OT: A Sincere Question for Trump Supporters

The Alabama Senate primary win by Moore over Strange, who Trump backed, answers this question pretty well.

In short: Trump is seen as more of a servant than an idol by those who are generally supportive of him. I don't think most on the generally supportive side expect him to try to govern as an ideologue. That's what House reps are for.

HAHaHaHaHaHaHa. You can’t be serious.

Of course theoretically speaking Trump could do something to lose my support. For example, if he walks out of the White House and starts shooting people, then I would no longer support him. But that's not going to happen, nobody how likely liberals believe it is, and so I' not going to stop supporting him.

As for his supposed changing positions, I'm not in the mood for that debate. But your liberal biases are clouding your perception of his positions. Every president changes his views somewhat after being in office because you can't fully understand the job until youre in it. Trumps actions in this regard are no different than any other president.

If Obama genuinely had a complete conversion to being a conservative, then I suppose I could have supported him. But that's such an insanely impossible hypothetical that it's not really worthy of serious discussion. But I doubt that I could ever support Hillary no matter her political views because she is a dishonest, egotistical, self-absorbed bitch, and I hate the very ground that she walks on. In other words, unlike Obama, my hatred of Hillary transcends policy.

I doubt this will make much sense to liberals because we have reached the point in our country that the two sides of the political spectrum are incapable of understanding one another or even having a civil conversation about the issues. Perhaps this thread will prove me wrong but I doubt it.

But if Trump joined the Democratic Party (again) would you leave the GOP and become a Democrat, too?

I voted for Clinton both times. Depending on who Republicans had against him, I might have voted for Trump as a Democrat.

If he said he supported gun control, would you support gun control, too?

I already think there should be some responsible gun control. I don't think there should be a total ban. Finding an acceptable middle ground is going to be hard for any leader.

If he said he was for universal health care again, would you be for universal health care, too?

If someone, anyone, could come up with a universal healthcare plan that would work, I'd be for it. Doubt it will happen though, since by it's very definition universal healthcare eliminates competition, and competition for revenues and profits are the only thing that has ever proven to make something cost efficient and have great service.

If he said he was pro-choice (again), would you be pro-choice, too?

I've never voted based on someone's stand on abortion. I do however, consider their stand on whether government should be legislating morality. I don't think we should make abortion illegal. I think we should do a better job of raising our kids to make abortion less necessary. I don't think we should make using recreational drugs illegal. I think we should do a better job creating opportunities for people to be satisfied without drugs. I don't think we should make strip clubs and prostitution illegal. I think we should let adults do what they want with their money and their bodies and just make sure it's only adults doing it and that no one is ever forced to.

if Obama or Hillary Clinton or Al Gore came out and said that they had had a political conversion, and that they are now pro-life, anti-gun-control, anti-immigrant, pro-tax-cut Republicans, would you believe them? And would you vote for them if you could?

Even if they changed their views, they would all still be incompetent career political hacks.
I support Trump because he accomplished something in the real world before he got into politics. Sure, he fucked up a lot too, but that's the American way. Take a risk, learn from your mistakes, try again. I even have more respect for people like Reagan or Swartzenegger (sp?) that were actors before going into politics. They probably worked as producers, which gave them leadership and deal making skills.

Douglas Adams had it right. "No one who wants to be President should ever be allowed to have the job.". I don't think Trump wanted to be President. I think he felt like someone needed to break the cycle of career pols holding the spot, figured he might be able to do it, and that he could shake things up.

So far, I'm liking how things are shaking.

@JS69 “every president changes his views somewhat after being in office”
That argument is tired because you guys say but he’s only been there for eight months you’re not giving him a chance. You can do better than that, cmon man your a better lawyer than Kellyann Conway.

@JohnSmith69 said "As for his supposed changing positions, I'm not in the mood for that debate. But your liberal biases are clouding your perception of his positions. Every president changes his views somewhat after being in office because you can't fully understand the job until youre in it."

I'm pretty damn far from being a liberal, I'm actually a registered Republican. And there's no debate, he has changed his positions on many things. Most of the changes took place before the election, by the way. I think some people missed the point of the thread. The point is that, based on his history, it seems that Trump doesn't believe in much... but lots of people believe in him. Why?

Also, as for Hillary being dishonest, egotistical, and self-absorbed... you seriously don't see those same qualities in Trump? Or Obama? Wow.

For someone who started the thread with "No disrespect intended", you sure did load up the rest of your post with blatantly left-leaning talking points. Not they are all entirely untrue, but I think you're picking a fight.

That said, I think that Trump is a horrible president. I think that he'd have been a horrible president if he'd stuck with his stated liberal beliefs dating to immediately before he became candidate Trump. And I think that he's a horrible president now that he has chimerically adopted a set of conservative views for the sole cause of getting himself into the Oval Office.

He's perfectly suited for reality TV but woefully ill equipped for responsible governance. It's a shame that voters also confused one for the other.

For the record, I loathed the idea of Hillary Clinton as president. For me, this past election was a choice between a fire and a fire in a pantsuit.

Interesting. Based on the original post, I would not type you as a Republican. Live and learn, I suppose.

I don’t support Trump, I support his policies. Lower taxes. More robust military. Lower regulatory burden. Federalism. Pro business. Pro growth. The list goes on.

I probably support 80% of Trump’s agenda. With Obama, it was 10%. With GWB, it was 40%. With Clinton, it was also 40%, at least in his last 6 years.

mark94: "I support his policies."

I can sympathize somewhat with this. Alot of them I liked too. Problem, however, is that I'd say about 45% is all talk. He just says it but doesn't really intend to implement it. Another 45% he wants to implement, but the Republican Party is too divided for him to pull it off. So that leaves about 10% he realistically may accomplish.

@Call.Me.Ishmael, I voted for Ted Cruz in the Republican primary. Cruz was my second choice after Rand Paul predictably dropped out. I've never been a Democrat... but Trump definitely was. He was a Democrat for at least 10 years, in fact.

I didn't think they were left-leaning talking points and I wasn't trying to pick a fight. I expected someone to say something like "I'll support Trump until he...". Fill in the blank. "... appoints a pro-choice judge." "... supports repealing the second amendment." "... cuts another deal with Schumer and Pelosi, this time on taxes or healthcare or immigration," etc. But no one said anything like that. I really think these people would follow him into hell, if necessary.

I didn't like either choice but I thought voting for Hillary would be like bending over and asking for the worse thing possible for 4 years. Like asking for the mafia to take over, kill anyone who disagrees, enact gun bans for everyone with Supreme Court new justices who agreed so that only criminals can defend themselves and end up starting a civil war in the US if not a nuclear war with Russia thinking Russia would have to bow down to her highness as well. Many people would be happy with higher taxes on the rich except when the middle class found out they were considered rich if they had a job.

With Trump, he might be a moron but he appeared smarter than the other moron running for office and he did succeed at building a business empire. Maybe he's smarter than he appears and there are tactics to the art of the deal that makes the other side believe one thing while you think no deal is going to happen. Then compromise happens. Maybe.
Oh who am I kidding, we're all going to die. Better visit strip clubs before its 3000 degrees outside. Actually I believe Trump believes our anti missiles can defend the US mainland and he may be over confident that the US military along with SK and Japan can take out the evil NK regime and nuclear facilities without too many casualties. He's playing with fire and fury. The US will get the blame just for electing Trump even if war is due to NK in my opinion if thousands or millions die unless ol Kim kills a bunch of people first.

Every day I find a gift basket of joy in seeing a fresh new way he has pissed off the elites.

People always find a way to justify their position even if it's hypocritical. This is especially true in politics.

I never thought I'd see liberal women attacking rape accusers until Trump trotted out Clinton's accusers.

I never thought I'd see the religious right vote for a twice divorced New Yorker who worships only at the alter of money.

@jester214, well put. I couldn't agree more. I guess if you live long enough, you'll get to see everything.

There's a stupidly goofy theory out there that Trump has so many supporters because of some cult of personality. More gullible ant-Trump types tend to buy this, which is how ridiculous questions like this are born.

Of course he would lose support if he turned tail on major issues. I'm not talking about the minor crap that almost nobody cares about. I'm talking about things like healthcare reform, tax reform, deregulation of industries, immigration, etc. He has been pushing his agendas on all of these fronts, in many cases by executive orders and other regulatory action. So I suppose his supporters will keep supporting him while he continues to make progress.

@rickdugan, I don't know what you consider to be minor crap, but he's already changed his positions several times through the years on the issues you've listed. You listed healthcare, taxes, deregulation, and immigration. I don't know what his position was on deregulation, but on the other three issues, he used to feel very differently than he does now. I've been observing Trump since I was a kid growing up in NYC, and I can tell you that he was always somewhat left-of-center on taxes and immigration, and VERY left-of-center on healthcare.

Anyway, I don't want to sound like a broken record. He is what he is. I don't even know what I was expecting people to say. Maybe someone could admit something along the lines of "I don't care about policy positions, I only like Trump because he makes me feel good about myself because he makes it seem like it's okay to be a blue-collar high school-educated white guy who goes to church and never asked anyone for any special favors in life." Something cultural like that, I guess. No one ever said that politics was rational. And he isn't really that bad so far. I haven't decided, but I may vote to reelect him in three years.

Also, I found this article. It's pretty good:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/14/opini…

Burl,

You ask: "No disrespect intended, but if you're a real Trump supporter, is there anything he could say or do that would make you turn against him?"

That's easy, join the left!

A couple of very timely example happening right now. "Harvy Weinstein" "Las Vegas" If you need to ask, no need to try and discuss with you.

@Clubber, join the Left you say? He already did that once. From 2000 to 2009 he was a loyal partisan outspoken Democrat.

Well someone has to say it. I think the last few presidential elections have shown that the country is privately more racist and sexist/misogynist than people think and the voting polls showed it. You had women and Latinos voting against their best interests. It didn't help that you had one of the most disliked politicians running for office in Clinton. The country as a whole probably isn't ready for a woman president. The older guard probably isn't and they vote at much higher percentages than the younger guard who might be ready. If Sanders or Biden had won the Demographic primaries, they would have been president. What's sad for the Democratic party is those two are still the best candidates for 2020 although now they're probably too old to win it all. Shows just how weak the Democratic party is right now.

Democrats could have won pretty easily if they had someone that was popular and could unify their base (which as whole is probably bigger than the Republican base) like Obama did the last two elections against more formidable candidates with less scandals and baggage. But Clinton fractured her own base with many women not liking her, partially because of her philandering husband and her taking him back when he was caught, and the Latino culture tends to be very machismo with the men and many of them just didn't want a woman president. I can't see any other explanation why so many (around 33%) would vote for Trump who just showed no interest in courting the Latino vote like many of his Republican predecessors. On the other hand, Trump while possibly not a racist himself, although that possibility might be quite low, was able to unify a certain growing racial apprehension (in particular Latinos and Muslims, but also every other minority group including blacks and gays as you often saw people often emboldened in their honest views and much more willing to be less PC immediately after the election) and distrust within the country and get that group to support him.

Burlington posted: "Maybe someone could admit something along the lines of "I don't care about policy positions, I only like Trump because he makes me feel good about myself because he makes it seem like it's okay to be a blue-collar high school-educated white guy who goes to church and never asked anyone for any special favors in life."

And that's exactly the goofy theory I was talking about. I couldn't tell you what his policy beliefs were 20 or 30+ years ago and neither can almost anyone else outside of NYC.

But he campaigned on repealing Obamacare and he has done everything in his power to do so, now even preparing to issue an Executive Order to allow purchases of insurance across state lines. A lot of people hate Obamacare, including many individual marketplace participants, who are paying through the nose, and corporations and unions who may eventually see the Cadillac tax. In fact, I would say that this is the biggest single issue reason why he made it into office, followed closely by immigration.

He campaigned on deregulation and has issued an executive Order requiring agencies to eliminate two old rules for every new one created. He has also appointed business friendly people to head these agencies. This has been huge and is probably the single greatest contributor to stock market and economic gains since he took office.

He campaigned on immigration and he has done everything in his power to keep his promises. He hasn't gotten the wall yet, but, as anyone who follows this stuff knows, immigration enforcement has stepped up dramatically. I do not agree with his views on immigration as I believe that we need immigrants to help support an aging population, but for those who do agree with him, he is doing what he said he would.

On tax reform, he is working on that now, as we all know from the squealing that has already begun in the mainstream media.

So the simple reality is that he is doing what he said he would do on a few lightening rod issues that are important to many people. Once he stops doing those things, he will lose support. Simple.

RickBoy: "Of course he would lose support if he turned tail on major issues."

Huh? He hasn't so far? How about The Wall? Or was that just "minor crap" nobody cared about to begin with? (I actually wanted to see it built.)

I think the real appeal of Trump is the "strong man" personality he projects. Some people are attracted to that for various reasons.

I made this comment earlier and someone didn't like it but I'll repeat in a room full of 15 candidates Trump ranked # 14 in my mind. He wasn't my first, second, third or fourth choice.........

I can't prove it on here but about a two weeks before the election I knew all the blather in the media was way off. I could see, especially when I was travelling in the Midwest, the tide was turning. He had a shot, a good one.

If you live in or around the beltway of DC you realize there has been a century of bullshit in how people think about the rest of the United States and it doesn't matter what party you are in --you're not their priority and for the most part it has been going on so long they don't realize one of the problems is "them" Both parties of them--throw the media in that has worked the system to be important and you understand the dynamic---you either understand this or you don't. In my mind if you don't you aren't paying attention.

Now you throw in a reality TV star and a New Yorker ( brash) and what do you expect?

I'm not a Trump fan. There's more I dislike about him than I like. Having said that the other choice was in my mind far worse.

There are some gullible folks out there and as long as folks are going to continue to be willing to overlook facts this guy will continue to crap all over you.
Now let’s be real, he has a small percentage of the electorate, but he has figured out how to splinter the larger groups of voters with all of his nonsense, and with no real consequences to him he just keeps leveraging his limited capital, eventually it will collapse just like everything else he has ever been involved in he doesn’t care as long as he gets his.
That has been his MO from the beginning it ain’t gonna change people.

@theDirkDiggler, I agree with much of your analysis, except that I don't think this is a racist or sexist country. It's not even a xenophobic country. A racist country wouldn't have elected Barack Hussein Obama twice, a black man with a foreign-sounding name (whose father was born a Muslim and eventually became an atheist). And a sexist country would not have given Hillary Clinton (someone who is at least nominally and biologically a woman) more votes than any of her male challengers. More people voted for Hillary Clinton than for Bernie Sanders or for Donald Trump. And she even got more votes than Obama did in the 2008 primary when they opposed each other. Many counties that voted for Obama later voted for Trump.

@rickdugan, it wasn't 20 or 30 years ago. In 2013 he was still saying that Romney should have been nicer to immigrants during the campaign. Two years later he was calling Mexicans rapists. Please don't let politicians flush everything they say down the Memory Hole. Try to remember some things.

Anyway, I don't know, you may be right. Probably it's a mix of the culture stuff and the policy stuff. But just for shits and giggles, I'd like to see what would happen if Trump switched back to his pre-campaign liberal technocratic positions; my prediction is that most of his fans would still stick with him because I think the culture stuff is more important to them.

@Dougster said: "How about The Wall? Or was that just "minor crap" nobody cared about to begin with? (I actually wanted to see it built.)... I think the real appeal of Trump is the "strong man" personality he projects. Some people are attracted to that for various reasons."

If you really want to see the wall built, then I would say that one of the people who is attracted to the strong-man persona is you. The wall is just a symbol and it can't possibly work to curb immigration. If you build a 10 foot wall they'll just build an 11 foot ladder. And we'll all pay more for lettuce and oranges to account for the extra hassle of bringing workers over the border. But yes, I think the alpha-dog personality is definitely part of his appeal.

Burlington, the point is that it doesn't matter what he said before he became a politician, whether it was 4 years ago or 40. Nobody was paying attention to him back then.

Just like nobody who is not in finance (to twenty's points) understands that he built his fortune largely through a string of special purpose vehicle bankruptcies. Most people have no clue that many savvy private debt investors wouldn't touch another debt offering with a Trump name on it even if it came with daily blowjobs from a string of Playboy models.

From the perspective of his supporters, he made promises that they wanted to hear and, since taking office, has done everything in his power to make good on those promises. It's really that simple. These are the same issues that led to wholesale ticket carnage around the country for the Dems.

The fact that a certain % of the population, most notably urbanites, still doesn't get any of this is truly mind boggling. This includes the mainstream media types, who are usually in one of a few major cities and who cater to other urbanites who share their views. You would think that, after losing 30 of 50 states and, even more telling, 85% of all of the counties nationwide, that they would question their assumptions, but nope.
Not even after also losing state house after state house and a slew of state legislatures.

But anyway...

@Dugan: "A lot of people hate Obamacare, including many individual marketplace participants, who are paying through the nose.... I would say that this is the biggest single issue reason why he made it into office...."
------

Just to clarify, a very large majority, something like 170M, get their insurance through their employer and Obamacare has had almost no effect on premiums. Those at the bottom are also happy with Obamacare, getting Medicaid or subsidies to buy insurance. @Dugan's case of buying his own insurance, but making too much for subsidies, is not very common.

Anyway, @Dugan, with all that drinking you do and fucking heroin addicts, you may welcome the Obamacare provision for pre-existing conditions.

All three GOP proposals to repeal Obamacare failed because 20M to 30M people would have been thrown off their health insurance. Trump can continue trying to sabotage Obamacare, but good luck with the backlash which will follow.

Trump is losing support in rural America:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-r…

Random, there aren't 20 to 30 million people on individual insurance now. Also, how can you be "thrown off' something that you don't want in the first place?

But thanks for regurgitating those crap numbers Einstein. ;)

These are "crap numbers" thrown out by the CBO, dipshit.

It includes people on Medicaid

Random is a classic example of that disconnect. Except for a small % of those people who are heavily subsidized, most people on Obamacare hate Obamacare. He touts those goofy "losing" and "thrown off" insurance numbers because he is too intellectually weak (or disingenuous - not really sure which) to understand that most of those "losses" would be from people who would quite willingly give it up if the mandate were taken away..

Random may not understand any of this because he is very limited, but Trump certainly does. This is why Trump is getting ready to sign an executive order allowing insurance to be bought through trade associations and waiving some of the mandates for those policies. He realizes that if he doesn't do something that his supporters, including many millions who are suffering under Obamacare (including million who have the insurance and hate it and millions more who payed a personal penalty last year), will abandon him.

And the CBO always gets it right. ;)

Oops, I meant "millions" who have the insurance (but hate it).

SO JUST IN THE LAST FEW DAYS, two major centers of the anti-Trump resistance, Hollywood and the NFL, have collapsed. Meanwhile, the Obama coal regulations are being canceled, and the Supreme Court handed him a victory on the travel ban.

Like a businessman, Trump looks for wins wherever he can find them. If Congress can’t repeal Obamacare, he’ll sign an executive order to make healthcare affordable for millions.

Trump is steadily accomplishing his agenda by taking what’s available. The stock market is recognizing this even if the media doesn’t.

@Dugan, the CBO is full of policy experts and PhDs who do everything possible to predict the outcome of legislation. The CBO carries somewhat more weight than some guy on the internet who's come up with a system to pay for sex. I'm trying to explain to you that your situation of buying on the marketplace without getting subsidies is very much in the minority.


None of this affects me @Dugan. I get great insurance through my employer.

@rickdugan said "... the point is that it doesn't matter what he said before he became a politician, whether it was 4 years ago or 40. Nobody was paying attention to him back then. ... These are the same issues that led to wholesale ticket carnage around the country for the Dems. ... The fact that a certain % of the population, most notably urbanites, still doesn't get any of this is truly mind boggling. This includes the mainstream media types, who are usually in one of a few major cities and who cater to other urbanites who share their views. You would think that, after losing 30 of 50 states and, even more telling, 85% of all of the counties nationwide, that they would question their assumptions, but nope. Not even after also losing state house after state house and a slew of state legislatures. ... most of those "losses" would be from people who would quite willingly give it up if the mandate were taken away. ... This is why Trump is getting ready to sign an executive order allowing insurance to be bought through trade associations and waiving some of the mandates for those policies."

First, *I* was paying attention to him back then. I always thought he was funny and entertaining. But I never thought he would be president. So the jokes on me.

Second, he WAS a politician back then. He's been talking about running since 1987! And he actually did run in 1999/2000. And certainly people did pay attention when he said that Obama wasn't born in the USA, etc (that was back in 2011).

Third, you're right, Democrats have gotten a royal and well-deserved ass-fucking. For example, they've lost all but 15 governorships. But as far as I'm concerned, they've won the White House, because that's exactly what Trump is: a Democrat. Plus he IS one of those mainstream media types and he's an urbanite from a big major city who shares most of their views, as you put it.

Fourth, I really like the plan to allow people to buy insurance through associations and across state lines. This would be a very small step in the right direction. Always give credit where it's due.

For those who are worried about Trump and North Korea, a new theory has been advanced by think tanks in recent days.

China, not the US, will intervene in NK. For China, that assures they have control of the territory rather than risk a unified Korea on their border. For the top military in NK, they would be allowed to hold their power ( except Kim and his closest advisors). South Korea and Japan get more stability in the region at no cost to them. They don’t need to worry about NK retaliation because China is the aggressor.

Under this scenario, the bluster from Trump is designed to scare the NK military and chase them into the arms of their Chinese mentors.

Random, the CBO has a horrible track record with long-term projections, which is what that 20 to 30 million number is. they are much better with one to two year projections, but not so much over the longer haul.

As far as my personal circumstances, you are right, not many people who are not getting subsidies buy the insurance. They sit on the sidelines and pay the penalty instead. 6.5 million people payed the penalty last year. That number is likely going to be closer to 9 million with the lose of another 2.5 million people from the market this year alone. If I didn't have three children, I would dump mine too in a fucking heartbeat. All Obamacare has done is to kick some people out the market and replace them with others.

But also keep in mind that a lot of the subsidized people hate it too, because even with the subsidies it is still too expensive for what they get - which is very little because of the deductibles.

I can't wait for Trump to sign this order. Then I can pay some piddling dues to a trade organization in order to gain access to their health insurance plans and dump the single individual marketplace carrier that charges me a fucking fortune now for jack shit.

The Trump supporters I know (in real life) are just like the Obama supporters as in it's a cult of personality. Trump supporters don't care about issues any more than Obama supporters. They instead trust Trump to make the right decisions whatever the issue is.

I felt the same way about Obama. I voted for him twice because I thought he'd represent my personal values better than Clinton or the two Republican candidates. I believe Trump supports feel the same about their guy.

I must say though, that if Obama had changed to far right conservative I wouldn't have supported him but that was unlikely. Trump has flip flopped on almost every major issue, both socially and in world affairs, so you never know where he'll stand on any given issue over time.

@mark94 said "two major centers of the anti-Trump resistance, Hollywood and the NFL, have collapsed.... Like a businessman, Trump looks for wins wherever he can find them.... Trump is steadily accomplishing his agenda by taking what’s available. The stock market is recognizing this even if the media doesn’t."

I don't completely disagree. Except for the following:

First, the feud with the NFL was a concocted story that Trump began pushing. He all but admitted this at a recent meeting with activists.

Second, no, a businessman looks for profits. A politician looks to rub his opponents' noses in dog shit regardless of which team he's on today. Which of those two things sounds more like Trump to you?

Third, yes, the market likes Trump. But it seemed to like Obama, too. It's a fickle bitch.

@rockstar666, thank you for that honest answer. Yes, I've always thought that Obama supporters and Trump supporters have a lot in common. Sadly, research shows that both groups are often low-information voters. I don't mean all of the people who voted for Obama or Trump. I mean their hardcore supporters. I don't think there are many of those folks here.

@Burlington: "If you build a 10 foot wall they'll just build an 11 foot ladder. "

10'? I would be very disappointed if it was only that high! I'm thinking at least 30'. And how hard would it be to shoot someone trying to climb a ladder of that thing? But I guess nobody in history whoever built a wall ever took the ladder thing into consideration.

Burlington posted: "But as far as I'm concerned, they've won the White House, because that's exactly what Trump is: a Democrat. Plus he IS one of those mainstream media types and he's an urbanite from a big major city who shares most of their views, as you put it."

If all of that is true, he is doing good job of pretending otherwise. You do see what he's doing on healthcare, immigration, tax reform, the Supreme Court, etc., right? Someone needs to tell the mainstream media that he is really one of them, because you wouldn't know it from their hatred of him and his policy choices. ;)

With regard to the Supreme Court, there are rumors that Kennedy will retire soon. Plus, RBG is old and frail. There is no way she stays on the court for 3 more years.
If Trump appoints 2 more justices along the lines of Gorsuch, then there will be a 6-3 majority of true conservatives and originalists for the next 10-20 years ( Thomas might be replaced with a younger conservative ).
This would have a bigger impact than all the legislation passed during that time frame.

@Dougster said: "10'? I would be very disappointed if it was only that high! I'm thinking at least 30'. And how hard would it be to shoot someone trying to climb a ladder of that thing? But I guess nobody in history whoever built a wall ever took the ladder thing into consideration."

The border is over a thousand miles across. It wouldn't be possible to have guards stationed with guns at all parts at all times. The Great Wall of China was probably effective, but it was also the most expensive project in human history when adjusted for inflation (until California's high speed rail, anyway), and they still used some slave labor to build it. A wall like that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars today. And all for what? Because you want a guy named Joseph picking your oranges instead of Jose? It seems stupid and un-American to me. And it's definitely anti-capitalist.

As for Trump's late-life conversion to conservatism, it just seems too cute for me. Yes he's registered as a Republican now and he's doing the things that Mike Pence tells him to do. And I'm happy with some of it. But his original project seems to have been to recreate the GOP in his own image. I think he originally intended to lose the election and then go on to create a conservative-populist media network to rival Fox News. Almost by accident, he won the election, so who knows what he'll do now. But you can see, his instincts are to work with Chuck Schumer and to throw Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan under the bus. Let's see if he proves me wrong.

@Dugan
>I can't wait for Trump to sign this order. Then I can pay some piddling dues to a trade organization in order to gain access to their health insurance plans and dump the single individual marketplace carrier that charges me a fucking fort<

That’s a bunch of bullshit there is nothing to stop you from doing that now, you will have no penalty tax, that’s just pure unadulterated bulshit.

I didn't vote for a man - but I voted for the policies and changes I had expected his administration to bring to the country.

I'm old enough to know that career politicians can be very ineffective - so I was hoping that a business type would be able to shake up the machine. I think he's found that he was able to accomplish quite a bit early on through the use of executive orders - but the sweeping change is very difficult. It's the two houses that seem to have put the brakes on the policies - and that's a fault of factions within the majority party.

I'm an American - and I support the country (and its leader). I respect the president, regardless of who occupies the office.

The policies and agendas are what I had hoped would be put in place - and now I see that the house and senate don't support the vision that was proposed in 2016.

BurlingtoHoFactory: "The border is over a thousand miles across. It wouldn't be possible to have guards stationed with guns at all parts at all times"

Ah, but technology has advanced. Just have a remote controlled gun. Object recognition algorithms are pretty good these days, so shouldn't be to hard to train them to spot "Mexican trying to scale wall".

But you may have point, why prevent them entering in the first place? If Americans can't compete with them then tough shit for Americans. I mostly like it as an infrastructure and projection of American military power/determination play. I guess the strong militaristic President has an appeal to me, but, as much as Trump talked, doesn't look as though he is going to pull it off. I definitely support him more if he does, less if he is unable too.

@twentyfive said "That’s a bunch of bullshit there is nothing to stop you from doing that now, you will have no penalty tax, that’s just pure unadulterated bulshit."

That is not true. Unless you receive your insurance from an approved source you are liable for a penalty under the ACA. The only approved sources are: your employer, a government program like Medicare, the Federal marketplace, or a state-based marketplace. Everyone else is supposed to pay a penalty, although Trump says they won't enforce the penalty anymore (who knows?). And besides, if you buy privately or through an association, you're using after-tax dollars. And if the association is small, you won't get any economies of scale. But when you receive it through your employer, the employer buys insurance with pre-tax dollars, and you don't pay taxes on the amount your employer pays. And your employer still gets a tax write off. It's one of the little inequities that are built into our stupid tax code. And it's part of the reason why healthcare is so expensive in this country.

@Cashman1234 said "I'm old enough to know that career politicians can be very ineffective - so I was hoping that a business type would be able to shake up the machine."

That's fair enough, except that lots of politicians start out as businessmen: Bob Corker, Jon Corzine, Mitt Romney, Frank Lautenberg, Michael Bloomberg, Howard Dean, Gary Johnson, Bruce Rauner, Charlie Baker, Harry Truman, etc. Some of these guys are alright. Others not so much. I don't think what you did for a living before entering politics matters nearly as much as what you believe.

BurlingtonHF - I can't argue that point - because you are correct. There are businessmen who became effective politicians - and there are those who were ineffective.

I had hoped that his brash style would ruffle feathers and cause others to want to move forward with the agenda. Sadly, I think there is too much entrenchment and too little progress.

A trade association is an approved source that’s where my insurance comes from.

I deduct the full amount of my insurance from my taxable income if you own your own business which Dugan claims it’s not that complicated

Twenty, I do deduct the full amount, but it still costs me a bundle. A deduction is just a deduction, which helps but doesn't make the expense go away.

Also, I have looked into trade associations historically, but they are currently bound to all of the Obamacare mandates, which makes their offerings no more appealing than my current individual marketplace provider. One of the sweeteners of the Executive Order is to free them to offer more customized options, which would make their offerings much more appealing.

Another sweetener in the executive order is to free up trade associations to bundle policy offerings across state lines, which would allow a greater aggregation of purchasing power.

Understand now?

I still do not understand the Trump phenomenon. His policy changes come as no surprise to me. As bad as he is, he is still better than any leftist democrat. He's more like a centrist democrat, which is better than center -left. He's doing more to improve America and Americans lives than Clinton or Obama did in their combined 16 years. How can he lose my support? Start governing like a democrat.

I always understood and have never been a fan of the ACA but spreading disinformation is ludicrous and so fucking common nowadays. You know very well that you are free to go to the union or trade assoc and purchase your insurance there. As far as services available that is on the insurance companies all they are required is the minimum standard. You can purchase more but not less and you know that as well.

So what disinformation are you talking about?

Are you getting pregnant anytime soon? Are you taking advantage of your mental health coverage (i'm guessing not)? Are you taking your covered birth control? The answer is of course not. Yet you are paying for these things for everyone else because they are Essential Health Benefits and these things are driving the costs of policies up (among other things).

Now hey, you may be the generous sort. If so then go yee forth and all. But see how you'd feel if you had to foot the bill for a family of five, none of whom is using any of these services.

So you'd better believe that I would like more and cheaper options.

Yet you have plenty of money to whore around Just like the guy who lives in a rural area paying insurance to drive and complaining that there’s no bus service. This debate is going around in circles. Like it or not public health care is here to stay make your peace with it, the majority wants it get used to it it’s going to be here in one form or another and that’s the way it is.

How I choose to spend the money that I earn with my own sweat is neither your concern nor anyone else's. And those whores pay bills too last I checked. Public healthcare isn't remotely close to a reality and is supported by a small but vocal minority - most people who are covered by employer insurance want nothing to do with gov't sponsored insurance, nor do many in the individual market.

^^^^That’s false man and you know it. Your reps would have no trouble getting rid of it if it was just a small vocal majority.

Like it or not public health care is here to stay,..........says who?

And more to the point who finances it and who has a say in the questions that need to be answered...Who, what, where, when and the big one.......how much?

I was raised a Democrat---my parents had a picture of JFK in our house. My grandparents FDR but somewhere down the line the party kept moving to the left until I found myself on the outside looking in and not caring that I was......now I'm not a republican either........in the century I'm about 50-50 in how I vote......but what cracks me up is when someone accuses someone else of making the claim of disinformation and then spouts the same.....and I will say this without a second of hesitation it may happen on the right but the copyright of pulling the misinfo two step and then claiming it as fact belongs to the left and in particular the last ten years.

If I had one wish in life it was every time someone (especially a liberal) uses the word fair share that the fair share fairy would hit them over the head with the fair share bat and make them explain who decides what is fair-----

well said @rickdugan. I don't want the federal govt making decisions regarding how I spend the money I've earned.

I know that it's going to be expensive to maintain healthcare coverage as I age. The costs will continue to rise - and my income will become smaller (in retirement). However, I can manage those costs myself. The federal govt will simply waste the money it gets.

I think the ACA has been a giant failure. It has failed at its foundation - and it will continue to fail. It's not what is needed for this country.

Obamacare was designed to fail. The democrat party knew it would fail , they wanted it to fail. They know that once an entitlement is put into law, people expect it and demand it. The failure of Obamacare was designed to create the need for government paid healthcare. The ACA is just a bridge to get to the single-payer healthcare plan. Fortunately, most Americans hate the idea of a single-payer plan.

@twentyfive said "A trade association is an approved source that’s where my insurance comes from"

- You're right, I should have been more specific. A plan sponsored by a trade association or a private sector union is treated kind of like an employer sponsored plan, except that the employee/business owner may pay the full premium. They are accepted by the ACA.

"I deduct the full amount of my insurance from my taxable income if you own your own business which Dugan claims it’s not that complicated"

I don't know how it works if you file for a C Corp or an S Corp or an LLC, etc, but if you're talking about your own personal 1040, that's not completely accurate. From my recollection, if you're under 65 you can only deduct the amount that exceeds 10% of your adjusted gross income. So if your income is $100,000 and you pay $10,000 in healthcare costs (including premiums) then none of it is really deductible. (If you're over 65, I think the threshold is 7.5% of adjusted gross income.) And I think if you don't itemize and you don't file a Schedule A, then none of it is deductible anyway. Plus, remember that there are no direct Federal subsidies for a trade association plan, so you'll bear the full brunt of the cost.

"As far as services available that is on the insurance companies all they are required is the minimum standard. You can purchase more but not less and you know that as well."

- Ok, but different states used to have different standards. States like Utah used to have relatively relaxed standards for a health insurance plan, while states like New Jersey had ridiculously high standards. And you could probably buy a decent plan in Utah before the ACA for maybe $100 per month. The overall effect of the ACA was to raise every state's standards to the level of New Jersey's. That doesn't seem fair to me. I don't personally like complicated state standards, but the Federal standard is ridiculous. Allowing insurers to sell across state lines is a good idea, but the real benefit would be to allow 50 different state standards; everyone in New Jersey would just buy their plan from Utah! Of course Trump isn't proposing anything like that.

"Like it or not public health care is here to stay make your peace with it, the majority wants it get used to it it’s going to be here in one form or another and that’s the way it is."

- You're probably right. It isn't going anywhere. Just ask anyone who is 64 years old and he will tell you that he can't wait to be on Medicare next year. Plus people on Medicaid seem to really love it. I'm against all of this, but the people have spoken for 50 plus years. There are actually some good things about the ACA, but people seem to only like the bad parts! Regardless, I don't know if we will ever have single payer health insurance (I hope not), but there's no way that they are going to let the ACA disappear without replacing it with something at least as comprehensive.

@warrenboy75 Trust one thing I’m far from a liberal but I am a realist. It isn’t going to be dumped look around man these guys had 8 years to get their act together even if they manage to change it it’s still going to public health care.
If Trump doesn’t get shitcanned by the midterms they might have a small chance to improve on it somehow, my belief is that the voters are getting sick and tired of all the nonsense.

@BHF that is only if you take the standard deduction if your costs exceed that you can itemize /I’m with those in the 64 YO group next year I’ll get my Medicare and no longer have to deal with the BS , thank you FDR for that ;)

BTW my business pays my insurance premiums which Dugan can do if he is either an “S” or a “Sub S” Corp or an LLC.

@rickdugan said "One of the sweeteners of the Executive Order is to free them to offer more customized options, which would make their offerings much more appealing... Another sweetener in the executive order is to free up trade associations to bundle policy offerings across state lines, which would allow a greater aggregation of purchasing power."

- Rand Paul has proposed that we go way beyond trade associations, and allow any voluntary association to purchase as a group. So we could literally have the TUSCL plan if we wanted. It's a start.

"Public healthcare isn't remotely close to a reality and is supported by a small but vocal minority - most people who are covered by employer insurance want nothing to do with gov't sponsored insurance, nor do many in the individual market."

- Whoa, easy there, chief! First, when you get insurance from an employer, that IS government subsidized healthcare! That's the system that they have in Germany, too. Your employer gets a federal tax write off, but you don't pay any federal taxes on the amount your employer paid on your behalf. If instead the employer didn't provide the insurance coverage and just gave you an equivalent amount of money as cash compensation, then you would have to pay taxes on it. The effect is to encourage people to have their boss pay for their heart surgery and their birth control, in a truly weird and creepy paternalistic Orwellian system. And of course, it ties you to your employer if you have any kind of health condition, because being unemployed would mean not being able to pay for health insurance. It is too expensive for the individual to pay, thanks to the unequal tax treatment and other government bullshit. Imagine if we treated car insurance or homeowners insurance that way! It's been like this since the 30s and it's totally unfair and illogical. Plus it costs the treasury trillions in uncollected tax revenue through the years. And absolutely no one except for me and a few brave souls at think tanks have ever talked about getting rid of it. The people love it!

But even if there were equal tax treatment for employer and individual plans... we would still have Medicare and Medicaid, which the people also love. I hate them both, but the folks love them. And those are pure socialized medicine.

@twentyfive said "that is only if you take the standard deduction if your costs exceed that you can itemize /I’m with those in the 64 YO group next year I’ll get my Medicare and no longer have to deal with the BS , thank you FDR for that ;)"

- Right, that's true, if the standard deduction exceeds your itemization, then there would be no point in writing anything off at all anymore.

As for your opinions on Medicare... I rest my case. You can thank LBJ for that one... not that FDR didn't try, also. But there'll be completely new Medicare BS for you to deal with once you're enrolled next year. Just ask my dad. Anyway, I know you don't like Trump; I'm not sure how you feel about Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and the rest of the Federal government, but, um, once you're on Medicare, those are all the guys who will be making decisions about your personal healthcare. Enjoy!

^^^You’re right LBJ got it in but FDR got the ball rolling. I’d like some of the guys you mentioned better if the same rules that apply to me applied to them, but untill that happens I feel the whole bunch both parties are a bunch of fucking prima donnas, and have no use for most of them.

> we would still have Medicare and Medicaid, which the people also love. I hate them both, but the folks love them. And those are pure socialized medicine.

I see Medicare and Medicaid as more of a government-managed charity layered over the private infrastructure. The doctors who want to participate can treat patients at charitable rates while the customers who pay market rate are the ones who pay for the buildings, equipment and keep the doctors willing to work.

The VA would be the purely socialized system, where the government tries to make it look like they are maintaining the buildings and rations care so that costs are contained when the patients die before they can get in for an appointment.

@ppwh, if it's charity that's paid for or managed by the government, then it's socialized medicine. You're right though that the VA is *more* socialized. The VA is 100% pure socialism because all the doctors work for the government and all the infrastructure is government-owned. Medicare and Medicaid are like 85-90% socialism. It's just a different model of socialized medicine. The VA is very similar to the system that they have now in the UK. Medicare and Medicaid are similar to the system that they currently have in Canada. But you would be hard pressed to find government programs that are more popular with the folks than the VA, Medicare, or Medicaid. People always seem to want bad things from the government.

Fuck that @ppwh Medicare & SS I paid for the real charity is the generous fucking medical benefits and pension that those fat cat fucking government burecrats, I mean pigs, recieve from the taxpayers if there really was justice those motherfuckers would be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.
If you really want to get angry take a look at the cost of benefits paid to these selfish bastards individually and contrast that with the cost of welfare or Medicaid per person

How do you really feel 25?

@twentyfive, that may be true. But the government forced you to pay for it, they set the prices, they set the payouts, and they manage it for you. So that's totally socialism.

The difference between charity layered over a private system and a socialist system is that you don't have to wait 3-6 months for gall bladder surgery as you would in Canada and the UK. The taxpayers in Canada and the UK pay for theirs, too, but their health systems are actually run by the governments there.

Re: whether or not it's charity, if the doctor is getting less pay for seeing a Medicare patient for seeing someone else, I call that providing charity on the doctor's part.

@flag With my hands I love the feel of tits in the morning.

@ppwh, it sounds like you're saying that the difference between socialism and charity is that, if it works well, or if it appears to work well, then it can't be socialism. That's a really weird definition, man. The reason the doctor is paid less for Medicare is because of fee scheduling: the Federal Government sets the reimbursement rates for Medicare, while the State Governments generally set the reimbursement rates for "private" insurers under their jurisdiction. Medicare can set whatever rate it wants because it's practically the only game in town for seniors. And doctors know that senior citizens are "where the money is": seniors need the most care and they have tons of free time to spend in doctors' offices.

But some doctors aren't even willing to see Medicare patients anymore, or they will limit the number of Medicare patients that they accept, because the government regularly fucks with the reimbursement rates and makes doctors jump through lots of hoops to get paid... just like the state fee schedules and the private insurers do. I don't see how this is charity. Doctors decide what they are willing to accept and what they aren't. It's a business... albeit a business that works closely with the government.

Listen, the government runs the American healthcare system, too, just like governments in Europe, Canada, Singapore, etc. Let me count the ways... Medicare and Medicaid take money from taxpayers and then dole it out to those people who meet the government definition of a senior citizen or a poor person. The VA is totally government run. The ACA exchanges are created and run by the government and they decide which insurers and which plans get to be on the exchange. The standards for each insurance plan is set by the Federal Government. The EMTALA Act determined that all hospitals must take every patient regardless of ability to pay. If you want to get a drug to market in America you have to get past the FDA. The patent process means that, even if you could make the drug yourself, you're not allowed to sell it. Some drugs are subject to price controls. If you want to open a hospital or clinic, in most states, you have to complete a Certificate of Need, which determines whether your area "needs" another hospital or clinic. Every doctor and health provider has to go through government licensing. Large employers are forced by the government to provide medical insurance, and the federal government subsidizes it, as I've outlined above. Etc, etc, etc. I don't know, if you add it all together, this sounds like a system that's at least 50% socialized to me.

I'm not going to argue over the definition of socialism with you, otherwise this will quickly turn into the Hillary thread again. You have your definition and I have mine. The difference is that mine comes from the dictionary.

I have always heard it that socialism meant that the government owned the means of production. In this case, that would be the VA, Canada and the UK.

Government-mandated charity has been around since long before Karl Marx came up with the concept of socialism. In ancient Israel, they were required to leave fallen wheat in the fields so the poor and hungry could go gleaning to have something to eat. They also gave 10% in tithes to support the Levites who had no land of their own.

I see a huge difference between skimming off a working system compared to setting up one that is government-run. I would take the working system being skimmed off of any day over one operated by a government.

^^^ Actually in a true socialist society the workers own the means of production

@ppwh, okay, but I think if the government controls almost every aspect of a system, it doesn't need to literally own it to qualify as socialism. Here's the dictionary definitions of socialism, straight from Google:

1) a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
synonyms:
leftism, welfarism; radicalism, progressivism, social democracy; communism, Marxism, labor movement

2) policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.

3) (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.

See, "owned or regulated." BTW, in Canada the government doesn't technically own the healthcare system, unlike in the UK. In Canada, it's more like everyone is on Medicare. In the UK, it's like everyone has to go to the VA. There is a difference, but a difference in degree. So by your standards then, Canada doesn't really have socialized medicine, while the UK does. I don't agree with that. Both systems fit my standard for what socialism is.

Anyway, to me, the thing about ancient Israel kinda qualifies as socialism, too. Almost, anyway. And Israel remains pretty much socialized to this day, if you ask me.

@twentyfive, once the workers own the means of production, instead of the government, I think that qualifies as communism at that point.

Communism the community controls the means of production, the workers are employed by the community.

In Quebec, where I have first hand experience, the CLSC system, where people go for basic care, is owned and run by the provincial government. The hospitals as far as I could tell, are government-run, too.

There is a parallel private-only system in Montreal, where the doctors can't be paid at all by the government that you can go to if you would like to be seen sooner than it would take to die, though.

If you're really interested in what the Canadian system looks like in action, The Barbarian Invasions, directed by Denys Arcand is a good film. It won an Academy award and evreything.

@twentyfive, now that you mention it, I'm not sure whether it's supposed to be the workers or the community itself that own the means of production under communism. I'm really not sure. But I am sure about the definition of socialism, though. Socialism requires government ownership or control. It's a transitional phase.

@ppwh, that sounds like a local territorial thing in Quebec. Sort of like how in New York City (where I have some experience) there are about a dozen public hospitals that are owned by the city. But government owned hospitals aren't really the norm in the US, and I don't think they are the norm in Canada either. We do, however, have local government-owned clinics throughout this country, including here in NJ where I currently live. Anyway, according to Google: "Health care in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded health care system, informally called Medicare, which is mostly free at the point of use and has most services provided by private entities." Regardless, wherever they occur, whether in Quebec, in NYC, or scattered throughout the US, a government-owned hospital or clinic is pure socialism.

Burl,

You say, "He already did that once. From 2000 to 2009 he was a loyal partisan outspoken Democrat." One of the numerous similarities to the greatest President in recent history, Ronald Reagan. Some learn.

@BurlingtonHoFactory said: "No disrespect intended,"

^^^None taken, bruh.

@BurlingtonHoFactory said: but if you're a real Trump supporter, is there anything he could say or do that would make you turn against him?

^^^If President Trump enacted Christian Law at the Federal level (other than leaving it as a states rights issue) or if he repealed Net-Neutrality. I would be disappointed but still support him if he repealed obamacare but left the individual mandate intact.

@BurlingtonHoFactory said: He himself once remarked that he could literally shoot someone in public and still not lose any votes.

^^^ If the people he shoots on Fifth Avenue are Lobbyists I will buy the ammunition. Or if the people are individuals with known ties to lobbyists that is also okay. :)

BTW, when does lobbyist hunting season start? And what is my limit? ;)

@BurlingtonHoFactory said: So what exactly would he have to do to lose your support?

^^^If President Trump enacted Christian Law at the Federal level (other than leaving it as a states rights issue) or if he repealed Net-Neutrality. I would be disappointed but still support him if he repealed obamacare be left the individual mandate intact.


@BurlingtonHoFactory said: But if Trump joined the Democratic Party (again) would you leave the GOP and become a Democrat, too?

^^^No. I supported Kerry, Obama, and Hillary and I did not change my party affiliation from GOP to Democrat. So I wouldn't change party affiliation if Trump changed either.


@BurlingtonHoFactory said: "If he said he supported gun control, would you support gun control, too?"

^^^No. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not comprehend?


@BurlingtonHoFactory said: "If he said he was for universal health care again, would you be for universal health care, too?"

^^^ I might in the right instance. I struggle to budget for my health care. I don't use the word afford but it's struggle to keep in in budget. If there was a public plan that lowers costs and is worth supporting, I would.

FYI, the current setup has waiting periods. You wait until you say save up to pay for care (deductibles, co-insurance). Fair. But a waiting period nonetheless, unless you have savings, or are well-off, or have an excellent plan because you're in family law with $15 co pays powered with pixie magic. Other wise you wait until you have the funds. It's still waiting. One's state controlled the other is market controlled. But the same result: I cannot get care. So what does it matter? Other than ideologically?


@BurlingtonHoFactory said: "If he said he was pro-choice (again), would you be pro-choice, too?"

^^^ Already am pro-choice, bruh. Who decided "conservative" equals "pro life?" I didn't. Seriously, who THE FUCK decided that? Pro-choice here. No issue.

@BurlingtonHoFactory said: "If he said he supported comprehensive immigration reform and increased immigration (again), how would you feel?"

^^^Legal immigration is fine. Illegal immigration is not. Certain work visas are not.


@BurlingtonHoFactory said: "To put it another way, if Obama or Hillary Clinton or Al Gore came out and said that they had had a political conversion, and that they are now pro-life, anti-gun-control, anti-immigrant, pro-tax-cut Republicans, would you believe them?"

^^^ If their ACTIONS followed their WORDS? Yes, I would believe them.


@BurlingtonHoFactory said: "And would you vote for them if you could?"

^^^ Other than anti-gun control, I don't care about the above list. I'd rather have Bernie Sanders, TBH. There's a pro-gun democrat I can back.


In closing: the federal gov't should probably be Libertarian, with state's be partisan and the U.S. House or Representatives also being partisan.

@Clubber, no, dude. Reagan left the Democratic Party because he thought the party was changing at the time. He was very concerned about creeping domestic socialism in the 1950s and early 1960s and he felt that the Democratic Party was the party that was the most comfortable with domestic socialism. He also learned more about the tax system and found that it was pretty messed up and that it was mostly the Democrats who were keeping it that way.

By contrast, Trump left the Democratic Party eight years ago because he noticed the big Tea Party rallies and he correctly observed that "right-wing populism" would be popular (and he wanted to be on the side of whatever's popular).

The difference between Reagan and Trump is that, while Reagan switched parties, his philosophy remained pretty consistent. But when Trump switched parties he must have had a brain transplant, too, because he suddenly changed his mind about 99% of the issues. Convenient, isn't it?

Senate, POTUS, SCOTUS, and all of the bureaucrats at the federal level should probably be Libertarian.

@BurlingtonHoFactory said: "The point is that, based on his history, it seems that Trump doesn't believe in much... but lots of people believe in him. Why?"

^^^IF he made promises during the campaign and he keeps them? That's good enough, too. I need pragmatic leadership at times. This is one of those times.

The last time I voted for a man's beliefs I got the Iraq War. Just saying.

Sometimes I just need to get work done and improve my situation.

Do you get dances or extras from a woman you do not intend to wife-up? Pragmatic, huh?


@BurlingtonHoFactory said: "Also, as for Hillary being dishonest, egotistical, and self-absorbed... you seriously don't see those same qualities in Trump? Or Obama?"

^^^But he might get some useful shit done. Do you know what a tool is? A tool is something you use. President Trump is a tool.


@BurlingtonHoFactory said: "I voted for Ted Cruz in the Republican primary. Cruz was my second choice after Rand Paul predictably dropped out."

^^^ That's cool. I personally have trouble with Mr. Cruz because he's so church-y. Other than that, I respect his Tea Party stance, at times.

I think most self-proclaimed libertarians claim to be so because they think it impresses people.
It's like the hipster flavor of the decade, having replaced progressivism.

@Dominic77, thank you for your perspective, but I was really hoping for the views of the people who really REALLY love them some Trump, not the folks who just casually pulled the lever for him just because he had an R next to his name. And not the folks who didn't vote for him at all but support him somewhat nonetheless. Having said that, I really do value your opinions and I appreciate your responses. You're one of few people who seems to have really taken my question seriously. Here's my responses to what you wrote:

First, Christian Law is illegal in the United States, regardless of whether it's at the federal or the state level. It violates the First Amendment (which applies to the States and municipalities, too, because of the Incorporation Doctrine).

Second, Trump's FCC chairman is working to fully repeal Net Neutrality *right now*. Personally, I really hope he succeeds. Net Neutrality is an awful scheme that imposes more government control on the internet. IMO, Trump's FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, is probably the best FCC chair that we've ever had and ever will have. He's really good.

Third, you do know that Trump, himself, has lobbied for a lot of stuff through the years, right? I mean, I don't think he was ever officially a registered lobbyist or anything like that. But he's seen the inside of hundreds of legislator's offices in his time, asking for special favors and carve-outs. Think about it.

Fourth... Jesus, man, you voted for Kerry, Obama, AND Hillary!? From your voting history it seems like you want to repeal the Second Amendment LOL. I'm kidding. But seriously, I've never owned a real gun of any kind but I do STRONGLY support the right to bear arms. I'm against ANY KIND of background check, restriction, waiting period, licensing, etc. ANY KIND AT ALL. (You can tell how strongly I feel about it because of all the capital letters I used LOL.) I'm actually fine with people owning machine guns, bump stocks, fully automatic, assault, bazookas, tanks, missiles, grenades, seriously, literally, that's how I feel. If it isn't literally a weapon of mass destruction, like nuclear or chemical, I believe you should be allowed to own it. (And even WMDs, I think people should be allowed to own if they're doing research or something.) No permission needed, no carry permits, just do whatever you want with your own property as long as you don't hurt anyone else. No one should be able to tell you what you need in order to defend yourself. Only you know what you need to feel safe. Period. I know I sound like a nut but that's what I believe.

Fifth, you're saying that you would change how you feel about universal health care based on how Trump feels about it? That's interesting. Regardless of how much you pay, rest assured that someone, somewhere, would have to pay for the universal health care that you receive. There's no free lunch. It would cost us all in the end, whether in higher taxes, opportunity cost, slower economic growth, poorer standards of healthcare, etc. I'm not sure how, but I know it would be bad.

Sixth, I'm pro-choice, too. But most conservatives are pro-life. Most, anyway. I wouldn't pretend to speak for them because I'm not a conservative, I'm a libertarian. They can speak for themselves.

Seventh, as for immigration, people come here illegally because it's almost impossible for people to come legally. If you don't speak English, don't have an advanced degree, don't have family already living in America, aren't wealthy, etc., then the waiting list is around 150 years long. I don't know about you, but if it were me, I wouldn't starve in Central America for 150 years. I would come here and break the law by crossing the border illegally instead. It's a stupid law. We PLs break the law, too, every time we ask for extras in a strip club. That's another stupid law that was made to be broken. And half of the dancers are probably illegal immigrants, too. Any thoughts?

Eighth, Bernie Sanders isn't all *that* pro Second Amendment. He's an old-school leftist who still believes that lefties need to own some guns without registering them in order to be able to overthrow the government one day and have their revolution. Seems like nutcase stuff to me. Plus he's from a rural state that has a lot of guns. So the decision to not be a total gun-grabbing liberal comes naturally to him. If he represented New York or Illinois, I think his voting record would be very different on that issue. As it is, it's only "meh." I think he gets like a C- from the NRA, or something like that.

Ninth, the points you made about pragmatism, the Iraq War, dancing without wifing up the strippers, and Trump being a tool, those are all excellent points.

Tenth, and finally, I'm an atheist, so Cruz being so Jesusy is a bit off-putting to me, too. But I once voted for Bush and he was hard core on the Christian stuff. I also voted for Ron Paul in two primaries, and he's pretty religious. Same for Mitt Romney in the general election. Plus there just aren't too many atheist politicians. And most of them are probably hard-core left wingers. Sanders, for example, is probably an atheist based on his comments, as are most socialists. And I would never vote for him. Ever.

@ flagooner, how you you describe a conservative that doesn't identify with the current GOP stand on social issues? (aka reset the culture clock to 1950?).

Like many late Gen Xers, a culture that doesn't accept gay marriage, LGBT issues, and pro-choice abortions is foreign to me and others like me.

@flagooner, believe me, I'm not trying to impress anyone. I've been a libertarian since before I even knew who Ron Paul was. That was a long time ago. It's just what I believe. And sadly, I think the flavor of the decade is probably socialism, not libertarianism. That's what all the young kids are into nowadays.

@BurlingtonHoFactory I didn't casually pull the level for President Trump. Actually I didn't vote for him at all. I voted for Secretary Clinton. But I've warmed to him as "not as bad as I thought."

My POTUS voting record: Dole / Bush / Kerry / Obama / Obama / Clinton.

Of course the flavor of the day is (democratic / Nordic) Socialism. I mean, if you can't build any lasting capital, what GOOD is capitalism?

Interesting that BHF doesn't find net neutrality an ingridgement on free speech nor a hand out to large corporations. I'm not a fan of free dollars == free speech but some are. That's how I equate it.

If trump is a lobbyist and he's repented, that's fine. We can shoot him once he's no longer POTUS. For now, he's a tool we can try to use. It's fucked up. I'll work with what I got.

RE: 2nd Amendment.

I see the 2nd Amendment as the ESCAPE CLAUSE to the US Constitution. To do that, we need military hardware. High capability magazines, etc. We need it all for the eventual guerrilla warfare against tyrannical government.

So, yes, I had been PRIORITIZING feminist issues over 2nd amendment issues. That's how important women's issues are for me. On a forum dedicated to SCs and young female strippers, I think you will understand. Hence my votes for Obama and Clinton.

Kerry was a vote against Bush (43) and his Iraq War, plain and simple.

hence my votes for team blue.

@BHF said: "Fifth, you're saying that you would change how you feel about universal health care based on how Trump feels about it? ...someone...would have to pay for the universal health care that you receive. There's no free lunch. It would cost us all in the end, whether in higher taxes, opportunity cost, slower economic growth, poorer standards of healthcare, etc. I'm not sure how, but I know it would be bad."

I understand. But do you understand how my back is up against the wall? There is no more moeny in budget. I am increasingly pessemistic of my ability to get more money. If I have little choice but to STEAL from Tusclers, well, guess what? My family comes first. I wish there were another way. @Rickdugan puts his family first. @Subraman puts his family first.

Ideology doesn't give me surgery for my wife. I keep trying to scrimp and save. But I can't squeeze blood from a rock. I will say a prayer while I steal, take prey, is that so wrong? Should I do without, forever? What would you do?

@BHF said: "There's no free lunch. It would cost us all in the end, whether in higher taxes, opportunity cost, slower economic growth, poorer standards of healthcare, etc. I'm not sure how, but I know it would be bad."

I just need LESS WORSE than what I have. I've struggled for 20 years. Shall I struggle for 20 more? I need another option. I understand what you are saying. And I foresee lower capital investment, too, lower quality, etc. It's hard. I will I had the answers. I thought Reaganism and conservatism would work for me. They sort of have but at the same time they sort of haven't.

@BHF said: "Seventh, as for immigration, people come here illegally because it's almost impossible for people to come legally. If you don't speak English, don't have an advanced degree, don't have family already living in America, aren't wealthy, etc., then the waiting list is around 150 years long."

^^^I thought the waiting list was based on two constrainsts.
/1. Quotas per country. I understand the waiting lists are longest for Mexico and India. They might be 10 years they might be 20 years. For other countries it can be less # of years. I guess a lot of people in Mexico and India want to immigrate to the U.S. Is it fair, IS IT FAIR, that the Mexico and India dominate the number of immigrants? No. I am also in favor of lifting the quote numbers. Multiply them by 20X, problem solved, right?


@BHF said: "I don't know about you, but if it were me, I wouldn't starve in Central America for 150 years. I would come here and break the law by crossing the border illegally instead. It's a stupid law."

^^^ Agree. If it were my family, I'd break the law, too. I'd steal from BHF, Skibum, and dougster, and rickdugan to pay for my healthcare, too. If I felt my back a was against the wall. My family comes first. Sorry guys.


@BHF: "We PLs break the law, too, every time we ask for extras in a strip club. That's another stupid law that was made to be broken. And half of the dancers are probably illegal immigrants, too. Any thoughts?"

^^^I don't ask for extras. I registered on SW to see what the pain points for strippers are and I respect those (Contact, solicitation, etc). I try to respect them like family. That might be stupid. But I treat them the same way I would if a wife/daughter/mother of mine was stripping. Maybe that is too ideological or too white knight. I might evolve on that. @rickdugan and @subraman DO NOT, and I repeat, DO NOT share my views here.

@BHF said: "Bernie Sanders isn't all *that* pro Second Amendment. ...Plus he's from a rural state that has a lot of guns. So the decision to not be a total gun-grabbing liberal comes naturally to him. ... I think he gets like a C- from the NRA, or something like that."

^^^ True, but a C- is better than F or whatever the other guys on Team Blue probably get.

My stance on guys is: I'm going to get them. FU if you think you can stop me. I'll get them iillegally. Srsly, FU guys on Team Blue.

My stance on abortion is equally, FU. If you make it illegal, well, that sucks for poor people. But us people with means will just put our women on plane, train, or automobile and transport her to where ever we can get the procedure and pay cash. FU. Srsly, FU guys on Team Red.

I think all those saying the country isn't ready for a female president are full of it. South Carolina has voted Republican for decades and we had a female governor voted in office by a wide margin twice. Hillary was a terrible choice and her gender had no effect on my vote. I've heard several others both male and female say that Hillary was the wrong female. Get an intelligent Republican female that has her act together and her policies match what mine are and I will vote for her.

I did not vote for Trump in the primary and I'm registered democrat so probably not an original Trump supporter. I vote for whoever I think is the best choice among what's left. I had voted libertarian in several elections. My vote didn't matter in South Carolina.

Actually Trump was not even close to my top choice for the primary.

BHF said: "Tenth, and finally, I'm an atheist, so Cruz being so Jesusy is a bit off-putting to me, too. But I once voted for Bush and he was hard core on the Christian stuff. I also voted for Ron Paul in two primaries, and he's pretty religious. Same for Mitt Romney in the general election. Plus there just aren't too many atheist politicians. And most of them are probably hard-core left wingers. Sanders, for example, is probably an atheist based on his comments, as are most socialists."

Yeah, I get you. What swayed me post-2000 was all of the hard the religious people were doing to my Gay family and Gay friends. Early on, I did not consider that right-wing polices are harmful to gay people who are important to me.

I could say, eh, I'm not gay so what do I care? But that that stance seem to lack, i dunno, empathy. Maybe I wrong there. Maybe I should pivot back to Team Red or Team Libertarian?

If I had to guess, I'd think long term, that conservative or libertarian and free market capitalism ideas SHOULD work in my favor.

BHF said: "And I would never vote for [Senator Sanders]. Ever."

^^^ Oddly enough, I feel like Senator Sanders is the only one who has my back. He's not perfect, but he brings (IMO) the smallest dildo and and (IMO) the most anal lube. Haha.

I'm just getting butt-fucked with the capitalism we have in the US today. I wish it weren't true.

Vanity Fair:

“I HATE EVERYONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE!”: TRUMP SEETHES AS ADVISERS FEAR THE PRESIDENT IS “UNRAVELING”

In recent days, I’ve spoken with a half dozen prominent Republicans and Trump advisers, and they all describe a White House in crisis as advisers struggle to contain a president that seems to be increasingly unfocused and consumed by dark moods.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/…

I just hope the country isn't even more screwed up but hope seems to be all we have left.
I am actually aligned with Hillary on about 18% of her policies but was aligned more like 78% with Trump's policies if he can actually get stuff done with congress.

We need to cut out insurance companies making profit on healthcare in this country in my opinion unless you want to pay separately for it.

I also call bunk on the female president thing. It's just that Hillary Clinton's particular brand of female has rubbed people the wrong way. She doesn't act appropriate for people who are traditional marriage minded, like me. I could look pass that but others could not.

/1. Fact: kept her maiden name early on; changed it later to Clinton.
/2. Fact: was too ambitious for a female wife, in the minds of some traditional marriage supporters.
/3. Fact: set up office in the West Wing as FLOTUS when President Clinton won the Presidency.

Trump or his campaign also sent me a postcard with a thumbs up. Best political card I got from any candidate.

Hillary probably wouldn't have cost me as much as Trump did saying stupid stuff like he's going to show North Korea fire and fury unless he meant it. Now Asain country leaders view Trump as a weak president for making loud boasts with no action. That makes me suspect we might actually go to war next year. However since Trump seems to think the stock market is an indication of his success, it makes me wonder what would happen if a few million die. All I can say is, please pray for the world. I've heard rumors that mankind has lived on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years or longer and that we keep destroying our civilizations or get our civilizations blasted away almost to extinction over and over again. Apparently Trump and Kim have reincarnated thousands of times and are in some kind of death match. Maybe. I like to speculate on totally off the wall stuff sometimes.

@Dominic77, I agree with most of what you said. These are the areas where I have some disagreements:

First, I was just kidding about your choices for president. Obviously, there are plenty of reasons why someone would vote for a candidate regardless of the candidate's views on the 2nd amendment. People prioritize the issues in their own ways. And I actually voted for Kerry, too. I regret it, but that's what I did in 2004.

Second, you referred to Nordic socialism. I understand what you mean, but I strongly disagree that the Scandinavian countries are socialist. They are about as capitalist as the USA, no more, no less. These are mixed economies with a capitalist system that has some socialist aspects built in. They have simply chosen to have their socialism in different areas than we have. But there are plenty of sectors where the Scandinavian countries are actually more capitalist than we are, too. The most socialist countries today and throughout history are/were not in western Europe.

Third, I'm not sure what you mean about Net Neutrality. I'm totally against net neutrality. Net neutrality is this idea that internet service providers can't treat any content differently than any other content, not even if some companies pay more for the privilege. That's ridiculous. Do you really believe that Amazon or Google shouldn't be able to pay more to get faster service for their customers? Should your ISP be forced to devote the same amount of bandwidth to some obscure website that's visited by 100 people per year as it does to, say, Netflix (which receives more visitors in a single second than many other sites do in a whole year)? The next time you are trying to watch a video that's buffering, and it's annoying, you can thank net neutrality for that. Like most pleasant-sounding government initiatives, it was cooked up on a college campus and it's a horrible idea.

Fourth, as for how to fix healthcare quickly... I just don't know. In another thread, I once gave twentyfive my opinions on how a libertarian might fix the system, but I admitted that it could take decades before we see results. The system is badly damaged by employer-sponsored health insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, and all the other shit I listed in a previous post above. The very fact that we all seem to believe that insurance, whether government-provided or private, is the way to pay for healthcare is a real problem. Luckily we don't have food insurance or water insurance or clothing insurance, too. It's a really silly idea and it encourages over-use of the system and drives up prices when they should be going down. The system should be reformed so that people pay as they go and believe me, prices would come down dramatically. When you're hungry, you pay for food. If you're not flush with cash maybe you'll get a meal from a fast food restaurant, but you'll still eat. You won't go hungry. It should work the same way at a doctor's office. You go to a doctor's office and it should cost you maybe $50 or $70, payable in cash or credit card at the time of service. No Medicare or insurance necessary. No forms to fill out, no uncertainty, no bullshit. But that's not going to ever happen. The system will accept no reforms at this point. People are all hooked on having their medical bills paid for by someone else, whether it's the government or an insurance company. I don't see that ever changing. So I don't know what to do at this point. But I do know that private insurance companies' profits are not the problem. And I also know that single-payer healthcare isn't the solution.

Fifth, as for immigration, yes, raising the quotas would help. Personally, I don't think there should be any quotas. As long as you can pass a basic health screening and criminal background check, you should be allowed to come here and work. Or live with friends. Or whatever. Anything, as long as you aren't on welfare and you're not a danger to other people. Here's a helpful graphic to show you just how easy it is to come and live legally in this country: http://reason.com/assets/db/immigration-…

Sixth, you don't ever ask for extras? That's amazing. You have more self-control than I have.

Seventh, I don't really have any gay friends. But I'm proud to say that I was very pro-gay-marriage, long before Obama or Hillary Clinton came out in favor of it. In fact, I realized that I was pro-gay-marriage right around the time that Donald Trump said he was pro-gay-marriage (circa 2004 or 2005). It's too bad that he forgot that he was pro-gay-marriage. Or he changed his mind. Or something.

Eighth, we don't have real, genuine free-market capitalism here. We have a mixed economy just like they have in Scandinavia, the UK, Australia, Canada, Germany, France, Singapore, Japan, Israel, the UAE, Argentina, Chile, and basically every other civilized country on earth today. It's always been that way, since the dawn of civilization. I don't know for sure if pure freedom would work better. I think it would, but I wouldn't pretend to know for certain. Maybe it would work better for you and worse for me. Who knows? But it seems like the moral thing to do; leaving everyone alone, not having the government hurt anyone unnecessarily and not having the government force anyone to help anyone else that they don't want to. That's my view, anyway.

Burl,

Excuse me! I had no idea that you were a mystic and can read minds. My apologies. That said, you can make up what ever reasons you wish, but there have been to recent Presidents that got this country up and going, the liberal icon JFK (who would be a Republican these days based on his deeds. No mystic here.), and Reagan.

So once again the similarities to the greatest Presidents in recent times, Ronald Reagan and President Trump are astounding. Now if the SWAMP creatures get out of the way the job will be done. If not, they'll be like the 1200 or so libs booted from office since obama was elected.

I would prefer you keep voicing your bilge as it'll keep the true left idiots occupied, and out of our way! End of story!

@clubber I don’t see any similarities between them other than switching party affiliations. Ronald Reagan was as cheerful optimistic man with an easy manner and a knack for surrounding himself with honorable loyal people, he was never a vindictive person and worked through promblems with Congress in a way that didn’t leave people angry and bitter. He was never a bully or a misogynist and he was believed easily and beloved by many. You and I are close enough in age and have similar life experiences, I think you are putting expectations on Trump that are not realistic, I’d wish for another honorable man similar to Ronald Reagan but Donald J. Trump ain’t it.

Dominic posted: "Like many late Gen Xers, a culture that doesn't accept gay marriage, LGBT issues, and pro-choice abortions is foreign to me and others like me."

Speak for yourself. I'm a Gen Xer and I most definitely do not support killing babies in the womb. I'll admit that I was a bit more ambivalent about the whole thing until my wife was pregnant with my first kid, when just a month in the doctor let us listen to her heartbeat. From there, I could not imagine anyone willingly snuffing out a live human heartbeat. I won't even get into the atrocities of partial birth and dismemberment abortions. Net-net, I have my pom poms on in the hopes that the Supreme Court tilts heavily to the right and that Roe v. Wade dies an overdue death.

Btw, it's a sign of severe emotional weakness when a man tries to defend a position by claiming that he's just one of the herd. Just sayin'. ;)

I'm baffled though by all these girly squeals from the LGBT community. Last I heard, Trump wants nothing to do with altering their rights. He has said so time and again and I'm not aware of anything which has come out to the contrary.

It is funny how Ronald Reagan is remembered, but he was as vilified (not necessarily more so) by the left during his presidency as any other president before or since.

He has always been my favorite for many reasons, but mainly for making Americans proud to be Americans again.

RickyBoy: "girly squeals "

RickyBoy sure uses this phrase alot. I bet he was a girly squealer when his old male relatives fucked him in the ass when he was young.

@flagooner I voted for Reagan twice.
@ Dougster he left out a few girly boys though.

@Clubber,

Ok, you're right, I have to admit. Historians do know why Reagan left the Democratic Party; the reasons I gave you, plus the brush with union corruption and organized crime death threats that he received when he was the president of the Screen Actors Guild, etc. But no one really knows for sure exactly why Trump kept switching parties. It's something he's done several times throughout his life. He was raised as a Democrat, like his father, became a Republican, became an independent, became a member of the Reform Party, joined the Democrats again, became an independent for a few more years, and then became a Republican again. Unlike Reagan, Trump's views have not been even remotely consistent. Reagan was a professional actor, but it's almost like Trump is the one who is playing a role, because he changes his views quite noticeably whenever he changes parties. Some things have remained the same, of course: he is hostile to the idea of free trade and he always has been; he likes Eminent Domain, especially when it benefits a private company; and he doesn't believe in entitlement reform. That doesn't sound much like a Republican to me. Its sounds more like an old-school Dick Gephardt-style populist Democrat. The rest of the act is new, of course. All of his other positions are of a more recent vintage, and they seem to be put-on for a new audience.

But as for why he switches a lot... no one but Trump really knows for sure. Back in 2015 some conspiracy theorists were saying that they thought he was a Trojan horse, meant to bring down the GOP from the inside. It sounded plausible at the time... but then he won the nomination and the election! So scratch that off the list, I guess.

There was also a long-running rumor that said that Trump really wanted to start a news network, Trump-TV, that would compete with Fox News/News Corp. The theory goes that Trump couldn't understand why no mainstream competitor had ever challenged Rupert Murdoch's dominance among conservative-leaning viewers, and that Trump could eat into this market share and profits. Trump is a natural showman, which Rupert Murdoch definitely is not; the producer of Trump-TV would also be its biggest star attraction. He correctly recognized that the GOP base was more populist rather than conservative, and that they would respond better to brash chest-thumping and immigrant-bashing than they do to a bunch of neoliberal free-traders wearing designer eyeglasses (the kind of guys you might see on weekend mornings on the Fox Business Block/the Cost of Freedom). The theory further goes that Trump would have millions of ready-made loyal viewers if only he could lose the election, either in the primary or the general, and then claim that there was election fraud and that he was robbed. I have to admit, although it seems far-fetched, I kind of bought into this theory, too. But everything changed when he won the election.

As for Reagan, he was a real genuine ideological conservative. You knew what you were getting when you elected him. Not so with Trump: he's anyone's guess. I like to know what I'm getting. Ideology means a lot to me, probably much more so than the average voter.

Lastly, it's a bit of a stretch to compare Reagan to JFK. It's true, Kennedy did cut taxes, but the country entered a prolonged stagflationary decade not long afterwards. By comparison, when Reagan cut taxes the economy roared. There are many reasons, but I think the fact that Reagan actually reformed the tax code actually mattered a lot. In other words, Kennedy had a tax cut, but Reagan had a cut AND a reform. Also, it should be noted that Kennedy was a reckless maniac who was in over his head, and he responded to the nutjobs in the Kremlin by ratcheting up the rhetoric and bringing us to the brink of nuclear war. Reagan, by contrast, helped bring the cold war to an end without firing a single shot. Big difference.

25,

I couldn't find the article I read by Newt concerning the similarities, but I saw this video. I didn't watch it since it's almost 3:30 AM and I need to get an early start at about 8:00 AM.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiuwUIm9…

^^^ I watched the video but I don't think it sheds any light on the discussion. It's mostly a campaign fluff piece and it doesn't discuss ideology at all. If you're interested, the actual Reagan vs Trump comments begin around the 3:25 mark in @Clubber's video. Again, very little mention of ideology. If you're reading this and you're a voter and if ideology doesn't matter nearly as much to you as, say, a candidate's "personality," then I think you should really rethink this whole voting thing.

And if you want to further explore the comparisons between Reagan and Trump, there are probably a thousand other videos on YouTube that will work for you. Plus lots of articles. Some are very good, some are full of lies of various kinds, some are just plain stupid. Or you could start with my analysis in the posts above, which are pretty good, if I may say so myself :)

Gingrich is a bullshit artist, who threw his then dying from cancer wife under the bus to marry his secretary. I wouldn’t believe a word coming from Newt Gingrich if the good lord himself came down from heaven to vouch for him. The guy made a career out of plagiarism and is a born fucking liar.

Just to be a contrarian.........and to look in the mirror of the original questions:

No disrespect intended, but if you're a real Trump (hater), is there anything he could say or do that would make you start to give him a chance/believe in his leadership?

It should be interesting to see what type of answers this provides ( or if the keyboards on a dozen devices suddenly quit working)

"No disrespect intended, but if you're a real Trump (hater), is there anything he could say or do that would make you start to give him a chance/believe in his leadership?"
------------

Nothing at this point. In my case it's not just that I hate Trump -- It's a seething hatred at this incompetent fool leading a superpower.

This latest explicit sabotage of the Obamacare subsidies to the poor takes the cake. Cutting off the subsidies will increase the deficit (the government will have to increase other Obamacare credits), will increase premiums for anyone participating in the Obamacare exchanges, and result in more uninsured. It hurts the sick, the elderly, and the poor.

Trump doesn't have any empathy. He has negative empathy, and sabotaging the ACA is done out of spite. The GOP will own healthcare going forward.

@Warrenboy75. I think it’s a bit late for me to become a Trump supporter, but I could stop being a hater, if he would start acting like an adult, stop being a bully, and actually become president of United States , treat other elected and nonelected officials with the respect they deserve, he owes apologies to many including Senator JOHN McCain, first and foremost. Start speaking to and for all Americans,just those in his shrinking base.

^^^Does that satisfactorily answer your question?

@twentyfive,

Don't take this the wrong way, but you seem to have a lot to say about the politicians' personal qualities and very little to say about their respective ideologies. Doesn't ideology matter to you at all? You're a successful business owner and I'm sure you've had to hire lots of people through the years... so don't you want to know what an employee can do for you before you hire someone? Well, if you don't care about ideology when you vote, that's like saying "I don't know how competent so-and-so is, but he seems like a nice guy so, fuck it, I'll hire him with a guaranteed four-year contract and I'll pay him six figures." I'm sure you don't operate like that at your business.

Ideology in politics is the equivalent of competence in the labor market: it's a promise of what the candidate will attempt to do for you.

You've said that Gingrich "made a career out of plagiarism and is a born fucking liar," and that he's a "bullshit artist." Then you talked about how he treated his wife. And you also said that Reagan was a "cheerful optimistic man with an easy manner and a knack for surrounding himself with honorable loyal people, he was never a vindictive person and worked through promblems with Congress in a way that didn’t leave people angry and bitter. He was never a bully or a misogynist and he was believed easily and beloved by many." Okay, fine, that's all probably true, but what about the candidate's beliefs and policies? Doesn't that matter more?

@RandomMember, I don't think his latest move will affect many poor people directly. They will just receive a bigger tax credit to cover the increased costs. Rather, this is a direct hit to the insurance companies. He's using it as leverage, hoping that democrats will come to the negotiating table. If they refuse to negotiate because they believe they can win the midterms instead, then it will prove to the voters that the Dems care more about winning votes than they do about the voters themselves.

I think the bigger problem is that Trump has said that these payments are illegal, but that he may continue making them as long as someone makes a deal with him. That's like saying, "I must stop breaking the law... unless someone pays me enough to keep breaking the law." Plus this creates a lot of unnecesary marketplace uncertainty, being so close to open enrollment season.

Sources:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.c…

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com…

@Warrenboy75, that's an excellent question. He's already said and done some really good things (because Mike Pence told him to), and appointed or tried to appoint some great people (chosen by Mike Pence). Plus I love the tweets. I haven't decided, but I might vote for him in 2020. But what would it take for me to become a true Trump supporter? He would have to do some things that I know he would never do.

Examples:

1) Announce that, from here on out, any company from any country can sell anything to any American, for whatever price they want, with zero tariffs or quotas. In other words, pure free trade. It would be great if every country on earth would follow suit, but even if they don't, this would still be great.

2) Announce that he's ending the war on drugs, once and for all. He once publicly said that legalizing drugs was the only way to win the drug war... but he said it all the way back in the early 90s. He's probably forgotten by now. At least he should reclassify marijuana. I'm sure he's smoked some of it at least once.

3) Admit that coming to America is exactly what we want foreigners to do, and then announce support for comprehensive immigration reform, with or without a stupid border wall, but definitely without arbitrary quotas and rules. Talk about how many illegal immigrants he's hired through the years and about how much they have contributed to his company and to America, etc.

4) Announce that he thinks dividends should be a corporate tax writeoff. And also announce that the corporate tax rate should be 5%, not 20%. It doesn't make sense to start a negotiation from the center, Mr. President! He should really read the Art of The Deal sometime. It's pretty good.

5) End the One-China Policy. Perhaps it made sense during the 70s, when China was first opening up for trade and we wanted to encourage them. But today, it just seems like we are taking the side of a big communist bully (China) against a small island of relative freedom (Taiwan). That doesn't seem right to me. Why take sides at all? For a moment, I really thought he might do this back when he first took office at the beginning of the year. I was wrong. But I doubt that China would shut down all their global trade over it.

6) Stop letting employers deduct the cost of employee's healthcare, and also end the Employer Mandate. Nothing would help to bring down healthcare costs more than these two things. But if he ever did this, then Trump and every other Republican officeholder in America would probably lose their re-elections. It's very popular with the folks, but it's bad stuff.

7) Last, he should announce his strong support for entitlement reform, namely Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. And while he's at it, he should try to end farm subsidies, too. Once again, this would cost him at the polls, big time. But it's the right thing to do.

If he did even two or three of these things, I guarantee I would vote for him and even put a Trump bumper sticker on my car. But he won't.

@BHF Hard to see how anybody could take your statement the wrong way, but it seems your question is a bit personally directed at my competence :)
The problem with your question is that you need to followers to lead before anyone will be willing to discuss beliefs and policies, if you have no moral standing especially if like Gingrich being willing to cast stones is never an admirable trait, just like the congressman who authored a bill against homosexual behavior, then got himself caught in a men's room, soliciting an undercover police officer, for homosexual acts, the list goes on and on.
I doubt that any of these politicians have a core belief that goes to my own, which is simple, you need to walk the walk before I will be willing to listen to you talk the talk.
Yes you are right I have hired many people throughout the years, but you need to remember that everyone from the President on down are employees of ours, not us of them, and are expected to meet a reasonable standard, the problem with many of the politicians is that they quickly forget that they were hired or elected by the American people to represent us not the other way around.
Ideology is not competence, if it were, we'd not be having the massive waste, fraud, and otherwise disrespect for taxpayers money. (Trump is as guilty of this as any of them)

Stories published today say that Trump has essentially privately revealed his pro-choice and pro-gay leanings, while mocking Pence's religion. If the stories are true, it seems that Trump has been lying about at least some of his political beliefs, just as I said.

As an atheist and a libertarian, this actually does kinda make me support Trump a little bit more. I don't personally believe the government should have anything to say about gays or abortion, at any level. Still, I prefer Pence to Trump because of economic issues. But if you're a conservative Trump supporter and you're reading this, how does it make you feel?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrati…

As much as I can't stand Pence, I think he's less likely to start a nuclear war.

“ If the stories are true”. Indeed.

The mainstream media is making war on Trump using stories with anonymous sources. When a story comes out with a named source who is not a partisan democrat, I’ll take it seriously.

^^^Poor wittle misunderstood Donny they’re picking on him what a fucking snowflake.

@mark94,

Dude, no offense, but you really have drank a lot of Cool-Aid if you think that this is far-fetched. Trump is not a religious guy. Be just isn't. He has said in public that he doesn't ask God for forgiveness. And he seems to know nothing about the bible. Plus he used to be more pro-choice than most Democrats were. And he's from NYC, meaning he's already been surrounded by gays for decades. And he congratulated Elton John on his same-sex marriage... back in 2005. And I remember when the Trump Organization cosponsored a gay pride parade in New York, many years ago. I mean, what does he have to do to convince you? Should be just "go gay," himself?

Not to mention that he does seem to mock people all the time. Is it so hard to believe that he would mock Pence, too? He says harmless funny stuff. I always think it's funny. Why does this bother you?

It's creepy how much confirmation bias political supporters of all stripes seem to have. The Obama people were famous for this. You don't want to be like them, trust me. The Hill isn't a partisan outlet, by any definition. And the original piece that they linked to, from the New Yorker (which definitely IS a partisan outlet) nonetheless had many attributed quotes. Including from Steve Bannon and plenty of other Republicans.