You asked me what his plan was and I gave it to you. Some of it at least, he has a website dedicated to listing his entire platform that obviously includes much more and in greater detail. Instead of debating the merits of his plan you just blow it off because you think he has no chance of winning. Have you ever actually listened to a full Trump speech? Not 2 minutes youtube clips but an actual full hour long speech? Or do you just hate him because the media tells you to? If the primaries are any indication, polls don't mean anything. There are many people who are secretly Trump supporters but will never admit it to anyone because of the backlash they would get. That's why liberals were so shocked that Trump won the nomination. Because many Trump supporters, usually white males because they are being treated very unfairly right now, have been silenced by political correctness but they still vote. That right there is the most important thing. This borderline fascist, political correctness that's driven people to be so afraid of telling the truth and forced people to walk on eggshells because it might offend someone or the crybullies will turn them into a pariah and they'll lose all their friends, and in some cases their jobs, and labelled a racist or sexist or whatever. The fact that Hillary accused both Bernie and Trump of sexism tells me she is going to continue this road to chaining free speech.
You asked me what his plan was and I gave it to you. Some of it at least, he has a website dedicated to listing his entire platform that obviously includes much more and in greater detail. Instead of debating the merits of his plan you just blow it off because you think he has no chance of winning. Have you ever actually listened to a full Trump speech? Not 2 minutes youtube clips but an actual full hour long speech? Or do you just hate him because the media tells you to? If the primaries are any indication, polls don't mean anything. There are many people who are secretly Trump supporters but will never admit it to anyone because of the backlash they would get. That's why liberals were so shocked that Trump won the nomination. Because many Trump supporters, usually white males because they are being treated very unfairly right now, have been silenced by political correctness but they still vote. That right there is the most important thing. This borderline fascist, political correctness that's driven people to be so afraid of telling the truth and forced people to walk on eggshells because it might offend someone or the crybullies will turn them into a pariah and they'll lose all their friends, and in some cases their jobs, and labelled a racist or sexist or whatever. The fact that Hillary accused both Bernie and Trump of sexism tells me she is going to continue this road to chaining free speech.
you know trump SUCKS at speech right? this is what he said when someone asked him about Iran-iraq war IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING FROM ABRIDGED SERIES... SOMETHING TEAM4STAR WOULD PUT IN IN ABDRGED DRAGONBALL SERIES OR SOMETHING! I LOLED WHEN I READ IT FIRST TIME!
I'll take that as a no. It's easy to make someone look stupid or horrible by taking something they say out of context. Here's a full speech he gave on foreign policy but I'm sure you won't listen to it. But by all means continue acting as if you're so enlightened whilst refusing to look at primary resources.
I'll take that as a no. It's easy to make someone look stupid or horrible by taking something they say out of context. Here's a full speech he gave on foreign policy but I'm sure you won't listen to it. But by all means continue acting as if you're so enlightened whilst refusing to look at primary resources.
just few minutes in he already has A LOT OF HISTORICAL INNACURACY. 1. America did NOT save the world from BY THEMSELVES! Yeah shocking I know! He overlooks contribution of rest of free worlds like Cannada, Australia, New Zealand Britain and Russia ( in fact arguably it was Russia that delivered crucial blow against Hitler during battle of Stalingrad which crippled hitler's military forces which gave opening for allies in D-Day) 2. AMERICA IS IRRELEVANT IN ENDING OF COLD WAR AND FALL OF COMMUNISM DURING LATE 19TH CENTYY TO EARLY 20TH CENTURY. Sure America might have done few actions to WEAKEN communism but most communist country fell AND USSR fall because of so many problem it faced inwardly and it just could not keep up with capitalist model. In other words communism fell by itself! America did NOTHING to end it. In fact around fall of communism Bush Snr did NOTHING to former communist country in this time of turmoil.
Just like CNN, you put words in his mouth. He didn't say America defeated the Japanese and alone. I'm sure in your mind someone has to list out every single country that contributed to the war effort otherwise THEY ARE COMPLETELY WROOOOOONG. America was undeniably one of, if not the biggest player for the allied victory.
America was irrelevant in the cold war? Tell that to a history or political science professor, I dare you.
Just like CNN, you put words in his mouth. He didn't say America defeated the Japanese and alone. I'm sure in your mind someone has to list out every single country that contributed to the war effort otherwise THEY ARE COMPLETELY WROOOOOONG. America was undeniably one of, if not the biggest player for the allied victory.
America was irrelevant in the cold war? Tell that to a history or political science professor, I dare you.
not that it was irrelevant but actual ending of Cold War was irrelevant. ( I am mostly talking about fall of USSR) Why did USSR fell and Russia became Russia federation today? anyway that isn't the only problem... another problem is that he keeps on saying "I am the only person believe me..." ISN'T THAT HUBRIS? "TUST ME... I AM THE DOCTOR TRUMP!" Seriously! what is he... The Doctor? and while he PRETENDS to have plan most of his speech is just typical politician attacking another politician saying "Trust me! I am different! It is all other side's fault! They are to blame while I am new! Vote for me for being new!" Like SO MANY POLITICIANS HAVE SAID!
Aside from dishonesty and the several nasty things he's said, there are other reasons I question voting for him.
Going through his website, he has a lot of very sensible plans/policies. He supports protection of the 2nd Amendment, which I like. I also agree with his plans to fight NAFTA and the TPP.
Yet, there are a few things I worry about based not only on his policies listed, but based on things he's said as well.
He wants to cut taxes across the board and then beef up our military for the purpose of being more threatening. That has had poor results for the economy in the past. Besides, we already spend a lot on military:
He talks about his desire to protect the environment but also wants to kill the Environmental Protection Agency. He also doesn't recognize the fact that global warming and climate change are real issues despite the mountain of science behind it. (Really scary) He also said he's going to cut funding from education. He's expressed openness at use of nuclear weapons. He's pro-life which depends on where you stand on the issue, but since I'm pro-choice that's a minus. He's shown support for the Patriot Act, which I'm not a fan of.
And as much as it's been overdone, there's still his plan to build the wall. His plan to make Mexico pay for it is bullying them into doing it: Either they give us the money to build the wall or we damage their economy. Yet, there are aspects of unpredictability in that his campaign seem much too certain about. Given how unpopular Trump and his wall are in Mexico, anyone who makes the decision to let the U.S. build the wall is committing political suicide. That makes me question how smoothly his plan will actually go.
Thoughts? I'm here to have a discussion, not an argument.
I have no problem with discussions, though I'd post rare pepes.
It is true that the US already spends a lot on military. It's also true that they waste a lot of money. Wasn't it somewhere around 6.5 trillion dollars that's unaccounted for, basically wasted money from the military? It's not about throwing more money at the military funding but being efficient. They should first drastically cut military funding for a while so they get their act together. Then slowly give back funding once they learned how to spend tax payer money wisely. I'm well aware of the American military hegemony.
Who says you need a government agency to be environmentally friendly? The problem with the environmentalists thinking is that their answer is always more taxes because for whatever reason they think only the government is capable of doing anything about pollution. Individuals can be just as if not more effective at doing environmental work without a bureaucracy and red tape. Not going to open the can of worms of climate change because that's a whole other debate. The question still remains - what reason is there to suggest that only the government has the capacity to do something about it even if anthropomorphic climate change was real?
He's getting rid of common core. That's a good thing. There doesn't need to be a federal agency for education, let the states decide that on their own.
Every president has to consider using nuclear weapons ever since the 50s.
I'm pro life so that's a plus for me.
One of many things I actually don't like about him is his support for the Patriot Act.
The US gives 200 million to Mexico every year in foreign aid. Easily cut that off for starters. I don't expect the wall to be constructed smoothly at all. I expect lots of protest from Soros paid protesters. I expect vandalism and Mexico stubbornly refusing to pay for it. Even if America had to pay for it it's still a good idea to build a wall.
I can agree with most of what you said. Just a couple of things, though:
When it comes to the EPA, part of the reason I think they're important is because they impede those who mean to hurt the environment. We don't need them for working towards fixing the environment, you're right. People can handle that. But there's also a lot of people who don't care about the environment and are still causing damage to it. That's where the EPA plays a key role: stopping people or firms from causing further damage to our environment and worsening the effects of climate change. A group of average joes can't force a corporation to not cut down that forest. So if Trump wants to get rid of the EPA my main concern is whether he'll provide any kind of replacement, but he doesn't seem to offer anything like that. His main concern is that the EPA costs money and stops businesses from doing what they want. But my concern is worsening the effects of climate change. It's very real, proven over and over again by scientists to the point where over 97% of the scientific community accepts it, and we really have to do as much as we can to mitigate the effects it will have on our lives.
Also about the nuke thing. It's not that he's thought about it at all. Every president has and should do that. However what people are worried about is how open he is to use of nuclear weapons. He says that more countries should have nukes, and that full nuclear proliferation is an inevitability. Now, I see what he means. Clearly he's saying that the world is safer if everybody has the deadly weapon, so no one will use it for fear of being hit back. That's one way of looking at it, but I'd prefer to avoid cold war "duck and cover" scenarios where tensions between nuclear powers lead to mass paranoia. And a lot of studies suggest that he's actually wrong about inevitability, since the US has been quite successful in it's efforts to limit nuclear proliferation.
Yet Trump says that he will move away from the alliances we've built up over the years unless our allies make major financial concessions. If he does, that his prediction will come true, I guess. But that's not what I want to happen.
Edit: Also sorry Arlong but I'm going to have to report your post for use of a hate symbol
He talks about his desire to protect the environment but also wants to kill the Environmental Protection Agency. Thoughts? I'm here to have a discussion, not an argument.
The EPA is fraught with useless wasteful programs which is what I think is what is motivating Mr. Trump to try to abolish the agency. He's going to find that outright eliminating it is going to be extremely difficult. Hopefully he'll realize the futility of the effort and instead direct his attention on removing the spurious boondoggles.
and as for climate change... The United States has done so much to cut down on emissions and seek out alternative energy sources. There's really not all that much room for improvement. If anyone really cared that much about the environment, they'd campaign for bringing the hammer down on China, the worst polluter in the world. They were given free reign to absolutely screw over their own environment, and the entire world, by the Kyoto Treaty. Mr. Trump has mentioned a few times how China is doing this, which gives me at least a small hope he might muscle his way in to do something about it, unlike our past presidents and presidential candidates who have acted ignorant about the problem.
The EPA is fraught with useless wasteful programs which is what I think is what is motivating Mr. Trump to try to abolish the agency. He's going to find that outright eliminating it is going to be extremely difficult. Hopefully he'll realize the futility of the effort and instead direct his attention on removing the spurious boondoggles.
and as for climate change... The United States has done so much to cut down on emissions and seek out alternative energy sources. There's really not all that much room for improvement. If anyone really cared that much about the environment, they'd campaign for bringing the hammer down on China, the worst polluter in the world. They were given free reign to absolutely screw over their own environment, and the entire world, by the Kyoto Treaty. Mr. Trump has mentioned a few times how China is doing this, which gives me at least a small hope he might muscle his way in to do something about it, unlike our past presidents and presidential candidates who have acted ignorant about the problem.
I think "removing the spurious boondoggles" is probably the best way to address the EPA... Also the next president would definitely do well to say something about China's pollution.
The whole 97% of scientists is false. Again I really don't want to open that debate. Nobody wants to hurt the environment, except maybe BP. Pollution is simply a byproduct of industries. And an average hoe can stop a corporation from cutting down a forest and I don't mean by doing something idiotic like chaining yourself to a tree. Protest with your dollar. If you don't like what they're doing don't buy their product and encourage others to boycott too. Companies are driven by capital and if people aren't buying they will shut down or change their practices. I will say however that a minimal amount of regulation should be put in place to protect certain endangered species or to prevent unintended consequences. Does that require an agency to manage? Maybe but at the very least it ought to be heavily deregulated. I'd rather he shut down planned parenthood but he's actually in favor of them - another thing I don't like.
Trump doesn't want to sever ties to allies either. But they have to pay their fair share that they agreed to. That's a serious problem, other countries are taking advantage of America's military and if they aren't going to pay then they shouldn't get the service. I can't recall Trump saying it's an inevitability. I mean of course you can stop another country from getting nukes and indeed nonproliferation has been quite successful, arguably. That doesn't say anything about whether or not it is or isn't better if we allow other countries to get their own nukes. I don't see an issue with letting our allies get nukes if they don't want to pay their fair share. Either pay your rent or defend yourself.
Nukes are still very much relevant. Yes anti ballistic missiles exist but not every country has that technology. If a country like Iran got the nuke, only Israel, Pakistan and India has a nuke or abm themselves to challenge Iran's power. And if the US and Russia were to engage in total war against each other, more than few nukes would pass through.
The whole 97% of scientists is false. Again I really don't want to open that debate. Nobody wants to hurt the environment, except maybe BP. Pollution is simply a byproduct of industries. And an average hoe can stop a corporation from cutting down a forest and I don't mean by doing something idiotic like chaining yourself to a tree. Protest with your dollar. If you don't like what they're doing don't buy their product and encourage others to boycott too. Companies are driven by capital and if people aren't buying they will shut down or change their practices. I will say however that a minimal amount of regulation should be put in place to protect certain endangered species or to prevent unintended consequences. Does that require an agency to manage? Maybe but at the very least it ought to be heavily deregulated. I'd rather he shut down planned parenthood but he's actually in favor of them - another thing I don't like.
Trump doesn't want to sever ties to allies either. But they have to pay their fair share that they agreed to. That's a serious problem, other countries are taking advantage of America's military and if they aren't going to pay then they shouldn't get the service. I can't recall Trump saying it's an inevitability. I mean of course you can stop another country from getting nukes and indeed nonproliferation has been quite successful, arguably. That doesn't say anything about whether or not it is or isn't better if we allow other countries to get their own nukes. I don't see an issue with letting our allies get nukes if they don't want to pay their fair share. Either pay your rent or defend yourself.
Nukes are still very much relevant. Yes anti ballistic missiles exist but not every country has that technology. If a country like Iran got the nuke, only Israel, Pakistan and India has a nuke or abm themselves to challenge Iran's power. And if the US and Russia were to engage in total war against each other, more than few nukes would pass through.
That's a good point about dollar protests, I didn't think about that. But regardless of all that I think the EPA should still exist in some form, because there are scenarios in which dollar votes aren't as effective, damage to the environment more immediate and less reversible. So I can definitely agree with keeping around, and also with cutting off anything which is needless.
As for the nukes I can see where you're coming from if they're taking advantage us in these treaties. In that case it would be better to back out or at least demand they pay up. But at the same time I still think the world is safer with less nukes than with more. And I do mean that even if we have lots of missiles to shoot them down (Thanks Deathmob). It could simple threat of a nuke flying across the ocean and destroying dozens of thousands of lives that throws people into mass paranoia. And another issue could be the potential for technology that counters those missiles to be developed over time.
Probably gonna peace out for now. Thanks for the talk guys, it's good to get other perspectives.
Ironically, this is largely the reason Trump is going to wind up winning. The media has been bending over backwards to continually and relentlessly attack Trump on almost EVERY angle, which not only turns him into a very lucrative underdog, but likewise lulls Democrats into a false sense of security. Most Democrats that support Hillary have this exact same perception... that Hillary is going to win in a proverbial landslide.
That in turn breeds apathetic indifference to voting, which means most of Hillary's supporters won't even bother going to the polls at all... I mean, why should they? The media has already made it abundantly clear that their candidate WILL win and that Trump doesn't have a chance and that EVERYBODY hates Trump.
On the flip side, with Republicans, the constant attacks and so forth breed a kind of desperation level voting anxiety that will drive every last Trump supporter off the couch and down to the polls. That in turn is likely what will win Trump the election.
soooo despite Trump not winning polls he will still win? WTF?
and you say Trump is only one getting attacked by media... "Trump is saint! Those negative medias that say Trump did crap! They are overreacting!" and when there is negative press on Hillary you accept it like if it is a Bible...
When did I say only Trump is getting attacked by the media? Killary gets shat on too. Don't put words in my mouth like CNN.
both Trump and Hillary are getting attacked by media... you should be careful in choosing which ones to believe in. I just support Hillary cause at least in debate she CAN ACT intelligent unlike Trump who is on edge every time. Not to mention Hillary at least has some qualification and is not dividing parties in a crucial moment unlike Trump... EVEN REPUBLICANS ARE LEAVING TRUMP
So should you. Especially CNN, which is confirmed to have connections with the Clinton Campaign; or Huffington, who fired a reporter who dared to question Hillary's health; Facebook, who's cofounder donated 20 million to her campaign; and google, which wikileaks says is going to show proof of their bias toward Hillary; and the list goes on. She has experience in being a crook. The fact that Trump isn't a politician is what people like about him. Perhaps you aren't seeing the division among the Democrats then because bernouts are furious with Killary, and many are leaving her. Many of them even joined the Trump train.
Comments
this is what he said when someone asked him about Iran-iraq war
IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING FROM ABRIDGED SERIES... SOMETHING TEAM4STAR WOULD PUT IN IN ABDRGED DRAGONBALL SERIES OR SOMETHING!
I LOLED WHEN I READ IT FIRST TIME!
1. America did NOT save the world from BY THEMSELVES! Yeah shocking I know! He overlooks contribution of rest of free worlds like Cannada, Australia, New Zealand Britain and Russia ( in fact arguably it was Russia that delivered crucial blow against Hitler during battle of Stalingrad which crippled hitler's military forces which gave opening for allies in D-Day)
2. AMERICA IS IRRELEVANT IN ENDING OF COLD WAR AND FALL OF COMMUNISM DURING LATE 19TH CENTYY TO EARLY 20TH CENTURY. Sure America might have done few actions to WEAKEN communism but most communist country fell AND USSR fall because of so many problem it faced inwardly and it just could not keep up with capitalist model. In other words communism fell by itself! America did NOTHING to end it. In fact around fall of communism Bush Snr did NOTHING to former communist country in this time of turmoil.
America was irrelevant in the cold war? Tell that to a history or political science professor, I dare you.
anyway that isn't the only problem... another problem is that he keeps on saying "I am the only person believe me..." ISN'T THAT HUBRIS? "TUST ME... I AM
THE DOCTORTRUMP!" Seriously! what is he... The Doctor?and while he PRETENDS to have plan most of his speech is just typical politician attacking another politician saying
"Trust me! I am different! It is all other side's fault! They are to blame while I am new! Vote for me for being new!" Like SO MANY POLITICIANS HAVE SAID!
Going through his website, he has a lot of very sensible plans/policies.
He supports protection of the 2nd Amendment, which I like.
I also agree with his plans to fight NAFTA and the TPP.
Yet, there are a few things I worry about based not only on his policies listed, but based on things he's said as well.
He wants to cut taxes across the board and then beef up our military for the purpose of being more threatening. That has had poor results for the economy in the past. Besides, we already spend a lot on military:
He talks about his desire to protect the environment but also wants to kill the Environmental Protection Agency.
He also doesn't recognize the fact that global warming and climate change are real issues despite the mountain of science behind it. (Really scary)
He also said he's going to cut funding from education.
He's expressed openness at use of nuclear weapons.
He's pro-life which depends on where you stand on the issue, but since I'm pro-choice that's a minus.
He's shown support for the Patriot Act, which I'm not a fan of.
And as much as it's been overdone, there's still his plan to build the wall. His plan to make Mexico pay for it is bullying them into doing it: Either they give us the money to build the wall or we damage their economy. Yet, there are aspects of unpredictability in that his campaign seem much too certain about. Given how unpopular Trump and his wall are in Mexico, anyone who makes the decision to let the U.S. build the wall is committing political suicide. That makes me question how smoothly his plan will actually go.
Thoughts? I'm here to have a discussion, not an argument.
It is true that the US already spends a lot on military. It's also true that they waste a lot of money. Wasn't it somewhere around 6.5 trillion dollars that's unaccounted for, basically wasted money from the military? It's not about throwing more money at the military funding but being efficient. They should first drastically cut military funding for a while so they get their act together. Then slowly give back funding once they learned how to spend tax payer money wisely. I'm well aware of the American military hegemony.
Who says you need a government agency to be environmentally friendly? The problem with the environmentalists thinking is that their answer is always more taxes because for whatever reason they think only the government is capable of doing anything about pollution. Individuals can be just as if not more effective at doing environmental work without a bureaucracy and red tape. Not going to open the can of worms of climate change because that's a whole other debate. The question still remains - what reason is there to suggest that only the government has the capacity to do something about it even if anthropomorphic climate change was real?
He's getting rid of common core. That's a good thing. There doesn't need to be a federal agency for education, let the states decide that on their own.
Every president has to consider using nuclear weapons ever since the 50s.
I'm pro life so that's a plus for me.
One of many things I actually don't like about him is his support for the Patriot Act.
The US gives 200 million to Mexico every year in foreign aid. Easily cut that off for starters. I don't expect the wall to be constructed smoothly at all. I expect lots of protest from Soros paid protesters. I expect vandalism and Mexico stubbornly refusing to pay for it. Even if America had to pay for it it's still a good idea to build a wall.
Now for a hurricane Matthew pepe
When it comes to the EPA, part of the reason I think they're important is because they impede those who mean to hurt the environment. We don't need them for working towards fixing the environment, you're right. People can handle that. But there's also a lot of people who don't care about the environment and are still causing damage to it. That's where the EPA plays a key role: stopping people or firms from causing further damage to our environment and worsening the effects of climate change. A group of average joes can't force a corporation to not cut down that forest.
So if Trump wants to get rid of the EPA my main concern is whether he'll provide any kind of replacement, but he doesn't seem to offer anything like that. His main concern is that the EPA costs money and stops businesses from doing what they want. But my concern is worsening the effects of climate change. It's very real, proven over and over again by scientists to the point where over 97% of the scientific community accepts it, and we really have to do as much as we can to mitigate the effects it will have on our lives.
Also about the nuke thing. It's not that he's thought about it at all. Every president has and should do that. However what people are worried about is how open he is to use of nuclear weapons. He says that more countries should have nukes, and that full nuclear proliferation is an inevitability. Now, I see what he means. Clearly he's saying that the world is safer if everybody has the deadly weapon, so no one will use it for fear of being hit back. That's one way of looking at it, but I'd prefer to avoid cold war "duck and cover" scenarios where tensions between nuclear powers lead to mass paranoia.
And a lot of studies suggest that he's actually wrong about inevitability, since the US has been quite successful in it's efforts to limit nuclear proliferation.
Yet Trump says that he will move away from the alliances we've built up over the years unless our allies make major financial concessions. If he does, that his prediction will come true, I guess. But that's not what I want to happen.
Edit: Also sorry Arlong but I'm going to have to report your post for use of a hate symbol
and as for climate change... The United States has done so much to cut down on emissions and seek out alternative energy sources. There's really not all that much room for improvement. If anyone really cared that much about the environment, they'd campaign for bringing the hammer down on China, the worst polluter in the world. They were given free reign to absolutely screw over their own environment, and the entire world, by the Kyoto Treaty. Mr. Trump has mentioned a few times how China is doing this, which gives me at least a small hope he might muscle his way in to do something about it, unlike our past presidents and presidential candidates who have acted ignorant about the problem.
I think "removing the spurious boondoggles" is probably the best way to address the EPA...
Also the next president would definitely do well to say something about China's pollution.
Trump doesn't want to sever ties to allies either. But they have to pay their fair share that they agreed to. That's a serious problem, other countries are taking advantage of America's military and if they aren't going to pay then they shouldn't get the service. I can't recall Trump saying it's an inevitability. I mean of course you can stop another country from getting nukes and indeed nonproliferation has been quite successful, arguably. That doesn't say anything about whether or not it is or isn't better if we allow other countries to get their own nukes. I don't see an issue with letting our allies get nukes if they don't want to pay their fair share. Either pay your rent or defend yourself.
Nukes are still very much relevant. Yes anti ballistic missiles exist but not every country has that technology. If a country like Iran got the nuke, only Israel, Pakistan and India has a nuke or abm themselves to challenge Iran's power. And if the US and Russia were to engage in total war against each other, more than few nukes would pass through.
But regardless of all that I think the EPA should still exist in some form, because there are scenarios in which dollar votes aren't as effective, damage to the environment more immediate and less reversible. So I can definitely agree with keeping around, and also with cutting off anything which is needless.
As for the nukes I can see where you're coming from if they're taking advantage us in these treaties. In that case it would be better to back out or at least demand they pay up. But at the same time I still think the world is safer with less nukes than with more. And I do mean that even if we have lots of missiles to shoot them down (Thanks Deathmob). It could simple threat of a nuke flying across the ocean and destroying dozens of thousands of lives that throws people into mass paranoia. And another issue could be the potential for technology that counters those missiles to be developed over time.
Probably gonna peace out for now. Thanks for the talk guys, it's good to get other perspectives.
http://election.princeton.edu/2016/10/08/what-color-is-the-swan/#more-17785
Trump team is in PANIC right now and last few weeks have NOT been kind to trump. EVEN RPUBLICIANS ARE LEAVING TRUMP!
Don't tell me you think like this
read the entire article
http://ramrants.com/2016/10/yesterday-reason-can-no-longer-support-donald-trump/
Dos: I love this dog.
Tres: I am prezident!
Cuatro:
Worship me some more plz.
"Trump is saint! Those negative medias that say Trump did crap! They are overreacting!"
and when there is negative press on Hillary you accept it like if it is a Bible...