What arguments? You don't like Trump because he has shitty hair, calls it as he sees it and isn't a leftie? Because he has a lot of money, isn't a politician and his views don't match yours? Fuck you, you politically correct asshat. You don't know shit from Shinola and you don't know fuck all about American politics. It would require a true twat to think he sees one, but there you go thinking again.

For the record, I think Trump is a bloviating buffoon in most cases; I had a boss that talked just like him and he was a nickel holding up a dollar. BUT, if Trump can get this country moving again, can cut through the red tape of Washington and actually get things done; if he can get Congress to stop sitting on their hands whilst they are figuring out a way to suck more money out of the hands of Americans; if he can restore American pride instead of being an apologist all of the time, then fine - I'll be for him.

There's lots of time though, and a couple of the other candidates will likely be a better fit. The problem is here, unfortunately: It isn't about who is the best fit for the job, but who can get elected. It is an unfortunate turn of events, been happening this way for years. What do you think the chances would be - today - that our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln - would be able to be elected today? Zero, because he was gangly, a bit odd-looking and probably would have looked worse on TV.

The best person for POTUS probably would never even want the damn job. Tell me this: Has there ever been a Republican, or a candidate from any other party than the Democratic party or anyone right of centre that you have liked?

Classic cunt behaviour there. Invent a term ('politically correct'), then use it to dismiss arguments without having to engage your brain. Well done.

No.

Quote: 

It would be nigh to impossible for him to not do so.

 

It isn't much of a discussion, because this decidedly left-handed forum wants it that way. Perhaps you all aren't actually interested in discussion at all, maybe it is just comforting to post anti-candidate material as entertainment and you can all agree with one another and have a good guffaw. Well, I was always taught that if two people always agree, one is not necessary.

So far, All I have heard is pretty much that Trump is no good because he has bad hair, wants to close our borders to Muslims until we figure out a way to properly vet them and not let terrorists into the country. I agree with that. My uncle could not come here in the 70s from England because he was told that he couldn't come in unless he could prove he wouldn't take an American's job away. Now we have a border like Swiss cheese, with people from any country whatsoever here, many illegally. I support legal immigration, by people whose backgrounds have been investigated thoroughly.

Trump calls things as he sees them; one thing that he is forcing is dialogue. Candidates from both sides now are going to have to address issues he raises, like it or not. He will have to defend his positions and they will have to stand up to criticism, but other candidates also will be forced to make a stand. That, in and of itself, is a Good Thing.
 

Right. About as clever as using snide and sarcastic comments instead of forming a valid rebuttal. Weak.

<Agent Smith> I am wasting my time with you. </Agent Smith>

Love his presidential portrait.

I heard he was only there because his mother once sucked a dick so he was intrigued by his heritage.

OK, that's a better swing at it, thanks.

Is terrorism by muslim immigrants a big problem in the US? I was under the impression it was pretty rare. What's his policy on domestic terrorism and the current epidemic of mass shootings you are sadly suffering?

If we shouldn't guffaw at Trump he should really stop doing such hilariously awful things. It's a pretty longstanding tradition here to laugh at politicians here though, perhaps you're more sensitive to it or something. Our Prime Minister allegedly sexually violated a pig's head! I bet Trump hasn't managed that yet.

Regarding us not making it much of a discussion - there is the grand sum of fuck-all we can do about the US President. Whoever it is will no doubt continue bombing the fuck out of the middle east etc and so on and nothing we can do or say will change that. We have very very limited agency over our own government's behaviour, never mind yours. So in the meantime taking the piss out of it when it's funny is a thing we can do.

>>Our Prime Minister allegedly sexually violated a pig's head! I bet Trump hasn't managed that yet.

Tell Trump that Cameron did that and I'm sure he'll reply with a signed affidavit from his butcher to prove that he did it first, and with the whole drove.

> Well, I was always taught that if two people always agree, one is not necessary.

Yup.

She's not agreeing to that sofa being moved. She's staunchly sitting there in protest that he wants the sofa moving away from the window, presumably to allow more natural light in.

I don't like sofas in windows. People walking by can see the back of your head.

I bet Truffy would have something to say on this matter.

Where is Truffy nowadays?

Why the personal attacks? Dave was stating his view, he didn't make it personal.

edit - yes, I need to learn read all the thread before I reply. Kos already addressed this. LOL

I'm not sure 'addressed' is the right term... (giggle)

It's what you do when you're trying to defend something. If it's defendable, you calmly and maturely make your point and back it up accordingly. If it's indefensible, you just slander the other person.

Fixrman: It's a simple fact that if you are killed in America by another human, that person is *far* more likely to be a none-Muslim fellow American than a Muslim terrorist.

Since 2001, there have been 3,380 American people killed in terrorist related incidents - and this includes the 2,990 people killed in the September 11th attacks. Alternatively, in the same time there have been 406,496 people killed in gun crime on American soil. So, over a 99% chance of being killed due to American gun crime than in a terrorist incident.

Sorry, but that is outrageous. Yet according to Trump, you should ban all Muslims entering the country and force them all to carry ID, yet it's wrong for Obama to suggest that gun laws should be tightened in any way to try and reduce these fatality rates. According to you, Trump is speaking sense and Obama is the dangerous one?

Do you not see how fucked up that is?
 

http://www.mtv.com/news/2690960/aladdin-bombing-fictional-country-agrabah-public-policy-polling/?xrs=_s.fb_main

Nobody you're arguing against has actually said that though. How does this strengthen your position? The problem is nobody outside of his fanboys thinks he's remotely capable of any of that.

Darwin's on it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35238349?ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews&ns_source=facebook

I find it amusing that he's going on about withholding "£500m of development" from his golf course up here if he gets banned.

First of all, if it's costing that much then he's hiring the wrong contractors. And secondly, he's basically threatening *not* to bulldoze numerous hectares of a site of special scientific interest. Oddly enough, I don't have a problem with that. Trump's threat is actually an invitation as far as I'm concerned.

Edit: For anyone not familiar with the area, This is the view that Trump wants to supposedly spend £500m replacing with another golf course...