President Donald J. Trump

[albrecht]

Preach it, bro! Or how about the fact that all the cocaine that we know was coming into the states with the help of the CIA was coming through Mena, Arkansas, where the Clinton's were situated during his run as governor. Hillary's law firm was used to set up a giant slush fund from this that they used for bribes, pay-offs or just to help themselves to. This is why George and Barbara Bush think of Bill as another son. This is also why he ultimately would follow the same playbook as Bush by the time he left office, repealing the Glass-Stiegel act and setting the stage for the next big money grab in 2008.

I didn't want to get into the more conspiratorial side (though I suspect much of it has some basis in fact) but even the things we KNOW about Billary and Arkansas and later DC and the world. So much corruption, lies, insider deals, land deals, future contract deals, Foundation, speaking fees, sweet heart deals, Epstein, harassment/rape, pay-for-pardons, illegal Asian money, missing (and reappearing) documents, stolen documents from archive, private servers, and connections with shady, even criminal figures. 

[Value Of Pi]

And Billary with all of her and her husband's connections aren't connected with "white collar" crime, insider deals, sweet-heart contracts, etc over the decades? And that was just the small stuff, who know what goes on with their Foundation or the Lolita flights and parties with Epstein. 
I don't know much about Bernie's history but he has been good, in the past, on guns but is awful on immigration and some of his whacked-out economic policies. Unfortunately, the recent 'peaceful' events in Brussels etc will likely cause people to demand more anti-civil rights laws and support for Billary, Trump, or Cruz, but only Trump is talking about the real source of the problem or even finding a temporary solution to the threat from the "JV team" doing their peace.

Attacking Hillary, however well-deserved it may be in many cases, is in no way a defense of Trump. It's just changing the subject. The question remains who would do the least damage as president. That's my bottom line and no amount of attack ads or attack posts changes that calculation for me.

[VtaGeezer]

If you were paying attention. you'd know how much litigation he has been involved in (including the Trump University class action soon to go to court). Rich creeps like Trump have the cash to settle suits and make others go away before they are even filed. White collar crime, if he has committed any, is hardly ever prosecuted. What you call hysteria is often just reasonable people asking reasonable questions.

As POTUS,  Trump would be under constant fire from his opponents without having the skills or the brains to effectively respond. The corporate world is, in Trump's case, poor preparation for dealing effectively with the range of problems and people he'd face as president.

So a businessman with assets in the billions has had litigation against his businesses, and had bankruptcies too.  I'm shocked; shocked.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

You mention friends and allies, yet we've all sat and watched Obama and Hillary do everything they could to poison US-Israel relations.

How so?  They have serious disagreements with Netanyahu, which is in no way equivalent to "poisoning " relations with Israel.  He's another slimy politician who's more or less the Israeli equivalent of Dick Cheney and is unpopular with large segments of the population.  Not caving in to his every demand is eminently sensible policy, because if he had his way we'd be at war with Iran on his behalf right now.  It's one thing to support Israel, but I draw the line at doing the bidding of Netanyahu or any other war mongering prime minister.  He's not going to there forever, so there's no useful reason to kiss his ass every time he tells us to pucker up. If he doesn't like it, tough toenails.  We're helping Israel in the long run by not helping him now.

On a somewhat related note, I'm continuously amused by the Christian Right folks who swear unwavering support to the valiant Israelis, but would have a cow if their daughter married a Jew.  Do they not understand the concept of Israel and who runs it?

[Value Of Pi]

So a businessman with assets in the billions has had litigation against his businesses, and had bankruptcies too.  I'm shocked; shocked.

You know that it is not the fact that he gets sued that's the problem. The problem is the business practices that prompt the lawsuits. In the case of Trump U, those alleged practices include fraud. Fraud may not shock you but it says a lot about Trump. Voters, I find, are willing to ignore a lot in order to get what they want.

[Value Of Pi]

How so?  They have serious disagreements with Netanyahu, which is in no way equivalent to "poisoning " relations with Israel.  He's another slimy politician who's more or less the Israeli equivalent of Dick Cheney and is unpopular with large segments of the population.  Not caving in to his every demand is eminently sensible policy, because if he had his way we'd be at war with Iran on his behalf right now.  It's one thing to support Israel, but I draw the line at doing the bidding of Netanyahu or any other war mongering prime minister.  He's not going to there forever, so there's no useful reason to kiss his ass every time he tells us to pucker up. If he doesn't like it, tough toenails.  We're helping Israel in the long run by not helping him now.

On a somewhat related note, I'm continuously amused by the Christian Right folks who swear unwavering support to the valiant Israelis, but would have a cow if their daughter married a Jew.  Do they not understand the concept of Israel and who runs it?

Yes, SFA is exaggerating the negative aspects of Obama's and Clinton's policies towards Israel. The state of relations is at a low point, mostly due to the Iran deal, but it is still a very strong alliance, personalities aside.

[FightTheFuture]

Perhaps the American electorate are waking up to the realization that Trump is an ill-tempered pig, unsuitable to be President. We can certainly hope.

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/720580

[FightTheFuture]

Additionally, as predicted, new polls indicate trump has no chance against Clinton.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

[albrecht]

How so?  They have serious disagreements with Netanyahu, which is in no way equivalent to "poisoning " relations with Israel.  He's another slimy politician who's more or less the Israeli equivalent of Dick Cheney and is unpopular with large segments of the population.  Not caving in to his every demand is eminently sensible policy, because if he had his way we'd be at war with Iran on his behalf right now.  It's one thing to support Israel, but I draw the line at doing the bidding of Netanyahu or any other war mongering prime minister.  He's not going to there forever, so there's no useful reason to kiss his ass every time he tells us to pucker up. If he doesn't like it, tough toenails.  We're helping Israel in the long run by not helping him now.

On a somewhat related note, I'm continuously amused by the Christian Right folks who swear unwavering support to the valiant Israelis, but would have a cow if their daughter married a Jew.  Do they not understand the concept of Israel and who runs it?

It is interesting as a religious or sociological phenomena, or maybe just a case of politics makes strange bedfellows? But a decades ago many Christians, especially on the "right" of politics would not trust, or worse, Jews and Catholics but now some of the most vehement supporters of same are the 'evangelicals Protestants'- who were started, basically, from rebelling against those religions. I'm sure there must be some studies or papers on it, and not sure if was lobbying, natural movement due to appalling things like the Holocaust, immigration/assimliation (and recognizing that they aren't "bad,"  or what. Or some, as I said, just strange bed-fellows, in recognizing that, in some cases, those groups still try to keep old ways/rules? Or the newer phenomena of prophecy or something?

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

It is interesting as a religious or sociological phenomena, or maybe just a case of politics makes strange bedfellows? But a decades ago many Christians, especially on the "right" of politics would not trust, or worse, Jews and Catholics but now some of the most vehement supporters of same are the 'evangelicals Protestants'- who were started, basically, from rebelling against those religions. I'm sure there must be some studies or papers on it, and not sure if was lobbying, natural movement due to appalling things like the Holocaust, immigration/assimliation (and recognizing that they aren't "bad,"  or what. Or some, as I said, just strange bed-fellows, in recognizing that, in some cases, those groups still try to keep old ways/rules? Or the newer phenomena of prophecy or something?

For many fundamentalist Christians, support of Israel is all about the fulfillment of an end times prophesy. The apocalyptic ball can't get rolling until the Dome on the Rock is replaced by a new Temple of Jerusalem, and making sure the city is controlled by Israel is the best way to make that happen.  Their great reverence for Israel is motivated by nothing but self interest, and whatever divine punishment smites the Jews who don't convert to Christianity before the Second Coming isn't their problem.

[Dr. MD MD]

I heard today on the news that if it's Trump vs. Clinton that Hillary will win; but that if it's Trump vs. Sanders Bernie would win. What do you think? Would you be willing to elect Sanders as president if it meant making sure Hillary didn't win?

[Dr. MD MD]

For many fundamentalist Christians, support of Israel is all about the fulfillment of an end times prophesy. The apocalyptic ball can't get rolling until the Dome on the Rock is replaced by a new Temple of Jerusalem, and making sure the city is controlled by Israel is the best way to make that happen.  Their great reverence for Israel is motivated by nothing but self interest, and whatever divine punishment smites the Jews who don't convert to Christianity before the Second Coming isn't their problem.

Could we just say that there are crazies in all religions; and that, in fact, religion itself tends to promote this just by it's continual clashing with logic and reason?

[albrecht]

For many fundamentalist Christians, support of Israel is all about the fulfillment of an end times prophesy. The apocalyptic ball can't get rolling until the Dome on the Rock is replaced by a new Temple of Jerusalem, and making sure the city is controlled by Israel is the best way to make that happen.  Their great reverence for Israel is motivated by nothing but self interest, and whatever divine punishment smites the Jews who don't convert to Christianity before the Second Coming isn't their problem.

Yes, sure, but a relatively new "spin" on ancient books by many people who likely haven't even read the Book(s,) especially in the original languages-or even in the King's English version(s). So there is some marketing or something going on, I think. It is interesting also the whole British-Jerusalem phenomena and how our country had a few 'Great Awakenings'- not to mention the whole millennial Muslim apocalypse stuff. I've personally, if one must pick, like the predestination/selected type folks who want to separate from society versus the ones, of any type, who want to convert you or, as we see in our friends recently, commit their peaceful bombings or, conversely, of the 'selected' tribe who always want to meddle in finance or politics in other countries. Even give me some more Amish or Mennonite something types (not so far as Democrat-favorite Jim Jones or some or the crazy Mormons) but more benign and just want to separate- let people do what they wish and leave them alone. No tv preaching, no fundraising, no beheadings, no financial scams, no terrorism, no influencing politics, no government raids; just live and let live!

[TigerLily]

I heard today on the news that if it's Trump vs. Clinton that Hillary will win; but that if it's Trump vs. Sanders Bernie would win. What do you think? Would you be willing to elect Sanders as president if it meant making sure Hillary didn't win?

My dream come true 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDT8qvsod9I

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

Yes, sure, but a relatively new "spin" on ancient books by many people who likely haven't even read the Book(s,) especially in the original languages-or even in the King's English version(s). So there is some marketing or something going on, I think. It is interesting also the whole British-Jerusalem phenomena and how our country had a few 'Great Awakenings'- not to mention the whole millennial Muslim apocalypse stuff. I've personally, if one must pick, like the predestination/selected type folks who want to separate from society versus the ones, of any type, who want to convert you or, as we see in our friends recently, commit their peaceful bombings or, conversely, of the 'selected' tribe who always want to meddle in finance or politics in other countries. Even give me some more Amish or Mennonite something types (not so far as Democrat-favorite Jim Jones or some or the crazy Mormons) but more benign and just want to separate- let people do what they wish and leave them alone. No tv preaching, no fundraising, no beheadings, no financial scams, no terrorism, no influencing politics, no government raids; just live and let live!

It's much easier being an agnostic.  I can choose to believe or not believe whatever I want whenever I want without pissing myself off or feeling guilty about it.   

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Look out, Donald is coming in HOT

[JesusJuice]

"Spilling the beans"

[albrecht]

It's much easier being an agnostic.  I can choose to believe or not believe whatever I want whenever I want without pissing myself off or feeling guilty about it.   

Possibly true? But, I also think, contrary to public opinion these days, that there is "something" worthwhile, maybe, in "shame" or even, limited, so-called "bullying." (Interestingly many of the left love "native" cultures...even though they did this type of stuff much more than "whitey" did, in modern times- though there are still visages of it in some circles- who are oft accused, now, of elitism, etc.) Who knows but the quick-change from systems that worked (in their paradigm and societies) to "anything goes" and no borders, cohesion, common-values, rule of law, etc seems to not work. I, despite Hollywood, our government, and common-theory, don't think "diversity is strength" in the way it is, at least currently, administrated.

[VtaGeezer]

You know that it is not the fact that he gets sued that's the problem. The problem is the business practices that prompt the lawsuits. In the case of Trump U, those alleged practices include fraud. Fraud may not shock you but it says a lot about Trump. Voters, I find, are willing to ignore a lot in order to get what they want.

First, the cases haven't been judged.  Second, even if you assume he loses, how would putting one's name on a shaky if not shady training business compare in your eyes to being an "honorable" politician like Clinton, whose grand schemes have given the Islamic world it's worst violence since the 14th Century or Cruz, whose grandstanding govt shutdown directly cost us billions, or most any of the slimy ambitious crooks we call career pols. 

You use the Trump U issue as a red herring to sidestep my points; that his history in dealing with people and groups reflects absolutely none of the fascist racist monster who uses violence to get his way behavior.  Not one civil suit or govt action for such behavior has been reported, let alone won.

[mikuthing01]

Look out, Donald is coming in HOT

Absolute MADMAN!

[FightTheFuture]

Look out, Donald is coming in HOT

What a pig that guy is. Yeah, he really respects women. Anybody that has an ounce of respect for the women in their life, should tell that son of a b**** to go to hell

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

Possibly true? But, I also think, contrary to public opinion these days, that there is "something" worthwhile, maybe, in "shame" or even, limited, so-called "bullying." (Interestingly many of the left love "native" cultures...even though they did this type of stuff much more than "whitey" did, in modern times- though there are still visages of it in some circles- who are oft accused, now, of elitism, etc.) Who knows but the quick-change from systems that worked (in their paradigm and societies) to "anything goes" and no borders, cohesion, common-values, rule of law, etc seems to not work. I, despite Hollywood, our government, and common-theory, don't think "diversity is strength" in the way it is, at least currently, administrated.

Dude! You're overthinking things. Eat a Snickers! 

Seriously, though, I'm an agnostic and I also believe everyone is entitled to their own religious beliefs as long as they practice them on their own time and don't pester me or anyone else about them. The world would be a much better place if religion was a private, personal matter and nobody cared enough to kill each over the petty details. Unfortunately, that will happen about the same time penguins fly.  Cheers!

[WOTR]

Yes, sure, but a relatively new "spin" on ancient books by many people who likely haven't even read the Book(s,) especially in the original languages-or even in the King's English version(s).

I really hate to say it- but outside of a couple of hundred people, there is nobody with the ability to read the bible in the original languages.  Very few people speak the Hebrew used 3000 years ago and the Greek of 2000 years ago.  Even if I did spend the remainder of my life studying these languages and the scriptures in those languages, I would likely be worse off than reading even something like the NIV or KJV, or many other mainstream translations.  (Yeah, there are some really screwed up ones if you look.) 

One person (me) is far more likely to make a mistake in my translation of a dead language with uncertain punctuation than the teams of translators who give us our current books after spending hundreds of hours debating how to best render certain words and phrases...

[Value Of Pi]

First, the cases haven't been judged.  Second, even if you assume he loses, how would putting one's name on a shaky if not shady training business compare in your eyes to being an "honorable" politician like Clinton, whose grand schemes have given the Islamic world it's worst violence since the 14th Century or Cruz, whose grandstanding govt shutdown directly cost us billions, or most any of the slimy ambitious crooks we call career pols. 

You use the Trump U issue as a red herring to sidestep my points; that his history in dealing with people and groups reflects absolutely none of the fascist racist monster who uses violence to get his way behavior.  Not one civil suit or govt action for such behavior has been reported, let alone won.

First off, you're grossly exaggerating Clinton's responsibility for the mess in the Middle East and I wouldn't ever be in the position of defending Cruz's actions as a senator. In any case, I judge Trump to be unqualified for the office regardless of whom he is running against. I thought this during his last campaign and everything he's said and done this time around reinforces my opinion. There's no way he could get my vote.

[SciFiAuthor]

How so?  They have serious disagreements with Netanyahu, which is in no way equivalent to "poisoning " relations with Israel.  He's another slimy politician who's more or less the Israeli equivalent of Dick Cheney and is unpopular with large segments of the population.  Not caving in to his every demand is eminently sensible policy, because if he had his way we'd be at war with Iran on his behalf right now.  It's one thing to support Israel, but I draw the line at doing the bidding of Netanyahu or any other war mongering prime minister.  He's not going to there forever, so there's no useful reason to kiss his ass every time he tells us to pucker up. If he doesn't like it, tough toenails.  We're helping Israel in the long run by not helping him now.

That's not sound policy. The point of having an ally is to back that ally in order to secure your interests regardless of their respective politics. Snubbing Netanyahu, a fully democratically elected leader, was unprofessional and unbecoming of a POTUS. I mean really, you're comparing Netanyahu to a former US Vice President and making the case that he should be snubbed because the two have similar politics. That is very, very weak.

On a somewhat related note, I'm continuously amused by the Christian Right folks who swear unwavering support to the valiant Israelis, but would have a cow if their daughter married a Jew.  Do they not understand the concept of Israel and who runs it?

From what I understand their support derives from a desire to bring about the second coming of Christ, i.e. the end of the world by way of the Jews reconstructing the Temple of Jerusalem. The idea of forcing the almighty's hand and railroading him into sparking off Armageddon seems strange and counterproductive to me, but whatever floats their boat as it serves my objective of supporting Israel as a strategic ally.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

I really hate to say it- but outside of a couple of hundred people, there is nobody with the ability to read the bible in the original languages.  Very few people speak the Hebrew used 3000 years ago and the Greek of 2000 years ago.  Even if I did spend the remainder of my life studying these languages and the scriptures in those languages, I would likely be worse off than reading even something like the NIV or KJV, or many other mainstream translations.  (Yeah, there are some really screwed up ones if you look.) 

One person (me) is far more likely to make a mistake in my translation of a dead language with uncertain punctuation than the teams of translators who give us our current books after spending hundreds of hours debating how to best render certain words and phrases...

Have you read any of Bart Ehrman's books?  If not, check him out because you probably would enjoy them.  He's one of the few people who is able to read the languages of the original scriptures, and he has a lot to say about typos and different translations of the same source documents.

[Value Of Pi]

From what I understand their support derives from a desire to bring about the second coming of Christ, i.e. the end of the world by way of the Jews reconstructing the Temple of Jerusalem. The idea of forcing the almighty's hand and railroading him into sparking off Armageddon seems strange and counterproductive to me, but whatever floats their boat as it serves my objective of supporting Israel as a strategic ally.

They don't think of it as forcing His hand, just doing their part as a fulfillment of prophesy. Beyond their belief about the Second Coming, they also feel an affinity for Israel based on shared Judeo-Christian and democratic values. Their support is based on both religion and politics.

Strange as it may seem, they have faith that they are doing the right thing. Faith is a very strange concept for people who don't have it. For those that do, it's completely natural.

[Robert Ghostwolf's Ghost]

That's not sound policy. The point of having an ally is to back that ally in order to secure your interests regardless of their respective politics. Snubbing Netanyahu, a fully democratically elected leader, was unprofessional and unbecoming of a POTUS. I mean really, you're comparing Netanyahu to a former US Vice President and making the case that he should be snubbed because the two have similar politics. That is very, very weak.

Alliances are two-way streets, and supporting Israel does not mean acceding to every whim of whoever happens to be Prime Minister. When I compared Netanyahu to Cheney, I meant that they are both extremists who have repeatedly expressed their preference for solving short term problems with military force with little or no regard or strategic vision for the long term consequences. As far as I can tell, our economic and military commitments to Israel haven't been drastically reduced by Obama, and Netanyahu is just butt hurt because Obama doesn't want to commit more U.S. military force on his behalf.  There are a lot of Israelis who want peace and disagree with him, so it's possible he'll be replaced by someone more reasonable and pragmatic in a few years.

[Up All Night]

Trump is the "Goldwater" I never got to Vote for.

[Value Of Pi]

Alliances are two-way streets, and supporting Israel does not mean acceding to every whim of whoever happens to be Prime Minister. When I compared Netanyahu to Cheney, I meant that they are both extremists who have repeatedly expressed their preference for solving short term problems with military force with little or no regard or strategic vision for the long term consequences. As far as I can tell, our economic and military commitments to Israel haven't been drastically reduced by Obama, and Netanyahu is just butt hurt because Obama doesn't want to commit more U.S. military force on his behalf.  There are a lot of Israelis who want peace and disagree with him, so it's possible he'll be replaced by someone more reasonable and pragmatic in a few years.

When you say "commit more U.S. military force on his behalf" it sounds like you think we have forces committed or somehow fighting for Netanyahu or Israel. Is that what you meant?