Thread on GOP Attacks on Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dwyer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If you think terrorists hate us because of trump, that’s beyond rational belief for me.
9/11 happened before trump.
I don’t think anybody here is asserting that terrorists hate us because of Trump.

However, it is totally within rational belief to say that terrorists will attack somewhere in retaliation for a Trump victory, because they know he will take a hard line on them.
 
Hey hows the JV team, contained yet? Growing still, is Joe Biden chasing them to the gates of hell still, hows that red-line in Syria doing??? How we doing with Obama and Kerry on Christian genocide, I see the democrats are rather silent on that??? O-Kay I actually have things to do.

Goodnight. 🙂
But the Donald said mean things…:rolleyes:😉

Politics is nuts.
 
He just wants more power and money.
Personally I believe thats bs. Now if you said that about any other candidate sucking on the financial nipple and being bought at the same time I would believe it. But naw, not this guy. I agree theres much to critique all these people about and Trump, but thats not it.

Take a good look at how Marco acted over this and Cruz. Thats what power and money will do even to thepoint they had to catch themselves. Just saying.
He has basically incited Muslim hatred
On the contrary Obama is on the muslim brotherhood, IslamOphobia and confusion on genocide of christians. Now I’ll hang around and we can take a critical look at this but I really don’t see the Democratic position in fact at all. In fact Trumps is similar to Sisi minus the rhetoric. 🤷
 
We can discuss the pro’s and con’s of Donald Trump. It seems the electorate is intent, by and large, in wanting him to run more than any of the other candidates.

What scares the ever living snot out of me is the possibility of a Democratic win. That means that the Supreme Court, which has been relatively balanced between libeal and conservative views of law, will swing seriously to the leberal view.

And that means, bluntly, that the liberal view will be pervasive for 20, 30 or more years.

Whether one has a tendency to more strict construction, or to a more progressive view of the Constitution, a balance between the two extremes keeps things somewhat less volatile.

Trump, should he be elected, does not seem to me to have the same disdain for political process that Obama does with regulations. And Trump will have advisers who will town down and shape some of what he says and does. Perhaps he might provide more leadership for Congress, a point that seems truly sore to the many voters who identify with someone who has not been a career politician.

I still believe that a constitutional amendment limiting office to a total of 12 years lifetime would be the best change we could have. It allows for institutional memory, but prevents the careerism that has taken over the legislative positions.
 
I don’t think anybody here is asserting that terrorists hate us because of Trump.

However, it is totally within rational belief to say that terrorists will attack somewhere in retaliation for a Trump victory, because they know he will take a hard line on them.
Very, very possible. A whole different culture which we still have hardly a clue about!
 
Cruz has mentioned limits on judge-ships as well. If that can be done somehow, I’d probably be for that as well.
 
Cruz has mentioned limits on judge-ships as well. If that can be done somehow, I’d probably be for that as well.
It sounds good; but given the reach of the Supreme Court, I am not sure whether I prefer the person I know, and can’t get past or around, to the one I don’t know.

The Court has been stacked pretty much since it was created. It all depends on who is doing the stacking, as to who’s ox is gored the worst.

Term limits sound great until it is the opposing party who is doing the picking for the next round. It is one thing if they are picking a judge who has a similar outlook to the one retiring. It is a whole 'nother matter if they are of the opposite philosophy.

Which is another way of saying that it sounds like a grand idea, until it gets down to the practical picking.

A balanced court prevents at least some mischief. And I will never believe that either party wants a balanced court. They both want one which agrees with their political philosophy.
 
The mainstream media, many Republicans, Hillary, Bernie, Marco, and the politically correct are all attacking Trump. That is what makes him so popular.
 
from Matt Walsh, Let’s Remember The Cowardly Conservative Leaders Who Betrayed Us For Trump

theblaze.com/contributions/lets-remember-the-cowardly-conservative-leaders-who-betrayed-us-for-trump/
Good article, frankly. I have been very, very surprised by the conservatives who have turned on pro-life Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz, in order to support Trump.
Trump is a progressive, pure and simple, and those who support him should at least admit they are supporting a progressive.
 
I don’t think anybody here is asserting that terrorists hate us because of Trump.

However, it is totally within rational belief to say that terrorists will attack somewhere in retaliation for a Trump victory, because they know he will take a hard line on them.
don’t you see how flawed this logic is? If we elect a pacifist then maybe (hopefully) when they attack us, it will be done with less passion.

It’s like have a police force that is ‘soft on crime’. People just stop reporting crimes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top