Is ignoring what a canidate says, because "I know what he really means" inherently dangerous???

originally posted by: paradoxious

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


I see a lot of intelligent people making the case for trump that:

"All his craziness is for show, he doesn't mean it.."


Well I personally agree with that, but isn't it inherently dangerous to pick a canidate who has recently said he was going to do insane things if elected??



None of us know who The Donald really is...lib, conservative, evangelical, democrat, republican, exc..

And for some reason a lot of us (myself included) assume we know what he really means, but isn't that dangerous as hell??

This is not a plea for Hillary, just for common sense.

Isn't this the exact same as when Fox News takes a totally meaningless Obama/Hillary quote and says:

"I know he didn't say he wanted to destroy America..but we know what he really means...."

But from a diffent angle???

I personally think Trump is a moderate dem, because that's what he had been for decades previous to running for the GOP nomination, but how can anyone know??

So, you think Sanders or Hillary really means what they say, but Trump doesn't?

Roughly..espeacially in Sanders's case.


I think the democrats have taken a far more sustainable approach to their corruption.

Democrats take a legit issue and build a shady inferstructure to siphon off a portion of any tax dollars thrown at said issue.

The republicans have taken the exact opposite approach. They pretend like an issue is fake or a conspiracy, while taking money from the parties that personally profiting from whatever issue existing..

Sure both are negatives and corruption, but one is inherently more damaging to the population.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I don't see how you can ever vote for a candidate based on what they say or on implied meaning. They're adhering to a party platform which doesn't represent their beliefs, and what they claim are their beliefs aren't necessarily how they'll govern, then how they do govern is still subject to what Congress will let them do.

You are better off flipping a coin than trying to make any sort of rational behind your vote. At least the coin has a 50% chance of picking the better candidate through chance. Rhetoric only leads you to making a decision based on lies and suspicions rather than facts.

I agree with you...except with Trump lol..

If Hillary or Bernie are elected, the republican house/senate will block ANY policy they put forward and pretend as if they are the anti Christ and actively trying to destroy the country.

If Trump wins though and really is a moderate democrat at heart.... The GOP will not be able to unite against him. Some will, but others won't and will consider it part of the evolution of the GOP to a more socially libertarian bend.

So them mixed with the dems who will be onboard for any beneficial policy and stuff gets done..

Hypothetically lol.


I honestly think trump will give the dems everything if they let him build his wall...

Min wage hike, single payer option, amnesty..everything..

And the wall will mean short term jobs for Americans so, with amnesty on the table, why not?

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I don't see how you can ever vote for a candidate based on what they say or on implied meaning. They're adhering to a party platform which doesn't represent their beliefs, and what they claim are their beliefs aren't necessarily how they'll govern, then how they do govern is still subject to what Congress will let them do.

You are better off flipping a coin than trying to make any sort of rational behind your vote. At least the coin has a 50% chance of picking the better candidate through chance. Rhetoric only leads you to making a decision based on lies and suspicions rather than facts.

I agree with you...except with Trump lol..

If Hillary or Bernie are elected, the republican house/senate will block ANY policy they put forward and pretend as if they are the anti Christ and actively trying to destroy the country.

If Trump wins though and really is a moderate democrat at heart.... The GOP will not be able to unite against him. Some will, but others won't and will consider it part of the evolution of the GOP to a more socially libertarian bend.

So them mixed with the dems who will be onboard for any beneficial policy and stuff gets done..

Hypothetically lol.


I honestly think trump will give the dems everything if they let him build his wall...

Min wage hike, single payer option, amnesty..everything..

And the wall will mean short term jobs for Americans so, with amnesty on the table, why not?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Historically Trump has been a pretty liberal guy, I suspect that that's how he would govern but I can't prove it. More than Conservative or Liberal, Trump is primarily an egomaniac... he gets off on being the great provider of everything. Jobs, security, homes, and all the rest. My big worry about Trump is that he would try to make the state the provider of all (and ultimately him as the head of the state), and he's got the resources to buy congress in order to do it.

Trump will never build a wall, unless it's designed to physically spell out TRUMP and you can see it from space with each letter the width of a state

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Historically Trump has been a pretty liberal guy, I suspect that that's how he would govern but I can't prove it. More than Conservative or Liberal, Trump is primarily an egomaniac... he gets off on being the great provider of everything. Jobs, security, homes, and all the rest. My big worry about Trump is that he would try to make the state the provider of all (and ultimately him as the head of the state), and he's got the resources to buy congress in order to do it.

Trump will never build a wall, unless it's designed to physically spell out TRUMP and you can see it from space with each letter the width of a state

I think he does, and yes it will be known as "Trumps Wall" for the next 2 centuries...

I'm telling ya Roman emporer....

a reply to: JoshuaCox

If Hillary or Bernie are elected, the republican house/senate will block ANY policy they put forward and pretend as if they are the anti Christ and actively trying to destroy the country.

Yep, I'm afraid they will - and just continue the stagnation that same behavior has produced for the last 7 years. They just don't get that 'the people' are sick of it, I guess.

If Trump wins though and really is a moderate democrat at heart.... The GOP will not be able to unite against him. Some will, but others won't and will consider it part of the evolution of the GOP to a more socially libertarian bend.

I think Congress will be shell-shocked no matter who gets in there. They'd best be worrying about their own jobs, rather than sabatoging the POTUS.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I see a lot of intelligent people making the case for trump that:

"All his craziness is for show, he doesn't mean it.."


Well I personally agree with that, but isn't it inherently dangerous to pick a canidate who has recently said he was going to do insane things if elected??

Absolutely. The German Army appointed Hitler Chancellor because they thought the crazy things he said were to impress the masses, and that they could control him once he was in office. History proves them wrong.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: JoshuaCox

If Hillary or Bernie are elected, the republican house/senate will block ANY policy they put forward and pretend as if they are the anti Christ and actively trying to destroy the country.

Yep, I'm afraid they will - and just continue the stagnation that same behavior has produced for the last 7 years. They just don't get that 'the people' are sick of it, I guess.

If Trump wins though and really is a moderate democrat at heart.... The GOP will not be able to unite against him. Some will, but others won't and will consider it part of the evolution of the GOP to a more socially libertarian bend.

I think Congress will be shell-shocked no matter who gets in there. They'd best be worrying about their own jobs, rather than sabatoging the POTUS.

I'm really saying that as a math thing.

The GOP establishment can and does control every single republican officials vote....at least when opposing a democrat president..

The GOP is all scared of opposing trump. Those who have opposed him have taken a serious hit and been told to get in line . The establishment has no idea what he wants or how to control him. Which is why they all opposed him.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Well crafted answer. Thanks for that.

Yea, I "get" Trump.
I just don't think he can possibly win the general election, so I'm braced for Clinton, who I would never vote for.
Its the saddest election I've ever seen and US Americans will never know how much they're going to lose in terms of freedoms and liberties with Clinton.

a reply to: TonyS

What freedoms and liberties is she taking away?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

She's been reported several times as wanting to severely eviscerate the 2nd Amendment, if not repeal it altogether. At her core, Clinton hates the type of people that are in favor of gun rights. She's quite determined to disarm those people and make victims of them.

a reply to: TonyS

Nope. She's not going to take your guns. Not even going to try. You can relax about that one.

ELECTION 2016
'Fox and Friends' Admits Hillary Clinton Won't Actually Take Your Guns Away

Despite the NRA's freakout, even "Fox and Friends" knows Clinton is pretty neutral on guns.

The NRA spent the weekend trying to stoke the fears of its members at their leadership convention, but despite the freakout, “Fox and Friends” let it slip that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton “has never said she wants to abolish the Second Amendment.”

The NRA has spent the last seven years trying to convince Americans that President Barack Obama is going to confiscate America’s guns and that supporters of the Second Amendment should stock up to protect themselves. Now, they’re spreading exactly the same myth and simply swapping the name Obama for Clinton.

and (from FactCheck):
Trump Distorts Clinton’s Gun Stance

Donald Trump distorts the facts when he says “Hillary Clinton wants to take your guns away” and “abolish the Second Amendment.” Clinton’s gun violence prevention proposal would impose restrictions, including a ban on semi-automatic “assault weapons,” but it does not call for banning all guns.
Trump made his remarks at a rally in Lynden, Washington, eliciting boos from his audience. As we have written before, Trump made a similar remark in a TV interview on Jan. 6, when he claimed Clinton “wants to take everyone’s gun away.”

To clarify:

Clinton has a gun violence prevention proposal on her website, which would deny gun owners from buying certain guns and block or delay the ability of some to purchase guns. But it does not call for taking any guns away.

mmmkay?

whew. So - that takes care of that issue.

Anything else?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Sorry Buzzy, but I don't believe that for a moment!
www.cbsnews.com...
www.breitbart.com...
Test bed assault weapons ban legislation being proposed in Cali now would outlaw sale of weapons with detachable magazines and would require owners of such weapons to register the weapons with the state. That's probably at least one of the things Clinton would propose once elected, i.e., a Federal Gun Registry for all weapons that accept detachable magazines. Confiscation would of course be the next step.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

She's been reported several times as wanting to severely eviscerate the 2nd Amendment, if not repeal it altogether. At her core, Clinton hates the type of people that are in favor of gun rights. She's quite determined to disarm those people and make victims of them.

The most extreme thing ANY politician has said they would do on guns, is an assault rifle ban and a gun registry.

Banning guns would be political suicide for either party. It is a BS scare tactic. There is even no force to enforce the ban. Gun confiscation would lead to house to house fighting and no one is willing to do it...even for a president.

There is literally no armed force who would do it....

Law enforcement wouldn't..

The army wouldn't....

No one would...

It's how republicans get broke poor people to vote for them..

They are all lying sacks of poo, maybe when fresh and just breaking into politics they might be truthful, but once in all bets are off and they are playing the game..I'm not sure how anyone can hang on the nuts of any politician these days.

a reply to: TonyS

You don't believe it because you read breitbart.

Anyway - even Fox admitted it! Tony, there's no way that every gun in America can be confiscated. It's just impossible.
Hell, they can't even get accurate census figures....how do you suppose they're going to go door to door seizing guns?
It's silly to even think about.

You're wasting your energy, and feeding the frenzy by buying into that nonsense. It isn't going to happen. It is logistically impossible, and practically asinine. Just like the "Agenda 21" people who are convinced the FEMA camps are meant to round us all up and gas us or whatever stupid catastrophic fantasy get's people shorts in a twist. There is no grand scheme to depopulate the planet. That is a ridiculous (dare I say "truly nutty"?) suggestion.

So - now you don't have to worry about that one.

What other freedoms and liberties are you fretting about?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Well, there's really no point in discussing this; you're obviously all up with HRC, which is fine. Thing is however that, assuming you or your spouse at least has a job, you'll be paying a high price in the form of taxes. Thankfully, I'm retired and past having to pay fat taxes to this criminal oligarchy.

No, I don't think she'll take "all the guns"; she'll just make criminals out of otherwise law abiding people by imposing registration upon them and most won't comply. From what I understand, the gun grab in Australia only met with 20% compliance, but its hard to verify............they aren't talking.

What other freedoms and liberties? The list is really pretty long and it stems mostly from Democrat control of the regulatory agencies, which control they maintain regardless of who's in the White Hut. So via EPA regulations, the refiners are now being forced to go to E15 (15% Ethanol) Gasoline blend which will obsolete 90% of the automotive and light truck fleet. Use search term "EPA Ethanol Regulations".

Got electricity? With Obama/HRC rates will double as coal is phased out.
Got water? Expect to pay a lot more for it as new regs get phased in.

The list of stuff is near endless. But the biggest incursion on personal liberties will come via the healthcare industry which will be charged with collection volumes of data upon the consumer and then dictating to that consumer what they can eat, drink, etc. They''ll dictate how you spend your time, how many steps you must walk a day, what meds you must take, and all this will be monitored in real time. American's will find themselves as about as "free" as a fly pinned to a cork board.

a reply to: TonyS

Got electricity? With Obama/HRC rates will double as coal is phased out.

The coal industry is not dying because of regulation, it is dying because fracking has made natural gas a cheaper alternative. The cost of electricity will never go down because it is not traded in a free market. The electrical monopoly likes it that way.

Got water? Expect to pay a lot more for it as new regs get phased in.

You will be paying more for water because the private sector is seizing as many of the water resources as possible. Multi-nationals are making insane profits by selling bottled water. Under Trump, de-regulation will lead to environmental "accidents" that will make non-commercial water supplies questionable, forcing consumers to rely on this bottled water.

a reply to: TonyS

Tony, I appreciate your response, but right off the bat I must correct you. I don't like her or want her.

I'm a Bernie girl all the way. I've said often that I'd rather have Trump than Hillary - although I think he would be untrustworthy. I don't like her. I just wanted to clear the record. I'm sick of all the right-wing lies.

Now - as to the rest of your post.

Environmental regulations are necessary else we go extinct.

And lastly:

The list of stuff is near endless. But the biggest incursion on personal liberties will come via the healthcare industry which will be charged with collection volumes of data upon the consumer and then dictating to that consumer what they can eat, drink, etc. They''ll dictate how you spend your time, how many steps you must walk a day, what meds you must take, and all this will be monitored in real time. American's will find themselves as about as "free" as a fly pinned to a cork board.

This?? THIS ^^ is ridiculous.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Bernie cracks me up........I'll admit he's entertaining.

I don't know what to think about Trump.

I lived through 8 years of the Clinton's; it was awful. I'd have hoped that by 2016 we'd have had a far better field of candidates than a rehash of hacks like the Clinton's.

I like your Avatar.
Have a great day!