Support NeoGAF

[GavinGT]

I know they're not. That's why I said "all things considered". Glad there are at least 13% of us that don't base important decision on media edited sound bites and talking heads telling us what to think. Hope there are more come election time.

We could just look at his positions on important issues:

- Climate change is a hoax perpetrated by China
- We should vastly expand our military
- Corporations should pay no taxes
- No gay marriage
- Against gun control
- Build more nukes
- Mexico pays for border wall
- Stoked fires on Obama birth certificate fiasco
- Supports Bush tax cuts on wealthy

Do you really agree with these?

 

[strikeselect]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR2BpMB8uC4

Trump is going to lose big on the hispanic vote with this kind of attitude. It plays well with the Republican base but this stuff is going to get trotted out in the general election and it's going to kill him.

edit: wrong link

 

[Stumpokapow]

You don't think the current system is a complete waste of time and resources?

your system involves potentially laying off hundreds of thousands of federal employees every 8 years and rehiring them

it also involves debating whether murder should be illegal or not every 8 years

 

[biggersmaller]

You know that there are other branches of government, correct? Specifically, the legislative branch that is supposed to generate the laws for the POTUS to execute?

I could be wrong in this individual case, but I always feel like people in general who say "stuff needs to get done" in reference to the position of POTUS always missed civics class. How will President Trump get anything done with a legislature that hates him? See Jesse Ventura as Governor of Minnesota for one example of how this is true.

Anyway, it's a single poll way out. Trump won't win. Too many non-white people in this country for that to happen, and the GOP leaders are going to sabotage him anyway because he can't be controlled.

For good and bad - Ventura was one of the most productive Governors the State of Minnesota ever had. He demanded light rail in his inaugural address. It was under construction before a left office. His historic tax reforms passed in 2001 were unheard of. He simplified the tax code and returned surplus tax dollars to the citizenry. Ventura redirected funds from a tobacco settlement so it was used for medical research and education instead of being added to the general budget.

He also legalized fireworks, refused to issue snow days for schools, I went to a public school with his daughter, and his idiot son had keggers in the governor's mansion resulting in noise complaints.

He's also a 9/11 truther, was in trouble for calling XFL football games (saying Sundays were his day off) , and said religion was for the weak minded.

 

[Firestone77]

All you literally had to do was read the next sentence. 8th Grade sounds about right.

Reprehensible dismissivness of an opposing point of view.

 

[Vicetrailia]

The worst thing about trump is his base. The shit they worry about is ridiculous.

 

[danm999]

Reprehensible dismissivness of an opposing point of view.

Is a Trump supporter really making a tone argument?

I think you may need to read up more on your guy.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Wow, this really sounds like you enjoy looking down at others to feel superior. I am a college graduate with a 4-year degree and I find your conclusion to be lazy, snooty, and lacking in critical thought. The conclusion is actually probably correct, but there's always a "but."

For example: A "more educated" person is also more likely to have crippling student loan debt and relate to a candidate who makes that part of her platform. A "less educated" person economically (as a whole) is likelier to live in a lower-class environment with dangers such as crime and drugs affecting them directly instead of just being read about. It's not only a simple smart v.s. dumb. It's also about campaign specifics appealing to different people in different ways.

First-hand I've seen smart friends not get an education because they didn't have the opportunities I had. I've seen dumb as bricks people leave with a degree (whether they be an athlete, they cheated, got lucky, just barely skidded by, etc). Maybe you just simply read this blog quickly and said so in jest, but I felt the need to respond.

I'd actually be interested in polls conducted among only the smartest of the smart. Like 160+ IQ only. I'm honestly not sure how it would turn out, but i think it would be legitimately interesting.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I'd actually be interested in polls conducted among only the smartest of the smart. Like 160+ IQ only. I'm honestly not sure how it would turn out, but i think it would be legitimately interesting.

The smartest of the smart or the self proclaimed smartest of the smart?

I haven't seen any Nobel Prize winners come out in favor of Trump yet.

 

[AlteredBeast]

We could just look at his positions on important issues:

- Climate change is a hoax perpetrated by China
- We should vastly expand our military
- Corporations should pay no taxes
- No gay marriage
- Against gun control
- Build more nukes
- Mexico pays for border wall
- Stoked fires on Obama birth certificate fiasco
- Supports Bush tax cuts on wealthy

Do you really agree with these?

I know some of these are true, but I also believe others are false. In the midst of one hell of an obtuse interview with Sean Hannity, Trump said he doesn't believe in trickle down economics and that someone making substantially less than another should pay less in taxes. I also was never aware of him having a position on gay marriage, which is moot now anyway, nor that he said corporations should pay no taxes.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I know some of these are true, but I also believe others are false. In the midst of one hell of an obtuse interview with Sean Hannity, Trump said he doesn't believe in trickle down economics and that someone making substantially less than another should pay less in taxes. I also was never aware of him having a position on gay marriage, which is moot now anyway, nor that he said corporations should pay no taxes.

He stills thinks taxes should go down across the board on corporations/businesses. Also doesn't support most regulation placed on them.

 

[GavinGT]

I know some of these are true, but I also believe others are false. In the midst of one hell of an obtuse interview with Sean Hannity, Trump said he doesn't believe in trickle down economics and that someone making substantially less than another should pay less in taxes. I also was never aware of him having a position on gay marriage, which is moot now anyway, nor that he said corporations should pay no taxes.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm

 

[cpp_is_king]

The smartest of the smart or the self proclaimed smartest of the smart?

I haven't seen any Nobel Prize winners come out in favor of Trump yet.

I'm pretty sure I stated exactly what I meant, or did you not read that part before hitting reply?

 

[Chinpoko_Master]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR2BpMB8uC4

Trump is going to lose big on the hispanic vote with this kind of attitude. It plays well with the Republican base but this stuff is going to get trotted out in the general election and it's going to kill him.

edit: wrong link

Because he used the term "anchor baby"? Lol.

All of these flop candidates just need to get out the way and make room for our future president.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I'm pretty sure I stated exactly what I meant, or did you not read that part before hitting reply?

To be honest, I'm not reading much of what you type seriously after you said you wanted to be ruled over by an elected king.

 

[cpp_is_king]

To be honest, I'm not reading much of what you type seriously after you said you wanted to be ruled over by an elected king.

Then don't bother responding. Glad you admit that you're just trying to "pwn" me over the internet though

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Then don't bother responding. Glad you admit that you're just trying to "pwn" me over the internet though

Not pwning, just chuckling with mild amusement.

 

[cpp_is_king]

Not pwning, just chuckling with mild amusement.

While posting responses to me intended to own me, without reading the post you're responding to, by your own admission. You're really helping your case, by the way.

 

[Glass Joe]

Because he used the term "anchor baby"? Lol.

All of these flop candidates just need to get out the way and make room for our future president.

Someone came down on me for using the term "anchor baby" earlier. (Hey, sorry by the way, that's all I had been presented with in my short time learning about the subject). Apparently the proper term is "birth tourism." Not sure why the reporter who scolded Trump didn't offer that one up.

Also, I'm not sure "birth tourism" hits my ear right personally. An "anchor baby" can just sort of happen, but "birth tourism" seems much more accusatory, like there is direct intent to do so. It also conjures up terms like "sex tourism" which obviously have a negative connotation. Maybe the shift of subject matter from the baby to the adults helps some people though?

Anyway so far to me it seems to be coming off as a case of being overly PC. Just tossing that out there for no real reason other than I'm a bit curious.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

While posting responses to me intended to own me, without reading the post you're responding to, by your own admission. You're really helping your case, by the way.

I'd say you are your own worst enemy on that front. The more you espouse these views, the more I just go "wow, that's hilarious."

 

[cpp_is_king]

I'd say you are your own worst enemy on that front. The more you espouse these views, the more I just go "wow, that's hilarious."

Except I'm not espousing any views, and haven't for some time, and yet here you are still making sure you're pwning me at every opportunity. That's the hilarious thing.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Except I'm not espousing any views, and haven't for some time, and yet here you are still making sure you're pwning me at every opportunity. That's the hilarious thing.

It's not that I'm trying. Maybe I just make it look effortless.

 

[cpp_is_king]

It's not that I'm trying. Maybe I just make it look effortless.

Responding to posts that you didn't read asking questions that were answered in the post definitely don't make it look effortless. Make sure you respond to this post, I would hate for you to not have the last word, it would really ruin your night

 

[Ayt]

Please, for the love of all that exists on this planet do not let Trump win America.

Just look at voting demographics. Trump, and Republicans in general, have a very small chance of actually winning a presidential nomination.

As a Trump supporter, I would be willing to give any elected candidate ultimate power.

A big part of what I see as the problem is that there's too many laws. If you think about it, literally all politicians doo all day is sit around making new laws. That's the whole point of their job. Republicans make laws, Democrats make laws, everyone keeps making laws. Sometimes the laws even contradict each other. So more and more laws keep getting made, creating a mountainous pile of red tape and legal hurdles to jump through to get anything done. As soon as you propose something, 800 different special interest groups start talking about how it violates some law.

Instead of Congress, I would replace the entire system of checks and balances with something much more simple.

1) The President can pass any policy he wants, except policy concerning the length of his term or the election process.
2) Laws can be overturned by a subsequent president, but will also expire naturally after a period of 8 years.

For starters, this would probably quadruple voter turnout.

Secondly, what works and what doesn't would become completely obvious in a very short amount of time. Currently we have this situation where there is so much red tape to cut through to implement some policy that you never know if changes in economic indicators are due to the current administration, the previous administration, or maybe even the one before that.

Third, You've still got checks and balances here, but they are after-the-fact checks and balances. Anything that's bad would just be instantly killed as soon as the next administration came to office.

And fourth, it would force them to focus on what's really important as the laws would expire after 8 years, and they would have to focus on keeping the really important ones active.

Holy shit! This is a perfect Trump supporter post.

 

[Alcibiades]

We could just look at his positions on important issues:

- Climate change is a hoax perpetrated by China
- We should vastly expand our military
- Corporations should pay no taxes
- No gay marriage
- Against gun control
- Build more nukes
- Mexico pays for border wall
- Stoked fires on Obama birth certificate fiasco
- Supports Bush tax cuts on wealthy

Do you really agree with these?

There is no way Trump is 100% behind these positions and even his Republican supporters know a lot of it is BS (many think he is a secret liberal but support him due to his anti-establishment rhetoric). Some time back he was espousing taxing the very rich to pay off the national debt and single-payer healthcare - he even said that health costs shouldn't ruin families.

Believing that list is like believing that Obama and Hillary DIDN'T support gay marriage before the '08 election. Even Trump, who is 90% more truthful than the rest of the field, knows to play to the base.

 

[Ayt]

There is no way Trump is 100% behind these positions and even his Republican supporters know a lot of it is BS (many think he is a secret liberal but support him due to his anti-establishment rhetoric). Some time back he was espousing taxing the very rich to pay off the national debt and single-payer healthcare - he even said that health costs shouldn't ruin families.

Believing that list is like believing that Obama and Hillary DIDN'T support gay marriage before the '08 election. Even Trump, who is 90% more truthful than the rest of the field, knows to play to the base.

Since you seem to have some insight, what does he actually believe?

 

[Alcibiades]

Since you seem to have some insight, what does he actually believe?

Of course I can't read his mind, but I can go off his previous positions and following politics in general where it is common to say certain things for political reasons. Hence why a ton of Democratic politicians in the last decade have decided to publicly support gay marriage all of a sudden once the national opinion turned on the issue.

Like, I can't actually prove that Clinton has supported gay marriage since the 90's, maybe she was a bigot up until a couple of years ago - but I can come to conclusions based on given information.

Maybe Trump really is a right-wing nut, but I doubt it, and so do many of his conservative Republican supporters.

 

[Chinpoko_Master]

Someone came down on me for using the term "anchor baby" earlier. (Hey, sorry by the way, that's all I had been presented with in my short time learning about the subject). Apparently the proper term is "birth tourism." Not sure why the reporter who scolded Trump didn't offer that one up.

Also, I'm not sure "birth tourism" hits my ear right personally. An "anchor baby" can just sort of happen, but "birth tourism" seems much more accusatory, like there is direct intent to do so. It also conjures up terms like "sex tourism" which obviously have a negative connotation. Maybe the shift of subject matter from the baby to the adults helps some people though?

Anyway so far to me it seems to be coming off as a case of being overly PC. Just tossing that out there for no real reason other than I'm a bit curious.

That video pretty perfectly encapsulates why he's doing so well. Not only does that reporter act like a clown almost to the point of parody ("birth tourism" would've solidified that), Trump shuts him down so confidently and effortlessly that it's hard for me to watch that and not like him even more.

I don't know if I'd vote for him, but to be honest, part of me wants to see him win. I want to hate him, but I can't. He's strangely endearing. And this is coming from someone who thought he was a complete joke a couple months ago. I don't know if he's going to last but I'm pretty sure he will.

 

[jtb]

Of course I can't read his mind, but I can go off his previous positions and following politics in general where it is common to say certain things for political reasons. Hence why a ton of Democratic politicians in the last decade have decided to publicly support gay marriage all of a sudden once the national opinion turned on the issue.

Like, I can't actually prove that Clinton has supported gay marriage since the 90's, maybe she was a bigot up until a couple of years ago - but I can come to conclusions based on given information.

Maybe Trump really is a right-wing nut, but I doubt it, and so do many of his conservative Republican supporters.

Then why support Trump instead of a Tea Party-er like Cruz?

 

[cpp_is_king]

Then why support Trump instead of a Tea Party-er like Cruz?

Because Cruz is a religious fanatic, and he's still just as bought as everyone else (i.e., a politician)

 

[Alcibiades]

Then why support Trump instead of a Tea Party-er like Cruz?

Because he has been able to successfully give a big middle finger to two important "enemies" of the right - the media and Republican establishment.

What has Cruz done other than whine endlessly? He can't get any traction.

EDIT: That too - about being bought. Not sure how much tea party people care about that, but perhaps some do.

 

[danm999]

Cruz seems to have the same problem as Paul. Little hard to whine about Washington when you're part of it.

 

[marrec]

There is no way Trump is 100% behind these positions and even his Republican supporters know a lot of it is BS (many think he is a secret liberal but support him due to his anti-establishment rhetoric). Some time back he was espousing taxing the very rich to pay off the national debt and single-payer healthcare - he even said that health costs shouldn't ruin families.

Believing that list is like believing that Obama and Hillary DIDN'T support gay marriage before the '08 election. Even Trump, who is 90% more truthful than the rest of the field, knows to play to the base.

So trump tells it like it is, except when it comes to his actual policy positions.

:lol

 

[HylianTom]

I don't know if I'd vote for him, but to be honest, part of me wants to see him win. I want to hate him, but I can't. He's strangely endearing. And this is coming from someone who thought he was a complete joke a couple months ago. I don't know if he's going to last but I'm pretty sure he will.

He's incredibly talented at what he does. His manipulation of media coverage is masterful.

That said, I wouldn't vote for him in the general in a million years, as I don't trust him with court appointees.. but right now my plan is to vote for him in the primary. Palin gave us an incredible 2008, and I think 2016 could reach those heights in entertainment. This is one of those cycles where the comedy that comes from real-life political events could be better, more uproarious, more unpredictable, etc.. than anything written for television.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

So trump tells it like it is, except when it comes to his actual policy positions.

:lol

Very courageous.

 

[Alcibiades]

So trump tells it like it is, except when it comes to his actual policy positions.

:lol

I guess that's one way of putting it. Less of a fraud than other politicians, but still saying things and emphasizing things that play to the Republican primary base that he probably has no plans to follow through on.

 

[metalslimer]

How does that make him any less of a fraud? Sounds like confirmation bias

 

[RDreamer]

As a Trump supporter, I would be willing to give any elected candidate ultimate power.

A big part of what I see as the problem is that there's too many laws. If you think about it, literally all politicians doo all day is sit around making new laws. That's the whole point of their job. Republicans make laws, Democrats make laws, everyone keeps making laws. Sometimes the laws even contradict each other. So more and more laws keep getting made, creating a mountainous pile of red tape and legal hurdles to jump through to get anything done. As soon as you propose something, 800 different special interest groups start talking about how it violates some law.

Instead of Congress, I would replace the entire system of checks and balances with something much more simple.

1) The President can pass any policy he wants, except policy concerning the length of his term or the election process.
2) Laws can be overturned by a subsequent president, but will also expire naturally after a period of 8 years.

For starters, this would probably quadruple voter turnout.

Secondly, what works and what doesn't would become completely obvious in a very short amount of time. Currently we have this situation where there is so much red tape to cut through to implement some policy that you never know if changes in economic indicators are due to the current administration, the previous administration, or maybe even the one before that.

Third, You've still got checks and balances here, but they are after-the-fact checks and balances. Anything that's bad would just be instantly killed as soon as the next administration came to office.

And fourth, it would force them to focus on what's really important as the laws would expire after 8 years, and they would have to focus on keeping the really important ones active.

Holy shit I knew walking into a Trump thread would mean walking into some bad ideas, but I didn't think I'd see the single worst idea in this election cycle and it's not even by Trump himself!

I mean wow.

 

[danm999]

Trump honestly reminds me of Romney (never thought I'd say that) in that I have no clue what he'd actually do if elected.

 

[metalslimer]

Trump honestly reminds me of Romney (never thought I'd say that) in that I have no clue what he'd actually do if elected.

This applies to all politicians but especially to republicans now that the party has completely rejected moderates.

 

[danm999]

This applies to all politicians but especially to republicans now that the party has completely rejected moderates.

Or at least the appearance of being moderate.

It can be so crazy you can't tell who is a dyed in the wool believer and who is just saying shit to survive a primary.

 

[Glass Joe]

I just wanted to say as someone who entertained a "maybe" vote for Trump, this latest immigration talk is where he jumped the shark for me.

If he wants to get rid of the "anchor baby" situation by challenging the 14th Amendment in a court of law, that's one thing. If he said "going forward, this isn't going to happen anymore," I'd probably even say "okay." But his end game is that he wants to retroactively take away citizenship from some Latinos who have lived here as citizens for years? That's absurd. Those are people who had no reason to even try to become a citizen since they already are one. Under this, they would now get kicked out without even having the opportunity of going through that long, arduous process of obtaining citizenship in the first place? What would Trump or America even gain from that?

Plus, I guarantee some of these people affected are current voters. Hell, just think about the Latino community. Probably many Latino voters will have at least a friend who would be put into this situation or at a bare minimum, empathy for them regarding this absurdity. If he'd ruined his chances at the Latino vote before, he just scorched the earth with it now.

It's just really really stupid to punish someone for abiding the laws, even if he feels they got it through a loophole. A contract is a contract, Trump, and it must be respected. You even said that about the Iran deal if it were signed.

Also, this talk about shipping everyone out and letting the "good ones" back in just reeks of wasted time and resources. What is the point of forcing a "good one" out with the intention of letting him in at a later date, "expedited process" or not? It's just him screwing with people for no positive gain. Identify the bad ones, okay, I follow him there, and force them out. They're probably the ones in prisons right now and I'm fine with that. Or if they're undocumented and later commit a violent crime, they're gone too. I'm cool with that.

Don't bother anyone else. There's just no point. It's mean and economically destructive. Give them a shot at citizenship though this "expedited process" without forcing them to leave in the first place. Make it a one-shot deal for everyone who's undocumented and in the country currently when this would go into effect. Protect the country's interest going forward instead of punishing those who have committed no crime.

Sorry for the rant. I know plenty of people here disagree with doing *anything* about illegal immigration in the first place. Which I found weird because even Obama has acknowledged many of the issues (https://www.whitehouse.gov/share/in...aking-steps-fix-our-broken-immigration-system).

 

[old manatee]

Donald Trump is truly an American underdog.

 

[Alcibiades]

How does that make him any less of a fraud? Sounds like confirmation bias

Well, first of all I was addressing more that I didn't think he was a blanket right-winger. I'm sure he does have some (many?) conservative beliefs so not every position he holds is for playing to the base. But it just wouldn't jive with previous statements he has made.

I think he is more authentic in terms of talking about the influence of money in politics and not being afraid of talking about his wealth, as well as admitting to some politically incorrect positions. And the biggest anti-fraud element I see is that he ultimately doesn't seem be spouting platitudes about doing good while simultaneously taking money from prisons, pharmaceuticals, education testing companies, insurance companies, etc... and then working to return the favor.

That is the biggest "fraud" element I see in every politician today is they won't tell you who they are really working or how lobbyists run the show. I don't know whether in his heart he really cares about the American people and he could very well work to screw them over from day 1. But I KNOW current American leaders don't care and work to screw over the average person every day while not being truthful about what they are really doing. Maybe Trump would be a change since he at least brings up what is going on.

Also, I guess it is also about degrees. He may be against gay marriage and abortions in his own mind, but in practice is he gonna do anything about it? I doubt he sincerely cares one way or the other. He won't say it aloud while going for the Republican nomination, but he is probably fine with the status quo regarding legality of gay marriage and abortion regardless of his personal beliefs. MY opinion and I could be totally wrong on that.

So in the end maybe he is being a total fraud - but he comes off IMO as less slick and polished. It may be bias on my part though that I can't see him as a right-winger. He's a NYC mainstay and runs a worldwide business - just goes against preconceived notions. Though it is precisely his positions on gay marriage/abortion that are currently the biggest roadblock to me supporting him (along with immigration).

Returning to the fraud or not part, he is obviously a serial exaggerator about everything - his wealth, how bad things are, etc..., so there is that, but maybe my bias is forgiving him on that front too.

 

[banjo5150]

Trump is a loose cannon. One thing that interests me is how he would handle things like the economy? He does have good business sense. I honestly think he would not be a corrupted politician as he is already loaded. The whole celebrity angle makes me wonder also, was it like this when Reagan ran for president? 1955 Doc Brown was shocked that Reagan the actor was president. LOL

 

[Glass Joe]

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump · 22m 22 minutes ago  Manhattan, NY
@ABCPolitics must apologize. My statement "we're going to get them out so fast, so quick" applied to hard core criminals & gang members. LIE

It seems he's backtracking now. Or he's so narcissistic that he assumes everyone understands his every word and doesn't realize until MUCH later that they're talking about different things. Neither is a good trait.

 

[HylianTom]

Trump is a loose cannon. One thing that interests me is how he would handle things like the economy? He does have good business sense. I honestly think he would not be a corrupted politician as he is already loaded. The whole celebrity angle makes me wonder also, was it like this when Reagan ran for president? 1955 Doc Brown was shocked that Reagan the actor was president. LOL

Nah, by that time Reagan had been seen as an actor who'd been a politician for a while. He'd served as governor of California before, and voters were already familiar with him from his prior run in 1976.

Doc Brown's Jack Benny as Treasury Secretary crack was one of my favorite lines of that whole movie.. (Benny was reputedly very thrifty)

 

[YoungHav]

How late am i in knowing about that rap song dedicated to him? Trump really does have a great relationship with the Blacks.

 

[Glass Joe]

How late am i in knowing about that rap song dedicated to him? Trump really does have a great relationship with the Blacks.

He showed how great his relationship is by suing the artist for royalties (or at least threatening to).

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump · 22m 22 minutes ago  Manhattan, NY
@ABCPolitics must apologize. My statement "we're going to get them out so fast, so quick" applied to hard core criminals & gang members. LIE

It seems he's backtracking now. Or he's so narcissistic that he assumes everyone understands his every word and doesn't realize until MUCH later that they're talking about different things. Neither is a good trait.

Makes no sense when he says the good ones can come back in with an expedited process. The good hardcore criminals and gang members? wtf.