Does anyone else here despise Donald Trump?

Post Reply New Topic

Trump is what happens when both parties serves the will of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, the MIC, and every other special interest group. I do not care if Trump offends people because that's not what is important, the Clinton's are the foremost criminal first family in American history and are totally bought and paid for. The Clintons are the epitome of all that is wrong with Washington, I don't understand how ANYBODY can justify voting for this woman and not many people on this site care to try even with their nonthinking ignorant hate of Donald Trump. Trump wins on trade, he wins on foreign policy, he wins on change, he wins with your pocketbook, he just wins everywhere. I could probably think of a 100 reasons to vote for Donald Trump that have nothing to do with Hillary Clinton, lets see one Hillary supporter back her for any other reason besides the D that comes after her name and something about Donald Trump.

Globalism is killing the United States, it is killing every NATION on this planet which is its intention which is to bring about a global new world order controlled by undemocratic multilateral organizations and transnational corporations. It is happening right in front of our eyes, I cannot believe is will hold in the long run as people will wake up eventually. Maybe the UK does it in a few days, good luck to them.

Hmmm....

Sort of an East Mediterranean "Lord of the Rings", or "Game of Thrones"?

I think he's a bitchhead.

I'm one of those people who believes that the future is globalism so Trump's nationalistic ideas don't sit right with me.

Moreover he is just an as*hole.

Hysteria much OP?

Move from US? Mmmkay. ba-bye! Runnnnn! Flee from the USSA 4th Holy Roman Empire state that will come overnight as all the Senate is executed under Trump. xD

Well, good news for you.... you do have a chance if he is elected... certain Canadian cities are offering Asylum and MD is not that far in politics, climate or distance. And compatible language.

A news flash, even barring the expense of a move overseas; most "more enlightened" countries (that are totally flippin shiz about Trump policies in hypocrisy that is YUUUGE) are pretty tight to downright draconian about immigration for day to day regular person with no real skills to offer and no experience. Student Visa are about only way to get foot in door short to attempt illegal overstay.


So far ONE truly honest answer that precedes me. A globalist that thinks he is an a***hole. No racist claims or nazi hysteria. Just simple. No need to be lofty an justify your choice for a candidate. We vote for our personal reasons, rarely for some altruism.

PS Russia is also having open immigration.... right across from Alaska. Though slavic languages are hella hard to learn from Anglo/latin based. Specially adding cyrillic alphabet!I believe that is a bit too cold and 2 foreign to live happy on that free 2 acre starter homestead.
I dont want to hijak your trump hate so I'll make a counter post.

More like a cross between Game of Thrones and Fifty Shades of Grey (to an extent). The plotline goes as follows: 18-year-old Paris Rhodes flees her homeland of Atlas, a draconian police state with no middle class where nearly everything is illegal and you have to be 21 to be legally considered a human being, upon receiving an invitation to join the vixen's way tournament in the faraway desert kingdom of Balhakha, a fight to the death tournament where the finest female warrior babes slaughter each other and the winner receives a million rials, the vixen's way trophy and the choice of marrying the handsome 19-year-old eccentric BDSM-practicing king Ibrahim Najad. Upon noticing Paris' beauty, Ibrahim starts a secret relationship with her and rigs the tournament for her to win. Paris soon discovers that she and Ibrahim are the two lead messianic figures in the "end times" restoration prophecy. However, Ibrahim's traitor older sister Reem, who's married to King Haffaz Hakim of Sham, uncovers their plan and plots to overthrow the Najad dynasty. As you can tell I've received harsh criticism for this on both ends of the spectrum. One side tells me that this plotline is sexist and that there's a mass movement to end the sexualization of female story characters as Paris is too hyper-sexualized and the other side tells me this is promoting radical Islamic terrorism due to character names and concepts. I feel that Donald Trump is radicalizing everyone who isn't already a Trump supporter or a PC feminist and that there will be no place for this kind of story in 21st century America as I have almost no options to escape due to my lack of a college degree.

A big dose of the "Hunger Games" in the mix as well. Lol!

Quite a statement, considering that:

1. ISIS was created in October 2006 following the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi by a US air strike in June 2006.
2. The US president in 2006 was George W. Bush, and Hillary Clinton held no position in his cabinet.
2. The civil war in Syria started in early 2011.

So it would seem that your expertise in the areas of both causality and chronology is somewhat lacking...

Last edited by GGPViper on 22 Jun 2016, 12:08 am, edited 1 time in total.

I feel sorry for American voters right now. There's no nobody good to vote for.

ISIS grew out of al-Qaeda in Iraq(AQI) which morphed into the Islamic State of Iraq(ISI), AQI were the insurgents that murdered so many Americans Fallujah and Sunni extremism has long had a foothold in the Anbar province of Iraq. That's was terrorist insurgent group tho not a self declare caliphate that controls massive amounts of territory, has modern military equipment, an illegal oil economy, a pretty huge tax base all of which Hillary/Obama gifted to them indirectly from the cowardly disloyal retreating Iraqi army but also directly to go on and fight Bashar al-Assad in Syria which is when ISI becomes ISIS.

Our government has found use in Islamic jihadists against its enemies, the US is one of the foremost state sponsors of terror in the world. There was no civil war in Syria or Libya until the US and its so called allies that hide behind us got involved, it was over in Libya and they flooded Syria with weapons/fighters from the Turkish as well as the Iraqi border. Some 'students movement' right? That's seriously how they tried to sell this Arab Spring garbage to begin with when it couldn't be further from the truth.

Sure.

I will include Trump's "policies" just to show that Clinton is actually better. I could say "vote for Clinton because she is American", but Trump is also American so that's not a good reason to vote Clinton. I will not say "Trump is bad and so vote for Clinton because she isn't Trump".

First up, and quite obvious, her autism policy is pretty fantastic. Donald Trump's only autism policy so far is vaccine scaremongering. Clinton wants to help us get secure jobs and secure housing.

Clinton is in favour of free trade, which powers the world's economies and has lifted billions out of poverty. Trump is opposed to free trade, having spoken out in favour of high tariffs on trade with China and Mexico. A 45% tariff would increase prices and mean less disposable income, as well as deterring investment in America.

Clinton is pro-choice. Trump is not. Clinton would fund Planned Parenthood. Trump would not - even though he admits it saves millions of lives.

Clinton wishes to invest $10bn in tackling opiate addiction as a medical issue. The two candidates have similar positions on cannabis but Trump has not mentioned tackling hard drugs in this campaign (he was in favour of legalisation in the early 90s, but many of his views have changed since then e.g. abortion).

Clinton is against imprisoning children under immigration law. Trump does not, as far as I can tell, have a position on this.

Clinton is against private prisons. Trump does not, as far as I can tell, hold a position.

Clinton is opposed to Three Strikes, wants to limit mandatory sentencing, and aims to reverse several of her husband's policies which led to mass incarceration. Trump has taken a "tough on crime" stance on these issues.

Clinton wants to ensure that the rich can't pay less tax than the poor. Trump wants to ensure various taxes on the rich (principally inheritance tax, corporation tax, and capital gains tax) are decreased or abolished.

Clinton has a renewable energy plan, although she is quite chilly on nuclear power. Trump thinks global warming is a Chinese hoax.

Clinton wants voter registration to be automatic and universal. Trump does not hold a position on this issue.

Clinton wants three months of paid parental leave. Trump is opposed to it.

And I know it's a bit of a cheat, but Clinton does not support discrimination on the grounds of religion. Trump does.

There's 14 reasons, without getting into "Trump is a terrible human being" or "Clinton has much more political experience" - both valid reasons.

There's as much to 'despise' about Hillary to be honest, when you research her properly she isn't exactly a stainless angel is she, her record and ties are there for all to deduce whatever they wish from.

Yeah ... but she's not Donald Trump!

It's too funny. I've come to a lot of the same conclusions, but coming from the left. I'm pretty red, so I think we would disagree on a lot of things. I don't like Donald Trump's hate speech - that's a monster that is hard to put to sleep again. And there is a possibility he will be even worse for foreign policy than George W. Bush. That said, it seems Mr. Trump lies a lot, so I wouldn't put it past him to lie about that too. Perhaps his policies would be more pragmatic in office.

It's funny how people go on about how protectionism destroys the economy. That's how the US, among other countries, built their economy.

I think the two-party system is fundamentally flawed, though.

Also, people are shocked that a lot of politicians are vile? Man....

Here's my favourite politician, just based on his laughter : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d0t_MmfR2c

America does not have a "Two-Party System". We have a multi-party system instead. Look at any ballot, and you will see not only Democrats and Republicans, but Communists, Constitutionalists, Greens, Independents, Libertarians, Socialists, and others.

What we DON'T have is a lot of grass-roots interest in parties other than the Democrats and the Republicans; and where there's no grass-roots interest, there's also no grass-roots money. It's lack of financing in these more esoteric parties that keeps them from having any real influence.

So, what we have is a playground full of children with the two biggest bullies fighting for dominance, that's all.

I would have to say that we have a DE FACTO two-party system, at least as far as electing the President and most of Congress is concerned.

Nobody from any "third" party has been elected President since at least 1860 (and probably beyond then, too). It's been either Republicans, or Democrats. I'll have to research pre-1860. From about 1820-1850, as far as I can recall, it's either been Whig or Democrat.

Congress has had very few Independents through all these years. A few....but a very paltry amount, indeed.

There's more of a multi-party system in local government, though. And it does have an impact.

Ben Wattenburg did a whole show about the history of American third parties on NPR some years ago. Basically you're right. The only third partry to ever get a guy into the Oval Office was the GOP (Lincoln). And then the Whigs (the previous big party opposing what we now call the Democrats) died out, and the GOP became one of the big two.

But Wattenburg concluded that third parties have made impacts (Teddy Roosevelt with his Bullmoose party, and Ross Perot with his Independent party) because the two big parties often ignore issues that some part of the public is seething about. But then after the wake up call - one or the other of the big two parties will co-opt that issue raised by the insurgent third party into its own platform- and then the new third party will die out. And we go back to a two party system again.

Dont know if thats good or bad. Britain is like us- and tends towards a two party system. But on the mainland of Europe all of the countries have zillions of little splinter parties. The splinter parties tend to form ad hoc alliances that are sort of equivalent to our two big parties (or thats my understanding of it).