LogGrad98

Well-Known Member
Contributor
I would support the better person in that case. Believe me, I loved Romney and thought he would be amazing. Once I saw him bow down to the media and Obama, I knew he would lose. I need someone that is good AND fights back. Trump fights back even though he is not a moral man. The good of the country as a whole is more important to me than how "good" the president is.
So you're saying if Romney or a similar candidate went against Trump you would still choose Trump? To you the fighting back is the single most important thing then.
 

Heathme

Guest
No most are happy when "their side" wins almost regardless of what that really means. The president has as much to do with the economy as I do with running the company I work for, and I'm about 6 levels removed from the CEO.
I disagree. Clinton would have come in and immediately added more regulations, not cut the hundreds of regulations that Pres. Trump did. She would have continued Obama's fiscal policies that kept the country stagnant for most of his presidency. She would not be fighting China and the trade deficits we have had with them forever. She would not be the cheerleader for America that Trump is. It is quite obvious that he loves the country and wants it to be strong and succeed. Clinton would have continued the world apology tour that Obama went on for eight years.
 

Heathme

Guest
So you're saying if Romney or a similar candidate went against Trump you would still choose Trump? To you the fighting back is the single most important thing then.
If they did not prove to have what it takes in debates and interactions with the media I would say yes.
 

DasJazz

Well-Known Member
Geez, looking at the OP. The political reality is that the leading Democratic candidates -- Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris and possibly Buttigieg -- aren't strong enough to beat Trump. In order for Trump to lose in 2020, Trump would have to find a way to beat himself. Dems keep waiting and hoping that he'll self destruct, but it hasn't happened.

Trump isn't a role model. He's a boorish, straight-talking, banker, fratguy bully. He's never apologized for it. But conservatives still support him for a number of things he's doing, including pushing for border security, promoting the economy, pushing back on trade negotiations with China, supporting conservative judges, stopping federal funding for abortions, and a number of other conservative policies.

Actually, the fact that Trump isn't a polished politician leads to people believing he's sincere about what he says. People interpret Trump's brash demeanor as unvarnished honesty. They eat it up.

Democrats keep throwing coordinated tantrums over Trump's manner of speaking and personal behavior, but there hasn't been enough substance to their criticisms to make much difference. It comes across as prolonged sour grapes over losing the election in 2016.
Nailed it. And this is the very reason why he will be reelected.
 

DasJazz

Well-Known Member
You don't know what effect a different president would have though. You probably think you so, but you don't.

See you settle. You are cool with a piece of **** for president cause the economy is good and stuff.
What if the economy was good and stuff and the president wasn't a piece of ****? Wouldn't that be preferable?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Yes it would be but Democrat candidates don't offer that.
 

DasJazz

Well-Known Member
Question: if there were a republican Challenger to Trump with a better track record on race, zero sexual assault allegations, and better history of working across the aisle to get things done, who also promised to put America first, which would you support?

Say Romney wants to run again. Similar ticket to last run for him only stronger pro-american stance. Which do you vote for?
If it were Romney vs Trump, I vote Trump. Romney is terrible, a complete pushover, and would not be good for the country.

Now if you want to talk maybe Ted Cruz instead of Romney, I would really have to think about it.
 

Stoked

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
So basically what we are seeing is that moral character doesn’t matter at all for some people. The person can be a complete scumbag, piece of **** as long as you like the policies.

I find that lack of a line to be disturbing on principle. But there it is.
 

DasJazz

Well-Known Member
So basically what we are seeing is that moral character doesn’t matter at all for some people. The person can be a complete scumbag, piece of **** as long as you like the policies.

I find that lack of a line to be disturbing on principle. But there it is.
I mean that was pretty much Obama. He was a great speaker but a terrible hindrance to our nation in terms of growth and policy. The only difference is that this time around it's someone from the opposite party so now it's an issue. Deny it all you want but it's the hard truth.
 

Stoked

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
I mean that was pretty much Obama. He was a great speaker but a terrible hindrance to our nation in terms of growth and policy. The only difference is that this time around it's someone from the opposite party so now it's an issue. Deny it all you want but it's the hard truth.
The party is irrelevant to me. **** the parties. So no, That’s not the point

What horse **** lol
 

Wes Mantooth

Well-Known Member
I mean that was pretty much Obama. He was a great speaker but a terrible hindrance to our nation in terms of growth and policy. The only difference is that this time around it's someone from the opposite party so now it's an issue. Deny it all you want but it's the hard truth.
A terrible leader? How so?
 

Stoked

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
Okay throw party lines away, you still described Obama to a T.
I didn’t like a lot of Obama’s policies and didn’t vote for him. Again. There’s a line. He can be the nicest guy ever and if his policies suck I won’t support him. You apparently have no line. And I find the willingness to embrace an extreme like that usually a dangerous thing.
 

DasJazz

Well-Known Member
A terrible leader? How so?
Many ways. Overregulation, terrible GDP for his tenure, telling Americans that high unemployment was the new norm, race relations, secret payments in the dark of night to terrorist nations, police relations, spying on political opponents, worldwide apology tour, the Iran deal, the list goes on.
 

Wes Mantooth

Well-Known Member
I disagree. Clinton would have come in and immediately added more regulations, not cut the hundreds of regulations that Pres. Trump did. She would have continued Obama's fiscal policies that kept the country stagnant for most of his presidency. She would not be fighting China and the trade deficits we have had with them forever. She would not be the cheerleader for America that Trump is. It is quite obvious that he loves the country and wants it to be strong and succeed. Clinton would have continued the world apology tour that Obama went on for eight years.
Uh you realize Obama helped the economy a ton, right?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...st-a-continuation-from-obamas-presidency/amp/
 

Stoked

Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
Many ways. Overregulation, terrible GDP for his tenure, telling Americans that high unemployment was the new norm, race relations, secret payments in the dark of night to terrorist nations, police relations, spying on political opponents, worldwide apology tour, the Iran deal, the list goes on.
Race and police relations were already bad. He didn’t create that, it only got the spot light. I disliked most of his foreign policy decisions.
 

Wes Mantooth

Well-Known Member
Many ways. Overregulation, terrible GDP for his tenure, telling Americans that high unemployment was the new norm, race relations, secret payments in the dark of night to terrorist nations, police relations, spying on political opponents, worldwide apology tour, the Iran deal, the list goes on.
Trump is guilty of virtually all of these lmfao.
 
Top