login
Trump (Page 40)
-
No new posts
|
 2016-09-19 4:49 PM in reply to: spudone |
Pro  9391     Omaha, NE |  Subject: RE: TrumpOriginally posted by spudone The "he said this word and now says that word" kind of attacks are old playbook and Trump is immune from those attacks. It may or may not be right, but it's the reality of this election. Funny how the people who don't care about Trump's lack of consistency -- are the same ones who were out chanting "flip-flopper" at John Kerry just a few years back. Not a big deal when it's your candidate though, apparently. You are correct, but as I mentioned above it's a different game this year. Flip Flopping is "so last election" lol I've personally flip flopped on several issues in the past 8 years because I've learned a lot and more importantly keep my pride in check to allow myself to change. |
| 2016-09-19 4:58 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by spudone The "he said this word and now says that word" kind of attacks are old playbook and Trump is immune from those attacks. It may or may not be right, but it's the reality of this election. Funny how the people who don't care about Trump's lack of consistency -- are the same ones who were out chanting "flip-flopper" at John Kerry just a few years back. Not a big deal when it's your candidate though, apparently. You are correct, but as I mentioned above it's a different game this year. Flip Flopping is "so last election" lol I've personally flip flopped on several issues in the past 8 years because I've learned a lot and more importantly keep my pride in check to allow myself to change. So given that, my question is: if the Democrats had nominated someone without so many negatives - would you still be locked in on Trump? I don't mean Bernie - he's far far left. I'm thinking more like Biden. And if it were switched for both sides - say Biden vs. Kasich - where would you be on that? Just curious. |
| 2016-09-19 5:14 PM in reply to: spudone |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by spudone Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by spudone The "he said this word and now says that word" kind of attacks are old playbook and Trump is immune from those attacks. It may or may not be right, but it's the reality of this election. Funny how the people who don't care about Trump's lack of consistency -- are the same ones who were out chanting "flip-flopper" at John Kerry just a few years back. Not a big deal when it's your candidate though, apparently. You are correct, but as I mentioned above it's a different game this year. Flip Flopping is "so last election" lol I've personally flip flopped on several issues in the past 8 years because I've learned a lot and more importantly keep my pride in check to allow myself to change. So given that, my question is: if the Democrats had nominated someone without so many negatives - would you still be locked in on Trump? I don't mean Bernie - he's far far left. I'm thinking more like Biden. And if it were switched for both sides - say Biden vs. Kasich - where would you be on that? Just curious. My number one issue is corruption or more generically "stop the wasteful spending" when it comes to politics. I obviously have some pretty strong ideological feelings on things, but stopping the corruption is far more important to me than ideology. So when I think of people like Biden or Kasich I tend to lump them together as "establishment" guys who will continue heavy deficit spending to appease big donors. I would honestly support Bernie over Kasich because he's more anti-corruption and wanted to buck the status-quo. Another example who I would support over a Kasich type candidate would be somebody like a Bloomberg if he were to run. So with Trump, yes he does have negatives and I'm not rosy eyed enough to not have any concerns, but I do know that he's about as anti-establishment as they come so that "Trumps" all else for me. I want somebody to come to washington and wreck shop on the lobbyists and expose the corruption. Trump very well could get assimilated into the system and do nothing towards corruption, but there's no question that Hillary won't so with Trump I at least have a chance. |
| 2016-09-19 5:26 PM in reply to: tuwood |
| Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by spudone Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by spudone The "he said this word and now says that word" kind of attacks are old playbook and Trump is immune from those attacks. It may or may not be right, but it's the reality of this election. Funny how the people who don't care about Trump's lack of consistency -- are the same ones who were out chanting "flip-flopper" at John Kerry just a few years back. Not a big deal when it's your candidate though, apparently. You are correct, but as I mentioned above it's a different game this year. Flip Flopping is "so last election" lol I've personally flip flopped on several issues in the past 8 years because I've learned a lot and more importantly keep my pride in check to allow myself to change. So given that, my question is: if the Democrats had nominated someone without so many negatives - would you still be locked in on Trump? I don't mean Bernie - he's far far left. I'm thinking more like Biden. And if it were switched for both sides - say Biden vs. Kasich - where would you be on that? Just curious. My number one issue is corruption or more generically "stop the wasteful spending" when it comes to politics. I obviously have some pretty strong ideological feelings on things, but stopping the corruption is far more important to me than ideology. So when I think of people like Biden or Kasich I tend to lump them together as "establishment" guys who will continue heavy deficit spending to appease big donors. I would honestly support Bernie over Kasich because he's more anti-corruption and wanted to buck the status-quo. Another example who I would support over a Kasich type candidate would be somebody like a Bloomberg if he were to run. So with Trump, yes he does have negatives and I'm not rosy eyed enough to not have any concerns, but I do know that he's about as anti-establishment as they come so that "Trumps" all else for me. I want somebody to come to washington and wreck shop on the lobbyists and expose the corruption. Trump very well could get assimilated into the system and do nothing towards corruption, but there's no question that Hillary won't so with Trump I at least have a chance. I think people make the false assumption that Trump is incorruptible because he already has money. I don't agree with that. Most people with money or power still want more money and power. The only folks who would truly be anti-corruption are the ones tied to their ideology. Ex: Bernie, Ron Paul. You'll note I don't include Rand Paul because he's way more into the establishment than his father would ever go for. Of course electing a president like that would probably just result in gridlock since Congress isn't going to change so easily. |
| 2016-09-19 6:24 PM in reply to: spudone |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by spudone Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by spudone Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by spudone The "he said this word and now says that word" kind of attacks are old playbook and Trump is immune from those attacks. It may or may not be right, but it's the reality of this election. Funny how the people who don't care about Trump's lack of consistency -- are the same ones who were out chanting "flip-flopper" at John Kerry just a few years back. Not a big deal when it's your candidate though, apparently. You are correct, but as I mentioned above it's a different game this year. Flip Flopping is "so last election" lol I've personally flip flopped on several issues in the past 8 years because I've learned a lot and more importantly keep my pride in check to allow myself to change. So given that, my question is: if the Democrats had nominated someone without so many negatives - would you still be locked in on Trump? I don't mean Bernie - he's far far left. I'm thinking more like Biden. And if it were switched for both sides - say Biden vs. Kasich - where would you be on that? Just curious. My number one issue is corruption or more generically "stop the wasteful spending" when it comes to politics. I obviously have some pretty strong ideological feelings on things, but stopping the corruption is far more important to me than ideology. So when I think of people like Biden or Kasich I tend to lump them together as "establishment" guys who will continue heavy deficit spending to appease big donors. I would honestly support Bernie over Kasich because he's more anti-corruption and wanted to buck the status-quo. Another example who I would support over a Kasich type candidate would be somebody like a Bloomberg if he were to run. So with Trump, yes he does have negatives and I'm not rosy eyed enough to not have any concerns, but I do know that he's about as anti-establishment as they come so that "Trumps" all else for me. I want somebody to come to washington and wreck shop on the lobbyists and expose the corruption. Trump very well could get assimilated into the system and do nothing towards corruption, but there's no question that Hillary won't so with Trump I at least have a chance. I think people make the false assumption that Trump is incorruptible because he already has money. I don't agree with that. Most people with money or power still want more money and power. The only folks who would truly be anti-corruption are the ones tied to their ideology. Ex: Bernie, Ron Paul. You'll note I don't include Rand Paul because he's way more into the establishment than his father would ever go for. Of course electing a president like that would probably just result in gridlock since Congress isn't going to change so easily. I wish I could say that I believed Trump was incorruptible, but I think we both know he probably isn't. At this point I'll be happy if he's just "less corruptible". :-D |
| 2016-09-22 11:19 AM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by Rogillio
Speaking of Trump, what caused him to finally reverse his birther position?
No offense but this is the dumbest question I've seen the media asking over and over and over the last few days. Let me answer it for him:
I have NOT reversed by beliefs at all! I am simply giving this fight up as a lost cause. I remain unconvinced he was born in HI but at this point, it is moot. I am doing this for political expediency in much the same way that Hillary and Obama both changed their beliefs about homosexual marriage. Why did no one hound them about 'what caused you to believe marriage is no longer about a man and a woman' as you both had said over and over? Why exactly caused you to change your position? At what moment did the light go on in our lil haid?
I love to say I told you so, :-)
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-reversed-birther-stance-campaign-023253273--election.html
Edited by Rogillio 2016-09-22 11:20 AM |
| 2016-09-26 10:41 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by Rogillio
Speaking of Trump, what caused him to finally reverse his birther position?
No offense but this is the dumbest question I've seen the media asking over and over and over the last few days. Let me answer it for him:
I have NOT reversed by beliefs at all! I am simply giving this fight up as a lost cause. I remain unconvinced he was born in HI but at this point, it is moot. I am doing this for political expediency in much the same way that Hillary and Obama both changed their beliefs about homosexual marriage. Why did no one hound them about 'what caused you to believe marriage is no longer about a man and a woman' as you both had said over and over? Why exactly caused you to change your position? At what moment did the light go on in our lil haid?
I love to say I told you so, :-)
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-reversed-birther-stance-campaign-023253273--election.html
So which story am I supposed to believe from Trump? It sounded pretty clear tonight at the debate that he agrees the president was born here in the United States. Are you implying The Donald is .... lying???? (again?) |
| 2016-09-26 10:42 PM in reply to: ChineseDemocracy |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Trump Originally posted by ChineseDemocracy Originally posted by Rogillio So which story am I supposed to believe from Trump? It sounded pretty clear tonight at the debate that he agrees the president was born here in the United States. Are you implying The Donald is .... lying???? (again?) Originally posted by Rogillio
Speaking of Trump, what caused him to finally reverse his birther position?
No offense but this is the dumbest question I've seen the media asking over and over and over the last few days. Let me answer it for him:
I have NOT reversed by beliefs at all! I am simply giving this fight up as a lost cause. I remain unconvinced he was born in HI but at this point, it is moot. I am doing this for political expediency in much the same way that Hillary and Obama both changed their beliefs about homosexual marriage. Why did no one hound them about 'what caused you to believe marriage is no longer about a man and a woman' as you both had said over and over? Why exactly caused you to change your position? At what moment did the light go on in our lil haid?
I love to say I told you so, :-)
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-reversed-birther-stance-campaign-023253273--election.html
Hillary changed her position too so I guess it's a wash. ;-) |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK