• 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 is the only candidate that can defeat Hillary

Glen Contrarian said:
That's just it. The GOP moved the goalpost on their end of the field...and so the new 50-yard line is somewhere to the right of where it used to be (as Nate Silver quantified on his blog). Y'all don't seem to realize that with the exception of gay rights, the Democrats are in several respects farther to the right than they were in the 1990's. The heart of Obamacare - the individual mandate - came straight from the Heritage Foundation. Obama set a record for deportation of illegal immigrants. Under Obama, Big Oil's pumped more than ever before.

And you don't have to take my word for it - see what The American Conservative said in 2014: Obama is a Republican. Frankly, there's been a lot of liberals saying the same thing...with more than a little buyer's regret. Ezra Klein from the Washington Post said the same doggone thing.

But among conservatives, how many actually realize just how much closer to Reagan than to Bernie Sanders President Obama really is? Apparently, as far as most of you are concerned, he's the most insanely liberal politician who's ever lived (or words to that effect).

So to answer your question, seeing as how the Dems - including Obama and Hillary - are in several respects farther to the right than they were in the 1990's when I really began questioning what the GOP was doing, my complaints can't be "applied equally" - the policies of the Dems of today (again, not counting LGBT rights) are closer to what I believed as a Reagan Republican than are the policies of today's GOP.
Click to expand...

Which of course ignores, that if the conditions are what you say they are, why did they move (both parties)? The answer is that political parties chase the voters - they moved to follow the people. To remain electable. So, what you said in your initial post applies equally to both the democrat and republican parties and is in response to where the people have moved.
 
clownboy said:
Yes, he will, and he has been, precisely for the reasons I gave. Yes, he will have to stick to his campaign promises - but he is not hampered by past campaign promises as the other long time politicians running are.

Trump has the added bonus of making his campaign promises the starting point in negotiation, his supporters understand that. Something apparently, the kneejerk haters fail to grasp.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty cheesy redefinition of what a campaign promise is.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Trump's a genius negotiator? "If NBC doesn't pay me $5M, I won't participate in the debate!" NBC didn't pay. Was he there, or not?

And...how many bankruptcies has he had? Better yet, when it comes to negotiations, how many divorces has he had? The better negotiator a guy is, the less likely he's going to have to get divorced in the first place!
Click to expand...

Nope. The better negotiator is the one who still has the majority of his money AFTER the divorce, AFTER the bankruptcy.
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
Genius negotiators?

And we've only been weak the past 8 years huh? All these US companies have been moving to other countries, and these trade deals have been just happening over the past 8 years huh? Nothing like that happened before Obama? Now I know FOR SURE where you are coming from.

Good night.
Click to expand...

You forget that decades-long trends are just liberal hooey. Everything was aces before the Kenyan took over.
 
clownboy said:
Well, good thing it wasn't that in the first place.
Click to expand...

It absolutely is. Name me one other candidate whose campaign promises were deemed a "starting point in negotiations."
 
Kobie said:
It absolutely is. Name me one other candidate whose campaign promises were deemed a "starting point in negotiations."
Click to expand...

You're arguing from ignorance. You kneejerk hate Trump and thus you don't listen to him. He's made it clear these positions give him strength to start the negotiations and end up with something to our advantage. You do understand the basic tenant of collective bargaining, yes? Each side comes to the table with their wildest expectations.
 
clownboy said:
You're arguing from ignorance. You kneejerk hate Trump and thus you don't listen to him. He's made it clear these positions give him strength to start the negotiations and end up with something to our advantage. You do understand the basic tenant of collective bargaining, yes? Each side comes to the table with their wildest expectations.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he has. :roll:

There are no excuses the fanbois won't make, I suppose. And, of course, we have the usual dismissal ... recognizing the clear fact that Trump is a full-of-brown-stuff demagogue means we're just not listening.

What a pathetic attempt at defending Trump. 0/10, see me after class.
 
Kobie said:
I'm sure he has. :roll:

There are no excuses the fanbois won't make, I suppose. And, of course, we have the usual dismissal ... recognizing the clear fact that Trump is a full-of-brown-stuff demagogue means we're just not listening.

What a pathetic attempt at defending Trump. 0/10, see me after class.
Click to expand...

Which is just your way of excusing that you know nothing of Trump's positions, that your hatred is just the armchair commando kneejerk variety. And you have no class for anyone to take (pun intended). :mrgreen:
 
clownboy said:
Nope. The better negotiator is the one who still has the majority of his money AFTER the divorce, AFTER the bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

Uh-uh. If a guy's a good negotiator, he doesn't wind up getting divorced. THREE TIMES. Which means that each time, because he failed to keep his marriages together through the time-honored tradition of husband-wife negotiations, he had to go find a good lawyer to negotiate for him.

Sorry, guy, but I've seen both sides of this coin, too - divorced once (I call her the 'training wife') and my Darling and I have been married now for 23 years. Negotiations are crucial! And Trump's no negotiator - just as NBC! :lamo
 
clownboy said:
Which is just your way of excusing that you know nothing of Trump's positions, that your hatred is just the armchair commando kneejerk variety. And you have no class for anyone to take (pun intended). :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I know Trump's positions quite well, thank you. Your arrogance is growing tiresome.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Uh-uh. If a guy's a good negotiator, he doesn't wind up getting divorced. THREE TIMES. Which means that each time, because he failed to keep his marriages together through the time-honored tradition of husband-wife negotiations, he had to go find a good lawyer to negotiate for him.

Sorry, guy, but I've seen both sides of this coin, too - divorced once (I call her the 'training wife') and my Darling and I have been married now for 23 years. Negotiations are crucial! And Trump's no negotiator - just as NBC! :lamo
Click to expand...

Answered this in another thread, where your "argument" was stomped so you take it here.
 
clownboy said:
Which of course ignores, that if the conditions are what you say they are, why did they move (both parties)? The answer is that political parties chase the voters - they moved to follow the people. To remain electable. So, what you said in your initial post applies equally to both the democrat and republican parties and is in response to where the people have moved.
Click to expand...

Actually, the bolded part above gives a great deal of support to what I just told you. I'm just one guy. The GOP moved farther to the right than I wanted to be, and the Dems have moved closer to where I want to be.

And when it comes to the "people moving" when it comes to attitudes on the macro scale, you should check out my discussion with Chomsky on this thread, because as I told him, IMO everything we're seeing isn't because of one person, isn't because of individual acts at all, but is instead a direct result of pressures on the electorate caused by a long-term inexorably-changing demographic. The white population is gradually losing the overwhelming degree of power and influence that it once had, and this has a very real effect on attitudes not on the individual scale, but on the macro scale.

And before you get pissed at me, this isn't a white thing or an American thing - it's a human thing, and has been seen many times in human history where the long-dominant group (racial/ethnic/religious, doesn't matter) sees its dominance slowly slipping away, and it begins to harden, to circle its wagons. A great example is the Uighurs in Xinjiang province in China, with the mass influx of Han Chinese who now outnumber them. As a direct result, the Uighurs are resorting to protest, unrest, and sometimes even terrorism against the Chinese government. Another example is the Palestinians who had lived in Palestine for thousands of years - there were some Jews there all that time, but the majority was far and away Palestinian. The Brits had promised them self-rule, that Palestine would be its own independent nation...and then Britain told them, "Hey, um, sorry, but there's going to be a whole bunch of Jews moving in here and now it's their nation." And we see how that's worked out.

It was the same thing with the Catholics against the growing influence and numbers of the protestants, and the Shi'a against the Sunni, and - not so long ago - the Hutu against the Tutsi in Rwanda.

So...no, it's not a white thing or an American thing - it's a human thing. That's why the GOP is moving farther to the right than Reagan, Bush 41, or Dole would ever have accepted.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Actually, the bolded part above gives a great deal of support to what I just told you. I'm just one guy. The GOP moved farther to the right than I wanted to be, and the Dems have moved closer to where I want to be.

And when it comes to the "people moving" when it comes to attitudes on the macro scale, you should check out my discussion with Chomsky on this thread, because as I told him, IMO everything we're seeing isn't because of one person, isn't because of individual acts at all, but is instead a direct result of pressures on the electorate caused by a long-term inexorably-changing demographic. The white population is gradually losing the overwhelming degree of power and influence that it once had, and this has a very real effect on attitudes not on the individual scale, but on the macro scale.

And before you get pissed at me, this isn't a white thing or an American thing - it's a human thing, and has been seen many times in human history where the long-dominant group (racial/ethnic/religious, doesn't matter) sees its dominance slowly slipping away, and it begins to harden, to circle its wagons. A great example is the Uighurs in Xinjiang province in China, with the mass influx of Han Chinese who now outnumber them. As a direct result, the Uighurs are resorting to protest, unrest, and sometimes even terrorism against the Chinese government. Another example is the Palestinians who had lived in Palestine for thousands of years - there were some Jews there all that time, but the majority was far and away Palestinian. The Brits had promised them self-rule, that Palestine would be its own independent nation...and then Britain told them, "Hey, um, sorry, but there's going to be a whole bunch of Jews moving in here and now it's their nation." And we see how that's worked out.

It was the same thing with the Catholics against the growing influence and numbers of the protestants, and the Shi'a against the Sunni, and - not so long ago - the Hutu against the Tutsi in Rwanda.

So...no, it's not a white thing or an American thing - it's a human thing. That's why the GOP is moving farther to the right than Reagan, Bush 41, or Dole would ever have accepted.
Click to expand...

You have me wrong if you think I'd be pissed at you for saying that. In fact, I agree. It is indeed a human thing. What you mention are just some of the factors in play.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
I'm not sure who you're referring to, because I haven't discussed Trump's negotiation skills (or lack thereof) with anyone at all online.
Click to expand...

You may have a short term memory problem.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-el...date-can-defeat-hillary-6.html#post1065480256
posted at 4:32 PM today

Quote Originally Posted by Glen Contrarian View Post

Trump's a genius negotiator? "If NBC doesn't pay me $5M, I won't participate in the debate!" NBC didn't pay. Was he there, or not?

And...how many bankruptcies has he had? Better yet, when it comes to negotiations, how many divorces has he had? The better negotiator a guy is, the less likely he's going to have to get divorced in the first place!
Click to expand...

Nope. The better negotiator is the one who still has the majority of his money AFTER the divorce, AFTER the bankruptcy.
Click to expand...

I have my own problem keeping track :3oops:. It wasn't another thread but this one. So, asked and answered.
 
Last edited:
clownboy said:
You may have a short term memory problem.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-el...date-can-defeat-hillary-6.html#post1065480256
posted at 4:32 PM today



I have my own problem keeping track :3oops:. It wasn't another thread but this one. So, asked and answered.
Click to expand...

Um, 'scuse you, but here's what you said: "Answered this in another thread, where your "argument" was stomped so you take it here." Note the bolded part. Of course I knew about the continuing discussion that you and I were having in THIS thread - and NO, you didn't "stomp" my argument - and I was quite truthful - I had not discussed his negotiation skill (or lack thereof) with anyone before you in THIS thread TODAY.

Yeah, you got problems keeping track - as I certainly do myself (having had my nose rubbed in it on several occasions). At least you admit it, which is more than can be said of quite a few others of any stripe here.
 
clownboy said:
You have me wrong if you think I'd be pissed at you for saying that. In fact, I agree. It is indeed a human thing. What you mention are just some of the factors in play.
Click to expand...

Y'know, I'm glad to see we're not at each other's throats. One of the things I enjoy most is being able to combine a discussion of differences while discovering similarities along the way.
 
clownboy said:
Considering Trump has always been unashamed and upfront about them and the reasons he's changed his mind, no gold for the haters there. He's not been a politician and thus gets the everyman pass - normal folks change their minds about the issues throughout their lifetimes. Politicians have to stick with the view they campaigned upon - keep your promises.
Click to expand...

That's a very observant statement. Most of us recognize that intelligent people go through life evaluating issues in a somewhat open minded way. Not black and white. We can change our positions on a subject and not be called dishonest or opportunistic. Not so easy for a politician to change who has advocated one side or the other.
 
If Trump gets the GOP nomination, the Dems are assured to win the White House. Trump is too politically divisive. The old "Establishment Repubs" don't like or trust him and the majority of moderate swing voters and "Reagan Democrats" wont get behind him either. He's like a wrecking ball, single-handedly dismantling the Republican Party. His baseless and often desperate verbal assaults on his "fellow GOP hopefuls" are just exasperating the situation.
 
FluffyNinja said:
If Trump gets the GOP nomination, the Dems are assured to win the White House. Trump is too politically divisive. The old "Establishment Repubs" don't like or trust him and the majority of moderate swing voters and "Reagan Democrats" wont get behind him either. He's like a wrecking ball, single-handedly dismantling the Republican Party. His baseless and often desperate verbal assaults on his "fellow GOP hopefuls" are just exasperating the situation.
Click to expand...

I agree. And along the way, he's making a mockery of the American political process. Best thing that can happen is that he gets voted out of the primaries early.
'Course, there'd be a lot of entertainment value lost.
 
Grand Mal said:
I agree. And along the way, he's making a mockery of the American political process. Best thing that can happen is that he gets voted out of the primaries early.
'Course, there'd be a lot of entertainment value lost.
Click to expand...
Truth. He has definitely drawn a great deal of media attention to the GOP contest....but not necessarily in all the ways they'd have liked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom