The debate "I'm so excited for our new president please welcome Donald J Trump everyone" was started by
March 25, 2016, 12:35 am.
7 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 20 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Maximus posted 1 argument, ProudAmerican888 posted 7 arguments to the agreers part.
Sosocratese posted 3 arguments, YMayy posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
ProudAmerican888, Maximus, miloisonfire, fadi, cancer_wins and 2 visitors agree.
Upbeatethan, Sosocratese, RyanWakefield, sickboyblonde, YMayy, Pugsly, supercat, Cannon2cool, BlueMouse, Razor, Band_Nerd_24, Zuhayr, Frank and 7 visitors disagree.
analysis for Rubio.......$6.8 trillion in revenue loss, some benefit to families with children (2,500 tax credit)
So if you vote GOP you must accept a socially conservative agenda, economic policies with a track record of stifling economic growth, and justices on SCOTUS which are not necessarily in line with your believes.
There are very valid reasons why one would choose to vote Democrat over GOP.
The GOP is plagued by a social conservative agenda that is out of touch with the majority of America (the majority of Americans believe in gay marriage, believe in universal background checks, believe in global warming, believe in a woman's right to choose, etc....). If those are important to a voter, then they'd want to vote Democrat rather than GOP in order to secure justices on the SCOTUS that represent those views.
There is a good case to be made in terms of economics. In recent history, Dems have done a better job raising the wage of the average worker than the GOP. The Obama presidency is of course the exception and we don't actually have any good data yet as the BLS is currently recalculating figures for January 2009 and for several earlier months, after discovering a data processing error.
The tax cut policies of the GOP is also questionable as it is the number one factor in re-emerging large budget deficits.
Here is another analysis of our national debt by the center for budget policy and priorities which shows our projected debt if we had no bush tax cuts, no iraq war, or no Afghanistan war. You can clearly see the economic polices that Bush was advocating had long lasting negative impacts on our debt.
This is a comparison of Bush vs Obama spending....now, granted this is a bit older and out of date, but still you get a good idea of what the spending looks like since it's at least after the econimic stimulus and healthcare spending.
The GOP is still advocating for economic policies which mirror that of the Bush administration.
Analysis of hillary.....1.1 trillion raised, mostly off the top 1%, little to no impact to bottom 95%
Analysis of trump......loss of $9.5 trillion, predicted increase the national debt by nearly 80 percent of GDP
Analysis of Cruz....loss of $8.6 trillion, benefits the rich, little benefit to the poor,
Those that are stupid vote for sanders, those that are misinformed vote for hilary. those who are scared, or mad vote for trump.
smart people would vote for Carson, Rubio or Kasich, but since 2 of them dropped out we see their ain't too many smart people.
That was not what I had intended to write, so I had not realized I had. I apologize and retract my criticism. I don't remember what I was typing that got converted to slavery, but I agree that I have not seen Trump endorse a return to slavery.
the two types of people who would vote for trump are those that are stupid and those that are misinformed
Maybe you should actually realize what you say before denying it, lol.
PsychDave, you actually did mention slavery. You said "Personally, I'd rather not see slavery second civil war." So yes, you did mention slavery. Bravo.
I understand the difference and don't consider the wall to be reminiscent of Hitler. What I do is the rhetoric he uses. Both leaders vilified visible and religious minorities for the problems in their respective nations. Both leaders claimed that only they could bring back past greatness. Finally, both leaders encouraged violence as a method of dealing with dissenting opinions (though Trump to a lesser extent). Trump speaks fondly of protesters leaving on stretchers for daring to exercise their constitutional right to free speech. While not breaking the Constitution now since he does not represent the government, should he be elected and do the same he would be enacting a law to block someone's speech, that is a constitutional breach.
First, at no point did I mention slavery. Course you restrict yourself to things that I have actually said when trying to disparage my comments?
Second, you are probably right. I did overstate things when I said there could be civil war. Trump doesn't have enough supporters to prompt a civil war. He has said that he expects his supporters to riot should he not get the nomination, which speaks volumes to the type of support he attracts and the emotions his tactics bring out.
Finally, Clinton has never been convicted of a criminal offence. Your continued repetition of a blatant lie in the face of being corrected undermines your credibility.
As to how Trump is similar to Hitler, I have explained that before and will again on response to MrShine, so I woods so here and repeat myself.
Hahhaa, whenever Trump gets compared to Hitler, its often with the wall and can't understand why region isn't the same as culture or race, so it is only those who cannot distinguish that believe a wall to be racist. Opinions of the people on the other side are a different story. Also, do you know who else wanted a wall? Winston Churchill.
Trump gets compared to the Klan and skinheads, but I haven't seen any real ties made unless it has to do with Byrd and Hillary. Don't get me wrong, I still think Trump is fairly ignorant with his words and policies, but we aren't being honest if we create disgust out of our candidates. We criticize, and then when we can't criticize or hold accountable, maybe we found a good person, maybe we found a liar, maybe we just don't know enough about them yet. But disgust does not allow for proper analysis.
I actually don't care much between Trump and Bernie, but Hillary is an issue. Anyone who isn't in favor of her over the side of fifty knows why, I would have said anyone over fifty for the sake of the time period, but not many people learned from the voter demographic is seems. And videos can be found with her lying for 10 minutes straight, and it feels stupid because while people might expect politicians to lie or flip flop, it's as though her supporters support her for her consistency. And as people have mentioned, anyone else on that position would be considered a criminal. Someone else's done it before? Drag them out as well.
I highly disapprove of the actions Clinton did. Regardless of if she did/didn't know documents were classified or not she signed an SF 312 punishable under criminal laws, including the provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 952, and 1924 under title 18 USC. However, she did not disclose of information that may/may not have been classified that's for authorities to determine.
Regardless of the matter of if's, if it wasn't marked classified or unclassified then she should have reported it to her security manager to fix the issue not push out more information. She even used her personal phone, that isn't encrypted to do job related work from home. The Secretary of the State shouldn't be doing government work on non government equipment. You wouldn't use your personal vehicle at a police station to conduct patrols, it doesn't make sense.
Some people may call her a traitor though. Seapage is different from espionage though. Seapage is the accidental release of classified information to people who do not hold proper security clearances or the Need-to-Know. Espionage is actually giving it to a person in a different country that does not need it on any basis except for when it is classified to them. She could have done more to safeguard the information concerning the United States and didn't. Every person running though has major flaws in what their platforms are though.
Slavery, a second civil war? Omfg way to blow things way out of proportion. By the way, Clinton is a convict, she is a criminal under FBI investigation, for recklessly releasing classified information and not fulfilling her duties at Benghazi. Why don't you tell me how Trump mimics Hitler? lol
So far you are the only one looking the @ss in this exchange.
In what way is Clinton a communist?
There has yet to be any evidence she is unstable.
She is not a convict.
And while she has been investigated, she has not been charged, let alone convicted.
So at best your points are all unsubstantiated, and some of them are blatant lies.
The real question comes down to whether it is better to have someone who expresses whatever opinion will make the largest number of people happy, or a racist xenophobe who thinks mimicking Hitler would be funny. One may do a poor job of being president, but the other is already setting the stage for conflict and violence. Personally I would rather we not see slavery second civil war.
Actually I'm not talking about Sanders, read the previous arguments and see that I'm talking about Hillary Clinton. Try not to assume things, assuming makes an a** out of u and me.
I assume you are talking about Sanders. but as far as I know all of that was a lie. he is not even close to being a communist, he isn't unstable as far as I can tell, and I have never heard of him being investigated by the FBI. and even if he were, the FBI does many checks on politicians, them investigating is not proof of anything. would you care to provide proof of anything or will you concede you are a liar?
The question is simple. Do you want an unstable communist convict who is being investigated by the FBI to be president, or a wealthy and intelligent business man? I think the decision is quote clear.
While I don't disagree that the country may be in trouble, Trump's attitudes would be far worse than Clinton's pandering.
I find it extremely hard to believe that Hillary is winning by that much, or winning at all. If she gets elected, we are all Jurassicly f***ed, or the government is...
If you look at the link I provided, you'll also find this.
Trump has a - 32.8% favorability rating.
Hillary is poling at - 13.2. So again, a lot of ground to cover....
My argument is therefore, hillary should be considered the favorite to win at this point....
did you watch the last GOP debate? it was calm and controlled.
except the field carson was fighting for is the Republican far right. unfortunately you can't out douches bag Trump. the 1/3 of the country farthest to the right support trump. the rest of the country can't stand him. he can't win an actual election. he can only we the "who can say the worst thing" contest that the GOP has become.
remember when Carson was tied and even leading trump back in October, November? Trump said "let me attack him" 3 months later carson dropped out. and carson is a good person who doesn't lie unlike hillary.
Trump may not even win the nomination (although I believe he probably will, even in a brokered convention) so calling him the president is a little premature I think.
As for the general election, trump isn't looking too hot against hillary... Alex, I gotta correct you on your 3% figure. According to the latest polls he's about 11% behind actually (fox news has him at 11%) the average is 11.2% across all polls this week in favor of hillary.
That's a lot of ground to cover....
it is still possible that at a contested convention kasich, or maybe even mitt will get the nomination.
the polls right now have Clinton winning by 3%ish. trump hadn't started attacking hilary yet. wait til he does.
Why? All polls show him training either Clinton or Sanders in a general election. No matter which he is paired with he looks like he will lose by a fair margin and more so if Clinton wins as seems very likely.
yes, and please ignore the last comment.
you're kidding right? he's going to get crushed by the Democrats, and hard.