I am an Anti-NeverTrumper. And you should be too.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just a passing note, because I don't have time for more right now:

Re cutting off the flow of money between Iran and Hezbollah:  If it were possible to do, it would be done already.  Trump's election wouldn't change anything in that regard.  His knowledge of finance, while commendable and extensive, is not superior to that of the FBI.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Just a passing note, because I don't have time for more right now:

Re cutting off the flow of money between Iran and Hezbollah:  If it were possible to do, it would be done already.  Trump's election wouldn't change anything in that regard.  His knowledge of finance, while commendable and extensive, is not superior to that of the FBI.

Exactly. And what Trumpers either ignore or are unaware of is that you can't judge success in politics because he's successful in business. You can fire your employees and order them around. The president can't fire congress. Totally different skill set. While some people can do well in both, it's not automatic. Again though, explaining that to Trumpers is like trying to reason with a corpse. They just don't have the ability to listen.   

[anatess2]

17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Just a passing note, because I don't have time for more right now:

Re cutting off the flow of money between Iran and Hezbollah:  If it were possible to do, it would be done already.  Trump's election wouldn't change anything in that regard.  His knowledge of finance, while commendable and extensive, is not superior to that of the FBI.

This is the same as... if it were possible to build the wall, it would be done already.

Trump's election may or may not change anything in that regard.  His knowledge of finance is commendable and extensive and is a great asset for the FBI.

Edited March 25, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

23 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Exactly. And what Trumpers either ignore or are unaware of is that you can't judge success in politics because he's successful in business. You can fire your employees and order them around. The president can't fire congress. Totally different skill set. While some people can do well in both, it's not automatic. Again though, explaining that to Trumpers is like trying to reason with a corpse. They just don't have the ability to listen.   

 

 

Of course you're forgetting that what your employees do/don't do is only half the business... if that.  How you deal with your consumers, suppliers, competitors, and lawmakers... all of which you can't fire... is an inherent part of that.

And it could possibly be that.... I'm not the corpse, you are.  Or neither one of us are.   You're just looking at the elephant from its southern end while I'm looking at it from its head.

Edited March 25, 2016 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is the same as... if it were possible to build the wall, it would be done already.

Trump's election may or may not change anything in that regard.  His knowledge of finance is commendable and extensive and is a great asset for the FBI.

The portions of the wall that are unbuilt (and there are portions of the wall that *do* exist), are being opposed by known entities/individuals with names and faces.

Can you name the people in the US government who want Hezbollah to continue its terrorist activities with full Iranian funding?

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

And it could possibly be that.... I'm not the corpse, you are.  Or neither one of us are.   You're just looking at the elephant from its southern end while I'm looking at it from its head.

No, I'm looking at the elephant with objective eyes. I vote republican usually and up until this election cycle, I liked Trump and even defended him. Given what I've seen-I was wrong. So, unlike a corpse I changed my mind on him. If some Trumpers were presented with objective evidence that he was murdering small children, they'd ignore it or call it a "anti-Trump conspiracy" 

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The portions of the wall that are unbuilt (and there are portions of the wall that *do* exist), are being opposed by known entities/individuals with names and faces.

Can you name the people in the US government who want Hezbollah to continue its terrorist activities with full Iranian funding?

Not people in the US government.  People in the planet.  Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc. etc.  Or we can just collectively call them the UN.

Edited March 25, 2016 by anatess2

[LeSellers]

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Not people in the US government.  People in the planet.  Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc. etc.  Or we can just collectively call them the UN.

It's not clear that we can eliminate people in the USmerican government. It's not like it hasn't been infiltrated before. Whitaker Chambers' and Alger Hiss's names should pop to mind.

Lehi

[Just_A_Guy]

30 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Not people in the US government.  People in the planet.  Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc. etc.  Or we can just collectively call them the UN.

Okay.  And, Trump will circumvent them in a way no other US president has . . . how, exactly?

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

No, I'm looking at the elephant with objective eyes. I vote republican usually and up until this election cycle, I liked Trump and even defended him. Given what I've seen-I was wrong. So, unlike a corpse I changed my mind on him. If some Trumpers were presented with objective evidence that he was murdering small children, they'd ignore it or call it a "anti-Trump conspiracy" 

That's a media spin.

Trump has a point that he can shoot somebody in the middle of Park Avenue... or whatever street it was he said... and he'd still have his supporters.  No, it doesn't mean that his supporters are blind idiots.  It is really very simple... the most ardent of Trumpsters (I'm not gonna count the ignorant idiots on this - every candidate have their own set of these) have one mission - clear the field.  They want a person impervious to the media, impervious to establishment attacks, impervious to dirty left-wing tactics, to prove to all Tea Party Republicans and their sympathizers that they don't have to play the left's game to win.  They see the "establishment" in the same box as the left.  They're in this political club (Repubs and Dems both, politicians, political strategists, political analyst, political commentators, media, etc. Romney is in this club.) where their mission is to protect the club and feed the club - regardless of its impact to the people.  They need somebody who will clear the field and render that club impotent.  After that is accomplished... then the voice of the people can be heard again.  The Tea Party Movement can then get through.   Tea Partiers like Sara Palin, Jeff Sessions, and Rick Scott are Trumpsters even as the Tea Party Cruz is running because of this very same reason.  Without blowing that club up, the Republican Party will continue to be ineffective against the Democrat/Establishment Republican/Media partnership.

So... it is not Trump driving these people.  It is these people driving Trump.  He's just the flag bearer.  It could easily have been Cruz.  But Cruz is not impervious to the media.  Carson - not loud enough.  Fiorina - not strong enough.  The bombast is what they're going for - battering ram kind of thing.  No proven loyalties to anything but proven nationalist.  With common sense that has the ability to listen and learn and decide.

The idiots just get swept up in this media hype without really knowing what they're doing.

I'm not totally sold that this will work against the establishment.  The federal government is the size that it is not because they are easy to beat.  There would be dead bodies before they'll give up.  But, I'm fine with the Trumpsters giving it a shot.

 

[LeSellers]

24 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Okay.  And, Trump will circumvent them in a way no other US president has . . . how, exactly?

I don't know, but, from his rants, and his history, it could be that he doesn't care a whit about what other countries think: he won't follow "protocols" that "require" us to pay for everything, that "require" that we give up everything, that we let the world trample us because we "can afford it",that we are the biggest kid on the playground, and that we want all the others to like us by buying their "friendship" with gifts (like all-expense-paid defense, and foreign aid).

Ronald Reagan had problems with the State Department: the "professionals" kept crossing out the sentence, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" He kept putting it back in. They demanded consistency, because "better the devil you know, etc.", he wanted change. Methinks that a President Trump would have the same problems, and he'd have the same solution: ignore or override the bureaucrats.

But I can't predict the future any better than anyone else.

Lehi

Edited March 25, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That's a media spin.

Trump has a point that he can shoot somebody in the middle of Park Avenue... or whatever street it was he said... and he'd still have his supporters.  No, it doesn't mean that his supporters are blind idiots.  It is really very simple... the most ardent of Trumpsters (I'm not gonna count the ignorant idiots on this - every candidate have their own set of these) have one mission - clear the field.  They want a person impervious to the media, impervious to establishment attacks, impervious to dirty left-wing tactics, to prove to all Tea Party Republicans and their sympathizers that they don't have to play the left's game to win.  They see the "establishment" in the same box as the left.  They're in this political club (Repubs and Dems both, politicians, political strategists, political analyst, political commentators, media, etc. Romney is in this club.) where their mission is to protect the club and feed the club - regardless of its impact to the people.  They need somebody who will clear the field and render that club impotent.  After that is accomplished... then the voice of the people can be heard again.  The Tea Party Movement can then get through.   Tea Partiers like Sara Palin, Jeff Sessions, and Rick Scott are Trumpsters even as the Tea Party Cruz is running because of this very same reason.  Without blowing that club up, the Republican Party will continue to be ineffective against the Democrat/Establishment Republican/Media partnership.

So... it is not Trump driving these people.  It is these people driving Trump.  He's just the flag bearer.  It could easily have been Cruz.  But Cruz is not impervious to the media.  Carson - not loud enough.  Fiorina - not strong enough.  The bombast is what they're going for - battering ram kind of thing.  No proven loyalties to anything but proven nationalist.  With common sense that has the ability to listen and learn and decide.

The idiots just get swept up in this media hype without really knowing what they're doing.

I'm not totally sold that this will work against the establishment.  The federal government is the size that it is not because they are easy to beat.  There would be dead bodies before they'll give up.  But, I'm fine with the Trumpsters giving it a shot. 

 

You just proved my point. You obviously love the guy and would vote for him no matter what. You wouldn't be defending him with that much passion if he was just a regular candidate to you. There were Obamabots in 2008 and Ron Paul devotees (I'm one of them) who wouldn't support their man if they acted like Trump did. So yes, Trumpers do ignore reason, evidence and will try to explain anything away.  And that's okay, Anatess. 

If any other candidate said what he did, they'd be over. Heck, if a boyfriend talked to your daughter the way he did, you'd tell him to get out of your house. 

 

Edited March 25, 2016 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Okay.  And, Trump will circumvent them in a way no other US president has . . . how, exactly?

If anybody knows exactly how that can be accomplished, they need to run for President.  Of Earth.  That's a stupid question.

Here's the premise of our conversation:

Trump's election may or may not change anything in that regard.  His knowledge of finance is commendable and extensive and is a great asset for the FBI.

And I'll add to that his position of going toe-to-toe against the UN to keep them off Israel's back.

Now, tell me... how is Hillary better than that?

[Just_A_Guy]

29 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If anybody knows exactly how that can be accomplished, they need to run for President.  Of Earth.  That's a stupid question.

Here's the premise of our conversation:

Trump's election may or may not change anything in that regard.  His knowledge of finance is commendable and extensive and is a great asset for the FBI.

And I'll add to that his position of going toe-to-toe against the UN to keep them off Israel's back.

Now, tell me... how is Hillary better than that?

In point of fact, the premise was your statement (referring, in context, to Hezbollah) that "[ b]ut the friends who will take that cash... can be tracked."

Now, I think it's fair to say that the only reason you brought Hezbollah up, is because you meant to suggest that Obama would deal with them in a way that Hillary wouldn't.  Okay, then.  If that money can be tracked (and, by implication, intercepted), why is that not currently happening; and how is Trump going to change that?  Either Obama, and Dubya, and Clinton and Bush I and Reagan wanted Hezbollah to be getting that cash; or external factors beyond their control prevented them from stopping the flow.  So, how will Trump control what his predecessors found uncontrollable?

For this particular premise, Hillary doesn't have to be better than Trump; she just needs to not be worse than him.  I don't think she will be, where Hezbollah/terrorism generally are concerned; and as far as Israel goes both Trump and Hillary have pretty mixed records.

(BTW, I'm not thinking of voting for Hillary.  But she doesn't scare me enough to drive me into Trump's camp.  The one Hitler reference I will evoke where Trump is concerned, is that you never--NEVER--find an elderly German who will admit to having liked, and voted for, Hitler.  Yet, Hitler won elections; so lots of them clearly did support him and later lied about it.  I firmly believe that Trump will be a disaster as President; and that--like postwar Germans--Americans of the late twenty-first century will be scrambling over each other in their attempts to claim that never really liked the guy.  I, however, will be telling the truth when I make that claim.)

Edited March 25, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

40 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

It's not clear that we can eliminate people in the USmerican government. It's not like it hasn't been infiltrated before. Whitaker Chambers' and Alger Hiss's names should pop to mind.

Lehi

Good point.

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

In point of fact, the premise was your statement (referring, in context, to Hezbollah) that "[ b]ut the friends who will take that cash... can be tracked."

Okay, then.  If they can be tracked (and, by implication, intercepted), why is that not currently happening; and how is Trump going to change that?  Either Obama, and Dubya, and Clinton and Bush I and Reagan wanted Hezbollah to be getting that cash; or external factors beyond their control prevented them from stopping the flow.  So, how will Trump control what his predecessors found uncontrollable?

For this particular premise, Hillary doesn't have to be better than Trump; she just needs to not be worse than him.  I don't think she will be, where Hezbollah/terrorism generally are concerned; and as far as Israel goes both Trump and Hillary have pretty mixed records.

(BTW, I'm not thinking of voting for Hillary.  But she doesn't scare me enough to drive me into Trump's camp.)

It was pretty clear what I said...

I believe that it is not that it can't be tracked.  It's just that there is no political will to do so.  The problem with Obama, Dubya, Clinton, and Bush is that they believe the UN rules them (lesser of Dubya, of course, but I don't quite really trust that he really was clear of ties to the money).  Reagan was fighting the cold war.

Trump's asset on this is he has the image of being the uncontrollable one.  So a UN vs Trump bout has a potential of being different than previous experience.  Trump's ego also puts his drive to win on steroids.  And then there's his financial know-how.  He has proved that he doesn't need to be bound by any convention or tradition.  Now, put all that on the arsenal of the entiretly of the American Executive Branch (this is not just a Trump show) and.... some crack on that blockade to a political will just might surface.

Of course, this is not enough to drive you to Trump's camp.  There's a whole slew of things you still have to add to that - domestic and foreign.

[Just_A_Guy]

But, here we go again.    No plan, just personality.

[anatess2]

17 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But, here we go again.    No plan, just personality.

This is getting to be annoying.

OF COURSE THERE'S NO PLAN!  What kind of plan do you think a BUSINESSMAN can come up with?

Guess what... the CEO of my company did not come up with the plan to accomplish our Mission and Vision statement either!  It's a multi-national company with tentacles everywhere!  He puts in a Mission and Vision statement then the high-level managers detail it out, they confab and the CEO approves it.  Project Planners and the like detail it farther.  Now, if your Mission and Vision statement is bad, forget it.  The managers can be as good as gold and they won't be able to save this company.  But if the CEO doesn't know how to program a widget, it doesn't matter!  That's MY job.

The CEO gets a big load of money, not because he's a great planner.  He gets a big load of money because he can sniff BS out of a plan.

Edited March 25, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is getting to be annoying.

 

Anatess, if it's getting annoying to you, it's best to change the subject or walk away.  Shockingly, many of us who don't like him also may find it annoying when Trumpers spout off. 

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Anatess, if it's getting annoying to you, it's best to change the subject or walk away.  Shockingly, many of us who don't like him also may find it annoying when Trumpers spout off. 

I'm not annoyed by the anti-Trump statement.

I'm annoyed by the ignorance of the statement.  I'm a Carson fan!  This same thing applies to Carson.  This is basically saying... unless you're a politician, you can't be President.

Edited March 25, 2016 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 But if the CEO doesn't know how to program a widget, it doesn't matter!  That's MY job.

Then again--if the CEO neither knows nor cares whether it's possible--or legal--or ethical, to program a widget--that's his fault.  And if there are fifteen guys who want to be the CEO, and all of them have more-or-less similar visions but one of them is a bigger loudmouth--why does he get the job if, at the end of the day, he can't program the widget any better than any of the other guys?

The "the President's failures are due to the incompetence of the American people, who aren't worthy of our dear President's grand vision" line has already been used ad nauseum by the Democrats.  Do we really have to start applying it to a president who hasn't even been inaugurated yet?

Edited March 25, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I'm not annoyed by the anti-Trump statement.

I'm annoyed by the ignorance of the statement.  I'm a Carson fan!  This same thing applies to Carson.

You may very well be a "Carson fan" but I've never seen such devotion to Trump from someone who wasn't  a fan. So you are obviously a fan of his too.  

[anatess2]

15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Then again--if the CEO neither knows nor cares whether it's possible--or legal--or ethical, to program a widget--that's his fault.

The "the President's failures are due to the incompetence of the American people, who aren't worthy of our dear President's grand vision" has already been used ad nauseum by the Democrats.  Do we really have to start applying it to a president who hasn't even been inaugurated yet?

I agree with that.  But you don't have to be a politician to know what's legal or ethical.  And what does that have to do with a plan?

What the Democrats use ad nauseum has no bearing on a Trump Presidency.  The reason he is even competing against Cruz is BECAUSE he uppends Democrat-think.

Edited March 25, 2016 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

Apologies; I made some edits to my post which it looks like you didn't catch.  Let me take a break for a while, and I'll come back in later. 

[anatess2]

14 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

You may very well be a "Carson fan" but I've never seen such devotion to Trump from someone who wasn't  a fan. So you are obviously a fan of his too.  

HELLO... .LOOK AT THE SUBJECT OF THE THREAD.