[Discussion+Poll] How are Trump supporters even a thing?

[cots]

The Liberal media takes things Trump says out of context and with no reference and make an entire story (if you can call it that) out of it. I think the OP needs to actually listen and read some more before posting such a 1-sided debate.

 

[Xanthe]

The Liberal media takes things Trump says out of context and with no reference and makes an entire story (if you can call it that) out of it. I think the OP needs to actually listen and read some more before posting such a 1-sided debate.

Agreed. A lot of it seems "band wagony". Excuse me for using a non existent word.

 

[cots]

Agreed. A lot of it seems "band wagony". Excuse me for using a non existent word.

Yeah, like posting something Trump said without providing any facts or context and then posting peoples Tweets in response to their made up shit is somehow passed as news.

 

[Xanthe]

Yeah, like posting something Trump said without providing any facts or context and then posting peoples Tweets in response to their made up shit is somehow passed as news.

Agreed. On CNN and Huffington post, I see a lot of their evidence is backed up by celebrity tweets, which I'm not sure should count as a liable source to influence your opinion.

 

[cots]

Agreed. On CNN and Huffington post, I see a lot of their evidence is backed up by celebrity tweets, which I'm not sure should count as a liable source to influence your opinion.

Young adults don't see the difference as they've grown up using social media. They're literally at a disadvantage and the Liberals know and exploit this.

 

[urherenow]

It really may not be feasible considering how large the US border with Mexico is. It would need to be over 6x the length of Hungary's fence or about 4x the length of Israel's final proposed wall which is estimated at around $2.1 billion, so we could say maybe roughly $8 billion for Trump's wall.

And how hard will it be to raise $8bn by selling the MJ confiscated from border busts in states that legalized it (and better yet, if Trump does something to legalize it federally). He could then spin it and say "See? They paid for it. With the weed we confiscated".

 

[cots]

And how hard will it be to raise $8bn by selling the MJ confiscated from border busts in states that legalized it (and better yet, if Trump does something to legalize it federally). He could then spin it and say "See? They paid for it. With the weed we confiscated".

Why is the price even an issue for Liberals; don't they know how much money Obama has spent on various projects?

 

[urherenow]

Why is the price even an issue for Liberals; don't they know how much money Obama has spent on various projects?

I'm no fan of Obama, but again, you need to take things in context. If you go by actual Dollars, then no president in history matches what Obama spent. Leave Bush Jr out of the picture, and you couldn't combine 6 presidents to come close. But... this article, while maybe a little too forgiving, is one of the least biased (from my own interpretation).It shows you a few different views of that picture, and it may be an eye opener.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hind-obama-and-the-national-debt-in-7-charts/

 

[Glyptofane]

Mexican weed is garbage. And yea, maybe $8 billion really isn't that much these days.

Ultimately, my thinking is that we'll still be better off with Trump as a failure than with the damage Hillary will assuredly bring during a minimum of four years.

 

[Glyptofane]

triple post

 

[Glyptofane]

triple post

 

[cooroxd]

Atleast Trump is better than Sanders. That guy hasn't received his first paycheck until he was 40 years old. In addition, Sanders started to jump boats and endorse Hillary Clinton. Sanders may look and sound like a genuine guy but underneath he's trying to milk the system of all its worth. From the very beginning of the race, Sanders was in it for Sanders.

 

[Lacius]

Again, you're trying to take advantage of some dumbshit thing he said, and glossing over the fact that he corrected himself. Try reading/listening to the whole damn thing instead of reading biased crap. That instance ENDED this way:

"
Mr. Trump recanted his remarks, essentially in full, a rare and remarkable shift for a candidate who proudly extols his unwillingness to apologize or bow to “political correctness.”

If abortion were disallowed, he said in a statement, “the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman.”
"

and this is "IF abortion were disallowed". Nothing like this will happen without the approval of congress in the first place. His stance on fixing jobs, economy, and imigration are spot on. Most other arguments people are having are in the wrong damn place. You need to to vote for better Senators and representatives.

I fully acknowledged in my post Donald Trump's inconsistent positions.

Why is the price even an issue for Liberals; don't they know how much money Obama has spent on various projects?

I'm no fan of Obama, but again, you need to take things in context. If you go by actual Dollars, then no president in history matches what Obama spent. Leave Bush Jr out of the picture, and you couldn't combine 6 presidents to come close. But... this article, while maybe a little too forgiving, is one of the least biased (from my own interpretation).It shows you a few different views of that picture, and it may be an eye opener.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hind-obama-and-the-national-debt-in-7-charts/

The U.S. budget deficit is the lowest it's been since 2007 thanks to President Obama and the Democrats.

 

[b17bomber]

OP can't even.

 

[bi388]

quote

Bruh you gonna respond to my quote? You make false claims and I respond with evidence showing why you're wrong and you go on ignoring that I gave 3 heavily researched sites saying your wrong while you provided one far right site that makes up biased stories

 

[SnakeOil992]

This thread need not exist. Especially in this particular site.

 

[Queno138]

Trump is constantly flip flopping and recanting his damn statements.

He's going to fire a warhead and watch the world burn, then regret it? Lol

It's okay for humans to make mistakes, but probably not okay to make that much mistakes so frequently.

For one thing, I'm glad that he's moving away from conservative Republican views, however he's totally moving away from being presidential.
Has he turned in his taxes yet?
Has he decided to stop using campaign funds to paying his company when he's using his own assets?

Not that Hilary is an angel too.
Republicans won't stop hounding her on Benghazi(however it's spelled) and investigated her 9 times?
And she's so bad with tech she can't keep her emails in check lulz.

I think US is a great country, but I'm afraid of the firearms there, and afraid to see what happens when either gets elected..

 

[cots]

@urherenow @Lacius

I think you misunderstood my point. I don't care what Obamas spending has done, I was simply stating that he's spent a lot of money so why are Liberals upset that Trump plans to spend money too? It's not like anyone can veer into the future to see what impact it will have so that's a mute point, however it's a pretty simple argument.

 

[Lacius]

@urherenow @Lacius

I think you misunderstood my point. I don't care what Obamas spending has done, I was simply stating that he's spent a lot of money so why are Liberals upset that Trump plans to spend money too? It's not like anyone can veer into the future to see what impact it will have so that's a mute point, however it's a pretty simple argument.

You either misunderstood my point, or you don't understand how a budget deficit works from year to year, president to president. The deficit is how much more we spend in a year than we're bringing in with revenue. As long as there's a deficit of any kind, debt accrues. President Bush severely increased the deficit with increased spending and decreased revenue. President Obama inherited that budget and cut the deficit by more than half since then. He and Congress could have potentially wiped away the deficit if a.) It had been a Democratic Congress post-2010, and b.) We hadn't been in a fragile economy in part dependent on current levels of spending and revenue.

In short, Democrats tend to want to offset spending with things like revenue. There's a reason why deficits consistently go down under Democratic presidents and go up under Republican presidents. Donald Trump wants to pay for a wall that costs much more than he's claiming, and he offers no real way to pay for it. There's your difference.

 

[the_randomizer]

I'm neutral either way and would rather not vote for either party for reasons I'd rather not say.

 

[EmanueleBGN]

Clinton is the type of people I hate of the US: she already said that want to start a war against Iran, and why? Because she is fool! She is the worst candidate possible to govern a country. For her, if a Country don't obey to the US, is reasonable to bomb it and kill all its people only to "export democracy".
So, the real question is: Why people support a warmonger like Clinton?
The US are terrorist, they supported al-Qaeda in 80s, now supports ISIS and they will not stop to do this with Clinton because she needs ISIS to menace the Middle East free Countries like Libya and the Europeam Country to kill the President Assad and put someone allied with US.
She searching a direct war against Russia.
And maybe someone will give her a Nobel prize for peace, like Obanana...

 

[cots]

You either misunderstood my point, or you don't understand how a budget deficit works from year to year, president to president. The deficit is how much more we spend in a year than we're bringing in with revenue. As long as there's a deficit of any kind, debt accrues. President Bush severely increased the deficit with increased spending and decreased revenue. President Obama inherited that budget and cut the deficit by more than half since then. He and Congress could have potentially wiped away the deficit if a.) It had been a Democratic Congress post-2010, and b.) We hadn't been in a fragile economy in part dependent on current levels of spending and revenue.

In short, Democrats tend to want to offset spending with things like revenue. There's a reason why deficits consistently go down under Democratic presidents and go up under Republican presidents. Donald Trump wants to pay for a wall that costs much more than he's claiming, and he offers no real way to pay for it. There's your difference.

You're thinking is way too deep. Obama's Administration spent a lot of money and Trump plans on doing the same. Pretty clear cut. If you're going to bash Trump for planning on spending money one must also bash Obama.