He dropped out of the CT Governor's race for God's sake, and you think he'd have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming President in 2020? He's a low-level politician from a politician's family so he's qualified?
Respect the office
- Thread starter Beeazlebub
- Start date
Preferable to whom? What is Kennedy's position on the important issues:
(1) More Muslim immigrants to increase the jihadist pool in the US, or fewer?
(2) Deport illegal aliens or provide sanctuary?
(3) Fiscal responsibility or more feckless deficit spending?
He dropped out of the CT Governor's race for God's sake, and you think he'd have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming President in 2020? He's a low-level politician from a politician's family so he's qualified?
As the biggest Trump supporter on this board, you should know all about qualifications. Tell us more!
Trump isn't a politician, but he is more qualified to be President of the USA than the community organizer who never had real job in his life was in 2008.
This guy only has the Kennedy name behind him.
I don't care about policy when the current buffoon is turning our great nation into an international joke with his wrestling videos and fake news rants. I would rather have someone whose "policies" I abhor but who has a sense of basic human decency and decorum. Hence why I would stand on the rooftops and cheer if Trump quit tomorrow and Pence became President.
In case I wasn't clear, there isn't a politician in the country right now that I can name that I would not vote for if my other option was Trump. I would vote for a deranged zoo animal before I would vote for Trump. I would rather see us have no president at all than vote for the circus clown we currently have.
I'm sorry, but Obama turned the USA into an international joke on the world stage by "leading from behind".
Being the political persuasion you are, you'd never vote for Trump anyway. And you'd likely never vote for a Republican either, so it's shocking, I said shocking, that you would vote for anyone not named Trump. If Satan himself was running, you'd vote for Satan, right?
That is the problem, captured in five of your own words.
Fifty years from now, Trump's antics will be meaningless. But if we now become a nation that imports Muslim extremists and throws the doors open to Latin America, then our society and our culture will deteriorate toward those levels: Syria, Columbia, Somolia, Mexico, Libya, Guatemala.
Last edited:
I would vote for a deranged zoo animal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see you are happy the way the last 8 years have gone.
In case you haven't noticed the economy is really picking up steam. As soon as the proposed tax cuts come into effect, it will really boom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see you are happy the way the last 8 years have gone.
In case you haven't noticed the economy is really picking up steam. As soon as the proposed tax cuts come into effect, it will really boom.
Two things.
1. I voted for GWB both times.
2. No, I wouldn't vote for Satan. I mean, I didn't vote for him in 2016, so...
A number of my relatives (in OH) also feel exactly the same way. They feel he is a "NEVER TRUMPER" and they despise what he said leading up to the election.
Not an Obama supporter but sorry, that is #FAKENEWS
http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/26...lics-around-world-question-trumps-leadership/
Trump couldn't hold Kasich's jock. He was in Congress reducing the national debt and balancing budgets when Trump was still fondling beauty pageant contestants.
Kasich's problem in the campaign was he told the truth, things people didn't always want to hear. Trump didn't worry about such details.
Yes, your "Story" from Pew Research Group is exactly that - fake news. No one can say with a straight face that Pew isn't left-leaning big time.
B.S. Trump and Bernie Sanders both brought things up that mainstream, Establishment politicians like HRC and Kasich would never think of bringing up. Kasich is a classic neo-con Republican, stuck in the days of the GHWB and GWB. He has the charisma of a turnip. No one was interested in his message on the national stage because his message was stale and the 2016 election exposed him for what he is - an Establishment neo-con.
sweet a bible beating, investment banking, nafta supporting globalist who is scared of "assault weapons". ya...no thanks. I wouldn't shake that man's hand.
So Trump didn't send missles into Syria, isn't fighting ISIS in the middle east, isn't considering more troops in Afghanistan, and doesn't support Israel unconditionally. Oh, and isn't threatening military action in NK.
No neocon tendencies here. Move along.
I don't think you do. Trump is a populist and he ran against a bunch of neo-con Rs in the primary and beat them all.
You can call him whatever makes you happy, but the military positions I listed above are clearly that of a neocon.
The problem with you Trump-ets is you are consumed with being anti establishment pubs. You think it's cool, MAGA is badass and takes no shit from anybody. The reality is Trump is a populist when it suits him........that is to say, when he wants to give you lemmings another cliff to jump off of. The billionaire who is not elitist, your hero.
His history shows his beliefs have been all over the board. He may be a populist today.......but as he sits on the crapper tomorrow after his bran muffin he will decide to tweet something that shows he's an authoritarian. Hell, when he said the house healthcare bill was "mean"...........it almost sounded..........wait for it........liberal.
This is one of the greatest ironies of all. Yet will any of these liberal jackwagons admit it?
with trump, it will be interesting to see the new separation of religion/Christianity and republicans/conservatives.
Due to the two candidates that he would have run against-yes. That said, the number of seats Dems lost nationwide while he was in power shows a pretty significant backlash against some of his ideas/policies/politics.
Well, this gets into a lot deeper stuff - but the fact is, the American public as a whole (and it happens other places too....see UK) is not always smart at reading situations. For example, right after Obamacare passed, Democrats lost a lot of seats (although it is also rather common for this to happen in that situation, Obamacare or not). Obamacare was evil, etc. Now that people have "settled" in on what it is, you see the opposite - backlash trying to get rid of it. But there's extremes you hear on both sides - when it was first passed, all you heard was how evil it is, death panels, health care will be rationed. Now you hear about all these people will lose their coverage, people will die, etc. It's not productive for anyone. And while it may not be what you like, the practical thing is for both parties to work together to fix problems with Obamacare. But that doesn't score political points.
Now you look at our master negotiator in chief and I have no idea what he's trying to accomplish. Yesterday, while having to delay a vote due to McCain's health issue - Trump calls McCain crusty. What is that accomplishing? He had dinner last night with a bunch of Republicans who solidly support him - not with the Senators on the fence about health care who were literally drafting their announcements to not support the bill while Trump was with the other Senators.
When it comes to politicians, I don't really see where Trump is improving DC and "draining the swamp" - he is making "how DC works" even worse.
Pretty much agree. Just one thing, what you say about Trump making DC worse, I agree with. Also, agree that the extreme voices on the sides(your example with ACA) is what gets the airtime, and unfortunately, more often than not in present politics, wins the races.
Absolutely. And it's not necessarily new. It's no secret "negative ads work" - but now the negativity has spread well past just 30 second commercials. I will also say - I don't want to make it about Republicans vs. Democrats - but I will say that Republicans are much more effective at being loud and pushing narratives (whether negative or not). Democrats aren't good at sticking to message and really the only thing they have been decent at holding together is on Obamacare.
Look at the last election - while Democrats focused solely on Trump's "persona", they didn't stick to countering issues that he was completely hypocritical or inconsistent on that he was basing his campaign on - look at trade and his own companies, being the "working class guy" while stiffing contractors and small businesses as a businessman, etc. Basically all of that got pushed aside because of his absurd behavior - which is sad in its own right.
Now you look at a lot of Trump's promises and talk - it's not sticking up for the middle class, the rust belt, etc. And now looking at health care - saying he wants just wants to let Obamacare collapse? You may not like the damn thing, but just letting it flounder isn't good for anyone.
I also think Trump one day just woke up and decided to hate it just because it was a hot issue, and his lack of input in this process seems to confirm it - he doesn't care what the hell is in it or any details. But he doesn't seem to want to "know" much about anything. I'm not sure how productive a president is that just cares about what is in it for him.
looking at health care - saying he wants just wants to let Obamacare collapse? You may not like the damn thing, but just letting it flounder isn't good for anyone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump has nothing to do with the inevitable failure of the ACA. I believe his 'Let it fail' agenda is a push to the legislative branch to get off their dead arses and do something.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trump has nothing to do with the inevitable failure of the ACA. I believe his 'Let it fail' agenda is a push to the legislative branch to get off their dead arses and do something.
If he withholds subsidies, which he's said he wants to do - yes, he absolutely does. And the notion that the ACA was perfect from day one is absurd - if social security wasn't touched one time after it was passed, it would have failed too. Letting a health care system collapse cause you don't like it, which affects miliions of Americans - most people would call that dereliction of duty.
For some reason, you seem to think the President isn't the LEADER of the free world. "This isn't my problem" isn't a freaking excuse when you're president. Yesterday, all he did was blame others - including Democrats for not coming to the table when they were never invited. When Obama took office, think he wanted to deal with the financial crisis that he didn't cause? No, but he didn't complain about it, pout and cross his arms and wait for others to fix it for him.
"The buck stops here" - except when you're Donald Trump, then it's someone else's problem.
Oh come on! Obama created the ACA and it was failing while he was IN CHARGE and to be clear, Obama did nothing to try and fix it. Now the democratic obstructionist won't help or suggest or do anything to help this failing healthcare program. Just sit back vote no on anything Trump wants.
On the other hand, these worthless republicans have no plan or solution either. The people of this country are being led by two inept parties. What a shame this government won't do what's best for it's people.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that Trump has resistance from both political parties - at least from the Establishment wing of the Rs and from almost all Ds. If the Rs really wanted to get things done, I think Ol' Mitch and Paul Ryan could get the votes. It just shows me that the entrenched special interests are stronger in DC than the R party.
Obama jammed the ACA down the throats of the nation and he did it without any R support. He didn't try to get any.
And why do you think Obama was called "Oblamer" by many on the right? He was the master of refusing to take responsibility for anything. Nothing was ever his fault. Blame Bush (even late in the 2nd term), blame FOX News, blame the USSC, blame Rs....He was such a hypocrite. Yet you seem completely oblivious to this fact.
Ummm Democrats have been saying for years it isn't perfect and needs to be fixed. Republicans have been solely "repeal" it. Now the Democratic obstructionists won't help or suggest? You mean when there's been meetings with invites only to Republicans? At least Obama extended an invite, while I do not believe he at all expected it to work.
Democrats have been offering to do a compromise to fix Obamacare - Republicans won't do it cause they will only want to repeal it.
As I mentioned earlier, there's politics involved. Democrats will let the Republicans flail and are not out there putting out commercials about how they want to work together - cause it's good politically for the meantime. I don't really agree with this to an extent - but I certainly think it's absurd to accuse them of "obstructing it" - Republicans control both houses and don't need a single Democratic vote. So you can drop that BS.
Well, from a quick Google search...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...responsible-for-video/?utm_term=.683c6e83dbe1
1. November 3, 2010 – Democrats lose control of the House in midterm elections. "I take responsibility for that."
2. October 16, 2012 – Attack on U.S. Consulate in Benghazi. "I'm the president. And I'm always responsible."
3. May 27, 2010 – BP oil spill. "In case you were wondering, in any of your reporting, who's responsible? I take responsibility."
4. October 30, 2013 – HealthCare.gov crashes. "I take full responsibility for making sure it gets fixed ASAP."
5. July 14, 2009 – Economy in freefall. "I love the folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, 'Well, this is Obama's economy.' That's fine. Give it to me. ... I want the responsibility."
Latest posts
-
Example #346 that liberalism is a disease....- Latest: Boiler Buck
-
-
-