Reasons to support Trump

[ecduzitgood]

I will start with this from CBS.


http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/full-v...-with-america/


http://regated.com/2016/05/great-things-trump-done/

[Jim in CT]

Hilary supports abortion-on-demand, up until the last second before the baby is born, and that's barbaric, even to most Democrats.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Hilary supports abortion-on-demand, up until the last second before the baby is born, and that's barbaric, even to most Democrats.

That's because it's not true Jim.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

That's because it's not true Jim.

The hell it's not.

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/16/h...l-to-ban-them/

"“I’ve said … that there can be restrictions in the very end of the third trimester, but they have to take into account the life and health of the mother,” Clinton said on “Meet the Press” in September."

Here's the thing Spence...last minute abortions don't do a thing to protect the "life" of the mother, because the mother is experiencing all the trauma associated with childbirth of a fully grown baby. You are just interrupting the birth long enough to kill the baby.

So according to Hilary, the mother can say "the prospects of caring for a baby are stressing me out, and it's effecting my health", and that's enough to abort a baby in the 36th week.

Try making that wrong. Hint - your saying it's wrong, doesn't make it wrong.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

That's because it's not true Jim.

And she wants your tax dollars to pay for it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

And she wants your tax dollars to pay for it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's just swell, isn't it.

Somehow, that barbaric position doesn't stop them from claiming to have a monopoly on compassion.

Here's a video of a rare situation where a baby was born, and after it came out of the mom, it was still in the sac. Rare, but it happens. You watch this Spence, and tell us that's not a human life I'm looking at. Go ahead. I dare you...

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/0...iotic-sac.html

[Redsoxticket]

Dont even try arguing with Spence, he's always right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Redsoxticket

Dont even try arguing with Spence, he's always right.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

True, but he dug himself into a deep, dark, ugly liberal hole this time.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

True, but he dug himself into a deep, dark, ugly liberal hole this time.

Actually your own quote contradicts your own statement.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Actually your own quote contradicts your own statement.

Yeah, I contradicted myself, I took it out of context, blah, blah, blah.

She supports abortion at the instant before birth, for the "health" of the mother, which includes duress, which essentially, means for any reason.

That makes Hilary appear vile and inhuman. Instead of admitting that, you dodge. Shocker.

[afterhours]

he's not hillary.

[tysdad115]

Originally Posted by afterhours

he's not hillary.

And that wins. End thread.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Yeah, I contradicted myself, I took it out of context, blah, blah, blah.

You could just say you were wrong.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by afterhours

he's not hillary.

Thats the saddest reason..

But this thread has shown one thing.. for one reason or another I have seen no Rational reasons why or if anyone should supports Trump ?

all I see is why they wont vote for Hillary ..

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Thats the saddest reason..

But this thread has shown one thing.. for one reason or another I have seen no Rational reasons why or if anyone should supports Trump ?

all I see is why they wont vote for Hillary ..

Apparently you didn't view the links in the first post?
If you refuse to be informed then why vote?


http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...nap-story.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

Apparently you didn't view the links in the first post?
If you refuse to be informed then why vote?

What does that link tell you?

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Thats the saddest reason..

But this thread has shown one thing.. for one reason or another I have seen no Rational reasons why or if anyone should supports Trump ?

all I see is why they wont vote for Hillary ..

your eyes are closed or your mind is closed or your mind is made up to the point of discounting all else.

there are plenty of reasons and as Ed said, read the link.

A main reason for me is the supreme court and what it would look like under each. The country's freedoms are at stake.
That is the only reason I need at this point although there are others like stronger military, better healthcare, turn the economy around helping the middle class return, actually helping inner cities, and pretty much securing the border etc.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

What does that link tell you?

Let's hear what you feel the link should be telling me. I am not playing your games and doing the work for you. If you have issues with the information in the links just put it out there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Thats the saddest reason..

But this thread has shown one thing.. for one reason or another I have seen no Rational reasons why or if anyone should supports Trump ?

:

Oh, you want rational?

Hilary supports partial birth abortion, which is monstrous even to most Democrats. If you care about the unborn, which we all were at one time, it would be very rational to support Trump.

Are you saying it's irrational to have empathy for an unborn child?

Trump wants to halt immigration of Islamic refugees from places that are terrorist hotbeds, until we can figure out how to do it safely. That's not a rational thing to advocate for?

Trump wants to re-negotiate some of the trade deals that have put Americans at a significant competitive disadvantage. That's not a rational thing to support?

Hilary believes that white cops are a threat, and she (like all Democrats) kisses Al Sharpton's ring. Trump is honest enough to admit that the problem in our cities has little to do with white cops, and it's a safe bet he won't give Al Sharpton the time of day.

Trump proposed specific policies that would help working families (making childcare expenses tax deductible, mandatory maternity leave, tax credits to moms who stay home instead of working). Those aren't rational things to support?

Please explain how those are not rational reasons to support Trump.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You could just say you were wrong.

So she doesn't support partial birth abortion where the "health" of the mother is threatened? Is that what you are saying?

Please tell us what I said that was wrong, and why.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Thats the saddest reason..

But this thread has shown one thing.. for one reason or another I have seen no Rational reasons why or if anyone should supports Trump ?

all I see is why they wont vote for Hillary ..

That's funny, I just went back and revisited this thread and not one single reason was listed to vote for Hillary, other than that they won't vote for Trump.

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...ad.php?t=91218

including this little nugget...

Originally Posted by wdmso

I am voting for Hillary because she is the best qualified choice of the 2 in a huge spectrum over Trump

you dont hire a plumber to wire your your house

yet some are willing to hire a foul mouth wrecking ball operator to FIX the Washington establishment... because he thinks The Potus can say your Fired !!

that comment is just LOADED with positive insight as to why Hillary is the better candidate

[Nebe]

One massive reason to support trump is that he wants term limits in house and congress. I like that. However I'd never vote for him
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

That's funny, I just went back and revisited this thread and not one single reason was listed to vote for Hillary, other than that they won't vote for Trump.

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripert...ad.php?t=91218

including this little nugget...



that comment is just LOADED with positive insight as to why Hillary is the better candidate

would you like me to list why she is the best qualified you can look it up .. so compared to trump let see US Senator 9 years 4 years as US Secretary of State ..Clinton became a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2003. 30 years of public service .. much legislation sponsored and co sponsored good idea how she'll govern

some reason for trump from on line :He Won’t Back Down He Can Run an Economy He is not Hillary. He is not your ordinary politician. He would repeal the Affordable Care Act. He speaks for us little people.
Make no mistake, there is an establishment plot against him..His business accomplishments .. nothing suggest how he will Govern

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Nebe

One massive reason to support trump is that he wants term limits in house and congress. I like that. However I'd never vote for him
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

agreed but Even if POTUS he doesn't have the power to make it happen.. like most of his proposals

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

agreed but Even if POTUS he doesn't have the power to make it happen.. like most of his proposals

Same is true of Hillary . . . like most of her proposals.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

would you like me to list why she is the best qualified you can look it up .. so compared to trump let see US Senator 9 years 4 years as US Secretary of State ..Clinton became a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2003. 30 years of public service .. much legislation sponsored and co sponsored good idea how she'll govern

Why are those "qualifications" for President? Being a Senator qualifies someone for President? Presidential duties (per the Constitution) are not the same as Senatorial duties. Secretary of State at least is part of the Executive branch, but her accomplishments as Secretary were not shining examples of success. Quite the contrary, they were marked with failure. And thirty years of public service without much work in the private sector would make her a political apparatchik out of touch with regular folks. Most lifetime politicians favor "governing" on the side of party hackery, which is what most people don't like (except when their hacks give them some goodies).

And how is a President, per the Constitution, supposed to govern? Will Hilary faithfully execute the legislation that a Republican Congress passes? Or disregard it and counter it with her own brilliant ideas which is a modern notion of what a President is expected to do, and which is the mark of top down Progressive government--that elected benevolent dictatorship thing that you think is so silly to believe exists.

Here are the official (per the Constitution) qualifications for POTUS:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

The qualifications were intended to include any Citizen, 35 years or older, who had resided within the U.S. for at least fourteen years. There is no mention of being a Senator or career politician. It was intended to be that open with the idea that our politicians came from the ranks of The People, not solely from the ranks of government. It was expected that the citizens were the source of all power in the Republic, including social, political, religious, and economic. The Career politician was not looked on with favor as he/she is now. There certainly was no desire to create a political officer who would "govern" with sovereign like power over The People. It was the citizens who were to be sovereign, and the politicians were to be servants.

We have been transformed into a people wanting the whip rather than wielding it. Here is an interesting insight by Doug Casey, a best selling author and political advisor, into the difference between how a career politician thinks versus how a business person does, especially one who chooses politics later:

". . . there’s a mind-set that’s common to those who have made politics their life’s work. They think fundamentally differently from businesspeople who learn to make things work both practically and economically over an extended period. The latter must do so, or go out of business. Political leaders, however, don’t have this restriction. For them, the job is not one of being profitable and effective in satisfying the public with a good or service. For them, profitability is irrelevant. Further, they need not satisfy the public; they need merely to succeed in imposing their programmes onto the public.

"Politicians approach life from an entirely different viewpoint from businesspeople and businesspeople almost invariably fail to understand this. Although a former businessman who has entered public life may be able to place a foot in each camp successfully, those who enter politics early on, or those who have an initial career in the Civil Service but later switch to politics, lack the fundamental understanding of the workings of economics and the free market.

"They don’t so much seek to undermine the free market as much as they simply don’t recognize its relevance. (This, understandably, is a fact that businessmen find hard to acknowledge or adapt to when dealing with political leaders.)

"Career politicians assume that the nature of leadership is to burden the populace with legislation and taxation. They truly don’t understand the concept of limited government. It’s an absurd anomaly to them, so the question is therefore only the manner in which they burden the populace. Lessening the burden is simply not an issue. Whilst they understand that voters wish to be told that the burden will be diminished, it’s not by any means the intent of leaders to do so. In a politician’s mind, the purpose of the existence of the populace is to fill the trough for the leaders. And, of course, the fuller, the better.

"In working for, with, and (often) against political leaders on issues, I’ve found this to be almost universally true, regardless of which country they represent. Indeed, I’ve rarely been successful when appealing to any leader to drop a proposal because it might not be in the interest of the populace. I have, however, often been successful in getting a leader to drop a proposal when I’ve advised him that it may be used by the opposition to cost him votes in the next election.

"Again, the only exceptions to this have been those who were not career politicians. Regardless of whether I was dealing with my own country’s leaders, British parliamentarians, or US congressmen, virtually all of them have been career politicians and have, by definition, regarded their own position of power to be the primary concern.

"The UK has had career politicians since time immemorial; the US had its first presidential career politician as early as 1825, in John Quincy Adams. In my own country, the Cayman Islands, career politicians are not quite as common as in the US and UK. Consequently, we enjoy a somewhat more enlightened perception amongst our political leaders than the US and UK. Many come from the private sector and successfully return to it after they leave office. (It’s also true that career politicians I’ve known that have been ousted typically have had a difficult time obtaining and retaining employment after leaving office, as they simply don’t understand business or real life.)"



some reason for trump from on line :He Won’t Back Down He Can Run an Economy He is not Hillary. He is not your ordinary politician. He would repeal the Affordable Care Act. He speaks for us little people.
Make no mistake, there is an establishment plot against him..His business accomplishments .. nothing suggest how he will Govern

A reason to vote for Trump, besides preserving what's left of our Republic, and nominating Judges who can help to preserve it rather than finishing it off, is that he has the experience in the real world which will influence how he "governs." Hillary, on the other hand, is a career politician.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

would you like me to list why she is the best qualified you can look it up ..

Yes, Yes I would...YOU'RE the one that made the below comment, yet you did the EXACT same thing on the "Why should we vote for Hillary" thread. and I shouldn't have to go look it up....these threads were created to post the reasons....yet neither one did

Originally Posted by wdmso

Thats the saddest reason..

But this thread has shown one thing.. for one reason or another I have seen no Rational reasons why or if anyone should supports Trump ?

all I see is why they wont vote for Hillary ..

Originally Posted by wdmso

let see US Senator 9 years 4 years as US Secretary of State

Was she any good at those positions? What are her list of accomplishments during her tenure?

Rex Ryan was the Coach of the Jets for 6 years and the Coach of the Bills for 2 years. What were his accomplishments during his time in those positions? He served as a Coach/Assistant Coach for 30 years....does that automatically make him a good coach....just because he held the position.