FDT
There's not a strong case for home being a racist,
Who's home? And what case? even though he's been endorsed by the leader of the KKK.
Hillary is now endorsed by the KKK. They changed positions. I suppose you should be demonizing Hillary now. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/26/klan-leader-claims-kkk-has-given-20k-clinton-campa/ So it's regressive to the case against him to accuse him of being so. This election season both Clinton and Trump are horrible candidates, so my argument will try to use facts only as a way of eliminating bias and explaining why Trump won't be a good president.
If you wanted to eliminate bias, you wouldn't spread false information that was clearly created out of bias. You would have dug through sources to conclude that there is no evidence for Trump being racist.
Trump doesn't seem to have a case for his foreign policy. The main things he says he wants to accomplish are Banning Muslims, Building a Wall and Deporting Illegal Immigrants. None of these things he could actually enforce as president realistically.
Once again, pay attention to the facts. Trump does not want to ban Muslims, he wants to temporarily halt Muslim immigration until he deems fit. This position is supported by the influx of crime European countries are facing in the wake of the refugee crisis. He simply does not want America to suffer that same fate. I'll begin with the first one. Banning a religious demographic from entering the US goes against the Constitutional right of freedom of worship and religious practice.
Banning AMERICAN Muslims is unconstitutional. Temporarily halting immigration is not. Even if it were, the constitution was made to be amended. Even an executive order, would be shut down by the Supreme Court instantly. Building a wall and having the Mexicans pay for it; the only explanation Trump has given us for how he will pull it off is this: he is a good business man. Building a wall covering the entire border, itself, will take years.
Other countries have built walls in the past. Some have done so recently. What's the point? Secondly, Mexico won't pay for it as they don't have the national budget or resources. Even if they agreed to pay, the corruption in the Mexican system would take decades to scrape up the money by raising taxes and living costs; creating more demand for Mexicans to enter the US and many more illegals.
Speculation, not backed by any past evidence. Deporting mass amounts of illegal immigrants; Every president has worked to find illegals, but the simple truth is that they are hard to find and hard to deal with. Firstly, nobody has a list of illegals; they are illegal because of that. How can you find someone you don't know exists? It's worked like this in the past; illegals are caught by chance. Trump hasn't presented a plan for this policy either.
Of course finding illegals is hard, but so far Hillary has shown no intent on ridding those who arrive here to leech off the system and take American jobs. She probably considers it "racist" like many other regressives when someone says they want to pull the leech off.
My conclusion is that he's brought up issues that he can't solve legally especially as president, but he has made traction with his supporters because he says he will solve problems that they fear. Which is fear mongering.
Fear mongering is typically related to propaganda and not facts. The facts are in, and Islam is killing people. It's killing OUR people and only one candidate wants to do more to end that than send out a nice tweet. Not that it matters anyways. As I said earlier, I don't support Clinton and I could write the same argument against her too. If you don't know which candidate to vote for, honestly, I'd tell you to vote Hillary.
Telling people to vote for her and saying you don't support her are contradictory positions. She has a career of experience, and whether you like her policies or not, at least you know what they are.
Her experience is very limited and a lot of her decisions were group made. In fact, she's done many things in the past that liberals would find deplorable, such as vote for the Iraq war. She's consistently lied despite video evidence to the contrary, she shared private information and then had the FBI claim she was essentially too stupid or ignorant to know what she was doing (despite all that stuff you said about experience) and she once got a child rapist free of conviction as a result of tossing evidence and then was later shown on an audio recording to be laughing about the fact that she knew he was guilty.
So MY conclusion; Don't take my word on any of this, look it all up for yourselves and make a conclusion. I was once like the many who hate Trump until I was reasoned away from it by research. There is countless lies about him in the media and they continue to blast him. And they will. Their only argument is emotional. Don't let an emotional argument persuade you in November.Click to expand...
