• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Donald Trump's five point plan

What in the **** does that even mean? Is Billy Joel's 'We Didn't Start The Fire' going to be Trump's theme song? If Trump is so concerned about vets then let's take of the ones we have now who are struggling with unemployment, alcohol/substance abuse and suicide. Let's provide proper psychiatric care for those and their families- even the ones who are struggling with spouses who have taken their own lives. Finally, cut the middle man hore**** and get that god damn VA hospital built to provide the care so many need.

Look, just because the VA has lots of problems that Trump has no idea how to fix, that shouldn't distract from the real issue here, which is that John McCain is actually a coward compared to The Hair.

Wow. Just like that? Trump is going to pass some nonsensical legislation to break the back of the world's richest men? Yeah, good luck with that.

It's similar to the "and let's sue Mexico to get $100K per illegal immigrant!" BS. It only sells to those who are uneducated enough not to realize that there is no way to actually do it.

This I can agree with. But until Americans are working in sweat shops without much in the way of labor laws this too is nothing more than another one of Trump's pipe dreams based upon no reality whatsoever.

Well, the policy itself is dumb. This is the "make life more expensive for poor people" plan.

Bland campaign rhetoric. Trump can't even be a successful developer. And he has clearly demonstrated that.

The tax plan is interesting but, since it is tied to zero entitlement reform, is guaranteed to explode the debt.

By "finish" I assume he means build one in the first place that actually works?

One can only hope. OTOH, given that it's Trump, he's probably equally as likely to forget about it, and then accuse his critics of being racist against Mexicans when they bring it up.
 
He's an interesting character. He claims he's a teetotaler (in spite of being a Presbyterian, lol) - he claims he's never used drugs, alcohol, tobacco, or even coffee.

That's kind of .... um... "unusual" for a liberal, isn't it?

Not really. Firstly, he's probably making it up, secondly, from a personality standpoint, it sounds like Woodrow Wilson. Puritanism is a definite part of the left, as well as the authoritarianism it engenders.

The last Candidate for President who drank neither alcohol nor coffee, nor smoked, was Mitt Romney. What is your opinion about his level of conservatism? Mitt Romney the Deep, True, Trustworthy Conservative who never bent where the political winds were blowing, right there with Ted Cruz & Co?

He does know how to play the media, yes. A lot of people claim that's some form of "narcissism", and IMO part of that is probably true. I also think people mature into their capabilities, and unless The Donald is a complete idiot (which it doesn't seem he is), he realizes he's in a different game now - one where "media savvy" is only one of many skills required.

Ah. So you are saying he is at least as intelligent and competent as Paris Hilton, Caitlyn Jenner, or Snookie. :shrug: I can accept that.

The point is that he's not a conservative. He doesn't believe the things he is saying, or, if he does, he won't believe them two years from now. Trump's history demonstrates that he "believes" and loudly spouts whatever he also thinks will get him on television... and that he also reverts back to leftism.
 
The Dems are against Trump.

The GOP is against Trump

The media is against Trump

This means that the American people should really consider being for Donald Trump.
 
Trump's history demonstrates that he "believes" and loudly spouts whatever he also thinks will get him on television... and that he also reverts back to leftism.

What do you mean "reverts"? Has he "reverted" before?
 
What do you mean "reverts"? Has he "reverted" before?

....did you miss all that stuff I posted earlier about Trump stumping for Hillary in 2008 and going on television after the primary to say that Obama should have picked her for his VP nod?
 
....did you miss all that stuff I posted earlier about Trump stumping for Hillary in 2008 and going on television after the primary to say that Obama should have picked her for his VP nod?

No, I understood that part. But there was only one delta, when Trump changed from a Democrat to a Republican. He didn't "flip-flop", he just changed "once".
 
Inasmuch as he actually has an ideology, Trump is a liberal businessman. He's like Romney, except without Romney's conservative credentials, or consistency.
Romney had no conservative credential or consistency. Romney was by far the most liberal candidate the GOP running in 2012 and was arguably as liberal as Obama and Hillary.
 
No, I understood that part. But there was only one delta, when Trump changed from a Democrat to a Republican. He didn't "flip-flop", he just changed "once".

That is incorrect. Trump has run flirted around with running for President before. Back in 1999, when he was a Republican, but quit to join the Reform Party "because the Republican Party was too crazy right". You know, back in 2000. When Denny 'Big Spender' Hastert was running the House. Because it got him attention. Then he didn't get the nomination, and so, in a fit, he quit the party because he'd been enlightened that liberal policies were smarter etc. so on and so forth. Then he started going on Reality TV. Because it got him attention. Then he was a Democrat. Because it got him attention. Then he decided to become a conspiracy theorist. Because it got him attention. Then he decided to become a Republican again.... because it got him attention.


There is only one constant here. Trump believes in what he's saying now about as much as Hillary believes in whatever she's saying at the moment. The words are just a vehicle - a vehicle designed around self promotion. You worry about RINO's getting elected and then forgetting what they ran on? Trump is the biggest RINO in this race, and has a proven history of jumping on whatever bandwagon is around.


Oh, and he thinks it would be great if Oprah would be his running mate. You know, the woman who launched Obama's political campaign into the top tier.

reinoe said:
Romney had no conservative credential or consistency. Romney was by far the most liberal candidate the GOP running in 2012 and was arguably as liberal as Obama and Hillary.

Yup. Now here's a fun fact. In a race between Trump and Romney, Trump would be on Romney's Left.
 
Last edited:
That is incorrect. Trump has run flirted around with running for President before. Back in 1999, when he was a Republican, but quit to join the Reform Party "because the Republican Party was too crazy right". You know, back in 2000. When Denny 'Big Spender' Hastert was running the House. Because it got him attention. Then he didn't get the nomination, and so, in a fit, he quit the party because he'd been enlightened that liberal policies were smarter etc. so on and so forth. Then he started going on Reality TV. Because it got him attention. Then he was a Democrat. Because it got him attention. Then he decided to become a conspiracy theorist. Because it got him attention. Then he decided to become a Republican again.... because it got him attention.

Okay, thanks. I'll check into all that.
 
That is incorrect. Trump has run flirted around with running for President before. Back in 1999, when he was a Republican, but quit to join the Reform Party "because the Republican Party was too crazy right". You know, back in 2000. When Denny 'Big Spender' Hastert was running the House. Because it got him attention. Then he didn't get the nomination, and so, in a fit, he quit the party because he'd been enlightened that liberal policies were smarter etc. so on and so forth. Then he started going on Reality TV. Because it got him attention. Then he was a Democrat. Because it got him attention. Then he decided to become a conspiracy theorist. Because it got him attention. Then he decided to become a Republican again.... because it got him attention.


There is only one constant here. Trump believes in what he's saying now about as much as Hillary believes in whatever she's saying at the moment. The words are just a vehicle - a vehicle designed around self promotion. You worry about RINO's getting elected and then forgetting what they ran on? Trump is the biggest RINO in this race, and has a proven history of jumping on whatever bandwagon is around.


Oh, and he thinks it would be great if Oprah would be his running mate. You know, the woman who launched Obama's political campaign into the top tier.



Yup. Now here's a fun fact. In a race between Trump and Romney, Trump would be on Romney's Left.
Republicans nominated Romney so that proves that they'll nominate anyone the establishment tells them to nominate and they'll vote for whomever the establishment tells them to vote for.
 
Republicans nominated Romney so that proves that they'll nominate anyone the establishment tells them to nominate and they'll vote for whomever the establishment tells them to vote for.

Republicans saw the rise and fall of multiple flawed "leading" candidates all of whose chief qualification was that they were Not Romney.

The base then did not turn out to vote for him, and he lost.

More typical is that multiple candidates split the "conservative" vote while one wins the "moderate" vote and comes out ahead with a plurality.
 
Republicans nominated Romney so that proves that they'll nominate anyone the establishment tells them to nominate and they'll vote for whomever the establishment tells them to vote for.

If the republican convention was held today, and if Trump held the lead in most states primaries, do you think that the convention would fail to honor the will of the republican primary voters?
 
Here's the Donald's "platform", such as it is today:

1. Foreign Interventions Must Require Cost-Sharing Plans to Reduce U.S. Costs and Guarantee Veterans and Their Families Are Protected

How about protecting our military and veterans from unnecessary wars? I've got no problem about going to war when it's necessary and it's right...but listening to the blood-hungry rhetoric from the Right? No. All the problems in the world are nails to them, and so the hammer of the military is their solution to everything. The Right has forgotten the value of diplomacy

2. Pass NOPEC Legislation to Break OPEC’s Grip on Energy Prices

Hm, let me see here - America's producing more oil than anyone else, and Russia - also not an OPEC member - is not far behind. Who, really, has the grip on oil prices. What the Right doesn't understand is that oil is FUNGIBLE...meaning that as soon as the oil's on the market, it doesn't matter where it comes from, as long as the price is low. That's why it doesn't matter that we're now an oil exporter - we're still importing oil from the Middle East when it's cheaper than what we put on the market...and the president has ZERO power over this simple fact about modern-day "free-marketeering".

3. Crack Down on China’s Currency Manipulation by Calculating Taxes on Imports Based on How Much a Manufacturing Country’s Currency is Undervalued

Sounds nice...until the biggest retailer on the planet - Wal-Mart - starts putting pressure on politicians to stop putting pressure on China 'cause prices, y'know. And then the other retailers start doing the same thing...and then all of a sudden, bills like this particular suggestion die in committee and nobody take responsibility for killing it.

4. Spur Job and Wealth Creation through a 5-Point Tax Plan

Wait Wait Don't Tell Me...TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY!!!!! Like that really worked for Bush 43, hm? Sooo...I just checked, and it's tax cuts for everybody...AND it's slashing the corporate tax rate to ZERO.

Yep! More of that oh-so-magical economic theory that if we tax LESS, we'll get MORE revenue. Those who've been around might remember that Bush 43's dad - Bush 41 - called that "voodoo economics"...'cause it's a freaking fantasy. If anyone's been watching Greece, how's three successive rounds of imposed austerity worked out for them, hm? But I guess in Trump World, all taxes go towards military and jails, and who needs to fund silly little things like highways and bridges and Medicare...and if we stop funding these things, we'll magically have MORE revenue which will give us money to fix these things. Riiiiiiiiiight!

5. Finish the Border Fence, Boot Out Criminal Illegals, and Reform America’s Legal Immigration System

Mm-hmm...and in Trump World, all 11 million illegal immigrants are criminal illegals, so that means we're going to go door-to-door with "papers-please" and root out all those murderers and rapists (never mind that their crime rate is significantly lower than among native-born) and liberal-voter-fodder (never mind a near-total dearth of ANY voter fraud). But hey, the government's only "Big Brother" when it's not used by conservatives, right? And this will be especially effective, it seems, since after slashing much of the government's tax revenue, the agencies tasked to do this would have had their funding slashed...but our Great Americans working for the Department of Homeland Security will surely work for free, paying for all their own travel and training and weapons and whatnot, just out of the goodness of their patriotic ol' hearts!

Isn't that wonderful? And magical? And even...fantastical?
 
Each of these points is a lot deeper than it seems. For instance, point 1 represents a huge sea change in foreign policy and the way we spend money. Trump is essentially speaking to the role of America as the world's policeman, and the idea that we're paying for it ourselves. Point 5 is essentially saying "no more cheap labor", and that represents a very large delta for the American economy. Point number 3 is actually quite brilliant - the Chinese won't like it, but it represents a "self-correcting international trade system", and it would encourage the Chinese to play ball. (Unhappily, but they'll do it).

Each of these points is naive and idiotic, borne out of the conservative determination that foreign-relations-by-nuclear-Viagra is better than silly little diplomacy, that government will magically work better if we slash its funding and tie its hands behind its back, and that illegal immigrants are somehow turning our nation into a horror show of drugs and rape and murder. Perhaps some will remember a few points in history where the demonizing and dehumanization of certain groups of people led to great tragedy...but we're 'Merica, so obviously that can't happen here, right? Right?

Is this going to solve America's problems? Um... no. Erm... I'm not sure. A lot of good can come out of all that, but Trump isn't addressing the "systemic" issues, like checks and balances and Supreme Court decisions and stuff like that. Trump seems like he would be a "strong executive", in the sense of executive power.

"Strong executive", hm? Oh, the many implications that one may draw from such a descriptive when it comes to the prospect of a President Trump....

If you think about some of the consequences of Trump's points, interesting things start to happen. For instance, point number 1. You have to assume that if you start charging people for our police protection, some will simply say "no thanks". That means, we move out. And that means, we save money. Trump's position would also seem to imply that he intends to stop foreign aid to countries who won't play ball. Once again, we save money. Trump is a businessman, he knows about money. He can probably help our economy, and the federal government's financial position.

What do you think?

Trump knows trade...but he doesn't know government. He knows how to be a CEO...but that's far different from governing ALL the people. In business, if you've got someone not pulling their weight, you fire them. In government, it isn't and can never be that simple. Being a boss is not the same thing as being a leader.

But hey, if what y'all want is oligarchy and plutocracy, let your votes be your voice.
 
Republicans saw the rise and fall of multiple flawed "leading" candidates all of whose chief qualification was that they were Not Romney.

The base then did not turn out to vote for him, and he lost.

More typical is that multiple candidates split the "conservative" vote while one wins the "moderate" vote and comes out ahead with a plurality.

Um, no, it wasn't a failure of the GOP base to turn out, for they are traditionally the most likely to vote - and the 2012 election was no different. What was different was that the GOP lost the minorities, and the Dems had a better turnout than they normally do. It's simple numbers - if the Dems kept the same level of turnout as the GOP always does, the GOP would never win another presidential election.
 
Um, no, it wasn't a failure of the GOP base to turn out, for they are traditionally the most likely to vote - and the 2012 election was no different.

Actually the demographic that turned out the most in 2012 was black women.
 
Actually the demographic that turned out the most in 2012 was black women.

You're referring to ethnic demographic. I'm referring to political-lean demographic. We're both right...but the sheer number of those who are conservative is FAR higher than those who are black women.

But it wasn't black women alone that made the difference, was it?
 
You're referring to ethnic demographic. I'm referring to political-lean demographic. We're both right...but the sheer number of those who are conservative is FAR higher than those who are black women.

But it wasn't black women alone that made the difference, was it?
It's two sides of the same coin. We didn't get minorities to vote for us, while gaining only marginally in the white vote.
It was also partially the fact that Until 2014 midterms when the GOP won the Asian vote and Native American vote by bare majorities, we haven't won a minority vote for around 50 years. Therefore, Republicans should continue to get their base to turn out, but also seek to expand said base outside of our traditional demographic.
 
His tax code is similar to the one I've put forth, basically same principles such as drastically simplified with no deductions on net income, eliminate corporate rate, progressive rates, etc, but my rates are like 2X higher in most income brackets. My code taxes income at 10% on net income from 0-$100,000, 20% on any additional net income between $100,000-1mil, and 30% on any additional net income above 1 mil. I also believe in a 0% corporate tax but I disagree with him on eliminating taxes on dividends as I would tax dividends like regular income at 10/20/30% rates. Also tax capital gains as regular income at 10/20/30% except when companies offer stock to raise capital and then tax at 15%(I would also entertain 0% here). Trading stock after ipo doesn't really help the economy that much. It is obviously needed as it allows ipo investors liquidation but i don't think taxing like regular income would have that much effect on this. The real value in creating jobs is low tax rate when company offers stock to raise capital. Basically I differentiate in my trickle down with Trump and other trickle down people in that I believe trickle down works when companies have zero taxes to use the money in either growing their companies or investment, but when the money is used to go in the pockets of the owners as their personal income in dividends, then I'd rather the money be taxed at progressive rates to be redirected to say the government paying firemen or librarian salaries, instead of borrowing from China to pay these government salaries and the rich using the money to buy their tenth vacation property. Many trickle down people make the false case that that the vacation property of the wealthy person creates jobs but the money redirected to the firemen and librarians also stays in the economy and creates jobs it just say builds 100 firemen's and librarians' homes instead of a vacation mansion. So I am all for business keeping their money as it creates growth and jobs, but that the rich in their own personal income pay their fair share of the revenue of government. I agree with trump also that rates should be low but I think his is too low to pay for the current cost of government and would lead to massive deficits. I think my rates are about right, and are ceiling rates. Overall though trump gets it on tax policy. He has some intresting ideas, some I'm not qualified to make an opinion on. Not a big fan of his though.

If you've run the numbers, how much does the 10% on 0-$100,000 vs 20% on the 100,000-$1,000,000 20% vs the 30% at over $1,000,000.
 
It's two sides of the same coin. We didn't get minorities to vote for us, while gaining only marginally in the white vote.
It was also partially the fact that Until 2014 midterms when the GOP won the Asian vote and Native American vote by bare majorities, we haven't won a minority vote for around 50 years. Therefore, Republicans should continue to get their base to turn out, but also seek to expand said base outside of our traditional demographic.

But as long as the GOP doesn't do actual outreach to minorities, as long as they don't even try to address the very real problems that keep minorities down, and as long as the GOP tolerates race-baiting (see Trump, Donald), the GOP will remain the party of white conservatives. It's as if the GOP's attitude is, "the best help we can give is to give you no help at all", and then they look down upon those who don't succeed as if the less-successful were somehow morally inferior.
 
If you've run the numbers, how much does the 10% on 0-$100,000 vs 20% on the 100,000-$1,000,000 20% vs the 30% at over $1,000,000.

I haven't run the numbers, would love to know if it would raise more or less revenue compared to current system, and how much revenue each income bracket would raise . It would have to factor in the states/local enacting a complimentary code of zero income tax and them raising revenue through property and sales taxes(no value added tax) with federal/state/local having no business taxes, and factor in economic growth as my code is designed for maximum growth by drastically lowering the business costs on job creators. I predict many companies who have re-located overseas because of high costs due to current tax code would move back, and many foreign companies would find the U.S. very attractive to locate factories in. I'd like to see the numbers on my code at 4%, 6%, 8% growth rates compared to current system at say 2%.
 
Last edited:
So were Bush and Obama, that didn't stop us from electing them though.

Sad but true. But Trump would be a new low.
 
Back
Top Bottom