My questions to Trump, one’s that you should be asking too.

I am curious...what do people have against Trump, and why assume he'd be for the bad side of what America needs or wants? He is for himself, as everyone in any level of power is ..kinda by definition to get there. In his case tho..for himself may be a very nice case of coincidental merging of interests?


I do believe in the 'TPTB' in a general way, and it's kinda like saying the ocean is wet. It's out there..splashing away..whether we want to believe it is or not. I can only feel certain because they flaunt it, right in our faces. The most powerful people on the planet who meet occasionally and quite publicly for the importance of it (Bilderbergs..among a couple meetings), and how many conspiracies actually have their own website that basically says they are what the CT community says they are? It'd be funny if the public apathy to even that hadn't become the order of the day, eh?

 
(Source: Wiki)


Now I honestly don't know the answer to this question but maybe someone else does? As Trump has had the wealth and the status to be in the Middle-Lower/Middle class of the 1% club...has he attended those meetings? They are normally covered like the blanket for 'Pigpen' in a Peanuts carton, and from others like Alex Jones. Few, if any, "slip into" those without their basic names being known, anyway. Has Trump gone where some real raunchy stories come out and probably have at least a kernel of truth? I believe Hillary has..or am I just recalling that she's only been invited since becoming a Senator?

--

Anyway, Trump is a loud mouth and speaks with his mind a 1/4 step behind...but then, I'd note this for history's sake. Others did worse in that dept.



He really said that across a mic he sure didn't expect to be hot with a line back to Moscow, as quick as it was, and to show just how far removed the Soviet Communist Party was from the concept of humor. I think they took him half way serious? lol...

Unfortunately, Ronnie Raygun didn't get his due, in my view, for being a 'Great' President. His numbers weren't good 'enough', it seems. I learned in the Political Science course just what the measures are for saying who was 'Great' and who was not and it has a lot more to do with economic metrics than anything else. Either way tho...

Trump is either a Court Jester to distract us from deep and dirty party business, or he is what he seems and just mad enough (like the rest of us) to want to give it a shot for real?


He's got vanity, ego AND the skill to actually DO things that feed them, not just get into positions where people worship him on name alone (basically, what your average politician is, right?). He's been a success and failed...just about total on both at different times.

Still, Trump is a Legacy man, if he isn't the jester. He'd be one looking to make a century's legacy and get his name on Rushmore for what 'only he could do' for America ..and we may 'just so happen' to be along for the ride, but it may not be a bad ride compared to Mr Toad's wild one we've been on since Baby Bush.

Mr bad wig wharf rat will deftly sidestep giving any meaningfull practical answers and do the usual feed people bullshit and tell em what they want to hear ........ the circus goes on .........

I can't answer for Trump, but I can answer for me - maybe write me in - I could use a new big house!



Start meaning what I say, and saying what I mean. A good starting point is not letting my mouth write checks the collective ass of the US can't cash. There has been so much damage over the past 20 years or so that a cure will not happen over night - but it can be started in a heartbeat.



Cut ties immediately, and cancel any support they currently get from the US. "Allies" are not allies unless they act in an allied manner - I see no reason WE should uphold OUR end of an agreement THEY have already broken. Depending on severity, that may also involve the booting out of any ambassadors, and recall of our own - not necessarily in that order. it would be more prudent to recall our own back home first, THEN boot theirs out, to preclude any nasty hostage type situations.



Yessir - treaties are treaties, and should be honored and upheld at all costs - assuming the "ally" has not already broken the treaty, making it null and void... just ask an Indian. It's not becoming of a world power to be the first to break a treaty. That's not even becoming of a wino, much less a nation.



It has been said, not without reason, that "diplomacy is the fine art of saying 'nice doggie' until you get your hands on a big rock". Unfortunately, I'm not as diplomatic as some would like - diplomacy is a give and take, not getting shoved around and all giving, with the opposite number doing all the taking.



Round up all the illegals, send them home at gunpoint if necessary. Let them live off MEXICAN welfare. That has the potential to save billions for us, and lay those costs at the doorstep of the Mexican government. What they do with that is them up to them. recent figures state that something like 70% of illegal aliens are drawing US welfare - that can be fixed, and we can shift those charges elsewhere.



A specific post laying out details would be prohibitively long here, but in general, drastic cuts in useless federal agencies are called for. I personally would start by entirely dissolving DHS. They have not demonstrated any value at all in the entirely of their existence, just shown themselves to be a money pit to burn money in. ALL federal agencies would see a trimming, some pretty drastic up to and including dissolution. Getting the federal government back into fighting trim would necessarily involve restricting federal activity back to the boundaries that the Constitution mandated for them - that is the general direction I would take it to get the budget back under control.



see above for starters. other agencies would have to go through cost/benefit analyses, tinted by justification through Constitutional mandate, in order to survive at all... and ALL of them would get trimmed. there is no Earthly reason that a full third of the US workforce should be drawing government checks.



No. The highest law of the land already specifies duties and restrictions on who can do what, and what govt entities can and cannot do. Anything short of that is illegal.



Question does not apply to my candidacy. The Second amendment clearly specifies that the  federal government has no jurisdiction whatsoever in the arena of personal armament. That's what the phrase "shall not be infringed..." means.



See above. Other folks abortions, whether they decide to kill off their own babies, is neither my decision nor my look out. I would neither prohibit it nor pay for it. Ever. That's a social problem, not a legal one.



Who IS Trump, anyhow? I don't get out much...

1) Trump managed to run himself into bankruptcy.

2) Trump is VERY rigid....tact and diplomacy ARE qualities needed when dealing with delicate issues, and I don't see those in him.

3) Trump INSTSTS on being the supreme being. If anybody gets in the way of things going the way he wants them to, he runs over them like a bulldozer.

4) Trump waffles; let's not forget his Democratic leanings. He can blow like the wind if it suits his purpose.

Trump is like a bull in a china shop. He is echoing the sentiments of every disgruntled American, but I question his ability to change things in a diplomatic way. I don't think you can bulldoze your way through world politics without some very serious consequences, which Americans probably aren't willing to face.

It is just my opinion, but I don't believe that Trump seriously even wants to be POTUS. I think he is just making a presence to show an extreme right wing possibility just as Bernie Sanders is showing the extreme left wing possibility in an effort to make that criminal, murdering liar Hillary Clinton look like the moderate, middle of the road choice and to take people's minds away from her crimes long enough to get her elected as president- and it's working too! When it comes to election time no matter what people SAY their actions show that they tend to vote for the most moderate platformed candidate- and right now that appears to be the lying she bitch!

@ninurta,

"I can't answer for Trump, but I can answer for me - maybe write me in - I could use a new big house!
"

So you believe we should just get things for free? You really have a problem with paying someone else to do the things for you that you either can't or won't do for yourself? Would that not make THEM slaves if they did your bidding for nothing?

There is always another choice - go without those things if you are unwilling to do or get them on your own. It just proves my point that we are NOT slaves - all of those things are choices you make, and if one feels "enslaved" by them, then they only have themselves to blame - just as I said.




Perhaps you do - I do not. I ask NO ONE'S permission to do as I please with what is mine. Never have, never will.




I can name at least one person who has flat out refused to play the insurance lottery, and has paid no resultant fines. I'm a little upset about that - if they had fined me, I would then have cause to take it to federal court for damages and undue financial burdens imposed.



I do not. I don't have a car - or a driver's license. If I DID have either one, I would either make my own fuel from corn, or else pay someone else to make my fuel for me. I can fathom no reason I should get it for free.


True enough - but those few DO exist, and are "free". The rest make a CHOICE not to, and therefore if they are enslaved, have only themselves to blame.


Again, it comes down to choices people make. Some choose to live where they must pay someone else to feed them. if they don't like it, move.


"Elites"? Nothing is "free" of charge, ever. No such energy exists. Someone would have to work to produce and maintain the equipment to capture or deliver it, and either we would have to do that work ourselves, or pay someone else to - or "enslave" them.


That is true. It's called "Shanks mare" or "the Shoeleather Express".


That, my dear, is nonsense. No one who makes money off of one form of energy cannot figure out how to make money off of another. When transportation was by horse, horses were sold, not given away for free. When transportation moved to cars, the same sort of economy prevailed - they are sold, not given away for free. I personally think they should still hang car thieves, however.