Donald Trump may run for President - not April Fool

124

Comments

  • jules1000jules1000 Posts: 10,709
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    There's a difference between reviewing foreign aid and stopping it.

    Well it is very easy for any politician to say they are going to review the situation to gain votes from either side until they have gained office

    I admire the fact that he makes a strict stance on this policy before the election takes place.,

    If other countries started to consider their own first and foremost people would be happier and less resentful which in turn would make them more compassionate and giving.
  • jswift909jswift909 Posts: 11,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jules1000 wrote: »
    So you know him then?


    How is he dangerous?

    http://www.queerty.com/the-hypocrisy-of-serial-divorcer-donald-trump-hating-on-your-marriage-rights-20110217/?utm_source=wordtwit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=wordtwit

    He's a flake. He's a serial divorcer, an adulterer, goes after much young women, is now against gay marriage, was for abortion, now he's against it.

    http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/03/donald-trump-on-gay-marriage-lgbt-rights-no-and-no/

    No to gay marriage, no to partner benefits. Not very humanitarian is it.

    The way the GOP is going Obama will have no serious opposition - since they don't have any suitable candidates at the moment.
  • MTUK1MTUK1 Posts: 20,077
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MetalMan wrote: »
    Hasn't got a chance. Obama's too popular.

    LOL! Have you seen his approval ratings lately?
  • MetalManMetalMan Posts: 939
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MTUK1 wrote: »
    LOL! Have you seen his approval ratings lately?

    It doesn't matter. When he starts back into campaign mode with all the speeches everyone will love him again, approval ratings up near 60% I'd say between sept-nov 2012.

    The hype will begin as Obama is media-savvy. They adore him on all the news networks (bar one). Can the first black president be the first two term president will be the question?

    He's totally unbeatable. I would bet my house on it. I mean what Republican candidate is going to match his awe inspiring speeches? :rolleyes:

    They will be crushed. Even if his approval rating was 35% he'll still win. People are underestimating the mans charisma and likeableness.
  • PlatinumStevePlatinumSteve Posts: 4,295
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Donald would be one of my first choices. But I think he's just playing interference for any other random GOP candidate who is thinking of running, until Romney emerges sometime early to middle 2012, in time to get the nom. Then it will be a real race, in which I think/hope Romney wins. I'm not an Obama fan at all.

    As for the gay marriage/ civil/domestic union issue, I'd rather it was left up to the individual states.
  • Sniffle774Sniffle774 Posts: 20,290
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jules1000 wrote: »
    Well perhaps the personal; side of politics have eluded him...I think he thinks with a monetary business mind..You have to accept that many many politicians are told what to think what to say and what to do and quite frankly that is why many of them reach office..

    Tru, but then does not always mean they make the best public servants. Someone like Trump will always be thinking in business terms as its who he is.

    He would liven up a Presidential campaign I admit but not sure I would want him in charge of the free world. Still given the choice between him and Palin.....
  • andallthatjazzandallthatjazz Posts: 6,413
    Forum Member
    I agree but i'm guessing you'd not have to live under his presidency and would be safely elsewhere. I'd like to see Hilary Clinton as President. Sadly it's looking unlikely now at any point in future.

    Damn right Hilary Clinton would have done a better job than Barak.

    I had some heated debate with my brother who was pro Barak during the Primary election & told him to vote for Hilary & gave my reasons, told me last time this subject came up again that he should have listened to me.
  • FroodFrood Posts: 13,180
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    If Trump became POTUS they'd not only have a First Lady but a First "Syrup":D
  • andallthatjazzandallthatjazz Posts: 6,413
    Forum Member
    Donald Trump should run, he's obviously a lot smarter than Barak not to mention has great business acumen.

    Barak has really nothing to offer, like Trump said the only thing he's done was get elected.
  • grassmarketgrassmarket Posts: 33,010
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I and they still depend on oil.

    Wow, you mean Obama has not been able to change the fundamental laws of physics and economics in 2 and a bit years? What has he been doing all this time, playing golf?
  • andallthatjazzandallthatjazz Posts: 6,413
    Forum Member
    MetalMan wrote: »
    When Obama gets into campaign mode, there's NOTHING like him.

    Doesn't matter how good of a president he is, the fact that he gives great speeches is all that counts.

    I saw people physically CRY at my uni after his nomination speech at Denver. People will crying all over the world when he gives out his amazing speeches again. 250,000 people in Berlin, remember that? He could do that again, the man is simply GOD.
    His approval rating can be down in the early 40s but with his wonder speeches he'll be back up to near 60 again. Until of course the election passes and he returns to 40 something again.

    Obama then was in the right time right place considering America in 2008 was at its lowest, everyone was emotional & crying for CHANGE!

    Obama took that operative word and run with it during the whole election period...not to mention a lot of powerful Hollywood celeb political players & OPRAH were behind him & only because Bush gov't has been decided that it needs to go & America wanted/needed a fresh blood.

    In comes into the ring this young & luckily even an African American who was considered a great oratorian compared to Bush & other old candidates, everyone got excited & Barak's total job inexperience was virtually swept aside.

    Then not even 100 days into the job & people were already expressing strong misgivings, disappointments, even outrage to the lack of results from Obama's govt & nearly 2 1/2 yrs on and the negative mood is even stronger & people are again ready for change. Even those of Obama's celeb supporters then are even disappointed of him.
  • Sniffle774Sniffle774 Posts: 20,290
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Obama then was in the right time right place considering America in 2008 was at its lowest, everyone was emotional & crying for CHANGE!.

    In 2008 Obama was the option against Bush, compared to him he had it easy. Now he is the man who never fixed everyones issues (not that anyone can). He will need to pull more than speeches out the bag as no one doubts he can deliver polish, its effort he will need to concentrate on.
  • divingbboydivingbboy Posts: 14,074
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    boksbox wrote: »
    Are you are aware of his past?, he'd be destroyed very quickly in any political campaign.

    ^ This. He hasn't got a chance in hell. Too many skeletons in his closet and he's told far too many porkies about his assets and wealth. He'll be destroyed before he even gets out of the starting gate.
  • MandarkMandark Posts: 47,929
    Forum Member
    If Trump becomes president it will mean that celebrity has taken over the white house. It's already been happening with state governors and you could argue that Reagan was a bit celeb. But if Trump takes charge it would be a joke.
  • jswift909jswift909 Posts: 11,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The Donald would be one of my first choices. But I think he's just playing interference for any other random GOP candidate who is thinking of running, until Romney emerges sometime early to middle 2012, in time to get the nom. Then it will be a real race, in which I think/hope Romney wins. I'm not an Obama fan at all.

    As for the gay marriage/ civil/domestic union issue, I'd rather it was left up to the individual states.

    gay marriage / unions are a basic right, not something to be decided by the masses - have you learn nothing in our discussions, or does your politics preclude thinking this way?

    http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/19012/almost-half-of-mississippi-republicans-would-ban-interracial-marriage (7th April 2011)

    "In a PPP poll released Thursday, a 46% plurality of registered Republican voters said they thought interracial marriage was not just wrong, but that it should be illegal. 40% said interracial marriage should be legal."

    Do you want voters in Mississippi to decide if mixed race straight couples are allowed to marry?

    Do you want individual states to set up their own militia / army just so they can opt out of the DADT repeal?

    http://www.cavalierdaily.com/2011/02/01/cuccinelli-says-state-may-fund-private-militia/

    Face it, the US is a total shambles in terms of legislation. There are things which should be mandated country-wide in Federal legislation, and that includes civil rights, employment rights (ENDA), marriage equality, DADT and a whole host of other things. You should remember:


    "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. "

    Thomas Jefferson
  • jules1000jules1000 Posts: 10,709
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Mandark wrote: »
    If Trump becomes president it will mean that celebrity has taken over the white house. It's already been happening with state governors and you could argue that Reagan was a bit celeb. But if Trump takes charge it would be a joke.

    I would suggest no more so than the Kennedys or R Regan.

    What was he? an actor?

    What was George Bush junior before he became P an ex alcoholic? His father what was he?

    D Trump has far more business knowledge than anyone who has ever ran for presidency.
  • MandarkMandark Posts: 47,929
    Forum Member
    jules1000 wrote: »
    D Trump has far more business knowledge than anyone who has ever ran for presidency.
    Which might be good for business but not for the ordinary American. And it's ordinary Americans who vote in the president.
  • jules1000jules1000 Posts: 10,709
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Mandark wrote: »
    Which might be good for business but not for the ordinary American. And it's ordinary Americans who vote in the president.

    So an ex Alcoholic war monger or cowboy filmstar is better for the ordinary American?

    Who has been good for the ordinary American so far?
  • PlatinumStevePlatinumSteve Posts: 4,295
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jswift909 wrote: »
    gay marriage / unions are a basic right, not something to be decided by the masses - have you learn nothing in our discussions, or does your politics preclude thinking this way?

    "In a PPP poll released Thursday, a 46% plurality of registered Republican voters said they thought interracial marriage was not just wrong, but that it should be illegal. 40% said interracial marriage should be legal."

    Do you want voters in Mississippi to decide if mixed race straight couples are allowed to marry?

    Do you want individual states to set up their own militia / army just so they can opt out of the DADT repeal?

    Face it, the US is a total shambles in terms of legislation. There are things which should be mandated country-wide in Federal legislation, and that includes civil rights, employment rights (ENDA), marriage equality, DADT and a whole host of other things. You should remember:

    "All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. "

    Thomas Jefferson

    No, it's not a basic right, and neither is marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage is 1 not a civil rights issue, and 2 a state issue, not a national issue anyway. The Federal Government needs to butt out, I haven't and will not change my stance, the Government in DC is too big, it has gotten it's slimey corrupt corporate controlled hands into too many places and it needs to shrink.

    State issue, if two people of varying races want to marry, but the state they are in, has decided against that, they're more than free to pack up the car and move across state lines.

    States already have the National Guard which operates on a state level ( militia? could fit the definition) and I couldn't care less what their personnel/recruiting requirements are. If conscription was legislated then of course personnel requirements would be an issue, but as a solely volunteer organization, if they want to exclude anyone/everyone go ahead.

    Thomas Jefferson, was one of the biggest supporters of states rights, and of limited central federal government. I'm fairly confident he'd be in agreement with me that the Federal Government has grown far too large, and has encroached into places which are purely state issues.
  • jswift909jswift909 Posts: 11,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No, it's not a basic right, and neither is marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage is 1 not a civil rights issue, and 2 a state issue, not a national issue anyway. The Federal Government needs to butt out, I haven't and will not change my stance, the Government in DC is too big, it has gotten it's slimey corrupt corporate controlled hands into too many places and it needs to shrink.

    State issue, if two people of varying races want to marry, but the state they are in, has decided against that, they're more than free to pack up the car and move across state lines.
    We agree to disagree - I change my mind on various issues with input from others, and my own discoveries, and the working of the cogs in my head, but I would never change my mind that there are rights which are fundamental.

    However, I am in fact in some agreement (oddly) in that I would be quite happy if marriage, and all the rights and benefits (1200 or so) which go with it in the US, was totally abolished. No partnerships, no unions, no marriage. That would be fair because everybody would be equal - who you live with, and how many, and in what circumstances, would be no business of state or government. You see, on a scale of libertarian I am so much further down the scale than almost anyone I have come across.
    States already have the National Guard which operates on a state level ( militia? could fit the definition) and I couldn't care less what their personnel/recruiting requirements are. If conscription was legislated then of course personnel requirements would be an issue, but as a solely volunteer organization, if they want to exclude anyone/everyone go ahead.
    If people can't be equal, just get rid of all National Guard and military forces. Luckily DADT is gone and repeal will be finally implemented in months. Every effort of the GOP to keep it has failed. The backward US is finally growing up.
    Thomas Jefferson, was one of the biggest supporters of states rights, and of limited central federal government. I'm fairly confident he'd be in agreement with me that the Federal Government has grown far too large, and has encroached into places which are purely state issues.

    Thomas Jefferson was a racist and a bigot (so I'm told, but otherwise a good chap) who wanted to repatriate all the black people from the US. The Civil War was primarily over slavery - the south wanted to stop it, the north largely wanted to keep it. (I know it's more complicated than that, but humour me :))

    But given the history of the US it's no wonder you think as you do. But you are not of that era, you are young and your views will mellow as you grow (no offence), just as mine have (and still do), and I'm betting you'll see things quite differently in 15-20 years time. I don't see a major problem with state laws, but not in those areas. It is so abhorrent to even think a state might tell mixed colour couples they cannot marry and much sell their home and move elsewhere. Next thing you'll be saying it's ok for a business to discriminate against black people in goods and services, and in employment.

    You seem strangely in line with the views of Rand Paul --- which is not a good thing btw.

    I certainly can't believe your bf has the same political views as you -- I would love to have dinner with you two :p:D


    Update: In case I'm wrong about Jefferson, 'cause it might have been Lincoln :eek:
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jswift909 wrote: »

    Do you want voters in Mississippi to decide if mixed race straight couples are allowed to marry?


    Surely that is the basis of democracy? - letting the people decide?
  • jswift909jswift909 Posts: 11,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Majlis wrote: »
    Surely that is the basis of democracy? - letting the people decide?

    And if we had democracy on DS, and I called for a vote to ban anyone with the name "Majlis" and the majority agreed with this, you would be happy for that to be implemented?

    Democracy cannot rule by majority if they are being unreasonable and creating unfairness for minority groups. Otherwise we would be saying it was ok to persecute Christians in Iraq or Indonesia -- because they are a minority, so the majority should be able to treat them as they want, kills them, discriminate against them, whatever. That is tyranny by the majority. The equal rights of the minority should always be protected if logic and knowledge and wisdom say so, regardless of what the majority thinks.

    Most people might be in favour of the death penalty, but logic and reasoning clearly shows us why it isn't appropriate.
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jswift909 wrote: »

    Democracy cannot rule by majority if they are being unreasonable and creating unfairness for minority groups.


    Who decides whether something is unreasonable or unfair? - you?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 673
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No, it's not a basic right, and neither is marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage is 1 not a civil rights issue, and 2 a state issue...


    State issue, if two people of varying races want to marry, but the state they are in, has decided against that, they're more than free to pack up the car and move across state lines.

    Whenever I hear the term states rights it is being used to justify some sort of bigotry .
  • PlatinumStevePlatinumSteve Posts: 4,295
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jswift909 wrote: »
    We agree to disagree - I change my mind on various issues with input from others, and my own discoveries, and the working of the cogs in my head, but I would never change my mind that there are rights which are fundamental.

    However, I am in fact in some agreement (oddly) in that I would be quite happy if marriage, and all the rights and benefits (1200 or so) which go with it in the US, was totally abolished. No partnerships, no unions, no marriage. That would be fair because everybody would be equal - who you live with, and how many, and in what circumstances, would be no business of state or government. You see, on a scale of libertarian I am so much further down the scale than almost anyone I have come across.

    If people can't be equal, just get rid of all National Guard and military forces. Luckily DADT is gone and repeal will be finally implemented in months. Every effort of the GOP to keep it has failed. The backward US is finally growing up.

    Thomas Jefferson was a racist and a bigot (so I'm told, but otherwise a good chap) who wanted to repatriate all the black people from the US. The Civil War was primarily over slavery - the south wanted to stop it, the north largely wanted to keep it. (I know it's more complicated than that, but humour me :))

    But given the history of the US it's no wonder you think as you do. But you are not of that era, you are young and your views will mellow as you grow (no offence), just as mine have (and still do), and I'm betting you'll see things quite differently in 15-20 years time. I don't see a major problem with state laws, but not in those areas. It is so abhorrent to even think a state might tell mixed colour couples they cannot marry and much sell their home and move elsewhere. Next thing you'll be saying it's ok for a business to discriminate against black people in goods and services, and in employment.

    You seem strangely in line with the views of Rand Paul --- which is not a good thing btw.

    I certainly can't believe your bf has the same political views as you -- I would love to have dinner with you two :p:D

    Sure, then states could give couples any and all rights/benefits they wanted to.

    I don't support DADT in the Department of Defense. As a Federal Executive Department they should operate under the rules and regulations set by the Executive. I do think disbanding the National Guard would leave the states in a horrible position of being vulnerable to the Federal Government, even with Posse comitatus. But as a defense force they should be able to set the fitness requirements for their volunteers.

    The forefathers lived in a different time, but their ideas pertaining to our government are still relevant, and nothing significant has changed the fundamental nature of our country. The United States of America, it's right in the name, the states. The country was founded as a union of sovereign states, the power has always been with the states, and it should remain with the states.

    Hmm possibly, but I doubt that I'll ever be a crazy hippy, however I guess it could happen. :-) Hahah, he's 8 years older than me, and our arguments are usually dumb (yesterday we were fighting about food coloring being made from bugs or plants) not usually political. We agree on lots probably most things politically, but he does hold some differing views, he voted for Obama too, but we both think/thought Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney would have been the better choice or easier to vote for.

    Ron Paul I support, Rand Paul is little extreme for me.
Sign In or Register to comment.