The Nation Is Divided Into Two Camps: Trump and Anti-Trump

Mott the Hoople said:
Meh....I'm pretty skeptical there. For 6 years we've had an entire political party oppose and obstruct anything the current President has attempted simply just to oppose him. There has been no logic, no justifiable reasoning, no sane thinking or placing the nations interests first and the center right of the GOP is bullshitting everyone when they say it wasn't based on racism. The opposition may not have been completely based on racist attitudes but it has largely been based on them.
Click to expand...

Agree on much of what you've said brother .. but the outrage and opposition is HUGE and growing.

Trump has fermented so much anger and rage, this is not going away quietly into the night.
 
Norah said:
I wouldn't call myself pro Trump or anti Trump. I would have definitely preferred someone like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul as the president elect and didn't vote for Trump. I also don't think Donald Trump is probably going to help the cause of small government, constitutional conservatism but I do hope he does well and I'm glad Hillary Clinton was not elected. For me the best I can hope for is that there are some changes that benefit the country, that he federal government is shrunken down some, and that his decisions fall in line with the constitution. If it doesn't happen under Trump then that would be disappointing but I know none of that would happen under Clinton.
Click to expand...
Jesus God Amighty!!!

I would take any of the other 17 GOP candidates, including Trmp and the half a dozen Democratic candidates over a dangerous and fanatical ideologue like Cruz. I can think of no politician, not even Trump, that comes even remotely close to being as large a threat to our Republic via extremism and demagoguery than Ted Cruz would.

If Democrats want to salvage something from the huge disappointment of losing the electoral college but winning the popular vote it is this. Donald Trump saved this nation from the tender mercies from the dangerous fanaticism of Ted Cruz.
 
The proof of the pudding will be seen in prosperity as it always is. Consumer confidence is already soaring in an economy driven by it. Jobs will begin multiplying meaning more cash in pocket and spent.
Whiners gonna whine. The rest of us like an improving way of life. Jobs for ourselves and our kids.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Jesus God Amighty!!!

I would take any of the other 17 GOP candidates, including Trmp and the half a dozen Democratic candidates over a dangerous and fanatical ideologue like Cruz. I can think of no politician, not even Trump, that comes even remotely close to being as large a threat to our Republic via extremism and demagoguery than Ted Cruz would.

If Democrats want to salvage something from the huge disappointment of losing the electoral college but winning the popular vote it is this. Donald Trump saved this nation from the tender mercies from the dangerous fanaticism of Ted Cruz.
Click to expand...

I'm going out on a limb here and guess you didn't vote for Cruz. What are your thoughts on Rand Paul?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Meh....I'm pretty skeptical there. For 6 years we've had an entire political party oppose and obstruct anything the current President has attempted simply just to oppose him.
Click to expand...

He has been the most divisive POTUS in modern history and nearly everyone of his ill thought out policies have been a massive fail. The opposition has zero to do with Obamaprompter's race and everything to do with his failed ideology and gross incompetence.

Mott the Hoople said:
There has been no logic, no justifiable reasoning, no sane thinking or placing the nations interests first and the center right of the GOP is bullshitting everyone when they say it wasn't based on racism.
Click to expand...

The lack of 'logic, justifiable reasoning, sane thinking' is due to yer overinflated mindreading ability to read minds of those with whom you don't agree. It was in the 'nations's interests' to slow down the accumulation of debt, (as the House Republicans did), and take whatever steps to resist the IRS' influence on politics in 2012, and slow the opening of our borders to Islamo Fascists Obamaprompter and puke Kerry tried to arrange.

Mott the Hoople said:
The opposition may not have been completely based on racist attitudes but it has largely been based on them.
Click to expand...

This observation from a fool who actually thinks he can actually read the minds of people he totally disagrees with... burp...
 
Norah said:
I'm going out on a limb here and guess you didn't vote for Cruz. What are your thoughts on Rand Paul?
Click to expand...

I could have gladly voted for Cruz or even Rubio instead of feeling dirty about having to color in the box next to Trump's name. Too bad I didn't have that opportunity.
 
Norah said:
Do you think an ever growing large federal government that coordinates with the largest corporations to form policy doesn't give the wealthy power?
Click to expand...
Norah....this is an ideological argument that is just simply dumb.

We are a vast nation, with a huge populations, incredible arrays of human diversity and mind boggling large geography. The Government needs to be as large as it needs to be to provide the services which "we the people" determine. Making the government small or large for principles sake is, to put it mildly, stupid in the extreme. The government needs to be as large as it needs to be to get the job done.

The small government argument is almost always supported by those who are protecting a vested interest, usually an economic one, that gives them significant advantages and privileges over the general population. The States rights argument is almost always made when one group wants to institutionalize discrimination against other groups of peoples to advantage their own interest.

That has been going on for a very long time and for a very long time thoughtful and intelligent people have rejected those philosophies for what they are. Un-American. They are Un-American simply because they are not egalitarian.
 
blackascoal said:
Scare???

So you think this is about you? :rofl2:
Click to expand...

Did I say it was?

Like I said you an impotent little pussy who will do nothing more than screech on a message board but no more than that

You should have stayed away. You are a shell of your former self and exposed as the fraud you are
 
Actually the larger the gov't the more benefit to rent seeking big companies. They can afford to lobby and deal with gov't regulations far better than smaller firms.
 
Queen Snowflake said:
Why didn't you? People write in candidates all the time.
Click to expand...

I've stated on here before that my decision to vote "for" Trump was based solely on the possible appointing of SC justices. I know the type Hillary would have given us. I hold out hope that Pence and those like him might have some influence on who Trump might appoint. I didn't vote for the president when McCain ran nor in 2012. I wrote in candidates then...because the Green Party candidates weren't on the ballots in Oklahoma. But I actually felt/feel strongly enough about the possibility of this president appointing multiple SC justices that I actually could say that I preferred one candidate over another. It might be a pig in a poke type of deal...provably will be. But it was worth the risk in my mind.
 
Norah said:
For me it's more about less federal mandates and federal regulation within the states and also a more literal following of the US constitution. All states have their own constitutions and the states know best how it functions and how it should function but when a group of people thousands of miles away can override those things I think it hurts more than it helps. States elect everybody on all levels of government to represent them and they are all typically from that state, so they have skin in the game so to speak and since it's their home they want what's best for it. When people who aren't from that state can have influence over how it functions I personally think that's a bad thing.
Click to expand...
The problem with that argument was that the US. Constitution was not written in stone nor was it the intentions of our founding fathers to write it into stone.

The States rights argument is a flawed argument. States don't always know what's best. States don't always do what's right. The notion that those who live in a State only have a obligation and skin in the game to that State and that State only is simply laughable. We are a united nation and what impacts one State often impacts all States.

I mean to say that someone from outside your State has no skin in the game is not only wrong. It's insulting and offense. Try telling that Gold Mother from Michigan that her son who died in a war to protect all our States had no skin in the game in Texas.

You really need to consider other sources of information and think this one through Norah. The State rights argument is a relic from our Civil War. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top