The Case for Donald Trump: His Businesses, His Character, and the Nuclear Button

[Stephen50right]

OMG, near the end of "case for Trump" the author obliquely tries to make one. FINALLY.

Of course, the argument fails. We have never had a President who fits the DSM diagnostics for having a full-blown case Narcissistic Personality Disorder either (if we exclude Andrew Jackson). The rarity of appointing the mentally ill is not "a case for Trump". In fact that case is so weak, there is are few personality traits iconic of Trump that can't be said for the autocratic demagogues and strong men of history: Peron, Chavez, Huey Long, or even Adolph Hitler.

Like the previous mentioned political personeas, being a bold, arrogant, bullying, threatened or winning persona says nothing about his policy goals, knowledge of issues, ability to work with an executive team, bias, or judgement. It only impresses readers with weak minds who fall in love with "the big powerful alpha male primate". It is the classic "romance" with the strong that elected the Nazis, Peronists, and Chavesas. [Rating: A good case for the Trogs, not so much for thinkers with principles).

So the author returns to telling us what Trump is NOT - his case is "Hey Trump is not insane, let him have the nuke button". In any event, given Trumps inability to grasp why nukes should never be used except under the most extreme of threats...well, what else do you need to know. The man's judgement lobe is severely compromised.

Quite the contrary, her political judgment have been well within the norm of experts. She is committed to the NATO alliance, willing to use force in the national and/or humanitarian interests, supports nuclear non-proliferation, and understood the threat of ISIS. While she has made mistakes there is nothing totally loopy about her dispositions. Anti-NATO and pro-Putin Trump who wants to spread nuclear weapons is a different matter.

She does not "short circuit" to the point she contradicts herself within the same paragraph, and flip-flops randomly between parties and positions. If the author wants to criticize "instability" he/she ought who he/she is supporting. [Rating: Delusional)



We've already passed that opportunity, the two parties gave us a crap sandwich to chose from.

Sorry that article was the lamest "intellectual" case for Trump I have read to date.

Yea, but your side fell in love with a far left radical socialist from parts unknown, with a sordid background of associating with known members of violent anarchist groups, who was nothing more than a community organizer with a glib personality who could make a decent speech to Democratic Party minions, who accomplished absolutely nothing as a US senator, and never displayed any leadership ability in his life with anything. Obama has been dismal failure, and everything he has done has been a net negative to our country. The amazing thing is now you've chosen a candidate in Crooked Hillary, who has the potential to be even worse than Obama, possibly much worse, and that's a remarkable feat to find somebody as deficient as that.

Sorry, but your side has lost all credibility about choosing a president who can do an effective competent job and properly lead our country. It's our turn now, and Trump will be victorious on election night and lead us back into greatness. But don't worry about it, in a year or so, you will actually be thankful that Trump won - you will feel much better about America and you'll have more money in your pocket.

 

[markjs]

Yea, but your side fell in love with a far left radical socialist from parts unknown, with a sordid background of associating with known members of violent anarchist groups, who was nothing more than a community organizer with a glib personality who could make a decent speech to Democratic Party minions, who accomplished absolutely nothing as a US senator, and never displayed any leadership ability in his life with anything. Obama has been dismal failure, and everything he has done has been a net negative to our country. The amazing thing is now you've chosen a candidate in Crooked Hillary, who has the potential to be even worse than Obama, possibly much worse, and that's a remarkable feat to find somebody as deficient as that.

Sorry, but your side has lost all credibility about choosing a president who can do an effective competent job and properly lead our country. It's our turn now, and Trump will be victorious on election night and lead us back into greatness. But don't worry about it, in a year or so, you will actually be thankful that Trump won - you will feel much better about America and you'll have more money in your pocket.

Wow you have vivid fantasies.

 

[Hari Seldon]

The Case for Donald Trump: His Businesses, His Character, and the Nuclear Button

Article from Stephen50right

Donald Trump is one of those opportunities for leadership who comes around once in a lifetime, and we simply cannot pass him by. Hillary Clinton on the other hand is at best a dime a dozen type of politician, and frankly, she isn't even worth that. She is truly a pathetic, corrupt, leaderless type of person, who is totally unfit to be President of the United States by any reasonable standard.

First of all, about the charge that Trump was a “stiff” with his bankruptcies. The naysayers about Trump always bring up the few bankruptcies, but never mention the fact that over the years, many thousands of businesses and employees have made countless millions of dollars doing work for Trump. That positive trend continues to this day as his companies employ thousands of people, and provide millions of dollars in profit to companies that do business with him. The net gain to our society of Donald Trump being a businessman has been enormous.

To label Trump as a stiff is simply being disingenuous. Hillary made that accusation about Trump, calling him a stiff in her DNC speech. Anyone who says this, displays a profound ignorance of what the world of business is all about. We all know that any business person who engages in hundreds of different projects, is going to have some failures. The astonishing thing about Trump is that there have been so few failures, considering all the successes. Taking into account Trump's total body of work over many years, nobody should ever contemplate calling him a stiff.

Remember when Obama uttered the line, “You didn't build that” which was a derogatory remark toward business owners. Hillary has repeated that line. As leftists, both of them don't care to acknowledge the tremendous amount of hard work that people put into their businesses. It takes time, intelligence, risk capital, sacrifice and a whole assortment of other factors including some good luck to build a successful business and maintain it. Obama and Hillary should be ashamed of themselves for denigrating the accomplishments of business owners and Donald Trump.

Secondly, about Trump's character. What some don't care to mention because they are politically against him, is that Trump's personality is based on a New York City upbringing. To better understand part of Trump's personality, there is a television show which illustrates it.

We've all seen and enjoyed the hit TV show Seinfeld, a comedy series about life in New York City. With a national TV audience, many Americans liked Seinfeld, and it had some of the highest TV ratings of all time. Everybody knows the Seinfeld story plots are loaded with sarcasm and absurdity, all in good fun for entertainment purposes.

A number of Trump's comments containing humor are similar in style to those on Seinfeld. But the humorous style from that show is not new or unique. Many folks in New York City, and other Eastern US cities such as Philadelphia, often use sarcastic humor to describe certain events which happen in everyday life. It's a way of relieving stress, and having some fun at the same time, hopefully entertaining whoever they are talking to in some manner, maybe getting a good laugh out of them or perhaps just to make a strong point.

When Trump recently stated, “Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” basically everyone watching that press conference live, instantly knew it was a joke. Trump referred to it as sarcasm. Trump used sarcasm in that line to make a strong point about Hillary's email scandal. For Trump to have to explain afterward to the liberal media that it was sarcasm, is inherently dishonest of the liberal media because they knew it was a joke.

Many in the liberal media are from New York, Philadelphia, and other Eastern US cities, or have worked there. They have watched the TV show Seinfeld, and enjoyed its humor. They understood the premise of Seinfeld and so they knew exactly what Trump meant about Hillary. The liberal media isn't opposed to using sarcasm, just when it is targeted at their socialist idol Hillary Clinton, and Trump scored a bulls-eye.

For political purposes, the liberal media intentionally concocted an incorrect interpretation of Trump's sarcastic joke, which considering that the liberal media knew better, their spin was really an outright lie. The liberal media has lied about Trump in the past, and it's expected that their lies will continue to get worse as election day approaches.

continued.....

I associate trump with the better sitcom from New York. All in the Family.

 

[Stephen50right]

Wow you have vivid fantasies.

yea, yea, yea, we already know, when a liberal is beat they resort to silly insults, often times potty mouth insults.

Although I have not seen the potty mouth stuff on the forum here, and that tells me it's an excellent group of members, regardless of the politics.

The liberals here just need some help and guidance in choosing the right candidate as they have various brain deficiencies, likely from birth or being dropped on their heads as children. :2wave:

 

[AlbqOwl]

Trumpers continually make the error of constructing an incomplete choice. It is true we know what we are getting with Hillary Clinton. But if, as you say, we cannot know what we will get with Trump, then we may get something better, something the same, or SOMETHING WORSE.

Confronted with a Sophie's Choice, I chose not to choose. I will be an agent of conservative hari-kari...let others destroy us should they wish.

No Sophie's Choice for me, because I believe Trump will not intentionally do any harm. I cannot say that for Hillary. And since one or the other will be President, I think we as American patriots must choose. Further, I believe Trump's colossal ego is such that he will do everything in his power to succeed in doing what is right for the country. And I think he will want his legacy to be that he succeeded. So yes, I am willing to take that chance.

 

[Stephen50right]

I associate trump with the better sitcom from New York. All in the Family.

I'll have to admit, that is a good zinger.

Albeit, as inaccurate as it is.

 

[Tigerace117]

yea, yea, yea, we already know, when a liberal is beat they resort to silly insults, often times potty mouth insults.

Although I have not seen the potty mouth stuff on the forum here, and that tells me it's an excellent group of members, regardless of the politics.

The liberals here just need some help and guidance in choosing the right candidate as they have various brain deficiencies, likely from birth or being dropped on their heads as children. :2wave:

Taking lessons in shooting yourself in the foot from Trump, I see.

" yea, yea, yea, we already know, when a liberal is beat they resort to silly insults, often times potty mouth insults."

"The liberals here just need some help and guidance in choosing the right candidate as they have various brain deficiencies, likely from birth or being dropped on their heads as children."

Literally in the same post.

 

[Stephen50right]

Taking lessons in shooting yourself in the foot from Trump, I see.

" yea, yea, yea, we already know, when a liberal is beat they resort to silly insults, often times potty mouth insults."

"The liberals here just need some help and guidance in choosing the right candidate as they have various brain deficiencies, likely from birth or being dropped on their heads as children."

Literally in the same post.

Wow you have vivid fantasies.


I confess, I stole that line from member markjs

 

[maxparrish]

No Sophie's Choice for me, because I believe Trump will not intentionally do any harm. I cannot say that for Hillary. And since one or the other will be President, I think we as American patriots must choose. Further, I believe Trump's colossal ego is such that he will do everything in his power to succeed in doing what is right for the country. And I think he will want his legacy to be that he succeeded. So yes, I am willing to take that chance.

Your not thinking clear. Sophies Choice has nothing to do with someone's intentions, it has to do with our choices likely having dire consequences REGARDLESS of anyone's intentions (aka "between a rock and a hard place"). Someone's claimed "good intentions" have little to do with good policy, as the "well-intended" Jimmy Carter demonstrated with the worst Presidential administration in modern history.

Rest assured, both Hillary and Trump think they have good intentions; Hillary's is to impose liberal values and policy on Americans and Trump's is to do whatever he thinks makes him look like a winner who can dominate others (regardless of what that might be). Neither hold the meaningof the American revolution or the constitution as worthy of consideration - neither care about securing our actual liberty, justice, or the right to pursue our own happiness. Hell, I doubt Donald Trump has a clue as to what our founding moral documents even mean.

So whoever you vote for will be your choice, and your responsibility. I chose to not to support either evil...as should all moral Americans.

 

[maxparrish]

Yea, but your side fell in love with a far left radical socialist from parts unknown, with a sordid background of associating with known members of violent anarchist groups, who was nothing more than a community organizer with a glib personality who could make a decent speech to Democratic Party minions, who accomplished absolutely nothing as a US senator, and never displayed any leadership ability in his life with anything. Obama has been dismal failure, and everything he has done has been a net negative to our country. The amazing thing is now you've chosen a candidate in Crooked Hillary, who has the potential to be even worse than Obama, possibly much worse, and that's a remarkable feat to find somebody as deficient as that.

Sorry, but your side has lost all credibility about choosing a president who can do an effective competent job and properly lead our country. It's our turn now, and Trump will be victorious on election night and lead us back into greatness. But don't worry about it, in a year or so, you will actually be thankful that Trump won - you will feel much better about America and you'll have more money in your pocket.

You need to walk to the nearest mirror, look at the face staring back, and ask yourself "Am I capable of being a reflective and honest thinker?". If you answer yes, then you are not being honest with yourself.

You didn't present a case for Trump, you provided emotive attacks against other's criticisms of Trump. It never dawned on you that others didn't fall in bromance with the alpha primate. Nope...you were the off the rails about media "lies" about "the great one". Sad.

Equally sad is how you just make things up (much like your mentor), your own delusional stream of speculation serving as 'evidence' of your bubble reality. Before you charge windmills Don Q, perhaps you ought to find out what I believe before you pull information about "my side" from your "seated side". Here's a hint...I hate Hillary and Obama as much as Trump.

So still think "my side" fell in love with a "a far left radical socialist from parts unknown..." yada, yada, yada?

Ssssh.

 

[Geoist]

Come on now, stop being silly.

...

However they would vote for Charles Manson if he was running for president as a Democrat.

The irony here is unbearable. :lamo

 

[Stephen50right]

The irony here is unbearable. :lamo

You are way out there in left field aren't you?

But keep acting silly if you wish. That's your prerogative.

 

[Stephen50right]

You need to walk to the nearest mirror, look at the face staring back, and ask yourself "Am I capable of being a reflective and honest thinker?". If you answer yes, then you are not being honest with yourself.

You didn't present a case for Trump, you provided emotive attacks against other's criticisms of Trump. It never dawned on you that others didn't fall in bromance with the alpha primate. Nope...you were the off the rails about media "lies" about "the great one". Sad.

Equally sad is how you just make things up (much like your mentor), your own delusional stream of speculation serving as 'evidence' of your bubble reality. Before you charge windmills Don Q, perhaps you ought to find out what I believe before you pull information about "my side" from your "seated side". Here's a hint...I hate Hillary and Obama as much as Trump.

So still think "my side" fell in love with a "a far left radical socialist from parts unknown..." yada, yada, yada?

Ssssh.

You got one thing right like a broken clock, my article was an "attack" as you call it, "against other's criticisms of Trump."

Congratulations - a first grader could have figured that out, probably faster than you did, and provided a much more sensible review.

 

[Geoist]

You are way out there in left field aren't you?

But keep acting silly if you wish. That's your prerogative.

The only silliness on this thread are your insane hyperbolic claims.

 

[Stephen50right]

The only silliness on this thread are your insane hyperbolic claims.

"hyperbolic" - Is that a word your psychiatrist taught you? Don't forget your Friday appointment, and perhaps the doctor can give you a stronger dose of medicine.

 

[Tigerace117]

Wow you have vivid fantasies.


I confess, I stole that line from member markjs

Sorry bud, but that line doesn't work when it's spelled out in black and white for everybody to see. It's really sad, actually, how your trying to deflect.

 

[tosca1]

You choose to denigrate an entire group of people,

Wrong. It's not denigrating an entire group of people.
You have a serious problem with comprehension, if you think that.
It is stating a simple fact that Islamic terrorists are using their own people to gain entry to other countries!

What made it worse? Sunday's revelation that at least one of the Paris terrorists who killed more than 120 people on Friday entered Europe as just another face in the crowd -- embedded in the current wave of Syrian war refugees.

Paris bomber had Syria refugee passport, official says - CNN.com


That's not surprising....after all, they also use their own women and children as shields, and to carry bombs

the vast majority of whom are peaceful individuals.

Who's saying they're not????

Btw, between 80-90% of the victims of terrorism are Muslim.

That's right! Because radical Islamists don't care about their own.

That's also the reason why there are Muslims who support Trump! They know their own peaceful lives depend on him! Terrorists who gain entry in the USA will use them and hide among them.


What do you think? If these radical Islamists don't care a hoot about their own.....you fancy peaceful US Muslims who'd accepted and embraced the western life wouldn't be target by Islamists? Get real!
They'll be lumped up with all infidels!

See the kind of rationale Hillary-supporters give?
If not deflection, it's outright separation from reality. Supporters of Hillary live in lala-land!



Whether you want to face it or not, IMMIGRATION, IS AT THE HEART OF NATIONAL SECURITY.
It means taking people into your country, for crying out loud! The world - especially the USA - has radical islamists for enemies. You are at the top of the list to target for killing! The more there are Americans to be wiped out......that's what matters!
That's all they want, to kill as many of you for which they're willing to die for!

The analogy to the bowl of skittles by Trump jr, is right. You've got to fix your faulty system!
Terrorists are getting in (like the San Bernardino house wife).


The more terrorists you let in your country, the more chances of many people getting killed and maimed.
That's just a simple common sense.

You can choose to look at this in an educated, mature and objective way, or you may choose to be an ostrich about it......doesn't change that fact!

 

[Stephen50right]

Sorry bud, but that line doesn't work when it's spelled out in black and white for everybody to see. It's really sad, actually, how your trying to deflect.

What is sadder, is your grammar.

 

[Tigerace117]

What is sadder, is your grammar.

What's even sadder than that is you desperately flailing trying to deflect from what you literally just did in that lady post so you fixate on my grammar.

 

[markjs]

Wow you have vivid fantasies.


I confess, I stole that line from member markjs

No you're just a willfully ignorant, emotion driven, fact ignoring, hypocrite, as are the vast majority of conservatives. Typical.

 

[Geoist]

"hyperbolic" - Is that a word your psychiatrist taught you?

Umm, no. And it is clearly a word you never learned at all. :doh

Your vocab word for the day:


hyperbolic

adjective
1.
having the nature of hyperbole; exaggerated.
2.
using hyperbole; exaggerating.
3.
Mathematics.
of or relating to a hyperbola.
derived from a hyperbola, as a hyperbolic function.

Hyperbolic | Define Hyperbolic at Dictionary.com

 

[pjt122]

I'd say that is a childish way of looking at things around you...

I used to work in marketing/communications for a Fortune 500 company. We were trained to write on a third grade level so that the majority of our 100% adult audience would be able to understand. This isn't that far off.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AlbqOwl]

Your not thinking clear. Sophies Choice has nothing to do with someone's intentions, it has to do with our choices likely having dire consequences REGARDLESS of anyone's intentions (aka "between a rock and a hard place"). Someone's claimed "good intentions" have little to do with good policy, as the "well-intended" Jimmy Carter demonstrated with the worst Presidential administration in modern history.

Rest assured, both Hillary and Trump think they have good intentions; Hillary's is to impose liberal values and policy on Americans and Trump's is to do whatever he thinks makes him look like a winner who can dominate others (regardless of what that might be). Neither hold the meaningof the American revolution or the constitution as worthy of consideration - neither care about securing our actual liberty, justice, or the right to pursue our own happiness. Hell, I doubt Donald Trump has a clue as to what our founding moral documents even mean.

So whoever you vote for will be your choice, and your responsibility. I chose to not to support either evil...as should all moral Americans.

I know what Sophie's choice is/was and I think that was pretty obvious in my post.

 

[Stephen50right]

Umm, no. And it is clearly a word you never learned at all. :doh

Your vocab word for the day:


hyperbolic

adjective
1.
having the nature of hyperbole; exaggerated.
2.
using hyperbole; exaggerating.
3.
Mathematics.
of or relating to a hyperbola.
derived from a hyperbola, as a hyperbolic function.

Hyperbolic | Define Hyperbolic at Dictionary.com

Congratulations on learning copy and paste skills.

 

[maxparrish]

I know what Sophie's choice is/was and I think that was pretty obvious in my post.

Then you should have not claimed that you didn't have a Sophie's choice because you believed Trump has good intentions. As I made clear, intentions don't matter...what matters is likely outcome of those choices.

I think that was also obvious in my post.