I'm going to try to stop commenting about this subject. It isn't very productive to me. It's not about being right and wrong. In fact, for a long time I was not supportive of Trump. I only recently began to support him. Basically, it comes down to the list of things I mentioned somewhere lost on one of these endless threads. The public positions that Trump has taken are astounding and we couldn't expect that from any other candidate in the near future. I see it as counter-productive to oppose his presidency. I really like what he said at AIPAC, his willingness to work with Putin, and what he said about keeping mohamedans out, along with other things.
Let me reveal some of my more personal reasons that add to what is above (which already was enough). You see, his personal life does not affect me, but other points could gravely affect my future. I'm not talking about his idea to help the jobs by keeping them from setting up shop in Mexico, although this also should be taken into account. You see, when the ridiculous sham of marriage was passed last summer, this did indeed affect Americans living abroad with foreign spouses. Now, if I decide to file the papers for my wife and I to reside in the U.S., I will have to wait in line with Lord only knows how many degenerates waiting to bring their ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs to the U.S. The whole immigration system was already complicated and then that. The amoral liberals love to talk about how people should stay out of people's bedrooms because it has nothing to do with them. In my case, those bogus "marriage" laws could mean the difference between my family waiting outside the U.S. 5 to 10 years to get in, should I choose to come back. I think the average expected wait is something like 2 1/2 years now. So, when one of these militant leftists or war monger puppets gets in there and starts accepting more and more refugees and granting amnesty or accepting tons of illegal immigrants, this will affect me personally. I've crossed borders illegally. Illegals want something that they are not willing to give in their own countries. My wife will do it the legal way. Those who don't do it the legal way, frustrate the system for those who don't. This is why there are Latinos that support Trump. Many legal immigrants are sick of the illegal immigrants making it harder for everyone.
So, on one hand, I like what Trump is saying when he challenges the media and liberals. On the other hand, keeping those liberals from accepting huge influxes of immigrants is important to my personal life. It's my opinion that my motive is superior to yours. You haven't said much except that you worry about the morality of the country, etc. It is ridiculous to blame the degenerative culture of the U.S. on Trump. I'm sure he has very little culpability in that matter.
I stick by my original opinion that your attitude about this is highly unlike you. You couldn't even admit that you like it that he wants to keep mohamedans out. I'm surprised really. It is extremely odd, given your usual stance for the Truth. There is Truth in wanting to restrict false religions, even when the immoral does it.
I am not going to put any more time into the topic.
There's a very reasonable position in this thinking, but you didn't actually say it, so I'm not sure if that's what you're getting at. It's the position of Dr. Carson -- the, "I don't want the Dems to win and I think Trump is the best chance at beating them." It's highly debatable which sort of Republican is best suited to push all the swing states in the Rep direction and no one really has the answer on that. All I know is that most of the other guys fair better in head-to-head polling with Clinton than Trump does, but I also know that those polls are inherently limited and the percentage differences were minimal. So, to back Trump because you think he has a better chance than the others in the general isn't unreasonable.
Now that I've filled Graham's requirement that I point out where we agree, I'll tell you where I disagree. : )
You mention the things you like about Trump as if he's the only one who says these things. There are a number of things unique to him, but those statements are all off-the-cuff comments and not official parts of his policy.
Putin - point me to something official that says he's going to handle Russia differently than everyone else
Israel - He says in one breath that he's going to be "neutral" and then in the next declares that there is "no one more pro-Israel than I am". Enough said.
Mohamedans - I don't believe he'd ever actually require a religious statement before admitting people into the US. He speaks in this black and white language, but he'd never follow through on such an extreme position, just like his backtracking on wanting to kill the children of terrorists. On the other hand, his rivals want to put a ban on immigration from countries with strong ISIS presence which is probably all Trump would do, but the more extreme statements get him more free publicity than his competition. (In a related point, I don't think it's coincidence that he says the extreme statements on TV and then backtracks on Twitter or via press release.)
marriage laws - The Republicans all agree here expect for possibly Kasich who naively thinks we should all be able to get along in such matters without laws protecting Christians from liberal agendas.
bought politicians - I asked a question regarding this yesterday, but no one has answered. Are we at the point where only self-funded candidates should be considered for president? If not, how do you see an honest person running a presidential campaign without appearing or being compromised?
9/11 - He's questioned the official story, but he's also said that we should keep Muslims out of the country to avoid another 9-11 and that he saw crowds of Muslims cheering after 9-11. Actually, I don't know what part of the 9-11 script he questions as what I heard was him attributing the WMD in Iraq as a lie and the he later backtracked to say he doesn't know if it was a lie or not. Can you show me what has he said about 9-11 that I missed?
donors in debates - This was pretty much a lie on his behalf. Each of the candidates gets an equal number of seats to fill at a debate and he's free to fill his with supporters just as everyone else does. He tried to get mileage from the "boos" by suggesting the audience was compromised, but it didn't make any rational sense (which is why I find mention of this one odd). Of course, if you give a candidate money, you might get debate tickets out of it, but Trump who doesn't want your money gets just as many tickets to distribute and I don't think he was handing them out at the Fiorina rallies. Now, if he were to argue that tickets should be distributed based on polling numbers, he might have had a valid point, but that's not even close to what he said.
I think I made it through your 6-point list. Someone added Hillary, but she's pretty much doomed if she doesn't win herself. She's a criminal and Obama is shielding her, but his time will soon be up.
Topic: Bishop Williamson and Donald Trump - huh? (Read 21258 times)