- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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
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.
Neither of which are exactly respected by the opposition... or even in their own parties.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.
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.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.
You mean like how Obama effectively by-passed Congress to get things done?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.
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.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.
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.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
stuff
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?