Why I am actually considering voting for Donald Trump

[Vort]

I have not been shy about expressing my feelings regarding Mr. Trump. He was by far the worst of the possible Republican candidates. His populist style makes me want to retch. He is, by most accounts, a leftist in Republican clothing. My already tenuous connection to the Republican party has almost completely vanished in his wake.

Understand, my vote means nothing. I live in Washington state, which would proudly vote for Satan if he ran under the Democrat ticket. So my state is a foregone conclusion, and my vote meaningless. Nevertheless, I take my vote seriously, and have thought to write in someone (most likely Dallin Oaks) or possibly vote third-party. But two developments over the past weeks have caused me to consider possibly voting for Donald Trump.

1. The positive reason: Trump released his short list of Supreme Court candidates, from which he pledged to name a Supreme Court nominee should the situation arise. And guess what? It's a good list. Even Charles Krauthammer approves. Who knew?
2. The reactionary reason: The media outlets are coming together in an almost unprecedented manner to lambaste Trump. As someone who intensely dislikes Trump, I dislike the media outlets even more. They are evil. They serve their own agenda, which is not freedom, but slavery. I despise them. So, using the enemy-of-my-enemy logic, voting for Trump looks ever less odious the more the howls of outrage against him rise.

[anatess2]

I have more reasons, but I can't vote.  Filipino, ya know.

1.)  His foreign policy position that is tied to his energy position. 

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-foreign-policy-speech

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/an-america-first-energy-plan

2.)  His trade policy position that is tied to his tax reform position.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/us-china-trade-reform

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

3.)  His immigration policy position.  https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

4.)  His healthcare reform position.  https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

 

I like all of these.  Especially when you put it side-by-side with Hillary Clinton's.

 

To be honest, I cringed at the way he called all the journalists to task a couple days ago.  But I'm very sure the die-hard Republicans have been waiting for somebody to have the courage to do it.  I just wish he'd hire me as a speech writer and have him memorize a few nicely worded stuff that he can roll off of so it won't sound like just a plain rant but actually an organized statement.  But, at the same time, I find it refreshing that you have a guy that will stand infront of pressers for 45 minutes and not shrivel.  Try getting Hillary Clinton to do even just 5 minutes of a non-prep'd and non-seeded presser like that!  For the Republicans, this is a boon - they finally figured out a way how to fight back against the slanted media.  Katie Couric should be quaking in her suit... or so we hope.

Edited June 1, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

Vort, Vort, Vort. Just when I think we've been making process you pull something like this. 

(totally playing around my friend) 

[NeuroTypical]

Don't worry Vort - about 45% of Conservatives are in the  same boat as you right now.

Another bright side - this will actually get the whole world to stop saying "I Blame Bush".

Edited June 1, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[Just_A_Guy]

3 hours ago, Vort said:

The positive reason: Trump released his short list of Supreme Court candidates, from which he pledged to name a Supreme Court nominee should the situation arise. And guess what? It's a good list. Even Charles Krauthammer approves. Who knew?

But, is it really a "short list"?  Or is it one of Trump's infamous "opening negotiating positions"?  He himself later seems to have suggested that the names he posited were more like "guidelines" than an actual list. 

If we believe that Deadbeat Don is a fundamentally dishonest person, then his promise to appoint a particular caliber of jurist to the bench, or pretty much any other promise from him, shouldn't carry much weight. 

Quote

The reactionary reason: The media outlets are coming together in an almost unprecedented manner to lambaste Trump. As someone who intensely dislikes Trump, I dislike the media outlets even more. They are evil. They serve their own agenda, which is not freedom, but slavery. I despise them. So, using the enemy-of-my-enemy logic, voting for Trump looks ever less odious the more the howls of outrage against him rise.

Oh, the fact that I'm not voting for Trump doesn't mean I can't take a great deal of schadenfreude in events like yesterday's press conference.

Then again, just because we liked watching Bin Laden make fools of the Soviets in Afghanistan, doesn't mean that supplying him with arms was such a good idea.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[tesuji]

I am a NeverTrumper. Trump is by far the worst candidate in my lifetime, and probably within at least the last 100 years. At least. (I don't know all American presidential candidates in history.) But Andrew Jackson is the one that comes to mind that might be as bad, but I think Trump is probably worse.

Trump is absolutely and entirely not someone who should be president. I'm my view, the mainstream media is luckily doing its job as the "fourth branch" of government, trying to inform people about how truly wrong Trump is to lead our nation.

Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion.

But anyone who is interested, I recommend this recent article by conservative David Frum, who was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush:

Donald Trump and the Seven Broken Guardrails of Democracy
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-seven-broken-guardrails-of-democracy/484829/

Also, check out the Washington Post on any given day They have tons of reporting about Trump.

Edited June 1, 2016 by tesuji

[Vort]

As much as I despise Trump, he is not even the worst major-party candidate in this election.

[anatess2]

19 hours ago, tesuji said:

I am a NeverTrumper. Trump is by far the worst candidate in my lifetime, and probably within at least the last 100 years. At least. (I don't know all American presidential candidates in history.) But Andrew Jackson is the one that comes to mind that might be as bad, but I think Trump is probably worse.

Trump is absolutely and entirely not someone who should be president. I'm my view, the mainstream media is luckily doing its job as the "fourth branch" of government, trying to inform people about how truly wrong Trump is to lead our nation.

Everyone is of course entitled to their opinion.

But anyone who is interested, I recommend this recent article by conservative David Frum, who was a speechwriter for President George W. Bush:

Donald Trump and the Seven Broken Guardrails of Democracy
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/the-seven-broken-guardrails-of-democracy/484829/

Also, check out the Washington Post on any given day They have tons of reporting about Trump.

I find it amazing that people are already calling Trump the worst President BEFORE he even became President-elect.  They said that about Reagan when he ran for office too and Republicans of all stripes are now hailing him as the poster child of Conservatism and one of the greatest Presidents ever... the guy who made a sweeping legalization of abortion in California before Roe vs. Wade even hit the courts and then made sweeping amnesty for illegal immigrants while President and increased the national debt with a 45-55% debt to gdp ratio across both Republican and Democratic controlled houses.

Now, if you're a Democrat then yeah, I can see you stating that the mainstream media is doing its job as the "fourth branch" of government.  I mean, you wouldn't want them asking questions about Hillary Clinton either...

For Republicans... the mainstream media blackmarking Republicans without just cause while glossing over Democratic weaknesses is situation-normal.  I mean, 8 years into Obama's national limelight and nobody still knows who this guy really is.  And just as an example of your "fourth branch" track record... The mainstream political journalist Stephanopoulus invented the War on Women portraying Romney as this anti-Woman extremist who wants to ban contraception for crying out loud.  I'm not American and I don't trust American mainstream media as far as I can throw them...

Now, Washington Post... if you're reading that, you must be a Democrat.  And of course, like all the other Democratic-biased mainstream media, they have tons of bad reporting about Trump.   Washington Times is more centrist.

The Atlantic used to be left-wing as well.  Lately, they've slanted towards what this election cycle has called "establishment" - both Democratic and Republican.  They're wanna-be-corporate-elitist-intellectual type of news casting, that one.  They would also be writing bad stuff about Trump who is the symbolic anti-establishment guy.

So... if you're going to read Washington Post as your par exemple of a "fourth branch" then I present to you Brietbart... check that one out any given day.

[Guest MormonGator]

19 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

Now, Washington Post... if you're reading that, you must be a Democrat.  

 

Wrong. I read the Post, the New York Times and The New Republic. And I'm the farthest thing from a democrat. While it's true, most readers of the Times lean democrat you can't make that sweeping statement about the Post or The Atlantic. Those papers are read by anyone who wants to know what is going on in the world. I read the NYT Sunday edition and the Post every few days. I read the Journal every day. 

Those papers are more read by people living in cities-which granted do generally swing to the left (at least socially) and the Post/Times editorial page certainly is to the left-but a surprising number of centrists-slightly republican people read them just to know what's happening. 

Edited June 2, 2016 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

I've expressed a lot of times on the forums that I'm a huge fan of Newt Gingrich.  I just saw him on FB live.  He answered questions from the audience left and right... talked non-stop for quite a while.  If Trump chooses him as VP, that would be the perfect combo in my opinion - both do not shrivel under media fire, both unscripted, straight from the heart types, and Gingrich fills out Trump's weaknesses with the strength and breadth of his experience littered with proven successes and Gingrich has not openly antagonized Trump and his voters and Trump's respect for Gingrich is palpable.  Gingrich and Ryan (who I also like very much) are doing great things in Congress... Gingrich in his role through Gingrich Productions bridging the Republican House with people in a more meaningful way than C-SPAN.

Here's some Gingrich great interview material with TIME magazine:

TIME:  What would you like to see moving forward for the Republican Party?

Gingrich:  The question is: can we between now and Cleveland pull the party together to have the unity convention in Cleveland? That would be very helpful. But I think it has to be unified around the winner. And a lot of folks in the Washington establishment seem to think that the way to get unity is to pretend that they won and he lost. That’s not going to happen, and it shouldn’t. His voters voted for him to change things; they didn’t’ vote for him to go and kiss and make up with the people they want to change.  (Anatess note: Gingrich said this:  He will get more primary votes than anyone in history.)

Why should the Republican Party rally around Donald Trump?

The nature of team sports is that you’ve got two teams. You have the Hillary Clinton left-wing-radical, labor-union team, and you’ve got everybody else. And everybody else broadly are called Republicans. And the team leader they picked to put on the field is called Donald Trump.

There were millions of people who were involved in that process, and he is clearly the legitimate nominee. He will get more primary votes than anyone in history.

So you have two choices: You can be for the Hillary Clinton team or you can be for Donald Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton. There’s no honest, realistic third choice.

Why do you think Trump will be a good president?

I think he has the potential to be an extraordinarily dynamic president who shakes up a bureaucratic city that badly needs to be shaken up. I think that the bureaucracies in Washington have gotten the attitude that they run the country, not that the country runs them. And I think in a free society, that’s very unhealthy.

I think it would be very good to have a president who came in and challenged all the current assumptions. I’m actually working on a paper now on why I think his call for rethinking our foreign policy is totally legitimate. And I really think we have to be realistic about that stuff. It’s been 14 years since 9/11. We’ve spent trillions of dollars, over 4,000 lives and over 50,000 severely wounded, and we’re not winning. That’s a place to say: don’t we need a national debate?

Hillary wanted to replace the dictatorship in Libya. Well she got rid of Gaddafi. Now it’s a total mess. She wanted a new deal with Russia. That new deal led to seizing Crimea, then part of Ukraine and putting Russian forces in Syria. Is that a success?

I think those kind of honest, legitimate questions pushing the national system and arguing that we need to rethink what we’re doing is exactly what we need in the near future.

What do you think it is that’s been most effective about [his energy speech]?

People sense that what you’re getting is the real Donald Trump. Whether he’s right or he’s wrong, whether he has to learn new facts or he already knows them, you feel like you’re not getting a trained, programmed, computerized, consultant-driven phony who makes up whatever he has to.

What do you think of Trump’s recent comments about the national debt?

He clearly made a mistake in his initial comments. Because the Constitution says the debt should be honored. He came back in 48 hours and said he would take the debt as a principle that he would honor. Remember, this is a businessman who has entered politics. This is not a professional career politician. He’s going to make a lot of amateur mistakes. But I think he’s going to learn very fast.

It happened earlier in one of the debates when he made a comment that he would order the military to use torture. And people called out that that was illegal. Well within 24 hours he walked it back and said he would never ask the military to do something that was illegal—although he might ask Congress to change the law. He had to learn that.

You’ll get a lot more learning curve with Trump than with Hillary and he will meet it. She’s been doing this since 1972 when she first worked with the George McGovern campaign. He’s been doing it since last June.

Are there any issues that you think should be getting more attention?

I just ran across this yesterday so I’m probably enamored, like people who find a new shiny penny. But I ran across a study that the Clinton Foundation pays men 38% more than women. I think that is so impossible for Hillary to defend, and I think every Republican should say it in their speech.

By contrast, the first woman to be in charge of building a high-rise building in New York worked for Donald Trump.

The more we get into this, the more fun it’s going to become.

 

 

 

[NeuroTypical]

I've been a fan of Gingrich ever since he killed the national 55mph speed limit, reformed welfare, and all the other cool things from his Contract With America.

He's a guy of strong opinions, I'm surprised to find him strongly positive on Trump.  I'd have expected him to be as negative as the rest of 'em.  

Why do you think Trump will be a good president?
I think he has the potential to be an extraordinarily dynamic president who shakes up a bureaucratic city that badly needs to be shaken up

[anatess2]

38 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I've been a fan of Gingrich ever since he killed the national 55mph speed limit, reformed welfare, and all the other cool things from his Contract With America.

He's a guy of strong opinions, I'm surprised to find him strongly positive on Trump.  I'd have expected him to be as negative as the rest of 'em.  

 

I'm not surprised.  He was the "Trump" of 2012... firing back at the media, going unscripted, being the outsider (even with Ron Paul on the ballot - Ron just kinda became the extremist of 2012), shaking up the status quo.  He sees Trump as the vehicle that can force Washington to change - both left and right wings of it - something that he really wanted to happen.  I've seen some of his sit-downs with Ryan and he's very excited with what's happening in the House right now.  He feels that Trump will be the only guy that has the characteristics that can bring the Republican House's agenda to fruition amidst a Democratic filibuster.  A lot of Conservatives - especially the NeverTrumpers and I'm going to include Rush Limbaugh on here even if he's not a Never Trumper because he's been holding this position for a long time, he only softened his views since last June when Trump announced, take note that Rush knows Trump personally and knows who the guy is and what he believes and what he's capable of and what he's weaknesses are - believe that you don't negotiate with Democrats... that the way to win is to stand by the Conservative ideology and make the Democrats agree to it.  So Congress has been at stagnation since Obama sat in the oval office because Democrats stonewall and Republicans stonewall... nothing gets done.  The Cruz supporters are on this camp of stonewall is better than negotiating, so you will see a lot of Never Trumpers in that group.

Gingrich and Ryan both believe that the Constitution itself structures a balance of power so that negotiation HAS to take place for anything to happen.  So, when Ryan passed the budget bill he got raked in the coals.  He was supposed to stonewall that thing.  Gingrich has a different take on it because he himself negotiated with Bill Clinton to get a healthy working Congress.  He doesn't see negotiating as losing or abandoning the Conservative agenda.  Rather, he sees negotiating as part of the process to move the Conservative agenda forward.  So, his choice to support Trump is not surprising because he believes that Trump, by simply being Trump (winning is everything), and a banner-holder for the voices of millions of people who has specific mandates (build the wall, supreme court justice, etc.), will sit on that negotiating table and win his mandates... because he's done it plenty of times in his life... not by stonewalling but by shaking things up and changing the status quo.

 

 

Edited June 2, 2016 by anatess2