I think he did it to help derail the Gloria Allred court appearance to unseal testimony Romney gave in a divorce which also happened today.

I'm releived

I was worried Trump was gonna announce Senator Obama stayed at Trump Towers and they split the tab for a pizza but Obama stiffed him and that was $44.72 with tip but with interest it's $72.09

I would

I think Trump should definitely do it.

Its 5 million dollars.

Obama, like Hilary Clinton, studied radicalism and methods of achieving fascist/communist control. Both hide everything possible of their academic (and ideological) histories, brush off any evidence which is on the record purely as academic studiousness, and otherwise stonewall inquiries on the topic.

Because most voters are too dumb to question. Most voters are too dumb to care. Most voters can't tell you where Obama differs from fascist communists who want 100% unchecked state control of everything, and they don't care. He offers the biggest handout. He's the guy to vote for. Period.

Nationalize businesses "for the people": check
Mobilize the people with false promises: check
Requires a long term "her" leader: check
Can't stand other ideas: check

Meh hardly trying.

[TI] Primo,

Communism requires fascism. When the standard of living inevitably crashes under any communist regime, the people want change. Do they have that option in Cuba? North Korea? China? No. Your notion is predicated upon academic bull[spit].

In reality, free people reject being made slaves of the state. If they still have votes, they use them to reject communism. In socialist democracies, they go broke and are forced to reject it. The only sustained Communist regimes on earth are fascist, and virtually all communist revolutionaries (that I'm aware of, in the USA) are fascists, not fans of democracy.

Communism is based upon obliterating economic freedom. As it turns out, it's antithetical to attempt to crush this huge freedom while leaving other personal freedoms intact.

Only failed academics equivocate over state ownership vs. state control as if there's a substantive difference.

More academic nonsense. They were as "communist" as anything on this earth is ever going to be. The corruption, fascism, unproductivity, atrocities, and bureaucratic garbage of those nations is inherent in communism.

I don't bicker about "true capitalism." Of course there have never been 100% free markets and lawlessness, and nobody is arguing that there should be. But we can attribute massive wealth creation and improvements of standards of living of all people in societies to relatively free markets in nations all over the globe. The examples are many. Why have Taiwan and South Korea SKYROCKETED their standards of living (including that of the poor) over the past few decades while China and North Korea are poverty-stricken lands filled with corruption and moral atrocities?

There are real examples of relatively free markets improving people's lives. Do you have any examples of relatively state-controlled markets doing the same? This is the second time I've asked. Equivocating over "true communism" as if a magical incorruptible man just hasn't run it yet is silly.

The topic of this thread is the radical education of Barack Obama. I've mentioned the radical educations of some in his administration because we actually have some information about their educations, whereas President Obama will release nothing about his own education.

If he's not hiding his radical beliefs, why the stonewalling on any information on his education?

If his radical beliefs aren't something he should be intellectually ashamed of, why are you equivocating over "true" statism without offering any examples? It's easy to make academic arguments that people can remain free yet surrender all of their economic freedom; but, if it's never happened, why should we believe you? Claim that it can be so is not the same thing as making that argument.

In any event, this equivocation is beyond the topic of this thread. The fact is, President Obama will not release any information about his studies. Examining information he has published in books and the educations of many in his administration, it's not unreasonable to conjecture some of the reasons why.

You're essentially arguing that, becuase "true communism" hasn't been realized, we may conclude absolutely nothing about it.

I've pointed out that capitalism and free enterprise produce positive results without being "true," and asked if you have any similar results to show for communism to any degree.

And you've declined to respond to anything of what i posted, choosing to insult me instead. Way to take the intellectual high road. The topic will still be here if you come up with any examples or any criticism of my logic whatsoever beyond extremely vague, incoherent whining.

Again, the focus of your crying is not the topic of this thread. I have commented on that, too-repeatedly. If you have nothing to say about the topic, nor my comments on it, dare i ask why you're responding here, to me?

I said that communism is inherently fascist (and that's a relative term), not that fascists were inherently communists.