• 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!

Trump supporters--question

Mac77 said:
Trump will have to fight with the republicans almost as much as he will with the kind, gentile, honorable and wonderful democrat party.
Click to expand...

I think this is probably correct. We have, basically, a mirror of what happened in '08. Rather quickly, it turned out that Obama couldn't pull everything on the Progressive's agenda off, because a lot of the democrats in Congress turned out to be rather different in terms of specific goals and ideology. It only took two years and the Republicans took back the House. Will the same thing happen this time around? No way to know, but there's definitely some reason to think so.
 
woodsman said:
The Clintons, the Foundation and their ilk need to be exposed and punished. I think all Americans can agree that the corruption and collusion in government has gotten out of control. That has to be a starting point, without that all other goals will not come to fruition.

The fear of the populous rage needs to outweigh the greed of office for our public servants. Ethics laws need to be tightened, term limits imposed.

Our free press needs a spanking also, if it is found that collusion is in play they will lose there license to broadcast. They have abused there protected rights and certain MSM have stepped over the line to be sure.
Click to expand...

I think the bolded bit is correct and insightful. As for the Clintons...there were a fair few leftists who wanted Obama to investigate and prosecute members of the Bush administration (including Bush and especially Cheney). Of course, that didn't happen. I could be wrong, but I doubt Trump is going to take any action on Hillary and Bill. How do you think it will impact Trump's presidency if he doesn't take any action?
 
MickeyW said:
-Re-instate the Rule of Law
-Throw out obamacare
-Stop illegal immigration, whatever it takes
-Get our trade deficit fixed and bring back jobs
-Stop the immigration from Syria
-Urge the Lefty SC Justices to retire, so Trump can appoint some sensible ones!
-Open up the US to accept the M1 Garands, that are stored in S. Korea, for sale to citizens.
Click to expand...

When you say "whatever it takes," do you really mean that? What if it means sending substantial numbers of U.S. Soldiers (50,000 or more) into Mexico?
 
ocean515 said:
Obamacare,Trade, and Jobs.
Click to expand...

This, plus one more...some form of electoral reform, or terms limits, or something.


His first 100 day agenda looked pretty good to me.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I think this is probably correct. We have, basically, a mirror of what happened in '08. Rather quickly, it turned out that Obama couldn't pull everything on the Progressive's agenda off, because a lot of the democrats in Congress turned out to be rather different in terms of specific goals and ideology. It only took two years and the Republicans took back the House. Will the same thing happen this time around? No way to know, but there's definitely some reason to think so.
Click to expand...

Thats not how I remember it

The wonderful, kind, gentle, beloved democrat party had the white house anf both houses of congress

Obama could have anything he wanted in the first two years and he chose obamacare and a pork laden stimulus nill.

Both designed by far left progressives

That ended after the Tea Party uprising in 2010 that swept nancy pelosi out of the speakers chair

but obama got two years to do anything he wanted
 
1) Repeal Obamacare and allow insurance companies to compete against each other across state lines.

2) Reform immigration. Instead of trying to keep illegals out, make it undesirable for them to want to be here in the first place.

3) Move back to the gold standard, and appoint a truly independent firm to thoroughly audit the Fed and make all findings public.
 
ashurbanipal said:
When you say "whatever it takes," do you really mean that? What if it means sending substantial numbers of U.S. Soldiers (50,000 or more) into Mexico?
Click to expand...

Ain't gonna happen....and that's not what I'm talking about. Why would we want to send any troops to that 3rd world ****hole?
 
KevinKohler said:
This, plus one more...some form of electoral reform, or terms limits, or something.


His first 100 day agenda looked pretty good to me.
Click to expand...

Tight elections always result in the same calls for reform or repeal of the electoral college. In fact, what such elections do is prove how important such a system is.

Without the electoral college, most of the country would have no say in what the population centers on the West Coast and East Coast did. That is not the way a Republic operates.

I'm certainly with you on term limits, or some other kind of reform. I'm not really sure what could be done. For me, full and total transparency might be something to consider. Every representative would have to publish their daily appointment calendar. All government related activity would have to be listed. Dinners, trips, meetings, etc. would have to be represented, with penalties of some sort for failure to comply.

At least voters might have a slight chance of seeing what their elected officials are up to.
 
MickeyW said:
Ain't gonna happen....and that's not what I'm talking about. Why would we want to send any troops to that 3rd world ****hole?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why or whether it will be necessary. The point of the question is this: you said "whatever it takes." If it takes something like that, and otherwise there's just no stopping illegal immigration, should we do it? I think you may have just answered that question, however.
 
Mac77 said:
Thats not how I remember it
Click to expand...

That's probably because you're not a progressive. Note that my reply was phrased from the point of view of Progressives, and is exactly about how Progressives recall that time. We didn't get much at all of what we wanted. Obamacare was sold to us as a "stepping stone" to what we do want in that area: namely, a single payer system. The feat on the conservative side was that it was just another corporate handout, which is what it turned out to be.

We wanted to see the Wall Street elites who drove the economy into the ground through fraud and deception get hauled before a jury and thrown in prison. We wanted Guantanamo bay closed and a comprehensive law against torture passed. We wanted to get money out of politics.

The reason none of those things happened is because Obama wasn't as progressive as he appeared to be, his advisors were still the old guard Clintonian advisors, and a great many of those newly-elected Democrats from the southern states were only democrats in name--they were actually quite conservative on the economy and foreign policy. Single payer was floated early, and the conservative democrats (AKA the "Blue Dog" democrats) shot it down, as did the insurance lobby, which has a great many politicians in its pocket. As the gang of six negotiations proceeded in absolute gridlock, it became clear to everyone that Obama would need those conservative democratic votes to get any reform passed, and so Obamacare ended up being far from the progressive dream legislation.
 
Last edited:
ashurbanipal said:
That's probably because you're not a progressive. Note that my reply was phrased from the point of view of Progressives, and is exactly about how Progressives recall that time. We didn't get much at all of what we wanted. Obamacare was sold to us as a "stepping stone" to what we do want in that area: namely, a single payer system. The feat on the conservative side was that it was just another corporate handout, which is what it turned out to be.

We wanted to see the Wall Street elites who drove the economy into the ground through fraud and deception get hauled before a jury and thrown in prison. We wanted Guantanamo bay closed and a comprehensive law against torture passed. We wanted to get money out of politics.

The reason none of those things happened is because Obama wasn't as progressive as he appeared to be, his advisors were still the old guard Clintonian advisors, and a great many of those newly-elected Democrats from the southern states were only democrats in name--they were actually quite conservative on the economy and foreign policy. Single payer was floated early, and the conservative democrats (AKA the "Blue Dog" democrats) shot it down, as did the insurance lobby, which has a great many politicians in its pocket. As the gang of six negotiations proceeded in absolute gridlock, it became clear to everyone that Obama would need those conservative democratic votes to get any reform passed, and so Obamacare ended up being far from the progressive dream legislation.
Click to expand...

I would not have bailed out the wall st bankers the way bush and obama did

But the crash of '08 was not entirely the bankers fault

The political establishment put them in an impossible situation of having to lend money to unqualified minorites who were bad credit risks

The bankers made the loans as ordered but covered their butts through the shady deals that eventually led to the crash.
 
ashurbanipal said:
That's probably because you're not a progressive. Note that my reply was phrased from the point of view of Progressives, and is exactly about how Progressives recall that time. We didn't get much at all of what we wanted. Obamacare was sold to us as a "stepping stone" to what we do want in that area: namely, a single payer system. The feat on the conservative side was that it was just another corporate handout, which is what it turned out to be.

We wanted to see the Wall Street elites who drove the economy into the ground through fraud and deception get hauled before a jury and thrown in prison. We wanted Guantanamo bay closed and a comprehensive law against torture passed. We wanted to get money out of politics.

The reason none of those things happened is because Obama wasn't as progressive as he appeared to be, his advisors were still the old guard Clintonian advisors, and a great many of those newly-elected Democrats from the southern states were only democrats in name--they were actually quite conservative on the economy and foreign policy. Single payer was floated early, and the conservative democrats (AKA the "Blue Dog" democrats) shot it down, as did the insurance lobby, which has a great many politicians in its pocket. As the gang of six negotiations proceeded in absolute gridlock, it became clear to everyone that Obama would need those conservative democratic votes to get any reform passed, and so Obamacare ended up being far from the progressive dream legislation.
Click to expand...

I think the government should stay out of the Health Care business, the marriage business and the abortion business.
 
Mac77 said:
I would not have bailed out the wall st bankers the way bush and obama did

But the crash of '08 was not entirely the bankers fault

The political establishment put them in an impossible situation of having to lend money to unqualified minorites who were bad credit risks

The bankers made the loans as ordered but covered their butts through the shady deals that eventually led to the crash.
Click to expand...

Yep!...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom