Donald Trump

I'm curious if anyone around here supports Trump for candidate? If so, why? I'm sincerely curious on your reasons / beliefs that he would make a good president.

Let's try to keep this civil, no hostility to anyone expressing their beliefs, ok? :)
LVL 34
Big MontySenior Web Developer / CEO of Asked:
Who is Participating?
tliottaConnect With a Mentor Commented:
Yes, the appropriate way to think of it is "The Clinton Foundation is a charity. It doesn't give {most of} its money to other charities."

One donates to the foundation to support the work that it does, not to have it simply filter the money to some other group that does some work.

It's not clear to me why the Daily Call would be referenced as a primary source. It's so biased that each article demands separate research to learn how it managed to get the slant it wanted.

I could see Donald Trump as an economic advisor for urban development, but that's about all.

He clearly has zero grasp of what the President is supposed to do. There's no significant plan in his agenda that has ever been publicized, so there's almost nothing to critique there other than "There's nothing there." And when he speaks of things he would "do", they're either completely outside of the responsibilities and duties of the President or they're so badly thought out as to be laughable. 'Laughable' if he wasn't a major party candidate, but scary now.

In a way, it seems good that there are apparently so many (though a minority) supporters of Trump. It emphasizes how little is understood about the federal government structure by so many voters.

I easily would have preferred John Kacich as the Republican candidate.

Hillary Clinton is such an obvious choice of the current set of candidates. I don't think Sanders was a better Democratic candidate; almost everything that differentiated him as a potential President was, like Trump, outside the power of the Office. Sanders would have been ineffective due to insufficient Congressional support and would have little chance with anything that related to issues around the world. Clinton will also have trouble with Congress but will have far more international influence.

As a nation that's only maybe 4.7% of the world population, the U.S.A. is completely dependent on international trade. Someone such as Trump would have too many trading partners pulling back or even cutting ties. The nation's electrical grid could shut down in 18 months or less by interruption of trade with, for example, countries in South America. A serious tiff with Mexico could be all that it takes to get a number of countries to reconsider current agreements, and it could totally shelve the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas. No doubt Trump would like that to happen, but the following potential disaster could effectively be the end of the U.S.A.

Trump simply seems to want nothing more than more for himself. There isn't anything in his campaign to benefit anyone else.
CompProbSolvConnect With a Mentor Commented:
I'm not a Trump supporter but I've discussed this with a number of people who are.  Other than those who are completely illogical (and they can be found supporting either candidate) the best answer I get is that he's not as bad as Clinton.  I must say that I fall in the same position but with the candidates reversed.  That is, I can see plenty of reasons not to support Clinton except when the choice is between her and Trump.  I had hoped for a better candidate this election but these are our choices.

I know that there are third-party candidates (and write-ins, for that matter), but I don't think they have anything close to a real shot.
Dr. KlahnConnect With a Mentor Principal Software EngineerCommented:
Trump is the least bad of two remarkably bad candidates.  At least he hasn't been peddling influence out of the State Department, and doesn't run a corrupt "charity" foundation that spends the majority of its money on its own staff.
Cloud Class® Course: Ruby Fundamentals

This course will introduce you to Ruby, as well as teach you about classes, methods, variables, data structures, loops, enumerable methods, and finishing touches.

@Dr. Klahn:
".. .that spends the majority of its money on its own staff": what is wrong with that?  If the staff is providing services directly to the intended recipients, isn't that appropriate?  Certainly it is different if the end product is shipping money to others, but that's not their focus.
Kyle SantosCustomer RelationsCommented:
Ken Bone.  Write him in.
Dr. KlahnPrincipal Software EngineerCommented:
".. .that spends the majority of its money on its own staff": what is wrong with that?  If the staff is providing services directly to the intended recipients, isn't that appropriate?

If the "intended recipients" are the Clintons and their cronies, yes.

Just 5.7 percent of the Clinton Foundation’s massive 2014 budget actually went to charitable grants, according to the tax-exempt organization’s IRS filings. The rest went to salaries and employee benefits, fundraising and “other expenses.”

The Clinton Foundation spent a hair under $91.3 million in 2014, the organization’s IRS filings show. But less than $5.2 million of that went to charitable grants.

That number pales in comparison to the $34.8 million the foundation spent on salaries, compensation and employee benefits.

Another $50.4 million was marked as “other expenses,” while the remaining almost $851K was marked as “professional fundraising expenses.”
It may well be that only 5.7 percent went to charitable grants, but that doesn't mean that's all that went to charity.  Again.. if they pay wages to someone whose labor goes to charity, that counts as "salaries and benefits" but is still contributing to a charity.

Some foundations raise money to pass it to charities.  Some raise money to contribute services.

I make almost no charitable contributions in cash.  I do contribute a lot of my time to charities.

I've not looked through this carefully, but it does help to clarify my point:
That's it? I kind of expected some defense of Trump in this thread.It'd be interesting to read what supporters have in mind.

During the campaigns for party candidates, I tried to find differentiation between many of the candidates on both sides. When it came time for the Washington state Democratic caucuses, I attended (first time, for reasons outside this thread) to meet some 'educated' and apparently influential Bernie Sanders supporters. I hadn't seen anything that made him stand out, and I wanted to learn what his attraction was, why his supporters were so involved.

When it came time for the Sanders group to present a favorable argument, their chosen speaker gave the (apparent) consensus reason. It seems that campaign finance reform was the single largest issue that put Sanders ahead of Clinton for them. The speaker emphasized how much of Sanders' funding had come from small individual donations rather than through corporate donors or PACs or other large 'traditional' donations.

Somewhat like this thread, in the end I thought, "That's it? Bernie supporters are so happy because they showed that current campaign financing methods are not needed. They raised a huge amount without relying on them. But... that simply proves that campaign finance reform really isn't that important."

Of course, campaign finance reform is almost totally outside the responsibilities and powers of the President, so it made almost zero sense as a Presidential election issue to begin with. Even so, they should have seen how self-refuting that campaign was. (BTW, I also believe that elements of campaign finance reform should be enacted; but I can't imagine coming into agreement with them. It's not clear how reasonable they could be.)

So, where's the Trump reasoning? Is it really as limited in EE as it is most other places/sites I go? (Or perhaps the Politics topic just isn't noticed much by anyone any more.)
Big MontySenior Web Developer / CEO of Author Commented:
I'm surprised as you are Tom, I thought, due to Trumps popularity, that there would be more supporters on here. I'm wondering if it is due to a lack of exposure, anybody recommend any other topics I could? :)

I found some of these answers were some of the best I've heard anywhere on why there is support for Trump. I don't necessarily agree with them, but they are well thought out and articulate:
I'm not too sure how "well thought out" they are, though at least some of it is articulate. The "well thought out" part is where I always stumble because it seems mostly to be First Level stuff with no appearance of seeing any Second Level or deeper implications.

For example, the very first explanation there has two parts: First, Trump is disliked by the commenter for many reasons. But, second, he's desired because he's self-funded (i.e., rich on his own), not beholden to "large corporates".

Okay, so he's a self-absorbed jerk; but at least he's his own man. Nobody influences what he does. That seems to be the gist of it.

But to me, going to the next level of thought, that argument {For Trump} comes down to "We should put an actual 'large corporate' at the head of the Executive Branch of the federal government because he'll do what he wants rather than having only a probability of being influenced. Let's cut out the middle-man and just put a 'large corporate' in control. That's what we want, isn't it? Instead of merely having some unknown degree of control, let's just hand it over totally -- to a self-absorbed jerk who seems not to care about anyone else."

I simply can't see how that can be seen as an improvement.

Then comes the second commenter. I could cover many details, but most are simply Trump Talking Points™. Unfortunately, most of those don't stand up when you look past the surface.

A major example is NAFTA. Yes, it's true (and was expected) that it would lose jobs. Jobs were indeed lost. What's missing from that is that jobs were also created. No one knows the numbers precisely, but it seems that as many new jobs were created as there were jobs lost. Further, the jobs tended to be higher paying and more stable.

The balance of numbers is less visible because many lost jobs were concentrated in actual manufacturing. When a manufacturing plant closes, it's an eyesore, easy to see at a glance. The (estimated) 140,000 small- and medium-sized businesses that benefited are harder to see because they're spread across the whole country (and Trump supporters completely ignore that side of it).

Perhaps worst of all for NAFTA, it was first envisioned by the Reagan Administration and negotiated by the George H. W. Bush administration. (Bush signed the agreement and tried hard to get it ratified and legislation passed before his term ended.) It wasn't all passed through Congress until after Clinton was inaugurated.

And Congress passed it all through both the Senate and House with solid Republican support (a large majority of them) because just enough Democratic Congresspersons crossed over to vote in favor. (Otherwise the Democratic side would have defeated it. The clinchers for them were the two side agreements negotiated by Clinton, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC). Nevertheless, NAFTA was a solid Republican deal.)

Now, what's really interesting is that the biggest parts of NAFTA are that it reduced governmental interference and that it removed much of the governmental regulation of covered trade. Built on two of the biggest planks of the long-term Republican Agenda, and yet (apparently) it's a Trump-declared "disaster". Easily the worst deal ever made. And what does he want? He wants to add more regulation and federal government interference.

Elements of NAFTA that can be seen as negative are all due to deregulation and shrinking of related government control. He wants to add some major regulatory control back in and increase governmental oversight. I.e., he wants to do what most Democratic opponents wanted in the first place. (Those opponents still want to do that, but Republicans in Congress don't have enough votes to make it happen and they have the majority, especially in terms of even allowing such legislation to come to vote, perhaps because it would undermine a couple of their fundamental principles. It'd be interesting to see how Trump managed it.)

In short, "NAFTA is a disaster! (But our principles created it and we're not going to allow it to be fixed.)" It's not clear what actual improvements can be made without a change in principles.

I could go on and on, but it's not clear what the point would be.
Big MontySenior Web Developer / CEO of Author Commented:
any last minute predictions today before I close this question out?
Since this was one of the most unusual Presidential campaigns in history, I'm not sure about lack of value in the future. Perhaps the greatest value is in its lack of comments from supporters. While not conclusive, it points to a few possibilities.
  • EE is not visited by those who would support Trump.
  • Supporters don't want their preference known due to social embarrassment.
  • Supporters don't want their preference known simply to hide the data.
  • (Other?)
I've tended to think that those are the most likely in descending order.

The first seems obvious. If a large percentage of supporters are non-college educated, they'll have less reason to participate at EE. The second merely seems plausible and perhaps more applicable to better educated supporters; they're more aware of the social implications of their views. The third could help explain the slight shift from poll numbers that tended to be enough in Trump's favor to capture tight races in "battleground" states; however, it seems harder to accept since it requires deeper planning and wide coordination.

Perhaps now that it's over, a few more comments might come in. I suggest waiting a week before requesting deletion to give time for things to settle. A few supporters might speak up.
Big MontySenior Web Developer / CEO of Author Commented:
interesting points...

for the record, i didn't generate the deletion request, it was done automatically, I'll keep this open for anther week or so and then close it down
@Big Monty, yeah, I saw that it wasn't you, but I would've commented the same if it was. As disappointing as it is that there was only a single half-hearted "supportive" comment, it's possible that that in itself is enough to demonstrate the value. To me, most disturbing is that the deletion request apparently came from @Dr. Klahn, the sole supporting commenter. At the least, that seems like a minor conflict of interest.

Unfortunately, as the sole comment in support (apparently) of Trump, it also seems to deserve some points.
Kyle SantosConnect With a Mentor Customer RelationsCommented:
Apparently, Harambe, the 450-pound gorilla at the Cincinnati Zoo shot and killed by zoo personnel after a 3-year-old boy fell into its exhibit back in May, got write in votes.  But the thousands of write in votes were debunked.
Scott PletcherConnect With a Mentor Senior DBACommented:
The first seems obvious. If a large percentage of supporters are non-college educated, they'll have less reason to participate at EE.
Such condescension is, I believe, one major factor that caused so much support for Trump.

The second merely seems plausible and perhaps more applicable to better educated supporters; they're more aware of the social implications of their views.
And again.  OK, we get that you agree with Clinton that the half of America that disagrees with you are "deplorables". And if those peasants / "non-college educated" have no bread under her policies, then "Let them eat cake".

Seriously?  You really can't think of any other reason someone might not want to vote for Hillary?  

First and by far foremost, she considers herself above the law: ignoring subpoenas, destroying evidence, committing perjury (just like her husband as well), suborning perjury (like her husband), obstructing justice (like her husband), etc. (I don't have time to list all their felonies, since I need to sleep sometime this month).  

At any rate, her type of megalomania and arrogance is what endangers freedom in general and republic / democratic countries in particular.  She's in the mold of Stalin, Castro, Mao and FDR in that regard (if you weren't aware, FDR and, especially, his wife, really believed that he should be able to do *anything* he thought necessary to fight the Great Depression, the Constitution notwithstanding (perhaps Obama copied his ignoring of the Constitution from FDR)).  

Remember that Clinton said during the campaign: "Why aren't I fifty points ahead, you might ask?"  Yikes, what self adoration!  I guess she should print a Little Red Book that we can all be required to carry around with us while we fully appreciate her unique genius.

Second, yes, the near-traitorous "extremely careless" handling of national secrets.  It's almost certain that more American personnel than just those in Benghazi have been killed directly because of her, since she revealed undercover "assets" (people).  Dems get absurdly worked up about the absolutely trivial Valerie Plame, then ignore deaths caused by Clinton.  The ultimate damage she did to U.S. and world security will of course take a long time to be fully known, and some will never be known by Americans without classified clearance (unless they happen to know a Russian hacker or one of the middle-easterners, etc., that Clinton sold that info to).  

And why did she use an illegal, insecure email?  Greed.  To keep the bribes, er "donations", to the Clinton Foundation / money laundering operation, secret.  Considering the Clintons' track record, one has to believe she might have been paid to take her unsecured devices to some of the 112 countries she loved to brag about visiting, so the host country could copy the secrets from her unsecured emails.  The Clintons probably even double-dipped on that treason, with Bill giving some of his $1M speeches in those countries as well.

Now, it's true that she's not the first Clinton to sell American secrets, since Bill did it with advanced missile technology to China (as detailed in the subsequent Cox Report).  Still, being a copycat traitor doesn't really make it any less traitorous or damaging to the nation.

Both Clintons are always motivated primarily by self aggrandizement.  As two examples of hundreds: Ms Clinton being given embezzled money because she demanded it for her cattle futures "trading"; and the personal donation they received from Claudio Osorio which alone caused them to funnel $10M in federal grants to him extremely quickly, for "houses in Haiti".  The Clintons got their bribe, er "donation", up front, so they didn't really care that the Haitians never got a single house from that money, since Osorio was running a Ponzi scheme.  

Yet that's Just routine for the Clintons, who are the first grifters presidential family in American history, the ones that stole White House furniture and sold pardons on the way out the White House door.  Yep, just another day's con for them.  

But now, finally, at least they have to con from the shadows of power rather than from the spotlight of power.
@ScottPletcher, I actually more than once considered quoting your post and only adding essentially "I rest my case." But there are enough clearly incorrect statements in it that I'll try to take time to respond. It'll just take a day or so to write something up. I don't know how much I can cover, but "illegal server" is factually wrong and the comments about perjury are legally wrong (since there was none by either Clinton). So I'll try to be sure to get those in and see how much more can be included.

Ideally, perhaps @Big Monty can see if this can be moved into a discussion thread. It's on the verge of moving away from the original thread question.
Big MontySenior Web Developer / CEO of Author Commented:
not sure what you're asking me, do you want me to create a new thread for that part of it?
Scott PletcherSenior DBACommented:
the comments about perjury are legally wrong (since there was none by either Clinton

A judge Bill Clinton himself appointed stated in writing that he had committed perjury.

Bill Clinton himself signed a statement, under penalty of perjury, that he had committed perjury.

You could at least accept basic facts about Bill that he himself was forced to admit, or face a trial he knew he would lose, since he did lie under oath to a federal grand jury and a federal judge.

As to Ms. Clinton, she lied to the FBI many times when she said she "couldn't remember" things.  Of course the "Justice" Department and the State Department were just running cover-up operations for her, but even they stumbled onto crimes with a  farcically de minimis (pretend) investigation.

This is a defense of Trump in the sense that the best case for Trump was that he was not even a fraction as fundamentally, to-the-core corrupt and mendacious as either of the Clintons.  Yes, that is rather pathetic, but no other electable choice was offered.
Big MontySenior Web Developer / CEO of Author Commented:
to be continued in another discussion...
Big MontySenior Web Developer / CEO of Author Commented:
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.