If anyone wants to have a civil discussion of the "ideas" of either candidate, I am game to do so. If we are going to call each other (or the candidates) names, then I'll go back to my popcorn.
—
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha
Alright! Surf status! Catch some waves!
Racist is code for 'mouth breathing dumbfuck without the required four functioning braincells to see what the world actually looks like beyond their little enclave'.
|
If people actually called him a 'mouth breathing dumbfuck without the required four functioning braincells to see what the world actually looks like beyond their little enclave', and then provided some facts to support that claim, I would have no problem with that. Calling him a "racist" with no ground to stand on is nothing more than a very cheap fear tactic, as I stated. Instead, they resort to using labels (contrary to the Democratic ideology), which presents them as hypocrites. If one is to subscribe to an idea, then one must set a proper example.
Trump has not (to my knowledge) claimed his race is superior to all others, nor have any of his followers (excepting the KKK, who I suspect "endorse Trump" more to stir up trouble than to grant him their support). While I disagree with that other long thing you said, Kick, it is much closer to the truth than "racist", which is why the word is so damaging to the American people as a whole. Attack his ideas with reason and you will have my respect. Call him names and you lose credibility.
For what it's worth, the Democrats also have a racist skeleton in the closet, considering they are backed by the Black Panthers and the Jackson/Sharpton crowd.
So, let's just chuck the "racist" garbage and focus on America's actual, you know, issues. Like war, which leads to debt, which leads to high taxes, which leads to high unemployment, which leads to elevated poverty, which leads to claims of racism. Let's also discuss the increasing interference of government in private business and it's negative effects on the cost of goods, employment, and competition. We could also discuss the government's outright refusal to protect individual liberties as mandated by the Bill of Rights, or any other such thing.
I have no intention of being drawn into worrying over social issues (which do not fall within the powers of the federal government). These are best left to the people and the states to decide.
—
As for my support of either candidate, neither has it. Both have made it abundantly clear they will illegally use "Executive Action" to further their respective administrations. Since the role of the President does not include making law, the promises made by all candidates (including those who are currently losing) are irrelevant and little more than white lies. The Executive Privilege exists to give the President authority to execute the laws of the United States, not to make or amend them. To promise to "make laws regarding …" is outside the authority of POTUS. Clinton and Trump have both vowed to use Executive Privilege to either create law or amend existing law, which would be illegal. Regarding this, it is clear to me that neither candidate has it in mind to uphold and defend the Constitution and, thus, neither has my support.
This reason, alone, is enough to disqualify both—and should. However, the American people (both parties) have no intent on securing their freedoms. Instead, both sides are working overtime to reduce those freedoms, and the candidates are playing to the fears of their constituency.
A good, strong candidate would be working to unite both parties rather than serving to continue their division. The name-calling we can see in both party's debates should make it clear to Americans that the candidates at large are more interested in grand-standing than leading. This is a power play, and nothing more.