Trump: Convince me without personal attacks

[StefanM]

They won't be if Hillary is elected. The first amendment is already under attack, specifically freedom of religion, with freedom of speech running a close second. Another liberal SCOTUS justice will turn this country on it's ear, with the entire bill of rights either altered or done away with in a generation.

I am concerned about the erosion of some of these rights as well. To be clear--my support or lack of support for Trump won't be the difference. My state is safe. This is mostly an intellectual exercise.

That being said, I am concerned about freedom of religion. For instance, although I do (contra the average BBer, I would imagine) generally support rights (in a civil sense) for same-sex relationships and the individuals that compose them (I'm trying to make my verbiage delicate, per BB rules), I don't like heavy-handedness, and I don't like when it tramples freedom of religion at all.

Also, to be clear, I support the rights on a civil level because I believe the Constitution requires it. That doesn't make any of it right in the eyes of God, nor does it mean I support the acts personally. I think of it like freedom of religion--I think atheists, Hindus, Muslims, and Jews are sinning against God and face destruction because they don't believe in the Son of God. But I do support on a civil level their right to believe as they do and to exercise those beliefs.

 

[carpro]

I can agree with the general desire for transparency. I don't care about reading the bill publicly. Bills are so wonky as to be unintelligible. But I do think it should be an open process.

Don't you think the guys that write it ought to be covered by it?

Lastly, no health care plan will succeed unless everyone is covered. Allowing the young and healthy to pay a small fine and opt out will kill any plan proposed. That is what is causing the current plan to collapse. But it will collapse also if all the "exemptions" granted illegally by executive order are reinstated. It's just a bad bill. Always has been.

 

[carpro]

But I do support on a civil level their right to believe as they do and to exercise those beliefs.

Uh huh. But that's not what they want. They want to FORCE acceptance on a religious basis. Hillary backs that approach to the hilt.

 

[StefanM]

Don't you think the guys that write it ought to be covered by it?

Lastly, no health care plan will succeed unless everyone is covered. Allowing the young and healthy to pay a small fine and opt out will kill any plan proposed. That is what is causing the current plan to collapse. But it will collapse also if all the "exemptions" granted illegally by executive order are reinstated. It's just a bad bill. Always has been.

Maybe, but if we have employer-based insurance, I don't have an issue with people whose employer is the government being on government plans. They should not get exemptions, but they should not be treated differently.

I agree that a broad base of coverage is essential. Without as large a risk pool as possible, costs are very hard to spread.

 

[StefanM]

Uh huh. But that's not what they want. They want to FORCE acceptance on a religious basis. Hillary backs that approach to the hilt.

And I do have serious concerns about that.

 

[carpro]

And I do have serious concerns about that.

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed"

Hillary Clinton

 

[777]

You're too moderate or liberal to vote for Trump, though. I'm not so sure you're liberal enough to vote for Hillary, that is why I suggested making that other thread.

Rubio primary voters were more moderate than any of the others, a primary is where you should vote among ideological lines, the general to a lesser extent. I think you're part of the open borders crowd just like Hillary and that right there should rule Trump out for you.

You're in a throwaway state (not red, it's really blue) as I am (not blue, it's really red) so another thing you could consider is writing Rubio's name in or something.

 

[Jedi Knight]

 

[Jedi Knight]

Lets as Berry what the alternative would be......

 

[carpro]

Maybe, but if we have employer-based insurance, I don't have an issue with people whose employer is the government being on government plans. They should not get exemptions, but they should not be treated differently.

I agree that a broad base of coverage is essential. Without as large a risk pool as possible, costs are very hard to spread.

Since John Roberts decided to play politics and not jurist wrote his tortured and twisted opinion making the penalty for not getting insurance a "tax", the small amount of the "tax" encourages healthy individuals to wait until they get cancer of some other disease to enroll. The "tax" since it's now legal, needs to be more like 90% , or more, of what the average premium for individuals that age. Otherwise, no plan will ever work. Period.

 

[StefanM]

You're too moderate or liberal to vote for Trump, though. I'm not so sure you're liberal enough to vote for Hillary, that is why I suggested making that other thread.

Rubio primary voters were more moderate than any of the others, a primary is where you should vote among ideological lines, the general to a lesser extent. I think you're part of the open borders crowd just like Hillary and that right there should rule Trump out for you.

You're in a throwaway state (not red, it's really blue) as I am (not blue, it's really red) so another thing you could consider is writing Rubio's name in or something.

In Arkansas, you can't write-in a candidate.

I'm not for "open borders" at all. My ideal scenario would be to actually secure the border (not just use it as a talking point), then offer a path to legal permanent residency, with an option for citizenship for some (like military service or other means). I don't think deportation is realistic, except for violent criminals.

I'm just not sure that the "wall" is realistic. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. I wouldn't mind it, but Mexico isn't going to pay for it.

 

[StefanM]

Lets as Berry what the alternative would be......View attachment 826

Ouch, Obi-Wan. I feel a disturbance in the Force with that one!

 

[777]

In Arkansas, you can't write-in a candidate.

I'm not for "open borders" at all. My ideal scenario would be to actually secure the border (not just use it as a talking point), then offer a path to legal permanent residency, with an option for citizenship for some (like military service or other means). I don't think deportation is realistic, except for violent criminals.

I'm just not sure that the "wall" is realistic. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. I wouldn't mind it, but Mexico isn't going to pay for it.

This is what killed Marco Rubio's presidential aspirations.

That sounds close to Rubio's plan but none of them are going to go for that. Trump, I think, will try to do something about illegal immigration but there's no way he can possibly do worse than Hillary will. She has promised blanked amnesty in the first 100 days, and at that point, it is game over. Mexico paying for the wall might not be realistic to you but Hillary and her amnesty ought to be.

Yeah, Reagan was tricked into amnesty over thirty years ago - Congress gutted all the border controls after he signed the bill. He was punked and later regretted it. The "experts" claimed it would be around a million, ended up being over three million. Look what it did to California, that's what it will do to the entire country this time.

 

[StefanM]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/18/politics/trump-i-regret-sometimes-saying-wrong-thing/index.html

I will say that I'm impressed by this. This is what I meant by restraint and humility. Trump is rising in my mind.

 

[StefanM]

This is what killed Marco Rubio's presidential aspirations.

That sounds close to Rubio's plan but none of them are going to go for that. Trump, I think, will try to do something about illegal immigration but there's no way he can possibly do worse than Hillary will. She has promised blanked amnesty in the first 100 days, and at that point, it is game over. Mexico paying for the wall might not be realistic to you but Hillary and her amnesty ought to be.

Yeah, Reagan was tricked into amnesty over thirty years ago - Congress gutted all the border controls after he signed the bill. He was punked and later regretted it. The "experts" claimed it would be around a million, ended up being over three million. Look what it did to California, that's what it will do to the entire country this time.

They may not go for that, but deportation is just not realistic. Now, in a perfect world without personal harm, yes, I would be ok with deportation. In this context, though, targeted deportation is as much as we will get.

As for Rubio, well, I voted for him in the primary.

The rest of your post I'll have to ponder.

 

[Smyth]

I am concerned about the erosion of some of these rights as well. To be clear--my support or lack of support for Trump won't be the difference. My state is safe. This is mostly an intellectual exercise.

How safe is your state when RATs (who aren't voting for Hillary) stay home on election, allowing Democrats and Liberals to win local offices and issues? How safe are you when RATs in your state dissuade others in swing states from voting for Trump, and then we get Hillary's Supreme Court which finishes banning Christian religion and its values?

That being said, I am concerned about freedom of religion. For instance, although I do (contra the average BBer, I would imagine) generally support rights (in a civil sense) for same-sex relationships and the individuals that compose them (I'm trying to make my verbiage delicate, per BB rules), I don't like heavy-handedness, and I don't like when it tramples freedom of religion at all.

The only purpose of state-recognized same-sex relationships is for a foundation to trample on religious freedom.

 

[Smyth]

They may not go for that, but deportation is just not realistic.

Cut off government benefits form illegals, and they'll self-deport and we'll save $billions.

 

[StefanM]

How safe is your state when RATs (who aren't voting for Hillary) stay home on election, allowing Democrats and Liberals to win local offices and issues? How safe are you when RATs in your state dissuade others in swing states from voting for Trump, and then we get Hillary's Supreme Court which finishes banning Christian religion and its values?

Trump won the primary here, and it was early. Culturally, Arkansas is a very Trump-friendly state. The number of people staying home will ultimately be negligible. Democrats can't win local offices because they aren't even running (at least in my district). Arkansas is VERY, VERY Republican. Literally anyone could get elected with an "R" next to his or her name.

The swaying of swing state voters is the only real risk, but IMO, it's really not that big.

The only purpose of state-recognized same-sex relationships is for a foundation to trample on religious freedom.

I disagree with respect to intent, but it has been used to attack religious freedom in some cases. Nevertheless, it's not going away.

 

[StefanM]

Cut off government benefits form illegals, and they'll self-deport and we'll save $billions.

Perhaps.

 

[Lewis]

Legal entry requires just a cheap passport. How does that jive with your "get the border under control"?

A visa [here I meant to say passport] used by Mexican citizens to enter the US costs $131. It allows the bearer to visit/travel for 30 days. There is nothing illegal about that, and as we all know this is not a problem.

People crossing our southern border who intend to work and stay in the US are not in the habit of obtaining a visa. That is why we see so many of them bypassing barriers or sneaking across in the trunks of cars etc. This is one reason to complete the fence.

E-verify is in use in about 1/2 of our states. If it was required for all states then of course illegals would not be able to work here and would self deport. This is part of the Trump policy on securing our border.