Pumpkin Row
Platinum Member
- May 26, 2016
- 5,692
- 2,811
- 1,095
Kasich is a moderate AT BEST and called himself a Conservative. The word gets thrown around a lot. Oreo self-identified as a Conservative before revealing himself as HARD left. As much as a like you, simply telling me something during a debate doesn't cause me to automatically believe it. Not because I think you're a liar, but because there are many things in politics that an individual may not be aware of.Oh trust me. Many self-identified conservatives did.That statement depends on who you consider conservatives, and even then, this forum doesn't even represent 1% of the population of this nation.No way. During his administration, conservatives on this board blindly supported the Iraq War. Nowadays, they pretend they rejected it all along.You have no examples of Conservatives rejecting them. You have examples of Republicans always rejecting him, because they had from the start, as most of them serve the establishment to begin with.Conservatives liked Trump at the time of his presidency. Now many reject him.You can't find a single Conservative that likes Bush. You also claim that Conservatives are pawns, yet they chose Trump over all of the Establishment-pushed candidates, unlike Democrats, who supported Hillary, who had been pushed over every other candidate since the moment she announced her candidacy.
I'd also like to point out that the Republicans LOVE Paul RINO Ryan and not a single Conservative supports him.
You only consider him childish and a moron because you don't agree with him, you neglected to even point out any of his policies as an example.
You're only saying Hillary is irrelevant because she's the most recent example of Democrats doing as they're told like good little pawns. She's also the best example of Democrats being guilty of what they're accusing the other side of. Then again, she IS still placing herself squarely in the public sights by making TV appearances.
No, Trump really is a childish moron. I think Ted Cruz is a scumbag that I don’t agree at all with, but I do think he is intelligent.
Hillary is irrelevant when it comes to a conversation originally centered around Trump. I think it is pointless to talk about her either way, but it doesn’t bother me that she is mentioned so long as it isn’t in the middle of a conversation about Trump as president.
You have, again, neglected to give me examples. You merely stated the same thing a second time.
As I said before, she's the most recent example of Democrats being guilty of what they're accusing the rightists of. She ran in the most recent election, and ran against Obama. She recently has had TV appearances. She has placed herself FIRMLY in the public eye. If she was so irrelevant, she would not be trying to hard to remain relevant.
You didn’t ask for examples. You just stated I didn’t give any. It just seemed too obvious for me to bother mentioning. I have plenty to offer: the borderwall was definitely his dumbest idea by far. His foreign policy is a complete joke. He talks like an 8th grader when it comes to North Korea. He also shelled Syria for no goddamn reason. Oh, and he pulled out of the Paris agreement which left the US the only nation on Earth not in it.
Again, as I said, you cons can bring up Hillary if you want in a topic specifically about her. What I find stupid, however, is that cons on this board will without fail deflect to criticizing Hillary in the middle of a discussion focused specifically on Trump’s actions as president.
I pointed out that you lacked examples in my first post, indirectly that would be a request for examples.
The Wall: The border wall is meant to keep illegals from taking jobs from the lower and middle class, I thought you'd support doing something about a problem the middle class faces.
Foreign Policy: What specifically makes his foreign policy a joke? Which part(s)?
NKorea: How does he talk like an eighth grader about N. Korea? What causes you to believe that specifically?
Syria: Didn't they gas their own people?
Paris Agreement: He pulled out of it because it wasn't good for America. Other nations being in the Paris Agreement doesn't mean you should support it without question.
Hillary ran against him, and was supported by the vast majority of the left, making her the perfect recent comparison. It's natural for her to come up in conversations about Trump, as she was his opponent.
Illegals typically take jobs that other Americans don’t want. They sure as hell don’t take middle class jobs. Of course all of that is besides the point. The wall is a completely useless idea. These people aren’t dumb. It wouldn’t be hard to scale the wall or simply tunnel under it. Not only that, but it is physically impossible to build a wall on certain stretches on the border. On top of all of that, it border runs through private land in some stretches. There’s even an American town on both sides. Residents trying to protect their land could sue the federal government thus stalling construction. Aside from all of this, 25% of illegal immigrants in this country came here legally by plane but over stayed their visas.
Even if you think intervening in Syria was a good idea, shelling the country in a mostly empty airport accomplished absolutely nothing.
Climate change is a dangerous reality whether you like it or not. Something has to be done.
No that logic still doesn’t work. A conversation about our current president’s actions has nothing to do with Hillary.
No, illegals typically take jobs at a cheaper rate than others would. They take jobs from someone who can't find a job for their skill level, and people coming out f high school. They also take jobs in construction, which is a job that Middle Class Americans DO work. Are you going to tell me that Americans don't want work in construction?
25% is only a fourth, that means 3/4ths are still coming here through the border. If he can find a way, and considering he's a successful businessman, that's not unlikely, the border wall would solve at least part of the illegal immigration problem. That said, there ARE better ideas.
He wasn't trying to cream them, he was showing them that we could. Think of it as a warning shot.
Nothing has to be done about a myth, aside from ceasing to perpetuate it.
Pointing out that the left supported someone guilty of the same or similar actions is a solid method for showing that the left didn't care before. That's probably why most of the left has an issue with bringing her up.
Last edited: