Boom! National Poll: Trump Leading 67% To Hillary’s 19% Of 50,000 Voters

Tariffs.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/trade/

He says illegal immigrants as in all people who are illegal is what I assume. He focuses on mexico because most illegals are Mexican.

Yeah but for how long? I do believe we are in an economic bubble and we are heading into another recession. Given that we are still recovering from the last recession, we are in deep crap.

Also, Trump will reduce the insane levels of immigrants which will help our wages go up. Also keep in mind when the next recession happens HIlary is just going to spend spend spend like a dumbass and increase the debt.

 

Why do you assume that "the people " is a group which does not include active duty military?

 

What do you personally think of this
article Super21?

http://www.politicalforum.com/elect...ump-leads-early-voting-florida-120-000-a.html
Trump Leads Early Voting in Florida By 120,000

 

a coup? Well, some soldiers would perhaps be willing to join in on a coup, or a revolution... But lets remember that 1) not all soldiers are republicans. 2) very few soldiers are extremists who'd support such a coup. 3) they've all sworn an oath and they take discipline quite seriously 4) the overwhelming majority of the high ranking military people would be opposed to such a coup.

it would be a very sad and pathetic attempt. Maybe a band of low ranking soldiers joining up with a ragtag militia, trying something stupid, at best. but seriously, good luck. The USA is, despite what's being said, not a banana republic, and the state is actually VERY strong. By that I mean, the government has very good control over the state. In the case of a revolution, the state would have overwhelming firepower.

 

I have no idea, but it sounds encouraging. Thanks for posting it

 

You are also forgetting that our gun rights puts a check on balance on government power because theoretically, we can use the guns to assassinate politicians who abuse power. That is likely one reason Hitler restricted gun use to his supporters only.

 

practically though, it doesn't. First of all, the average private gun is not as good as military weaponry. and secondly, how well do you think a minority of gun holders fare against tanks, heli, planes? Don't be stupid.. The US has the most powerful military on the planet. It can EASILY deal with some rag tag militia. Assassinations.. sure, but you're not going to have any sucess with a full blown revolution, and anyhow your problem is not personified in Hillary, so killing her won't make any difference.

edit: clarifcation for everyone else: I do not support assassinations of hrc (I am a hrc supporter in fact) or assassinations in general. I'm speculating about a scenario.

 

As Donald slips further behind in the polls, Donald supporters get more and more bizarre.​

 

Not a coup. Rebellion. No one said anything about political parties. We were talking about the militia, remember?

 

Then why do you want to take our power away even further?

Targeting enemy leaders can do some serious damage. I mean someone who could have killed only Hitler would have hurt Nazism a lot I bet.

My point was that assassinations instill fear in politicians. That alone is worth keeping the guns.

Me too.

Anyway she is just a puppet.

 

Unless they manage to steal a lot of tanks, planes and helis... it won't make any difference.

Wut? what do you mean? In this time and age, countries can posses an awesome amount of firepower. Nukes, aircraft carries.. It is simply not possible for the private population to even come close to rivalling that firepower. And also, it is not desirable. Just imagine if private people could own nukes.. that would be what's necessary to balance out private power to state power. a very stupid idea, needless to say. No, the idea of private citizens equalling the government in firepower, in order to protect rights, might have had some value in the 18th century, but it's simply stupid today.

Sure, but again, they have more firepower and better organisation, so you can be quite sure they'd be targeting your leaders too, and a lot more effectively. I mean, they have the NSA ffs, and they would likely pass something even more comprehensible than the patriot act to deal with a revolution. There would be martial law, giving the government all power. Resistance would be very, very , very futile.

assassination of politicians is not a good thing for a democracy, as it allows a violent minority to violate the democratic rights of the majority. I mean, any minority with guns can do assassinations. so no, that's not a good reason, at all.

 

My question is why do you want to take away our little power even further to practically nothing? Why does the government care if we have guns when they already are so much more powerful?

You also forgot to add the government has the rule of law on their side. They can lock us up too.

What if the assassination is supported by the majority of the people?


May I ask you the reasons why are supporting Hilary Rodham Clinton?

 

because stupid people can do stupid things with guns. I am for limiting the gun rights, but I still think people should be allowed certain kinds of guns, provided they pass tests and requirements and such..

well, since we're talking about a revolution it kind of implied you'd be breaking the law.

What if not?

foreign policy.

 

ITs a cost we have to deal with. Taking away the right of the majority of people to own guns because of an extreme minority of sick people is dumb. The leftist media publicizes these incidents to scare people.

What foreign policy successes has she had?

I dislike Hillary and will never vote for her because she is politically correct. An example is instead of resettling Syrian rapefugees somewhere in the Middle East, she wants to follow Germanys lead and ruin our country because its the politically correct thing to do. I could go on and on about her stupidity.

 

Is it really? Let's us consider what we are actually weighing here: The lives of people who die from stupid gun use, versus the convenience of easily accessible guns. I think one weighs a bit more than the other. I'm not saying ban guns, i'm saying make them harder to get, make them more regulated. If you need one for hunting, self defense, or just collect them, you can still do that.

What foreign policy sucesses have trump had? Hillary isn't my first choice, but from what I've heard she often disagreed with Obama and she is more hawkish. The current failed policy can thus be blamed mostly on obama. I expect hillary show more strength. Regardless, from what I've heard from Trump I'd even prefer Jimmy carter than him.

There are things more important than political correctness and syrian refugees. i agree those are problems though, but foreign policy is paramount.

 

I don't understand why liberals are so gung ho on restricting gun rights. I mean you are far more likely to die in a car accident than by some gun nut yet nobody would seriously suggest banning cars because the good outweighs the bad.

You can maybe convince me to support laws restricting some gun rights, but I am wary of such laws.

For instance, and to my knowledge, most gun massacres are done by people who shouldn't have had the guns in the first place like Adam Lanza. His parents and psychiatrist should have been punished because they guy had obvious mental issues yet his parents were buying him high powered guns. my point is the laws are already there. More laws are not the solution.

Well none, considering he is not POTUS. BUt you can logically assume how much better he will be on foreign policy by his plans which I like. He is not politically correct and doesn't do some looney things the left does. He wants to end illegal immigration. No rapefugees in the United States. Bomb the hell out of ISIS. Eliminate trade deficits with Mexico and China.

As for politically correct Hillary, that is very important because it says a lot about "her judgment". Her judgment is decided by whatever is politically correct and not offensive to other groups, and not by what is actually true, right, just or logical. YOu are not electing an independent leader who thinks for herself, but a stooge/PC puppet.

I also don't know about you, but you should read the book by hillarys former secret service agent and WikiLeaks reports. People who work with Hilary hate her guts because she is a vile nasty person who is pretentious to everyone.

She represents a continuation of Obamas failed policies.

How so? Intervention?

I think you would maybe like Gary Johnson who is a libertarian third party candidate. You should read about him.

Why do you think so? I think domestic and economic policy is a lot more important than foreign.

 

no its not, its the same with most drugs or things like driver licenses - heroin is forbidden, even tho most wudnt even touch it, and these drug laws are in place even tho offenders virtually always only harm themseves; driver licenses are needed because they are actually an effective tool in keeping unfit drivers of the road like minors, elders and traffic offenders

guns put other people in danger, period...sure its debatable how big this danger is, but is it there otherwise toddlers wudnt kill people regularly
u need a license to drive a car, yet any moron can buy guns, if u cant see that if a society agrees on "guns for everyone" this privilege shud at least be regulated by licenses i dunno what to tell u...
but therein lies the problem on this issue in the US - it is not a privilege - its a right...

if u dont want an american citizen that is a muslim and on the watchlist of the FBI (or any subject of any race or religion) to own a gun, u must do something about the 2nd amendment

 

actually, there are plenty of restrictions on driving cars for that exact reason. You have to have a license, pass tests. there are speed limits, markers and signs telling you where you may not drive, there are seatbelts and other safety stuff, obligatory insurance (in sweden anyways) et cetera. As I've said, i DO NOT want to ban guns, merely place more restrictions and regulations on them, as with cars. Claiming that all restrictions are necessarily good, is as stupid as saying they are all bad. Obviously we need to weigh them each on their merit.

So why did this person have a gun if he wasn't supposed to? Maybe more enforcement is needed? Maybe laws requireing proper safe storage of guns? Maybe require training? psychological test? Who knows. As with cars, we need to weigh them by their merits. I'm sure something can be done.

It's good that he wants to end illegal immigration, but he is very bad on foreign policy.

actually, hillary is lying, and tells people what they want to her. Her rethoric is more politically correct and leftist than what she really believes. So ironically, after she's been exposed as a liar, I like here even more. The real hillary is quite a centrist.

The personal side? Don't go there please. Atleast she isn't a narcissist groper.

To a large extent yes, and a continuation would still be preferable to trump, but as I've said, I think she differs with obama on foreign policy.

From what I've read she is more of a hawk than obama, but was overruled by him. The foreign policy of this administration is more from obama than hillary.

Hah, certainly not! I know of him, and I do not like him. his foreign policy is horrible as well. But, I'd probably prefer it to Trump.

mostly because it's easier to change domestic and economic policy than it is foreign policy. If you screw up internally, you can elect someone else after four years and fix it. Can't do the same with foreign policy.

 

That would only be true if the demographics of likely voters perfectly matched the demographics of the populace.

 

I didn't say you did, I was referring to liberals in general.

Stupidity of the parents and a failure of the psychiatrist to report him or have his gun rights taken away. Mentally ill people are not allowed to own guns.

Maybe.

Like what specifically?

I like that he is not PC on foreign policy. He wants to do two things. One bomb ISIS oil and use Iraqi oil to finance the war. I mean this is common sense but our leaders wont even touch that because that would be politically incorrect. Osama Bin Laden said his strategy to defeat the USA in war is to bankrupt us. Idiots like Bush played right into his hands while Trump would do the opposite.

What does her incessant lying say about her character? She is a career politician. She disgusts me.

its part of the reason I am not voting for her. Trump being a narcissist groper is nothing compared to her being PC and getting people killed in Benghazi.

I also really hate arrogant and pretentious people because its a disconnect from reality. That is why normal people hate these qualities so much. If Hilary cant even judge herself correctly how the hell can she judge other situations right?

Secondly there is nothing really wrong with groping women. Trump apparently made his move, it worked sometimes and didn't others. What is wrong with that? Its not like he is a rapist like Bill.

What will she do differently?

What does that mean she is a hawk? Is she going to deepen our involvement in the Middle East?

Okay.

I don't understand how you can say you are a European conservative and then go and support HRC because she is anything but.

Good point. But a huge reason I am voting for Trump is because Hillary is going to appoint a radical to the Supreme Court who will without a doubt push a far left agenda and let immigrants take over the country. That is something we wont be able to change if HIlary gets into power.

 

But don't they also protect people?

The government is mostly incompetent regulating guns. Point in case Chicago.

What is your position specifically?

Not really. I am all for taking away the gun rights of any suspected Islamic terrorist. I know this will (*)(*)(*)(*) you off, but Muslims shouldn't be in this country anyways.

 

Oh btw. I don't believe that Hilary is a centrist at all. Maybe on some issues she is like LGBT rights as revealed by her private emails. But on very important issues like gun rights and immigration she is very far left. With the exception of racial issues, I would consider myself to be a political moderate. If she was a moderate, I wouldn't be as nearly opposed to her and so would a lot of other conservatives.

 

And what has Hillary done. Harry Truman said that anyone that get rich in politics is a crook. So -----------------since Hillary has never done anything but be in politics apparently old Harry is right --------------she is a crook.

 

well this wud mean u have to change the first amendment snice alot of americans are in fact muslims...not much of a constitution fan, are u?

 

You can look at her tax returns and see where she earns her money.

Your interpretation of Truman has obvious flaws of logic.