Why Donald Trump is the only viable candidate

[Mihalik]

Yes, the man has flaws but, but who doesn't:

1. He's the only candidate forceful enough to stand up to the increasing PC culture in the west right now, he says what he means and means what he says and won't give a damn if you call him a racist, sexist, classist or xenophobe. If you're tired of the SJW/cultural marxist type of people, there's nobody better than Donald Trump to put them back in their place. The tactic of the SJW is to defame and subvert and it's technically very easy to fight if most people do it: resist the subversion, refuse to cave in.

2. He will deport the illegals and secure the US border. Non-citizens have absolutely no right to just come into a foreign country and just do what they want. Mexico would not tolerate it if it was anybody else doing it, in fact Mexico is one of the hardest countries to gain citizenship in if you're not born there already. But they're not called "racist" or "xenophobes" and it's true, they aren't, they're just standing up for their country.

3. He will actually fight the terrorists with boots on the ground, not just "airstrikes" which never won any war.

4. He will get the economy going away with a better (lower) tax system and cancel deals with China and other countries that are not advantageous and bring jobs back. He will have a strong foreign policy, enemies of the US might not like it (Putin, China etc.) but at least they'll respect and fear the US. Right now under Obama nobody does.

1, Irrelevant complaint. It is not up to the President of the United States to stand up to "political correctness", it's a grassroots public issue, and it is up to the public to decide what is PC and what is not, through public discourse.

2, The deportation of the US migrant population would be EXORBITANTLY costly, and would damage the economy and effectively collapse law enforcement. The problem with immigration comes from the demand for cheap migrant labor.

3, How will he pay for another war? Iraq and Afghanistan cost about 4 trillion USD up to this point. What's next Syria? Iraq 3.0? Iran? How much will that cost? 4, 6, 8 trillion? And how many lives? 10000? 20000? 100000? When will enough be enough?

4, Lowering taxes? How? Dismantling the structures of the government? Cutting military spending? How? Your 3rd and 4th points are mutually exclusive. Quite on the contrary, he would either need to borrow HEAVILY (some more from China?) or raise taxes. The trade deals with China benefit US companies, and consumers (not labor tho). Companies manufacture cheaply, consumers buy cheaply. Furthermore you can't unilaterally cancel trade deals. It is doubtful the President has the authority to do so, plus it would cause massive damage to the US economy.

And why would you want the US to be feared? When did the US become Nazi Germany or some third world dictatorship? The US and what it represents should be admired, not feared. The world already fears the US. Worldwide everyone polled considers the US a greater threat to world peace than they consider ISIS. They already think the US is half run by warmongering lunatics with access to WMDs.

[Doctor Amadeus]

From Oct 6th

Trump leads with 27 percent support, down 2 points from a survey conducted at the end of August, while retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has gained a couple of points and stands at 17 percent.

Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) follows at 13 percent — a 6-point increase from the outlet's last survey more than a month ago — with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush steady at 10 percent.

Rounding out the top tier of GOP candidates nationally are Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 7 percent, former businesswoman Carly Fiorina at 6 percent, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who take 4 percent support apiece.

But I saw another poll from nbc/wsj that said Trump and Carson were at 21 and 20%, this was dated Sept 27.

Trump was bound to lose some of his lead, it always happens. The day of the vote it's almost always neck and neck.

Yeah, I am thinking along with some more early exits of the Republicans running for the Nomination, when trump makes it to the Primaries, I am willing to bet you anything he gets fucking railroaded, meaning it wont matter how some sway, the name they will announce will NOT be Trump unless he can make it SOO uncomfortable for whoever that tries it will be committing career suicide.

[Daymanmb]

Like it or not, ISIS is at war with the west. We have no choice but to be at war with them back.

This is why liberals are so stupid. They say war should be for self-defense, well guess what, you're under attack, stand and fight, noob.

There is a lot of choice, war is just one of them. And to be perfectly clear, there is no war in the West. ISI is not at war with the West. We're not under attack. Noob? Honestly? Youre most compelling argument is calling people who disagree with you stupid. Good job.

[Deleted]

1, Irrelevant complaint. It is not up to the President of the United States to stand up to "political correctness", it's a grassroots public issue, and it is up to the public to decide what is PC and what is not, through public discourse.

I disagree. I think it would be good to have someone upstairs say enough is enough.

2, The deportation of the US migrant population would be EXORBITANTLY costly, and would damage the economy and effectively collapse law enforcement. The problem with immigration comes from the demand for cheap migrant labor.

When will you liberals make up your own mind? Do you want "living wages" or cheap labor?

The free market solution, if you have a lack of work force, is to PAY MORE and also cut welfare so people WILL in fact take those jobs rather than sit on their asses watching Scooby Doo.

3, How will he pay for another war? Iraq and Afghanistan cost about 4 trillion USD up to this point. What's next Syria? Iraq 3.0? Iran? How much will that cost? 4, 6, 8 trillion? And how many lives? 10000? 20000? 100000? When will enough be enough?

Given that ISIS has pretty much declared war on the west, it's non-negotiable. You have to fight. Period.

Don't you liberals always say "oh we're not pacifists, we just agree only for self-defensive wars". Well there you go.

This is laughable.

- - - Updated - - -

ISI is not at war with the West. We're not under attack.

You're delusional.

[Daymanmb]

Given that ISIS has pretty much declared war on the west, it's non-negotiable. You have to fight. Period.

Don't you liberals always say "oh we're not pacifists, we just agree only for self-defensive wars". Well there you go.

This is laughable.

Now its "pretty much declared war"? A minute ago you said the West was under attack from ISI...

[Mayhem]

Like it or not, ISIS is at war with the west. We have no choice but to be at war with them back.

This is why liberals are so stupid. They say war should be for self-defense, well guess what, you're under attack, stand and fight, noob.

You know you can volunteer right now, so listen to your own advice, stand and fight.

[Orbitus]

Like it or not, ISIS is at war with the west. We have no choice but to be at war with them back.

This is why liberals are so stupid. They say war should be for self-defense, well guess what, you're under attack, stand and fight, noob.

How are we under attack?

[Daymanmb]

You're delusional.

Enlighten me. What Western country has ISI attacked/declared war on? I heard crazy doesnt know when theyre crazy and call everyone else crazy. Are you crazy Thunderaan?

[Kalis]

Like it or not, ISIS is at war with the west. We have no choice but to be at war with them back.

This is why liberals are so stupid. They say war should be for self-defense, well guess what, you're under attack, stand and fight, noob.

We are already fighting ISIS, perhaps you should watch the news once in a while.

The will of people in the West to put troops on the ground isn't there due to how we've fucked that up the last few times we've done it. You may not have any issue with dead American soldiers, but are you in the firing line yourself, or is it just others you want to sacrifice?

And what do you mean by 'liberals'? I'm conservative.

[Deleted]

Now its "pretty much declared war"? A minute ago you said the West was under attack from ISI...

I see no contradiction in that. They both say and act in that direction. They say they want to conquer the world and expand their caliphate.

And they have perpetrated attacks against Americans and westerners in general both in and out of the country.

They are essentially a country at war with the western countries. The fact that it's not a country officially recognized by the UN doesn't change much.

[Shiny212]

Does it hurt when you try to think?

[Dr Assbandit]

You don't really think in the long term do you?

First of all, the alternative of giving the illegals a path to citizenship just sends the wrong message to foreigners in general, that you can enter the country illegally and nothing will happen to you. So the problem will never go away. It's going to continue form now until forever, or until the US becomes poorer than Mexico. It also sends the message that America doesn't care about its own sovereignty, that it's a weak country that people can trample on. Internationalism doesn't work, it's all part of the failed Marxist legacy of "workers of the world unite". It's pure fairy tale, borders were made for a reason and should be upheld. Tolerating criminal activity is just going to lead to more of it.

Second, mass immigration of this nature leads to more votes for Democrats, which leads to more wealth redistribution, since a lot of these immigrants come with nothing to their name. They are not a net positive gain for the society and they are disproportionately involved in crime (other than illegal immigration). If they actually want to work, uphold the law, they should migrate LEGALLY if their application is approved or give up and stay home. Do you really want the entire political structure to be directly manipulated by people who didn't even migrate legally?

Parroting the same old talking points of the far right that is force fed you through the courtesy of Fox and friends. You clearly have no bloody clue how the country is run and what is involved in a presidency. The person 'needs' to have tact when dealing with foreign dignitaries, not wave their d*ck around trying to start a measuring contest and never be taken seriously for it. The fact that you have your panties in a bunch and use the whole 'PC' argument to justify it is beyond silly.

You might think a brash, idiotic, and thoughtless person be okay for presidency but anyone with literally a decent education and common sense can see this country would implode upon itself with Trump as president. Trump knows literally 'nothing' about domestic policies, let alone foreign ones.

The one thing I admit he really is good at is to make soundbites to draw in low information voters on the extreme conservatives side. And thank God we still have conservatives who can see that he's a trumor that needs to be excised and oppose him.

Trump 2016 #makeamericawhiteagain

[unbound]

1. He's the only candidate that has clearly demonstrated that he has no problem screwing over his investors, his business partners, and his customers to make sure he comes out ahead. I'm sure he'll only be thinking about the American people as president. /eyeroll

2. He will never deport all the illegals, and he isn't building a big wall. Since you mention Mexico, there are actually more people returning to Mexico on their own than are coming to the US from Mexico.

3. We'll see about any boots on the ground. That will have far more to do with the public willing to stomach it than anything else.

4. Lower taxes has never made the economy better.

“The "trickle-down" theory: the principle that the poor, who must subsist on table scraps dropped by the rich, can best be served by giving the rich bigger meals.” - William Blum

He will never cancel deals with China, and he isn't interested in bringing any jobs back to the US.


Seriously, people who believe the BS Trump pumps out, are you the same people that accept all other forms of corporate PR uncritically.

http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/ha...pdf?sequence=1

[Kalis]

Does it hurt when you try to think?

How would he know the answer to that?

[Orbitus]

You don't really think in the long term do you?

First of all, the alternative of giving the illegals a path to citizenship just sends the wrong message to foreigners in general, that you can enter the country illegally and nothing will happen to you. So the problem will never go away. It's going to continue form now until forever, or until the US becomes poorer than Mexico. It also sends the message that America doesn't care about its own sovereignty, that it's a weak country that people can trample on. Internationalism doesn't work, it's all part of the failed Marxist legacy of "workers of the world unite". It's pure fairy tale, borders were made for a reason and should be upheld. Tolerating criminal activity is just going to lead to more of it.

Second, mass immigration of this nature leads to more votes for Democrats, which leads to more wealth redistribution, since a lot of these immigrants come with nothing to their name which in turn causes progressives to whine about "inequality of wealth or income". They are not a net positive gain for the society and they are disproportionately involved in crime (other than illegal immigration). If they actually want to work, uphold the law, they should migrate LEGALLY if their application is approved or give up and stay home. Do you really want the entire political structure to be directly manipulated by people who didn't even migrate legally?

No, I don't think in the long term because you don't think in the long term. Everything you are stating has been tried before in the state of Alabama. Guess what? They tried to get rid of ALL of their immigrants. It didn't turn out how they wanted. They had to get rid of their law because all of their crops that couldn't be picked automatically basically ROTTED in the field. http://mic.com/articles/8272/alabama...-farm-business Do you want that to happen to the entirety of the US? Because it will.

[schwarzkopf]

I just listed at least 4.

Or not. I hope you are kidding

[Venant]

Given that ISIS has pretty much declared war on the west, it's non-negotiable. You have to fight. Period.

Don't you liberals always say "oh we're not pacifists, we just agree only for self-defensive wars". Well there you go.

This is laughable.

I fear that the leftist strategy to flood all those enlightened liberal European countries, that have for hundreds of years been completely dominated by a single race and culture, is going to prove quite a test of ideals vs human nature.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I don't think in the long term because you don't think in the long term. Everything you are stating has been tried before in the state of Alabama. Guess what? They tried to get rid of ALL of their immigrants. It didn't turn out how they wanted. They had to get rid of their law because all of their crops that couldn't be picked automatically basically ROTTED in the field. http://mic.com/articles/8272/alabama...-farm-business Do you want that to happen to the entirety of the US? Because it will.

I imagine that a lot of crops also rotted when the slaves were freed, so your argument is basically we cannot abolish the economic slavery under which these people live because of their legal status?

[Shiny212]

How would he know the answer to that?

Valid point.

On topic, when you're this deluded OP, and you know no one intelligent is possibly going to agree with you or think you're anything but a complete idiot, why do you feel the need to spout said idiocy into the world around you?

[Orbitus]

Or not. I hope you are kidding

I think he is entirely serious. Which is sad to say the least. Might be why the Republican party is losing so much support lately.

[Deleted]

Enlighten me. What Western country has ISI attacked/declared war on? I heard crazy doesnt know when theyre crazy and call everyone else crazy. Are you crazy Thunderaan?

1. The US - they have declared war on it, they have beheaded Americans abroad, they have plotted terrorist attacks on US soil such as the Garland shooting (luckily they were killed and nobody else died)
2. The EU which is about 28 countries
3. All of the former Ottoman or Islamic territories which they say must be reconquered for the caliphate, this would include Israel, Spain, Balkan zone, Turkey and many many many others.
4. the world, since ultimately their goal is a global caliphate, so I guess it's not just western