Evidence for God from Science

For the record, I don't expect to be disappointed, because I don't have any expectations of a Trump presidency other than these: right of center SCOTUS appointments and a general populist approach to economic issues. I don't care if he raises taxes on uber wealthy people and hedge fund managers. I'm not expecting 4% growth. I'm not even expecting a scandal free or a serious presidency. So there's not much to be disappointed about. And I wouldn't even be disappointed if he got impeached, because then we'd have Pence as POTUS, which would be preferable to me, anyway.

As for Clinton, I would expect left of center SCOTUS (and for that matter, federal) appointments, a continued focus on "the elite" attempting to govern the people, more bail out style economic plans (I can absolutely imagine a NIRP going into effect at the Fed during a Clinton presidency) and a general coziness with Wall Street that I find despicable. In short, I would expect pretty much a third Obama term, and I don't think I'd be "disappointed" in that.

So I'm not voting for Trump. I'm voting to keep Clinton out of the White House. If Trump wins (and he will) and if he so happens to do something right, that's all gravy. Literally, the only way I'd be disappointed in a Trump presidency at this point is if he nominates someone in the mold of Kagan to the SCOTUS and proceeds to give Wall Street banks hundreds of billions of dollars for free while closing community banks. And I just don't see those things happening (although I absolutely saw Romney doing both).

Jac plans to do what a whole lot of us conservatives will - roll the dice and hope that Trump isn't too bad or dangerous - which if he's merely mediocre, he'll still be so far better than HillBilly. Certainly his appointments won't be just far-left ideologues, like HillBilly's would. The biggest concern I have is his foreign policy - that his big, undisciplined mouth won't blunder us into some pointless, avoidable war. I pray he'll truly listen to good counsel.

For all the concern about Trump getting us caught up in a war, I'm actually afraid Clinton is far more likely to get us into a much worse, and much more protracted, war given her actual history as Sec of State.

edwardmurphy wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Time is the best determinant of a person.

I completely agree.

Donald Trump is 70 years old. He's been in the public eye for most of his life. Several books have been written about him, and I've read a couple of them. I've read about his business history, seen his TV show, listened to his speeches, and watched his continuous "evolution" as a candidate. There's a wealth of information about him available for anyone who cares to look, and I've seen a lot of it. My problem with Trump isn't that I don't like his face, or that I love Clinton, or that I'm uninformed. My problem is that there's a ton of evidence that Donald Trump is a reckless, undisciplined, self-serving, opportunistic conman.

Time has already told us what to expect, and it's not good.

I generally agree about your summation of Trump's character, except that he can be specified and disciplined so much as it serves business. He has also conned people, so it seems to me. Yet, business is business. I don't think in running for POTUS it is about business, but about Nationalism, Americanism. I think that much is true of Trump, and many don't like it, say it sets up an "us" and "them" mentality and so on and so forth. Contrast Obama, and his UN speech, and you see Obama would absolutely detest what Trump promotes and vice-versa.

Obama, Clinton, Bush presidencies were awful. They were part of the established order. Trump is not an established politician, and it is one line he's pushed, that he is more part of "the people". What Trump is doing here, promoting himself as a Robin Hood against the establishment who have, and they have, not been there for Americans really. I see it from here in Australia, they sold out to oil and lining their pockets at the expense of warring with Muslim nations. Nonetheless, I don't want to go there, such is largely my opinion though I think we can see certain facts that point to such...

Trump is very forthcoming with what he intends to do, very Nationalistic... the question is, not whether we like the guy or want to be his friend, but rather is he telling the truth or deceiving the public with all this stuff he seems passionate about to just become POTUS and then funnel a lot of money into his own pockets? Will he really be any different? I believe he will be largely different. Time will tell.

That's really what I meant by time will tell. That is, Trump's promised a lot. Like many other presidents and leaders of countries before him. Rarely, do they deliver. Normally those who do are a lot more reserved and introverted, love him or hate him, Putin's done a lot for Russia and he has an extremely high popularity rating that leaders in Western countries envy. Time will tell, if Trump will deliver, provided he becomes POTUS and isn't assassinated... that said, he's got a good 2IC it seems to me in Pence. HOWEVER, I wouldn't put it past the Democrats to put forward Michelle Obama as a replacement for Clinton (if that's possible??), there are rumours about such if Hillary is a no show or fails horribly at this upcoming debate.

Kurieuo wrote:I generally agree about your summation of Trump's character, except that he can be specified and disciplined so much as it serves business. He has also conned people, so it seems to me. Yet, business is business. I don't think in running for POTUS it is about business, but about Nationalism, Americanism.

Business is business? So do you really think that everyone in business screws over their subcontractors and employees, scams their customers, and uses their brand in bait and switch schemes? Do you think they all have ties to organized crime and drug dealers? Do all landlords racially profile their potential tenants in order to keep Blacks out of their properties?

Really?

Kurieuo wrote:Obama, Clinton, Bush presidencies were awful.

What was wrong with the Clinton presidency? Sure, it was scandal plagued, but that was all political BS. Clinton left us at peace and with a solid economy and a balanced budget. He even signed DOMA, which I think was a mistake, but which ought to appeal to conservative Christians.

I also don't regard the Obama presidency as the failure that partisan propagandists describe. He had some successes, and he'd have had more if the Republicans were willing to work with him instead of trying to undermine everything he did. Take the ACA for example - it has flaws, but if Republicans were willing to sit down and work to fix it it would be better. But instead they did everything in their power to break it. There's no objective way to call Obama a disaster without giving the Republicans in Congress equal responsibility.

Kurieuo wrote:HOWEVER, I wouldn't put it past the Democrats to put forward Michelle Obama as a replacement for Clinton (if that's possible??), there are rumours about such if Hillary is a no show or fails horribly at this upcoming debate.

Hillary is fine, and she'll be fine at the debate.

edwardmurphy wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I generally agree about your summation of Trump's character, except that he can be specified and disciplined so much as it serves business. He has also conned people, so it seems to me. Yet, business is business. I don't think in running for POTUS it is about business, but about Nationalism, Americanism.

Business is business? So do you really think that everyone in business screws over their subcontractors and employees, scams their customers, and uses their brand in bait and switch schemes? Do you think they all have ties to organized crime and drug dealers? Do all landlords racially profile their potential tenants in order to keep Blacks out of their properties?

Really?

That's extremely loaded. But, we've all heard the saying "Business is Business" haven't we? Never said it's one agree with, what it suggests. But Clinton, what she did in the Mid East, her "pay for play", Clintons screwing over Haiti... that's supposedly acceptable business to you. Either that, or you're just turning a blind eye perhaps?

Ed wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Obama, Clinton, Bush presidencies were awful.

What was wrong with the Clinton presidency? Sure, it was scandal plagued, but that was all political BS. Clinton left us at peace and with a solid economy and a balanced budget. He even signed DOMA, which I think was a mistake, but which ought to appeal to conservative Christians.

I also don't regard the Obama presidency as the failure that partisan propagandists describe. He had some successes, and he'd have had more if the Republicans were willing to work with him instead of trying to undermine everything he did. Take the ACA for example - it has flaws, but if Republicans were willing to sit down and work to fix it it would be better. But instead they did everything in their power to break it. There's no objective way to call Obama a disaster without giving the Republicans in Congress equal responsibility.

Persecuting Middle Eastern countries. Hundreds of thousands of people being killed. If Iraq was never invaded, groups like ISIS would have never formed. The corruption of the Clintons are intolerable. You may not believe it now, but give it 10-20 so years, everything normally becomes clear for all to see.

Ed wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:HOWEVER, I wouldn't put it past the Democrats to put forward Michelle Obama as a replacement for Clinton (if that's possible??), there are rumours about such if Hillary is a no show or fails horribly at this upcoming debate.

Hillary is fine, and she'll be fine at the debate.

Cool, look forward to seeing her lose.