**The Official** Republican Convention thread

[TheCount]

Basically, the difference lies in which style of rhetoric you'd like to hear while they're fucking you.

Specifically,

Hillary: You're being fucked, and it's your fault.

Trump: You're being fucked, and it's someone else's fault.


The fucking is the same regardless.

 

[silverhandorder]

Actually he's worse.

In addition to maintaining the existing police-state, he wants to use more torture and build some kind of national database of Muslim citizens.

You mean Obama droning people and holding them in Guantanamo is not enough? Btw national muslim data base is coming regardless of whether we elect trump or not. So is torture.

How?



How?

The same way he defeated 16 opponents and the way he is going to defeat hillary.

Culture war nonsense, doesn't matter.

Which is important to me.

Translation: deport 10 million people at a cost of mass rioting and hundreds of billions of dollars, only to let them all back in legally (touchback).

So?

Yea, a 45% tax on Chinese imports won't strain relations or nuttin....

It will when we start to send them goods instead of paper.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

You mean Obama droning people and holding them in Guantanamo is not enough? Btw national muslim data base is coming regardless of whether we elect trump or not. So is torture.

Trump was the only presidential candidate advocating for either.

The same way he defeated 16 opponents and the way he is going to defeat hillary.

LOL, so there's no plan other than "believe me, I'm rich and smart."

So?

Spend hundreds of billions, provoke mass civil unrest, only to end up exactly where you started, having accomplished nothing...

...this sounds like a good plan to you?

 

[silverhandorder]

Trump was the only presidential candidate advocating for either.

And they never lie?

LOL, so there's no plan other than "believe me, I'm rich and smart."

I watched him closely. He fucking demolished them. He gets loyalty out of his people, he is very frugal with his resources and he takes risks.

Spend hundreds of billions, provoke mass civil unrest, only to end up exactly where you started, having accomplished nothing...



...this sounds like a good plan to you?

That is your prediction.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

And they never lie?

If you're arguing that other candidates also (but secretly) want torture and a Muslim database, okay, let's say that's true.

How's that a reason to vote for Trump?

I watched him closely. He fucking demolished them. He gets loyalty out of his people, he is very frugal with his resources and he takes risks.

You've got something on your chin.

That is your prediction.

Prediction? No, it's what he said in public statements when asked about his immigration policy.

This has been gone over many times here.

Would you like citations?

 

[silverhandorder]

If you're arguing that other candidates also (but secretly) want torture and a Muslim database, okay, let's say that's true.

How's that a reason to vote for Trump?

He tells the truth and he is right?

You've got something on your chin.

Yeah your blood and spittle.

Prediction? No, it's what he said in public statements when asked about his immigration policy.

This has been gone over many times here.

Would you like citations?

It is your prediction that it will end up terribly.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

He tells the truth and he is right?

He's right? ...as in, you favor torture and a national Muslim database?

It is your prediction that it will end up terribly.

Explain to how it could go well.

What is to be gained by deporting millions of people only to bring them all back in?

 

[silverhandorder]

He's right? ...as in, you favor torture and a national Muslim database?

Yes. As far as average Joe is concerned.

If it was up to me we would have no state and no torture and etc. It is not up to me.

Explain to how it could go well.

What is to be gained by deporting millions of people only to bring them all back in?

Because it would not happen the way you think it will. You cherry pick statements and you don't really follow him. IF you did you would know that all he talks about is building the wall to be able to control the border. If you have control of the border you can choose to bring in whoever you want and on your terms. What he is doing is a trick. Democrats claim immigrant are good so he says if they are good he will bring them in. What happens if all of a sudden most of the deported don't meet the requirements? Based on how competent he is in destroying his opponents I can't believe he would fuck up this plank. Either way you don't know what will happen neither do I. What matters is that he is the only one who wants to control the border.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes. As far as average Joe is concerned.

If it was up to me we would have no state and no torture and etc. It is not up to me.

So, you're supporting Trump not because he has the right positions on issues, but because the average Joe thinks he does....

Because it would not happen the way you think it will. You cherry pick statements and you don't really follow him. IF you did you would know that all he talks about is building the wall to be able to control the border. If you have control of the border you can choose to bring in whoever you want and on your terms. What he is doing is a trick. Democrats claim immigrant are good so he says if they are good he will bring them in. What happens if all of a sudden most of the deported don't meet the requirements? Based on how competent he is in destroying his opponents I can't believe he would fuck up this plank. Either way you don't know what will happen neither do I. What matters is that he is the only one who wants to control the border.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/south...tion-plan-includes-amnesty-after-deportation/

Last month, Marc A. Thiessen of the American Enterprise Institute published the article Message to the GOP: Trump supports amnesty.

In it, he highlights Eric Trump's description of his father's immigration plan:

"The point isn’t just deporting them, it’s deporting them and letting them back in legally. He’s been so clear about that and I know the liberal media wants to misconstrue it, but its deporting them and letting them back legally."

Which echoes Donald's previous comments:

"I would get people out and then have an expedited way of getting them back into the country so they can be legal…. A lot of these people are helping us … and sometimes it’s jobs a citizen of the United States doesn’t want to do. I want to move ’em out, and we’re going to move ’em back in and let them be legal."

The key word is expedited. An expedited process is another way of saying that illegals are going to cut in line of those who have been waiting for years.

There is no question about it: that constitutes amnesty. Ron Fournier has described Trump's plan as "gold-plated amnesty."

Thiessen mentions the fact that this basic idea has been proposed before by moderates and met strong opposition:

"This is a policy called “touchback” and it was first proposed in 2007 by moderate Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX). She offered a “touchback” amendment on the Senate floor that would have required illegal immigrants to return to their home countries to apply for a special “Z visa” that would allow them to reenter the United States in an expedited fashion and work here indefinitely."

 

[silverhandorder]

So, you're supporting Trump not because he has the right positions on issues, but because the average Joe thinks he does....

He is correct on opposing NATO, money in politics, getting control of border and making America work again. In this paradigm he is the best candidate.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/south...tion-plan-includes-amnesty-after-deportation/

Red state does not count. Let's start with that.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

He is correct on opposing NATO, money in politics, getting control of border and making America work again. In this paradigm he is the best candidate.

Ah, you're just changing the subject because you have no way to defend Trump. We were talking about civil liberties.

Anyway, as to those other issues, no he's not better on any of them. He's the same or worse on all of them.

He's a more anti-trade, anti-immigration (yes, those are bad things) version of Hillary.

Red state does not count. Let's start with that.

Red State is not the source of the information, they're just summarizing it.

Here's the video of Eric Trump. Start at 6:10.



And here's the video of Donald. Starts at 3:40.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/07/29/donald-trump-dana-bash-interview-the-lead.cnn

 

[silverhandorder]

I am done talking with you. I made my case.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

 

[kahless]

Ah, you're just changing the subject because you have no way to defend Trump. We were talking about civil liberties.

Anyway, as to those other issues, no he's not better on any of them. He's the same or worse on all of them.

He's a more anti-trade, anti-immigration (yes, those are bad things) version of Hillary.

Red State is not the source of the information, they're just summarizing it.

Not better than Hillary on NATO are you kidding me

He is not anti-immigration he is anti illegal immigration. Being against illegal immigration is NOT a bad thing and is necessary since we cannot handle to influx. Hillary is for open borders and for the taxpayers like us to foot the bill.

Anti-trade, more like anti-unbalanced trade deals like NAFTA and TPP. Programs which Hillary is for. Worse on NATO, where Hillary wanted to shoot Russian planes out the sky and Trump does wants members to pay instead of US taxpayers having the full burden.

You are losing all credibility on this issue. There is allot of things you can actually attack Trump on but unfortunately your whole game to do so is by using Progressive or Neocon talking points. Making the case for higher taxes on these topics is not libertarian.

 

[Son_of_Liberty90]

A Trump supporter being intellectually dishonest?

...nah, can't be, I'm sure he just forgot to respond.

Here, I'll repost it for his benefit:

How about a supporter of any damn mainstream republican or democrat candidate for the last 20 years being intellectually dishonest?

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Not better than Hillary on NATO are you kidding me

His position on NATO is incoherent, leave it one day, stay another.

About the only consistent thing is he wants them to pay more.

..."take their shit" being a common theme of his foreign policy in general.

The plain truth is he knows nothing about foreign policy and cares even less.

He thought Belgium was a city for fuck's sake.

He's just making shit up as he goes along, to please the political needs of the moment.

He is not anti-immigration he is anti illegal immigration.

He's actually for the most expensive and asinine form of amnesty possible, as demonstrated in the videos above.

Anti-trade, more like anti-unbalanced trade deals like NAFTA and TPP. Programs which Hillary is for.

He's for a 45% tariff. Call it what you will, it's terrible and unlibertarian policy.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

How about a supporter of any damn mainstream republican or democrat candidate for the last 20 years being intellectually dishonest?

Well, to be fair, some of them are just stupid.

But yes, I agree, many are intellectually dishonest.

 

[twomp]

It's the age of streaming. You bad.

You bad with your endless streams of excuses.

 

[Wooden Indian]

I am done talking with you. I made my case.

What case was that? You just got soundly defeated. Every post you made was embarrassing to read. Not saying that to be mean, it just was. You made no points whatsoever and should reconsider your views based on what just happened.

 

[AuH20]

Not better than Hillary on NATO are you kidding me

He is not anti-immigration he is anti illegal immigration. Being against illegal immigration is NOT a bad thing and is necessary since we cannot handle to influx. Hillary is for open borders and for the taxpayers like us to foot the bill.

Anti-trade, more like anti-unbalanced trade deals like NAFTA and TPP. Programs which Hillary is for. Worse on NATO, where Hillary wanted to shoot Russian planes out the sky and Trump does wants members to pay instead of US taxpayers having the full burden.

You are losing all credibility on this issue. There is allot of things you can actually attack Trump on but unfortunately your whole game to do so is by using Progressive or Neocon talking points. Making the case for higher taxes on these topics is not libertarian.

Trump is bad on the police state, retention of New Deal policies and overall spending. He's good on foreign policy, taxes, trade, immigration and the removal of unnecessary govt departments.