That is worrying.
He maybe more suited to POTUS than i thought.
Remember Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria? Oh, lets not forget the UK in Libya.
Have any of them any respect? And they're responsible for the deaths of many thousands of innocent people.
It's one thing to want change, it's another thing altogether to elect someone who can easily create major conflicts in the world. It may be hard to
believe, but I agree with the feelings of most Trump supporters. However, Trump in my opinion is not the non-establishment candidate that truly can
relate to the average struggling American. Do you really think these personal traits will bring the world together and strengthen America?
-Can't control his Temperament
-Degrading of Women
-No detailed plans on how to remedy Issues
-Part of the same 1% corporate elite we've all complained about
-He got where he is today with the help of his father
-He's had questionable business practices
-Donated money in the past to gain favors from politicians
-Denies saying things than flip-flops on issues
If the majority of us met anyone with those traits, we would walk away calling him an @sshole under our breaths. This is the type of
non-establishment candidate we think will improve America, avoid conflicts, and improve world relations? I don't think so. Be careful what you wish
I still think the perfect non-establishment candidate would be Dylan Ratigan. He's smart, mad as hell and has clear plans on how to resolve issues.
He's not a one liner blow hard that thinks just because he's worth billions, he doesn't have to account for anything he says.
As i have said. I might not like the guy or agree with what he says.
And. I had not heard of Ratigan.
And like my reply before. Maybe he is POTUS material with all his faults.
And, I do understand he's rich as hell too. But he has created jobs in his businesses.
I would personally like to see wealth caps and earnings caps and share the wealth back to the people.
But. The other candidates are certainly not going to change anything for the better.
I'll look more into Ratigan.
As flawed as he is which is flawed he's still miles better than Hilary. She is a total piece of garbage who has had a laundry list of scandals and
accepts money from foreign heads of state. That's a lot worse than being an arrogant loudmouth.
Freedom of speech protects you from the state, not from someone calling you an asshole.
It is funny that people think he stands for free speech when he had said if he becomes POTUS he is going to expand the libel and slander laws to go
after the people that have talked negatively about him... www.politico.com...
So he wants to use his power as the head of state to go after press he doesn't like.
So you would prefer msm to lie and make up bs.
I would rather they told the truth.
Independent and investigative journalism would be a welcome change to msm.
If msm refuse to report properly. Then yes. Sue them. It's about time they changed too.
I am against using the state to levy said 'truth'. What Donald calls lies are just pieces that have negative things to say about him. Just because you
don't agree with what is being said doesn't mean it is a lie.
Thanks for your input.
I still have to disagree with you. It was a premeditated act to disrupt the rally.
Of course they also have their right to free speech. But not to hijack, disrupt and try stop the rally.
They can also use their freedom of speech by not supporting/voting for him.
They can come on here and vent their anger.
But, to plan and organize to disrupt something and then say that's free speech isn't quite the same thing to me.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.