• 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!

How I Went From Far-Left Socialist to Conservative Republican

When I first started voting in 1967, my main thought was to stay out of the Vietnam War, which I hated (and still do). It was a Democrat then who was waging that war (Lyndon Johnson), and a Republican (Richard Nixon) who said he had a secret plan to end the war. Lots of leftists, including me, stunned by the Tet Offensive in 1968, desperate for an end to the war, believed him and voted for him, just on that alone. Then, after getting elected, in 1969, he escalated the war with round the clock bombings of North Vietnam.

For the next 40 years, I never voted for a Republican again. I voted for every Democrat or Green presidential candidate from McGovern in 1972 to Obama in 2008.
Although I always did have reservations about the Democratic party's positions on illegal immigration and affirmative action, I still retained my strong Marxist beginnings, and viewed the Democrats as being for the poor, the middle class, and the Republicans as being for the rich.

I looked with disgust at the gay pride perverted spectacles that Democrats seemed to support, and always thought >> What is there to be proud of ?

After the turn of the century, and 9/11, terrorism and Islamization becoming major factors, and having that become part of the scenario, I began to look closer at the differences between the 2 major parties. I found the Democrats to be disturbingly friendly to radical Islam, and less and less a friend of lower income Americans, with each passing year. The shocking blow that knocked me right out of my Democrat shoes, in 2009 was the Fort Hood shooting. Being an Army veteran myself, I couldn't help thinking the 13 soldiers shot dead by terrorist Nidal Hasan could have been me. Couldn't deny that a lot of the blame for the massacre was with Obama (commander in chief of all US military) who, for months, refused to eject Hasan from the Army with a dishonorable discharge, despite official requests for that, from almost every Fort Hood officer of the rank of major and higher.

Then I saw Obama, pull US troops out of Iraq in 2011, created a vacuum, that was sure to be filled by jihadists. Sure enough, along came ISIS, and Obama mostly ignored them, while their convoys were on open, desert roads, sitting ducks for airstrikes. Obama's pitifully few airstrikes were called "pin pricks" by ex-Generals.

In 2012, I voted for Virgil Goode, rather than the RINO Romney. In 2016, when the Democrats had lost their connection to the low income classes, with Hillary Clinton's campaign heavily donated by rich, Wall St interests, and greatly outspent Trump, I knew I couldn't vote for that. Clinton also was a pure globalist with a strong connection to outsourcing, having voted for it in the Senate, and being a member of pro outsourcing organizations (Trilateral Commission & Council on Foreign Relations).

Trump was just the opposite. Was not in cahoots with Wall St., wasn't throwing US workers under the bus with illegal immigration, wasn't cool with the Islamic seditionists, was not a globalist and was a nationalist, supporting US businesses and workers, and wasn't an enemy of most of the US population on the affirmative action issue. I became a registered Republican in 2016, and voted for Trump in the primary and general election. He came through big, giving us a good economy, low unemployment (lowest ever for minorities) and the highest median wage in US history, along with many other things good for poor, and working class people.

All this was now in addition to the Democrats gone completely insane with riots, induced by media false reporting, and insane ideas like Critical Race Theory, police defunding, tran men competing with women in womens' sports, excessive gun control, immorally loose abortion ideas, and wrecking our democracy by election stealing and the shameful Biden Afghanistan fiasco, leaving Americans and tens of Billions of US equipment to the Taliban.
 
That isn't nearly as many as the 916,000 manufacturing jobs created on Obama's watch.
1. Your link is to an avid Trump-bashing machine. Ho hum.

2. This is from YOUR LINK >> "From the low point of the recession in 2010, the manufacturing sector added 916,000 jobs on Obama’s watch. That was roughly seven years, about twice the amount Trump’s been in office, so on an annual basis, the manufacturing employment gains per year were roughly similar between the two presidents.

3. Almost all of Obama's time in office was ordinary post-recession bounce, which would have occured if Pee Wee Herman were president. After the post-recession rebound, Obama was on his own in his last 2 years.
And his record then ? Utter failure, with a sinking GDP, that was rescued by Trump with rising GDPs in 2017/2018.

Strike 1...........Strike 2...........Strike 3
 
Last edited:
Trump economics, that gave us the V-GRAPH in 2017/2017, with rising GDP, after 2 years of Obama's globalist, sinking GDP.

1630836786023.png


OIP.Uj9F60U5BZISg2EssvPD7wHaFB
 
He is a NATIONALIST (and Populist) - exact opposite of a a globalist, INTERnationalist, communist.

Biden says > Workers of the WORLD unite ; you have nothing to lose but your chains.

Trump says > Workers of the USA unite : you have nothing to lose but CNN fake news.
biggrin.gif

Humor us for a moment:

Is Bill Gates a Globalist?

Is Tim Cook a Globalist?

Is Wal*Mart a Globalist corporation?

If so, tell us why. If not, tell us why.
 
"implicitly".. Not hardly. "implicitly" is a derivative of the word imply, and I never imply, insinuate, or infer anything. if I have something to say, I say it, in clear cut words. And what I say is that ties with Trump's name on them are either ties made and sold in the US, or if sold in China, they are made in China and are brand licensing, not outsourcing. Some people have to be told 3 times.

You do indeed imply things rather than say in clear-cut words. It is a defense mechanism that you use when you are wrong, to avoid admitting that you were wrong. Instead, you claim that the thing you were wrong about doesn't really matter, which implies that you know you are wrong, without you having to actually come out and say it.

Here is your positive claim regarding the Trump Signature Collection ownership:

The ties you mention, made in China, have NOTHING to do with any "bottom line" of Trump, because they are not from any Trump company. They are from Chinese companies, owned by Chinese people, not Trump.

The way Trump's name got to be on them, was by BRAND LICENSING, not by being a Trump-owned company. The Chinese company paid Trump a fee for the right to have his name on THEIR ties.

Now, of course, you and I both know that the Trump Signature Collection is not owned by a Chinese Company. If it were, you could simply link to the Chinese Company in question, and thereby prove me wrong. But you can't link to the Chinese company that owns the Trump Signature Collection. Because the Trump Signature Collection isn't owned by a Chinese Company. When pressed about it, instead of admitting in clear cut words that you were lying about the Trump Signature Collection being owned by a Chinese company, you said:

Trump Signature Collection is just a NAME ( which generated income for Trump) Does'nt matter what country the stuff is made in. It still isn't Trump owned, or have anything to do with outsourcing. Stop being a Hillary Clinton DUPE.

You're just another internet Trump-basher, who takes words from here & there. and puts them together in whatever way you can fit them to bash Trump. Ho hum. Yawn*****

When you say "Does'nt(sic) matter what country the stuff is made in" you are implicitly (from the word imply) acknowledging that The Trump Signature Collection is not in fact owned by a Chinese company, as you originally claimed. Your pride wouldn't let you acknowledge outright that you were lying, but your reluctance to state which particular Chinese company you think owns the Trump Signature Collection, along with your minimizing language about how it 'doesn't matter' implies that you know you are lying about Trump's ties being from a Chinese company.

OK, we'll go through this again >>
This is copy/pasted from YOUR LINK. >> "PVH ended its licensing agreement with Trump in July 2015, after Macy's discontinued sales of his Trump Signature Collection due to controversial comments that he made regarding illegal immigrants.[12]"

You still don't seem to be able to get what a brand licensing agreement is. Is this possible ?

No. You don't seem to be able to get what a licensing agreement is. Trump owns the Trump Signature Collection. His licensing agreement with PVH, (which is an American company, not Chinese) left the details of concept development, prototyping, and final production samples to PVH. PVH then submitted prototypes and final production samples to Trump for approval. Trump signed off on everything from the color palette to where manufacturing was outsourced to.

If Trump wanted his ties made in the USA, they would have been made in the USA. He didn't want them made in the USA, because more expensive production would have led to lower net sales, which would mean less royalties for Trump. That is why Trump chose to outsource the manufacturing of his ties.

Of course, as you mentioned, PVH (Trump's American manufacturing partner) and Macy's (Trump's American distribution partner) eventually dumped Trump because of what a bad investment he turned out to be.
 
Last edited:
You do indeed imply things rather than say in clear-cut words. It is a defense mechanism that you use when you are wrong, to avoid admitting that you were wrong. Instead, you claim that the thing you were wrong about doesn't really matter, which implies that you know you are wrong, without you having to actually come out and say it.

Here is your positive claim regarding the Trump Signature Collection ownership:



Now, of course, you and I both know that the Trump Signature Collection is not owned by a Chinese Company. If it were, you could simply link to the Chinese Company in question, and thereby prove me wrong. But you can't link to the Chinese company that owns the Trump Signature Collection. Because the Trump Signature Collection isn't owned by a Chinese Company. When pressed about it, instead of admitting in clear cut words that you were lying about the Trump Signature Collection being owned by a Chinese company, you said:



When you say "Does'nt(sic) matter what country the stuff is made in" you are implicitly (from the word imply) acknowledging that The Trump Signature Collection is not in fact owned by a Chinese company, as you originally claimed. Your pride wouldn't let you acknowledge outright that you were lying, but your reluctance to state which particular Chinese company you think owns the Trump Signature Collection, along with your minimizing language about how it 'doesn't matter' implies that you know you are lying about Trump's ties being from a Chinese company.



No. You don't seem to be able to get what a licensing agreement is. Trump owns the Trump Signature Collection. His licensing agreement with PVH, (which is an American company, not Chinese) left the details of concept development, prototyping, and final production samples to PVH. PVH then submitted prototypes and final production samples to Trump for approval. Trump signed off on everything from the color palette to where manufacturing was outsourced to.

If Trump wanted his ties made in the USA, they would have been made in the USA. He didn't want them made in the USA, because more expensive production would have led to lower net sales, which would mean less royalties for Trump. That is why Trump chose to outsource the manufacturing of his ties.

Of course, as you mentioned, PVH (Trump's American manufacturing partner) and Macy's (Trump's American distribution partner) eventually dumped Trump because of what a bad investment he turned out to be.
Very well put.

Trump could have had his stuff made in America. He chose not to. That is the bottom line. That is also globalism 101.
 
Ditch the protectionism, it's both stupid and immoral. Outsourcing is a good thing, you probably couldn't survive if you didn't outsource food, clothing, building materials etc. What's true for you individually is true for the country collectively. Outsourcing is a major reason why Americans are so wealthy.

Wait whaaa...?

Wait aren't you a Trump supporter? This is a rather odd thing for a Trump supporter to say.
 
Wait whaaa...?

Wait aren't you a Trump supporter? This is a rather odd thing for a Trump supporter to say.
I did vote for Trump, but I'm not a Trump supporter per se and would like to see someone else for 2024.

Unfortunately most people, including Trump, are economic illiterates when it comes to free trade. Most Republicans and Democrats think the economy is a giant jobs program.
 
I did vote for Trump, but I'm not a Trump supporter per se and would like to see someone else for 2024.

Unfortunately most people, including Trump, are economic illiterates when it comes to free trade. Most Republicans and Democrats think the economy is a giant jobs program.

Huh. Very Interesting.

So remind me again what was it that you liked about Trump? For most people, the protectionism and isolationism were the biggest reasons to vote for him.
 
I did vote for Trump, but I'm not a Trump supporter per se and would like to see someone else for 2024.

Unfortunately most people, including Trump, are economic illiterates when it comes to free trade. Most Republicans and Democrats think the economy is a giant jobs program.
On that I can agree. Though I wouldn't call Trump an illiterate on the subject, I think he moved in that direction because he's a businessman and decided to go at it the best way he knew how. In the case of other politicians, they may just suffer from some form of disconnect on the subject. That, or they're attempting to stick to some game plan that we are, as of yet, unaware of.
 
Huh. Very Interesting.

So remind me again what was it that you liked about Trump?

He cut taxes, and I support tax cuts for anyone and everyone. Trump saved the supreme court from turning into a leftist clown show. Trump also didn't start any new wars.
 
You do indeed imply things rather than say in clear-cut words. It is a defense mechanism that you use when you are wrong, to avoid admitting that you were wrong. Instead, you claim that the thing you were wrong about doesn't really matter, which implies that you know you are wrong, without you having to actually come out and say it.

Here is your positive claim regarding the Trump Signature Collection ownership:



Now, of course, you and I both know that the Trump Signature Collection is not owned by a Chinese Company. If it were, you could simply link to the Chinese Company in question, and thereby prove me wrong. But you can't link to the Chinese company that owns the Trump Signature Collection. Because the Trump Signature Collection isn't owned by a Chinese Company. When pressed about it, instead of admitting in clear cut words that you were lying about the Trump Signature Collection being owned by a Chinese company, you said:



When you say "Does'nt(sic) matter what country the stuff is made in" you are implicitly (from the word imply) acknowledging that The Trump Signature Collection is not in fact owned by a Chinese company, as you originally claimed. Your pride wouldn't let you acknowledge outright that you were lying, but your reluctance to state which particular Chinese company you think owns the Trump Signature Collection, along with your minimizing language about how it 'doesn't matter' implies that you know you are lying about Trump's ties being from a Chinese company.



No. You don't seem to be able to get what a licensing agreement is. Trump owns the Trump Signature Collection. His licensing agreement with PVH, (which is an American company, not Chinese) left the details of concept development, prototyping, and final production samples to PVH. PVH then submitted prototypes and final production samples to Trump for approval. Trump signed off on everything from the color palette to where manufacturing was outsourced to.

If Trump wanted his ties made in the USA, they would have been made in the USA. He didn't want them made in the USA, because more expensive production would have led to lower net sales, which would mean less royalties for Trump. That is why Trump chose to outsource the manufacturing of his ties.

Of course, as you mentioned, PVH (Trump's American manufacturing partner) and Macy's (Trump's American distribution partner) eventually dumped Trump because of what a bad investment he turned out to be.
1. If you think I imply things, that's in YOUR head, not mine. Typical mental distortion common of liberals. Ho hum.

2. I didn't say the Trump Signature Collection is owned by a Chinese Company. I just said it was not owned by Trump, but is brand licensed, as your link said.

3. The Chinese ties were not Trump's ties. They were merely brand licensed by him, with no thought about where they were made. Trump didn't care if they were made in the US, or in China, or on the moon. His money comes from just his name being on them, no matter where they were made. Has nothing to do with outsourcing, despite Hillary Clinton's lies, and David Letterman's ignorance.

4. No, they didn't dump Trump because of bad investment, They thought his name (from brand licensing) was helpful to them, but after his words disparaging Mexicans >> "They're racists" (a true statement), they (wrongly) thought his name to be connected with racism. Information-deprived victims of liberal OMISSION media.
 
I did vote for Trump, but I'm not a Trump supporter per se and would like to see someone else for 2024.

Unfortunately most people, including Trump, are economic illiterates when it comes to free trade. Most Republicans and Democrats think the economy is a giant jobs program.
When it comes to free trade, there is one conclusion >> DON'T do it. Engaging in anything freely is bad methodology. It's like being "free" to drink anything at all - including liquid bleach.
 
Huh. Very Interesting.

So remind me again what was it that you liked about Trump? For most people, the protectionism and isolationism were the biggest reasons to vote for him.
Have you seen my list of 55 accomplishments of Trump ?
 
1. If you think I imply things, that's in YOUR head, not mine. Typical mental distortion common of liberals. Ho hum.

You said Trump's ties were owned by a Chinese company. I proved they weren't. You responded by saying "Does'nt(sic) matter what country the stuff is made in. It still isn't Trump owned." This implies that you recognize that Trump's ties are not owned by a Chinese company, without actually coming out and saying it.

2. I didn't say the Trump Signature Collection is owned by a Chinese Company. I just said it was not owned by Trump, but is brand licensed, as your link said.

If only there were some way to quote a previous post to show exactly what you said. Oh wait, there is.

The ties you mention, made in China, have NOTHING to do with any "bottom line" of Trump, because they are not from any Trump company. They are from Chinese companies, owned by Chinese people, not Trump.

The way Trump's name got to be on them, was by BRAND LICENSING, not by being a Trump-owned company. The Chinese company paid Trump a fee for the right to have his name on THEIR ties.

You said, "The Chinese company paid Trump a fee for the right to have his name on THEIR ties." That was literally what you said verbatim. Now you want to claim with a straight face that you never said they were owned by a Chinese company?

If Trump had licensed his brand to a Chinese company, that would still make him a globalist. He didn't though. You were lying about his ties being brand licensed to a Chinese company, and now you are lying about having said that.

Furthermore, the Trump Signature Collection brand is owned by Trump. Licensing the brand to PVH (which is not a Chinese company as you claimed) doesn't mean that they are PVH's ties. It means that PVH was a licensing partner for Trump's ties.

3. The Chinese ties were not Trump's ties. They were merely brand licensed by him, with no thought about where they were made. Trump didn't care if they were made in the US, or in China, or on the moon. His money comes from just his name being on them, no matter where they were made. Has nothing to do with outsourcing, despite Hillary Clinton's lies, and David Letterman's ignorance.

They were Trump's ties. Trump himself called them his ties.

"You know, I’m open. I say, my ties, many times, are made in China, not all of them, by the way, but a lot of them are made in China, because they have manipulated their currency to such a point that it’s impossible for our companies to compete." -Donald Trump in an interview with Jake Tapper.

'No thought about where things are made' is the mantra of the globalists. Licensors are not removed from the process after licensing their brand. They still have control over the details of production. PVH comes up with a couple of options, submits them to Trump, and then Trump approves the option he likes best. That is how brand licensing works.

Trump approved the option for PVH to outsource manufacturing to China because he is a globalist who likes outsourcing when it helps his bottom line.

4. No, they didn't dump Trump because of bad investment, They thought his name (from brand licensing) was helpful to them, but after his words disparaging Mexicans >> "They're racists" (a true statement), they (wrongly) thought his name to be connected with racism. Information-deprived victims of liberal OMISSION media.

Like I said, he turned out to be a bad investment. Trump's racist remarks made his ties less profitable, so PVH decided not to waste resources making ties that wouldn't sell, and Macy's decided not to waste retail space on ties that wouldn't sell. They also didn't want their own brand images tainted by an association with Trump any longer.
 
1. YOU care, or you wouldnt be here.

No, I just like dunking on conservative clowns.

2. Show one thing I've ever said that is "bigotry"

Pretty much your entire reasoning is based on your hatred of gays and brown people.

3. Do you support "bigotry" ? >> (Afformative Action, American Rescue Plan, Critical Race Theory)

You should actually conceal your age, you sound like a teenager just discovering Tucker Carlson.
 
I DID do that (in 1983), and still kept voting Democrat. When the disease of leftism is in you, it goes deep. One of the problems is that left wingers staunchly avoid any information from the right. So they are not thinking the same things we are.

Hard to believe when I look back on it, but I voted for Dukakis in 1988, without ever having heard the name "Willie Horton" (which of course was kept out of MSM, PBS, and other left programming).

Hahahahaha.

It's amazing any of you think these "I used to be on the left, so you can trust me when I say the left is evil and diseased" crap works.
 
View attachment 67352467.I did not imagine that I could convince people. I simply told my story. If they are convinced or not, whatever.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" (German: Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen) is a slogan popularized by Karl Marx in his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program. The principle refers to free access to and distribution of goods, capital and services. In the Marxist view, such an arrangement will be made possible by the abundance of goods and services that a developed communist system will be capable to produce; the idea is that, with the full development of socialism and unfettered productive forces, there will be enough to satisfy everyone's needs.

A bit more of overview is >> There are three slogans in the history of socialism that are very close in wording, namely, the famous Cabet-Blanc-Marx slogan: From each according to his ability; To each according to his needs; the earlier Saint-Simon–Pecqueur slogan: To each according to his ability; To each according to his works; and the later slogan in Stalin’s 1936 Soviet Constitution: From each according to his ability; To each according to his work.

I don't know how you came to the idea that Marx thought this was a stupid motto, when it obviously is the cornerstone of what socialism, and egalitarianism is all about. I sense that like many young people, and those still caught up in leftist "overthink", you are just thinking too much.
Also, attempting to debunk ideas by reference to Ayn Rand is also a big thing among current liberals.
 
Well, it's obvious that you are just fully programmed of the leftist media propaganda mill, and you make quick one shot accusations, without any back up, no source, no link, nothing but your rhetoric, but, I'll still entertain your laughable charge, by asking you to to SHOW one example of any corruption by Trump.

I know there have been some of these pretenses in the media, and they all have been shot to pieces, but go ahead. You have the floor. No matter how strong or weak anyone's posting may be, I'm an equal opportunity listener.

Do you mean aside from ignoring the emoluments clause?
 
There's only one reason people go from far left to far right. The total abandonment of philosophical beliefs is the result of phobia. One does not throw away everything they believe politically for less than self worth.
 
I'm a former JFK Democrat. If he were alive today he would probably be labeled a moderate Republican or an Independent.
 
You can have your leftist outsourcing, along with all your globalist outsourcers (Hillary Clinton, Obama, Biden, etc) and all the outsourcing globalist orgs they belong to (Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, etc). I'll stick with conservative protectionism, conserving America's businesses and jobs, Made in USA good quality stuff over Chinese junk, and Trump economics, that gave us the V-GRAPH in 2017/2017, with rising GDP, after 2 years of Obama's globalist, sinking GDP.

View attachment 67352149

Also, manufacturing things in the US is a matter of national security as well. Right now, many of the pharmaceuticals we depend on are made in China. Happy with that, are you ? Talk about "stupid".

Maybe YOU can't survive without outsourcing, but AMERICANS can, and very well, as proven by Trump's economic success.

How many companies operating in China, do you own stock in, Mr Outsourcer ?
And yet, ironically Trump voted to continue h1-b visa quotas, contrary to what he espoused.
 
Back
Top Bottom