Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Orbitus]

....and when I am right?

Well, then there would be a first time for everything. Especially since you haven't been right yet.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Don't fall in the pitfall of considering yourself an 'average american'. Your viewpoints are far from 'average american'. You are you, be you.

It doesn't fall across party lines, it falls across what your morale compass says is right. Should businesses be able to say no to gays based on faith? Should gays be able to marry? Should abortion be legal? You don't need to be a card carrying member of any party to hold personal beliefs on these issues. If you believe one way or other on these issues you may get stuck with the person you want least deciding how we will be living for upwards of 2 decades.

Yes, Yes, and Yes -- just by that alone, you know I'm in a precarious situation.

When I say "average" I don't mean, I fall within the median of mental census. I meant that I face a lot of the same problems and challenges that many other Americans do, so it's not like I'm ignorant to the plight of the common man and removed from what's going on as a result.

- - - Updated - - -

Then you should vote for someone who will ensure there won't be total chaos the day after election day, which is exactly what would happen to global markets after Trump is elected, leaving you with an even smaller chance of finding a job, and using more of my tax money for your unemployment.

What makes you think that would even happen? Again, also, I don't vote to my own advantage. Chances are I'd be getting LESS out of the system if Trump won. Republicans and all. Regardless of where the economy ends up.

[Daelak]

Yes, Yes, Yes -- just by that alone, you know I'm in a precarious situation.

When I say "average" I don't mean, I fall within the median of mental census. I meant that I face a lot of the same problems and challenges that many other Americans do, so it's not like I'm ignorant to the plight of the common man and removed from what's going on as a result.

- - - Updated - - -



What makes you think that would even happen? Again, also, I don't vote to my own advantage. Chances are I'd be getting LESS out of the system if Trump won. Republicans and all.

Prediction markets and a cohort of economists and security analysts.

[DeadmanWalking]

Then you should vote for someone who will ensure there won't be total chaos the day after election day, which is exactly what would happen to global markets after Trump is elected, leaving you with an even smaller chance of finding a job, and using more of my tax money for your unemployment.

Meh, they said the same thing about Obama, in fact they banged that drum non-stop after he took office and the truth is the markets go up and down regardless who is in office.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Prediction markets and a cohort of economists and security analysts.

To be fair, everything has a political agenda. Hillary is a advocate of TPP much like NAFTA. These things benefit major businesses, not the little people.

- - - Updated - - -

Meh, they said the same thing about Obama, in fact they banged that drum non-stop after he took office and the truth is the markets go up and down regardless who is in office.

This is more or less accurate. There is also political games to consider, always.

[Kasierith]

I can safely say, Hillary is far from "what's best" - I can also infer that Trump is too. Hence why him winning would not be a "win" to me. It'd just be a method by which I slow down the system a bit, throw a wrench in it, so to speak... and then hopefully get something more meaningful going within the next four years.

I would think that what is best for the country would be the dismantling of Trump, and by extension, the Tea Party. Clinton losing isn't going to change the Democratic party. Their response is going to be to more significantly sponsor a populist for 2020, but as of now if Clinton loses it won't be on the ideals of the party but rather her lack of ability to mobilize a majority constituency. The Republican party, on the other hand, is in a massive divide between social conservatives and anti-government people in the Tea Party versus the fundamental base which is far more economically and socially moderate. A loss of the social conservatives, who have basically taken the entirety of the election cycle into their own hands and alienated the traditionalist base, is going to have very significant repercussions, and will likely end the Tea Party's populist-based dominance of the party that has given the US 8 years of obstructionism.

If your goal is to slow down the craziness, why not oppose the candidate whose loss will cause a significant impact in the party, instead of the one whose loss will be largely irrelevant to the overall structure of the party?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, Yes, and Yes -- just by that alone, you know I'm in a precarious situation.

When I say "average" I don't mean, I fall within the median of mental census. I meant that I face a lot of the same problems and challenges that many other Americans do, so it's not like I'm ignorant to the plight of the common man and removed from what's going on as a result.

If that is your distinction, than it is completely meaningless in the context of this medium. I don't exactly think we have a secret society of government controlling billionaires stalking these forums. The majority of people on here are, overall, pretty much average as the whole lot of the country/world is concerned.

[ati87]

Can anybody explain to me how is it best for the US and it's people to be able to call black people N@ggers in the open?

[DeadmanWalking]

To be fair, everything has a political agenda. Hillary is a advocate of TPP much like NAFTA. These things benefit major businesses, not the little people.

- - - Updated - - -



This is more or less accurate. There is also political games to consider, always.

Obama came out yesterday and said, "I am president and I am for TPP." Hillary on the other hand said at the DNC that Bernie had changed her mind on the TPP and was against 'deals that would enrichen the 1% at the expense of the rest of the middle class' which was directed at the TPP. Wether she was being honest or just saying what she had to to get bernie votes, I can't tell you.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

I would think that what is best for the country would be the dismantling of Trump, and by extension, the Tea Party. Clinton losing isn't going to change the Democratic party. Their response is going to be to more significantly sponsor a populist for 2020, but as of now if Clinton loses it won't be on the ideals of the party but rather her lack of ability to mobilize a majority constituency. The Republican party, on the other hand, is in a massive divide between social conservatives and anti-government people in the Tea Party versus the fundamental base which is far more economically and socially moderate. A loss of the social conservatives, who have basically taken the entirety of the election cycle into their own hands and alienated the traditionalist base, is going to have very significant repercussions, and will likely end the Tea Party's populist-based dominance of the party that has given the US 8 years of obstructionism.

If your goal is to slow down the craziness, why not oppose the candidate whose loss will cause a significant impact in the party, instead of the one whose loss will be largely irrelevant to the overall structure of the party?

Because I want to buy time. Chances are, if Hillary gets in, it's 8 more years. I don't know if we can continue mounting the debt as we are, further opening up our trade policies as we have been, and bringing in more refugees/illegals into this country. All three of these factors can have tremendously horrid outcomes for the future if they're not handled with care and I don't see Clinton doing that. In fact, I see her only taking these wounds, and widening them into fully blown gaping holes by which we bleed out through.

Particularly the issue of immigration. Let's not kid ourselves here. The DNC has showed such favoritism and care towards illegal immigrants and refugees because those are VOTES. It is not based upon a position of reasoning, sound economics, or even the one thing it could be - compassion. It's cold logic that only serves them. It's a power grab. Most things in politics are hence why "bleeding heart" rhetoric never tends to move me.

Republicans get into power for several years, what's the worst thing that happens? You have to consider these things. Both parties are shit but one will significantly gain power throughout its tenure and I do not want that happening. Especially with my aspirations of trying to get a 3rd party into a viable position within the next four to eight years.

- - - Updated - - -

Obama came out yesterday and said, "I am president and I am for TPP." Hillary on the other hand said at the DNC that Bernie had changed her mind on the TPP and was against 'deals that would enrichen the 1% at the expense of the rest of the middle class' which was directed at the TPP. Wether she was being honest or just saying what she had to to get bernie votes, I can't tell you.

She's not being honest. Her and her husband brought about NAFTA. TPP will doubtlessly be something they push through regardless of what she is saying now. The question is; can Obama get it done and sealed before then? That way Hillary can simply argue that the wheels are already rolling and she can't just "pull the plug" on the whole deal.

[Daelak]

Meh, they said the same thing about Obama, in fact they banged that drum non-stop after he took office and the truth is the markets go up and down regardless who is in office.

No, the markets were already in free fall due to the financial crisis.

- - - Updated - - -

To be fair, everything has a political agenda. Hillary is a advocate of TPP much like NAFTA. These things benefit major businesses, not the little people.

- - - Updated - - -



This is more or less accurate. There is also political games to consider, always.

The view of analysts and economists is to minimize instability and destruction.

[DeadmanWalking]

I would think that what is best for the country would be the dismantling of Trump, and by extension, the Tea Party. Clinton losing isn't going to change the Democratic party. Their response is going to be to more significantly sponsor a populist for 2020, but as of now if Clinton loses it won't be on the ideals of the party but rather her lack of ability to mobilize a majority constituency. The Republican party, on the other hand, is in a massive divide between social conservatives and anti-government people in the Tea Party versus the fundamental base which is far more economically and socially moderate. A loss of the social conservatives, who have basically taken the entirety of the election cycle into their own hands and alienated the traditionalist base, is going to have very significant repercussions, and will likely end the Tea Party's populist-based dominance of the party that has given the US 8 years of obstructionism.

If your goal is to slow down the craziness, why not oppose the candidate whose loss will cause a significant impact in the party, instead of the one whose loss will be largely irrelevant to the overall structure of the party?

- - - Updated - - -



If that is your distinction, than it is completely meaningless in the context of this medium. I don't exactly think we have a secret society of government controlling billionaires stalking these forums. The majority of people on here are, overall, pretty much average as the whole lot of the country/world is concerned.

Yes in comparison the Republican party is currently a shambling pile of screaming heads trying to bite their way to the top of the pile to determine which version it wants to be. The Democrat party will change in time to what the Bernies want but only if they become stewards of the party, if the democrats find they can't rely on them then they will never worry about appeasing them in the future.

That is always how political revolutions change parties, by becoming them and getting to a point where their ideologies can grab the ships wheel and direct it the way they want, much like how Hillary joined the Democratic party. Did she join it to become a millionaire taking corporate bank money? No, she did it to stop social injustices... the money presentations happened much later.

If you are against corruption then complaining will never change anything, getting in there and changing from the inside without becoming corrupt yourself is the way you do it. Good luck with that.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

No, the markets were already in free fall due to the financial crisis.

- - - Updated - - -



The view of analysts and economists is to minimize instability and destruction.

To them. That does not equate to the middle and lower class.

[Felya]

I voted Ron Paul in the 2012 Republican Primaries. Then Gary Johnson in the national election. In the 2016 Republican primaries I voted Rand Paul.

All of which are individuals that likely wouldn't have, in any shape or form, put me and my particular situation first. I was more concerned with this nation's ceaseless warmongering and hawkish attitude.

Out of curiosity, what state do you live in?

That example doesn't answer what I asked or confirm what you said. The above explains why you consider war more beneficial than other issues, not voting against your interest for the betterment of the country. I honestly cannot think of a way that's possible...

[Draco-Onis]

Because I want to buy time. Chances are, if Hillary gets in, it's 8 more years. I don't know if we can continue mounting the debt as we are, further opening up our trade policies as we have been, and bringing in more refugees/illegals into this country. All three of these factors can have tremendously horrid outcomes for the future if they're not handled with care and I don't see Clinton doing that. In fact, I see her only taking these wounds, and widening them into fully blown gaping holes by which we bleed out through.

Particularly the issue of immigration. Let's not kid ourselves here. The DNC has showed such favoritism and care towards illegal immigrants and refugees because those are VOTES. It is not based upon a position of reasoning, sound economics, or even the one thing it could be - compassion. It's cold logic that only serves them. It's a power grab. Most things in politics are hence why "bleeding heart" rhetoric never tends to move me.

Republicans get into power for several years, what's the worst thing that happens? You have to consider these things. Both parties are shit but one will significantly gain power throughout its tenure and I do not want that happening. Especially with my aspirations of trying to get a 3rd party into a viable position within the next four to eight years.

I would say unless something major happen I do not see either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton lasting more than 4 years, Paul Ryan and several more reasonable conservatives would have no problem beating Clinton. On debt republicans tend to increase debt more with wars and increasing the military, also Donald Trump economic plan will more than double the debt according to several studies. Immigration I think that is all image, Obama has done more evictions than any other president and illegal immigration is the lowest it's ever been.

Donald Trump's plan to evict all illegal immigrants is simply not feasible logistically, the best path would be a revision to our broken immigration system and checks and balances for illegals which will require bipartisan agreements. There is no fear of republicans being in power but Donald Trump is not a conservative or republican he is a different beast and if he wasn't running against Clinton democrats would win by a landslide.

Of course I am assuming you care about policy, I find that many people who vote for Trump either always vote republican or just want the country to burn. Those who argue that they vote for him due to policy usually are not being genuine since his policies are rather horrible which is why he often stays away from the subject and rather stick to one liners and controversies.

[Felya]

I can safely say, Hillary is far from "what's best" - I can also infer that Trump is too. Hence why him winning would not be a "win" to me. It'd just be a method by which I slow down the system a bit, throw a wrench in it, so to speak... and then hopefully get something more meaningful going within the next four years.

That means you would screw everyone over a little bit, to see a perceived benefit later. That's the complete opposite of what you are claiming... Screwing the country a bit, because you think it's for the best, is your opinion being more important than the country. How about, not voting to slow it down?

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Out of curiosity, what state do you live in?

That example doesn't answer what I asked or confirm what you said. The above explains why you consider war more beneficial than other issues, not voting against your interest for the betterment of the country. I honestly cannot think of a way that's possible...

Again, if I wanted to serve my PERSONAL ends - I'd vote Democrat, down the line. This election I wouldn't have voted Bernie if he got into the national election; again, a very obvious choice for me if I wanted help managing my own issues considering his proposed policy plans.

Instead, I'm voting for people that don't put me first and are sometimes, in the immediate sense, a negative influence on my current situation. Instead I considered the long-term effects of our conflicts and "nation building" initiatives, both on a financial and national security level.

As for where I am from? Texas. Dallas in fact.

[Felya]

Of course I am assuming you care about policy, I find that many people who vote for Trump either always vote republican or just want the country to burn. Those who argue that they vote for him due to policy usually are not being genuine since his policies are rather horrible which is why he often stays away from the subject and rather stick to one liners and controversies.

They vote to impede the country, because their clairvoyance predicts better things after we suffer.

[Toxigen]

Gary Johnson 2016

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

I would say unless something major happen I do not see either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton lasting more than 4 years, Paul Ryan and several more reasonable conservatives would have no problem beating Clinton. On debt republicans tend to increase debt more with wars and increasing the military, also Donald Trump economic plan will more than double the debt according to several studies. Immigration I think that is all image, Obama has done more evictions than any other president and illegal immigration is the lowest it's ever been.

Donald Trump's plan to evict all illegal immigrants is simply not feasible logistically, the best path would be a revision to our broken immigration system and checks and balances for illegals which will require bipartisan agreements. There is no fear of republicans being in power but Donald Trump is not a conservative or republican he is a different beast and if he wasn't running against Clinton democrats would win by a landslide.

Of course I am assuming you care about policy, I find that many people who vote for Trump either always vote republican or just want the country to burn. Those who argue that they vote for him due to policy usually are not being genuine since his policies are rather horrible which is why he often stays away from the subject and rather stick to one liners and controversies.

Donald Trump will also be beholden to the party and if he is not, it'll be civil war - which can be advantageous as well. I do not see a Trump presidency being a threat much like I don't see it being good either. I have very mixed feelings concerning him and the future after. Hillary though, I know where I stand. I know where the DNC as a whole stands. This could end up being exceptionally destructive in the long run.

My main focus though, is limiting power acquisition and I think that's best done with the Republicans in office. They're barely keeping themselves together as is.

I know it's shitty but I don't really ever find politics terribly pleasing.

[ati87]

I would say unless something major happen I do not see either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton lasting more than 4 years, Paul Ryan and several more reasonable conservatives would have no problem beating Clinton. On debt republicans tend to increase debt more with wars and increasing the military, also Donald Trump economic plan will more than double the debt according to several studies. Immigration I think that is all image, Obama has done more evictions than any other president and illegal immigration is the lowest it's ever been.

Donald Trump's plan to evict all illegal immigrants is simply not feasible logistically, the best path would be a revision to our broken immigration system and checks and balances for illegals which will require bipartisan agreements. There is no fear of republicans being in power but Donald Trump is not a conservative or republican he is a different beast and if he wasn't running against Clinton democrats would win by a landslide.

Of course I am assuming you care about policy, I find that many people who vote for Trump either always vote republican or just want the country to burn. Those who argue that they vote for him due to policy usually are not being genuine since his policies are rather horrible which is why he often stays away from the subject and rather stick to one liners and controversies.

Right, they are trying to beat clinton for 30 years now.

How is that working out