Some compelling reasons to vote for Donald Trump

[Elijah John]

-Hillary Clinton wants to increase the importation of Syrian refugees five fold, putting American lives at risk for infiltration by ISIS.

Trump wants to help them too...but over there.

-Projected skyrocketing Obamacare premiums and deductables.

-Hillary under a cloud of corruption, being investigate by the FBI

-Hillary has lied the the Bengazi families.

-HRC careless with her emails, putting American national security at risk.

-Obama paying millions(billions?) to Iran, a terrorist government which attempts to humiliate the US, harrassing our Navy etc. No reason to believe HRC would deviate from Obama's policies.

-HRC supporting sanctuary cities for illegal aliens, Trump would end that support.

-Donald Trump is NOT "same old, same old" Hillary Clinton. Reason enough right there.

Donald Trump will put America first, HRC seems to prefer winning the world's approval as opposed to doing what's best for her own country.

And many other reasons. But the enumerated ones, (especially the bolded ones), are reasons that we all perhaps can agree on?

If not, why not?

[myth-one.com]

Once Iran became a hostage-taking terrorist regieme, we owe them jack. Especially when they are, or will use that money against us.

These kind of technicalities are nonsense, and defy common sense. The American people get that, even if Left wing, Liberal internationalist elites don't.

We could appeal the decision, but we cannot call it nonsense and ignore it.

That's how Trump does business!

While voters can tell our country to Go Trump Ourselves, voters cannot tell the world to Go Trump Themselves!

-Hillary has lied to the the Bengazi families.

If the Americans who died at Benghazi were alive today, I believe they would undoubtedly vote for Hillary in this election.

You cannot prove it. . . .

That's correct, but that's what I strongly believe.

I think President Obama wanted to show little or no show of military force in Libya after the way other military acts backfired in the middle east. That's why the security personnel (although incredible individual warriors) were "civilian" personnel.

Hillary was working on the behest of the President. She was under orders, and could be terminated if she acted independently -- as the "civilian" security individually choose to do.

Thus she became "untrustworthy" while those who were on the scene became heroes.

They obviously loved their country, and that's the reason I'm voting for her!

I'm not a democrat, but my political party has become a mob which I cannot support!

I have no doubt you love your country too. But that is not an indicator of which candidate to support, neither is an indicator of which party to support.

"they loved their country, that's why you're voting for her"?. Non sequiter, don't ya think?

I am voting for Hillary because I love my country.

Those who died in Benghazi loved their country.

I think they would be voting as I have for the same reason.

I can understand how the survivors of the Benghazi battle cannot support Hillary. They are alive and angry that their brothers in arms were needlessly killed.

[2Dbunk]

Hillary Clinton wants to increase the importation of Syrian refugees five fold, putting American lives at risk for infiltration by ISIS.

Trump wants to help them too...but over there.

Refugees leave a very troubled place for good reason -- leaving home and possessions behind. They are looking for a new life . . . is that not what our Statue of Liberty offers? Of course there is risk . . . anything in life is a risk. This fear coming from a Christian is interesting in that: Would Jesus turn these refugees away?

-Projected skyrocketing Obamacare premiums and deductables.

There are things that need to be fixed in the Affordable Care Act but the Republicans have snuffed any notion of that happening. They would rather stuff it (something that is fixable) passing untold amounts of resolutions to abolish it. Why? Because the Republicants can't suffer the scenario of another Democratic initiative rising to popularity like Social Security or Medicare. The Republicants are on the ropes as it is, being known as the party of NO! They call themselves the party of Lincoln but in reality they more like resemble the Democrats of the 19th Century -- they have changed course 180 degrees away from the liberal policies of Abraham Lincoln.

-Hillary under a cloud of corruption, being investigate by the FBI

FBI Director Comey has brought the investigation to a close, citing no evidence of wrong doing. Everything Trump and His supporters have said about Hillary has not been proven!

-Hillary has lied the the Bengazi families.

Possibly.

-HRC careless with her emails, putting American national security at risk.

True, but not unprecedented

-Obama paying millions(billions?) to Iran, a terrorist government which attempts to humiliate the US, harrassing our Navy etc. No reason to believe HRC would deviate from Obama's policies.

We have to honor our international obligations in the hope of a more secure world.
For Iran to continue in a despotic way is for them to paint themselves into a corner, again susceptible to hurting sanctions with the world as their judge. The money paid was money owed.

-HRC supporting sanctuary cities for illegal aliens, Trump would end that support.

How is that when she had no function in internal affairs? Sanctuary cities are a local policy phenomena.

-Donald Trump is NOT "same old, same old" Hillary Clinton. Reason enough right there.

That's a GOOD thing! Well, maybe I should say bad. What I mean is that they are opposites in so many ways. TIME Magazine has recently characterized the presidential race as: What women can be and What men can get away with.

Donald Trump will put America first, HRC seems to prefer winning the world's approval as opposed to doing what's best for her own country.

I defer to DI's very succinct analysis earlier in this thread.

And many other reasons.

You can take your above reasons of negativity and multiply them by ten to approach the number of flaws in Trump's character and candidacy.

[myth-one.com]

You can take your above reasons of negativity and multiply them by ten to approach the number of flaws in Trump's character and candidacy.

But his attraction (or gig) is being anti-establishment.

Yes, no one has ever proposed such ridiculous ideas.

Today he said there could be 650,000,000 immigrants flooding into the United States within weeks under a President Hillary.

The more ridiculous, vulgar, obnoxious, vindictive, and degrading he is -- the farther he moves away from the establishment!

If you're looking for change, this is the candidate offering the largest change from typical governmental sanity.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 12 by 2Dbunk]

Jesus welcomed outcasts into the Kingdom of God...he was not a political leader. The US is a secular nation with and obligation to protect it's citizens. There is a very real danger that the Syrian refugee population could be infiltrated by ISIS operatives. That danger increases in direct proportion to the increase of the refugees.

I repeat, Trump wants to help them too, but over there. Trump puts America first. Hillary, by clear contrast, would risk the lives of Americans.

Our "international obligations"?? We may have owed that money to the Shah's Iran. We do not owe the Ayatollah's hostage-taking Iran a thing.

The 400 million was, in effect if not in actuality, ransom.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 14 by Elijah John]

Jesus welcomed outcasts into the Kingdom of God...he was not a political leader. The US is a secular nation with and obligation to protect it's citizens. There is a very real danger that the Syrian refugee population could be infiltrated by ISIS operatives. That danger increases in direct proportion to the increase of the refugees.

Jesus, no doubt was a charismatic figure but the Kingdom of God is hardly a proven reality. Let's go with what we know: Jesus, yes, but the Kingdom of God . . . hardly. Again, I ask you what Jesus would do in a reality scenario? Not as a political figure but a leader of a moral movement? You, as a Christian, know exactly what he would do. His message was all about love . . . not hate, not fear . . . Abraham Lincoln would have agreed: ". . . With charity for all and malice toward none . . ." Yes ISIS could infiltrate, but it is surprising that you, a prayerful Christian, would doubt that your prayers will be answered. Just how deep is your Faith? Though I don't believe like you do, I do believe our government's ability in the vetting process -- like I believe our government is GOOD and/or tries to do the right thing. That is why I love this country that we live in.

I repeat, Trump wants to help them too, but over there.

And I repeat myself: Refugees LEAVE a very troubled homeland for very good reason. How can they be helped over there when they have already left?

Trump puts America first. Hillary, by clear contrast, would risk the lives of Americans.

That is only your fearful opinion.

Our "international obligations"?? We may have owed that money to the Shah's Iran. We do not owe the Ayatollah's hostage-taking Iran a thing.

Pardon me, but that money was in frozen assets seized here in the U.S. The Shah had been deposed by then (not that we owed him anything, anyway). I do agree the interest payment is troubling but I'm no expert on international finance (so let your imagination run wild if you don't know the FACTS).

The 400 million was, in effect if not in actuality, ransom.

Again, that is your opinion. You have no proof of this. If you are correct, then it was a travesty!

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Elijah John]

It should be pointed out, since it seems to continuously be ignored by Republicans, that the money that he U.S. turned over to Iran was NOT American tax payer money. It was Iranian money that had been frozen as part of the sanctions on Iran for their nuclear research program.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to Elijah John]

It should be pointed out, since it seems to continuously be ignored by Republicans, that the money that he U.S. turned over to Iran was NOT American tax payer money. It was Iranian money that had been frozen as part of the sanctions on Iran for their nuclear research program.

If that is the case, that is some, but not complete consolation. Still, it seems unwise that we lifted that sanction...have they proven trustworthy yet?

[Monta]

[Replying to post 17 by Elijah John]


"If that is the case, that is some, but not complete consolation. Still, it seems unwise that we lifted that sanction...have they proven trustworthy yet?"

It is not them (Iran) which needs to prove itself trustworthy.

It is not they who loaded Iraq with 20 tonnes of DU.

As a result most of the children born have deformities and cancers.

[Bust Nak]

If that is the case...

What do you mean "if"? Isn't it rather important to know whether this is actually true or false, when it is relevant enough to be a factor in deciding who the next president should be?

[Elijah John]

If that is the case...

What do you mean "if"? Isn't it rather important to know whether this is actually true or false, when it is relevant enough to be a factor in deciding who the next president should be?

Unfreezing the assets of a hostage-taking terroritst regeime is still not wise, and STILL reason enough to vote against Obama/Clintion establishment.

And there are many others as well.