The Republican Thread

[Chicago White Sox]

What do we have to lose voting in Trump? Politics thoroughly sucks and he'd knock the political world on its butt. Presidents can't do much anyway. He just might fix the economy and bring back some pride in America. America has not been this defeatest in a long long time. People are down on everything right now except their own families. No money available for the little guy; all going to the top 2 percent. You think Hillary is gonna get us out of this malaise? Hillary? Give Trump a shot, folks.

For the love of God, can someone please ban this troll?

Edited December 20, 2015 by Chicago White Sox

[bigruss]

What do we have to lose voting in Trump? Politics thoroughly sucks and he'd knock the political world on its butt. Presidents can't do much anyway. He just might fix the economy and bring back some pride in America. America has not been this defeatest in a long long time. People are down on everything right now except their own families. No money available for the little guy; all going to the top 2 percent. You think Hillary is gonna get us out of this malaise? Hillary? Give Trump a shot, folks.

 

This is Hitler-speak right here, jesus f***ing christ.

What do we have to lose voting in Trump? Everything. He feeds on people's fear and is openly admitting to wanting to take freedoms away from an entire following of a religion. That right there is Hitler 2.0, and it's not an exaggeration.

He just might fix the economy and bring back some pride in America. Again, Hitler-speak. Hey he might bring some jobs back!! He's going to make Germany a proud nation again! But he's also going to bring in hate, fear and prejudice against a mass population...Ah those damn Muslims, without them we wouldn't have any problems in this down but great nation.

 

America has not been this defeatest in a long long time. Greg, you are the largest defeatest on this entire site, and it's not even close.

 

No money available for the little guy; all going to the top 2 percent. Sure this is partly right, so you want to elect a guy in the top 2% who acts terribly against those not in the 2%????

[greg775]

For the love of God, can someone please ban this troll?

What is your problem? Anything goes in the Filibuster. I'm sick of being called a troll BTW. I have never ever called anybody a name on here. I take hits all the time. It's like you are not allowed to call anybody names unless his name is Greg.

 

This is Hitler-speak right here, jesus f***ing christ.

What do we have to lose voting in Trump? Everything. He feeds on people's fear and is openly admitting to wanting to take freedoms away from an entire following of a religion. That right there is Hitler 2.0, and it's not an exaggeration.

He just might fix the economy and bring back some pride in America. Again, Hitler-speak. Hey he might bring some jobs back!! He's going to make Germany a proud nation again! But he's also going to bring in hate, fear and prejudice against a mass population...Ah those damn Muslims, without them we wouldn't have any problems in this down but great nation.

 

America has not been this defeatest in a long long time. Greg, you are the largest defeatest on this entire site, and it's not even close.

 

No money available for the little guy; all going to the top 2 percent. Sure this is partly right, so you want to elect a guy in the top 2% who acts terribly against those not in the 2%????

Hitler speak? Cmon. Trump is a successful American businessman, not Hitler for gosh sakes.

Hitler speak? Cmon. That's pretty rude. Trump has made it big in America and maybe he'll get the economy turned around. You know a lot of people don't like Hilly's personality either. She may hide it better but it's been well documented what kind of person she is. Not pretty. Where there's smoke there's fire and people who have worked for Hilly despise Hilly. Don't act like she is a stellar person and Trump a total chump.

As far as your final point about the 2 percent. How the heck do you know Trump wants to keep the little guy poor? Again ... his main competition, Hillary isn't exactly poor.

Bottom line? Trump at least doesn't try to hide his brash personality. Hillary is just as brash. Have you read the stuff she's said to the lowly people who worked under her and to secret service agents?

 

My current faves: 1.) Trump. 2.) Bernie. 3.) Carson.

Edited December 20, 2015 by greg775

[bigruss]

I never mentioned electing Hillary or even mentioned her at all, I just pointed out the terribleness of 1) your logic 2) how bad Trump is as a person 3) how eerily similar he politics like Hitler. I have my own thoughts on Hillary, and no I don't favor her, but Trump is the absolute worst.

 

Also, Trump is terrible with money.

[Y2Jimmy0]

What is your problem? Anything goes in the Filibuster. I'm sick of being called a troll BTW. I have never ever called anybody a name on here. I take hits all the time. It's like you are not allowed to call anybody names unless his name is Greg.

 

 

Hitler speak? Cmon. Trump is a successful American businessman, not Hitler for gosh sakes.

Hitler speak? Cmon. That's pretty rude. Trump has made it big in America and maybe he'll get the economy turned around. You know a lot of people don't like Hilly's personality either. She may hide it better but it's been well documented what kind of person she is. Not pretty. Where there's smoke there's fire and people who have worked for Hilly despise Hilly. Don't act like she is a stellar person and Trump a total chump.

As far as your final point about the 2 percent. How the heck do you know Trump wants to keep the little guy poor? Again ... his main competition, Hillary isn't exactly poor.

Bottom line? Trump at least doesn't try to hide his brash personality. Hillary is just as brash. Have you read the stuff she's said to the lowly people who worked under her and to secret service agents?

 

My current faves: 1.) Trump. 2.) Bernie. 3.) Carson.

 

 

So he's a bigoted, ignorant, lunatic but since he's upfront about it it's fine?

[greg775]

So he's a bigoted, ignorant, lunatic but since he's upfront about it it's fine?

You are exaggerating. Bigoted? He employs people of all sexes and races.

Ignorant? Hardly. What's wrong with keeping our enemies out? I for one don't want to be a victim of Isis when some Isis asshole busts into my movie theatre or sporting event.

Yeah it's good he's outspoken and upfront. Like I said before, people like Hilly hide their real personalities. Trump is a brash rich f*** pretty much. But I'm willing to give him a shot over the same ol same ol. He is an American you know? He's patriotic.

[caulfield12]

Why didn't we put all the German-Americans and Italian-Americans into internment camps during World War Two?

 

We did it to the Japanese...and Trump wants to exclude Muslims now.

 

But why were the Germans and Italians assumed to be more patriotic?

 

Were the Romans simply being more patriotic when they crucified all those terroristic, insurrectionist Christians in the Coliseum and fed them to the lions? They were enemies of the emperor and were making it more difficult to govern the far-flung provinces....

[DrunkBomber]

Why didn't we put all the German-Americans and Italian-Americans into internment camps during World War Two?

 

We did it to the Japanese...and Trump wants to exclude Muslims now.

 

But why were the Germans and Italians assumed to be more patriotic?

 

Were the Romans simply being more patriotic when they crucified all those terroristic, insurrectionist Christians in the Coliseum and fed them to the lions? They were enemies of the emperor and were making it more difficult to govern the far-flung provinces....

Id imagine it has something to do with the fact that Japan attacked us on our own soil and the other 2 countries didnt.

[EvilMonkey]

There is nothing wrong with limiting immigration from areas where there are high concentrations of people who want to kill us. There is no divine right for anyone to be allowed entry into the US. Trump just says it in the most bombastic way to get headlines. Carter did it back during the Iran hostage crisis, he even deported many iranians already here. All you people trying to show your patriotic bonafides by claiming anyone end everyone who wants to come her should and somehow THAT is American are just f***ed in the head. We have the OBLIGATION as a country to select who we want here. Saying 'ban all Muslums' may not be the right thing, bit how about giving them some extra scrutiny? Maybe checking social media, international data bases, criminal records? And when the Italians start blowing up our embassies and killing people because they drew pictures of the Pope, then you can give them extra scrutiny as well.

 

Greg, Trump would be a terrible president. he is thin-skinned and not a Republican, but a Trumpican. He is in it for himself, has no real policies other than what is good for him or what the polls might say. While there might come a time where it would be a good thing to tell some of these pissant third world assholes to go take a flying leap off a cliff, i fear it would be at the slightest provocation with Trump.

[farmteam]

There is nothing wrong with limiting immigration from areas where there are high concentrations of people who want to kill us. There is no divine right for anyone to be allowed entry into the US. Trump just says it in the most bombastic way to get headlines. Carter did it back during the Iran hostage crisis, he even deported many iranians already here. All you people trying to show your patriotic bonafides by claiming anyone end everyone who wants to come her should and somehow THAT is American are just f***ed in the head. We have the OBLIGATION as a country to select who we want here. Saying 'ban all Muslums' may not be the right thingis an absolutely terrible thing to say because it is absolutely disgusting and actively hurts our interests, bit how about giving them some extra scrutiny? Maybe checking social media, international data bases, criminal records? And when the Italians start blowing up our embassies and killing people because they drew pictures of the Pope, then you can give them extra scrutiny as well.

 

Greg, Trump would be a terrible president. he is thin-skinned and not a Republican, but a Trumpican. He is in it for himself, has no real policies other than what is good for him or what the polls might say. While there might come a time where it would be a good thing to tell some of these pissant third world assholes to go take a flying leap off a cliff, i fear it would be at the slightest provocation with Trump.

Fixed that for you.

Edited December 21, 2015 by farmteam

[caulfield12]

Id imagine it has something to do with the fact that Japan attacked us on our own soil and the other 2 countries didnt.

 

But we haven't enacted a similar policy towards militia groups on native soil, especially in the heart of the 1990's when you had a series of events including Ruby Ridge, Timothy McVeigh/OKC bombing and the Branch Davidian/David Koresh stand-off in WACO.

 

Most of these "attacks" have involved white males in terms of mass shootings, militia groups or religious sects...and probably the second highest demographic representation after white males would be Asian males, and they're hardly subject to any extra scrutiny, either.

 

I agree another massive event (somewhere between 9/11 and Paris) will tip the balance all around the world...but, at this point, we're at a time where enacting such a policy would only increase the number of attacks and terrorist recruiting around the world.

 

The most difficult question is how much is the US responsible for terrorist attacks against our allies when they're simply much more convenient targets in terms of geographic proximity and looser border controls (Schengen Agreement)...?

 

Clinton tried to make that argument against Trump already, that he's making the world MORE dangerous, not less, by pandering to the base during primary season when 90% of his proposals are completely unrealistic or downright unconstitutional.

Edited December 21, 2015 by caulfield12

[DrunkBomber]

But we haven't enacted a similar policy towards militia groups on native soil, especially in the heart of the 1990's when you had a series of events including Ruby Ridge, Timothy McVeigh/OKC bombing and the Branch Davidian/David Koresh stand-off in WACO.

 

Most of these "attacks" have involved white males in terms of mass shootings, militia groups or religious sects...and probably the second highest demographic representation after white males would be Asian males, and they're hardly subject to any extra scrutiny, either.

 

I agree another massive event (somewhere between 9/11 and Paris) will tip the balance all around the world...but, at this point, we're at a time where enacting such a policy would only increase the number of attacks and terrorist recruiting around the world.

 

The most difficult question is how much is the US responsible for terrorist attacks against our allies when they're simply much more convenient targets in terms of geographic proximity and looser border controls (Schengen Agreement)...?

 

Clinton tried to make that argument against Trump already, that he's making the world MORE dangerous, not less, by pandering to the base during primary season when 90% of his proposals are completely unrealistic or downright unconstitutional.

But you didnt ask about any of that, you asked about Italians, Germans and Japanese.

[caulfield12]

But you didnt ask about any of that, you asked about Italians, Germans and Japanese.

 

Okay.

 

I guess you could make the argument that Pearl Harbor wasn't part of a state at that time, or part of the contiguous 50 states...or that there's a difference between attacking a military installation/base versus Germans bombing a metropolitan are like New York, Boston or Philadelphia and inflicting mass civilian casualties, or the argument that the Japanese as allies of the Germans knew eventually that the US was going to be drawn into the war and that proactively attacking was a result of having their shipping lanes shut off or tightly controlled.

 

In Japan's defense, when you don't have the natural resources to grow food OR have enough oil supplies that are self-generated, it's easy to feel cornered when another country tries to restrict your access to those commodities.

 

Maybe you're right...but I think it's an interesting argument to take up. I'm not sure how easy it would have been for the Germans to get their planes close enough to launch an attack...as they would have had to get through the French and especially English just to attempt it. From the German perspective, that would have been igniting a three or four front war (Russia, western Europe, North Africa and then the US as well). Japan was pretty much unopposed in most of Asia, at least in terms of a fixed and immovable enemy.

[pettie4sox]

The Republicans better nominate someone that has a bloody chance.

[greg775]

The Republicans better nominate someone that has a bloody chance.

Nobody has a chance. Say what you want about the Democrats, they know how to dominate Presidential elections. Hillary is a lock. Bernie is playing nice so he can be the VEEP. He'd actually be pretty perfect. People have heard of him and he's kind of boring. He'd fit in perfectly in that role of standing up for Hilly. I tell you, Obama is pretty likeable and he couldn't work with Congress. Good luck to Hillary. Those Repubs aren't going to want to help her out AT ALL.

 

[Y2Jimmy0]

Nobody has a chance. Say what you want about the Democrats, they know how to dominate Presidential elections. Hillary is a lock. Bernie is playing nice so he can be the VEEP. He'd actually be pretty perfect. People have heard of him and he's kind of boring. He'd fit in perfectly in that role of standing up for Hilly. I tell you, Obama is pretty likeable and he couldn't work with Congress. Good luck to Hillary. Those Repubs aren't going to want to help her out AT ALL.

 

 

Nobody has a chance because you have to be a legitimate crazy person to win over the far right of the party.

[Cknolls]

http://www.newsbusters.org/s3/files/styles...G?itok=P6H9eaS4

 

Keep it classy Wapo. Keep it classy.

[Y2HH]

Nobody has a chance. Say what you want about the Democrats, they know how to dominate Presidential elections. Hillary is a lock. Bernie is playing nice so he can be the VEEP. He'd actually be pretty perfect. People have heard of him and he's kind of boring. He'd fit in perfectly in that role of standing up for Hilly. I tell you, Obama is pretty likeable and he couldn't work with Congress. Good luck to Hillary. Those Repubs aren't going to want to help her out AT ALL.

 

You mean aside from the Reagon, Bush, and Bush Jr years...seems like its'a pretty even split as to who wins the white house to me.

[caulfield12]

Counting from Nixon, eight years....Carter, then 12 of Reagan/Bush.

 

20/24

 

Then after G. W. Bush, 28/40.

 

Dominance!

[Y2HH]

Counting from Nixon, eight years....Carter, then 12 of Reagan/Bush.

 

20/24

 

Then after G. W. Bush, 28/40.

 

Dominance!

 

You aren't very good at math.

 

Nixon/Ford - 8 years

Carter - 4 years

Reagan - 8 years

Bush - 4 years

Clinton - 8 years

Bush - 8 years

Obama - 8 years

 

That's 20 total years of Democrats

And 28 years of Republicans

[lasttriptotulsa]

Counting from Nixon, eight years....Carter, then 12 of Reagan/Bush.

 

20/24

 

Then after G. W. Bush, 28/40.

 

Dominance!

 

What? Your numbers make no sense. It appears as if you completely left out Clinton's presidency. Since Nixon took office (not real sure why chose that as a starting point) basically 47 years ago it's been 28 years Republican, 19 Democrat. With the difference being that you chose a Republican as your starting point. If you went back to Kennedy/Eisenhower the numbers are 28 Republican, 27 Democrat.

 

Since the end of WWII, which was basically the beginning of the USA as a Super Power, the presidency has alternated between Democrats and Republicans other than the 12 years of Reagan, HW Bush which I think is an indication of the general population being uninformed. They don't like the way things are going so next election cycle they vote opposite. Then 2, 4 or 6 years later things still aren't going great so they vote opposite again.

Edited December 23, 2015 by lasttriptotulsa

[caulfield12]

You aren't very good at math.

 

Nixon/Ford - 8 years

Carter - 4 years

Reagan - 8 years

Bush - 4 years

Clinton - 8 years

Bush - 8 years

Obama - 8 years

 

That's 20 total years of Democrats

And 28 years of Republicans

 

My math was fine, and those stretches are exactly correct.

 

The only difference was leaving off Obama...but adding those eight years still doesn't balance it over the last 56.

 

It would take eight more years of Clinton.

[caulfield12]

What? Your numbers make no sense. It appears as if you completely left out Clinton's presidency. Since Nixon took office (not real sure why chose that as a starting point) basically 47 years ago it's been 28 years Republican, 19 Democrat. With the difference being that you chose a Republican as your starting point. If you went back to Kennedy/Eisenhower the numbers are 28 Republican, 27 Democrat.

 

Since the end of WWII, which was basically the beginning of the USA as a Super Power, the presidency has alternated between Democrats and Republicans other than the 12 years of Reagan, HW Bush which I think is an indication of the general population being uninformed. They don't like the way things are going so next election cycle they vote opposite. Then 2, 4 or 6 years later things still aren't going great so they vote opposite again.

 

Obviously it was included...

 

20/24 and then Clinton and Bush gives you 28/40 before Obama.

 

I just didn't explicitly state Bill Clinton's name there.

 

You can cancel out JFK/LBJ with Ike. Or include FDR to skew it back towards the Dems.

 

That would be 20/28 + 8/8 for 28/36 years from 1932-1968.

[StrangeSox]

your numbers suck you left out the whigs what a noob

[longshot7]

What? Your numbers make no sense. It appears as if you completely left out Clinton's presidency. Since Nixon took office (not real sure why chose that as a starting point) basically 47 years ago it's been 28 years Republican, 19 Democrat. With the difference being that you chose a Republican as your starting point. If you went back to Kennedy/Eisenhower the numbers are 28 Republican, 27 Democrat.

 

Since the end of WWII, which was basically the beginning of the USA as a Super Power, the presidency has alternated between Democrats and Republicans other than the 12 years of Reagan, HW Bush which I think is an indication of the general population being uninformed. They don't like the way things are going so next election cycle they vote opposite. Then 2, 4 or 6 years later things still aren't going great so they vote opposite again.

 

Never mind that Eisenhower was basically a Democrat in his policies, what with letting LBJ & Rayburn pass as much legislation as they wanted and enforcing all the left-leaning civil rights Supreme Court decisions. (Not to mention how high the tax rate for rich people was in those years)