Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
r/Actscelerate

I am voting for Donald Trump...gladly
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Re: The hard truth is..... Quiet Wyatt
Jamie Noel wrote:
none of us REALLY know what Trump will do. We have suspicions. We have fears. We have reservations. We also hear what he is saying.....but what is he really going to do.

As for Hillary.....we all KNOW what she will do....


And you know what they say, "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know."

I can't vote for either of these devils myself, but I do think a lot of people are going to opt for relative certainty (Hillary) over pretty much total uncertainty (Trump).
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12784
9/4/16 2:55 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
On the other hand, a lot of people will say, "He may be a [please select a word], but he's OUR [please select a word]." [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
9/4/16 4:07 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Re: The hard truth is..... Ventureforth
Jamie Noel wrote:
none of us REALLY know what Trump will do. We have suspicions. We have fears. We have reservations. We also hear what he is saying.....but what is he really going to do.

As for Hillary.....we all KNOW what she will do....


I'm considering that Trump is going to do what he believes is working for him. After the primaries, he found out that a lot of the previous rhetoric wasn't moving the polls up for him so he began to soften his stances a bit. This may mean he would be unpredictable after got into office (if that be the case) or maybe it could mean that the primaries were a campaign approach but now he's moving into the negotiator he's always been. Just thinking. I don't know.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
9/4/16 8:52 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: The hard truth is..... c6thplayer1
Ventureforth wrote:
Jamie Noel wrote:
none of us REALLY know what Trump will do. We have suspicions. We have fears. We have reservations. We also hear what he is saying.....but what is he really going to do.

As for Hillary.....we all KNOW what she will do....


I'm considering that Trump is going to do what he believes is working for him. After the primaries, he found out that a lot of the previous rhetoric wasn't moving the polls up for him so he began to soften his stances a bit. This may mean he would be unpredictable after got into office (if that be the case) or maybe it could mean that the primaries were a campaign approach but now he's moving into the negotiator he's always been. Just thinking. I don't know.


But remember these policies are not like the bills he wont pay that he owes?
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6385
9/11/16 1:39 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Re: The hard truth is..... Ventureforth
c6thplayer1 wrote:
Ventureforth wrote:
Jamie Noel wrote:
none of us REALLY know what Trump will do. We have suspicions. We have fears. We have reservations. We also hear what he is saying.....but what is he really going to do.

As for Hillary.....we all KNOW what she will do....


I'm considering that Trump is going to do what he believes is working for him. After the primaries, he found out that a lot of the previous rhetoric wasn't moving the polls up for him so he began to soften his stances a bit. This may mean he would be unpredictable after got into office (if that be the case) or maybe it could mean that the primaries were a campaign approach but now he's moving into the negotiator he's always been. Just thinking. I don't know.


But remember these policies are not like the bills he wont pay that he owes?


I have no prophetic insight for you. Smile

But there's another question that has crossed my mind:
Which politician is more likely to accomplish something that is important to you? Is it one that makes a promise but may not deliver on it or one who never made the promise? Just one point to consider. I'm still mulling this election over. Smile
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
9/11/16 2:53 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Eddie Robbins
The candidate knows that promises don't have to be kept because in most cases, the President can't fulfill the promise without approvals in government. What good is a promise to end all abortions? We had a GOP president and full control of Congress. We still have abortion. Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
9/11/16 6:55 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Ventureforth
Eddie Robbins wrote:
The candidate knows that promises don't have to be kept because in most cases, the President can't fulfill the promise without approvals in government. What good is a promise to end all abortions? We had a GOP president and full control of Congress. We still have abortion.


Not only that, but non-incumbant candidates may come to grips with a different reality once they get in office. There are things they may not be aware of that complicate or practically prevent them from fulfilling their promise.
I've come to regard campaign promises as more like goals (for lack of a better term) that the candidate seeks to accomplish. Of course, that goal is more likely to be reached if he or she can use an executive order or their party has the majority in the houses of congress.
But if a candidate says something like they will try or expresses any skepticism it may be seen as realistic by a few but many more will see it as weak. It seems it's part of the political game. Sad
That's the way I see it, anyway.
But we know all promises aren't kept regardless. So I'm just asking who is more likely to keep a particular promise to do something I agree should be done about an issue.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
9/11/16 7:54 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Eddie Robbins
An example is the Fairtax. A candidate can be pro-Fairtax, but everybody knows the President doesn't have the power to implement it. Like the mayor of a city who says he/she is pro-life. It means nothing as far as real policy. Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
9/12/16 11:50 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: The hard truth is..... c6thplayer1
Ventureforth wrote:
c6thplayer1 wrote:
Ventureforth wrote:
Jamie Noel wrote:
none of us REALLY know what Trump will do. We have suspicions. We have fears. We have reservations. We also hear what he is saying.....but what is he really going to do.

As for Hillary.....we all KNOW what she will do....


I'm considering that Trump is going to do what he believes is working for him. After the primaries, he found out that a lot of the previous rhetoric wasn't moving the polls up for him so he began to soften his stances a bit. This may mean he would be unpredictable after got into office (if that be the case) or maybe it could mean that the primaries were a campaign approach but now he's moving into the negotiator he's always been. Just thinking. I don't know.


But remember these policies are not like the bills he wont pay that he owes?


I have no prophetic insight for you. Smile

But there's another question that has crossed my mind:
Which politician is more likely to accomplish something that is important to you? Is it one that makes a promise but may not deliver on it or one who never made the promise? Just one point to consider. I'm still mulling this election over. Smile


well one of the candidates promised to pay his workers - he didnt. { many many times }

I see both offering snake oil with the promise of miraculous results in exchange for your vote.

I see character in both not worthy of discussion.

I see no class at all in one of the candidates.

I see corruption in both.

I could go on but you get the picture.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6385
9/12/16 2:41 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Re: The hard truth is..... Ventureforth
c6thplayer1 wrote:
Ventureforth wrote:
c6thplayer1 wrote:
Ventureforth wrote:
Jamie Noel wrote:
none of us REALLY know what Trump will do. We have suspicions. We have fears. We have reservations. We also hear what he is saying.....but what is he really going to do.

As for Hillary.....we all KNOW what she will do....


I'm considering that Trump is going to do what he believes is working for him. After the primaries, he found out that a lot of the previous rhetoric wasn't moving the polls up for him so he began to soften his stances a bit. This may mean he would be unpredictable after got into office (if that be the case) or maybe it could mean that the primaries were a campaign approach but now he's moving into the negotiator he's always been. Just thinking. I don't know.


But remember these policies are not like the bills he wont pay that he owes?


I have no prophetic insight for you. Smile

But there's another question that has crossed my mind:
Which politician is more likely to accomplish something that is important to you? Is it one that makes a promise but may not deliver on it or one who never made the promise? Just one point to consider. I'm still mulling this election over. Smile


well one of the candidates promised to pay his workers - he didnt. { many many times }

I see both offering snake oil with the promise of miraculous results in exchange for your vote.

I see character in both not worthy of discussion.

I see no class at all in one of the candidates.

I see corruption in both.

I could go on but you get the picture.


So you're saying no candidate is even a marginally safer bet? Smile
You may be right. Smile Any +'s may be cancelled out by - 's.

But I'm still thinking about the fact that somebody's going to be in the White House come this November no matter what we do.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
9/12/16 9:13 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Not Gladly Methocostal
But, I'll probably end up voting for him. Friendly Face
Posts: 496
9/22/16 4:23 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Methocostal
I do agree that Republican appointees got us where we are. Why is it that Liberal appointees NEVER turn conservative, but Republican appointees often turn liberal? I think the Republican's have played by the rules and haven't asked (in private) how the potential appointee would rule on issues. Evidentally, the Demo's know precisely how their appointees will decide.

It is time we evened the odds and not appoint blindly. We must do something to eliminate 5 people from controlling the country and that is where we are now.

c6thplayer1 wrote:
DrDuck wrote:
UncleJD wrote:
Travis Johnson wrote:
Patrick Harris wrote:
The whole point of voting is that we are a free society that allows our citizens to vote for the candidate of their choice.

If the majority of the evangelical Christians vote Trump into office then they have lost their ability to ever be a voice of moral good for our nation any longer.


I don't understand that line of thought at all.


I do.
But that is not why I won't vote for him. Its because he is an idiot and I have a low threshold of tolerance for him. The things he says will get us all into trouble. And his policies are low-information low IQ populist policies that brought about the Great Depression. You guys enjoy your $4000 TVs and $500 blenders when we have a real trade war. Not to mention saying
goodbye to your jobs. If what I've come to believe about Reagan style deregulation and freedom of business is true, and I believe it is, then Trump is going to be a disaster

As for the moral side of it, I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. He's a worse flip-flopper than Romney ever dreamed of being and look at what you all thought of that guy.

No, I won't contribute to the demise of the party of Reagan. I believe we can weather 4 years of whoever and rebuild. 4 years of Trump would be the end of conservatism as a viable national movement in my lifetime.


If only it could be just 4 years of impact from a(please God forbid it) Hillary presidency. Dare I say, Supreme Court nominations? This and nothing more is plenty enough to motivate ever move that can be made to see that Hillary is never elected. We are not, my friend, dealing here with only 4 years. Perhaps it is not even 40 years but even more of total disaster for the USA and Constitutional government in this great land. No, a thousand thousand thousand times no; we must at all cost rid this country of the Hillary threat!!!! If we will simply refuse to allow her the office in November, she will never be able to try again.


Like another poster said , 5 of the 9 justices were appointed by republican presidents. Look where that got us .. Gay Marriage etc.
Friendly Face
Posts: 496
9/22/16 4:32 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post c6thplayer1
Methocostal wrote:
I do agree that Republican appointees got us where we are. Why is it that Liberal appointees NEVER turn conservative, but Republican appointees often turn liberal? I think the Republican's have played by the rules and haven't asked (in private) how the potential appointee would rule on issues. Evidentally, the Demo's know precisely how their appointees will decide.

It is time we evened the odds and not appoint blindly. We must do something to eliminate 5 people from controlling the country and that is where we are now.

c6thplayer1 wrote:
DrDuck wrote:
UncleJD wrote:
Travis Johnson wrote:
Patrick Harris wrote:
The whole point of voting is that we are a free society that allows our citizens to vote for the candidate of their choice.

If the majority of the evangelical Christians vote Trump into office then they have lost their ability to ever be a voice of moral good for our nation any longer.


I don't understand that line of thought at all.


I do.
But that is not why I won't vote for him. Its because he is an idiot and I have a low threshold of tolerance for him. The things he says will get us all into trouble. And his policies are low-information low IQ populist policies that brought about the Great Depression. You guys enjoy your $4000 TVs and $500 blenders when we have a real trade war. Not to mention saying
goodbye to your jobs. If what I've come to believe about Reagan style deregulation and freedom of business is true, and I believe it is, then Trump is going to be a disaster

As for the moral side of it, I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. He's a worse flip-flopper than Romney ever dreamed of being and look at what you all thought of that guy.

No, I won't contribute to the demise of the party of Reagan. I believe we can weather 4 years of whoever and rebuild. 4 years of Trump would be the end of conservatism as a viable national movement in my lifetime.


If only it could be just 4 years of impact from a(please God forbid it) Hillary presidency. Dare I say, Supreme Court nominations? This and nothing more is plenty enough to motivate ever move that can be made to see that Hillary is never elected. We are not, my friend, dealing here with only 4 years. Perhaps it is not even 40 years but even more of total disaster for the USA and Constitutional government in this great land. No, a thousand thousand thousand times no; we must at all cost rid this country of the Hillary threat!!!! If we will simply refuse to allow her the office in November, she will never be able to try again.


Like another poster said , 5 of the 9 justices were appointed by republican presidents. Look where that got us .. Gay Marriage etc.


I disagree with your point about the liberal appointments. All appointments have to go through congress and the house. So Hillary cannot just appoint a SCOTUS judge to bench of her choosing without having it approved in the house and senate. So the blame for any bad judges hovers above the house and senate.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6385
9/23/16 3:37 pm


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Love them or hate them... Clint Wills
They make for entertaining television! Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5163
9/26/16 9:12 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Eddie Robbins
c6thplayer1 wrote:
Methocostal wrote:
I do agree that Republican appointees got us where we are. Why is it that Liberal appointees NEVER turn conservative, but Republican appointees often turn liberal? I think the Republican's have played by the rules and haven't asked (in private) how the potential appointee would rule on issues. Evidentally, the Demo's know precisely how their appointees will decide.

It is time we evened the odds and not appoint blindly. We must do something to eliminate 5 people from controlling the country and that is where we are now.

c6thplayer1 wrote:
DrDuck wrote:
UncleJD wrote:
Travis Johnson wrote:
Patrick Harris wrote:
The whole point of voting is that we are a free society that allows our citizens to vote for the candidate of their choice.

If the majority of the evangelical Christians vote Trump into office then they have lost their ability to ever be a voice of moral good for our nation any longer.


I don't understand that line of thought at all.


I do.
But that is not why I won't vote for him. Its because he is an idiot and I have a low threshold of tolerance for him. The things he says will get us all into trouble. And his policies are low-information low IQ populist policies that brought about the Great Depression. You guys enjoy your $4000 TVs and $500 blenders when we have a real trade war. Not to mention saying
goodbye to your jobs. If what I've come to believe about Reagan style deregulation and freedom of business is true, and I believe it is, then Trump is going to be a disaster

As for the moral side of it, I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. He's a worse flip-flopper than Romney ever dreamed of being and look at what you all thought of that guy.

No, I won't contribute to the demise of the party of Reagan. I believe we can weather 4 years of whoever and rebuild. 4 years of Trump would be the end of conservatism as a viable national movement in my lifetime.


If only it could be just 4 years of impact from a(please God forbid it) Hillary presidency. Dare I say, Supreme Court nominations? This and nothing more is plenty enough to motivate ever move that can be made to see that Hillary is never elected. We are not, my friend, dealing here with only 4 years. Perhaps it is not even 40 years but even more of total disaster for the USA and Constitutional government in this great land. No, a thousand thousand thousand times no; we must at all cost rid this country of the Hillary threat!!!! If we will simply refuse to allow her the office in November, she will never be able to try again.


Like another poster said , 5 of the 9 justices were appointed by republican presidents. Look where that got us .. Gay Marriage etc.


I disagree with your point about the liberal appointments. All appointments have to go through congress and the house. So Hillary cannot just appoint a SCOTUS judge to bench of her choosing without having it approved in the house and senate. So the blame for any bad judges hovers above the house and senate.


See "Robert Bork."
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
9/27/16 7:51 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Methocostal
I do agree the Senate has the final say. Unfortunately, Republican Senators often don't have the guts to stand up to the President. Then, unless Republicans have at least 60 Senators and they all vote against the liberal Justice, I think they are confirmed. I don't think one has to have 60 to confirm, rather 60 to overturn, but I may be wrong.

If they do need 60 to confirm, then even more blame is on the Republicans as some of them would have to vote to confirm if they have control of the Senate to begin. If so, shame on them.


c6thplayer1 wrote:
Methocostal wrote:
I do agree that Republican appointees got us where we are. Why is it that Liberal appointees NEVER turn conservative, but Republican appointees often turn liberal? I think the Republican's have played by the rules and haven't asked (in private) how the potential appointee would rule on issues. Evidentally, the Demo's know precisely how their appointees will decide.

It is time we evened the odds and not appoint blindly. We must do something to eliminate 5 people from controlling the country and that is where we are now.

c6thplayer1 wrote:
DrDuck wrote:
UncleJD wrote:
Travis Johnson wrote:
Patrick Harris wrote:
The whole point of voting is that we are a free society that allows our citizens to vote for the candidate of their choice.

If the majority of the evangelical Christians vote Trump into office then they have lost their ability to ever be a voice of moral good for our nation any longer.


I don't understand that line of thought at all.


I do.
But that is not why I won't vote for him. Its because he is an idiot and I have a low threshold of tolerance for him. The things he says will get us all into trouble. And his policies are low-information low IQ populist policies that brought about the Great Depression. You guys enjoy your $4000 TVs and $500 blenders when we have a real trade war. Not to mention saying
goodbye to your jobs. If what I've come to believe about Reagan style deregulation and freedom of business is true, and I believe it is, then Trump is going to be a disaster

As for the moral side of it, I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. He's a worse flip-flopper than Romney ever dreamed of being and look at what you all thought of that guy.

No, I won't contribute to the demise of the party of Reagan. I believe we can weather 4 years of whoever and rebuild. 4 years of Trump would be the end of conservatism as a viable national movement in my lifetime.


If only it could be just 4 years of impact from a(please God forbid it) Hillary presidency. Dare I say, Supreme Court nominations? This and nothing more is plenty enough to motivate ever move that can be made to see that Hillary is never elected. We are not, my friend, dealing here with only 4 years. Perhaps it is not even 40 years but even more of total disaster for the USA and Constitutional government in this great land. No, a thousand thousand thousand times no; we must at all cost rid this country of the Hillary threat!!!! If we will simply refuse to allow her the office in November, she will never be able to try again.


Like another poster said , 5 of the 9 justices were appointed by republican presidents. Look where that got us .. Gay Marriage etc.


I disagree with your point about the liberal appointments. All appointments have to go through congress and the house. So Hillary cannot just appoint a SCOTUS judge to bench of her choosing without having it approved in the house and senate. So the blame for any bad judges hovers above the house and senate.
Friendly Face
Posts: 496
9/27/16 8:13 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post bonnie knox
Hillary would select liberal after liberal judge. The Republicans do not have the spine to continually reject her choices. [Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 14803
9/27/16 8:15 am


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Ventureforth
Eddie Robbins wrote:
An example is the Fairtax. A candidate can be pro-Fairtax, but everybody knows the President doesn't have the power to implement it. Like the mayor of a city who says he/she is pro-life. It means nothing as far real policy.


Yeah, but I think it does mean something in that it would be beneficial for the one in office to hopefully be working toward our ideals. But the importance can be exaggerated.
In the case of the fair tax, that's a radical reconstruction of the tax system. I would think that would need to be kind of phased in over time. And I would think the public would need some reassurance/proof that it would work on a large scale. They've grown used to large systems that have been in place for decades. So I would not expect the pres to make large scale changes overnight/year/maybe even a term. Just my thoughts.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
9/27/16 10:26 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Eddie Robbins
That's what Herman Cain was attempting to do with 999. It was a phase-in of the FairTax. Worried about it working? What we have now is not working. Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
9/27/16 12:25 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Ventureforth
Eddie Robbins wrote:
That's what Herman Cain was attempting to do with 999. It was a phase-in of the FairTax. Worried about it working? What we have now is not working.


Yep, something like 999. Don't flip those numbers over though. Smile
I generally liked Cain's idea.
Acts-celerater
Posts: 651
9/27/16 12:53 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 6 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.