The Smiley Smile Message Board

It seems everyone thought he was a joke until fairly recently and now today he might be poised to begin a victory lap to the nomination. Whether you love him or not, its quite interesting to see an outsider basically single-handedly take over a party.

I'm not a fan at all, but yeah, he's already shake. Up the Republican Party substantially and if he wins the general election (God forbid) a silver lining is that it would be a wake up call for both parties.

If he were elected, I'd be tremendously ashamed that such a significant part of our population was that foolish, letting anger over status quo, the direction of the country, (the moronic idea of the grave dangers of) political correctness influence them to vote for that joke. We would be the laughingstock of the world. It would be an unprecedented low for the American presidency, and it would not even be close. He's uniquely unqualified as a candidate.

Hopefully it would serve as a warning to the parties to reverse their race to the furthest reaches of meme-ism and sound bites and showmanship and at least try to get something useful done occasionally, in between their fundraising efforts. (And thank goodness the presidency has limited power. Unfortunately it doesn't have limited audience.) Maybe they could disconnect "the button" and the phones and just let the blowhard rant and rave into non-working cameras and push red buttons that don't do anything.

He represents the worst of America in virtually every respect.

Not particularly...at least no more than I am under Obama or was under Bush 2.0. I don't see him being any better or worse than his two predecessors; he'll be fought tooth and nail (just like Sanders would be) on everything he tries to push through Congress. His economic policy sucks, his foreign policy sucks, his domestic policy sucks...he's really no different than Bush 2.0 and Obama. He's just a lot more of a blowhard. Would a potential Trump presidency be a complete joke? Sure. Would the U.S. end up less respected on the global scene? Absolutely. But in those last two instances, he'd still be no different than Bush and Obama. I'd say the same of a potential Sanders or Clinton presidency as well.

This country has been f***ed (in recent memory) since not too long after the state declared war on an ideology. I honestly believe that this country would be better off if 99% of the electorate stayed home (I'm smart enough to know that voting doesn't make a difference). One big giant clusterfuck. It's going to get worse with time, of course; right now we're just happily coasting in the doldrums of sub-mediocrity. The U.S. has the government that the majority deserves - a giant warmongering nanny state. Many people bitch about it; they're better off just shutting their fucking mouths over it. This is the state they wanted and now it's here. Something like this isn't going to turn around quickly or easily. You see what's happening in Europe with the rise of new nationalist groups and the reviving of the current ones? That WILL happen here and it's not going to be pretty. The president is powerless to stop that. I don't want that to happen here but at the rate things are going people here and in Europe are pissed off - pissed off at big government, small-minded useful idiots voting for a living with their feelings, and the influx of uncivilized garbage into their countries (on the taxpayers' dime, no less).

I don't want this bad stuff to happen but I fear that we may be too far gone to turn this around quietly and calmly. Voting for Trump won't fix it. Voting for Sanders won't fix it. Westerners have some soul searching to do; hopefully it bears some good fruit because if not, we're in for a hell of a ride.

Which is why I believe there isn't a chance in hell the electoral college will actually allow him to become president.

Honestly, I don't expect the GOP to nominate him any more than the DWSocrats will nominate Sanders. Both major parties want a "good ol' boy" as the nominee. Neither Trump nor Sanders fit that bill.

I didn't say all that but I agree. I think a lot of people felt like that about Reagan at the time though.

Sorry, but anybody who is not as equally if not more scared of a Hillary Clinton presidency than they are a Trump presidency is a complete focking moron. Literally one of the most ignorant stupid doo doo dumb people who has ever lived.

Zero respect for anybody who is planning on voting for that wretched excuse for a politician who is Bill Clinton's wife.

Completely ignoring Benghazi and her email scandal, which by the way she 100% absolutely deserves to be indicted for, she has done literally NOTHING. NOTHING Yes, NOTHING, to make this country and this world a better place.


They would impeach Donald Trump in a second if he did something out of line. Hillary Clinton has hundreds of FBI/CIA/whatever else government agents investigating her actions right now, and there are  idiot mother fockers with their heads all the way up to their nipples inside of their anuses that think that c-u-nt of a woman would make a better president than Donald Trump.


You would think most idiot Democrats MUST have noticed that the country under Barrack Obama is under than same path that it was under when George W. Bush was president. Hillary Clinton is just more of the same. Spiraling national debt, unrest in the Middle East, being forced to pay for-profit insurance companies our hard-earned money in the name of "healthcare".


This country is on a collision course with a pile of crap, and the speed at which it is headed there is increasing every day.


Donald Trump went from millions of dollars to billions. And Hillary went from, what? Staying with her husband who cheated on her dozens of times? Never sent an email with "classified" information, but doesn't have the intelligence to discern when something is "classified + 10"?


Anybody know countries that will accept political refugees with the dumb mo'fos elect the horrible, worthless human being known as Hillary Clinton as supreme leader of the free world? I would rather see this country burn from the outside than have to be a part of it.


ANYBODY BUT HILLARY IN 2016.

Don't be an idiot. This doesn't need to be the first "woman" president, just like the last few elections didn't need to be the first "black" president. You people are ruining the country way faster than the ignorants that are going to vote for Donald Trump....

I don't know why you are afraid. Honestly, why the dislike for the guy?

Is it the way he speaks his mind?

Maybe because almost every single media outlet is out to poison the public against him?

I know I sound really passive aggressive, but I swear I'm legitimately curious. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion

People don't like him because he speaks the truth.  In this ultra PC age we're mired in, people can't stand to hear the truth.  He's not afraid to say that we have an immigration problem, or that the US has no business opening doors to Syrian refugees, or that second amendment rights should be protected. 

I also think people don't like his lack of tact.  In all honestly, ever other politician in history has had an ego as big, or bigger, than Trump.  But, they do a better job hiding it. 

However, I think ducking Megan Kelly is going to wind up costing him in the end. 

Quite frankly, I would be more worried about Sanders or Clinton.  But, I'll admit, I'm a little relieved that at least Martin Owe Malley seems to be out of the running.  As a Maryland tax payer, I can say that he could've spelled doom for this country. 

Because he speaks the truth? All the guy does is monger hatred, unnecessary racism, sexism, and fear. He's not even a politician. Every election he fluffs up his feathers and does his dance and everyone laughs and this time around he's just getting more attention because they're laughing louder. Personally, I'm voting Bernie Sanders. He's the only one who has any of this TRUTH of which you speak and the only person to stand behind a podium worthy of the air they breathe. The only people who should be worried about Sanders are billionaires and mega-corporations.. do either of these apply to you?

This is exactly what I'm talking about.  Trump says he's against immigration and bringing in refugees, so "he's a racist" or "he's a hate monger."  I'm not saying that giant corporations aren't part of the problem, but let's be honest, this country can't even take care of its own right now. 

Quite frankly, I'm not a huge fan of any of the candidates.  But I'll take ANYBODY on the Republican side over Sanders or Clinton.   

KDS - I think you are correct.  Trump has opened a door that cannot be closed. Politicians who are in office for careers, are afraid of him.  The corruption and incompetence is staggering.  Instead of doing their jobs, many are consumed with ambition, and their images while wasting taxpayer dollars, remaining in damage-control mode.  Trump has changed the discussion and exposed the political world as one that operates through Public Relations, as opposed to the ground-game of door knocking and grass roots growth.  Sanders rise is a shock.  He is correct about the system but, like Trump he needs to dial-it-back.  

Bernie has a student ground-game who don't want to have to pay for the college education they received. Students can already get loan forgiveness by going into public service. School is not cheap, nor should it be free. And, on the other hand, not so fee-laden that the tuition is 1/5 of the bill, and the rest are add-on fees, that I disagree with very strongly.  Keep it reasonable, accessible and let everyone pay their way.

Anyone can go to a private school, for social and status value, but there is a price. Going to a less expensive state school, where they don't pamper students, and paying your way, ensures that you get out pretty much debt-free, financing your life.  There is a value in the work ethic.  And, students generally read the same text books, regardless of where they go.   ;)

Bernie and Hillary will be looking for O'Malley's supporters and dough.  it is very interesting.    

If Sanders and Clinton are looking for Owe Malley supporters, I don't think they'll find many. 

Maryland is a blue state, and Owe Malley did so much damage here, that Maryland put a Republican, Larry Hogan, in office.  And a Republican has one of the highest approval ratings of any governor in Maryland history, despite Maryland being a blue state. 

There is a small percentage separating Clinton and Sanders.  And even a couple of percentage points of support will tip those scales.

A lot of Dems are jumping to the dark side.  :lol

They are sick of the lies. 

Trump doesn't speak truth. Trump speaks applause lines. They change as the audience changes, hence his ability to switch his positions for convenience--an awfully political move for a purported non-politician. (If one runs for president, one is a politician.)

The problem isn't what a position might be on this or that issue. He could be opposed to immigration and not say racist things. But he says racist things. See the difference? "They send us their rapists?" Really? The Mexican government rounds up rapists and ships them to the USA? That's idiotic. (By the way, more Mexicans are leaving America for Mexico the past few years, but let's not worry about reality. There are more people patrolling the border under Obama than before him, but let's not worry about reality. There are more deportations by Obama than before him, but let's not worry about reality.) There is an impression (mostly among aging, low-income, low-education whites) of evil, job-stealing, crime-committing Mexicans taking away their country, what, with the signs that have Spanish written right there along with God's own American English!? What's the world coming to, I don't want to have to "Press One For English, Press Two For Spanish"!

Trump speaks nonsense to confused people, scared people, and angry people. But he inflames it by giving a false sense of security. He aggravates the problems, he doesn't solve them. He hasn't said a single sensible thing that could possibly happen to solve any issue. At all. Not one. His proposals are mostly making Mexico pay for a wall (to keep the Mexicans in, and the central Americans out?), which is idiotic, and beyond that? Uh, making deals, apparently. Never mind what, how, why, to what end. It'll just happen "and a lot of very smart people like my plans. You're going to love it." You wouldn't buy a car from someone who spoke that way, but you'll vote him in as president? It's absurd on its face!

Political correctness may be stupid sometimes, but it's not high on the list of things that are wrong with this country. And regardless of political correctness, there is a difference between it and common decency. Courtesy. Restraint. Tact. Class. Trump has none of these. Leaders do not speak angrily, inflammatorily (which may be a made-up word...), rudely. They don't browbeat. What's more, the very definition of political correctness is restraint of speech, right? It's saying one should use or avoid this or that word, phrase, etc. Trump--the enemy of such restrictions--consistently calls for what amounts to censorship of everyone who contradicts him. Such-and-such reporter should be fired! So-and-so must be taken off the air! That's just his own version of political correctness.

I don't expect much from our candidates. They almost all almost always find new ways to disappoint and underwhelm. But this is the worst of my lifetime. And I lived through a Ventura governorship.

I think a lot of Democrat voters in Maryland reached a breaking point when Owe Malley taxed the rain.  And that's not an exaggeration. 

No Democrat who holds traditionally Democratic positions is going to jump ship to vote for Trump or any other Republican candidate. It's not to say that phenomenon can't or doesn't happen--historically we have had plenty of candidates of either party who were centrist enough to pull from the other side. The past decade or so has seen that disappear, and more so on the right than the alleged left.

There are self-identified Democrats who support Trump. But every poll I've seen shows them to be aging, white, uneducated voters. They're exactly the demographic that fits into the part of the country that is most vulnerable to the fascist-style ravings we hear too often: angry and/or scared that the country is changing, passing them by. Some of their complaints are legitimate, some aren't, but voting for a clown--pretty much literally a clown--isn't about to help, especially since he hasn't outlined a single position or plan that makes any sense whatsoever.

People should not let themselves be governed by emotions, by passions. It works for politicians, sure, but it doesn't work for the people. Use your minds, people. Charisma isn't a reason to vote for or against someone. Its only political value is in building consensus--and Trump's charisma has been specifically employed to do the opposite.

I'm not saying that Trump is the best candidate for POTUS, but if he gets the nod (which I really don't think he will), he's got my vote. 

I will agree that the POTUS shouldn't be elected on charisma or emotions, especially based on the current President. 

Wise liberals would agree with that. Naieve ones voted for him believing he'd solve racial problems, end wars, etc. But he was--and ran as--a centrist Democrat. Which is what he's been, more or less. Increases in drone attacks, ongoing overseas adventurism/empire building, Guantanamo still open. The aforementioned deportations. Many civil rights groups upset about his relative silence on racial issues (even as many on the right or many whites think he's been too divisive on those same issues--a classic example of not being able to please anyone with centrism). Filling his cabinet with the typical Goldman Sachs types. On and on.

But "HOPE" posters meant whatever voters wanted them to mean.

A really, really, really important thing to keep in mind is that putting too much faith in, or expectations on, the president is absurd. His powers are far from total, which is as it should be. The last thing we need is a stronger executive: therein lies the path to real fascism.

What we need is a more engaged population, first and foremost. MOST of the blame for our f***ed-up political system lies with citizens. Then comes the filthy relationship between the perverse parties, big-money lobbying and campaign funding, a ratings-and-ad-dollars hungry tabloid media, corporate domination of our lives, and of course the weak lapdogs we elect to Congress.

Trump said he wants to cut funding to mosques.
Does that remind anyone of a particular amendment?

Huh?

Funding?

They can neither advance nor inhibit the free exercise of religion. 

And what do you consider the government closing down mosques to be? Neutrality?

I disagree with much of the above. I agree that she wouldn't make things much better; no president can unless congress is revolutionized. We've had more than one president (including Bill Clinton and Hillary would've supported it then and would now) who would have passed nationalized health care if the population didn't make it so clear it causes them socialist panic. I think that's changing and we'll get there. I find it hard to imagine how any president could unilaterally decrease spending, but Bill Clinton closed the deficit more than any president in our lifetimes.
Trump went from millions to billions; Clinton went from thousands to millions. The latter is more difficult I think.
At least one word you used is certainly against board rules and very offensive to me.

Because i grew up in the NY City area and have seen his bloviating idiocy all my life.

For the record, I never said if I liked or hated Trump, and I certainly never said I wanted Hillary. Cards on the table, Id have preferred Bernie. Im on the fence about Trump. I think hed be a great negotiator for other countries and agree we have an illegal immigration problem. Im sick of being called a racist and seeing him called one too for bringing that up. He never said anything against Hispanics, just illegal immigrants, and Ive literally seen people take this so out of context to say "OMG Hes declaring WAR on ALL Hispanics!!!1!!1!" I do think the idea of building a wall is kind of stupid tho. But he also seems to be far more liberal than his enemies give him credit for. Hes not against abortion and supports universal healthcare for one. Hed be better than any of the other GOP candidates, not that thats saying much, and Id personally rather take a chance on him than 4 more years of the same with Hillary.

Like I said, Id have preferred Bernie, but if he wont win then Id be down to take a chance on another outsider with some liberal leanings who DOESNT buy into this safe space, everything's racist/sexist PC bullshit

None of the words offended me--I'm tough to offend--but I guess that pretty well summed up how a Trump voter thinks and writes.

Bubbly Waves - I was not under the impression that mosques were being funded.  I am struggling with that concept if that is true.

Religious institutions are generally built by their congregations and not a source of public funding.  However, if mosques are used as a hub, or meeting place, for terrorism, and are meeting places to plan or execute terrorism rather than houses of worship, it could make the mosque a part of the process, if there was planning openly being conducted in furtherance of murder, maiming, etc.  

So I would take it further, so that it could be argued to lose it's protected religious significance, and take on a unprotected status.  It is ad hoc.  Case-by-case.

Generally churches are open to the public.  And everyone can hear what comes from the pulpit or dais. So, if the same holds for mosques, and if open to the public, and this kind of planning is discovered, then are we looking at the free practice of religion or a subset of those individuals in a murder conspiracy, that crosses the line.      

Religious protection is subject to the strict scrutiny of the Constitution.  That means the decision must be "narrowly tailored to advance a significant government interest" and it must be neutrally applied. It is the highest standard of review.

I'm not sure he'll get the nomination.  On one hand, the GOP hates his guts.  On the other hand, he has a better shot of beating Clinton than either Cruz or Rubio.

Rocky - I think you are correct.  The Republicans hate Trump as much as the Dems hate Sanders.

And disgusted Democrats are becoming some of Trumps largest growing supporters.  Electoral college is subject to manipulation.  I think it should be ballot only. 

Thats whats so interesting, both parties have been hijacked by outsiders to great success--the difference is Trump has done so more thoroughly and has a chance to win. People are so sick of the same old, same old in Washington, things not getting better under either party and lying two faced politicians selling out like Clinton and the Bush family. If Trump won enough primaries to win and was denied the nomination I think we would see a full scale rejection of the GOP. I really think that would split or even kill the party, it would basically be the establishment outright saying "your votes dont matter" and revealing what many suspect: that democracy, at least on the federal level, is a hoax. Plus Trump has the resources to run independently, and I think hed do it just to stick it to them and hand the election over to the Dems as a big f*** you.

Its an interesting election if nothing else, thats for sure. We're definitely witnessing history--I think win or lose Trump has changed the way campaigns are run, and his methods will be studied and emulated for many years after this

Be rich.

Be famous.

Be asshole.

Say nothing substantive.

Winning formula. god bless america or whatever. We deserve what we get.

You're a guy right? Not saying that all women would be offended, nor that no men would, but I think the use of a term that literally refers to women's genitalia and that historically has been used to imply revulsion at women's sexuality, to insult a woman is not only insulting to the target and that women are more likely to feel so. But I don't support banning over it.
It is off-topic though. I don't want to derail this so on-the-rails thread.

Yeah, I'm a guy. I get why people are offended by some words and I don't go into some rant about being PC or anything if they are. I just have a different position on their use than a lot of people. But I'll agree not to derail the thread.

I think it would be great if Trump made president.

Because some people have expressed irritation at multiple posts, I'll put all my reactions in one:

I’ll believe the people up-in-arms about illegal immigration aren’t racist when they start talking about the huge number of Europeans illegally living in this country. They never do, because…

To imply that Donald Trump is less corrupt or ‘consumed with ambition’ than any of the others is absurd. As to being competent, he’s shown that he can make money with money, but that has no bearing on his competence at being President. The job descriptions have almost no overlap.

Totally off-topic, but it was brought up – if the quality of an education is mainly dependent on the textbooks, we should stop funding schools at the age of literacy and just give kids books. Textbooks are simply tools for the teachers/professors to aid them in teaching. Textbooks are not the teachers.

Regarding mosques, it’s already illegal to conspire to commit a crime in a mosque or elsewhere. Trump only brought it up to appeal to racists. “I’ll close the mosques!” “YEAH! He speaks the truth!”
 
Regarding the ‘PC’ thing – when has there not been social pressure not to say certain things? It used to be illegal in many states to say ‘obscenities’ in public. What a lot of people consider to be obscene has changed, but I don’t see many people freaking out over being expected not to say “f*ck” at work or in school or on a message board. Why is it worse to be expected not to say things that feed bigotry? And, if you are letting that effect your vote for President then you are misunderstanding the role of the President.

FdP, you often assert that ‘disgusted’ Democrats are supporting Republican candidates, yet I’ve never seen any sign of this. Do you have some evidence or is this assertion based on some of your acquaintances?

Regarding Trump changing things – why do people think he’d be able to? Nothing will change unless congress is overhauled. People overestimate the power of the Presidency on domestic policy and law. There’s little the President can do to change ‘business as usual’. Trump knows this, but he loves that the suckers who support him don’t.

‍

You'd think that neither hates their top few candidates.

Emily - Trump was gross that night with Megyn Kelly.  And this was one of his first experiences being "schooled" in a political debate context.  He cannot dial-back what he said.  But, every candidate should be taken in a "totality of the circumstances" scheme. And, by that I mean the full history, positions with allies, foes, and whether they belonged to another party and jumped to run for office or in it's contemplation.  

Trump is now in the shark tank and needs to learn the decorum that is consistent with that place.  He would have been smarter to at least apologize, even privately to Megan if there was an unintended double-entendre.  He would want that for his daughters, wives and grand-daughters.  Even, erring on the side of caution, instead of digging his heels in.  He has a lot of bluster but I think his bark may be worse than his bite and that underneath the crusty exterior, he is likely a very compassionate individual.  

So, in being un-schooled in the art of belonging to a political class or dynasty where one is groomed of the job, is a big disadvantage, and that debate conduct will absolutely follow him.

By the same token, I think something needs to be said for the press not catering to certain candidates.   By that I mean ABC's Stephanopolous (who worked for Bill Clinton in the White House on press matters) acting as a news prosecutor, with one of Hillary's foes a while back.  So, it cuts both ways.  Fox should not go and chase Trump if he does not show up for a debate, if it is a matter of TV ratings.  O'Reilly handled the Trump situation masterfully, the night before the debate where Trump was absent, laying out both sides, knowing he would not convince him to participate.  Both were civil and that helped some compromise evolve.    

I wasn't referring at all to the Trump-Kelly thing, but since you bring it up - Trump has been being 'schooled' in exactly that sort of thing since the 80s when he started showing up in the NY media and dancing around the idea of running for Mayor (no one bought his BS, fortunately; unfortunately he's now found a more naïve national audience). The schooling doesn't take. He seems to enjoy the fact that idiots will support him despite the fact that he's idiotic. He's a little inscrutable - like why does he keep his hair that way despite the decades of mocking? - often I think he's just amusing himself.
Actually Stephanopolous and the Clintons had a very bad end to their relationship and I admire that he doesn't bring that in to his journalism.

There are record levels of wealth in the United States right now. Last summer, reports showed that "U.S. households saw their total net worth rise to a record level of $84.9 trillion" from $80.3 trillion the year before. At the same time, as was reported, "most people in the U.S. have actually seen both their income and net worth decline." The US economic structure essentially operates as a nanny state for the elite high upper class. Its function is to take care primarily of them. It's not that the country can't take care of its own right now, it's that it simply doesn't care about doing so. There is in fact more than enough wealth generated in the US to easily take care of US citizens and help refugees. That Trump (along with just about everybody in political power) refuses to acknowledge this point is not surprising but it is telling. He in fact is a great supporter of the kind of system that actively does not care about taking care of its own.

Hooray! CSM is here! Yes, the US certainly can 'take care of its own;' it just chooses not to. Apparently someone convinced the population that it's the government that's paying them less while they work more, rather than their employers.

Anyone who considers him- or herself a conservative and is leaning toward Trump, I'd recommend reading the essays printed by the National Review leading conservative thinkers (and yes, this being America, "personalities") from various strands of conservatism. One after the other, each outlines why Trump is not a good candidate for the presidency for conservatives.

https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/430412/conservatives-against-trump

The issue was already dismissed by the candidate because it has very low readership these days, which is a little like dismissing Aretha Franklin because Taylor Swift sells more records. (It also speaks to how he's more a populist--if an erratic one--than a conservative.)

Yes, but today's small-businessperson can barely scrape by under all these regulations and whatnot ... The standard answer, right? It also conveniently ignores how many of us work for large companies, most of which are owned by larger corporations, which are owned by larger ones, which are owned by investment groups, each of which is skimming more than its share off the top.

Emily - were you aware that there was a big donation to the Clinton Foundation that got him in a heap of trouble because George was sitting as the political inquisitor and did not disclose this? I think it was over $75k.  So I think that has served as a balm to whatever problem would/might have existed.  :lol  

His charitable contributions were in the public record. How many journalists specify, during interviews, their charitable contributions that may have relevance to the interviewee? Pretty much none. It was a total of $75k made over a few years specifically for AIDS prevention and slowing/reversing deforestation. Hardly controversial or a personal favor to the Clintons. But as usual, some of the media will try to make a firestorm out of an unlit match.  ::)

Emily - when you are a newscaster and report - you do so neutrally.  The Clinton Foundation was in the center of a firestorm concerning "quid pro quo" access in return for large contributions.  

It matters not what their mission is.  So, George as a former Clinton administration employee should not have been involved in any programming where a bias could be called into question. I saw that interview (I forget with whom) and thought that George was acting like a prosecutor and not an interviewer.  It came out later that he had made a large donation to the foundation.  I happen to believe that all of 501's  should be subject to more scrutiny.  They are not.  

That may not be untrue, but don't you think the US would have an easier time taking care of its own without taxpayer money going to benefit people who aren't even citizens?

As for the refugees, if the incident in France late last year wasn't a good enough reason not to let them in, I have no idea what is.  

That firestorm, like most, was a lot of sound and fury told by idiots that signified nothing other than we have a bunch of alarmists paying for alarmist media.
If your standard is that no journalist with a bias should report, we will have no journalists.
Sometimes I think we're shifting from two parties with policy differences to an alarmist party and an anti-alarmist party, neither of which has any intention of changing any policies.
It's depressing.

No.


Because the risks of danger that the refugees face dramatically outweigh the risks of danger that we in the west face by bringing the refugees in (putting aside the fact that good evidence suggests we face far more of a risk of danger by not letting them in) and a life is a life no matter who you are talking about. All of this would be well accepted public fact if people like Trump were as honest and forthright as his advocates suggest that he is.

Emily - this year has been a catharsis for business-as-usual.  Refreshing.  Alarmists?  I don't think so.  O'Reilly is Trump's friend, socially but handled him well and was able to question without showing the bias, even disclosing that they sat at ball games with vanilla milk shakes.  

It is not an alarmist party.  It is a population that is unhappy with the business-as-usual rhetoric while the country is desperately unsafe.  It has everyone rattled.  It is unheard of that a socialist-democrat would rise to the level of Sanders, with students as foot soldiers.  The Dems have marginalized their moderates and some are outraged.  They are unwelcome in their own house.    

The money going from any individual to benefit illegal aliens is a drop-in-the-bucket. You might be able to buy one more album a year if not for that. In terms of government spending, the money going to welfare benefits for Trump and his peers and for wag-the-dog military actions, on the other hand, would be able to afford people significant lifestyle improvements. There used to be actual organizing and pressure for corporations to pay better and give better benefits and more vacation time, etc. Now organized labor is villainized; corporate salaries, bonuses, benefits and vacation time is more heavily skewed toward the executives than they've been for a century; and everyone's distracted from that by panic over issues that don't really effect their daily lives and well-being at all. The late 20th century bigwigs did a really good job training the public to focus on their non-problems instead of their problems.

Mr. Shake,

We'll have to agree to disagree on both fronts. 

The alarmists are alarmed at the wrong things. They are tools to distract the population away from how little freedom and opportunity they actually have.

I'm not entirely sure what you are disagreeing with.

Your stance on both immigration and the refugees. 

KDS, what do you think motivates political violence, generally speaking?

Emily - no one has taken more freedom then the Dems.  Nor, looted the treasury as they have.  We are in serious debt. 

I disagree with Trump's position on Eminent Domain.  And, for many, that could be a deal breaker. 

But I'm unclear. 250,000 Syrians have already died in the civil war, which is on order of about 156 per day. As heinous and as horrific as the Paris attacks were, the scale of violence since the refugees have begun to enter countries has quite simply not been anywhere near the devastation that is ongoing in Syria. I'm assuming you don't disagree with that.

And indeed it's pretty well established that ISIS is actively counting on refugees being blocked entrance because it helps immensely with their recruitment.

Also I noted that the US now generates over 4 trillion dollars in wealth every year and that these numbers are only going up. You don't think trillions a year is enough to help US citizens and maybe others who need some help too?

It was actually the Reagan Administration who  oversaw the country plunge into debt after being the world's largest creditor.

My concerns with the refugees have little to do with money.  I don't think it's wroth the risk having them here.  

I'm not saying the economic system in the US is perfect.  But, under our current system, I don't think any non-citizen should receive benefits while citizens are living on the streets.  

Again, the risk of danger is far greater by blocking their entrance. But the real risk of danger comes from the West's ongoing policy of de-stabilizing that part of the world. If one is concerned about safety then in my view those should be the priorities, rather than letting about 5000 people die every month.


Under our current system, no non-citizen would ever receive benefits at the expense of the majority of the US citizens because the point of the system is to only care for the slim minority of elites at the expense of everyone else.

Particularly, veterans and their families.

No one has taken more freedom than large corporations.

Sticking to the thread topic, surprise, surprise...

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/03/donald-trump-says-ted-cruz-stole-victory-in-iowa-caucuses/?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

This to me is analogous to saying, "My boss gets paid $2 million/yr; I only get paid $10/hr; so I object to other people being paid $5/hr." The problem is not the people being paid $5/hr.

He's so ridiculous at all times.

GW Bush didn't really do much good on that front either.

Whatever happened to the esteemed OP? I know the internet defies all logic but ZU got off to such a good start... 

I wonder what spurred the OP's interest in his or her username. (And I bemoan the destruction by ISIS of historical artifacts in the city of which she was queen. To bring it all back home, I fear that a Trump presidency would result in more of the same in that respect, to say nothing of Cruz's [moronic] "carpet-bombing" of the region.)

As a friend told me, pity this poster's namesake can't come back and give these zombies what for...