• 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!

Things Don Can't or Shouldn't or Should Touch

I don't think once he is sworn in, President Trump will touch Gay Marriage. Nobody cares about that. In the end, the whole issue centered on the definition of a word anyway, so there is nothing there to be concerned with.

I do think the 2nd Amendment is important, so his Supreme Court picks will reflect that.

What I do see him doing is broadening the appeal of the Republican Party by refocusing the core, and pushing back against the fringe elements that have done so much harm to it's image.

But wasn't the most damaging "fringe element" Drumph himself? It certainly appeared that way.
 
He won't touch SSM, because frankly, I don't think he gives a ****. I know I don't. Abortion? He may care about that, but I hope he leaves it to hell alone. The wall? Simply not gonna happen, nor would it be at all affective, even with motion sensing turrets. NAFTA, and TPP? I think he's gonna gun for those, and I'm rooting for him. Terms limits? Lol, I wish him the best of luck with. Hiring freeze on public employees? Eh.....I'm not really informed enough to have a valid opinion on that one, if I'm honest...
 
But wasn't the most damaging "fringe element" Drumph himself? It certainly appeared that way.

Not at all. The more lies and deceit Hillary and her MSM partners tried, the more voters supported him. The effort to deceive completely blew up in their faces.

That must blow the minds of the crooks who were trying to get Hillary elected.
 
Not at all. The more lies and deceit Hillary and her MSM partners tried, the more voters supported him. The effort to deceive completely blew up in their faces.

That must blow the minds of the crooks who were trying to get Hillary elected.

So you don't remember any friction between GOP figures who refused to support Drumph? You believe the GOP was fully on board with him from start to finish?
 
So you don't remember any friction between GOP figures who refused to support Drumph? You believe the GOP was fully on board with him from start to finish?

Where did you pull that from? I've never even implied that. Inventing things again?
 
Not a reading problem. It's your inability to articulate your question.

If it's an articulation problem, then let's solve it:

You wrote that you think Trump is "broadening the appeal of the Republican Party".
I asked, "How do you reconcile your vision with the reality that Trump received less votes than either McCain or Romney?"

And you started talking about Hillary's votes.

What part of my question are you having difficulty with?
 
If it's an articulation problem, then let's solve it:

You wrote that you think Trump is "broadening the appeal of the Republican Party".
I asked, "How do you reconcile your vision with the reality that Trump received less votes than either McCain or Romney?"

And you started talking about Hillary's votes.

What part of my question are you having difficulty with?


It doesn't help when you can't even quote what I wrote accurately. I didn't write that Trump is broadening the appeal of the Republican Party.

This is what I wrote:

"What I do see him doing is broadening the appeal of the Republican Party by refocusing the core, and pushing back against the fringe elements that have done so much harm to it's image."​

You're asking about votes, and my comment related to what he will do after taking office. "What I see him doing" is future tense. I didn't write, "What I saw him do".

And you question my reading comprehension?

How do you reconcile this whole effort you've under taken began with your inability to read and comprehend what was written?
 
It doesn't help when you can't even quote what I wrote accurately. I didn't write that Trump is broadening the appeal of the Republican Party.

This is what I wrote:

"What I do see him doing is broadening the appeal of the Republican Party by refocusing the core, and pushing back against the fringe elements that have done so much harm to it's image."​

You're asking about votes, and my comment related to what he will do after taking office. "What I see him doing" is future tense. I didn't write, "What I saw him do".

And you question my reading comprehension?

How do you reconcile this whole effort you've under taken began with your inability to read and comprehend what was written?

OK. Here's a simple tip for you:

If you are speaking about something you anticipate happening in the future,
don't choose words indicating the present tense (i.e."What I do see him doing").

Clarity and precision go a long way when you are communicating in writing.
This exchange has been a waste of time.
 
I'd take that from a different angle. Marriage and its financial and other consequences should be removed from the government's mandate, if gay marriage is to persist. As it is, it is in conflict with the Constitution. Alternatively, we can remove subsidies and replace them with other arrangements. Baring that we should not allow gay marriage. Taking the easy way out is unacceptable. The only other clean way to go is to change the Constitution.

Been tried, won't win on another try no matter who gets appointed.
 
Well, I will admit I can't answer it to your satisfaction, but I don't care about that.

Hillary got 6 million fewer votes than Obama, Trump may have got fewer than previous candidates. So what?

You can't seem to articulate the curious point you're attempting to make so I'm pretty much willing to ignore your requests.

What this shows is not such good news for your side. If that is all the votes you can muster it pretty well ends your dream of a Drumph second term. "One and done" will be the chant for the next 4 years. And we will make it happen. Given the age of the average GOPer the grim reaper is taking out a couple of 100 thousand of the GOP "base" a year I bet.

Cw2OIGhXgAAQBUu.jpg
 
Last edited:
What this shows is not such good news for your side. If that is all the votes you can muster it pretty well ends your dream of a Drumph second term. "One and done" will be the chant for the next 4 years. And we will make it happen. Given the age of the average GOPer the grim reaper is taking out a couple of 100 thousand of the GOP "base" a year I bet.

I will let this man respond to you comical delusion.

 
LOL You better get busy then. Drumph got over 6 million votes less than Obama in 2012.

LOL

Hillary got 6 million less votes than Obama too. And Donald Trump was elected the 45th President of the United States, while Republicans maintained control of Congress.

I'm not sure what you're smoking or drinking, but it must be good, because reality is clearly way out of reach for you at this point.
 
Trump and the Republicans need to stay away from marriage equality and abortion rights. They also need to leave the states alone that are legalizing marijuana. Focus on economics, trade deals, encouraging small businesses and healthcare reform.

As for immigration? Stay away from mass deportations. The optics will be bad. Building the wall or strengthening border security won't likely cost votes. Punish employers who hire undocumented workers rather than vilifying the workers themselves. That way you will accomplish your goal of fewer undocumented immigrants without looking like monsters to half the country.

I like most of that

Agree on focusing on the economic issues

We need to grow our economy....and helping small business should be priority one

I also think that we need to work on making legal immigration easier, but really cracking down on employers using illegal workers

Those laws need to be enforced, and have teeth added to them

We need to strengthen border security.....we need to reform healthcare, and completely repeal the ACA

I think our other priority needs to be in reducing the number of bases and troops overseas

We can reduce that to probably 3 or 4 worldwide

As far as domestic issues, we need to get started on rebuilding our infrastructure

Roads, bridges, electrical grid, etc.....I don't care if we need to go into debt for these projects.....in the long run, they will be worth it....but if we can cut elsewhere and pay for them now, that would be best

Anyway, that is my two cents
 
I don't think once he is sworn in, President Trump will touch Gay Marriage. Nobody cares about that. In the end, the whole issue centered on the definition of a word anyway, so there is nothing there to be concerned with.

I do think the 2nd Amendment is important, so his Supreme Court picks will reflect that.

What I do see him doing is broadening the appeal of the Republican Party by refocusing the core, and pushing back against the fringe elements that have done so much harm to it's image.

On the SCOTUS nominations, I think it important to put a textualist back on the court. Without that anchor, the Constitution is far to easy to move around to one's liking, which I think a really bad idea.
 
I was just having a conversation about this. Things we as conservative want done, or things we are concerned Don might try to do that will hurt the party.

All conservatives need to just STFU about abortion.
STFU about gay marriage.
I agree that gun ownership should be legal, but you know...a little regulation isn't a bad thing. There can be a compromise here.
 
All conservatives need to just STFU about abortion.
STFU about gay marriage.
These two issues are extremely important to evangelicals.
This group makes up about 1/3 of GOP voters.
Evangelicals would abandon any GOP nominee who doesn't at least pay lip service to these two issues.
I think that is why pro-choice, pro-gay marriage Trump picked Pence as his VP.

I agree that gun ownership should be legal, but you know...a little regulation isn't a bad thing. There can be a compromise here.
Uh-oh....you just alienated the other 2/3 of GOP voters.
 
How the heck is gay marriage in conflict with the constitution?

You might want to think about that. Think about the indivisible nature of fiscal activities.
 
Been tried, won't win on another try no matter who gets appointed.

What has been tried? Keeping to the Constitution or changing it?
 
On the SCOTUS nominations, I think it important to put a textualist back on the court. Without that anchor, the Constitution is far to easy to move around to one's liking, which I think a really bad idea.

I agree. The "living Constitution" stuff is just a euphemism for "I want to do whatever I want". Allowing that sentiment to prevail is a slippery slope the Nation should never step upon.
 
I was just having a conversation about this. Things we as conservative want done, or things we are concerned Don might try to do that will hurt the party.

Personally? I think the biggest disaster he could bring on our party is to touch Gay Marriage. I think that is a surefire way to kill votes and lose the congress and the presidency. Anyone else?

I'd like to see him enact a bill to protect gun ownership rights via encouraging a better tracking of ineligible owners.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ending Roe v Wade would probably be pretty bad for him, although they might chip at it a little and survive.

If he doesn't take major steps to stop outsourcing and other anti-american practices by big businesses, I think he loses the people who won him the election.
 
On the SCOTUS nominations, I think it important to put a textualist back on the court. Without that anchor, the Constitution is far to easy to move around to one's liking, which I think a really bad idea.
The "textualist" conservatives are pretty flexible themselves, especially regarding executive authority, depending on who is in the White House or controls Congress.
 
OK. Here's a simple tip for you:

If you are speaking about something you anticipate happening in the future,
don't choose words indicating the present tense (i.e."What I do see him doing").

Clarity and precision go a long way when you are communicating in writing.
This exchange has been a waste of time.

Why would I accept a tip from someone who can't read, and can't communicate?

I accept that you recognize you've wasted both of out time with your rather amateurish debate/communication skills.

You might want to up your game a tad before expecting someone else to suffer from your deficiencies.

Have a nice day.
 
I agree. The "living Constitution" stuff is just a euphemism for "I want to do whatever I want". Allowing that sentiment to prevail is a slippery slope the Nation should never step upon.

I most assuredly agree. You don't go and build a foundation on shifting sands for a reason. Eventually the house comes crumbling down, something I'd want to avoid.
 
Back
Top Bottom