Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[DeadmanWalking]

Trump just stated he wants to put a 35% tariff on goods that were made in Mexico.

The obvious answer of companies would be to do their patriotic duty and return all jobs to the United States. These jobs would all pay middle class salaries like they did in the 70's (so 70k+), and provide full benefits. The companies would apologize to the workers and promise to never do something like this again.

Thing about tarriffs on products from X country, as Cruz stated during the debates, X country doesn't pay those tarriffs. They just raise the prices by 35% and the American citizen ends up paying for those tarriffs. If you want a television that was made in Mexico from Panasonic instead of costing you $1000 it would end up costing you $1,350. You may as well tell your child that you are going to spank them for misbehaving, drop your own pants, smack your own ass until it is red, pull your pants up and say, "Now never do that again!"

- - - Updated - - -

I can't believe I am saying this but maybe Trump can do some good. We will get to see who supports him to the end, and who of the republicans said enough is enough. Because anyone that supports him is unfit for office at this point.

I am waiting for the throngs of Republicans running for office to start saying, "Oh I was always a #Nevertrump!"

- - - Updated - - -

Well, he's not wrong.

He is wrong, for the media to be the lowest form of humanity they would have to be lower than Trump and that isn't possible.

[Shalcker]

I don't get why people keep beating this dead horse.
It's not even recognizable as a dead horse, it's a decomposed pile of crap with some bone dust in it.
"Clinton is a liar!"
Yeah, she's lied about a couple of things. And the Trump supporters think this makes her unfit to be president...
Trump lies on a daily basis, sometimes many times.

If you would see reports on "What Clinton said today" on media explored at same length at Trump and looking at every sentence from "Isn't that a lie? Isn't that illegal? Isn't that call for violence?" angles, this perception could well change.

- - - Updated - - -

Interesting article on the history of observers and the GOP.

Eh, observing and preventing vote fraud is illegal in US if you're Republican? Especially in minority areas?

...the more you know...



But even then i'm fairly certain it'll be allowed to happen though it can be disputed later - mostly because resolving if Trump is agent of RNC or not and other legal questions will probably take longer then elections.

[Aggrophobic]

If you would see reports on "What Clinton said today" on media explored at same length at Trump and looking at every sentence from "Isn't that a lie? Isn't that illegal? Isn't that call for violence?" angles, this perception could well change.

- - - Updated - - -


Eh, observing and preventing vote fraud is illegal in US if you're Republican? Especially in minority areas?

...the more you know...



But even then i'm fairly certain it'll be allowed to happen though it can be disputed later - mostly because resolving if Trump is agent of RNC or not and other legal questions will probably take longer then elections.

You're saying that Fox puts less into "investigating" Clinton than, say Washington Post puts into finding crap about Trump?
The US has news sites on both sides and they do a good job at trying to bend everything these candidates say. US politics is funny that way, you kinda have to read 5-6 news sites befor you get a good picture of how it actually is. You know, like balance it out.

[Shalcker]

You're saying that Fox puts less into "investigating" Clinton than, say Washington Post puts into finding crap about Trump?

Yes, that seem to be the case for some reason. Not like everyone in Republican party loves Trump unconditionally (even Fox), and i don't remember Trump paying them to love him yet.

The US has news sites on both sides and they do a good job at trying to bend everything these candidates say. US politics is funny that way, you kinda have to read 5-6 news sites befor you get a good picture of how it actually is. You know, like balance it out.

If they would be doing "good job" at "balancing it out" you would consider both candidates abhorrent :P

[Aggrophobic]

Yes, that seem to be the case for some reason. Not like everyone in Republican party loves Trump unconditionally (even Fox), and i don't remember Trump paying them to love him yet.

If they would be doing "good job" at "balancing it out" you would consider both candidates abhorrent :P

Well, we don't know if he did as he refused to release his tax returns.
That or he's just not rich enough to do so. I have no doubt he'd try to pay them off if he could. As you say, they rather "abhorrent", both of them.

[Deja Thoris]

Well, he's not wrong.

So the media is below rapists and murderers? Yea, hes wrong.

[starlord]

Yes, that seem to be the case for some reason. Not like everyone in Republican party loves Trump unconditionally (even Fox), and i don't remember Trump paying them to love him yet.

If they would be doing "good job" at "balancing it out" you would consider both candidates abhorrent :P

the koch brothers are not trump fans, that is why.
pretty ironic since they basically created the environment that allowed him to get where he is.
http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/0...-trump-problem

[belfpala]

the koch brothers are not trump fans, that is why.
pretty ironic since they basically created the environment that allowed him to get where he is.
http://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2016/0...-trump-problem

Unleash a monster ... ?

[Breccia]

If you would see reports on "What Clinton said today" on media explored at same length at Trump and looking at every sentence from "Isn't that a lie? Isn't that illegal? Isn't that call for violence?" angles, this perception could well change.

Probably not.
"Did you hear what Clinton said today? Wasn't that a call for violence?"
"Um...no. It was nothing at all like a call for violence."
"Okay, but wasn't that illegal?"
"Um...no. Nothing she said was illegal, or encouragement of an illegal act."
Clinton simply does not give the media anything to work with in that regard. Analyzing every sentence would be a waste of time. She doesn't even really lie all that often, at least, not in comparison to her opponent. Regardless of which side of the aisle the news organization is on, there'd just be nothing to do. That's why you keep hearing about the same resolved topics (Benghazi, emails) on Clinton, while every day is a new bag of WTF from Trump industries.

Made in Mexico.

Eh, observing and preventing vote fraud is illegal in US if you're Republican? Especially in minority areas?

We'd take you a lot more seriously if you actually read and understood the item you're responding to. Try it again. Take your time. We'll be here when you're done.

[Ermelloth]

I support Trump. But I do that mostly because of a "turd sandwich" alternative - Hillary is so BAD a choice, that anything else would be just better than her.

[NYC17]

I support Trump. But I do that mostly because of a "turd sandwich" alternative - Hillary is so BAD a choice, that anything else would be just better than her.

Despite all evidence to the contrary.

Good job.

[Ermelloth]

Hillary is direct continuity to Obama's reign. Means more SJW, leftism, tolerance to Islamists and further weakening of U.S. image and international power.

I think Trump should be at least given a chance to improve things.

[NYC17]

Hillary is direct continuity to Obama's reign. Means more SJW, leftism, tolerance to Islamists and further weakening of U.S. image and international power.

I think Trump should be at least given a chance to improve things.

Obama has no "reign". He was elected.

There is nothing about Trump that suggests he is capable of improving anything beyond his exposure. If you like him, fine, but your reasoning is not grounded in reality.

[zorkuus]

Hillary is direct continuity to Obama's reign. Means more SJW, leftism, tolerance to Islamists and further weakening of U.S. image and international power.

Obama and Hillary are centre-right. You wouldn't know what leftism is if it hit you on the head.

[Deleted]

I think Trump should be at least given a chance to improve things.

further weakening of U.S. image and international power.

You do realize that is directly contradicting, right? Trump's entire foreign policy is based on alienating allies and sucking up to lesser and authoritarian countries such as Russia and North Korea. There is a real chance that Trump's presidency could lead to the break-up, or at least significant weakening of NATO.

[Ghostpanther]

But the most scary part is that people vote for him, not the man himself.

Well, freedom of choice does come with costs. Personally I would not have it any other way. It is a price which has to be paid.

A ton of people are very fed up with politicians in general. If Trump does win, it will be mainly because of that. And Hillary, to many, represents the corruption and broken promises coming out of Washington.

But I do not think it is something people have to worry about for two reasons;

1. He is not likely to win anyway. The odds are against him simply because the political establishment is too powerful with deceptions.

2. If he does, it will not be like he is a dictator and gets to do what he wants. He still has to deal with Congress and the laws we have in the country.

But absolutely get out and vote for whom you want. It is a freedom we have which should not be taken for granted.

[NYC17]

Well, freedom of choice does come with costs. Personally I would not have it any other way. It is a price which has to be paid.

A ton of people are very fed up with politicians in general. If Trump does win, it will be mainly because of that. And Hillary, to many, represents the corruption and broken promises coming out of Washington.

But I do not think it is something people have to worry about for two reasons;

1. He is not likely to win anyway. The odds are against him simply because the political establishment is too powerful with deceptions.

2. If he does, it will not be like he is a dictator and gets to do what he wants. He still has to deal with Congress and the laws we have in the country.

But absolutely get out and vote for whom you want. It is a freedom we have which should not be taken for granted.

The odds are against him simply because he continuously reinforces the fact he is not capable. Anything else is just icing on the cake.

[Breccia]

Hillary is direct continuity to Obama's reign. Means more SJW, leftism, tolerance to Islamists and further weakening of U.S. image and international power.

We're going to give you a chance to re-write the bolded part. Did you mean:
a) tolerance for the religion of Islam, which...well, duh, isn't he supposed to? Isn't that in the Constitution?
b) tolerance for ISIS, which...you're going to need to back up. ISIS is steadily losing ground and leaders, due in part to direct military action by the US. Now, maybe you're referring to attempts to lower civilian casualties, such as when the drivers of ISIS trucks were told to get the fuck out of there before a fleet of A-10s came down like the Hammer of God. You might mean that, seeing as how you're supporting Trump, who personally and directly supports the killing of civilians, which is literally a war crime.

I'm also curious why you'd vote for Trump for president to stop SJW's. Wouldn't a racist, bigoted, misogynist president bring them out of the woodwork?

And as for international image of the US...Obama was handed that, by virtue of not being Bush and not invading Iraq. International opinion of the US is largely positive in most places. Trump, by contrast, has intentionally, directly insulted most other countries/people of the world. And he's threatening to shut down trade with our larger partners. And pull out of NATO. Explain how that's a chance to improve either image or power overseas.

But leftism I'll grant you.

- - - Updated - - -

A ton of people are very fed up with politicians in general. If Trump does win, it will be mainly because of that.

You know, it'd be nice to see some of that attitude thrown at teen% approval rate Congress, too. It'd be pretty well justified. It's not like Republicans were the only obstructionists, either.

[Deleted]

I'm also curious why you'd vote for Trump for president to stop SJW's. Wouldn't a racist, bigoted, misogynist president bring them out of the woodwork?

I'm curious as to why one would waste his/her vote on stopping SJWs even. They're annoying. That's it. You're voting for the most powerful person in the free world, who has enormous influence on the politics of the United States, including foreign policy and economics. And you choose to vote for somebody based on the fact that some people criticize you for popping a racist joke? Like holy shit, of course it's your democratic right to vote based on that, but that doesn't make it any less stupid.

[Cyberowl]

I'm curious as to why one would waste his/her vote on stopping SJWs even. They're annoying. That's it. You're voting for the most powerful person in the free world, who has enormous influence on the politics of the United States, including foreign policy and economics. And you choose to vote for somebody based on the fact that some people criticize you for popping a racist joke? Like holy shit, of course it's your democratic right to vote based on that, but that doesn't make it any less stupid.

Because assholes don't like getting their ego scratched and getting called out on being an asshole. Just look at our "damn SJWs" posters for some anecdotal evidence.