|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States43534 Posts
On July 22 2016 06:41 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 06:33 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:29 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:22 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:19 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 05:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 22 2016 05:06 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Cruz took politics way too personally, and I think that's a big weakness of a candidate. Donald Trump will relentlessly attack someone to win, but he shrugs it off, it's nothing personal, just business.
He has made it clear he doesn't agree with Trump, but either way, comes November, it's Trump or Hillary... And as a Cruz supporter, you really should find a lot more comfort in Trump than Hillary, so you've got to stop being stubborn instead of just handing over votes to Hillary if you're so against her. We all know we don't have the best candidates, partly due to who was running on the Democratic side, and party due to voters jumping on the Trump train... Because fuck Washington apparently.
Either way, if you're a fiscal conservative, and centrist/mildly-progressive when it comes to social policy, at least the ideas of Trump are what's the most logical to side with imo. Saying otherwise, I think you haven't taken a proper look and might be reading a lot of liberal media, or are too bothered by his vulgarity and his silly antics (which is fair). I think fiscal conservatives would be a lot more comfortable with Trump if he was consistent with his fiscal views-but he's really not. He's waffled all over tax plans, the ACA, and the like, and put his foot in his mouth over international trade quite a bit. Protectionism and the like are pretty out of favor in fiscal conservative circles as well, and that's a good chunk of his more consistent rhetoric. I am extracting most of the information by reading in between the lines and extracting what I think about the candidate, rather than listening to what they say, as I think right now, both candidates are lying through their teeth to get votes and appeal to wider bases. + Show Spoiler +"I am reinterpreting Trump's statements entirely in my own way". Yep, most Trump supporters do. Otherwise he'd lose the election because the media would take everything out of context, and too many people wouldn't spend the time to educate themselves (or know how). Reinterpreting entirely in your own way does not constitute educating yourself. It constitutes wanting to believe something. We should not discuss further. It's not entirely in my own way, others interpret it in the same way - like I said, anyone who listens to an election at face value is a fool. To win elections you have to do some of this stuff, to make everyone happy, you have to be able to send multiple messages to different people. At the end of the day, extracting their values and character and voting on that is really what you should do imo. If that wasn't the case, Hillary would be sweeping the election. edit: Good way to say it oBlade, thanks. You're still just making up what Trump's supposed ideas are. It's not standard for someone to believe their candidate's ideas are so different than the words coming out of the candidate's mouth. Where are they different? I've followed Trump and watched almost every interview of his since 2 months before the primaries. I began with the fascination of this silly candidate, and eventually started to fight for his side with people who read and take liberal media at face value. He's far from a saint, but I've made my stance clear many times throughout this thread with explanation for why I think he is a better candidate than Clinton. As for your previous point, it's much harder to speak out against liberals than conservatives... My opinion for the case of why this is, is because business operates best when people work in a liberal environment, and I think naturally most big companies, especially the standard corporate business, wearing suits stuff... It doesn't look good to come out with so much "hate", at least what it looks like on the surface. Media companies are businesses, and because of that, I think a lot of people are scared to come out. It's certainly difficult for me to bring up Donald Trump while someone saying I support Bernie Sanders just gets a shrug from people, you know. So maybe that's a bit flawed, but this is my quick impromptu explanation for it. I'm not even a US citizen, this election will hardly effect my life at all, though I am unsupportive of the liberal socialist movement and I supportive the fiscal conservatism, and I'm just trying to throw out some reasoning to get people to not dismiss Trump before they take a real look first.
But Trump isn't a fiscal conservative. He has a great many big and expensive plans. He wants to be domineering internationally, to build big things at home, to cut taxes dramatically while increasing spending, to spend more on veterans, on anti-terrorism, on surveillance etc. A spy in every mosque etc. Oh, and replace Obamacare with something better and also end the deficit. Surely this can't be the first time you've seen someone promise to cut taxes and do a dozen big projects while also ending the deficit. That's not what fiscal conservatism looks like. A fiscal conservative says "guys, we've overspent so much and for so long that we're actually using a lot of taxes just for interest payments, money going abroad that doesn't even help anyone so we're going to keep taxes as they are and cut services and pay down the principal, not just the interest, so that one day we can actually spend money on what we like without this millstone around our neck". And then he gets booed out because nobody wants to hear that guy when the other guy is selling a wall.
|
United States43534 Posts
On July 22 2016 06:46 shabby wrote:
Norwegian national newspaper covering the republican nomination process has listed some of the bulletins in the partys new program, here are some of them:
- They will not accept the Paris climate deal, calling coal a clean source of energy
- The party explicitly supports conversion therapy of gay children
- New sharp resistance to gay marriage
- Internet porn is called a "public health crisis"
- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects
- Politicans should use religion (christianity, obviously) as a guide when making laws, so that "man-made laws matches the natural rights given by God"
- New strong resistance to abortion, now calling them aborted children, not aborted fetuses. Also illegal after rape.
Then of course theres the issues of building a wall, weapons for everyone etc, but thats for another day. Is this serious? How are they not laughed out of politics in a modern country?
But they're the only people defending Santa against the enemies in the war on Christmas.
|
On July 22 2016 07:18 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 07:16 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 22 2016 07:11 Sent. wrote:On July 22 2016 07:09 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 22 2016 07:07 Sent. wrote:- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects why is that outrageous? Because they only want to teach about their own religion. But it's optional, no one is forced to choose it I'm not sure how to explain to you how having only one option inherently removes options. Students have many optional subjects they can chose. One of those subjects would be bible studies. Yeah sure the Republicans didn't mandate that Koran studies should also be offered but don't pretend like there are no other optional subjects being offered by schools.
If Muslim students make up the vast majority people at the school let koran studies be an optional class, whats the problem? No one is making you go, a problem would arise if schools had to cater to every heretical Christian sect that pops up in Utah or something and make every school have teachers for them.
edit: Hey kids, Jesus told me to sell these CD's to you at 20% off! Hallelujah!
|
On July 22 2016 06:46 shabby wrote:
Norwegian national newspaper covering the republican nomination process has listed some of the bulletins in the partys new program, here are some of them:
- They will not accept the Paris climate deal, calling coal a clean source of energy
- The party explicitly supports conversion therapy of gay children
- New sharp resistance to gay marriage
- Internet porn is called a "public health crisis"
- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects
- Politicans should use religion (christianity, obviously) as a guide when making laws, so that "man-made laws matches the natural rights given by God"
- New strong resistance to abortion, now calling them aborted children, not aborted fetuses. Also illegal after rape.
Then of course theres the issues of building a wall, weapons for everyone etc, but thats for another day. Is this serious? How are they not laughed out of politics in a modern country?
The national party platform itself doesn't mean that much besides serving as a way to appease the people who do actually care about those things by letting them have the achievement of getting their stuff written on the platform.
|
On July 22 2016 07:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 07:18 Gorsameth wrote:On July 22 2016 07:16 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 22 2016 07:11 Sent. wrote:On July 22 2016 07:09 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 22 2016 07:07 Sent. wrote:- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects why is that outrageous? Because they only want to teach about their own religion. But it's optional, no one is forced to choose it I'm not sure how to explain to you how having only one option inherently removes options. Students have many optional subjects they can chose. One of those subjects would be bible studies. Yeah sure the Republicans didn't mandate that Koran studies should also be offered but don't pretend like there are no other optional subjects being offered by schools. Are those other optional subjects mandated by the state though? You can't force people to teach your religion and none of the others even if those classes are optional. I'm in disbelief that this is even up for debate.
I was responding to you saying that there is only 1 option. which is not true. your just straw manning now.
|
On July 22 2016 07:28 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 06:46 shabby wrote:
Norwegian national newspaper covering the republican nomination process has listed some of the bulletins in the partys new program, here are some of them:
- They will not accept the Paris climate deal, calling coal a clean source of energy
- The party explicitly supports conversion therapy of gay children
- New sharp resistance to gay marriage
- Internet porn is called a "public health crisis"
- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects
- Politicans should use religion (christianity, obviously) as a guide when making laws, so that "man-made laws matches the natural rights given by God"
- New strong resistance to abortion, now calling them aborted children, not aborted fetuses. Also illegal after rape.
Then of course theres the issues of building a wall, weapons for everyone etc, but thats for another day. Is this serious? How are they not laughed out of politics in a modern country? The national party platform itself doesn't mean that much besides serving as a way to appease the people who do actually care about those things by letting them have the achievement of getting their stuff written on the platform.
Wait so, the party program doesn't matter shit? They say this stuff as what they want, but they actually don't matter? What the fuck matters if not what the party is after?
|
On July 22 2016 02:02 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 01:42 Cowboy24 wrote:
a few (Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Marcus Luttrell, Pat Smith, Jamiel Shaw, Mike Pence) were each of them fatal to Hillary. Together they represented the most damning political indictment I've ever seen.
That's a no. Only if you already agreed with everything they said including harboring the fear they pander to would you make such a statement.
Guilty as charged.
|
On July 22 2016 07:30 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 07:28 oBlade wrote:On July 22 2016 06:46 shabby wrote:
Norwegian national newspaper covering the republican nomination process has listed some of the bulletins in the partys new program, here are some of them:
- They will not accept the Paris climate deal, calling coal a clean source of energy
- The party explicitly supports conversion therapy of gay children
- New sharp resistance to gay marriage
- Internet porn is called a "public health crisis"
- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects
- Politicans should use religion (christianity, obviously) as a guide when making laws, so that "man-made laws matches the natural rights given by God"
- New strong resistance to abortion, now calling them aborted children, not aborted fetuses. Also illegal after rape.
Then of course theres the issues of building a wall, weapons for everyone etc, but thats for another day. Is this serious? How are they not laughed out of politics in a modern country? The national party platform itself doesn't mean that much besides serving as a way to appease the people who do actually care about those things by letting them have the achievement of getting their stuff written on the platform. Wait so, the party program doesn't matter shit? They say this stuff as what they want, but they actually don't matter? What the fuck matters if not what the party is after?
It is not binding in any way. The platform is a PR piece first and foremost.
|
Imo the issue is that so much of their policy is grounded in their conservative religious views. How is that different from the islamic countires they fear so much and want to protect everyone from? Religion shouldn't be a political matter or have any sway over politics, it should be a personal thing. When they say that laws should follow the laws of the bible, can't that be compared to Sharia law?
|
On July 22 2016 07:31 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 07:30 Luolis wrote:On July 22 2016 07:28 oBlade wrote:On July 22 2016 06:46 shabby wrote:
Norwegian national newspaper covering the republican nomination process has listed some of the bulletins in the partys new program, here are some of them:
- They will not accept the Paris climate deal, calling coal a clean source of energy
- The party explicitly supports conversion therapy of gay children
- New sharp resistance to gay marriage
- Internet porn is called a "public health crisis"
- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects
- Politicans should use religion (christianity, obviously) as a guide when making laws, so that "man-made laws matches the natural rights given by God"
- New strong resistance to abortion, now calling them aborted children, not aborted fetuses. Also illegal after rape.
Then of course theres the issues of building a wall, weapons for everyone etc, but thats for another day. Is this serious? How are they not laughed out of politics in a modern country? The national party platform itself doesn't mean that much besides serving as a way to appease the people who do actually care about those things by letting them have the achievement of getting their stuff written on the platform. Wait so, the party program doesn't matter shit? They say this stuff as what they want, but they actually don't matter? What the fuck matters if not what the party is after? It is not binding in any way. The platform is a PR piece first and foremost.
So, uhh, what matters then?
|
On July 22 2016 07:31 Cowboy24 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 02:02 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 01:42 Cowboy24 wrote:
a few (Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Marcus Luttrell, Pat Smith, Jamiel Shaw, Mike Pence) were each of them fatal to Hillary. Together they represented the most damning political indictment I've ever seen.
That's a no. Only if you already agreed with everything they said including harboring the fear they pander to would you make such a statement. Guilty as charged.
Have you learned nothing from Hillary? If you want to get through to Democrats never admit to being guilty of anything.
|
On July 22 2016 04:43 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Ted Cruz still my hero ^^
Is there no one left in either party but him who has any balls literally or metaphorically
Trump and Hillary are both bad people and bad candidates and either one will be bad president but no one in their own parties dare say it anymore
Except my man Teddy
True as fudge right here. 'Cept I think Trump is aight.
|
On July 22 2016 07:28 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 07:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 22 2016 07:18 Gorsameth wrote:On July 22 2016 07:16 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 22 2016 07:11 Sent. wrote:On July 22 2016 07:09 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 22 2016 07:07 Sent. wrote:- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects why is that outrageous? Because they only want to teach about their own religion. But it's optional, no one is forced to choose it I'm not sure how to explain to you how having only one option inherently removes options. Students have many optional subjects they can chose. One of those subjects would be bible studies. Yeah sure the Republicans didn't mandate that Koran studies should also be offered but don't pretend like there are no other optional subjects being offered by schools. Are those other optional subjects mandated by the state though? You can't force people to teach your religion and none of the others even if those classes are optional. I'm in disbelief that this is even up for debate. I was responding to you saying that there is only 1 option. which is not true. your just straw manning now.
Please explain how I'm strawmanning? The idea of teaching religion in public school is already questionable because of separation of church and state, but I'm able to see some merit to such a program by teaching young people values.
However, forcing schools to teach about just one religion is not acceptable. If schools were mandated to include a religion program which taught about more than one religion I think it'd be questionable for the aforementioned church and state separation, but I wouldn't be absolutely opposed to it. When you're forcing my tax payer dollars to go to teaching people about your personal faith choice I have a problem with that.
Your options being the faith choice of the lawmaker or nothing is not an option.
On July 22 2016 07:25 zeo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 07:18 Gorsameth wrote:On July 22 2016 07:16 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 22 2016 07:11 Sent. wrote:On July 22 2016 07:09 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 22 2016 07:07 Sent. wrote:- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects why is that outrageous? Because they only want to teach about their own religion. But it's optional, no one is forced to choose it I'm not sure how to explain to you how having only one option inherently removes options. Students have many optional subjects they can chose. One of those subjects would be bible studies. Yeah sure the Republicans didn't mandate that Koran studies should also be offered but don't pretend like there are no other optional subjects being offered by schools. If Muslim students make up the vast majority people at the school let koran studies be an optional class, whats the problem? No one is making you go, a problem would arise if schools had to cater to every heretical Christian sect that pops up in Utah or something and make every school have teachers for them.
If a school decided to offer a faith program because there was a large population of students interested it'd be a gray area, but I could get behind it. This would be conditional on the fact that if another group of students wanted some other faith a similar program would be provided.
When the lawmakers mandate that the school offers a faith program there is no longer a gray area. The state cannot mandate religious education, especially if said lawmaker is mandating that their religion be taught and no others.
|
On July 22 2016 06:46 shabby wrote:
Norwegian national newspaper covering the republican nomination process has listed some of the bulletins in the partys new program, here are some of them:
- They will not accept the Paris climate deal, calling coal a clean source of energy
- The party explicitly supports conversion therapy of gay children
- New sharp resistance to gay marriage
- Internet porn is called a "public health crisis"
- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects
- Politicans should use religion (christianity, obviously) as a guide when making laws, so that "man-made laws matches the natural rights given by God"
- New strong resistance to abortion, now calling them aborted children, not aborted fetuses. Also illegal after rape.
Then of course theres the issues of building a wall, weapons for everyone etc, but thats for another day. Is this serious? How are they not laughed out of politics in a modern country?
Because close to 60 million people (maybe more? if Trump is right, a lot more) in this country who either agree with most of those, or agree with enough that they consider it a fair trade.
America is weird. We like our old school politics. Conservative party is conservative and liberal party is liberal. Works out nicely most of the time. Confuses foreign political "experts" which is always an added bonus.
|
On July 22 2016 07:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 07:28 Gorsameth wrote:On July 22 2016 07:21 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 22 2016 07:18 Gorsameth wrote:On July 22 2016 07:16 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 22 2016 07:11 Sent. wrote:On July 22 2016 07:09 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On July 22 2016 07:07 Sent. wrote:- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects why is that outrageous? Because they only want to teach about their own religion. But it's optional, no one is forced to choose it I'm not sure how to explain to you how having only one option inherently removes options. Students have many optional subjects they can chose. One of those subjects would be bible studies. Yeah sure the Republicans didn't mandate that Koran studies should also be offered but don't pretend like there are no other optional subjects being offered by schools. Are those other optional subjects mandated by the state though? You can't force people to teach your religion and none of the others even if those classes are optional. I'm in disbelief that this is even up for debate. I was responding to you saying that there is only 1 option. which is not true. your just straw manning now. Please explain how I'm strawmanning? The idea of teaching religion in public school is already questionable because of separation of church and state, but I'm able to see some merit to such a program by teaching young people values.
Or we can just teach kids morals without having to justify it with some hokey bullshit. There's no need for us to include some sort of supernatural justification.
|
On July 22 2016 07:36 Cowboy24 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 06:46 shabby wrote:
Norwegian national newspaper covering the republican nomination process has listed some of the bulletins in the partys new program, here are some of them:
- They will not accept the Paris climate deal, calling coal a clean source of energy
- The party explicitly supports conversion therapy of gay children
- New sharp resistance to gay marriage
- Internet porn is called a "public health crisis"
- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects
- Politicans should use religion (christianity, obviously) as a guide when making laws, so that "man-made laws matches the natural rights given by God"
- New strong resistance to abortion, now calling them aborted children, not aborted fetuses. Also illegal after rape.
Then of course theres the issues of building a wall, weapons for everyone etc, but thats for another day. Is this serious? How are they not laughed out of politics in a modern country? Because close to 60 million people (maybe more? if Trump is right, a lot more) in this country who either agree with most of those, or agree with enough that they consider it a fair trade. America is weird. We like our old school politics. Conservative party is conservative and liberal party is liberal. Works out nicely most of the time. Confuses foreign political "experts" which is always an added bonus.
Yes, it does confuse foreign people, because that is just weird as fuck. People who are for these ideas actually have political power. What?
|
On July 22 2016 07:36 Cowboy24 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 06:46 shabby wrote:
Norwegian national newspaper covering the republican nomination process has listed some of the bulletins in the partys new program, here are some of them:
- They will not accept the Paris climate deal, calling coal a clean source of energy
- The party explicitly supports conversion therapy of gay children
- New sharp resistance to gay marriage
- Internet porn is called a "public health crisis"
- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects
- Politicans should use religion (christianity, obviously) as a guide when making laws, so that "man-made laws matches the natural rights given by God"
- New strong resistance to abortion, now calling them aborted children, not aborted fetuses. Also illegal after rape.
Then of course theres the issues of building a wall, weapons for everyone etc, but thats for another day. Is this serious? How are they not laughed out of politics in a modern country? Because close to 60 million people (maybe more? if Trump is right, a lot more) in this country who either agree with most of those, or agree with enough that they consider it a fair trade. America is weird. We like our old school politics. Conservative party is conservative and liberal party is liberal. Works out nicely most of the time. Confuses foreign political "experts" which is always an added bonus.
For americans it seems to be conservative right vs liberal left, but compared to european parties you have one deeply religious right wing party, and one center/right. You could do with more than two parties to choose from :p
|
On July 22 2016 07:30 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 07:28 oBlade wrote:On July 22 2016 06:46 shabby wrote:
Norwegian national newspaper covering the republican nomination process has listed some of the bulletins in the partys new program, here are some of them:
- They will not accept the Paris climate deal, calling coal a clean source of energy
- The party explicitly supports conversion therapy of gay children
- New sharp resistance to gay marriage
- Internet porn is called a "public health crisis"
- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects
- Politicans should use religion (christianity, obviously) as a guide when making laws, so that "man-made laws matches the natural rights given by God"
- New strong resistance to abortion, now calling them aborted children, not aborted fetuses. Also illegal after rape.
Then of course theres the issues of building a wall, weapons for everyone etc, but thats for another day. Is this serious? How are they not laughed out of politics in a modern country? The national party platform itself doesn't mean that much besides serving as a way to appease the people who do actually care about those things by letting them have the achievement of getting their stuff written on the platform. Wait so, the party program doesn't matter shit? They say this stuff as what they want, but they actually don't matter? What the fuck matters if not what the party is after?
It's not that there aren't people, voters and politicians alike, to whom some of those things are deep convictions, but because the US only has two parties it means they have to get stuffed into one or another. But it's not as simple as like "write this on the nonbinding platform -> elect Republican president -> there are now designated abortion jails," that's part of why they have political viability outside of the people who support gay conversion therapy, whose existence I'm not disputing at all.
|
On July 22 2016 07:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 06:41 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:33 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:29 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:22 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:21 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 06:19 Doodsmack wrote:On July 22 2016 06:00 FiWiFaKi wrote:On July 22 2016 05:48 TheTenthDoc wrote:On July 22 2016 05:06 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Cruz took politics way too personally, and I think that's a big weakness of a candidate. Donald Trump will relentlessly attack someone to win, but he shrugs it off, it's nothing personal, just business.
He has made it clear he doesn't agree with Trump, but either way, comes November, it's Trump or Hillary... And as a Cruz supporter, you really should find a lot more comfort in Trump than Hillary, so you've got to stop being stubborn instead of just handing over votes to Hillary if you're so against her. We all know we don't have the best candidates, partly due to who was running on the Democratic side, and party due to voters jumping on the Trump train... Because fuck Washington apparently.
Either way, if you're a fiscal conservative, and centrist/mildly-progressive when it comes to social policy, at least the ideas of Trump are what's the most logical to side with imo. Saying otherwise, I think you haven't taken a proper look and might be reading a lot of liberal media, or are too bothered by his vulgarity and his silly antics (which is fair). I think fiscal conservatives would be a lot more comfortable with Trump if he was consistent with his fiscal views-but he's really not. He's waffled all over tax plans, the ACA, and the like, and put his foot in his mouth over international trade quite a bit. Protectionism and the like are pretty out of favor in fiscal conservative circles as well, and that's a good chunk of his more consistent rhetoric. I am extracting most of the information by reading in between the lines and extracting what I think about the candidate, rather than listening to what they say, as I think right now, both candidates are lying through their teeth to get votes and appeal to wider bases. + Show Spoiler +"I am reinterpreting Trump's statements entirely in my own way". Yep, most Trump supporters do. Otherwise he'd lose the election because the media would take everything out of context, and too many people wouldn't spend the time to educate themselves (or know how). Reinterpreting entirely in your own way does not constitute educating yourself. It constitutes wanting to believe something. We should not discuss further. It's not entirely in my own way, others interpret it in the same way - like I said, anyone who listens to an election at face value is a fool. To win elections you have to do some of this stuff, to make everyone happy, you have to be able to send multiple messages to different people. At the end of the day, extracting their values and character and voting on that is really what you should do imo. If that wasn't the case, Hillary would be sweeping the election. edit: Good way to say it oBlade, thanks. You're still just making up what Trump's supposed ideas are. It's not standard for someone to believe their candidate's ideas are so different than the words coming out of the candidate's mouth. Where are they different? I've followed Trump and watched almost every interview of his since 2 months before the primaries. I began with the fascination of this silly candidate, and eventually started to fight for his side with people who read and take liberal media at face value. He's far from a saint, but I've made my stance clear many times throughout this thread with explanation for why I think he is a better candidate than Clinton. As for your previous point, it's much harder to speak out against liberals than conservatives... My opinion for the case of why this is, is because business operates best when people work in a liberal environment, and I think naturally most big companies, especially the standard corporate business, wearing suits stuff... It doesn't look good to come out with so much "hate", at least what it looks like on the surface. Media companies are businesses, and because of that, I think a lot of people are scared to come out. It's certainly difficult for me to bring up Donald Trump while someone saying I support Bernie Sanders just gets a shrug from people, you know. So maybe that's a bit flawed, but this is my quick impromptu explanation for it. I'm not even a US citizen, this election will hardly effect my life at all, though I am unsupportive of the liberal socialist movement and I supportive the fiscal conservatism, and I'm just trying to throw out some reasoning to get people to not dismiss Trump before they take a real look first. But Trump isn't a fiscal conservative. He has a great many big and expensive plans. He wants to be domineering internationally, to build big things at home, to cut taxes dramatically while increasing spending, to spend more on veterans, on anti-terrorism, on surveillance etc. A spy in every mosque etc. Oh, and replace Obamacare with something better and also end the deficit. Surely this can't be the first time you've seen someone promise to cut taxes and do a dozen big projects while also ending the deficit. That's not what fiscal conservatism looks like. A fiscal conservative says "guys, we've overspent so much and for so long that we're actually using a lot of taxes just for interest payments, money going abroad that doesn't even help anyone so we're going to keep taxes as they are and cut services and pay down the principal, not just the interest, so that one day we can actually spend money on what we like without this millstone around our neck". And then he gets booed out because nobody wants to hear that guy when the other guy is selling a wall.
Firstly, it's not only him, it's also the party... Who are very fiscally conservative (plus other conservative too unfortunately). Trump would abolish the ACA, and roughly 30% of government revenue goes towards Medicare and Health... So not sure how much savings it'd result in, but even small decrease in costs would be massive savings compared to the amounts spent on everything else.
Increasing sales tax by 10% (essentially with a 10% tariff on everything) would bring in revenue, and combined with the supposed closing down loopholes, I'm uncertain how much more/less revenue there would be. Expansion of the military, I don't agree with, don't really know what that'd mean for the change in spending, so no comment there... However if he manages to get more money from other countries for "protecting them", might be fairly revenue neutral. Unfortunately, like every politician, I wouldn't expect massive benefits for the veterans compared to now, but I think long term, dealing with the immigration issue would lower welfare, crime, and such, and lower spending there. The spy network and anti-terrorist effort would not be a large cost compared to these other projects like health care.
Things like the wall would be costs with long term benefits, instead of band-aids that are being put on the current situation. Anyway, Trump has been very vague with his plan, but I I don't think the ideology is doomed, just hard to comment when you have so little info.
|
On July 22 2016 07:42 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2016 07:30 Luolis wrote:On July 22 2016 07:28 oBlade wrote:On July 22 2016 06:46 shabby wrote:
Norwegian national newspaper covering the republican nomination process has listed some of the bulletins in the partys new program, here are some of them:
- They will not accept the Paris climate deal, calling coal a clean source of energy
- The party explicitly supports conversion therapy of gay children
- New sharp resistance to gay marriage
- Internet porn is called a "public health crisis"
- Students in high school should be able to choose bible studies as optional subjects
- Politicans should use religion (christianity, obviously) as a guide when making laws, so that "man-made laws matches the natural rights given by God"
- New strong resistance to abortion, now calling them aborted children, not aborted fetuses. Also illegal after rape.
Then of course theres the issues of building a wall, weapons for everyone etc, but thats for another day. Is this serious? How are they not laughed out of politics in a modern country? The national party platform itself doesn't mean that much besides serving as a way to appease the people who do actually care about those things by letting them have the achievement of getting their stuff written on the platform. Wait so, the party program doesn't matter shit? They say this stuff as what they want, but they actually don't matter? What the fuck matters if not what the party is after? It's not that there aren't people, voters and politicians alike, to whom some of those things are deep convictions, but because the US only has two parties it means they have to get stuffed into one or another. But it's not as simple as like "write this on the nonbinding platform -> elect Republican president -> there are now designated abortion jails," that's part of why they have political viability outside of the people who support gay conversion therapy, whose existence I'm not disputing at all.
Yeah allright that clears it up a bit. Still, from what i've seen, the democrats seem a bit more grounded in reality as a whole. Obviously there are completely normal people in the Republicans too, but because of the whole, theyre not very appealing (not to mention i have no idea why a person like Trump is even at this point in the presidential run rofl)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
