Trump or Hillary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FractalFire
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
=Leo2014;13526095]This is another fallacy that Republicans like to proclaim.
Click to expand...
It’s not a fallacy, it’s basic political science. People who run around calling those who don’t agree with them NAZIS, fascists or racists just communicate their arguments and platform have no more substance and they’ve emotionally conceded the debate.

Also, I wish the GOP would say more things like that. So far that I see, I’m the only one saying it.
When was the last time you remember one that reduced the size of government? Please don’t mention someone that lived way back before our current era.
Click to expand...
Oh, it’s been a while. Maybe since the founding of the country. I know Jefferson was railing against the courts as early as 1803, and some of the folks involved in founding the nation were mocking the public at-large in the early 19th Century for how stupid it was acting.

But back then the states and territories had most of the power, and I would bet that people would pay more attention to how state and local government than the federal government.

I don’t think anyone is arguing that republicans are part of the problem. El Rushbo recently commented that why even have a Republican party if they are going to act like Democrats. Glenn Beck used to talk about the GOP being progressive-lite.

Furthermore, that is why Trump has so much support.

But the problem with their prior comment is that seems to be looking for an excuse to justify bad spending habits and/or supporting the DNC.
The reality is that both parties like to spend.
Click to expand...
For simplicity’s sake, let’s just say that they, generally, do have bad spending habits lately, although not all of them do as evidenced by voting records.

The greater question I will pose here is that means what? That it’s okay for the Democrats to spend more than we make because the Republicans either go along with it or because they did it before?

Even though it’s bad, it’s fine, cause the GOP did it?

It that’s the line of thinking, if the GOP drove off a cliff, would the DNC follow it just because the GOP did it?
 
Leo2014 said:
We needed to go off the Gold Standard. Our economy has grown too complex for us to have remain on the standard. Most economist will agree that we are better off.

I am going to assume that by your use of the Orwellian term; “The Machine” that you are referencing Big Government, than you are correct. The debates from both parties have reference that Americans have not seen growth in their income in over ten years. However, the “growth” Americans have experience within recent decades was largely due to the cheap rates of borrowing money. Which gave the false sense of prosperity. The same thing with government, they falsely claimed economic growth when the reality was a rapid increase in borrowing.

Both parties encourage “Big Government” and the same argument can be made about us. We want services that we feel so entitled to receive; healthcare being one of the biggest. But this has led to an uncontrolled accumulation of debt is now becoming the responsibility of the next generation. Every generation complains about their hardships, but our generation has made it worse by giving our children our problems to bare on top of their own.

The problem with voting is primarily with the ever decreasing participation among our citizenry. There are plenty of complaints regarding issues, but half-hearted attempts to conduct real change…
Click to expand...
See, here’s the problem though. Americans whine and bicker about big government, but when someone like Jason Lewis, Sarah Palin, Ben Carson or Allen West comes along, what then?

Well, in the case of Palin, republican establishment types and others JOIN the far left in insulting her and her family and lecture Bristol on morality while they run around supporting changes to marriage. I wish I had a buck everytime a conservative or republican said “I’m a conservative/republican, and I think we don’t need Sarah Palin”.

And then later they’ll complain about how the GOP isn’t stopping Obama.

Democrats and independents have even less leg to stand on.

In the case of Jason Lewis, well, he asks why do we need farm subsidies and why is the government involved in building sports stadiums, but then some of those “homegrown” heartlanders get all in a tizzy over that.

This is why the politicians in DC get away with all of this. They aren’t held accountable because too many of the Americans are also in on the take, and boy, do they know it, hence all of the emotional defense when they are caught red-handed voting against their values while settling for crumbs from the Kings table.

Yes, it really is that obvious.
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

Please post charitably

Discuss the issues, not each other
 
The Republican party definitely is the party that has small ‘c’ conservative elements in it. To deny that would be to deny the history of the Tea Party movement. The movement itself was born as a grassroots reaction against the trillion dollar deficits of both Bush and Obama.
It drove the Republican party to be labeled as the ‘Party of No!’ in the government shutdown over the budget, which the Republicans eventually lost in the court of public opinion. Since then, the reluctance to get caught in another such battle is at least understandable, unless and until there is a real chance of winning that debate with the public. There are strategic reasons that must be taken in account. Cut-backs are painful, and to lose public support over bills that would be vetoed by the current president anyway has been judged to be a strategic error.

While the strength of Tea Party movement has been effectively reduced over the years- through the IRS campaign against, through the constant and relentless smear campaign that the media waged against it to depict it as a racist movement of bigots, and ultimately through an American people, where family has become so degraded as to make more and more families dependent on big government handouts- it is simply untrue to say that that small ‘c’ conservatism in the GOP is a Republican fallacy.

The Tea Party was real enough, and every liberal who bemoans how much more conservative that the Republican party has become since the time of Reagan understands well enough that it is no fallacy. Just because it is not convenient to the argument from the left in this particular thread does not mean that Democrats themselves understand that their so-called Party of NO! is not a real thing.
 
Barb3 said:
I couldn’t vote for either one of them!!! I’m a strong Republican but I definitely do not LIKE Trump!!!
Click to expand...
I agree! Trump is such a poor representative of the Republican Party. In my opinion, Bernie Sanders is the best choice.
 
Darryl1958 said:
The Republican party definitely is the party that has small ‘c’ conservative elements in it. To deny that would be to deny the history of the Tea Party movement. The movement itself was born as a grassroots reaction against the trillion dollar deficits of both Bush and Obama.
It drove the Republican party to be labeled as the ‘Party of No!’ in the government shutdown over the budget, which the Republicans eventually lost in the court of public opinion. Since then, the reluctance to get caught in another such battle is at least understandable, unless and until there is a real chance of winning that debate with the public. There are strategic reasons that must be taken in account. Cut-backs are painful, and to lose public support over bills that would be vetoed by the current president anyway has been judged to be a strategic error.

While the strength of Tea Party movement has been effectively reduced over the years- through the IRS campaign against, through the constant and relentless smear campaign that the media waged against it to depict it as a racist movement of bigots, and ultimately through an American people, where family has become so degraded as to make more and more families dependent on big government handouts- it is simply untrue to say that that small ‘c’ conservatism in the GOP is a Republican fallacy.

The Tea Party was real enough, and every liberal who bemoans how much more conservative that the Republican party has become since the time of Reagan understands well enough that it is no fallacy. Just because it is not convenient to the argument from the left in this particular thread does not mean that Democrats themselves understand that their so-called Party of NO! is not a real thing.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that the Dems are essentially running on what used to be called socialist ideas. Their stance on the life issues is just awful.

I want a viable let’s say old style Democrat party. If for no other reason than the fact that they will win the presidency again, sooner or later.
 
Darryl1958 said:
The Republican party definitely is the party that has small ‘c’ conservative elements in it. To deny that would be to deny the history of the Tea Party movement. The movement itself was born as a grassroots reaction against the trillion dollar deficits of both Bush and Obama.
It drove the Republican party to be labeled as the ‘Party of No!’ in the government shutdown over the budget, which the Republicans eventually lost in the court of public opinion. Since then, the reluctance to get caught in another such battle is at least understandable, unless and until there is a real chance of winning that debate with the public. There are strategic reasons that must be taken in account. Cut-backs are painful, and to lose public support over bills that would be vetoed by the current president anyway has been judged to be a strategic error.

While the strength of Tea Party movement has been effectively reduced over the years- through the IRS campaign against, through the constant and relentless smear campaign that the media waged against it to depict it as a racist movement of bigots, and ultimately through an American people, where family has become so degraded as to make more and more families dependent on big government handouts- it is simply untrue to say that that small ‘c’ conservatism in the GOP is a Republican fallacy.

The Tea Party was real enough, and every liberal who bemoans how much more conservative that the Republican party has become since the time of Reagan understands well enough that it is no fallacy. Just because it is not convenient to the argument from the left in this particular thread does not mean that Democrats themselves understand that their so-called Party of NO! is not a real thing.
Click to expand...
The Tea Party will come back though. Once they realize that Senator Cruz was born outside the US to a foreign father, they will rise in outrage and demand that he drop out of the presidential race. That’ll motivate the base for the general election.
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
Not to mention that the Dems are essentially running on what used to be called socialist ideas. Their stance on the life issues is just awful.

I want a viable let’s say old style Democrat party. If for no other reason than the fact that they will win the presidency again, sooner or later.
Click to expand...
I was once an activist and officeholder in the “old style Democrat party”. Asking today’s Dem party to return to that is like asking it to join the Tea Party wholesale. Today’s party doesn’t even know what the “old style Dem party” was like. As people sometimes say, JFK couldn’t get past a primary for dogcatcher in today’s party.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I was once an activist and officeholder in the “old style Democrat party”. Asking today’s Dem party to return to that is like asking it to join the Tea Party wholesale. Today’s party doesn’t even know what the “old style Dem party” was like. As people sometimes say, JFK couldn’t get past a primary for dogcatcher in today’s party.
Click to expand...
Indeed. My family were state office holders (all Dems). They would not even recognize what the party has become.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I was once an activist and officeholder in the “old style Democrat party”. Asking today’s Dem party to return to that is like asking it to join the Tea Party wholesale. Today’s party doesn’t even know what the “old style Dem party” was like. As people sometimes say, JFK couldn’t get past a primary for dogcatcher in today’s party.
Click to expand...
If the Dems don’t move to the right, at least as far as so-called centerism, this country is in deep danger.😦
 
DeniseNY said:
Your attempt to mock both Tea Partiers and Cruz supporters is a big ole fail.

therightscoop.com/mark-levin-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen-and-eligible-to-be-president/
Click to expand...
I know a lot of people here think that Canada is part of the United States, but it is not. So, Senator Cruz was born in a foreign country. And, as Mark Levine said, “birth abroad to American parents” and Cruz’s father was Canadian. Now, I know Mark said that only one parent is required, which we all know is bunk, because, otherwise there would have been no controversy from the Tea Party about President Obama.

So, yes, the Tea Party is going to stand up and demand that no Canadian be the US President. And I do think that Mark Levine is being quite disrespectful to Tea Party Patriots in what you posted.
 
Crossbones said:
I know a lot of people here think that Canada is part of the United States, but it is not. So, Senator Cruz was born in a foreign country. And, as Mark Levine said, “birth abroad to American parents” and Cruz’s father was Canadian. Now, I know Mark said that only one parent is required, which we all know is bunk, because, otherwise there would have been no controversy from the Tea Party about President Obama.

So, yes, the Tea Party is going to stand up and demand that no Canadian be the US President. And I do think that Mark Levine is being quite disrespectful to Tea Party Patriots in what you posted.
Click to expand...
Actually it’s Levin. And when it comes to matters of the Constitution I’ll take his word for it over some random guy on the internet.

And who here thinks Canada is part of the US? Name one person or link to one post where that statement has been made, or else it’s just… well, another fail.
 
DeniseNY said:
Actually it’s Levin. And when it comes to matters of the Constitution I’ll take his word for it over some random guy on the internet.
Click to expand...
Oops. I knew a Levin, but he pronounced it LeVEEN, so I always think the spelling should be different. My bad.

You can take his word for it all you want, but I find it very hard to believe that so many Republican politicians would have gone after President Obama on the issue if he was a natural born citizen because his mother was an American. So, unless you are saying that Republican Senator Shelby, Congressmen Blunt, Schmidt and Deal and Governor Palin are being foolish, then I have to assume that Mr. Levin is talking outside of his expertise.
And who here thinks Canada is part of the US? Name one person or link to one post where that statement has been made, or else it’s just… well, another fail.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of foreign posters that act like they understand America better than Americans on this site. Of course, there are a lot of Americans on this site that know more about London than Londoners. And there sure are a lot of non-Muslims that understand Islam better than everyone else as well. A really amazing accumulation of knowledge here, I’d say.
 
SuperLuigi said:
See, here’s the problem though. Americans whine and bicker about big government, but when someone like Jason Lewis, Sarah Palin, Ben Carson or Allen West comes along, what then?

Well, in the case of Palin, republican establishment types and others JOIN the far left in insulting her and her family and lecture Bristol on morality while they run around supporting changes to marriage. I wish I had a buck everytime a conservative or republican said “I’m a conservative/republican, and I think we don’t need Sarah Palin”.

And then later they’ll complain about how the GOP isn’t stopping Obama.

Democrats and independents have even less leg to stand on.

In the case of Jason Lewis, well, he asks why do we need farm subsidies and why is the government involved in building sports stadiums, but then some of those “homegrown” heartlanders get all in a tizzy over that.

This is why the politicians in DC get away with all of this. They aren’t held accountable because too many of the Americans are also in on the take, and boy, do they know it, hence all of the emotional defense when they are caught red-handed voting against their values while settling for crumbs from the Kings table.

Yes, it really is that obvious.
Click to expand...
I agree with you…

However, on the Palin issue; she fell to her own demise. If you remember, she started off preaching to the Evangelicals and embraced Church and morality. Nothing bad there. However, if you know you have issues with your own tribe, why are you telling the rest of us how to live? Than getting all upset when anyone points out your blemishes? Americans love to see these type of characters judge by the media. Just look at what Bill Cosby is going through…its not limited to politics.

Growing up I felt the Church did a poor job of bringing people to the faith. It seemed like every week it was just another homily on how I was going to hell. I am certain this kind of approach resulted in the decline in attendance. Ask many of your former Catholic friends that are now affiliated with another domination about their experiences. The reality is that we have contributed to the moral demise we find all around us.

I have to question what you mean by; “voting against their values…”? Do not be a single issue voter. Which of your previous candidates have aggressively attacked the issue? Abortion has not even been discussed in any of the GOP debates. Don’t be mistaken life is something that we need to value. But again, we do a poor job of conveying that message.
 
I normally vote conservative but I would have to say that in this case, I would most likely vote for Hillary because I cannot stand Donald Trump’s views. I mean, he is a very racist and discriminatory individual. I am in an interracial relationship. My boyfriend is of mixed racial ancestry. I have never tolerated racism and I never will. I could never in good conscience vote for a racist presidential candidate. Don’t get me wrong, I hate Hillary Clinton’s pro-abortion and pro-LGBT rights movement views but I hate racist views a lot too.
 
Holly3278 said:
I normally vote conservative but I would have to say that in this case, I would most likely vote for Hillary because I cannot stand Donald Trump’s views. I mean, he is a very racist and discriminatory individual. I am in an interracial relationship. My boyfriend is of mixed racial ancestry. I have never tolerated racism and I never will. I could never in good conscience vote for a racist presidential candidate. Don’t get me wrong, I hate Hillary Clinton’s pro-abortion and pro-LGBT rights movement views but I hate racist views a lot too.
Click to expand...
Hey Holly! 🙂 You have other choices. Don’t vote for any candidate you don’t believe in or agree with. There are third (independent) parties, as well as writing in a vote for someone not listed. You certainly aren’t limited between just two main candidates.
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
Huh?

HRC: pro gay so called marriage, pro-abortion, pro raising taxes AGAIN

DT: pro marriage, pro-life, pro lowering taxes.

Sure looks like an easy choice to me
Click to expand...
How do we know if he is really a “changed” man or he’s just trying to look pretty for the cameras??? :rolleyes: He’s only quasi pro-life. I’m not taking that chance. He’s not getting my vote. :nope:
 
Leo2014 said:
We needed to go off the Gold Standard. Our economy has grown too complex for us to have remain on the standard. Most economist will agree that we are better off.

I am going to assume that by your use of the Orwellian term; “The Machine” that you are referencing Big Government, than you are correct. The debates from both parties have reference that Americans have not seen growth in their income in over ten years. However, the “growth” Americans have experience within recent decades was largely due to the cheap rates of borrowing money. Which gave the false sense of prosperity. The same thing with government, they falsely claimed economic growth when the reality was a rapid increase in borrowing.

Both parties encourage “Big Government” and the same argument can be made about us. We want services that we feel so entitled to receive; healthcare being one of the biggest. But this has led to an uncontrolled accumulation of debt is now becoming the responsibility of the next generation. Every generation complains about their hardships, but our generation has made it worse by giving our children our problems to bare on top of their own.

The problem with voting is primarily with the ever decreasing participation among our citizenry. There are plenty of complaints regarding issues, but half-hearted attempts to conduct real change…
Click to expand...
So, in your opinion, which Presidential candidate is going to free us from the bankers?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top