DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Presidential Campaign, Thread 7

It would seem that Robert Gates is yet another General who knows less than Donald Trump.

Did is say "shallow?"
Did I sat "intellectually lazy?"

Why yes.... I believe I did.
Nice to know that I'm not alone.


________________________

Bob Gates: Trump is 'beyond repair'
By POLITICO STAFF 09/17/16 08:14 AM EDT


Neither presidential candidate has offered a compelling vision on national security, former Defense Secretary Bob Gates writes in a scathing Wall Street Journal op-ed -- but Donald Trump is “beyond repair.”

Gates, who ran the Pentagon under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, is critical of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, citing her advocacy for the invasion of Libya, her reversal on trade agreements she supported as secretary of state, and her opposition to the troop surge in Iraq.

“She has much-discussed credibility issues apart from national security, but these also influence foreign perceptions of reliability and trust,” Gates writes.

But he savages the Republican nominee over several paragraphs, saying Trump is “in a league of his own” when it comes to demonstrating his credibility on foreign affairs. Gates rips Trump for his famous wall, his vocal support of torture, his embrace of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, and his skepticism of NATO. He also attacks Trump as “cavalier about the use of nuclear weapons,” with “a record of insults to servicemen, their families and the military.” He criticizes the GOP standard-bearer as “willfully ignorant about the rest of the world, about our military and its capabilities, and about government itself.”

“He has no clue about the difference between negotiating a business deal and negotiating with sovereign nations,” Gates writes. “A thin-skinned, temperamental, shoot-from-the-hip and lip, uninformed commander-in-chief is too great a risk for America.”

Trump lashed out at Gates early Saturday, tweeting, "I never met former Defense Secretary Robert Gates. He knows nothing about me. But look at the results under his guidance - a total disaster!"
Gates holds out the prospect that he will ultimately endorse Clinton, urging her to “address forthrightly her trustworthiness, to reassure people about her judgment, to demonstrate her willingness to stake out one or more positions on national security at odds with her party’s conventional wisdom, and to speak beyond generalities about how she would deal with China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, the Middle East — and international trade. Whether and how she addresses these issues will, I believe, affect how many people vote — including me.”

But he rules out Trump as “stubbornly uninformed about the world and how to lead our country and government, and temperamentally unsuited to lead our men and women in uniform. He is unqualified and unfit to be commander-in-chief.”


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/bob-gates-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-228315

j/c with a follow-up from Thread 6.

To archbold dawg:

It's all good with us.
The last post in thread six was stand-up.

respect: maintained.

Trump releases list of 88 generals, admirals supporting his bid

Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump on Tuesday unveiled a list of 88 retired staff and flag officers backing his bid to become commander in chief, a direct response to a flurry of high-profile military-themed endorsements by his Democratic rival in recent weeks.

Since the Democratic convention in Philadelphia in late July, party nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign has released the names of dozens of former military leaders and advisers supporting her presidential bid, including former CENTCOM Deputy Commander Marine Corps Gen. John Allen and former Republican Deputy Defense Secretary James Clad.

In addition, last month a group of 50 Republican national security officials released a public letter questioning Trump's qualifications and charging that he would “be the most reckless president in American history.”

But the long list of supporters released Tuesday includes an open letter with the opposite message, arguing that Trump is the only candidate who can make the military strong and the country secure.

“For the past eight years, America’s armed forces have been subjected to a series of ill-considered and debilitating budget cuts, policy choices and combat operations that have left the superb men and women in uniform less capable of performing their vital missions in the future than we require them to be,” the message states.

“For this reason, we support Donald Trump and his commitment to rebuild our military, to secure our borders, to defeat our Islamic supremacist adversaries and restore law and order domestically. We urge our fellow Americans to do the same.”

Signees include retired Army Gen. Burwell Bell III, former head of U.S. Forces Korea; retired Air Force Gen. Alfred Hansen, former head of the service’s Air Force Logistics Command, and retired Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin, a former intelligence chief who has become better known for his post-service remarks against the gay community.

The letter also accuses Clinton of planning to continue the current administration’s policies of “hollowing out of our military” and failing to aggressively pursue terrorist groups worldwide.

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/trump-letter-generals-admirals

So both came out with their list of supporters, according to your link.

Ummm.... there's no surprises in the list for both candidates.

Agreed, just trying to be fair and balanced to Clem's propaganda.

The amount of Mitt's "Binders Full of Women">Trump's Binders of Prominent Military Advisors Support.

Are you also comparing Mitt's 47 percent to Hillary's 50 percent?

Oh how I remember your tears when Mitt said it and oh how I am amazed at your silence when Hillary said it.

Guys,

No matter who gets elected, America as we know it is over. Both these candidates suck dirt from a hole in the ground.

Once they've done their damage, we are all we will have left.

Will you love your neighbor? Or will we descend into chaos?

Ted, it is only one branch of government we are talking about with the Presidency. Obama didn't get half his crap done and neither will the next President.

Keep Calm and Carry On.

Come, my brethren! Take courage and stand beneath our banner! The darkness closes in, and we are the only true defenders of the Light! March to victory and arise triumphant!

Trump '16

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b11-37Me_a4

He doesn't post propaganda.

His point is the one of the most respected generals, one that republicans and conservatives can't stop praising, called trump a national disgrace.

One of the most respected defense secretaries, well regarded by republicans and conservatives, called trump beyond repair.

So sure, trump has former guys who DO support him. Just like Clinton has both supporters and critics in the defense sector as well.

But Gates and Powell's words are absolutely significant.

I will see your respected general and your defense secretary and raise you 88 of the same.

You been Trumped!

They aren't the only two.

But I guess it's quantity over quality now. Have at it bro.

HA!
oh now you made me poke my eye on my umbrella drink!

Hope it doesn't get infected. Don't want you walking around looking like Harry Reid.

I wear my sunglasses at night

I thought that Robert Gates's WSJ op-ed was too important to give only attribution through a Politico article, so I decided to read the op-ed myself. In the interest of real scholarship, I'm posting it here for all interested voters to read.

I found it to be an extremely thorough examination of current affairs, and an insightful rendering of

_________________________

Sizing Up the Next Commander-in-Chief
Neither candidate has seriously addressed how he or she thinks about the military or the use of force.


By ROBERT M. GATES
Sept. 16, 2016 6:23 p.m. ET


You wouldn’t know it from the presidential campaigns, but the first serious crisis to face our new president most likely will be international. The list of possibilities is long—longer than it was eight years ago.

Here is the world the new president will inherit at noon on January 20—a range of challenges for which neither candidate has offered new strategies or paths forward.

Every aspect of our relationship with China is becoming more challenging. In addition to Chinese cyberspying and theft of intellectual property, many American businesses in China are encountering an increasingly hostile environment. China’s nationalist determination unilaterally to assert sovereignty over disputed waters and islands in the East and South China Seas is steadily increasing the risk of military confrontation.

Most worrying, given their historic bad blood, escalation of a confrontation between China and Japan could be very dangerous. As a treaty partner of Japan, we would be obligated to help Tokyo. China intends to challenge the U.S. for regional dominance in East Asia over the long term, but the new president could quickly face a Chinese military challenge over disputed islands and freedom of navigation.

Dealing effectively with China requires a president with strategic acumen and vision, nuance, deft diplomatic and political skill, and sound instincts on when to challenge, when to stay silent and when to compromise or partner.

On this most complex challenge, neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump has said or done much to give anyone confidence. All we really know is Mr. Trump’s intention to launch a trade war with a country holding over $1 trillion in U.S. debt and the largest market for many U.S. companies; and Mrs. Clinton’s opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which she helped to craft and the failure of which would hand China an easy political and economic win.

Then there is Vladimir Putin’s Russia, now routinely challenging the U.S. and its allies. How to count the ways. There was the armed seizure of Ukraine’s Crimea; Moscow’s military support of the separatist movement in eastern Ukraine; overt and covert intimidation of the Baltic states; the dispatch of fighter and bomber aircraft to avert the defeat of Syria’s Assad; sales of sophisticated weaponry to Iran.

There is Russia’s luring the U.S. secretary of state into believing that a cease-fire in Syria is just around the corner—if only the U.S. would do more, or less, depending on the issue; the cyberattacks on the U.S., including possible attempts to influence the U.S. presidential election; and covert efforts to aggravate division and weakness with the European Union and inside European countries. And there is the dangerously close buzzing of U.S. Navy ships in the Baltic Sea and close encounters with U.S. military aircraft in international airspace.

The only thing longer than the list of hostile Russian actions abroad is the list of repressive actions inside Russia to stifle dissent and strengthen Mr. Putin’s security services-run state. Mr. Putin will continue to behave aggressively until confronted and stopped.

No one in the West wants a return to the Cold War, so the challenge is to confront and stop Mr. Putin’s aggressions while pursuing cooperation on international challenges that can only be addressed successfully if Russia is at the table—from terrorism to climate change, from the Syrian conflict to nuclear nonproliferation and arms control. Again, neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Trump has expressed any views on how they would deal with Mr. Putin (although Mr. Trump’s expressions of admiration for the man and his authoritarian regime are naive and irresponsible).

North Korea and Iran are sworn enemies of the U.S. North Korean potentate Kim Jong Un is building more nuclear weapons for his arsenal even as he develops ballistic missiles that now, or very soon, can reach all of our allies (and U.S. military forces) in Asia. During the first term of the next president these missiles will be able to reach the U.S. mainland.

On his good days, Kim Jong Un appears to outsiders as a cartoonish megalomaniac; on his bad days, he seems to yearn for a Gotterdammerung finale in which a perishing North Korea takes a lot of Asians and Americans with it. Or is he simply continuing to pursue a strategy designed to preserve his rule and North Korea’s independence through nuclear blackmail? The new U.S. president could face an early North Korean provocation against the South, the Japanese or us, and for sure will be confronted by a long-term strategic nuclear threat to our allies and to America.

Regarding Iran, whatever value Mr. Obama’s nuclear agreement has brought, the deal has led to no decrease in Iran’s aggressive meddling in the Middle East nor any lessening of its hostility to the U.S. Iranian naval challenges to U.S. warship operations in the Persian Gulf have nearly doubled over the last year. Iran will do all it can to embarrass the U.S.—such as allowing Russian planes to use Iranian airfields to attack the Syrian opposition and testing ballistic missiles—even as it strives to eject us from the entire region. Our new president had best be prepared for an early test of U.S. resolve in the Persian Gulf and Iran’s continuing regional subversion.

While Mrs. Clinton gave a speech on Iran over a year ago, she has since offered no inkling of her views and has said little about North Korea. Mr. Trump has said nary a word on the challenge posed by either country.

Both candidates have spelled out how they would deal with ISIS, and terrorism more broadly, but their approach in essence sounds like what President Obama is doing now—with more ideological fervor and some additional starch. Neither has addressed what the broader U.S. strategy should be toward a Middle East in flames, from Syria to Iraq to Libya, and where Gulf Arab states worry about their own stability amid growing doubts they can rely on the U.S.; both Egypt and Turkey are ruled by increasingly authoritarian strongmen; and an Israeli-Palestinian conflict further from resolution than ever.

Mr. Trump has suggested we should walk away from the region and hope for the best. This is a dangerous approach oblivious to the reality that what happens in the Middle East doesn’t stay in the Middle East. Mrs. Clinton has ruled out putting U.S. ground troops in Iraq and Syria “ever again.” That is a politically driven categorical declaration of a sort no president (or candidate) should make, and it raises the question whether she would pull out the 5,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq. She has expressed no new ideas to deal with the boiling caldron that is today’s Middle East.

Each of these challenges may require the use of the American military, the most powerful the world has ever seen. The president commands some two million men and women in uniform, and every previous president would attest that the decision to put those lives at risk is the weightiest burden of office. Yet neither candidate has seriously addressed how he or she thinks about the military, the use of military force, the criteria they would apply before sending that force into battle, or broader questions of peace and war. Based on what each candidate has said and done, who can we trust with the lives of young Americans in uniform?

Both candidates have a credibility problem in foreign affairs. Mrs. Clinton was the senior-most advocate for using the U.S. military to bring ill-fated regime change in Libya and, further, failed to anticipate the chaos that would follow—the same failure she and other Democrats hung around the neck of the Bush 43 administration in post-Saddam Iraq. She was for trade agreements before she turned against them in this election campaign, just as she voted for the Iraq war in 2003 and then, several years later—in her first campaign for president—opposed the troop surge there. She has much-discussed credibility issues apart from national security, but these also influence foreign perceptions of reliability and trust.

When it comes to credibility problems, though, Donald Trump is in a league of his own. He has expressed support for building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico; for torturing suspected terrorists and killing their families; for Mr. Putin’s dictatorial leadership and for Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent successes against terrorism. He also has said he is for using defense spending by NATO allies as the litmus test on whether the U.S. will keep its treaty commitments to them; for withdrawing U.S. troops from Europe, South Korea and Japan and for the latter two developing nuclear weapons—a highly destabilizing prospect.

Mr. Trump has been cavalier about the use of nuclear weapons. He has a record of insults to servicemen, their families and the military, which he called a “disaster.” He has declared our senior military leaders “reduced to rubble” and “embarrassing our country” and has suggested that, if elected, he will purge them—an unprecedented and unconscionable threat. As of late, he appears to be rethinking some of these positions but he has yet to learn that when a president shoots off his mouth, there are no do-overs.

Mr. Trump is also willfully ignorant about the rest of the world, about our military and its capabilities, and about government itself. He disdains expertise and experience while touting his own—such as his claim that he knows more about ISIS than America’s generals. He has no clue about the difference between negotiating a business deal and negotiating with sovereign nations.

All of the presidents I served were strong personalities with strongly held views about the world. But each surrounded himself with independent-minded, knowledgeable and experienced advisers who would tell the president what he needed to hear, not what he wanted to hear. Sometimes presidents would take their advice, sometimes not. But they always listened.

The world we confront is too perilous and too complex to have as president a man who believes he, and he alone, has all the answers and has no need to listen to anyone. In domestic affairs, there are many checks on what a president can do; in national security there are few constraints. A thin-skinned, temperamental, shoot-from-the-hip and lip, uninformed commander-in-chief is too great a risk for America.

I understand the broad anger and frustration against political leaders in both parties. I have written about my disgust as secretary of defense as I watched politicians repeatedly place re-election above the nation’s best interests. Polls make clear that most Americans are dissatisfied with the two major party candidates for president. But as I used to say in the Pentagon, we are where we are—not where we might wish to be. We have to make a decision. Perhaps the debates, if the candidates focus on substance rather than personal attacks, will clarify the choice.

Mrs. Clinton has time before the election to address forthrightly her trustworthiness, to reassure people about her judgment, to demonstrate her willingness to stake out one or more positions on national security at odds with her party’s conventional wisdom, and to speak beyond generalities about how she would deal with China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, the Middle East—and international trade. Whether and how she addresses these issues will, I believe, affect how many people vote—including me.

At least on national security, I believe Mr. Trump is beyond repair. He is stubbornly uninformed about the world and how to lead our country and government, and temperamentally unsuited to lead our men and women in uniform. He is unqualified and unfit to be commander-in-chief.

Mr. Gates served eight presidents over 50 years, most recently as secretary of defense under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/sizing-up-the-next-commander-in-chief-1474064606

40: this isn't propaganda. Period.

I am not 100% sure but didn't Powell also have disparaging remarks about Hilary?

For the record I am a Johnson man

Another day and another outrageous comment by Trump. Loser with a capital "L".

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/16/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-guns-secret-service/

So.....i'm not gonna even pretend i know half of what Gates knows. But i'll give my opinion on this article anyway.

Ok, So i have a ton of respect for Gates. However, one of the issues i have with him is that he's full of criticism, but a little bit empty when it comes to offering actual solutions.

he says this:

"Dealing effectively with China requires a president with strategic acumen and vision, nuance, deft diplomatic and political skill, and sound instincts on when to challenge, when to stay silent and when to compromise or partner."

i agree. Here's the problem: it doesn't just apply to China. it applies to every foreign policy issue he brought up.

He also doesn't seem to offer an example of when to challenge or stay silent, yet is critical of two candidates who haven't been afforded the opportunity as president to make those decisions just yet.

His major beef, the theme throughout the article, is that he is concerned that Trump and Clinton haven't offered much in military action.

***my opinion, not fact, just my opinion***** but that right there is how and why you see the pro's/con's of having a civilian president with little military background like Trump or Clinton:

Because Gates doesn't seem to realize that conservative or liberal, republican or democrat, the country is sick of war. we are sick of combat. we are sick of seeing our soldiers die in a region of the world where people aren't even willing to help their own selves half the time.

we've been at war for 15 years now. nobody wants to hear about more boots on ground, or another military intervention.

military personnel in politics tend to gravitate toward military solutions a lot. See Graham and Tom Cotton. and Gates. And McCain.

the only people right now who still support direct military conflict for pretty much anything are people still eating from the military industrial complex that we can't seem to shake off as a country.

With regards to China, while the chance of military conflict with them has risen....well, that percentage is still low.

China and the US needs each other. Economics is pretty much the sole reason. It's why they dance around each other, but ultimately play nice: China can't afford to lose US business, even with all their other partnerships with other nations like the EU.

Russia is flexing their muscles. this is a problem. here's what's also a problem: every time they flex their muscles, their economy damn near crashes.

Glass cannon describes them perfectly. And this goes back to Gates saying a president needs to know when to stay silent.

Why do anything? they are harassing naval ships and such because they want to bait America into a conflict.

Showing strength and leadership isn't giving the enemy what they want. only gullible people think like that.

Gates said "No one in the West wants a return to the Cold War", and i agree.

however, i would also add that if you don't want to return to the Cold War, then stop thinking in cold war strategy and rhetoric. You have to practice what your preach.

At this stage of the game, no government has done anything that warrants military conflict.

if a kid teases another kid with verbal shots, and that kid responds by punching him in the face, guess who gets in trouble?

we can't get caught being the aggressor. especially in a social and political climate that is just sick and tired of being in combat.

yep

Powell is much like Gates: he's been forthright and candid... both in times when he's agreed with her, and when he's been at odds with her.

Despite anyone's personally-held views about military brass, be ye a hawk or dove (or somewhere in-between), their public comments are usually refreshingly candid and honest, in this world of 24/7 spin. Most high-ranking career military officers have served under numerous regimes, both D and R... and answer the questions professionally, and without much political bias. I can see why they do, too: they are sworn to serve The Country before any temporary political party in office.

I refer you to this 2012 radio interview of Colin Powell, as he was hocking his post-service memoir, "It Worked For Me."

Powell Interview

Listen to the interview. Please pay particular attention to Secretary Powell's exchange with Robert Siegel at the 6:33-8:02 mark. At 7:48, Mr. Powell says this: "You're not just voting for an individual, in my judgement... you're voting for an agenda. You're voting for a platform. You're voting for a political philosophy..."

That's how these guys think. It's how they were trained to think- with precision, a wide-angle lens, and and the discipline to see how the intersection of the two effect events, going forward. That discipline of thought is directly related to his remarks about "The Powell Doctrine," just minutes before.


Powell HAS held Clinton's feet to the fire in the past. He's also been staunchly supportive of her on other occasions. As far as my observations go, he's always been above-board and unimpeachable in his assessment of most political figures when asked. He's also been extremely focused, and issue-specific when giving answers to 'loaded' lines of questioning. I suspect that it's due to the discipline that comes from 40+ years of military background.


But that's Colin Powell, talking about his memoirs, and how he might cast his vote in the 2012 POTUS race. Let's tie it all together, shall we? ... and bring this back to the present.

I view Robert Gates in much the same light as I do Colin Powell.
Both have served with a level of national distinction not awarded to any of us here at DT. Colin Powell has repeatedly spoken his mind, without regard to political party or personal favor.

Gates served under both POTUS 43 and POTUS 44 as Sec of Def. He has actually sat in War Rooms when global military issues have been decided. He too thinks and acts with discipline, strategy, and precision.

If Robert Gates says that a presidential candidate is unfit to occupy the chair at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, I'm inclined to regard his opinion with a bit more gravitas than some SpinPundit on a cable news outlet, some journalistic hack on a political blog-oriented site... or some Browns fan on a message board.

This isn't about uninformed opinion. This is about credibility.

If 'Clemdawg' tells a bunch of Dawg Pounders that a presidential candidate is unworthy of election, it's just his opinion- backed by "news" reports, op-eds ...and media spin.

If A former United States Secretary of Defense says the same thing, don't listen to some guy named 'Clemdawg' on a football fan site... listen to a man who was actually in the room, when the 'kill order' was issued to take out Osama Bin Laden, the "Architect of 9/11."

One man speaks from intuition, gut feelings, and a bunch of hooey that's spun to him on various electronic devices.

The other speaks from experience.



That's all I'm really sayin'.

Others can call it 'propaganda' all they want.
These are the Secretary Of Defense's words- not mine.

__________

Some issues are more important than who can use their penises to write the longest signature in the snow, while their friends watch.



This is one of them.



.02

I've heard Hillary and Obama say "Australia-style gun control worth looking at". Trump was referring to Clinton's "DOUBLE STANDARDS", it's OK for her but not the American people. I don't believe Mr. Trump made an outrageous comment at all.



http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/dem-...orth-looking-at

While Trump and Clinton battle it out for the title of



A title that they both are equally over qualified for, I see nothing wrong with Trump pointing out the fact that Clinton thinks her safety is more important than mine or my families.

Donald Trump Objects to Anderson Cooper as Debate Moderator: He’s ‘Very Biased’

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/donald-trum...-144332363.html

Donald Trump, in an interview Thursday with the Washington Post, said he doesn’t think that Anderson Cooper should be a moderator of one of the upcoming presidential debates, calling him “very biased.”

But Trump said that he would still participate in the Oct. 9 debate, the second on the schedule, in which Cooper will be teamed with ABC News’ Martha Raddatz in a town hall format.

“I don’t think Anderson Cooper should be a moderator, because Anderson Cooper works for CNN and over the last couple of days, I’ve seen how Anderson Cooper behaves,” Trump told the Post. “He’ll be very biased, very biased. I don’t think he should be a moderator. I’ll participate, but I don’t think he should be a moderator. CNN is the Clinton News Network and Anderson Cooper, I don’t think he can be fair.”

The debate is the second on the schedule. The first, on Sept. 26, will be moderated by NBC News anchor Lester Holt. The final debate on Oct. 19 will be anchored by Chris Wallace.

David Brock, the founder of the pro-Hillary Clinton SuperPAC Correct the Record and the media watchdog Media Matters for America, urged the Commission on Presidential Debates to remove Wallace as the moderator. Brock said that Wallace had a conflict of interest because former Fox News chief Roger Ailes was advising the Trump campaign. But the commission refused to remove Wallace.

In the Post interview, Trump said that Ailes had no role in the campaign but said they do talk on occasion. “I love the benefit of his experience and knowledge,” Trump said.

Trump also denied that he was trying to create a right-wing news network should he lose the presidential race.

I'll give Clem credit for posting criticisms of Trump from reputable people. I may not agree with them but they are meaningful enough that anybody should read them and consider them.

This stuff about a vague reference to Clinton's bodyguards carrying guns and pointing out that CNN is biased in Clinton's favor... who cares.

You no what? Someone needs to man up tell Trump not to be a whiny little bitch. Do NOT let him dictate the terms of the debates. He's trying his best to get out of them completely. Hillary needs to attack Trump on that.

I don't disagree that someone needs to man up and tell Trump.. you know. He obviously has a very strong personality and that can be intimidating for some people. I also don't think that is a negative. Maybe go listen to Hillary or Tim Kaine speak if that's your thing.

He is not trying to get out of the debates. He will shine at the debates. Clinton has had almost all mainstream media on her side this entire election season but at the debates they can't selectively edit out things that are unfavorable to her. They can't take Trump's words out of context and put some ridiculous spin on them, not while the debate is live anyway.

CNN can't pull the crap they did after 9/11/16 where they cut the video right before it was obvious that Hillary literally was dragged into the van. They just showed the part where she lost her balance a little bit and said she stumbled. That's the Clinton News Network for you.

If they fact check Trump, it's gonna be ugly for him. He can't just say things such as "I've heard things" or "people FEEL." Any decent journalist is gonna smack that softball with factual evidence to contradict it. He also can't get away with generic statements anymore.

Actually a ton of people have already told him to man the hell up.

Bill Maher for one, a ton of others, including some on Fox News.

Trump isn't listening. So that's why it seems like nobody is telling him, because he doesn't care what they say. Is that a good or bad thing? Depends on who you're asking, I suppose.

He will shine in the debates based off what? I sincerely hope you aren't basing your opinion off the primary debates. Don't do that to yourself.

What trump is doing is trying to manipulate a win.

The problem is that the only people he will fool into thinking that the mods are biased and all this other crap is his own supporters. The rest of the country and, well, the world arenr falling for it.

Nobody takes trumps words out of context. I dunno why you're acting so oblivious right now.

How many times has trump said something, the media questions him on his words, and he DOUBLES DOWN on what he said?

Me and you have completely different definitions on what 'out of context' means, bro.

Trump obviously has access to a lot of info that isn't publicly available. To give one example, he suggested during the Democratic primaries that the whole process was rigged and some on the left lost their minds about that.

Well it turns out, that based on the DNC's emails, they indeed were conspiring to work against Bernie Sanders. Is that rigged? I mean, rigged is kind of an ambiguous term. It sure as hell wasn't fair to Bernie or his supporters. That whole thing still bothers me actually. It's a direct affront to democracy. The DNC was actively plotting against a fellow Democrat and a good man.

I strongly disagreed with Bernie's economic policies mind you, but I do genuinely think he had higher character than the two we are left with. I also think that many Bernie supporters are not making a big deal out of it because most of them dislike Trump more than they dislike Hillary and they don't want to hurt Hillary's chances of being elected.

Like I said, that's just one example but it has happened sometimes where Trump suggests something, with no publicly available factual evidence to support it, and then sometime down the road there is a new revelation that validates what he previously said. And of course, sometimes he just runs is mouth and exaggerates things. not trying to deny that.

We have 4 living ex presidents, one current president.

Of those, you'd expect Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to support Hillary,,, That's a given.

Not sure who Jimmy Carter is endorsing.. But if I were to guess, I'd say Hillary as well.

Now we come to the Bush guys. Did I just miss it, or did they not endorse Trump?

Honestly, not trying to start something, I just don't remember if they did or didn't endorse him. Or have they just said nothing?

I don't know what to tell you Swish! We've already talked about how we think the debates are going to go on here a bunch of times. We'll just have to wait and see how they go.

The first one is in 8 days, on Monday, Sept. 26 at 9pm EDT. I know we all love our football on here, but I hope that people understand the importance of this election and can put football aside and watch the debate instead. It is important.

The 2020 general election is rigged.

So now, if any controversy happens during the 2020 election, I'm right. Making a vague statement like politics is rigged is not some bold statement.

You know what, the 2024 election will be rigged too!

Bush and Jr. want nothing to do with Trump.

Yes, all the Democrats support the Democrat while the Bush's are still hurting after Trump crushed their Heir Apparent to the thrown and killed the Bush Machine.
Why?

Have a look what the well respected Rudy Giuliani has to say about this whole state of affairs, if you dare...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U97Hg7cQDqA

40 were you not a Bush supporter?

Language, as we know is important. One's choice of language cannot just be flippant as it carries a lot of baggage. Especially if one is a Presidential candidate. Remember when Iranian President, Ahmadinejad suggested that "Israel should be wiped off the map"? That is an outrageous comment for anybody to say let alone the leader of a country who controls the army. Trump has proved time and time again to say shockingly awful and disgusting things. A Presidential candidate making these comments not only lacks tact, class and professionalism. But, he is provoking and suggesting violence. Where does it stop? Also, we should demand more from our leaders. What have we descended to as a nation when we give this type of behavior and language a pass (going back to his debates, his bullying social media comments, his personal insults)?

We are much better than this. Conservatives and Liberals once coexisted together and worked together in DC. Instead as a nation we as a populace have grown more divided by the day, angrier, less respect on one another and more and more un-United. Congress has shown a nasty side to the White House. Trump's shooting from the hip style of speaking without thinking, talking like a middle schooler and downright repulsive behavior embodies and magnifies this division. Yet, he then makes footnotes that he is a "great unifier".

I'll answer that for you.

Yes, yes he was. On the old board, he defended bush like he swore him into office himself.