psychoslice
Veteran Member
I just hope Americans have enough sense to not vote this egocentric Trump in, for he will stuff the world up, and drag innocent countries into his psychosis.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Would you Vote for Trump?
- Thread starter Tomorrows_Child
- Start date
Mr Spinkles
Mr
I get that the system needs a shake up. What I don't understand is: (1) why do Trump supporters believe he is a *reformer* of the establishment rather than simply a member of the establishment who happens to be hated by it now, and (2) why do they believe Trump is an acceptable vehicle for the "reformation" (re: his moral character, honesty, etc.)
Trump, a non-attorney non-career-politician outsider, is potentially a reformer.
Particularly for a candidate without a political record, there are no guarantees.
He is from a different establishment.
Moral character & honesty are great things, but are neither necessary nor common.
His major competitors are no better, but might appear to be so because of their artful speech & carefully crafted political personas.
And Hillary, his most likely opponent, is a known quantity....
- Pro war
- Crony capitalist
- Big government & high taxes
- Status quo
GoodbyeDave
Well-Known Member
Compared with which Trump
> is an unsuccessful capitalist (4 bankruptcies)
> wants more taxes " I do very well. I don't mind paying a little more in taxes." and more defence spending.
Clearly, there are things I don't care for about Trump.
Hillary just looks worse.
And she's a lawyer.
Perhaps a little bit. But it would be within context of personal attributes of the other possible choices. In which case, there may be reason why I would vote for him over the others, as well as reason why I wouldn't.
I find him being not as polished appealing in some ways, and unappealing in other ways. I greatly dislike his choice to attack others rather than issues. Guess what? I dislike when the other candidates do this. Sometimes I find it entertaining. As a proud non-voter, I find a lot of the race to be POTUS entertaining. I sometimes think the more entertaining, the better. The more outlandish, the better the case for us non-voters to rest comfortably, knowing we are the majority.
And because of how media treats each candidate. The bias shown each POTUS election cycle is always fascinating. This time, I am finding it even more fascinating.
It is also really nice, refreshing to see a candidate (Trump) able to say things that if any other candidate, in the last 40 years would've said, would've lead to their being asked to leave, for the betterment of the party and/or America. Other candidates (now and traditionally) are just really good (polished) at masking their insults and having a media bias contribute to the masking in ways that deal with nuances and go onto support the insult.
The whole, "you're not qualified to be POTUS" is always interesting, especially when we are living in a shared reality where current POTUS had that claim lodged at him about 8 years ago. And many would say rightfully so. Others would allow their bias and fine nuances to second guess that assertion. Doing that (second guessing) with any of the current candidates is seemingly easy if you support the candidate or the party. If you don't, then there is 'no possible way to spin it' to realize the person is inherently unqualified.
Given the amount of deception that is always allowed (without exception for any POTUS candidate in the last 500,000 years, lol) and the popularity contest visibly on display, I'm pretty sure it is not the qualifications that are at the forefront for most voters choosing the candidate they like.
I agree.
And their economic agendas are awful too.
The candidates are all terrible.
So I might feel bad for voting for Trump.
dawny0826
Mother Heathen
I'm in the States and I will not be voting for Trump.
Though, I agree with some of his views from a fiscal perspective, agree with some of his views on foreign policy and respect that he's financed his own campaign - he still represents too much government to me. I find his views on immigration to be deplorable and I'm distrustful that he has genuine respect for women and women's rights.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
In what sense is Trump an "outsider"? He has said repeatedly that he "gave money to everybody" including Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, etc. etc. He bragged about how the rich donors "ruined my carpet" when he threw a party for Romeny last election cycle. I thought the supposed problem with "career politicians" is that they ruthlessly pursue their own interests rather than the public interest and that they are too close to rich business moguls. Trump IS a rich business mogul and brags constantly about his pursuit of his own self interest (admitting he used bankruptcy laws to his advantage, proudly explaining how he gave money to both Dems and Republicans to benefit himself and his businesses, etc.). Until this last election cycle when Trump went rogue and lashed out at anyone from the establishment who challenged him, it would be difficult to identify *ANY* quality about him that made him an outsider. No?
Yes he's potentially a reformer. So was Thomas Jefferson, who was a career politician. So was John Adams who was a career attorney. He's also potentially a destroyer like Berlusconi or (if you'll pardon the analogy - not supposed to be a comparison) Joseph Stalin who was also hated by the "establishment".
His moral character is far, far beneath any of the other candidates. Has any other candidate proudly announced that the US military should target and kill the families of suspected terrorists? Which candidates believe that, but are too "artful" to express it?
Similarly, that people should be barred from entering the country and entered into a "database" on the basis of religion? That we need lots more torture - way beyond waterboarding? Has any other candidate stooped so low as to re-tweet a statistic that 80% of whites are murdered by blacks (not true, as it happens)? He says he won't take nuking Europe "off the table". He makes crass jokes about a reporter's disability, Carly Fiorina's face, Rubio's stature, a Fox News anchor's menstrual cycle. Is it "artful" to not express such things, or just part of being a mature adult?
He encourages violence against protestors at a rally. He spreads untrue and vicious stories about how US soldiers executed Muslim insurgents with bullets dipped in pigs' blood (suggesting those were "the good old days") and how "thousands of Muslims" cheered 9/11 on rooftops near Manhatten. He starts a phony Trump University and misleads about its ratings by the BBB. He shows off phony Trump steaks at a news conference which were bought at a local grocery store. He has a dubious "conversion" to a pro-life stance and knee-jerk responds that women should be punished for abortions (rather than the doctors who perform them which is the general stance of pro-life groups). I saw him during a debate say, almost verbatim: "I will not take sides [with Israel vs. Palestine]. I am on Israel's side." He said "China screwed us" on the Trans-Pacific trade deal when China was not part of that deal.
These are not symptoms of a competent, informed man who is merely "artless" in his choice of words.
I am flabbergasted that anyone who is frustrated with "career politicians" would think Trump a suitable alternative. Every negative adjective about "career politicians" is owned, bragged about, and enhanced in Trump: the ruthless self-Interest, the cozying up to big business (he proudly says he'll get his business mogul friends like Carl Icahn to help shape policy), the mud-slinging rather than focusing on issues, the vacuous statements ("it will be great", "beautiful", etc.), the pretending to believe in issues simply to pander to a group of voters but then backdoor "deal making" once elections are over. It's as if Trump supporters can't see what is hidden in plain sight.
I get that a political rookie may seem attractive but Trump is the Rookie of the Year. This is not Mr. Trump Goes to Washington.
Tomorrows_Child
Active Member
Ah ok, I get you. So you believe everyone in general should not be taxed more?
Also, how does income tax work in the US?
In the UK we have a social welfare system whereby a large chunk of what we give in tax goes to the national health service, and the benefits system, mainly pensions. Then the 3rd largest chunk goes to the army.
What do you object to in American taxation?
Edit: I agree with your interpretation of the governments responsibly to protect national interests in international waters.
Tomorrows_Child
Active Member
Exactly, what are those reasons?
He's never held office.
He's not a lawyer.
He doesn't need to raise campaign money.
He exhibits a rare (if often unfortunate) candor.
I don't see being close to business & the rich as an inherent problem.
It's about the nature of the relationship.
Hillary is owned by Wall St donors, but Trump isn't.
Hillary needs to cadge for money, but Trump doesn't.
This is no guarantee of Trump's independence, but it's a necessary condition.
I'd rather than he not donate money to them.
This is a strike against him, but it pales in comparison to Hillary's problems.
It is possible that a career politician can be a reformer.
But Hillary appears to be the opposite of the type which would be.
Of the front runners, Trump appears to be the least wedded to the status quo.
I don't see his moral character as worse than Bernie or HIllary.
Bernie panders with promises he cannot possibly keep,
Hillary is a deadly war hawk, a sexist, & more.
I oppose that.
But I expect that an oppressive surveillance state is a greater risk under Hillary.
I oppose torture.
I believe Bernie does too, but not Hillary.
She'd personally turn the screws.
I am flabbergasted that so many Dems protested the Iraq & Afghan wars while Bush was in office,
but ended their protests when Obama continued them. Hillary voted to start the Iraq war, & voted
to continue both. She's threatened to "obliterate Iran". Trump's opponents will criticize him for many
things, but they ignore similar & even more sinister traits & acts of Hillary. This blindness is dangerous.
She's a hawk.
She lusts for war.
Democrats would strongly support her in this.
And she's a lawyer.
Thus, she must be kept out of office.
Bernie is safer, but her party doesn't appear to let him run, no matter how large his lead.
Last edited:
Baladas
An Págánach
I agree with you here.
Hillary's supporters have an astounding talent for ignoring what a terrible candidate she is, and for how dangerous she would be in office.
I personally like Bernie, but as you have said, the Democratic Party seems intent of employing their usual anti-democratic tactics to shut him out.
I usually hate elections.
This one is no exception.
But at least there is some opportunity for entertainment & fascination amid the horror.
I don't think either Hillary or Donald will work very hard for campaign finance reform, they have both benefited greatly from the current system, albeit from opposite sides. Clinton has benefited by selling influence, and Trump has benefited from buying it. Neither is likely to change this system. If anything I think Hillary is slightly more likely to change it, but only if strongly pressured to do so and only (trigger warning) in her second term.
Campaign finance reform so far has been dysfunctional.
It gives government more control over those it dislikes.
I'd prefer that merely be about full disclosure.
Hillary is more wedded to the most corrupt kind of financing, ie, cadging for money from big donors.