Trump

[Gabranth]

The God Emperor does not care for the opinion of sheep. Our righteous protector will save us from the inevitable downfall of the second greatest nation on earth - America. With buildings that pierce the heavens, and an empire he built from a small loan of a million dollars, Donald 'Midas' Trump will turn Baltimore from a smoky ruin into a golden palace El Dorado couldn't compare to. Aryans will reign supreme instead of communist Jews and Reptillians hell bent on world domination, the way our lord intended. Aryans will work the fields, work the factories and work the nation back into the superpower it was always meant to be.

but what of those who would oppose our lord protector? It begins with the left. Those who would impede the stampede of the brilliant stalion who is the God trump himself (praise be) will be trampled under the hooves of industrial progress and capitalist power. Welfare babies - gone. Homosexuals - gone, save for a few (namely, the 12th disciple Milo Yianopolous and his butt buddies). Communists - gone. Next is the Muslims. A holy and righteous crusade will sweep through Arab territories, spreading the gospel and crushing those who would oppose our missionaries with a fist made of lead. America will have its very own empire, beginning in the holy land itself. Next, the illegal immigrants. A Great Wall 1000 feet tall and 1000 feet deep will protect the states from unruly undocumented criminals and drug lords. A purge from within would send them back to the desert from which they came, and civil unrest would be at an all time low.

every man, woman and child under the protection of the saviour would live happy and meaningful lives. Brilliant, strong men would breed with beautiful, intelligent women, to which they work and flourish. Trump would declare himself God amongst men, and live eternally at the peak of trump tower, watching over us. Forever and always. 

God save the president 

 

[Cenna]

Trump literally said he would be willing to use nukes in the Middle East or in Europe. Firing those nukes leads to ww3.

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/03/31/donald-trump-sure-might-use-nuclear/

Honestly I agree with him not to use nukes but to not leave it out of the question. And if you read the dialogue he didn't say he would with out a doubt use them he said he wouldn't leave it out of the question. As well as mentioning he'd be very slow and hesitant to use it. Honestly say he did get president all the nations by this now know that we've got a president not to mess with which is what we need considering Putin and Russia and then China in the south China Sea. To me I'm voting not for the fact that he's not Hillary Clinton but because he's firm with what he says and as said earlier by Patrick I believe we need someone the world looks at knows that he won't back down.

 

[Fanag]

He's contradicted himself so many times in the campaign that I honestly have no idea what he would do aside from making ostentatious displays, speeches, and statements. He's not firm on almost anything he has said. The only policy he has stuck with is building a wall on the Mexican border. If he really cared about border security why not just use that money to fund the US Border Patrol? Hire more personnel, invest in technology, etc rather than something someone can just go over with a ladder, tunnel underneath, or make a hole somewhere in the thousands of miles wide border. On Foreign policy, he surprises me somewhat with his frequent non-interventionist statements which are an appealing contrast to the very hawkish Clinton, despite his contradictory comments about what he would do if he led us to a conflict. His statement over negotiating peace between Israel and Palestine thoroughly pissed off the Republican establishment who love to kowtow to AIPAC and that was rather refreshing to see them get humiliated in that regard. Now if only the same thing happens to the NRA. Those lobbyists need to be humbled, especially the NRA for blocking even research into gun violence. It would have been nice to have Joe Biden run since he veers on the side of restraint, but that ship sailed. Not to say he doesn't have his own problems and faults like the rest of the candidates we were presented with this election.

I'll probably vote Democrat (with great reluctance) simply so a few potential Supreme Court vacancies coming up aren't chosen by the Republicans. I would have considered third parties since they actually stand a chance of having a significant percentage of the vote due to the general election unpopularity of both Donald and Hillary. The Green Party only recently removed from its platform support for homeopathy, alternative medicine (I'm actually not certain on this), and anti-vaccination. It's the difference between seeing them as progressive, social-democrats and new-age hippies and anti-vaccers. It's surprising to see from Dr. Jill Stein since she is a medical doctor.

The Libertarians have this guy running for Senate in Florida. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Sol_Invictus They actually considered John McAfee a viable candidate and their policies are summed up as legalizing marijuana, completely deregulating the economy (which led to the 2008 recession, thanks, Bill Clinton), removing environmental regulations, and saying abortion are okay.

 

[Cenna]

It may just be me but I can't wrap my mind around how so many people can support someone who approved upwards of $165 billion worth of commercial weapons sales to some 20 different Shariah nations in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation. I get that benghazi and her emails are overused but seriously if she can't be trusted with classified information. If she'd rather put guns in the enemies hands and preach that they are bad then she don't need to be in office.

 

[RoboMonkey]

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/03/31/donald-trump-sure-might-use-nuclear/

Honestly I agree with him not to use nukes but to not leave it out of the question. And if you read the dialogue he didn't say he would with out a doubt use them he said he wouldn't leave it out of the question. As well as mentioning he'd be very slow and hesitant to use it. Honestly say he did get president all the nations by this now know that we've got a president not to mess with which is what we need considering Putin and Russia and then China in the south China Sea. To me I'm voting not for the fact that he's not Hillary Clinton but because he's firm with what he says and as said earlier by Patrick I believe we need someone the world looks at knows that he won't back down.

Frankly it should be out of the question to use nukes. There is absolutely no reason to use them. Particularly nuking people who don't also have weapons of mass destruction? Nuking kills thousands, if not millions of innocent lives all while destroying ecosystems and other life forms. In what way could you ever justify that?

removing environmental regulations

Removing environmental regulations is a horrible idea. You do realize that not having environmental laws and regulations led to the near destruction of our planet? Unless you believe climate change isn't real and/or isn't human caused. If this is the case then you are wrong based on legitimate and significantly supported scientific evidence.

The private sector has proven that, when allowed to, they will exploit the limited natural resources on this planet until there is nothing left. The only reason businesses are becoming green is because regulations make it cheaper for them to do so. If something else didn't make it cheaper, then the cheapest option would be to exploit nature. That's how business works, that's how it's always been, and that's how it will continue to be unless we put some restraints on the inherent greed that mankind exudes. The private sector cannot be virtuous, mostly because doing the right thing isn't usually the easiest and most profitable course of action.

 

[japan77]

Frankly it should be out of the question to use nukes. There is absolutely no reason to use them. Particularly nuking people who don't also have weapons of mass destruction? Nuking kills thousands, if not millions of innocent lives all while destroying ecosystems and other life forms. In what way could you ever justify that?

Removing environmental regulations is a horrible idea. You do realize that not having environmental laws and regulations led to the near destruction of our planet? Unless you believe climate change isn't real and/or isn't human caused. If this is the case then you are wrong based on legitimate and significantly supported scientific evidence.

The private sector has proven that, when allowed to, they will exploit the limited natural resources on this planet until there is nothing left. The only reason businesses are becoming green is because regulations make it cheaper for them to do so. If something else didn't make it cheaper, then the cheapest option would be to exploit nature. That's how business works, that's how it's always been, and that's how it will continue to be unless we put some restraints on the inherent greed that mankind exudes. The private sector cannot be virtuous, mostly because doing the right thing isn't usually the easiest and most profitable course of action.

Basically totally agreed. In a capitalist  society, which the US is, companies (in general) will only think about their profit margin.

 

[Abdul]

 

[Fanag]

Removing environmental regulations is a horrible idea. You do realize that not having environmental laws and regulations led to the near destruction of our planet? Unless you believe climate change isn't real and/or isn't human caused. If this is the case then you are wrong based on legitimate and significantly supported scientific evidence.

The private sector has proven that, when allowed to, they will exploit the limited natural resources on this planet until there is nothing left. The only reason businesses are becoming green is because regulations make it cheaper for them to do so. If something else didn't make it cheaper, then the cheapest option would be to exploit nature. That's how business works, that's how it's always been, and that's how it will continue to be unless we put some restraints on the inherent greed that mankind exudes. The private sector cannot be virtuous, mostly because doing the right thing isn't usually the easiest and most profitable course of action.




2

I agree removing environmental regulations is a bad idea. I didn't say I support their positions. I said, "  their policies are summed up as ... "

 

[Blazer]

Trump is a ridiculous candidate, but I don't hate him yet. Going against Hillary makes him palatable in comparison. I don't think congress would work with him if we won, no matter what he wanted to do.

Oh, but money will convince any person to do things your way. 

Trump is an idiot. Hilary is a liar. Do I support any of them? Nope. Do I rather have a liar than an idiot? Mmmm, sounds tempting, but I'll pass. Trump could have some good ideas, which may sound crazy because trump and good ideas don't go well together. I do like Hilary for a reason. She isnt going to ruin the nation, hopefully. I'm leaning towards her.

when the option is trump or hillary it makes me feel very sorry for the american people. Also is it me or were there literally no moderates in this election, every one of the candidates seemed to be too extreme on one thing or another which made them a bad choice.

Also heres the thing with trump v hillary. Most of trumps stuff will get blocked by congress because congress, but hillarys stupid stuff wont get blocked by congress because its the sort of stupid stuff they like to pass.

And this is why I am divided. Hilary can do something.

 

[Micchan]

This is how i see your politics.



How can you have both candidates so awful? At least Berlusconi did parties.

At this point remove Hillary and put Vince McMahon at her place so we can have fun.

 

[Chiron]

Michaan you know you need to label your axis in order for the graph to be worth anything.

Also, as much as I hate Hillary, I have to admit she appears to be the best option. The only reason for this is simply tax plans. Hillary's tax plan slightly increases taxes for the mega rich, whereas Trumps plan will cut US government revenue by over $3 trillion dollars over 5 years (and thats factoring in the increased economic activity caused by lowering taxes). To put that in perspective, the US governments controversial spending cut plan aimed to cut just under a trillion dollars from the budget in order to bring it in line with revenue. Even if those cuts are successful under trump the loss in revenue will cause the american debt 'crisis' to actually become a crisis.