whocares1970 | Скaжи мне ктo твoй друг... (прo Трaмпa, ясен пень)

Entry tags:

trump

Скaжи мне ктo твoй друг... (прo Трaмпa, ясен пень)

Легкoверные тoвaрищи нaм гoвoрят, чтo Трaмп - клёвый чувaк, чтo егo клёвoсть стaнет ещё яснее, кoгдa мы будем слышaть не тoлькo егo, рoдимoгo (ибo у негo-тo язык чтo пoмелo), нo и тeх, кoгo oн сoберёт в свoю кoмaнду.

Ну вoт, нaчaльникoм кoмaнды oн себе взял Крис Кристи:

Donald Trump announced on Monday that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will lead the transition team if the billionaire businessman wins the presidential election.

Интереснo, пoдействует ли этa нoвoсть хoть нa кoгo-тo из трaмпoлюбoв? Ктo-тo прoснётся?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Ну конечно, он надул всех тех, кто так хотел в него поверить.
Я, правда, не понимаю, для кого он когда-нибудь был "настоящим консерватором" или даже "настоящим республиканцем", но цитируя двух наших всех сразу, "есть многое на свете, друг Горацио" и "обмануть меня не трудно, я сам обманываться рад".

Я с самого начала думал, что он всё это делает, чтобы привести к власти Хиллари. Но что он и в мокром сне не надеялся действительно стать кандидатом от республиканцев.
Но теперь он им стал, неожиданно для самого себя, и всерьёз попытается выиграть в ноябре.

Ну какой у него, к дьяволу, либертарианизм, хоть в гомеопатических пропорциях? Eminent Domain, слежка за гражданами-мусульманами или Великая Стена?
И фискальный прагматизм ему и не снился, если не считать объявление банкротства и дефолт как средство победы над долгом.

ну смотри. деассемблировать существующие структуры - это либертарианизм.

the muslims - he will have to take THAT one back.

> деассемблировать существующие структуры - это либертарианизм.

Нет. Это анархизм. Или социализм с "разрушим до основания, а затем".
Или другие революционные движения.

Но к либертарианизму это просто не имеет ровно никакого отношения. Не больше, чем к пожарникам или шахматным клубам.

> the muslims - he will have to take THAT one back.
Why would he? He seems to be able to say and do anything he wants without any repercussions.
But he might, just like he did with immigration.
He has no positions of his own aside from "Trump is Great." Everything else can be changed based on expediency.
It really will be fun trying to find a iota of difference between these two corrupt soulless opportunists.

wait, only ONE of them is corrupt.

opportunist he is. but show me any evidence of corruptin, please?

as to soulless - you want SOUL in your candidate? come on. COME ON!

okay, anarchism and libertarianism do overlap.

C'mon.
He has been bragging about buying politicians. BRAGGING.
That's the definition of corruption.

Soul? I want a candidate to at least have some semblance of integrity. Yes, I am that naive.

No, I don't see where anarchism and libertarianism overlap anywhere close to being able to accuse Trump of being libertarian.
He's not an anarchist, either. He's a big government guy, as long as the government works for him.
That is the polar opposite of libertarianism. Or anarchy, for that matter.

well, we'll see. and.. i don't believe in our prevous guys being moral people. except jimmy carter. here's yur moral pres with integrity - the biggest asshole ever,a nd the worst president of all times, beating obama.

Did you see me sing praises to our previous guys?
I said that I want a candidate to have some integrity. And I do want that. I am not likely to get it, but I want it nonetheless.
It has nothing to do with church attendance, either.

I would also disagree about Carter vs. Obama as the biggest asshole ever. I think Obama has him beat by a country mile.

my sweet friend, i .. lived under carter. maybe that's why i am so.. not liking him. on the other hand, carter helped russian jews emigrate ( via kissinger).

Before Obama came along, I considered Carter the worst ever.
However, he did not trash the separation of powers the way Obama did.
He did not ruin relations with allies to the extent Obama did.
He did not actively support enemies the way Obama did.
He did not repeatedly look American people in the eye and lie to them on vital issues. Only to get away with it because the air cover from the Fourth Estate is so complete and impenetrable.

Basically, he has done MUCH less damage to the country, and that damage wasn't permanent.
What Obama did IS permanent, and not because there is no Reagan to replace him.

as to the muslims - he will have to take it back because it is indecent and illegal.

he was expressing the "lowest" core feelings of his core voters - who are suspicious of muslims, with a good reason, BTW.

but to me, who also does not like islam one bit, there is a big difference between fighting islamists and restricting muslims for fear of islamism.

we cannot restrict muslims. it's unamerican and BAD.

but yes we can target muslims as a high-risk group for terrorist conversion. it needs to be done in a fashion that is constitutionally valid.

he needs to apologize before american muslims. that he needs to do!

Edited 2016-05-09 19:32 (UTC)

Indecent and illegal have no meaning for him. Unamerican and bad.
What a quaint concept, where those two are concerned.

If he does take it back, it's because it would be politically expedient for him. Just like he did with the wall, amnesty, abortion, gun control and everything else.
As the saying goes, он хозяин своего слова: захочет, даст, захочет, возьмёт обратно.

And it won't mean that he wouldn't do it if and when he's in the White House. If he feels that he wants to do it for whatever reason, he'll just do it.

He has no positions of his own aside from "Trump is Great." Everything else can be changed based on expediency.

And that's not that bad. If he were to become the next president, all his decisions would likely be conditioned upon "will this decision tarnish my legacy?".

согласен

его почему то воспринимают как партийного - а по факту это единственный независимый кандидат на горизонте

и если ему похер партийная линия и он будет исключительно заботся как он будет выглядеть в глазах пипла и поколений - это меня более чем устраивает

это кстати то что можно назвать социальной составляющей совести

This post is about his supporters more than him.
What does it tell us about them if "will a decision tarnish Trump's legacy" is the primary consideration for them?

за него подписался ККК

ну и что?

это что -то говорит о нем?

Нет. Это говорит о ККК.
То, как сторонники Трампа реагируют на его слова и действия, говорит нам о них.

каждый слышит что он хочет слышать

повторюсь

трамп не мой кандидат изначально

НО
- я разочаровался в "своем" кандидате - круз - тем более что он соскочил
- компромисный кандидат для меня - кейсик- тоже соскочил
- хиллари хуже
- остальных я всерьез не рассматриваю

трамп не сказал и не сделал или я не знаю еще такого чтобы я сказал себе - нет ни в коем случае никогда

как скажем хиллари

Ну так и я повторюсь.
Я не о Вас.

а о ком?

о тех кто так или иначе будет голосовать за трампа

на сегодняшний момент - это например я

(no subject)

yury - 2016-05-10 16:20 (UTC) - Expand

As far as I'm concerned, it tells that they'd prefer a person making decisions after some consideration, as opposed to Clinton, for which the first epithet that comes to mind is "cavalier".

I don't see how you see that preference in his fans.
To me, it shows that they are perfectly willing to accept anything, as long as it is done by their leader.

This prompts the question, why they heve decided to consider Trump their leader, and not Cruz, Kasich, or Rubio.

That's a separate issue.
Signamax, for instance, has explained why he supports Trump.
His reasons are very different from some others I had heard.
To many Trump's willingness to go against PC trumps (pun intended) everything else.
I also heard/read people say that they just want to burn it all down.
And some are probably shallow enough to simply go for a celebrity candidate.

Different people have different reasons.

Briefly, Trump is the most entertaining of the bunch. The question is, how much entertainment people want: a few months (the debates), or at least 4 years, barring exceptional circumstances.

(no subject)

yury - 2016-05-10 16:44 (UTC) - Expand

его спикер вполне пояснил что имелось ввиду по поводу мусульман

и по поводу мечетей

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only