Currently Online 
You say "objectively necessary" but the current consititution states that the qualifications for presidential candidates must have 14 years of residency and be least 35 years of age, NOTHING and I mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING states that the presidential candidates can't attempt to change the constitution itself, am I right or am I wrong ?
The president is sworn to uphold the constitution. This is objectively necessary part of the job. Because the constitution is the law of the United States.
Doesn't matter, the president still has powers to ban immigration based off of religious beliefs. Believe it or not once again an exception can be made in terms of national security. While a ruling cannot be made solely based off of a religion, you CAN factor in religion as one of the aspects when profiling a group so that makes Trump at least right about that ...
Ok... I never said you couldn't and I clarified that I was not talking about banning immigration, so I don't know why you're still on about htis. And no, that doesn't make Trump right because even if you can it may not be a good idea.
Making treaties with other countries (still needs approval from senate) or receiving foreign diplomats are OPTIONAL so it's not like they are FORCED to do those things. And no commanding the military does not mean you HAVE to know what the fuck is going on because they can be used for NATIONAL PURPOSES of DEFENSE. Doesn't mean that the military is always used for INTERNATIONAL affairs, it's as simple as that ...
At this point I can't help but think this is trolling. If you want to completely divorce yourself from reality, no the army never has to do anything internationally, and no the president never has to deal with other countries. But considering this is reality, and Trump has already said he will use the military internationally, and said he would deal in international trade, then you're being intentionally obtuse.
I don't believe for a second that you don't think the president will ever have to deal with the international community.
READ HIS PLANS! He said NONE of that crap about deporting US born citizens. He's pretty much wrong about anchor babies not being US citizens, I'll grant you that much but what he what he DIDN'T say is that he'll deport them too. The ONLY thing he made explicitly clear is ending birthright citizenship!
Bill O Reilly: "You are not going to be able to deport people who have American citizenship now. And the federal courts will never allow mass deportations without due process for each and every one. And do you envision federal police kicking in the doors in barrios around the country, dragging families out?"
Donald Trump: "Bill, I don't think that they have American citizenship. And if you speak to some very, very good lawyers — and I know some would disagree, but many of them agree with me — you're going to find they do not have American citizenship. We have to start a process where we take back our country. Our country is going to hell."
Yes, he specifically said he would deport people born in the US. I don't know if he's changed his stance since then, but it's right there for you.
http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-oreilly-donald-trump-immigration-deport-birthright-2015-8
It's an EMOTIONAL response, not a RATIONAL one! A rational thought is where one puts aside their feelings in order to make logical deductions towards a conclusion like solving a math problem ...
Anger is described to be that of an emotion, not a thought process ...
I don't know where you've gotten the idea that emotional and rational are oposites or mutually exclusives. Our thoughts are a combination of processes going on in the prefrontal cortex (what you'd probably call logic) and processes going on in the limbic system (what you'd probably call emotions). Every thought process is a combination of these two elements, as the two systems are in constant communication.. While you may rely more heavily on one or the other at certain times, there is no shutting one or the other off. Even when solving math problems, emotions play a rather large part. Anger is an emotion which is the result of a thought process. Assuming your mind is functioning correctly, that anger is rational.
The dividing line between rational and emotional does not exist in reality.
"And if you support the things Donald Trump actually says, yes you are too god damn stupid to get mad at." Even a broken clock is right twice a day and If Donald Trump is right I put my foot down no matter what is said as long as it's the truth despite the fact that "I'm too stupid to get mad at" ... /s
I rest my case ...
Oh seriously, you know better than that. Clearly when I said "the things Donald Trump says" I was referring to specific things he says, like the examples I was giving. Obviously, I didn't mean that if you agree with Trump that the sky is blue you're an idiot. I'm not going to insult you by pretending that you actually believe what you say.
You think your always telling the truth regarding the Don but even your not immune to fabricate or circulate misinformation as in this post above ...
The way you guys are always on his neck makes this as if it were a witch hunt (figuratively speaking of course) instead of a civil disagreement ...
Errrr... what specific thing did I fabricate or did I say that was misinformation? I actually try my best to not do that. Of course I'm not immune, so if you noticed something, tell me, provide evidence, and I'll be sure not to do so in the future. But you're not pointing out anything specific.
I just did and what a president "should" do is dependent relative to an individual or group, nothing more and nothing less so don't speak for everyone else's ideals as that only makes you selfish for trying to enforce it upon them when there are many other conflicting ideals on what the president should do ...
Yes. I know what a president should do (to an extent) is based on what the public wants. I assume that most of us are decent people who want what is best for ourselves and for others, and that on this basis we can have conversations to determine the best course of action. But, maybe in your case, that's not true.
Well at least you've shown your true colours so I gained a little respect for you when you make it intentionally clear that you vehemently hate him for your own justifications ...
I'm not showing my true colors. I think my hatred was clear from the beginning. Hatred is a rational response to certain things. Do you hate Hitler? I would hope so. I'm not saying Donald Trump is Hitler, just that it can be perfectly rational to hate a politician.
It doesn't affect anyone dear to me either so exactly why should I care ? You keep assuming that all humans are for greater good but that is simply naive when most of us as individuals only treasure what's most dear to us! If I had to pick between my life, assets, friends, and family or the world I would gladly cherish the shit out of what I have and would rather let the rest world burn in hell ...
It's absolutely ignorant to not consider ones personal feelings when it comes to making their own decision and just solely expecting them to pick the most logically beneficial for the human race ...
You should know better than anyone else that emotional ties are greater than those of logical ones ...
I guess this is why we're having a problem understanding eachother. I made the erroneous assumption that you were a decent and empathic human being who cared about others, even those not immediately involved in your life. I guess I was wrong in this regard.
There is a word for people who don't care about anything but their own needs and desires. The word is sociopath. And while I kind of hope you are simply trolling, maybe you are one. Maybe you legitimately don't give a shit about what happens to anyone else. And if that's the case, then go ahead and vote for Trump I guess. Like I said, those kinds of people really aren't worth talking to.
If however, you actually do care about those around you, then I urge you to critically examine the candidates.
