Question for Trump supporters

PhantomWolf said:
Not all forms of bigotry are racism, but all racism is bigotry.

I deliberately wised the scope to all bigotry. In the example I used earlier, it was sexism, if the comment was made about Bill the gay being one of the good ones, it'd be homophobic.

Bigotry is racism when the bigotry is applied because of the person's race. But I am sure that you knew this.
Click to expand...

How about bigotry against racists? I've met quite a few whom I like. But, you know, they some of the good ones.
 
Brainster said:
Thanks, Obama!
Click to expand...

Actually, thanks for the '08 market crash can go to Nixon, Carter, Ford, Clinton and Dubya Bush collectively, and to the congresses with whom they collaborated to created unique new ways to hide profit/loss problems from investors while creating unique new notions in how to decide for whom to write housing loans.


The economy sunk because deregulation broke it and the sink took a bunch of poorly regulated workers down with it. Many of the illegals said "screw this" and went back to Mexico, but not all, and for a while with the construction industry in lull there was less attraction to come here. But not all of them left, not all who stayed were legal, and "economic recovery" in the US requires an enormous input of low cost labor into the housing industry.

http://eyeonhousing.org/2015/09/housing-share-of-gdp-home-building-increasing/
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
In theory, he could surround himself with like-minded sycophants, who will do his bidding, but I think the probability of that is extremely low.
Click to expand...

Everything we know about Trump's character and judging by his presidential campaign failfest (history and current state), it is not "extremely low probability". It is baseless assertion and handwaving away actual concern.

And btw isn't that great endorsement of Trump. Vote for him, he will be not able to nuke us all to oblivion! Possibly. Probably. Maybe. Yay!
 
sunmaster14 said:
First of all, the executive branch has enormous power to decide about enforcement priorities. It could decide that it is more important to stop drug smuggling at the border than it is to stop drug selling in the cities. Second, Congress has delegated the authority to the executive branch to determine which drugs are illegal. Hence the distinction between Schedule I drugs (the most strictly regulated) and Schedule II-V drugs. Third, legalizing currently illegal drugs is actually a sane idea which has considerable support in the US, although not majority support. If the President put his considerable political clout behind it, that considerable support could turn into plurality, or even majority, support.
Click to expand...
So you don't think he'd actually get rid of the drug laws, just work around them and hope to garner the support to convince Congress to change them. Okay.

No, he doesn't. There has to be a good reason, otherwise the chain of command will not allow the order to become operationally viable. It's not like there is a button he can push that directly fires off ballistic missiles. He has the codes, without which launches cannot happen, but there is a crapload of in between stuff that has to happen too. In theory, he could surround himself with like-minded sycophants, who will do his bidding, but I think the probability of that is extremely low.
Click to expand...
From what I've read, the President would need to have his order confirmed by the Secretary of Defence - a person who would be a Trump appointee. If the SecDef refuses, the President can fire him and his Deputy assumes the position. If he refuses to confirm the order Trump could repeat the process until he finds a SecDef willing to confirm the order.

It seems to me extremely likely that Trump would have somebody in the chain of command who would agree with him on the nukes thing, given that he's the one hiring them in the first place.

Not in my opinion. It is orders of magnitude less likely.
Click to expand...
I hope you're right. But given that pretty much all we know about Trump and nuclear weapons is that he apparently doesn't see any reason not to use them... I don't really see what you base your opinion on.

Furthermore, even Trump seems to have a level of restraint in the normal range. There is little filter between his brain and his mouth in real-time, but he's not really an out of control crazy person.
Click to expand...
Your own assessment of him was "I think Trump is crazy enough to do things that no other President has the balls to do."

I agree with you. I think he is crazy enough to use nukes.
 
Seismosaurus said:
<snip>

It seems to me extremely likely that Trump would have somebody in the chain of command who would agree with him on the nukes thing, given that he's the one hiring them in the first place.
Click to expand...

Secretary of Defense is a cabinet position, and therefore anybody he nominates needs to be confirmed by the Senate.

I hope you're right. But given that pretty much all we know about Trump and nuclear weapons is that he apparently doesn't see any reason not to use them... I don't really see what you base your opinion on.
Click to expand...

This is a misleading characterization of a conversation which, from our perspective, is hearsay that has been denied. At worst, Trump asked why he couldn't use nuclear weapons, and he was given an answer. Is that better or worse than not asking at all?

Your own assessment of him was "I think Trump is crazy enough to do things that no other President has the balls to do."

I agree with you. I think he is crazy enough to use nukes.
Click to expand...

In my assessment, I do not believe that Trump is crazy enough to use nukes inappropriately. I think he is crazy enough to take policy positions which are politically risky, but not which put the continued existence of humanity in mortal danger. He does have a five children, by the way, including a 10 year old son, as well as five grandchildren.
 
sunmaster14 said:
This is a misleading characterization of a conversation which, from our perspective, is hearsay that has been denied. At worst, Trump asked why he couldn't use nuclear weapons, and he was given an answer. Is that better or worse than not asking at all?
Click to expand...
A rational person would be appalled that he even needed to ask it.

An apologist will rationalize it away.
 
DavidJames said:
A rational person would be appalled that he even needed to ask it.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm rational, and I'm not appalled. A lot of rational people, mostly on your side of the aisle ask why we don't get rid of our nuclear weapons altogether. The game theory behind maintaining a nuclear weapons arsenal is not trivial.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Secretary of Defense is a cabinet position, and therefore anybody he nominates needs to be confirmed by the Senate.
Click to expand...
Yes. But he's still going to nominate people who actually agree with him.

This is a misleading characterization of a conversation
Click to expand...
No, I don't believe that it is.

which, from our perspective, is hearsay that has been denied.
Click to expand...
To quote a famous phrase, "Well he would say that, wouldn't he?"

At worst, Trump asked why he couldn't use nuclear weapons, and he was given an answer. Is that better or worse than not asking at all?
Click to expand...
Worse, since this is the kind of thing you should already know by about age 17.

And he didn't merely ask and get an answer. He asked the same question repeatedly. To me this indicates that he either didn't understand the answer or didn't think the answer was convincing.

Combined with his evident psychological need to lash out at any and every perceived offence, apparently without thought of the appropriateness of such a response... it's not a combination I would care to see in a man with his finger on the "button".

In my assessment, I do not believe that Trump is crazy enough to use nukes inappropriately.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine what you base that assessment on.

I think he is crazy enough to take policy positions which are politically risky, but not which put the continued existence of humanity in mortal danger. He does have a five children, by the way, including a 10 year old son, as well as five grandchildren.
Click to expand...
And for many people that would be an impediment to potentially destroying the world. I'm not at all sure it would be for Trump.
 
Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Trump has a lot of flaws, but I think he has no greater chance of blowing up the world than anybody else. To be honest, I would be more concerned about a President succumbing to apocalyptic sentiments if he were very religious, as Trump is not, but as many Presidents, including Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush, were.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Trump has a lot of flaws, but I think he has no greater chance of blowing up the world than anybody else. To be honest, I would be more concerned about a President succumbing to apocalyptic sentiments if he were very religious, as Trump is not, but as many Presidents, including Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush, were.
Click to expand...

And Clinton is.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I have no idea. All I know is if we were bucketing president's by religiosity, she is definitely on the more side.
Click to expand...

If I were a betting man - and I am - I'd lay odds that both Hillary and Bill, and Obama too, are agnostics at best, and probably atheists.
 
sunmaster14 said:
If I were a betting man - and I am - I'd lay odds that both Hillary and Bill, and Obama too, are agnostics at best, and probably atheists.
Click to expand...

Obama, sure, dunno about Bill, but Hillary does strike me as quite profoundly remigious.
 
DavidJames said:
Why? What makes you so sure that you would bet.
Click to expand...

I'll give it some thought and maybe get back to you. For now, let's just say that, similar to "Gaydar," I think "Christdar" exists. And my "Christdar" simply doesn't light up for any of those people.
 
aleCcowaN said:
Do you read Le Monde Diplomatique or similar publications?
Click to expand...
Why do you single out Le Monde Diplomatique and what would be similar publications? You might gear your answer to my nationality and explain why your first choice is a French language publication.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Well, we're going to have to agree to disagree. Trump has a lot of flaws, but I think he has no greater chance of blowing up the world than anybody else. To be honest, I would be more concerned about a President succumbing to apocalyptic sentiments if he were very religious, as Trump is not, but as many Presidents, including Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush, were.
Click to expand...
Not everyone who is very religious is prone to succumb to apocalyptic sentiments. Mainstream Catholicism as well as mainstream Protestantism has no place for obsession with the End Times. AFAIK, that applies to Ike as well as Carter. Bush the Lesser, I'm not so sure.
 
If I was choosing a President based on religious beliefs closes to my own, Trump might be it. Hillary, Bill, Obama, all too religious. Then again, Trump does worship one very specific god: Himself. So maybe Bernie or Jill Stein.

Religion, is of course the reason I'd take Trump over Cruz in a heartbeat. Somehow I find it better to think you ARE God than to think you are God's Chosen One.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom