Can Someone Definitively Say what Trump Stands For?

[miketx]

Smoke, choadle, snark, fart cough, twist, but never substance.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Liberals. Standing for nothing, bending over for everything.

liberalism | politics

“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” — George Washington

Doesn't mean what it does today, Sport. George didn't envision men in the ladies room or two guys getting married.

George lived before we knew germs caused disease.

And I doubt he cared about gay men, either way.

Considering he owned people, it wasn't the best of times for equality but he was still a liberal.

I see, so libs can own slaves. No, actually most of the founders, with few exception want a small limited government. They were rebelling against the throne and all its' glory after all. That does not describe modern day "liberalism".

Right, that's why they made the Louisiana purchase and set a tax so that Navy veterans could have health care.

 

[Jack4jill]

Liberals. Standing for nothing, bending over for everything.

liberalism | politics

“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” — George Washington

Doesn't mean what it does today, Sport. George didn't envision men in the ladies room or two guys getting married.

George lived before we knew germs caused disease.

And I doubt he cared about gay men, either way.

Considering he owned people, it wasn't the best of times for equality but he was still a liberal.

I see, so libs can own slaves. No, actually most of the founders, with few exceptions wanted a small limited government. They were rebelling against the throne and all its' glory after all. That does not describe modern day "liberalism".

The times have changed, not liberalism.

"Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in “Common Sense” (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power."

 

[Iceweasel]

Seriously…

You’re not going to get a serious response from any Trump supporter, or most republicans, for that matter, as they blindly fall in line behind Trump – although a few months ago they were denouncing him and refusing to vote for him.

But you knew that already.

Yeah like this is about the 1.034th Trump thread and it's not like it's a new question or anything....in other words ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Maybe if some Trumpbot would answer the question there wouldn't be more of these threads.

You've been here for how long and claim you don't know. That's the ole liberal stuffing his head up his ass and pretending opposing views are non existent.

 

[Jack4jill]

How bout, instead of typing that over and over you could just, I don't know....quote what you told him? Is that Possible?

It has been stated many times. All you liberal trash have been told repeatedly. All you want to do is troll more. You have nothing so you twist and smoke and blow and turn and pretend. You stand for nothing but you'll bend over for anything.

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.” ~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Horatio Spofford, 1814

 

[Juan de Fuca]

I don't want to look it up but this article about covers it:

It doesn't cover shit. Did you even read it? Nowhere does it predict his tax liability or net worth.

I don't know where you got the idea that it doesn't cover shit because that assumption is patently false. You can learn plenty from tax returns and that's a simple fact. It isn't necessary to prove his net worth but it most definitely can show that a claim is false.

Rather than farting in the wind why don't you simply point out where it makes your case?

My case is simple. By not releasing his tax returns he is essentially disqualifying his candidacy. No modern candidate is going to skate and not show the people that he pays no tax, is off-shoring tons of money, can you imagine if Trump has moved his name offshore and doesn't even own the right to it? There is a lot you can learn, but not releasing those returns puts you under a cloud and no serious contender should be so stupid to ignore the cost of not releasing his returns.

So you couldn't back it up. Didn't think so.

Sorry, that is backup. No taxes, no presidency. You must be the only person in America who it doesn't matter to.

 

[Iceweasel]

Liberals. Standing for nothing, bending over for everything.

liberalism | politics

“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” — George Washington

Doesn't mean what it does today, Sport. George didn't envision men in the ladies room or two guys getting married.

George lived before we knew germs caused disease.

And I doubt he cared about gay men, either way.

Considering he owned people, it wasn't the best of times for equality but he was still a liberal.

I see, so libs can own slaves. No, actually most of the founders, with few exception want a small limited government. They were rebelling against the throne and all its' glory after all. That does not describe modern day "liberalism".

Right, that's why they made the Louisiana purchase and set a tax so that Navy veterans could have health care.

"They" being Jefferson. It was a great chance to expand, France needed money desperately for their war. That isn't a sign of liberalism that I can figure. Military is necessary for any nation. Along with borders. That's not liberalism by any definition.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In the beginning, Trump was supported by a coalition of special interests who were very passionate about their interests, and who thought Trump's zeal and unapologetic championing of those various issues was better than anything they were getting from the other candidates.

Then, once the Trump backtracking, and equivocation, and flip flopping began, and once he began to look more and more like the candidates he had systematically eliminated from the race,

the Trump supporters had no choice but to fall back to where they are now -

vote for Trump because he's not the Democrat.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

Smoke, choadle, snark, fart cough, twist, but never substance.

First time I've seen someone describe himself to a T.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

liberalism | politics

“As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.” — George Washington

Doesn't mean what it does today, Sport. George didn't envision men in the ladies room or two guys getting married.

George lived before we knew germs caused disease.

And I doubt he cared about gay men, either way.

Considering he owned people, it wasn't the best of times for equality but he was still a liberal.

I see, so libs can own slaves. No, actually most of the founders, with few exception want a small limited government. They were rebelling against the throne and all its' glory after all. That does not describe modern day "liberalism".

Right, that's why they made the Louisiana purchase and set a tax so that Navy veterans could have health care.

"They" being Jefferson. It was a great chance to expand, France needed money desperately for their war. That isn't a sign of liberalism that I can figure. Military is necessary for any nation. Along with borders. That's not liberalism by any definition.

Ha ha, Do you have any idea how greatly that expanded government?

 

[candycorn]

For me he stands for the hope of rule by common sense over political ideology. I'm not giving him much of a chance to succeed but at this point I'm willing to give him a chance.

That is fair. The only thing I’d challenge you on is “rule by common sense” seems to be open to the discussion of what passes for “common sense”. For example, I think we should increase the age to get social security. Now this is speaking as someone who is closer to the SS finish line than they are to the start of the their careers—in other words, it delays when I can retire with SS benefits was part of my income.

But common sense tells us that people are healthier, they are living longer, the medicines available are better, the causes of disease are more easily recognized and prevented, there are few who “work themselves to death any longer. It should be pushed back, probably 10 years but 5 years would be a good start.

I see my arguments as “common sense”.

Additionally, his oft-repeated “Strengthen the military” proclamation is pretty much nonsense since it already is the strongest in the world and, when you get into the weeds with Drumpf, he says that doing so will prevent anyone from attacking us; as if suicide bombers care about the counter attack.

Anyway, best response I’ve seen so far. Thanks.

 

[candycorn]

Liberals. Standing for nothing. Bending over for everything.

Shouldn't you be out cornholing a canoer?

It's memorial day, not butt fuck a liberal day.

So I guess you’ll be able to sit down for a change?

 

[Iceweasel]

It doesn't cover shit. Did you even read it? Nowhere does it predict his tax liability or net worth.

I don't know where you got the idea that it doesn't cover shit because that assumption is patently false. You can learn plenty from tax returns and that's a simple fact. It isn't necessary to prove his net worth but it most definitely can show that a claim is false.

Rather than farting in the wind why don't you simply point out where it makes your case?

My case is simple. By not releasing his tax returns he is essentially disqualifying his candidacy. No modern candidate is going to skate and not show the people that he pays no tax, is off-shoring tons of money, can you imagine if Trump has moved his name offshore and doesn't even own the right to it? There is a lot you can learn, but not releasing those returns puts you under a cloud and no serious contender should be so stupid to ignore the cost of not releasing his returns.

So you couldn't back it up. Didn't think so.

Sorry, that is backup. No taxes, no presidency. You must be the only person in America who it doesn't matter to.

You little lying turd.

You said:
"How do we know he is a successful businessman ? because he says so? The Wall Street Journal and Forbes both have said he is worth much less and unless he releases his tax returns to prove it I say he is a colossal failure in the middle of a scam."

So I said:
"STILL stuck on stupid. Tax returns don't show net worth. I explained and and you cannot grasp it. Do you even have a job?"

Then you said:
"I pointed out what his tax returns would show. Too bad you weren't interested enough to learn something."

So you proved nothing about what his tax liability would be or what his net worth is. For thinking you could get away with it that makes you a dumb asshole.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Seriously…

You’re not going to get a serious response from any Trump supporter, or most republicans, for that matter, as they blindly fall in line behind Trump – although a few months ago they were denouncing him and refusing to vote for him.

But you knew that already.

Yeah like this is about the 1.034th Trump thread and it's not like it's a new question or anything....in other words ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Maybe if some Trumpbot would answer the question there wouldn't be more of these threads.

You've been here for how long and claim you don't know. That's the ole liberal stuffing his head up his ass and pretending opposing views are non existent.

No one can know Trump's views because no one can trust any statement of his views to last.

Trump's 5 positions on abortion in 3 days:

Donald Trump took 5 different positions on abortion in 3 days

 

[NYcarbineer]

Smoke, choadle, snark, fart cough, twist, but never substance.

First time I've seen someone describe himself to a T.

He should change his username to conservativechickmagnet.

 

[Juan de Fuca]

I don't know where you got the idea that it doesn't cover shit because that assumption is patently false. You can learn plenty from tax returns and that's a simple fact. It isn't necessary to prove his net worth but it most definitely can show that a claim is false.

Rather than farting in the wind why don't you simply point out where it makes your case?

My case is simple. By not releasing his tax returns he is essentially disqualifying his candidacy. No modern candidate is going to skate and not show the people that he pays no tax, is off-shoring tons of money, can you imagine if Trump has moved his name offshore and doesn't even own the right to it? There is a lot you can learn, but not releasing those returns puts you under a cloud and no serious contender should be so stupid to ignore the cost of not releasing his returns.

So you couldn't back it up. Didn't think so.

Sorry, that is backup. No taxes, no presidency. You must be the only person in America who it doesn't matter to.

You little lying turd.

You said:
"How do we know he is a successful businessman ? because he says so? The Wall Street Journal and Forbes both have said he is worth much less and unless he releases his tax returns to prove it I say he is a colossal failure in the middle of a scam."

So I said:
"STILL stuck on stupid. Tax returns don't show net worth. I explained and and you cannot grasp it. Do you even have a job?"

Then you said:
"I pointed out what his tax returns would show. Too bad you weren't interested enough to learn something."

So you proved nothing about what his tax liability would be or what his net worth is. For thinking you could get away with it that makes you a dumb asshole.

Tax returns demonstrate his liabilities. His net worth is your creation and was never a subject of what his tax return would show. The returns would however establish what he was not worth and for someone who claims to be worth $10 billion that might be embarrassing.

 

[ptbw forever]

Because of the racist and bigoted interpretation of politics today.

If the jackboot fits, Proud To Be White.

Apparently you have comprehension problems.

My post was a slight at you and your ilk for being racist idiots, and your post here just proves how right I am.

Someone who based their nickname on White Pride is calling others racist?

Sure thing, kiddo.

Why are you so scared of equality?

Equality is what you seek, White Pride boy?

No.

Yes.

I want the right for white college students to be able to create their advocacy groups without any major controversy and I want the colleges to fund their endeavors with tuition payments, just like every other racial group on these campuses.

I want Native Europeans to be recognized as indigenous peoples of Europe with rights protected by groups like Amnesty International(which would kill off all but the "far right" parties there).

I want white people anywhere and everywhere to be able to have the same reverence for their ancestors and their culture as anyone else is allowed to without being called "a racist".

This is equality.

 

[Iceweasel]

Doesn't mean what it does today, Sport. George didn't envision men in the ladies room or two guys getting married.

George lived before we knew germs caused disease.

And I doubt he cared about gay men, either way.

Considering he owned people, it wasn't the best of times for equality but he was still a liberal.

I see, so libs can own slaves. No, actually most of the founders, with few exception want a small limited government. They were rebelling against the throne and all its' glory after all. That does not describe modern day "liberalism".

Right, that's why they made the Louisiana purchase and set a tax so that Navy veterans could have health care.

"They" being Jefferson. It was a great chance to expand, France needed money desperately for their war. That isn't a sign of liberalism that I can figure. Military is necessary for any nation. Along with borders. That's not liberalism by any definition.

Ha ha, Do you have any idea how greatly that expanded government?

In comparison to the increase in mass? I'd say almost nothing.

 

[warf]

No one ,in the last year, has made any sense when they talk about Trump. A few posts above some said Trump is for the chain of command.

That's about as sensible as the rest of the drivel I've read from Trumpies.

I can only assume that his supporters don't know anything about him. He makes a few outrageous statements and non-thinkers act as if he's a new messiah. I guess they take him on faith only.

This reminds US of the liberal airheads who say there aren't any instances of Islamization going on. (when there have been THOUSANDS OF THEM), All because THEIR MEDIA TELLS THEM THERE HAVEN'T BEEN, and doesn't report Islamizaiton, so they not only remain ignorant of it, but they remain ignorant of the fact that they're ignorant. That's what happen when you put stock in people for years, who OMIT information from you and lie to you, continually.

Be that as it may, why do you support Trump? Why can none of these rabid Trump supporters tell me why they support him?

Probably because you are using terms like rabid to describe them. You're just a dumbfuck on the internet. Nobody owes you anything.

So you have no idea why you support Trump. It seems there is a lot of that going around on the right.

I do and said so many times. I'm just not going to repeat myself to every stupid liberal that claims his supporters know nothing. It doesn't work that way.

But notice all the talk is on Trump. Reason being there's nothing to spotlight on the left.

I can only believe that the reason you won't give any reason for supporting Trump is because you can't articulate any logical, clear policies that Trump advocates.

But I have some reasons for opposing him.

1. He appears too unstable a personality to put in charge of government.

2. He has chosen advisers who would continue the economic practices that widen the divide between the rich and the majority.

3. He doesn't appear to have any real values. There are Trump quotes recorded over several years that show him to be on every side of every issue.

4. He is emotionally adolescent and crude. But this may be his appeal to immature non-thinkers.

 

[Iceweasel]

Rather than farting in the wind why don't you simply point out where it makes your case?

My case is simple. By not releasing his tax returns he is essentially disqualifying his candidacy. No modern candidate is going to skate and not show the people that he pays no tax, is off-shoring tons of money, can you imagine if Trump has moved his name offshore and doesn't even own the right to it? There is a lot you can learn, but not releasing those returns puts you under a cloud and no serious contender should be so stupid to ignore the cost of not releasing his returns.

So you couldn't back it up. Didn't think so.

Sorry, that is backup. No taxes, no presidency. You must be the only person in America who it doesn't matter to.

You little lying turd.

You said:
"How do we know he is a successful businessman ? because he says so? The Wall Street Journal and Forbes both have said he is worth much less and unless he releases his tax returns to prove it I say he is a colossal failure in the middle of a scam."

So I said:
"STILL stuck on stupid. Tax returns don't show net worth. I explained and and you cannot grasp it. Do you even have a job?"

Then you said:
"I pointed out what his tax returns would show. Too bad you weren't interested enough to learn something."

So you proved nothing about what his tax liability would be or what his net worth is. For thinking you could get away with it that makes you a dumb asshole.

Tax returns demonstrate his liabilities. His net worth is your creation and was never a subject of what his tax return would show. The returns would however establish what he was not worth and for someone who claims to be worth $10 billion that might be embarrassing.

Lying turd. You yammered on and on about how the WSJ and Forbes claims he wasn't worth near as much and now you are saying I made it an issue and somehow the tax returns wouldn't necessarily show what he was worth but what he was not worth?

Retard!