• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton suggests Trump wants to become a dictator

Clinton is scared ****less...lol

That's my read as well. Why else would she adopt Trump style bombast and demagoguery?

She's looking for some sort of way to gain traction against Trump, as the latest polls have them pretty close, and try an pull some of Bernie's support, as they are also close in California.

California's primary results would be the determination if she's successful or not.
 
No......HRC is employing the new strategy to defeat Trump.................Get under his skin............he is already out of control.......screaming at the top of his lungs .....making wild claims............being super nasty.........and complaining "its not fair"..........and all the Trump haters are out to get him..........

It is just a matter of time before he goes "way over the top" and says something so outrageous that he will never get elected..........to anything ..............


Look forward to HRC and her surrogates "pulling the Donald's chain on a daily basis....................the poor boy is going to go crazy Twittering 24/7......... out of control he be........

RELATED

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html
The 224 People, Places and Things Donald
Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List

“Since declaring his candidacy for president last June, Donald Trump has used Twitter to lob insults at presidential candidates, journalists, news organizations, nations, a Neil Young song and even a lectern in the Oval Office. We know this because we’ve read, tagged and quoted them all. Below, a directory of sorts, with links to the original tweets. Insults within the last thirty days are………….


This sure is not an example of how to win friends and influence people………well……….some people……….
Where does the man find the time to Twitter so much?

Meh.

Whether or not Hillary's gotten under Trump's skin is hard to determine. He seems to be pretty much the same as he's always been, with a bit more of a focus on Hillary herself.

Hillary, on the other hand, isn't looking, or sounding, all that good. Bernie is a real on going thorn in her side that just won't go away, and could potentially torpedo not only her primary nomination, but her general election efforts as well. She's within the margin of error in California against Bernie, and within the margin of error nationally against Trump, the last that I've seen.

My, how the coronated of the establishment have fallen, and fallen far.
 
Ah! You refer to all the character assassination word associations and the personal insults being applied to the gentleman.

THOSE terms you listed are true incitements.

Terms being thrown about to cause a gut reaction rather than to allow a rational examination of the issue. Don't listen to what he says, he hates women, minorities, foreigners, etc. etc. etc. because he's a [INSERT Derogatory Term Here].

I don't see him as a racist, misogynist, blah, blah, yadda, yadda. I am not moved by labels.

I choose to make a decision about someone or something from a personal examination of the WHOLE, not snippets taken out of context and used to color one's viewpoint.

I'll vote my conscience knowing I have made an informed decision rather than an emotional one. :coffeepap:

Trump is a big government, anti-constitutionalist with no respect for individuals rights or property. He, is a bad bad man.
 
Meh.

Whether or not Hillary's gotten under Trump's skin is hard to determine. He seems to be pretty much the same as he's always been, with a bit more of a focus on Hillary herself.

Hillary, on the other hand, isn't looking, or sounding, all that good. Bernie is a real on going thorn in her side that just won't go away, and could potentially torpedo not only her primary nomination, but her general election efforts as well. She's within the margin of error in California against Bernie, and within the margin of error nationally against Trump, the last that I've seen.

My, how the coronated of the establishment have fallen, and fallen far.


Just a matter of opinion I guess….I saw HRC do her “major foreign relations speech” taking Donald’s own words and making him look like the fool that he is………….(and that sure did drive the Trumpster over the top) I guess…………..what given your comment……..you missed it

It was by far the best presentation/speech she has given to date…….. I think she has finally hit her stride……and no longer seems stiff and/or unbelievably boring…….Has an almost Obama presentation style …….

She’s ready for the debates, me thinks ………

And please stop with that silliness “coronation” baloney……..it will be called landslide……….


You wanna talk polls?

Let's see what they say next week.........
 
Meh.

Whether or not Hillary's gotten under Trump's skin is hard to determine. He seems to be pretty much the same as he's always been, with a bit more of a focus on Hillary herself.

Hillary, on the other hand, isn't looking, or sounding, all that good. Bernie is a real on going thorn in her side that just won't go away, and could potentially torpedo not only her primary nomination, but her general election efforts as well. She's within the margin of error in California against Bernie, and within the margin of error nationally against Trump, the last that I've seen.

My, how the coronated of the establishment have fallen, and fallen far.

I sure would hate to be part of her campaign staff right about now! :eek: Unfortunately, everything she has ever said or done is readily available from a variety of sources. Voters that might have been too young to know about her Arkansas years as first lady, when WJC was governor, up to the present time, are learning things they didn't know. Whether that will make a difference whether or not to vote for her, I don't know. She certainly didn't plan on Sanders giving her such competition in this election any more than she did Obama eight years ago, so time will tell. One thing for certain. . . this has been the most unusual election year that I can recall! :screwy:
 
I sure would hate to be part of her campaign staff right about now! :eek: Unfortunately, everything she has ever said or done is readily available from a variety of sources. Voters that might have been too young to know about her Arkansas years as first lady, when WJC was governor, up to the present time, are learning things they didn't know. Whether that will make a difference whether or not to vote for her, I don't know. She certainly didn't plan on Sanders giving her such competition in this election any more than she did Obama eight years ago, so time will tell. One thing for certain. . . this has been the most unusual election year that I can recall! :screwy:

Most certainly an unusual campaign cycle this one is.
 
Ah! You refer to all the character assassination word associations and the personal insults being applied to the gentleman.

THOSE terms you listed are true incitements.

Terms being thrown about to cause a gut reaction rather than to allow a rational examination of the issue. Don't listen to what he says, he hates women, minorities, foreigners, etc. etc. etc. because he's a [INSERT Derogatory Term Here].

I don't see him as a racist, misogynist, blah, blah, yadda, yadda. I am not moved by labels.

I choose to make a decision about someone or something from a personal examination of the WHOLE, not snippets taken out of context and used to color one's viewpoint.

I'll vote my conscience knowing I have made an informed decision rather than an emotional one. :coffeepap:

Whem the only thing you can legitimately applaud on Trump is his personality and business experience (after all, what exactly are his positions or experiences in government), then the only thing left to criticize is his personality and business experience.

The post you referenced is a criticism of his personality because that is also the topic of the thread.

And that criticism and those labels are the direct result of comments made by Trump IN CONTEXT.
 
The scope of EOs needs to be defined and tested as to Constitutionality. EOs are meant to FACILITATE not over-ride or evade the legislative branch.

Did you know that Obama has enacted the fewest amount of executive orders (by yearly average) of any President since the first term of Grover Cleveland?
 
Hillary Clinton suggests Donald Trump wants to become a dictator - CNNPolitics.com
Clinton suggests Trump wants to become a dictator


Hillary Clinton upped the ante Friday night in what has become a sustained back-and-forth with Donald Trump, suggesting that the presumptive Republican nominee wants to be a dictator. "We are trying to elect a president," Clinton said during a long riff on Trump, "not a dictator."

Clinton made the comment at an event here after she blasted Trump for suggesting this week that Gonzalo Curiel, a federal district judge in the Southern District of California who is presiding over a lawsuit involving Trump University, has a "conflict of interest" with the businessman because of Curiel's Mexican heritage. Clinton said Trump is attacking the judge so people don't "look down here at all the scum that came out of Trump University," a for-profit school Trump put his name on that is now being accused of framing consumers……………

Now this may not be too far from being true.

Have you noticed………let’s say to be fair………almost all of the promises Donald has made to his supporters he will do if elected President……… a president does not have the constitutional power to fulfill these “promises”…….

Which begs the question………..

Is Donald once again telling a lie?

Or does he have plans to dismiss Congress and the SCOTUS so he can ‘keep his promises” just as so many dictators thru out history have done……..?

She who dealt it smelt it. :mrgreen:
 
Whem the only thing you can legitimately applaud on Trump is his personality and business experience (after all, what exactly are his positions or experiences in government), then the only thing left to criticize is his personality and business experience.

The post you referenced is a criticism of his personality because that is also the topic of the thread.

And that criticism and those labels are the direct result of comments made by Trump IN CONTEXT.

No. They are distorted and/or taken out of context.

I find nothing he has said to be truly racist, misogynistic, or xenophobic.

There ARE actual criminals who cross the border from Mexico and engage in drug smuggling, murder, and rape. This aside from the fact that all otherwise harmless "Illegals" from whatever nation are breaking immigration law. Assuming he is a racist merely because he is stating a fact seems intentionally deceptive to me.

I am also unaware of any actual anti-Black statements he has made. I have seen a lot of "allegations" about how he feels about blacks, based on unproven anecdotal comments. ( Here Are 10 Examples Of Donald Trump Being Racist ) There is also the "concern" because he hasn't "disavowed" the endorsements of White supremacists; which leads some people to infer that he himself must be also be racist. You know, guilt by second-hand association? All of this is just casting aspersions IMO.

As for misogyny? The man is 69 years old. That means he grew up in the era exemplified by that TV show "Mad Men," where women were treated much differently than they are today. In truth I don't think he cares about this label, since he probably considers his statements as harmless jokes. Still, I am not female so I can't comment why some women choose to take offense while others don't. :shrug:

Xenophobia? How is it xenophobic when someone is arguing that we should not allow either immigrants or migrants from areas (like the Middle East) where there is a clear danger from anti-American fanatics, without a very strict and cautiously executed vetting process? I would prefer we vet true immigrants and prevent acceptance of migrants. I've made that position clear here:

There has been a lot of debate surrounding how America should handle the issues of Latin American immigrants and Moslem refugees...

I admit he is bombastic, which might be confused by some as "bullying." I also admit that he mis-states himself sometimes, which can give the appearance to some of deceit.

However, people who are speaking off the cuff as he does often make mistakes; and will as often as not insist they did not until they find themselves properly corrected. That happens quite frequently with many members in this very forum. I try not to assume they are intentionally lying when this happens. :shrug:

In any case I had heard all of these allegations back near the start of his primary campaign, and I chose to view the video clips and other evidence to come to my own conclusions. I found that almost all of the allegations were either false, or snippets of speeches blown out of proportion to incite opposition based on emotion rather than rational thought.

If the primary argument is based on character assassination and fear-mongering, then I stand in opposition. That's when I actually became a Trump supporter.
 
Last edited:
Do you have anything of value to add to this subject ?

yep , Very creditable coming from someone that thinks she is ABOVE THE LAW ! :lamo
 
American political system doesn't let anyone gain power as a dictator so she is a great liar about this issue.But like all politicians it is her job.
 
Therte is nothing unconstitutional about E.O.s no mater what has been peddled by RWQ extremists..........

BTW

The subject is not President Obama so what you speak to is superfluous

Once there's a Republican President issuing them, I think most of them will go suddenly silent on the issue, and suddenly liberals will start talking about it.

It's just the way politics works in this country.
 

Our system doesn't allow for dictators.

Have you noticed………let’s say to be fair………almost all of the promises Donald has made to his supporters he will do if elected President……… a president does not have the constitutional power to fulfill these “promises”…….

Like Clinton and every other presidential candidate in history.

Which begs the question………..

Is Donald once again telling a lie?

Like Clinton and every other presidential candidate in history.

Or does he have plans to dismiss Congress and the SCOTUS so he can ‘keep his promises” just as so many dictators thru out history have done……..?[/B]

Obviously not.
 
Our system doesn't allow for dictators.



Like Clinton and every other presidential candidate in history.



Like Clinton and every other presidential candidate in history.



Obviously not.

I thought the allure of Trump was that he was somehow different, not a politician but an outsider.
 
Did you know that Obama has enacted the fewest amount of executive orders (by yearly average) of any President since the first term of Grover Cleveland?

As they say, it is quality not quantity that counts. In Obama's case the actions have been very significant.
 
Trump is doing what all nominees do.....state what they plan to push for in language that suggests it's what they'll do. Trump has no more authority to make a wall than Clinton does to set a $12 minimum wage. That doesn't mean she's trying to be a dictator or he is when they say they will do those things.

That said, I do expect Trump, if elected, to follow in Obamas footsteps at using executive actions that extremely stretch the level of legitimacy due to their utter disconnect and disregard for the will of congress on those given issues. So no attempt to overthrow and become dictator, just simply stretching the powers of the executive to their utmost degree while daring his enemies to stop him m
 
Did you know that Obama has enacted the fewest amount of executive orders (by yearly average) of any President since the first term of Grover Cleveland?

EO's are only one type of executive action, and beyond that it is not the amount itself Maggie spoke of but the scope. Please do some reading and research into the constitutionality of EOs, the notion of a "zone of twilight", and the relation of congress's view on an issue and the EO in question and how that plays into th constituonality of one. Also look into various SCOTUS cases regarding the use of executive action by this administration.

If people are talking about quantity, your factoid makes sense. When someone like Maggie is talking about SCOPE, your commend is a strawman aimed at simply changing the subject.
 
Back
Top Bottom