USA TODAY's Editorial Board: Trump is 'unfit for the presidency'

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Wow! I don't think I have ever read anything that would be a better example of a man with head up ass.

Unsurprising. Similarly, I can think of no better example of a man with head up ass than someone able to overlook all of Trump's lies, crimes, lack of experience, grade-school behavior, etc.

barfo
 
Even though republicans have picked many justices, enough of those have been liberal that you cannot guarantee Trump's picks will do what he wants I seriously doubt they will.

I actually agree with you on that. However, setting ideology aside, Trump is more likely to pick a bad justice. He has a lousy track record hiring people.

barfo
 
I actually agree with you on that. However, setting ideology aside, Trump is more likely to pick a bad justice. He has a lousy track record hiring people.

barfo

I think you're making shit up as you go along.

And I don't know where to being with this load of horseshit, there's not much right about it.
 
I think you're making shit up as you go along.

And I don't know where to being with this load of horseshit, there's not much right about it.

Well, I only said two things, and one of them was that I agreed with you.

You think Trump has made good hires? Which ones? Obviously you think Kellyanne is a great hire, since you repeat everything she says. But who else?

barfo
 
Well, I only said two things, and one of them was that I agreed with you.

You think Trump has made good hires? Which ones? Obviously you think Kellyanne is a great hire, since you repeat everything she says. But who else?

barfo

My only view of this next target of your misogyny is that Trump's fortune did take a turn for the better when he hired her.

Whoever he's hired, he's made $3.7B (lowest estimate) in wealth. How does that compare with your success? LOL

You said 3 things. They should have taught you to count before 5th grade.
 
My only view of this next target of your misogyny is that Trump's fortune did take a turn for the better when he hired her.

And what about her two predecessors? Do you think they were good hires also?

Whoever he's hired, he's made $3.7B (lowest estimate) in wealth. How does that compare with your success? LOL

Not sure, next time my dad leaves me a fortune we'll see how I do with it. There are suggestions that he'd have done just as well if he'd just bought an index fund and left it alone all these years.

In any case, his hiring for the campaign is pretty atrocious. And he can't appoint himself or his kids to the supreme court (although maybe he'd try).

You said 3 things. They should have taught you to count before 5th grade.

Or maybe you aren't making the connection that the second thing and the third thing are the same thing.

barfo
 
And what about her two predecessors? Do you think they were good hires also?



Not sure, next time my dad leaves me a fortune we'll see how I do with it. There are suggestions that he'd have done just as well if he'd just bought an index fund and left it alone all these years.

In any case, his hiring for the campaign is pretty atrocious. And he can't appoint himself or his kids to the supreme court (although maybe he'd try).



Or maybe you aren't making the connection that the second thing and the third thing are the same thing.

barfo

He won the primaries, and was ahead after the republican convention. So yes, he hired the right people. And he fired them and hired the next right people. You're not making any sort of convincing argument.

Trump's dad left him $14M? He didn't get the rest of his $3.7B as gifts from family. $3.7B return on $14M investment is fantastic no matter how you spin it.
 
He won the primaries, and was ahead after the republican convention. So yes, he hired the right people. And he fired them and hired the next right people. You're not making any sort of convincing argument.

Trump's dad left him $14M? He didn't get the rest of his $3.7B as gifts from family. $3.7B return on $14M investment is fantastic no matter how you spin it.

No, his dad left him more than that (the exact number is unknown to the public, but it is said that he was worth ~$200M, not all of which Donald got). The $14M was apparently how much he borrowed from dear old dad.

His dad also guaranteed the bank loans on his early projects. And made him an illegal loan in the casino years, too.

barfo
 
He won the primaries, and was ahead after the republican convention. So yes, he hired the right people. And he fired them and hired the next right people. You're not making any sort of convincing argument.

Neither are you. So when he loses next month, will that then prove that all his hiring was bad, since according to you winning the primaries proves the hiring was good?

barfo
 
No, his dad left him more than that (the exact number is unknown to the public, but it is said that he was worth ~$200M, not all of which Donald got). The $14M was apparently how much he borrowed from dear old dad.

His dad also guaranteed the bank loans on his early projects. And made him an illegal loan in the casino years, too.

barfo

He turned all that into $3.7B. Nice return on the investment, period.
 
Neither are you. So when he loses next month, will that then prove that all his hiring was bad, since according to you winning the primaries proves the hiring was good?

barfo

If he loses, it will prove there is nobody he could have hired to make him win.

The media is already playing up the hacker connection, should Hiliar lose. What do they know to spin that you don't?
 
If he loses, it will prove there is nobody he could have hired to make him win.

Interesting, if baseless, theory.

The media is already playing up the hacker connection, should Hiliar lose. What do they know to spin that you don't?

Beats me.

barfo
 
No, seriously he's not "fit" to be president

images (24).jpg
 
We're so stupped. At this point, although I'm voting for Johnson, I'm leaning Hillary because she'll accelerate the decline. We'll go from $20,000B to $30,000B in the blink of an eye. And then overnight we lose our ability to borrow because we've been replaced as the world's benchmark currency.

Only from the ashes can we rebuild. Glad I already made my money. People who haven't garnered assets are in for a world of hurt.
 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/04/the_horsewhipping_of_donald_trump_131964.html

The Horsewhipping of Donald Trump

To call the massive media obsessed -- eyes roaming crazily in all directions, mouths afoam with horror -- would be an understatement. They fear that the sovereign voters, in their obvious dimwittedness, could put Donald Trump in the White House.

And so the words of abuse tumble forth. The New York Times is unable to take its corporate finger off the fire-alarm button. On Sunday, my favorite left-wing newspaper of record -- to which I have, unaccountably perhaps, subscribed for three decades -- cried aloud that Trump "could have" (legally, yes, but never mind that) avoided paying income tax for 18 years. Not that he "did," just that he "could have," in light of losses from what the Times helpfully characterized as "the financial wreckage he left behind in the 1990s through mismanagement" of various enterprises. Ah, the objectivity, the impartiality, the civic spirit of our journalistic eyes and ears -- the media!

The great American commentariat, online and off, appears to have made up its own mind concerning the choice in November -- and to have dedicated itself to making up everyone else's as well. This, through subjecting the Republican presidential candidate to the journalistic equivalent of a horsewhipping, followed by a trip to the city limits astride a rail.

One of the Times' blacksnake masters, columnist Charles Blow, obliged the curious as the current week began with the remarkable psychiatric diagnosis that Trump is a "puerile, sophomoric sniveler" and a "terroristic man-toddler." Also "a bit of a bigot," "a bully" and "fickle and spoiled and rotten." By the time the media has worked its will in this enlightened manner, Melania Trump will have filed for divorce and a public apology.

One thing you have to say for the "progressive" media's anti-Trump campaign: It takes the readers' and the viewers' minds off Hillary Clinton. That is important, as a deep examination of the lady's credentials could get voters worrying over how much liberty is likely to be left at the end of a Clinton term.

The respectable reasons for a Trump vote, obscured by the cracking of the horsewhip intended for Trump's hindquarters, center less on his opponent's strengths than on her weaknesses. Curiously, for a woman who has spent her life prepping to be the Great Something or Other, Clinton comes across as frail: lacking ideas and convictions of any importance to a country undergoing changes likely to alter its basic character. Her pitiable attempts to humanize herself as a grandmother and good neighbor show that her main interest in life is your vote. Gaining it, she'll figure out what next to do.
 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/04/the_horsewhipping_of_donald_trump_131964.html

The Horsewhipping of Donald Trump

To call the massive media obsessed -- eyes roaming crazily in all directions, mouths afoam with horror -- would be an understatement. They fear that the sovereign voters, in their obvious dimwittedness, could put Donald Trump in the White House.

And so the words of abuse tumble forth. The New York Times is unable to take its corporate finger off the fire-alarm button. On Sunday, my favorite left-wing newspaper of record -- to which I have, unaccountably perhaps, subscribed for three decades -- cried aloud that Trump "could have" (legally, yes, but never mind that) avoided paying income tax for 18 years. Not that he "did," just that he "could have," in light of losses from what the Times helpfully characterized as "the financial wreckage he left behind in the 1990s through mismanagement" of various enterprises. Ah, the objectivity, the impartiality, the civic spirit of our journalistic eyes and ears -- the media!

The great American commentariat, online and off, appears to have made up its own mind concerning the choice in November -- and to have dedicated itself to making up everyone else's as well. This, through subjecting the Republican presidential candidate to the journalistic equivalent of a horsewhipping, followed by a trip to the city limits astride a rail.

One of the Times' blacksnake masters, columnist Charles Blow, obliged the curious as the current week began with the remarkable psychiatric diagnosis that Trump is a "puerile, sophomoric sniveler" and a "terroristic man-toddler." Also "a bit of a bigot," "a bully" and "fickle and spoiled and rotten." By the time the media has worked its will in this enlightened manner, Melania Trump will have filed for divorce and a public apology.

One thing you have to say for the "progressive" media's anti-Trump campaign: It takes the readers' and the viewers' minds off Hillary Clinton. That is important, as a deep examination of the lady's credentials could get voters worrying over how much liberty is likely to be left at the end of a Clinton term.

The respectable reasons for a Trump vote, obscured by the cracking of the horsewhip intended for Trump's hindquarters, center less on his opponent's strengths than on her weaknesses. Curiously, for a woman who has spent her life prepping to be the Great Something or Other, Clinton comes across as frail: lacking ideas and convictions of any importance to a country undergoing changes likely to alter its basic character. Her pitiable attempts to humanize herself as a grandmother and good neighbor show that her main interest in life is your vote. Gaining it, she'll figure out what next to do.

The stupidity of this rant can be summarized by pointing out that Charles Blow is an opinion writer, not a reporter. So he's just as entitled to write his personal opinion as whoever this guy is, and neither one is indicative of 'media bias'.

Plus, Charles Blow got it right :)

barfo
 
The stupidity of this rant can be summarized by pointing out that Charles Blow is an opinion writer, not a reporter. So he's just as entitled to write his personal opinion as whoever this guy is, and neither one is indicative of 'media bias'.

Plus, Charles Blow got it right :)

barfo

The writer called Blow a "columnist." He got it right, you didn't.

Blow Hard, too.

The Times' choice of writers does color the commentary of the paper as a whole.
 
Ct80J6hVUAAsMPk.jpg
 
The Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. We're doing it now.

In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.

This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.

From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.

Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.

We’ve been highly critical of the GOP nominee in a number of previous editorials. With early voting already underway in several states and polls showing a close race, now is the time to spell out, in one place, the reasons Trump should not be president:

He is erratic. Trump has been on so many sides of so many issues that attempting to assess his policy positions is like shooting at a moving target. A list prepared by NBC details 124 shifts by Trump on 20 major issues since shortly before he entered the race. He simply spouts slogans and outcomes (he’d replace Obamacare with “something terrific”) without any credible explanations of how he’d achieve them.

He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief. Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements typically range from uninformed to incoherent. It’s not just Democrats who say this. Scores of Republican national security leaders have signed an extraordinary open letter calling Trump’s foreign policy vision “wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle.” In a Wall Street Journal column this month, Robert Gates, the highly respected former Defense secretary who served presidents of both parties over a half-century, described Trump as “beyond repair.”

He traffics in prejudice. From the very beginning, Trump has built his campaign on appeals to bigotry and xenophobia, whipping up resentment against Mexicans, Muslims and migrants. His proposals for mass deportations and religious tests are unworkable and contrary to America’s ideals.

Trump has stirred racist sentiments in ways that can’t be erased by his belated and clumsy outreach to African Americans. His attacks on an Indiana-born federal judge of Mexican heritage fit “the textbook definition of a racist comment,” according to House Speaker Paul Ryan, the highest-ranking elected official in the Republican Party. And for five years, Trump fanned the absurd “birther” movement that falsely questioned the legitimacy of the nation’s first black president.

His business career is checkered. Trump has built his candidacy on his achievements as a real estate developer and entrepreneur. It’s a shaky scaffold, starting with a 1973 Justice Department suit against Trump and his father for systematically discriminating against blacks in housing rentals. (The Trumps fought the suit but later settled on terms that were viewed as a government victory.) Trump’s companies have had some spectacular financial successes, but this track record is marred by six bankruptcy filings, apparent misuse of the family’s charitable foundation, and allegations by Trump University customers of fraud. A series of investigative articles published by the USA TODAY Network found that Trump has been involved in thousands of lawsuits over the past three decades, including at least 60 that involved small businesses and contract employees who said they were stiffed. So much for being a champion of the little guy.

He isn’t leveling with the American people. Is Trump as rich as he says? No one knows, in part because, alone among major party presidential candidates for the past four decades, he refuses to release his tax returns. Nor do we know whether he has paid his fair share of taxes, or the extent of his foreign financial entanglements.

He speaks recklessly. In the days after the Republican convention, Trump invited Russian hackers to interfere with an American election by releasing Hillary Clinton’s emails, and he raised the prospect of “Second Amendment people” preventing the Democratic nominee from appointing liberal justices. It’s hard to imagine two more irresponsible statements from one presidential candidate.

He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics.

He’s a serial liar. Although polls show that Clinton is considered less honest and trustworthy than Trump, it’s not even a close contest. Trump is in a league of his own when it comes to the quality and quantity of his misstatements. When confronted with a falsehood, such as his assertion that he was always against the Iraq War, Trump’s reaction is to use the Big Lie technique of repeating it so often that people begin to believe it.

We are not unmindful of the issues that Trump’s campaign has exploited: the disappearance of working-class jobs; excessive political correctness; the direction of the Supreme Court; urban unrest and street violence; the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group; gridlock in Washington and the influence of moneyed interests. All are legitimate sources of concern.

Nor does this editorial represent unqualified support for Hillary Clinton, who has her own flaws (though hers are far less likely to threaten national security or lead to a constitutional crisis). The Editorial Board does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement.

Some of us look at her command of the issues, resilience and long record of public service — as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of State — and believe she’d serve the nation ably as its president.

Other board members have serious reservations about Clinton’s sense of entitlement, her lack of candor and her extreme carelessness in handling classified information.

Where does that leave us? Our bottom-line advice for voters is this: Stay true to your convictions. That might mean a vote for Clinton, the most plausible alternative to keep Trump out of the White House. Or it might mean a third-party candidate. Or a write-in. Or a focus on down-ballot candidates who will serve the nation honestly, try to heal its divisions, and work to solve its problems.

Whatever you do, however, resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue. By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...-editorial-board-editorials-debates/91295020/
Trump does not belong in control because he is out of control. What a nut!
 
This group is committed to looking stupid. Those people is the second row look like Wal Mart junkies

Fortunately you can find those types of people on both sides of the party lines. Pictures like this just show Sly is a little one sided, but we knew that.
 
Fortunately you can find those types of people on both sides of the party lines. Pictures like this just show Sly is a little one sided, but we knew that.

I post insults about both Hillary and Clinton.

The reason I posted that picture was because of Elvis. I like Elvis. Elvis endorsing Trump is YUUUGE!
 
I post insults about both Hillary and Clinton.

The reason I posted that picture was because of Elvis. I like Elvis. Elvis endorsing Trump is YUUUGE!

OK fair enough. I do agree Elvis is indeed yuuuge!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top