"In 2017, the President of the United States will be someone who has very clearly and forcefully stated to the world that the Iraq War was a mistake.

He will also make it a major priority to renegotiate NAFTA and other trade deals to get a better deal for American workers. He will repeatedly exclaim that, when it comes to trade, corporate profits should come second to securing good jobs for American workers. Not free trade, fair trade!, he'll say.

On the first day of his presidency, he will make it a priority to meet with several organized labor leaders in the White House; they will leave the meeting thrilled and state that they truly believe he is on their side and that he wants to do whatever he can to help create jobs and improve wages for American workers. He will make it a favorite pastime to call up fat-cat CEOs and yell at them about how they need to stop outsourcing jobs and need to invest in American labor OR ELSE."

"That's amazing," you'd say. I might reply: "well, you know, some people think that is a little tyrannical and autocratic trying to bully people like --" "Oh please," you'd cut me off, "I think those CEOs can take it. It's amazing to hear we'll finally have someone showing a little bit of back bone for labor against capital in this country! Anyway, this guy sounds amazing. Tell me more. What does he think about health care?"

I'd continue: "Well, when it comes to health care, he will come out in favor of negotiating against drug companies for lower prices on prescription drugs. And he will say that, whatever we do on health care reform, we need to make sure that we guarantee coverage for people with preexisting conditions.

He will be forcefully in favor of preserving social security and medicare. He will call for six weeks of guaranteed maternity leave.

Also, I should note, he is in favor of large-scale government spending on massive projects to put Americans to work rebuilding our national infrastructure.

He will also come out in favor of reform to close the carried interest tax loophole.

Also, he won't seem very religious all. Not only will he be for civil unions, he will in fact openly admit that he has no problem with gay marriage. He will even wave around a rainbow LGBT flag at one of his rallies."

At this point, you would probably stop me. "Stop, stop. I don't believe you," you'd say, "It's too good to be true."

In your head you are picturing some heroic left-wing dream candidate.

"Well, there is more," I'd say. "You really should know that he wants to build a wall on our border with Mexico to prevent further illegal immigration and, although he has suggested that after the wall is built he may be open to some limited amnesty for illegal immigrants already here, he does not support blanket amnesty for all 11 million+ illegal immigrants in the country. He dismisses all arguments about illegal immigration ultimately benefiting GDP, because he believes the most important thing to focus on is the well-being of low-wage American workers."

In response to this, you might say that you need to see the specifics. But you'd probably agree wholeheartedly with that last point about low-wage workers and generally think the 2017 President's view was within the range of reasonable views. After all, at this point, even the NYT editorial board is still against amnesty for illegal immigrants ( http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/22/opinion/hasty-call-for-amnesty.html ) and the idea of a physical wall on some or all of the Mexican border doesn't seem like a crazy idea ( http://freebeacon.com/issues/flashback-democrats-supported-mexico-border-fence/ ). See also: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2016/05/18/flashback-bill-clinton-in-96-sounds-like-trump-on-immigration-we-are-a-nation-of-laws-n2164898 ; http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/time-harry-reid-sounded-exactly-donald-trump-illegal-immigration . You might even say "wait, did you say 11+ million? We haven't done anything about that yet?"

"Uh ok," I'd say, "well you should also know that he is going to make some very strong statements about the need for law and order and say that he wants to crack down hard on crime."

Again, you might ask for specifics. But, at the end of the day, you'd probably say something like: "don't all politicians talk that way these days? I mean Bill Clinton sure did. I think we can stomach another Clinton/Biden crime bill. This doesn't seem so bad, especially when weighed against all of that great stuff you were talking about earlier. Tell me more about how he wants to renegotiate NAFTA...."

"Well, I'm not sure you understand," I'd say. "He is going to say some pretty controversial stuff on race and the inner cities that people are really not going to like."

"Like what?" you'd ask.

"Well," I'd say, "one particularly controversial statement that will rile a lot of people up is: '[The] inner cities of our country . . . are a disaster education-wise, job-wise, safety-wise, in every way possible [and] I�m going to help the African-Americans. I�m going to help the Latinos, Hispanics. I am going to help the inner cities.'"

"Bravo!" you'd say. "I'm glad we will finally have someone willing to speak honestly about the inner cities and the terrible conditions so many people, racial minorities especially, are living in. If conservatives find that controversial, then that's their problem. I'm tired of Bush ignoring our inner cities. This guy sounds great!"

At this point, I'd realize you weren't quite getting it. I could try reading out some particular awkward Trump quotes, but I'd probably realize I'm not going to convince you that your left-wing hero of 2017 is a racist on the basis of quotes like that. If "you cannot go to a 7 -Eleven or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent" or "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean" doesn't do it for Joe Biden, the taco bowl tweet probably won't do it here. So I switch gears.

"Well," I'd reply, "there's more you need to know." "He is going to come into office on the heels of some terror attacks in Europe and the U.S. by islamic extremists. Don't worry, nothing as bad as 9/11, but still pretty bad. Because many of the people involved in these attacks came from overseas, he is going to institute a temporary ban on immigration from 7 middle eastern countries until the government can establish better vetting procedures for new visitors and immigrants."

You'd probably reply with something like: "Well, I'll have to see what those new vetting procedures actually are. But after Bush, I'll just be glad if he doesn't invade all seven! Anyway, tell me more about this guy...."

At this point I'd have to start reeling off things like lowering the corporate tax rate, an ed secretary who believes in charter schools, cutting back on administrative regulations in certain areas, seeking to balance the budget in view of our $19 trillion national debt.

You'd probably say something like: "Well then, I guess we won't have cured the democratic party of Clintonism altogether by 2017, but....... wait? Did you say $19 trillion? Our national debt is really going to more than double between now and 2017?"

"Yes, it's going to get pretty deep," I'd reply.

"Hmm. Well that's what we get for all these dumb wars in the middle east," you'd say. "I guess our president in 2017 will be left to try and clean that up."

"There's more," I'd say. "He is going to have a pretty sordid history when it comes to women. There will be a couple accusers who say he sexually harassed them. Nothing definitive, but a lot of allegations. There will be a tape where he's caught, about 10 years before running for president, saying he has 'grabbed women by the pussy.'"

(Long sigh) "Well then I guess we realllly won't have rid the Democratic party of clintonism entirely" (chuckle). "But it does sound like he will be pretty good for women on policy. Tell me more about that six weeks of maternity leave. Sounds very progressive...."

"Oh shit, there's one big thing I forgot to tell you. He's pro-life. Or at least he says he's pro-life now. He had said he was pro-choice in the past, though. Some people think he just plays the pro-life role now because he needed it to get elected."

This you would probably be very taken aback by. "I don't believe it," you'd say. "Are you sure? He's so progressive on all of those other issues.... we've progressed so much that we can elect a guy like this, but he still needed to play the pro-life card to get elected? Even as a democrat? How did we go backward on that one?"

"Well," I'd say "he'd been a democrat previously, but actually ran for president as a Republican.

That would probably blow your mind. "You're telling me this guy is a Republican? I mean, jesus, I'm going to disagree with him on abortion and the corporate tax stuff but, oh wow.... it seems too good to be true that we're really going to progress so much between now and 2017 that this is what our REPUBLICANS will look like? I mean, wow, from George W. Bush to this guy? I mean, it sounds like we are really going to have a lot of common ground to work from. I could certainly work with a Republican like that. You are sure he's a Republican right? Really? OK, wow."

At that point, I would have to ask: "would it surprise you to learn that you are literally going to cry openly in the street while waving around a sign comparing this guy to Hitler?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32458197)

hehe

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32459533)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32458402)

Also try submitting to reddit The Donald because Trump's people read that site.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32458637)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32459537)

180.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32462371)

[80 different threads]

btw libs shut the fuck up trump is the most liberal republican in recent history

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32462391)

And I'm right.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32462482)

And we all know your smarmy shitlib contrarian schtick. You should accept my praise here, you did a good job ITT.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32462534)

I'm sure there are literally dozens of such pieces written about Obama from a soft-lib standpoint. It's easy to spin pretty much anyone except Ron Paul in a way that suits what you're trying to write

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32462551)

on healthcare, he's given no real concrete indication of anything. the FW FW FW "he really cares about social services" schtick has very little basis in a few off-hand campaign quips which he never really made his mind up about. all we know for sure is he's going to try his damndest to repeal obamacare, I can guarantee that if there is a "solution" proposed (and I seriously doubt there will be beyond reverting to the status quo) it won't be some magical lib-friendly plan. he isn't going to just repeal obamacare and replace it with single payer medicaid expansion lol, come on

instead so far he's just done work on standard conservative targets like defunding various branches which is a conservative staple since literally reagan

aside from trade, there's been basically no hard indication from trump his interests align with libs. this is an xo schtick which allows posters to live in their dual fantasyland of "fuck libs!!!!" and "btw trump is really a lib don't worry". most of his positions are basically straight out of the conservative republican playbook.

"b b but he waved a gay flag once..." the poster guffawed as trump decided the DOE is mostly flame.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32462453)

I don't pay much attention to social service positions honestly.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32462468)

absolutely magnificent first-rate scholarship

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32462456)

It's a potent idea that will undoubtedly wake some people up. Really just needs to be spread.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32462530)

"What the fuck? That was insane. Who could I have been dreaming about?"

You then click on the TV remote just in time to catch the latest episode of The Apprentice.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32462589)

I tell you:

"In 2017, the President of the United States will be someone who has very clearly and forcefully stated to the world that the Iraq War was a mistake.

He will also make it a major priority to renegotiate NAFTA and other trade deals to get a better deal for American workers. He will repeatedly exclaim that, when it comes to trade, corporate profits should come second to securing good jobs for American workers. Not free trade, fair trade!, he'll say.

On the first day of his presidency, he will make it a priority to meet with several organized labor leaders in the White House; they will leave the meeting thrilled and state that they truly believe he is on their side and that he wants to do whatever he can to help create jobs and improve wages for American workers. He will make it a favorite pastime to call up fat-cat CEOs and yell at them about how they need to stop outsourcing jobs and need to invest in American labor OR ELSE."

"That�s awful," you'd say. I might reply: "Sure, some people think that is a little tyrannical and autocratic trying to bully people like --" "It is!" you'd cut me off, "This is typical liberal bullshit, interfering with the free market. Unions are toxic to free enterprise, they enable a bunch of rent-seeking bureaucrats to line their pockets at the expense of American manufacturing and the consumer. Why do you think all of our labor unions are in the pockets of the Democrats?! If we want to be competitive globally we need to bust up unions, deregulate industry, and let the free market do its thing. And the whole �standing up to fat-cat CEO�s� is just another liberal jerkoff fantasy. We need innovators and job creators in this country, it�s simple supply-side economics. I can�t stand how liberals constantly demonize people who are successful. That�s the American dream! Anyway, tell me more about him. What does he think about health care?"

I'd continue: "Well, when it comes to health care, he will come out in favor of negotiating against drug companies for lower prices on prescription drugs. And he will say that, whatever we do on health care reform, we need to make sure that we guarantee coverage for people with preexisting conditions.

He will be forcefully in favor of preserving social security and medicare. He will call for six weeks of guaranteed maternity leave.

Also, I should note, he is in favor of large-scale government spending on massive projects to put Americans to work rebuilding our national infrastructure.

He will also come out in favor of reform to close the carried interest tax loophole.

Also, he won't seem very religious all. Not only will he be for civil unions, he will in fact openly admit that he has no problem with gay marriage. He will even wave around a rainbow LGBT flag at one of his rallies."

At this point, you would probably stop me. "I knew it," you'd say, "More liberal horseshit. We don�t need the government interfering with healthcare. Medicare and social security are not financially sustainable, but realistically it seems like we�re stuck with them. That doesn�t mean we need to go overboard with full-fledged socialism. Guaranteed maternity leave? This is not Europe. We don�t need this kind of socialist nonsense here, it will just make us less competitive globally. And covering preexisting conditions? How can insurance companies expect to operate at a profit under those circumstances? You�ll just chase their business away, and then no one gets covered for anything. And I object to the idea of a �tax loophole� being closed � we need to starve the beast. Cut taxes. Open and widen as many tax loopholes as possible, cut rates. Cut spending. Reduce the size of government. I also will never ever support someone who doesn�t share my religious views. This guy openly supports gay marriage? And he waved a rainbow flag at a rally!? Forget it."

In your head you are picturing some horrific left-wing candidate.

"Well, there is more," I'd say. "You really should know that he wants to build a wall on our border with Mexico to prevent further illegal immigration and, although he has suggested that after the wall is built he may be open to some limited amnesty for illegal immigrants already here, he does not support blanket amnesty for all 11 million+ illegal immigrants in the country. He dismisses all arguments about illegal immigration ultimately benefiting GDP, because he believes the most important thing to focus on is the well-being of low-wage American workers."

In response to this, you might say that you need to see the specifics. But you'd probably disagree wholeheartedly with that last point about low-wage workers (again, the President shouldn�t be interfering with the free market or giving preferential treatment to any particular group). As far as immigration is concerned, even the deranged liberal NYT editorial board is against blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants (no brainer!). Still, the idea of a physical wall on some or all of the Mexican border sounds like it would be massively expensive. You like the idea of keeping out illegal immigrants, but those kinds of infrastructure projects just pour taxpayer money into the pockets of big-government contractors, but overall you'd probably tolerate it. You would probably say "wait, did you say 11+ million illegal immigrants? We haven't done anything about that yet?"

"No," I'd say, "Sounds like you�re rushing to judgment about him. You should also know that he is going to make some very strong statements about the need for law and order and say that he wants to crack down hard on crime."

You�d express some support for this, but point out: "don't all politicians talk that way these days? I mean, even Bill Clinton did. This seems sensible, but doesn�t make up for all the awful stuff you were talking about earlier. Tell me more about how he wants to renegotiate NAFTA. I don�t like the sound of that, I support NAFTA. President Bush says it�s created millions of jobs, and he�s right!�

"Well, here�s something you might like," I'd say. "He is going to say some pretty controversial stuff on race and the inner cities that some people are really not going to like."

"Like what?" you'd ask.

"Well," I'd say, "one particularly controversial statement that will rile a lot of people up is: '[The] inner cities of our country . . . are a disaster education-wise, job-wise, safety-wise, in every way possible [and] I�m going to help the African-Americans. I�m going to help the Latinos, Hispanics. I am going to help the inner cities.'"

"Awful!" you'd say. "Don�t get me wrong, I'm glad we will finally have a liberal who is willing to speak honestly about the inner cities and the failures of whiny minorities. But I�m skeptical of how this guy intends to �help inner cities.� Sounds like more liberal spending on �programs� for welfare queens and moochers. This guy sounds terrible!"

At this point, I'd realize you weren't quite getting it. I could try reading out some particular awkward Trump quotes, but I'd probably realize I'm not going to convince you that your left-wing nemesis of 2017 is actually a conservative and a �straight shooter� on the basis of quotes like that. So I switch gears.

"Well," I'd reply, "there's more you need to know." "He is going to come into office on the heels of some terror attacks in Europe and the U.S. by islamic extremists. Don't worry, nothing as bad as 9/11, but still pretty bad. Because many of the people involved in these attacks came from overseas, he is going to institute a temporary ban on immigration from 7 middle eastern countries until the government can establish better vetting procedures for new visitors and immigrants."

You'd probably reply with something like: "I prefer a more hard-line stance. This is the problem with liberals, they don�t stick up for American values and the American way of life. These terrorists need to know that we�re willing to take the fight to their doorstep. �Vetting procedures�!? I mean, come on! We fight them there so we don�t have to fight them here. Sounds like we�ve gone soft and let them take the fight to us. I strongly support the Iraq War and I am confident that we�ll be successful there. I assume by 2017 we�ve spread democracy to several middle eastern countries, so why not also suit up and invade those other 7 countries if they�re attacking us?"

At this point I'd have to start reeling off things like lowering the corporate tax rate, an ed secretary who believes in charter schools, cutting back on administrative regulations in certain areas, seeking to balance the budget in view of our $19 trillion national debt.

You'd probably say something like: "That all sounds very sensible to me, but....... wait? Did you say $19 trillion? Our national debt is really going to more than double between now and 2017?"

"Yes, it's going to get pretty deep," I'd reply.

"Hmm. Well that's what we get for all this unbridled liberal spending," you'd say. "I assume it is liberal spending that ran up that deficit, since the Iraq War is paying for itself, and we still have 4 more years of Bush keeping our budget under control and even if a Dem gets elected in 2008 surely Bush will hand off a rock-solid economy with a budget surplus . . . Anyway, I can�t imagine that this guy you�re describing will even think this debt is a problem, let alone fix it."

"There's more," I'd say. "He is going to have a pretty sordid history when it comes to women. There will be a couple accusers who say he sexually harassed them. Nothing definitive, but a lot of allegations. There will be a tape where he's caught, about 10 years before running for president, saying he has 'grabbed women by the pussy.'"

"This guy sounds like Bill Clinton 2.0! Typical liberal hypocrite, sexually harassing women and then currying favor through handouts. Tell me more about that six weeks of maternity leave, LMAO!"

"Oh shit, there's one good thing I forgot to tell you. He's pro-life. Or at least he says he's pro-life now. He had said he was pro-choice in the past, though. Some people think he just plays the pro-life role now."

This you would probably be very taken aback by. "I don't believe it," you'd say. "Are you sure? He's so liberal on all of those other issues . . . it sounds like our culture has regressed so badly, yet we still elected a pro-life candidate? And a Democrat? I�m pleasantly surprised by that, at least!"

"Well," I'd say "he'd been a Democrat previously, but actually ran for president as a Republican.

That would probably blow your mind. "You're telling me this guy is a Republican? I mean, jesus, I agree with him on abortion, but oh wow.... How terrible! We're really going to regress so much between now and 2017 that this is what our REPUBLICANS will look like? I mean, wow, from George W. Bush to this guy? I mean, it sounds like we are really going to have no Republicans who actually have conservative views! I can�t believe we could elect a Republican like that. You are sure he's a Republican right? Really? OK, wow. How depressing."

At that point, I would have to ask: "would it surprise you to learn that when he�s elected you are literally going to cry open tears of joy in the street while waving around a MAGA sign?"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32463823)

- His only real clear goal in healthcare is destroying Obamacare, everything else is pure speculation due to some absolute throw away campaign remark. Pretty good there for cons. But he wants to negotiate with drug companies! That's as far as the govenment (ie Medicare) spending is concerned. A clever issue to take up because it's something both sides can agree on, but definitely not inherently "lib" since its ultimately a matter of spending.

- more defense spending. Straight win for most cons (as most take the non-libertarian position here)

- Oh but infrastructure spending? That must be lib right? Not really, most people love to hear about "national building" projects because it makes libs feel like a service is being provided and gives cons that American exceptionalist warm and fuzzies. Except when it comes to brass tacks we have no idea what he's actually going to do (if anything, and nothing is highly likely here given it will, you know, cost lots of money), and you can be damn sure it won't be some lib wet dream of a major mass transit project or whatever if anything does come to pass. It's exactly the kind of thing which is a great campaign promise but when someone sits down and tallies up the cost we get a few Trump bridges. It's not like cons except Ron Paul are anarcho-capitalists who ran on "privatize all infrastructure" anyway, agreeing to rebuild our "crumbling core" is pablum that all candidates feed their base.

- He's absolutely toeing the line on what aspects of government to slash. He's repeating the same Republican schtick since Reagan right down to the very agencies he wants to cut or eliminate.

- but he's opposed to the Iraq war! Sure, like several other candidates even as republicans were because it's so toxic now. The neocon-ness of his opponent shouldn't distract from his typical Republican "rah rah Israel" start, which is really the unifying foreign policy belief in the republican party.

- he's not explicitly religious, but he's actually catered to the crowd (e.g. Pence, taking up their Planned parenthood crusade) more than Bush ever did, who was mostly moderate in these areas. Trump waved a gay flag though! So what? Trump loves anything which makes a good picture and knows republicans don't care as much about gays as they did 15 years ago, the focus of the culture war has shiffed. It doesn't change the fact that what he's actually doing is decidedly not lib

- Aside from Bannon and the odd duck, his appointees are very traditiionally conservative or "GC". He's certainly not doing anything to radically change the system aside from wanting to destroy a few agencies that cons have been wanting to get rid of anyway. This is probably one of the most important points, because his "drain the swamp" revolution was really just "drain agencies conservatives hate anyway and let the rest be conservative status quo since Reagan"

Dubya was certainly a mixed bag too, and Obama and Clinton when you look at what they actually did; still, nobody would consider them a stealth saint of the other side (obviously slick Willy comes the closest in genuinely winning over some people on the other side, and for good reason). But overall Trump is sticking to what matters most for conservatives, which is "slash parts of the government we don't like or sound good in a speech, cut taxes, bolster defense and fight terror [or something], and keep healthcare private/repeal Obamacare so long as you don't piss olds off". They're willing to let him have trade to make the tea partiers happy in exchange for being able to shove through the majority of their agenda, which is just as good a result as most presidents in recent history regarding their respective party lines.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32464387)

Trump is the furthest thing from this, which is one reason why neocons like Graham and McCain hate him so much.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32476668)

Were you asleep during the primaries? You largely just described cucks. Yes, Trump isn't a True Conservative, but we all acknowledge this, and this point was made loud and clear during the primaries.

Your poast relies on a scarecrow, pretending that cucks = Trumpmos, and that the former somehow is wildly crazy over his policies. This couldn't be further from the truth, and in fact many cucks will openly admit they'd rather see Pence as president. There's no hypocrisy.

Cucks had to hold their noses to vote for Trump, and I don't think too many of them are waving MAGA signs. They teamed with Trumpmos to defeat the shitlib menace, but plenty aren't thrilled with his policies; they're just overjoyed he eradicated Hillary Clinton from national politics forever. That's the source of the excitement you may see from cucks towards him. Combined with the fact that there's been an SJW epidemic over the past several years and Trump is the only one who looked like he could beat it back.

Trumpmos are a different breed than cucks, many of whom (at least on this bort) voted for Obama in 2008. These are the ones who wave the MAGA signs, and your description of a "conservative republican" simply isn't accurate with respect to Trumpmos. It might be fair to say that, given the overlap between Trumpmos and first time Obama voters, Trumpmos are more susceptible to cults of personality, but that's a wildly different point than the one you tried to make.

Quite simply, your comparison of shitlib hysteria over Trump (a man they should be happy about) to cuck supporting someone who he openly admits is not in line with his principles is atrocious. And it's simply false with respect to Trumpmos.

The OP NAILED liberal hypocrisy to the Nth degree. It's such a potent point that this really should be spread around. You gave it a go, but fell short. Sorry, but nice try.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32476604)

Really demonstrates to me how unprincipled modern liberals truly are.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32476736)

i said im a lib, not a dem

i hate both parties. but ideologically im more liberal than i am conservative (im actually somewhat conservative on immigration)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#32477146)

Cons are gullible af.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3503671&forum_id=2#36028439)