• 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!

Is Donald Trump qualified for the Presidency?[W:74]

With every passing day Trump shows himself to be a complete horses ass who is a loudmouthed rude abrasive carnival barker in no way qualified to be President of the USA.

But in this year - thats a plus for him with some far right voters coming from the tea party sector of the GOP.
 
As previous news has shown, Mr. Trump has proposed multiple policies that horrify audiences. For instance, his proposal that Mexico, a foreign country, should pay to build a defensive wall around our own country. Blaming Mexico for all the illegal immigrants? Completely unacceptable. Having Mexico pay for our own defenses? Extremely unacceptable.
Who does Donald Trump think he is? If he is elected (God forbid), and he does suggest that Congress approve of these actions, it'll never happen. How can Donald Trump even hold the Presidency if everything he proposes is horrible to foreign relations? His Secretary of State would be horrified. About that, here is what the Washington Post thinks his Secretary of State will be:

"Secretary of State: We know that Trump thinks that Hillary Clinton was the worst secretary of state in American history. He clearly wants the opposite of that. So how about Vladimir Putin, whom Trump has repeatedly praised? He's pretty opposite." -Phillip Bump, Washington Post

We are all aware that Vladimir Putin will never become the Secretary of State, but what we do know is that if Donald Trump does, somehow, win the Presidency, our glorious country will be as good as destroyed.

Freedom to USA
Constitutionalist

Right now, Trump is the most qualified man in the race to be president. And that includes both parties.
 
With every passing day Trump shows himself to be a complete horses ass who is a loudmouthed rude abrasive carnival barker in no way qualified to be President of the USA.

But in this year - thats a plus for him with some far right voters coming from the tea party sector of the GOP.

It's going to really be a gut check for you when the SILENT MAJORITY elects the TRUMP/CRUZ ticket in a landslide.

Then again, you HILLARY-BOTS will still have the gall to act surprised.
 
It's going to really be a gut check for you when the SILENT MAJORITY elects the TRUMP/CRUZ ticket in a landslide.

Then again, you HILLARY-BOTS will still have the gall to act surprised.

Funniest post of the day!!!!!! :lol::mrgreen:;)
 
Is Donald Trump qualified for the Presidency?

No.
 
By: Damon Linker

Why aren't conservative intellectuals disgusted with the GOP?

Partisan liberals might consider it an oxymoron, but there is such a thing as a conservative intellectual. Indeed, I used to be one.

Though I've moved away from the right since those days, I maintain many friendships with highly educated, impressively smart conservatives. Their number is many, their intellects mighty. This column is directed at them, because there's something I genuinely don't understand.

I can't grasp how an intelligent, well-read man or woman, regardless of ideological commitments, could watch the Republican debate in Milwaukee on Tuesday night and not come away disgusted. I certainly did. It was a familiar feeling.

I began to experience it regularly in the run-up to the Iraq War. That disgust propelled my leftward migration over the following years, and it's intensified since the rise of the populist insurgency known as the Tea Party.

Somehow, my friends on the right don't seem to hear anything troubling, anything intellectually offensive emanating from the mouths of the Republican candidates. And I just don't get it.

I don't just mean the obvious stuff. You know, the unprovoked and petty anti-intellectualism of Marco Rubio denigrating philosophers by contrasting them unfavorably to welders (and presumably people who work at other skilled trades as well). Or Rand Paul's nonsensical, conspiratorial musings about the Federal Reserve. Or Donald Trump's xenophobic promises to build a 2,000-mile wall along the U.S.-Mexican border and round up and deport eleven million undocumented immigrants. (If they're undocumented, how will we find them? House to house sweeps by armed agents of the state through poor and heavily Latino neighborhoods? That's either absurdly unfeasible, as Jeb Bush and John Kasich pointed out, or a program for American fascism.)

And neither do I merely mean the dumpsters full of dubious assertions that are by now so deeply embedded in conservative ideology that every candidate tosses them out without making even the most cursory effort to bolster them with facts. Like the claim that America's relatively slow growth rate in recent years is a product of our tax burden (when in fact tax rates were considerably higher during the high-growth decades following World War II). Or the related contention that taxes can be drastically cut without massively increasing the budget deficit because the cuts will spur such enormous growth that tax revenues will actually increase. Or the endlessly repeated alliterative vow that ObamaCare will be "repealed and replaced," while neglecting to admit, let alone defend, the fact that the replacements favored by the GOP candidates would almost certainly leave millions of those currently covered by the Affordable Care Act without insurance.

Actually, that's more than enough to leave me pretty disgusted.

And yet, at Tuesday's debate, there were so many other things that got me going more than usual. I'm talking about specific policy proposals that amounted to nothing more than transparent nonsense. Maybe a credulous viewer with no knowledge of history, public policy, economics, or how the government actually works could respond to these proposals with a nod and a cheer. But informed viewers? Educated men and women of the right? Conservative intellectuals? They should know better — and know enough to realize when they're being sold, or helping to sell, a bucket of BS.

The appropriate response to someone attempting to turn you into the victim of a hoax or a swindle is anger. It's insulting to be treated like a sucker, a chump. And yet, my conservative intellectual friends appear not to be bothered in the least.

And that I just don't understand.

<snip>

Why aren't conservative intellectuals disgusted with the GOP?
 
Last edited:
It's going to really be a gut check for you when the SILENT MAJORITY elects the TRUMP/CRUZ ticket in a landslide.

Then again, you HILLARY-BOTS will still have the gall to act surprised.
I am certain that this is what you believe, and that says something in itself, but the problem is that there is no evidence at all to support your viewpoint.
 
By: Damon Linker

Why aren't conservative intellectuals disgusted with the GOP?

Partisan liberals might consider it an oxymoron, but there is such a thing as a conservative intellectual. Indeed, I used to be one.

Though I've moved away from the right since those days, I maintain many friendships with highly educated, impressively smart conservatives. Their number is many, their intellects mighty. This column is directed at them, because there's something I genuinely don't understand.

I can't grasp how an intelligent, well-read man or woman, regardless of ideological commitments, could watch the Republican debate in Milwaukee on Tuesday night and not come away disgusted. I certainly did. It was a familiar feeling.

I began to experience it regularly in the run-up to the Iraq War. That disgust propelled my leftward migration over the following years, and it's intensified since the rise of the populist insurgency known as the Tea Party.

Somehow, my friends on the right don't seem to hear anything troubling, anything intellectually offensive emanating from the mouths of the Republican candidates. And I just don't get it.

I don't just mean the obvious stuff. You know, the unprovoked and petty anti-intellectualism of Marco Rubio denigrating philosophers by contrasting them unfavorably to welders (and presumably people who work at other skilled trades as well). Or Rand Paul's nonsensical, conspiratorial musings about the Federal Reserve. Or Donald Trump's xenophobic promises to build a 2,000-mile wall along the U.S.-Mexican border and round up and deport eleven million undocumented immigrants. (If they're undocumented, how will we find them? House to house sweeps by armed agents of the state through poor and heavily Latino neighborhoods? That's either absurdly unfeasible, as Jeb Bush and John Kasich pointed out, or a program for American fascism.)

And neither do I merely mean the dumpsters full of dubious assertions that are by now so deeply embedded in conservative ideology that every candidate tosses them out without making even the most cursory effort to bolster them with facts. Like the claim that America's relatively slow growth rate in recent years is a product of our tax burden (when in fact tax rates were considerably higher during the high-growth decades following World War II). Or the related contention that taxes can be drastically cut without massively increasing the budget deficit because the cuts will spur such enormous growth that tax revenues will actually increase. Or the endlessly repeated alliterative vow that ObamaCare will be "repealed and replaced," while neglecting to admit, let alone defend, the fact that the replacements favored by the GOP candidates would almost certainly leave millions of those currently covered by the Affordable Care Act without insurance.

Actually, that's more than enough to leave me pretty disgusted.

And yet, at Tuesday's debate, there were so many other things that got me going more than usual. I'm talking about specific policy proposals that amounted to nothing more than transparent nonsense. Maybe a credulous viewer with no knowledge of history, public policy, economics, or how the government actually works could respond to these proposals with a nod and a cheer. But informed viewers? Educated men and women of the right? Conservative intellectuals? They should know better — and know enough to realize when they're being sold, or helping to sell, a bucket of BS.

The appropriate response to someone attempting to turn you into the victim of a hoax or a swindle is anger. It's insulting to be treated like a sucker, a chump. And yet, my conservative intellectual friends appear not to be bothered in the least.

And that I just don't understand.

<snip>

Why aren't conservative intellectuals disgusted with the GOP?
  1. We've all been kicked out of the Republican Party
  2. A wide enough range of policies have been employed for a long enough time to have a pretty good idea of what *actually* works best. Left right... your ideology doesn't matter. The best policy is often just math.
  3. Republicans no longer believe in math... or in bills that are more than 3 pages long.
  4. The Democratic party has turned to the right on a number of issues, giving a not quite comfortable but more welcoming home to conservative pragmatists.
 
It's going to really be a gut check for you when the SILENT MAJORITY elects the TRUMP/CRUZ ticket in a landslide.

Then again, you HILLARY-BOTS will still have the gall to act surprised.

You can get 9:1 odds for Trump winning the presidency and 4:1 odds for him winning the nomination. So bet now!! (FYI the best odds you can get on Hillary are 1:8, but what does the free market know about anything)
2016 Presidential Election Odds | Next US President | Oddschecker
 
With Trump's experience he would make a excellent dictator. After all, that is how he runs his business. I really dont think that Trump realizes that being President isnt the same as being a dictator. I would give him a month in office before he resigned or was impeached. But in that time he probably would start WW3.
 
Lot of spaghetti being thrown against the wall in this thread by the haters. None of it seems to be sticking and that must be intensely frustrating for you all. His poll numbers keep climbing.

It's funny to watch you all make excuses as to why and never quite getting it right.
 
Lot of spaghetti being thrown against the wall in this thread by the haters. None of it seems to be sticking and that must be intensely frustrating for you all. His poll numbers keep climbing.

It's funny to watch you all make excuses as to why and never quite getting it right.

Most of us so called HATERS are on your side clown..... we want your boy to win the GOP nomination.
 
Most of us so called HATERS are on your side clown..... we want your boy to win the GOP nomination.

:lamo and another piece of spaghetti hits the wall and fails to stick. You've used that one before, it failed then, why keep pulling it out of the discarded pile?
 
:lamo and another piece of spaghetti hits the wall and fails to stick. You've used that one before, it failed then, why keep pulling it out of the discarded pile?

What is this standard you are using for pronouncing this as failing to stick? It makes no sense.

I want Trump to win the GOP nomination. How is saying that subject to failure saying it now many months before we find out if it happens?
 
What is this standard you are using for pronouncing this as failing to stick? It makes no sense.

I want Trump to win the GOP nomination. How is saying that subject to failure saying it now many months before we find out if it happens?

It's the old reverse tar baby tactic to begin with. And for those who recognize it, it's a fail Haymarket.
 
It's the old reverse tar baby tactic to begin with. And for those who recognize it, it's a fail Haymarket.

Again - that makes no sense. I say I want Trump to win the nomination and you say it does not sticking is failing. How can by opinion about an event over a half a year away FAIL?


You are making no sense.
 
Again - that makes no sense. I say I want Trump to win the nomination and you say it does not sticking is failing. How can by opinion about an event over a half a year away FAIL?


You are making no sense.

And if your tactics get noticed, distract. It's not working Haymarket.
 
And if your tactics get noticed, distract. It's not working Haymarket.

Tactics!?!?!?!?!? What part about this statement befuddles you: I strongly believe that if Donald Trump gets the GOP nomination, not only will he lose in a style that makes us forget Barry Godlwaters debacle in 1964, but his nomination has the potential to split the Republican Party and ruin it as a viable party across the nation.

Is there something in there that you just do not understand is my opinion?

What do you think I am attempting to do in making this statement here other than simply give my opinion as someone who has followed, observed and participated in electoral politics since the 1960's?
 
Tactics!?!?!?!?!? What part about this statement befuddles you: I strongly believe that if Donald Trump gets the GOP nomination, not only will he lose in a style that makes us forget Barry Godlwaters debacle in 1964, but his nomination has the potential to split the Republican Party and ruin it as a viable party across the nation.

Is there something in there that you just do not understand is my opinion?

What do you think I am attempting to do in making this statement here other than simply give my opinion as someone who has followed, observed and participated in electoral politics since the 1960's?

Oh, I understand the tactic. "Go ahead and do that, that's precisely what the opposition wants". Once again letting the opposition control the script.

I thought you too intelligent politically to actually buy that nonsense. The party holds a deathlock on the grassroots level, no matter whom they run for POTUS, win or lose, the party will continue to be a strong force going forward.
 
The same poll that says Trump leads in the GOP nomination field, has him losing to Hillary by an average of 4.4 points.

Pardon me if I don't jump for joy. :doh

In fact, according to RCP, the ONLY poll that shows Trump to victorious over Hillary is the Fox News poll. Imagine that. :roll:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton
 
The same poll that says Trump leads in the GOP nomination field, has him losing to Hillary by an average of 4.4 points.

Pardon me if I don't jump for joy. :doh

In fact, according to RCP, the ONLY poll that shows Trump to victorious over Hillary is the Fox News poll. Imagine that. :roll:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

There's a good reason polls concerning the general are not accurate as yet. Minds change when the actual candidates are chosen and the primary speculation is gone.
 

Trump qualified? Yes.

Obama? No. Laughingly... No, and VP candidate Ferraro stated clearly why. But we got the fool, and the joke has been on us and the rest of the world. A costly joke.
 
Oh, I understand the tactic. "Go ahead and do that, that's precisely what the opposition wants". Once again letting the opposition control the script.

I thought you too intelligent politically to actually buy that nonsense. The party holds a deathlock on the grassroots level, no matter whom they run for POTUS, win or lose, the party will continue to be a strong force going forward.

What part of I WANT TRUMP TO BE THE GOP NOMINEE seems to so befuddle and confuse you?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stop talking about each other and address the topic.
 
Simpleχity;1065256128 said:
Is Donald Trump qualified for the Presidency?

No.

He is more qualified to be president than the last TEN Democrat presidents. He is more qualified than ANY of the GOP candidates today. He is definitely more qualified to be president than ANY living Democrat today.
 
Back
Top Bottom