• 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!

The Presidential race in 2020 is super easy.

Logical1 said:
Of the 21 running for president in 2020 only one stands against killing babies. He is pro America, pro Israel, pro jobs, and for low taxes. Whats not to like about President Trump.

And the best thing is is NOT part of the Washington swamp.
Click to expand...

It's against the law to kill babies in this country.

Who cares about Israel? if you're pro-Israel, move there. This is the United States, not Israel.

And take your fiber today. Looks like you need it.
 
DamnYankee said:
Obama's regime was far more corrupt. Weaponizing the IRS. Corruption within the DOJ/FBI. Globalist Granny enriching herself while in office.

Heaven knows what else was done. I guess we'll find out here in a few weeks when the IG report is publicized.
Click to expand...

This is all part of the "don't hate" you're promoting? Lying and name calling?
 
trixare4kids said:
I’m sure you believe the above nonsense and that’s kind of scary.
Click to expand...

Ok, so refute one thing in that excellent and wholly accurate appraisal. Should be simple, no? What is even more scary is you believing anything Trump tells you. Like lambs to the slaughter...
 
DamnYankee said:
Leftists have bitched, whined, bellyached, lied, deceived, and slandered so much and so often, no one gives two spits. DJT can be the biggest egotistical bastard that ever walked upright and as long as he does his damn job, no one cares.

Everything the left has said about him, every slimy trick, every bald faced lie, all the slander about him and his supporters has been an abject failure.

Hate will never prosper.
Click to expand...

The Left, the left, the left! (in Jan Brady voice)

Guess you didn't get tired of all the hate yet, didn't take too long to get back in the hateful swing of things. :lol:

Tired Of All The Hate Yet?

DamnYankee said:
I’ve been away visiting a small coastal town over the weekend when the El Paso/Dayton incidents occurred. When I returned I took some time to bring myself up to speed and review some of the threads here on DP. Some thoughts occurred to me after I digested what I read. Here they are:

There’s a lot of hate out there. The shooters experienced a high level of hate. Irregardless of their political thoughts, they simply hated. Then we have all the finger pointing and playing of the Blame Game. Of course then there is the lies and slander which is nothing more than an extension of hate.

We hate on each other and then some of us are shocked when someone acts on their hatred by going on a killing spree. And then people try to deflect by blaming a group or groups of people or an individual other than the actual shooter.

I think it’s time that Americans of all shapes and sizes start taking responsibility instead of resorting to vitriol, hate, lies, dishonesty, and slander. I think part of the cause that motivate these shooters is the over consumption of media propaganda design to fan the flame of hate.

Aren’t you the slightest bit fed up with hate, 24/7? It’s one thing to disagree and/or criticize. Slandering others with libelous name is much different. That isn’t criticism, that’s hate.

We all are responsible, no exceptions. So if you’re tired of all the hate, then change it.
Click to expand...

Take your own advice:

DamnYankee said:
Obama's regime was far more corrupt. Weaponizing the IRS. Corruption within the DOJ/FBI. Globalist Granny enriching herself while in office.

Heaven knows what else was done. I guess we'll find out here in a few weeks when the IG report is publicized.
Click to expand...
 
DamnYankee said:
Obama's regime was far more corrupt. Weaponizing the IRS. Corruption within the DOJ/FBI. Globalist Granny enriching herself while in office.

Heaven knows what else was done. I guess we'll find out here in a few weeks when the IG report is publicized.
Click to expand...
Someone needs a nap.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Valley
The largest federal debt in American history. ✓

The largest federal deficit in American history. ✓

The largest trade deficit in American history. ✓

The largest wealth inequality in American history. ✓

An historically long 35 day government shutdown that cost the US economy $11 billion. ✓

An EPA that has been emasculated for the benefit of the fossil-fuel, chemical, and mining industries. ✓

Trumps weekend golf outings at his properties have cost the US taxpayer at least $105 million and counting. ✓

Trump is being sued in two different courts for Emoluments Clause violations (using the presidency to enrich himself). ✓

The 2017 tax-bonanza for the wealthy contained last-minute changes that significantly benefited President Trump and the Senators who then voted for the bill. ✓


That's just scratching the surface.
Click to expand...
Leftists have bitched, whined, bellyached, lied, deceived, and slandered so much and so often, no one gives two spits. DJT can be the biggest egotistical bastard that ever walked upright and as long as he does his damn job, no one cares.

Everything the left has said about him, every slimy trick, every bald faced lie, all the slander about him and his supporters has been an abject failure.

Hate will never prosper.
Click to expand...

Yankee, you have posted several times on this thread and not once have you refuted a single thing. You think just dismissing these facts somehow validates your adoration of Trump. I assure you it does not.

If these facts were written about a democratic president, your head would explode, but because these things are true about Trump, you simply attack the messenger. Pathetic.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Individual liberty should be upheld by everyone and that means anything or anyone that infringes on those rights are considered detrimental. The greatest threat to individual liberty is the economic imbalance currently in the country. All the economic wealth and power is concentrated at the top and is held by a select few while the vast majority of people have to pick up the scraps.
Click to expand...

There is a major difference between being "freedom from" and "freedom to." The only type of freedom that you can enforce consistently is the first type for an obvious reason. If to be considered free to do something, you must have the capacity to do what you want, we quickly run into the problem of ensuring that you have such capacity. More often than not, it means we have to co-opt the labor and property of others to serve your purposes without compensating them. Your freedom to do something in the second sense runs smack against the freedom of someone else to do something else. If owns more wealth, you might make a case that he has to give up his ambitions, to provide you with the means to reach yours and you will not compensate him for his contributions.

In the Declaration of Independence, when it says "liberty," it means liberty in the first sense as "freedom from." You can tell a man he has no right to stop you from trying to get what you want, just as you can tell the government that it has no such right. However, you cannot force anyone to assist you. That's the issue with your use of the "vast majority of people have to pick up the scraps": you are pushing for greater equality of outcomes by tagging it with the word freedom. In a free society, some people get rich, others don't, though even the poorest tend to benefit.

And before you talk about "the vast majority of people [picking up] scraps," maybe you should look at the data. People move in and out of income bracket very frequently in the United States, with the bottom brackets in both income and wealth being filled with young people and the top brackets being filled with older people. You do not need to be exceptional to go from living in your car to owning a house and having a family in the United States, even if everybody knows it is hard to do. More to the point, even if we more correctly define "poor" as a condition and not as a type of people who never see progress in their lives, you would be shocked to know what this means. Most of them have two televisions, cable or satellite TV, the internet, AC, electric appliances, smartphones, the internet, 2 rooms per person, a car and many of them actually have their own house... If you compare back in time or across the globe, that's quite the deal.

Unitedwestand13 said:
The economically powerful use their wealth to corrupt the only thing with the power to keep the excess vice of capitalism in check. Individual rights are being infringed upon in principle because a select elite of the population is allowed to dictate and decide the fates of everyone below them on the economic total poll, and their excess power and wealth infringe on the rights of those who are poor or not among the economically elite. It is literally the law of the jungle: the strong devouring the weak. Isn’t individual rights supposed to be protecting us from the law of the jungle?
Click to expand...

Concentrated wealth and influence is a problem to the extent that it lays major powers in very few hands. The real danger is having them rig the board, though you do not seem to understand what rigging the board means. Rigging the board means protecting incumbent firms and it usually happens when the government gets massively involved.

For example, if I hand out subsidies to maritime transportation businesses, with sufficiently massive aid, I get to force prices so low that only people who receive public funds survive. The scary part is when you understand this means a handful of unaccountable bureaucrats can impose conditions for applying for subsidies. Another fun one concerns road transportation. Interstate trucking is, you guessed it, heavily regulated. Bureaucrats assign rights to service certain routes. You might send a truck to ship stuff in one direction and be forced to get it back empty because you are not authorized to do business in this direction... Those rights to do business are worth a fortune and bureaucrats assign them for political reasons that benefit themselves.

The only counterexample I have where it's really a private initiative that is twisted would be Google and Facebook. They clearly control vast amounts of communications and, yes, they absolutely can swing elections and public debates in their favor. Currently, they are biased against conservatives, but we know they also "mysteriously" took Tulsi Gabbard's attack on Harris off the trending list on Twitter during the debate. They say it is a mistake... Yeah, right.
 
Jay59 said:
That's encouraging. That millions see through the lies and the hatred is encouraging. Trump is a good President. That's what the millions believe because it's true.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't go as far as saying that he is a good president. You can excuse the man for being bold and you can make a solid case that he is spewing hatred as the media pretends.

However, he made quite a few dubious comments. When he told the whole "Squad" to go back to their country and fix them up to show how it's done, that just crossed a line. All of them are legally in the United States and 3 of those 4 women are born in America. I understand they espouse disgusting identitarian rhetoric, but it's not a reason to ask Americans to leave the country. He also made insanely stupid comments during the campaign, not to mention the amount of assinine lies he told about numbers anyone could check in a second. He is not the only politician to do these things and, admittedly, some Democrats said and did equally disgusting things. AOC calling the ICE facilities concentration camps and insulting border patrol agents was as preposterous as Trump's comment.

On the other hand, Trump seems to be going somewhere with the North Korea issue, and he stood up for the western world in front of China. As far as I am concerned, the western world gave China a way to drag its people out of poverty, but it is not abiding by the high standards of countries like Europe, Canada, the US or Australia when it comes to respecting the rights of its people, its government still is very involved in its economy and the trade deal with China sounds like a one way deal for Americans. Those are good things.


To be fair, Trump also seems considerably more reasonable and sane than anyone Democrats have had to offer. Clinton was horrible and most of the current harvest seems to be hell-bent on pushing for identity politics. Listening to some of them is like listening to Mussolini in the 1920s. The government will tell businesses what to do and we'll have people dressed up in blacks, head to toe, to beat up and intimidate people who disagree with us... I don't especially like Trump, but if I was American he would have my vote hands down.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
You call Universal Health Care radical. I call banning Muslims radical.
Click to expand...

Universal Health care never existed in the US and is the utmost left position you can take on that issue. That's about as radical as you can get it.

As for the "Muslim ban," that's a nice bit of convenient hyperbole. If I recall, the restrictions proposed by Trump concerned regions, not the religion practiced by people. When you consider the threat to national security which is tied to welcoming masses of refugees from a region of the world with massive populations which openly calls for the destruction of the western world and push for imposing theocratic regimes everywhere, it doesn't sound like an exaggeration. It sounds like he lives in the real world where enemies of freedom can absolutely send terrorists more easily through borders because they can drown them in the noise created by masses of incoming people. You could have a reasonable discussion and disagree because you think inspiring millions of refugees to yearn for freedom is a higher virtue, or because you think to give a hand to the victims of sadistic warmongering regimes is a higher value...

I'd guess that someone who calls restrictions (admittedly, the strongest restriction possible) on locations a "ban on Muslims" doesn't want to have a reasonable discussion about freedom, security, and humanitarian help.
 
TheEconomist said:
I wouldn't go as far as saying that he is a good president. You can excuse the man for being bold and you can make a solid case that he is spewing hatred as the media pretends.

However, he made quite a few dubious comments. When he told the whole "Squad" to go back to their country and fix them up to show how it's done, that just crossed a line. All of them are legally in the United States and 3 of those 4 women are born in America. I understand they espouse disgusting identitarian rhetoric, but it's not a reason to ask Americans to leave the country. He also made insanely stupid comments during the campaign, not to mention the amount of assinine lies he told about numbers anyone could check in a second. He is not the only politician to do these things and, admittedly, some Democrats said and did equally disgusting things. AOC calling the ICE facilities concentration camps and insulting border patrol agents was as preposterous as Trump's comment.

On the other hand, Trump seems to be going somewhere with the North Korea issue, and he stood up for the western world in front of China. As far as I am concerned, the western world gave China a way to drag its people out of poverty, but it is not abiding by the high standards of countries like Europe, Canada, the US or Australia when it comes to respecting the rights of its people, its government still is very involved in its economy and the trade deal with China sounds like a one way deal for Americans. Those are good things.

To be fair, Trump also seems considerably more reasonable and sane than anyone Democrats have had to offer. Clinton was horrible and most of the current harvest seems to be hell-bent on pushing for identity politics. Listening to some of them is like listening to Mussolini in the 1920s. The government will tell businesses what to do and we'll have people dressed up in blacks, head to toe, to beat up and intimidate people who disagree with us... I don't especially like Trump, but if I was American he would have my vote hands down.
Click to expand...
How would you define a good president?

It seems you respect Trump's foreign policy considerably, which understandable. Domestically, he passed tax reform, has done well with the economy, achieved energy exporter status, done considerable house cleaning in the Washington bureaucracy, made progress on illegal immigration, overhauled the federal judiciary, all of this while fending off the worst attacks any President has every endured. What can he do now that Mueller is off his back?
 
TheEconomist said:
Universal Health care never existed in the US and is the utmost left position you can take on that issue. That's about as radical as you can get it.

As for the "Muslim ban," that's a nice bit of convenient hyperbole. If I recall, the restrictions proposed by Trump concerned regions, not the religion practiced by people. When you consider the threat to national security which is tied to welcoming masses of refugees from a region of the world with massive populations which openly calls for the destruction of the western world and push for imposing theocratic regimes everywhere, it doesn't sound like an exaggeration. It sounds like he lives in the real world where enemies of freedom can absolutely send terrorists more easily through borders because they can drown them in the noise created by masses of incoming people. You could have a reasonable discussion and disagree because you think inspiring millions of refugees to yearn for freedom is a higher virtue, or because you think to give a hand to the victims of sadistic warmongering regimes is a higher value...

I'd guess that someone who calls restrictions (admittedly, the strongest restriction possible) on locations a "ban on Muslims" doesn't want to have a reasonable discussion about freedom, security, and humanitarian help.
Click to expand...

You can easily write an Executive Order that doesn't explicitly state it is a ban on Muslims; however, when your rhetoric is as such, "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.", it isn't hard to see what is really going on.

We can have a reasonable discussion about freedom, security, and humanitarian help, but you can't ignore the rhetoric coming from the POTUS.
 
Irwin Corey said:
Watching Trumps Presidency has been like watching a bunch of blindfolded dizzy children play pin the tail on the donkey.
Click to expand...

The tail does belong on a donkey, but the game in the last several decades has been pining that tail on an elephant. Donald Trump's election is on you. It's your fault.

Democrats have been calling Republicans racist since Ronald Reagan. That's the definition of an upside-down world. A bit of (relevant) history:

Slavery was backed up by Democrats until a war leads to its abolition. Every single bill that instituted segregation in the South was passed by Democrats and created the KKK. All those bills were fought in court and in legislatures by Republicans -- and transportation businesses like train and bus companies because compliance was too costly. All the civil rights bills were passed by Republican supports and all of them would have failed if Democrats had majorities. After the Civil Rights Act, only one Democrat became Republican and the rest of them died Democrats. A former member of the KKK died a few years ago, with Obama and Clinton attending the funerals. Apparently, it was fine because you had to be a clansman to move forward in the Democratic party in those days. Ironically, the black vote swung in the hands of Democrats while they still were deeply racist bigots: during the early 1930s, FDR bought them off with the New Deal amidst the worst recession in US history. Even finer facts come from the mutual admiration between Mussolini, an avowed Marxist and socialist, and FDR. Mussolini commented on the New Deal, saying FDR was one of them and FDR sent some of his staff to study fascist economic policies in Italy because he wanted to bring some of those policies in the US.

Fast forward today. Republicans still say roughly what they were saying in 1860. They still say that "(...) the man that made the corn should eat the corn" and that the essence of slavery is that "[y]ou work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it." That's from Lincoln, with both quotes drawn from over 150 years ago, and it sounds like what Republicans say today. That's the kind of opinions which pushed for slavery to end, which fought against segregation and racism. They're also the ones which disagreed the most with fascism -- real fascism, as defined by its father, Benito Mussolini. Yet, what do Democrats keep parroting? Republicans are racist and fascist... That is seeing the world upside down. Their side is fascist and their side now contains people who actually are racist. When AOC tweeted about the difference between white supremacy and white supremacist without defining either, what she did was reserve for herself the right to smear all people who disagree with her and to paint them as the tools of white supremacy.


Republicans tried to put boy scouts on the ballot. John McCain and Mitt Romney were boy scouts. They would never have told the kinds of things Trump has said. Although they were politicians and all politicians lie, I suspect they wouldn't have lied as much as Trump does. However, Democrats play dirty. They fling crap. That's what the media does, always in one direction. Congratulations: political correctness, identity politics and the constant smearing on the left are the reasons the man in the White House is so vulgar and unpresidential. If Democrats clean up their ranks and start talking about inequality, poverty, social mobility and these kinds of things as opposed to "Republicans are racist, sexist, xenophobic, islamophobic, homophobic, transphobic, ...," you will not see another Trump in your lifetime.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
You can easily write an Executive Order that doesn't explicitly state it is a ban on Muslims; however, when your rhetoric is as such, "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.", it isn't hard to see what is really going on.
Click to expand...

You would have to quote directly from the Whitehouse official statements or from Donald Trump's own statements. If they said "Muslims" directly, it is more objectionable and the tone of my reply was inappropriate. My impression at the moment is that the media made another slanted coverage of what happened or of what was said.

Chaddelamancha said:
We can have a reasonable discussion about freedom, security, and humanitarian help, but you can't ignore the rhetoric coming from the POTUS.
Click to expand...

To be fair, it seems like you assume that there is something islamophobic about banning Muslims. If you ban only Muslims from the Middle East, you pretty got as close as you can get from pinning down the dangerous people. Not all middle eastern Muslims are dangerous, but nearly all dangerous terrorists are middle eastern Muslims. The number of Muslims who favor Sharia Law, who openly call for attacks on the US or Israel or who support the use of violence in spreading Islam in those regions is quite high. The most radical views in the Arab world is confined to devout Muslims, all in countries where Islam was spread by the war. Even if polls put the most extreme views regarding the use of terrorism at a low percentage, we get roughly 100 million people who wish the US would be wiped out...

There is a problem with sorting people based on their faith because the government is not supposed to dictate what its people can believe. However, the reality is that you can't ban terrorists and sympathizers of terrorism because they don't wear badges saying they will blow up a pizza shop next week. It's obvious that you can ban people from entire regions, but it means many innocents are banned. If you could sort based on religion, at least hoping most devout people will have a problem denying their faith, you do ban fewer innocents if you ban all Muslims from certain countries. Christians have not waged a holy war in nearly a millennium and did not engage in religious violence for the last 400 years if you include (as you should) murdering people over accusations of witchcraft. Jews have not done anything remotely like this for an even longer period of time. You would have a case of pushing for the hatred of Muslims if European Muslims, Canadian Muslims or Australian Muslims were also banned. Most of those people, especially those who grew up in those countries, tend to hold western values even when they are devoutly religious.


Most of "rhetoric" of the POTUS consist of tendential interpretation or outright lies by the media. Charlottesville is a case in point. People saying he called Nazis "fine people," even though he explicitly said in the very next sentence he was talking about peaceful protestors for and against the removal of statues, and even though this interpretation would require one to believe in the obvious nonsense that Trump thinks there are very fine people among Antifa protestors. Yet, they parrot along: he said Nazis are good people. Even when he calls out white supremacists openly, people still somehow manage to assume the man is pandering to the 3 dozens of morons who call themselves neo-nazis... No, he isn't. When he says something stupid, loud or provocative, he's pandering to centrists -- he counts on Democrats to push leftward like idiots so people in the middle vote Republican.
 
DamnYankee said:
We await the IG's report on just how deep the corruption went in the Obama Regime. And it won't be all of it, I'm sure.
Click to expand...

This is 1) a deflection 2) the argument from ignorance, assuming that a) there is an investigation and b) it will turn out unfavorably for Obama.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
You can easily write an Executive Order that doesn't explicitly state it is a ban on Muslims; however, when your rhetoric is as such, "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.", it isn't hard to see what is really going on.

We can have a reasonable discussion about freedom, security, and humanitarian help, but you can't ignore the rhetoric coming from the POTUS.
Click to expand...
You don't ignore it but you do look past it.

Remember that it goes both ways, Democrats and the media hate on Trump while he baits them back. At bottom it's mostly sound and fury, signifying nothing. If you focus on it you never be able to figure what is really going on.
 
RAMOSS said:
This is 1) a deflection 2) the argument from ignorance, assuming that a) there is an investigation and b) it will turn out unfavorably for Obama.
Click to expand...
This is a statement from ignorance.

Assuming there is an investigation.:lamo
 
TheEconomist said:
The tail does belong on a donkey, but the game in the last several decades has been pining that tail on an elephant. Donald Trump's election is on you. It's your fault. ...

... If Democrats clean up their ranks and start talking about inequality, poverty, social mobility and these kinds of things as opposed to "Republicans are racist, sexist, xenophobic, islamophobic, homophobic, transphobic, ...," you will not see another Trump in your lifetime.
Click to expand...

That's quite a rant to this post:

Originally posted by Irwin Correy #72

No kidding!

ANY RESPONSIBLE ADULT
**********2020*******

Watching tRumps Presidency has been like watching a bunch of blindfolded dizzy children play pin the tail on the donkey.

We've gone from "I cannot tell a lie" to "He cannot and will not tell the truth".

Send tRump back to where he came from
***************2020**************
Click to expand...

WoW! You make me wonder if it's time for your meds, that reply is WAY over the top; and, yes, I cut out most of what I consider to be Bull ****! But thanks for the opportunity to repost. :)

I don't agree with you that things are as they were in the 1860's or the 30's or that they were the same even in the 60's but it is a rant conservatives like to fall back on; Bull **** though it may be.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom