Republican Election 2016 - Donald Trump Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Felya]

I don't vote based upon what's better for me. That's the biggest difference between me and you, I think. Completely different thinking going on here behind the scenes.

I vote for what is best for the country... Because that is ALWAYS what is best for me... America is great...

[Orbitus]

No evidence means nothing.
The greatest hackers in the world leave no evidence.

Sorry, if you don't have evidence, you can't claim it happened.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I would like to know where or what his infallible news sources can be? I mean that guy has a secret news organization that gives the real truth. Where can it be?

Who knows, but everyone thinks what they read is infallible.

I look at a big list of sources, look for the commonalities, discard the bits and pieces that are only found in single pieces.

There's a pretty common theme among all of them.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

I vote for what is best for the country... Because that is ALWAYS what is best for me... America is great...

Disagree, sometimes what is best for the country, will do damage to you or me. You could argue, perhaps, that in the long run it is best for us but in the immediate it is certainly not the path of least resistance nor the most accommodating. I believe most people think only about themselves or a given demographic and vote based upon the idea of immediately serving themselves or that group.

- - - Updated - - -

In my state, WA, Bernie won 2 months before the election was over. Where is the outrage? If the point is justice, where is the outrage that Bernie supporters screwed Washington voters?

The outrage is pointless, outside of whining that your guy lost. The issue is what primaries actually are and the fact that their rules are defined by the state, thus are different and hard to follow. This is also what happened to Trump in Nevada. The actual problem is that neither the DNC or RNC primaries are representative of American democracy. They are party selections, not general election. In many states, like Nevada and Washington, the vote does not mean anything. In other states, only registered members of each party are permitted to vote, because once again, the general public vote has nothing to do with primaries.

It's their party and you can cry if you want to...

All the more reason to go 3rd party once this shit-show is done and over with.

[Felya]

Disagree, sometimes what is best for the country, will do damage to you or me. You could argue, perhaps, that in the long run it is best for us but in the immediate it is certainly not the path of least resistance nor the most accommodating. I believe most people think only about themselves or a given demographic and vote based upon the idea of immediately serving themselves or that group.

Give me an example of you voting for something, because it's best for the country, but harms you.

[Ripster42]

The artistry of the last few pages has been masterful. Bravo Kelliac.

[Felya]

All the more reason to go 3rd party once this shit-show is done and over with.

Totally agree... if the issue wasn't primaries... Primaries for third parties have 0 general public vote... Third parties have 0 chance of winning... Unless you support third parties as just a protest vote, that is nothing more than writing in 'Spider Jerousalem', which is what I'm doing, all power to you. But, if your point is that primaries are rigged and your voice isn't being herd, voting for a party that is doing exactly what you are complaining about, is the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[DeadmanWalking]

no matter who wins - we lose.

Counts on your viewpoint, if you are Democrat and Hillary wins you win, not because Hillary is the greatest President in history but rather because 1-2 Liberal Supreme court members are chosen and the court shifts from leaning Republican to leaning Liberal and that makes a fuck all of difference when it comes to social order.

If you are Republican, well if Hillary becomes president you lose because even Republican politicians say if you lose the seat to a liberal then you lose the SC for upwards of two decades.

When they make rulings on gay marraige, bathroom laws, religious right to deny service, abortion, Voter ID and they serve for life rather than 4 years then there absolutely are going to be winners and losers on election day and when you say that we all lose then you are being overly simplistic when it comes to politics. Somebody is going to win a lot more than the loser is this time.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Give me an example of you voting for something, because it's best for the country, but harms you.

Making people responsible for their own debts and lives. I'm unemployed. Looking at college here soon. If I got what I wanted in governance, I would be in a much tougher situation and facing little relief. That's my immediate obstacles and yet, I'm not voting to alleviate them. Because there are bigger concerns and longer term effects that have to be considered. Me and everyone else always voting for our immediate wants/needs will create, inevitably, a broken system. At some point, self-reliance and self-determination has to become a factor.

[Felya]

The artistry of the last few pages has been masterful. Bravo Kelliac.

I do love your signature...

[DeadmanWalking]

Totally agree... if the issue wasn't primaries... Primaries for third parties have 0 general public vote... Third parties have 0 chance of winning... Unless you support third parties as just a protest vote, that is nothing more than writing in 'Spider Jerousalem', which is what I'm doing, all power to you. But, if your point is that primaries are rigged and your voice isn't being herd, voting for a party that is doing exactly what you are complaining about, is the definition of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Everyone knows that Spider Jerousalem is a shill for big oil, pfft.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Counts on your viewpoint, if you are Democrat and Hillary wins you win, not because Hillary is the greatest President in history but rather because 1-2 Liberal Supreme court members are chosen and the court shifts from leaning Republican to leaning Liberal and that makes a fuck all of difference when it comes to social order.

If you are Republican, well if Hillary becomes president you lose because even Republican politicians say if you lose the seat to a liberal then you lose the SC for upwards of two decades.

When they make rulings on gay marraige, bathroom laws, religious right to deny service, abortion, Voter ID and they serve for life rather than 4 years then there absolutely are going to be winners and losers on election day and when you say that we all lose then you are being overly simplistic when it comes to politics. Somebody is going to win a lot more than the loser is this time.

Sure, party lines will win.

Not the average American. Which is what we are. Painfully so.

[Felya]

Making people responsible for their own debts and lives. I'm unemployed. Looking at college here soon. If I got what I wanted in governance, I would be in a much tougher situation and facing little relief. That's my immediate obstacles and yet, I'm not voting to alleviate them. Because there are bigger concerns and longer term effects that have to be considered. Me and everyone else always voting for our immediate wants/needs will create, inevitably, a broken system. At some point, self-reliance and self-determination has to become a factor.

That's not an example... I'm not looking for your rational, it's obvious and already stated... I want an example... Please...

[unfilteredJW]

I do so love the pseudo intellectuals that type out so much but say absolutely nothing.

[Felya]

Sure, party lines will win.

Not the average American. Which is what we are. Painfully so.

Who gave you the right to speak for avarage Americans? I'm an avarage American and I don't doubt you are to. Yet, we seem to disagree. It's as if "what's best" is subjective and saying what you did above is nothing, but a grandstanding version of 'my opinion is different from yours.

[Kasierith]

Ah yes because being pissed off that the election potentially got pulled out from under you due to an entire party WORKING AGAINST YOUR CANDIDATE is totally out of line and uncalled for or how when a bunch of their delegates left the convention, they shut off the lights, and then filled the seats with hired "seat-fillers". Basically, the DNC did everything they could to squash and control Bernie and his supporters. Hell, they were ready to use his lack of religion against him which I find bizarre.

You people have a strange of assessment of what's worth being upset over and what's not.

A small handful of emails with vague ideas that never got put out? Clearly the entire DNC that was willing to host a complete outsider was working against him. As for people being removed, ya, if you make a complete ass of yourself because you don't want to be there, you're going to be sent away like a petulant child to be replaced by someone who wants to be there.

Why not do what Sanders himself did? Attempt to channel the momentum generated by the campaign into something that helps progress his ideals. I mean, his own ex-supporters have done a wonderful job dismantling everything he was working for by labeling themselves as the whiny losers of the political world, but some good can still come of it.

As for being upset over emails, if never having been hacked was a criteria for public office, the national turnover rate would be egregious. Chinese and Russian state-sponsored hackers have been hitting the US here and there for decades.. it is nothing new, and nothing revolutionary.

But anyways, I take from your lack of response that no, you aren't even remotely close to knowledgeable enough to finger exactly how Clinton pushed for the negative foreign policy decisions that you are so very upset about. If you were ever actually malcontent about those issues, you would be upset with Obama, Biden, and Rice. Her role as secretary of state was more of a very elaborate and distanced diplomat, as opposed to a setter of foreign policy, largely because Obama did not want to contend with her on significant issues.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

That's not an example... I'm not looking for your rational, it's obvious and already stated... I want an example... Please...

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.

[DeadmanWalking]

Sure, party lines will win.

Not the average American. Which is what we are. Painfully so.

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.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

Who gave you the right to speak for avarage Americans? I'm an avarage American and I don't doubt you are to. Yet, we seem to disagree. It's as if "what's best" is subjective and saying what you did above is nothing, but a grandstanding version of 'my opinion is different from yours.

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.

[Daelak]

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.

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.