Reasons I cannot vote for Trump

[FlyerInHi]

Kissinger negotiated with the Vietcongs, withdrew from Vietnam which led to the fall of Saigon, Cambodia, Laos. The Khmer Rouge were founded in 1968. Coincidence? Maybe he was the founder.

Gerald Ford subsequently admited hundreds of thousands of refugees, many of whom didn’t even have papers, certainly not visas, to the USA. Yeah, a Republican used executive powers to admit a huge wave of refugees.

Kissinger also negotiated with Red China. Without Kissinger, China wouldn’t be stealing our jobs. The One China policy is a Kissinger thing. Without Kissinger, Taiwan could be independent.

[zk]

It’s unfortunate that, on the internet, everything ends with a Hitler mention because, when there’s an actual reason to bring him up, it might not be taken seriously.

But look at this summary of this book on Hitler:

The parallels are… well, they’re hardly even parallels. Almost every word of the description of Hitler applies to Trump. Trump is the American, 21st century version of Hitler.

It shouldn’t be surprising that Trump is getting as much support as he is. Did we really think that human beings in 21st century U.S.A. were any different from human beings in 1930s Germany? Any less susceptible to fear mongering, emotional manipulation, false promises, and lies?

[FlyerInHi]

Here’s the google link for those who don’t subscribe to the “failed and failling NYT”, as Trump would say.

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/books/hitler-ascent-volker-ullrich.amp.html

The Republicans and Jim Crow Democrats before them used populist xenophobia to rile up their bases. Those folks have since been embraced by the Republican Party that enabled Trump.

A lot of Republicans act all surprised. Really? They created Trump.

[La Jolla Renter]

IMO Obamacare is going to get crushed by the media as soon as Obama leaves office. All the warts and pimples will finally get exposed. We were all sold a pack of lies.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=La Jolla Renter]IMO Obamacare is going to get crushed by the media as soon as Obama leaves office. All the warts and pimples will finally get exposed. We were all sold a pack of lies.[/quote]

It’s simply a failure and inability of the markets to deliver a public good. Like the deregulation of the CA electricity market was a failure.

That’s why we need HillaryCare. ObamaCare is just RomneyCare, but a useful progression to HillaryCare.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=La Jolla Renter]IMO Obamacare is going to get crushed by the media as soon as Obama leaves office. All the warts and pimples will finally get exposed. We were all sold a pack of lies.[/quote]
Umm . . . yeah! I have been trying to tell this story for months here on the forum. Thanks for bringing this topic back front and center in these critical weeks, LJ Renter!

Open enrollment for obamacare starts on 10/15 in CA (11/1 in some other states). I’ve already reviewed the Covered CA rate hikes for 2017 and their plans are going up 13% (on avg). My carrier, BSoC (the ONLY INDIVIDUAL PPO above Bronze level offered in SD County), is raising rates 19% (on avg) and ~30% in my age group for 2017. Are we surprised? See:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-covered-california-rates-20160718-snap-story.html

https://www.coveredca.com/news/PDFs/CoveredCA-2017-rate-booklet.pdf

My 2016 rate is already nearly 295% of my 2013 rate (prior to the inception of the ACA). I took out my 2013 PPO plan in 2004 and was medically vetted for it at the time. My carrier left the state at the end of 2013, forcing me onto the (hopelessly incompetent) state exchange. Since then, I have lost two of my eight longtime providers to retirement and two more who dropped out of my plan mid-year 2016. I just replaced one with a new provider and scheduled a preventative care appt for late October. She was one of just THREE providers available to me within 15 miles of my Chula Vista residence! (There are likely 400-500 providers within 15 miles of my residence in this specialty!)

The above dates are BEFORE election day and the poor slobs who have been forced into buying a plan from our state exchanges (myself incl) are going to be none too happy . . . ESPecially the 55-64 year-old set!

*************************************************************************************

Oh, and then there are the 20K+ Clinton and DNC e-mails soon to be released from the Assange camp . . . Fun times we’re living in :=]

[bearishgurl]

[quote=FlyerInHi]. . . That’s why we need HillaryCare. . . [/quote]You’re joking . . . right? :=0

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=FlyerInHi]. . . That’s why we need HillaryCare. . . [/quote]You’re joking . . . right? :=0[/quote]

Didn’t you say you would support Medicare for all, or BernieCare?

Really, we should have just legalized gay marriage and passed HillaryCare in the 1990s. We would have spared ourselves all the polemic and advanced progress. Bill wanted to integrate the military and allow gays to openly serve. Had the Republicans acquiesced, gay marriage would have happened shortly after. Hillary wanted universal health care.

I just don’t understand people who always want to retard progress and cause untold suffering.
Think of all the gays who could not find happiness and start families. Think of all the sickness and suffering due to lack of healthcare.

[SK in CV]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=La Jolla Renter]IMO Obamacare is going to get crushed by the media as soon as Obama leaves office. All the warts and pimples will finally get exposed. We were all sold a pack of lies.[/quote]

It’s simply a failure and inability of the markets to deliver a public good. Like the deregulation of the CA electricity market was a failure.

That’s why we need HillaryCare. ObamaCare is just RomneyCare, but a useful progression to HillaryCare.[/quote]

You’re right. Obamacare has been a shining success. An additional 20 million people covered by insurance. While there have been some stupid morons that haven’t been able to adequately negotiate the admittedly complicated and confusing medical insurance industry, it has been a huge improvement over what was available in the past. Yet it does need some tweaks. Adding a public option, as Clinton wants to do, will make it a much better system, and far better for everyone than what was available prior to the law being implemented.

[svelte]

I always figured the polls would get closer.

It looks like it has happened for several reasons:
– people typically grumble then end up falling in line with their traditional party of preference
– people have had time to get used to the idea of Trump carrying the GOP torch
– press needs to portray the elections as close so folks will get out and vote instead of thinking it doesn’t matter anyway
– Johnson siphoning off Bernie supporters

It will be interesting to see how Trump changes his stance in Debate 2.0.

He’s walking a fine line. If he attacks Hillary too much, he’ll come off as being disrespectful of women yet again. Maybe that’s why he’s turned his attack to Bill today…but I’m not convinced that will work either as women may look at it as holding things her husband did against her. Kind of a no-win situation for Trump I would think. But what do I know.

He missed a golden opportunity to negate the racist, anti-woman image he has…all he needed to do was nominate a woman or minority as VP. I’ll never understand why he didn’t do that. It would have taken that bullet away from the Dems.

[Coronita]

[quote=svelte]

He missed a golden opportunity to negate the racist, anti-woman image he has…all he needed to do was nominate a woman or minority as VP. I’ll never understand why he didn’t do that. It would have taken that bullet away from the Dems.[/quote]

That wouldn’t have satisfied the far right wing bible humpers.
Well, unless he nominated Sarah Palin, lol.

I don’t know why people didn’t like Mitt Romney.

[moneymaker]

I like Mitt, even though I’m a registered Demo. Like Mitt I probably won’t be voting for president this time around.

[Anonymous]

[quote=svelte]I always figured the polls would get closer.

It looks like it has happened for several reasons:
– people typically grumble then end up falling in line with their traditional party of preference
– people have had time to get used to the idea of Trump carrying the GOP torch
– press needs to portray the elections as close so folks will get out and vote instead of thinking it doesn’t matter anyway
– Johnson siphoning off Bernie supporters

It will be interesting to see how Trump changes his stance in Debate 2.0.

He’s walking a fine line. If he attacks Hillary too much, he’ll come off as being disrespectful of women yet again. Maybe that’s why he’s turned his attack to Bill today…but I’m not convinced that will work either as women may look at it as holding things her husband did against her. Kind of a no-win situation for Trump I would think. But what do I know.

He missed a golden opportunity to negate the racist, anti-woman image he has…all he needed to do was nominate a woman or minority as VP. I’ll never understand why he didn’t do that. It would have taken that bullet away from the Dems.[/quote]

Agree with all of the above.

But what concerns me the most about Trump is his lack of self control and narcissism. His debate performance reinforced the fact that he really can’t get past his obsession with how he is perceived. He really thinks it’s all about him.

And he clearly cannot control that aspect of his personality. It’s scary.

[Anonymous]

[quote=flu][quote=svelte]

He missed a golden opportunity to negate the racist, anti-woman image he has…all he needed to do was nominate a woman or minority as VP. I’ll never understand why he didn’t do that. It would have taken that bullet away from the Dems.[/quote]

That wouldn’t have satisfied the far right wing bible humpers.
Well, unless he nominated Sarah Palin, lol.

I don’t know why people didn’t like Mitt Romney.[/quote]

Female/minority VP pick was a no-brainier for Trump. It shows just how much these guys don’t get it, and how much they genuinely don’t care about certain demographics.

I did like Mitt. I wish here were running this time around.

[flu]

[quote=harvey][quote=flu][quote=svelte]

He missed a golden opportunity to negate the racist, anti-woman image he has…all he needed to do was nominate a woman or minority as VP. I’ll never understand why he didn’t do that. It would have taken that bullet away from the Dems.[/quote]

That wouldn’t have satisfied the far right wing bible humpers.
Well, unless he nominated Sarah Palin, lol.

I don’t know why people didn’t like Mitt Romney.[/quote]

Female/minority VP pick was a no-brainier for Trump. It shows just how much these guys don’t get it, and how much they genuinely don’t care about certain demographics.

I did like Mitt. I wish here were running this time around.[/quote]

Well Romney was demonized for being rich.

And now we get Trump. Go figure.

[Author]

Posts