Wow. Elections do not have consequences after all

[Rukh O'Rorke]

I think there are two important points being lost here as this thread rambles on into the usual rut.

One is regardless of ideology, it's important to understand what is and is not possible to fulfill in regards to campaign promises. Could be looked at either from a candidate perspective or voter perspective.

The other is the candidate's intention. Are they knowingly spouting off things that they can't deliver on?

With trump, I don't think he knew or cared what was possible, he just wanted people listening and applauding.

[ken a.k.a OMK]

I agree with Rukh O'Rorke. Trumps campaign style love fest last week was more proof. I bet he's frustrated. He's used to being in charge, his own private business where everyone agrees with him and does what he says.  

[swamp]

May 2, 2017 14:43:20 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

May 2, 2017 14:25:20 GMT -5 swamp said:

then why do you keep talking about how many votes he won by?   Why does Trump keep talking about the godforsaken election?   Who TF cares?  

Both democrats and Trump keep talking about the election.  Democrats keep beating their chests saying "we won the popular vote" and Trump and co say they "we won a historical landslide."  As you pointed out, it doesn't matter and there's no point in talking about it.  The election has been relegated to the trash heap of history.

That's why I offered criticism of Trump.  I only care about the campaign insofar has what he promised and how he's delivering on those promises now (or not delivering, as the case may be).

If he fails to deliver then he SHOULD face criticism.  He's the president, and we judge a president on his results, not his promises.  Or at least, I do.

I've only heard the chest beating after Trump tries to say he won the popular vote.    He keeps bringing it up.  He brought it up a few days ago, I can't remember where or in what context, and frankly I don't care enough to look it up, but I do remember being annoyed hearing about it.  again.     There is something really wrong with the guy. 

If you tell me a boldfaced lie, I am going to call you on it.   As it should be. 

[justme]

May 2, 2017 14:04:25 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Jared Kushner's RE Financing start up loan info from the WSJ:


www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/presidents-adviser-jared-kushner-didnt-disclose-startup-stake/ar-BBACyQS?li=AA5a8k&ocid=spartandhp

Mr. Kushner’s stake in Cadre—a tech startup that pairs investors with big real-estate projects—means the senior White House official is currently a business partner of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and billionaires including George Soros and Peter Thiel, according to people close to the company.

The Cadre stake is one of many interests—and ties to large financial institutions—that Mr. Kushner didn’t identify on his disclosure form, according to a Wall Street Journal review of securities and other filings. Others include loans totaling at least $1 billion, from more than 20 lenders, to properties and companies part-owned by Mr. Kushner, the Journal found. He has also provided personal guarantees on more than $300 million of the debt, according to the analysis.

Jamie Gorelick, a lawyer representing Mr. Kushner, said in a statement that his stake in Cadre is housed in a company he owns called BFPS Ventures LLC. His ownership of BFPS is reported in his financial-disclosure form, although it doesn’t mention Cadre.

Ms. Gorelick said the Cadre stake is described in a revised version of his financial-disclosure form that will be made public after it has been certified by ethics officials. She said Mr. Kushner has previously discussed his Cadre ownership with the Office of Government Ethics and that Mr. Kushner has “resigned from Cadre’s board, assigned his voting rights, and reduced his ownership share.” A spokesman for the Office of Government Ethics didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Ms. Gorelick added that it is “very normal” for a financial disclosure form to be revised and that the form was prepared by Mr. Kushner’s lawyers on his behalf.

Lenders to Mr. Kushner, either directly or via properties he co-owns, include Bank of America Corp., Blackstone Group LP, Citigroup Inc., UBS Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG and Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC. Royal Bank of Scotland didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment; representatives of the other firms declined to comment.

Wait, isn't Soros the guy who "pays all the protestors" for the Democrats?

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

May 2, 2017 15:19:06 GMT -5 swamp said:

May 2, 2017 14:43:20 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Both democrats and Trump keep talking about the election.  Democrats keep beating their chests saying "we won the popular vote" and Trump and co say they "we won a historical landslide."  As you pointed out, it doesn't matter and there's no point in talking about it.  The election has been relegated to the trash heap of history.

That's why I offered criticism of Trump.  I only care about the campaign insofar has what he promised and how he's delivering on those promises now (or not delivering, as the case may be).

If he fails to deliver then he SHOULD face criticism.  He's the president, and we judge a president on his results, not his promises.  Or at least, I do.

I've only heard the chest beating after Trump tries to say he won the popular vote.    He keeps bringing it up.  He brought it up a few days ago, I can't remember where or in what context, and frankly I don't care enough to look it up, but I do remember being annoyed hearing about it.  again.     There is something really wrong with the guy. 

If you tell me a boldfaced lie, I am going to call you on it.   As it should be. 

There are people in town that at least one weekend a month since November head out onto 16th with signs saying "He won get used to it!".   I look around trying to spot the people are that are saying the opposite and I never see anyone.

I was considering pulling over and asking them who exactly are they trying to convince cause haven't seen any mention in the local paper or news that would lead me to believe anyone in our city is claiming Trump did not win the election.  The only people I ever see bringing it up and constantly having to validate it are them.   Are they that insecure?

[Wisconsin Beth]

Well, in fairness, Hillary apparently was running off her mouth on this recently.

[Deleted]

May 2, 2017 14:41:33 GMT -5 tallguy said:

May 2, 2017 14:27:34 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Evidently a few Hillary backers here on the boards, from November 2016.
She might have lost the election but she won the popular vote...... your right. Who cares?

The least-qualified president in history certainly seems to care.  As do his silly little apologists, whether on this board, the White House briefing room, or other West Wing offices.  Anti-Trump voters and posters don't bring it up as anything other than rebuttal or ridicule of Trump's inanities.  We know who occupies the Oval Office, and more importantly we know how ridiculous his performance is in it.  Do you?  

So what? Obama had his shot. Maybe if he hadn't screwed up the country so bad the Dems might have had a chance.

Remember: One of the problems with Hillary was her vow to continue Obama's policies, acts, and EO's... basically making her the equivalent of a third term for Obama 

[tallguy]

It's unfortunate that you have no idea how not-very-good at this you are.  It is a stunning lack of perspective.  Obama is easily considered a top-half president among people who study the subject.  Maybe top-third.  His main failing was difficulty in working with Congress, for which the Republicans are at least as much responsible as he is himself.  Other than that, he was a far better president than his detractors believe.  And he will be remembered well by history, quite unlike both his predecessor and his successor.  George W. Bush is the worst president since Harding.  The good news for Bush is that such status will only remain true until 2020.  Trump will take not only that title but will at least challenge for the worst in history.       

[Deleted]

May 2, 2017 20:15:01 GMT -5 tallguy said:

It's unfortunate that you have no idea how not-very-good at this you are.  It is a stunning lack of perspective.  Obama is easily considered a top-half president among people who study the subject.  Maybe top-third.  His main failing was difficulty in working with Congress, for which the Republicans are at least as much responsible as he is himself.  Other than that, he was a far better president than his detractors believe.  And he will be remembered well by history, quite unlike both his predecessor and his successor.  George W. Bush is the worst president since Harding.  The good news for Bush is that such status will only remain true until 2020.  Trump will take not only that title but will at least challenge for the worst in history.       

I'll admit that I'm very poor at seeing things that aren't there or that don't exist... which is what's required to put Obama in the top half...

I agree that Bush II should be in the bottom half as well.

I only brought up Obama though because you commented on his caring about the outcome of the election and how close it was.

[tallguy]

Actually, I've always considered you quite gifted at seeing things that aren't there, such as seeing a reference to Obama in #62.  If only that were a positive trait.   

[Deleted]

May 2, 2017 20:54:21 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Actually, I've always considered you quite gifted at seeing things that aren't there, such as seeing a reference to Obama in #62.  If only that were a positive trait.   

Well... it was pretty clearly there. That you can't see it is what amazes me... since you wrote it!

[djAdvocate]

May 1, 2017 20:43:08 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

May 1, 2017 16:07:47 GMT -5 Gardening Grandma said:

"Massive electoral landslide"!    

You must be a graduate of Trump Univ!!

I think even you on election night saw the number he won by as a landslide. Anything above one vote more than Hillary was the end of the world as you knew it.

the only landslide in this election is the never ending stream of bullshit which threatens to drown honest discourse.

[djAdvocate]

May 2, 2017 20:47:45 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

May 2, 2017 20:15:01 GMT -5 tallguy said:

It's unfortunate that you have no idea how not-very-good at this you are.  It is a stunning lack of perspective.  Obama is easily considered a top-half president among people who study the subject.  Maybe top-third.  His main failing was difficulty in working with Congress, for which the Republicans are at least as much responsible as he is himself.  Other than that, he was a far better president than his detractors believe.  And he will be remembered well by history, quite unlike both his predecessor and his successor.  George W. Bush is the worst president since Harding.  The good news for Bush is that such status will only remain true until 2020.  Trump will take not only that title but will at least challenge for the worst in history.       

I'll admit that I'm very poor at seeing things that aren't there or that don't exist... which is what's required to put Obama in the top half...

that is where about 80% of presidential historians put him.  i think i will take their perspective over yours, if you don't mind.

[Deleted]

May 3, 2017 2:57:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 2, 2017 20:47:45 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

I'll admit that I'm very poor at seeing things that aren't there or that don't exist... which is what's required to put Obama in the top half...

that is where about 80% of presidential historians put him.  i think i will take their perspective over yours, if you don't mind.

"Presidential historians" haven't seen the full history of his effect on the country through the lens of history yet.

[Deleted]

The first question I ask myself when voting for President is "Do I trust them in a crisis that could lead to nuclear holocaust?"

For the first time in my life (and I go back to Carter) I have a President where the answer is an emphatic no. I don't know how anyone can honestly say they trust Trump in that situation.

I understand why people had their reasons for not liking Obama or W, but I trusted each of them with that awesome responsibility.

My biggest worry is this election ends up having that kind of consequence.

[Phoenix84]

May 2, 2017 15:19:06 GMT -5 swamp said:

May 2, 2017 14:43:20 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

Both democrats and Trump keep talking about the election.  Democrats keep beating their chests saying "we won the popular vote" and Trump and co say they "we won a historical landslide."  As you pointed out, it doesn't matter and there's no point in talking about it.  The election has been relegated to the trash heap of history.

That's why I offered criticism of Trump.  I only care about the campaign insofar has what he promised and how he's delivering on those promises now (or not delivering, as the case may be).

If he fails to deliver then he SHOULD face criticism.  He's the president, and we judge a president on his results, not his promises.  Or at least, I do.

I've only heard the chest beating after Trump tries to say he won the popular vote.    He keeps bringing it up.  He brought it up a few days ago, I can't remember where or in what context, and frankly I don't care enough to look it up, but I do remember being annoyed hearing about it.  again.     There is something really wrong with the guy. 

If you tell me a boldfaced lie, I am going to call you on it.   As it should be. 

I agree, Trump really should be moving on from the election.  It doesn't matter now. 

But speaking of bold faced lies.  I find it ironic that the media is eager to point out when Trump makes a false statement, but is all to eager to report on this supposed "Russia Scandal" that is, at best, based on highly circumstantial evidence.  The truth is there is no conclusive evidence linking Trump to the Russians.  But the media has no problem reporting on this so called "scandal." 

[billisonboard]

May 3, 2017 8:00:36 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

... The truth is there is no conclusive evidence linking Trump to the Russians.  But the media has no problem reporting on this so called "scandal." 

I hear them reporting on a continuing investigation into whether there is evidence.

Since July, the FBI has been conducting a counterintelligence investigation into Russia's interference in the election and possible coordination with Trump associates. House and Senate intelligence committees, led by Republican lawmakers, are also investigating. www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/02/former-trump-adviser-says-hes-cooperating-with-senate-russian-probe.html

[Opti]

May 2, 2017 21:47:22 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

May 2, 2017 20:54:21 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Actually, I've always considered you quite gifted at seeing things that aren't there, such as seeing a reference to Obama in #62.  If only that were a positive trait.   

Well... it was pretty clearly there. That you can't see it is what amazes me... since you wrote it!

No, it wasn't there. Just because your own bias has you believing Obama is the least qualified President, doesn't mean TG or anyone else believes the same. It is well known that TG is talking about Trump when he writes something like that. Therefore, it is you who changes the meaning simply by reading with your own belief on who is the worst President.

I could play games like you have been and mentioning Trump anytime you say the worst President ever mentioning no names, but I don't think that would improve your understanding any. It amazes me that so many posters are really bad at just reading another poster's words without sticking lots of their own biases and meanings in them. It amazes me because I remember reading paragraphs in those achievement tests

and the answer to who the author means the least qualified President is would be Trump, if reading TG's post. And Obama is reading one of yours. The answer is NOT what the reader thinks. It is what the author thinks.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I believe Trump is playing a long game, but regardless of your opinion on the continuing budget resolution two things are absolutely true:

1. If all Trump does is keep his SCOTUS promise, he will have saved America- and possibly all of Western civilization.

2. Illegal border crossings are down 73% just on fear of Trump / deportation-- also likely to save the country from cultural dilution and destruction from the invasion.

The one thing that's true in my opinion: with Trump, you can forget ideology. It's not what he's about. What's more is that the conservative movement's battle for ideological purity is how we got here.

It's more important at this stage, that we have private sector, and specifically entrepreneurial experience.

Looking back, I wouldn't put any of the last 5 Presidents, including Reagan, in charge of a Dairy Queen in southern Illinois. I can't believe we didn't find someone qualified sooner.


And I honestly can't ever see going back to the political dynasty / community organizer resume set ever again.


To my friends in the all-or-nothing coalition, who are "principled conservatives"- look around. This mess is not Trump's. He's been in politics for 18 months. This mess is ours- and it's the politician's in both parties. We are seeing the fruit of the Christian coalition, the Reagan revolution, the conservative movement. And here we are.


So, relax. And pay attention. Trump is moving the ball down the field more than any President since Coolidge. 

Remember what happened to Obama in November 2010? Would you prefer Trump galvanize an extremist fringe regional party 548 days before the next election just so you can retain your ideological purity?


We have long term problems. The culture that permitted a communist revolutionary whose previous experience consists of ivory tower Saul Alinsky apostle, community organizer, and 10 minutes in the Illinois legislature, and US Senate won't be turned around in six months.


TRUMP DID NOT GET US HERE!


We have a long road ahead. The doughboys will not be home by Christmas. The key to winning the next battle is holding the ground we've taken (notice how Democrats ALWAYS do this?).


"Principled conservatism" and ideological purity is how we got here, and you know what they say about insanity. We need principles, but we nees the pragmatism of Bill Clinton. He said, "The era of big government is over". But was it? Did he mean it?

[Tennesseer]

Another Captain Hyperbole flyby.

[tallguy]

May 3, 2017 19:12:38 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Another Captain Hyperbole flyby.

I'm not so sure it's a fly-by.  He seems to have set down roots.  

[weltschmerz]

May 3, 2017 8:00:36 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

May 2, 2017 15:19:06 GMT -5 swamp said:

I've only heard the chest beating after Trump tries to say he won the popular vote.    He keeps bringing it up.  He brought it up a few days ago, I can't remember where or in what context, and frankly I don't care enough to look it up, but I do remember being annoyed hearing about it.  again.     There is something really wrong with the guy. 

If you tell me a boldfaced lie, I am going to call you on it.   As it should be. 

I agree, Trump really should be moving on from the election.  It doesn't matter now. 

But speaking of bold faced lies.  I find it ironic that the media is eager to point out when Trump makes a false statement, but is all to eager to report on this supposed "Russia Scandal" that is, at best, based on highly circumstantial evidence.  The truth is there is no conclusive evidence linking Trump to the Russians.  But the media has no problem reporting on this so called "scandal." 

Wait...you don't mind when Trump tells a bald-faced LIE, but have a problem with circumstantial evidence?

[mmhmm]

May 3, 2017 8:00:36 GMT -5 Phoenix84 said:

May 2, 2017 15:19:06 GMT -5 swamp said:

I've only heard the chest beating after Trump tries to say he won the popular vote.    He keeps bringing it up.  He brought it up a few days ago, I can't remember where or in what context, and frankly I don't care enough to look it up, but I do remember being annoyed hearing about it.  again.     There is something really wrong with the guy. 

If you tell me a boldfaced lie, I am going to call you on it.   As it should be. 

I agree, Trump really should be moving on from the election.  It doesn't matter now. 

But speaking of bold faced lies.  I find it ironic that the media is eager to point out when Trump makes a false statement, but is all to eager to report on this supposed "Russia Scandal" that is, at best, based on highly circumstantial evidence.  The truth is there is no conclusive evidence linking Trump to the Russians.  But the media has no problem reporting on this so called "scandal." 

I think we need to hold off on pronouncing "this supposed 'Russia Scandal'" to be based on circumstantial evidence. We're not fully aware of the evidence that's being reviewed. We don't know if it's circumstantial, or not - unless, of course, you're privy to the details of all documents being considered. I know I'm not; therefore, I'll wait to see what comes out of the investigations that are now in progress.

[weltschmerz]

Illegal border crossings are down 73% just on fear of Trump / deportation-- also likely to save the country from cultural dilution and destruction from the invasion.

Dilution, Paul?  Isn't that what the white supremacists say?

[Deleted]

May 3, 2017 7:04:35 GMT -5 @aj said:

The first question I ask myself when voting for President is "Do I trust them in a crisis that could lead to nuclear holocaust?"

For the first time in my life (and I go back to Carter) I have a President where the answer is an emphatic no. I don't know how anyone can honestly say they trust Trump in that situation.

I understand why people had their reasons for not liking Obama or W, but I trusted each of them with that awesome responsibility.

My biggest worry is this election ends up having that kind of consequence.

The problem this election was... most people didn't trust EITHER of the two front runners in that situation.

I don't trust Donald with "The Football" (as the case with the codes is nicknamed, for anyone that doesn't know)... but I wouldn't have trust Hillary with it either.




Grudgingly, I will say that I did trust Obama with it... but only because none of the countries in the Middle East had "the bomb". Honestly I don't know if I could have trusted him had they had it. Not because I think that he WOULD have used it... but because I believe that he WOULDN'T have, and it's not a deterrent if retaliation isn't an option.

The whole point of the M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) paradigm, and what makes it work, is... they don't attack because they KNOW that retaliation would destroy them too. That's literally the only reason why we don't speak Russian now.

[Deleted]

May 3, 2017 8:42:26 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 2, 2017 21:47:22 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Well... it was pretty clearly there. That you can't see it is what amazes me... since you wrote it!

No, it wasn't there. Just because your own bias has you believing Obama is the least qualified President, doesn't mean TG or anyone else believes the same. It is well known that TG is talking about Trump when he writes something like that. Therefore, it is you who changes the meaning simply by reading with your own belief on who is the worst President.

I could play games like you have been and mentioning Trump anytime you say the worst President ever mentioning no names, but I don't think that would improve your understanding any. It amazes me that so many posters are really bad at just reading another poster's words without sticking lots of their own biases and meanings in them. It amazes me because I remember reading paragraphs in those achievement tests

and the answer to who the author means the least qualified President is would be Trump, if reading TG's post. And Obama is reading one of yours. The answer is NOT what the reader thinks. It is what the author thinks.

My beliefs and bias don't come into play.

Facts are facts. Obama (when he was sworn in) was the least qualified President in history... up to and including the current occupant of the White House. Time will tell if qualifications turn into a successful presidency though. Hey, Trump could end up being worse... or (scary thought) he could end up being better.

[Deleted]

May 3, 2017 19:08:18 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I believe Trump is playing a long game, but regardless of your opinion on the continuing budget resolution two things are absolutely true:

1. If all Trump does is keep his SCOTUS promise, he will have saved America- and possibly all of Western civilization.

2. Illegal border crossings are down 73% just on fear of Trump / deportation-- also likely to save the country from cultural dilution and destruction from the invasion.

The one thing that's true in my opinion: with Trump, you can forget ideology. It's not what he's about. What's more is that the conservative movement's battle for ideological purity is how we got here.

It's more important at this stage, that we have private sector, and specifically entrepreneurial experience.

Looking back, I wouldn't put any of the last 5 Presidents, including Reagan, in charge of a Dairy Queen in southern Illinois. I can't believe we didn't find someone qualified sooner.


And I honestly can't ever see going back to the political dynasty / community organizer resume set ever again.


To my friends in the all-or-nothing coalition, who are "principled conservatives"- look around. This mess is not Trump's. He's been in politics for 18 months. This mess is ours- and it's the politician's in both parties. We are seeing the fruit of the Christian coalition, the Reagan revolution, the conservative movement. And here we are.


So, relax. And pay attention. Trump is moving the ball down the field more than any President since Coolidge. 

Remember what happened to Obama in November 2010? Would you prefer Trump galvanize an extremist fringe regional party 548 days before the next election just so you can retain your ideological purity?


We have long term problems. The culture that permitted a communist revolutionary whose previous experience consists of ivory tower Saul Alinsky apostle, community organizer, and 10 minutes in the Illinois legislature, and US Senate won't be turned around in six months.


TRUMP DID NOT GET US HERE!


We have a long road ahead. The doughboys will not be home by Christmas. The key to winning the next battle is holding the ground we've taken (notice how Democrats ALWAYS do this?).


"Principled conservatism" and ideological purity is how we got here, and you know what they say about insanity. We need principles, but we nees the pragmatism of Bill Clinton. He said, "The era of big government is over". But was it? Did he mean it?

The bolded is the one promise Trump should NOT keep, if he wants to "[save] America- and possibly all of Western civilization."

[billisonboard]

May 3, 2017 20:07:59 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

...

The whole point of the M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) paradigm, and what makes it work, is... they don't attack because they KNOW that retaliation would destroy them too. ...

Which is why a country like Iran wants nuclear weapons.

[Opti]

May 3, 2017 20:10:58 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

May 3, 2017 8:42:26 GMT -5 Opti said:

No, it wasn't there. Just because your own bias has you believing Obama is the least qualified President, doesn't mean TG or anyone else believes the same. It is well known that TG is talking about Trump when he writes something like that. Therefore, it is you who changes the meaning simply by reading with your own belief on who is the worst President.

I could play games like you have been and mentioning Trump anytime you say the worst President ever mentioning no names, but I don't think that would improve your understanding any. It amazes me that so many posters are really bad at just reading another poster's words without sticking lots of their own biases and meanings in them. It amazes me because I remember reading paragraphs in those achievement tests

and the answer to who the author means the least qualified President is would be Trump, if reading TG's post. And Obama is reading one of yours. The answer is NOT what the reader thinks. It is what the author thinks.

My beliefs and bias don't come into play.

Facts are facts. Obama (when he was sworn in) was the least qualified President in history... up to and including the current occupant of the White House. Time will tell if qualifications turn into a successful presidency though. Hey, Trump could end up being worse... or (scary thought) he could end up being better.

Absolutely your beliefs come into play. You haven't displayed any knowledge of all Presidents and their qualifications nor have you proved in any way why you believe Obama is the least qualified. It turns out Google has a bunch of results when you look for "least qualified US President". I'm not sure if I want to check them all out, but my first one not surprisingly does not list Obama as the least qualified.

us-presidents.insidegov.com/stories/18302/ranking-presidents-least-most-experience#Intro

The above URL counts political experience not military, therefore it lists three generals first, starting with President Zachary Taylor.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_previous_experience

5 Presidents had never been elected to public office before becoming President: Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, Herbert Hoover, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Donald Trump. Hoover had formerly served as Secretary of Commerce, an appointed office. Taylor, Grant and Eisenhower had never held political office prior to their presidencies, but they had served as leading American generals in the Mexican-American War, American Civil War and World War Two, respectively.

1 President had never served in elected public office, the military, or government before becoming president: Donald Trump. Trump was a real estate developer, businessman, and television personality who served as chairman of the Trump Organization.

[Deleted]

May 3, 2017 20:07:59 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

May 3, 2017 7:04:35 GMT -5 @aj said:

The first question I ask myself when voting for President is "Do I trust them in a crisis that could lead to nuclear holocaust?"

For the first time in my life (and I go back to Carter) I have a President where the answer is an emphatic no. I don't know how anyone can honestly say they trust Trump in that situation.

I understand why people had their reasons for not liking Obama or W, but I trusted each of them with that awesome responsibility.

My biggest worry is this election ends up having that kind of consequence.

The problem this election was... most people didn't trust EITHER of the two front runners in that situation.

I don't trust Donald with "The Football" (as the case with the codes is nicknamed, for anyone that doesn't know)... but I wouldn't have trust Hillary with it either.




Grudgingly, I will say that I did trust Obama with it... but only because none of the countries in the Middle East had "the bomb". Honestly I don't know if I could have trusted him had they had it. Not because I think that he WOULD have used it... but because I believe that he WOULDN'T have, and it's not a deterrent if retaliation isn't an option.

The whole point of the M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) paradigm, and what makes it work, is... they don't attack because they KNOW that retaliation would destroy them too. That's literally the only reason why we don't speak Russian now.

Pretty sure this crowd understands what MAD and The Football are, but while we are pointing out obvious things in the political world, the GOP stands for Grand Ole Party.