Why Trump is Dangerous

[KathyInAR]

One one more reasons why Trump is dangerous...he doesn't think before he speaks, he thinks only his opinion and words are "correct" or even important...even if he is wrong or has no idea about the accuracy of his speech.



I am sure it is not lost on anyone reading this that no terrorist group has claimed responsibility...usually they are very quick to brag about their despicable deeds...

It is dangerous for a candidate for the presidency and/or the President to make these kind of allegations without knowing what happened (remember the initial claims of "the video" and how wrong they were, even though it seemed very plausible at the time because of all the protests and riot going on because of "that video" at the time)? Of course because of the times we live in, terrorism was probably the first thought in most people's minds (it was in mine); however, someone in Trump's position has absolutely no business going on TV almost immediately and announcing it was terrorism without a shred of evidence. He has no self-restraint in that regard and while he has a 50-50 chance of being correct, a smart person does not play those odds in such a situation. A prime example why he is dangerous!

Gawd, I've never been so angered by anyone (well, except maybe for George Wallace way back when) running for office.

http://www.businessinsider.com/egypt...e-crash-2016-6

REPORT: EgyptAir plane made 3 emergency landings in the 24 hours before it crashed

• Barbara Tasch

The EgyptAir plane that mysteriously disappeared in the Mediterranean on May 19 with 66 people on board made three emergency landings in the 24 hours before the crash, the French broadcaster France 3 reports. The report has yet to be confirmed by government or airspace authorities.


The plane used for the EgyptAir Flight 804 connecting Paris to Cairo reportedly had to turn around three times and perform emergency landings on each occasion while travelling among Eritrea, Egypt, Tunisia, and Paris.


Emergency signals indicated a problem on board shortly after takeoff each time, prompting the plane to turn around, France 3 reports.


A technical verification on the ground took place after each landing, but no problems were found and the plane continually took off again and continued on its route, according to the information obtained by France 3. The French newspaper Le Parisien also reported this information.


EgyptAir's chairman on Thursday denied that those warnings took place. "For me it is not true," Safwat Musallam said, according to Reuters. He added that the plane had not experienced any maintenance issues before departure and that the plane was "normal." "We fully trust the aircraft and the pilot," he said.


This data was reported by the Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System, an encrypted system that records coded messages sent between the planes and the ground during flights. This system reportedly detected several technical incidents during the plane's last six rotations. The cause of those incidents is not yet known.


The message system is the same one that recorded a slew of messages signaling smoke coming from the lavatories the avionics bay and problems with the copilot's windows, just before the plane disappeared off the radars and crashed.


This information could help experts who are still trying to figure out why the flight crashed, killing everyone on board. No explanation has been ruled out yet, but this could point toward a technical failure rather than a bomb explosion.


"These new findings are an important element for the investigators," the former head of the Investigation and Analysis Bureau for the Security of Civil Aviation, Jean-Paul Troadec, told France 3. "We cannot presume to know exactly what happened on board but it's not entirely normal to turn around several times after a technical incident without finding anything. The thesis of the technical accident is compatible with all data. But the thesis of the attack is still possible."

...

[slick]

But with this loss of life, and aircraft, this kook claims to 100% sure hes correct, and everyone else would be wrong. could it be this nuts never wrong?

[KathyInAR]

But with this loss of life, and aircraft, this kook claims to 100% sure hes correct, and everyone else would be wrong. could it be this nuts never wrong?

Nope, this nut is often wrong...

[KathyInAR]

Only 9% of the things Trump says is true or mostly true, so say the Fact Checkers...

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/...ump-false.html

[KathyInAR]

United States Intelligence officials don't trust him and believe he is dangerous... of course, Hillary has much the same problem; however, IMO, she is less likely to go off as a loose cannon as does Trump, almost daily. Maybe, in the interest of National Security, this briefing should be scratched during the round.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN0YO24T

Politics| Thu Jun 2, 2016 12:23pm EDTRelated: ELECTION 2016, POLITICS
Some officials worry about briefing Trump, fearing spilled secrets

WASHINGTON | BY MARK HOSENBALL

Some U.S. intelligence officials are concerned that Donald Trump's "shoot from the hip" style could pose national security risks as they prepare to give him a routine pre-election briefing once he is formally anointed as the Republican presidential nominee.

Eight senior security officials told Reuters they had concerns over briefing Trump, whose brash, unpredictable campaign style has been a feature of his rise as an insurgent candidate. Despite their worries, the officials said the "Top Secret" briefing to each candidate would not deviate from the usual format to avoid any appearance of bias.

...

Current and former officials said that the scandal over Hillary Clinton's use of emails also raises concerns about her handling of sensitive information. The likely Democratic nominee is facing an FBI probe into whether security was compromised and laws were broken by her use of a private email server for government business while she was Secretary of State.

"The only candidate who has proven incapable of handling sensitive information is Hillary Clinton," said Michael Short, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "If there is anyone they should be worried about it is Hillary Clinton."

But Trump's lack of foreign policy experience, his volatile style, and his little known team of foreign policy advisers make him a unique case, the officials said.
"People are very nervous," said one senior U.S. security official.

...

Other officials downplayed such worries, noting that the traditional briefing, while classified as Top Secret, is mostly a broad overview of national security issues and does not include the most sensitive government secrets about intelligence sources and operations.

...


Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told Reuters that he shared some of the concerns over how Trump, who has never held public office, might use information from the briefing.

"I would be very concerned with Mr. Trump's ability to know what he can and can't discuss" publicly about the contents of an intelligence briefing, said Schiff, who has endorsed Clinton for president.

Schiff said one consequence of intelligence agencies' worries about Trump's reputation as a loose cannon could be that briefers circumscribe some of the information they provide to Trump and Hillary Clinton, his prospective Democratic opponent.

Trump has tended to make broad-brush statements on foreign issues rather than delve into policy nuances. He drew criticism from some former national security officials last month when, without evidence, he quickly tweeted that the downing of an EgyptAir flight appeared to be a terrorist attack.

...

The briefings provide an "overview of pressing issues and hot spots around the world," said former CIA officer David Priess, who briefed attorneys general and FBI directors, but not presidents.

One U.S. intelligence official said that Trump's style may not be such a risk because the briefings are general in nature and often track publicly available information.
"If he reads the papers every day, he won't hear much that will surprise him," the official said.

Current and former officials said that covert operations and the intelligence agencies' "sources and methods," which are among the nation's most tightly guarded secrets, are never discussed in the pre-election briefings.

[KathyInAR]

https://www.theguardian.com/business...rump-economics

Please note that I have "played" a bit with the colors and fonts in the below piece to make it easier to read...I've put the questions asked of Mr. Stein in red and bolded certain pertinent comments. Also, I made one editorial comment of my own and it is in blue.​

Ben Stein: 'I don't think Trump knows a goddamn thing about economics'

The Republican economist talks about the 2016 election and why he’ll still vote for Donald Trump despite this ‘preposterous’ ideas about the economy

Ben Stein, writer, economist, actor and Republican, has seen a lot of elections but none like this. “It has been an extremely strange year,” says the 71-year-old who got his start as a speechwriter for Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

Stein has never voted for a Democrat, but he is appalled by Trump’s anti-free trade rhetoric that he says could lead to a trade war. Hillary Clinton probably has a better grasp of things, Stein thinks. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is “willfully ignorant”.

“I have seen a lot of elections and I have never seen anything like this. It seems to me it is a testament to the complete collapse of education that people can have such preposterous policies as an end to free trade and think that’s going to help America. It’s just startling that: a) the candidates know so little and; b) that the voters have not been better informed about this. The American education system is in a state of freefall collapse so that certainly explains a lot,” he says.

What do you think the economy would look like two years into the presidency of all three remaining presidential candidates?
All the candidates are against free trade – that’s a disastrous mistake. Free trade is one of the main sources of economic growth. Any interference with free trade in the long run produces negative results for the country that imposes the restrictions. One of the great breakthroughs in all of human history has been free trade.

When I hear Mr Trump or Mrs Clinton or Mr Sanders talk about how they are going to stop free trade and in some way block America from being part of the world trading system, it makes my blood run cold. That’s a terrible, terrible prospect.

Second, it is very clear, extremely clear, that additional regulation on the economy at this point would be a burden on growth and whichever candidate imposes the most regulation is going to get the least growth. I give credit to Mr Trump, who says he is going to reduce regulation. If Mr Sanders were president, it would be an absolute, total catastrophe. He would regulate the American economy to death. Mrs Clinton, I think, would do a fine job. I don’t worry about her in terms of regulation at all. Except that her taxes on the fossil fuel industry are unwarranted and unwise.

In terms of tax policy, all of them say they are going to cut taxes on the poor, but that’s a fake because the American poor already pay no taxes. Approximately 50% of American wage earners don’t pay any tax already, so that’s a fake.

In terms of raising tax on the rich, frankly, I think that’s a good idea. The rich in this country are really, really rich. And they can pay more tax. Whether that’s going to be enough to substantially affect the deficit is very, very questionable. I applaud Mr Sanders for wanting to seriously raise rates on the rich. That is something that should happen. If he did it, there would be a lot of yelling and screaming but I don’t think the deficit would be affected very much.

Mrs Clinton, I think, has a more balanced approach. I think probably a good approach. Mr Trump says he can both reduce taxes and reduce the deficit. That’s complete nonsense.

What do you think of Trump as a businessman?
He is not a great businessman. He inherited a great deal of money. He did some successful real estate deals. Hardly anyone could miss doing successful real estate deals in New York considering the incredible boom that has taken place and the very low base point when he started out. He is not a great businessman at all – in no way.

Let me back up and say, everyone I know says he is an incredibly nice guy. That’s got to count for something. I don’t think he is a great businessman and even if he were a great businessman, that doesn’t mean he would be a great steward of theUS economy. The two have nothing to do with each other.

Imagine Trump is elected president and he starts enforcing some of the policies he has mentioned. Would the economy improve, stay the same or get worse?
It would get much worse. In terms, it would be a disaster. Trade is very important. The US economy is roughly 15% trade dependent – very roughly 15%.

The question of the day: would his gains in fossil fuel deregulation offset the losses in trade? I doubt it.

It’s very, very important that he get educated about the benefits of free trade.

Unhappy with the Obama economy, voters are buying what Trump's selling




Read more

What does his popularity with working-class Americans mean? What do the regular folks feel about the economy?
I don’t think the regular folks – of course, I don’t know that many regular folks – but I don’t think the regular folks know much about the economy or about how trade works. If the regular folks think that China came along in the middle of the night and stole all their jobs, then nothing could be further from the truth. It’s just nonsense. (My comment on the previous sentence: American companies gave the jobs to China! Including Trump!!!) I think Trump is popular because he says: I am going to go to China and get those jobs back. But he is not going to be able to do that. And any attempt to try would be a disaster.

Could we educate people about why certain jobs have been lost? Anything to change their minds about this kind of rhetoric?
I don’t think so. I hate to say that. The only thing, I think, that would change their minds is if one of these anti-free trade candidates became president and they saw the terrible results. I think that might change their minds.

Michelle Obama has words for Trump




Read more

There are plenty of smart people out there saying: don’t stop free trade. Keep free trade alive and well.

I don’t think Mr Trump is listening. I don’t think Hillary is listening. I don’t think Mr Sanders is listening. I don’t think they are listening.

Are you surprised that Trump is basically the nominee of the Republican party?
I am absolutely … I am open-mouthed, gasping, unbelievable. But he has his charms. There must be something people like about him. I don’t get him but there must be something people like.

I’ll vote for him, by the way. I’ll vote for him because I think he does personify a kind of national pride which I think has been lacking in the Obama days and would be terribly lacking under Bernie Sanders and terribly lacking under Hillary Clinton. But I think his economics is way, way out of whack and he seriously needs some education about it.

Do you think Congress would let Trump implement the type of policies he has suggested?
Yes, I do. If he had Republican Congress, I think they would let him attack free trade. But then when the trade war starts and businesses start closing, I think they would be singing a different tune.

You said the candidates know so little. Do you think it’s that they know so little or are they just saying what they think people want to hear?
I don’t think Trump knows a goddamn thing about economics. But I like him anyway, I might add. I think Mrs Clinton knows something about it. She is an intelligent woman, she went to Wellesley. She was a classmate of mine at Yale law school and I hope we learned something while we were there. And, as to Mr Sanders, I think he is purposely, willfully ignorant. I think he is a person who could be educated but he has some kind of personality defect that prevents him from being educated.

[slick]

thanks for the good read

[KathyInAR]

Trump is a perfect example of a guy born on third base, then claims he hit a home run.

[KathyInAR]

Q: How stupid does a person have to be to make speeches or otherwise bash the Federal Judge sitting on his tens-of-millions $$$ law suit?
A: Stupid, just like Trump, that is how stupid!!!

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...rse-not-better

And by the way, please note that Joe Scarborough was a REPUBLICAN US Congressman from Florida (it is refreshing to see that no matter what one's political stripe, they are willing to call out a racist idiot, even when it is one of their own).

June 06, 2016, 08:14 am
Scarborough: Trump’s ‘getting worse, not better’

By Mark Hensch

Joe Scarborough's feud with Donald Trump escalated on Monday, with the MSNBC host saying the billionaire has been "getting worse" since becoming the presumptive GOP presidential nominee.

“Now, it’s people that may have, what is it, one-sixteenth Mexican blood?” he asked, referencing Trump’s attacks on the judge overseeing lawsuits against Trump University. "If you have one-sixteenth Mexican blood then maybe you can’t be a judge? One-sixteenth Muslim blood?
...
Scarborough also lashed out Republicans now criticizing Trump’s attacks on Judge Gonzalo Curiel who remained silent about earlier controversial comments.

“I just want to be really clear here,” he said. "They can’t be morally outraged this week when they knew what he was doing last week.

“These Republicans this week who were so shocked and stunned and deeply saddened and offended by this clear act of racism had all the evidence in the world that he had done things again, that had stopped them from endorsing him.”

Scarborough added he is disappointed in Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) for endorsing Trump last week, despite the billionaire’s call for a temporary ban on Muslim emigration into the U.S.
...

[KathyInAR]

Now stupid Trump is critical of his supporter Newt Gingrich after he spoke out against Trump's remarks about Judge Curiel.

Further proof that he won't listen to anyone...IMO, he absolutely sees himself as a dictator of the United States...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...propriate.html

Donald Trump bristled Monday at supporter Newt Gingrich joining the chorus of criticism over his comments on the Mexican heritage of a federal judge -- saying it was "inappropriate" for Gingrich to weigh in, while once again defending his remarks.

Trump for days has defended claims that American-born District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, whose parents are from Mexico, has a conflict of interest as he considers lawsuits against Trump University.

Gingrich, speaking on "Fox News Sunday," called the remarks “inexcusable.”

Trump, though, pushed back during an interview Monday with "Fox & Friends."

“I saw Newt and I was surprised at Newt. I thought it was inappropriate, what he said,” Trump said.

Gingrich, though, is far from the only Republican challenging Trump's claims that the judge is biased against him because of his plans to build a wall along the Southern border.

The top two Republican congressional leaders have scolded Trump, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich -- who recently suspended his presidential campaign -- on Monday urged Trump to apologize.

Gingrich's criticism was especially pointed, coming from a figure thought to be a potential running mate prospect for Trump.

“It was one of the worst mistakes Trump has made. Inexcusable,” the former GOP House speaker, who has become one of Trump’s closest advisers, told “Fox News Sunday.”

“That judge is not a Mexican. He’s an American,” he said. “I hope it was sloppiness.”

...

Also on Sunday, a pair of powerful Senate Republicans warned Trump to drop his attacks on the judge.

"We're all behind him now," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said on NBC's "Meet the Press," adding that it's time for unifying the party, not "settling scores and grudges."

"I hope he'll change his direction," the Kentucky Republican also said.

Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told ABC: "I don't condone the comments."

The message was repeated Monday, this time from House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz.

"Why doesn't he just say, 'look it's up to the attorneys' ... and leave it at that?" Chaffetz said on "Fox & Friends." "And then you move on."

Their remarks solidify the line GOP leaders have drawn in recent days between themselves and Trump, with whom they've made a fragile peace over their shared sense that almost anyone would be a better president than Clinton.

Trump University is the target of two lawsuits — in San Diego and New York — which accuse the business of fleecing students with unfulfilled promises to teach secrets of success in real estate. Trump has maintained that customers were overwhelmingly satisfied. Trump's legal team has not sought to have Curiel removed.

[slick]

yet none of'em will call'em what he is, LOONEY

[WVaKay]

The guy is frightening and he is going to be the ruination of the Rep party. He's rich, but he's also a bully, potty mouth and always ready to pick a fight or throw a tantrum. UGH!!
When have we ever gone into a presidential election with such horrible choices?

[KathyInAR]

The guy is frightening and he is going to be the ruination of the Rep party. He's rich, but he's also a bully, potty mouth and always ready to pick a fight or throw a tantrum. UGH!!
When have we ever gone into a presidential election with such horrible choices?

Not in my lifetime and I remember all the way back to Eisenhower...

[KathyInAR]

A true case of putting your money where your mouth is...a company with principles!

Buzzfeed is similar to The Drudge Report but with a more liberal bent.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/kyleblaine/...53a#.jsnLDAMrb

[KathyInAR]

[KathyInAR]

Apparently Trump has issues with the First Amendment...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/...om-events.html

Trump Bans Washington Post From Events

Doanld Trump announced on Monday that The Washington Post has been banned from covering his events. "Based on the incredibly inaccurate coverage and reporting of the record setting Trump campaign, we are hereby revoking the press credentials of the phony and dishonest Washington Post," Trump wrote on Facebook. The newspaper joins other outlets that have been banned from Trump rallies, including Politico, the Huffington Post, and BuzzFeed. The Daily Beast is also routinely denied press credentials.

“Donald Trump's decision to revoke The Washington Post’s press credentials is nothing less than a repudiation of the role of a free and independent press. When coverage doesn't correspond to what the candidate wants it to be, then a news organization is banished,” thePost's editor Marty Baron wrote Monday afternoon. “The Post will continue to cover Donald Trump as it has all along—honorably, honestly, accurately, energetically, and unflinchingly. We're proud of our coverage, and we're going to keep at it."

In a Monday evening statement, Trump's campaign expanded on its decision to ban the newspaper, attacking it as unfair and more concerned with clicks than honest reporting.

"Mr. Trump does not mind a bad story, but it has to be honest," the campaign said, specifically referencing a story published on The Post's website Monday morning. "The fact is, The Washington Post is being used by the owners of Amazon as their political lobbyist so that they don't have to pay taxes and don't get sued for monopolistic tendencies that have led to the destruction of department stores and the retail industry."

The article that Trump specifically mentioned -- both in the press release and a Facebook post earlier Monday -- originally ran with the headline, "Donald Trump suggests President Obama was involved with Orlando shooting." The headline has since been changed to: "Donald Trump seems to connect President Obama to Orlando shooting."

[sundealer]

And most of those are also banned from the White House press room!!

[Gotcha]

Liberals are dangerous also, when they pretend they know nothing of what their president does. Worse yet, they don't care.

“Journalists are routinely being denied the right to photograph or videotape the President while he is performing his official duties,” the journalists said in a letter to White House press secretary Jay Carney. “As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist’s camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the Executive Branch of government.”

"The letter was also signed by the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the White House News Photographers Association, as well as leading media outlets like ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, The Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times, The Washington Post and Yahoo News.

The practice is a "troubling break from tradition," the letter stated, as previous administrations have granted press access to the types of events the Obama administration now restricts."

It's one thing for a candidate running for president, quite another when the president himself bans the media. So much for open government and transparency from a liar.

[sundealer]

I remember Michelle and "family" went to China on an 'official' visit yet no photos were to be taken.

[KathyInAR]

And most of those are also banned from the White House press room!!

Liberals are dangerous also, when they pretend they know nothing of what their president does. Worse yet, they don't care.

“Journalists are routinely being denied the right to photograph or videotape the President while he is performing his official duties,” the journalists said in a letter to White House press secretary Jay Carney. “As surely as if they were placing a hand over a journalist’s camera lens, officials in this administration are blocking the public from having an independent view of important functions of the Executive Branch of government.”

"The letter was also signed by the American Society of Newspaper Editors and the White House News Photographers Association, as well as leading media outlets like ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, The Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times, The Washington Post and Yahoo News.

The practice is a "troubling break from tradition," the letter stated, as previous administrations have granted press access to the types of events the Obama administration now restricts."

It's one thing for a candidate running for president, quite another when the president himself bans the media. So much for open government and transparency from a liar.

I remember Michelle and "family" went to China on an 'official' visit yet no photos were to be taken.

So what is wrong for Democrats is right for Republicans, is that your position...I thought the object was to get something different? Duh!