*****Republican National Convention thread. Let the games begin.*****

originally posted by: Gryphon66
1. Centralizes power in the hands of the one.
2. Removes opposition, controls and challenge.
3. Uses unrestricted authoritarian power.

1. "I've got a pen and a phone." "We are five days away from fundamentally transforming America."
2. Kicking out military generals, and Reid removed the fillibuster so Obama could more easily pack the courts
3. Executive Orders using Title XI, EPA, ICE, etc...

Anyways, a rebuttal.

1. Trump argued several times in the course of his speech that he would be the one to make a difference in issues that no one in government to this point could solve collectively. He held himself out as "the Voice" of America, and pursued the typical hyper-nationalistic rhetoric of fascist dictators ("Americanism not globalism.") He, and he alone, will make the US great again. (No ideas how, just that we should trust HIM.) Only he can offer "millions of new jobs" and "trillions of new wealth" to America, yet, he can't tell us how He's going to do it, and thousands with actual experience in guiding a national economy haven't figured out how to do it. Only him, only Trump. This goes for beyond megalomania into irrationality if not insanity. "Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it." (Direct quote from last nights' speech)

I think you are reading more into that, but that's typical. From what I have seen, Trump wants to bring jobs back so more Americans can work which will revitalize the economy.

Sure, he hasn't posted many details. Most politicians project ambiguous ideas that can't become more concrete until the actual internals are better understood. I think Trump will (assuming he is elected) take stock of the bloated bureaucracy and flip out once he sees how much waste and inefficiency abounds, which leads us to...

2. Toward accomplishing that change, he's already discussed an unprecedented purge of the government. (The Hill) He has claimed that he will do any number of things that just aren't within the power of the President to do unilaterally, yet, when asked he says things like "Obama has led the way on Executive Orders" and that he would issue even more, except, of course, for "good things." (Newsmax). Removing challenge? After all that, who do you think will be left to be "FIRED!"

I am totally looking forward to this. The federal bureaucracy is (as stated above) bloated and inefficient. It's too difficult to fire beancounters with seniority. When people know they can't be fired, they become complacent and detached. If Trump really can put more accountability into the system and let the agencies know that no one is safe, they might actually start working harder to prove they are worth keeping around. Implement a 10% firing baseline (the bottom 10% of performers are fired, then assess if they need to be replaced afterwards.)

3. As noted above, Donald J. Trump has stated many times that he wouldn't let Congress stymie his plans the way they have Obama's. He sees the powers of the Presidency as virtually unlimited, like a corporate CEO's. He's going to issue a ban on all Muslims (contrary to the First Amendment), that he's going to make it easier to inhibit the free American press (again, First Amendment), etc. He's going to "defeat ISIS and defeat them fast" (How? Russia hasn't, we haven't, how? Ground war?) He's going to solve "immigration and solve it fast" etc. etc. and he's going to do all this how?

No idea. In my opinion, it will be nice to have a non-Democrat in the Executive office because both sides of the Congress might actually a) find a spine and b) read the Constitution to find out how much power they actually do have to reign in the President. It would be a nice change of pace. And we might actually see some power drain away from the Executive branch in the process.

The biggest problem (IMO) will be cleaning out all the social justice activist judges that Obama has been packing in the courts for the last 8 years. Those guys will continue to keep doing damage for decades.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

You have drop back to an article in the UK to substantiate the reactions of Americans? LOL.

The link in your Independent article merely repeats the Breitbart article I linked almost completely.

NEITHER SUBSTANTIATE THE 75% positive claim.

Next?

Even supplies a screen shot
The truth sets you free.

Just to record it here too:

a reply to: Gryphon66

Well based on my eyeballs, it looks like CNN.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UnBreakable

What's the source for this again?

Was it 73% or 75% or 78%?

Someone's confused.

No you are.

75% positive
73% right direction

Read the links.
I think desperation is coming from you n this.
Your countrymen have spoken.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

A whopping 57% gave the top response of 'very positive'.

I would like a why.

Trump, Fox News, O'Reilly, Limbaugh - - - - they're all Carnival Barkers targeting emotions.

I want something besides how someone feels.

A CNN poll for a speech that started after O'Reilly and was closed before Rush's radio show.

Nice.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Who am I debating again?

You don't want to give UK a chance to have first go?

LOL, a few quick responses

I"m not "reading anything" into anything ... I've quoted the man. What President doesn't "want to bring jobs in."

You're looking forward to an illegal purge of the government? Glad to have you on record.

I've always advocated for a partisan split as well. It obviously doesn't work any longer.

Frankly, Teik ... not a thing you've written is a "rebuttal" ... you've given some additional commentary that about it.

a reply to: UKTruth

Where's the screenshot of the "75%" or "73%" or whatever the actual number was supposed to be from?

Is that a hard question to answer?

Is that the only screenshot in existence?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Who am I debating again?

You don't want to give UK a chance to have first go?

LOL, a few quick responses

I"m not "reading anything" into anything ... I've quoted the man. What President doesn't "want to bring jobs in."

You're looking forward to an illegal purge of the government? Glad to have you on record.

I've always advocated for a partisan split as well. It obviously doesn't work any longer.

Frankly, Teik ... not a thing you've written is a "rebuttal" ... you've given some additional commentary that about it.

I already had a first go!

a reply to: UKTruth

1) Trump said 'only he' can fix it. It did not conjure up images for me of him taking over control and making every decision with no restriction. It's a massive leap to suggest he would bypass congress and the judiciary and do whatever he wanted. He could just as easily mean that he has the know how and therefore can focus on the right things to fix the problems.

Well all the plans he has laid out shows just how he is going to do it too. Now if we can just find those plans.

2) Hmmm, How many more executive orders would he need to write than Obama to be a fascist? This is a bit of a reach - I could say Obama was a fascist in that case based on the fact he HAS written so many exec orders. Obviously it would not make it true.

He doesn't have to write even one because he already is a fascist. If you think Obama is one then you don't even know what the word means.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UnBreakable

What's the source for this again?

Was it 73% or 75% or 78%?

Someone's confused.

No you are.

75% positive
73% right direction

Read the links.
I think desperation is coming from you n this.
Your countrymen have spoken.

Okay. Where's the screenshot for 75% positive?

The only desperation here is a bit of Photoshop at best ... apparently.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
You're looking forward to an illegal purge of the government? Glad to have you on record.

In triplicate if you want. Exactly where do you get the assertion that making it easier to fire under-performing government employees is illegal?

Frankly, Teik ... not a thing you've written is a "rebuttal" ... you've given some additional commentary that about it.

Frankly Gryph, you are spitting into the wind.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Where's the screenshot of the "75%" or "73%" or whatever the actual number was supposed to be from?

Is that a hard question to answer?

Is that the only screenshot in existence?

In link AND also posted here.

57% very positive
18% somewhat positive.
24% negative.

It's all here on this thread for anyone to follow.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UnBreakable

What's the source for this again?

Was it 73% or 75% or 78%?

Someone's confused.

No you are.

75% positive
73% right direction

Read the links.
I think desperation is coming from you n this.
Your countrymen have spoken.

Okay. Where's the screenshot for 75% positive?

The only desperation here is a bit of Photoshop at best ... apparently.

www.independent.co.uk...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UnBreakable

What's the source for this again?

Was it 73% or 75% or 78%?

Someone's confused.

That someone is you.

a reply to: UKTruth

LOL ... missed it in the rush.

So, I supplied you with facts and quotes, you supplied me with (1) what those words "conjured images of for you."

(2) You wander off talking about what you think Obama did. We're talking about Trump and what he says he will do.

(3) Prevaricate, rationalize, restate, conflate, shell-game ... with someone else. Facts? Do you have them?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UnBreakable

What's the source for this again?

Was it 73% or 75% or 78%?

Someone's confused.

No you are.

75% positive
73% right direction

Read the links.
I think desperation is coming from you n this.
Your countrymen have spoken.

Okay. Where's the screenshot for 75% positive?

The only desperation here is a bit of Photoshop at best ... apparently.

Photoshop? - ... and you say you are not desperate. I seriously don't know why you have to be in such denial about the speech.. Trump had a great and well received speech. It doesn't mean he has won the election! For goodness sake get over it.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UnBreakable

What's the source for this again?

Was it 73% or 75% or 78%?

Someone's confused.

No you are.

75% positive
73% right direction

Read the links.
I think desperation is coming from you n this.
Your countrymen have spoken.

Okay. Where's the screenshot for 75% positive?

The only desperation here is a bit of Photoshop at best ... apparently.

www.independent.co.uk...

That's nothing, again, but a rehash of the claims of the Breitbart article. Almost to the word.

Where is the screenshot proving the claim that 75% thought that the address was positive?

We have a "screenshot" claiming 73% ... to a different question (uncited of course).

Are you guys really this desperate?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UnBreakable

What's the source for this again?

Was it 73% or 75% or 78%?

Someone's confused.

No you are.

75% positive
73% right direction

Read the links.
I think desperation is coming from you n this.
Your countrymen have spoken.

Okay. Where's the screenshot for 75% positive?

The only desperation here is a bit of Photoshop at best ... apparently.

Photoshop? - ... and you say you are not desperate. I seriously don't know why you have to be in such denial about the speech.. Trump had a great and well received speech. It doesn't mean he has won the election! For goodness sake get over it.

Where's the screenshot for the 75% claim UK?

Where? What source do you or anyone else have for it? Besides a supposed text message to a Breitbart employee, cited in their article that I cited above.

Where? Where is the screenshot?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

LOL ... missed it in the rush.

So, I supplied you with facts and quotes, you supplied me with (1) what those words "conjured images of for you."

(2) You wander off talking about what you think Obama did. We're talking about Trump and what he says he will do.

(3) Prevaricate, rationalize, restate, conflate, shell-game ... with someone else. Facts? Do you have them?

Eh? You provided no fact.
1) You conjured up your own vision of what 'I'm the only one who can fix it' meant
2) You claim Trump is a fascist because he says he will do what Obama has done
3) You got the detail of what Trump actually said incorrect which led you to falsely apply the 1st amendment.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UnBreakable

What's the source for this again?

Was it 73% or 75% or 78%?

Someone's confused.

That someone is you.

What's the source of the screenshot, UnBreakable?

I'm not confused at all.

Who looked at the screen wrong? You or Breitbart? LOL.