10 Questions Republicans and Trump Supporters Definitely Don’t Want to Answer

Every so often I like to put together one of these articles outlining several questions I’d like Republicans (and more recently Donald Trump supporters) to answer. Not that I expect any sort of quality answers from most of these folks, but it is interesting to see the responses I get from those few brave souls who try.



So, let’s get started.

1. If Trump is completely innocent, as he claims, then why is he acting so defensive about the investigations into his presidential campaign and those associated with it? People who are innocent usually don’t worry about investigations aimed at “finding out the truth” because they want people to know the truth — that they’re innocent. 

2. If Hillary Clinton had been elected, then reports surfaced indicating her son-in-law tried to setup a secret line of communication with Russia through their embassy, would you not care? It’s fairly comical the same people who acted like Clinton’s private email server was the biggest scandal in American history have downplayed reports that Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, tried to orchestrate a secret line of communication with the Russian government.

3. Considering Trumpcare plans to gut billions from Medicaid, drastically raise premiums on people 50 and over, and reduce subsidies, can you explain how that’s going to make health care “better, cheaper, and provide more coverage to more people” like Trump promised? This one is pretty self explanatory.

4. If the GOP is the party of “fiscal responsibility,” then why hasn’t a Republican president balanced the budget since the 1950’s? And you can’t blame Democrats for this considering Republicans have controlled most (if not all) of Congress for the majority of the last quarter century.

5. Don’t you find it odd that, of all countries, Russia is the only one which so many of Trump’s associates seem to have gone out of their way to contact secretly? It’s not as if Jared Kushner tried to set up secret lines of communication with other countries, just like Jeff Sessions didn’t disclose his meetings with other ambassadors — just Russia. Of course, aside from his ties to Russia which have been exposed over the last several months, Michael Flynn was also getting paid to make Turkey great again. So there’s that, I guess. 



6. Speaking of secret meetings, if there’s nothing illegal or unethical taking place, why try to keep all these meetings and communications with Russian officials from being known publicly? It seems logical that if there’s nothing to hide, there wouldn’t be any need for Trump’s campaign and transition team to have done their best to hide all these interactions with Russian officials.

7. If Obamacare is so awful for Americans, and Republicans control all of Congress plus the White House, then why didn’t they repeal it months ago? Seriously, if the law is as terrible as Republicans claim, then why are they afraid to do a “full repeal” as they spent years promising to do?

8. How many campaign promises must Trump break before you admit his entire campaign was built on lies? Mexico isn’t paying for the wall, he’s not prosecuting Clinton, Trumpcare isn’t going to provide cheaper, better health care to more Americans, and he’s never going to release his tax returns. You can call that opinion and conjecture if you want, but these were huge campaign promises that Trump made while searching for votes during the election — and it’s plainly obvious that he was full of shit on each and every one of them.

9. Are you really going to claim that if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton refused to release their tax returns; had numerous people around them caught secretly communicating with Russia; bashed U.S. intelligence reports that indicated Russia was behind a cyber attack against the GOP; was “elected” despite losing by 3 million votes; firing the head of the FBI for not putting an end to an investigation into their campaign; tried to obstruct justice by trying to get the now former head of the FBI to end an on-going investigation; and frequently lashed out at the congressional investigations into whether or not they might have committed treason… you’d be okay with all of that? Again, this one pretty much speaks for itself.

10. How many times must Trump call real news “fake” before you all realize practically every time he accuses a story of being fabricated, he’s completely full of crap? You all do realize that Trump doesn’t get to pick and choose what is or isn’t real based upon whether or not a story is positive or negative for him, right? Could’ve fooled me.

Alright folks, that’ll wrap up this list.

Feel free to hit me up on Twitter or Facebook and let me know what you think.




Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • strayaway

    1. “If Trump is completely innocent, as he claims, then why is he acting so defensive about the investigations into his presidential campaign and those associated with it? People who are innocent usually don’t worry about investigations aimed at “finding out the truth” because they want people to know the truth — that they’re innocent.”

    I can’t read minds. However, it seems reasonable for Trump to resist this coup attempt by the establishment, Democrats and Republican alike, and their bought and paid for press. If Jill Stein’s attempt to prove Russia hacked Michigan’s paper ballots failed and instead showed massive irregularities favoring Clinton in Detroit, then move on to trying to threaten electors. If that doesn’t work, try a presstitute narrative based on conjecture, anonymous sources, and anonymous letters. If that doesn’t work, post photos of Melania not holding Trump’s hand or have a CNN celebrity hold Trump’s bloody head. Eventually, maybe, something will click with the public before the public views the media as servile propagandists.

    • Graham Repulski

      This response is worthless. You answered no questions, and provided several weak right wing talking points, and one outright lie about evil boogeyman city Blacktroit.

      Try again.

      • strayaway

        See Detroit Free Press article “Detroit’s election woes: 782 more votes than voters”. You are shallow with facts but thank you for your participation. But let’s go with #2:

        “2. If Hillary Clinton had been elected, then reports surfaced indicating her son-in-law tried to setup a secret line of communication with Russia through their embassy, would you not care? It’s fairly comical the same people who acted like Clinton’s private email server was the biggest scandal in American history have downplayed reports that Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, tried to orchestrate a secret line of communication with the Russian government.”

        Hillary’s son-in-law went bust investing other peoples’ money as a hedge fund manager and I don’t care. Many presidents have had back channels of communication with foreign governments. Nixon negotiated a peace settlement with N. Vietnam using back channel negotiations. Does anyone care whether Nixon set up a back channel or did it himself personally? Probably not. Obama seemed to have had a back channel to Iran when he set up a nuclear arms agreement. That doesn’t bother me. If he had had his son in law set up the back channel to Iran it would have made even less difference. Of course, Kushner seems to have just explored that option whereas Obama actually set one up. I’m ok with that because presidents have the right to negotiate treaties which become law when the Senate passes them with a 2/3 majority.

        Make your choice: detente or McCarthyism 2.0? I support detente.

      • Graham Repulski

        Still an absolutely worthless deflection.

        Some machines not working right in De-(black)-troit, causing a fraction of a percent of irregularities that have since been resolved has nothing to with Trump and co. working with Russia to undermine the United States.

      • strayaway

        Another ‘progressive’ choosing McCarthyism 2.0 over detente. You make my point. There are Russians behind every bush aren’t there? Given that Hillary, Podesta, and the DNC can’t be trusted to secure their own computer information and in Hillary’s case transmit top secret data illegally, there isn’t much reason for Trump to be sharing details with Democrats. Glad to hear that Detroit got its voting machines working so we can sweep Detroit’s fraudulant resluts under the rug by insinuating that criticism of non-working voting machines suggests racism. You mentioned ‘deflection’. It was embarrassing to get caught by Jill Stein of all people.

      • Graham Repulski

        Ah, good one.

        So, back to the actual question – if Trump is completely innocent, as he claims, then why is he acting so defensive about the investigations into his presidential campaign and those associated with it?

        You also didn’t actually answer #2. You just complained about Detroit and insinuated that Obama’s Iran nuclear deal was not entirely above board (hm wonder why!)

        Let me know when you answer any of the questions.

      • strayaway

        Yes, it was such a delight to have had Jill Stein try to prove Russia hacked Michigan’s paper ballots only to discover, instead, a miscount in Trump’s favor due to problems in heavily Democratic Detroit as the Detroit Free Press articulated.

        I did not “insinuated that Obama’s Iran nuclear deal was not entirely above board”. Quite the opposite, I wrote that “Obama seemed to have had a back channel to Iran when he set up a nuclear arms agreement. That doesn’t bother me” and ” I’m ok with that because presidents have the right to negotiate treaties which become law when the Senate passes them with a 2/3 majority.” That’s what the Constitution says. In this case, Obama was within his constitutional rights to work out an agreement with Iran the Senate could accept.

        I liked a comment I read about the coup’s Russian narrative. It described this folly as trying to grasp onto any passing barge. The latest variation is accusing Kushner, a presidential aide, of attempting to broaden lines of communications with Russia. That seems reasonable to me. Especially since Obama, Nixon, and other presidents actually did so. Attempting to do so is different that having done something. This fits my thesis that libs have difficulty comprehending proportionality.

      • Graham Repulski

        Dumb deflection re:Obama. He never lied about trying to carve out a nuclear agreement with Iran. And yet more dumb Detroit (aka BLACK) scare mongering. Still doesn’t answer any of the questions.

        If there’s nothing to hide, why keep lying about it all?

        When you answer a single question, then I will stop calling you a dumb deflector.

      • strayaway

        I didn’t say Obama “lied about trying to carve out a nuclear agreement with Iran.” Again, you are imagining or misinterpreting what you claim to have read. Nice try with the racist line but a little tiring. Bringing Hitler or a racist charges into arguments as a substitute for content is often an admission of defeat. When you get your reading comprehension up to speed, you will find your answer in what I already wrote.

        But let’s move on to #7, instead of getting bogged down with your reading ability. “7. If Obamacare is so awful for Americans, and Republicans control all of Congress plus the White House, then why didn’t they repeal it months ago? Seriously, if the law is as terrible as Republicans claim, then why are they afraid to do a “full repeal” as they spent years promising to do?”

        Republicans and Democrats love campaign contributions from insurance companies. That is a big part of why Republicans came out with Obamacare light which continues to coddle insurance company, lawyers, and bureaucratic profits. As long as Obama was around, Republicans could talk big knowing Obama would veto any move against the (un)ACA. That is also why Democrats who claim to really want single payer health care would rather make similar efforts knowing Trump would veto them. The alternative is to set up single payer plans in blue states but that hasn’t been attempted since (un)ACA bureaucrats essentially made Vermont’s single payer proposal unaffordable under Obama. They all want insurance company dollars. Trump should just let the (un)ACA die a natural death by not bending any more laws or providing more subsidies to keep it afloat like Obama did. Maybe Republicans saw atrophy coming and decided to put their label on another insurance company friendly plan to keep their insurance company campaign contributions rolling in. I’ve got some very practical ideas on how to set up Canadian like single payer state plans if you are interested.

      • Graham Repulski

        I never said you said he lied.

        You brought up Iran.

        Here’s the point: Obama didn’t lie about meeting with Iran. There was a purpose to the meetings. And no need to lie about them.

        I was comparing that, to the lying Trump team, who has lied, covered up and obstructed at every turn.

        if there’s nothing to hide, why hide?

        Single payer is great but has zero to do with Trump’s decades worth of criminality.

      • strayaway

        I quoted you. You said that I wrote that Obama “lied about trying to carve out a nuclear agreement with Iran” but don’t let what you wrote get in the way of your narrative. You are stumbling over even trying to comprehend what you wrote.

        The lack of single payer plans in any blue state does reenforce the point I made about both Republicans and Democrats being beholden to insurance company coffers.

      • Graham Repulski

        I know you quoted me, fuckstick.

        I never said you said Obama lied. But you made the idiotic, brain dead (typical Trumpite) insinuation that Obama’s Iran agreement was equivalent to colluding with Russia, when its obviously not.

        Stop being a brain dead fuck.

        Oh wait. You are.

      • strayaway

        Oh, now it’s “fuckstick” is it? You have blown your facade and shown your true colors or perhaps your upbringing. I did not “insinuation that Obama’s Iran agreement was equivalent to colluding with Russia”. You are living in your fantasies.

      • Graham Repulski

        “If there’s nothing to hide, why hide it?”

        “Well Obama met with Iran.”

      • strayaway

        If you make quotes, e.g. “Well Obama met with Iran.” please link where the quote came from. I couldn’t find that quote in this thread. Did I miss it, is it something you heard elsewhere, or just a thought fragment you had falling asleep?

      • Graham Repulski

        2. If Hillary Clinton had been elected, then reports surfaced indicating her son-in-law tried to setup a secret line of communication with Russia through their embassy, would you not care? It’s fairly comical the same people who acted like Clinton’s private email server was the biggest scandal in American history have downplayed reports that Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, tried to orche strate a secret line of communication with the Russian government.”
        Hillary’s son-in-law went bust investing other peoples’ money as a hedge fund manager and I don’t care. Many presidents have had back channels of communication with foreign governments. Nixon negotiated a peace settlement with N. Vietnam using back channel negotiations. Does anyone care whether Nixon set up a back channel or did it himself personally? Probably not. Obama seemed to have had a back channel to Iran when he set up a nuclear arms agreement. That doesn’t bother me. If he had had his son in law set up the back channel to Iran it would have made even less difference. Of course, Kushner seems to have just explored that option whereas Obama actually set one up. I’m ok with that because presidents ha ve the right to negotiate treaties which become law when the Senate passes them with a 2/3 majority.

      • Graham Repulski

        Any chance you’ll answer question #1?

  • rossbro

    It’s not a ‘Coup attempt’ to try and get information about meetings with America’s top enemy. If nothing happened, give all pertinent info to investigators and get it over with. Nothing to hide? Then stop hiding.

    • strayaway

      Russia is not “America’s top enemy” unless you provoke Russia enough. Remember detente? Since neocons switched parties, Democrats have been acting like McCarthyites. I support detente. You can have your idiotic McCarthyism.