Trump Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vouthon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BlueEyedLady said:
I did not call conservatives white supremacists. But they do harness the racist sentiments of some of their constituents to win elections. Trump has just amplified and exposed this. Even David Duke agrees.😉

I don’t see a future in the US where it will have been more politically beneficial to support Trump than Hillary. Bernie over Hillary? Sure. But no one is going to be shamed for supporting her over a reality show star who has demonstrated no knowledge of world events and a dangerous temperament. That idea just isn’t grounded in any evidence.
Click to expand...
“Conservatives” are not racist. There might be some racist Republicans (or independents who vote Republican), but I would not call them “conservatives.” They are typically more libertarian in nature.

Plus the Democrats have their equal share of racists. Personally, I find it interesting that the most racially segregated place in the entire United States is Long Island, NY; which is a heavy strong hold for the National Democratic Party. Also Manhattan, NY is also extremely segregated too. Both of those places allow condo and co-op associations to interview and reject people from buying a condo or co-op (not from renting, buying) because of a failed interview. They also allow the condo and/ co-op to review the financials of someone who is buying a unit.

All of these rules allow them to keep people out that they feel will “lower their property value.” This is institutionalized classism at it’s best (or should I say it’s worst).

Also, I would like to point out that (unlike what the media would like you to believe) the majority of racist Southern Democrats from the 1960s did NOT move to the Republican Party. A lot switched in Houston, but not all around the South. The Democratic still has a lot of racists in the unions, etc. Plus, a lot of the Democratic elite who claim to not be racist are the same people who protest when a public housing project, public transportation system, etc are secluded to be constructed in their “backyard.”

I’m not a Trump fan, but I do not believe he’s racist. I believe Donald Trump judges people on one thing, and one thing only. Are they a good worker? If you a good worker, then Trump likes you. If you are lazy, incompetent, criminal, etc, then he has no patience for you.

Like most Republicans, Trump believes that people need to contribute to society by working hard so you can support your own family. And that individuals and local communities have the responsibility to help the poor; not the Federal or State govts.

Finally… I would LOVE for someone to do a study of the demographics of the homeless. Do homeless people have conservative family members or liberal ones? Did they have conservative parents or liberal parents? Where they conservative or liberal before becoming homeless? Why? Because I don’t know a single, true conservative who would let a family member live on the street because real conservatives believe that family, first and foremost, are responsible to take care of their own poor.

God Bless.
 
phil19034 said:
The Supreme Court can’t “abolish the 2nd amendment” however, the Supreme Court and determine what the 2nd amendment was meant for.

It could determine that people are not allowed to have certain kinds of guns. For example: if Hillary’s team decided that people can only have rifles and shotguns for hunting and all other guns are illegal, a lawsuit would happen. A leftist Supreme Court would most likely agree with Hillary and say it’s ok to limit the guns to just for hunting.

The main purpose of the 2nd amendment wasn’t just to provide people with the means to hunt and protect their homes from criminals and wild animals; it was also meant to protect the people from a future tyrannical government.

If you take the guns away, or limit them to non-practical guns, you reduce the ability of revolution. While the founders hoped another revolution wasn’t necessary, they believed in the people’s right to revolution against tierney. So they built into the Bill of Rights the 2nd Amendment so the people could fight against the army the same way the colonies did against the British Army. But if you take away the guns, it makes it much harder for the people to wage a revolution.

In order for the Left to push more radical laws on the people, they need to take the guns away first. This is their plan. Not everyone is on it, but the radicals who want to impose communism know they need to take the guns before forcing a communist government on Americans.
Click to expand...
If Clinton is elected, and appoints the kinds of supreme court justices she wants, we’ll be seeing governance by executive order that the Supremes will approve, and congress people might as well go home and take up other professions.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
I don’t think you know what “sarcasm” means, but he may have been making a joke. Making a joke about the assassination of a political opponent used to be considered off-limits. But I understand that nothing is off-limits for Trump or his supporters.

What happens when President Trump makes a “sarcastic joke” about going to war with Iran?
Click to expand...
This is precisely why he would be such a liability as president; he doesn’t think things through and shoots from the lip constantly. This is an unacceptable and, frankly, dangerous trait in someone who would be the leader of the free world, having to deal with the likes of Putin, Kim Jong-un and their ilk. If you think he’s going to change and become “presidential”, think again.
 
Ridgerunner said:
There was a time when most Repubs did not support Ronald Reagan, and there was certainly a time when most Dems did not support Harry Truman.
Click to expand...
But neither of them was regarded as a narcissistic demagogue by a significant percentage of the population.
 
dixieagle said:
This is precisely why he would be such a liability as president; he doesn’t think things through and shoots from the lip constantly. This is an unacceptable and, frankly, dangerous trait in someone who would be the leader of the free world, having to deal with the likes of Putin, Kim Jong-un and their ilk. If you think he’s going to change and become “presidential”, think again.
Click to expand...
The truth is that BOTH Trump and Hillary are very scary choices.

I still don’t understand how the Democrats had ZERO viable candidates run against Hillary. It’s like they were all scared.

Personally, I view abortion and religious liberty as more important issues. I would rather risk a cold war with Russia or a conflict with North Korea if it meant the chance of making abortion illegal and stopping euthanasia.

Afterall, saving souls is most important.
 
phil19034 said:
The truth is that BOTH Trump and Hillary are very scary choices.

I still don’t understand how the Democrats had ZERO viable candidates run against Hillary. It’s like they were all scared.
Click to expand...
There were several good candidates that ran against Hillary, including Bernie Sanders (there were others, too, including Joe Biden and Martin O’Malley, for example). It turned out that Hillary Clinton is very popular with Democratic voters, has a solid political organization across the country that could get out the vote, and had lots of campaign funds. She was a heavy favorite to win the nomination, although Bernie had a good run. If other candidates were scared, it was because she was a formidable candidate who had a great chance of winning the nomination and the general election.
 
adowcday said:
There were several good candidates that ran against Hillary, including Bernie Sanders (there were others, too, including Joe Biden and Martin O’Malley, for example). It turned out that Hillary Clinton is very popular with Democratic voters, has a solid political organization across the country that could get out the vote, and had lots of campaign funds. She was a heavy favorite to win the nomination, although Bernie had a good run. If other candidates were scared, it was because she was a formidable candidate who had a great chance of winning the nomination and the general election.
Click to expand...
Joe Biden never ran this election. :confused:
 
Michael68 said:
The media has sunk to a real low with this. Left wing conspiring with the media to get their weak candidate in.
Click to expand...
“The media” has absolutely nothing to do with the deserved fallout over Trump’s statement. I heard him say what he said before I heard any media “spin” and I knew right away what he was saying and how foolish it was. Blaming this on “the media” is lame.
 
meltzerboy said:
Who puts any stock in what the New York Daily News says?
Click to expand...
Shaun King is their senior justice writer. He is worth listening to in my opinion. I don’t agree with him 100% of the time but for Black Lives Matter issues, he is my source.

Don’t know about the newspaper as a whole though.
 
adowcday said:
There were several good candidates that ran against Hillary, including Bernie Sanders (there were others, too, including Joe Biden and Martin O’Malley, for example). It turned out that Hillary Clinton is very popular with Democratic voters, has a solid political organization across the country that could get out the vote, and had lots of campaign funds. She was a heavy favorite to win the nomination, although Bernie had a good run. If other candidates were scared, it was because she was a formidable candidate who had a great chance of winning the nomination and the general election.
Click to expand...
Biden didn’t run. No mainstream Democrat ran against Hillary. Bernie Sanders was NOT a mainstream candidate.

Also Hillary was was NOT a very popular with Democratic voters. Many (if not most) would have prefered someone else, that’s one of the main reasons why Sanders lasted so long.

The following were the only declared candidates and none of them would have been considered contenders:

Bernie Sanders
Martin O’Malley*
Lincoln Chafee**
Jim Webb**
Lawrence Lessig**

*dropped out in Feb
** dropped out before primaries began

There were no nationally known names. Where were:
  • Biden
  • Kerry
  • Al Gore
  • Ed Rendell
  • Harry Reid
  • Rich Durbin
  • Chuck Schumer
  • the Castro twins
etc.???

The Democrats honestly didn’t have a single smooth talker who couldn’t run against Hillary?

The Republicans had 17 people run for President. While none of the people who insiders said were considering a run against (or wanted to run against Hillary) Hillary ran.

Why?
 
Expatreprocedit said:
I don’t think you know what “sarcasm” means, but he may have been making a joke. Making a joke about the assassination of a political opponent used to be considered off-limits. But I understand that nothing is off-limits for Trump or his supporters.

What happens when President Trump makes a “sarcastic joke” about going to war with Iran?
Click to expand...
And Sarah Palin was just joking when she posted her “cross hairs map.” Gabby Giffords found out what results from this type of humor.
 
Serious question - if Trump is elected, who is going to serve in his administration? The President has to fill something like 3,000 appointed positions, many of them in national security, intelligence, and homeland security. Seems that most of the people who would ordinarily do those jobs in a GOP administration will not be willing to work for Trump. Someone has to do these jobs. Will qualified people step up anyway (whether for careerism, or patriotism)? Will Trump appoint people without national level experience? I think this could be a real issue.
 
Book_Worm said:
And Sarah Palin was just joking when she posted her “cross hairs map.” Gabby Giffords found out what results from this type of humor.
Click to expand...
Very good point. But actually, the “cross hairs” visual motif didn’t necessarily refer to actual shootings. “In the crosshairs” is a long-standing colloquialism for being targeted for something, like being defeated in an election. I actually don’t believe the Palin campaign meant to suggest assassination, and we’ll probably never know whether or not that map influenced the shooter.

But there was no colloquialism involved with Trump’s statement. And you are absolutely right, “joke” or not it could very easily influence someone.

The even bigger point is what this shows about the mindset of at least some “Second Amendment” people, since Trump, who is very savvy about these things, obviously knew what they wanted to hear. Of course anyone at all familiar with the far right, and even the more mainstream sites like Breitbart knows that violence against Hillary Clinton is a frequent theme.
 
Expatreprocedit said:
Very good point. But actually, the “cross hairs” visual motif didn’t necessarily refer to actual shootings. “In the crosshairs” is a long-standing colloquialism for being targeted for something, like being defeated in an election. I actually don’t believe the Palin campaign meant to suggest assassination, and we’ll probably never know whether or not that map influenced the shooter.

But there was no colloquialism involved with Trump’s statement. And you are absolutely right, “joke” or not it could very easily influence someone.

The even bigger point is what this shows about the mindset of at least some “Second Amendment” people, since Trump, who is very savvy about these things, obviously knew what they wanted to hear. Of course anyone at all familiar with the far right, and even the more mainstream sites like Breitbart knows that violence against Hillary Clinton is a frequent theme.
Click to expand...
The second amendment people are not people who do assassinations. These are people who would rise up against tyranny and a government who would take away their fundamental rights. Thats what trump was talking about, people who wouldn’t take it lying down if the government comes knocking on their door to take away their guns.

If hillary was assassinated while president the Vice President takes over, so an assasination doesn’t prevent the same kind of justices from being nominated at all. But if the second amendment is indeed shut down by the Supreme Court, the only defense against such a tyrannical government invasion of rights might be up to an uprising by people who believe in the second amendment. This is what trump meant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top