*****Republican National Convention thread. Let the games begin.*****

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: -Blackout-
People say Hillary will out-debate Trump when the time comes.

Hillary knows policy, Trump doesn't.

Serious minded people what to hear policy.

Emotional people just want to be fired up.

If the president was chosen by a team of political scholars - - - I don't think Trump would have a chance.

Public voters? Who knows.

And the country as we know it now (security threats, millions of unemployed people, the economy in general, etc.) is playing on people's emotions. People are tired of policies which haven't done squat for them over the past eight years. This scenario benefits Trump.

"Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You"

Blame, blame, blame, blame

Advantage, Trump.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Have I asked you to agree? Do you think I'm trying to prove something to you or the rest of the TTB?

I'm not.

Out of curiosity and decorum, however ... why don't you give me your definition of "fascism"?

I'd give you mine, but that would be pointless. So, tell me what a fascist is, and I'll show you how Mr. Trump either meets or exceeds that definition.

I view fascism, at it's core, as a form of govt that centralises power into the hands of the few (or one) - way beyond oligarchy - and removes opposition, controls and challenge, The use of that authoritarian power can be varied, but it is unrestricted.

Excellent. Mind if I tick off a summarized numerical list based on your stream-of-consciousness?

1. Centralizes power in the hands of the one.
2. Removes opposition, controls and challenge.
3. Uses unrestricted authoritarian power.



1. Trump argued several times in the course of his speech that he would be the one to make a difference in issues that no one in government to this point could solve collectively. He held himself out as "the Voice" of America, and pursued the typical hyper-nationalistic rhetoric of fascist dictators ("Americanism not globalism.") He, and he alone, will make the US great again. (No ideas how, just that we should trust HIM.) Only he can offer "millions of new jobs" and "trillions of new wealth" to America, yet, he can't tell us how He's going to do it, and thousands with actual experience in guiding a national economy haven't figured out how to do it. Only him, only Trump. This goes for beyond megalomania into irrationality if not insanity. "Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it." (Direct quote from last nights' speech)

2. Toward accomplishing that change, he's already discussed an unprecedented purge of the government. (The Hill) He has claimed that he will do any number of things that just aren't within the power of the President to do unilaterally, yet, when asked he says things like "Obama has led the way on Executive Orders" and that he would issue even more, except, of course, for "good things." (Newsmax). Removing challenge? After all that, who do you think will be left to be "FIRED!"

3. As noted above, Donald J. Trump has stated many times that he wouldn't let Congress stymie his plans the way they have Obama's. He sees the powers of the Presidency as virtually unlimited, like a corporate CEO's. He's going to issue a ban on all Muslims (contrary to the First Amendment), that he's going to make it easier to inhibit the free American press (again, First Amendment), etc. He's going to "defeat ISIS and defeat them fast" (How? Russia hasn't, we haven't, how? Ground war?) He's going to solve "immigration and solve it fast" etc. etc. and he's going to do all this how?

It boggles the mind.

More on Trumps historic speech and the historic levels of positive reaction:

www.independent.co.uk...

Obama's acceptance speech was very well received in 2008, but it has been outdone by Trump

Obama 2008 - 58% positive review.
Trump 2016 - 75% positive review.

originally posted by: UKTruth

A whopping 57% gave the top response of 'very positive'.

I would like a why.

Trump, Fox News, O'Reilly, Limbaugh - - - - they're all Carnival Barkers targeting emotions.

I want something besides how someone feels.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: -Blackout-
People say Hillary will out-debate Trump when the time comes.

Hillary knows policy, Trump doesn't.

Serious minded people what to hear policy.

Emotional people just want to be fired up.

If the president was chosen by a team of political scholars - - - I don't think Trump would have a chance.

Public voters? Who knows.

And the country as we know it now (security threats, millions of unemployed people, the economy in general, etc.) is playing on people's emotions. People are tired of policies which haven't done squat for them over the past eight years. This scenario benefits Trump.

"Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You"

Blame, blame, blame, blame

Advantage, Trump.

My problem with Trump is "ya can't go backwards" - - - America is never going to be what it was.

We are Global - - - can't put the Genie back in the Lamp.

How is Trump going to negotiate with foreign leaders?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Annee

It isn't working it's an underhanded ,lie, micro managed from the White house, maybe?
It has left too many collateral damage due to the fact the Dems/Left like electronic information rather than HUMAN information so they ignore intelligence reports in favor of their own,and it's biting them in the butt.

You can see things your way.

I see a stalled uncooperative Right Wing Congress.

Cooperation takes 2 sides. The Left Wing of the Congress isn't exactly willing to compromise on conservative ideals.

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: RickinVa

And she kept claiming ignorance of email policies, so obviously she doesn't know policy specifics either.

Touché!

But, unfortunately, she only selectively doesn't know policy specifics.

originally posted by: UKTruth
More on Trumps historic speech and the historic levels of positive reaction:

www.independent.co.uk...

Obama's acceptance speech was very well received in 2008, but it has been outdone by Trump

Obama 2008 - 58% positive review.
Trump 2016 - 75% positive review.

Here's what the poll apparently actually demonstrated:



Where's the poll that states that 75% gave the speech a positive review?

Because the only reported source I've found is a Breitbart employee who got "a text."

Pardon me if I don't find that exactly "compelling."

CNN

Breit bart

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Have I asked you to agree? Do you think I'm trying to prove something to you or the rest of the TTB?

I'm not.

Out of curiosity and decorum, however ... why don't you give me your definition of "fascism"?

I'd give you mine, but that would be pointless. So, tell me what a fascist is, and I'll show you how Mr. Trump either meets or exceeds that definition.

I view fascism, at it's core, as a form of govt that centralises power into the hands of the few (or one) - way beyond oligarchy - and removes opposition, controls and challenge, The use of that authoritarian power can be varied, but it is unrestricted.

Excellent. Mind if I tick off a summarized numerical list based on your stream-of-consciousness?

1. Centralizes power in the hands of the one.
2. Removes opposition, controls and challenge.
3. Uses unrestricted authoritarian power.



1. Trump argued several times in the course of his speech that he would be the one to make a difference in issues that no one in government to this point could solve collectively. He held himself out as "the Voice" of America, and pursued the typical hyper-nationalistic rhetoric of fascist dictators ("Americanism not globalism.") He, and he alone, will make the US great again. (No ideas how, just that we should trust HIM.) Only he can offer "millions of new jobs" and "trillions of new wealth" to America, yet, he can't tell us how He's going to do it, and thousands with actual experience in guiding a national economy haven't figured out how to do it. Only him, only Trump. This goes for beyond megalomania into irrationality if not insanity. "Nobody knows the system better than me, which is why I alone can fix it." (Direct quote from last nights' speech)

2. Toward accomplishing that change, he's already discussed an unprecedented purge of the government. (The Hill) He has claimed that he will do any number of things that just aren't within the power of the President to do unilaterally, yet, when asked he says things like "Obama has led the way on Executive Orders" and that he would issue even more, except, of course, for "good things." (Newsmax). Removing challenge? After all that, who do you think will be left to be "FIRED!"

3. As noted above, Donald J. Trump has stated many times that he wouldn't let Congress stymie his plans the way they have Obama's. He sees the powers of the Presidency as virtually unlimited, like a corporate CEO's. He's going to issue a ban on all Muslims (contrary to the First Amendment), that he's going to make it easier to inhibit the free American press (again, First Amendment), etc. He's going to "defeat ISIS and defeat them fast" (How? Russia hasn't, we haven't, how? Ground war?) He's going to solve "immigration and solve it fast" etc. etc. and he's going to do all this how?

It boggles the mind.

Well at least this is now a constructive debate... good suggestion.

So my views.

1) Trump said 'only he' can fix it. It did not conjure up images for me of him taking over control and making every decision with no restriction. It's a massive leap to suggest he would bypass congress and the judiciary and do whatever he wanted. He could just as easily mean that he has the know how and therefore can focus on the right things to fix the problems.

2) Hmmm, How many more executive orders would he need to write than Obama to be a fascist? This is a bit of a reach - I could say Obama was a fascist in that case based on the fact he HAS written so many exec orders. Obviously it would not make it true.

3) He did not say he was going to ban all Muslims. American citizens were not included even in his harsher version of his temporary ban. It is already within the President's power (without congress) to put a stop on any group of people entering the country. He did not say he was going to restrict the press. He said he was going to open up libel laws and make it easier for people to sue - they would still be free to lie and slander but they would face more consequences for doing so. The other two points about ISIS are and immigration are questions... I don;t know how he is going to do it, but it's unfair to assume he would break the law to do it. I will make the reference his comment about the armed forces, which was probably the closest he ever came to putting both feet over the line, when he said they would not refuse him. However, he recanted that and said he would stick to the law.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

A whopping 57% gave the top response of 'very positive'.

I would like a why.

Trump, Fox News, O'Reilly, Limbaugh - - - - they're all Carnival Barkers targeting emotions.

I want something besides how someone feels.

The carnival barkers from CNN didn't like the results, so they trashed their own poll. What a bunch of leftist pieces of sh!t.

75 Percent Positive Response to Donald Trump Speech — So CNN Trashes Its Own Poll

At 12:52 a.m., this reporter texted Breitbart Washington political editor Matthew Boyle the following message: “56 percent more likely to vote for Trump post speech. 75 percent positive reaction – CNN POLL!!!!!!” “Huge write,” Boyle replied. The text was in reference to a CNN instant poll that was briefly displayed onscreen. The numbers were accurate, which brings up one of the problems with instant polls: mainstream media networks have to end up downplaying and throwing cold water on their own poll results when they show support for Trump.

www.breitbart.com...

originally posted by: veracity
a reply to: Annee

Trump has no clue, no clue on ANY issue. In fact, I don't think he has a clue if he is a democrat or republican.

He just says things...ANYTHING...to get votes in order to win at this game.

Yes, I agree with you.

QUESTION: Will he surround himself with the best political team or "yes men"?

Me being a Globalist (its the only logical direction), am interested in how he will handle foreign affairs.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth
More on Trumps historic speech and the historic levels of positive reaction:

www.independent.co.uk...

Obama's acceptance speech was very well received in 2008, but it has been outdone by Trump

Obama 2008 - 58% positive review.
Trump 2016 - 75% positive review.

Here's what the poll apparently actually demonstrated:

Where's the poll that states that 75% gave the speech a positive review?

Because the only reported source I've found is a Breitbart employee who got "a text."

Pardon me if I don't find that exactly "compelling."

CNN

Breit bart

Links in my two posts...
Here is the second link again
www.independent.co.uk...

Those numbers you posted also very encouraging for Trump.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Don't ever link me to Breitbart.

You got another source?

a reply to: UKTruth

Gotta go. Kid has priority.

Do we have a thread on solutions to problems?

I feel like I'm derailing this thread.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: UnBreakable

Don't ever link me to Breitbart.

You got another source?

Can you provide a list of sources that are acceptable to you? And for the record I'll link to any damn source I want. I don't see your 'moderator' designation.

a reply to: UKTruth

You have drop back to an article in the UK to substantiate the reactions of Americans? LOL.

The link in your Independent article merely repeats the Breitbart article I linked almost completely.

NEITHER SUBSTANTIATE THE 75% positive claim.

Next?

originally posted by: UnBreakable
a reply to: UKTruth

Excellent - nice one...
Amazing results and an historic speech!

a reply to: UnBreakable

What's the source for this again?

Was it 73% or 75% or 78%?

Someone's confused.

a reply to: UKTruth

Sure ... what's the source?

LOL ... this smacks of some real desperation.

So, your sources for the claim again? Breitbart and a copy-cat article from the Independent?

What else?