may be the wrong flavor of different, but it's new. Democrats had their shot at different and blew it. There may be no reason to think that The Donald will be a good president, but one thing is guaranteed if he wins: Things will not be the same. Hillary, on the other hand, is a flat out guarantee that the status quo will be preserved. Both of them are hated by the other side, though, so prepare for obstruction and gridlock either way.

Change just for the sake of change is lunacy.

The correct change will come eventually. Maybe in my lifetime even, though I'll probably not get to really enjoy it.

*sigh*

Different is a great strategy for getting a popular vote in this "establishment" world. You remember Arnold Schwarzenegger? Yea, he actually ran and became California's governor mainly because the idiots around this state simply voted for something different, plus the fact that Americans are so damn fascinated with celebrities.

All this is still going on, the world is a stage, we're screwed this election year no matter who wins it

At least we see eye to eye on this. A lot of people confuse "progress" with "change".

Slippery Slope.

Who's to determine when it's appropriate to use that "Us vs. Them" mentality? You? Somebody who's equally biased as you are? Just because you deem it right at this moment? Just because you don't like a candidate?

And you call other people out on this ***.....

Irrelevant, and also inaccurate.

Marginal interest depends on the investment, and we don't know what he would have invested his entire fortune on. Averages don't cut it because of the volatile marketplace.

Partially opinionated. He is arrogant, but to the point of bullying? That's stretching it a little, don't you think? Oh wait, of course you think he is a bully, it fits your (or your union rep's) narrative well...

Wait, are you saying that other candidates don't use catch phrases and jargon?


Wait, are you saying that politicians have all the answers up front? I don't know what you are smoking....

Also, you must not have seen his latest proposal and the economist's reaction. It was more positive than before.

Neither does Clinton, nor does Sanders (realistically speaking).

They are called "progressives"

Remember "Hope and Change"?

How well did that work out for everyone?

The biggest alarm factor that I see arising from these elections is a massive education problem going on in America.
Maybe it's not even strange, but I tend to detach so much from that demographic that seeing it come out in such large numbers really blows my *** mind.

This is why education plans is always one of the major selling points for me from a politician. I look at all this ignorant mass and wonder how we came to this.

Then again it also baffles me that we allowed every single government in the world to become a nest of corruption. Do I give humanity too much credit? Bring back the values of illuminati enlightenment.

yeah that's great kid /shove
but NOBODY GIVES A *** start planning what you are going to do with your life once trump wins now because it's going to happen.

no one will vote for hillary except the fourteen people that voted for her in the primaries NOBODY trump is many many bad horrible things but there is one horrific thing he is not, and that's hillary.

dig a hole, flee to canada, drink the purple kool aid whatever you have to do.

embrace the inevitability of the trump

our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country on the planet that we blow your mind now only means that you never paid attention before.

When did Australia become part of the US?

It's OK, send it to ChaosX and it will all even out.

On the Dem side, Kerry would have been worse for sure, along with Edwards. And honestly, Al Gore wasn't all that great either. He was coming off the coattails of one of the more popular presidents in history (scandal and everything), and he managed to *** it up and lose to W. Why he's been given such a pass on that I will never know.

Republican side, Palin is the obvious choice. You can toss Cheney in there as well if you mean worse from a "total evil" angle.


The Governator actually did an okay job, though! Like if he'd *** the place up, sure, but he's maybe not the best example you could trot out, there.


This is her Achilles' heel. I think she probably still beats Trump in a straight up contest, but it's going to be way, way closer than a former First Lady/Senator/Secretary of State going up against an oompah loompah reality TV star should be.

She could get out in front of that and bring on Bernie as the VP candidate, which would appease his bloc, but she'd have to actually commit to some change, and I don't think that's what she's intending to do.

Palin you say?

Where did we hear that before?

See here is the thing.

To answer to the nagging question in the back of your mind "why aren't australians as big of *** as americans" and the answer is Eventually they stopped sending *** to australia.

america.... not so much.

The problem with the free education is the same problem it has in most countries that do it. Kids do not want to work so they take the free education and go to college, problem is they still do not want to work after college prime example is Germany. They have a severe shortage of unskilled workers but have free college because they treat it as one big party. Now you throw in the people that actually want to go to college and educate themselves but can't get into school because wait lines are long and space is limited. Germany has a 31% college graduation rate, 31%, granted US is at 59% but it is still better. Source

People do not respect or appreciate free stuff, it is human nature that people appreciate things more when they work for them.

Edwards maybe. Kerry would have been another status quo. Not great, but certainly not worse than Trump. Al Gore would have been so status quo that he should be named "Al 'crew cut' Gore."


This isn't subjective. He exhibits classic bully behavior, such as the examples I gave. Insulting people based on their looks? Insulting the disabled? Sure you can say "well, he's just being bombastic," but that's what a bully does. S/he picks on people for their flaws, even if they don't actually give a ***about that flaw. Not because they care about it, but because it puts them in a position of strength and support of the weak people propping them up.

I think subsidized higher education would work much better with a scholarship model; maintain your GPA, get your tuition covered. Maybe even a scale where more of it's covered the better you do. So if you want to *** around and party, you won't be doing it for very long.

The obvious pitfall there is grade inflation, from colleges trying to hang on to students (and therefore, money), but I'm sure you could come up with something to filter out the obvious abuse cases.

You could argue that assholism isn't a winning strategy when the number of deadly creatures achieves a particular threshold value.

Yeah tubby, you tell 'em!

hillary is the lesser of two bullies?
unless you are a woman that was banged by her husband.

What is wrong with being a bully ?

So after reading this page I think some of you guys are saying Trump is the New Coke/CokeII of American Politics.

Or Pepsi Clear if you're a Pepsi person.

Free college doesn't mean no competition. It means that it is solely merit based (positions go based on ability to perform, not the ability to pay).