Anyone here that still thinks Trump should be President of the States?

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by dahldrin, Jul 31, 2016.

  1. Definitely not a Trump fan, however I'm scared to death of a Hillary presidency. She will get at least three picks for the Supreme Court. And these justices stay on for life, so generations would be ruined by her far left ideology. These justices won't rule according to the Constitution, they will rule according to their own far left agenda. Guns would be severely restricted, abortion would not only be legalized it would be encouraged, privacy would go out the window in the name of "security" (this is a possible outcome with Trump as well), the scope and reach of government will double under a Hillary rule. The country would be gone if that happened.

    Sad what this country has become. We went from fighting the Brits over taxes, to begging for higher tax and bigger government. This country was founded on the opposite of what Hillary stands for. But hand out enough free money and you get lifelong Democrat voters who will blindly throw their vote away in the name of entitlements.

    For the record, Austin Petersen was my guy. He ran on the Libertarian ticket, however Gary Johnson got the Libertarian nomination.
     
  2. They are both liars is my point. It's about picking which one is the lesser of two evils. The one who lies about building a wall between two countries or the one who lies about being a criminal.
     
    SupraMan likes this.
  3. Clinton is substantially further right than Obama, and at least on the economic front, is comparable to Trump (if not actually to the right of him). My Canadian sensibilities make me want to call her a 'Blue Grit' - a fiscally conservative, pro-business Liberal. It's also worth remembering that the rollbacks on privacy for mass surveillance, while often initiated under Republican administrations (ECHELON being formalized under Nixon, and the Patriot Act under Bush), they've really been embraced, strengthened, or at a minimum maintained under administrations of both parties (with Obama, one of the more liberal recent administrations, only minutely scaling back the surveillance apparatus with the Freedom Act superseding many clauses of the Patriot Act). Indeed, the US receives a huge amount of technical, political, and legal cooperation on this front from countries both more conservative (Israel, Turkey) and more liberal (New Zealand, Germany). Don't misconstrue this, I am no fan of this system, but it is not a partisan thing. Its an enlarged executive thing.

    It's also worth remembering that the Revolutionary War wasn't over taxation, it was over taxation that existed without the consent of the taxed. American patriots did not rebel against the concept of taxation, the issue was that they had no say on either how the taxes were levied nor how they were spent. It's not like early America was free of taxation; it was that Americans were then able to chose the manner in which they were taxed.
     
  4. [​IMG]
     
    KPX88 likes this.
  5. #31 Murika, Aug 2, 2016
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2016
    Clinton lies at about the same rate as other politicians. Trump quite literally lies at an unprecedented rate.

    http://politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/

    http://politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

    In the last week alone Donald trump accused Hillary Clinton of "rigging" the debate by scheduling it alongside football, despite the fact that a bipartisan commission scheduled it 15 months ago.

    He also said the NFL wrote him a letter complaining about it, and the NFL commissioner said that was a lie.

    He also said Vladimir Putin will not enter Ukraine if he's president, but the Russians have been in Ukraine for the last two years.

    He also said he has no relationship with Vladimir Putin and has never met nor spoken to him, despite the fact that he had previously bragged that they have a close relationship, on multiple occasions.

    His treatment of a gold star mom is despicable, but that's not surprising because he bashed John McCain for getting captured.

    On Russia he has proposed recognizing Crimea as Russian territory, lifting sanctions against Russia, and he's also said he wants to give the finger to the NATO treaty.

    He also said he wants to ban all Muslims, which he later walked back to only Muslims from certain countries (but Christians from those countries are fine). Because having a religious litmus test will make America great again. Now what's going to happen with relationships we have with Islamic countries who are extremely important allies in the fight against AQ and ISIL? Jordan, Indonesia, Qatar, Iraq, Afghanistan and others all play a critical role. How will those relationships shape with a "no Muslims allowed" President? What kind of narratives can the terrorists formulate with a blatant anti-Muslim bigot running the US?

    Would it not be embarrassing to have a President, a man who represents the US to the world, who wholeheartedly believes every ridiculous blog entry, Facebook meme, and tabloid article that he even thinks Ted Cruz's father was involved in the JFK assassination?

    I could go on all day, and the whole "criminal" nonsense with HRC is way overblown.
     
    SEABEE likes this.
  6. These are my biggest problems with him. A lot of the world already hates us, the rest think we're just a joke. He'll only further both of these.
     
    ETB4U likes this.
  7. idc tbh anymore lol
     
    ETB4U likes this.
  8. There's just so many issues to choose from but this is definitely one of them. Most people haven't even considered the international implications of his anti-Muslim rhetoric and policy proposals.

    As for his incessant lying, it's more than just him being a human fib factory. It's the magnitude of the lies. It's the fact that he constantly spits out whoppers that any sane person should know is easily disprovable. I literally question his sanity.
     
  9. You are wrong Murika. So wrong. Trump will make you great again.
     
    ETB4U and Murika like this.
  10. Trump does it for the lulz.
     
    Tree Fitty likes this.
  11. I agree with this, and while I dont give Hillary anything near what I would call 'My Full Support', I will definitely vote against Trump
    Hillary has become the symbol of crony capitalism and all the shitty shit that goes along with it. Once again the United States are in a lesser of 2 evils situation, manufactured of course, by its own political system. Sanders' own party actively sabotaged his campaign. I cant really forgive that, but I cant see Trump given any more power
     
  12. so are you voting trump or 3rd party
    why shouldnt abortion be encouraged? fewer unwanted babies=fewer shitty people
     
  13. I'm voting third party. Gary Johnson, even though I think the guy is a buffoon. He's far better than Hillary or Trump, and Johnson aligns much more closer to my beliefs, minus being pro abortion.

    I'm anti abortion because theres plenty of steps that can be taken before a child is even conceived. Condoms, birth control, self responsibility, etc... I also believe children are a gift from God, not some parasite that should be eradicated like a bowel movement.
     
  14. Theres no such thing as a fiscally conservative pro business liberal lol. A liberals goal in life is to have the state run all things. They are all socialists, some more than others. The patriot act and others should have been outlawed long ago. I wish Obama had taken a harsher stand against it, however he's a statist like the rest and believes government has the solutions. And you nailed it, its the executive branch thats out of control. Past couple presidents have been ruling be decree, which is exactly what we didn't want in the U.S.

    While the war was certainly about us not being represented, it was also a tax revolt.
     
  15. What about people who don't believe in a god? Should they be allowed by law to have abortions?
     
  16. NO! DOOOOOOOON'T!!!
     
  17. Oh wow
     
  18. half of whats wrong in politics: religion/moral legislation. along with the undue influence of corporations
     
  19. How can you say there's no such thing as a fiscally conservative liberal, when they are so common in the UK, Canada, and United States that each has its own special word for them (Blue Labor, Blue Grits, and Blue Dogs, respectively)? Not to mention, socially liberal conservatives have just the same status (Red Tory and Rockefeller Republicans). Do you think that Democrat support for Reagan's tax cuts just precipitated out of the aether? Or that Democratic opposition to the Affordable Care Act is a myth? Or that Paul Martin didn't spend his entire goddamn career eliminating Canada's structural deficit? Paul Martin, by the way, was a very successful businessman in his own right, owning with Canada Steamship Lines -- a major Great Lakes freighter -- with his sons, and had twice the personal wealth of Mitt Romney prior to becoming the Liberal finance minister and Prime Minister. It's a little hard to call him anything but pro-business. The only historically honest way to say that every liberal is a socialist if you're willing to concede that every major political party in the Western world (including the American Libertarian party and UKIP) are some measure of socialist, willing to build roads, by which point the word has been abused well beyond any point of usefulness or meaning.

    I can't help but view it as tremendously disingenuous to place oneself into one of a dozen major factions of American conservatism, to refuse the broader label and to adhere instead to a very specific subset of views, and then to assume that American liberalism fits into one neat caricature. I don't believe people can view themselves with that level of exceptionalism. So, please, have the self-respect to take opposing viewpoints seriously, as if humans with the same faculties as you might have thought of them.

    This contributes to the idea that the Revolution was a tax revolt, when the debasement of the Continental Dollar was a far larger tax on the people than anything the British had proposed. Don't think the irony is lost on me: if you want to return to the fiscal values of Founding Fathers, you must know that out of desperation the Continental Congress just printed money, debased their currency, and robbed the people of their savings to fund their war against "taxation"? And that you say this while supporting a party that believes that printing money is essentially theft? You must see the cognitive dissonance required to hold those views at once, can't you? The standard textbook view on this is that British taxes were a matter of coercion, and that the war was over the self-determination of Americans as opposed to the concept of taxation? Would that not explain why the revolution never actually rid America of taxation. Would that not make more sense in the context of modern libertarian thought that the state of taxation in the United States is coercive? Because that seems like a much more consistent worldview, debating with liberals about the justice and self-determination of current taxation, as opposed to disparaging liberals of forgetting the fiscal values of the Revolution -- an era with a 300% annual inflation rate.
     
  20. There's the Libertarian and Green parties out there also. Time to give them some voice too. It's a joke this two party system.
     
    KPX88 likes this.
  21. I'm all for more abortions. Make them free. After the 3rd, mandatory sterilization.
     
  22. If say 90% of people that vote don't know this. Its black and white to most.
     
  23. 'This' being which part? I think I've made a habit of writing up monster posts, which I should probably dial back.
     

Share This Page