By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is Donald Trump a sociopath?

 

Is Donald Trump a sociopath?

Yes 303 60.84%
 
No 195 39.16%
 
Total:498
fatslob-:O said:
JustcallmeRiff said:

People voting based on who they would want to have a beer with and not who is best qualified has gotten us some questionable presidents. fatslob do you want to have a beer with Trump?

I abhor beer or any alchoholic beverages for that matter so that question does not apply to me but it's OK to vote with your feelings (and I bet JWeinCom will too since he feels strongly enough to protest against Trump) when nothing is made absolute in the future ... 

Let me rephrase would you want Trump to spend an evening at your house? After the RNC theme of lawlessness and Chaos in the streets of America. In a interview during the convention where Newt Gingrich was confronted buy a interviewer with the fact that violent crime in the US is on a 20-year decline "I will go with the way America feels and you can go with the staticians" feelings and facts are rarely synonymous



Around the Network
JWeinCom said:

First off, I mainly just needed to rant about Trump, and that just happened to be an opportunity.  So, don't take it too personally.

We actually do have a clear criteria about what being the best president means.  The president's jobs are very clearly laid out in the constitution.  You can argue about what the best way to go about these duties is, just like you could argue about which quarterback gives you the best chance of winning.  But, arguing that we violate the first amendment by putting Muslims on a registry is objectively bad presidenting.  Not knowing that Russia has already invaded the Ukraine is objectively bad presidenting.  Arguing that we deport US born citizens in defiance of the 14th amendment is objectively bad presidenting.  

And if you support the things Donald Trump actually says, yes you are too god damn stupid to get mad at.  If you support things like, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best... they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime.  They're rapists.  And some, I assume, are good people."  If you think actually support statements like that and the others I mentioned, then you're too stupid to be angry at.  And I don't have anything against them.  I don't have anything against stupid people.  You have to work with what you have.

But, I don't think you're stupid.  I think you are fully capable of rationally evaluating Trump's statements, yet you refuse to.  You said that people are being unfair to Trump, but you refuse to address any of the horrible things he's said or suggested that I've brought up, or that anyone else has.  You've accused of us demonizing Trump, yet you haven't been able to refute anything we've said.  

Instead you're going off on nonsense telling me that people choose who they want in a democracy which is like no shit Sherlock.  I know I'm at the mercy of others, you being one of them, and that is the reason I'm fighting about it.  Because I want you to actually think about what the candidates are saying, and whether or not you support those things, so you'll actually make a rational and informed decision.  Yet for some reason, you seem completely unwilling to run Trump's statements through your brain and seem to be implying that it's ok for him to say whatever he wants and we shouldn't be upset because we're at the mercy of voters or some such shit.

No single sole measure is enough to determine what is a good president by "objective" measures when human feelings factor into that and even in the case of the constitution that can be changed. You won't believe me but profiling by religous belief and banning immigration by religious belief CAN BE DONE! (We have done this before with the Chinese Exclusion Act and we can do it again for Muslims.) I didn't know that it was a presidents job to even care about what the other countries are doing but OK I guess we'll add that into one of your arbitrary requirements and him deporting US born citizens is not even in his immigration reform plans but I don't deny him ending birthright citizenship which is still two completely different outcomes ... 

So if you agree with anything that Donald Trump says even if it is the truth your automatically stupid, am I right ? 

I am capable of rationalizing Donald Trump's statement but what I want to know is can you and the others seperate your anger when analyzing everything he says to the same extent ? Letting your anger cloud your judgement is NOT rational. Yes I do not bring up some of the questionable things that Trump says but that does not mean that I'm not aware of the crap he says however what reason do I have to get so worked up over about it when he didn't personally insult me or when it's practically the hip thing to shit all over Trump while also bringing it up ? 

It's true that you guys do unfairly demonize him for BOTH the TRUTH or the other supposedly outrageous things he says and don't say I NEVER did refute some of the things that you guys said about him when looking at this post or my previous other posts but your anger just gets in the god damned way of making a proper judgement ... 

If I hadn't known better it'd be just easier to claim that you straight up hate him much like how Soundwave comes to reconciliation about him not believing in the the republican platform than it is trying to keep it real ... 



Rpruett said:
Trump is fantastic and while some people feel he 'may' be all of these things. Clinton is factually a corrupt, fraud and has been for 30 years of her career. Scandal and Clinton are synonyms.

Ask any question you have of Trump and reflect it back onto Clinton. You'll find that Clinton is the worse of the two, consistently. Take every scandal generated by the media about Trump and you'll find similar things other politicians did that weren't considered a scandal. Take policy positions that Trump/Sanders/etc have had that people like and watch Clinton pander and suddenly pretend to start taking those same positions.

Trump is Pro-America. Hillary is Pro-Globalism. It really boils down to that.

I thought Trump would have problems garnering the Evangelical vote. How do your other parishioners feel about Trump?



Rpruett said:
Trump is fantastic and while some people feel he 'may' be all of these things. Clinton is factually a corrupt, fraud and has been for 30 years of her career. Scandal and Clinton are synonyms.

Ask any question you have of Trump and reflect it back onto Clinton. You'll find that Clinton is the worse of the two, consistently. Take every scandal generated by the media about Trump and you'll find similar things other politicians did that weren't considered a scandal. Take policy positions that Trump/Sanders/etc have had that people like and watch Clinton pander and suddenly pretend to start taking those same positions.

Trump is Pro-America. Hillary is Pro-Globalism. It really boils down to that.

lol, Trump will be globalist too. Capitalism is globalism (what do you think was the point of the Cold War?), anyone who thinks a president can just engage in isolationist policy has no idea how business works in the year 2016. Half the shit Trump says, he knows is bullshit, he will bail out on those proposals (like building a wall), unfortunately for him right now he's getting his ass pretty soundly whupped by Hilary in the polls so we probably will never know. 



JWeinCom said:


You can say the Trump doesn't mean what he actual says, which is troubling by itself, but you can't claim that I took anything out of context.  These are Trump's own words.  

I will be completely honest here (and that's a real rarity coming from me, so savor this moment) this post of yours made me entertain the idea that Hillary is the lesser evil in this coming election. Or more accurately, the war crime quote did. Strange that I haven't heard it before with all the anti-Trump comments filling up all news sites. I was mistaken in thinking you had taken his war crime comment out of context, the reason being that I was thinking of a different comment altogether.

Here's an actual example: "TAKE IT FUCKING SERIOUSLY WHEN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SAYS THAT MOST MEMBERS OF A PARTICULAR RACE ARE RAPISTS AND DRUG DEALERS."

That is straight up false. Trump talked about illegal immigrants, not all Mexicans or an entire race. That's how you take things out of context. A textbook example.

And if you are so determined to defeat Donald Trump in the general election, please stop calling him "Drumpf." If you want to convince the population that a candidate is racist, the last thing you want to do is mock his heritage.

 

Edit: I forgot to address his twitter and must say that whether he was covering up for an employee or actually retweeted those statistics himself as he claims, that is indeed a sign of very poor judgement. Especially on such a sensitive topic.

Oh well. This election will be a beauty.



Around the Network
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

JWeinCom said:


You can say the Trump doesn't mean what he actual says, which is troubling by itself, but you can't claim that I took anything out of context.  These are Trump's own words.  

I will be completely honest here (and that's a real rarity coming from me, so savor this moment) this post of yours made me entertain the idea that Hillary is the lesser evil in this coming election. Or more accurately, the war crime quote did. Strange that I haven't heard it before with all the anti-Trump comments filling up all news sites. I was mistaken in thinking you had taken his war crime comment out of context, the reason being that I was thinking of a different comment altogether.

Here's an actual example: "TAKE IT FUCKING SERIOUSLY WHEN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SAYS THAT MOST MEMBERS OF A PARTICULAR RACE ARE RAPISTS AND DRUG DEALERS."

That is straight up false. Trump talked about illegal immigrants, not all Mexicans or an entire race. That's how you take things out of context. A textbook example.

And if you are so determined to defeat Donald Trump in the general election, please stop calling him "Drumpf." If you want to convince the population that a candidate is racist, the last thing you want to do is mock his heritage.

Re-tweeting KKK members is another tip-off of a racist candidate. 

But actually I agree with a point someone else mentioned ... Trump is *worse* than a racist. 

A racist is someone who believes his race to be superior to others and actively resents other people. That's a racist. 

Trump probably isn't that exactly, but what he is doing is even worse ... he is manipulating people's racist bigotry and using it for his personal gain, without any concern for who it could hurt.

That makes him worse than a racist IMO. The Mexican comment is a classic "dog whistle" line to racists too. 

Imagine for instance I said "Some of these white men shoot up movie theaters and high schools and rape people, and some I guess are good people, maybe". lol, He knows exactly what he's doing when he says things like that. 

Problem is while this type of stupid rhetoric was enough to win him the Republican primary, it's likely to cost him a state like Florida (with a huge Latino populaiton) in the general election, which basically means an automatic loss for him pretty much. 



IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

JWeinCom said:


You can say the Drumpf doesn't mean what he actual says, which is troubling by itself, but you can't claim that I took anything out of context.  These are Drumpf's own words.  

I will be completely honest here (and that's a real rarity coming from me, so savor this moment) this post of yours made me entertain the idea that Hillary is the lesser evil in this coming election. Or more accurately, the war crime quote did. Strange that I haven't heard it before with all the anti-Drumpf comments filling up all news sites. I was mistaken in thinking you had taken his war crime comment out of context, the reason being that I was thinking of a different comment altogether.

Here's an actual example: "TAKE IT FUCKING SERIOUSLY WHEN A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SAYS THAT MOST MEMBERS OF A PARTICULAR RACE ARE RAPISTS AND DRUG DEALERS."

That is straight up false. Drumpf talked about illegal immigrants, not all Mexicans or an entire race. That's how you take things out of context. A textbook example.

And if you are so determined to defeat Donald Drumpf in the general election, please stop calling him "Drumpf." If you want to convince the population that a candidate is racist, the last thing you want to do is mock his heritage.

 

Edit: I forgot to address his twitter and must say that whether he was covering up for an employee or actually retweeted those statistics himself as he claims, that is indeed a sign of very poor judgement. Especially on such a sensitive topic.

Oh well. This election will be a beauty.

Alright glad you're actually thinking and considering what he said instead of blindly defending a candidate.  All I ask really.  

As for why I'm calling him Drumpf, there is context for that, and it's not to mock his heritage.  First off, I actually have a plugin that changes Drumpf to Drumpf in chrome, so I honestly get confused as to which one is being used sometimes.  But, the reason the plugin came about, is that Drumpf specifically commented on Jonathan Steward not using his original last name which was kind of hypocritical seeing as he's not either.  He also routinely calls Elizabeth Warren Pochahontas.  It's about his hypocrisy, not about making fun of his heritage.  I honestly don't know what his heritage is.  I want to say Scottish.

As for the Mexican quote, he was specifically talking about one race, not all illegal immigrants.  I wouldn't say I took that out of context, but I didn't word it quite right, so I'll fix that.  He's saying that most of 28% of mexicans in this country are rapists murderers and drug dealers.  And to label any group that large like that is pretty bad, especially when the statistics don't bear him out.

Anyway it seems that besides that particular point, you're agreeing what I said was in context and generally accurate.  Whether that convinces you not to vote for him or not is up to you, but keep in mind not everything negative said about him is a matter of bias or misrepresentation.  



fatslob-:O said:
JWeinCom said:

First off, I mainly just needed to rant about Drumpf, and that just happened to be an opportunity.  So, don't take it too personally.

We actually do have a clear criteria about what being the best president means.  The president's jobs are very clearly laid out in the constitution.  You can argue about what the best way to go about these duties is, just like you could argue about which quarterback gives you the best chance of winning.  But, arguing that we violate the first amendment by putting Muslims on a registry is objectively bad presidenting.  Not knowing that Russia has already invaded the Ukraine is objectively bad presidenting.  Arguing that we deport US born citizens in defiance of the 14th amendment is objectively bad presidenting.  

And if you support the things Donald Drumpf actually says, yes you are too god damn stupid to get mad at.  If you support things like, "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best... they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime.  They're rapists.  And some, I assume, are good people."  If you think actually support statements like that and the others I mentioned, then you're too stupid to be angry at.  And I don't have anything against them.  I don't have anything against stupid people.  You have to work with what you have.

But, I don't think you're stupid.  I think you are fully capable of rationally evaluating Drumpf's statements, yet you refuse to.  You said that people are being unfair to Drumpf, but you refuse to address any of the horrible things he's said or suggested that I've brought up, or that anyone else has.  You've accused of us demonizing Drumpf, yet you haven't been able to refute anything we've said.  

Instead you're going off on nonsense telling me that people choose who they want in a democracy which is like no shit Sherlock.  I know I'm at the mercy of others, you being one of them, and that is the reason I'm fighting about it.  Because I want you to actually think about what the candidates are saying, and whether or not you support those things, so you'll actually make a rational and informed decision.  Yet for some reason, you seem completely unwilling to run Drumpf's statements through your brain and seem to be implying that it's ok for him to say whatever he wants and we shouldn't be upset because we're at the mercy of voters or some such shit.

No single sole measure is enough to determine what is a good president by "objective" measures when human feelings factor into that and even in the case of the constitution that can be changed. You won't believe me but profiling by religous belief and banning immigration by religious belief CAN BE DONE! (We have done this before with the Chinese Exclusion Act and we can do it again for Muslims.) I didn't know that it was a presidents job to even care about what the other countries are doing but OK I guess we'll add that into one of your arbitrary requirements and him deporting US born citizens is not even in his immigration reform plans but I don't deny him ending birthright citizenship which is still two completely different outcomes ... 

So if you agree with anything that Donald Drumpf says even if it is the truth your automatically stupid, am I right ? 

I am capable of rationalizing Donald Drumpf's statement but what I want to know is can you and the others seperate your anger when analyzing everything he says to the same extent ? Letting your anger cloud your judgement is NOT rational. Yes I do not bring up some of the questionable things that Drumpf says but that does not mean that I'm not aware of the crap he says however what reason do I have to get so worked up over about it when he didn't personally insult me or when it's practically the hip thing to shit all over Drumpf while also bringing it up ? 

It's true that you guys do unfairly demonize him for BOTH the TRUTH or the other supposedly outrageous things he says and don't say I NEVER did refute some of the things that you guys said about him when looking at this post or my previous other posts but your anger just gets in the god damned way of making a proper judgement ... 

If I hadn't known better it'd be just easier to claim that you straight up hate him much like how Soundwave comes to reconciliation about him not believing in the the republican platform than it is trying to keep it real ... 

No single sole measure is enough to determine what is a good president by "objective" measures when human feelings factor into that and even in the case of the constitution that can be changed. 

No one said there was, but there are certain traits that are objectively necessary for a president.  For example, a president is sworn to protect the constitution.  Not "what may be in the constitution 20 years from now" but what is in it now.  So a president who knows the constitution and adheres to it is objectively better at their job.

You won't believe me but profiling by religous belief and banning immigration by religious belief CAN BE DONE! (We have done this before with the Chinese Exclusion Act and we can do it again for Muslims.) 

The Chinese exclusion act didn't ban immigration by religious belief.  Chinese is not a religious belief.  And I wasn't talking about Drumpf's suggestion of banning Muslim immigration, which is something I have conflicted feelings about.  I was talking about him saying we should consider a registry for muslims in the US.  That's something much different and much more horrifying.  That's straight up nazi tactics.  And I don't mean like "oh I hate him so I'll call him a Nazi" I mean it's literally one of the things nazis did.  And that is a straight up violation of the 14th amendment which does not apply to Chinese people in China, but does apply to Muslim people in the US.  

I didn't know that it was a presidents job to even care about what the other countries are doing but OK I guess we'll add that into one of your arbitrary requirements

The fuck man...  Read the constitution.  It's their job to command the armed forces.  It's their job to serve as the chief diplomat to other nations, to receive foreign dignitaries, and so on.  And don't you think that effectively commanding the military means you have to know what the fuck is going on?  

This stuff is in the constitution. Article 2.  Even setting that aside, are you seriously arguing that it's not important for the president to know what is going on in the world considering the global economy we live in, the threat of terrorism we face, and the alliances we need both miliatrily and economically? Like, are you really trying to suggest that it doesn't matter to you whether or not the president knows what other countries are doing? Even if it wasn't literally a part of his job, wouldn't you want someone who is actually knowledeable about what's going on?

Honestly, do you even give a shit about what happens in the world?  Because if Drumpf wins he will be the most powerful person in the world.  The fact that you don't want or expect him to actually know his shit if horrifying.

Deporting US born citizens is not even in his immigration reform plans but I don't deny him ending birthright citizenship which is still two completely different outcomes ... 

Errrr... how so?  Under the current constitution he is sworn to protect, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.".  So if his plan is to deport all illegal immigrants, including those he will strip of birthright citizenship, how is that not deporting US born citizens?

So if you agree with anything that Donald Drumpf says even if it is the truth your automatically stupid, am I right ? 

No, you're not right.  Stop trying to create strawman arguments.  

I am capable of rationalizing Donald Drumpf's statement but what I want to know is can you and the others seperate your anger when analyzing everything he says to the same extent ? Letting your anger cloud your judgement is NOT rational. 

There is nothing irrational about anger.  Sometimes anger is a completely rational reaction to something.  If someone told you that they had sex with your girlfriend, wouldn't anger be an absolutely rational response?

And I don't know why you're assuming I judge everything Drumpf says from a perspective of anger or irrationality.  I specifically brought up certain things that made me angry, and there are some stories about him that are blown out of proportion and don't make me angry. And I didn't come into this election with any intention of hating Drumpf.  I was actually very amused with him at first.  He made me smile.  The anger comes after analyzing what he says. 

Yes I do not bring up some of the questionable things that Drumpf says but that does not mean that I'm not aware of the crap he says however what reason do I have to get so worked up over about it when he didn't personally insult me or when it's practically the hip thing to shit all over Drumpf while also bringing it up ? 

The reason should be that you are an empathic human being and you understand that even if what he's saying won't impact you personally, it will impact other people.  Just because I'm not an illegal Mexican immigrant, and I'm fairly sure I never will be, doesn't mean I can't get upset when he is saying that most of them are rapists, murderers, drug dealers etc.  It's called empathy.

And this is quite literally the most important decision you'll make in the next four years in terms of how it's going to impact other people.  If you don't think the question of who is going to be the most influential person on the planet is something worth getting worked up about than I don't think you're taking your civic duty seriously enough.  I'll ask again, do you actually give a shit about this?

It's true that you guys do unfairly demonize him for BOTH the TRUTH or the other supposedly outrageous things he says and don't say  

How is it unfairly demonizing him if it's the truth?  What is your definition of unfairly?

As for the "supposedly" outrageous things, I just went over it with someone else, and I think we've established what I've said is pretty accurate.  What did I say that wasn't true?

don't say I NEVER did refute some of the things that you guys said about him when looking at this post or my previous other posts but your anger just gets in the god damned way of making a proper judgement ... 

If you did, then I missed it.  This is the only post where you attempted to make a defense for anything he's said, and it wasn't really a  good attempt. You simply said he can and even if you were right about that, can is different than should.  Presidents can do all sorts of things.  Whether they should do it is for you to decide with your vote.  If somewhere you feel you actually were able to refute anything I said you can show me.  

If I hadn't known better it'd be just easier to claim that you straight up hate him much like how Soundwave comes to reconciliation about him not believing in the the republican platform than it is trying to keep it real ... 

You don't know better.  I do straight up hate him.  I hate him because he is applying for literally the most important job in the world, and he is not willing to acquire the knowledge necessary.  I hate him because he plans on sending people to risk their lives overseas without learning what is actually going on.  I hate him not because I think he's a racist, but because he's trying to incite racism to his own personal benefit.  I hate him because he's shown that he's willing to lie to attract attention.  I hate him because he's making the students I've worked with (mostly muslim and children of mexican immigrants legal or otherwise) feel that they are not a part of this country.  

I absolutely hate him. I didn't hate him when this started, and I haven't hated any of the other republican candidates of the last two decades.  But I don't hate him for no reason.  I hate him because he's earned it.



JWeinCom said:

No one said there was, but there are certain traits that are objectively necessary for a president.  For example, a president is sworn to protect the constitution.  Not "what may be in the constitution 20 years from now" but what is in it now.  So a president who knows the constitution and adheres to it is objectively better at their job.

You say "objectively necessary" but the current consititution states that the qualifications for presidential candidates must have 14 years of residency and be least 35 years of age, NOTHING and I mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING states that the presidential candidates can't attempt to change the constitution itself, am I right or am I wrong ? 

JWeinCom said:

The Chinese exclusion act didn't ban immigration by religious belief.  Chinese is not a religious belief.  And I wasn't talking about Drumpf's suggestion of banning Muslim immigration, which is something I have conflicted feelings about.  I was talking about him saying we should consider a registry for muslims in the US.  That's something much different and much more horrifying.  That's straight up nazi tactics.  And I don't mean like "oh I hate him so I'll call him a Nazi" I mean it's literally one of the things nazis did.  And that is a straight up violation of the 14th amendment which does not apply to Chinese people in China, but does apply to Muslim people in the US.  

Doesn't matter, the president still has powers to ban immigration based off of religious beliefs. Believe it or not once again an exception can be made in terms of national security. While a ruling cannot be made solely based off of a religion, you CAN factor in religion as one of the aspects when profiling a group so that makes Trump at least right about that ... 

JWeinCom said:

The fuck man...  Read the constitution.  It's their job to command the armed forces.  It's their job to serve as the chief diplomat to other nations, to receive foreign dignitaries, and so on.  And don't you think that effectively commanding the military means you have to know what the fuck is going on?  

This stuff is in the constitution. Article 2.  Even setting that aside, are you seriously arguing that it's not important for the president to know what is going on in the world considering the global economy we live in, the threat of terrorism we face, and the alliances we need both miliatrily and economically? Like, are you really trying to suggest that it doesn't matter to you whether or not the president knows what other countries are doing? Even if it wasn't literally a part of his job, wouldn't you want someone who is actually knowledeable about what's going on?

Honestly, do you even give a shit about what happens in the world?  Because if Drumpf wins he will be the most powerful person in the world.  The fact that you don't want or expect him to actually know his shit if horrifying.

Making treaties with other countries (still needs approval from senate) or receiving foreign diplomats are OPTIONAL so it's not like they are FORCED to do those things. And no commanding the military does not mean you HAVE to know what the fuck is going on because they can be used for NATIONAL PURPOSES of DEFENSE. Doesn't mean that the military is always used for INTERNATIONAL affairs, it's as simple as that ... 

JWeinCom said:

Errrr... how so?  Under the current constitution he is sworn to protect, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.".  So if his plan is to deport all illegal immigrants, including those he will strip of birthright citizenship, how is that not deporting US born citizens?

READ HIS PLANS! He said NONE of that crap about deporting US born citizens. He's pretty much wrong about anchor babies not being US citizens, I'll grant you that much but what he what he DIDN'T say is that he'll deport them too. The ONLY thing he made explicitly clear is ending birthright citizenship! 

JWeinCom said:

No, you're not right.  Stop trying to create strawman arguments.  

"And if you support the things Donald Trump actually says, yes you are too god damn stupid to get mad at." Even a broken clock is right twice a day and If Donald Trump is right I put my foot down no matter what is said as long as it's the truth despite the fact that "I'm too stupid to get mad at" ... /s 

I rest my case ... 

JWeinCom said:

There is nothing irrational about anger.  Sometimes anger is a completely rational reaction to something.  If someone told you that they had sex with your girlfriend, wouldn't anger be an absolutely rational response?

And I don't know why you're assuming I judge everything Drumpf says from a perspective of anger or irrationality.  I specifically brought up certain things that made me angry, and there are some stories about him that are blown out of proportion and don't make me angry. And I didn't come into this election with any intention of hating Drumpf.  I was actually very amused with him at first.  He made me smile.  The anger comes after analyzing what he says. 

It's an EMOTIONAL response, not a RATIONAL one! A rational thought is where one puts aside their feelings in order to make logical deductions towards a conclusion like solving a math problem ... 

Anger is described to be that of an emotion, not a thought process ...

JWeinCom said:

The reason should be that you are an empathic human being and you understand that even if what he's saying won't impact you personally, it will impact other people.  Just because I'm not an illegal Mexican immigrant, and I'm fairly sure I never will be, doesn't mean I can't get upset when he is saying that most of them are rapists, murderers, drug dealers etc.  It's called empathy.

And this is quite literally the most important decision you'll make in the next four years in terms of how it's going to impact other people.  If you don't think the question of who is going to be the most influential person on the planet is something worth getting worked up about than I don't think you're taking your civic duty seriously enough.  I'll ask again, do you actually give a shit about this?

It doesn't affect anyone dear to me either so exactly why should I care ? You keep assuming that all humans are for greater good but that is simply naive when most of us as individuals only treasure what's most dear to us! If I had to pick between my life, assets, friends, and family or the world I would gladly cherish the shit out of what I have and would rather let the rest world burn in hell ...

It's absolutely ignorant to not consider ones personal feelings when it comes to making their own decision and just solely expecting them to pick the most logically beneficial for the human race ... 

You should know better than anyone else that emotional ties are greater than those of logical ones ... 

JWeinCom said:

How is it unfairly demonizing him if it's the truth?  What is your definition of unfairly?

As for the "supposedly" outrageous things, I just went over it with someone else, and I think we've established what I've said is pretty accurate.  What did I say that wasn't true?

You think your always telling the truth regarding the Don but even your not immune to fabricate or circulate misinformation as in this post above ... 

The way you guys are always on his neck makes this as if it were a witch hunt (figuratively speaking of course) instead of a civil disagreement ...

JWeinCom said:

If you did, then I missed it.  This is the only post where you attempted to make a defense for anything he's said, and it wasn't really a  good attempt. You simply said he can and even if you were right about that, can is different than should.  Presidents can do all sorts of things.  Whether they should do it is for you to decide with your vote.  If somewhere you feel you actually were able to refute anything I said you can show me.  

I just did and what a president "should" do is dependent relative to an individual or group, nothing more and nothing less so don't speak for everyone else's ideals as that only makes you selfish for trying to enforce it upon them when there are many other conflicting ideals on what the president should do ... 

JWeinCom said:

You don't know better.  I do straight up hate him.  I hate him because he is applying for literally the most important job in the world, and he is not willing to acquire the knowledge necessary.  I hate him because he plans on sending people to risk their lives overseas without learning what is actually going on.  I hate him not because I think he's a racist, but because he's trying to incite racism to his own personal benefit.  I hate him because he's shown that he's willing to lie to attract attention.  I hate him because he's making the students I've worked with (mostly muslim and children of mexican immigrants legal or otherwise) feel that they are not a part of this country.  

I absolutely hate him. I didn't hate him when this started, and I haven't hated any of the other republican candidates of the last two decades.  But I don't hate him for no reason.  I hate him because he's earned it.

Well at least you've shown your true colours so I gained a little respect for you when you make it intentionally clear that you vehemently hate him for your own justifications ... 



 

You say "objectively necessary" but the current consititution states that the qualifications for presidential candidates must have 14 years of residency and be least 35 years of age, NOTHING and I mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING states that the presidential candidates can't attempt to change the constitution itself, am I right or am I wrong ? 

The president is sworn to uphold the constitution.  This is objectively necessary part of the job.  Because the constitution is the law of the United States.

Doesn't matter, the president still has powers to ban immigration based off of religious beliefs. Believe it or not once again an exception can be made in terms of national security. While a ruling cannot be made solely based off of a religion, you CAN factor in religion as one of the aspects when profiling a group so that makes Trump at least right about that ... 

Ok... I never said you couldn't and I clarified that I was not talking about banning immigration, so I don't know why you're still on about htis.  And no, that doesn't make Trump right because even if you can it may not be a good idea.  

Making treaties with other countries (still needs approval from senate) or receiving foreign diplomats are OPTIONAL so it's not like they are FORCED to do those things. And no commanding the military does not mean you HAVE to know what the fuck is going on because they can be used for NATIONAL PURPOSES of DEFENSE. Doesn't mean that the military is always used for INTERNATIONAL affairs, it's as simple as that ... 

At this point I can't help but think this is trolling.  If you want to completely divorce yourself from reality, no the army never has to do anything internationally, and no the president never has to deal with other countries.  But considering this is reality, and Trump has already said he will use the military internationally, and said he would deal in international trade, then you're being intentionally obtuse.  

I don't believe for a second that you don't think the president will ever have to deal with the international community.

READ HIS PLANS! He said NONE of that crap about deporting US born citizens. He's pretty much wrong about anchor babies not being US citizens, I'll grant you that much but what he what he DIDN'T say is that he'll deport them too. The ONLY thing he made explicitly clear is ending birthright citizenship! 

Bill O Reilly:  "You are not going to be able to deport people who have American citizenship now. And the federal courts will never allow mass deportations without due process for each and every one. And do you envision federal police kicking in the doors in barrios around the country, dragging families out?"

Donald Trump:  "Bill, I don't think that they have American citizenship.  And if you speak to some very, very good lawyers — and I know some would disagree, but many of them agree with me — you're going to find they do not have American citizenship. We have to start a process where we take back our country. Our country is going to hell."

Yes, he specifically said he would deport people born in the US.  I don't know if he's changed his stance since then, but it's right there for you.  

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-oreilly-donald-trump-immigration-deport-birthright-2015-8

It's an EMOTIONAL response, not a RATIONAL one! A rational thought is where one puts aside their feelings in order to make logical deductions towards a conclusion like solving a math problem ... 

Anger is described to be that of an emotion, not a thought process ...

I don't know where you've gotten the idea that emotional and rational are oposites or mutually exclusives.  Our thoughts are a combination of processes going on in the prefrontal cortex (what you'd probably call logic) and processes going on in the limbic system (what you'd probably call emotions).  Every thought process is a combination of these two elements, as the two systems are in constant communication..  While you may rely more heavily on one or the other at certain times, there is no shutting one or the other off.  Even when solving math problems, emotions play a rather large part.  Anger is an emotion which is the result of a thought process.  Assuming your mind is functioning correctly, that anger is rational.

The dividing line between rational and emotional does not exist in reality.

"And if you support the things Donald Trump actually says, yes you are too god damn stupid to get mad at." Even a broken clock is right twice a day and If Donald Trump is right I put my foot down no matter what is said as long as it's the truth despite the fact that "I'm too stupid to get mad at" ... /s 

I rest my case ... 

Oh seriously, you know better than that.  Clearly when I said "the things Donald Trump says" I was referring to specific things he says, like the examples I was giving.  Obviously, I didn't mean that if you agree with Trump that the sky is blue you're an idiot.  I'm not going to insult you by pretending that you actually believe what you say.

You think your always telling the truth regarding the Don but even your not immune to fabricate or circulate misinformation as in this post above ... 

The way you guys are always on his neck makes this as if it were a witch hunt (figuratively speaking of course) instead of a civil disagreement ...

Errrr... what specific thing did I fabricate or did I say that was misinformation?  I actually try my best to not do that.  Of course I'm not immune, so if you noticed something, tell me, provide evidence, and I'll be sure not to do so in the future.  But you're not pointing out anything specific.  

I just did and what a president "should" do is dependent relative to an individual or group, nothing more and nothing less so don't speak for everyone else's ideals as that only makes you selfish for trying to enforce it upon them when there are many other conflicting ideals on what the president should do ... 

Yes.  I know what a president should do (to an extent) is based on what the public wants.  I assume that most of us are decent people who want what is best for ourselves and for others, and that on this basis we can have conversations to determine the best course of action.  But, maybe in your case, that's not true. 

Well at least you've shown your true colours so I gained a little respect for you when you make it intentionally clear that you vehemently hate him for your own justifications ... 

I'm not showing my true colors.  I think my hatred was clear from the beginning. Hatred is a rational response to certain things.  Do you hate Hitler?  I would hope so.  I'm not saying Donald Trump is Hitler, just that it can be perfectly rational to hate a politician.

It doesn't affect anyone dear to me either so exactly why should I care ? You keep assuming that all humans are for greater good but that is simply naive when most of us as individuals only treasure what's most dear to us! If I had to pick between my life, assets, friends, and family or the world I would gladly cherish the shit out of what I have and would rather let the rest world burn in hell ...

It's absolutely ignorant to not consider ones personal feelings when it comes to making their own decision and just solely expecting them to pick the most logically beneficial for the human race ... 

You should know better than anyone else that emotional ties are greater than those of logical ones ... 

I guess this is why we're having a problem understanding eachother.  I made the erroneous assumption that you were a decent and empathic human being who cared about others, even those not immediately involved in your life. I guess I was wrong in this regard.  

There is a word for people who don't care about anything but their own needs and desires.  The word is sociopath.  And while I kind of hope you are simply trolling, maybe you are one.  Maybe you legitimately don't give a shit about what happens to anyone else.  And if that's the case, then go ahead and vote for Trump I guess.  Like I said, those kinds of people really aren't worth talking to.  

If however, you actually do care about those around you, then I urge you to critically examine the candidates.