|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Aug 26, 2016 11:40:08 GMT -5
Thats a very absolute statement by a person that is usually measured. Interested to hear why you believe this and what you feel disqualifies him. And please be specific so I can give you a proper rebuttal. Nothing disqualifies him. But I think he is so uninformed on issues, especially internationally. And shows no interest in actually learning about them. He lacks the temperment to handle nuanced situations. He's openly asked why we cant nuke someone. I think he offers up over simplistic solutions to extremely complicated situations. He has no true convictions, he will say anything to anyone in front of him. Hes already softening on immigration. His biggest claim...building a wall and having Mexicans pay...is just so silly. Things like: "I'll stop murders in Chicago in one week, by tougher policing" Its just all hit air. The president has no police power in a city. Now, that wouldn't all be so bad if he had the ability to hire smart people around him. But he's now on his 3rd or 4th campaign team and many of his spokespeople seem as ignorant as him. He cant even hire experienced administration because none of them want to work for him. It would be a full team of rookies and I think that dangerous. Now...you return the favor and tell me why you think he'd make a good president. Bonus points if you can do it without mentioning Hilary. Look, I know what she is and Ill have to hold my nose when I punch the chad, but Im looking forward. I simply feel as if she is better equipped. She would have an instant experienced team in place. If you cant vote for her because of emails, Benghazi or the foundation I can understand that. But to me, I have to chose between the 2 I have to go with her. Not because I think she's great, because I think Trump would be a disaster. I also understand the point of getting all the corrupt folks out...doing away with politics as usually. Get someone else other than a career public hack in there. And Id be on board if it wasn't someone like Trump. Great sentiment but wrong candidate. Maybe he has shown others an alternate path, you dont need to suck up to the party. I just wish there was a better candidate in his spot. You really didnt give me many specifics. Just the usual talking points and buzz words. I wish you would explain to my how he is uninformed. You may not agree with his position, which is fine, but I would like to know exactly how he is uninformed. The nuke comment is 100% hearsay. He hasn't openly asked anything. That was Joe Scarborough talking about a conversation he allegedly had with someone about Trump. The wall is very simple. We have a trade deficit with Mexico that is around 60 billion, give or take. We balance that out and it pays for the wall, hence Mexico pays. The solving the Chicago murder comments are hyperbole. Just like Michelle Obama saying that as a black man Barack could be killed going to the gas station (thats a real quote, you can look it up). Although relative to the decades the Democrats have wasted trying to "fix" the issue if Trump were to somehow champion reforms that lead to a decline it may seem like one week. Hillary hires new people her campaign is "evolving", Trump hires new people its a "shake up". Lets not forget that 5 major players in the DNC have been replaced as a result of the WikiLeaks. Lewandowski got completely railroaded for what happened. That reporter is a little wacky to say the least, I suggest you watch some of her commentary. Has the Secret Service done there job that would have been a non-issue. Manafort was hired initially as his convention manager to help consolidate delegates. Now he has a traditional campaign manager for the general. Stylistically it is a little unorthodox, I agree but I am not sure how it speaks to what he would do with his cabinet. We talk about how the country is on the wrong track (65% Americans feel that way). We talk about how we don't like our foreign policy in the Middle East with the interventions and nation building. We talk about how we hate the crony capitalism and the elites having the power. Then when the same people responsible for all this say they dont endorse Trump or wont work for him that is consider an indictment of Trump. Does that make any sense? Not sure where you get this idea that he is going to go at it with a team of rookies. We already have a pretty good idea of what his cabinet will look like. Chris Christie, Guiliani, General Flynn, Ben Carson, Jeff Sessions, Carl Icahn are just a few names. And he has released a list of potential Supreme Court nominations he would make. You may not agree with some of the picks, which is fair but I dont think those people are rookies. "Good President" is subjective but if he is able to build the wall and come up with some sort of immigration policy that fixes the system and better protects us from importing possible foreign threats I will consider that a good thing. Everyone agrees the system is broken and I do not believe Hillary will have the political capital to get any legislation passed. We will be left with defacto amnesty which in my opinion would be worse than anything Trump is capable of. Opening up the insurance exchanges across the states is something I support. Obamacare is dying under its own weight. Aetna just pulled out of many exchanges. Something needs to be done. If he is able to put a dent in our trade deficits I will consider that a good thing. I am not an idiot, I realize that some products need to be made overseas to keep the costs down for consumers but if he can help the automobile manufacturing and steel sectors in any way I would consider that a major victory for America. I also believe his plans to lower corporate taxes will lead to many businesses "repatriating" the trillions they have stashed overseas. Not only will we get the tax revenue but this will also lead to them investing inside the United States. As for foreign policy I think having a functional relationship with Russia and not forcing them into an alliance with China is a good thing for us. I also think he will be better equipped to deal with the gargantuan stock market bubble the next President is inheriting but nobody is talking about. I dont love Trump but I am able to get past his harsh style. I dont even have to like someone to vote for them. I want change and he has already brought about plenty of it. The Bush/Romney/McCain establishment has been vanquished. If he somehow is able to defy the odds and add the Clintons to his wall of trophies that will be remarkable and I think the country will be better for it. |
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Aug 26, 2016 11:42:43 GMT -5
I feel sick... I actually agree 100% with this post (except for the part where I vote for Hillary.. I'm voting for neither I think). Kill me! Dont even bother voting then. If you traditionally vote Democratic a vote for Johnson or Stein is a vote for Trump. And vice versa. |
|
|
|
Post by Big L on Aug 26, 2016 11:44:19 GMT -5
Thats a very absolute statement by a person that is usually measured. Interested to hear why you believe this and what you feel disqualifies him. And please be specific so I can give you a proper rebuttal. Nothing disqualifies him. But I think he is so uninformed on issues, especially internationally. And shows no interest in actually learning about them. He lacks the temperment to handle nuanced situations. He's openly asked why we cant nuke someone. I think he offers up over simplistic solutions to extremely complicated situations. He has no true convictions, he will say anything to anyone in front of him. Hes already softening on immigration. His biggest claim...building a wall and having Mexicans pay...is just so silly. Things like: "I'll stop murders in Chicago in one week, by tougher policing" Its just all hit air. The president has no police power in a city. Now, that wouldn't all be so bad if he had the ability to hire smart people around him. But he's now on his 3rd or 4th campaign team and many of his spokespeople seem as ignorant as him. He cant even hire experienced administration because none of them want to work for him. It would be a full team of rookies and I think that dangerous. Now...you return the favor and tell me why you think he'd make a good president. Bonus points if you can do it without mentioning Hilary. Look, I know what she is and Ill have to hold my nose when I punch the chad, but Im looking forward. I simply feel as if she is better equipped. She would have an instant experienced team in place. If you cant vote for her because of emails, Benghazi or the foundation I can understand that. But to me, I have to chose between the 2 I have to go with her. Not because I think she's great, because I think Trump would be a disaster. I also understand the point of getting all the corrupt folks out...doing away with politics as usually. Get someone else other than a career public hack in there. And Id be on board if it wasn't someone like Trump. Great sentiment but wrong candidate. Maybe he has shown others an alternate path, you dont need to suck up to the party. I just wish there was a better candidate in his spot. Gary Johnson |
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Aug 26, 2016 11:52:28 GMT -5
Nothing disqualifies him. But I think he is so uninformed on issues, especially internationally. And shows no interest in actually learning about them. He lacks the temperment to handle nuanced situations. He's openly asked why we cant nuke someone. I think he offers up over simplistic solutions to extremely complicated situations. He has no true convictions, he will say anything to anyone in front of him. Hes already softening on immigration. His biggest claim...building a wall and having Mexicans pay...is just so silly. Things like: "I'll stop murders in Chicago in one week, by tougher policing" Its just all hit air. The president has no police power in a city. Now, that wouldn't all be so bad if he had the ability to hire smart people around him. But he's now on his 3rd or 4th campaign team and many of his spokespeople seem as ignorant as him. He cant even hire experienced administration because none of them want to work for him. It would be a full team of rookies and I think that dangerous. Now...you return the favor and tell me why you think he'd make a good president. Bonus points if you can do it without mentioning Hilary. Look, I know what she is and Ill have to hold my nose when I punch the chad, but Im looking forward. I simply feel as if she is better equipped. She would have an instant experienced team in place. If you cant vote for her because of emails, Benghazi or the foundation I can understand that. But to me, I have to chose between the 2 I have to go with her. Not because I think she's great, because I think Trump would be a disaster. I also understand the point of getting all the corrupt folks out...doing away with politics as usually. Get someone else other than a career public hack in there. And Id be on board if it wasn't someone like Trump. Great sentiment but wrong candidate. Maybe he has shown others an alternate path, you dont need to suck up to the party. I just wish there was a better candidate in his spot. You really didnt give me many specifics. Just the usual talking points and buzz words. I wish you would explain to my how he is uninformed. You may not agree with his position, which is fine, but I would like to know exactly how he is uninformed. The nuke comment is 100% hearsay. He hasn't openly asked anything. That was Joe Scarborough talking about a conversation he allegedly had with someone about Trump. The wall is very simple. We have a trade deficit with Mexico that is around 60 billion, give or take. We balance that out and it pays for the wall, hence Mexico pays. The solving the Chicago murder comments are hyperbole. Just like Michelle Obama saying that as a black man Barack could be killed going to the gas station (thats a real quote, you can look it up). Although relative to the decades the Democrats have wasted trying to "fix" the issue if Trump were to somehow champion reforms that lead to a decline it may seem like one week. Hillary hires new people her campaign is "evolving", Trump hires new people its a "shake up". Lets not forget that 5 major players in the DNC have been replaced as a result of the WikiLeaks. Lewandowski got completely railroaded for what happened. That reporter is a little wacky to say the least, I suggest you watch some of her commentary. Has the Secret Service done there job that would have been a non-issue. Manafort was hired initially as his convention manager to help consolidate delegates. Now he has a traditional campaign manager for the general. Stylistically it is a little unorthodox, I agree but I am not sure how it speaks to what he would do with his cabinet. We talk about how the country is on the wrong track (65% Americans feel that way). We talk about how we don't like our foreign policy in the Middle East with the interventions and nation building. We talk about how we hate the crony capitalism and the elites having the power. Then when the same people responsible for all this say they dont endorse Trump or wont work for him that is consider an indictment of Trump. Does that make any sense? Not sure where you get this idea that he is going to go at it with a team of rookies. We already have a pretty good idea of what his cabinet will look like. Chris Christie, Guiliani, General Flynn, Ben Carson, Jeff Sessions, Carl Icahn are just a few names. And he has released a list of potential Supreme Court nominations he would make. You may not agree with some of the picks, which is fair but I dont think those people are rookies. "Good President" is subjective but if he is able to build the wall and come up with some sort of immigration policy that fixes the system and better protects us from importing possible foreign threats I will consider that a good thing. Everyone agrees the system is broken and I do not believe Hillary will have the political capital to get any legislation passed. We will be left with defacto amnesty which in my opinion would be worse than anything Trump is capable of. Opening up the insurance exchanges across the states is something I support. Obamacare is dying under its own weight. Aetna just pulled out of many exchanges. Something needs to be done. If he is able to put a dent in our trade deficits I will consider that a good thing. I am not an idiot, I realize that some products need to be made overseas to keep the costs down for consumers but if he can help the automobile manufacturing and steel sectors in any way I would consider that a major victory for America. I also believe his plans to lower corporate taxes will lead to many businesses "repatriating" the trillions they have stashed overseas. Not only will we get the tax revenue but this will also lead to them investing inside the United States. As for foreign policy I think having a functional relationship with Russia and not forcing them into an alliance with China is a good thing for us. I also think he will be better equipped to deal with the gargantuan stock market bubble the next President is inheriting but nobody is talking about. I dont love Trump but I am able to get past his harsh style. I dont even have to like someone to vote for them. I want change and he has already brought about plenty of it. The Bush/Romney/McCain establishment has been vanquished. If he somehow is able to defy the odds and add the Clintons to his wall of trophies that will be remarkable and I think the country will be better for it. I find him uninformed because every question he answers (or doesn't answer to be more accurate) is a vague response about making it better. "Trust me well fix that so fast it will make your head spin." If he actually tries to include details he fails: "He's not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down." And if Ben Carson is someone you have faith in, well just agree to disagree. Anyway, a few months to go, I'm sick of talking about this. |
|
|
|
Post by Mond the Bagnificient on Aug 26, 2016 11:58:16 GMT -5
I feel sick... I actually agree 100% with this post (except for the part where I vote for Hillary.. I'm voting for neither I think). Kill me! Dont even bother voting then. If you traditionally vote Democratic a vote for Johnson or Stein is a vote for Trump. And vice versa. I'm not affiliated with any party. I vote based on they person. |
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Aug 26, 2016 12:09:22 GMT -5
I find him uninformed because every question he answers (or doesn't answer to be more accurate) is a vague response about making it better. "Trust me well fix that so fast it will make your head spin." If he actually tries to include details he fails: "He's not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down." And if Ben Carson is someone you have faith in, well just agree to disagree. Anyway, a few months to go, I'm sick of talking about this. I think you are just selecting what you want to hear. He has discussed plenty of things in detail and how he plans to fix it. It may be hard to believe but some of the fixes are easy. I voted for a guy who said there was 57 states (bonus points if you can guess who). When you are willing to speak sometimes you misspeak. I choose to give him the benefit of the doubt on that one and assume he meant that they weren't going to go further. Also he did make an important point about Ukraine, many people there do want to be part of Russia. Perhaps he should go 200+ days without a presser to protect himself from such criticisms. I dunno but I find it funny how we are outraged over this comment but not outraged over our policies that led Russia to do that in the first place. It was just merely a list. And what does it say that I knew he was the one you were going to single out? A world-renowned Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon who just happens to be on the wrong side of the political aisle. Enjoy yourself. There may be a day when we arent allowed to talk about this stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Aug 26, 2016 12:10:34 GMT -5
Dont even bother voting then. If you traditionally vote Democratic a vote for Johnson or Stein is a vote for Trump. And vice versa. I'm not affiliated with any party. I vote based on they person. Fair enough. But if you can't stomach either of them I suggest you save the gas and time. But if we're being honest, if you're in NY it doesn't matter either way. |
|
|
|
Post by Mond the Bagnificient on Aug 26, 2016 12:12:44 GMT -5
I still say it's worth a vote even if not for the top 2. Maybe some one else will get a showing.
|
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Aug 26, 2016 12:19:21 GMT -5
I still say it's worth a vote even if not for the top 2. Maybe some one else will get a showing. Im not going to lie. I considered Johnson. But the first time I saw him speak he looked like he was going through a withdrawal. I just feel like the third party vote is more of a personal protest and patting yourself on the back. I also take issues with libertarians. I do not believe it is possible to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, which it seems like the overwhelming majority of them claim to be. Being socially liberal isn't just about gay rights. It also means you support the massive social programs. In my opinion they are essentially liberals that are in denial. |
|
|
|
Post by Mond the Bagnificient on Aug 26, 2016 12:20:35 GMT -5
I don't think I'm voting for them either. I'm going to look i to the constitutional party.
|
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Aug 26, 2016 12:33:40 GMT -5
I don't think I'm voting for them either. I'm going to look i to the constitutional party. I feel your pain. It seems like there isn't room for the majority of us in either tent. I am predominantly a fiscal conservative and I would be lying if I suggested the Republican Party gives a damn about reducing spending or our national debt. I think both parties would spend us into oblivion but the Republicans might just do it a little slower. Interesting you brought up constitutional party bc the Supreme Court is probably the biggest reason I am going to vote for Trump even though my vote doesnt even matter. I think there is less a chance of him nominating Justices that will try to be activists from the bench. Not only the Supreme Court but also the circuit courts. Along with immigration that is probably the biggest thing for me about this election. |
|
|
|
Post by thebigragu on Aug 27, 2016 16:14:30 GMT -5
I am now a Facist. After reading this thread. I want everyone shot and i will try to rebuild
|
|
|
|
Post by Harrier on Aug 27, 2016 17:43:00 GMT -5
I am now a Facist. After reading this thread. I want everyone shot and i will try to rebuild Now??? You're Italian, you've always been a facist you ignorant wop. |
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Aug 28, 2016 15:26:16 GMT -5
I still say it's worth a vote even if not for the top 2. Maybe some one else will get a showing. Im not going to lie. I considered Johnson. But the first time I saw him speak he looked like he was going through a withdrawal. I just feel like the third party vote is more of a personal protest and patting yourself on the back. I also take issues with libertarians. I do not believe it is possible to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal, which it seems like the overwhelming majority of them claim to be. Being socially liberal isn't just about gay rights. It also means you support the massive social programs. In my opinion they are essentially liberals that are in denial. Not to Libertarians it doesn't. Libertarians think that the government should stay out of our pockets and out of our bedrooms. Personal responsibility is important. Stop telling everyone what they can and cannot ingest. No more nanny state. They don't believe in minimum wages, corporate welfare or massive social programs. Not sure why you think letting people live their lives and massive social programs would go hand in hand. |
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Aug 28, 2016 18:46:37 GMT -5
F**KING CLASSIC!!!!!!
|
|
