Trump

[natsb88]

Here's something that might affect our differing perspectives. How much did you guys know about Donald Trump before he started campaigning? How familiar were you to what he does and how he acts and his rhetoric prior to 2015, versus what you learned / the opinion you formed once he launched his campaign?

[Treetop]

You can also leave it entirely on the feds and they could verify your workers or tenants for you.

How is that any different than what we have now? And how would it succeed spectacularly under Trump when it's failing miserably now? More funding I guess. We rewarded the VA with more money for its failures. And it...continued to fail.

Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of increased border security and deporting illegal immigrants who are caught committing crimes, as a start. I just don't see Trump as anything special in this department. He's making lots of assertive proclamations about fixing things, but you guys have to keep figuring out and explaining how he'll be able to do it, because he hasn't presented any real plans for accomplishing these grand goals. I fully expect him to do a whole lot of nothing on this issue if elected. Some token gesture. Just like Bush campaigned on a foreign policy of non-intervention and Obama campaigned on ending the wars and closing Guantanamo. He PROMISED guys, Obama's totally going to end the wars and close Guantanamo! Empty rhetoric to win votes. That's a much simpler explanation than some emotional appeal about wanting to leave a legacy or being motivated to live up to his promises so people like him.

It is different because we LET all these sources get away with it, and if we did it in a variation of what I suggested once alerted those landlords or employers would have to replace that employee or tenant with an american or guest worker. As it stands they do not do this. I do think having them simply check a database can be set up cheap and effectively but not the sole way.

Thing is trump ran on being unlike the establishment and working at actual action. Not saying he wont end up like the rest, but keep in mind he isnt a career politican and seems to have joined specifically to get things done and leave a legacy. Will he? Im willing to take a chance. Obama easily made excuses for why he got nothing done, no way in the world trump would get 8 years if he wasnt atleast heavily trying to do as he has claimed.

Trump had no reason to get into politics. Hes a freaking billionaire. Im sure has many millions atleast in liquid assets. He can do about anything any single human in history ever could with his remaining years and he decided to do this.

Remember the post I made awhile back about how Id create jobs re vitalizing our fish stocks and other related things? Not saying you or most here would like such a plan, but I didnt outline all the details nor could I for all parts of it only some. But if I was running for ofice and mentioned this Id sound like trump but I assure you if I got int office Id push it hard and have the staff to ensure I did it better then one guy could ever theorize by himself. Trump does however offer lots of ideas and potential plans. Of course it is fluid now, just like hillarys plans are fluid on how she absolutely will f%^&^ us, since Soros hasnt outlined it all for her yet.

As for did I know about trump before he ran. I did a bit. I lived in NJ awhile and spent a bit of time at one of his casinos. Dont like many things in his past but I do think it is worth taking a chance on him and that he wants to do his best. As I said he could be sitting there on a private island living any life he wants flying in whoever he wants for any weekend or whatever he could come up with. Instead hes doing this. I expect the part that is personal for him is leaving a legacy as big as his ego and I want to see him try. If he fails? Pffft I know hillary would be worse even if hes as authoritarian as some fear. I think he will be as good as most any moderate conservative on most issues but push the border and trade deals hard.

All that said I wont fault anyone who votes third party, I always did until this election. I dont think johnson is as good as advertised but hes better then the average atleast. Im not doing a protest vote this time though, Ill give trump a chance with my vote. I think even with us faults he loves his country, and like his plans or not will do the best for it instead of special interests. Worst case we saved the second amendment another generation through the supreme court.

[natsb88]

Thing is trump ran on being unlike the establishment and working at actual action.

So did Obama . He ran on being a young guy with just enough political experience to be qualified without so much that he was a part of the system. His slogans were "Change" and "Forward." That doesn't make any of it true of course, but he certainly tried to play the same kind of "outsider" card that billionaire crony capitalist Trump is trying to play. I do not consider Trump anti-establishment.

no way in the world trump would get 8 years if he wasnt atleast heavily trying to do as he has claimed.

Incumbent presidents have a 75% reelection rate. They don't have to do great things to get reelected, they just have to not royally screw up.

Trump had no reason to get into politics. Hes a freaking billionaire. Im sure has many millions atleast in liquid assets. He can do about anything any single human in history ever could with his remaining years and he decided to do this.

Power and ego. Not to say that's necessarily inherently good or bad. Knowing Trump's career and behavior, I just have a hard time believing that after 40 years of leveraging government to gain personal fortune and power, he has had a change of heart and now wants to dismantle that system. That's a little bit too Disney movie for my cynical mind.

Remember the post I made awhile back about how Id create jobs re vitalizing our fish stocks and other related things? Not saying you or most here would like such a plan, but I didnt outline all the details nor could I for all parts of it only some. But if I was running for ofice and mentioned this Id sound like trump but I assure you if I got int office Id push it hard and have the staff to ensure I did it better then one guy could ever theorize by himself.

If you were proposing it as a work program to replace handouts for able-bodied people currently receiving unemployment or welfare, you might be able to sell it. That's not at all what Trump is proposing. Trump is just promising that government will "create jobs" building the wall and "bring jobs back from China" by increasing taxes on imported goods. Not the same as replacing handouts with a work program. Could theoretically achieve similar end results but he's not proposing or selling it that way.

As for did I know about trump before he ran. I did a bit. I lived in NJ awhile and spent a bit of time at one of his casinos.

See I think it makes a difference in how people perceive his presidential aspirations. I've known of Trump for about a decade and have been more closely aware of his antics for the last 5-6 years before he announced his run. It seems that people who knew more about him and already had an opinion formed about him prior to his presidential run (like me) are less likely to support him (or take him seriously or believe his current positions and rhetoric are genuine). Whereas people who didn't know that much about him or have an opinion of him (most people have at least heard of him but many don't really know that much about him) prior to this run are more likely to take his current positions at face value and believe he's really in it to "make America great again."

I dont think johnson is as good as advertised but hes better then the average atleast.

I don't think Johnson is even being advertised that well . He just threw a fit about using the term "illegal immigrant" in favor of the more politically correct "undocumented worker" which I don't agree with at all. I don't like that he's trying to play the middle ground so much versus where he stood in 2012. On the other hand, he has way more support and media attention than he did in 2012. How much of that is from his revised strategy versus how much is just because Clinton and Trump are so widely disliked, I can't say. But he is definitely getting some attention for third parties that we haven't seen in 20-some years.

[Treetop]

LOL trump isnt playing anti establishment the way obama did at all. Also obama simply blamed the republicans even though he had a dem congress for awhile. Trump could try blaming a stagnant congress but it wouldnt work in his case if he was actually pushing the type of agenda he has outlined.

It wouldnt be much of an ego boost to play worst president or close in history if he had lied his way in and wasnt planning to do as described. With variations of policy he has been pushing the america first mindset publicly since the 80s. He does seem to believe it. He is a populist, populist in first world nations are hated by their own party if most of what they pushed for was a lie. He is bright enough to get that. Not impossible you are right of course but much more likely he believes what he says and his intended ego boost isnt simply winning but leaving a real legacy.

As for knowing trump, I dunno he won NJ and NY where he is best known by large margins. Doesnt seem to fit your logic. He won 80% of the vote in NJ. He won 60% in NY.

As for johnson, his record isnt actually much to brag about when you look at it in more detail. Heck the dude left a few million dollar debt from his last presidential run in 2012, he cant even run a campaign in the black. Of course he has more media support, the MSM wants trump to go down. Most Johnson votes by their logic would be trump votes, or no vote.

[natsb88]

Trump won liberal states. Not a surprise at all.

The media is paying attention to Johnson to try to make Trump lose? That's really a stretch. Johnson is campaigning far left of where he was in 2012 and the polls show he is pulling equally from both sides to slightly more from Hillary. That means I like him less but he's actually doing much better overall. He's grabbing a lot of Bernie supporters. Of course that could change come November but right now he's hurting Hillary more than Trump.

Not everybody or everything that opposes Trump is part of some anti-Trump MSM conspiracy Did you miss the part where they have slapped his face on TV/newspaper/websites/radio 24/7 for the last 15 months? The outrage "against" him is what fuels his supporters and campaign, it's the best thing he has going. If the MSM had just ignored him he wouldn't be the nominee. If you had been aware of Trump for the 5-6 years leading up to this you'd know that's how he works. Say controversial/brazen/provocative stuff just to keep everybody focused on him. What the media says about him isn't important, it only matters that they stay focused on him. Go back in time to about 2010 and start keeping an eye on him. You'll see that he has made a television personality career out of doing exactly that. He's playing/using the media to his advantage. The liberal media may genuinely dislike him and talk trash but he's loving the attention, he works to make sure they keep talking about him.

[Treetop]

Trump won liberal states. Not a surprise at all.

LOL, you claimed the more people know him the worse he does, but he had massive landslides where he is known best. He won many right leaning states as well.

The media is paying attention to Johnson to try to make Trump lose? That's really a stretch. Johnson is campaigning far left of where he was in 2012 and the polls show he is pulling equally from both sides to slightly more from Hillary. That means I like him less but he's actually doing much better overall. He's grabbing a lot of Bernie supporters. Of course that could change come November but right now he's hurting Hillary more than Trump.

It already changed, atleast according to the last rasmussen poll. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ouse_watch
Johnson pulls 8% of republicans and 3% of democrats. Trump pulls more democrats then johnson and more democrats then hillary pulls republicans.

Not everybody or everything that opposes Trump is part of some anti-Trump MSM conspiracy

Who said that? It is however obvious the MSM hates him. You arent watching much of the coverage if you cant see that. Almost everything about him has been negative and they ignore or gloss over major issues with hillary.

Did you miss the part where they have slapped his face on TV/newspaper/websites/radio 24/7 for the last 15 months?

lol, did you miss that it is almost entirely bad coverage making mountains out of things much smaller then they ignore on clinton?

The outrage "against" him is what fuels his supporters and campaign, it's the best thing he has going. If the MSM had just ignored him he wouldn't be the nominee.

lol. The rest of the republican field was horrible. Well Rand paul I liked but he got nowhere. Trump brought out NEW voters, not because of constant hate by the media but because they wanted someone outside the political system. He also got big points for not being politically correct. You are acting like they sat there and covered his stances instead of constantly deriding him. Most I know who supported him early on wouldnt even admit it in most circles because of that constant derision.

If you had been aware of Trump for the 5-6 years leading up to this you'd know that's how he works.

I was.

What the media says about him isn't important, it only matters that they stay focused on him. Go back in time to about 2010 and start keeping an eye on him. You'll see that he has made a television personality career out of doing exactly that. He's playing/using the media to his advantage. The liberal media may genuinely dislike him and talk trash but he's loving the attention, he works to make sure they keep talking about him.

Yep he flips it as much as he can. They "may" dislike him? Pffft almost every report is negative while they mostly gloss over and ignore hillaries faults.

[Treetop]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence ... rs-9932000

I consider this relevant since we have touched on our inflated economy. Government jobs out number manufacturing by nearly 10million.

[Treetop]

Some sources claim johnson gets more clinton voters because she does worse in polls with johnson on there. This clearly hints at the fact the republicans who are going to trump simply go into the other or not voting category when forced to pick between just hillary or trump because johnson is getting over 2.5X the republican vote then he is the democrat vote. Nothing changed since past cycles except that libertarians are getting more of the democrat vote because sanders supporters or many of them dislike hillary so much. Libertarians always pull more republican votes. Or registered republicans rather, I know when I voted in the past for libertarians I just wouldnt have voted had I been made to pick just the dem or rep.

[Thogey]

Trump would assure victory by killing 2 birds with one stone.

Legalize marijuana. This would immediately stop the flow of illegal marijuana and all the Johnsons would vote for Trump.

[aloneibreak]

Trump would assure victory by killing 2 birds with one stone.

Legalize marijuana. This would immediately stop the flow of illegal marijuana and all the Johnsons would vote for Trump.

attempts to demonize the LP strictly because of its stance on weed need to stop

until folks are allowed and encouraged to actually dig into what the party stands for , we will continue to get the same 2 sided-coin lesseroftwoevils type status quo choices

many are closer to 3rd party than they realize - theyve just been led to believe there are only 2 choices - R or D

[Thogey]

Sorry, not trying to demonize the party. Legalize the weed, I don't think most people have a strong opinion against it. But the issue seems a bit more important to a large minority of the libertarians. If Trump signaled a relax on weed. He just might peel some votes off.

[68Camaro]

...
many are closer to 3rd party than they realize - theyve just been led to believe there are only 2 choices - R or D

The problem with 3rd parties is that no party is perfect. The 3rd, 4th, 5th etc parties have been (and still are) their own form of special interest groups, and until recently (and with the even more recent exception of the Trump effect on the Republicans) the 3rd parties have been more objectionable than the first two (to me). (Realizing as I say this that others here disagree.) This effect is what creates the numerous political parties (each with 5% to 40% of the support) in other countries that fragments their processes, requiring coalition governments which break-up and reform over and over in different shapes and - I think - are a horrible alternate approach to governing. The two party system in the US has largely worked for 150 years, and I would prefer to see it continue, though unless the two majors reform themselves soon they will implode.

The reason I have to pick Trump is that (even if I don't agree with him on everything) he is working from within to re-form an existing major party and working from reasoned positions without special interest influence. Of course selected elements of that party can't stand him - it would far more shocking if they accepted him, because if he succeeds they and everything they depend on will be tossed out. In the process of fighting him they are demonstrating themselves to be the shallow self-serving elements that they really are, whether progressive old establishment (Romney, Bush) or suspect new establishment(s) (Rubio, Kasich, Cruz). My respect for all 5 of these just mentioned (and many other elements of that party) has hit new lows over the past 6 months.

I do completely understand the "don't like Trump" faction. His personality is not my preference. But I see him attempting to reform his persona over the past 20 years, and especially the past year. I am especially impressed by his family and if I had to point to one single thing that flipped me to him, it would be his family. This is especially impressive if you are a parent, and especially one with teen or older children who understands first-hand what can't be fully understood until you have your own children. Creation of people that are that grounded and balanced does not happen with someone who is truly unbalanced himself (no matter the perception of him). His direction is more right than wrong, and I can overlook his flaws as long as he continues to come back to centered rationale positions and apologizes for mis-steps.

Nate's opinion of Trump is clearly not reformable based purely on debate, so (sorry) I've stopped reading the rants. I give TT credit for continuing the discourse in a rationale, reasoned manner.

[natsb88]

The reason I have to pick Trump is that (even if I don't agree with him on everything) he is working from within to re-form an existing major party and working from reasoned positions without special interest influence. Of course selected elements of that party can't stand him - it would far more shocking if they accepted him, because if he succeeds they and everything they depend on will be tossed out.

I don't buy this at all. I have every reason to believe Trump is who he was for 40 years before deciding to run for president, and no reason to believe that he has really done a 180 and that his grandiose campaign promises are his new guiding principles. I agree with supporting an imperfect candidate who is working from within to reform the party, which is why I supported the imperfect Ron Paul and Rand Paul running as republicans. (In fact I have yet to discover a politician I agree with 100% and I'm not an ideological purist). However I grossly disagree with the assessment you folks have made of Trump's character, beliefs, motives, and goals, and of where he will take the party. If Trump is elected he will indeed alter the landscape of the Republican party, but not for the better.

Nate's opinion of Trump is clearly not reformable based purely on debate, so (sorry) I've stopped reading the rants. I give TT credit for continuing the discourse in a rationale, reasoned manner.

Funny that it's a "rant" coming from somebody opposed to Trump, but "rational, reasoned" coming from somebody who agrees with you

Trump would assure victory by killing 2 birds with one stone.

Legalize marijuana. This would immediately stop the flow of illegal marijuana and all the Johnsons would vote for Trump.

Could help him among moderates and libertarians. Probably hurt him among whatever real conservatives are still supporting him. Trump has supported medical marijuana but also endorses the colossal failure that is the war on drugs. I could maybe see him caving on weed legalization if his advisors convinced him it would help his chances, but he's also hanging around with Chris Christie and mentioned Christie as his possible Attorney General. Christie has vowed to crack down on federal weed laws and go after the states that have already legalized it.

It is however obvious the MSM hates him. You arent watching much of the coverage if you cant see that. Almost everything about him has been negative and they ignore or gloss over major issues with hillary.

You're completely missing the point. Trump doesn't care if the coverage is positive or negative. He thrives on the attention either way. Negative coverage gets his supporters fired up. Just look at you! It's working. Plus then he can play the "all the media is against me, I'm an outsider!" card. Trump intentionally says provocative things to keep the spotlight on himself. If you were really familiar with him prior to him launching his campaign, you would have seen him do it over and over again. This is his MO. He's playing the media to his advantage. It doesn't matter what they say about him, as long as they keep talking about him. If they had just ignored him, he probably wouldn't be the nominee. The media obsessing over Trump is what empowered Trump's campaign. A self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

[Treetop]

Have to say Im a bit torn on third parties atm. I always thought we needed them to shake politics up, but trump and sanders proved that isnt the case. Also after debating Nate and a few others I realize how they are as as stuck into ruts of thinking as any of the major two parties. Our biggest issue politically isnt that we have two dominate parties it is that people keep voting for career politicians that dont deserve a vote at all. Yes I get the irony of saying that while pushing for trump, but I think even his most steadfast haters can agree he is shaking things up.

If we had an engaged informed public we would have mostly desirable candidates even if we only had two possible parties at all. Some blame media for people not being informed, but that isnt the problem either. Ive TRIED to show people I know for instance the corruption of hillary, or other issues that are verifiable and they just dont care if it is outside of their comfort zone or think it isnt true on the surface. The fact like 6 companies won our entire media is still an issue of course and over time will become worse of one but just like our real problem in politics is lack of informed reasoned engagement this is true with media as well, so the bigger issue doesnt come down to reform but an apathetic public.

So what would a two party system look like with an informed engaged public? I can only theorize, as such doesnt exist currently. As a guy thus far supporting third parties I always told myself the two parties are the same more then they are different. Nate and others in this thread have said similar. So I expect the biggest difference would be both parties proposing real workable ideas that actually try to get done. In such a climate if we felt the need to change the constitution it wouldnt be by pretending the meaning of words changed. Would such an engaged public suddenly decide we shouldnt have a right to defend oneself? I doubt it myself. That is nonsensical. We are sentient beings of course we should be able to defend ourselves. As we can see looking around those who want to hurt others use many more tool then the gun, a proven defensive weapon, the great equalizer. I am getting of track here.

I often hear republicans claim a candidate is to far left, and democrats even say obama is to far right. They arent "pure" in their ideology of one mindset or the other. PFfft. Most people are somewhere in the middle anyway, and overlap. That isnt the problem. We need people who are not working for special interests but trying to pave the best or atleast a desirable path for their nation or local area. The vast bulk of politicians are not like this. There was a time however brief that the populace didnt trust career politicians. They trusted professionals who fought for their ideals seemingly more out of caring for outcomes then special interests and back room agendas.

Forget which of the founders it was, but one pushed for not having political parties at all. So it would be interesting if we had a process that rather then each party picking a candidate we had a set number of openings for candidates and a primary type vote picked the top 2-3 candidates. From there they further campaign then we have the vote that picks the winner. Then rather standing on party wed have people standing on their own record. This no doubt would bring with it its own issues Im not anticipating but I expect overall wed also have much better candidates. Would such a model work without an engaged informed populace? Nope, it wouldnt. It might even be as bad or worse with the way our current populace relates to politics, it could easily simply evolve into who trolled the other candidates the best. So basically who defined the others better rather then who defined themselves the best. Which we already see today, but this might be worse without a party system.

Like trump or not if you are vaguely honest with yourself you know he got swept to the nomination by mostly NEW voters, or those who rarely vote. Even if you dislike his politics this is inspiring. This is hardly a full representation of what I mean when I say an informed engaged public, but it is closer then we have seen since perot. At the national level anyway. Something really clicked for me though in debating Nate and a few other libertarians I know recently. Here they are supporting a guy who couldnt even run his last campaign in the black, who did nothing exceptional, had no real ideas just ideals he stands by that arent even overly reflected or at all in his actual record. This is every bit as broken as the democrats and republicans and libertarians dont even have a major base of power yet. He gave fancy speeches, heck man obama even gave several epic speeches, lots of horrendous ones at all but before h was in office several of his speeches were great specifically on the role of governance and accountability. The fact he gave such speeches then lead as he did and got elected a second time? Ouch, pure insanity.

I dont know where we go from here but I can say I lost my faith in third parties this election cycle. They wont fix anything either. We need an informed engaged public that uses logic instead of emotions to decide. How could we get to such a place? Sadly probably not until the current paradigm faces a major issue and has something push people out of complacency. But maybe not a solid media source or candidate that inspires people in a new way could theoretically lead us to such a place. By showing people something better and how it could be instead of how it is.

All this said I lean right on most not all things, want a smaller more efficient government and Trump will definitely get my vote this time. I couldnt have supported any of the democrats at all, or the green party, or the bulk the republicans offered. I will continue to vote third party in future election if I like them better then the others, but the wool is off my eyes I no longer think it is solely third parties we need to look to for revolution within the system. Far from my ideal but Trump showed that can happen even within the Grand old party. While trump has a bit of an authoritarian streak on a few issues, hillary is literally the face of corruption. Letting her win signals to TPTB that we dont mind being lied to and enslaved at all. If Trump fails at curbing illegal immigration the values of the right are gone entirely for a generation or more at the national level. So it is laughable hearing people claim he pushes us further left. Few said this about romney that I heard but he was left on as many issues as trump had been in the past even if we dont accept trumps shifts in policy as legit or appeasements he made with his personal politics so he can get elected and push for the policies he truly cares about. So rather then someone pushing us to the left he if successful might just save the right side of politics in our nation.

I will still make my case for protectionism here before to long. Been super busy lately, and plan to make it in depth need many hours in a row to do it right. Before the election for sure.

[Treetop]

I don't buy this at all. I have every reason to believe Trump is who he was for 40 years before deciding to run for president, and no reason to believe that he has really done a 180 and that his grandiose campaign promises are his new guiding principles.

While he has changed stances on many things he has always pushed the mindset of america first.

Could help him among moderates and libertarians. Probably hurt him among whatever real conservatives are still supporting him. Trump has supported medical marijuana but also endorses the colossal failure that is the war on drugs. I could maybe see him caving on weed legalization if his advisors convinced him it would help his chances, but he's also hanging around with Chris Christie and mentioned Christie as his possible Attorney General. Christie has vowed to crack down on federal weed laws and go after the states that have already legalized it.

Funny how you insist his policies havent actually changed in time and he is lying to get elected BUT you DO believe his stances changed on drugs. Because he has long supported full legalization of all drugs in the past. Which where it was done shows us crime drops AND usage, plus saves us alot of funds so it is clearly the right position.

You're completely missing the point. Trump doesn't care if the coverage is positive or negative. He thrives on the attention either way. Negative coverage gets his supporters fired up. Just look at you! It's working. Plus then he can play the "all the media is against me, I'm an outsider!" card. Trump intentionally says provocative things to keep the spotlight on himself. If you were really familiar with him prior to him launching his campaign, you would have seen him do it over and over again. This is his MO. He's playing the media to his advantage. It doesn't matter what they say about him, as long as they keep talking about him. If they had just ignored him, he probably wouldn't be the nominee. The media obsessing over Trump is what empowered Trump's campaign. A self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

Nope it is you who missed the point. We were talking about whether or not he is an insider, you brought up that he has constant media coverage, but it is negative coverage. The fact he can rile his base up with it is 100% irrelevant. Also Im not on his side because I saw him in media alot. LOL. Disagree with my reasoning all you like but I watch most every speech he gives and like where he is coming from on more issues then I like Johnson, or especially hillary. Media hating trump didnt empower him, not being politically correct or an insider is though. People want things shaken up they support him in spite of this not because of this coverage. You are seeing what you want to see, your right of course but its laughable imo. A large segment of right leaning people, well people in general but in trumps case right leaning are tired of the status quo. They would be even if the media ignored trump entirely. You DO realize that right from the very start trump had similar support within the republican nomination process right? Before the media harped on him? This by itself disproves your premise even though I doubt youll admit it. He was not boosted in any major way by constant hate from the media. He rose in spite of it. I followed early polls man, he had solid support from day 1 before the media had time to hate on him. For the same reasons those who are pro trump like myself still like him.

[68Camaro]

I have every reason to believe Trump is who he was for 40 years before deciding to run for president, and no reason to believe that he has really done a 180 and that his grandiose campaign promises are his new guiding principles.
...
However I grossly disagree with the assessment you folks have made of Trump's character, beliefs, motives, and goals, and of where he will take the party. If Trump is elected he will indeed alter the landscape of the Republican party, but not for the better.

(At RC there does seem to be uniform disgust with the established parties, but I guess that's not shocking because most of the population seems to be disgusted with them, even those with a preferred side.)

If Trump doesn't get elected we will never know for sure, because the proof will have been in the actions that we will never see. If he does get elected, one of us will be wrong - or we could both be wrong and he ends up being better than you think and worse than I think. But if you are saying (and maybe you're not going this far, but you seem to be close to it) that people can't change over a lifetime and and that looking at someone's actions from 40, 30, 20, maybe even 10 years ago defines their current character; that is just wrong. Demonstrably wrong at both ends of this. I've seen people rise up out of the muck and become better people, and I've seen notionally "good" people make cataclysmic bad decisions that devastate people around them. I'm not going to fall on my sword and look into Trump's heart - it's difficult to tell what people are really made of, and looking at rhetoric is useless for that, you can only be sure from actions. But I see evidence of better character in him than in the other major candidate. I get it - you don't. So we will just have to agree to disagree on that point.

[Treetop]

Im not really the same person I was a year or two ago let alone 10. Still headed in the same general direction just like trump has ALWAYS shown a highlighted an america first mindset, but my stances and even values shifted a bit within the direction I was going.

In fact since Trumps past support of an assault weapons ban is a recurring topic. I used to agree with the assault weapons ban as well. I was never overly anti gun, but didnt see a reason why people needed those types, I didnt really understand the nuances of the debate. Then I was living out at my very rural land and a few sheriffs showed up looking for some killer who was hiding out somewhere close to my land. Ended up he had actually already fled to california but they thought he was out there still. One of the sheriffs asked me if I was armed then when I showed him my machete he told me a gun show was going on in albuquerque and Id be wise to arm myself if I lived out there. It was only after I had my first revolver that I bothered to even understand those issues at all. LOL I have more then a few guns now including "assault rifles". Well if we include mini 14s in that and most seem to today.

Where trump never has shifted though is the america first. This mindset more then anything else defines his politically related stances expressed publicly over the years.

[natsb88]

I never said people can't change. That's venturing into straw man territory. I said I don't believe that Trump's many recent policy changes are authentic evolutions in his beliefs. Talking about one person here, not the broad idea of people changing their views (heck mine have evolved over the last ten years since I started paying attention to politics). The changes in Trump's positions have been many and in a short period of time, which leads me to believe they are strategic changes made for campaigning purposes, rather than a change of heart. They have changed significantly even from the first iteration of his own campaign website. I believe Trump is the man his 40-year history suggests he is, which is not the Donald we are seeing today. He could very well be a man of his word and hold to the policies he campaigned on most recently even if he doesn't personally believe in them. Or he could revert back to being the democrat he was before this election cycle on Day 1 in office. We won't know unless he is elected. And for me, it doesn't make much difference, because I disagree with many of his "new an improved" positions anyway.

I also have never denied that Trump is shaking things up. I have just argued that he is not shaking things up for the better. Trump is undeniably moving the party left on healthcare and trade (don't forget that he believes the economy performs better under democrats). Even with reversing his stance on assault weapons and waiting periods, he still wants to ban gun purchases for names on the no-fly list and other watch lists (no due process and no recourse). He's less hawkish which is good, really the only thing I agree with him on, but maintains a lot of the neoconservative positions (Gitmo, torture, Snowden, surveillance, indefinite detention of and military tribunals for American citizens) that were ushered in by Cheney and company (and are now supported by Hillary). Shaking things up? Yeah, but more talk than substance. With moving the GOP left on many issues and right really only on immigration, the net result is a GOP that looks more like the democrats than when he started.

You can criticize libertarians for supporting a libertarian candidate who holds some questionable views. That's valid. I can also criticize conservatives who support a republican candidate who holds some questionable views. That's also valid. But you guys jump all over me for that.

I think a lot of Trump supporters have completely immersed themselves in the campaign and speeches and media coverage and aren't seeing the candidates and issues very clearly. If Trump wins, it will be interesting to revisit this thread over the next 4-8 years to see how many of these grand America First policies actually come to fruition, and the results (and unintended consequences... I don't have a problem with the idea of America First, but America doesn't exist in a vacuum...with radical changes comes blowback).

It sure is an interesting time to be alive

[Treetop]

Is protectionism a lefty idea for trade? Historically it sure wasnt. Reagon was the first to try to give us NAFTA but it was clinton who finally pulled it off. None of this was because the people on the right or left wanted it either, various connected types wanted it and it has been great for certain international companies at the expense of our middle class who would already be drastically worse off without a wide ranged on artificial inflations we built into our economy since then. Historically though it was always conservatives that wanted higher tariffs and the left wanting lower ones. So when did such mindsets for trade become right wing exactly? Internationally it is also the left side of things pushing harder for "free trade" and open borders, just as soros pushes for globally through a range of organizations. Libertarians have long supported those same two things, historically but that seems to me some of the areas the libertarians always sided with the left, whereas they were more aligned with the right on free enterprise, liberty in general and some other things, balanced budgets etc.

I have also seen polling showing that even today not just historically the right is more likely as seeing protectionist mindsets as helpful then the left is, so nothing seems to have changed on this since the time of lincoln. Some people get confused and think free trade relates to free enterprise or free markets. The left has always wanted more market interventionism outside of trade with other nations. They still do. Protectionist policy as I said was always something aligned with conservative thought, and even today more conservatives support it then liberals. So.. It seems rather a place Trump is taking the party back to its roots. Thus far in debating Nate he showed us one dictatorship that moved to a bit of free enterprise as an example that free trade was good which wasnt even relevant at all, as well as Japan which became an industrial powerhouse through protectionism but hurt themselves by over inflating themselves in a range of ways later. He also acknowledged how much better off china is through NAFTA but on their end of things it was protectionist an they are protectionists in many other ways as well. I pointed to South Korea who had a per capita GDP of only 79$ in 1961 and through protectionism took it to over 30k today. Any third world nations do that with "free trade" or did they stay on their knees never capable of building real capitol? So both historically and currently more conservatives supported protectionism, but more then that (and I will make a fuller case for this soon) it is clearly the superior position for a nations people. Doing much more good then harm.

If Trump wins, it will be interesting to revisit this thread over the next 4-8 years to see how many of these grand America First policies actually come to fruition, and the results

Without a trump win though the right will be over nationally a few generations. Our second amendment will be gone in a few years as the supreme court goes far left for a generation or more. No righty far left of trump will win probably most of the rest of my life if we have mass amnesty, and let even more come. Libertarians arent going to win in either case though of course so perhaps you dont care I dunno. Career politicians always lie of course, but there is a chance or higher one that is Trump atually is doing this for his ideals, it sure isnt moving his career forward as it does for career politicians. Like it or not if the right side of politics is going to stay relevant to millenials they will need to move further to the left on a few social issues at least. It has already been going that way for some time.

[johnbrickner]

If I'm wrong and he wins all we will need is time. When enough passes the truth will become self-evident and if it is not, all we will need is more time to see. Most people's personalities and character are fairly well set. Once in a while something life changing comes along and well, . . . they change. Becoming president could be enough to change a person. But, to me Trump winning the presidency would be kind of like an *ss whole winning the lottery. It just enables them to be more of what they already are.

Funny is the title of the subject of this thread. Some I know think Hillary is demonically possessed. If so and the title is correct in Nate's thinking, that means she is working for Trump.

[natsb88]

Historically conservatives favor free markets. Free markets cross political boundaries.

Protectionism is big government, economic authoritarianism. No matter which side pushes it.

Trump's tariffs are an inflationary mechanism. They artificially raise prices with the difference pocketed by government. Tariffs can be targeted, but when you are talking about tariffs on a range of goods as wide as everything China produces, the end result is the same as printing money. Dress it up with patriotic "America first" language and theorize that it will bring hordes of jobs back to the US. It's just lipstick on a pig.

You describe a problem of overspending, of living beyond our means, of an unsustainable middle class, made possible only by inflating the dollar. You know it can't last. You know the spending has to come down. But you want to soften the blow. So you propose tariffs, another form of inflation. Inflation is bad, but we need more inflation? You sound like the Fed. Having your cake and eating it too.

No matter how you try to justify it, you are advocating for market manipulation. Market manipulation is bad for everybody, except those in bed with whoever is doing the manipulation (government and well-connected crony capitalists).

Treetop you'd make a good politician. A lot of people would buy your arguments. Lots of sunshine and rainbow results with no downsides. A lot like what Trump promises, but with more (selective) research so they sound more thought out. He should hire you as a campaign consultant.

I want there to be a major party within which the likes of Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie can continue working for reform, can bring issues to light that need to be exposed, can be serious contenders in the presidential race. I want a major party that is actually economically conservative. If Trump wins, there is no chance of those types getting anywhere near the white house for more than a decade. Trump is a jumping the shark moment for the GOP. He is a short-term, self-destructive "solution" to a long-term problem. A lot of people are scared to death of Clinton and are desperate to vote against her. But Trump is not the answer. A third party won't win, but endorsing Trump is signing the death sentence of meaningful conservative politics for many years to come.

[natsb88]

Funny is the title of the subject of this thread. Some I know think Hillary is demonically possessed. If so and the title is correct in Nate's thinking, that means she is working for Trump.

I'm not the one changing the thread title. I don't think Trump is satan. I just think Trump is Trump. His supporters are the ones making him out to be something he's not.

[Treetop]

The more I look into Johnson and the libertarian ticket this cycle I cant fathom what anyone was thinking. I watched a video earlier where johnson goes off when questioned about illegal immigrants. He wants them called "undocumented workers". He supports TPP which literally gives international courts the ability to over ride our nations laws giving away national sovereignty in this way for the first time ever. He even supports Obamas executive order trying to give amnesty to illegals. Not even vaguely libertarian to support such an over reach through executive orders.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/6386/libe ... el-qazvini

He also agrees with "73%" of what sanders says? Also that socialism is good if not mandatory? This same guy was in debt of several million after his 2012 run, he ran up the debt in New Mexico at a faster rate then our governors since and cant keep a campaign in the black? What is libertarian about him exactly? Just his drug stance which Trump has also supported in the past. Video below has him saying he agrees with bernie 73% of the time and socialism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNfIKh22jXo

Also the libertarian VP is STRONGLY anti gun. He didnt just passively support the assault weapons ban over a decade ago and switch positions like trump, he doesnt want anything over 5 rounds, and is against semi autos.

The link and quote below are about the VP for libertarians. The dude doesnt sound like he has the vaguest understanding of guns at all. Wh picked these fools? I expect Nate thought several positions I supported here were anti libertarian, but Im clearly way more of one then weld or johnson.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2016082 ... e-anti-gun

The five-shot rifle, that’s a standard military rifle. The problem is if you attach a clip to it so it can fire more shells and if you remove the pin so that it becomes an automatic weapon. And those are independent criminal offenses. That’s when they become essentially a weapon of mass destruction.

Is it a coincidence the MSM gives Gary more of a platform then ever before while telling people he steals more votes from hillary then trump when he in reality pulls more ten 2.5X from the republicans? In these polls with hillary and trump only notice it never adds up to 100%? Those are all the people not voting for either one, this is glossed over so they can pretend johnson take more from the left then the right which simply isnt supported by facts. Now Im certainly not saying people shouldnt vote third party, go for it, but the media who clearly hates trump knows it hurts trump more then hillary to push forward this non libertarian libertarian. Oh wait He gave a few speeches on liberty? Pffft, his record all faces the other way, Obama gave some great speeches on government accountability and transparency and heck even on debt, but we all see how that played out. If I had a time machine Id go back and smack my young self for investing in baseball cards over silver, then Id go to 2012 and kick myself in the balls for voting for gary johnson.

This article covers a few other johnson anti libertarian stances.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/southernc ... he-public/

Again my stance is vote whoever you like. Third party, mainline party etc. I cant however fathom how Johnson who cant even run a campaign in the black is a libertarian. Nate has insisted I fill in the gaps on why I support trump but I dont, I see his faults but think he is worth the gamble anyway. To support johnson though? As a libertarian? Is bizarre imo. A libertarian VP that is against even semi autos? That is many steps beyond previously supporting an assault weapons ban that had still allowed many viable semi auto rifles, like my mini 14 which was never outlawed in that period.

[Treetop]

Historically conservatives favor free markets. Free markets cross political boundaries.

.

Free markets are NOT free trade though. Historically AND today more conservatives support protectionist mindsets then do liberals and the left. Nice play on words though.

Protectionism is big government, economic authoritarianism. No matter which side pushes it.

Trump's tariffs are an inflationary mechanism. They artificially raise prices with the difference pocketed by government. Tariffs can be targeted, but when you are talking about tariffs on a range of goods as wide as everything China produces, the end result is the same as printing money. Dress it up with patriotic "America first" language and theorize that it will bring hordes of jobs back to the US. It's just lipstick on a pig.

A pig that provably builds a nations middle class, whole the alternative is competing directly with people who cant afford shoes and arent walthy enough to care if their drinking water is clean enough to drink safely.

You describe a problem of overspending, of living beyond our means, of an unsustainable middle class, made possible only by inflating the dollar. You know it can't last. You know the spending has to come down. But you want to soften the blow. So you propose tariffs, another form of inflation. Inflation is bad, but we need more inflation? You sound like the Fed. Having your cake and eating it too.

I support proven methods to buffer us from meeting the third world in the middle. Nothing like the fed, I want most government actions out of the way. Yeahs sure people who live on their knees produce cheaper, yipty do da. I dont want to meet them in the middle if we dont have to. We dont. Id rather pay more for goods and know more in my nation had work in production and the corresponding service industry jobs their production will support.

No matter how you try to justify it, you are advocating for market manipulation. Market manipulation is bad for everybody, except those in bed with whoever is doing the manipulation (government and well-connected crony capitalists).

LOL. "free markets" are pushed more then anyone by those at the top because they benefit most from such policy. Cony capitalist LOVE that folks like you fight for their cause to replace americans workers with those who work for next to nothing.

Treetop you'd make a good politician. A lot of people would buy your arguments. Lots of sunshine and rainbow results with no downsides. A lot like what Trump promises, but with more (selective) research so they sound more thought out. He should hire you as a campaign consultant.

Pffft you never heard a word I said if you heard all rainbows and sunshine and no downsides. That is how you sound to me actually. Markets are mgic and will heal all wounds as we meet the third world in the middle!! I acknowledged the dowwnsides over and over and over in many posts but the dangers of not being protectionist are worse. You are the one with selectionist research my friend, that much is astoundingly clear. You freaking linked an example of a total dictatorship embracing a bit of free enterprise not even true free trade as a n example of free trade working, but hey they were inspired by a libertarian you also linked about in regards to japan whose economic rise and also issues you also clearly didnt understand. Heck the examples you gave didnt even vaguely prove your points. You seem to be arguing what others said about stances similar to mine rather then what I have actually said. As intelligent as you are I find this very interesting indeed. It is like debating my smarter liberal friends whose ideals block them from actually hearing my stances. As I said repeatedly in this global market even if protectionist policy worked for us better then anyone else in history we still have a loooong way down once we cannot inflate our lifestyles again. I said this over and over. I may be wrong but I made it clear this is my interpretation. Hardly rainbows and sunshine. I did however say protectionism offers a proven way to support more local industry, and this is provable. I acknowledged prices are higher, but everywhere it was down even decently let alone ideally it is more then offset by a more robust economy overall.

I want there to be a major party within which the likes of Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Thomas Massie can continue working for reform, can bring issues to light that need to be exposed, can be serious contenders in the presidential race. I want a major party that is actually economically conservative. If Trump wins, there is no chance of those types getting anywhere near the white house for more than a decade. Trump is a jumping the shark moment for the GOP. He is a short-term, self-destructive "solution" to a long-term problem. A lot of people are scared to death of Clinton and are desperate to vote against her. But Trump is not the answer. A third party won't win, but endorsing Trump is signing the death sentence of meaningful conservative politics for many years to come

Without a trump win those mindsets wont get anywhere close to the whitehouse for much longer then a decade as the influx of third worlders, most of whom are voting for bigger government as well as the millenials rise in prominence. Letting hillary win is the death sentence for the right. A lefty supreme court? You wont have gun rights to protect among many other issues lefty justices support. You will have millions legalized who will for decades to come shift us far to the left. Probably waiting for an armed revolt like some south american nation. We can handle a moderate righty, and still have hope for the right side of politics. We cant however handle the open borders mindset that already is watering down our wages and shifting us decidedly left faster then even before this shift. You are telling us youll vote for a guy who supports a trade deal that gives away national sovereignty, who wants open borders and amnesty, whos VP wants semis autos banned, who cant run a campaign in the black nor a state, who agrees with the most socialist senator we have in the US 73% of the time an thinks freaking wheat is evil. The politics you claim to support would be buried if johnson magically won, but would be off to the side the same way they already are with trump. You clearly see what you want to see while insisting I do. We still for now retain such rights as americans. LOL. The crony capitalists thank you from the bottom of their hearts.

[Treetop]

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archive ... h-the-mud/

Johnson VP pick also supports the patriot act, a guy johnson picked himself and said if he won would lead as his co president. So hes a libertarian but will happily select a VP that hates semi autos and will support the TPP that gives away US sovereignty to international courts, who agrees with bernie sanders 73% of the time and insists libertarians agree with socialism if it is voluntary? Ok then. What are libertarians exactly? What is voluntary socialism anyway? Better hurry and donate to gary so he can pay his 2012 debts off, since he is so fiscally conservative he left over a million in debt.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/05/26/some- ... ohnson-did