How many Christians will still vote for Trump?

[KWCrazy]

Could you please explain the difference between a conservative and a CONSERVATIVE?

Trump is not a conservative. He's a centrist. When I read things like "Governs through extreme right wing ideology fascism" in regards to a centrist it tells me I'm reading the extreme rantings of a far left socialist who is so extreme that the center looks far right. It makes their argument look totally unhinged.
Imagine what they would think if a true conservative ran for president?
This is not rational thinking. This is lunacy.

 

[SnowyMacie]

How do you feel about Trump now?

Still don't like him.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Trump is not a conservative. He's a centrist. When I read things like "Governs through extreme right wing ideology fascism" in regards to a centrist it tells me I'm reading the extreme rantings of a far left socialist who is so extreme that the center looks far right. It makes their argument look totally unhinged.
Imagine what they would think if a true conservative ran for president?
This is not rational thinking. This is lunacy.

Lunacy is after scraping the barrel of possible republican candidates; Trump is the best one they can find.

 

[KWCrazy]

Lunacy is after scraping the barrel of possible republican candidates; Trump is the best one they can find.

Where have you been the last year?
Trump inserted himself into the race. The establishment wanted Jeb Bush. They spent $150 million and got 6 electoral votes. Trump was an outsider. Guess what? People are sick of the corrupt, inept politicians running the country. They want an outsider. Trump was the ONLY one willing to stand up and enforce immigration law. Americans want border security. They want a patriot who loves this country and who will defend it against the backstabbers in Washington DC. America wants Trump. The establishment wants Hillary because she will say or do anything to get power.
Americans picked Trump, and no American with any moral compass will support Hillary; the most corrupt politician in US history.

 

[Armoured]

Lunacy is after scraping the barrel of possible republican candidates; Trump is the best one they can find.

I don't know that a great many Republicans ever thought he was "the best", he just managed to play the better candidates off against each other very well in the primaries. I know a great many dyed in the wool Republicans who never supported him, and progressively more and more saying "he may be the party candidate, but seriously..."

 

[Oafman]

Trump is not a conservative. He's a centrist. When I read things like "Governs through extreme right wing ideology fascism" in regards to a centrist it tells me I'm reading the extreme rantings of a far left socialist who is so extreme that the center looks far right. It makes their argument look totally unhinged.
Imagine what they would think if a true conservative ran for president?
This is not rational thinking. This is lunacy.

Trump is hard to categorise, given his scattergun approach to policy, and how vague many of his policies are. One thing I suspect we can all agree on is that he's very authoritarian; when people talk about him being a facist, they're referring to that rather than anything about his economics.

In economic terms, the political compass places him to the left of Hillary, though I doubt you'll accept that her economics are as right wing as they actually are.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016

 

[KWCrazy]

Trump is hard to categorise, given his scattergun approach to policy, and how vague many of his policies are.

Trump is not and has never been a lawmaker. The things he wants will have to come from Congress and be formalized by them. He's pointing a direction and leaving the charting to those who do just that. We don't need candidates to present detailed plans on how to do things, especially when they are not privy to all the information that a president has.

One thing I suspect we can all agree on is that he's very authoritarian;

Yes and no. The buck stops here, true, but like all good executives he depends on those around him to get the proper information and make the proper recommendation. Trump will be an administrator not a micro-manager.

In economic terms, the political compass places him to the left of Hillary, though I doubt you'll accept that her economics are as right wing as they actually are.

That's hard to calibrate since Clinton has no core and varies her message to the specific audience. Economics is not her strong suit, which is why she said she'd put Bill in charge of the economy. Her attacks on business indicate she has no clue how economics work. Trump is comfortable with construction workers. Hillary is an elitist snob who once demanded that a Secret Service agent carry her bags. Trump knows that you make a nation wealthier by encouraging job creation than by passing out unemployment checks.

 

[Oafman]

Trump is not and has never been a lawmaker. The things he wants will have to come from Congress and be formalized by them. He's pointing a direction and leaving the charting to those who do just that. We don't need candidates to present detailed plans on how to do things, especially when they are not privy to all the information that a president has.

How can you vote for someone who hasn't said what they intend to do? Who has simply indicated 'directions'?! How can you believe the vague promises, when there's no detail about how they will be fulfilled? How can you hope to hold a candidate to account, once in office, if they were never asked to commit to specifics?

I find it hard to believe that anyone could accept only vague indications of direction when choosing a president. You should be demanding a detailed and fully-costed manifesto.

 

[Armoured]

How can you vote for someone who hasn't said what they intend to do? Who has simply indicated 'directions'?! How can you believe the vague promises, when there's no detail about how they will be fulfilled? How can you hope to hold a candidate to account, once in office, if they were never asked to commit to specifics?

I find it hard to believe that anyone could accept only vague indications of direction when choosing a president. You should be demanding a detailed and fully-costed manifesto.

That's at least half Trump's appeal. To a certain mind, his lack of stated policies isn't a failure so much as a blank screen for them to project their own desires onto. That's the only explanation I can find for all the "Trump's gunna do X, Y, and Z" claims when Trump has made no such policy statement.

FWIW I find it supremely frustrating talking to such people, and I feel your pain.

 

[KWCrazy]

How can you vote for someone who hasn't said what they intend to do? Who has simply indicated 'directions'?

His opponent is a felon.

How can you believe the vague promises, when there's no detail about how they will be fulfilled?
His opponent is a felon.

How can you hope to hold a candidate to account, once in office, if they were never asked to commit to specifics?

His opponent is a felon.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could accept only vague indications of direction when choosing a president.

He has given more policy details than Hillary, and his opponent is a felon.

 

[Oafman]

His opponent is a felon.

Isn't a felon a person who has been convicted of a felony?

I'm a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to definitions of words....

 

[Oafman]

His opponent is a felon.

Also, even if that were true, it would not prevent you from demanding policy detail from Trump.

 

[KWCrazy]

Isn't a felon a person who has been convicted of a felony?
I'm a bit of a traditionalist when it comes to definitions of words....

A felon is a person who commits a felony. A CONVICTED felon has been so judged by a jury. However, when you are dealing with a corrupt government in which the head of the FBI lays out a case for indictment and then says anyone but Hillary should be indicted, then she is a felon given a pass by a corrupt government. Elect Trump and you'll have your conviction.

 

[Oafman]

A felon is a person who commits a felony.

And how ought we to establish whether or not someone has committed a felony, and therefore can be called a felon?

We used to try them in court.

 

[KWCrazy]

Also, even if that were true, it would not prevent you from demanding policy detail from Trump.

If one does not have possession of 100% of the information available, I would think that the plan would change anyway.

I don't care if he accomplishes everything. I want immigration law enforced, I want the rule of law restored, I want the head of the IRS arrested and I want the Department of Education closed. The government takes too much power from the states.

 

[KWCrazy]

And how ought we to establish whether or not someone has committed a felony, and therefore can be called a felon?
We used to try them in court.

Why don't we now?
I don't recall any exclusion in the law for candidates running for president or for secretaries of state. As I recall, the law is supposed to apply equally.
It does not.
Hillary lied repeatedly under oath and no indictment.
Hillary destroyed evidence under subpoena and no indictment.
Hillary violated the espionage act and no indictment.
If the law doesn't apply to the rich and powerful then it doesn't apply to anyone.
The FBI clearly established Hillary's felonies. It also clearly gave her a pass.

 

[Albion]

No need to change the Constitution.
So 92% of the media is left wing, and Fox dares to hire conservative commentators and give both sides of the story, which makes them the bad guys.

It is somewhat amazing at how many walk in lock step repeating this mantra about Fox news--ONE lonely moderate news channel among six or seven that are simply mouthpieces for the Democrat Party. And we know that if Hillary can figure out a way, there will be legislation to keep there from being even ONE single news channel that doesn't toe the DNC's line.

How such a totalitarian mindset can be excused by so many who go bananas at the mention of Fox News, in a country that says it's in favor of free speech, is really depressing, even though we've come to expect it.

 

[wing2000]

That's at least half Trump's appeal. To a certain mind, his lack of stated policies isn't a failure so much as a blank screen for them to project their own desires onto. That's the only explanation I can find for all the "Trump's gunna do X, Y, and Z" claims when Trump has made no such policy statement.

FWIW I find it supremely frustrating talking to such people, and I feel your pain.

"Trust me"

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

.

 

[Armoured]

"Trust me"

That used to be what parody politicians and used car salesmen would say. It was the wink to the audience to confirm they were a sleaze. Yet here is Trump, using it irony free.