No he hasn't. The economy is better off today. Unemployment is down considerably. I'm not a fan of his healthcare plan, but our healthcare system is a disaster and I respect him for trying. I think engaging with Iran is a good idea. Isolation and sanctions clearly haven't worked. Engaging Cuba is a good thing. Instead of trying to start wars everywhere, he's about dialogue. I have mixed feelings about his Middle East policies but, then again, who's done a better job?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tim Cook, Tech CEOs and Top Republicans Attend Secretive Meeting About Donald Trump
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No he hasn't. The economy is better off today. Unemployment is down considerably. I'm not a fan of his healthcare plan, but our healthcare system is a disaster and I respect him for trying. I think engaging with Iran is a good idea. Isolation and sanctions clearly haven't worked. Engaging Cuba is a good thing. Instead of trying to start wars everywhere, he's about dialogue. I have mixed feelings about his Middle East policies but, then again, who's done a better job?
I don't need to "read up" on my history. I lived it.
Better email Jimmy Carter and Hank Aaron then b/c they are old school Atlanta Braves fans too. Nothing racist about loving the Chief. He is awesome. BTW bit racist of you supporting a team named after an Indian tribe. You must think Illini are violent blood thirsty people! Ha. Ha.
I love that the Republican Party is finally getting what it deserves. I can't wait for Trump to be the nominee or, better yet, to irrevocably shatter the party when they deny him the nomination and he runs as a third party. At that point he'll spend whatever it takes to bury their establishment puppet Rubio or Romney. It's really quite amazing.
That said, if enough Americans truly want him to lead us for him to win the Presidency, I think our country is completely lost.
Okay, first of all, why do we call him a socialist? Well, for one thing, the guy himself says he is. But look at his policies. He wants to emphasize healthcare, education, and move our taxes around so they better benefit public programs and people, rather than special interests and large corporations.
Nothing he's said is particularly socialist. He hasn't advocated any huge changes to the economy that could be considered a part of a socialist agenda. Hell, real socialists have declared their disappointment with the guy.
No, his policies align more with New Deal loving Liberal Republicans, like Eisenhower. He is, for all intents and purposes, a 60's Republican.
...and hell, he should be. He's old enough to remember them.
I don't think he's an R or a D. I don't think most of them are. They are all $. The R and D thing is just to keep the little people fighting over meaningless stuff.
He's running as an R because he knows how to manipulate the base. He'd get nowhere running as a D, the anointed Hillary aside. I don't think the D base goes for his personality and shtick the way the Rs do.
Last edited:
The term Illini was first used to describe people from Illinois who fought in the First World War. These original "Fighting Illini" are honored permanently at Memorial Stadium in Champaign. You are referring to the Illiniwek, a tribe for whom the state was named that died at Starved Rock near LaSalle, IL. There was no "Illini" tribe and the term was deemed acceptable by the NCAA based on history of the usage.
And as far as Chief Illiniwek, that ship has long since sailed.
Watching Donald Trump's campaign from the other side of the world is about as bewildering as watching Kim Dotcom's attempt at our last election. I'm sure people have their reasons for supporting him, but it doesn't make any sense from the outside looking in. At least Kim didn't get anywhere. His whole party imploded after not gaining any seats in parliament.
That would be the ideal scenario.
Yeah, because Obama's really been as bad as Bush.
Obama has been no better than Bush. One could argue, he's been worst. He took many of Bush's awful ideas and, instead of ending them, he made them even more extreme. Remember Obama was the one who instituted the nude scanners at airports and the groping of children and grandmas. Even Bush didn't go that far. And who's administration is going after Apple's encryption? Obama. People are finally realizing that Bush and Obama are two sides of the same coin and that is why Trump has been as successful as he has been.
There was this fellow named Trump
Widely regarded a chump
His mouth a foul spigot
That crowned him arch-bigot
With every fresh insult, a bump!
(dee-dump-Drumpf!)
Widely regarded a chump
His mouth a foul spigot
That crowned him arch-bigot
With every fresh insult, a bump!
(dee-dump-Drumpf!)
Last edited:
It's a bit hard to be threatened by the bumbling buffoon that is Trump. As President I think he'd be funny but mostly ineffective. He's deluded enough to think he'll have more power than he actually will.
At the end of the day the US president isn't as powerful as they're made out to be. Even as "Commander-In-Chief" he needs support of Congress and/or Senate to access funding for war. Without support of Congress and/or Senate Obama was severely limited in what he could achieve.
And of course if he ever tried to do something really crazy like with nuclear weapons the military simply wouldn't allow it and you'd quickly see a military coup.
He is really just about the status quo which keeps much of his support base in poverty.
At the end of the day the US president isn't as powerful as they're made out to be. Even as "Commander-In-Chief" he needs support of Congress and/or Senate to access funding for war. Without support of Congress and/or Senate Obama was severely limited in what he could achieve.
And of course if he ever tried to do something really crazy like with nuclear weapons the military simply wouldn't allow it and you'd quickly see a military coup.
He is really just about the status quo which keeps much of his support base in poverty.
You need to look at it from the point of view of voters wanting to reject the established corporate candidates from both parties.
In the past the American media has been successful in killing the campaigns of the non-corporate candidates but it hasn't worked with Trump because he is independently wealthy and has turned the media's behavior against him into a strength and is willing to fight back. This is why the other non-corporate candidate (Sanders) is failing because he isn't wealthy and won't do the same when the media portrays him as an old out of touch kook. He's too reticent to fight back against the media and Hillary.
I think Trump would have been much less successful if both parties had pushed a candidate that didn't have a last name of Bush or Clinton. Once they did that, people responded by looking for an outsider.
SwingerOfBirch,
You make excellent points.
But regarding those Free Trade deals, I think you're thinking not of 4 decades, but 24 years: Perot ran in 1992 as a 3rd candidate, with nothing to lose and beholden to no one. As a twenty-something full-time working voter, I came very close to voting for him in the primary, but I feared that H.W. Bush would defeat him in the general election, and so I voted for Bill Clinton. (Who, oddly enough ended up being one of the best "Republican" presidents we ever had.) I actually liked him and admired his intellect, but H. Ross Perot was a prophet regarding health care and Free Trade deals. He was right about everything, he warned us all many times with his independently-funded TV ads and during the debates and now it's too late.
Having been able to vote since 1988, I've noticed two things: [1] Nothing ever really changes except the Golden Rule. (Those with the gold make the rules, etc.) and [2] The middle class is nearly gone.
If the Republicans ran on something besides the Glory of Endless War, Terrorism, God, Guns, and Abortion!, Abortion!, Abortion! -There would be no Donald Trump campaign: Like you, I don't believe his rhetoric; I think that he's trying to shake people up to get their attention away from their phones and/or bibles long enough to look at their ever-declining income: If the Occupy Wall Street crowd really want change, Trump just may be worth a roll-of-the-dice if he promises not to be Hitler or Stalin. -And I say that as a straight-ticket, lifelong democratic voter.
I'm not sure what kind of damage any president can do without the cooperation of the House and the Senate. All I want is to be able to retire -someday, and for my daughter to have a more prosperous and happy life than my own. I'm a person who is socially liberal, but fiscally conservative, anti-piracy, anti-intrusion: I'm a "256-bit PFS, TLS1.2 or better should be a law of baseline web security" kind of guy. And I totally support Tim's stance on encryption, if it's for real and if it also could apply to iCloud.
And then there's Sanders. But if we can't get "free" Medicare for all, can we at least get Gigabit Fiber for all? FFS!
BTW, on my link, the featured tune is called "Money" -My singer was also prophetic, but written around the times of the S&L and Packwood scandals.
Last edited:
...and you prove my point, perfectly.
Sanders' taxes would be levied at the wealthiest Americans, who can definitely afford to pay it, not the poor or the middle class. Since the recession, the rich have done incredibly well, while the middle class and the poor have suffered greatly.
This isn't because of evil immigrants, or welfare queens cashing their checks. It's because the Fortune 500 executive types have bought off our politicians and had them sign global trade deals that are absolutely ruinous to middle class jobs. They have brainwashed Americans into thinking unions are these evil organizations, when in reality they were what made America great in the first place. The government isn't the problem...it's the people behind the curtain that run the real government, THAT is the problem.
After all, when average people make more money, they spend it, and it creates a virtuous cycle of job creation. But the opposite side of the coin is a death spiral, where poor people make less money, spend less money, and so on. We're in the second category. And literally NOTHING any republican candidate is promising to do is going to do anything but make it even worse.
Yet I'm sure you'll continue in your belief that government is the problem, taxes are too high, etc...
Last edited:
Pretty sure Lincoln had bad approve rating while he was pres. It's pretty much the norm.
EDIT: Sorry, I didn't read all 6 pages first. Someone already said this.
While I agree with your premise, he wasn't democratically elected. He was appointed chancellor in 1932.
High school history books always glossed over this. Why, after going to the trouble of running for office specifically to keep Hitler out, and, winning an absolute majority as a moderate, did Hindenburg give up and allow Hitler to be appointed chancellor? I never understood that.
Sweet Jesus, dude. He's not going to change his mind. Stupid as his usage of the spelling is, he knows what he's doing. Let it go.
It really angers me when people characterize Sanders policies as "free stuff for everyone!" It displays such an astonishing lack of even basic understanding about what the guy is saying that I'm surprised you can even spell his name correctly.
If you're going to argue against someone's positions...at least argue against their REAL positions, not some idiotic bogus straw man argument that has absolutely no basis in reality.
If you're going to argue against someone's positions...at least argue against their REAL positions, not some idiotic bogus straw man argument that has absolutely no basis in reality.
That's wildly unfair and places 100% of the responsibility on a person trying to do something about America's healthcare crisis. Ultimately the specifics of the legislation are a product of congress and even though it isn't what many wanted, national healthcare, we are better off today.
Last edited: