What would it take?

[CRedskinsRule]

The recount thread has become less about the recounts since it's over. So how about a new question. For those who are anti-Trump, what would it take - or what would you need to see in the first 180 days to bring you to his side. Obviously some parts of his agenda will never be supported by democrats, but what could happen that would make his presidency more palatable then the last 4 years of Bush.

For the Trumpeters, what would it take, or what could he do in the 180 days to shake your faith, and specifically, what legislation could be passed or not passed that would make you buy in to the Trump's a charlatan argument.

My big 3 -
1) failing to repeal the Affordable Care Act - while a replace option at some point could be added, the repeal is the higher priority to me. For my family, I would be content going back to the health care of the past, at least I could afford that. (selfish bastard that I am that I want to be able to cover myself and my kids first).

2) making a unjustified deal with Russia. I don't think we should be Ukraine's protector, but we definitely should be committed to NATO. Any deal that trades any NATO member's security for Russian cooperation would break my faith in him.

3) a lack of efforts that specifically target improving the life of urban US cities. Both parties ignore the real needs of these populations, the democrats take them for granted, and republicans see them as unswerving opponents. I want to see Trump move beyond that dilemna.

the least important thing that Trump promised - the wall. If it's built fine, if not, make immigration attainable, deport criminals here illegally and call it a job well done.

What are your big 3?

[Schneed10]

I'm an anti-Trump republican, a #NeverTrump guy if you will.

To win me over:

1) bring back the jobs in the manufacturing sector in the US without resulting in a CPI increase much different from what we've been experiencing for the last 20 years.

2) stronger commitment to NATO and show an ability to influence Russia's actions. Getting them to withdraw their forces massed at the border of the Baltic states would be a good start.

3) Bring down prescription drug prices in the US

CRedskins I could talk all day about the repeal of Obamacare and why going back to the 'old' healthcare is like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube. There are countless reasons why repealing Obamacare will not help make your healthcare coverage more affordable. But that's another thread.

[punch it in]

Feeling kind of left out here since the question is for the trumpeters.
SAD!
Nevermind just saw the first question.
GLAD!

[punch it in]

To answer your question a shit ton! Lol.
Let me start with the basic fundamentals of being a human being.
1) stop the childish bickering and insults at every single entity or person that ever said anything negative about you. If he were on this site he would be warriorz and banned because he cannot handle criticism of his ideas.
2) take the god damned environmental issues somewhat seriously for christ sake.
3) speak in a manner in which i want my children to speak in.

[Chico23231]

My whole thing with Obamacare is you cant repeal it unless the GOP comes back with a better plan....one that has medium and small business more in mind.

[Schneed10]

Another one to the basic human decency list: don't be so painful to watch and listen to that it causes millions of Americans to tune you out.

I wasn't a fan of Obama's policies but he emoted, he listened, he acknowledged when the other side had a point, and he was not obnoxious. I get concerned with the long term consequences if enough people hate listening to the president sooo much that they decide to check out of the civics process.

By the way I would have had the exact same concern with Hillary, maybe even more so.

[punch it in]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

Another one to the basic human decency list: don't be so painful to watch and listen to that it causes millions of Americans to tune you out.



I wasn't a fan of Obama's policies but he emoted, he listened, he acknowledged when the other side had a point, and he was not obnoxious. I get concerned with the long term consequences if enough people hate listening to the president sooo much that they decide to check out of the civics process.



By the way I would have had the exact same concern with Hillary, maybe even more so.

Definitely not more so. Lol. But i hear you. I voted for Bernie in the primary for the record.

[Schneed10]

Hillary always sounded like she was lecturing. I dreaded having to listen to her even though I voted for her. She was always somewhere between lecturing and straight up yelling at you.

Neither is very inspiring. It sucks, I've got two girls coming up, they're 10 and 7 now, so old enough to pay attention to the president's words. I'm afraid they'll hear Trump and just say to themselves why do I want to put myself through this?

Sigh.

[CRedskinsRule]

Schneed you know your girls are listening more to you then Trump. Unless you or someone in there direct life is saying something.crazy (and I don't think you are) they are going to grow up believing in themselves. If you want to fear someone's influence you probably need to worry more how Disney is gonna convince them that you and all grown ups are stupid.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

[Schneed10]

I don't fear that they'll be negatively influenced by anything a president has to say, my fear is that the president will come across as so obnoxious that they won't want to listen to him (or her).

At this age you just want your kids to be interested in learning more about the process - what the president does, how the checks and balances work, etc. But if they can't stand listening to him then it increases the chances that they'll show little interest. I think that's a shame.

It's a criticism of style, not substance, and it's independent of party or position.

But you're right, my wife and I steer them much more greatly than anybody else. I may have to work a little harder to get them to listen to his words.

[BaltimoreSkins]

Mine mostly stem around the environment and sustainable economic growth we through so much money away on externalized costs I am a firm believer you take a conservative approach with the environment everything else will follow suit.

1. In his infrastructure plan focus on improved energy efficiency. I am all for domestic energy production but lets use what we currently have more sustainably. Use the infrastructure money to decommission old coal fired power plants that generally run at 35% efficiency to build cogeneration power plants that can operate close to 80%. While not a fan of coal I accept it is the primary source of electrical generation in the U.S.
2. Hold corporations and industry accountable and internalize environmental and health costs associated. Make those that use the product be willing to pay for the problems they cause. I drive pretty far to work, I will accept an increase in gasoline prices if they are used to offset other prices I pay externally. Also transparency by companies, if you want to hydrofrack fine, but companies need to be required to disseminate what is in the hydrofracking solution as opposed to calling it a trade secret.
3. Lastly climate change, the secretary of state nominee has voiced his understanding of the science I would like to see the EPA director and the President do the same. Doing the first two will assist in doing our part, but we also need to continue to promote R&D in renewables as well as climate and meteorological research.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I don't fear that they'll be negatively influenced by anything a president has to say, my fear is that the president will come across as so obnoxious that they won't want to listen to him (or her).

At this age you just want your kids to be interested in learning more about the process - what the president does, how the checks and balances work, etc. But if they can't stand listening to him then it increases the chances that they'll show little interest. I think that's a shame.

It's a criticism of style, not substance, and it's independent of party or position.

But you're right, my wife and I steer them much more greatly than anybody else. I may have to work a little harder to get them to listen to his words.

Gotcha, wholeheartedly agree, but trust me once they hit 16, they will already know more about how politics works (and everything else in the world then you ever did) [/sarc /teenknowitalls]

[Schneed10]

Hahaha, truth.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

The recount thread has become less about the recounts since it's over. So how about a new question. For those who are anti-Trump, what would it take - or what would you need to see in the first 180 days to bring you to his side.

In 180 days? Nothing. He's already shown me enough with his cabinet selection to know that it's going to be a fucking disaster.

Department of Housing and Urban Development
Ben Carson- absolutely no experience or knowledge about HUD. Hey, if you wanted him as Surgeon General, I could get behind that pick. Let's not forget that Carson said he wasn't qualified to take on any cabinet positions.

Former presidential candidate Ben Carson says he won't join Trump's Cabinet because he has no government experience - LA Times

Secretary of Education:
Betsy DeVos- another person with absolutely no experience in education, loans, public institutions. She thinks we should have guns in schools because of Grizzlies. (SMH)

Secretary of Energy
Rick Perry- The very guy who wanted to get rid of the Energy department, and knows jack shit about it. Hell, he didn't even know what the job entailed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/u...ald-trump.html

Secretary of State:
Rex Tillerson- Yes. Let's appoint a oil company CEO who has ties and deals with Russia on the board. You know those sanctions Obama put on Russia? Those same sanctions stopped some big oil deals with Exxon. Should we even talk about his lack of experience at one of the top spots in the nation?

Attorney General:
Jeff Sessions- He's certainly qualified from an experience standpoint. His views and potential racism is very worrisome.

Secretary of Transportation:
Elaine Chao - A former Secretary of Labor has experience in being in a cabinet, but what does she know about transportation? Had this been the Labor selection, I probably wouldn't have an issue with it. As it stands, it's a good ole boy selection.


UN Ambassador:
Nikki R. Haley- I have no issues with this pick. Good to hear she acknowledge Russia's actions in Syria as war crimes. I don't particularly agree with her on the Israel thing though, but still a qualified candidate. I'd say this was Trump's best pick of them all.


Secretary of Defense:
James Mattis- definitely qualified. Just worry he'll be a war hawk and want to drag us into a war with Iran/Syria. I also worry that Trump won't listen to him either.

I could go on down the list showing you how many of these picks are because they were big donors to his campaign and not because they are right for the job. It's going to be hard for him to be successful if he's picking bad choices to lead these individual departments.

[CRedskinsRule]

Thanks for playing NC. enjoy the resistance.

In all seriousness, I get punch, and others, but I have no idea what form of government/political structure you would support. If you think that government hasn't always formed around the rich/powerful people of a country that's simply crazy. Hell, George Washington was a military general/aristocratic land owning virginian, Hamilton may have been a "bastard, orphan, son of a whore and a Scotsman", but he was also the historical equivalent of Goldman Sachs CEO. Our whole system of banking and government basically boiled down to 5 or 6 greedy white men figuring out how to make government work for them. Jefferson wanted access to government power, Hamilton wanted financial power, and here we are.

So for you, I ask what would it take for you to accept any government at all?