Posted on 11/20/2015 11:30:00 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
We don’t have a drug problem or an alcohol problem. We have a God problem, or rather a “we don’t want God” problem.
I’m really not into flame wars, so the whole attributing motives and ‘you’re lying’ bit is wasted on me. We disagree.
I think your interpretation of Trumps interview is tortured and dissembling of Trump’s statements and positions, though his thinking is so scattered it’s often time consuming to pin him down on just what his plans - if any coherent one exist.
It is quite clear that Trump’s solution is very similar to Obamacare, and that he supports universal government-paid-for heathcare.
>>> “Everybody’s got to be covered. This is an un-Republican thing for me to say..”
Yean, because it is universal healthcare with an individual mandate.
>>Make a deal? Who pays for it?
Donald Trump: —the government’s gonna pay for it.
Government-paid-for universal healthcare. He claims it will be different and private and work because we’ll be so rich. Poorly thought out sloganeering.
But when you get down to the basics of what he supports, it’s still Government-paid-for universal healthcare.
No I was quite clear in my response to the post that said Trump decried what he himself did. That's hypocrisy, not breathing.
Everyone in business has to play some games with "the man" or you don't survive the regulatory nightmare
You have to follow the law. You don't have to be a major contributor to extremely corrupt politicians; you don't have to support Harry Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, et al.
He supported these folks at the time they were ramming Obamacare through. Either he really supported what they were doing or he has a gross lack of integrity: supporting people for his own benefit to the detriment of his country.
My problem is a presidential candidate being considered a limited government/individual rights/Constitution "conservative" who supports the Kelo decision.
I don't see what your post has to do with that at all.
Yes, but I took your use of "covering" to mean insurance coverage.
Health care, BTW, is not the same thing as health insurance...
Exactly, and Trump is talking about health insurance. So, when you said: "He believes in covering those who cannot do for themselves.... We have always had this in our system.." I think it's obvious he's talking about universal healthcare (whether you are or not) - which we have not "always had this in our system."
I think we're gonna disagree on that also.. :)
I think it's fair to say you think my standard for integrity is too high in this case.
You have a candidate X for president who was a major supporter of Rep. Charlie Rangel. Supported Senate democrats, Harry Reid included. Supported House democrats, Nancy Pelosi, etc. (this is during the time Obamacare was being rammed through). Supported Hillary Clinton.
Now IF candidate X was a liberal, this would all be in accordance with his principles. However, if candidate X claimed he was a conservative and did this contrary to his own principles but did so for his own personal gain - to the detriment of his country...
You think I have too high a standard for a conservative candidate for president, candidate X's integrity is good enough.
I disagree. It's only a very low standard that candidate X could measure up to.
It makes sense to me
Sorry, still not taking the flame bait. Just too old for it.
Your argument looks good to me.
No problem at all.
Your false statements have been shot down using your own link.
Others who happen along now will be able to look at that and my explanations.
Thank you for raising the visibility of this issue.
The more Cruz supporters lie on the forum, but better for my candidate.
Me too, but I will tell you...
Watching what Cruz’s supporters are doing on the forum lying about Trump’s policies, I’m not sure if I’m going to continue to support Ted for V.P.
I had hoped it would work out, but if his team is this devious, perhaps it’s best if he not be included.
Thank you, woofie; I appreciate you saying so on here.
We do agree that it would be good for all to read/view the interview.
I’m fine with passionate disagreement - we’re here and have been here because we are passionate about our country and our views and opinions on issues and candidates.
Heated debate is fine; disagreement is fine - more than fine, it’s essential to getting to the truth. Name calling, lack of respect and courtesy, calling those who disagree liars..
I think it is counter-productive, not helpful for coherent debate or the forum in general. I just don’t do it, don’t continue in those discussions.
Thanks for your reply and I hope we can argue our positions and disagreements in the future.
It is never my intention to give an older person a hard time.
I want you to be here, and I do not enjoy taking someone to task.
When someone says something inaccurate about my candidate, I try to explain why they are wrong.
This isn’t personal between you and I. I just don’t think it’s right to bear false witness against Trump.
I try not to do it against Ted. I made a non-factual comment today about his policy, and was made aware I was wrong. I apologized and discontinued repeating the inaccurate comment.
It is disturbing to conduct myself that way to try to be fair to Ted, and then see his supporters just blatantly saying falsehoods for months on end. And yes, that is happening right now on the forum.
So if I run into you on another thread, perhaps we’ll be able to agree. I am sorry to have felt like I needed to confront you on this issue.
Take care.
I guess what disturbs me is when you say Trump advocates universal health care.
He doesn’t. When I took the trouble to explain to you that he didn’t, and even explained what universal health care is so you would understand that he didn’t, you went right ahead and called it universal health care.
Once you know, and you repeat it anyway, isn’t that an untruth?
We’ve got a guy on the forum that posts a chart that gives Trump a bad mark on the Second Amendment.
Trump has put out a position paper on the Second Amendment which has been widely applauded. I and others explained that to him. He continues to post that dishonest chart.
Trump the other day said he wished all conceal carry permit holders would carry.
None the less, this guy still posts the chart that depicts Trump weak on the Second Amendment.
That is dishonest.
I don’t see Trump people being dishonest about the other candidates.
I do see Cruz people being dishonest about Trump daily.
Thank you.
I really believe what I’m saying.
Tell me I’m grossly mistaken and missing the point and don’t know what the real issue is, etc.. But I’m not lying. I really believe what I say. And I certainly can be wrong and always hope I can admit it when I realize it.
>>”When someone says something inaccurate about my candidate, I try to explain why they are wrong.”
I appreciate that. It’s really what I like about FR: knowledgeable people, passionate about their beliefs, debating important matters. We will get called on our facts and sources and have to be able to support our arguments. I would not want it otherwise.
>>” I am sorry to have felt like I needed to confront you on this issue.”
And I am sorry that I sparked that response. I can do better in my tone and demeanor -and respect - while stating my views and positions. I’m going to improve on this from here on.
My sincere thanks and FReegards..
I’ll reply to this post as soon as I can; hopefully tomorrow.
God bless and good night...
Just to clear things up (I had the family over for an early Thanksgiving dinner yesterday), I do not work for anyone, and I guess the silliness about if I’m a guy or a gal has been raised (for several days now) - I’m what used to be considered an old woman (so no monthly issues - another worry mentioned on the forum).
Thank you onyx for standing up for sanity on my behalf.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.