Display More.To answer those questions you must hear the whole story, direct from his lips, not just parts of statements that fit the writers narrative and also complete with his inflection ...
So a little time must be invested here .....
President-elect Trump speaks to a divided country on 60 Minutes - CBS News
Personally this is the man I voted for and couldn't be happier with his answers ...
.
Thanks I'll watch it tonight when I get home.
Yes Trump has softened or changed his attitude on quite a few hot topics. Before he was elected he said he was going to adopt Obama's successful deportation policy but make the vetting more extreme(he had a briefing and became better informed). The wall turning into a double fence in areas is something he is agreeing to after talking to GOP leaders who better informed him on the situation. Leaning toward replacing parts of Obama care rather than repealing it came from learning more about the way things work in Washington. He is in a learning phase, he really had no idea how things work. I'm sure you can expect more softening, but it's not always his fault. Like I said, he's learning. I just hope he does a great job, and I wish him the best, for America's sake.
he really had no idea how things work.
.
He has been on the inside of the inside for years ...... this statement is simply incorrect ....
.
.
.
.
And here I thought you where the self proclaimed voice of the middle ground ... with a goal to bring others "to a better understanding and tolerance" ......
Simply pointing out that your language was, extreme, skewed, and incorrect which does not fit your stated intent .. as was your reply ....in the same vein as "just trying to enlighten you to the double standard both sides have".......... 
I'm done ... no desire to argue ..
.
.
So far, I too am liking what I see, although I hope he goes outside of his "trusted circle" for his cabinet positions to prevent the development of an echo chamber.
He is going to soften his position as he learns both what is physically and politically possible. Right now, he is attempting to balance his campaign promises with real world applicability, and from the answers so far, I think he is walking a pretty decent road.
My hope is that he takes a moderate "common sense" approach to policy. The fact that he doesn't want to change LGBT marriage rights will help ease some of the worries of the left, but his pro-life stance will keep the right from getting too angry.
In a good negotiation, neither side comes out happy, but a working arrangement is made. If he is capable of walking that social line, and if he can do something with the debt and economy, then he might actually pleasantly surprise everyone. In all honesty, he has two years - until midterm elections - to make his case.
In the meantime, the racist attacks and the protests need to stop - on both ends of the spectrum.
What no one seems to be noting is that Trump has repeatedly called for a Constitutionalist to fill the open Supreme Court pick. If that happens, much of what is being so hotly contested in court should, in accordance with the Constitution, be pushed back to the state level for determination and action. So if people aren't happy, then they can work with their state to make changes - the way this country is supposed to work.
And, should a liberal position on the Supreme Court open while Trump is in office, I hope he does the right thing and fills it with a liberal justice. The SC is not supposed to determine policy, but to rule on legality - a balanced court is necessary for that. Unfortunately that requires politicians who care more about the future of the country than their policies.
And, should a liberal position on the Supreme Court open while Trump is in office, I hope he does the right thing and fills it with a liberal justice. The SC is not supposed to determine policy, but to rule on legality - a balanced court is necessary for that. Unfortunately that requires politicians who care more about the future of the country than their policies.
With all due respect, I disagree with that. The Supreme Court has one job and only one job to do. That is to apply the law of the land to whatever case is in front of them. It is not their job, never was their job, and never should be their job to substitute their views into any decision. The facts are facts and for either "Party" to spin them in their favor and to have judges being swayed away from their sole job of applying the law doesn't hold out much hope for the future. (IMHO). If you don't like the laws, you vote to CHANGE the laws. Unless and until that happens, you can not choose which laws you want to enforce or not. That is the will of the founding fathers and should remain that way
With all due respect, I disagree with that. The Supreme Court has one job and only one job to do. That is to apply the law of the land to whatever case is in front of them. It is not their job, never was their job, and never should be their job to substitute their views into any decision. The facts are facts and for either "Party" to spin them in their favor and to have judges being swayed away from their sole job of applying the law doesn't hold out much hope for the future. (IMHO). If you don't like the laws, you vote to CHANGE the laws. Unless and until that happens, you can not choose which laws you want to enforce or not. That is the will of the founding fathers and should remain that way
I understand your perspective. The problem with laws, and I am sure that @Bill Martin can back me up on this, is that there are different ways to interpret those laws. How you and I view and apply the same law may be widely different, and that is good as we should have inputs from all viewpoints when dealing with laws that affect our nation. And maybe this is where I show some of my moderate or slightly left perceptions of the world (I vary between conservative and liberal depending on the topic). We NEED different views, counter views even, in order to see the many sides of a given situation. The court needs that balance.
20 trillion in debt - debt doubling under Obama, the king of the Democrats and they don't love entitlements for votes??? THAT IS FACT Don't be naive or ignorant?? Kinda harsh there bro!!
@Bill Martin, if the numbers in this article are accurate, then debt doubled under Bush (+101%), not Obama (+68%). Granted, the actual dollar value was greater under Obama. However, since Calvin Coolidge was the last standing president to actually have the debt decrease during his term, then percentages may be a better indicator of performance, but that still only tells part of the story. There is also a matter of income fluctuations (income tax, tariffs, etc.) such as those caused by the economic crisis of 2008, under Bush, that can bleed over into the next President's term. There is also the matter of perceived value; the value of what was gained from incurring the debt. Economic relief for banks, businesses, and homeowners, military spending to support our troops, affordable health care and education, industrial subsidies, and the list goes on. Simply looking at gross numbers, without a clear understanding of what those numbers really mean, makes a weak argument that only serves to rally the sympathetic and repel the staunchly opposed. Since almost every political debate is grounded in such half-baked statistics, an intelligent individual should realize the numbers offered by the experts and media are meant to influence, not inform. Unfortunately, even the intelligent can be incited by their emotional response before their rational mind can catch up. God knows I'm as guilty of that as anyone. 
To all,
In just a few days, this thread as grown to a staggering 188 pages. Obviously, folks are passionate about what is going on in the country right now. However, most of the arguments are pointless because they are fueled by fear which is being manipulated by the half-baked information being distributed by the media and the politicians themselves. They are the ones shaping public opinion, not us. We, the public, are reacting to what is being given to us and we make little or no effort to actually take the time to really investigate the truth. As long as we continue to accept what is fed to us on TV, social media (FORUMS), newspapers, web articles, or any other 3rd party analysis, then our arguments will only be the same tired, pointless, crap. Only the foolish (even smart people can be foolish) believe what is favorable to them and refuse what is unfavorable. Open your eyes, your ears, your minds, and your hearts. We are all in this together, as Americans, and while only a few may be rioting in the streets, so many more are rioting on-line from the comfort of their homes. Because the internet brings the world into our daily lives, we are are all subject to being caught up in the "mob mentality" that is running rampant in social media. Right now, this thread and thousands more like it are feeding into this and it is up to us to break the cycle. If you are full of hate over politics, you've already been sucked in. This is your rope, your wake up call, your smack back to reality. Stop spreading fear, stop being rude or crass, stop attacking each other and stop attacking each other's choices. The odds are that your choice is just as misinformed as anyone else's. The votes have been cast within a system that we all accept by virtue of our using it and the winner has been elected. The time of complaining about or defending the previous president and the losing candidate is over. It is too soon to form a real opinion of our new president- elect because even now, the claims and promises made are in a state of flux. Calm down, keep your eyes open, and let the dust settle before making any further judgements about what is yet to come.
Ok, I know. The beginning of my previous post (rant) runs contrary to the end of it. Cut me some slack. As I said, I'm just as guilty of taking the bait as anyone else. In my defense, my reactionary crap is shared in the spirit of my lengthy plea for reason, clarity, and perspective. Please forgive. 
And, should a liberal position on the Supreme Court open while Trump is in office, I hope he does the right thing and fills it with a liberal justice. The SC is not supposed to determine policy, but to rule on legality - a balanced court is necessary for that. Unfortunately that requires politicians who care more about the future of the country than their policies.
I will have to agree. Unfortunately politics has made its way into courts (both sides). It's now a requirement that it be balanced to some degree.
Maybe I was (and am,) being overly naive. I can honestly say that I never believed more than a sliver of the rhetoric in this campaign- from both sides. I never, for 1 minute, thought that President Elect Trump would: deport all illegal immigrants, ban all Muslims, rip up every single President Obama Executive Order, etc., et ala. I never approved or condoned any such actions. I felt very strongly that it was just that- campaign rhetoric from a born showman. In feeling this way, I was able to vote for the man with a clear conscience. Just as he was able to see the real level of discontent within the American public, he clearly understands what he can and cannot do without Congressional support. He will surround himself with people who tell him what he needs to hear- not what he wants to hear. Even under all that coiffured hair- there are no horns. He is not related to Satan. Neither is the Democratic nominee, although the pay for play, and a few others, is inexcusable in my book. IMHO- just much more corrupt than many of the political "lifers"- both parties included. I believe that he will support a lot of the Republican Agenda, without making it a mandate. I want our Military rebuilt, I want to see Law & Order throughout the land- but not in a dictatorial way, or becoming a "Police State". I damn sure want to see the economy grow. I would love to see American Pride come back to our nation. So far, I am very encouraged and pleased by what I hear him saying......
I also think that it was terribly wrong for colin kaepernick not to vote. (my 2 cents)
OK, So we all need to know the answer to this MEDICAL question.
As I fear this is a serious concern as the fear and worry of the left wing protesters gets more and more media coverage.
And just for "some" peoples knowledge.
I may come across as a hard, right wing crazy person BUT, I did vote for Trump, a republican....But I voted AGAINST Marco Rubio, a republican, so that means I voted for a DEMOCRAT.
I also voted for a DEMOCRAT for a local election too, but sadly, the Democrats I voted for lost in the end. Karma for me??????
I did this because I have an Independent MIND, look at what they SAY AND DO, and decide which one I think would be best for the JOB they are RUNNING for, not which PARTY they choose to run under.
HILLARY CLINTON was never even an option for me, based solely on what she SAID and DID, what she SAID and DID NOT DO and what she said she DID NOT DO but DID DO!
Trump said what he INTENDS to do, and that is why I voted for him, I will have to wait to see if he actually DOES what he SAID he will do.
But so far, and he is only President-Elect Trump, He is making America GREAT again.
And the "Protestors", "SJW's", and trophy participation recipients need to cut it out, because Trump is NOT
@Gadgeteer I have a little chart here for you to examine. Numbers and percentages can be played with and spun to prove any point you would like to make. You can fact check thisde
There is no spin there!
That would depend on how you define "spin", @Bill Martin. My point was that people are basing their "informed decisions" on incomplete information, such as the chart you provided, which is not really a chart, but just a graphic. Not only does you graphic tell an incomplete story, it is also inaccurate. Keep reading.
As you suggested, I did do the fact checking because, as I am about to prove, you did not. Of course why would you? After all, you EARNED the RIGHT to argue from the heart, not the mind, right? So, Counselor, I pulled numbers from the U.S. Treasury Dept. showing the outstanding National Debt, by close of fiscal year, and here is what I found. The errors in your graphic are the $6.3T and $6.5T. Since you provided no source for your numbers, let us use the numbers provided by the Treasury Dept., which are $10.02T and about $6.1T. That's right, as of FY2008, and not quite the end of Bush's term, the National Debt was at $10T, not $6.3T. Now, let's look at the rest of the story. While it is true that the national debt increased about $6.1T under Obama's first term, what your graphic does not show is that under Bush, the National Debt increased about $4.35T, from $5.67T. While you can argue that the increased debt was numerically larger under Obama than it was under Bush, your claim that the increase is greater than the debt accrued before Obama took office is false. Further, the attempt to hide Bush's impact on our current level of debt, by lumping it together with all the previous presidents before him, has been revealed and provides a clearer picture of the truth. Therefore, you have successfully proven my point, which is that even highly intelligent people can look like fools when they use someone else's half-baked analysis. Thank you, Counselor. 
If it makes you feel any better, I too have proven the point by making a fool of myself plenty of times.
-
