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...

Well, if one paints by the numbers, since 1972 - probably no. Thanks by the way for a nice reply.

A quick search (How many attacks by Muslims in America) revealed this, which in no way did I have time to verify (nor did I even read it to see if there were any political rants, I just looked at the numbers. Now, it comes from the Internet, so YMMV. The numbers [don't seem to be] wild, so I used it as a reference. BTW, the numbers do not include the recent Philadelphia shooting of a police officer whilst stopped in his patrol car by a man claiming to have done the shooting in the name of Islam. Our asshat new Mayor of Philadelphia, Jim Kenney, said in a presser that it had nothing to do with Islam, despite the suspect saying so. A rather inauspicious start as a new mayor, I suspect.

Incidentally, the police officer who was shot is my boss's son's partner - not that it changes the situation much, but it does hit closer to home, so to speak.
 

Perhaps it is just the cultural difference of things. To be fair, I wouldn't say our Democratic base criticises Trump much differently to you lot, except that I know more Democrats here, talked to more Democrats here; many political-level Democrats (office holders) have been well-educated an in many cases are intelligent, but in contrast a quite large percentage of their supporters are not. Many of those Democratic supporters do not even know the platform their beloved candidates run on, just voting for them because of the promise of largess.

As far as the hilariously awful things he does, is it really any different to what is being done now? For example, obama's Middle East policies (to the extent he actually has them) have been dismal failures; obama is widely touted as a good speaker (never mind the teleprompter ;-p). I'll take a less gifted orator any day favour of someone who will promote the best progress in America without pandering exclusively to special interests.
 

It is the "alleged" part that has yet to be determined, no? But of course, the media will run with something like that here in a character assassination of someone they don't like, although they make excuses for or fail to report on people they do like. The media here has been licking obama's boots for ages.

There's a lot of time for Trumpy-boy to prove or disprove himself. I just hope (and it is thin at best) that the American people do a better job at electing a president than they have the last two go rounds. Unfortunately, the best guy for the job doesn't want the job, and the lot we have now are polarising at best.

Enjoy the entertainment while it lasts. I wish we could limit the bloviating to less than six months, and limit the money spent to about three million per candidate.





 

I'm glad you feel the same, but I guess most people would.

It just seems like your Presidential election will last around 18 months due to the nature of your system - opposition not having a regular leader, being a presidential rather than party based victory, 2 term limit.

Ignoring the fact that you can't stand Obama, would you be in favour of allowing Presidents to sit for 3 terms?

I just feel like 8 years isn't long enough to get a decent amount done, especially if there has been a change in party.

Trump:
  So what is wrong with that?
  Absolutely. Let me ask you this, what was the obama response to Fast and Furious? That was a gun walking program, if you don't know. What did obama and his attorney general do about those guns? Seems that guns are dangerous only in certain circumstances, such as when we can pander to the media frenzy when a news even occurs.

You should read the June 2013 White House report on guns, commissioned by the current POTUS. ;-) I'll bet you won't see a reference by obama to it though, because the results do not reflect his current narrative.

The currecnt laws need to be enforced is what needs to happen, and there needs to be a vehicle to report mental health issues to prevent those same people from owning a gun. That can't happen now. Without enforcing currenyt laws, what is the sense of making new ones?

Just so you know, the "Gun Show Loop Hole" is a specious argument for more gun laws. The Loop Hole assumes that there are unlicensed gun sales going on at gun shows, yet this is rarely ever the case. Illegal guns are sold and obtained by illegals possessing illegal guns, or are obtained by people who are legally allowed to obtain guns who give access or use to people who shouldn't have them.

One cannot purchase guns over the internet without going through a FFL dealer, who must perform a background check. Contrary to what obama says, guns are not "easier to purchase than groceries"; last time I purchased a pistol, it took me about a half an hour to select one, and it took the PIC System at least 15 minutes or more to analyse and approve my purchase.

The last time I purchased groceries, I walked in, selected all that I wanted with no one's having told me I can't - and proceeded to the checkout terminal and left. No one checked to see if I was allowed to buy the groceries I selected, nobody questioned any of my purchases whatsoever.

So if obama could let automatic weapons walk in to Mexico and whoever knows where else - without regard as to where they could really end up - why is he so worried about it now? He even ran interference for Eric Holder to protect the program and actions. So tell me that makes sense.

By the way, all in America should be required to have ID. I am required to have it at all times, as should any person in America. We should have to present ID in order to vote as well, just as one must do in order to collect a cheque at the Social Security Office. ;-)