Post by: Little Joe on June 19, 2016, 06:25:45 AM
Would it be one of the "Good Old Boys"?
Might they choose some prominent businessman? Some outstanding military officer?
Would they stand any chance at all of winning in November?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-consider-conscientious-objector-rule-203718191.html
What kind of repercussions could we expect from such a move?
Post by: Lucifer on June 19, 2016, 06:41:16 AM
Who do you suppose they would nominate?
Would it be one of the "Good Old Boys"?
Might they choose some prominent businessman? Some outstanding military officer?
Would they stand any chance at all of winning in November?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/republicans-consider-conscientious-objector-rule-203718191.html
What kind of repercussions could we expect from such a move?
It would be the final nail in the coffin for the GOP and it would guarantee an easy victory for the democrats.
Post by: JeffDG on June 19, 2016, 07:11:12 AM
So instead of Hillary having a Democrat Congress to deal with that will rubber-stamp all her stuff, she'd have at least some speed bumps.
GOP basically wrote off the White House the moment they had Donnie win the primaries, the question now is, will they do what is needed to save Congress or not?
Post by: nddons on June 19, 2016, 08:06:19 AM
It would be the final nail in the coffin for the GOP and it would guarantee an easy victory for the democrats.What do you care about the GOP? You're no longer a Republican.
Post by: JeffDG on June 19, 2016, 08:17:56 AM
guarantee an easy victory for the democrats.The Trumpkins have already accomplished this part.
Post by: Lucifer on June 19, 2016, 08:20:21 AM
What do you care about the GOP? You're no longer a Republican.
As a registered voter I can vote for whoever I want. While ideologues such as yourself scorn independent voters you fail to realize that the independents often decide elections.
You are a fine example of why the GOP has failed with your mindset. The republicans keep talking about how they want their party to be inclusive but have yet to show it through action.
Post by: nddons on June 19, 2016, 08:23:55 AM
As a registered voter I can vote for whoever I want. While ideologues such as yourself scorn independent voters you fail to realize that the independents often decide elections.
You are a fine example of why the GOP has failed with your mindset. The republicans keep talking about how they want their party to be inclusive but have yet to show it through action.
I know. Republicans just can't give away as much free shit as you liberals would like. It's like catching a greased pig.
Post by: Lucifer on June 19, 2016, 08:29:46 AM
I know. Republicans just can't give away as much free shit as you liberals would like. It's like catching a greased pig.
And like your ideologue liberal counter parts, you resort to using the same tactics when debating such as making up shit.
Go post one thing on here where I have ever advocated wanting free shit from the government. I dare you.
You are such a hypocrite it's unreal.
Post by: nddons on June 19, 2016, 08:38:19 AM
And like your ideologue liberal counter parts, you resort to using the same tactics when debating such as making up shit.
Go post one thing on here where I have ever advocated wanting free shit from the government. I dare you.
You are such a hypocrite it's unreal.
You're clearly not a conservative. You've obviously never fought for the cause of conservative ideals. You have consistently sneered and derided conservatives over the past year. Just like the liberals. You may as well just come out of the closet.
Post by: Lucifer on June 19, 2016, 08:46:48 AM
You're clearly not a conservative. You've obviously never fought for the cause of conservative ideals. You have consistently sneered and derided conservatives over the past year. Just like the liberals. You may as well just come out of the closet.
Again, using the same tactics as the liberal ideologues, which really shows there is very little difference between a conservative ideologue and a liberal ideologue. You are both cut from the same cloth.
Post by: JeffDG on June 19, 2016, 11:28:43 AM
As a registered voter I can vote for whoever I want. While ideologues such as yourself scorn independent voters you fail to realize that the independents often decide elections.Yet you, who cannot understand the difference between a Libertarian and a libertarian, and claim that a libertarian is not permitted to have an opinion about the Republican party, but now you're an independent and anyone can opine. What a fucking hypocrite.
Post by: LevelWing on June 19, 2016, 01:33:05 PM
Like it or not, if the GOP wants the White House, they're going to have to support Trump. I actually think Trump can win but I'm not sure at what cost. If Republicans lose the House and/or the Senate, was it worth it? Even if Republicans retain both houses and get the White House, will Trump actually nominate conservative justices to the Supreme Court? I'm not convinced he will.
Post by: nddons on June 19, 2016, 01:45:33 PM
If Trump is denied the nomination then he'll be replaced by an establishment member of the GOP and it will cost the GOP the election. I tend to think the GOP would be okay with that as long as it allows them to retain their power, which is all some/most of them care about.I predict GOP Senators up for election will just "happen" to be at the opposite end of the state when Trump comes campaigning in that state. Of course the leftist media, but I repeat myself, will be linking Trump with every Republican candidate, and attribute every asinine Trump comment to said candidate.
Like it or not, if the GOP wants the White House, they're going to have to support Trump. I actually think Trump can win but I'm not sure at what cost. If Republicans lose the House and/or the Senate, was it worth it? Even if Republicans retain both houses and get the White House, will Trump actually nominate conservative justices to the Supreme Court? I'm not convinced he will.
These guys will be qualified for Dancing With The Stars after this campaign.
Post by: Little Joe on June 19, 2016, 02:06:26 PM
If Trump is denied the nomination then he'll be replaced by an establishment member of the GOP and it will cost the GOP the election. I tend to think the GOP would be okay with that as long as it allows them to retain their power, which is all some/most of them care about.I am 100% convinced he will nominate much more conservative judges than Hillary will. But I don't think he would nominate anyone as far right as, for instance, Cruz.
Like it or not, if the GOP wants the White House, they're going to have to support Trump. I actually think Trump can win but I'm not sure at what cost. If Republicans lose the House and/or the Senate, was it worth it? Even if Republicans retain both houses and get the White House, will Trump actually nominate conservative justices to the Supreme Court? I'm not convinced he will.
Post by: LevelWing on June 19, 2016, 02:11:47 PM
I am 100% convinced he will nominate much more conservative judges than Hillary will. But I don't think he would nominate anyone as far right as, for instance, Cruz.It doesn't take much to be "more conservative" than Hillary. I want to see actual conservative justices on the Supreme Court and this is another example of how Trump can damage conservatism. Scalia should be the example used when looking to nominate a replacement for him. Clearly Hillary won't go anywhere near that and we all know it. I guess settling is the best we can do at this point.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 19, 2016, 02:23:00 PM
Of course we all understand that she will not be indicted by the current justice department which also says volumes about the state of the country. We really are no better, at this point, than some third world country with a freaking dictator pulling all the strings. Ethics and morality in government are a thing of the past on both side of the aisle. So sad to see it go this way.
Post by: nddons on June 19, 2016, 03:25:17 PM
I am 100% convinced he will nominate much more conservative judges than Hillary will. But I don't think he would nominate anyone as far right as, for instance, Cruz.Why not? Being a "conservative" and all.
That damned Constitution sure gets in the way of despots.
Post by: Anthony on June 20, 2016, 04:51:06 AM
Post by: JeffDG on June 20, 2016, 05:27:56 AM
Trump came out with a list of proposed Supreme Court nominees should he win office. They were ALL excellent, and conservative. I'll see if I can find the list, but he said he would use Scalia as the mold, especially for 2A.And instantly gave himself an "out" that he could appoint anyone.
I'd bet good money that if he was asked to name ONE on his list today that he couldn't do so.
Post by: Anthony on June 20, 2016, 05:41:19 AM
And instantly gave himself an "out" that he could appoint anyone.
I'd bet good money that if he was asked to name ONE on his list today that he couldn't do so.
Pure conjecture on your part. He has a list, why wouldn't he use it. Seen Hillary's list yet?
Post by: JeffDG on June 20, 2016, 05:42:34 AM
Pure conjecture on your part. He has a list, why wouldn't he use it. Seen Hillary's list yet?Why did he release the list and instantly say "I could appoint someone else too"?
Why not just release the list and leave it at that?
Because he wants an "out" to say "Yeah, those were just suggestions" like every single other "policy" he has released.
Post by: Number7 on June 20, 2016, 06:22:45 AM
Trump might slow the collapse a little bit by inexperience but the train is rolling off the cliff thanks to republican and democrat incompetence and disastrous court decisions.
The best we can hope for is a shorter period of civil unrest and prearranged violence against those who actually provided the engines that made our economy operate and pray that less than half the military refuse to engage in open warfare against nonviolent civilians as the collapse causes the government to order confiscation of everything from guns to food supplies, as well as gold and silver.
Post by: Steingar on June 20, 2016, 06:30:00 AM
Post by: Number7 on June 20, 2016, 07:27:32 AM
Doesn't really matter who they put forth for the election so long as they stick to the script. They've already lost the WH and the smart ones know it. Its all about preserving GOP control in the Congress.
(https://scontent.ftpa1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13450279_259449684420103_5585670737831624785_n.jpg?oh=536aabf00c81f31d6a81cccd8a71466f&oe=57D61B3C)
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on June 20, 2016, 11:03:13 AM
I actually think Trump can win
What makes you think that?
Post by: Lucifer on June 20, 2016, 11:15:40 AM
What makes you think that?
What makes you think he can't?
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on June 20, 2016, 11:19:33 AM
What makes you think he can't?See, you really are a closet liberal. ;D That is what they do. Did I say I thought Trump couldn't win? Nope.
Post by: Little Joe on June 20, 2016, 11:24:09 AM
What makes you think that?Cuz she ain't Hillary.
I just know too many Democrats, that as much as they don't like Trump, just don't think they could pull the lever for Hillary.
Of course, I also know a lot of Democrats that will vote for her purely because she is a woman.
Others will vote for her because of her stance on the 2nd.
Many will vote for her strictly because she is a Democrat and as such, is their best bet to have the government take care of them and screw the "rich". (as if she isn't one of the rich).
So I do think Hillary will win. But it isn't a lock, so yes, there is a chance Trump can win.
Post by: asechrest on June 20, 2016, 11:52:43 AM
Cuz she ain't Hillary.
I just know too many Democrats, that as much as they don't like Trump, just don't think they could pull the lever for Hillary.
Of course, I also know a lot of Democrats that will vote for her purely because she is a woman.
Others will vote for her because of her stance on the 2nd.
Many will vote for her strictly because she is a Democrat and as such, is their best bet to have the government take care of them and screw the "rich". (as if she isn't one of the rich).
So I do think Hillary will win. But it isn't a lock, so yes, there is a chance Trump can win.
You're missing a BIG block of Hillary voters: those that couldn't fathom a Trump presidency and so will pull the lever for Hillary as the lesser of two evils. Folks in here like to tout Trump as the not-Hillary vote, but there is an equal but opposite contingent of folks saying the same about Hillary.
Post by: Lucifer on June 20, 2016, 11:58:18 AM
See, you really are a closet liberal. ;D That is what they do. Did I say I thought Trump couldn't win? Nope.
Nice deflection. It's a simple question.
Post by: asechrest on June 20, 2016, 12:03:17 PM
Nice deflection. It's a simple question.
The deflection is yours! You said you think Trump can win, she asked why, you answered with a question. Poor form!
Post by: Lucifer on June 20, 2016, 12:04:37 PM
Cuz she ain't Hillary.
I just know too many Democrats, that as much as they don't like Trump, just don't think they could pull the lever for Hillary.
Of course, I also know a lot of Democrats that will vote for her purely because she is a woman.
Others will vote for her because of her stance on the 2nd.
Many will vote for her strictly because she is a Democrat and as such, is their best bet to have the government take care of them and screw the "rich". (as if she isn't one of the rich).
So I do think Hillary will win. But it isn't a lock, so yes, there is a chance Trump can win.
The Clinton fatigue factor comes into play as well. She is a horrible candidate in that she has no personality, no warmth and it's apparent she is aloof to the common person. Her screeching speeches are hard to listen to. She IS NOT Bill Clinton.
That with her long resume of failure, constant scandals and the infamous Clinton Foundation bring her down as well. She does have the media in her corner portraying her differently, but the mood in this country is beginning to shift away form the fourth estate. Over the past few years of Obama the distrust of the media is growing and people are no longer believing their BS.
Post by: Lucifer on June 20, 2016, 12:09:13 PM
The deflection is yours! You said you think Trump can win, she asked why, you answered with a question. Poor form!
Bullshit. I never said that and you know it.
Level Wing wrote:
Quote
I actually think Trump can win
Becky replied:
Quote
What makes you think that?
And I replied:
Quote
What makes you think he can't?
Very simple question.
Post by: asechrest on June 20, 2016, 12:16:35 PM
Bullshit. I never said that and you know it.
Level Wing wrote:
Becky replied:
And I replied:
Very simple question.
My fault. I thought you were who she originally replied to.
Post by: Lucifer on June 20, 2016, 12:16:47 PM
Post by: nddons on June 20, 2016, 12:53:18 PM
You're missing a BIG block of Hillary voters: those that couldn't fathom a Trump presidency and so will pull the lever for Hillary as the lesser of two evils. Folks in here like to tout Trump as the not-Hillary vote, but there is an equal but opposite contingent of folks saying the same about Hillary.Agreed, and overconfidence by Trump and his followers will be their downfall. He already told me that he doesn't want or need MY vote.
Trump is conducting his campaign messaging 140 characters at a time. Hillary is running anti-Trump ads, while Trump sits on his pile of money with his thumb up his ass.
Does he think the 99% of the press that backs Hillary will give him billions of free advertising like they did during the primary, so he doesn't have to spend his own money?
I saw something that showed both Hillary and Bernie have something like 700 paid people on their campaign staff, and Trump has 50. Is that a plan for winning?
Has Trump said or done ANYTHING since clinching the presumptive nominee position that would work to chip away at his 70% unfavorable rating? Nope! He continues to say stupid shit that most Republicans won't defend, and of course continue to jab Cruz and Jeb. Why? Is that literally all he knows? Why is he even bothering with them?
Does he even want to win? Is he truly a Manchurian candidate? Are his most vocal supporters like lucifer really Manchurian democrats? It sure seems like they are backing the candidate best suited to put Hillary in office.
Post by: Lucifer on June 20, 2016, 01:10:56 PM
Agreed, and overconfidence by Trump and his followers will be their downfall. He already told me that he doesn't want or need MY vote.
Trump is conducting his campaign messaging 140 characters at a time. Hillary is running anti-Trump ads, while Trump sits on his pile of money with his thumb up his ass.
Does he think the 99% of the press that backs Hillary will give him billions of free advertising like they did during the primary, so he doesn't have to spend his own money?
I saw something that showed both Hillary and Bernie have something like 700 paid people on their campaign staff, and Trump has 50. Is that a plan for winning?
Has Trump said or done ANYTHING since clinching the presumptive nominee position that would work to chip away at his 70% unfavorable rating? Nope! He continues to say stupid shit that most Republicans won't defend, and of course continue to jab Cruz and Jeb. Why? Is that literally all he knows? Why is he even bothering with them?
Does he even want to win? Is he truly a Manchurian candidate? Are his most vocal supporters like lucifer really Manchurian democrats? It sure seems like they are backing the candidate best suited to put Hillary in office.
Since you and Jeff are so obsessed with me, I'll answer.
You keep making claims that I'm Trump's most "vocal supporter" but yet you can't back it up. Back in January I stated I was going to support and vote for the winner of the republican nomination, which I am doing. Nothing has changed. Unlike the phony republican candidates who all "pledged" to support the nominee but now have broken that pledge, but hey, who didn't see that coming.
No matter what Trump says, no matter what Trump does it will never satisfy you. You want a career politician to run as president just as long as he uses focus words in well prepared speeches. You want and advocate for the same crap that's been forced down our collective throats for 20+years because that's all you know.
The fourth estate has diminished in this country with the internet. No longer do we have ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN/MSNBC and the various news papers steering elections. Lots of people are seeing the media for what it is and the media elites don't like it, their power is being taken away. This election is going to rewrite the books on many avenues and hopefully for the better.
Post by: Little Joe on June 20, 2016, 01:16:48 PM
I'm voting for Trump because I am angry.
I am angry at the dishonesty, the corruption and the political correctness. I'm angry at politicians that sometimes accidentally say what they mean, but then apologize for it when they realize they offended someone. I'm angry at politicians that make promises that they KNOW they won't be able to keep.
I'm angry at the way the country has been run by both corrupt political parties. I'm angry that Obama was elected, TWICE. I'm angry that Clinton has a chance of continuing Obama's policies for 8 more years.
For those of you that want a more "normal" politician, well, we have had normal politicians for decades. How's that workin out for ya?
Post by: nddons on June 20, 2016, 01:24:25 PM
Ok, I'll say it.I think I could have written that same thing in 1992. Ross Perot was the "angry" vote. He got almost 20 million votes and 19% of the popular vote. And her earned exactly zero electoral votes.
I'm voting for Trump because I am angry.
I am angry at the dishonesty, the corruption and the political correctness. I'm angry at politicians that sometimes accidentally say what they mean, but then apologize for it when they realize they offended someone. I'm angry at politicians that make promises that they KNOW they won't be able to keep.
I'm angry at the way the country has been run by both corrupt political parties. I'm angry that Obama was elected, TWICE. I'm angry that Clinton has a chance of continuing Obama's policies for 8 more years.
For those of you that want a more "normal" politician, well, we have had normal politicians for decades. How's that workin out for ya?
I learned my lesson to follow my brain and not my heart.
Post by: Little Joe on June 20, 2016, 01:31:27 PM
I think I could have written that same thing in 1992. Ross Perot was the "angry" vote. He got almost 20 million votes and 19% of the popular vote. And her earned exactly zero electoral votes.Yeah, but one difference was that Ross Perot was a distant 3rd party with no real chance of winning. 19% was phenomenal for him.
I learned my lesson to follow my brain and not my heart.
Trump is the Republican nominee. As such, he will start out with twice that without campaigning. And there is currently no viable 3rd party to siphon off his votes, unless you count Gary Johnson, but he will also siphon off Democrat votes as well. Maybe more when they find out he runs a marijuana company called "HI". Democrats smoke a lot of dope. (which explains a lot).
Post by: LevelWing on June 20, 2016, 02:14:04 PM
What makes you think that?His ability to tap into the the anger of everyday Americans towards the government and how they're acting goes a long way. Hillary isn't anywhere close to being qualified for office and is being criminally investigated for mishandling classified information. She's taken in millions of dollars from foreign governments for influence within the government, likely in violation of federal laws. Trump has a golden opportunity to tap into all of this if he so chooses, but I don't think he will. I'm not seeing a lot of ads being run by Trump except for some PAC ads. Maybe they just haven't hit where I live yet.
The opportunity is there, it's up to him to do something with it.
Post by: Lucifer on June 20, 2016, 02:19:07 PM
His ability to tap into the the anger of everyday Americans towards the government and how they're acting goes a long way. Hillary isn't anywhere close to being qualified for office and is being criminal investigated for mishandling classified information. She's taken in millions of dollars from foreign governments for influence within the government, likely in violation of federal laws. Trump has a golden opportunity to tap into all of this if he so chooses, but I don't think he will. I'm not seeing a lot of ads being run by Trump except for some PAC ads. Maybe they just haven't hit where I live yet.
The opportunity is there, it's up to him to do something with it.
Timing is everything. Fire off all of your ammunition this early and it gives the other side plenty of time to change the narrative and deflect.
There is roughly 90 days before the campaign needs to go full force.
Post by: JeffDG on June 20, 2016, 04:07:53 PM
See, you really are a closet liberal. ;D That is what they do. Did I say I thought Trump couldn't win? Nope.Well, he supports a New York Liberal Democrat for the Presidency.
Post by: Bob Noel on June 20, 2016, 04:12:00 PM
Well, he supports a New York Liberal Democrat for the Presidency.
What NY Liberal Democrat is running for President?
Post by: JeffDG on June 20, 2016, 04:16:28 PM
What NY Liberal Democrat is running for President?Donald J Trump
Post by: Little Joe on June 20, 2016, 04:22:37 PM
What NY Liberal Democrat is running for President?Can you provide a citation showing that he is a Democrat?
Post by: JeffDG on June 20, 2016, 04:59:48 PM
Can you provide a citation showing that he is a Democrat?Money where his mouth is.
He's given considerable funds to the DNC, Hillary, Pelosi, Reid, and many others. His positions (like his new 2A stance of only security people get guns) are right out of the Dem playbook. His "shut-upery" attitude is Democrat all the way.
Post by: Bob Noel on June 20, 2016, 05:45:22 PM
Can you provide a citation showing that he is a Democrat?
huh? Why are you asking me that question?
Post by: Little Joe on June 20, 2016, 06:12:21 PM
huh? Why are you asking me that question?Sorry. That was intended for Jeff, who is always asking people to cite evidence when they make things up. He said Trump is a Democrat so I was asking for a citaton.
Post by: LevelWing on June 20, 2016, 07:18:36 PM
http://theresurgent.com/donald-trumps-gold-plated-con-just-got-hillary-clinton-elected/
It mentions his tax returns and why he likely doesn't have the cash he claims to as a reason for him not releasing his tax returns. At some point, even Trump's supporters are going to have to acknowledge his flaws and his problem in this campaign. Yes, we're still early but unlike poll numbers, money speaks pretty loudly.
Articles like this help explain why Congressional candidates are distancing themselves from Trump; they want to ensure they have a shot at retaining both houses without being attached to what they perceive to be a sinking ship.
Post by: Lucifer on June 20, 2016, 07:35:10 PM
Interesting article from The Resurgent discussing the cash on hand for Trump vs. Clinton and the cash on hand for the RNC and what Romney had at this point in 2012.
http://theresurgent.com/donald-trumps-gold-plated-con-just-got-hillary-clinton-elected/
It mentions his tax returns and why he likely doesn't have the cash he claims to as a reason for him not releasing his tax returns. At some point, even Trump's supporters are going to have to acknowledge his flaws and his problem in this campaign. Yes, we're still early but unlike poll numbers, money speaks pretty loudly.
Articles like this help explain why Congressional candidates are distancing themselves from Trump; they want to ensure they have a shot at retaining both houses without being attached to what they perceive to be a sinking ship.
The republican congressmen and senators that are worried about reelection need not try to blame Trump, their problem came about before Trump ever emerged.
Also, the fourth estate is desperately trying to remain legitimate and trying to control the narrative. Right now the narrative is Trump's campaign is in trouble and that he has money problems because the previous narratives wasn't working. The fourth estate is thoroughly perplexed that their tried and true techniques that controlled previous politicians are not working with Trump. It's only going to get more bizarre through the summer.
Post by: nddons on June 20, 2016, 07:51:21 PM
The republican congressmen and senators that are worried about reelection need not try to blame Trump, their problem came about before Trump ever emerged.Do you think this information is a fabrication? It is all verifiable due to FEC disclosure requirements.
Also, the fourth estate is desperately trying to remain legitimate and trying to control the narrative. Right now the narrative is Trump's campaign is in trouble and that he has money problems because the previous narratives wasn't working. The fourth estate is thoroughly perplexed that their tried and true techniques that controlled previous politicians are not working with Trump. It's only going to get more bizarre through the summer.
If you don't think he's in trouble with respect to money, you are whistling past the graveyard.
Post by: JeffDG on June 20, 2016, 07:57:03 PM
Do you think this information is a fabrication? It is all verifiable due to FEC disclosure requirements.The FEC is all part of the conspiracy that stretches back not only to the Kennedy assassination and Rafael Cruz, but beyond to the people who placed the birth announcement in the Hawaiian paper when Obama was born because They knew that a Kenyan couldn't be President.
If you don't think he's in trouble with respect to money, you are whistling past the graveyard.
Post by: Lucifer on June 20, 2016, 08:04:55 PM
Do you think this information is a fabrication? It is all verifiable due to FEC disclosure requirements.
If you don't think he's in trouble with respect to money, you are whistling past the graveyard.
As with most "reporting" there is some truth but it becomes convoluted as the writers try to promote their narrative.
But people are easily convinced when their favorite source writes a story and tells them what they want to believe, right or wrong.
Post by: JeffDG on June 20, 2016, 08:07:46 PM
As with most "reporting" there is some truth but it becomes convoluted as the writers try to promote their narrative.Like when Donnie relied on the National Enquirer?
But people are easily convinced when their favorite source writes a story and tells them what they want to believe, right or wrong.
Post by: Dav8or on June 20, 2016, 08:24:06 PM
Post by: Steingar on June 21, 2016, 05:30:25 AM
Then again, perhaps he is the gazilionaire that he says he is and he can kiss off $100 million or so without mortgaging the jet. We'll see. Like I said, a VERY entertaining election season.
Post by: Little Joe on June 21, 2016, 08:04:45 AM
Do you think this information is a fabrication? It is all verifiable due to FEC disclosure requirements.Aren't you one of those that says the FEC is worthless?
If you don't think he's in trouble with respect to money, you are whistling past the graveyard.
Post by: nddons on June 21, 2016, 08:33:34 AM
Aren't you one of those that says the FEC is worthless?No. Where would you get that idea?
Post by: Little Joe on June 21, 2016, 08:37:58 AM
No. Where would you get that idea?When you talk about him not disclosing his tax returns you say all we have is his FEC statement and that is not reliable because it is not verified and it is general in nature.
Post by: nddons on June 21, 2016, 08:42:42 AM
When you talk about him not disclosing his tax returns you say all we have is his FEC statement and that is not reliable because it is not verified and it is general in nature.His personal FEC filings are not verifiable. His federal election campaign organization information certainly is.
Post by: Lucifer on June 21, 2016, 08:46:40 AM
His personal FEC filings are not verifiable. His federal election campaign organization information certainly is.
Along the same lines as when Cruz lied to the FEC about his finances?
Post by: nddons on June 21, 2016, 09:27:15 AM
Along the same lines as when Cruz lied to the FEC about his finances?Shhh. Adults are talking.
Post by: Lucifer on June 21, 2016, 09:29:09 AM
Shhh. Adults are talking.
I'm sorry. I didn't PM you and ask permission. Maybe the forum should make you the moderator so you can delete all postings you disagree with?
Post by: asechrest on June 21, 2016, 09:58:15 AM
I like paella.
Post by: JeffDG on June 21, 2016, 07:47:10 PM
I'm sorry. I didn't PM you and ask permission. Maybe the forum should make you the moderator so you can delete all postings you disagree with?Stay in your safe space where nobody disagrees with your Orange God.
Post by: JeffDG on June 26, 2016, 04:42:45 PM
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/06/21/nearly-half-the-gop-wants-the-convention-to-ditch-the-donald/
Quote
According to a new CNN poll released Tuesday, a full 48 percent of Republicans want to see the party select someone besides Donald J. Trump as its presidential nominee. With recent reports that Trump has failed to set up a competitive presidential campaign -- falling far below Hillary Clinton in staffing, fundraising, and uniting his party -- Republicans seem to be growing anxious about an inexperienced, undisciplined candidate.
Post by: LevelWing on June 26, 2016, 04:50:51 PM
Support for an open convention is growing...there's still time.What good would it do for the GOP to nominate someone else? If they do nominate someone other than Trump that's likely going to anger everyone who did vote for him and they may decide to sit out and the GOP still loses in November, perhaps by an even wider margin.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/06/21/nearly-half-the-gop-wants-the-convention-to-ditch-the-donald/
I'm not a huge fan of Trump but I don't see the logic in this.
Post by: JeffDG on June 26, 2016, 05:25:00 PM
What good would it do for the GOP to nominate someone else? If they do nominate someone other than Trump that's likely going to anger everyone who did vote for him and they may decide to sit out and the GOP still loses in November, perhaps by an even wider margin.Stop flushing the entire party down the drain and provide a draw for people to come out and potentially salvage the Senate.
I'm not a huge fan of Trump but I don't see the logic in this.
Basically, the choice is pretty much President Clinton + Majority Leader Schumer or President Clinton + Majority Leader McConnell. President Clinton was pretty much baked in when Trump won the primaries.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on June 26, 2016, 05:58:59 PM
Post by: Lucifer on June 26, 2016, 06:03:52 PM
Let's see, the party dumps Trump and then he goes for an Independent run and takes a lot of votes with him. If he goes independent the possibility exists that Sanders may decide to do the same and we'll have a five way race.
Not going to happen. Trump is going to be the nominee in spite of all the mental masturbation going on about a contested convention.
First we heard there was no way Trump could get enough delegates to win the nomination and it would be a contested convention. He got the delegates and then some.
Then we heard there would be a forced second or third vote which all of the delegates would gladly dump Trump in hopes of a white night. Not going to happen either.
The election this fall will be between Trump and Clinton and a few independents as usual. In November it will either be Clinton or Trump getting elected.
Post by: LevelWing on June 26, 2016, 06:08:15 PM
Stop flushing the entire party down the drain and provide a draw for people to come out and potentially salvage the Senate.The Senate was at risk before Trump became the presumptive nominee, so nothing there has changed except maybe the situation possibly getting worse. Hillary could still win andthe Republicans could still lose the Senate. Normally I'd be more concerned about losing the House but this time I'm a bit more concerned about the Senate given the potential SCOTUS picks that may occur.
Basically, the choice is pretty much President Clinton + Majority Leader Schumer or President Clinton + Majority Leader McConnell. President Clinton was pretty much baked in when Trump won the primaries.
I still don't see the logic in the GOP picking someone other than Trump. I understand the down ballot concerns, but the GOP picking someone else may signal panic and negative results could happen then, too.
Post by: Dav8or on June 26, 2016, 09:05:16 PM
I still don't see the logic in the GOP picking someone other than Trump. I understand the down ballot concerns, but the GOP picking someone else may signal panic and negative results could happen then, too.
Accept that many in the GOP might actually care about the country. I know, that's not possible, right? There's status quo and there's crazy train to ruin. Trump is that train and many of us see it.
Post by: Bob Noel on June 27, 2016, 04:22:43 AM
Accept that many in the GOP might actually care about the country. I know, that's not possible, right? There's status quo and there's crazy train to ruin. Trump is that train and many of us see it.
correction. the donald and the corrupt doormat are both trains to ruin.
Post by: Steingar on June 27, 2016, 06:07:33 AM
correction. the donald and the corrupt doormat are both trains to ruin.
Yeah, yeah yeah. You said the same thing about the Obominator and we're still all here. Civilization won't end with President Trump or President Clinton. I think candidate Trump is more likely to cost the GOP the Senate than candidate somebody else, and I think I'm not alone in this particular train of reasoning. That said, I myself think a convention revolt is a long shot. But I'll be watching just in case...
Post by: Bob Noel on June 27, 2016, 06:25:00 AM
Yeah, yeah yeah. You said the same thing about the Obominator and we're still all here.
keep MSU
I challenge you to find even just one quote where I "said the same thing about Obominator"
I won't hold my breath waiting. And I suspect that you won't be man enough to admit you were wrong.
Post by: Lucifer on June 27, 2016, 06:38:48 AM
And I suspect that you won't be man enough to admit you were wrong.
Academics never admit to being wrong.
Post by: Little Joe on June 27, 2016, 06:49:42 AM
Accept that many in the GOP might actually care about the country.The fact that I think you are wrong doesn't mean we don't both care about the country.
Post by: Little Joe on June 27, 2016, 06:52:13 AM
Support for an open convention is growing...there's still time.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/06/21/nearly-half-the-gop-wants-the-convention-to-ditch-the-donald/
Quote
According to a new CNN poll released Tuesday, a full 48 percent of Republicans want to see the party select someone besides Donald J. Trump as its presidential nominee.48% is still a minority. Why should we choose a new candidate if only less than half desire it?
Post by: JeffDG on June 27, 2016, 06:53:07 AM
48% is still a minority. Why should we choose a new candidate if only less than half desire it?The convention isn't today. Give Donald time, he's building support for the "Dump" movement every day.
Post by: Little Joe on June 27, 2016, 06:55:14 AM
The convention isn't today. Give Donald time, he's building support for the "Dump" movement every day.If that happens, then so be it. But I think it should be at least 60% or more before they ignore the legal vote.
Post by: JeffDG on June 27, 2016, 06:58:18 AM
If that happens, then so be it. But I think it should be at least 60% or more before they ignore the legal vote.So, Donnie only needs 40 some percent to win, but his opponents need 60% or more to stop him?
I think that as long as the "Dump" support is > than his support, it's fair game.
Post by: Little Joe on June 27, 2016, 06:59:11 AM
So, Donnie only needs 40 some percent to win, but his opponents need 60% or more to stop him?"Donnie" has already won. You are talking about overturning a legal vote.
I think that as long as the "Dump" support is > than his support, it's fair game.
Post by: JeffDG on June 27, 2016, 07:00:09 AM
"Donnie" has already won. You are talking about overturning a legal vote.The vote hasn't happened yet. The delegates at the convention will cast the votes, and Donnie is not inspiring confidence in them.
Post by: Little Joe on June 27, 2016, 07:03:58 AM
The vote hasn't happened yet. The delegates at the convention will cast the votes, and Donnie is not inspiring confidence in them.Yeah you are right. The vote hasn't happened yet. That process we went through where the people expressed their preferences doesn't count for shit. The people don't matter for shit. We should just let the bureaucrats decide for us. And the "delegates" are just political hacks and bureaucrats. I don't recall a single delegate's name on the ballot I submitted.
Post by: JeffDG on June 27, 2016, 07:05:57 AM
Yeah you are right. The vote hasn't happened yet. That process we went through where the people expressed their preferences doesn't count for shit. The people don't matter for shit. We should just let the bureaucrats decide for us. And the "delegates" are just political hacks and bureaucrats. I don't recall a single delegate's name on the ballot I submitted.
So, again, why should Donnie's 40ish% only be overridden by 60%+?
Post by: Little Joe on June 27, 2016, 07:08:15 AM
Again, because a handful of delegates would be overturning a several month process whereby the people voted for Trump.
So, again, why should Donnie's 40ish% only be overridden by 60%+?
Post by: Steingar on June 27, 2016, 07:12:46 AM
keep MSU
I challenge you to find even just one quote where I "said the same thing about Obominator"
I won't hold my breath waiting. And I suspect that you won't be man enough to admit you were wrong.
You are of course correct, and since I was quoting you it certainly must of seemed that way, and you of course have my apologies. The "you" in my statement was of the reflexive sort. It might have been more accurate for me to say "many conservatives predicted ruination with the election of Obama", since many did. And yes, we're still here.
Post by: JeffDG on June 27, 2016, 07:16:25 AM
Again, because a handful of delegates would be overturning a several month process whereby the people voted for Trump.A minority of the people voted for Trump, but for some reason a super-majority must decide to withhold it. Gotcha.
Post by: Little Joe on June 27, 2016, 07:16:29 AM
You are of course correct, and since I was quoting you it certainly must of seemed that way, and you of course have my apologies. The "you" in my statement was of the reflexive sort. It might have been more accurate for me to say "many conservatives predicted ruination with the election of Obama", since many did. And yes, we're still here.Yeah, we are still here.
But because of the hatred, divisiveness, lousy economy, lousy international relations, a deteriorating Middle East situation and a host of toher problems that have occurred under Obama, the people are so pissed off at politicians that we now have Hillary and Trump running for President.
I'd say that proves we as a country are fucked. If Obama was so great, we would be better off than we are.
Post by: Little Joe on June 27, 2016, 07:18:16 AM
A minority of the people voted for Trump, but for some reason a super-majority must decide to withhold it. Gotcha.He won the primary under existing rules. If your guy won and a bunch of political hacks were trying to screw him out of it, you would be on the other side. But I would be supporting him in the same way I am now supporting Trump.
Post by: JeffDG on June 27, 2016, 07:19:25 AM
He won the primary under existing rules. If your guy won and a bunch of political hacks were trying to screw him out of it, you would be on the other side. But I would be supporting him in the same way I am now supporting Trump.The rules for the convention don't exist yet. They will be set by the convention, so there are no "existing rules".
Post by: Little Joe on June 27, 2016, 07:22:08 AM
The rules for the convention don't exist yet. They will be set by the convention, so there are no "existing rules".I am talking about the primary voting that has already occurred. You are talking about the Convention voting, which hasn't happened yet. And you are using your imagined results to back up your convoluted logic.
Post by: JeffDG on June 27, 2016, 07:25:51 AM
I am talking about the primary voting that has already occurred. You are talking about the Convention voting, which hasn't happened yet. And you are using your imagined results to back up your convoluted logic.No, you're trying to claim rules that don't yet exist to demand that some super majority needs to oppose Donnie.
The simple fact is: Donnie got a minority of the vote in the primaries. Period. He barely cracked a majority of votes in states where he was unopposed. He claimed those votes in the main from Democrats, by some estimates as much of 3/4 of his support was Democrats. Why do Democrats get to decide the Republican nominee?
Post by: Steingar on June 27, 2016, 07:55:54 AM
Post by: nddons on June 28, 2016, 03:32:23 PM
Yeah you are right. The vote hasn't happened yet. That process we went through where the people expressed their preferences doesn't count for shit. The people don't matter for shit. We should just let the bureaucrats decide for us. And the "delegates" are just political hacks and bureaucrats. I don't recall a single delegate's name on the ballot I submitted.The "delegates" are the folks who participate in the Republican Party at the state and local level. You should get to know them. One if them may live in your town.
Trump wasn't elected to a single office by way of your "legal" vote. He was basically given a vote of confidence by the minority of Republican voters. That's it.
If you don't like the process, you can work to get it changed in your state. Contact the state GOP.
Post by: Little Joe on June 28, 2016, 06:06:58 PM
No, you're trying to claim rules that don't yet exist to demand that some super majority needs to oppose Donnie.I don't understand that sentence. I just stated my opinion that in order to overturn a legal vote of the people, it should take more than a simple majority of delegates.
The simple fact is: Donnie got a minority of the vote in the primaries. Period. He barely cracked a majority of votes in states where he was unopposed. He claimed those votes in the main from Democrats, by some estimates as much of 3/4 of his support was Democrats. Why do Democrats get to decide the Republican nominee?The fact is that Trump followed the rules and obtained the sufficient votes to secure the nomination. Now, you and others want to change those rules because you don't like the results.
Post by: Little Joe on June 28, 2016, 06:10:08 PM
The "delegates" are the folks who participate in the Republican Party at the state and local level. You should get to know them. One if them may live in your town.The process ran under existing rules, and Trump won the right to claim the nomination.
Trump wasn't elected to a single office by way of your "legal" vote. He was basically given a vote of confidence by the minority of Republican voters. That's it.
If you don't like the process, you can work to get it changed in your state. Contact the state GOP.
The convention is not controlled by my States Republican Committee. And I think it would be a mockery of the system to overturn the results of the primary because a few people don't like the results.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on June 29, 2016, 10:06:44 AM
One's unconscious will not be silenced. ;D
Post by: bflynn on June 29, 2016, 10:36:20 AM
because a few people don't like the results.
Is "a few people" a data source or your opinion?
Post by: Little Joe on June 29, 2016, 10:53:58 AM
Is "a few people" a data source or your opinion?Compared to the millions of voters, a few hundred, or even a couple of thousand, is "a few people".
Post by: nddons on June 30, 2016, 07:45:48 AM
So last night I dreamed I was sitting in an auditorium, in the front row. Donald Trump walked in and sat beside me. In the dream, I thought, "I don't want to be associated with him," and got up and moved.I'm thinking a number of GOP delegates are having the exact same dream as you.
One's unconscious will not be silenced. ;D
Post by: Steingar on June 30, 2016, 07:49:07 AM