For those who would personally vote for Trump again in 2020

14,322 Views | 206 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by iwantwinners
iwantwinners
How long do you want to ignore this user?
mikecohen said:

drizzlybears brother said:

iwantwinners said:

Unit2Sucks said:

iwantwinners said:

You're not saying anything profound or unique to one segment of the political landscape. Republicans are extreme hypocrites? Of course they are. Are they the only ones? Of course they're not.

Again, even when you are correct, it's disingenuous. Your outrage is selective and unprincipled. It's not that you detest being hypocritical, you detest when your opponent is being hypocritical.


Nice hysterics. You accuse me of lacking profundity before you make the prosaic claim that hypocrisy exists on both sides. Thanks for the enlightenment.

I'm not outraged at republican hypocrisy. I expect nothing less. That doesn't mean that calling republicans to task for federalism-signaling when they are doing the bidding of their masters is inappropriate.
no, it's disingenuous as a critique because it's selective outrage. Like when Faux News ramps up the selective outrage machine not because they are principally appalled but because it's a vehicle to vent their frustrations at the opposing political ideology. The majority of the OT board is Faux News, but in reverse.
I don't think you make up the majority.
A couple of things (in reverse order):

(1) I think iwantwinners POINT is that he is not only not in the majority on the board but is heartily opposed to it.

(2) As to iwantwinners' express point, I truly believe that he does not see or understand the depths of the Revulsion Trump elicits with the endless list of "character flaws" which have been pointed out almost everywhere but Fox News. He should read David Cay Johnston's writings on the subject.

To me, these "character flaws" are so sickening they fall into the category of pure evil; and, as to the Republicans' endless false equivalence arguments, the difference is that the "reasons" that many Republicans and other rightists have/had for hating Obama (and I believe that their hatred is sincere) really don't add up to anything that a moral person could, in good conscience, sign up to.

Obama perfect? Obviously not.

But evil to the degree specified by the undeniable facts stated most powerfully (and calmly) in Mr. Johnston's book? Gibst mir ein f___kin' Break.
Character indictments are not political (policy) arguments, and should never be conflated, is sort of my point.

It seems clear to me not just on this board but in general, character indictments (which, as I've noted, are not principled, at least many aren't) are used in lieu of political arguments. I think it's a tactic that works, as both sides do it when it's convenient.

I get why Trump disgusts some people. I get why Hilary disgusts some people. I find them both repulsive, but one profoundly more likable than the other. That's just my opinion. I reject that if it doesn't disgust someone as much as it disgusts "you" that it's reasonable to ascribe some sort of character deficiency or superiority or correctness to one's self. Just like I don't think voting for Shillary makes you a rape apologist or treasonous, even if she may be. You simply align with her politics more than the next guy.

But this is why I and at least one other has pointed out that the frothing at the mouth on this board is dishonest. Using character indictments that they would ignore or apologize for if it didn't align with their political priorities and narratives. It's low hanging fruit, and while it's common, it belongs in the discussions at the margins of our society -- or places like Evergreen St. College.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump's character is such that it is almost impossible for him to maintain and carry out policies. He has no conviction and cannot be relied on to be consistent from one day to the next. A few days ago he said he would fight the NRA and was "strong" on raising the age limit for assault rifles. Now he's apparently abandoned that after one meeting with NRA brass.

Further, character matters because it impacts our international standing. You may say you don't care, but Trump is literally the laughingstock of the world. That wasn't the case with Obama, despite what conservative sources may have told you. Trump has damaged our international standing and it's hard to see it improving until he is replaced with a reasonably qualified individual. I set that bar to be quite low and think almost any member of Congress would meet the threshold. Trump, primarily due to his character and his inability to control his base urges, is so far below the bar that I don't have a good enough analogy to make my point.

But yeah, sure, character doesn't matter when he's your guy.
mikecohen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:


I'm assuming (but just to make sure) that everyone on the Board knows that the use of the word "Clueless", in quotes, was (at least grammatically) a reference to Ms. Dash's first, and perhaps most notable, role, as a co-star of that famous movie. So, if that's the case, I would have preferred that, other than making the point that the person responding to the CNN posting is a fool, there might be a more general point that could be discussed more specifically.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
mikecohen said:

okaydo said:


I'm assuming (but just to make sure) that everyone on the Board knows that the use of the word "Clueless", in quotes, was (at least grammatically) a reference to Ms. Dash's first, and perhaps most notable, role, as a co-star of that famous movie. So, if that's the case, I would have preferred that, other than making the point that the person responding to the CNN posting is a fool, there might be a more general point that could be discussed more specifically.

Just took a quick cruise down Walter's Twitter feed. Quick take: lots of misspellings and grammatical errors, the bio says that "Obama made my grandson gay", he somehow, as a very senior regular retired guy, has 11K followers while only following 169. This account strikes me as a fictional account (not the Russian kind) and most followers are aware that this is a persona. Okaydo: quick take two?
FuzzyWuzzy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Trump's character is such that it is almost impossible for him to maintain and carry out policies. He has no conviction and cannot be relied on to be consistent from one day to the next. A few days ago he said he would fight the NRA and was "strong" on raising the age limit for assault rifles. Now he's apparently abandoned that after one meeting with NRA brass.

Further, character matters because it impacts our international standing. You may say you don't care, but Trump is literally the laughingstock of the world. That wasn't the case with Obama, despite what conservative sources may have told you. Trump has damaged our international standing and it's hard to see it improving until he is replaced with a reasonably qualified individual. I set that bar to be quite low and think almost any member of Congress would meet the threshold. Trump, primarily due to his character and his inability to control his base urges, is so far below the bar that I don't have a good enough analogy to make my point.

But yeah, sure, character doesn't matter when he's your guy.
You are giving Congress too much credit. I'm not saying that to get a laugh. There are some real idiots/liars/wackos in Congress, especially in the House.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FuzzyWuzzy said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Trump's character is such that it is almost impossible for him to maintain and carry out policies. He has no conviction and cannot be relied on to be consistent from one day to the next. A few days ago he said he would fight the NRA and was "strong" on raising the age limit for assault rifles. Now he's apparently abandoned that after one meeting with NRA brass.

Further, character matters because it impacts our international standing. You may say you don't care, but Trump is literally the laughingstock of the world. That wasn't the case with Obama, despite what conservative sources may have told you. Trump has damaged our international standing and it's hard to see it improving until he is replaced with a reasonably qualified individual. I set that bar to be quite low and think almost any member of Congress would meet the threshold. Trump, primarily due to his character and his inability to control his base urges, is so far below the bar that I don't have a good enough analogy to make my point.

But yeah, sure, character doesn't matter when he's your guy.
You are giving Congress too much credit. I'm not saying that to get a laugh. There are some real idiots/liars/wackos in Congress, especially in the House.


Maybe any member of the Senate would qualify, though we came perilously close to failure with Roy Moore. The House? Yikes.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FuzzyWuzzy said:


You are giving Congress too much credit. I'm not saying that to get a laugh. There are some real idiots/liars/wackos in Congress, especially in the House.
Please name one who would be worse than Trump. I believe just about everyone in congress would listen to his/her handlers and be able to exercise a modicum of self-control if beneficial to their career. For the wackier members of congress, their schtick is actually beneficial to them so that they can get exposure above the crowd of party liner look a likes.
FuzzyWuzzy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

FuzzyWuzzy said:


You are giving Congress too much credit. I'm not saying that to get a laugh. There are some real idiots/liars/wackos in Congress, especially in the House.
Please name one who would be worse than Trump. I believe just about everyone in congress would listen to his/her handlers and be able to exercise a modicum of self-control if beneficial to their career. For the wackier members of congress, their schtick is actually beneficial to them so that they can get exposure above the crowd of party liner look a likes.
That wasn't the original standard! Originally you were looking for a reasonably qualified individual, and there are more than a few in Congress who don't meet that standard.

If you're looking for the number of members of congress better than Trump, we're all going to have a different number there, depending on our own opinions. True, it's hard to imagine anyone worse than DJT from a character standpoint. But I have to admit he has a few policies I don't entirely disagree with. Your number might be all 535. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there are probably a few tea partiers I would disagree with more.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Nunes and Rohrabacher are pretty inept and stupid.

I think Nunes is stupider that Trump because he's covering for Trump and he was really that stupid releasing his memo that backfired. His mention of Papadopoulos in the memo totally crapped the rest of the memo. Just dumb and incompetent.

Rohrabacher is simply a treasonous motherf*cker, dealing with Russians over US interests. He's stupid if he think he'll get away with it.




sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FuzzyWuzzy said:

Unit2Sucks said:

FuzzyWuzzy said:


You are giving Congress too much credit. I'm not saying that to get a laugh. There are some real idiots/liars/wackos in Congress, especially in the House.
Please name one who would be worse than Trump. I believe just about everyone in congress would listen to his/her handlers and be able to exercise a modicum of self-control if beneficial to their career. For the wackier members of congress, their schtick is actually beneficial to them so that they can get exposure above the crowd of party liner look a likes.
That wasn't the original standard! Originally you were looking for a reasonably qualified individual, and there are more than a few in Congress who don't meet that standard.

If you're looking for the number of members of congress better than Trump, we're all going to have a different number there, depending on our own opinions. True, it's hard to imagine anyone worse than DJT from a character standpoint. But I have to admit he has a few policies I don't entirely disagree with. Your number might be all 535. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there are probably a few tea partiers I would disagree with more.
I might still take Trump over Steve King.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's like a choice between getting kicked in the nuts, or punched in the face.But alas, King does NOT have the media savvy and skills Trump does. So I think he could be taken down quickly.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FuzzyWuzzy said:

Unit2Sucks said:

FuzzyWuzzy said:


You are giving Congress too much credit. I'm not saying that to get a laugh. There are some real idiots/liars/wackos in Congress, especially in the House.
Please name one who would be worse than Trump. I believe just about everyone in congress would listen to his/her handlers and be able to exercise a modicum of self-control if beneficial to their career. For the wackier members of congress, their schtick is actually beneficial to them so that they can get exposure above the crowd of party liner look a likes.
That wasn't the original standard! Originally you were looking for a reasonably qualified individual, and there are more than a few in Congress who don't meet that standard.

If you're looking for the number of members of congress better than Trump, we're all going to have a different number there, depending on our own opinions. True, it's hard to imagine anyone worse than DJT from a character standpoint. But I have to admit he has a few policies I don't entirely disagree with. Your number might be all 535. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there are probably a few tea partiers I would disagree with more.
I didn't actually change the standard. I said "reasonably qualified" and that almost any member of congress would qualify. By way of example, Steve King has been in politics for more than 20 years. He's served on committees and knows how the government works. He doesn't have massive conflicts of interest and/or would place his holdings in a blind trust like everyone else who becomes president. You could make a case like that for almost anyone in congress. You can't make a case that Trump is reasonably qualified under any objective standard.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
USC law professor (in-conference signaling):

Factoid: Gould a respectable 19th (US News)
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Nunes and Rohrabacher are pretty inept and stupid.

I think Nunes is stupider that Trump because he's covering for Trump and he was really that stupid releasing his memo that backfired. His mention of Papadopoulos in the memo totally crapped the rest of the memo. Just dumb and incompetent.

Rohrabacher is simply a treasonous motherf*cker, dealing with Russians over US interests. He's stupid if he think he'll get away with it.





Nunes has to be investigated for conspiracy to obstruct given his status as Trump's flunky and standard bearer for everything Trump related to the Mueller investigation. What would make him throw away his political career?

Rohrabacher is just a Kremlin stooge from the OC. How do the people of Costa Mesa take him seriously given his close ties to all things Russian? He has to have been or still is under investigation given that the Kremlin sees him as a Friend To Puty. Hell the Russians even gave him a code name. I just can't see him being re-elected given the demographic changes in the Costa Mesa area and his carrying of the Russian banner.

Is it wrong that every time I see any of the Trump/Kushner family that I hear the theme from the Godfather playing?

Anybody think that Jared won't be indicted by Mueller?
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's odd that nobody has turned on Trump despite the ongoing investigations and the fact you think he is so obviously guilty.
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

It's odd that nobody has turned on Trump despite the ongoing investigations and the fact you think he is so obviously guilty.
Guilty of cheating on his wife with a porn star while while his wife was pregnant? Yes
Guilty of cheating on his wife with a Playboy bunny? Yes
Guilty of Money Laundering in connection with his real estate deals? Yes (Mueller has tax returns and bank docs)
Guilty of obstruction or conspiracy to obstruct? Yes
Guilty of collusion? We will see as Mueller is still investigating.
Guilty of nepotism? Yes. (Come on)
Guilty of sexual harassment? Yes, he admitted as much.
Guilty of violating the emolument clause? Yes. ( See Trump owned Washington D.C. hotel)
Guilty of running the country like a mafia family? Yes, queue the Godfather theme.
Guilty of Chain Migration? Yes (See wife's parents and sister)
Guilty of violating his wish for a Merit Based Immigration? Yes. (See wife's parents and sister)
Guilty of lying to a federal agent? We'll see.

I guess my answer would be, yes.

It's not that odd to stay quiet if you are a party to the conspiracy to obstruct, money laundering, illegally involved with a foreign country, have made false statements, or are finalizing a plea deal to act as a witness for the prosecution.

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

It's odd that nobody has turned on Trump despite the ongoing investigations and the fact you think he is so obviously guilty.
Given that Mueller seems to be running a tight ship, if anyone has turned on Trump we probably wouldn't know it yet.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

FuzzyWuzzy said:

Unit2Sucks said:

FuzzyWuzzy said:


You are giving Congress too much credit. I'm not saying that to get a laugh. There are some real idiots/liars/wackos in Congress, especially in the House.
Please name one who would be worse than Trump. I believe just about everyone in congress would listen to his/her handlers and be able to exercise a modicum of self-control if beneficial to their career. For the wackier members of congress, their schtick is actually beneficial to them so that they can get exposure above the crowd of party liner look a likes.
That wasn't the original standard! Originally you were looking for a reasonably qualified individual, and there are more than a few in Congress who don't meet that standard.

If you're looking for the number of members of congress better than Trump, we're all going to have a different number there, depending on our own opinions. True, it's hard to imagine anyone worse than DJT from a character standpoint. But I have to admit he has a few policies I don't entirely disagree with. Your number might be all 535. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there are probably a few tea partiers I would disagree with more.
I didn't actually change the standard. I said "reasonably qualified" and that almost any member of congress would qualify. By way of example, Steve King has been in politics for more than 20 years. He's served on committees and knows how the government works. He doesn't have massive conflicts of interest and/or would place his holdings in a blind trust like everyone else who becomes president. You could make a case like that for almost anyone in congress. You can't make a case that Trump is reasonably qualified under any objective standard.
That's a fair point. If we're talking about corruption and lack of government experience, then yes, virtually anyone in Congress has Trump beat.

In terms of policy, I think there are still some I wouldn't take over Trump.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:


That's a fair point. If we're talking about corruption and lack of government experience, then yes, virtually anyone in Congress has Trump beat.

In terms of policy, I think there are still some I wouldn't take over Trump.
Yes, I wasn't speaking to policy at all since I don't think "holding" a policy position in and of itself is a qualification. I put "holding" in quotes because I'm not sure that Trump really holds any policy positions dearly. He's said many times that he's flexible on policy and that's to the extent that his incoherent and confused exhortations actually constitute "policy." He thinks things, but whether those things are consistent with policy positions taken by his party or administration is an entirely different story.

By way of example, I don't like Mike Pence's or Paul Ryan's policies but I would concede that they are reasonably qualified and in particular that they would be able to reasonably articulate, justify and defend their policy positions. That's pretty much table stakes for a qualified politician and of course conclusively absent in Trump.
iwantwinners
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Trump's character is such that it is almost impossible for him to maintain and carry out policies. He has no conviction and cannot be relied on to be consistent from one day to the next. A few days ago he said he would fight the NRA and was "strong" on raising the age limit for assault rifles. Now he's apparently abandoned that after one meeting with NRA brass.

Further, character matters because it impacts our international standing. You may say you don't care, but Trump is literally the laughingstock of the world. That wasn't the case with Obama, despite what conservative sources may have told you. Trump has damaged our international standing and it's hard to see it improving until he is replaced with a reasonably qualified individual. I set that bar to be quite low and think almost any member of Congress would meet the threshold. Trump, primarily due to his character and his inability to control his base urges, is so far below the bar that I don't have a good enough analogy to make my point.

But yeah, sure, character doesn't matter when he's your guy.
This is all conjecture and innuendo and platitudes. The world hates him so he can't govern??? Any republicans going to turn vote NO on a trump bill because he fawns over married women? It's not that I don't give a sh*t, I'd prefer a president to be more presidential, and cringe at his tweets, even though I love his utter disgust for the media, but I'm voting for a president, not a Reverand.

The feigning outrage over moral and political principles that disappear the moment it's exerted by a candidate aligned with your politics is proof you don't even mean what you're saying.

And supporting Trump's politics over Shillary's doesn't make him "my guy" it makes him a more preferable candidate in a two person race -- to me. I wasn't voting for god parent to my child, as I would have chosen Shillary, as disappointed as I would be about that.

FuzzyWuzzy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
iwantwinners said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Trump's character is such that it is almost impossible for him to maintain and carry out policies. He has no conviction and cannot be relied on to be consistent from one day to the next. A few days ago he said he would fight the NRA and was "strong" on raising the age limit for assault rifles. Now he's apparently abandoned that after one meeting with NRA brass.

Further, character matters because it impacts our international standing. You may say you don't care, but Trump is literally the laughingstock of the world. That wasn't the case with Obama, despite what conservative sources may have told you. Trump has damaged our international standing and it's hard to see it improving until he is replaced with a reasonably qualified individual. I set that bar to be quite low and think almost any member of Congress would meet the threshold. Trump, primarily due to his character and his inability to control his base urges, is so far below the bar that I don't have a good enough analogy to make my point.

But yeah, sure, character doesn't matter when he's your guy.
This is all conjecture and innuendo and platitudes. The world hates him so he can't govern??? Any republicans going to turn vote NO on a trump bill because he fawns over married women? It's not that I don't give a sh*t, I'd prefer a president to be more presidential, and cringe at his tweets, even though I love his utter disgust for the media, but I'm voting for a president, not a Reverand.

The feigning outrage over moral and political principles that disappear the moment it's exerted by a candidate aligned with your politics is proof you don't even mean what you're saying.

And supporting Trump's politics over Shillary's doesn't make him "my guy" it makes him a more preferable candidate in a two person race -- to me. I wasn't voting for god parent to my child, as I would have chosen Shillary, as disappointed as I would be about that.


I can see that character is not high on your list of important attributes in a POTUS, but does it matter at all to you? Or is it totally irrelevant?
iwantwinners
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FuzzyWuzzy said:

iwantwinners said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Trump's character is such that it is almost impossible for him to maintain and carry out policies. He has no conviction and cannot be relied on to be consistent from one day to the next. A few days ago he said he would fight the NRA and was "strong" on raising the age limit for assault rifles. Now he's apparently abandoned that after one meeting with NRA brass.

Further, character matters because it impacts our international standing. You may say you don't care, but Trump is literally the laughingstock of the world. That wasn't the case with Obama, despite what conservative sources may have told you. Trump has damaged our international standing and it's hard to see it improving until he is replaced with a reasonably qualified individual. I set that bar to be quite low and think almost any member of Congress would meet the threshold. Trump, primarily due to his character and his inability to control his base urges, is so far below the bar that I don't have a good enough analogy to make my point.

But yeah, sure, character doesn't matter when he's your guy.
This is all conjecture and innuendo and platitudes. The world hates him so he can't govern??? Any republicans going to turn vote NO on a trump bill because he fawns over married women? It's not that I don't give a sh*t, I'd prefer a president to be more presidential, and cringe at his tweets, even though I love his utter disgust for the media, but I'm voting for a president, not a Reverand.

The feigning outrage over moral and political principles that disappear the moment it's exerted by a candidate aligned with your politics is proof you don't even mean what you're saying.

And supporting Trump's politics over Shillary's doesn't make him "my guy" it makes him a more preferable candidate in a two person race -- to me. I wasn't voting for god parent to my child, as I would have chosen Shillary, as disappointed as I would be about that.


I can see that character is not high on your list of important attributes in a POTUS, but does it matter at all to you? Or is it totally irrelevant?
The character traits in question don't matter that much relative to the politics the person represents.

Would you rather have a choir boy with politics you detest be president or a greasy womanizer who supported sound politics in you opinion?

And what discredits this outrage as noteworthy is consistency -- it's patently obvious the moralizing character outrage and political expediency criticisms are hypocritical, it's hard to believe the diatribes on here are actually believed.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Iwantwinners doesn't understand or chooses not to understand what character is. It's not just about being an altar boy. Trump's character impacts how he does his job. For example, he doesn't like to read and has a short attention span. This makes it difficult for him to receive the volume of information presidents need to do their job well. He's impetuous and easily manipulated which makes him susceptible to improper influence. He has extremely poor judgment which is obviously problematic in any leadership role let alone presidentcy. I could go on and on but everyone knows what the issues are. They either choose to ignore it or they don't.

Sufficed to say, this isn't just about Trump being a blowhard liar who likes to cheat on his wife and sexually assault women.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Iwantwinners doesn't understand or chooses not to understand what character is. It's not just about being an altar boy. Trump's character impacts how he does his job.
This exactly. Character isn't just about sexual misconduct.

Some have also remarked upon how Trump hasn't done much other than pass a tax cut. That's also because of his character. A big part of the reason Congress has failed to pass a health care or immigration bill is because Trump's position keeps changing. The President can be a very useful marketing operation for big legislation, but that's only if he and Congressional leaders are on the same page. If they are not, then various factions in Congress start going their own way and it becomes a big mess.

Granted, in the case of health care I'm glad they didn't pass anything because it seems to me that all of the GOP proposals were disasters. But the immigration issue is a potential crisis of Trump's own making (after he rescinded DACA), and he has been largely unhelpful in finding a solution.
iwantwinners
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

Iwantwinners doesn't understand or chooses not to understand what character is. It's not just about being an altar boy. Trump's character impacts how he does his job. For example, he doesn't like to read and has a short attention span. This makes it difficult for him to receive the volume of information presidents need to do their job well. He's impetuous and easily manipulated which makes him susceptible to improper influence. He has extremely poor judgment which is obviously problematic in any leadership role let alone presidentcy. I could go on and on but everyone knows what the issues are. They either choose to ignore it or they don't.

Sufficed to say, this isn't just about Trump being a blowhard liar who likes to cheat on his wife and sexually assault women.
How he does his job? You're assuming he does what he does because of his attention span and not his ideology? But the reason why you care and bother to criticize it is because his politics don't align with your agenda. It's all pom pom cheerleading. This is the brilliance of the partisan virtue signaling, selective moral outrage: feigning moral outrage, as if you're principally against it, dually signals your virtue to others while also inherently attempting to discredit your opponent without having to actually make an argument or a case.
iwantwinners
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

Unit2Sucks said:

Iwantwinners doesn't understand or chooses not to understand what character is. It's not just about being an altar boy. Trump's character impacts how he does his job.
This exactly. Character isn't just about sexual misconduct.

Some have also remarked upon how Trump hasn't done much other than pass a tax cut. That's also because of his character. A big part of the reason Congress has failed to pass a health care or immigration bill is because Trump's position keeps changing. The President can be a very useful marketing operation for big legislation, but that's only if he and Congressional leaders are on the same page. If they are not, then various factions in Congress start going their own way and it becomes a big mess.

Granted, in the case of health care I'm glad they didn't pass anything because it seems to me that all of the GOP proposals were disasters. But the immigration issue is a potential crisis of Trump's own making (after he rescinded DACA), and he has been largely unhelpful in finding a solution.
No that's not why, it's because immigration and reforming health care are toxic political issues (like gun control), and all Republicans share more or less the same sentiments on immigration as Trump, but they lack the political courage to go after it, which is why it took a Trump-like character who doesn't give a sh*t to actively tackle immigration.

Republicans talked BIG about eliminating Obamacare but the reality is it was going to be a hard sell to eliminate health insurance for tens and thousands of people, many of whom vote Republican.

Congress didn't pass immigration and health care because they are cowards and can't admit that they were politically unwilling to take on the pressure of eliminating free or subsidized health care for so many of their votaries.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
iwantwinners said:


How he does his job? You're assuming he does what he does because of his attention span and not his ideology?
Thanks for the laugh. I'm sure somewhere there is someone that believes that the thing that separates Trump from everyone else is his ideology and that setting that aside he's just like every other president but I don't believe that you are that person.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?


https://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/81eydx/gentlemanly_trump_waits_for_melania_while/?st=JEAGMIGM&sh=2e817bc0
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
iwantwinners
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

iwantwinners said:


How he does his job? You're assuming he does what he does because of his attention span and not his ideology?
Thanks for the laugh. I'm sure somewhere there is someone that believes that the thing that separates Trump from everyone else is his ideology and that setting that aside he's just like every other president but I don't believe that you are that person.
Trump's ideology is a dime a dozen within the party and his base, that's why his victory was a result of populism. The ONLY difference is that Trump talks about them -- out loud and to the public. Voters tend to be one- or two-issue voters. Immigration got him his base and some centrists.

Every Republican has wanted to clamp down on immigration (some Dems, too) but it's a political hot potato that nobody wants to risk. The goal of Congress is to keep their seats, individually and as a party. Everything else is secondary. Hence the low approval rates.
blungld
How long do you want to ignore this user?
iwantwinners said:

Unit2Sucks said:

iwantwinners said:


How he does his job? You're assuming he does what he does because of his attention span and not his ideology?
Thanks for the laugh. I'm sure somewhere there is someone that believes that the thing that separates Trump from everyone else is his ideology and that setting that aside he's just like every other president but I don't believe that you are that person.
Trump's ideology is a dime a dozen within the party and his base, that's why his victory was a result of populism. The ONLY difference is that Trump talks about them -- out loud and to the public. Voters tend to be one- or two-issue voters. Immigration got him his base and some centrists.

Every Republican has wanted to clamp down on immigration (some Dems, too) but it's a political hot potato that nobody wants to risk. The goal of Congress is to keep their seats, individually and as a party. Everything else is secondary. Hence the low approval rates.
That is an incredibly sanitized summary -- sort of glosses over a few things don't you think?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump ideology that is outside the norm of the recent Republican Party and not character based

- Trump acts like a racist
- Trump will not defend America from Russian attacks on our electoral integrity
- Trump has made our closest allies feel like America is undependable
- Trump insults the press in a manner that is antithetical to free countries
- Trump believes the Department of Justice and FBI should carry out his orders without question
- Trump and his family and his associates are using the government to enrich themselves directly, while in office
- Trump's fiscal policy means trillion dollar deficits during the "good times" (ok this is actually consistent with 40 years of Republican policy, you got me on that one)

An old white dude
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I grew up with conservatives and there's always a few who are willing to move full right and embrace fascism, authoritarianism, Russian meddling, racist ideology and the whole mess we have now. Those guys would be the guys under investigation now, or already have been indicted: Manafort, Gates, Papadopoulos, Flynn and 13 Russians. Nunberg, Stone...most of Trump's staffer and a few others are on the list and will be getting theirs.




B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The lady is a baller.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I posted that on the other Trump thread. If a porn star suing the POTUS is 3rd or 4th in the days news cycle...real and serious trouble is coming down the pike.

At this pace, I'd guess implosion by June.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.