• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

50 top GOP officials: Trump would 'risk our country's national security'

SailaWay said:
trump is teddy roosevelt.... both stops the harm of monopolies and GREED... that will bring more inventions.. more competition and more progress.... just think what would have happened if the horse and buggy business bought off the govt to stop the automobile invention... america would have lost both world wars..... TRUMP BRINGS PROGRESS

It's not obvious what any of this means. Try slowing down, writing in complete sentences, using proper punctuation, and developing a thought or two. Explain why you think what you think.
 
Oh that's rich! 50 of the guys who led the way under a flag of fraud into the Global War On Terror, who gave us AUMF and other specious products are now warning "national security" might be compromised if Drumph is elected. LOL, truth is stranger than fiction.
 
It's not obvious what any of this means. Try slowing down, writing in complete sentences, using proper punctuation, and developing a thought or two. Explain why you think what you think.

can't you read and understand??? can you understand how NOT stopping monopolies then stops inventions.. competition and then PROGRESS... this is the big difference.... Trump is the same as teddy roosevelt.. can you understand what teddy roosevelt did for the progress of america?
 
I dont like any of the 3 of the candidates and may not vote for any them. I flatly reject the idea that me not voting is helping elect anyone. Its horsecral fearmongering. You want my vote give me a candidate that appeals to me or sort it yourselves.

A trump presidency has consequences that come with it but its not going to end life as we know it and tbe same can be said about clinton.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

In some respects, your non-vote does aid the other candidate. Think of it this way...

Let's say you are a Republican and your guy is the incumbent but he's done a lousy job while in office. He's coming up for re-election but his challenger is a non-name. Do you sit this election out figuring the incumbent is going to win anyway or do you vote your party to ensure the opposition doesn't win the election?

Or how about this one...

Similar scenario only this time you have more registered Republicans than Democrats. The incumbent Republican has done a decent job, but many residents feel he could've done better. Again, do you sit this one firm in your belief that the majority Republican voting public will come through even if voter turnout is low or do you exercise your right to vote?

In the area where I live both scenarios nearly played themselves out in ways many voters took for granted. In the first, voter turnout was low but the incumbent won by just over 1,000 votes despite there being several thousand registered voters. In the second, a run-off election was required because the margin of victory for the incumbent was less than...get this...10 votes! :shock:

So, I think it's important that people vote regardless of how they believe an election might turn out. Because when it comes down to it, an absent vote could very well mean a vote for the other guy. Of course, in the scenario Mr. Glassman presents it's really a matter of knowing how many registered voters there are of one party and ensuring that voters of said party switch their vote to ensure the most disastrous candidate doesn't win and to save the party from imploding.
 
In some respects, your non-vote does aid the other candidate. Think of it this way...

Let's say you are a Republican and your guy is the incumbent but he's done a lousy job while in office. He's coming up for re-election but his challenger is a non-name. Do you sit this election out figuring the incumbent is going to win anyway or do you vote your party to ensure the opposition doesn't win the election?

Or how about this one...

Similar scenario only this time you have more registered Republicans than Democrats. The incumbent Republican has done a decent job, but many residents feel he could've done better. Again, do you sit this one firm in your belief that the majority Republican voting public will come through even if voter turnout is low or do you exercise your right to vote?

In the area where I live both scenarios nearly played themselves out in ways many voters took for granted. In the first, voter turnout was low but the incumbent won by just over 1,000 votes despite there being several thousand registered voters. In the second, a run-off election was required because the margin of victory for the incumbent was less than...get this...10 votes! :shock:

So, I think it's important that people vote regardless of how they believe an election might turn out. Because when it comes down to it, an absent vote could very well mean a vote for the other guy. Of course, in the scenario Mr. Glassman presents it's really a matter of knowing how many registered voters there are of one party and ensuring that voters of said party switch their vote to ensure the most disastrous candidate doesn't win and to save the party from imploding.
I understand your argument but if im disasirified with all the candidates and vote for one way anyway i am endors8ng that candidate. If either party wants my vote they must earn it. I dont vote down party lines because im loyal to a party that isnt loyal to me.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
When The Donald is sworn in, they'll all be sitting on the curb on Pennsylvania Ave. It's a good thing that Wendy's is ALWAYS hiring.
 
All I can say is :shock:!



Now, to be fair these 50 GOP signatories didn't give Hillary a ringing endorsement either, but they made their views very clear on what they believe a Donald Trump White House might look like and it's not pretty.

You can read the letter here.

1. Where were they during the Obama years? No where... And Congress? No where. And as they cowered... **** them. Useless tools.

2. This sounds a lot like the crap that Reagan encountered from the establishment.

3. Republicans nominated Trump because they had given Republicans Congress in order to stop Obama. They, after being deceived, believed he would be far more effective than the group of polished, "experienced" veterans.

I'll take the votes of millions of Americans over the letter of 50 pinheads.

They'll be proven wrong. It'll be a similar situation to Reagan... All over again.
 
If that happens he will be fired, no matter by pen or by gunpoint....
 
Back
Top Bottom