Trump has attacked:
Gold Star parents (specifically the mother, questioning why she didn't speak, which is just inhuman)
POW John McCain
A federal judge
the pope
The fire marshal in Colorado yesterday
Muslims
Women
Mexicans
The US military and it's leaders
When is it too much? What does he have to do? What does he have to say? Who does he have to dishonor for you to say I cannot support this man?
I realize everyone's distaste for Hillary, I share in that. I'm an independent and I was 100% voting for the republican nominee prior to the primaries. The country needed it. And in my opinion, Hillary's mistakes with Benghazi and her emails are disqualifying in any other circumstance. The President can't have those things on their record. They just can't. I think she's much better at her job and much better than she will ever be given credit for, but not everyone who is smart and in politics can be President, not with those mistakes on her record.
But, she's not running against someone who has similar knowledge or similar experience, but doesn't have those mistakes in judgment on their record. In fact the complete opposite is true. If you can't vote for her, then fine. But, how can you support this man? How is it possible?
Read Trumps twitter feed. Try to imagine they are the thoughts of someone you don't know. They read like the thoughts of an immature, entitled teenager. If he was a member of this board, he would be laughed at every day.
He stated it was his choice to hold the convention in Cleveland. The site was chosen in 2014. Outright lie.
He stated the NFL wrote him a letter complaining about the debate schedule. The NFL immediately denied it. Outright lie.
Everyday he states he was against Iraq, Libya, and Syria. He favored all three. Outright lie.
Two weeks before Brexit he didn't know what it was.
He spoke of Ukraine and Russia today with complete ignorance.
He said he had nothing to do with the Ukraine and Russia aggression policy being eliminated from the GOP platform. The NOMINEE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, he would have us believe.
He encouraged Russian espionage against our country, then insulted every single one of us saying he was joking.
What service has he performed for this country? What has he given? What disadvantaged person has he helped? When has he ever showed any compassion for anyone other than himself?
Think about this. Khizr Khan challenged him for disgracing his sons sacrifice and all Muslim immigrants and what did he do? He went after the mother.
How can any of you support this?
locker rooms, etc. the hatred of government is as extreme as i've seen in my lifetime. Trump is giving voice to a 10's of millions of people simply tired of what our current government has provided. Fingers can be pointed, voices can be raised, but the large majority of america is worse off in a number of ways right now than they were when Bush took office.
Trump is not a conservative, he is not a really a republican but he is not the status quowhich is constantly finding new lows. The funny thing is, the liberal establishment is just as naive as the conservatives. Trump is a modern a day rebellion, and the libs just want o run on more of the same.
(no message)
If they hate govt, he's a big govt guy. He also wants tax breaks for the rich with no clue how to pay for them.
If they think he will bring back blue collar manufacturing jobs, that ship has long sailed. Do you really think a 45% tariff China will make our economy better?
He's not going be able to deport 11 million people. The wall is a complete fantasy that even he doesn't believe.
Will withdrawing from the world make us safer? Will abandoning our traditional allies give us greater security?
And then there's the fact that he's simply clueless about how govt and foreign policy work.
We don't have to be complete protectionists, but adding the TPP could be devastating as drawn up.
A country needs a strong manufacturing base. Trump is correct that previous deals have been pretty bad for us.
I don't expect trump to make any of these decisions, but i expect the people that he appoints to do them to be a lot better than Obama/Hillary's appointees.
It's been based on outdated, labor intensive, union driven principles.
Look at one local company here, Hershey Foods. Mostly outsourced to Mexico where they have a modern factory. They couldn't modernize or cut labor here. Instead just about all of the jobs left. If they had they would still be here. Our manufacturing that was lost was inefficent and labor intensive.
What will succede in the future is modern robotics with very little manual labor involved. Until we get with that we will lag. The TPP is simply a whipping boy that isn't going to be passed anyway.
Changing the union mentality is critical to getting it back however. We won't be able to get it back with Obamacare in place since it will cost to much to insure the workers compared to other countries.
BTW, I took my family the Hershey about 3 years ago on the way to Philly from Michigan. Good memories.
He is the only possible solution to straightening out where this country is going. I was in Philadelphia yesterday and there were left wingers all over the place one guy had a red tee shirt on with the hammer and sickle and cccp on it. I looked at him and shook my head, later on he came extremely close to my personal space obviously looking to start something which I was smart enough not to do. The liberals are even more extreme than the Tea Party people assholes now, and only Trump has a chance to snap us out of this horrendous stuff.
You actually think he is going to make America great again. Through force of personality or something.
There are millions like you, too.
This is why Trump constitutes a national emergency.
(no message)
That's a foolish belief.
(no message)
You guys are speculating wrt Trump's future world. I am not doing so nearly to your extent with Hillary. She has a track record to study.
Do know what an economic collapse would look like?
Do you think your upper middle class life style might not be a bit impacted?
- primarily do to Obama having made it his social experiment, and because he has forced out and chased away the best and brightest of the military minds. What we have now are the brightest politically-minded military minds. I think we would likely fall short in a major conflict against a real opponent right now - and I think the behavior seen on the ship taken by the Iranians on the day of the Iran Deal exemplifies this.
Regarding the economy. the entire res of the world is in bad shape right now, so we are, at present, the haven of choice for foreign capital because there is no other choice. I see us falling inot the same boat as the rest of the world in short order with our present policies. We run up debt like it doesn't matter, and we cripple ourselves with unnecessary rules & regs such as the Paris Accords.
Our military is also not in shambles, but why do we even need one this big if we are going to become fortress America?
Which, of course, think tank economists always leave out of their "analysis" of his plans.
Here, being used to fund tax breaks to billionaires.
Just a man of the people all the way.
Explain what he is going to do in concrete terms that is going to make things better.
(no message)
Holding off on the TPP (at least until we can review it more carefully - you must admit that Obama-negotiated deals don't go well for us usually).
limiting the uncontrolled illegal immigration will take a tremendous financial burden off of our medical system as well as other sectors.
Having a real sit down with Mexico on what we expect from them as a neighbor is another really big thing imo. Why are these poor refugees running here? We have to address the issue of Mexico taking the easy way out and dumping it's own responsibilities onto us. thy are a corrupt govt, and they will respond to the threat of losing their personal income streams wrt trade deals with the US.
until mexico is changes, people will continue to flow to us until our conditions get as bad as theirs..
And he could well replace Obama care with something even worse.
Oh yeah, that's right things can't get worse.
Trump could literally do no worse than that. He will most likely go back to the previous model because it is easiest and known, but if he goes the other way and also institutes a nationalized system, then it is no worse than what was coming anyways.
The status quo must change. You are assuming the absolute worst. The absolute best will certainly not occur - Trump is not Reagan.
But somewhere in between is far more likely.
(no message)
So again where is this big change going to come? The TPP bogeyman is just that as it isn't going to pass. She can't let it with the Sanders voters over there.
I said that if he did, then it would be no different than what Hillary would do anyways. I think that he will likely back away from a public option. I acknowledge that I cannot guarantee this, but there is more hope in this regard than Hillary offers.
The odds of not much else happening are much bigger in either case.
The guy in the shirt doesn't sway me.
I'm freightened you think Trump is the one to straighten out this country. He's gone bankrupt 4 times.
(no message)
(no message)
DSA & CPUSA have endorsed Clinton as they have every Dem candidate since 1988. In addition, CPUSA has announced a partnership with the Dem party due to the fact that their goals and ideology is the same.
He knows that we are far more likely to be idealistic than pragmatic. His comments on Trump reveal much as he seems to be able to discern what he is actually thinking and what he actually knows. I guess that comes from reading the MSM. They have him all worked up.
Have a good day
It was Hillary and Obama that said Putin & Russia were not our enemy when they invaded Crimea, and used it as an excuse to "set the reset button". Putin has played them like a fiddle. Trump looks like he wouild have a d=far better chance than HRC or Obama. I really don't care what Putin thinks except for whether it gives us an advantage at the negotiating table.
(no message)
(no message)
Someone else: "Trump did/said X."
You: "Oh yeah? Well Hillary..."
I can't stand BLM or NARAL. However, implying that BLM is the same as the KKK is ludicrous. NARAL is not imposing their positions, whether you and I dislike them or not, via dictatorial means. They do it through the system.
BTW, I looked it up and BLM did not endorse Hillary. "Mothers of Black Lives Matter" did, though.
Now proceed with calling me a "liberal."
And the whole point of this really is that for every criticism of Trump, there is an opposite, and at least equal, criticism of Hillary.
(no message)
that's what this thread is about My worldview is a bit out of your area of expertise.
And it should be instructive that I anticipate your responses before you make them. I know your "worldview" quite well.
What sources on the opposite side of the spectrum do you read? I enjoy The Weekly Standard and I read the National Review when I have the opportunity. I will also read Mother Jones when I have the opportunity. I also spent years reading libertarian journals and books. What I get from your posts is a simplistic understanding of all of those different philosophies, something I would hear on AM talk radio. But prove me wrong.
Strategic 2 party voting, that is. They are two different approaches; each is legitimate. And, after all, your candidate won't win. His might. It seems silly for you to look down upon major party voters.
I have voted third party before, so I would never hold that against anyone. But, lately, I've decided that voting 3rd party is a luxury I can no longer afford. So, I now vote 2 party. It is what it is. Neither is narrow or blind.
I have voted according to that calculus myself. I do begrudge voting for an 8 year-old. You think I'm being hyperbolic. I'm not. Trump's development was arrested at that age. You seem like a decent person. You don't want to cast your vote for a person like that. I don't think he'll start World War III. I do think that he will embarrass this country in a way Hillary would never do. If elected, he would undoubtedly get into more prepubescent wars of words with tinpot rulers not even worth our time, not to mention foolishly alienating countries that we need with us.
I can't stand Hillary, either, but she will not alienate key allies. I have little doubt, for instance, that she will be warmer with Israel than Obama. I guarantee you this idiot can't even locate Israel on a map.
If you're basing it on abortion, you have surely seen Republican presidents figure they're getting a pro-lifer and figuring wrong. Do you think this clown will be more successful?
(no message)
And what, pray tell, is the Donald going to do about guys like the one who was in your face? Deport them? Move them from state universities to Trump University and counter-indoctrinate them?
(no message)
that are tough in groups but never by themselves.
(no message)
Everything you hate about Hillary: the supposed corruption, the lying, the errors in judgment, Trump possesses all of those qualities.
All of them.
Just without any of the experience, knowledge, intelligence, or the desire to help people.
Then when you add in the fact that he appears to be a shit human being who cares about no one but himself, and is a sexist, racist, bigot. I'm just at a loss.
And he has a strong affinity for Putin and Russia.
He wouldn't be elected to be president of your childrens PTA with the views he holds. But you will vote him POTUS.
I just don't get it.
Hillary. If you read the report, you should know at that moment, White house inclined to not intervene, Obama was very hesitated and suspicious on consequence of such intervention (On the other hand, Egypt's decision to dump Mubarak is 100% on Obama because he just likes and trusts Muslim brotherhood). It was Hillary who pressed Libya button.
On surface it's a judgement issue regardless of how much experiences she has. But deep down, she has her own worldview that is never changed. I know most Americans don't know and don't care about foreign policy very much. But I think it's extremely important for next 10 years.
I assume Trumps ties to Russia, his "jokes" about Russia hacking our DNC, his campaign manager having ties to Russia and his complete lack of knowledge about anything that isn't on cable news must give you pause.
I mean that seriously.
There is literally no one who ran for President this year who has less of a grasp on foreign policy.
...and you know what gives me pause? The fact that Rusia supposedly hacked the DNC (because we have only Obama people's word on that and no "clear evidence" as Hillary's lawyers would say), and yet Hillary had an illegal beginner level home brew server at home containing all of our state secrets that she claims was never hacked by those same Russians. That gives me pause. How about you?
One? Give it a try.
And as I have aid, nearly the entire foreign policy community is united against Trump. They are hardly all pro-Hillary, but there is widespread, unprecedented agreement on how much of a disaster Trump would likely be.
Maybe he wouldn't.
But no one is ready to take that risk.
(no message)
and you are exaggerating. Trump has not shown all of Hillary's bad qualities - you assume them. And much of what you assume is what is being brewed by her 2 billion dollar war chest. The wold will end if Trump is elected. Sure.
Let's look at it. Hillary has a long and proven track record of failure, and out country is unequivocally going down the tubes on it's present course. That is what you suggest we maintain?!
You have no idea who Trump will appoint to various positions, but they are guaranteed to be overall better than the radical political figures Obama pointed with no experience whatsoever. Hillary will do the same and will solidify the toxic changes begun by Obama.
Trump has no track record. Hillary has a horrible one. Anything beyond that is mere speculation.
You disagree with her views...so you are willing to believe anything that was said about her. Lying and corruption are only the tip of the iceberg....you probably think she is a serial killer, too, like half the GOP. Vince Foster! Whitewater! Travel gate!
In reality, Hillary is what the Brits would call a "bog standard" politician. She pivots and changes views when necessary; she makes up crap on occasion; she spins and is never simply honest about what she is thinking
I would vote for any bog-standard politician over Trump, who is nothing short of a menace to the republic, either through malice or incompetence or both.
standing of the world. She's a liar, flip flops to appease the audience and no doubt believes she is owed the presidency. She makes me puke.
Beyond that, absolutely I am diametrically opposed to her views which I see as ruining this country. If you want to call that "political", then go ahead.
than Obama and way more than the communist, Sanders, but it is because of issues that I feel this way. I compare Sanders being "sincere" but a wacko with his view to what Holtz would say about a fast guy going the wrong way versus a slow guy going the wrong way. The slow guy would hurt you less.
(no message)
(no message)
It saddens me you would support this man.
You and myself criticize the choices made by Hillary in the fog of war. If you read the board, I acknowledge her mistakes and what they'd mean if she wasn't pitted against this monster.
This man attacked the mother of a fallen soldier, after he dishonored him by smearing Muslim Americans time after time. He is not better than anyone on this board.
Full disclosure, my grandfather was a POW in WWII. If anyone in my family was of the stature to speak out about his comments of Senator McCain, he'd smear them as well.
This man is not fit to represent us. He has never served anyone in any capacity.
alternative is a lying hard core criminal.
Trump proves it. He could choke a kitten on live TV and half the country would blame it on the media.
He is everything conservatives have long said they hate - a liar, a bragger, a serial adulterer, a big-government guy, inexperienced, and on and on and on - but most of them are going to vote for him anyway because he is the Republican nominee. Party trumps patriotism. Pun not really intended, but it works.
(no message)
(no message)
The conservative shoes, I mean. What if trump had decided he was a Democrat, and started spewing their lingo? What if he promised to appoint liberal judges, etc?
If the GOP had nominated Ted Cruz, liberals would then face the same choice as many conservatives do now.
For me, it would be a no-brainier. I would vote against Trump in 2016, and then against Cruz in 2020.
Trump represents a fundamental threat to the republic. Clinton does not. It's as simple as that.
It would be easier for me to vote for Hillary if, for example, the GOP just had a true conservative in office for 8 years, who had slowed down the growth of government, and appointed conservative judges. That opposite is true right now. And, 12 years of Democrat SCOTUS appointments sets the prolife movement back 20 years.
There are just too many critical damaging things that will be stratified with Hillary. Not just SCOTUS appointments, but continued bad foreign policy, the end of small business in this country, paralyzing federal regulations, and very importantly Obamacare which is crippling the country as we speak. Now you add in the level of dishonesty, criminality, and ineptitude that Hillary has shown as well.
Trump's a loser, but we conservatives literally have no other choice given how bad Hillary is.
Chris voted for Obama in 2012 over an excellent moderate candidate in Romney despite Obama having shown an incredibly bad result in his first 4 years. He is merely projecting when he says that it is all about the party for conservatives.
(no message)
The advantages being given to big business by this admin are killing off the smaller competition. Obamacare also is hurting any small business that wishes to grow it's employees significantly due to it's costs. But most impacting of all are the stifling regulations.
Big business get the tax breaks, the property breaks, and even had a delay in Obamacare implementation which gave them a significant;t overhead advantage for several years as well.
Hospital owned practices are granted better payments for the same services, and they are given additional payment perks in rural areas that smaller practices are not. These are just a few examples of many.
As I have said many times, in a rational political system, we would identify the problems and faults with the ACA and fix them. Because it clearly had done some good too.
But instead we have an all-or-nothing, no-compromise atmosphere, so no rational fixes will occur.
small business used to be the driving force of our employment. now it has been relegated to the sidelines - a diminishing factor every year.
.....regarding the ACA, it is not something that can be tweaked. It has not achieved what you thnk that it has either.
Eight years ago, you were not in favor of tweaking the exisitng system which had a long track record of serving our county well.. not perfect, but we all were treated equally and with the best possible care. Now we have given that up and pay much for for it on top of it all.
NOw you want to "adjust" and not back then?!!! Unbelievable really.
Well, with that all being water under the bridge, i honestly don't see this being able to be simply adjusted. it is that bad.
straw that broke the American back and destroys our country and turns it Socialist and eventually Communist.
And I am not willing to take that risk, even if it is a small one.
Constitutional Republic. Try taking political science 101 at a reputable university.
(no message)
He'd be leading Trump by 15 points.
easily this time around.
(no message)
(no message)
I have traditionally voted for republicans who have the power of the purse, and democrats who have the power of prosecution/incarceration. For president, I vote for SCOTUS appointments, and foreign policy.
I've already stated that the abortion issue is one of my biggest issues. Thus, it is a big hurdle for me voting for Democrats for president, since the president appoints SCOTUS justices, and SCOTUS plays the biggest legislative role when it comes to abortion.
Harry Brown was a pro-life libertarian...the only candidate I ever "supported" as people like to say here...more than just voting for him. I attended his rally when he came through town, and I gave him money, and I voted for him over Bush. Earlier, Bill Clinton had turned out much better than I thought he would, and if I had any assurance that Hillary would turn out like him, I would consider her.
Voted for Stein. I will switch up and vote for some other third party candidate this time. I understand your reasoning. Thanks, that clarifies things.
I come down on the same side of the issue as you, but then there are other "life" issues where the Repubs aren't to my liking. Had the party not moved towards the universal Tea Party, I would be more than willing to vote for some of the folks they called "RINOs." Unfortunately, they have pushed most of them out of office. And the Dems have pushed out all the social conservatives, many of them Catholics.
Harry Browne did not support anti-abortion laws. I included a link below where he stated his position.
Link: http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Harry_Browne_Abortion.htm
I met Harry Browne, and he convinced me that personally he was indeed personally, genuinely pro-life. It was not an affected position. I felt like his view gave him room to make progress on the issue (e.g., return it to a states issue if he were to be elected), and I felt that he might also appoint genuinely pro-life judges.
Also, at the time, I was also corresponding with Doris Gordon, the founder of Libertarians for Life (link below). That interaction convinced me (probably wrongly, in hindsight), that there was sufficient basis in libertarian philosophy for the pro-life position, that a Libertarian president was workable. I say "probably wrongly" because I probably over estimated the power of her wing of the party. I still believe that a proper understanding of libertarian philosophy dictates a prolife position. Regardless, I was a true believer in Libertarians for Life at the time (even though I was an atheist at the time, just like Doris Gordon).
Link: http://www.libertariansforlife.org/
That's because their philosophy is best expressed as, "I'm going to do what I want to do and you can't tell me otherwise."
(no message)
(no message)
Nobody could describe Trump as ideologically pure for any ideology. Ditto Hillary. If it had ended up Bernie vs Cruz, maybe that point would stand.
Trump is the triumph of clueless morons who just want something different.
What I m saying is that both parties have effectively eliminated their middles. The rhinos on the R side, the socially conservative element on the D side.
Therefore, they are both much easier to capture by candidates with radical views. The party of Ford, Reagan, and Bush wouldn't nominate Trump. The D's barely escaped Bernie but not by much. The party of Bill Clinton would have laughed Sanders out of the convention hall.
If he would have been nominated, it would have been the two most radical candidates in modern times. As it stands he pushed Cankles far to the left where she will need to stay even in the general campaign.
(no message)
I work with one. He readily admits Bernie is closer to his positions, but he thinks there is "too much testosterone" in Washington. If it had been about ideological purity, Bernie would have been the nominee.
I don't entirely agree with Iggle on the GOP side, where Trump's positions on trade and foreign involvement and, really, immigration, are the traditional conservative positions. And insofar as he has taken those positions for this election, they are his defining issues beyond having the guts to act like an 8 year-old.
There is nothing he could say that will dissuading these people from voting for him, just as there is nothing that could be divulged about Hillary that will dissuade her partisan ideologues from voting for her.
Trump is an ass for sure. Even people like me who has decided to vote for him know it. If I remember it correctly, I am the first person on this board to call him an ass. So, if you are not used to him or are uncomfortable with him, just go to vote for Hillary. No need to take pain to torture yourself.
As for your questions, let me answer one.
As we saw, the fallen soldier's father Khizr Khan entered political arena to challenge Trump at first. so, he is not immune in getting political attack. He should have known it. Republican respect war heroes more than democrats do. But if you get involved with politics, that is a different issue. Just like war heroes John McCain, Ike... Just because they are war heroes doesn't mean they can be immune from being attacked by democrat opponents when they entered into politics. This is a fair game to anyone. Trump's entitled to counter attack Khizr Khan. Did Trump do a good job in his counter-attacking? Nope. He should challenge Khizr Khan by asking him if he supports Iraq war in which his son died? In my opinion, this is a big miss from Trump. If Khizr Khan answers he doesn't support the war, then it only makes sense for him to come to Trump's convention. Because Trump against Iraq war. Hillary supports Iraq war. Her view on Iraq War is well documented and until today she refuse to admit her vote for this war is a mistake. I read your post saying Trump support Iraq war. I don't know where you get it from. but teher is proof that Trump's stand against war. But, even trump supported the war as you claimed, he was not in public office then. He was just an ordinary citizen like you and me.
Actually it is so obvious from Trump's attitude to NATO, Russia and Syria, he is not a hawk at all, at least not as hawk as Hillary is. I strongly believe it. To me, it is ridiculous to believe Trump is more likely to push nuclear weapon button to destroy civilization (in this most likely on Russia) than Hillary.
You'll probably say it was just "I guess so".
Then fine, whatever, he was wishy washy. But, then don't cite your record on Iraq every single day as if he was pounding the table against it. The truth is he had no idea, because he doesn't pay attention that stuff.
Same with Syria, same with Libya.
Link: https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/in-2002-donald-trump-said-he-supported-invading-iraq-on-the?utm_term=.fkJEApQaV#.kiWw5BGoL
There are many issues that he has apparently never cared about in his life. For example, his interviews on abortion show that he has never bothered to inform himself of the issue. Even when he was trying to mimic the prolife position on the fly during an interview, he took positions that no prolifers take, and then he had to roll them back. He sounded really stupid.
We all want to elect an expert on the issues. But, that hasn't worked in the past. It may be that we need to elect an executive, who will make good decisions. My hope is that he will behave as a true executive, and not necessarily as an idealogue...after all, he has no real ideology. I've sat in board rooms and seen executives make decisions. Their strength is not in being able to be interviewed on any subject related to the company. Their strength is making sure that the right people are in the room, and the right information is discussed, ask some probing questions, and then make the call.
I suspect that Trump thinks this campaign process is ill suited to selecting the country's executive. To him, it seems like a game he must play to get the position (in place of interviewing with the Board). After he gets the job, he can then just act as the executive. But for now, he has to act like a politician.
Having said all that, his biggest enemy is himself. (Arguably, Hillary is also her worst enemy.) I find it easier to vote for Trump if I don't listen to him speak. So, who knows what will happen over the next 100 days. It may be that I won't be voting this year. But I hate that idea. (After all, I'm hoping that he will realize he can't do it all himself. I'm trusting the GOP Congress to restrain him. I'm counting on him to take the advice of the GOP on those issues he's never cared about nor thought about, like abortion and the rest.)
Those are his true talents.
Did the fire marshal enter the political arena? Did the judge enter the political arena? Did all Muslims enter the political arena?
When Trump congratulated himself for predicting a terrorist attack immediately following Orlando, simply a political error?
This man is more than just "an ass".
Link: https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/759850587361980417
is the issues and I believe in Trump's course of action more than Hillary's.
It was a very aggressive attack, and it was a body blow. Trump should have ignored it, but he just cannot ignore those types of attacks.
He takes them personally, and he wants to keep people from attacking him by attacking them. This works with opponents like Jeb or Hillary, but it does not work with opponents like Khan.
Trump just seems to be unable to ignore attacks like that, and that makes him predictable. The way to beat him is this:
1) Find a person who the media and most people think is unassailable (e.g., father of dead soldier), and have them directly insult Trump.
2) Repeat.
As I say, I would have ignored Khan if I were Trump. But Khan did attack Trump personally. He entered the fray. Now Hillary wants to claim Khan as a victim, after putting him up to the attack (exploiting him, as Jimbasil would say)? Good strategic move, but it is a little unfair, and I think we can recognize it for what it is. But, this is politics, and unfair attacks like that can get a candidate a lot of traction. I think both candidates know this.
(no message)
(no message)
Without them, Khan isn't even there. He was there essentially defending his son.
Following Orlando, Trump said the attacker, who was born in the US, shouldn't have been here in the first place.
Humayun Khan arrived, served and died under the same circumstances.
If it were my son, I'd have seen that as an attack on him. I think that's a reasonable thought.
(no message)
I take your words by assuming you have followed politics well and known the past political party's conventions and all kinds of political rally.
CAIR, the largest Muslim advocacy organization, is very active in politics. It's them who advised Obama not use the word "radical Islam" on Islam terrorism and Obama took their suggestion. Special interest groups ruin this country. Most ordinary people including Muslim people don't care about politics. This is common sense. Please don't use them for any advantage. We are not politicians.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
For me, it is mostly about 700,000 dead due to abortion per year. Hillary will happily continue that, and even fund it with tax dollars. She will prosecute pro-lifers who try to expose illegalities at Planned Parenthood, while ignoring those very illegalities. Trump will likely not do that.
All other issues aside, my vote has a chance to help save 700,000 people from being chemically burned, dismembered and beheaded before they can even leave the womb, every year.
When do you think the things you listed will become more important than millions of people in the US dying with the support of our tax dollars?
I support moving to a European system, at least, where there are more restrictions on abortion.
I don't consider my vote for Trump to be support for the things you listed.
[I'm not looking to get into an abortion debate here. But, if you accept that a fetus is a biological human, with a full set of unique human DNA, who has not been born yet (all settled science), and that all humans have certain inalienable rights, among these being the right to not be killed (settled politics), then you can at least understand how I might vote for Trump.]
Trump can say and do anything he wants as long as he defunds planned parenthood.
Incredible.
Abortion numbers have dropped over the last 8 years. But you wouldn't know it.
Also, the change is not down because of Dems, but because of Republicans (to the extent we can attribute it to either party).
(no message)
And, you are wrong. If Trump puts more than 700,000 people/year at risk of dying, then that balances out. Then I would consider things like who is more likely to honor the constitution and stay within their presidential authority. That is probably a wash, though.
By the way, if you don't buy my premise, then I can see how you would disagree. If an element of my premise were shown to be wrong, I would disagree, and change my mind. But, given the premise I stated, is not my position reasonable?
He shows no sign of knowing what is in the constitution, nor any real desire to learn.
(no message)
But since he didn't, I'm not concerned.
Trump might trample the constitution by accident, since he has no idea what is in it. Or on purpose, if it gets in his way. Because he will not care.
But the GOP is the party of strict constructionists.
still in the courts fighting the issue of presenting evidence that he eligible. There is no evidence of any kind indicating his place of birth, who his parents are, what country he is a citizen of, or what his heritage is. If he was able to, he would have done it a long time ago. He has also misused the EO process to give orders that in conflict with US statutes because congress was smart enough to change the law as he wanted it to be.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
is that you have no valid response. Don't feel bad, no one can defend your side, it is void of merit. That is why Soetoro won't take on the issue either, he knows he is dead wrong and needs to keep his case out of the courts at all costs. Man, he is doing that, millions spent so far. Not the behavior of one who is right on the issue. If it was me, I just reach in my drawer next to me and present the proof. But, then again, as you know, I have the evidence and he doesn't.
Here is the other aspect of this that baffles me.
Your response on that subject is more coherent and reasoned than the candidate you support would give. You are a better candidate for the position than he is.
That does not mean that I support that evil.
At this point, I might support a parliamentary system. Then again, that might result in people like Harry Reid elected president, which is pretty damned frightening.
than is Hillary
Trump's history is questionable, but is pales in comparison to the outrageously zealous pro-abortion stance that Hillary has taken over the years.
Do you recall her support for the veto on the ban of Partial Birth Abortions in 1994? A procedure with no medical indication and significant maternal risk where the abortionist piths the brain of a 3rd trimester baby in the birth canal so that it isn't born alive? A baby that is fully capable of surviving outside the mothers womb at that point?
Do you recall her staunch support of Planned Parenthood when they were caught selling fetal tissue for profit as well as violating the existing guidelines regarding how abortions are performed - as meager as they are?
Trump did neither of these things, and in fact he was instantly critical of Planned Parenthood when it first happened.
Don't add to Trump's list when it isn't true.
You may be right though.
As much as I post defending Trump (because, in the end, I do believe a vote for him will save lives, so defending him on other grounds will also save lives), my vote is very much up for grabs. We've got 100 days. Let's see what happens.
You're talking policy.
The man attacked a fallen soldiers mother, who was too grief stricken to speak.
On top of all the other racist, bigoted things to his name.
I don't see how you can support it. Imagine if Hillary did and said these things. Imagine if Hillary called on the Chinese to hack the IRS to get Trumps taxes.
I couldn't support that.
And I don't mean to be condescending in any way. I just re-read and it comes off that way. I just don't understand.
Choosing the lesser evil in a binary situation is not "supporting" the lesser evil in any way.
As I said before, it's disqualifies her in any other situation.
I'll use this example:
Those in charge of the 1986 Challenger disaster were warned in advance, numerous times, that there was a fault in the mechanism that ultimately doomed the shuttle. Experts were quite literally pounding the table. Now, in any shuttle launch, there are of course risks, and NASA takes a certain amount of what they call acceptable risks. Well they were wrong. Those in charge of that incident are brilliant people, and in no way incompetent. You or I cannot have a conversation with them about what should have happened, because we are no where near their depth of knowledge. However, those people should not become the heads of NASA with an incident on their record. With something like that on the record, you should only go so high, in my opinion.
But, if the choice is between one of those people and someone who has little to no knowledge of space flight, doesn't show any interest in learning about space or space flight, and then makes statements that run antithetical to everything that community holds sacred, then I'd rather have the people who have dedicated their lives to the practice, warts and all.
(no message)
(no message)
Lets' take the NASA exec who knew about the O-ring fault, but pushed for the mission to go anyways that he described.
Now, let's apply what Hillary did to the analogy accurately:
She would have been the NASA exec who screwed up and ignored the experts and allowed the mission to proceed. But in this analogy then she also would have been an exec that found out that the O-ring was in the process of failing and that there was actually a chance to save the astronauts if she acted quickly (probably not, but a chance nonetheless - I know the O ring failure wouldn't allow such time like Benghazi - but it's his analogy)). She was the exec whose boss was up for reappointment in less than 50 days, and her career depended on propping up her boss. So then, she is the exec that told the NASA engineers to stand down and not try to save those astronauts. She is the NASA exec that afterwards made up lies about what really happened and told the families of the astronauts lies about it. And she is the one that finally lost her temper in a moment of candor during subsequent hearings who said, "What difference does it make now anyways?"
Now that is an exec that I would pick Trump over anyday.
(no message)
(no message)