Why Are You Opposed to Trump?

[Art__Allm]

Bottom line is that Trump is a joke.

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

This negative emotion is called "hate", isn't it?

 

[jwoodie]

[QUO

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

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

Are you blind, or just completely ignorant of Trump's positions on these substantive issues? Do you need to have them spelled out (again)?

As for your two-for-seven attempts at substance, I simply pointed out how they were fundamentally flawed as to facts and logic.

P.S. Resorting to name calling is the ultimate concession that one's arguments lack substance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

A better question would be, "Why WOULDN'T I be opposed to Trump?"

I'll be happy to correct you in your wrongness. Opposition to Trump is not just about the fact that he's childishly rude and offensive while trying to pass it off as "political incorrectness", although it's certainly an important and valid objection. Anyone who thinks "ugly loser" is an effective and Presidential debate point is confusing the President of the United States with the president of the grammar school student council, not to put too fine a point on it. And by the way, why are we supposed to "avoid name-calling" when it's so admired and cheered when Trump does it? If there's something wrong with it in here, why is there nothing wrong with it in a Presidential campaign?

Trump has no "direct approaches" to any of these issues. He pretends he does, and people accept that assertion at face value, latch onto whatever he said at a given moment that they liked, and utterly ignore all the times he's said the complete opposite of what they liked. And that's a very on-point reason to oppose Trump: if you're not already in the tank for him and are actually paying attention to EVERYTHING he says, and everything he's actually done in the past, you realize very quickly that he has no clear, set approach to any issue, because he doesn't have a single guiding principle to anything he does, other than what's good for Trump at the moment.

Even when you get him to try to make a "Presidential" speech about foreign policy - which apparently requires someone else to write it and a teleprompter so he can read it - it's so vague, fuzzy, and riddled with inconsistencies as to be incomprehensible, which would leave anyone not already in the cult seriously confused and disturbed about what could be expected from his administration.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on....

Trum is really independent, he does not need the money of the banksters, that is the reason why he is so hated by the establishment that is selling America, and that is the reason why Americans see in Trum the last chance to save the country which is going down the drain.

Horsecrap. Far from "not needing the money of the bankers", Trump is quite heavily in debt to bankers as well as other big-money folks, and "coincidentally" proposed his biggest creditor, Carl Icahn, as Secretary of the Treasury.

Furthermore, most of the money his campaign has spent - and they have apparently spent most of their money at this point - has come from donations, not from Trump.

The reason the "establishment" hates him is the same reason everyone else hates him: he's a disastrous choice. I can only assume that the reason any American sees him as "the last chance" is because they watch too many movies.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It doesn't matter if you were an Obama supporter or not, the point is that Trump cannot be worse.

And he cannot be worth than Hillary Clinton, a crazy war monger and a corrupt and ruthless puppet who will sell the interests of Americans for a couple of shekels.

He absolutely can be worse than Hillary, or at least as bad. Don't underestimate him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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. There have been several posts so far that have opposed Trump on substance, so I can only assume that "I have not seen them" really means "I don't WANT to see them."

 

[PredFan]

It doesn't matter if you were an Obama supporter or not, the point is that Trump cannot be worse.

And he cannot be worth than Hillary Clinton, a crazy war monger and a corrupt and ruthless puppet who will sell the interests of Americans for a couple of shekels.

He absolutely can be worse than Hillary, or at least as bad. Don't underestimate him.

Doubtful, he'll be worse than Hillary.

 

[Syriusly]

[QUO

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

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

Are you blind, or just completely ignorant of Trump's positions on these substantive issues? Do you need to have them spelled out (again)?.

I am just wondering if you have a clue what issues (of substance) you think Trump supports that make you support him- what of 'substance' about Trump leads you to support Trump.?

You have yet been willing to even attempt to provide specific substantive issues that lead you to support Trump.

Unlike myself- where I have provided substantive reasons why I oppose Trump.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It doesn't matter if you were an Obama supporter or not, the point is that Trump cannot be worse.

And he cannot be worth than Hillary Clinton, a crazy war monger and a corrupt and ruthless puppet who will sell the interests of Americans for a couple of shekels.

He absolutely can be worse than Hillary, or at least as bad. Don't underestimate him.

Doubtful, he'll be worse than Hillary.

That's entirely your opinion. As far as I'm concerned, the guy is the white-trash Obama, which leaves an absolutely mind-boggling scope for awful.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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.

I will correct something in your OP and that is Trump company has been fined by the Justice Department in the past for Discrimination, so he has a history with how he deals with minorities in the business world...

" In 1973, the Justice Department sued the Trump Management Corporation for alleged racial discrimination, which Trump's company disputed. The corporation was charged with quoting different rental terms and conditions to blacks and making false "no vacancy" statements to blacks for apartments they managed in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island.[447] In response, Trump sued the government for $100 million, asserting that the charges were irresponsible and baseless.[448] The ensuing countersuit was thrown out of court.[449] The corporation settled out of court in 1975, promising not to discriminate against minorities. In addition, the corporation was required to send a bi-weekly list of vacancies to the New York Urban League, a civil rights group and give them priority for certain locations.[450] In 1978, the Justice Department sued Trump Management in Brooklyn for not satisfying the requirements of the 1975 settlement following allegations of discriminatory housing practices.[451] "

" Trump Plaza was fined $200,000 in 1991 by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission for moving African-American and female employees from craps tables in order to accommodate high roller Robert LiButti, a mob figure and alleged John Gotti associate, who was said to fly into fits of racist rage when he was on losing streaks. "

Donald Trump - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trump has an history and I know who he really is, and no I do not want someone like me as President...

 

[PredFan]

It doesn't matter if you were an Obama supporter or not, the point is that Trump cannot be worse.

And he cannot be worth than Hillary Clinton, a crazy war monger and a corrupt and ruthless puppet who will sell the interests of Americans for a couple of shekels.

He absolutely can be worse than Hillary, or at least as bad. Don't underestimate him.

Doubtful, he'll be worse than Hillary.

That's entirely your opinion. As far as I'm concerned, the guy is the white-trash Obama, which leaves an absolutely mind-boggling scope for awful.

Based on what? It's easy enough to say that, backing it up is a lot harder. All I have to do is look at her horrible record as Secretary of State, how she almost single-handedly destabilized the ME, got several people killed, exposed who knows how many of our state secrets. In just foreign policy alone it would be vary difficult for Trump to do worse. Then their is her already divisive talk in race, he completely idiotic proposed policies in economics, and there is very little doubt that Trump would be better.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

Opposition to Trump is from the RNC power brokers and the fools who follow them. They don't like orange clowns taking their power. The race card is always played by the opposition to appeal to the hypersensitive, guilt ridden whites. It's not about policy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It doesn't matter if you were an Obama supporter or not, the point is that Trump cannot be worse.

And he cannot be worth than Hillary Clinton, a crazy war monger and a corrupt and ruthless puppet who will sell the interests of Americans for a couple of shekels.

He absolutely can be worse than Hillary, or at least as bad. Don't underestimate him.

Doubtful, he'll be worse than Hillary.

That's entirely your opinion. As far as I'm concerned, the guy is the white-trash Obama, which leaves an absolutely mind-boggling scope for awful.

Based on what? It's easy enough to say that, backing it up is a lot harder. All I have to do is look at her horrible record as Secretary of State, how she almost single-handedly destabilized the ME, got several people killed, exposed who knows how many of our state secrets. In just foreign policy alone it would be vary difficult for Trump to do worse. Then their is her already divisive talk in race, he completely idiotic proposed policies in economics, and there is very little doubt that Trump would be better.

I'm sorry, are you asking me the basis for calling him the white-trash Obama, or for saying he has a mind-boggling scope for awful?

You don't have to sell me on how awful Hillary is. I'd rather be tortured with thumbscrews than tolerate her and her horny hick husband in the White House for four years. The problem is, how horrible SHE is isn't a mitigating factor on how horrible TRUMP is, and I have an equal preference right now for torture over tolerating HIM in the White House, too. Sadly, "horrible" is not a zero-sum game in this instance, where there's only so much to go around and the more horrible she has, the less there is available for him to have.

 

[Chuz Life]

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.

I appreciate this question and how it is being asked.

I (for one) do not actively oppose Donald Trump. I don't like him. I don't like his rhetoric and kneejerk reactive tendencies towards certain lines of questions and basically, I am disappointed that he is the best this nation can come up with as a candidate for the GOP.

That said, we play the cards we are dealt.

I would slit my own throat in the voting booth before I would every vote for Hitlary or Sanders. . . . so, it is what it is.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

I looked hard at Trump when all this started, and knew Cruze would be the other choice. Rubio was done when he betrayed those who sent him to washington, and the rest were pretty much retreads and washouts from past primareys. So at this point,I am a Cruz supporter. I can pull up his senate record and see consistency. Not so much with Donald Trump. Donald Trump just bounces around to much for me, and he just doesn't have the temperament for the job. He will also have lots of trouble with Hillery when it comes to who he gave money to in his past as a New York developer. He gave over $600,000.00 to democrats who backed things like gun control as well as unions. I don't hold the union thing against him thoigh. Unions build stuff and he needs them, but m afraid they are Inot him to deeply. I was able to find all that with a simple Google search. Hillery will bring more with her machine. All that and his behavior, all the winning and crying about the rules, unless they are in his favor, he hasn't complained about the Florida deligates.

So in short, go Ted.

You say his donations to Dems will hurt him, but the union stuff won't because he needs them to build stuff. My impression is that he gave money to politicians on both sides because buying politicians makes building things easier. He appeared to be politically agnostic when he was strictly a businessman. I don't follow your reasoning.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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.

I will correct something in your OP and that is Trump company has been fined by the Justice Department in the past for Discrimination, so he has a history with how he deals with minorities in the business world...

" In 1973, the Justice Department sued the Trump Management Corporation for alleged racial discrimination, which Trump's company disputed. The corporation was charged with quoting different rental terms and conditions to blacks and making false "no vacancy" statements to blacks for apartments they managed in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island.[447] In response, Trump sued the government for $100 million, asserting that the charges were irresponsible and baseless.[448] The ensuing countersuit was thrown out of court.[449] The corporation settled out of court in 1975, promising not to discriminate against minorities. In addition, the corporation was required to send a bi-weekly list of vacancies to the New York Urban League, a civil rights group and give them priority for certain locations.[450] In 1978, the Justice Department sued Trump Management in Brooklyn for not satisfying the requirements of the 1975 settlement following allegations of discriminatory housing practices.[451] "

" Trump Plaza was fined $200,000 in 1991 by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission for moving African-American and female employees from craps tables in order to accommodate high roller Robert LiButti, a mob figure and alleged John Gotti associate, who was said to fly into fits of racist rage when he was on losing streaks. "

Donald Trump - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trump has an history and I know who he really is, and no I do not want someone like me as President...

His history is of a businessman who acts in what he sees as the best interest of his business. Having customers who are racist does not make you racist? If you have ever owned a business, it should be easy to understand.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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.

I will correct something in your OP and that is Trump company has been fined by the Justice Department in the past for Discrimination, so he has a history with how he deals with minorities in the business world...

" In 1973, the Justice Department sued the Trump Management Corporation for alleged racial discrimination, which Trump's company disputed. The corporation was charged with quoting different rental terms and conditions to blacks and making false "no vacancy" statements to blacks for apartments they managed in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island.[447] In response, Trump sued the government for $100 million, asserting that the charges were irresponsible and baseless.[448] The ensuing countersuit was thrown out of court.[449] The corporation settled out of court in 1975, promising not to discriminate against minorities. In addition, the corporation was required to send a bi-weekly list of vacancies to the New York Urban League, a civil rights group and give them priority for certain locations.[450] In 1978, the Justice Department sued Trump Management in Brooklyn for not satisfying the requirements of the 1975 settlement following allegations of discriminatory housing practices.[451] "

" Trump Plaza was fined $200,000 in 1991 by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission for moving African-American and female employees from craps tables in order to accommodate high roller Robert LiButti, a mob figure and alleged John Gotti associate, who was said to fly into fits of racist rage when he was on losing streaks. "

Donald Trump - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trump has an history and I know who he really is, and no I do not want someone like me as President...

His history is of a businessman who acts in what he sees as the best interest of his business. Having customers who are racist does not make you racist? If you have ever owned a business, it should be easy to understand.

Read the first part again and it had nothing to do with customers being racist but the fact his own business was busted for discrimination.

You are discussing the second one of the post which happened in the 1990's.

 

[PredFan]

And he cannot be worth than Hillary Clinton, a crazy war monger and a corrupt and ruthless puppet who will sell the interests of Americans for a couple of shekels.

He absolutely can be worse than Hillary, or at least as bad. Don't underestimate him.

Doubtful, he'll be worse than Hillary.

That's entirely your opinion. As far as I'm concerned, the guy is the white-trash Obama, which leaves an absolutely mind-boggling scope for awful.

Based on what? It's easy enough to say that, backing it up is a lot harder. All I have to do is look at her horrible record as Secretary of State, how she almost single-handedly destabilized the ME, got several people killed, exposed who knows how many of our state secrets. In just foreign policy alone it would be vary difficult for Trump to do worse. Then their is her already divisive talk in race, he completely idiotic proposed policies in economics, and there is very little doubt that Trump would be better.

I'm sorry, are you asking me the basis for calling him the white-trash Obama, or for saying he has a mind-boggling scope for awful?

You don't have to sell me on how awful Hillary is. I'd rather be tortured with thumbscrews than tolerate her and her horny hick husband in the White House for four years. The problem is, how horrible SHE is isn't a mitigating factor on how horrible TRUMP is, and I have an equal preference right now for torture over tolerating HIM in the White House, too. Sadly, "horrible" is not a zero-sum game in this instance, where there's only so much to go around and the more horrible she has, the less there is available for him to have.

But our argument is about Trump being worst or at least not as bad as Hillary.

I have provided some points to support my claim that he won't be as bad as Hillary, you disagree. Can you provide something other than disagreement?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I looked hard at Trump when all this started, and knew Cruze would be the other choice. Rubio was done when he betrayed those who sent him to washington, and the rest were pretty much retreads and washouts from past primareys. So at this point,I am a Cruz supporter. I can pull up his senate record and see consistency. Not so much with Donald Trump. Donald Trump just bounces around to much for me, and he just doesn't have the temperament for the job. He will also have lots of trouble with Hillery when it comes to who he gave money to in his past as a New York developer. He gave over $600,000.00 to democrats who backed things like gun control as well as unions. I don't hold the union thing against him thoigh. Unions build stuff and he needs them, but m afraid they are Inot him to deeply. I was able to find all that with a simple Google search. Hillery will bring more with her machine. All that and his behavior, all the winning and crying about the rules, unless they are in his favor, he hasn't complained about the Florida deligates.

So in short, go Ted.

You say his donations to Dems will hurt him, but the union stuff won't because he needs them to build stuff. My impression is that he gave money to politicians on both sides because buying politicians makes building things easier. He appeared to be politically agnostic when he was strictly a businessman. I don't follow your reasoning.

Between 1989 and 2010, The Donald gave $314,300 to Democratic groups and candidates and $290,600 to Republicans, according to a Daily Caller analysis of records maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.


But Trump’s donation gap was even larger during the mid-2000s, which saw the end of Republican congressional majorities and the ascendance of the Democratic party.


Overall in the 2006 election cycle, Trump and his son, Donald Trump Jr., donated $77,200 to Democrats versus only $24,250 on Republicans. Looking back to the 2004 cycle, the pair donated $40,500 to Democrats and only $17,250 to the GOP.

Donald Trump Donated Heavily To Democrats, Especially During Election Which Put Reid And Pelosi In Power

In what universe does that look "politically agnostic"?

 

[Cecilie1200]

He absolutely can be worse than Hillary, or at least as bad. Don't underestimate him.

Doubtful, he'll be worse than Hillary.

That's entirely your opinion. As far as I'm concerned, the guy is the white-trash Obama, which leaves an absolutely mind-boggling scope for awful.

Based on what? It's easy enough to say that, backing it up is a lot harder. All I have to do is look at her horrible record as Secretary of State, how she almost single-handedly destabilized the ME, got several people killed, exposed who knows how many of our state secrets. In just foreign policy alone it would be vary difficult for Trump to do worse. Then their is her already divisive talk in race, he completely idiotic proposed policies in economics, and there is very little doubt that Trump would be better.

I'm sorry, are you asking me the basis for calling him the white-trash Obama, or for saying he has a mind-boggling scope for awful?

You don't have to sell me on how awful Hillary is. I'd rather be tortured with thumbscrews than tolerate her and her horny hick husband in the White House for four years. The problem is, how horrible SHE is isn't a mitigating factor on how horrible TRUMP is, and I have an equal preference right now for torture over tolerating HIM in the White House, too. Sadly, "horrible" is not a zero-sum game in this instance, where there's only so much to go around and the more horrible she has, the less there is available for him to have.

But our argument is about Trump being worst or at least not as bad as Hillary.

I have provided some points to support my claim that he won't be as bad as Hillary, you disagree. Can you provide something other than disagreement?

Now that you have clarified, yes. I can.

Ask yourself this: which of the two is more likely to get their policies and agendas enacted by Congress?

Hillary Clinton would love to be a continuation of the policies of the Obama Administration, no doubt about it. But she's not Barack Obama. She's an ugly shrew with a strident, clunky, massively unlikable personality. The only reason she's winning the Democrat primaries at all is because they're literally set up to be a coronation procession for whomever the party insiders anoint, with virtually no reference to their rank-and-file at all, because they can be counted on to vote in lockstep however they're told and swear up, down, and sideways that it was all their idea. She has no charisma or persuasiveness of her own, and no legion of rabid fans. She does, however, have the capacity to galvanize Republicans and conservatives against her. So President Hillary would likely face massive gridlock and right-wingers coming out of the woodwork to retain control of Congress to keep it that way.

How likely are Congressional Republicans, who are not the most stalwart of champions under any circumstances, to react that way to a President who wears, however falsely, the label of "Republican"? Especially with his cult of worshipers screaming at the gates? And given that he readily and easily flip-flops from right to left on virtually any issue that comes up, how likely is it that Congressional Democrats will feel the need to strongly oppose him? Hell, he's donated to a lot of them. What are the chances that we'll see teaming up to neutralize the spaghetti-spined Republicans?

We certainly would not see any movement forward on any truly conservative issues, particularly involving limiting the scope and overreach of the federal government, because Trump's not a conservative and he's also not even remotely the sort of man who would voluntarily limit his own power. What we WOULD likely see is more of the populist crap he spews on the stump, which the Democrats would be just fine with and the Republicans would be too weak-sistered to resist in the face of his unwashed masses of populist fans.

So basically, we're looking at two people putting forward policies that are ultimately bad for America, and only one of them with a good chance of actually achieving those policies.

Which one do YOU think would be worse?