@niknikliwanag no one avoids or evades paying their taxes. Donald Trump and every other wealthy person pay what the government says by way of the tax code. Do you think George Soros pays more than he absolutely has to? Do you think Harry Reid does? Maybe you think Nancy Pelosi is such a good liberal that she just throws in a couple million extra every year?
Do YOU pay more than you have to? Or your parents if you are a child? I sure as hell don't give away any more money to the IRS than I have to and I'd wager NO ONE DOES.
It's not about giving more, it's that he actively finds ways to give less and still be within legal bounds. One would say he doesn't have to do that since he still has the money he saved from not paying his employees. Furthermore, yes, saving some money by paying less in taxes is not a bad thing in itself, but how can people expect this man to help the lower class when he does what he does, such as what I already mentioned and also paying people less than minimum wage?
So does EVERY taxpayer. Have you never heard of deductions? Tax credits? No one pays more than they absolutely have to.
And who in hell is paying whom less than minimum wage? That's illegal and cannot happen, especially if anyone knows about it. Perhaps you should educate yourself and stop taking Clinton's lies as gospel.
And as far as your "lower class," I assume you think welfare handouts is how you help the poor. It hasn't worked in 50 years. The way to "help" the poor is to give them the means to not be poor anymore. That means jobs, not handouts. The way you give them jobs is you stop taxing the job creators until they either close or move to China. Those "evil rich" people that you obviously hate so much are the ones that pay you, and everyone else. Try to think here; if you (or your mommy and daddy) don't make enough money, you can't pay your bills and maybe have to cut out cable. Worst case scenario you move to a cheaper house.
If a business owner doesn't make enough money they maybe have to cut out employees. Worst case scenario they move to a cheaper country. You don't give away money you don't have to; neither to they. Nothing wrong with that.
"Clinton's lies?" Trump supporter much? Perhaps YOU should educate yourself and stop taking Trump's lies as gospel: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/09/donald-trump-unpaid-bills-republican-president-laswuits/85297274/
"Trump’s companies have also been cited for 24 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act since 2005 for failing to pay overtime or minimum wage..."
As I said I have no problem with paying absolutely only what you need to. It just seems greedy especially when you have as much money as Trump does. Also, why are you assuming I'm for welfare handouts? You say try to think here but it seems you haven't done much of that yourself. How about you realize I was talking about stopping your precious job creators from outsourcing their jobs so they would employ locals and therefore help the lower class by creating jobs? But oh wait, who's that greedy rich guy who outsourced jobs despite saying he's fighting for "the people"? Oh right, Donald J. Trump!
Not for naught, but I'm not sure the CEO of my company has any idea specifically how much each department pays its individual employees. I know each department has a budget and employees wages are set by department heads or supervisors. Who's the deceitful lady that helped build the system that allows those jobs to be sent over the borders?
You keep going back to "greed". Who are you to get to determine just how much money any given person should be allowed to have? I don't care if he's got a hundred dollars or a trillion, it's his money, not yours and sure as hell not Obama's.
When you start bitching about Bill Gates, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, or any of the liberals who do the EXACT SAME SHIT with their money maybe you might have a little bit of validity here, but until then you are just another liberal tool.
And outsourcing? Really? I'll bet you have the very latest of every Apple product huh? If you'd actually listen just once you might understand that the problem isn't greedy rich people sending jobs overseas to pocket more money; they do it so they can stay profitable in an unfriendly business environment. Trump wants to get government taxes and regulations out of the way so businesses can afford to stay here, you twit.
You guys do realize that Trump is as much of an insider as Hillary and he's just as bought by Wall Street and corrupt as she is, right? But he hides it behind his rhetoric, which by the way is admirable, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a pathological liar and spews bullshit. Anyone who knows anything about policy substance, and not just judges candidates by their personal life and rhetoric, will vote for Clinton, because even though she's also a horrible candidate, her policy is a million times more agreeable than Trump's. This year's election is a clear case of "personality cult vs policy".
Fun fact: I'm a politology student and EVERYONE in my class supports Clinton because she's the lesser of two evils.
Fun fact no 2: statistics show that Trump supporters are most likely to be uneducated old white males (emphasis on uneducated).
Oh and also your "Apple products fanboy" guess it completely false. Again you just assume things which are plain wrong, but then again I am not surprised at all. I am also not surprised you went for insults instead of trying to maintain a civil discussion.
Insults?!? I called you a twit but that's the only insult, and it was a very mild one.
As for Clinton's policies; she has nothing. She's an extremist liberal who hates America. Im guessing you are far too young to have any clue, but she has a history to look at, and many of us lived through her "policies" in her last term as president; they sucked. Her "policies" are more of what we've had for the last 8 years. Actually worse, because she is the one who is bought by Wall Street and many foreign "investors". Trump has made his money; he is not "bought by Wall Street".
On an unrelated note, what in hell in politology?
It's a class collage gladly kids take so when in the real world and not able to make a go of it because they never bothered to learn real world skills, they can bitch about how the republicans have corrupted America for them, because fun facts in politology told them so.
@guestwho Yes I am European but I don't appreciate you calling me Euro trash.
Which policies exactly? Yes NAFTA sucked ass but she did apologize for it. As I said, Trump is just as bought by Wall Street, he just hides it pretty well.
Makes his own money? Now you're actually making me laugh. He got all his cash from his daddy, and whenever he starts a business, it's a major failure & Trump declares bankruptcy and runs out the back door with the money. And when he fails to do that, he asks his daddy for more cash. Not a very good businessman if you ask me.
@guest it's not a class "collage" kids take. It's an entire study programme, also why are you so fixated on "what they tell you in school is not 'the real world' "? Why are you so against education? Is it because you have none? Because then I'll have to again mention the statistics on Trump voters...
I was referring to "politology", not you. But your attitude toward our politics - which are of no concern to you since you are not an American - do no exactly endear you to me. I am quite familiar with political science and have, in fact, studied it, but I had to Google your politology.
Frankly speaking socialism is a European disease, so it stands to reason that a group of European children who THINK they understand the American political system just because they are in the process of being inculcated with THEORY would lean towards Hillary. We broke from Europe for good reasons and now find ourselves fighting for our freedom once again.
I do not mean offence by what I'm about to say, but if you take offense I'll not shed a tear. 1- You are too young to understand what Hillary is as you did not live at the time of the fustercluck that was her first presidency. 2- You are too far removed from us to have been impacted by the fustercluck that was her first presidency.
3- You are too steeped in European thoeries, policies, and politics to probably ever understand our fundamental objections to her politics. And 4- You appear too cocky to ever change your mind.
You are welcome to your opinions, certainly, and I wish more American youth would take a real interest in the politics that effect them beyond simply regurgitating the bile they find on social media. That said, the uninformed opinions of a handful of European schoolmates really doesn't carry much weight in an American political conversation. Take a bit of free advice from someone who has been around a bit longer: You obviously have some growing up to do yet, so opening up your mind and losing the hubris would serve you well. Also, professors and textbooks are not unbiased nor infallible; question everything.
Politology is basically political science, so there's that. I disagree, moderate socialism is imo better than extremist capitalism that is common in the US. Don't get me wrong, I'm from a country that was really fucked up by communism and socialism, but there's a huge difference between moderate and extremist. I prefer paying higher taxes to help support universal education, and I don't think that companies being able to "buy" politicians into making laws that help them is good. I'm just pinpointing some policies of course but overall I think a mixture of these two systems is the best thing we can have right now.
But anyway let's say I am indeed a noob in American politics. I understand I don't know it as well as someone who studied it + lives in the US (and if you indeed studied it, I'm impressed). But still I am unable to comprehend how anyone can support a man who a) asked why can't he just nuke other countries, b) endorsed killing civilians and c) isn't even a politician.
I support Trump because, as I said in an earlier comment, I'd take almost anyone over Hillary. And because I'm a registered Republican, but Trump was far from my first choice.
As to the "isn't even a politician" bit, that's his appeal to most of his supporters. The "politicians" have screwed us over for decades; many Americans are looking for an outsider. That is another important difference between us and Europe; our government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Meaning we do not have ruling class elites as most of Europe has for most of its history. In America the common man can run for, and win political office. Naturally this works differently in practice than theory, but that's our system in a nutshell.
I see where you're coming from and yes, that is his appeal, but it's not like politician is a hereditary title in Europe (well it is in the British Parliament but then again they have made clear not to be associated with Europe, also the British monarchy is considered outdated and redundant by most Europeans except for the Brits who fucking love their glorified celebrities). You gotta study and work hard to even be considered suitable for a presidential candidate. It's really not ruling class elites, it's pure meritocracy. In Europe, an educated man from a poor family can run and win. In the US, a rich uneducated man has a much bigger chance, and I think that's a big problem.
Also I'm surprised so many Republicans still bear with him, even the Republican party disapproves of his decisions.
When presented with two evils, always choose the lesser. Ewqua, you said yourself that you don't think companies should be able to "buy" politicians, so where does criminals paying for pardons and clemency fall for you? Because that's exactly what the Clintons did (Marc Rich for starters). Then you go on to claim that Trump is bought by wall street yet he is able to hide it. That is call conjecture and no court of law would hold it up. Facts or it didn't happen. You also say that Trump just runs to daddy for help, yet his dad's been dead for 17 years. So you're willing overlook the gross abuse of power from the Clintons but condemn a family that helps it's children legally, even when the Trump's dealings were much further back in time then the Clintons? That's called being severely biased and no amount of politology (the irony that you are being told what and how to think in politics seems to be lost on you.) can justify your bigotry.
As the guest said, for myself and many like me this election really does come down to the lesser of the two evils. And in fact, it's less that Trump is an "evil" than it is that we already know what we will get with Hillary and Trump is a chance to go a different direction. Since he has no record we can only judge him based on his rhetoric. Perhaps he will be a disaster (he couldn't possibly be a worse president than Obama), or he could be one of the greats. I don't consider him in the same league as Ronald Reagan, but as many of us remember, the left and even the Republican party did their damnedest to kill Reagan's election too. President Reagan had an uphill battle for his entire presidency and still managed to be a pretty darn good president.
Trump has his rabid supporters and fans, but I think most of us just want to avoid a third Clinton term at any cost.
@guest The Trump foundation is a huge proof of him being as corrupt as Clinton is. There's your facts, we can move on. I'm going to ignore that part where you call me bigoted and uneducated, I want to keep this conversation calm and civil, no "ur a doodoohead", "no ur a bigger doodoohead", alright?
@guestwho again, my preference is also the lesser of two evils. Judging Trump solely based on his rhetoric is what makes you believe his lies. Of course he sometimes says things you like, he has flip flopped on every issue that's been presented to him so far. But he has also said he wants to bring back torture even if it doesn't work, kill civilians in Syria, ban ALL muslims from entering the country, deport ALL undocumented immigrants. Furthermore this man's skin is so extremely thin, he sued people over jokes. I would not trust a man who gets angry so easily with nuke launch codes. So yes, I would very much prefer a standard corrupt politician to a guy who will start WW3 over a satire.
Never said I judged him "solely based on his rhetoric". And as far as lies; whether he has or not he could never catch up to Clinton. I'm pretty sure I said this before but here goes again: ANYONE BUT HILLARY!!!!!
Ftr no, he never ever ever never said he wants to ban all Muslims. This is a lie that, apparently, you have believed. He has talked about TEMPORARILY halting people from KNOWN extremist countries from entering the US until we can figure out a way to determine jihadis from non-murderers.
And as for deporting "undocumented immigrants": YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT! What does the term "undocumented" mean in your language? In mine it means they are in my country illegally. That means they have broken our laws. That means they are criminals. That means they get punished, not rewarded. Would you please use a little common sense here? If we don't know who they are, or even if they're here, how in hell can we know they're not going to blow something up?
“Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on,” his campaign says in a release.
It is temporary, I'll give you that, but it still is all Muslims, no matter the country.
As to what concerns deporting all undocumented immigrants, you gotta understand that a large portion of them went to the country to have a better life, and even though they've crossed the border illegally, they have not commited any crimes while in the US. Actually hasn't there been a case in which one of the states did deport a big portion of undocumented immigrants? They had to call them back because none of their trailer trash white supremacists wanted to do the dirty jobs those immigrants did. (Unfortunately I can't give you a source for that, my boyfriend told me he read this but can't remember where as it was some time ago).
So no, undocumented immigrants are not all criminals. If they commited a crime while in the US, I'm all for deporting them. But if they crossed the border out of desperation and creeping poverty, can you really blame them?
No. The fact that they entered our country illegally makes them criminals. Illegall means it's a crime. Come on now. By your "logic" and our socialist Democrats I should be able to murder someone and, as long as I commit no further crimes I should be allowed to continue my life! That is what we would call asinine.
That doesn't mean that they get sent to prison for life, of course, but at the very least they get sent to the back of the line. Furthermore; I assume you have no clue the problems we are having with drugs and gang violence pouring across our southern border? We need to get a grip on the Latino issue as well as the Muslim one.
And no, if they came here for the reasons you mentioned, I can not blame them. But that doesn't mean it's OK and they get a pass. If I'm out of work and I rob a convenience store to feed my kids can you blame me? I'm sure the police would.
And assuming your scenario is accurate, how do we know they haven't committed any crimes unless we round them up and check them out? How do we know they're telling the truth about trying to escape oppressive poverty and not just here to set up a new Columbian drug cartel headquarters unless we check them out?
We have already found out that the gangs are using children and families to run their drugs and/or hide their gang members. Just how do we magically know the good from the bad in your utopian world?
You are European and have been indoctrinated in socialist propaganda so I can excuse your ignorance. I cannot excuse Clinton, Obama, and others here for their willful neglect of their duty to protect my country and uphold its laws.
Oh come on, comparing murder with crossing a border illegally out of desperation, that's farfetched. By your logic, doing drugs is illegal because it's against the law. I am wondering what your point of view on that is, actually, because a person's view on drugs often reflects their political views.
Also, I'm with Gary Johnson on this one, you guys need more solid background checks. That doesn't mean just kicking out all people who crossed the border, though.
But...doing drugs is illegal where it's against the law. The law doesn't change because in your opinion it is an unjust law. If you woke up tomorrow morning and found me making myself a sandwich in your kitchen would you alert the authorities and have me removed or would you get a shower and go to work and leave me in your kitchen?
@ewqua really? By MY logic "doing drugs is illegal because it's against the law"? I'm scratching my head at that one. All this time I've thought that "against the law" was the very definition of "illegal".
My use of murder was an extreme example to make a point, which obviously flew directly over your head. I'm not sure if I can say it any simpler but I'll try: illegal aliens are called illegal aliens because they have broken our laws (which is kinda illegal) and because they are alien (foreign, or not from here) to our country. That pretty much makes them criminals. In fact, felons.
And as for your Johnson statement: how in hell do you propose we do background checks when you quite obviously think our borders should be open to all comers? Your opinion of drug laws, perhaps, explains your apparent lack of common sense here.
Furthermore, "more solid background checks" is EXACTLY WHAT TRUMP IS PROPOSING! Specifically a temporary moratorium on certain immigrants until we can figure out HOW TO DO BETTER BACKGROUND CHECKS!
And drugs? Yeah if they're illegal they're against the law; and if they're against the law they're illegal. I see no need for clarification on a point you yourself already made?
And as to my political beliefs I've never hidden them on funsubstance, and I don't think our conversation here should leave any questions but:
I am a Christian (not really a good one, but whatever)
I am a registered Republican (really only because we essentially have only two choices)
I am a conservative politically, socially, and fiscally.
I am a gun owner and very firm Second Amendment advocate.
I believe in law and order, but not necessarily that everyone should get life for every infraction.
I am all for civil rights in whatever form, but I will not tolerate "special" statuses just because someone looks different than I or sleeps with someone differently than I.
I actively refuse to tolerate political correctness.
I am a Virgo.
I like piña coladas, and getting caught in the rain.
Any more questions, just ask. ;-)
I think ewqua was being crushed with so many facts that in desperate self-preservation they 'forgot' how laws work to make their argument still 'valid'. For the record, I'm just like you guestwho, except I'm an Aries and never developed a taste for liquor. I'm also of Mexican ancestry who's family came over legally. And yes, legal immigration does exist ewqua. Trump is not the best, but is so far from the worst that he will get my vote, proudly because of his stance against all the fucking illegals.
No no, you haven't understood my comment. Pushing something to be illegal because it's against the law is an infinite loop and even if making something illegal is the immoral thing to do, people will still say it's just "against the law". That was my point, you get me now? Not being a native speaker my expression is sometimes clumsy but you get it, right? I think drugs are illegal unjustly, because we already pump so much shit into our bodies like alcohol, caffeine, painkillers, and so on. They all change our consciousness and may be addictive (some painkillers are actually on the same basis as heroin and therefore they're chemically addictive), but we still do it with these, but make others illegal.
Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying this because I'm a stoner, actually I'm pretty purist when it comes to these things, I don't smoke, don't drink neither alcohol nor coffee and use pills only when it's absolutely necessary, but it's so hypocritical that for example weed gets banned while a) it's proven to cause fewer health issues than alcohol, cigarettes, sugar, and can actually be beneficial to your health (not by smoking it tho, I'm talking about balms etc), b) doesn't even do anything serious, just makes you kinda happier for a while. And I know that it's already legalized in some states, but under federal law it's still illegal. And same goes for other drugs! Why not legalize, tax and regulate them? That way we'd get rid of the bad batches that make people's freaking flesh rot, and just have clean things for people who wanna get high?
Also, you've been relatively nice this entire conversation (at least compared to some) but you gotta realize that having different opinions doesn't make me less intelligent or have less common sense and so on. If I was anti vaxx or a climate change denier, that's a different case but political opinions are complicated and disagreeing with you doesn't mean either of us is stupid even though we kinda see each other that way. Yes, unfortunately there are lots of liberal safe space crybabies who want to ban free speech of people who disagree with them but those are feminists and pussies. Also, we're complete opposites, with me being a liberal atheist/anti-theist who's for gun control (not banning guns of course, but the system we have in my country is actually quite to my liking, you gotta pass a psychological and technical test to own a gun permit for a certain type of gun, then you can get it).
I get the impression that perhaps you are talking about marijuana when you reference "drugs". Weed isn't really much of a problem (at least relatively) in America. Our drug problem is hardcore and very destructive. We have methamphetamines, crack cocaine, heroin (usually mixed with other very dangerous drugs), high-powered ecstacy, and more synthetic and "designer" drugs than you can count. Also in the mix are many homemade versions (and usually poisonous) of these already dangerous drugs, and rampant prescription drug abuse. I will respond further later; I have to go to work now.
Ok break time.
I also want to address your reference to my comments about common sense. I was not intending to imply that you are unintelligent. In fact, to the contrary, I specifically used the term "common sense" with the assumption that you are intelligent, and I meant it simply as a prod to get you to think about it. I apologize for conveying the wrong message. Also, while I'm on the subject, when I mentioned "ignorance" in an earlier post I was using that term in its dictionary definition usage: to denote a lack of knowledge. I meant only that you are uninformed (ignorant) about certain aspects of our current political situation, not being an American. I know you didn't mention it, but many Americans don't understand basic English these days and think "ignorant" is an insult meaning stupid, so I wanted to clarify.
Oh no, I used marijuana as an example because it's proven to have some health benefits when made into something else than a blunt, but I'm definitely for legalization, taxing and regulating harder drugs as well. That way you'll get rid off cheaper home-made knock-offs like the krokodil drug which literally makes your flesh rot as a side effect, but will just have clean drugs with as few side effects as possible for people who just want to experience a trip from time to time. And instead of criminalizing drug use and locking people up (I actually quite respect Obama for releasing I don't know how many non-violent drug offenders in the last few months), you'd substitute them with rehabilitation centres.
You will not "get rid of cheaper homemade knockoffs" by doing anything with drugs. Let's pretend for just a second that we did legalize "harder drugs." First, where would you draw the line? What drugs would be ok in your opinion, and what would not? Second, these idiots aren't using krocodile, bath salts, etc. because they can't afford heroin. They're using this shit because they're stupid. Third, legalizing, regulating, and taxing ANYTHING has never lowered its price in the history of humanity. If your theory about price conscious drug consumers us accurate, these home-brewed drugs would still be the budget option.
I don't know what country you are in, but here in the States our drug problem is largely due to too many people knowing how to cook shit at home and too many South American cartels flooding us with cheap poison. Legalizing anything doesn't stop people dieing, or stop the crimes they commit when they're out of their minds.
I suppose the line would be drawn by how dangerous the drug is to one's health. Anyway, remember the prohibition? That one beautiful time in history when alcohol was banned and people turned into law abiding sober citizens? Not. Banning alcohol and fighting against it created the completely opposite effect and criminal gangs were on the rise. Now, drug cartels are on the rise. Would that improve if drugs were legalized, taxed and regulated? I believe it would. Maybe they wouldn't get cheaper but they'd get more accessible and using them wouldn't automatically make you a criminal and wouldn't be frowned upon. The cartels would then be out of business, and those that would prevail because of cheap prices could be hunted down by the same force that was used to hunt down literally everything drug-related.
Yes I do understand the mistake that was prohibition. And there is no denying the fact that banning drugs has had the same effect. But, "drugs" (lumping all together here) have a much more detrimental effect on the fabric of society than alcohol, and far more people die from drug use than alcohol. While I agree that pot really isn't much of a problem, pretty much the rest of the drugs are. And regulation is impossible when these poisons are so easy to make yourself. Alcohol is at least too time-consuming for most people to bother with on their own (I know, I home brew).
Well, I can't comment on that from experience as this just kinda doesn't happen in my country. But I think that when people are provided with a safer alternative but still go for homemade, we might just let natural selection do its thing.
The tax code gives deductions,exemptions and credits to encourage certain actions. So, businessmen and taxpayers take advantage of those legal choices to reduce their taxes. Trump paid little in taxes because he played the game by the rules the government set. If you dislike the rules, fault those who made them...like Senator Sanders and Senator Clinton.
Do YOU pay more than you have to? Or your parents if you are a child? I sure as hell don't give away any more money to the IRS than I have to and I'd wager NO ONE DOES.
And who in hell is paying whom less than minimum wage? That's illegal and cannot happen, especially if anyone knows about it. Perhaps you should educate yourself and stop taking Clinton's lies as gospel.
And as far as your "lower class," I assume you think welfare handouts is how you help the poor. It hasn't worked in 50 years. The way to "help" the poor is to give them the means to not be poor anymore. That means jobs, not handouts. The way you give them jobs is you stop taxing the job creators until they either close or move to China. Those "evil rich" people that you obviously hate so much are the ones that pay you, and everyone else. Try to think here; if you (or your mommy and daddy) don't make enough money, you can't pay your bills and maybe have to cut out cable. Worst case scenario you move to a cheaper house.
"Trump’s companies have also been cited for 24 violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act since 2005 for failing to pay overtime or minimum wage..."
As I said I have no problem with paying absolutely only what you need to. It just seems greedy especially when you have as much money as Trump does. Also, why are you assuming I'm for welfare handouts? You say try to think here but it seems you haven't done much of that yourself. How about you realize I was talking about stopping your precious job creators from outsourcing their jobs so they would employ locals and therefore help the lower class by creating jobs? But oh wait, who's that greedy rich guy who outsourced jobs despite saying he's fighting for "the people"? Oh right, Donald J. Trump!
When you start bitching about Bill Gates, George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, or any of the liberals who do the EXACT SAME SHIT with their money maybe you might have a little bit of validity here, but until then you are just another liberal tool.
And outsourcing? Really? I'll bet you have the very latest of every Apple product huh? If you'd actually listen just once you might understand that the problem isn't greedy rich people sending jobs overseas to pocket more money; they do it so they can stay profitable in an unfriendly business environment. Trump wants to get government taxes and regulations out of the way so businesses can afford to stay here, you twit.
Fun fact: I'm a politology student and EVERYONE in my class supports Clinton because she's the lesser of two evils.
Fun fact no 2: statistics show that Trump supporters are most likely to be uneducated old white males (emphasis on uneducated).
As for Clinton's policies; she has nothing. She's an extremist liberal who hates America. Im guessing you are far too young to have any clue, but she has a history to look at, and many of us lived through her "policies" in her last term as president; they sucked. Her "policies" are more of what we've had for the last 8 years. Actually worse, because she is the one who is bought by Wall Street and many foreign "investors". Trump has made his money; he is not "bought by Wall Street".
On an unrelated note, what in hell in politology?
Which policies exactly? Yes NAFTA sucked ass but she did apologize for it. As I said, Trump is just as bought by Wall Street, he just hides it pretty well.
Makes his own money? Now you're actually making me laugh. He got all his cash from his daddy, and whenever he starts a business, it's a major failure & Trump declares bankruptcy and runs out the back door with the money. And when he fails to do that, he asks his daddy for more cash. Not a very good businessman if you ask me.
@guest it's not a class "collage" kids take. It's an entire study programme, also why are you so fixated on "what they tell you in school is not 'the real world' "? Why are you so against education? Is it because you have none? Because then I'll have to again mention the statistics on Trump voters...
Frankly speaking socialism is a European disease, so it stands to reason that a group of European children who THINK they understand the American political system just because they are in the process of being inculcated with THEORY would lean towards Hillary. We broke from Europe for good reasons and now find ourselves fighting for our freedom once again.
I do not mean offence by what I'm about to say, but if you take offense I'll not shed a tear. 1- You are too young to understand what Hillary is as you did not live at the time of the fustercluck that was her first presidency. 2- You are too far removed from us to have been impacted by the fustercluck that was her first presidency.
You are welcome to your opinions, certainly, and I wish more American youth would take a real interest in the politics that effect them beyond simply regurgitating the bile they find on social media. That said, the uninformed opinions of a handful of European schoolmates really doesn't carry much weight in an American political conversation. Take a bit of free advice from someone who has been around a bit longer: You obviously have some growing up to do yet, so opening up your mind and losing the hubris would serve you well. Also, professors and textbooks are not unbiased nor infallible; question everything.
But anyway let's say I am indeed a noob in American politics. I understand I don't know it as well as someone who studied it + lives in the US (and if you indeed studied it, I'm impressed). But still I am unable to comprehend how anyone can support a man who a) asked why can't he just nuke other countries, b) endorsed killing civilians and c) isn't even a politician.
As to the "isn't even a politician" bit, that's his appeal to most of his supporters. The "politicians" have screwed us over for decades; many Americans are looking for an outsider. That is another important difference between us and Europe; our government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Meaning we do not have ruling class elites as most of Europe has for most of its history. In America the common man can run for, and win political office. Naturally this works differently in practice than theory, but that's our system in a nutshell.
Also I'm surprised so many Republicans still bear with him, even the Republican party disapproves of his decisions.
Trump has his rabid supporters and fans, but I think most of us just want to avoid a third Clinton term at any cost.
@guestwho again, my preference is also the lesser of two evils. Judging Trump solely based on his rhetoric is what makes you believe his lies. Of course he sometimes says things you like, he has flip flopped on every issue that's been presented to him so far. But he has also said he wants to bring back torture even if it doesn't work, kill civilians in Syria, ban ALL muslims from entering the country, deport ALL undocumented immigrants. Furthermore this man's skin is so extremely thin, he sued people over jokes. I would not trust a man who gets angry so easily with nuke launch codes. So yes, I would very much prefer a standard corrupt politician to a guy who will start WW3 over a satire.
Ftr no, he never ever ever never said he wants to ban all Muslims. This is a lie that, apparently, you have believed. He has talked about TEMPORARILY halting people from KNOWN extremist countries from entering the US until we can figure out a way to determine jihadis from non-murderers.
And as for deporting "undocumented immigrants": YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT! What does the term "undocumented" mean in your language? In mine it means they are in my country illegally. That means they have broken our laws. That means they are criminals. That means they get punished, not rewarded. Would you please use a little common sense here? If we don't know who they are, or even if they're here, how in hell can we know they're not going to blow something up?
It is temporary, I'll give you that, but it still is all Muslims, no matter the country.
As to what concerns deporting all undocumented immigrants, you gotta understand that a large portion of them went to the country to have a better life, and even though they've crossed the border illegally, they have not commited any crimes while in the US. Actually hasn't there been a case in which one of the states did deport a big portion of undocumented immigrants? They had to call them back because none of their trailer trash white supremacists wanted to do the dirty jobs those immigrants did. (Unfortunately I can't give you a source for that, my boyfriend told me he read this but can't remember where as it was some time ago).
That doesn't mean that they get sent to prison for life, of course, but at the very least they get sent to the back of the line. Furthermore; I assume you have no clue the problems we are having with drugs and gang violence pouring across our southern border? We need to get a grip on the Latino issue as well as the Muslim one.
We have already found out that the gangs are using children and families to run their drugs and/or hide their gang members. Just how do we magically know the good from the bad in your utopian world?
You are European and have been indoctrinated in socialist propaganda so I can excuse your ignorance. I cannot excuse Clinton, Obama, and others here for their willful neglect of their duty to protect my country and uphold its laws.
Also, I'm with Gary Johnson on this one, you guys need more solid background checks. That doesn't mean just kicking out all people who crossed the border, though.
My use of murder was an extreme example to make a point, which obviously flew directly over your head. I'm not sure if I can say it any simpler but I'll try: illegal aliens are called illegal aliens because they have broken our laws (which is kinda illegal) and because they are alien (foreign, or not from here) to our country. That pretty much makes them criminals. In fact, felons.
And as for your Johnson statement: how in hell do you propose we do background checks when you quite obviously think our borders should be open to all comers? Your opinion of drug laws, perhaps, explains your apparent lack of common sense here.
And drugs? Yeah if they're illegal they're against the law; and if they're against the law they're illegal. I see no need for clarification on a point you yourself already made?
And as to my political beliefs I've never hidden them on funsubstance, and I don't think our conversation here should leave any questions but:
I am a Christian (not really a good one, but whatever)
I am a registered Republican (really only because we essentially have only two choices)
I am a conservative politically, socially, and fiscally.
I am a gun owner and very firm Second Amendment advocate.
I believe in law and order, but not necessarily that everyone should get life for every infraction.
I actively refuse to tolerate political correctness.
I am a Virgo.
I like piña coladas, and getting caught in the rain.
Any more questions, just ask. ;-)
I also want to address your reference to my comments about common sense. I was not intending to imply that you are unintelligent. In fact, to the contrary, I specifically used the term "common sense" with the assumption that you are intelligent, and I meant it simply as a prod to get you to think about it. I apologize for conveying the wrong message. Also, while I'm on the subject, when I mentioned "ignorance" in an earlier post I was using that term in its dictionary definition usage: to denote a lack of knowledge. I meant only that you are uninformed (ignorant) about certain aspects of our current political situation, not being an American. I know you didn't mention it, but many Americans don't understand basic English these days and think "ignorant" is an insult meaning stupid, so I wanted to clarify.
I don't know what country you are in, but here in the States our drug problem is largely due to too many people knowing how to cook shit at home and too many South American cartels flooding us with cheap poison. Legalizing anything doesn't stop people dieing, or stop the crimes they commit when they're out of their minds.
>Logic
Choose one.