Why Are You Opposed to Trump?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen a single post opposing Trump on substance (in comparison with Hillary). Are you really going to sit on your hands in November and watch America commit national suicide?

You’re wrong.

Below are the substantive issues upon which Trump is wrong, and warrant opposing him:

Trump would appoint justices to the Supreme Court hostile to the privacy rights of women, the equal protection rights of gay and transgender Americans, and the voting rights of minorities.

Trump would pursue the same failed, wrongheaded conservative economic policies as the previous administration, such as cutting taxes while increasing government spending.

Trump would pursue the same failed, wrongheaded conservative foreign policy agenda as the previous administration.

Trump would waste billions on unnecessary military spending.

And like most republicans, Trump exhibits a propensity for war, as was the case with the previous administration.

You stand corrected.

 

[Syriusly]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen a single post opposing Trump on substance (in comparison with Hillary). Are you really going to sit on your hands in November and watch America commit national suicide?

Then you are blind.

Blinded by your partisanship.

I gave my reasons which are frankly much more substantive than your objections to Clinton.

That you refuse to even see them is only your fault.

 

[jwoodie]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen a single post opposing Trump on substance (in comparison with Hillary). Are you really going to sit on your hands in November and watch America commit national suicide?

Then you are blind.

Blinded by your partisanship.

I gave my reasons which are frankly much more substantive than your objections to Clinton.

That you refuse to even see them is only your fault.

Oh, really?

• Trump has absolutely no experience in government- legislative or administrative.

• Trump has absolutely no experience with foreign policy.

• I was and am offended by Trump statements regarding Mexicans and regarding Muslim immigrants..

• Trump's statements regarding international trade- especially when it comes to free trade agreements and tariffs display a profound ignorance of both how free trade agreements and tariffs actually are today- and the historic effect of trade barriers.

• Trump's' statements on national security are both bombastic- and unrealistic.

• I think that Trump has shown a tendency towards think skinned defensiveness, and attacking anyone who criticizes him that would be detrimental as a President.

• While I don't particularly trust Clinton- I absolutely distrust Trump.

Where is the "substance" to which you refer? In contrast, my objections to Clinton were:

For me, Trump's direct approaches to immigration, trade, national security, jobs and the economy are favorable factors, as opposed to Clinton's vacillation on these issues.

Trump's positions on these issues are clear; can you even begin to describe what Clinton's are?

 

[auditor0007]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness. It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.

IF it becomes a Presidential election between Trump and Clinton, what OBJECTIVE standards would you apply in deciding how you would vote?

For me, Trump's direct approaches to immigration, trade, national security, jobs and the economy are favorable factors, as opposed to Clinton's vacillation on these issues. (In other words, he says what he WILL do, whereas she talks about what she WON'T do.)

Please avoid name calling and explain the specific standards you employ in evaluating these candidates.

To begin, Trump, along with Sanders, are both wrong on trade. Trump's ideas about China may have been true thirty or forty years ago, but today we are dealing with a global economy. The main reason Mexico is attracting so many manufacturing companies is not due to their cheap labor but to their free trade agreements with other countries. Mexico has free trade agreements with more countries than any other country in the world. Trump and Sanders are both afraid of free trade and would place massive tariffs on imported products which would drive prices through the roof. To make matters worse, countries that were affected by this would just retaliate by placing larger tariffs on US goods. While I was disappointed that Hillary backed away from TPP, I figure she did so because too many people have been sold on the idea that trade is a bad thing. As for the rest of it, Trump can't tell us how he would do any of the things he says he wants to do. He just tells us he's going to make America great again, as if he believes he will become King and rule as he pleases once elected. Bottom line is that Trump is a joke.

 

[Boss]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen a single post opposing Trump on substance (in comparison with Hillary). Are you really going to sit on your hands in November and watch America commit national suicide?

I raised several key issues on policy... not compared to Hillary because we're still in the primaries. This is when the Republican platform is established. Compare Ted Cruz to Hillary on policy, compare Kasich, compare fucking Jeb Bush! Any of the 17 people who ran can beat Hillary on policy. My dog could beat Hillary on policy and bark better too! You know who loses to Hillary by double digits at the ballot box in November? Donald Trump.

We have a chance, for the first time since Ronald Reagan, to elect a true principled conservative. We're literally balking at him on the basis of vanity. He looks funny. His voice sounds preachy. He seems creepy.... all these stupid and trite superficial complaints and that man is a rock-rib conservative to the core. He will stand for Conservatism, he will debate it passionately, he will explain and articulate the conservative message we've wanted to hear. No... he's NOT the "Great Communicator" ...he lacks a certain charisma that Reagan had, but he is every bit as committed to conservative principles and will stand strong for them. Can't stop, won't stop... the LION Ted Cruz!

You want to throw away your vote for 'P.Trump. Barnum', I can't help you.

 

[Syriusly]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen a single post opposing Trump on substance (in comparison with Hillary). Are you really going to sit on your hands in November and watch America commit national suicide?

Then you are blind.

Blinded by your partisanship.

I gave my reasons which are frankly much more substantive than your objections to Clinton.

That you refuse to even see them is only your fault.

Oh, really?

• Trump has absolutely no experience in government- legislative or administrative.

• Trump has absolutely no experience with foreign policy.

• I was and am offended by Trump statements regarding Mexicans and regarding Muslim immigrants..

• Trump's statements regarding international trade- especially when it comes to free trade agreements and tariffs display a profound ignorance of both how free trade agreements and tariffs actually are today- and the historic effect of trade barriers.

• Trump's' statements on national security are both bombastic- and unrealistic.

• I think that Trump has shown a tendency towards think skinned defensiveness, and attacking anyone who criticizes him that would be detrimental as a President.

• While I don't particularly trust Clinton- I absolutely distrust Trump.

Where is the "substance" to which you refer? In contrast, my objections to Clinton were:

For me, Trump's direct approaches to immigration, trade, national security, jobs and the economy are favorable factors, as opposed to Clinton's vacillation on these issues.

Trump's positions on these issues are clear; can you even begin to describe what Clinton's are?

Please try to stay on point.

Here is what you claimed:
but I have not seen a single post opposing Trump on substance (in comparison with Hillary)

I then accurately pointed out that you must be blind then- since I posted by objections to Trump on substance:

1. • Trump has absolutely no experience in government- legislative or administrative
   • Trump has absolutely no experience with foreign policy

1. • I was and am offended by Trump statements regarding Mexicans and regarding Muslim immigrants..
   • Trump's statements regarding international trade- especially when it comes to free trade agreements and tariffs display a profound ignorance of both how free trade agreements and tariffs actually are today- and the historic effect of trade barriers.
   • Trump's' statements on national security are both bombastic- and unrealistic.
   • I think that Trump has shown a tendency towards think skinned defensiveness, and attacking anyone who criticizes him that would be detrimental as a President.
   • While I don't particularly trust Clinton- I absolutely distrust Trump
   My first two points were specifically on substance- experience.

Remember- you asked why I am opposed to Trump- I provided substantive reasons why I am opposed to Trump.

You just don't agree- so you pretend to believe no one has provided any substantive objections.

 

[mak5]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness. It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.

IF it becomes a Presidential election between Trump and Clinton, what OBJECTIVE standards would you apply in deciding how you would vote?

For me, Trump's direct approaches to immigration, trade, national security, jobs and the economy are favorable factors, as opposed to Clinton's vacillation on these issues. (In other words, he says what he WILL do, whereas she talks about what she WON'T do.)

Please avoid name calling and explain the specific standards you employ in evaluating these candidates.

Because he is as liberal as Clinton, as narcissistic as Obama and has no idea how government works. We will end up with an authoritarian governing by executive order, raising taxes, killing the economy with tariffs and not building a wall. He will be unable to handle foreign affairs. He gives every sign of slipping into dementia. He is a habitual liar. He is owned by the banks. He would, if elected, which won't happen, be an entirely ineffectual President.

 

[Militants]

My new believe are Trump as bigger favorite then Sanders then Clinton then Bush new president in the 2020 begins if Trump lose 2016 then Libertainan new Party if Trumps win 2016 against Trump in challenge.
Who are the new political in Libertainan ????

 

[Militants]

Obama are maybe good some Sanders and Clinton but he has his eight year in Power.

 

[jwoodie]

Bottom line is that Trump is a joke.

Bottom line is that your opposition is based on emotion, not reason.

 

[jwoodie]

You want to throw away your vote for 'P.Trump. Barnum', I can't help you.

Ditto.

 

[Crixus]

For me he is all over the place all the time. He tried to come off conservative, but is liberal. He says he is Tough, but he spends more time complaining about the rules then explaining his policy and how it will make America great again. He says he is anti PC, but acts ultra PC. Na, I'll pass.

 

[jwoodie]

1. 
   
   • Trump has absolutely no experience in government- legislative or administrative
   • Trump has absolutely no experience with foreign policy

1. 
   
   • I was and am offended by Trump statements regarding Mexicans and regarding Muslim immigrants..
   • Trump's statements regarding international trade- especially when it comes to free trade agreements and tariffs display a profound ignorance of both how free trade agreements and tariffs actually are today- and the historic effect of trade barriers.
   • Trump's' statements on national security are both bombastic- and unrealistic.
   • I think that Trump has shown a tendency towards think skinned defensiveness, and attacking anyone who criticizes him that would be detrimental as a President.
   • While I don't particularly trust Clinton- I absolutely distrust Trump
   My first two points were specifically on substance- experience.

LOL, so you are claiming that two of your seven reasons for opposing Trump are based on substance? CONGRATULATIONS!

P.S. Even these two points are fundamentally flawed: (1) The Presidency is an executive position, not legislative or administrative. (2) Experience is of value only when it has resulted in success or at least learning. Which other candidate has this type of experience with foreign policy? (Certainly not Hillary!)

 

[Syriusly]

1. 
   
   • Trump has absolutely no experience in government- legislative or administrative
   • Trump has absolutely no experience with foreign policy

1. 
   
   • I was and am offended by Trump statements regarding Mexicans and regarding Muslim immigrants..
   • Trump's statements regarding international trade- especially when it comes to free trade agreements and tariffs display a profound ignorance of both how free trade agreements and tariffs actually are today- and the historic effect of trade barriers.
   • Trump's' statements on national security are both bombastic- and unrealistic.
   • I think that Trump has shown a tendency towards think skinned defensiveness, and attacking anyone who criticizes him that would be detrimental as a President.
   • While I don't particularly trust Clinton- I absolutely distrust Trump
   My first two points were specifically on substance- experience.

LOL, so you are claiming that two of your seven reasons for opposing Trump are based on substance? CONGRATULATIONS!

P.S. Even these two points are fundamentally flawed: (1) The Presidency is an executive position, not legislative or administrative. (2) Experience is of value only when it has resulted in success or at least learning. Which other candidate has this type of experience with foreign policy? (Certainly not Hillary!)

Oh- so you really didn't want people to post their reasons why they are opposed to Trump- you just want to argue?

Okay- so let's recap: you claimed no one had replied substantively to your OP- I pointed out that I did.

Were you lying when you said no one had replied substantively- or just blinded by your partisanship?

You have failed to address any of my points.

As I point out- Trump has no experience in government- legislative or administrative- the Executive Branch is called the Administration.
As I point out Trump has no foreign policy experience.

Now- why don't you provide the specific substantive issues that lead you to support Trump?

 

[Crixus]

1. 
   
   • Trump has absolutely no experience in government- legislative or administrative
   • Trump has absolutely no experience with foreign policy

1. 
   
   • I was and am offended by Trump statements regarding Mexicans and regarding Muslim immigrants..
   • Trump's statements regarding international trade- especially when it comes to free trade agreements and tariffs display a profound ignorance of both how free trade agreements and tariffs actually are today- and the historic effect of trade barriers.
   • Trump's' statements on national security are both bombastic- and unrealistic.
   • I think that Trump has shown a tendency towards think skinned defensiveness, and attacking anyone who criticizes him that would be detrimental as a President.
   • While I don't particularly trust Clinton- I absolutely distrust Trump
   My first two points were specifically on substance- experience.

LOL, so you are claiming that two of your seven reasons for opposing Trump are based on substance? CONGRATULATIONS!

P.S. Even these two points are fundamentally flawed: (1) The Presidency is an executive position, not legislative or administrative. (2) Experience is of value only when it has resulted in success or at least learning. Which other candidate has this type of experience with foreign policy? (Certainly not Hillary!)

Oh- so you really didn't want people to post their reasons why they are opposed to Trump- you just want to argue?

Okay- so let's recap: you claimed no one had replied substantively to your OP- I pointed out that I did.

Were you lying when you said no one had replied substantively- or just blinded by your partisanship?

You have failed to address any of my points.

As I point out- Trump has no experience in government- legislative or administrative- the Executive Branch is called the Administration.
As I point out Trump has no foreign policy experience.

Now- why don't you provide the specific substantive issues that lead you to support Trump?

At leas. You have reasons. That means you went out and got them and diddnt just jump on the trump wagon because fox news said so.

 

[auditor0007]

Bottom line is that Trump is a joke.

Bottom line is that your opposition is based on emotion, not reason.

No response to everything I stated before that? You're pretty funny. I gave you a great reason as to why I am opposed to Trump, all based on my valid opposition to tariffs and protectionist economic policies, and this is what you come up with? Sounds like you are the one basing everything on emotion.

 

[Syriusly]

Bottom line is that Trump is a joke.

Bottom line is that your opposition is based on emotion, not reason.

No response to everything I stated before that? You're pretty funny. I gave you a great reason as to why I am opposed to Trump, all based on my valid opposition to tariffs and protectionist economic policies, and this is what you come up with? Sounds like you are the one basing everything on emotion.

Bingo.

 

[candycorn]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen a single post opposing Trump on substance (in comparison with Hillary). Are you really going to sit on your hands in November and watch America commit national suicide?

If you can’t trust a man’s character (It is a fact that Trump insinuates women are on their period, mocks people with birth defects, gives out the personal information on his opponents —i.e. cell numbers, calls other women ugly, etc…), it doesn’t matter what (if any) substance or issues the candidate champions.

 

[Syriusly]

1. 
   
   • Trump has absolutely no experience in government- legislative or administrative
   • Trump has absolutely no experience with foreign policy

1. 
   
   • I was and am offended by Trump statements regarding Mexicans and regarding Muslim immigrants..
   • Trump's statements regarding international trade- especially when it comes to free trade agreements and tariffs display a profound ignorance of both how free trade agreements and tariffs actually are today- and the historic effect of trade barriers.
   • Trump's' statements on national security are both bombastic- and unrealistic.
   • I think that Trump has shown a tendency towards think skinned defensiveness, and attacking anyone who criticizes him that would be detrimental as a President.
   • While I don't particularly trust Clinton- I absolutely distrust Trump
   My first two points were specifically on substance- experience.

LOL, so you are claiming that two of your seven reasons for opposing Trump are based on substance? CONGRATULATIONS!

P.S. Even these two points are fundamentally flawed: (1) The Presidency is an executive position, not legislative or administrative. (2) Experience is of value only when it has resulted in success or at least learning. Which other candidate has this type of experience with foreign policy? (Certainly not Hillary!)

Oh- so you really didn't want people to post their reasons why they are opposed to Trump- you just want to argue?

Okay- so let's recap: you claimed no one had replied substantively to your OP- I pointed out that I did.

Were you lying when you said no one had replied substantively- or just blinded by your partisanship?

You have failed to address any of my points.

As I point out- Trump has no experience in government- legislative or administrative- the Executive Branch is called the Administration.
As I point out Trump has no foreign policy experience.

Now- why don't you provide the specific substantive issues that lead you to support Trump?

Just worth pointing out- Woodie has not been willing to even attempt to provide specific substantive issues that lead him to support Trump.

 

[Art__Allm]

So, let me see if I follow your logic:

You actually think there is a large group of bankers somewhere (i.e. this "establishment") that sits around and "sells" America. And they don't like Donald Trump based solely on his having enough money to not need theirs in what is almost always a losing proposition (ask those who supported Jeb!)?

And what is your take on it?