There are multiple "scandals" from both parties that don't represent the party as a whole because that's an ignorant way to view things.
A republican scandal:
Source
Should I label the republican party as sex offenders who pay victims in hush money to avoid reporting sexual abuse to the police?
Trump in '04: 'I probably identify more as Democrat'
Source
I guess Trump was once a "self-hating sheep who followed the PC agenda".
You just made a pro Trump statement without even realising it. Trump is being attacked by both the dem's and rep's. Also stop putting words into my mouth, I didn't state that rep's don't have any scandals. Stop using strawmans in every reply you do. It's just stupid and will make any reasonable person to dismiss all your arguments(even the ones that have a hint of knowledge in them).
So, you're putting your trust in the people around him instead of him specifically? Who are these people you're putting your trust into?
No idea, but I know that the odds of them working for Trump is high and with other canditates it seems to be the other way around.
Donald Trump's networth as of 2015 is 4b, not 9.
He says 9, other people claim 4.5. I'd imagine it's something in between, but does it really matter if it's 4bil or 9bil? Would it change anything about the claim of him being able to surround him with the very best? 4bil is plenty in my eyes.
It's funny you say that, Donald Trump was accused of being a rapist, and a rapist apologist of sorts. Even went as far as saying to Mike Tyson "you should've paid off the victims to keep quiet".
Source
I could not find anything about him being taken to court for sexual assault or paying people off. I know for a fact that Clinton payed atleast 1 women out of court and Hillary helped him in the process. Basicly facts vs unprooved statements and if your standard is unvalidated statements then I don't see a point in argueing with you.
Donald Trump is a fascist.
Source
Let's lable someone fascist and then attack him based on stuff fascist have done. Pretty sure this is some sort of fallacy again. Jesus christ man, your debating tactics are so obviusly shit. Starting to regret I even took my time to reply to this.
Trump wants to build a 2,000 mile long wall across the southern border and deport illegal immigrants who are legally bound by law. Are these things realistic to you?
Great wall of china is over 10000 miles long, can a 2000 mile wall be built? It would be retarded to claim that it isn't possible now and yes I just called you a retard to suggesting it's not realistic. Now the 2nd part. Can laws be changed? Yes, so this fixes the legally bound part. Can illegal people be deported? Yes, again it can be done. Just because something doesn't seem realistic to you doesn't mean it can't be done.
Yeah, let's dump an astounding debt to triple immigrant agents, and a 2,000-mile-long impenetrable wall along our southern border! That surely won't increase the debt ceiling at all!
Have not done the math and pretty sure neither have you but my guess is that the money US would save from not paying illegals would quickly pay for the wall. Without the math your statements is dogshit.
Should I also mention Trump's interest in war? You know war costs money, right?
This is another pile of dogshit, nothing to reply to.
Source
The guy is clueless.
You my friend are clueless.
In most countries you don't get citizenship unless one of your parent has citizenship and guess what, it works. In my country of origin that's how it works, but if you learn the native language and pass a test on the local laws then you can also apply for citizenship. It's an easier process for minors under 15 years of age.
In conclusion you still rely of fallacies even though that's what I called you out on. Are you brain-damaged or do you purposely debate like this? My bet would be on the latter. Libtards be libtards.
