Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why should I vote for Trump?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BELGRAVE
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post
    Always worth remembering that "As thin as a politicians promise" has long been a term applied to many things from depression era charity stew to condoms. The ditty "Count not his broken promises as a crime. He MEANT them, HOW he meant them at the time"originally coined for Lloyd George has been applied to a great many other politicians and in that vein LlG himeself when faced with a cabinet college saying "but you promised the people that..." is said to have replied, as if humouring an idiot, "yes but that was during an election" I don't, thank God, have to make the invidious choice that the American electorate will have in November but it's usually worth applying a degree of scepticism to what any candidate promises they will do.
    This is reminiscent of an Australian Prime Minister who once bare-facedly categorised his pre-election pledges - after the event - as "Core Promises" and "None-core Promises".

    The "Non -core Promises" were those uttered during the election campaign
    jettisoned after the event.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Always worth remembering that "As thin as a politicians promise" has long been a term applied to many things from depression era charity stew to condoms. The ditty "Count not his broken promises as a crime. He MEANT them, HOW he meant them at the time"originally coined for Lloyd George has been applied to a great many other politicians and in that vein LlG himeself when faced with a cabinet college saying "but you promised the people that..." is said to have replied, as if humouring an idiot, "yes but that was during an election" I don't, thank God, have to make the invidious choice that the American electorate will have in November but it's usually worth applying a degree of scepticism to what any candidate promises they will do.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tsar
    replied
    Originally posted by Jannie View Post
    Not to steal your thunder from the above point, Half-Pint, which I think is very valid, but I just ran across an interesting opinion piece from NY Times’ Paul Krugman that adresses the reality of the US political scene:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/op...nned.html?_r=0

    My bolding

    I just read somewhere in a comment section that Conservative really means CONservative in the US. While perhaps Trump is running a CON game, I think that it is a lot different CON game than is usually run and also he actually believes what he says which makes him a “sincere” and “authentic” politician. I have always thought from the beginning that he believed what he said, and that he wants to "save America" while the others just spout rhetoric a la Rubio in order to get into the most powerful office in the world for their own and their backers' nefarious purposes.
    Oh please, do you actually believe that the Democrats tell anyone what they are really going to do?

    I don’t remember O’Bama running on universal healthcare. Or telling the world that the U. S. is wrong about…well everything, do you?

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Jannie View Post
    Not to steal your thunder from the above point, Half-Pint, which I think is very valid, but I just ran across an interesting opinion piece from NY Times’ Paul Krugman that adresses the reality of the US political scene:
    Paul Krugman is the last person who should be commenting on anything political, economic, or ethical. He is a left-wing hack who wouldn't know what a fact was if it bit him in the ass.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Originally posted by Jannie View Post
    Not to steal your thunder from the above point, Half-Pint, which I think is very valid, but I just ran across an interesting opinion piece from NY Times’ Paul Krugman that adresses the reality of the US political scene:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/op...nned.html?_r=0

    My bolding

    I just read somewhere in a comment section that Conservative really means CONservative in the US. While perhaps Trump is running a CON game, I think that it is a lot different CON game than is usually run and also he actually believes what he says.
    How do you know? Are you telepathic?

    Leave a comment:


  • Jannie
    replied
    Not to steal your thunder from the above point, Half-Pint, which I think is very valid, but I just ran across an interesting opinion piece from NY Times’ Paul Krugman that adresses the reality of the US political scene:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/29/op...nned.html?_r=0
    Both parties make promises to their bases. But while the Democratic establishment more or less tries to make good on those promises, the Republican establishment has essentially been playing bait-and-switch for decades. And voters finally rebelled against the con.

    […]

    The point, in any case, is that the divergent nomination outcomes of 2016 aren’t an accident. The Democratic establishment has won because it has, however imperfectly, tried to serve its supporters. The Republican establishment has been routed because it has been playing a con game on its supporters all along, and they’ve finally had enough.
    My bolding

    I just read somewhere in a comment section that Conservative really means CONservative in the US. While perhaps Trump is running a CON game, I think that it is a lot different CON game than is usually run and also he actually believes what he says which makes him a “sincere” and “authentic” politician. I have always thought from the beginning that he believed what he said, and that he wants to "save America" while the others just spout rhetoric a la Rubio in order to get into the most powerful office in the world for their own and their backers' nefarious purposes.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    Thank you. You have now identified the major problem the American system has.

    We have no real choise and to much of the winner take all. That is a thing I've come to respect in the Parliamentary system. Some times they have to build a government made up of more than just one party. Then they have to work together with the sharing of power and responsibility that comes with it.
    Not a function of parliamentary government but of the electoral system Britain has the original parliamentary system and apart from a war time government the coalition of 2010 - 15 was the fist coalition for seventy five years. One of the problems with, say Italy since WW2 has been they have had little else than coalition governments - generally unstable and often deadlocked.

    One result of the last British coalition was that the Llb-dems were virtually wiped out in the next election making the willingness of future minority parties to participate in a coalition very problematic.
    Last edited by MarkV; 30 Apr 16, 06:38.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post
    Half Pint says.....

    However,

    German election was not a two party system.
    Thank you. You have now identified the major problem the American system has.

    We have no real choise and to much of the winner take all. That is a thing I've come to respect in the Parliamentary system. Some times they have to build a government made up of more than just one party. Then they have to work together with the sharing of power and responsibility that comes with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    Here is a far out example.

    German elections 1933. The picks are Hitler or Himmler. Do you vote for one over the other or do you decline to add your vote of support to either?
    The moral thing to do is with hold my vote imo
    Half Pint says.....

    However,

    German election was not a two party system.

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    Here is a far out example.

    German elections 1933. The picks are Hitler or Himmler. Do you vote for one over the other or do you decline to add your vote of support to either?
    The moral thing to do is with hold my vote imo

    Leave a comment:


  • Half Pint John
    replied
    If Trump had run as a third party, he would not have drawn much attention either and would have been nothing more than a footnote if even that.
    Sal says

    Your missing something there.

    Trump isn't a head of all the other GOP candidates because he is running as GOP, he is ahead because more like people like what he is saying, regardless of party.

    Leave a comment:


  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    There will not be change as long as people such as yourself continue to allow yourself to be pimped by the GOP and DEMs. Simple as that. You will settle for **** from your final choice of the two parties because they scare you with the alternative of having the other **** candidate from the other party elected. Congratulations you ARE the problem.
    REALLY?

    Who the FRACK running as a third party candidate right now has a chance to win?

    Who the FRACK is the alternative?

    Who are you gonna vote for that would make a dent?

    Like I said before your bile-filled self loathing post......there will have to be major changes before any third party candidate would be viable.

    Again, beat your chest and feel like you made a difference if you vote for some name no one other than his grandma has heard of before.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tuebor
    replied
    Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
    There will not be change as long as people such as yourself continue to allow yourself to be pimped by the GOP and DEMs. Simple as that. You will settle for **** from your final choice of the two parties because they scare you with the alternative of having the other **** candidate from the other party elected. Congratulations you ARE the problem.
    What "Third Party" is acceptable? World Workers Party? U.S. Taxpayers? Greens? If all the "Third Parties" are worse than the "original" what is the point?

    Tuebor

    Leave a comment:


  • Combat Engineer
    replied
    Originally posted by Salinator View Post
    As long as I have been reading political debates, there have been those holier-than-thou guys that says vote third party. That is no less of a cop-out when you vote third party only to spite the two top candidates.

    Even Bernie Sanders realized that he cannot win as a third party in a Presidential election so he switched to Dem just long enough to be called a Dem.

    If Trump had run as a third party, he would not have drawn much attention either and would have been nothing more than a footnote if even that.

    Until there is a major change, and not just a couple of guys pounding their chests for being proud, no third party will ever win a Presidential election. To vote third party is to throw your vote away.
    There will not be change as long as people such as yourself continue to allow yourself to be pimped by the GOP and DEMs. Simple as that. You will settle for **** from your final choice of the two parties because they scare you with the alternative of having the other **** candidate from the other party elected. Congratulations you ARE the problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • VinceW
    replied
    Originally posted by Tuebor View Post
    No, she is merely better known to abuse her power.



    Trump MAY be a terrible president. Hillary WILL be a terrible president. I, for one, would risk the unknown for the known at this point of time. I do not like Trump, but he is not a poor a choice as Hillary. Her ambition for power and complete lack of ethics is frightening. Sadly, she is likely to be the next President, because Trump has POed too many women, and they make up 52 to 53 percent of the vote.

    Tuebor
    My opinion is that Hillary will break the law and abuse her power a little bit less than Trump would as he's expressed he would in his campaign nomination race.
    She's the lesser of two evils.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X