I don't think I've ever encountered a literate Trump supporter before, so I am somewhat intrigued by you. Since I have been unable to have my questions answered by other Trump supporters, I would be grateful if you could speak about your expectations of Trump's presidency. Like, what do you realistically believe he would achieve if he got into the Whitehouse?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For the sake of Hasbro's half-year financial report, we will keep watch."
-- The Gatewatch
gunOnShoe, I'm not going to get into a tangential dispute about what the Republican Party as a whole does and does not believe and whether their beliefs are justified, but I will say this...
Also here is not that american rights are natural, as was declared in the declaration of Independence, but are instead derived from god, who also gives us a book that says we should kill witches and gay people.
You might want to read the first two sentences of the Declaration of Independence again.
Excellent point Blinking Spirit.
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
I don't think I've ever encountered a literate Trump supporter before, so I am somewhat intrigued by you. Since I have been unable to have my questions answered by other Trump supporters, I would be grateful if you could speak about your expectations of Trump's presidency. Like, what do you realistically believe he would achieve if he got into the Whitehouse?
I believe he will push back HARD against all the billions of dollars of drugs flooding into this country across the southern border. Those harmful drugs are wrecking TONS of lives, and killing quite a few human beings in the process. A wall is just one part of the puzzle needed to stop this scourge. Human trafficking is high back and forth across the border. And a HUGE percentage of the latinas--girls and women--coming across the border are sexually assaulted. And yes, there are lots and lots of criminals--legal and illegal--making a tidy profit at la frontera. R and D politicians have turned a blind eye to these problems for decades. Enough is enough.
I believe Trump will try to destroy ISIS, not contain it.
I believe Trump will renegotiate contracts and trade deals, both foreign and domestic, for the benefit of MuriKa.
I believe Trump will nominate a conservative justice.
I believe Trump is the most likely candidate to "save" Medicare. VERY tough task, no doubt.
I believe Trump will leave Planned Parenthood alone.
I believe Trump will replace Obamacare with something better.
I believe Trump will improve the economy for blue collar citizens, regardless of race or gender or culture.
I could be wrong on every single item. But I am confident DJT is the cream of the current crop. Mediocrity at the max is NOT Trump's plan.
Trump supporter broke the law = Trump's fault. Trump protester broke the law = Trump's fault. Bernie supporter broke the law = Trump's fault. Cop arrested a reporter = Trump's fault. Trump had a rally = bad. Trump cancelled a rally = bad. Trump disavows a former KKK member = bad. Hillary loved Byrd = noble.
Do you see a pattern/problem yet?
Please quote me blaming Trump directly for any of this. Or you know make sure someone says something before you accuse them of saying it perhaps. None of what you just said ever came from me so please don't lie and say that I did... especially about Hillary who I do not like in the slightest.
You have been consistently negative towards Trump and his supporters, but I do apologize for mistakenly lumping you into an incorrect category. This is my attempt to eat crow, and I still don't like its taste. (This has happened before, to me). Have a good day sir.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
You have been consistently negative towards Trump and his supporters, but I do apologize for mistakenly lumping you into an incorrect category. This is my attempt to eat crow, and I still don't like its taste. (This has happened before, to me). Have a good day sir.
thank you for the apology.
I wonder why the other candidates didn't want to just have a debate without Trump?
Trump is equally rude to men and women that oppose and/or treat him poorly.
He doesn't tell men that he doesn't like that they only got their job because of their breasts. If you can't see the sexism in claiming a woman got their job only because of their body then there is no hope for you.
Trump advocated going after the accomplices of terrorists, even if it is a wife or some other family member. How do you figure that is controversial?
This is decidedly not what Trump said. Trump said "Families of terrorists" by claiming he meant accomplices and not family you are white washing what he said to make him sound like less of a monster, and you are assuredly a monster if you advocate intentional attacks on civilians. Also, don't come back at me with drone strike collateral damage either that is entirely different than intentionally targeting innocent women and children.
Here is the quote before you try to defend it further: “The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families.” DJT
Trump did say what you quoted, as well as plenty more during at least one debate, one press conference, and multiple rallies.
You failed to quote everything Trump said on that topic. Thus, you have chosen to mislead at best.
Trump did say what you quoted, as well as plenty more during at least one debate, one press conference, and multiple rallies.
His amendments came after the backlash. Likely after he realized that what he advocated would be an international crime. Its almost as if he didn't know that killing innocent women and children was immoral. That aside changing his stance after the massive backlash does nothing for me. More evidence of his cheap talk and pandering flip-flopping rhetoric.
And I didn't mislead anything that was the whole quote when it came up with full context given nothing misleading about it. Three times he said we have to kill their families. Very clear, more clear than what a lot of politicians say. You can't expect me to quote the original statement then quote all the backtracking that is a bit silly
I don't think I've ever encountered a literate Trump supporter before, so I am somewhat intrigued by you. Since I have been unable to have my questions answered by other Trump supporters, I would be grateful if you could speak about your expectations of Trump's presidency. Like, what do you realistically believe he would achieve if he got into the Whitehouse?
I believe he will push back HARD against all the billions of dollars of drugs flooding into this country across the southern border. Those harmful drugs are wrecking TONS of lives, and killing quite a few human beings in the process. A wall is just one part of the puzzle needed to stop this scourge. Human trafficking is high back and forth across the border. And a HUGE percentage of the latinas--girls and women--coming across the border are sexually assaulted. And yes, there are lots and lots of criminals--legal and illegal--making a tidy profit at la frontera. R and D politicians have turned a blind eye to these problems for decades. Enough is enough.
I believe Trump will try to destroy ISIS, not contain it.
I believe Trump will renegotiate contracts and trade deals, both foreign and domestic, for the benefit of MuriKa.
I believe Trump will nominate a conservative justice.
I believe Trump is the most likely candidate to "save" Medicare. VERY tough task, no doubt.
I believe Trump will leave Planned Parenthood alone.
I believe Trump will replace Obamacare with something better.
I believe Trump will improve the economy for blue collar citizens, regardless of race or gender or culture.
I could be wrong on every single item. But I am confident DJT is the cream of the current crop. Mediocrity at the max is NOT Trump's plan.
Thanks, dox.
Hmm. HolyJello, I think your expectations of Trump are a little far-fetched. This is primarily for 4 reasons:
1. Dishonesty: Trump is statistically among the most dishonest candidates in the race. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html. Take any speech of his and fact check it yourself: you will find he often confuses his mouth for his anus. In fact, in his book The Art of the Deal, Trump speaks voluminously about ruthlessly exploiting people's hopes and dreams in order to secure "good deals". What makes you think he isn't doing the same to you?
2. Flip-floppery: If you look at his 30 year political history, you will see that he has traditionally supported Democrats, and flip-flopped on every major political issue, including the Iraq War, which he holds up as an example of his "tremendous judgement". What's more, many of his flip-flops have occurred within the current campaign (e.g. killing terrorist's families, paying legal fees of thugs). There is even an indication that Trump confided to the NYT that his Unique Selling Point -- his intent to build a wall between Mexico -- may be bullshizzle. A good look at his political history strongly suggests that the views he currently holds are a simple instance of electioneering.
3. Naivety: Trump is a political dunce. In particular, he seems to have no knowledge of how federal laws are passed, or of the complexities of foreign policy (particularly the Middle East). This is well-evidenced by his answers to such questions, where rather than say anything of substance, he simply says "We're gonna win" or "We'll smash 'em", or "I know how to make good deals," and then changes the subject. Furthermore, he habitually says bone-headed things like "torture works" (even though the CIA has admitted that torture doesn't work). Let's take another one of your points. You mentioned that Trump will straighten out China, and ensure US jobs go to US citizens. What Trump doesn't seem to know (or isn't telling you) is that if harsh tariffs are imposed on the Chinese, they will simply stop co-operating and start competing with US industry on the Intl markets, easily undercutting it and putting US companies out of business. This will lead to even more job losses. Trump may well have an answer to this problem, but so far he hasn't said a single thing that suggests he cares or is even aware of it.
4. Isolation: It's no secret that almost everyone in the establishment hates Trump. Obviously, this is why many common people love him. But think about this: If the lobbyists, the Senate and the Supreme Court refuse to play ball with him (which, given his antagonism, is likely their intention), how is he going to pass any laws? Even many Republicans have vowed to oppose him! And no, despite popular belief, Trump can't rely on Executive Orders, as they still require the complicity of Congress, and have a limited jurisdiction. You would have to be severely naive to believe he has a chance of deporting 11 million immigrants, or of building a wall along the south border. In fact, given how he has antagonised pretty much everyone in the establishment, it's hard to believe he would succeed in getting any laws passed at all.
In short, Trump is lying about what he wants to achieve, and even if he's not, he's not got the know-how to achieve it, and even if he has, he's antagonised too much of the establishment to make it happen.
Having said that, I should add that I would love to see Trump as president, but that's only because what I look for in a president is entertainment.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For the sake of Hasbro's half-year financial report, we will keep watch."
-- The Gatewatch
Question: Can Donald Trump, consistent with the First Amendment, exclude those who oppose his candidacy from his political rallies? Answer: Yes. Donald Trump is a private citizen. The First Amendment, like all provisions of the Constitution, restricts only the actions of government. Thus, just as a private person can constitutionally host a party that includes only his friends, Donald Trump can constitutionally hold a rally that includes only his supporters.
Question: Can Donald Trump, consistent with the First Amendment, order the removal of those who oppose his candidacy from his political rallies? Answer: Yes. Just as a private person can constitutionally call the police to remove from his party those who were not invited, Donald Trump can constitutionally call the police to remove from his political rallies those who oppose his candidacy. (Of course, if he does so he must pay the political price for his action.)
Question: Do opponents of Trump's candidacy who attend a Trump rally in defiance of an announcement that attendance is limited only to Trump supporters have a First Amendment right to attend the event because they are engaging in a "political protest"? Answer: No. The right to protest does not include the right to trespass. As a general rule, individuals do not have a First Amendment right to violate laws having nothing to do with speech -- even if they violate the law in order to engage in expressive conduct. For example, there is no First Amendment right to speed in order to get to a rally on time. There is no First Amendment right to steal a megaphone in order to speak more effectively. There is no First Amendment right to punch a policeman in order to protest police abuse. And there is no First Amendment right to trespass in order to engage in a protest.
I don't understand why Trump offering to pay the legal fees for supporters that remove the protestors is more offensive than the fact that those protestors are there to incite, disrupt and shut down his rallies. Could you make the case that they're equal? Maybe. But if you're going to hand-wave people for undermining the democratic process then you don't have the moral high ground in condemning Trump.
I don't understand why Trump offering to pay the legal fees for supporters that remove the protestors is more offensive than the fact that those protestors are there to incite, disrupt and shut down his rallies. Could you make the case that they're equal? Maybe. But if you're going to hand-wave people for undermining the democratic process then you don't have the moral high ground in condemning Trump.
Sucker-punching a guy is not "equal" with misdemeanor trespassing and disturbing the peace. Protesting at a rally is not "undermining the democratic process". You can't be serious.
Most of the natural law philosophy, though which they were basing their decisions off of (Thomas Hobbes being the classical provider of "Natural Law" at the time), that come from Chapters XIV and XV of Leviathan (not the bible). Hobbes ultimately keeps religion out of his arguments, but our founders mixed the two philosophies they were most familiar with, perhaps because it best suited their interests, or because they'd made peace with the philosophy and could not find a place where they contradicted each other in such a way to matter.
Although Jefferson had probably read Hobbes, you'd be hard-pressed to find a scholar of the Founding Fathers who credits Hobbes as a major inspiration. It's the philosophy of John Locke that underpins the Declaration of Independence. The principles Jefferson invokes, including the invocation of God as the source of natural rights, are all right there in the Second Treatise of Government.
(And I'm saying this as someone who likes Hobbes a lot more than Locke.)
You have been consistently negative towards Trump and his supporters, but I do apologize for mistakenly lumping you into an incorrect category. This is my attempt to eat crow, and I still don't like its taste. (This has happened before, to me). Have a good day sir.
thank you for the apology.
I wonder why the other candidates didn't want to just have a debate without Trump?
You are welcome.
I admit a bit of surprise at their response. Seems like they could have scored some points, without Trump on the stage. Perchance backroom deals??
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
I admit a bit of surprise at their response. Seems like they could have scored some points, without Trump on the stage. Perchance backroom deals??
Could be, who knows. It seems odd to not want to have a debate without the black sheep. Is it possible fox pushed to cancel fearing low ratings sans Trump?
Supposedly Kasich announced he wouldn't go before Fox canceled. Which would have left Cruz up on stage on his own. This wasn't Fox unless the Kasich stuff was made up.
you know I forgot Rubio dropped out till just now. It makes a bit more sense with that in mind.
You mean like the deal that got Trump Chris Christie's endorsement? When your man literally wrote the book on the art of the deal, it's a little surprising for you to suggest dealmaking in a disparaging tone.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So what Trump is saying here should worry everyone, because he's basically threatening mob violence.
This is pretty irresponsible for Trump to say. Everyone already knows he has trouble keeping his supporters civil and now this. Even if he is right about the possibility of violence existing he should not have brought into people's minds. Now many of his supporters will see it as validation to riot if Trump does not get nominated despite what Trump may say to discourage it moving forward.
@Highroller, par for the course unfortunately. I don't think anyone who's been paying attention is surprised.
It's not surprising, we could all see it coming, but now it has officially happened: Trump is using the threat of force to hijack the democratic process.
if trump wins the whole thing, he will either be the best president, or worst president we've ever had. i don't feel there will be much middle ground.
My money for an inexperienced, anger-feeding violent narcissist with scapegoating tendencies and delusions of grandeur is "worst."
Our best presidents: Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, etc all had common decency and integrity to larger ideals and their people.
Roosevelt was not a particularly good president. A lot of the problems of bloated government we have to deal with today stem from him. Also riots are a fairly consistent response to a robbed election. If trump is even 300 delegates ahead of everyone else there is no justification to nominate someone else. People would be very angry. The entire reason we have the 2nd amendment is to put a bullet in tyrannical government. If people feel like they have no voice in their government anger is going to happen. Me personally I would not riot but I will never vote republican again.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I don't think I've ever encountered a literate Trump supporter before, so I am somewhat intrigued by you. Since I have been unable to have my questions answered by other Trump supporters, I would be grateful if you could speak about your expectations of Trump's presidency. Like, what do you realistically believe he would achieve if he got into the Whitehouse?
-- The Gatewatch
Excellent point Blinking Spirit.
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
I wonder why the other candidates didn't want to just have a debate without Trump?
And I didn't mislead anything that was the whole quote when it came up with full context given nothing misleading about it. Three times he said we have to kill their families. Very clear, more clear than what a lot of politicians say. You can't expect me to quote the original statement then quote all the backtracking that is a bit silly
Can you show us what the whole quote is and explain why his interpretation of it as "Trump backtracking" was incorrect?
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Fantastic. Trump voters cost him delegates because they don't want to vote for a delegate named "Raja Sadiq".
Thanks, dox.
Hmm. HolyJello, I think your expectations of Trump are a little far-fetched. This is primarily for 4 reasons:
1. Dishonesty: Trump is statistically among the most dishonest candidates in the race. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/opinion/campaign-stops/all-politicians-lie-some-lie-more-than-others.html. Take any speech of his and fact check it yourself: you will find he often confuses his mouth for his anus. In fact, in his book The Art of the Deal, Trump speaks voluminously about ruthlessly exploiting people's hopes and dreams in order to secure "good deals". What makes you think he isn't doing the same to you?
2. Flip-floppery: If you look at his 30 year political history, you will see that he has traditionally supported Democrats, and flip-flopped on every major political issue, including the Iraq War, which he holds up as an example of his "tremendous judgement". What's more, many of his flip-flops have occurred within the current campaign (e.g. killing terrorist's families, paying legal fees of thugs). There is even an indication that Trump confided to the NYT that his Unique Selling Point -- his intent to build a wall between Mexico -- may be bullshizzle. A good look at his political history strongly suggests that the views he currently holds are a simple instance of electioneering.
3. Naivety: Trump is a political dunce. In particular, he seems to have no knowledge of how federal laws are passed, or of the complexities of foreign policy (particularly the Middle East). This is well-evidenced by his answers to such questions, where rather than say anything of substance, he simply says "We're gonna win" or "We'll smash 'em", or "I know how to make good deals," and then changes the subject. Furthermore, he habitually says bone-headed things like "torture works" (even though the CIA has admitted that torture doesn't work). Let's take another one of your points. You mentioned that Trump will straighten out China, and ensure US jobs go to US citizens. What Trump doesn't seem to know (or isn't telling you) is that if harsh tariffs are imposed on the Chinese, they will simply stop co-operating and start competing with US industry on the Intl markets, easily undercutting it and putting US companies out of business. This will lead to even more job losses. Trump may well have an answer to this problem, but so far he hasn't said a single thing that suggests he cares or is even aware of it.
4. Isolation: It's no secret that almost everyone in the establishment hates Trump. Obviously, this is why many common people love him. But think about this: If the lobbyists, the Senate and the Supreme Court refuse to play ball with him (which, given his antagonism, is likely their intention), how is he going to pass any laws? Even many Republicans have vowed to oppose him! And no, despite popular belief, Trump can't rely on Executive Orders, as they still require the complicity of Congress, and have a limited jurisdiction. You would have to be severely naive to believe he has a chance of deporting 11 million immigrants, or of building a wall along the south border. In fact, given how he has antagonised pretty much everyone in the establishment, it's hard to believe he would succeed in getting any laws passed at all.
In short, Trump is lying about what he wants to achieve, and even if he's not, he's not got the know-how to achieve it, and even if he has, he's antagonised too much of the establishment to make it happen.
Having said that, I should add that I would love to see Trump as president, but that's only because what I look for in a president is entertainment.
-- The Gatewatch
Question: Can Donald Trump, consistent with the First Amendment, exclude those who oppose his candidacy from his political rallies? Answer: Yes. Donald Trump is a private citizen. The First Amendment, like all provisions of the Constitution, restricts only the actions of government. Thus, just as a private person can constitutionally host a party that includes only his friends, Donald Trump can constitutionally hold a rally that includes only his supporters.
Question: Can Donald Trump, consistent with the First Amendment, order the removal of those who oppose his candidacy from his political rallies? Answer: Yes. Just as a private person can constitutionally call the police to remove from his party those who were not invited, Donald Trump can constitutionally call the police to remove from his political rallies those who oppose his candidacy. (Of course, if he does so he must pay the political price for his action.)
Question: Do opponents of Trump's candidacy who attend a Trump rally in defiance of an announcement that attendance is limited only to Trump supporters have a First Amendment right to attend the event because they are engaging in a "political protest"? Answer: No. The right to protest does not include the right to trespass. As a general rule, individuals do not have a First Amendment right to violate laws having nothing to do with speech -- even if they violate the law in order to engage in expressive conduct. For example, there is no First Amendment right to speed in order to get to a rally on time. There is no First Amendment right to steal a megaphone in order to speak more effectively. There is no First Amendment right to punch a policeman in order to protest police abuse. And there is no First Amendment right to trespass in order to engage in a protest.
I don't understand why Trump offering to pay the legal fees for supporters that remove the protestors is more offensive than the fact that those protestors are there to incite, disrupt and shut down his rallies. Could you make the case that they're equal? Maybe. But if you're going to hand-wave people for undermining the democratic process then you don't have the moral high ground in condemning Trump.
Sucker-punching a guy is not "equal" with misdemeanor trespassing and disturbing the peace. Protesting at a rally is not "undermining the democratic process". You can't be serious.
(And I'm saying this as someone who likes Hobbes a lot more than Locke.)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I admit a bit of surprise at their response. Seems like they could have scored some points, without Trump on the stage. Perchance backroom deals??
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So what Trump is saying here should worry everyone, because he's basically threatening mob violence.
My money for an inexperienced, anger-feeding violent narcissist with scapegoating tendencies and delusions of grandeur is "worst."
Our best presidents: Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, etc all had common decency and integrity to larger ideals and their people.
Roosevelt was not a particularly good president. A lot of the problems of bloated government we have to deal with today stem from him. Also riots are a fairly consistent response to a robbed election. If trump is even 300 delegates ahead of everyone else there is no justification to nominate someone else. People would be very angry. The entire reason we have the 2nd amendment is to put a bullet in tyrannical government. If people feel like they have no voice in their government anger is going to happen. Me personally I would not riot but I will never vote republican again.