Question for Trump supporters

sunmaster14 said:
So, in part I can see a method to his madness, and for the madness that seems to have no method, I can see it as harmless verbiage.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's crazy. But based on the measured responses he once gave concerning David Duke and other issues (long before he was claiming not to know who Duke was), I really think there might be a neurological issue. The fact he might say these things for effect is not a plus to me.

This thread is an example of how "just asking a question" is often used as a starting point for arguments. I don't think that was the OP's intent. I happen to believe the U.S. would be safer under Hillary - in fact I think she is all-around more conservative than Trump. I disagree with you on a lot of issues: I think a wall would be a poor use of resources and far less effective at slowing illegal immigration to a "trickle" than you imagine (although it already is at a trickle). If you ever get a chance, take a look at the U.S.-Mexico border. I'm not sure people appreciate the realities of the terrain and the resourcefulness of people determined to enter the U.S. Border agents aren't clamoring for a wall; they would rather have roads, and certainly not something opaque.

I also think that never in a million years would Iran nuke Israel (which I think must be what you mean by "proxy"). Iran needs Israel; as do other hard-line regimes. Without a common enemy these guys have got nothing to hold their own people together.

But when someone ostensibly asks in good faith why you support Trump, intending (maybe) to open a dialog, I think it would be maybe more fruitful to ask why you hold the views you do, without a bunch of people shutting down the conversation with standard anti-Trump tropes. That's not useful if we want to understand each other.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Presumably, if Trump becomes President, he won't have anything to do with his company, so I can't see there being a conflict there.
Click to expand...

Is that a safe presumption?
Has he said he will have nothing to do with his company?
 
logger said:
When trump gets elected it will be good to have adults in charge again.
Click to expand...

At first I thought that was just liberal-baiting. Then I got the joke. Right after the news broke that a 12-year-old was working in the Colorado office, you suggested Team Trump would involve adults being in charge. :D:D
 
Ladewig said:
Is that a safe presumption?
Has he said he will have nothing to do with his company?
Click to expand...

On NPR:

"If I become president, I couldn't care less about my company. It's peanuts. I want to use that same — up here, whatever it may be — to make America rich again, and to make America great again. I have Ivanka and Eric and Don sitting there. Run the company, kids. Have a good time. I'm going to do it for America. ... I would put it in a blind trust. Well, I don't know if it's a blind trust if Ivanka, Don and Eric run it. But — is that a blind trust? I don't know. But I would probably have my children run it with my executives. And I wouldn't ever be involved, because I wouldn't care about anything but our country. Anything."
Click to expand...

ETA: They might well outperform him.
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
At first I thought that was just liberal-baiting. Then I got the joke. Right after the news broke that a 12-year-old was working in the Colorado office, you suggested Team Trump would involve adults being in charge. :D:D
Click to expand...

12-year-olds can be pretty damn competent. It's kind of peak nerd, until puberty kicks in.
 
phiwum said:
I believe that the facts are worse, because Seismosaurus is just wrong. No one has to sign off on the nuclear weapons order but the president himself. There is no need for the Secretary of Defense to approve the order.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:

As I said earlier, I'm participating in this thread only because sunmaster14 denied the possibility of the sort of thing that had already occurred on 20 October 1973, and I'm continuing to participate because his continuing denials continue to amuse me:

sunmaster14 said:
W.D.Clinger said:
<snip repetitious argument that I have already rebutted>

On 20 October 1973, when Seismosaurus's scenario actually played out with a different member of a different president's cabinet, the 25th amendment did not prevent President Richard Nixon from firing that member of his cabinet, firing that cabinet member's deputy, and swearing in a new acting member of the cabinet who would do Nixon's bidding.
Click to expand...

Why are you comparing asking an attorney general to fire a special prosecutor to launching nuclear weapons? The analogy is completely absurd. Nobody really cared enough to intervene with Nixon's firing of his attorney general because it simply wasn't that big a deal. I've already explained this, but you seem very resistant to counterarguments.
Click to expand...
Nuclear weapons are relevant here only because you accepted Seismosaurus's suggestion that a president would not be able to launch nukes without approval from his Secretary of Defense.

Without that assumption (which I personally believe to be false, as phiwum has stated), your two alleged safeguards, silly though they were, could not possibly be interpreted as any kind of safeguard at all.

I have been responding to your claim that a president cannot replace a principled cabinet member with some acting Bork who will do his bidding, and to your claim that people like Mike Pence and "guys with guns" can be counted upon to subvert section 4 of the 25th amendment in time to prevent a hypothetical President Trump from launching nuclear weapons in some impetuous writ of fealous jage.

sunmaster14 said:
Perhaps you were not aware that the television show 24 was fiction.
Click to expand...

If I send you $5, will you purchase a sense of humor?
Click to expand...
ISF lets me read your posts for free.

sunmaster14 said:
To be fair, I am quite willing to believe your evident faith in Mike Pence's readiness to disregard the US Constitution and its amendments is one of the stronger reasons you can give for supporting Donald Trump in this election.
Click to expand...

That's being fair? I'd say it was rather uncivil, but I'm not sure you know what civility is.
Click to expand...
It may seem unfair to you, but I am being fair to other Trump supporters, including several who have participated in this thread. They often state far more intelligent reasons for supporting Trump than you have given in our little conversation here.
 
"I would put it in a blind trust. Well, I don't know if it's a blind trust if Ivanka, Don and Eric run it. But — is that a blind trust? I don't know."
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the vaunted business acumen of a man who doesn't know what a blind trust is and apparently can't even figure it out from context clues. It sure doesn't say much for The Wharton School.
 
logger said:
Using a word like genocide and you think people you disagree with should jump off high structures. You seem quite scared of Mr Trump.
Click to expand...

Everybody should be scared of Mr. Trump. He's a fanatical maniac capable of everything from cowering in the corner when he realizes he can't treat heads of state the same way he treats Rosie O'Donnell, to nuking Mosul, because ISIS is there.

Despite the fact that the vast majority of people in Mosul aren't ISIS.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
<snip>

It may seem unfair to you, but I am being fair to other Trump supporters, including several who have participated in this thread. They often state far more intelligent reasons for supporting Trump than you have given in our little conversation here.
Click to expand...

The fact that Trump, or any President, would be constrained by the safeguards in place is not a reason for supporting Trump. It is a reason for dismissing a silly reason for opposing Trump. Well, silly from my perspective. I can't say that your fears are illusory or not. If they're real to you, that's good enough for you to oppose him on that issue alone.

I, personally, think the issue is silly. Not only do I see Trump as having no higher probability of triggering a nuclear conflict than any other President (including Hillary), but I believe in our institutional constraints. Despite what phiwum claims about authority to "push the button," it simply is not the case that the President has the operational ability to instigate a nuclear war all by himself, without many people along the chain having to agree with such a decision, either tacitly or explicitly. In a time when nuclear threats make no sense, I am confident that such a seemingly crazy order will not be implemented.

So, the bottom line is it is a non-issue for me. It is not a reason for me to support Trump, as you claim. It is a reason for me to not oppose Trump. In the spirit of this thread, I will leave it there and won't respond to any more insults from either you or Pavel.
 
sunmaster14 said:
I believe in our institutional constraints.
Click to expand...

It contradicts your assurances that we can coup* Trump if neccessary. Coup would be needed only if lawful methods (in this case "institutional constraints") failed.

*Yes, I know you vehemently deny your proposed solution is coup. No one falls for it.
 
Retired General Michael Hayden was interviewed by MSNBC about Trump's curiosity on using nuclear weapons, and he made clear that there is nothing in the chain of command that would stop the president from ordering a nuclear launch.
The whole point of the 'football' is that the Commander in Chief can react within the often mentioned '12 minutes' without having to consult anyone.
That is not enough time to start constitutional deliberations - the people around him would have to disobey a direct order.
 
Ladewig said:
At first I thought that was just liberal-baiting. Then I got the joke. Right after the news broke that a 12-year-old was working in the Colorado office, you suggested Team Trump would involve adults being in charge. :D:D
Click to expand...

Lol

Just because a child is volunteering doesn't mean they're in-charge.

Thanks for proving my point.
 
logger said:
Lol

Just because a child is volunteering doesn't mean they're in-charge.

Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

OK.

I am baited by this one.

How does my making a joke about the Trump campaign prove your point that Team Trump has a more adult view of the world than Team Clinton and Team Obama?
 
I also like that Trump is a fighter. Our party has never seen this before and it is sorely needed.

To most people paying attention, Killery is the one with a track record of starting wars, so this fear leftist have about the Donald is ridiculous. Of course remember how Long leftist stayed under the desk when Reagan was in office?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom