Archive

Republican debates/primaries.

  • QuakerOats
    Heretic;1789388 wrote:I say we just sit back and laugh while the people who trashed others for voting for Obama based on vague promises that never had much of a chance happening "HOPE AND CHANGE LOLFAIL" are now trying to convince themselves that another guy who offers nothing besides "tough talk" and vague promises that probably will never happen is either a viable option or something that NEEDS. TO. HAPPEN.

    Partisan politics for the win!

    Except the difference is --- Trump has actually done something in the REAL WORLD --- ran a business, employed people, balanced budgets, signed paychecks, built things, managed, negotiated, dealt with issues, problems, opportunities, and has some vision. obama didn't do jack --- handed a law degree and was an absent politician for a couple years.

    The difference is stark. Give me the guy who has actually done something real.
  • QuakerOats
    Automatik;1789389 wrote:Nailed it.

    Nailed it my ass
  • Automatik
    He's dead on, sorry you can't comprehend the comparison.
  • Automatik
    Also, there's a question for you a few posts back. Care to answer or just respond with your incessent "sky is falling" rhetoric?
  • ptown_trojans_1
    QuakerOats;1789393 wrote:Except the difference is --- Trump has actually done something in the REAL WORLD --- ran a business, employed people, balanced budgets, signed paychecks, built things, managed, negotiated, dealt with issues, problems, opportunities, and has some vision. obama didn't do jack --- handed a law degree and was an absent politician for a couple years.

    The difference is stark. Give me the guy who has actually done something real.
    You should be comparing Trump to Hillary, not Obama.
    Again, Obama is not running. He does not matter.

    That still does not answer whether you support his views on the interviews?
    You ok with throwing allies to curb?

    Pretty much would upend the framework that U.S. has set up since 1945.
  • QuakerOats
    The sky fell; you missed the last 7 years apparently. We need someone who can help create an environment wherein we might have a chance to rebuild and restore. More BIG government is not the answer (it is the problem).
  • QuakerOats
    ptown_trojans_1;1789400 wrote:You should be comparing Trump to Hillary, not Obama.
    Again, Obama is not running. He does not matter.

    The point was made above about how the electorate chose obama even though he offered up nothing other than the hope-n-change bullshit, and now the other side is falling for the same thing w Trump. So I then made the point that there is a clear difference between the two and explained it. That's all.
  • Automatik
    I'll give you props, your deflection game is on point. Very consistent.
  • sleeper
    iclfan2;1789368 wrote:I get the Trump hate, I think he is a douche bag myself, but no real conservative would ever vote for Hillary. Vote for Gary Johnson all you want, but a vote for Hillary should be embarrassing.
    No real conservative? Yeah, I'm not a Republican so don't care about not being a "real conservative".

    I think Trump would be the biggest disaster ever to hold the White House. I don't like Hillary, but I certainly don't want to be represented by Trump either; a man who would embarrass the hell out of this country.
  • SportsAndLady
    No normal human being is concerned about being a "real conservative" lol
  • Automatik
    Or a real dem for that matter. Fuck identifying with either group because "that's all we have"
  • iclfan2
    sleeper;1789410 wrote:No real conservative? Yeah, I'm not a Republican so don't care about not being a "real conservative".
    Apparently I assumed you were right leaning fiscally due to your repeated talk of business success and intelligence.

    Conservative isn't a party, it is a belief system. Mostly around fiscal policy, at least for me. Therefore I would never vote for someone wanting to take money out of my own pockets. I don't give a shit about social issues or what you do in your house, just don't make my tax dollars pay for it. I was registered as an independent when I was in a state that you had to register as one or the other. That's why I specifically didn't say republican, because our two political parties are garbage.

    I would not vote for Trump.
  • sleeper
    iclfan2;1789414 wrote:Apparently I assumed you were right leaning fiscally due to your repeated talk of business success and intelligence.

    Conservative isn't a party, it is a belief system. Mostly around fiscal policy, at least for me. Therefore I would never vote for someone wanting to take money out of my own pockets. I don't give a shit about social issues or what you do in your house, just don't make my tax dollars pay for it. I was registered as an independent when I was in a state that you had to register as one or the other. That's why I specifically didn't say republican, because our two political parties are garbage.

    I would not vote for Trump.
    My issue with the Republican party isn't with their fiscal policy; it's entirely with their social policy. Delusional at best.

    Their fiscal policy isn't perfect either because its not rooted in reality. There's a lot of flaws to Capitalism that you need an outside entity to moderate, and that's where the government comes in. Yes, the government is probably the worst moderator but that's all we have.
  • HitsRus
    iclfan2;1789368 wrote:I get the Trump hate, I think he is a douche bag myself, but no real conservative would ever vote for Hillary. Vote for Gary Johnson all you want, but a vote for Hillary should be embarrassing.
    +1
    Now you have all these media types, who are at least partly responsible for the garbage that we have to choose from, talking about how a brokered convention or a third party candidate would devastate the Republican party.

    I submit to you that has alreadyhappened, and that if the convention is brokered, or if Trump wins the nomination outright, I'm in favor of another candidate running 3rd party...one that conservatives could get behind, although they'd have to be a bit more moderate to attract people in the middle or from the democratic side. It's funny to hear the talking heads wax eloquent about how the "will of the people" should not be ignored....but they forget that this country was set up as a Republic to prevent the "will of the people" majority from riding roughshod over good sense. We elect representatives and delegates to make informed decisions about our welfare and if that means reversing the "will of the people" who made up their voting minds over 30 sec sound bites and under the duress of negative advertising...so be it.
    Maybe it's not such a bad thing if they put up competent candidates capable of leading the United States that are not flaming socialists, political opportunists, media manipulators or criminals.

    While I'm not advocating that this be the norm, does party "leadership" have the right to reject a candidate that does not espouse party values. Something to think about.
  • rrfan
    HitsRus;1789422 wrote:+1
    Now you have all these media types, who are at least partly responsible for the garbage that we have to choose from, talking about how a brokered convention or a third party candidate would devastate the Republican party.

    I submit to you that has alreadyhappened, and that if the convention is brokered, or if Trump wins the nomination outright, I'm in favor of another candidate running 3rd party...one that conservatives could get behind, although they'd have to be a bit more moderate to attract people in the middle or from the democratic side. It's funny to hear the talking heads wax eloquent about how the "will of the people" should not be ignored....but they forget that this country was set up as a Republic to prevent the "will of the people" majority from riding roughshod over good sense. We elect representatives and delegates to make informed decisions about our welfare and if that means reversing the "will of the people" who made up their voting minds over 30 sec sound bites and under the duress of negative advertising...so be it.
    Maybe it's not such a bad thing if they put up competent candidates capable of leading the United States that are not flaming socialists, political opportunists, media manipulators or criminals.

    While I'm not advocating that this be the norm, does party "leadership" have the right to reject a candidate that does not espouse party values. Something to think about.
    If that happens just hand it to Hillary...
  • rrfan
    Automatik;1789375 wrote:How has Obama failed to protect your money? How will Trump change it for the better?
    Is this a real question? You have to be joking right? How old are you? Really I get that we don't agree on the next president but there is no way this is a serious post....
  • Automatik
    rrfan;1789431 wrote:Is this a real question? You have to be joking right? How old are you? Really I get that we don't agree on the next president but there is no way this is a serious post....
    Why is it so hard for you to answer simple questions?
  • HitsRus
    rrfan;1789429 wrote:If that happens just hand it to Hillary...
    That may be a myth. If they would run a moderate conservative, that may be attractive enough to garner a lot of support from people who don't want to elect a criminal nor a narcissistic political opportunist. You could see a scenario where nobody gets enough electoral votes, and the election gets thrown into the Electoral college. There is a major problem there though....Trump and Hillary are cut from the same cloth, and you could have a Trump/Clinton ticket....the only problem for them is whose ego will settle for VP.
  • QuakerOats
    she would probably settle for vp, then plot to have him rubbed out, and then she is crowned.
  • rrfan
    Automatik;1789433 wrote:Why is it so hard for you to answer simple questions?
    • Blocking the Keystone Pipeline. President Obama gave opponents of the Keystone pipeline “reason for hope” recently when he told the New York Times “there is no evidence” that the project “would be a big jobs generator.” The vast majority of Americans disagree. A recent National Journal survey found that “67 percent support building the pipeline” saying it “will ease America’s dependence on Mideast oil and create jobs.” The pipeline also has the backing of labor unions and manufacturers, who call it an “economic engine” that will create thousands of jobs.
    • Threatening a Government Shutdown Over More Tax Hikes. The White House is spoiling for a government shutdown, issuing veto threats aimed at rolling back the sequester he proposed, and extracting more tax hikes on American job creators. The National Association of Manufacturers says the president’s tax hikes “will only fuel the headwinds manufacturers face, making them even less competitive and threatening economic growth and U.S. jobs.”
    • Imposing a National Energy Tax. Last month, President Obama laid out his plan for a national energy tax that will have severe consequences for American power producers and the energy-intensive sectors, like manufacturing, that depend on them. According to a study released by the National Association of Manufacturers, the cumulative impact of several proposed Obama administration regulations “could cost, by conservative estimates, roughly $100 billion annually and more than 2 million jobs,” and, in a worst case scenario, “more than 9 million jobs.” The president’s war on coal has already put thousands of Americans out of work, and puts more than 800,000 more jobs at risk.
    • Putting Offshore Energy Off Limits. The Obama administration has put 85 percent of America’s most resource-rich areas off limits to energy production and development, costing Americans as many as 1.2 million jobs.
    • Doubling Down on Failed ‘Stimulus’ Spending. President Obama renewed his call for more ‘stimulus’ spending last week, despite the failure of his first trillion-dollar ‘stimulus’ to bring the unemployment rate down to five percent, as promised. Nearly 200 economists agree “the large structural deficit due to excessive government spending is hurting the economy,” and addressing out-of-control spending is one of the keys to helping the economy grow and create jobs.
    • Implementing the ObamaCare Train Wreck. Labor unions have “grown frustrated and angry” about the president’s health care law, warning that it will “destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.” According to one recent survey, 82 percent of American manufacturers cite “increased anxieties related to” the implementation of ObamaCare as one of their top concerns.
    • Rolling Out Red Tape on Natural Gas Production. “A 2011 PricewaterhouseCoopers study estimates that high rates of shale gas recovery could result in a million new manufacturing jobs by 2025,” The New York Times reports, with the “potential to spark a manufacturing renaissance in the U.S.” But, the Obama administration could put a stop to that with “burdensome, restrictive, unnecessary” regulations on hydraulic fracturing that would impose a one-size-fits-all policy on states that have been safely and effectively managing this type of energy production for years.
    - See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/general/seven-ways-president-obama-s-policies-are-hurting-american-manufacturers#sthash.3OKLJH8r.dpuf
  • sleeper
    ^

    So you are unable to think for yourself and instead have to copy talking points from Paul Ryan, a member of the establishment that wants a brokered convention to remove Trump as their nominee?

    Makes sense.
  • sleeper
    Regardless of the eventual outcome of either a President Trump or another President Clinton, anyone else looking forward to the general election debates?

    Trump is going to "win" every debate but playing the same game he used against the Republicans; drag everyone down to his clown level and out clown them. Should be fun to watch.
  • QuakerOats
    Well, you know he can't out lie her, so that strategy wouldn't work.
  • Automatik
    sleeper;1789450 wrote:^

    So you are unable to think for yourself and instead have to copy talking points from Paul Ryan, a member of the establishment that wants a brokered convention to remove Trump as their nominee?

    Makes sense.
    lol...such a boring and lazy response. Can't explain how it affects you directly or how it will change with Trump in office? Fuck it! Google, copy, paste, done! What a joke.
    sleeper;1789452 wrote:Regardless of the eventual outcome of either a President Trump or another President Clinton, anyone else looking forward to the general election debates?

    Trump is going to "win" every debate but playing the same game he used against the Republicans; drag everyone down to his clown level and out clown them. Should be fun to watch.
    Yes, foreign policy discussion especially.
  • rrfan
    sleeper;1789450 wrote:^

    So you are unable to think for yourself and instead have to copy talking points from Paul Ryan, a member of the establishment that wants a brokered convention to remove Trump as their nominee?

    Makes sense.
    Let me get this strait you want answers but then don't like the fact that there are answers? GFYS