The same women who are "Outraged" by Trump's Comments... (security, democrat)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If people voted by positions alone, Trump would get 0% of the vote. But of course, a lot of people don't even know what the issues or facts are. I would say that the majority, if not all, of Trump's support is based on anger. Anger at immigrants. Anger at minorities. Anger at change. Anger at social progress that is leaving them behind. Anger about the loss of jobs that have are virtually certain to never come back regardless of who is president. Trump's entire campaign is built upon giving people scapegoats to blame for their problems.
Of course people are angry when they pay double healthcare premiums and get less, Of course people are angry about higher taxes (especially small business). Of course people are angry that they don't seem to care who they let into this country. Do you really expect people who know they are being abused by government to vote for more of the abuse? And the list goes on... So when Trump says he
- Believes in America first,
- Wants lower taxes,
- Will do away with Obamacare and have a system where people who don't have insurance will be insured,
- Will do something to make sure our vets get the care they need,
- Believes and will enforce our laws,
- Peace through strength policies
Do I think Trump will get everything he wants? Of course not. And if he does wrong at least the media will hold him accountable, we just to be able to weed through the lies and misleading claims they rail at him just like we do now.
You guys are still missing the point. This isn't about a consensual affair, and no matter how much time you try to spin it as that, it's never going to be. Clinton was scum for being a cheater, but it was still consensual- and your posts clearly show he faced consequences for it. The attempts by Trump supporters here is to not only completely dismiss Trump's words/actions as irrelevant, they are trying to dismiss what Trump actually said- that he sexually assaults women without consent. That is a whole different level of scum, and illegal. Infidelity is not illegal. Assault is.
You're missing the point. Hillary is corrupt. She told big bankers and wall street she has a public position (to tell the people), and a private position (she tells wall street). How are we supposed to believe anything she says?
Why do you think the first thing dictators do is control the media? Read about it.
You guys are still missing the point. This isn't about a consensual affair, and no matter how much time you try to spin it as that, it's never going to be. Clinton was scum for being a cheater, but it was still consensual- and your posts clearly show he faced consequences for it. The attempts by Trump supporters here is to not only completely dismiss Trump's words/actions as irrelevant, they are trying to dismiss what Trump actually said- that he sexually assaults women without consent. That is a whole different level of scum, and illegal. Infidelity is not illegal. Assault is.
Even worse, (and a big one for many of us), the media protects Hillary, they spin and refuse to hold her accountable for anything and no one is as perfect as the media portrays Hillary to be.
When a media protects a politician it's dangerous for the people because enough people could buy into the rhetoric and that allows the politician to get away with wrongdoing and to gain too much power. Hillary could tell me everything I want to hear but as long as the media protects her I don't believe a word she says.
Why do you think the first thing dictators do is control the media? Read about it.
Very important to many of us is we do not want a politician who the media will not hold accountable because that gives that politician too much power. I'm sick and tired of Hillary's hypocrisy and a liberal media that will not vet her past and current positions.
- Hillary has a private and a public position (we can't believe what she is telling us) - Strike 1
- Hillary dreams of open borders - Strike 2
- Hillary wants to raise taxes - Strike 3
- Hillary wants to build on Obamacare - Strike 4
- Hillary will work for Wall Street - Strike 5
- Hillary believes in nation building (war monger) Strike 6
- Hillary's campaign is based on demonizing instead of talking about policy Strike 7
The list goes on.
All politicians have a private and public politician for god's sake. It is the height of naivety to believe otherwise. There are always backroom deals going on to get anything done. That doesn't mean those positions are at the detriment of the US public.
She was talking about trade with the open borders thing. Free trade is by far a net positive for the US economy, and it would be absolutely disastrous to ignore the global economy that now exists. Again, it is naïve to pretend like the US could go it alone or implement extreme protectionism.
On the wealthy, not on the middle and lower classes.
Obamacare is flawed, but millions have insurance now when they didn't before. It can be improved, so I don't see the problem with what she said. I have seen exactly zero proposals by Republicans for something that would be a better replacement. In fact, they just seem intent on repeal and then doing nothing.
In what capacity? What do you really think will happen?
Based on? Because she voted for the Iraq War? Everyone did in the post-9/11 world, and she was deceived like everyone else on WMDs. She's probably more hawkish than Obama, but definitely not as much as Bush. It's not my favorite thing about her, but I wouldn't go as far as to call her a war monger. That's hyperbolic, to say the least.
Are you kidding with this last one? Demonizing who? Trump and his supporters? They've earned it, as far as I'm concerned. You can't run a campaign based on maligning just about every type of minority on the planet and expect not to be called deplorable- because it absolutely is. In my opinion, she didn't go far enough with this. Hillary has otherwise been completely about detailed policy. Every single one of her positions is out there. I couldn't even name one of Trump's positions except building a wall and banning Muslims. His economic proposals have been universally panned.
You guys are still missing the point. This isn't about a consensual affair, and no matter how much time you try to spin it as that, it's never going to be. Clinton was scum for being a cheater, but it was still consensual- and your posts clearly show he faced consequences for it. The attempts by Trump supporters here is to not only completely dismiss Trump's words/actions as irrelevant, they are trying to dismiss what Trump actually said- that he sexually assaults women without consent. That is a whole different level of scum, and illegal. Infidelity is not illegal. Assault is.
Hillary's campaign is based on "Demonizing Trump"
Psychologists and sociologists who study terrorism say dictators are able to spread fear among their people, and place themselves as their only salvation. Manufacturing a threat, like Jews to Hitler's Germany, or the entire West for Kim.
Dictators also control of information, according to Jerrold Post, director of the political psychology program at George Washington University. Demonizing an opponent is a way of getting you to hate the opponent so you will refuse to hear what they have to say. I've also noticed that the media won't report things until it gets so loud that they are forced to. Then they spin it to protect Hillary.
We are living in a classic text book example of a politician using demonization of an opponent to spread fear about a Trump presidency. While I'm not saying that Hillary will be a dictator, since the media protects her and demonizes anyone who opposes her, she will get away with wrong doings and that's very dangerous.
Here's an example of someone who controls the media.
In North Korea, Kim and his policies were responsible for a famine that led to the deaths of 1 to 2 million people. When food finally arrived, the message from state media was that it was a tribute to his leadership.
Now that is an extreme but you can't just BLINDLY believe what the media tells you. Why do you think Hillary and her supporters hate Wiki leaks. It's because they are doing the media's job. The only information they want us to get is from the liberal media. Is Wikileaks telling the truth, maybe, maybe not but the liberal media has shown me they are not telling the truth and many times don't report things at all, and then using diversion tactics so people won't pay attention.
I don't want a politician that the media protects.
Is it good it's could be coming out of Russia, no, but wouldn't we rather have our own media doing their job?
All politicians have a private and public politician for god's sake. It is the height of naivety to believe otherwise. There are always backroom deals going on to get anything done. That doesn't mean those positions are at the detriment of the US public.
She was talking about trade with the open borders thing. Free trade is by far a net positive for the US economy, and it would be absolutely disastrous to ignore the global economy that now exists. Again, it is naïve to pretend like the US could go it alone or implement extreme protectionism.
On the wealthy, not on the middle and lower classes.
Obamacare is flawed, but millions have insurance now when they didn't before. It can be improved, so I don't see the problem with what she said. I have seen exactly zero proposals by Republicans for something that would be a better replacement. In fact, they just seem intent on repeal and then doing nothing.
In what capacity? What do you really think will happen?
Based on? Because she voted for the Iraq War? Everyone did in the post-9/11 world, and she was deceived like everyone else on WMDs. She's probably more hawkish than Obama, but definitely not as much as Bush. It's not my favorite thing about her, but I wouldn't go as far as to call her a war monger. That's hyperbolic, to say the least.
Are you kidding with this last one? Demonizing who? Trump and his supporters? They've earned it, as far as I'm concerned. You can't run a campaign based on maligning just about every type of minority on the planet and expect not to be called deplorable- because it absolutely is. In my opinion, she didn't go far enough with this. Hillary has otherwise been completely about detailed policy. Every single one of her positions is out there. I couldn't even name one of Trump's positions except building a wall and banning Muslims. His economic proposals have been universally panned.
So not really that compelling.
And that's where the media comes in, they are supposed to report those back room deals and lies but they don't, instead they protect her. Our media is not a watch dog media who's job is to report wrongdoings.
So when a politician tells Wall Street that she dreams of open borders but tells us otherwise what do we believe? Since the media isn't doing their job I can't take the chance in believing anything she says.
Of course people are angry when they pay double healthcare premiums and get less, Of course people are angry about higher taxes (especially small business). Of course people are angry that they don't seem to care who they let into this country. Do you really expect people who know they are being abused by government to vote for more of the abuse? And the list goes on... So when Trump says he
- Believes in America first,
- Wants lower taxes,
- Will do away with Obamacare and have a system where people who don't have insurance will be insured,
- Will do something to make sure our vets get the care they need,
- Believes and will enforce our laws,
- Peace through strength policies
Do I think Trump will get everything he wants? Of course not. And if he does wrong at least the media will hold him accountable, we just to be able to weed through the lies and misleading claims they rail at him just like we do now.
But here's the thing... this anger is based on falsehoods.
What does "believe in America first" even mean in terms of actual policy?
Taxes aren't higher, though. They have been significantly higher in the past, especially relative to average income. And Hillary is FOR reducing regulations for small businesses and has not proposed raising taxes on anyone but the absolute wealthiest.
The American healthcare system is ridiculously expensive. Obamacare was not going to fix all of this, but it did succeed in its one main goal- to ensure that millions of additional people were insured. There are still plenty of problems, but it's going to take a lot more than just the president, whoever that is, to fix them. Congress has been practically useless at doing anything. They've spent more time trying to repeal Obamacare than they have trying to come up with any serious replacement. Why is that? Say what you will, but at least Obama tried. Hillary tried back in the 1990s and was completely shot down. Neither Trump nor Republicans in general have proposed serious alternatives, and at least the latter has had years to come up with something. Why should anyone believe that is even a priority for them?
Vets have been consistently screwed over for basically as long as the nation has existed, and regardless of which party was in office. I don't really believe this is a priority for anyone.
Who doesn't believe in enforcing the law? This is one of those meaningless platitudes that has no context. Like with anything, circumstances require a rational approach. If you mean enforcing laws against illegal immigration, the best thing to do is to tackle system reform, not build walls.
Refugees, Muslims or otherwise, go through at least 2 years of vetting in what is probably one of the world's toughest vetting processes. They aren't simply given the keys to the kingdom without knowing who they are. Notice that recent terrorist attacks have largely been from native-born citizens. And even if they weren't, the chances of any one person being killed by terrorism in the US is a third as likely as being eaten by a shark or being struck by lightning. Guns, which kill tens of thousands a year, are like a sacred cow for Americans (do nothing, ignore everything), yet the 10 or so average killed by terrorism requires a total ban on Muslim immigration, national profiling and the undermining of the 1st Amendment. You don't see the logic problem with this?
Peace through strength- again a meaningless platitude. I assume we are talking about the strength of the military, but the US military remains easily the strongest on earth, and it's not even close. The US already spends over 60% of its entire discretionary budget on the military. All the domestic entitlements combined don't come anywhere near it. Strength, though, is built through more than just material force, but through the work of decent, smart leadership. Trump is neither rational nor smart, and his temperament would almost guarantee that the US would be dragged into multiple conflicts, up to/including potential nuclear war.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
