What do you like about Trump?

[Superman]

this is one of those rare instances where ark is right and is not to blame.

 

[DBS1970]

The GOP quit on its constituents. Only two presidents have entered office with their party in control of Congress only to have their party lose control of Congress at the first mid-term election. Bill Clinton and The Big O.

Libs and their MSM dogs would like us to believe that it was the GOP racist constituency that took the House, then the Senate from the Dems cause they couldn't stand a black man in charge. A real thinker knows that isn't true, but the narrative lives.

The constituency, clearly, but the GOP in control of Congress to stop The Big O's policies. Had someone tell me that it was only because the state GOP won their state elections and gerrymandered to diffuse the minorty vote...as if the Senate isnt a statewide race. That might explain some individual House races, but not all. And those districts had (in many cases been gerrymandered in the Dems favor in previous years). If someone can't see that, well, they are beyond help.

In any event, the GOP took control of Congress. When the newly elected tried to step up and do the jobs they were sent to do, their own party "leaders" did not support them. The GOP constituency has, finally, revolted. I think you could say that they partially did so at The Big O's second election by not showing up for Romney. The GOP put up a slate that didn't even win their home states!

IMO, it is less about the particular person of Trump than the GOP constituency's big FU to the establishment GOP that wouldn't listen. Finally get rid of Boehner only to put Ryan (one of the aforementioned losers) in power. And, IIRC only with the promise that they wouldn't then replace him.

The establishment GOP lost touch with their constituency and the guiding principals of what it means to be conservative. They think growing government by 5% instead of 10% is a success. They lost themselves. Trump is the result of their downfall, not the cause.

Somebody has to start to slow clap.

Well said you Mississippi Delta redneck.

 

[Superman]

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-mspac-man-social/2016/08/03/id/742041/

 

[diver]

The problem is that over the last 25 years, for some reason, the Republican platform DID decide to get into my private affairs. Maybe it was Reagan's War on Drugs. Maybe it was the 1994 "Contract with America". Maybe it was a primary system that rewarded pandering to the Christian Coalition (part of 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012 and 2016 primaries) that forced the party to take stances that absolutely fail the Jeffersonian litmus test above.

I agree the libertarian view on social issues - be against things morally, but don't regulate morality with laws - is the platform Republicans need to adopt. And I sort of feel Trump is the first Republican to make it through the primaries that isn't a "holier than thou" preacher of morals.

Again, voting Trump does not mean I think Trump is a good person. None of them are good people. All are corrupted in some fashion. From Kasich to Cruz to McCain to Rubio to Clinton to Sanders to Bush to Obama.

I do not think ANY will completely destroy the Constitutional balance of the branches of government. America will survive a Trump or Clinton presidency despite the horrible rhetoric from BOTH sides right now.

It really does just come down to whether you think continued European Socialism tendencies are good for our Country or do you think we need to put the breaks on bigger government, bigger federal bureaucracy, globalization of power groups, immigration, our current Middle East policy and our current Europe/Russia policy.

I'm voting for to slow down the way we are headed. Plain and simple really. And I'm not going to fall for the scare tactics that Trump is such a demagogue that he is somehow going to be powerful enough to tear down the Constitution, alienate us from the rest of the world and start World War III in the process. And every time I hear the "Sky is Falling" rhetoric from the media or powerful people, I am left to question "Why are these powerful people so afraid of a Trump presidency? What are they trying to protect, really?".... And most of the time the answer is their own cushy jobs, unseen power and lots and lots of money.

This I will never understand. Everybody says this, and it is just taken as fact. I think it is a crock of ****.

Let's take the latest issue, one I have a big problem with, which is the bathroom thing. Probably for years people who had questions were going to bathrooms that they were born to go to and nobody gave it a second thought. I know I mind my own business when I am in a public bathroom. All of the sudden, we need to have all these bathrooms. I don't know any conservative who was bothering anyone about that. THEY brought it up and made an issue of it. I know I didn't give two ***** what they were doing until, again, they made an issue of it. How is that getting into private affairs? To me that is more like making it an issue, when people object, then saying get out of my private affairs. They invited us there by making it an issue. The left does this all the time and too damn many of us fall for it.

 

[deljzc]

Sometimes we just over analyze.

McCain and Romney were just horrible candidates. Old, stodgy, low energy. Almost identical to Bob Dole in every respect. Career politicians for a growing base of Republicans that hate career politicians. Panderers and puppets of a growing, short-sighted "Tea Party" and religious right movement that has WAY too much power in the early primary process and who's message fails to resonate at all with main-stream political thinking across the country (or to wider demographics).

Obama kicked their *** and rightfully so. He was light years ahead in his ability to campaign and delivery a message. That doesn't mean Obama's policies are better (they aren't obviously), but he packaged them much better and is just a much better campaigner than anyone Republicans decided was worthy.

I'm not sure we can correctly sum up the path of the country based on just these two election cycles. I still think the country is very evenly split (particularly in respect to the electoral college system) and there is clearly the capability of a good politician from either side of the aisle to win (which is how it should be).

The media and many people are just not giving Trump credit where it is do. He was BY FAR the best campaigner in the primary and he won because of it. He brought up issues people cared about. He hammered home his message. He tore down his opponents. He was extreme when he needed to and he backed off when he needed to. There was no "luck" involved with Trump winning. The voters did not get "more stupid" overnight like the liberal media want you to believe. This is NOT something to be ashamed of. Trump won because he deserved it.

And if he wins the White House it's because he deserves it too. He is playing the political game pretty well overall or he wouldn't be in a dead heat with a career politician like Clinton right now.

The votes are there for a Republican to get. Someone just needs to get them. If that's Trump so be it. If that's a new Republican in 2020 that isn't "Little Marco" or "Lying Ted Cruz" or "Low Energy Jeb"... fine with that to. But you can't paint lipstick on the pigs the RNC keeps trotting out there and expecting America to just vote (R) and win.

The simplest answer to why Republicans struggle to capture the White House is we just don't have good enough candidates.

 

[deljzc]

This I will never understand. Everybody says this, and it is just taken as fact. I think it is a crock of ****.

Let's take the latest issue, one I have a big problem with, which is the bathroom thing. Probably for years people who had questions were going to bathrooms that they were born to go to and nobody gave it a second thought. I know I mind my own business when I am in a public bathroom. All of the sudden, we need to have all these bathrooms. I don't know any conservative who was bothering anyone about that. THEY brought it up and made an issue of it. I know I didn't give two ***** what they were doing until, again, they made an issue of it. How is that getting into private affairs? To me that is more like making it an issue, when people object, then saying get out of my private affairs. They invited us there by making it an issue. The left does this all the time and too damn many of us fall for it.

The first time the word "Gay" was every used at a Republican Convention was in 1992. Something about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the Army. The Republican platform has always been the "morality" party. From drugs to sex to rock-and-roll. You can argue about it all you want and not understand it, but when it comes to drugs, sex and rock-and-roll, the Republicans are much more puritanical in their message. Abstinence over contraception. Just say "no". Parental warnings on records (still passed by a Republican congress). New ratings for movies (PG-13 and NC-17) that focus more on sex than violence (a mistake in my opinion). Gay marriage. Most of the south still has sodomy laws.

All those things are "legislating morality" and almost every case the Republican platform is on the conservative/puritanical side of the coin even when for the most part who's having sex (and how), who's smoking pot, who's married and not married, doesn't effect people ONE IOTA in their daily lives.

One of the worst things Republicans have adopted is the platform that actions that are outside social "norms" and might make someone feel uncomfortable (but in all other ways non-damaging) are to be pushed out of sight and out of mind. Boys kissing? Ugh... make sure we make laws that I don't have to see it or it stays hidden. Drugs? All bad despite the hypocrisy in our society using tobacco, caffeine and prescription medication.

They might not say that's their platform up on stage, but we all know that's the Republican platform.

 

[Troglodyte]

Wrong

As for your associate about Christian extremists, that was two guys nowhere near the hundreds of thousands of Jihadis.

I think it was a lot more than two guys and I didn't even touch the crimes of the Catholic Church, the Warren Jeffs types, televangelists, etc. Sure there are still a lot of Christians, but a lot have also washed their hands of it. Religion and Christianity are pretty much dead in Europe, the older Western civilization, the US just hasn't caught up yet.

 

[steel shinin]

The Democrats are building a pretty significant voting coalition moving forward. The GOP needs to actively start promoting better ideas for the country as a whole and pull back from this pandering to 1/3 of the voter base. They have gotten by barely because usually some more people come aboard because of social views or ideology but the party is in serious trouble if they can't figure out a way to be more dynamic. I thought a few of the candidates that were in the primary were competent but the voters apparently disagreed. They wanted someone who will "take it to the Dems" or "tell it like is" and "build a wall" and all this other stupid bullshit. None of that is feasible or realistic. It may sound exciting to angry riled up voters but rationally speaking a lot of that are not even things that can happen in theory. Voters need to deal with their role in this too. It's hard to beat an opponent who's platform is that much more inclusive. I don't agree with the Democratic party on many things but at least they're trying to actively make the country more inclusive to American people regardless of your background, orientation, religion, race, ect. A candidate who literally says that he is going to try keep all Muslims out and that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if he were President because he would have banned Muslims from entering the country. Yeah that's not how it works. You can't condemn a whole group of people because you think a few of them might be dangerous. I have also heard him say nothing about domestic terrorism from American citizens not tied to the middle east. That's not a non existent problem. There's a lot of work to be done.

 

[Troglodyte]

Let's take the latest issue, one I have a big problem with, which is the bathroom thing. Probably for years people who had questions were going to bathrooms that they were born to go to and nobody gave it a second thought. I know I mind my own business when I am in a public bathroom. All of the sudden, we need to have all these bathrooms. I don't know any conservative who was bothering anyone about that. THEY brought it up and made an issue of it. I know I didn't give two ***** what they were doing until, again, they made an issue of it. How is that getting into private affairs? To me that is more like making it an issue, when people object, then saying get out of my private affairs. They invited us there by making it an issue. The left does this all the time and too damn many of us fall for it.

Wrong.

It became an issue when NC made it a law that people had to use the bathroom of their birth gender. Can you explain how enforcing this law wouldn't get into people's private affairs... or private parts?

 

[hamster]

From the other thread......

My vote for Trump constitutes a big "**** you" to the Washington establishment, both Dem and Rep. It is saying that business as usual is no longer acceptable, and you have to actually listen to voters, and not just pay lip service. I really don't care about his mis-speaks. He's no less qualified for the job than Bammy was, if not more.*

**** Hillary. She can go back to running her money laundering, er, I mean, Foundation on a full time basis.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

The simplest answer to why Republicans struggle to capture the White House is we just don't have good enough candidates.

Partly true IMO, but look at the way the country is divided. All highly-populated urban areas are overwhelmingly Democrat yet most counties and Congressional districts are Republican. Looking down the road I see more of what we have now, Democrat Presidents and Republican Congresses.

 

[diver]

The first time the word "Gay" was every used at a Republican Convention was in 1992. Something about the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the Army. The Republican platform has always been the "morality" party. From drugs to sex to rock-and-roll. You can argue about it all you want and not understand it, but when it comes to drugs, sex and rock-and-roll, the Republicans are much more puritanical in their message. Abstinence over contraception. Just say "no". Parental warnings on records (still passed by a Republican congress). New ratings for movies (PG-13 and NC-17) that focus more on sex than violence (a mistake in my opinion). Gay marriage. Most of the south still has sodomy laws.

All those things are "legislating morality" and almost every case the Republican platform is on the conservative/puritanical side of the coin even when for the most part who's having sex (and how), who's smoking pot, who's married and not married, doesn't effect people ONE IOTA in their daily lives.

One of the worst things Republicans have adopted is the platform that actions that are outside social "norms" and might make someone feel uncomfortable (but in all other ways non-damaging) are to be pushed out of sight and out of mind. Boys kissing? Ugh... make sure we make laws that I don't have to see it or it stays hidden. Drugs? All bad despite the hypocrisy in our society using tobacco, caffeine and prescription medication.

They might not say that's their platform up on stage, but we all know that's the Republican platform.

Don't ask, don't tell was from Bill Clinton, no?

Tipper Gore was the leading voice in the 80s for censuring music.

Just say "no." If you really look at it makes a lot of sense, huh? If you say no, you don't get addicted to anything. Again, others make it an issue, make it complex. If people just said no, we wouldn't need the war on drugs you oppose, now would we?

Abstinence. Heh. Only way I know to be 100% sure of an unwanted pregnancy or STD. Again, common sense, not moralizing.

I am very conservative, yet, I don't care who is having sex where and all that, until it is thrown in my face. Then I am going to react. Basically, you don't want people to have moral codes? I am not allowed to express when it is thrown in my face that I don't like it? And I want a party that will express my beliefs in this regard. If we lose, so be it. You have to stand for something, dammit.

 

[diver]

The Democrats are building a pretty significant voting coalition moving forward. The GOP needs to actively start promoting better ideas for the country as a whole and pull back from this pandering to 1/3 of the voter base. They have gotten by barely because usually some more people come aboard because of social views or ideology but the party is in serious trouble if they can't figure out a way to be more dynamic. I thought a few of the candidates that were in the primary were competent but the voters apparently disagreed. They wanted someone who will "take it to the Dems" or "tell it like is" and "build a wall" and all this other stupid bullshit. None of that is feasible or realistic. It may sound exciting to angry riled up voters but rationally speaking a lot of that are not even things that can happen in theory. Voters need to deal with their role in this too. It's hard to beat an opponent who's platform is that much more inclusive. I don't agree with the Democratic party on many things but at least they're trying to actively make the country more inclusive to American people regardless of your background, orientation, religion, race, ect. A candidate who literally says that he is going to try keep all Muslims out and that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if he were President because he would have banned Muslims from entering the country. Yeah that's not how it works. You can't condemn a whole group of people because you think a few of them might be dangerous. I have also heard him say nothing about domestic terrorism from American citizens not tied to the middle east. That's not a non existent problem. There's a lot of work to be done.

Why is it Republicans and conservatives have to change their message? Dems can go so far left with their wacky **** and that's OK. No need to change there. But dammit, if you don't want a 43 year old guy sharing a restroom with your 7 year old daughter, you'd better change. It's ******' crazy.

 

[diver]

Wrong.

It became an issue when NC made it a law that people had to use the bathroom of their birth gender. Can you explain how enforcing this law wouldn't get into people's private affairs... or private parts?

Bullshit. It was an issue well before that. If it wasn't, why would NC feel a need to address it?

 

[Vis]

I am very conservative, yet, I don't care who is having sex where and all that, until it is thrown in my face. Then I am going to react. Basically, you don't want people to have moral codes? I am not allowed to express when it is thrown in my face that I don't like it?

Is throwing in your face something more than just not hiding it? Is throwing in your face something more than the pda common and accepted between heterosexual couples in public?

 

[tapeANaspirin2it]

Trump was not my first choice but he's far superior to Hillary, whose only qualifications seem to be that she was first lady, and it's time for a woman after the first black President.

The Supreme Court is a huge issue nobody is talking about. The liberals on the court (4 of them) no longer even apply laws. They simply vote based on forwarding an agenda. Ginsberg has actually said that they should not just go by the U.S. Constitution to make decisions, they should also take into account laws in other countries.

It is pretty scary when the courts become puppets of a political agenda. Hillary will nominate political operatives, just as O did. Trump will appoint more centrist justices who uphold the law, not what they wish the law said.


Immigration. Trump is the only one to take it seriously and he is incorrectly labeled a racist. We must secure the border as best we can, then we must screen applicants and only admit good potential citizens. There must be a process. Hillary wants open borders which makes us less safe and will cost a fortune. This isn't the 20s where an immigrant got off the boat and then had to fend for himself. Now we will be financially supporting these people for indefinite periods of time.

Terrorism. Trump takes it seriously and Hillary will do the same lip service as now. A few drone strikes, then a speech declaring everything is safe. Trump will listen to his Generals and form a real strategy to fight them over there before they come here.

Economy. Trump understands how jobs are created. He understands how high taxes cripple businesses. He will negotiate trade deals that put American interests first, and not just agree to unfair terms out of some misguided notion that America is bad and must make up fit it by taking the short end of the stick each time.

Trump is a real person. His words are not all focus grouped. His speeches are mostly ad libbed and talking from the heart.

Liberalism is a proven failure. Show me a place where liberals rule fur an extended period and I'll show you a place with a lot of problems. Flint Michigan can't even drink the water.

 

[Steeltime]

I like orange hair. There, I said it.

 

[diver]

Is throwing in your face something more than just not hiding it? Is throwing in your face something more than the pda common and accepted between heterosexual couples in public?

Well, another liberal who can't read. I pretty much explained what throwing it in my face has been, specifically in relation to the bathroom situation.

I mean, c'mon. It is not crazy to expect it to be perfectly natural for a 43 year old man to identify as a woman today and use a bathroom that a 7 year old little girl may use, but I am crazy for objecting to that.

 

[Vis]

Well, another liberal who can't read. I pretty much explained what throwing it in my face has been, specifically in relation to the bathroom situation.

I mean, c'mon. It is not crazy to expect it to be perfectly natural for a 43 year old man to identify as a woman today and use a bathroom that a 7 year old little girl may use, but I am crazy for objecting to that.

Born female. What would you do if he was in the bathroom with your daughter?

 

[Troglodyte]

Bullshit. It was an issue well before that. If it wasn't, why would NC feel a need to address it?

So then what did you mean by:

"Probably for years people who had questions were going to bathrooms that they were born to go to and nobody gave it a second thought. I know I mind my own business when I am in a public bathroom."

 

[diver]

So then what did you mean by:

"Probably for years people who had questions were going to bathrooms that they were born to go to and nobody gave it a second thought. I know I mind my own business when I am in a public bathroom."

I think pretty clearly I meant that transgender or whatever you call them today because it seems they can change anytime people made it an issue

 

[diver]

Born female. What would you do if he was in the bathroom with your daughter?

Do you have a daughter? If you do not and at some point do, get back to me. My daughter is older now. She can take care of herself. But as I explained earlier, there was a time I was 32 with a 7 year old. My role as a father is to protect that child. I don't have the ******' luxury of caring about a social experiment. First and foremost I have to try to keep her from harm. And besides that, even if no harm would come to the 7 year old, why the hell do I have to explain these things to a 7 year old. Why? Can't they be innocent for a little while?

 

[diver]

I am just curious. What is the limit? Is there anything? We on the right have to keep accepting this and that, is there anything that is unacceptable? Everybody has limits, ****, even Hitler had a limit. All the other crap he ushered in, but he would not use poison gas.

So what is it? What is going to be the next acceptable thing? Adults having sex with children, maybe? Marrying your pet goat? Hey, the bar is set. We shouldn't be in people's private lives. Live and let live. Then why have any laws at all?

 

[Troglodyte]

IEverybody has limits, ****, even Hitler had a limit. All the other crap he ushered in, but he would not use poison gas.

So what is it? What is going to be the next acceptable thing? Adults having sex with children, maybe? Marrying your pet goat? Hey, the bar is set. We shouldn't be in people's private lives. Live and let live. Then why have any laws at all?

Um, what is hydrogen cyanide?

You sound exactly like Rick Santorum from a decade ago, those things didn't happen.

 

[diver]

Um, what is hydrogen cyanide?

You sound exactly like Rick Santorum from a decade ago, those things didn't happen.

I didn't say they did. You ducked the question. I have been told that the Republican Party, conservatives, are too interested in being in people's private lives. I have been told that is not acceptable, and what goes on in people's private lives in their business. That is the key to this right here.

So, being that is the case, what is the limit? Is there any limit as long as it is in the private life?

What I meant by Hitler and poison gas was against enemy troops like they did in WW1. I realize after looking at it that I did not give the proper context there.