Pesident Clinton

[ghosttrain]

Look up philosophical interpretations of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Interesting stuff.

The probability is extremely low in your example, so low nobody has observed it and so low that it is just plain logic to not do it. On the other hand the probability of Trump hiding stuff and hiding more than the rest is nowhere close to that number.
And I fail to see how that example has anything to do with the idea that fear shouldn't guide you whe you can use logic.

Trump has put himself on the Rep team. Therefore, I can't support him.

But we already talked about this.
The point is, whether he says he is "independent" or he says he is "republican", he has his unique set of views. So how about looking into them instead of looking at what he labels himself since he doesn't care about the label anyway?
In other words, "he aint in rep team". Even the rep team doesn't consider him a true rep. So at this point I don't see any logic to not consider him because he's a rep, even if that mattered just by itself.

[planters]

Positive attribute as i see it: goes against the grain, stirs the pot, anti-establishment (don't take this to mean I believe all ridiculous stuff that comes out of his mouth). He is kind of Punk Rock in a way. This fails as a republican(establishment). Think of it as a physics example... you can't be antimatter and matter at the same time.... they annihilate each other. Which is kind of whats happening, no?

This is really four different ways of describing the same characteristic. But, even if you don't have three others...even on this point he is hardly an establishment republican. The establishment hate him, they are trying to undermine him, they had him alone sign an agreement that he wouldn't go independent and they follow this by trying to defeat him as their nominee.

the parts of Trumps policy I do like are overshadowed by the ones I dislike.
Which ones overshadow?

I would like to hear a few of both. Which policies do you like and which do you not?

Finally, if he is not your choice then who do you endorse (or will at least vote for)?

But I feel the Dems are more "stable" on the social justice side at this time.

There are only two Dems (running). Stable is an unusual way to describe social justice. Social justice however, is a very loaded term at this time. You do know what it connotes, don't you?

[Laserman532]

If I was going to vote, I mean if I thought voting would matter...i would vote for Trump for sure...dudes got swagger....

[logsquared]

This is really four different ways of describing the same characteristic.

Yes, I know. Your instructions to give 4 examples sounded like homework. Nobody likes homework

But, even if you don't have three others...even on this point he is hardly an establishment republican. The establishment hate him, they are trying to undermine him, they had him alone sign an agreement that he wouldn't go independent and they follow this by trying to defeat him as their nominee.

I was unaware of such an agreement. I doubt it could hold water. I believe some states have laws that prohibit switching. This could cause him grief if he doesn't get the nomination. BTW, I sounds like you are reinforcing what I said earlier. He should have ran as an independent.

I would like to hear a few of both. Which policies do you like and which do you not?

Part of his tax reform is *ok*. A least its better than what we have. I am a firm believer in Zero income tax, property tax(especially property tax... biggest sham gov has pulled IMHO) for individuals. Make this up with import duties and sales tax. I am not an economist. So, my tax view comes more from a philosophical stand point. His views on guns sound good but, are too vaguely worded on his website. This makes me suspicious. Also, on his site he says something to the effect of: Americans need to use their right to protect themselves with guns. I don't feel this is the way forward for the US.... sound like he is suggesting wild west style justice is acceptable. You can look up the exact quote on his site if its still there. You can argue the specific verbiage if you want. But for me, I think its irresponsible to say things like that. And it just sounds like typical pandering. Several other things from his site sounded good and bad. I can't remember them all. Many of the better things sounded too optimistic or simple and probably unrealistic. It doesn't matter anyway. I have made up my mind. On top of policy I don't like or am unsure of, I just don't trust him. Also, I predict someone too radical in the exc ofc might make the states disregard federal law more than they do now. Some might like this theory to actually play out. I do not.

Finally, if he is not your choice then who do you endorse (or will at least vote for)?

As I said in a previous post it will be for the Dems. Preferably Bernnie. Admittedly, and un-apologetically, I am taking the safer route to get what I believe is more important at this time.

Stable is an unusual way to describe social justice. Social justice however, is a very loaded term at this time. You do know what it connotes, don't you?

Social Justice is just a generic phrase that allows me to not have to spell everything out. And yes, I know what it implies. Im not a bleeding heart liberal if that is what you suggest. The Dems can be very patronizing to different groups whlie trying to say the are out to help. I get that. I hate that. But the end result is better in my opinion.

[ghosttrain]

He should have ran as an independent.

I responded to this already.

Americans need to use their right to protect themselves with guns. I don't feel this is the way forward for the US.... sound like he is suggesting wild west style justice is acceptable. You can look up the exact quote on his site if its still there.

I don't see anything of that sorts
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positio...endment-rights

It doesn't matter anyway. I have made up my mind.

This is irrational.

I just don't trust him.

This is irrational too.

As I said in a previous post it will be for the Dems.

I've responded to this as well. You ignore my explanation on why this isn't a rep vs dem thing and he isn't a rep.

[logsquared]

I responded to this already

My response was to planters questions. Are you answering for him now? Also, your response failed under my criteria and my premise still holds.

I don't see anything of that sorts
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positio...endment-rights

Thanks for the link. Here is the section I din't like:
"Here’s another important way to fight crime – empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement is great, they do a tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. "

I have re-read this several times. I can't find any logical reason or need for him to make this statement. I looks as its only purpose is to pander. Lets look at it again... "empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves." It can more or less be simplified to say, "allow people to use their guns if needed". Now, out of context that doesn't sound too bad. We should all have the right to defend ourselves. But, we DO currently have that right. It gets held up in courts of law all the time. Ok, now look at it with the rest of the statement...

"Here’s another important way to fight crime – empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement is great, they do a tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. "

"Important way to fight crime" Implies the gun owner should be (or allowed to be)fighting crime. Then, "Law enforcement is great, they do a tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. " Implies gun owner should do the job of law enforcement.

I don't think a leader should be saying that. It looks like typical political pandering to me. They all do it. Unfortunately, I think this pandering could have serious negative consequences.

[planters]

Yes, I know. Your instructions to give 4 examples sounded like homework. Nobody likes homework

I don't want to burden you. This forum is supposed to be fun. But there is a tendency here to avoid some specific issue and move on to something tangential. I listed four to try to elicit a small number of really important issues to discuss. You gave me one. I am surprised you are unaware of this agreement. It was a huge issue when Trump began his campaign and was all over the news of at least a week. And, as I said, only he was asked to provide this guarantee. The RNC probably wishes he was an independent as well...no wait, he might hurt them there as well. Hmm.

[ghosttrain]

My response was to planters questions. Are you answering for him now?

Well this is a forum, not a private chat. I was just saying your statement has had a response. If you've ignored my response to the exact same statement that makes it less likely others will bother themsleves.

Also, your response failed under my criteria and my premise still holds.

Would be nice if you had mentioned that sooner but what "criteria" are you referring to?

But, we DO currently have that right.

And our current president wants to change that. I think he's about wanting to prevent that change rather than giving you a right you already have.

"Here’s another important way to fight crime – empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement is great, they do a tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. "

"Important way to fight crime" Implies the gun owner should be (or allowed to be)fighting crime.

Uh, well no. It would be if it the sentence was formulated in such a way to direct the message of fighting crimes to gun owners, but it doesn't here. You analyze the sentence wrong.

Then, "Law enforcement is great, they do a tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. " Implies gun owner should do the job of law enforcement.

Nope. It implies just that, that police can't always be where you need them exactly when you need them and then you need guns for self defense. Self defense is not law enforcement, it's protection of your rights. You don't enforce law by protecting your rights. I don't enforce law by suing someone and winning a case, I'm just protecting my rights.

[logsquared]

I don't want to burden you. This forum is supposed to be fun.

No burden here. This forum IS fun. I would have stopped reading this thread along time ago if I didn't think I could learn something from it.

I am surprised you are unaware of this agreement. It was a huge issue when Trump began his campaign and was all over the news of at least a week. And, as I said, only he was asked to provide this guarantee. The RNC probably wishes he was an independent as well...no wait, he might hurt them there as well. Hmm.

Honestly, I haven't payed real close attention to the news lately.

But there is a tendency here to avoid some specific issue and move on to something tangential.

Truthfully, both *sides* of the argument in this thread are guilty of that. Its funny really.... most of the conversation is mainly 1 dimensional. Its Trumpcentric. Then when someone offers a different idea or ideology they get shot down. This thread displays very egotistical thinking in many ways. And from all *sides*

[logsquared]

You analyze the sentence wrong.

That's almost to my point. Most citizens are not lawyers or philosophers. I think people will interpret it the way they want. I believe many will interpret as I have shown. Further, I believe it was Trumps intent to pander for his own gain.