Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Would you vote for Donald Trump for president?

By Howard B. Owens
Jim Urtel Jr

I think he can win! I wouldn`t have thought so ever before but with the state of things in the country right now and the WEAK field of candidates on both sides, he makes sense to me. He is a self made billionaire funding his own campaign and speaks his mind.

Jul 7, 2015, 8:39am Permalink
Billie Owens

Jim, I'm guessing that's Irene's point. With his bluster and bad judgement and Palin's dim circuitry, they'd lose for sure. If not, head for the hills we're in big trouble!

Jul 7, 2015, 10:05am Permalink
Ed Hartgrove

As pertaining to comments #3, 4, 5 and 6, whatever happened to Howard's rule about 'no personal attacks'?

Or, does that only hold true for 'local' recipients of criticism?

In other words, is it OK, on one hand, to say, "Cuomo is a jerk", yet, we can't call some guy from Batavia a jerk?

What's the parameters of the rule on personal attacks?

Jul 7, 2015, 10:57am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

First, I love how people assume I've allowed something before I've even read it!

But, Yes, we allow greater leeway in state and national political commentary for what can be said about a person. It's not an open-ended invitation for mean-spiritedness, but as long as we've had a nation, our presidents and national candidates have been targeted by spirited speech.

Further, commentary on the relative intelligence of a Trump or Palin is fair because that's a legitimate qualification for office and there is ample reason to question their fitness in that category.

As always, much of this is a subjective judgment and it's up to me to make those calls.

Jul 7, 2015, 11:54am Permalink
Raymond Richardson

"But, Yes, we allow greater leeway in state and national political commentary for what can be said about a person. It's not an open-ended invitation for mean-spiritedness, but as long as we've had a nation, our presidents and national candidates have been targeted by spirited speech.

Further, commentary on the relative intelligence of a Trump or Palin is fair because that's a legitimate qualification for office and there is ample reason to question their fitness in that category.

As always, much of this is a subjective judgment and it's up to me to make those calls."

Yeah! What he ^ said.

Jul 7, 2015, 12:01pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

I can't understand why we would want or need a president with business acumen. While not necessarily a bad thing, it really ought to be an irrelevant thing. I think I'm basically copying Billie. (hope you don't mind) The problem, and the issue most Americans should be concerned with is that Congress has over the years, particularly the past 100 or so, delegated much of its authority to the President. Fundamentally this is a dereliction of their duties and a usurpation of the separation of powers which were placed in the Constitution. There was a reason for that, the drafters did not want a "king". Depending on which party a President belonged to and/or which party has control of Congress, more and more power has been transferred to the President. These guys pontificate about "His" vision and if they can't get the votes from Congress, then he just enacts an Executive Order, they have all done it, to some degree. The power of the Executive Order was meant to be used only in emergencies, when there was not time to bring Congress in for a vote. We live in a nation which is not following its own constitution. How does a body with somewhere around a 10% favorable rate, also have more than a 90% re-election rate for incumbents? How is it that they are allowed to continue to pass the buck on their constitutional responsibilities? It is only because we, the people allow it. In the past election here in NY State only 36% of registered voters bothered to cast a ballot and another 25% of those eligible don't even bother to register. Your vote is your voice, it is your opportunity to make a statement of what you believe in and stand for. It won't matter who the next President is, if we fire Congress and replace them all with non-career politicians and patriots who actually respect our Constitution and the rights of each and every individual. But you have to stand up and be counted. Everybody.

Jul 7, 2015, 1:07pm Permalink
Irene Will

Well, when he's DONE being President, at least they won't have to re-name things after him ---- everything he TOUCHES, he's put his name on already.

Jul 7, 2015, 2:44pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

I don't even hold up his business acumen as a plus. His properties have filed for bankruptcy on 4 different occasions. When called out on it he replied with this tweet "Stop saying I went bankrupt. I never went bankrupt but like many great business people have used the laws to corporate advantage—smart!" I have a problem with corporations playing fast and loose with creditors just because it is legal. A contract is a contract and should be honored. If you legitimately cannot pay your debts file and dissolve so that the creditors can at least recoup through forfeiture of assets. But to treat bankruptcy like it is just another shrewd deal is immoral. I don't want a President playing games with our credit, such as it is.

Jul 7, 2015, 4:34pm Permalink
Tim Miller

Howard has always allowed comments about a public figure's philosophy, intelligence, policies, etc., including derogatory remarks about those items, with much greater leeway than with comments directed towards Batavian members and commenters. As he noted, though, there is a limit.

For example, if I were to make the comment "Trump is a dick with a bad merkin" (which I would never do here, as it might be going over that line), Howard would probably smack it down. However, a statement such as "Palin was a failed half-term governor", that would be fine.

;-)

Jul 8, 2015, 8:39am Permalink

Authentically Local