My main concerns

[MajorMike_Ret]

Ok, so it was probably obvious that I was pretty much against both choices we had. To say I'm happy that one won over the other would be incorrect.

For me, sort of like if the Pats were playing jerry's kids in the Super Bowl... you just want it to be a tie and the turf to swallow up everyone and never come back.

So aside from all the obvious issues - calling out vets with PTSD, chick talk, immigration, foreign relations, how cozy he is with Putin, etc etc, I have three main concerns.

#1. He has never finished anything and always taken the easy way out. He has half a dozen bankruptcies, marriages where he cheats and gets remarried, bills that he tells people he just isn't going to pay, so forth. Obviously NEVER is probably not the appropriate word, I'm sure the sum isn't zero, but there are tons of time when and where he just skips town on the bill. What's going to happen when he works himself into a corner he can't get out of between he and Congress, a country (Russia, N Korea, Iran, etc), money... so forth?

#2. He lies, and then lies about lying, and doesn't care that you know he lies. I don't think that is going to go over well in foreign relations when he says on TV, "The Chonger is a whack," and then goes to see him and says, "No, I never said that." And Chonger shows him a video and he says, "No, wasn't me." In 4 months is he going to be at a press conf when someone asks, "Hey, you said when you campaigned you would do this," and he just doesn't care and says, "No I didn't"?

#3. Draining the swamp. He ran on being an outsider bringing outside ideas to DC and look who he is surrounding himself with - Newt, Rudy, Christie, Sessions. Most sources think he will pick Reps McCall, Rogers and Hanserling plus maybe Cruz for posts. These are career politicians that he is going to surround himself with and it seems that the entire process is just like a self-licking ice cream cone. Who are the outsiders going to be besides all the posts he is going to give his kids?

Yeah, I know the other chick was a thief and a liar and all that other crap. But we don't have her, we have him. Therefore I don't give a crap about how much better he is going to be at this than she is, because that is entirely irrelevant at this point. Shouldn't even need to bring up her anymore, she's now a has-been. I care about the stuff he is and isn't going to do. And these are my main concerns.

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

#1. He has never finished anything

Sorry. Stopped reading.

 

[HighStickHarry]

Sorry. Stopped reading.

You took my post.

 

[WCPoke]

Ok, so it was probably obvious that I was pretty much against both choices we had. To say I'm happy that one won over the other would be incorrect.

For me, sort of like if the Pats were playing jerry's kids in the Super Bowl... you just want it to be a tie and the turf to swallow up everyone and never come back.

So aside from all the obvious issues - calling out vets with PTSD, chick talk, immigration, foreign relations, how cozy he is with Putin, etc etc, I have three main concerns.

#1. He has never finished anything and always taken the easy way out. He has half a dozen bankruptcies, marriages where he cheats and gets remarried, bills that he tells people he just isn't going to pay, so forth. Obviously NEVER is probably not the appropriate word, I'm sure the sum isn't zero, but there are tons of time when and where he just skips town on the bill. What's going to happen when he works himself into a corner he can't get out of between he and Congress, a country (Russia, N Korea, Iran, etc), money... so forth?

#2. He lies, and then lies about lying, and doesn't care that you know he lies. I don't think that is going to go over well in foreign relations when he says on TV, "The Chonger is a whack," and then goes to see him and says, "No, I never said that." And Chonger shows him a video and he says, "No, wasn't me." In 4 months is he going to be at a press conf when someone asks, "Hey, you said when you campaigned you would do this," and he just doesn't care and says, "No I didn't"?

#3. Draining the swamp. He ran on being an outsider bringing outside ideas to DC and look who he is surrounding himself with - Newt, Rudy, Christie, Sessions. Most sources think he will pick Reps McCall, Rogers and Hanserling plus maybe Cruz for posts. These are career politicians that he is going to surround himself with and it seems that the entire process is just like a self-licking ice cream cone. Who are the outsiders going to be besides all the posts he is going to give his kids?

Yeah, I know the other chick was a thief and a liar and all that other crap. But we don't have her, we have him. Therefore I don't give a crap about how much better he is going to be at this than she is, because that is entirely irrelevant at this point. Shouldn't even need to bring up her anymore, she's now a has-been. I care about the stuff he is and isn't going to do. And these are my main concerns.

Thanks for letting us know that you were against both choices

 

[poke2001]

The PTSD comment is flat out stupid. He was discussed in great detail and only the farthest of lefties didn't understand what he was saying. It was a clumsy comment for sure, but he meant no I'll will to soldiers.

Bankruptcies are just stupid as well. He had 4 out of hundreds of individual businesses. It happens. Some ventures just aren't successful.

 

[wyomingosualum]

Ok, so it was probably obvious that I was pretty much against both choices we had. To say I'm happy that one won over the other would be incorrect.

For me, sort of like if the Pats were playing jerry's kids in the Super Bowl... you just want it to be a tie and the turf to swallow up everyone and never come back.

So aside from all the obvious issues - calling out vets with PTSD, chick talk, immigration, foreign relations, how cozy he is with Putin, etc etc, I have three main concerns.

#1. He has never finished anything and always taken the easy way out. He has half a dozen bankruptcies, marriages where he cheats and gets remarried, bills that he tells people he just isn't going to pay, so forth. Obviously NEVER is probably not the appropriate word, I'm sure the sum isn't zero, but there are tons of time when and where he just skips town on the bill. What's going to happen when he works himself into a corner he can't get out of between he and Congress, a country (Russia, N Korea, Iran, etc), money... so forth?

#2. He lies, and then lies about lying, and doesn't care that you know he lies. I don't think that is going to go over well in foreign relations when he says on TV, "The Chonger is a whack," and then goes to see him and says, "No, I never said that." And Chonger shows him a video and he says, "No, wasn't me." In 4 months is he going to be at a press conf when someone asks, "Hey, you said when you campaigned you would do this," and he just doesn't care and says, "No I didn't"?

#3. Draining the swamp. He ran on being an outsider bringing outside ideas to DC and look who he is surrounding himself with - Newt, Rudy, Christie, Sessions. Most sources think he will pick Reps McCall, Rogers and Hanserling plus maybe Cruz for posts. These are career politicians that he is going to surround himself with and it seems that the entire process is just like a self-licking ice cream cone. Who are the outsiders going to be besides all the posts he is going to give his kids?

Yeah, I know the other chick was a thief and a liar and all that other crap. But we don't have her, we have him. Therefore I don't give a crap about how much better he is going to be at this than she is, because that is entirely irrelevant at this point. Shouldn't even need to bring up her anymore, she's now a has-been. I care about the stuff he is and isn't going to do. And these are my main concerns.

Concern #2 is most important to me of the ones you listed. With no other candidates around to absorb attention, the opportunity for him to deflect focus from himself won't exist. He's about to learn a hard lesson about credibility, I'm afraid. Hope I'm wrong.

 

[MajorMike_Ret]

I agree; he's never cared when he was brought to the table for his comments because he was Donald Trump, and I'll sue you if you say different.

Now he's the leader of the free world. He needs a shock buzzer hard wired in his a$$ that his press sect can zap every time he starts going off on a wild tangent.

 

[Headhunter]

You say you were against both of them yet all your posts are nothing but left wingnut talking points against President Trump.

Let's see your laundry list of things that are wrong with Hillary.

 

[SMemmett]

Hillary didn't win, why do those matter?

 

[Headhunter]

Hillary didn't win, why do those matter?

It's called making a point, I don't give a damn about Hillary Clinton except she deserves prison. But if I never hear of her again that'd be all right with me.

 

[SMemmett]

Never want to hear about her again, so you bring her up in a thread about concerns with Trump.

How long into Trump's presidency will people continue to bring up Hillary and say shit like, "At least we don't have Hillary?" or bring up Obama for every Trump transgression? Just like the left brought up W. for every criticism of Obama.

Right wingers will be just just as non-critical and will make excuses/justifications/bury their heads for Trump just like left wingers did for Obama and would have for Hillary. Both sides claim intellectual honesty, purity, etc... And both sides will claim the other is the worse offender and a sheep, etc...

But, at the end of the day just about every one of them are still a staunch member of their tribe regardless of what each respective party does, eager to make excuses for their chief's idiocy. If only both parties could point that same critical eye at their own candidate/politicians instead of just at the other, maybe we'd have effective leaders instead of just the masses bickering at each other while the people with power laugh at the top.

The last few days have just reaffirmed that I'm glad I voted for Johnson, even if it was a waste. The sooner this duopoly of American politics is over (which will be never), the better.

 

[AC_Exotic]

It's Bush's fault.

 

[Headhunter]

Never want to hear about her again, so you bring her up in a thread about concerns with Trump.

You want to debate fine, don't put words in my mouth. I did not say I "never want to hear about her again" I said "if I never hear of her again that'd be all right with me". Nuance is obviously not your thing.

Of course we are going to hear about her, she just lost the Presidency and there is lots of butthurt people still bitter about it. Her and her family are still running the criminal enterprise known as the Clinton Foundation. Although I imagine the funds will be drying up real fast for that now that there is no quid pro quo to sell. We are stuck with hearing a lot more about the Clintons.

 

[wyomingosualum]

Now Trump is talking about building a wall...with portions of fencing instead of a wall.

And signaling that he won't appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Clintons.

MAKE AMERICA THE SAME AGAIN

 

[imprimis]

Now Trump is talking about building a wall...with portions of fencing instead of a wall.

And signaling that he won't appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Clintons.

MAKE AMERICA THE SAME AGAIN

There are some areas along the border where neither a wall or fence can be built due to the inability to access the area. I don't care whether it's a wall or a fence (have you seen what's already been built? I call it more of a fence than wall.). I just want it secure with whatever it takes.

The Clintons should have all their ill-gotten gains taken from them. They should be returned to the same status as when they left the WH...in poverty. They should be given a choice---give up your $$ or jail. Then use the money to pay for the wall.

 

[HighStickHarry]

Never want to hear about her again, so you bring her up in a thread about concerns with Trump.

How long into Trump's presidency will people continue to bring up Hillary and say shit like, "At least we don't have Hillary?" or bring up Obama for every Trump transgression? Just like the left brought up W. for every criticism of Obama.

Right wingers will be just just as non-critical and will make excuses/justifications/bury their heads for Trump just like left wingers did for Obama and would have for Hillary. Both sides claim intellectual honesty, purity, etc... And both sides will claim the other is the worse offender and a sheep, etc...

But, at the end of the day just about every one of them are still a staunch member of their tribe regardless of what each respective party does, eager to make excuses for their chief's idiocy. If only both parties could point that same critical eye at their own candidate/politicians instead of just at the other, maybe we'd have effective leaders instead of just the masses bickering at each other while the people with power laugh at the top.

The last few days have just reaffirmed that I'm glad I voted for Johnson, even if it was a waste. The sooner this duopoly of American politics is over (which will be never), the better.

I think this is dead wrong. This is supposedly a conservative circle
Jerk board and we eviscerate our own party all the time.

 

[SMemmett]

I think this is dead wrong. This is supposedly a conservative circle
Jerk board and we eviscerate our own party all the time.

We'll see.

It's easy to be critical of a loser of a competition with two sides (as far as having someone in the White House), but now that Trump has won let's see how much of that criticism sticks around. Heck, in this thread -as insignificant as evidence as that is-, I think the OP had at least a couple of rational potential issues with the coming Trump administration and only wyomingosualum responded to them. Everyone else dismissed it immediately or brought up Hillary or both.

 

[aix_xpert]

Never want to hear about her again, so you bring her up in a thread about concerns with Trump.

How long into Trump's presidency will people continue to bring up Hillary and say shit like, "At least we don't have Hillary?" or bring up Obama for every Trump transgression? Just like the left brought up W. for every criticism of Obama.

Right wingers will be just just as non-critical and will make excuses/justifications/bury their heads for Trump just like left wingers did for Obama and would have for Hillary. Both sides claim intellectual honesty, purity, etc... And both sides will claim the other is the worse offender and a sheep, etc...

But, at the end of the day just about every one of them are still a staunch member of their tribe regardless of what each respective party does, eager to make excuses for their chief's idiocy. If only both parties could point that same critical eye at their own candidate/politicians instead of just at the other, maybe we'd have effective leaders instead of just the masses bickering at each other while the people with power laugh at the top.

The last few days have just reaffirmed that I'm glad I voted for Johnson, even if it was a waste. The sooner this duopoly of American politics is over (which will be never), the better.

Its interesting you say that. Seems to me the difference so far is that the Dem guy got elected in 2008 and made the immediate statements: "I won" & "Elections have consequences", whereas Trump (contrary to what the media will tell you) has met with Dems, talked highly of them, and even acknowledged where the positivies of ACA reside and has highlighted maintaining these items. In fact, the MSM has tried to create a riff by saying that Trump is walking back his campaign promise of repealing ACA, when in reality he's simply being centrist. If you are gonna criticize him because he's a Republican and may put other Repubs in his cabinet (note outside of 2 individuals, his cabinet isn't even announced), I can't help you but you were going to be annoyed no matter who got elected. But Trump's post-election activities have been very inclusive and centrist. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit the MSM narrative.

Justin

 

[Medic007]

Its interesting you say that. Seems to me the difference so far is that the Dem guy got elected in 2008 and made the immediate statements: "I won" & "Elections have consequences", whereas Trump (contrary to what the media will tell you) has met with Dems, talked highly of them, and even acknowledged where the positivies of ACA reside and has highlighted maintaining these items. In fact, the MSM has tried to create a riff by saying that Trump is walking back his campaign promise of repealing ACA, when in reality he's simply being centrist. If you are gonna criticize him because he's a Republican and may put other Repubs in his cabinet (note outside of 2 individuals, his cabinet isn't even announced), I can't help you but you were going to be annoyed no matter who got elected. But Trump's post-election activities have been very inclusive and centrist. Unfortunately, that doesn't fit the MSM narrative.

Justin

Trump is no Republican, and that's why he won the support of the Republican plus independent voters. I was once a Democrat. Then, when the party left me behind under Obama, I turned toward the Republican party only to find it neutered and mired in the same shit I chose to not support in the Democrat party. As strange as it sounds, Trump seems to be more along the lines of the old Democrat party I registered for in 1990. Maybe not, but he sure the hell isn't establishment Republican.

 

[imprimis]

He's not Hildebitch or Obama either and that's all that matters.