Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Donald J. Trump [OFFICIAL THREAD]

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Forum Administrators
On 12/07/2015 at 11:06 AM, Haji 2003 said:

The Republican party is pretty good at throwing up some real fruitcakes, remember Sarah Palin? But Trump comes across as savvy. 

I said this 18 months ago at the start of this thread.

I don't like the prospect of his presidency, but the win is understandable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Highly redacted. Of course.  

This photo should become a classic over time:

I just love these words of Imam Ali (as) subhanallah, as it makes me realize how lost these tyrants are "Remember that these worldly-minded people are like barking dogs and hungry and ferocious b

Posted Images

I was under the impression that the majority of people on this forum support Donald Trump as the lesser of the evils due to his stance on foreign policy....? (Support for Assad, support for being neutral in Israeli-Palestinian conflict as opposed to Clinton's "unwavering support for Israel's security", etc.)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sinan said:

I was under the impression that the majority of people on this forum support Donald Trump as the lesser of the evils due to his stance on foreign policy....? (Support for Assad, support for being neutral in Israeli-Palestinian conflict as opposed to Clinton's "unwavering support for Israel's security", etc.)?

Along with the points you have mentioned, do you know his policy on Iran, Iraq, China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Korea etc.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

:salam:

Some may say that it was better if Clinton was chosen, but in fact Clinton is far more dangerous than Trump, she is warmonger, and based on some clues, if she was chosen, USA would enter the war of Syria directly, she believed that USA must return to Middle East, and this would definitely make the situation more complicated.

At least Trump is less warmonger and this is better, the more USA stays out of other nations affairs the better it would be.

By the way, the difference between Trump and Clinton is not that much, if you saw difference between J.W Bush and Obama, then there is the same between Clinton and Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

A Trump presidency is a startling unknown. The fact that he won the popular vote is much more alarming. That means that 48% of the population either accepts or excuses his behaviors and attitudes. The Democratic and Republican parties should both be abolished as criminal organizations. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

I don't think they accept or excuse his behaviours, but I think the media and most other people underestimated how much most people hate career politicians and the Washington elite establishment. Clinton is seen as the prototype of a career politician and the establishment. 

Also, the media constantly attacking him (whether those attacks were based on real facts or speculation) worked the opposite way than most people expected. It actually pushed more people over to his side as he was seen as a victim of media bias.

Edited by Abu Hadi
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
2 minutes ago, Faruk said:

Look notme ..

Democrats supply arms to terrortists while republicans send armies.

What the hell is the diffirence?

It won't make any difference at all internationally but it makes a difference here!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
31 minutes ago, Abu Hadi said:

I don't see why everyone is so surprised. Democrats ran a weak, corrupt career politician as their candidate and she lost. She had the media establishment on her side, but most people realized that and so they dismissed all the negative things the media was saying about Trump, probably alot of them are true, though.

Trouble is now the uncertainty. Because Trump has such an unstable and volatile personality, noone is sure what he is going to do. Since the Republicans still control Congress, they will probably go along with him and not challenge him, and he may attempt to push through those things which he talked about, 

Repealing Obamacare, which may not necessarily be a bad thing if he could find something viable to replace it. Obamacare is worse than the old system for most people (more costly and complex) except kids up to 26 still living with their parents and those with severe chronic medial conditions who couldn't get insurance under the old system. I feel sorry for those people, but they will probably do what they did before, they will become bankrupt and then use the ER as their primary care. 

Start mass deportations. If he does that though, he may get some severe pushback from different groups, so he may have to modify this

Renegotiate trade contracts, such as NAFTA and TPP. Again, this might not be a bad thing. It might lead to a trade war, though

Build a wall along our southern border with Mexico. That won't happen, too complex and costly. He will probably give this up or modify this fairly quickly. 

One thing I know, economic inequality will increase, more than it is now, as he changes the tax laws and regulations to favor him and his buddies. But Clinton was fixin' to do the same thing. So not much difference there. They have different buddies, that is the only difference. 

But there is still alot of uncertainty. We'll have to wait and see. 

 

Everyone realised that Hillary wasn't as popular as the Democrats who made her their nominee who thought she was - this could have turned out to be a very different election with someone like Sanders or even Elizabeth Warren, if they had actually allowed a fair competition for their candidate and let others run, instead of just deciding it was Hillary's turn. The problem was that compared to him, even the Devil sounds better. From an outside perspective, sure, I could hate her for her warmongering but if I was an American, I really don't understand why anyone would vote for Trump over her because she might be corrupt, a career politician and maybe even crooked but what she isn't is stupid, hateful, misogynistic and xenophobic. "Probably a lot of them were true"? No, most of the major stuff they said about Trump was true. Indeed, I don't understand how anyone could have been elected bloody Mayor of Hobwater Backshed after that video of him grabbing genitalia and kissing women was leaked.

What I am interested in now is what the establishment Republicans will do. Sure, they are united with Trump in their hatred for Obamacare and so on, and perhaps they will push those things along without much issue but I see a real possibility of Republicans splitting off into two groups in the Senate and the House: those who support him and those who don't. Of course, a lot of this will also depend on exactly how stupid Trump truly is. Maybe he was a genius who knowingly espoused these negative views just to win or maybe that's just who he is. More importantly, whether he actually follows up on those rather problematic promises he made will determine whether Republicans at large still support him.

I'm also interested in seeing what happens with all the cases against him a la Trump University. People have been talking about impeaching Hillary for years but that's one ray of sunshine in all this mess: impeaching him if he is found to have committed criminal actions. Though, it's rather unlikely.

Quote

Obamacare is worse than the old system for most people (more costly and complex) except kids up to 26 still living with their parents and those with severe chronic medial conditions who couldn't get insurance under the old system. I feel sorry for those people, but they will probably do what they did before, they will become bankrupt and then use the ER as their primary care. 

I mean, that was the point of Obamacare. Universal healthcare is obviously going to cost more and the well-off and the healthy middle class were supposed to bear the cost for the people you've just described: the young who can't pay their rent, let alone medical bills and the chronically ill. The two parties are the ones who actually need subsidised healthcare most (the elderly would be another group but at least they have their whole life's earnings, regardless of how much that may be, to make the costs at least a little more palatable).

Quote

Build a wall along our southern border with Mexico. That won't happen, too complex and costly. He will probably give this up or modify this fairly quickly. 

Even his hardcore supporters have been making excuses for him on the issue and arguing it's just a metaphoric wall for months now. I doubt he'll build an actual wall - or that his supporters will be mad about him going back on his word.

From a sociological point of view, I think, the more interesting question this election and its results raise is whether the cause of this turnout is the American people who have always espoused certain moral and ethical positions as being fundamental to their way of life in modern years are receding to a relatively inferior moral standing or if this is the result of an astonishing expression of the tremendous dissatisfaction and anger the average Joe has for the establishment politicians and their current economic status, so much so that they would ignore all sense of morality just to 'try the other guy'.

Edited by Khadim uz Zahra
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
2 minutes ago, Khadim uz Zahra said:

Everyone realised that Hillary wasn't as popular as the Democrats who made her their nominee who thought she was - this could have turned out to be a very different election with someone like Sanders or even Elizabeth Warren, if they had actually allowed a fair competition for their candidate and let others run, instead of just deciding it was Hillary's turn. The problem was that compared to him, even the Devil sounds better. From an outside perspective, sure, I could hate her for her warmongering but if I was an American, I really don't understand why anyone would vote for Trump over her because she might be corrupt, a career politician and maybe even crooked but what she isn't is stupid, hateful, misogynistic and xenophobic. "Probably a lot of them were true"? No, most of the major stuff they said about Trump was true. Indeed, I don't understand how anyone could have been elected bloody Mayor of Hobwater Backshed after that video of him grabbing genitalia and kissing women was leaked.

What I am interested in now is what the establishment Republicans will do. Sure, they are united with Trump in their hatred for Obamacare and so on, and perhaps they will push those things along without much issue but I see a real possibility of Republicans splitting off into two groups in the Senate and the House: those who support him and those who don't. Of course, a lot of this will also depend on exactly how stupid Trump truly is. Maybe he was a genius who knowingly espoused these negative views just to win or maybe that's just who he is. More importantly, whether he actually follows up on those rather problematic promises he made will determine whether Republicans at large still support him.

I'm also interested in seeing what happens with all the cases against him a la Trump University. People have been talking about impeaching Hillary for years but that's one ray of sunshine in all this mess: impeaching him if he is found to have committed criminal actions. Though, it's rather unlikely.

I mean, that was the point of Obamacare. Universal healthcare is obviously going to cost more and the well-off and the healthy middle class were supposed to bear the cost for the people you've just described: the young who can't pay their rent, let alone medical bills and the chronically ill. The two parties are the ones who actually need subsidised healthcare most (the elderly would be another group but at least they have their whole life's earnings, regardless of how much that may be, to make the costs at least a little more palatable).

Even his hardcore supporters have been making excuses for him on the issue and arguing it's just a metaphoric wall for months now. I doubt he'll build an actual wall - or that his supporters will be mad about him going back on his word.

From a sociological point of view, I think, the more interesting question this election and its results raise is whether the cause of this turnout is the American people who have always espoused certain moral and ethical positions as being fundamental to their way of life in modern years are receding to a relatively inferior moral standing or simply an astonishing expression of the tremendous satisfaction and anger the average Joe has for the establishment politicians and their current economic status, so much so that they would ignore all sense of morality just to 'try the other guy'.

I know it's hard for some people to understand this, but tbh it doesn't surprise me that much. 

About ObamaCare, actually a single payor, Canadian or British style system would be 100x better than Obamacare. Why ? 

Yes, it would cost more but it would take the complexity and uncertainty out of the system. The reason why most people hate ObamaCare (even alot of Democrats who supported it intially) is because of the complexity and uncertainty of it. Its like we have higher costs (like people expected) but no certainty that next month or next year you will actually have health care and how much it will cost. Many Insurances are pulling out of the exchange and in Arizona and some other states, monthly premiums increased by more than 100% over last year. So you are paying twice as much for the same health care vs last year, and noone knows how high this will go. It is a private health care system grafted over a pseudo public system, which noone understands quite how this works. 

Since Hillary went 'all in' on this broken system (Donald Trump called it a 'mess' which is correct), this is one of the reasons why she lost. I don't think it is the main reason, but one of the reasons. 

About the 'grab her in the pu$$y' tapes, I don't think this was as effective an 'October surprise' as most thought. First, I will tell you there is a big gap between what men and women thought of these tapes. Most guys that I know, even those who supported Hillary, didn't think this in itself was a big deal. They already figured he was 'morally challenged', and probably this was just locker room talk, and most guys (except the momineen who are the exception) talk and 'brag' like this when women aren't around and they are around their buddies that they know are 'cool' with it. Most guys thought this is probably just talk, nothing else. And the women who came out to accuse him were not that credible (one was a porn star, the others were women who talked about things that happened decades ago). I am not defending him, I am just telling you how most American men think about these things. 

Women perceived it differently. Although most of them were shocked by it and it probably hurt the reputation of Trump in their eyes, it apparently was not enough to stop them from voting for him. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 minute ago, Abu Hadi said:

Women perceived it differently. Although most of them were shocked by it and it probably hurt the reputation of Trump in their eyes, it apparently was not enough to stop them from voting for him. 

But that's the thing right. Let's say men don't care about it so much but women would most definitely be offended by something so vulgar. And, yet, according to some stats I saw, white women voted for him more than her. Which, again, raises the question in my mind that I asked: are the American people so dissatisfied that they will throw all morality out the window just to get the other guy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

For the Zionist-Imperialist agenda it's just a win-win situation.

It's time for muslims to realize that they should not let their fate depend upon external factors but become a strong front themselves.

Ready and willing to face whatever, whomever.

Edited by Faruk
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators
2 minutes ago, Khadim uz Zahra said:

the American people so dissatisfied that they will throw all morality out the window just to get the other guy?

I don't think people get overly worried about what they do or do not have. What worries people is how much they have relative to others.

One of the features of recent years across a number of developed economies is the growing difference between the haves and have nots.

The haves have had plenty long enough to address the problem, the fact that they have not means that they'll face a solution which will be more expensive than if they had been more proactive/generous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators

Some things of note:

1. Hillary was a weak campaigner and speaker with a damaged record who lacked the charisma of Bill or Obama. She had very little intrinsic appeal. 

2. She had a strong sense of entitlement this whole campaign, taking certain demographics and states for granted, did a lackluster job galvanizing them. Her only pitch was "I'm not Trump". She took a very safe, front porch approach, spoke very little, hoped Trump would self implode, then just win by default. That's not sufficient.

She didn't give enough reason for why anyone should vote for her specifically. And those demographics didn't show up for her like they did for Obama. 

3. With all of Trumps negatives, he campaigned more, energized voters more, and had expanded a base of support in many rural and working class areas. 

4. Prior polls were wrong because of poor sampling, and people not willing to admit they support Trump. 

5. Wikileaks damaged her good. 

6. Bernie could have beaten Trump, but the party was stubborn and only wanted their hack, and nobody else. Risky move in a Brexit year.

Edited by magma
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
37 minutes ago, E.L King said:

And what's so moral about voting for her? Why is voting for her more moral than voting for him?

You're missing the point. You're looking at the election as a non-American Muslim. Look at it as a non-Muslim American. Americans don't care much about foreign policy at this point. They are almost numb to the wars their leaders have started. Sure, there's always outrage over Iraq and Afghanistan but, even then, the outrage is more over how they spent trillions of dollars, not over how many people were killed or how they may have been unjustified. Sure, they'll shout about how the intelligence on Iraq was wrong but it's more "you spent trillions on nothing!" rather than "you spent trillions on killing innocents." That's why you don't see them complaining much about wars in Syria and Yemen, especially because their politicians have now become wiser and stopped sending troops on the ground, which has always been the main factor in war weariness, not the morality of it all or even the money lost but the friends and family killed. On the other hand, their current moral and ethical paradigm is built on women's rights to a great degree and acceptance of the LGBT community to different levels among different demographics with different political affiliations.

On one hand, you have a guy insulting women, something that they apparently do care about, and on the other the peddler of unjustified wars, which you don't care about. Even though Trump has won, no one will argue that he did so because, in the mind of the average American, he had was on the moral high ground. He won because he moaned and complained about what the people hated about their current state of affairs, not because they believed he was the morally upstanding choice and that is why I asked the question: are they so dissatisfied that they'll forego their own moral standards or do they simply not ascribe to those moral standards in reality?

Edited by Khadim uz Zahra
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, notme said:

A Trump presidency is a startling unknown. The fact that he won the popular vote is much more alarming. That means that 48% of the population either accepts or excuses his behaviors and attitudes. The Democratic and Republican parties should both be abolished as criminal organizations. 

I wholeheartedly agree with you, and most especially the last sentence. 

WW3 or Revolution.. either way, thanks a lot corporate-owned-duopoly...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Gary Johnson took more than 3.8m votes. Not an insignificant number. I'm just thinking if people had really wanted they could keep Trump out of power very easily. Just vote between Hilary and Johnson? Or even Stein..

One can see a double pattern in US elections system. 1) An overwhelming majority of people vote on party lines come what may. So even if the Repubs had nominated a real donkey for president, he'd have been elected. 2) American presidency rotates between two parties every 8 years and policy differences play a small role in the end.

I think this election shows that American politics is as tribalistic as any other country that often get labelled as such in the media. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
1 minute ago, Marbles said:

Gary Johnson took more than 3.8m votes. Not an insignificant number. I'm just thinking if people had really wanted they could keep Trump out of power very easily. Just vote between Hilary and Johnson? Or even Stein..

One can see a double pattern in US elections system. 1) An overwhelming majority of people vote on party lines come what may. So even if the Repubs had nominated a real donkey for president, he'd have been elected. 2) American presidency rotates between two parties every 8 years and policy differences play a small role in the end.

I think this election shows that American politics is as tribalistic as any other country that often get labelled as such in the media. 
 

That, by itself, is astonishing. Because Johnson, even in the little attention he did get in the media, proved he was a buffoon. Not knowing where Aleppo is, unable to name even one foreign leader, making faces like a two year old on a live interview (it wasn't even in a situation where you could say he was making a joke) and droning on about the sun engulfing the earth when asked about global warming? This, again, shows the insanity of the two-party system whereby if you actually want to win, you need to be one of the two major parties - or wait your turn for future years. Anyone serious about winning never runs as an independent and that's the problem. If independents actually had proper representation and we had a three-way race with someone with a little more brains than Johnson (imagine Bernie running as an independent), you could see a very, very different result as almost half the country indicated they hated both candidates. If they simply had a viable third option, they'd most definitely go there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...