Serious Q's To Trump Supporters (or those on the fence for Trump)

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

 

 

The better questions is this: Why do people put so much weight on a debate instead of actually looking at the things that really matter? You know, like... What are they going to do to lower the national debt? To do away with corruption in government? To allow creation of REAL opportunity for citizens? To allow citizens their freedoms that are declared in the constitution? To fix our terrible education system? To stop the rampant illegal immigration to our country? To protect us from our enemies, which at this time happens to be radical Islamic terrorism?

 

People get so caught up in how things sound instead of what they ought to be focusing on. Watching the debate, a neutral observer would probably say that Hillary won because she was indeed very polished in what she was saying. But if someone is truly educated on the issues and what she is proposing for our country, they'd realize that all she is is a polished turd - a corrupt polished turd that says terrific things (which are extremely vague, BTW) but will likely do the opposite once elected when her Super PACs and big donors pay her off.

Clinton would do as well as or better at all of the important things you listed except for illegal immigration. Although with that topic, the word "better" is pretty subjective. Innocent people would be hurt for no reason other than their ethnicity or religion.

 

Speaking of education, as I didn't really touch on that in my post, I believe that Hilary supports common core correct? Trump doesn't support common core so that's another topic I agree with him on. Common core, to me, isn't doing the job it's supposed to do from what I've seen of it so far into my children's school career. I get the national standards thing, but the problem is there are plenty of studies out there that state these young children aren't learning anything. They're memorizing and that's all they're doing. If the schools don't meet those national standards then they lose access to federal funding based on what I've heard/read and the teachers are rated poorly. So the schools obviously push these standards and it doesn't allow the teachers to truly teach in the correct way. If you can get a teacher to admit this to you most of them will tell you they aren't fans of common core because it doesn't allow them to teach in a way that the children actually learn. So it may be doing more harm than good at this point.

 

I have twin 7 year old's now. One has some issues with reading and if he doesn't meet standards by the end of this year I'm told he'll automatically be held back in 2nd grade so he can meet the standards next year. That's completed B.S.! How the hell am I supposed to send one twin to 3rd grade and hold the other back in 2nd grade? Answer? I won't....... I'll pull both of them out of the school and we'll go to a different district before I allow the one twin that's having troubles with reading to go through the psychological pain of seeing his brother move on to 3rd grade while he stays in 2nd grade. It would crush him, which leads to us hammering homework EVERY. SINGLE. NIGHT! I've paid tutors, I spent all summer going over math, reading, spelling, and writing with them almost every day. So I'm doing plenty as a parent outside of school. When they were in Kindergarten it was an hour of homework every night. No, I'm not kidding........

 

Another option is for me to send them to private school to avoid the common core standards. I'll do that if needed, but it'll cost me probably between $15,000 to $20,000 a year for both kids to make it happen. Ouch...........

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/02/17/why-i-once-liked-common-core-but-changed-my-mind-one-principals-view/

 

 

I'm against Common Core. I want things to go back to what they were pre-2000, because they've definitely gone downhill since then.

 

But Trump wants to eliminate the entire Department of Education. When questioned on it he changed his mind to say he "may" do it. I'm all for states having more say and the federal government having less, but getting rid of it is a bad idea.

 

Unfortunately that's where we are now. Someone who supports a bad thing vs. someone who is crazy.

 

He can say that he wants to eliminate the Department of Education................just like he can say on day one he's going to get rid of Obamacare. We all know neither are going to happen. Obviously it's not that simple and I know you know that, I'm just saying. My brother is a hardcore democrat and he's pissed at me because I might vote for someone that "wants to take away universal health care for our parents!" That's not what's going to happen, instead he has his idea of what should be universal health care and he's going to have to obviously bridge the gap to transfer stuff over to that IF he can actually get it done, which I doubt.

[zoogs]

I think that's (considerably) understating the danger to the ACA's future. Things that are relatively new in their implementation take years to get smoothed out and headed in the right direction. This would be quite the unforced step backwards.

 

Not to mention the environment -- though I don't know if that's a priority of yours, I mention it because you mention you've voted for Obama twice. Clean Power Plan and Paris are important pieces of his legacy, and significant climate efforts in their own right. They hang in the balance.

 

I'm generally in favor of the idea of national education standards. In the absence of CC, don't presume that state or even local efforts might not be just as shoddy and infuriating in some cases. In aggregate, I don't consider dismantling to be an answer. And I expect what it might be replaced with, and how, will be the least of a President Trump's concerns.

 

A bit more on their stances on Education, and the role (or lack thereof) they want to play in it: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/donald-trump-vs-hillary-clinton-where-they-stand-on-education.html?_r=0

 

Presumably, also, your kids will go to college at some point. Approaches to higher education investment seem relevant, too.

 

Regardless, I don't think the fight over how primary and secondary school education is done, or will be particularly settled by this election. We seem to still be in the nascent stages and can expect continuing changes. A lot of opinion I've read on this starts with "National standards are important" and ends with "...but CC has problems with implementation." I think Hillary's stated instincts are to the former. If she's a good listener, she'll be receptive to feedback and changes. Teachers have not been un-opinionated on this, and that discussion isn't a partisan one.

[funhusker]

http://www.corestandards.org/about-the-standards/myths-vs-facts/

 

The President has very little to do with Common Core (I wanted to say "nothing" but I figured someone would play a game of "Kevin Bacon"). In fact, if you live in Nebraska, absolutely nothing will change since we have not adopted Common Core. I think many people confuse Common Core with No Child Left Behind. NCLB is dead, thank God.

 

BRI, I have empathy toward your situation with your boys. I have triplets and understand how impossible the circumstance of splitting them would be. However, one of the big criticisms of public schools is just pushing kids through the system. A school has a responsibility to make sure children are getting the best, and I think everything should be considered, educationally and psychologically. I don't know the details of your situation, but I would assume that is a district policy versus anything at the State or Federal level.

[funhusker]

I am not voting Trump because he is strictly pro-life, I am voting for him for other reasons as well. It seems America needs a leader who will fight for America and be a pro-American. We do not need a globalist as the next president of the US, because the UN is slowly starting to try and take freedom away.

 

Anyway, it is a tough election and I was never in favor of Trump from the beginning. He seems to be semi-intelligent, but needs to learn to not contradict himself. I really like how he doesn't like the media, they have been unkind to him about his rally numbers and some of them ask generalizations to him and not questions. He has a good VP pick in my opinion and I actually think Pence will have a lot of work to do, because Trump will be busy with lots of things. In fact, Pence will be in charge of foreign policy I believe and will also do all the little things the vp does like break ties in the senate, give speeches and take over for the president when he is not able to perform his duty.

 

Basically, Hillary will make a bad president and she would make future woman presidents look bad in the future. Trump is going to make us feel good to be American again, and he is going to attract to the hard working Americans that don't have a voice to vote for him. He will not back down and let other countries boss us around, we are in charge when he is president and that is something he can accomplish with his big American ego, which is what we need in our president.

 

Only worry I have with him is the nukes he has at his disposal, but I hope he puts that in Pence's hands because Pence would know how to handle that situation better.

I know this isn't point of this thread, but if you think the VP should make nuclear decisions because the President can't be trusted.....all I can think to say is "huh?"

 

And as far as the "make us feel good to be American again", I'm damn proud to be an American right NOW!!!

[Creighton Duke]

1. I couldn't name anyone because I would not listen to anyone who is an "established" authority on the matter. This is the whole point of Trump. This movement is unlike anything that has happened in America in close to 200 years and we are rejecting those in establishment positions. It is possible that someone from the shadows who isn't propped up or who is saying or doing something against Trump to serve some established interest could have something of interest to say, but if they haven't identified themselves by this point, I doubt they will ever surface.

 

2. Anything is possible, but extremely doubtful. All in for Trump!

[Danny Bateman]

This thread has some of the best unfettered conversation we've seen in a while. Good idea NM!

 

BRI, thanks for your thoughts and of course putting on the uniform. I certainly understand why a lot of Republican ideas appeal to you. I know there are a lot of people out there angry at politics as usual and want to just disrupt the system. I'd argue that both sides share some of the blame for the way things have with gridlock, and I regret that people are putting their ideas ahead of getting results for people.

 

I'm just convinced that Trump is a horrible conduit for change. And I'm not at all convinced that he actually means what he says.

 

I think Zoogs has a very salient point-- when left to handle something free from federal input, states often do a shaky, crappy job in favor of saving money. Take capital punishment. Not a perfect example, but bear with me. The federal government has largely gotten away from administering it. The last time they killed someone on the federal level was 2003. There's a trend to do away with it at the state level now. Nebraska voted to do so.

 

But our human thumb of a governor decided to try to import lethal injection drugs from India. Drugs which we have no way of knowing are legit or could be fresh off the black market. And he vowed to spit all over the decision by the state government he claimed to support so strongly.

 

I think that is an example of when something is more effectively legislated by the federal government. State governments can be foiled by either putting cost over quality or rogue governors.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Like I said before, I get the national standards for education, I really do. I just think common core has been a disaster and haven't heard many good things about it. I'm not saying get rid of national standards all together, but there HAS to be a better program that we can come up with that'll be better for these kids in the long run. At least I'm hopeful there is.........the holding our one twin back based on reading levels IS a state standard to the best of my knowledge.

 

I don't personally have a problem with universal health care on some level. I realize that ACA has its problems and I agree with you Zoogs it takes some time to work through all of the issues.

 

There are some republican values I share, smaller government, protection of the 2nd amendment, etc. But I also share values with the democrats, right to choose, equal rights for everyone, etc. I can see both sides of the argument for each candidate. The breaking point for me is the divide in the country right now and the national sentiment towards law enforcement. Working in this environment hasn't been fun and it needs to stop. It is my opinion it'll stay the same or get worse under Hilary which is one of the reasons I won't be voting for her. Again, that doesn't mean I'm going to necessarily vote for anyone as president either.

[NM11046]

Thanks BRI - totally understand your points.

 

I get your concerns about national sentiment toward law enforcement, and that it probably wouldn't change with Hillary. Do you have concerns that it could possible get worse with Trump?

[Moiraine]

1. I couldn't name anyone because I would not listen to anyone who is an "established" authority on the matter. This is the whole point of Trump. This movement is unlike anything that has happened in America in close to 200 years and we are rejecting those in establishment positions. It is possible that someone from the shadows who isn't propped up or who is saying or doing something against Trump to serve some established interest could have something of interest to say, but if they haven't identified themselves by this point, I doubt they will ever surface.

 

2. Anything is possible, but extremely doubtful. All in for Trump!

I'm sure loads of people were excited about Hitler and the Nazi movement too. Something not happening for 200 years doesn't make it a good thing.

 

I think the two of us can agree that this system is effed up (it's controlled by self-serving corporations and the politicians who take their bribes) but Trump isn't the right person to fix it.

[Creighton Duke]

 

1. I couldn't name anyone because I would not listen to anyone who is an "established" authority on the matter. This is the whole point of Trump. This movement is unlike anything that has happened in America in close to 200 years and we are rejecting those in establishment positions. It is possible that someone from the shadows who isn't propped up or who is saying or doing something against Trump to serve some established interest could have something of interest to say, but if they haven't identified themselves by this point, I doubt they will ever surface.

 

2. Anything is possible, but extremely doubtful. All in for Trump!

I'm sure loads of people were excited about Hitler and the Nazi movement too. Something not happening for 200 years doesn't make it a good thing.

 

I think the two of us can agree that this system is effed up (it's controlled by self-serving corporations and the politicians who take their bribes) but Trump isn't the right person to fix it.

 

Regarding the first bolded point, maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, however the Hitler/National Socialist comparisons, particularly in regard to this conversation are interesting. Many laugh when people talk about the importance of the 2nd Amendment and then make the Hitler comparison...completely missing the irony.

 

That being said, a President Trump administration couldn't ever spiral out of control into a reich. If it attempted such a thing...well...people have guns...and would stop it.

 

And yes, I think that both of us can agree on everything that you have stated other than the parts that I have bolded above.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Thanks BRI - totally understand your points.

 

I get your concerns about national sentiment toward law enforcement, and that it probably wouldn't change with Hillary. Do you have concerns that it could possible get worse with Trump?

No, I don't have the same concerns because Trump has supported us through his campaign. Now, could the country spiral out of control with him at the helm? I suppose it could, but if you would've said to me 8 years ago we'd be having the issues we are having now in reference to the divide and racial issues in this country with our first African-American President at the helm I would've said you were nuts! We should be closer than ever, instead we've regressed 40 to 50 years.

[zoogs]

I'm not saying get rid of national standards all together

If this is your stance, BRI, then that's explicitly the opposite of Trump's, isn't it? -- and it is Hillary's platform.

 

I don't know that she'll dismantle CC and come up with something new (in theory, that sounds like a different name kind of deal. In practice, you just see CC evolve over time). It seems like funhusker would have more to say about this; I'm a little out of my depth.

 

national sentiment towards law enforcement.

One thing I hope becomes more clear is that BLM isn't anti-law enforcement. The problem is with us, all of us, not a scant minority of racist cops. We bear responsibility as a nation for this situation, and we can go back to the "drug" war used to incarcerate blacks and hippies, and the whole broken windows, superpredators stuff that any reasonable politician has seen the error of their ways with.

 

The conservative outlet RedState pointed out that it's not outrageous for blacks to feel they live under an occupied state. I think that's well put. And the key word here is 'state', not "People of this occupation (police) in particular are racist." That's patently ridiculous.

 

So, let's examine then how this situation might improve. If you watched the debate, you saw Trump double, triple, and quadruple down on expanding Stop and Frisk -- an unconstitutional, discredited, and disproportionately minority-targeting practice that only someone who has *no idea* would be touting today.

 

And if you think that's going to improve this environment, then he has some excellent real estate classes to sell you.

 

I think back to Trump's words on Putin. "He says such nice things about me, and you want me to disavow?" He expects the same in reverse: turning around and saying these things to various groups (coal workers, minorities, policemen), whether or not he has the coherence or the policy to back up those words, and expecting their love in return just for that. Every other phrase out of his mouth is "...the best people." Don't believe the hype.

[JJ Husker]

"Pro life" is nice branding. It is, in reality "Anti-abortion."The pro-life movement isn't about teaching safe sex, or promoting more family leave and family resources, or providing free contraceptives and so on. It is strictly about restricting, or rendering illegal, abortion.There's a lot of room for unity in the "for life" area, across both aisles of thought on government restrictions. I can't tell or convince someone who has their personal convictions to become pro-choice, but hopefully, I can point out the important areas where we can work together towards promoting a common good.

This is so wrong I don't have the words. All this shows is your complete lack of understanding about Pro life.

 

While I'm sure there are those who are simply anti-abortion, the heart of the efforts involves all of the things you just flatly denied. The Catholic churchs I regularly go to are constantly asking for donations and volunteers for the Pregnancy Resource center, aid for unwed mothers, teen sex education, etc. Most reasonable people realize there is more involved than just being anti-abortion. Seems we always have a baby bottle in our house to collect our change for the Pregnancy Resource center. I do disagree with the church on the use of contraceptives and wish they would change their stance on that. But you need to quit spreading falsehoods about a movement that you apparently have little knowledge of.

[Creighton Duke]

national sentiment towards law enforcement.

One thing I hope becomes more clear is that BLM isn't anti-law enforcement. The problem is with us, all of us, not a scant minority of racist cops. We bear responsibility as a nation for this situation, and we can go back to the "drug" war used to incarcerate blacks and hippies, and the whole broken windows, superpredators stuff that any reasonable politician has seen the error of their ways with.

 

snip

 

I want to make a few points here. First, when we refer to a recognized population, we should use the proper capitalized title i.e. Blacks. Second, the responsibility begins LONG before the "drug war" and the precipitous decline of the standard of living of the Black population can directly be traced back to the Great Society initiatives. If you look at unemployment rates, divorce rates, general standard of living indicators, etc. this is the time period that saw all progress being made by Blacks in America begin to be snuffed out due to irresponsible and possibly intentional activities by elected federal officials.

[Moiraine]

 

"Pro life" is nice branding. It is, in reality "Anti-abortion."The pro-life movement isn't about teaching safe sex, or promoting more family leave and family resources, or providing free contraceptives and so on. It is strictly about restricting, or rendering illegal, abortion.There's a lot of room for unity in the "for life" area, across both aisles of thought on government restrictions. I can't tell or convince someone who has their personal convictions to become pro-choice, but hopefully, I can point out the important areas where we can work together towards promoting a common good.

This is so wrong I don't have the words. All this shows is your complete lack of understanding about Pro life.

 

While I'm sure there are those who are simply anti-abortion, the heart of the efforts involves all of the things you just flatly denied. The Catholic churchs I regularly go to are constantly asking for donations and volunteers for the Pregnancy Resource center, aid for unwed mothers, teen sex education, etc. Most reasonable people realize there is more involved than just being anti-abortion. Seems we always have a baby bottle in our house to collect our change for the Pregnancy Resource center. I do disagree with the church on the use of contraceptives and wish they would change their stance on that. But you need to quit spreading falsehoods about a movement that you apparently have little knowledge of.

 

 

 

You're using only anecdotal evidence, although zoogs hasn't used any yet. My anecdotal evidence is any time I hear about people being against sex education it's from Christians who say it's as easy as telling kids "don't have sex," which is a completely unreasonable solution. It's also Christians who are generally against letting gays adopt kids, which might help with the situation. For the record I'm Christian and pro-life but I disagree with the Republican platform about every other thing related to sex and pregnancy and poverty and children.