originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: randyvs
Trump did announce yesterday I believe, he would accept NO PAY as president. Eh, who knows. I have a very bad feeling any president we do elect that
doesn't fall in line with the globalist banks will find the same demise as JFK.
I agree, but most likely they will simply "Ross Perot" him and he will eventually "willingly withdraw" from the race.
Do people really believe, that if someone like Donald Trump wins the election, that he will be able to do what he wants, as apposed to, what the
"Military Industrial Complex" wants him to do?
Anyone who becomes President of the United States has to "cow tow" to the "Military Industrial Complex", even Donald Trump is not immune to a
guaranteed "CIA visit" once in office.
Be assured they will pay him a visit, if he ever wins, and like Perot, Ventura, Schwarzenegger and Obama, he too will "toe the line" and "play ball",
once they tell him what the real rules are. For example, why in the world did Arnold Schwarzenegger need to do ANYTHING along party lines? His fame
and popularity COMPLETELY transcended political parties, yet somehow he was still "answering" to politicians who "in theory" should have had no affect
on his personal life, political career or fortune, which existed prior to being elected and also COMPLETELY outside of the confines or influence of
the "Military Industrial Complex".
Also consider this angle, there was a huge assets difference between Mitt Romney who has a $250 million net worth and Ross Perot with a $5 billion net
worth (Donald Trump has a net worth of $4 Billion). Yet, someone like Romney was a shoe in for party nominations, but not Perot (this time around it
will be Jeb Bush that gets the party nomination). Its NOT the money that matters, people like Mitt and Jeb are government insiders and both come from
family that always has been, that was not the case at all with Perot and the same goes for Trump.
Ross Perot dropping out of the 1992 election was not happenstance either, nor simply about his daughters wedding:
Mr. Perot offered no evidence,
only quoting friends and an unidentified "top Republican." "I can't prove any of it today," he said on tonight's CBS News program "60 Minutes." "But
it was a risk I did not have to take," he added, "and a risk I would not take where my daughter is concerned." Mr. Perot accused the unidentified
C.I.A. employee of being hired to tap into his computerized stock trading program to prevent him from having the money to revive his
I think Ross Perot would have done a much better job than ANY of the good ol' boys we've gotten as Presidents since then. Again, Perot dropping out
of the 1992 election was not happenstance, nor was it simply about his daughters wedding. Donald Trump will be no different, if he decides to run for
President and if he somehow wins, best case scenario, it will be Arnold Schwarzenegger all over again.
originally posted by: buster2010
Seeing how Donnie is a draft dodger at least he fits the coward part.
I'm getting tired of hearing this over and over.
Trump attended and graduated from a Military Academy, ROTC program, circa 1964. Reserve officer programs for both high schools and colleges, back
then, were NOTHING like they are today. In fact, many colleges required males to attend ROTC on campus, while earning their degree and when they
graduated they were placed on the "Ready Reserves" list.
Trump went to a full blown Military Academy, not just a high school with a JROTC program. Under the old Reserve system cadets had to do daily drill,
keep up military decorum, PT, military science courses and rifle proficiency (specifically M1 Garand's). In 1964, NYMA met the minimum, Military
Science, education requirements, for graduates to be a real Reserve Officers. During the Korean and Vietnam eras he would have certainly been
commissioned as a reserve second lieutenant, right after graduating from that military academy. Its my understanding that ROTC graduates back then did
not need to attend basic branch training, nor an OCS equivalent and instead went through a shortened orientation course (the branch assigned being
subject to Needs of the Army of course).
So, Donald Trump does have the equivalent training of an ROTC/OCS graduate from 1964 and on top of that has 4+ years of military academy education
(via overnight, year round, boarding school). That is MUCH more military training than the today's "90 day wonder/blunder", where a contemporary
"Civilian to OCS" candidate has NOT always attend college ROTC. These contemporary candidates only graduated with a 4-year degree and then signed up
for a Civilian to OCS contract. At a school like NYMA, Donald Trump would certainly have gotten the same basic training as an OCS candidate/graduate
of the Korean and Vietnam eras.
Also this was strange period, where the rules on military officer commissioning appear to have been really loose, before, the passing of the "Reserve
Officer Training Corps Vitalization Act of 1964". If you read the various iterations of the "National Defense Act" and the accompanying "Officers
Reserve Corps" rules for commissioning, prior to the 1964 act, you will see that the only requirement was that the officer candidate attend, graduate
and take a course at an institution with an appointed military officer, teaching classes in Military Science.
George W. Bush did NOT go to OCS, nor to ROTC, he got a direct commission because daddy asked for it. As far as I am concerned, if Bush can claim his
SHORT time in the Air National Guard, as "military service", after not having attended any Officer School or training, than Donald Trump is NOT
considered a draft dodger. The last president, that had actual time served in the military, left office in 1993. So keeping that in mind, Trump has
more Military experience, before taking office, due to having attend a Military Academy, than any president in the last 22 years. Believe it or not,
Trump DID HAVE MORE MILITARY TRAINING than a majority of the men entering the CONSCRIPTION based RESERVE army that existed in 1964. That brief
student, military academy, experience is MUCH better than the "nothing" we've gotten from Clinton, Bush and Obama.
originally posted by: fleabit
And he makes plenty of wrong decisions in business. Failed airlines, failed casinos, etc. He also tends to shoot, ready, aim... which isn't a great
trait for someone with nuclear weapons and a powerful military at his fingertips. So aside from his racist tendencies, and his womanizing comments..
no, I'd not like him in office. He'd also be a foreign policy buffoon.
Voting for a "rebel" sounds more exciting then the result would yield, I think.
Bush used the MONEY LOSING oil exploration company, Arbusto, as a tax shelter. After Arbusto was bought out, Bush then went about violating Federal
Securities Laws making money selling his shares. Bush like Trump, used family money to start his company, but as we know, Trump has been FAR more
successful in non-politically affiliated business ventures.