Good news Trump supporters! You are right, your man isn't a Fascist.

(tu)

Why does Trump have a following?

"I have been a liberal practically all of my life (29 years). I am an atheist, and my first ever Presidential vote was cast for John Kerry. I more or less despised George Bush, and even though I leaned toward Hillary in 2008, I voted for Obama in 2012. I support gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, and many other liberal positions.

I do, however, believe that our country is in a terrible position and on a terrible track. Trump strikes many of my nerves, but one of the most accurate and dangerously true statements he has made is that "America doesn't win anymore." I agree. The world is rising while America falls. America and its leaders seem resigned to this fact. Rather than stiffening their spine and fighting to make America a prosperous nation for all, they simply talk, go through the motions, throw out a few "red meat" issues to keep their respective bases satisfied, and continue to concede American jobs and economic strength to the rest of the world."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/donald-trump-voters/401408/#A%20Liberal%20Who%20Wants%20America%20to%20Win

Why are you so concerned about Trump? You can't vote for him anyway.

Speaking for myself, we all live in the USA so our next president should be of concern to all of us. To me Trump sounds pretty radical, but some seem to support him.

The text I posted above is the reason that one of the people interviewed for the article gave for supporting Trump. The article contains interviews with 30 people who claim to be Trump supporters and their reasons for supporting him. They come from across the political spectrum.

Many just want change.

It's funny to see liberals head explode at the mere thought of Trump becoming president (prob see the same with the right once Hillary is selected)

After the last 15 years, what's the worst that can happen?

Another republican president.

It's funny to see liberals head explode at the mere thought of Trump becoming president (prob see the same with the right once Hillary is selected)

After the last 15 years, what's the worst that can happen?

My head hasn't exploded yet. But what was once hilarious entertainment now leaves me embarrassed for my country, and it's not helping anything except Daesh recruiting. Good lord, when Michael Reagan and I agree on our views on Trump (see Sunday Avis), you know its bad.

I don't think he could do much internal damage as President, since he's all talk, and even the TP caucus, as a whole, isn't that crazy. But I could see serious damage in foreign relations.

But it's a moot point. Unless there's a catastrophic event, he won't be President.

(we already know what to expect with a Hillary win. It'll be a repeat of Obama).

It's funny to see liberals head explode at the mere thought of Trump becoming president (prob see the same with the right once Hillary is selected)

After the last 15 years, what's the worst that can happen?

My head hasn't exploded yet. But what was once hilarious entertainment now leaves me embarrassed for my country, and it's not helping anything except Daesh recruiting. Good lord, when Michael Reagan and I agree on our views on Trump (see Sunday Avis), you know its bad.

I don't think he could do much internal damage as President, since he's all talk, and even the TP caucus, as a whole, isn't that crazy. But I could see serious damage in foreign relations.

But it's a moot point. Unless there's a catastrophic event, he won't be President.

(we already know what to expect with a Hillary win. It'll be a repeat of Obama).

Another Obama would be a disaster not only for the US but for the whole world. I am sure that it is all Bush's fault. After all Obama won a Nobel Peace prize.

"Ronald Reagan, in his successful 1980 bid for the presidency, famously asked the American people: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” If we take the same slogan and apply it to international affairs, the world would respond with a resounding “no.” Enemies of the United States or its interests – Russia, China, Syria, Iran and North Korea – have been emboldened. Allies have been blindsided, brushed aside or, in one case, ceased to exist: Yemen, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Great Britain, France, Japan, South Korea and Israel. Al-Qaida has new strength, the Islamic State group holds large areas of Iraq and Syria, China exerts greater influence in Asia, and the Russians make continuous advances and gains in the Ukraine. We must remind ourselves that these issues and places are interrelated: Chaos in Yemen changes the dynamic in the Persian Gulf, just as the chaos in Syria changes the dynamic in the Levant. "
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2015/01/30/obamas-foreign-policy-has-left-the-world-in-a-mess

We should have another war to show them brown people who is boss!!!

And another recession like the Bush era led us into with only the war mongers like Cheney making out like the criminals they really are.
Republicans seem to like wars but they don't care about the people that they send to have to fight in them when they veto bills to help veterans.

Democrat Presidents have gotten us into more wars than Republican Presidents. Think about it, both World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, etc. all entered into by Democrat Presidents.

Members of the military vote Republican over Democrat by a 20% majority.

"Many of the liberals who rally around Obama and the flag probably don’t actually have a principled opposition to war. But what about those who do? They are trapped in the cognitive dissonance produced by one of America’s fundamental political falsehoods: that the Democratic Party is opposed to war."

"Indeed, all of the major U.S. wars in the 20th century—World War I, II, Korea and Vietnam—were entered by Democratic administrations. Harry Truman, a Democrat, is still the only world leader to use a nuclear bomb on a population. And with the exception of World War II, where almost all anti-war sentiment collapsed after Pearl Harbor, these wars were entered over the objections of the left wing of the Democratic Party. But while the presence of that left wing has guaranteed that anti-war liberals rally to the Democratic side, it not yet stopped a Democratic administration from going to war."

http://thebaffler.com/blog/democrats-are-the-real-party-of-war

History says that Democrats are the party of war. At least for the past 100 years.

When the invasion of Iraq was being discussed, Senator Clinton used her 5 minutes on the floor of the Senate to urge support for the vote to authorize use of force.

"Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran."
- Senator Hillary Clinton D-NY

Both Clinton and Biden voted in favor of invading Iraq. But they blame Bush.

There is no difference between R and D. They are both going to do what's best for corporate America and building guns is great business. In the 3 years since the Sandy Hook shooting the gun industry has made $662 billion. Just mention "gun control laws" and get that economy rolling. Our biggest export in 2015 is bombs on brown people. We are good. #1 in the world. USA USA USA

There is no difference between R and D. They are both going to do what's best for corporate America and building guns is great business. In the 3 years since the Sandy Hook shooting the gun industry has made $662 billion. Just mention "gun control laws" and get that economy rolling. Our biggest export in 2015 is bombs on brown people. We are good. #1 in the world. USA USA USA

It's a good thing that France had such tough gun laws. It helped them avoid being a victim of mass shootings. Several of them.

And don't forget, the Sandy Hook shootings occurred in a "gun free zone".

And we no longer have a drug problem in the US because we have outlawed almost all drugs.

More laws which infringe on the rights of law abaiding citizens are what we don't need.

Violent people kill people. Using guns, knives, bombs, etc. What we need to do is eliminate violent people.

Tobacco kills 10 times more people every year than guns and we won't even make tobacco illegal.

Weird that after toughening gun laws Austalia hasn't seen a mass shooting in decades? So, if guns are not a problem, then Americans are just violent people? Why are we giving guns to violent people? Why haven't any of the gun fetishists used their second amendment rights to protect their 1st, 5th and 8th Ammendment rights which have been trampled in past quarter century? The USA has seen more people killed by firearms in past 50 years than total of all Americans killed in all our wars combined. Ponder that.

Assume you're counting suicide in the above? If so It's a little dishonest implication on your part

Gun owners are doing the same thing 99% of Americans have done support the status quo by voting D or R

I didn't say murdered. Killed. By choice, accident or intent. Does it really matter? That number is staggering.

They are trapped in the cognitive dissonance produced by one of America’s fundamental political falsehoods: that the Democratic Party is opposed to war."

... Both Clinton and Biden voted in favor of invading Iraq. But they blame Bush

It's simplistically naive to sit back pointing fingers reveling in hindsight.

I didn't say murdered. Killed. By choice, accident or intent. Does it really matter? That number is staggering.

Like I said there is an implication in the statistic you cited is worded. Call it an omission of information to clairify your statistics

The number is staggering and the statistics seem to point to the US having a huge problem dealing with mental health issues Vs a guns

I didn't say murdered. Killed. By choice, accident or intent. Does it really matter? That number is staggering.

Like I said there is an implication in the statistic you cited is worded. Call it an omission of information to clairify your statistics

The number is staggering and the statistics seem to point to the US having a huge problem dealing with mental health issues Vs a guns

Talk about cognitive dissonance. Sure, mental health is a big issue. But not the only issue. It seems you're rationalizing that the availability of guns doesn't contribute to the high numbers. And yet, since Sandy Hook, a child under 13 has been killed at the rate of 1 every other day. Many of these from easy access to loaded, unlocked guns in the home. That's not mental health. That's owner negligence.

There were nearly 2X as many firearm deaths due to suicide (over 21k) Vs Homicide, so mental health is a little more than a "big" issue, especially when you are trying to compare to a tragic but relatively minor stat of less than 200 deaths/year.

But yeah, lets waste time and effort on something that wont fix or improve anything and ignore where we can have positive impact on the problem.

So mental health is a way bigger issue in the United States than other countries? Hmm.

There were nearly 2X as many firearm deaths due to suicide (over 21k) Vs Homicide, so mental health is a little more than a "big" issue, especially when you are trying to compare to a tragic but relatively minor stat of less than 200 deaths/year.

But yeah, lets waste time and effort on something that wont fix or improve anything and ignore where we can have positive impact on the problem.

Shortly after Sandy Hook, there was a bill with bi-partisan co-sponsors that addressed mental health. It was shot down. There have been other bills since then. So it's not being ignored. Just can't get the Republican Congress on board. Wonder why?

As for the availability of guns in relation to suicide. A gun in the home increases the risk of successful suicide. This article covers the US. But the statistics comparing other high wealth countries correlate as well.

Guns & Suicide: The Hidden Toll - Harvard Magazine

We can keep arguing over semantics and nitpick the statistics to "death". But guns, in the hands of the wrong people still cause unnecessary death on a daily basis. And the more guns available, the more deaths. Until we can acknowledge the problem, and come together, instead of using the fallacy of guns don't kill people argument, hiding behind the 2nd, and dismissing parts of the problem, such as writing off children as a small but tragic stat, it will continue.

Shortly after Sandy Hook, there was a bill with bi-partisan co-sponsors that addressed mental health. It was shot down. There have been other bills since then. So it's not being ignored. Just can't get the Republican Congress on board. Wonder why?

Look I realize its easier to have an automatic "boogey man" to blame when things dont pan out inline with your preferences , but it appears that both sides still have a way to go - http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/mental-health-gun-control-nra-216221

As for the availability of guns in relation to suicide. A gun in the home increases the risk of successful suicide. This article covers the US. But the statistics comparing other high wealth countries correlate as well.

Guns & Suicide: The Hidden Toll - Harvard Magazine

I would imagine that having drugs/medicine at home increases the odds of OD/suicide as well.

Following your logic we should be banning drugs

We can keep arguing over semantics and nitpick the statistics to "death". But guns, in the hands of the wrong people still cause unnecessary death on a daily basis. And the more guns available, the more deaths. Until we can acknowledge the problem, and come together, instead of using the fallacy of guns don't kill people argument, hiding behind the 2nd, and dismissing parts of the problem, such as writing off children as a small but tragic stat, it will continue.

Until folks can realize the tool is not responsible for the action, we will piss away time and money on little or no gain not dealing with the cause and treatment of suicide. And I cannot fathom the logic that with finite resources, we shouldn't prioritize our effort to provide maximum benefit. So I should mark you down for writing off the 21k+ suicide victims

Who knew making up others points was so much fun...