• 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!

Trump refuses to support Paul Ryan, John McCain in upcoming Republican primaries

I couldn't get past the first sentence. :lol:

Sorry, but no, the vast bulk of your defense of Trump has been Hillary comparisons. And when you say things like...

...statements like this are clear and definitive examples of blind faith, or desperate hope, if you will.

For most anti-Trump people, it's not that Hillary is any kind of prize. Phfft, far from it. But, she is the status quo, and Trump would most likely be even worse. Not all of what Trump says he wants to do is necessarily bad, but it is highly questionable that he would be able to actually pull it off. Plus, some of the things he would/could do would be an absolute travesty, primarily in foreign relations, both militarily and trade.

Is that a "lesser of two evils" argument? To a point, sure. But this is not your father's election, either. The idealism of the past simply doesn't apply this time. We had a chance for idealism in the primaries and we effed it up.

That is the choice we have, Hillary vs. Trump thus the comparisons. The lessor of two evils? One is evil and the other you really have no idea about but seem to want more of the same with Hillary. Politicians got us into this mess and maybe a one term Trump Presidency will get us out. It sure isn't Hillary. The Trump economic speech was accurate and Hillary's was full of lies but aren't we used to that with Hillary? Stop listening to the tone and focus on the content of Trump's speeches
 
That is the choice we have, Hillary vs. Trump thus the comparisons. The lessor of two evils? One is evil and the other you really have no idea about but seem to want more of the same with Hillary. Politicians got us into this mess and maybe a one term Trump Presidency will get us out. It sure isn't Hillary. The Trump economic speech was accurate and Hillary's was full of lies but aren't we used to that with Hillary? Stop listening to the tone and focus on the content of Trump's speeches

Anybody can say the right thing here and there. There's even a couple points on which he and I agree, eliminating baseline budgeting, as just one example. There is zero reason to believe that Trump has the experience, connections inside Congress, or demeanor to actually pull it off. Ze-ro! Look deeper than the words.
 
Anybody can say the right thing here and there. There's even a couple points on which he and I agree, eliminating baseline budgeting, as just one example. There is zero reason to believe that Trump has the experience, connections inside Congress, or demeanor to actually pull it off. Ze-ro! Look deeper than the words.

that is why Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich are going to be in his Administration
 
that is why Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich are going to be in his Administration
Neither of which are exactly respected by the opposition... or even in their own parties.

And since when does The Donald ever actually delegate? Seriously. This is a good example of why I mentioned demeanor.
 
Neither of which are exactly respected by the opposition... or even in their own parties.

And since when does The Donald ever actually delegate? Seriously. This is a good example of why I mentioned demeanor.

you really seem to be concerned about being liked, you think Reagan was liked? You think he was respected? You earn respect through your actions not through appeasing others. Our enemies understand one thing only, strength and Trump, not Hillary provides that strength.
 
you really seem to be concerned about being liked, you think Reagan was liked? You think he was respected? You earn respect through your actions not through appeasing others. Our enemies understand one thing only, strength and Trump, not Hillary provides that strength.
Ok. We've established that you're counting on blind faith that Trump can actually do what he says he will, but please be more specific on how he is (or, will be) respected enough to actually accomplish his alleged goals.
 
Ok. We've established that you're counting on blind faith that Trump can actually do what he says he will, but please be more specific on how he is (or, will be) respected enough to actually accomplish his alleged goals.

By doing what Reagan did, bypassing the Congress and going directly to the American people with pro growth economic policies and national security. The Trump financial speech was right on, NAFTA has hurt the country, regulations and taxes hurt small business growth and development, illegal immigration is a drain on our resources, and entitlement spending has to stop.
 
By doing what Reagan did, bypassing the Congress and going directly to the American people with pro growth economic policies and national security. The Trump financial speech was right on, NAFTA has hurt the country, regulations and taxes hurt small business growth and development, illegal immigration is a drain on our resources, and entitlement spending has to stop.
You mean like how Obama effectively by-passed Congress to get things done? ;)

Anyway, IIRC you're older than I am (early 50s), but I remember the Reagan years very well and he didn't have to bypass Congress. He had a good working relationship with them, though he also had enormous popularity to help, too.

Times were also radically different. The somewhat bi-partisan cooperation on the 1980s would not be tolerated in today's hyper-partisan my-way-or-the-highway world that exists in both government and among the voters.
 
You mean like how Obama effectively by-passed Congress to get things done? ;)

Anyway, IIRC you're older than I am (early 50s), but I remember the Reagan years very well and he didn't have to bypass Congress. He had a good working relationship with them, though he also had enormous popularity to help, too.

Times were also radically different. The somewhat bi-partisan cooperation on the 1980s would not be tolerated in today's hyper-partisan my-way-or-the-highway world that exists in both government and among the voters.

yes, Obama did indeed bypass the Congress to get done what he did, massive debt, stagnant GDP, 6 million Americans working part time for economic reasons, record deficits and record budgets but of course that is a success in your world

And NO Reagan didn't have a good working relationship with Congress until 1984 as Tip ONeal called his budget and economic policies dead on arrival. We all know what those policies did and that changed Congress as Reagan won 49 states in 1984
 
yes, Obama did indeed bypass the Congress to get done what he did, massive debt, stagnant GDP, 6 million Americans working part time for economic reasons, record deficits and record budgets but of course that is a success in your world

And NO Reagan didn't have a good working relationship with Congress until 1984 as Tip ONeal called his budget and economic policies dead on arrival. We all know what those policies did and that changed Congress as Reagan won 49 states in 1984
If you're just going to lie and mis-portray me out of desperation, because you know and have proven you are going on nothing but blind faith, then I guess we're done. (Not that we had anywhere else to go in our conversation, anyway.) You can continue on in your little rainbow and fantasy Donald Trump world.

Sad, really.
 
If you're just going to lie and mis-portray me out of desperation, because you know and have proven you are going on nothing but blind faith, then I guess we're done. (Not that we had anywhere else to go in our conversation, anyway.) You can continue on in your little rainbow and fantasy Donald Trump world.

Sad, really.

Sometimes you have to have faith especially when you look at the results the politicians have generated. the choice is clear, Hillary or Trump. we know what Hillary has done and how incompetent she is so the only choice is to give Trump a chance
 
Sometimes you have to have faith especially when you look at the results the politicians have generated. the choice is clear, Hillary or Trump. we know what Hillary has done and how incompetent she is so the only choice is to give Trump a chance
Fair enough. I don't disagree at all that sometimes you have to go on faith. I just don't see Trump as having the substance to justify faith.
 

Trump's casino investments were largely in Atlantic City, his casino business was not the same type of business as the multinational organizations they are comparing him to in that article. The majority of his losses have been from the Taj Mahal in AC.

When he built that casino there wasn't any competition from the smaller regional casinos that would later pop up in Maryland and elsewhere. It was an investment that went south, for sure, but most of the casinos in Atlantic City were also hit hard. The companies that own those casinos would not necessarily show the same losses because the majority of their investments were not in Atlantic City.
 
Trump's casino investments were largely in Atlantic City, his casino business was not the same type of business as the multinational organizations they are comparing him to in that article. The majority of his losses have been from the Taj Mahal in AC.

When he built that casino there wasn't any competition from the smaller regional casinos that would later pop up in Maryland and elsewhere. It was an investment that went south, for sure, but most of the casinos in Atlantic City were also hit hard. The companies that own those casinos would not necessarily show the same losses because the majority of their investments were not in Atlantic City.

As Trump was denigrating Native Americans before Congress, other casino magnates were striking management agreements with them. Trump knew the business was there even when he was testifying; despite denying under oath that he had ever tried to arrange deals with Indian casinos, he had done just that a few months earlier, according to an affidavit from Richard Milanovich, the official from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians who met with Trump, letters from the Trump Organization and phone records. The deal for the Agua Caliente casino instead went to Caesars World. (In 2000, Trump won a contract to manage the casino for the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, but after Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts declared bankruptcy in 2004, the tribe paid Trump $6 million to go away.) And in his purposeless, false and inflammatory statements before Congress, Trump alienated politicians from around the country, including some who had the power to influence construction contracts—problems that could have been avoided if he had simply read his prepared speech rather than ad-libbing.Lost contracts, bankruptcies, defaults, deceptions and indifference to investors—Trump’s business career is a long, long list of such troubles, according to regulatory, corporate and court records, as well as sworn testimony and government investigative reports. Call it the art of the bad deal, one created by the arrogance and recklessness of a businessman whose main talent is self-promotion.

Donald Trump's Many Business Failures, Explained
 
Back
Top Bottom