Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Trumps are not Qualified to Determine What Americans Need...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Trumps are not Qualified to Determine What Americans Need...

    They don't understand, nor do they have empathy for, anyone who is less fortunate in the United States-or anywhere else for that matter...

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/11/opini...ove/index.html

  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

    Such as Soros and Steyer whom do major funding of the Loonie-Left in this country.
    Soros's mouthpieces, Media Matter and Politico, ordered Democrats to stay away from APAC, and most of them submitted.

    State mandated anti-Semitism won't be far off, ir creeps like Omar and Cortez have their way.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    Only Socialist multi-millionaires are allowed to determine what everyone needs, and is allowed to have or want.
    Just ask any Democrat.
    Such as Soros and Steyer whom do major funding of the Loonie-Left in this country.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    What do the Trumps know about the average Americans. Have they ever worked, as in getting hands dirty and breaking a sweat?

    As far as draining the swamp, it has only gotten worse by x degrees. Tax brakes for the rich is just filling it up with more slime. Do you know how many millionaires there are in Congress?

    https://www.rollcall.com/news/hawkin...ver-mostly-top

    That's not darning the swamp, that's plugging the drain.

    Leave a comment:


  • American87
    replied
    Trump is more than qualified to say what Americans need. Heís the only figure in the public eye that can party with liberal Democrats, then speak for the millions of people who are snubbed by Washington bureaucrats.

    The swamp needed a reality check, and they still wonít take it. Itís embrassing really, and weak. America was founded for representative government.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Only Socialist multi-millionaires are allowed to determine what everyone needs, and is allowed to have or want.
    Just ask any Democrat.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    No thanks, I think I said all that needed to be said

    Leave a comment:


  • American87
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

    Well it's there for all to see

    Jesus man just look at it - it's like a cat threw up on the screen, if an 8-year old writes like that he will be thrown out of class.

    Ever heard of interpunction ?
    I donít see any proof that itís wrong. Perhaps you can point it out and join a debate?

    Leave a comment:


  • marktwain
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

    Well it's there for all to see

    Jesus man just look at it - it's like a cat threw up on the screen, if an 8-year old writes like that he will be thrown out of class.

    Ever heard of interpunction ?
    Hairballs of Ijadw.......

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

    We don't.

    All "we" know is that one man, or family, can not be qualified to determine what 300 million need.

    That's why we elect representatives, not rulers or leaders.



    Not at all, but why type 300 words if 13 will do



    And with that this thread can be closed, and the title question can be answered with "No - they aren't !"

    - why didn't you
    These threads do often wander about a bit.

    The thread was started by a socialist, citing an opinion piece from a socialist, and combined with the indirection of the title, basically amount to another bitch from sources that constantly expect more from others, basically their fellow citizens whom get plundered by their governments that then redistribute to others. This started as a bitch piece on "the handouts should be increasing, not shrinking'.

    So yeah, a rather flimsy thread topic to begin with.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggHIORGw5d4

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    How do we, or you, know that what Americans need is the same as what the French need?
    We don't.

    All "we" know is that one man, or family, can not be qualified to determine what 300 million need.

    That's why we elect representatives, not rulers or leaders.

    A bit testy and thin-skinned are we ???
    Not at all, but why type 300 words if 13 will do

    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    Point lost upon you, and many Americans for that matter, is that a POTUS isn't the one to decide what is the need of Americans. That's the reason we have a representative republic.
    And with that this thread can be closed, and the title question can be answered with "No - they aren't !"

    - why didn't you

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

    Eh, for sure you aren't electing your best and brightest either

    For the purpose of this thread though, it should suffice to point out that Trump(s) is no more "qualified" to determine what Americans need, than Charles VI was qualified to determine what the French needed.

    Or you for that matter.
    A bit testy and thin-skinned are we ???

    The usual quip is that the best and brightest, being just that, don't want the job (think on it).

    How do we, or you, know that what Americans need is the same as what the French need?
    Over here, most of us operate on basis of each should have their own idea what they need and be allowed to go for it, so long as doing such is legal and their own effort.

    Over there seems those centuries of having lords and kings tell you all what you need and what is good for you have slowed you all down a bit when it comes to autonomous thinking and acting.

    Point lost upon you, and many Americans for that matter, is that a POTUS isn't the one to decide what is the need of Americans. That's the reason we have a representative republic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
    And in that regard we aren't dealing genetic "royal" bloodlines (san grail) going back for centuries of a 'family' history.
    Eh, for sure you aren't electing your best and brightest either

    For the purpose of this thread though, it should suffice to point out that Trump(s) is no more "qualified" to determine what Americans need, than Charles VI was qualified to determine what the French needed.

    Or you for that matter.
    Last edited by Snowygerry; 21 Mar 19, 03:54.

    Leave a comment:


  • G David Bock
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

    Are you sure ? Have you taken a look at your last few presidents ?
    Yup!

    And in that regard we aren't dealing genetic "royal" bloodlines (san grail) going back for centuries of a 'family' history. Especially holding a "lock" on the political process and leadership position that exclude the majority of their nations populace. Admittedly the UK began to break that trend a few centuries ago, but the rest of Europe and the world only started to change in the wake of USA and our "experiment" started about 1776.

    Over here the closest we've come have been mercantile/capitalist(business based) family dynasties that went back a few generations at most. While the Bush's come close on that, the Roosevelt's are a larger example. Trump right now is a one-off and we'll have to see if any of his progeny follow in his footsteps.

    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    I'm sure there are several members here at ACG even that would make a better US president than Bush, Clinton, Bush II, Obama AND Trump
    That might be, but it would have to involve a process sort of like a battery of civil service tests and the best score gets the job. However, POTUS is an elected position and that entails the campaigning process to get the vote and that becomes a bit more complicated.

    I don't recall many here at ACG establishing they have much experience with campaigns and running for office, but I've been a bit active in that direction the past few years, so have acquired some insight with candidates and campaigns. A few factors;

    1) You really need a campaign committee and staff, and especially a manger. The Candidate needs to get out to "meet-n-greet" both donors and voters and it really helps to have some staff to arrange and schedule that gauntlet of activities. The higher or more influential the office, the more it becomes possible to successfully run if you have people to help put up signs, get literature out, make phone calls, contact donors, and schedule events and appearances.

    2) A candidate needs to have lots of energy to meet the voters and express whom they are and what their positions are. There are a lot shake hands and pose for pictures, especially with donors, especially the BIG ones.

    3) You need the support of your family. Not just you as a candidate, but your family as well will be embroiled in the campaign and often are likely targets for some of the "slings and arrows" that will come your way.

    4) Helps to have a thick-skin since you will be assailed by the opposition, often. You will be a target of sorts, so be prepared to dodge and deal with what gets flung at you, and any one closely associated with you.

    5) Though you are running to represent those whom are your constituency, those voices and interests will cover a wide range, plus the voters will want to know what your background and experience is relevant to the job duties, and what positions you have on issues, what your goals and agenda are. And of course, why you rather than the others you are running against. You need some concise and informative answers andessentially a few 1,2,3, and 5 minute "elevator speechs" you can use on short notice.

    6) There are a few other things to toss in, but maybe later. Thing is, that it sums up by a paraphrase of LIncoln's;

    'You can please all the people some of the time ... (increasingly difficult to impossible in 21st century America);
    'You can please some of the people all of the time ... (more probable);
    'But you can't please ALL the people ALL of the time. ' - Very true today.

    What you are trying to do is get the majority of those that will vote (often barely half that could) to vote for you.



    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    That's why I mentioned Homer Simpson.

    Chances that future historians 700 years from now will talk about any of those mentioned above are quite small, they will be forgotten..

    The Simpsons though will be for ever considered your cultural heritage, they'll study it like we study Homeros, and appreciate the numerous historical references, as well as wonder how the writers managed to predict the Trump presidency for example.
    I haven't watched much TV in the last few years and seems like ages since Iast saw a Simpson's show. If we are using cartoon programing as a meme of our nation and times,, it's possible that South Park would also be a contender there.

    More likely may be real people TV and there it may be a case of Oprah or "The View" that will skew future historians assessment of this time.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X