Got into a facebook fight about lord trump. Can you help me refute his arguments? Please /pol/ please. I've got ideas but these are common leftyfag arguments to defeat
>Firstly, I'm not defending Hillary, so stuff your strawman back in the closet, and secondly, of course Trump hasn't done any of those things. And neither have I, or any of the other hundreds of millions of Americans who haven't been involved in making those decisions. "Not Hillary Clinton" is not a distinguishing qualification because it applies to literally everyone who is not Hillary Clinton. Vote for any one of those people instead of the demonstrably racist xenophobic misogynist.
>Note that I'm asserting in firm terms that being a racist, misogynistic xenophobe is bad for our Nation. These are most definitely attacks on the man's character. I will state unequivocally that a man of such character is not who I want commanding the armed forces (which, I'll remind you, I have a vested interest in having *fought* in one of the establishment's bullshit wars); a man of such poor character is not who I want nominating Supreme Court justices. A man lacking in moral character is not who I want owning the Bully Pulpit of the presidency, and a man who is demonstrably hotheaded and reactionary is not who I want commanding our nuclear arsenal.
>What's his plan for ISIS? "I will bomb the shot out of them." (His words, not mine).
>His plan for bringing back American jobs from China (because for some reason we want the low-level manufacturing jobs that we've been shipping overseas for decades) is to increase Chinese import tariffs from 1.4% to 45% -- what'll that do? Depress the world economy, depress the U.S. Economy (which depends heavily on cheap imports), and which would reverse the necessary trend of international cooperation in trade.
>cont
>His immigration policy? No Muslims, let's build a border wall (and somehow make Mexico pay for it). Again, actually things he has said, and not inferences.
>On education? He wants the federal government to get rid of the common core (not realizing that it's a state run standard apparently); let schools compete for students (reversing the century-long standard of educating all of our children, instead of just the ones schools want). Cut "tremendous" amounts of money from the department of education -- "but I won't be cutting services!" (Somehow).
>On the environment? Wants to eliminate the EPA.
>General science understanding? Again, He proposes cutting the EPA. "The concept of global warming was invented by the Chinese
>in order to make U.S. Manufacturing non-competitive." He's an anti-vaxxer. He says "It's very sad to see what Barrack Obama has done with NASA," (again missing critical information: that Congress sets the NASA budget).
>Health care? Abolish the ACA. Why? "It's terrible." His replacement? He'll keep the good parts, like prohibition on insurers denying coverage, but get rid of those mean 'ole parts that make that possible, like requiring everyone to buy insurance. He'd defund planned parenthood (a key component of any GOP platform), ignorant (or dismissive) of the fact that most of what planned parenthood does is reproductive health.
>On Supreme Court justices? Well, I’d probably appoint people that would look very seriously at her [Clinton's] email disaster" ... Apparently Ignorant (again) of the fact that Supreme Court justices don't investigate crimes.
>He's an ignorant blowhard. His only appealing characteristic is that he's a Washington outsider -- but that alone isn't enough.
>I honestly don't understand how you can come back to support the guy so frequently and so forcefully.
>Are you so busy looking at shitty leftist arguments that you're blind to the shit pouring out of the man's own mouth?
shameless bump
>first point
Not being Hillary isn't the qualification, not being corrupt is the qualification. A choice between a corrupt politician and a non corrupt one is an easy choice. Also all those buzzwords at the end
>second point
Opinion on a person's character is subjective. Again, buzzwords.
>Third point
What else are you going to do with Isis? They want dominance, not negotiations. So bomb them to the table.
Trump was the only Republican saying he wanted to kill their leaders and cut off their financial support instead of putting boots on the ground.
>>73027638
Just counter with "Not an argument."
wat about common core? is trumo unfit to command US forces?
>fourth point
I'm no expert in economics and it'll show. Yes we do want unskilled labour because there are so many unemployed unskilled workers in America. Will these tariffs cause companies to leave China? Yes. Will this cause a depression? Possibly. I don't know what exactly Trumps plan is to attract these companies back to America but if anyone has a better argument I'm interested to hear.
>fifth point
If Muslims are currently holding a significantly higher threat to security than anyone else he is right to keep them out. Whether the wall will work out or not will be interesting.
>sixth point
Common core has been a disaster. I don't personally agree with his education reforms.
>>73027638
What the fuck are you doing defending the man when you don't even know enough about him to make a credible argument?
You psychotic fucking child.
I can't be bothered with the rest.
>>73027704
To the immigration argument: Trump didn't say "No muslims". He said he wants to stop immigration from countries that are infested with radical islamic movements - not because there are muslims there, but because there are violent individuals there who just happen to be muslims. Furthermore, a border wall is a rational and demonstrably effective method of reducing illegal immigration, given that it is tall, hard, and huge - qualities that tend to impede people's movement.
On him being a blowhard with a single appealing quality, that is just a subjective judgement of his character. Also, given that he draws support from people from many walks of life, it seems improbable that he has only one appealing quality.
>>73030622
I know a lot about his positions. This is a good practicw in pro trump discourse
