Jump to content
Cenna

Trump

Recommended Posts

Considering how enraged some people are when they hear his name is figured I'd make a debate for the guy. Do you think trump is a racist or is it his haters who are racist. How would you feel about a trump presidency? What is it that actually makes him all that bad? What's good and what's bad about his policies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just the policies. Trump is an idiot. He made his money through casinos and property, both idiot-proof business models. His whole lifestyle is to support his ego - having his own reality show where he gets to be a dick, marrying supermodels, big building with his name on it.

 

Unfortunately, he is not incompetent. He is one of the few individuals in this world who can accomplish whatever he wants. What makes him especially dangerous is that he wants to do the wrong things.

 

Trump will bring down the USA in the same manner Caligula brought down the Roman Empire.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However bad Trump may be, when the alternative is Hillary I think he's the best option to hope for. Far too much shady stuff going back to Arkansas.

 

I do think the media make him out to seem worse than he is eg. Cruz was farther right on pretty much everything but Trump was portrayed as extreme, Trump wall is ridiculed but Hillary voted for a fence, etc.

 

I'd vote Trump but only to keep Hillary out. I guess a positive if she gets in is that the republicans will likely control the senate and be able to block

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump is a ridiculous candidate, but I don't hate him yet. Going against Hillary makes him palatable in comparison. I don't think congress would work with him if we won, no matter what he wanted to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

when the option is trump or hillary it makes me feel very sorry for the american people. Also is it me or were there literally no moderates in this election, every one of the candidates seemed to be too extreme on one thing or another which made them a bad choice.

Also heres the thing with trump v hillary. Most of trumps stuff will get blocked by congress because congress, but hillarys stupid stuff wont get blocked by congress because its the sort of stupid stuff they like to pass.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chiron said:

when the option is trump or hillary it makes me feel very sorry for the american people. Also is it me or were there literally no moderates in this election, every one of the candidates seemed to be too extreme on one thing or another which made them a bad choice.

Also heres the thing with trump v hillary. Most of trumps stuff will get blocked by congress because congress, but hillarys stupid stuff wont get blocked by congress because its the sort of stupid stuff they like to pass.

Yes. This. My exact opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer sanders/Green party

I'll take clinton over trump only because I believe trump will start WWIII, whereas clinton will only start a regular war. Not a good set of options.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Monday, July 04, 2016 at 1:08 PM, Piratemonkey said:

He's a bigot and a pathological liar

And what's different with hillary? 

On Monday, July 04, 2016 at 0:49 PM, japan77 said:

I prefer sanders/Green party

I'll take clinton over trump only because I believe trump will start WWIII, whereas clinton will only start a regular war. Not a good set of options.

How will he create ww3? By being firm in his opinions? Honestly America needs someone to be firm rather than flopping all over the place to get money from lobbyists.

 

Honestly this went better than I thought it would everytime I've met someone who didn't like Trump they would scream and yell racist or "he's hitler". in my personal opinion it's not trump supporters who are hateful but trump haters who are hateful. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump, like every presidential candidate, says a lot of stuff. I have a hard time believing he'll follow through with what he says. I do think he's an attention whore and will be very dramatic/volatile, which is not something I want in a leader, I want someone calm and level headed. He's done a horrible job bringing people together, and has been a catalyst for a lot of racism and hatred, this is (in my opinion) unacceptable for someone who wants to lead this country. How can you lead people when your very name sparks outrage?

 

 Hillary on the other hand, has a lot going against her, all these people saying she's a criminal, a lot of people think she committed voter fraud, whether it's true or not I wouldn't vote for her simply because those criminal acts could be true. 

 

Spoiler

my vote is to Gary Johnson.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that Donald Trump is a completely viable candidate. He has made his mark on conservative politics despite not being a conservative, he is a polar capitalist with moderate views on a lot of other issues. He lays on heavy with the rhetoric that is being judged as "racist" even though Muslims are not a race and neither are Mexicans. I do not agree with a lot of his rhetoric but I have studied his platform as much as I can and I personally do not have much of a problem with a lot of it. 

 

In regards to a Trump presidency, personally, the chances of that are fading fast but not because Trump is still being Trump. It is fading for two reasons. One, the predicted spread of the Electoral College here in the United States was already stacked against ANY republican candidate. Even with Ben Carson or Jeb Bush, a lot of Republicans ideal cadidates (too bad they just couldn't take the heat) it would have been very tough for a Republican to win the election in 2016. And two, there currently is a surge of strong third party support. With both Trump and Clinton's approvals in the upper 30's or low 40's depending on what source you use, it shouldn't be a surprise that the Libertarians (Gov. Gary Johnson-Gov. Bill Weld) and the Greens (Stein) are making broad leaps in the polls. Between them they hold about 17% of the popular support. 

 

Trump will definitely get the Republican nomination on the 18th. Hillary will get the Democratic. And with so much up in the air what with the 3rd party candidates, it is extremely unlikely that Trump will get the 270 Electors needed to secure the Presidency. EVEN IF HE DID, I think that Trump will be more malleable than either Congress or Trump himself cares to admit. DC doesn't like him but everyone seems to forget that the United States has a system of Checks and balances built into the government structure. Trump will not start WW3, if that starts anywhere it will be due to the NATO-Russian aggression in Eastern Europe or the US/Pacific Nations-China aggression in the South China Sea right now.

 

In the later, there isn't much Trump could do that Obama isn't already doing. Deploying more ships and effectively "flexing the American muscles" at China while still toying, manipulating, and otherwise intruding with the smaller nations contesting with China. The only thing Trump could add to the mix would be his "Stand Tall and Tough!" rhetoric which I don't think will either deter nor expedite China's inevitable military annexation of the entire region followed by the ousting of the US and other nations. And call me crazy but even though we shouldn't be over there in other people's business in the first place, If we keep up this destructive policy of drawing lines in the sand for Russia and China and then letting them cross those lines without consequence then we are just telling the nations of the world to stop taking us seriously. I don't agree with intervening but if we must then we have better not back down at the last minute and let Russia and China walk all over us. It is pathetic. And in that way I personally think Trump would handle the situation well because should he get in the White House China and Russia will learn quickly that our fast-talking and belligerent President doesn't want to play games. 

 

 I have my own prediction of how this election will turn out that I posted here. But overall, although Trump's route to the White House is getting smaller and smaller, I don't think he would be the worst president we have ever had or could have and I do not think he will start WW3. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing with trump is that he doesn't even try to hide his lies. Idk if I respect him or if I abhor him for that.

 

Everyone says Clinton lies etc., but most people are referring to Banghazi and her emails. Most of the Clinton hate I've seen is based on those two main situations that the media blew her up over. Don't get me wrong, the media has shit in Trump since the beginning and I know I fell victim to that propaganda. But it goes both ways. Clinton gets so much hate because people think she's sneaky or something, but it's not entirely based in reality. People don't actually want to look at her history objectively or logically, they just hate her even if Benghazi wasn't her fault, which most of the government and international community is saying it's not her fault entirely.

 

Patrick, I'm going to say something similar. I've studied Clinton's platform and I respect her for a lot of her ideas. Does she dress weird? Yah. Does she seem a bit irresponsible? Yah. But I agree with most of her platform so I'm going to vote for her. So if we're talking about what these people say they will do as president, you can make a case for both. But the reality of the fact is that Trump presents himself like a blabbering idiot while Clinton at least tries to have a presidential aura about her. After all, she actually knows what she's talking about because she's experienced the White House multiplie times. Trump on the other hand doesn't know what he's talking about at all and will probably be relying on his Vice President to do a lot of his bidding

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Piratemonkey said:

Patrick, I'm going to say something similar. I've studied Clinton's platform and I respect her for a lot of her ideas. Does she dress weird? Yah. Does she seem a bit irresponsible? Yah. But I agree with most of her platform so I'm going to vote for her. So if we're talking about what these people say they will do as president, you can make a case for both. But the reality of the fact is that Trump presents himself like a blabbering idiot while Clinton at least tries to have a presidential aura about her. After all, she actually knows what she's talking about because she's experienced the White House multiplie times. Trump on the other hand doesn't know what he's talking about at all and will probably be relying on his Vice President to do a lot of his bidding

This is something I can respect. I abhor people who vote based on party, or the persona of the candidate (gender, race, etc) but you know why you're voting for her and can cite reasons other than "Trumps a Mean Rich White Guy!" and my personal pet peeves "small loan of a million dollars" and "he went bankrupt 4 times" or however many it was. Anyone can read those things on twitter but that doesn't make them solid reasons. 

 

Thank you for being an educated voter and despite my disagreement with your choice, I will respect it and limit how much I try to persuade you to vote for Gov Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Cenna said:

How will he create ww3? By being firm in his opinions? Honestly America needs someone to be firm rather than flopping all over the place to get money from lobbyists.

 

Honestly this went better than I thought it would everytime I've met someone who didn't like Trump they would scream and yell racist or "he's hitler". in my personal opinion it's not trump supporters who are hateful but trump haters who are hateful. 

Trump literally said he would be willing to use nukes in the Middle East or in Europe. Firing those nukes leads to ww3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Patrick MacFarlane said:

This is something I can respect. I abhor people who vote based on party, or the persona of the candidate (gender, race, etc) but you know why you're voting for her and can cite reasons other than "Trumps a Mean Rich White Guy!" and my personal pet peeves "small loan of a million dollars" and "he went bankrupt 4 times" or however many it was. Anyone can read those things on twitter but that doesn't make them solid reasons. 

 

Thank you for being an educated voter and despite my disagreement with your choice, I will respect it and limit how much I try to persuade you to vote for Gov Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. 

I agree, people don't seem to look at the actual facts behind a those things. There was likely a reason he went bankrupt 4 times, considering how much money he has now. And when you're rolling big bucks like Trump, with how much money he handles and pays out to various of his businesses, a million dollar loan is very small. People just like to shit on other people without basis.

 

Honestly if I were to vote for a third party candidate it would be Jill Stein. She seems like an honest, genuine person just like Sanders. I'm a huge fan of her environmental policies and her social policies. But I know she won't win so I'm voting for Clinton. Gary Johnson would be the preferred Republican candidate and honestly if he got the nomination instead of Trump, I would seriously consider voting Republican this year. Why not give a libertarian a go at the White House. Their social policy and foreign policy are great.

 

I just really can't take Trump seriously based on his speeches and the way he presents himself. Maybe he wouldn't be the worst president, but he'd be an embarrassment nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Piratemonkey said:

There was likely a reason he went bankrupt 4 times, considering how much money he has now. And when you're rolling big bucks like Trump, with how much money he handles and pays out to various of his businesses, a million dollar loan is very small. People just like to shit on other people without basis.

Exactly. When someone with investments as large as Trump get the slightest feeling that one investment might be able to get bad, you transition funds, focus, and reinvest that revenue elsewhere and let it die so that when the hard time does hit, it can go under with minimum cost. And then you can turn around and invest somewhere else that has more security for the future. And the fact that Trump was given 1 million dollars and now has a net worth of 4.5 billion USD, that speaks volumes. He has increased his wealth 4,500x. If I started a business with 1,000 that ended up being worth 4,500,000 I would get praised as a great businessman. The same is true for Trump, just on a much larger scale, he took what he had and when it would have been easy for an everyday Joe to mindlessly invest and squander the 1 million, he multiplied it 4,500 times over. 

 

43 minutes ago, Piratemonkey said:

Honestly if I were to vote for a third party candidate it would be Jill Stein. She seems like an honest, genuine person just like Sanders. I'm a huge fan of her environmental policies and her social policies. But I know she won't win so I'm voting for Clinton. Gary Johnson would be the preferred Republican candidate and honestly if he got the nomination instead of Trump, I would seriously consider voting Republican this year. Why not give a libertarian a go at the White House. Their social policy and foreign policy are great.

"But I know she won't win" the downfall of all third parties in America. If enough people voted third party as their conscious led them then the third parties would become one of the multi-party system. We have a two-party system because every year more and more people vote for them because their third-arty guy can't win. At the very least, when a greater percentage of the population votes third-party it sends a message to the two big parties that, hey, people aren't actually 100% happy with our stances. A movement toward third parties will force the hands of the Republican and Democratic parties to modify their platforms in an attempt to retain the voters' favour or risk losing them to party that does adapt. Third party voting forces the two parties to change or risk becoming obsolete, voting is the best method Americans have to impact the platform of America and too many throw that ability away for the sake of the "lesser of two evils" and settle for someone who does not support them. That, that is a wasted vote.

 

49 minutes ago, Piratemonkey said:

I just really can't take Trump seriously based on his speeches and the way he presents himself. Maybe he wouldn't be the worst president, but he'd be an embarrassment nonetheless.

This I understand but no one can deny that his fast-talking belligerence attracts large swaths of the American peoples' attention. He has done a good job of distancing himself from the party for his "taking down the White House from the outside." Honestly, it is his personality that I am most wary of, like I said earlier, his policy will be restrained by actual presidential ability and congressional checks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Patrick MacFarlane said:

"But I know she won't win" the downfall of all third parties in America. If enough people voted third party as their conscious led them then the third parties would become one of the multi-party system. We have a two-party system because every year more and more people vote for them because their third-arty guy can't win. At the very least, when a greater percentage of the population votes third-party it sends a message to the two big parties that, hey, people aren't actually 100% happy with our stances. A movement toward third parties will force the hands of the Republican and Democratic parties to modify their platforms in an attempt to retain the voters' favour or risk losing them to party that does adapt. Third party voting forces the two parties to change or risk becoming obsolete, voting is the best method Americans have to impact the platform of America and too many throw that ability away for the sake of the "lesser of two evils" and settle for someone who does not support them. That, that is a wasted vote.

I don't agree. I think it's called being pragmatic. The problem with idealist third-party candidates is that usually their policies are either extreme, or very different from how government and society are run now. I want a president that will continue the progress this country has made towards a fairer and more equal society. Jill Stein would fit the bill perfectly. But in my eyes, her policies seem more like an end goal. America isn't going to change over night.

 

I would vote for a moderate over an idealist like Jill Stein or Sanders. I thought Sanders had a shot, but I know he doesn't now. Even if he made a third party and ran for president anyway. Just because I like his ideas and everything doesn't change the fact that the Democrats all voted for Clinton and there is simply not enough people in America who support my views and ideology right now.

 

Sure, Sanders changed the democratic party policies, but that honestly doesn't change much in my eyes. Because the reality is that if I vote third party, my opponent will win, aka Trump. I risk the government going in the complete opposite direction even though I managed to shift the democrat policies more to the left. It's happened time and time again. Aka Ralph Nader. There is always a bad outcome. If you analyze the benefits and risks, there is much higher risk to voting third party, and frankly not enough of a benefit to justify my vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The God Emperor does not care for the opinion of sheep. Our righteous protector will save us from the inevitable downfall of the second greatest nation on earth - America. With buildings that pierce the heavens, and an empire he built from a small loan of a million dollars, Donald 'Midas' Trump will turn Baltimore from a smoky ruin into a golden palace El Dorado couldn't compare to. Aryans will reign supreme instead of communist Jews and Reptillians hell bent on world domination, the way our lord intended. Aryans will work the fields, work the factories and work the nation back into the superpower it was always meant to be.

 

but what of those who would oppose our lord protector? It begins with the left. Those who would impede the stampede of the brilliant stalion who is the God trump himself (praise be) will be trampled under the hooves of industrial progress and capitalist power. Welfare babies - gone. Homosexuals - gone, save for a few (namely, the 12th disciple Milo Yianopolous and his butt buddies). Communists - gone. Next is the Muslims. A holy and righteous crusade will sweep through Arab territories, spreading the gospel and crushing those who would oppose our missionaries with a fist made of lead. America will have its very own empire, beginning in the holy land itself. Next, the illegal immigrants. A Great Wall 1000 feet tall and 1000 feet deep will protect the states from unruly undocumented criminals and drug lords. A purge from within would send them back to the desert from which they came, and civil unrest would be at an all time low.

 

every man, woman and child under the protection of the saviour would live happy and meaningful lives. Brilliant, strong men would breed with beautiful, intelligent women, to which they work and flourish. Trump would declare himself God amongst men, and live eternally at the peak of trump tower, watching over us. Forever and always. 

 

God save the president 

image.jpeg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, japan77 said:

Trump literally said he would be willing to use nukes in the Middle East or in Europe. Firing those nukes leads to ww3.

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/03/31/donald-trump-sure-might-use-nuclear/

 

Honestly I agree with him not to use nukes but to not leave it out of the question. And if you read the dialogue he didn't say he would with out a doubt use them he said he wouldn't leave it out of the question. As well as mentioning he'd be very slow and hesitant to use it. Honestly say he did get president all the nations by this now know that we've got a president not to mess with which is what we need considering Putin and Russia and then China in the south China Sea. To me I'm voting not for the fact that he's not Hillary Clinton but because he's firm with what he says and as said earlier by Patrick I believe we need someone the world looks at knows that he won't back down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's contradicted himself so many times in the campaign that I honestly have no idea what he would do aside from making ostentatious displays, speeches, and statements. He's not firm on almost anything he has said. The only policy he has stuck with is building a wall on the Mexican border. If he really cared about border security why not just use that money to fund the US Border Patrol? Hire more personnel, invest in technology, etc rather than something someone can just go over with a ladder, tunnel underneath, or make a hole somewhere in the thousands of miles wide border. On Foreign policy, he surprises me somewhat with his frequent non-interventionist statements which are an appealing contrast to the very hawkish Clinton, despite his contradictory comments about what he would do if he led us to a conflict. His statement over negotiating peace between Israel and Palestine thoroughly pissed off the Republican establishment who love to kowtow to AIPAC and that was rather refreshing to see them get humiliated in that regard. Now if only the same thing happens to the NRA. Those lobbyists need to be humbled, especially the NRA for blocking even research into gun violence. It would have been nice to have Joe Biden run since he veers on the side of restraint, but that ship sailed. Not to say he doesn't have his own problems and faults like the rest of the candidates we were presented with this election.

 

I'll probably vote Democrat (with great reluctance) simply so a few potential Supreme Court vacancies coming up aren't chosen by the Republicans. I would have considered third parties since they actually stand a chance of having a significant percentage of the vote due to the general election unpopularity of both Donald and Hillary. The Green Party only recently removed from its platform support for homeopathy, alternative medicine (I'm actually not certain on this), and anti-vaccination. It's the difference between seeing them as progressive, social-democrats and new-age hippies and anti-vaccers. It's surprising to see from Dr. Jill Stein since she is a medical doctor.

 

The Libertarians have this guy running for Senate in Florida. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Sol_Invictus They actually considered John McAfee a viable candidate and their policies are summed up as legalizing marijuana, completely deregulating the economy (which led to the 2008 recession, thanks, Bill Clinton), removing environmental regulations, and saying abortion are okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may just be me but I can't wrap my mind around how so many people can support someone who approved upwards of $165 billion worth of commercial weapons sales to some 20 different Shariah nations in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. I get that benghazi and her emails are overused but seriously if she can't be trusted with classified information. If she'd rather put guns in the enemies hands and preach that they are bad then she don't need to be in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Cenna said:

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/03/31/donald-trump-sure-might-use-nuclear/

 

Honestly I agree with him not to use nukes but to not leave it out of the question. And if you read the dialogue he didn't say he would with out a doubt use them he said he wouldn't leave it out of the question. As well as mentioning he'd be very slow and hesitant to use it. Honestly say he did get president all the nations by this now know that we've got a president not to mess with which is what we need considering Putin and Russia and then China in the south China Sea. To me I'm voting not for the fact that he's not Hillary Clinton but because he's firm with what he says and as said earlier by Patrick I believe we need someone the world looks at knows that he won't back down.

Frankly it should be out of the question to use nukes. There is absolutely no reason to use them. Particularly nuking people who don't also have weapons of mass destruction? Nuking kills thousands, if not millions of innocent lives all while destroying ecosystems and other life forms. In what way could you ever justify that?

10 hours ago, Fanag said:

removing environmental regulations

Removing environmental regulations is a horrible idea. You do realize that not having environmental laws and regulations led to the near destruction of our planet? Unless you believe climate change isn't real and/or isn't human caused. If this is the case then you are wrong based on legitimate and significantly supported scientific evidence.

 

The private sector has proven that, when allowed to, they will exploit the limited natural resources on this planet until there is nothing left. The only reason businesses are becoming green is because regulations make it cheaper for them to do so. If something else didn't make it cheaper, then the cheapest option would be to exploit nature. That's how business works, that's how it's always been, and that's how it will continue to be unless we put some restraints on the inherent greed that mankind exudes. The private sector cannot be virtuous, mostly because doing the right thing isn't usually the easiest and most profitable course of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Piratemonkey said:

Frankly it should be out of the question to use nukes. There is absolutely no reason to use them. Particularly nuking people who don't also have weapons of mass destruction? Nuking kills thousands, if not millions of innocent lives all while destroying ecosystems and other life forms. In what way could you ever justify that?

Removing environmental regulations is a horrible idea. You do realize that not having environmental laws and regulations led to the near destruction of our planet? Unless you believe climate change isn't real and/or isn't human caused. If this is the case then you are wrong based on legitimate and significantly supported scientific evidence.

 

The private sector has proven that, when allowed to, they will exploit the limited natural resources on this planet until there is nothing left. The only reason businesses are becoming green is because regulations make it cheaper for them to do so. If something else didn't make it cheaper, then the cheapest option would be to exploit nature. That's how business works, that's how it's always been, and that's how it will continue to be unless we put some restraints on the inherent greed that mankind exudes. The private sector cannot be virtuous, mostly because doing the right thing isn't usually the easiest and most profitable course of action.

Basically totally agreed. In a capitalist  society, which the US is, companies (in general) will only think about their profit margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×