Why Should Anyone Vote For Trump ?

[edporch]

I won't be voting for Trump, Clinton or Sanders.
They would ALL be disasters for this country as President.

I also don't believe Trump can beat Clinton or Sanders in a general election.

Trump is a northeastern liberal who's playing for a fool everybody who believes he's "changed" his leftist political leanings.
I don't trust Trump any more than I trust Clinton.

 

[BugI02]

OK, let's follow this through. Just like all the Presidents that have gone into a foreign land to take out a bad guy only to have no plan for the "now what?" aftermath.

So Trump takes out the GOP establishment.
1) Who exactly did he take out? Lobbyists? No. Congressional staffers? No. Think tank types? not at all. Wash-Reince-Repeat Priebus? Maybe-- does replacing him matter?
2) Who replaces who is taken out?

A short, incomplete history of "taking's out" that didn't go so well:
-- CIA taking out Mossadegh in 1953
-- Taking out the Serbs in Bosnia
-- Taking out Saddam from an otherwise stable Iraq.
-- Taking out Allende
-- Trying to take out Assad
-- Taking out Qadafi


NOTICING A PATTERN YET?

Want a civl war and a corrupt thugocracy? Well, just "take out" the major sources of stability.

You had me right up until this, if I am correct in assuming you view the GOPe as a major source of stability (as opposed to status quo)

 

[BugI02]

Trump strike me as the person to say what he says he'll say.

The "DO" part, well that's not yet in evidence.

A leader doesn't even need to actually make Russian shark food. Credibility is all that matters.

Anyone remember when Reagan said "the bombing begins in 5 minutes" and everyone freaked? Because they all knew in their bones that the man would never rule out pushing that button.

And it's not just coincidence that the Americans held in Iran were released on Inauguration Day, 1981.

I think that had more to do with hatred of Carter. You may have noticed Iran didn't suddenly toe the line during the Reagan presidency by any stretch

 

[BugI02]

...
He's basically wrong, though. Those aircraft were allowed that close because they were not a threat. The civilian analogy would be to shoot an unarmed protester because he points his finger at you in the shape of a gun. ...

You are right, but for the wrong reasons. The ships were in international waters where the passes were provocative but in no way illegal. They would not be shot down because at the current level of hostilities we are nowhere near a 'launch on warning' mindset. You can bet that all the bogies were locked up at all times and weapon systems were hot (and they knew it). Had they committed some demonstrably hostile act such as launching weapons they would have been blown from the skies. Then we would have rescued the pilots if we could. At no time would those aircraft be considered to not constitute a threat even after they were observed to lack external stores.

Remember Iran Air 665's experience with the USS Vincennes. Everything is tracked and assigned a constantly updating threat status

 

[BugI02]

Nothing wrong with a little nose-thumbing. It's how the game is played, if played well.

There are few things as over-rated as experience. And no, a junior Senator who has sat on committee hearings for a few years is not "experienced" in foreign affairs.

Experience is not skill, it's experience. Skill in foreign relations involves 1)exceptional ability to read people and understand their interests 2) advanced understanding of game theory and 3) being very personable and of high emotional intelligence.

Those skills mostly have nothing to do with experience. And certainly, experience is no substitute for bad principles or philosophy. The most experienced--and even most skilled-- diplomat cannot effectively advance American interests if operating from the basic assumption that America, founded in racism by a wealthy white ruling class, is basically what's wrong with the world, having pillaged and plundered the globe to have arrived at so much ill-gotten prosperity.

Which is why NO Obama state department can effectively advance American interests. And HRC's "experience" is arguably worse than no experience at all.

​QFeffingT

 

[MisterChester]

I won't be voting for Trump, Clinton or Sanders.
They would ALL be disasters for this country as President.

I also don't believe Trump can beat Clinton or Sanders in a general election.

Trump is a northeastern liberal who's playing for a fool everybody who believes he's "changed" his leftist political leanings.
I don't trust Trump any more than I trust Clinton.

Consistency is overrated. People can and do change. I was once an agnostic liberal democrat for a big chunk of my life.

Its kind of hard to trust anybody running to begin with. Trump may break our hearts but I know I'm definitely getting a pile of crap with Cruz or Hillary who we know are beholden to interest groups.

 

[SEIndSAM]

I don't usually post in the political threads, and I will personally vote for however the Repub candidate is, as I feel any of the remaining 3 are better for the country than Hillary.

Only reason I am posting here is conversations we have had with my wifes kids, a 31 yr old single guy in Seattle and a 25 yr old single girl in Silicone Valley, CA.
The under 35 people there are overwhelmingly Pro-Sanders. Sanders will likely be denied the nomination by the establishment that has ordained a Clinton nomination. Those Sanders voters in my stepchildren's very large social groups are overwhelmingly going to Trump over Clinton. Even in Liberal San Fran and Seattle, the under 35 group despises Clinton and if it does become a Clinton vs Trump contest, it will become a contest in CA, OR and WA....

It may not show up yet in the polls, as these groups live on their cells phones and don't participate much in phone polls, but these two kids are usually pretty tuned in on what's going on.

 

[jamil]

​QFeffingT

I'm glad you quoted that. I would have missed it otherwise.

 

[INPatriot]

Trump needs Cruz. Cruz needs Trump. Neither will publicly admit they need the other. If not for Trump, no matter how much people do not like him, if not for Trump, this race is over a long time ago. Jeb is probably the nominee and Cruz is not in the position he currently is in. Cruz has been able to ride the anti-establishment coattails of Trump. Unlike many whose core beliefs align most with Cruz, I do not hate Trump. I scratch my head a lot, the petty bickering gets old but I see the value in what Trump brings.

A Democrat win ensures the lobbyists, money men, connected GOP rule players keep their offices, cash flow and party invitations. A GOP win does not ensure that. A GOP win by Trump or Cruz ensures a big bomb gets thrown at all of that. At this point, I think it best to rally behind Trump so that a first ballot nomination can be obtained. If this push against establishment GOP fails, they will (they already are) create whatever rules or infrastructure they can to make sure this does not happen at the national level for a long time.

In 2008 I never believed a socialist could be elected president. After the last two terms, I see that the other party will run an avowed socialist or a lying unavowed socialist. I will vote against both. The choice is a capitalist or a constitutional capitalist. We want steak. We are offered cheap hot dogs or chicken. I would rather eat chicken than cheap hot dogs even though I want steak. But I will not choose to starve (sit out).

 

[BugI02]

Watch out Rhino, he's steppin' it up

 

[jamil]

Consistency is overrated. People can and do change. I was once an agnostic liberal democrat for a big chunk of my life.

Its kind of hard to trust anybody running to begin with. Trump may break our hearts but I know I'm definitely getting a pile of crap with Cruz or Hillary who we know are beholden to interest groups.

Consistency for just the sake of consistency is overrated. If we adjust our beliefs and principles as we test them against practical life it seems inevitable that at least some positions should evolve over time. However, the stigma we attach to political "flip-floppers" is based on the perception that the person "changed" only to pander to a specific group. As for Trump. Has he evolved, or has he pandered? That's the question both of us answer differently. I think he's pandering. For example, I think Trump did not evolve to believe the bible was his favorite book, but rather he made the claim because he knew he was speaking to a crowd of mostly evangelicals. I've read AOTD. One of the points he made about making deals is to make the people you're dealing with believe you're one of them. It's not even arguable that he pandered with the bible thing. What other supposed political evolutions are actually political pandering? Since he's your guy, I suspect you're less willing to make a critical determination.

 

[MisterChester]

Consistency for just the sake of consistency is overrated. If we adjust our beliefs and principles as we test them against practical life it seems inevitable that at least some positions should evolve over time. However, the stigma we attach to political "flip-floppers" is based on the perception that the person "changed" only to pander to a specific group. As for Trump. Has he evolved, or has he pandered? That's the question both of us answer differently. I think he's pandering. For example, I think Trump did not evolve to believe the bible was his favorite book, but rather he made the claim because he knew he was speaking to a crowd of mostly evangelicals. I've read AOTD. One of the points he made about making deals is to make the people you're dealing with believe you're one of them. It's not even arguable that he pandered with the bible thing. What other supposed political evolutions are actually political pandering? Since he's your guy, I suspect you're less willing to make a critical determination.

You are absolutely correct, we don't know. I personally am fine with going with the devil I don't know than the devil that I do know will make it more of the same/worse.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I'd prefer to have someone in that office willing to try rather than spending time dividing the country along racial lines, bickering about which potty the confused people should get to use and attempting to make the current deficit look like a drop in the bucket once they're done with their expanded entitlement programs.

Trump isn't dividing the country along racial lines? Perhaps not black/white, but nonbrown/brown. Along with his stance on foreign workers, which changes from day to day. Everything from American workers aren't good enough, to kill H1B visas, to well we need some, to...

We can afford a wall and the people to man it. What we can't afford is to continue providing endless reasons for people to come here illegally. We can't afford to keep providing people who refuse to work thousands of dollars a month in free ****. We can't afford "free" healthcare. We can't afford to continue getting screwed by every major country in the planet. Building a wall is nothing in comparison.

What is Trump's stance on healthcare? Oh and as for affording. Check out what the various candidates tax plans will do for revenue.
No One Can Agree How Much The Presidential Candidates? Tax Plans Will Cost | FiveThirtyEight

I won't throw fits if he's elected and I don't necessarily think he will be a disaster but I don't see him as attempting to lead this country away from the cliff. I genuinely don't like his persona. Like I mentioned earlier, he comes across like a cheesy Sunday morning TV evangelist selling blessings for cash. I don't detect sincerity though I won't go so far as to say I think he's lying. I'm just not comfortable with him or his presentation and I don't think he projects the image of a strong leader and this country is in desperate need of one.

With Russian fighters buzzing our carriers for fun we need someone who will pick up the phone and tell the world that the next genius who tries it will be shark food. I just don't see Cruz doing that.

I can see Cruz doing that, he comes across as easy going, until it's time not to be. Look at his reaction when Trump brought his wife into the election. Compared to how Trump has acted all throughout this campaign, do you really want his finger on the button when someone mentions his hand size? Or his wife's teats. Or..? Or look at how he whines about the primaries and caucuses, it's unfair, I'm being cheated, SUE!!! Hell he is still claiming that Cruz received more delegates in LA than he did, which is an outright lie.

A leader would do it. A leader would be respected as such and more than likely the warning would be all that was needed to stop the BS. Putin is doing this crap because he can and he knows it. I'd like to see that change. Trump strikes me as the type to do what he says he'll do.

Demogogue = a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

I don't find his arguments irrational. I find the current state of the country to be quite irrational.

Trump strikes me as a hell of a closer to another Regan than any of the other candidates, at least he has the ability and apparent desire to be a leader.

You keep saying leader, I don't think that word means what you think it does. Trump strikes me as a petulant whiny child who wants his own way and to be boss and throws a fit if he doesn't get it, IMO closer to Kim Jong Un than Reagan.

 

[phylodog]

Pretty well aware of the definition of the term leader. Feel free to provide yours though, I suppose its possible I've been mislead after 24 years in military and paramilitary organizations.

The only people who think Trump is dividing the nation along racial lines are the morons who see racism in cereal box pictures. There's no shortage of idiots who attempt to push a racial component onto everything, you'll have to forgive me if I choose to ignore their ignorant drivel.

 

[Hohn]

There is one irrefutable basis on which to demonstrate the Trump is a leader: he has followers. Now, we may be dismayed by this, and find him to be an unprincipled leader, or one not deserving of his position of influence-- but he HAS the influence and he IS a leader.

At the risk of repeating my previous post, though, I will mention that PRINCIPLES matter. Hitler was a fantastic leader, because he got lots of people to follow him. Lenin, Stalin, both leaders of great consequence with millions of followers.

Churchill was perhaps the greatest statesman of the 20th century, and he was summarily discarded in when the Conservatives were ousted and Labour came in and brought all the postwar socialism to the UK. Was he no longer a good leader? Can you lead without influence?


Anyway, I don't find Trump to be inspiring at all, but discouraging. He's the opposite of statesmanship. He's William Jennings Bryan, leading a populist rebellion-- but minus the oratorical skill and decorum.

There are legitimate grounds to criticize Trump, but "racism" is not one of them.

A relevant video for those who see racism everywhere:
[video]https://youtu.be/pMYRYKvAEaY[/video]

 

[chipbennett]

Trump isn't dividing the country along racial lines? Perhaps not black/white, but nonbrown/brown. Along with his stance on foreign workers, which changes from day to day. Everything from American workers aren't good enough, to kill H1B visas, to well we need some, to...

I'm so sick of hearing this bull****, and so is the rest of the country. Opposing illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens does not equal opposing legal immigration, or opposing the rights of legal immigrants.

Trump is dividing the country along the lines of legal vs illegal, and US border vs Mexico border. And I'm 100% in agreement with that division.

 

[T.Lex]

Divisions = votes. The more a candidate can divide an electorate, then collect a "coalition," the more likely he or she is to win the election.

Trump's candidacy is all about divisions. He vilifies all sorts of groups to aggregate his coalition. In fact, his coalition is somewhat unique in the modern era, with all the crossover support he's getting.

While he doesn't use explicitly racist terms, I believe he's totally comfortable allowing racists into his coalition. Racists vote, too, donchaknow. It is all about closing the deal. If people divided along racial lines helps him win, then so be it.

I do not know, and offer no opinion, on whether the man is personally prejudiced.

 

[Libertarian01]

One thing I find interesting is the progressives stance on two (2) separate issues: the minimum wage and illegal immigration.

Let us presume for a moment that many democrats honestly believe that a $15 per hour minimum wage is going to be truly beneficial. Let us also presume for the sake of argument that they are correct on this issue.

Why then would you support the idea of weak border patrol and/or sanctuary cities? Illegal immigration creates an off the books work force that directly competes with and undermines a legitimate company being forced to pay $15 per hour. These two (2) stances are incomparable with one another!!! There is no good way to pay people a solid wage while at the same time paying an illegal immigrant $7.50 per hour without withholding taxes and other costs.

Opposing illegal immigration is not racist, it is prudent economically.

Regards,

Doug

 

[jamil]

One thing I find interesting is the progressives stance on two (2) separate issues: the minimum wage and illegal immigration.

Let us presume for a moment that many democrats honestly believe that a $15 per hour minimum wage is going to be truly beneficial. Let us also presume for the sake of argument that they are correct on this issue.

Why then would you support the idea of weak border patrol and/or sanctuary cities? Illegal immigration creates an off the books work force that directly competes with and undermines a legitimate company being forced to pay $15 per hour. These two (2) stances are incomparable with one another!!! There is no good way to pay people a solid wage while at the same time paying an illegal immigrant $7.50 per hour without withholding taxes and other costs.

Opposing illegal immigration is not racist, it is prudent economically.

Regards,

Doug

That's a pragmatic argument. The "open borders", sanctuary city people aren't pragmatic. They are ideologues.

 

[Thor]

Progressive ideology is meant to foster control and power not make sense in a world where capitalism would raise the general standards of society. They can't take over if they don't break it first. therefor raise the minimum wage and bring in cheap illegal labor. There, it's broke now let your betters fix it.

As for immigration legal or not to say that no one was talking about this or paying attention is just towing the MSM line. No one in the media was talking about anyone's immigration positions until they got the message of hatred they wanted to tag on the R's. It's not like those positions weren't out there...just no one payed attention.