• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Warren Escalates Trump Attacks

jamesrage said:
But offense to libs but Fauxchontas IE chief sitting bull**** is the last person Clinton should use to attack Trump.It would be like conservatives making big deal out Alex Jones attacking Clinton.
Click to expand...

Alex Jones is a sitting senator?
 
Bucky said:
A few interesting observations.

First off, defending the Iran deal as an "accomplishment" for the Obama administration is hilarious considering Iran isn't even abiding by the terms set forth. We gave a terrorist state how many millions of dollars? That deal will go down as one of the worst deals in the history of the United States.
Click to expand...

Really? Are you sure about that one?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/world/middleeast/iran-sanctions-lifted-nuclear-deal.html?_r=0
Sanctions lifted after Iran found in compliance - CNN.com
Iran complies with nuclear deal, sanctions lifted – POLITICO
Sanctions against Iran lifted after compliance with nuclear deal | World news | The Guardian

And, for good measure, here is an article about heavy water reactor being filled with concrete - as per the agreement.

Bucky said:
It would be a start to begin negotiating with North Korea. You have a leader in Kim Jong un that has been pleading with Obama for him to call and Obama has refused.

Amazing how liberals can spin a negative into a positive. The Cuba trip was an embarrassing footnote for the Obama administration. These climate change agreements simply hurt our interest. Not help.
Click to expand...

Kim Jong Un has made multiple threats to nuke the United States and the White House explicitly. And you think that Obama should make a phone call?

As for Cuba, let's see what that trip helped to accomplish. And this comes from YESTERDAY.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a703...ize-small-and-medium-sized-private-businesses

As for the climate change accords, I know that I will never convince you that climate change is real and that it is only of the most dire threats that we face as a nation and as a planet. I doubt that it matters just how many experts, both within the climate field and within the ****ing Pentagon, that I could cite for that proof. The fact remains.
 
MrT said:
I really love Warren for handling these types of attacks. For starters, it allows a Presidential candidate like Sanders or Clinton to remain Presidential, which is something that Donald Trump only believes he can do because he is an egomaniacal asshole that claims an ability to do anything and everything better than anyone who has ever lived. Additionally, she is largely a target that has so far escaped any significant negative branding. Donald Trump has responded to Warren's attacks by calling her "goofy" and by trying to re-hash a 2012 controversy related to her alleged native American history. I don't see either having the same type of punch as the ones that Warren continues to lob against Donald, like these gems:



Elizabeth Warren escalates attack on 'small, insecure' Trump - POLITICO

Is it possible that Warren's combination of providing unity within the democratic party and her ability to act as an attack dog during the campaign could lead us to have an all-female democratic ticket?

She is certainly making that argument hard to ignore.
Click to expand...

Instead of cheap shots, she should have manned up and should have run for office herself. Both Trump and Hillary are not presidential material. So if Warren were really concerned about our current situation, she wouldn't make herself look like a hypocrite by protecting the current D front runner at all cost.
 
TurtleDude said:
He was the president of the law review but didn't have a note published-not an editor. HE was not a law professor but a lecturer. HE had his way prepared for him when his supporters killed off the opposition that would have beat him-such as a corrupt judge allowing the unsealing of divorce records of the GOP candidate who was beating him in the polls. And with all that experience, he has sucked as a president.
Click to expand...

You are just jealous that President Obama has been more successful than you have been.
 
Texmex said:
You are just jealous that President Obama has been more successful than you have been.
Click to expand...

How so? I had no desire to go into politics. My undergraduate grades at Yale are higher than what he had in college by a rather wide margin. Our grades at Law schools were pretty close but I wasn't E in C of the Law review. I am worth a lot more than he is and if you want to make this personal, I suspect I am far more successful than you could have ever hoped to be. And Guess what? Trump is far more successful than you are. So what does that mean.
 
Lovebug said:
Instead of cheap shots, she should have manned up and should have run for office herself. Both Trump and Hillary are not presidential material. So if Warren were really concerned about our current situation, she wouldn't make herself look like a hypocrite by protecting the current D front runner at all cost.
Click to expand...

I agree but Lieyawatha isn't presidential material either
 
MrT said:
Well...it was reported by multiple news agencies and my thread on her latest comments now sits at four pages...so yea, people give a ****.
Click to expand...

People calling her an idiot is not giving a **** about what she said.

Obviously the media is going to report what she said, she said it about Trump.
 
MrT said:
Not quite. I think Trump is an asshole because of his specific true nature - not merely because he showed his true nature. And yes. I do consider the appearance of Presidential status in the public eye to be a valuable trait irregardless of their true nature. The President is a very public office that carries a great deal of interactions with a much larger audience than those who meet the President in a private, personal setting. I want my President to be able to represent himself or herself in a manner befitting that position.



Combination of Bachmann and Palin? Setting aside the differences in temperament, the differences in experience, the differences in political ideology, and the differences in intelligence...I suppose you are correct to note that all three are indeed females. So kudos on that point, I guess.

As for Warren wanting to run for the Presidency, I fail to see how attacking Trump hurts her chances in any shape or form.



I don't disagree that Warren would be a solid partner to Bernie, but you aren't exactly laying out a strong argument for why Warren wouldn't be a solid partner to Hillary. The history making argument still remains a viable and strong argument - considering that neither a female President nor a female vice-President have ever been elected - and considering the fact Obama's job approval rating and performance are quite positive even after eight years. I know that you disapprove and would never find any benefit to his Presidency, but his job approval rating currently sits at the highest rating since immediately after his reelection and it projects to only go higher.

Also, I really hate the notion of a "low information voter." Please stop using that term because it is only a method of denigrating all individuals that disagree with you. Just because Rush claims it, doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...

Aren't we supposed to comment on policy and not attack the candidates or President personally?

Wasn't that the precedent set?
 
Mason66 said:
Aren't we supposed to comment on policy and not attack the candidates or President personally?

Wasn't that the precedent set?
Click to expand...

By whom?

Also, what is Trump's policy? The man shifts his position each week it seems.
 
TurtleDude said:
I agree but Lieyawatha isn't presidential material either
Click to expand...

She would have been much more successful and would have actually earned the nomination. Sadly, now she has stooped to defending the indefensible, a woman who barely holds up against an old man, a woman who probably has bought every super delegate out there.
I respected Warren, but can't anymore.
Trump is an asshole, but at least he is amusing. Clinton, she is just a sad and evil woman.
 
MrT said:
By whom?

Also, what is Trump's policy? The man shifts his position each week it seems.
Click to expand...

So it is OK to attack Obama personally?
 
tres borrachos said:
Well, once again I detest having to defend the man I can't stand. But the reality is, Trump has had unbelievable and virtually unparalleled success in his business career overall. The 4 bankruptcies of his casinos? He was one of many in that business who had problems. The issues in Atlantic City long predated Trump, and continue to this day.
Click to expand...

I just have to disagree, Tres. He's touting his business acumen, telling the electorate that he knows how to make money and everything he does is successful. If the issues in Atlantic City predated Trump, he should have known better and stayed out of it.
 
Mason66 said:
So it is OK to attack Obama personally?
Click to expand...

Shouldn't matter who makes those personal attacks. It makes the attacker look bad and desperate. Obama snickers about "those.......", Trump is lashing out against anyone who dares to speak up against him, Hillary is a master of cheap attacks. Sadly, it doesn't help us, the people, at all to imagine all the promised vision for our country.
We, all of us, should speak up against this circus. It is beneath us.
Think of it like this. You are very ill and have to go to the hospital, where one of several surgeons may work on you the next day. Each one badmouths the other. Which one would you want to cut into you?
 
TurtleDude said:
How so? I had no desire to go into politics. My undergraduate grades at Yale are higher than what he had in college by a rather wide margin. Our grades at Law schools were pretty close but I wasn't E in C of the Law review. I am worth a lot more than he is and if you want to make this personal, I suspect I am far more successful than you could have ever hoped to be. And Guess what? Trump is far more successful than you are. So what does that mean.
Click to expand...

I was waiting on this. This means that both you and Trump are arrogant people who revel in thinking yourselves better than others, and definitely better than you are. You are correct in that you have a lot more money than I do, but if I had to be like you to have it, I would rather be poor.
 
Lovebug said:
Shouldn't matter who makes those personal attacks. It makes the attacker look bad and desperate. Obama snickers about "those.......", Trump is lashing out against anyone who dares to speak up against him, Hillary is a master of cheap attacks. Sadly, it doesn't help us, the people, at all to imagine all the promised vision for our country.
We, all of us, should speak up against this circus. It is beneath us.
Think of it like this. You are very ill and have to go to the hospital, where one of several surgeons may work on you the next day. Each one badmouths the other. Which one would you want to cut into you?
Click to expand...

I understand that but MrT is a defender of Obama but he has no problem attacking personally those on the other side, so I was asking if it is now OK to attack Obama personally.

If it is OK to do it on one side, why not the other?
 
I find it absolutely hilarious that people sit around and talk about how successful they are. Look at me, look at me, I have lots of money I won't ever need! lol.
 
TurtleDude said:
He was the president of the law review but didn't have a note published-not an editor. HE was not a law professor but a lecturer. HE had his way prepared for him when his supporters killed off the opposition that would have beat him-such as a corrupt judge allowing the unsealing of divorce records of the GOP candidate who was beating him in the polls. And with all that experience, he has sucked as a president.
Click to expand...

My mistake, I plead tired as to the editor/president comment. It still stands as an accomplishment and distinguishes him as a law student at Harvard and in the elite of the elite.


UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.
Click to expand...

Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?

You can say what you want about how he won. No skin off my nose, he still has experience in government that Trump does not. The lack thereof, would make him a disaster of a president.
 
Gina said:
My mistake, I plead tired as to the editor/president comment. It still stands as an accomplishment and distinguishes him as a law student at Harvard and in the elite of the elite.




Obama a Constitutional Law Professor?

You can say what you want about how he won. No skin off my nose, he still has experience in government that Trump does not. The lack thereof, would make him a disaster of a president.
Click to expand...

there is no real correlation between experience in politics and success

the most successful president of the last 60 years was probably Ike and he was not a politician, Nixon on the other hand had tons of experience and was a failure. So I just don't buy that. executive experience is what really matters.
 
Bucky said:
Obama is a perfect example of a President that lives in the world of theory.

He read all the texts and and was very well book-smart however he had no real life experience or "street smarts" and was well, made a fool as a president.

Donald Trump has negotiated several great deals. Obama on the other hand has negotiated with desperate terrorists organizations and has even failed in that losing several bargaining chips for a traitor and a couple of oreos.
Click to expand...

Trump negotiated many bad deals as well, resulting in 4 bankruptcies and created a sham of a "University" saying he personally chose the "professors". The president of "Trump University" admitted in a deposition that Trump did not approve them.
Questioner, July 25, 2012: And were any of these other speakers at any of those events hand picked by Donald Trump?

Sexton: None of our instructors at the live events were hand picked by Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

He's a carnival barker and he bilked people into attending his circus with the same kind of braggadocio and self-promotion he's using in his presidential campaign.
 
Gina said:
I just have to disagree, Tres. He's touting his business acumen, telling the electorate that he knows how to make money and everything he does is successful. If the issues in Atlantic City predated Trump, he should have known better and stayed out of it.
Click to expand...

There are many successful casinos in Atlantic City. Some have been there for decades. There are also some very unsuccessful casinos in Atlantic City. He had some of both.

I may have missed him running around telling people that everything he does is successful so I'll take your word for that.

He had 4 blips in the midst of many hundreds of successful projects. As they say repeatedly on Shark Tank, failure is a big part of success. Trump knows how to make money. Anyone who doesn't see that is not paying attention. I can't stand the man, but to deny he is enormously successful is as silly as saying Obama did absolutely nothing before becoming President. It's also not true.
 
MrT said:
I would note that there is a difference between taking advantage of the opportunities afforded to you and celebrating that fact publicly.

With that said, if I were in Trump's position and specifically (at least if I understand the story correctly) if I were talking to a group of a individuals that I wanted to encourage into investing and trying to make money, I would likely claim that I was excited as well. It is a sales pitch more than anything else.

But this is a politics. It is all about the optics of the fact. And the optics of the fact is that Trump publicly celebrated and said he was excited about the financial destruction of millions of Americans.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you don't like the fact that he was honest about it. You would rather he not have said anything. In other words, you also have no issue with what he wanted to do, just the fact that he was honest about it and articulated it.

And?
 
TurtleDude said:
there is no real correlation between experience in politics and success

the most successful president of the last 60 years was probably Ike and he was not a politician, Nixon on the other hand had tons of experience and was a failure. So I just don't buy that. executive experience is what really matters.
Click to expand...

Ike has the discipline and gravitas of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in WWII. He was a member of government in that manner, earning his way to the top. In no way is Trump on a comparable level as Ike, in any way shape or form.

Nixon's personal foibles are well documented and lead to his failures. Trump's personal foibles, open lying, flip-flopping, self-aggrandizement and bullying, are on display on a daily basis.

Trump's executive experience is a mixed bag at best.
 
Gina said:
Ike has the discipline and gravitas of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in WWII. He was a member of government in that manner, earning his way to the top. In no way is Trump on a comparable level as Ike, in any way shape or form.

Nixon's personal foibles are well documented and lead to his failures. Trump's personal foibles, open lying, flip-flopping, self-aggrandizement and bullying, are on display on a daily basis.

Trump's executive experience is a mixed bag at best.
Click to expand...

Look, lets cut the silliness. You are going to support Hilary because of her political agenda, not because she is "qualified" or experienced. And I am not going to vote for her because her political agenda makes me want to puke. Where qualifications matter in terms of experience is in contests between candidates who have similar political agendas. Such as Bernie v. Hilary or Kasich v Bush. Once you get to the main election, its about which party and which agenda you want in place.

I doubt you would vote for a pro gun pro life, anti gay rights, anti Union conservative even if he had say the credentials of GHWB (who probably had the best resume of ANYONE who has run for president in the last 60 years). And I won't vote for a gun banning, tax hiking, Union coddling Democrat with the same resume either
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom