PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: FastEddieB on March 15, 2016, 07:10:53 PM
-
I'm a registered Republican, fiscally conservative and I don't care for Hillary. At all.
But I think this may be a case of "the devil you know", and I would hold my nose and give her my vote as a vote against Trump, more than a vote for her.
How about you?
-
I'm a registered Republican, fiscally conservative and I don't care for Hillary. At all.
But I think this may be a case of "the devil you know", and I would hold my nose and give her my vote as a vote against Trump, more than a vote for her.
How about you?
So you are advocating 4 more years of Obama type policies?
-
No frikking way no how would I ever vote for the lying socialist scumbag Clinton.
-
No frikking way no how would I ever vote for the lying socialist scumbag Clinton.
Understand fully.
-
I wouldn't vote for clinton even with a gun to my head.
-
I'm a registered Republican, fiscally conservative and I don't care for Hillary. At all.
But I think this may be a case of "the devil you know", and I would hold my nose and give her my vote as a vote against Trump, more than a vote for her.
How about you?
Not voting is equivalent to a vote against Trump. It also doesn't mean it's a vote for Hilary.
I will not vote for Hilary Clinton or Bernie Sanders under any circumstances. That said, I don't actually know if I could vote for Trump. I'm not sold on him and I have a lot of concerns with him.
-
Not voting is equivalent to a vote against Trump. It also doesn't mean it's a vote for Hilary.
Since the chances of any individual's vote actually making a difference one way or the other are vanishingly small, I'll go so far as to say one's vote "means" whatever they say it means.
So there! 8)
-
I have never written in a candidate, or voted for anyone not on the GOP ticket, but this time I will likely either write in who I wanted, or possibly just vote Libertarian, or some such nonsense. I can not and will not vote for either Clinton, or Trump.
-
When this year is over, we will have a different GOP. However, I am nearly certain we will have a Clinton presidency. I have wanted to see a woman president, but she would not have been my choice to break that ceiling. I am probably voting Libertarian again.
-
When this year is over, we will have a different GOP. However, I am nearly certain we will have a Clinton presidency. I have wanted to see a woman president, but she would not have been my choice to break that ceiling. I am probably voting Libertarian again.
Then you're voting for Hillary, and 3 - 4 far left, radical, activist SCOTUS judges.
-
When this year is over, we will have a different GOP. However, I am nearly certain we will have a Clinton presidency. I have wanted to see a woman president, but she would not have been my choice to break that ceiling. I am probably voting Libertarian again.
Having a black president did nothing for the black people, if you look at wages, unemployment, incarceration... Nothing has improved. Not sure what having a female president will do for women.
-
Hillary picked up a key endorsement........
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12192975/The-KKK-leader-who-says-he-backs-Hillary-Clinton.html
-
Then you're voting for Hillary, and 3 - 4 far left, radical, activist SCOTUS judges.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is what this election is about. All the protest votes, and third party votes are nothing more than exercises in intellectual masturbation, and a pure waste. By the end of the next presidency we will have a far left leaning Supreme Court that believes the founding documents are outdated and need to be interpreted or modified to reflect "Modern Society", or a court that believes in the words on those documents. There will be only two candidates for the office of the Presidency that will be able to influence that outcome...one will represent Team R and one will represent Team D.
-
I'm a registered Republican, fiscally conservative and I don't care for Hillary. At all.
But I think this may be a case of "the devil you know", and I would hold my nose and give her my vote as a vote against Trump, more than a vote for her.
How about you?
If you just can't bring yourself to vote for Trump, how about at least voting for someone besides Hillary, or write in 'Gimp. But Please don't vote for Hillary to spite Trump.
-
If you just can't bring yourself to vote for Trump, how about at least voting for someone besides Hillary, or write in 'Gimp. But Please don't vote for Hillary to spite Trump.
It's a tough call. I abstained in 2008 on principal. But right now I feel Trump must be stopped in the most effective way possible - the pragmatic view, as it were.
His repeated telling the tale of executing Muslim soldiers with bullets dipped in pig's blood really, really disgusted me. It's also probably not true. We'll need Muslim partners to fight ISIS and across the mideast and the world in general.
I am NOT for coddling radical extremists nor always needing to be politically correct. But this race downhill to barbarism has led to very dark places before, leading otherwise moral people to do really horrific things - the banality of evil and all that.
-
I am concerned that John Kasich has had a psychotic break - he needs to win 112% of the remaining delegates to take the nomination but he keeps talking like it is mere formality.
Literally he has to win every single one of the remaining delegates, and then win some that don't even exist.
Crazy.
'Gimp
-
Who knows what his motivations are. It is kind of weird though. Maybe he is hoping for a brokered convention.
-
I am concerned that John Kasich has had a psychotic break - he needs to win 112% of the remaining delegates to take the nomination but he keeps talking like it is mere formality.
Literally he has to win every single one of the remaining delegates, and then win some that don't even exist.
Crazy.
'Gimp
Maybe he thinks there are superdelegates....
-
Who knows what his motivations are. It is kind of weird though. Maybe he is hoping for a brokered convention.
His purpose is to draw votes away from Cruz, and it's working so far.
-
Here is the most important reason NOT to let the democrats get in the White House in the next general election.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/16/merrick-garland-has-very-liberal-view-gun-rights/
With the replacement of Scalia, the next President may have to appoint 2 to 3 justices.
-
Then you're voting for Hillary, and 3 - 4 far left, radical, activist SCOTUS judges.
What makes you think Trump will give you anything different? Trump is no fan of the constitution. He too would like to see it modified to fit his needs. The constitution is likely an impediment to the goals of a Trump presidency with all it's old fashion rules and division of power stuff.
-
What makes you think Trump will give you anything different? Trump is no fan of the constitution. He too would like to see it modified to fit his needs. The constitution is likely an impediment to the goals of a Trump presidency with all it's old fashion rules and division of power stuff.
You do understand that the President nominates a judge and the senate confirms?
As of now we have a republican majority in both houses, so the chance of a Trump nomination that would by chance be a liberal choice would not get confirmed.
Rush Limbaugh made a comment last week that sums up a lot of the Trump derangement going on and people such as yourself so worried what a Trump presidency would look like.
In essence if Trump was President the democrats AND republicans would be so highly charged about ANYTHING he does or proposes, and any executive order they feel is out of line they will trounce on him immediately. Trump will not enjoy the same leeway that Obama enjoys and get he same pass that the democrats and republicans continue to give him.
It's in his (Limbaugh) program notes from a week ago last Tuesday. He stated it better than I can here.
-
Here is the most important reason NOT to let the democrats get in the White House in the next general election.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/16/merrick-garland-has-very-liberal-view-gun-rights/
With the replacement of Scalia, the next President may have to appoint 2 to 3 justices.
So let me get this straight. At the end of the day, the most important thing to conservatives is the constitution and the preservation of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, yet the majority of conservatives have thrown their support behind Donald Trump and now that it looks likely that there will be a Trump/Clinton face off, we're supposed to think of the constitution and vote for Trump.
If protecting the constitution is the most important thing, why aren't people backing somebody better suited to do that than Donald Trump??!! It sure looks to me like keeping Syrians and Mexicans out of the country, not being PC and flipping the bird to the "establishment" is more important to a majority of conservatives. This "save the Supreme Court" plea now after having chosen the absolute worst guy to do that from among the GOP choices is pathetic.
-
So let me get this straight. At the end of the day, the most important thing to conservatives is the constitution and the preservation of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, yet the majority of conservatives have thrown their support behind Donald Trump and now that it looks likely that there will be a Trump/Clinton face off, we're supposed to think of the constitution and vote for Trump.
If protecting the constitution is the most important thing, why aren't people backing somebody better suited to do that than Donald Trump??!! It sure looks to me like keeping Syrians and Mexicans out of the country, not being PC and flipping the bird to the "establishment" is more important to a majority of conservatives. This "save the Supreme Court" plea now after having chosen the absolute worst guy to do that from among the GOP choices is pathetic.
Isn't it a shame that Cruz is such an unelectable religious dweeb zealot.
-
So let me get this straight. At the end of the day, the most important thing to conservatives is the constitution and the preservation of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, yet the majority of conservatives have thrown their support behind Donald Trump and now that it looks likely that there will be a Trump/Clinton face off, we're supposed to think of the constitution and vote for Trump.
If protecting the constitution is the most importantly thing, why aren't people backing somebody better suited to do that than Donald Trump??!! It sure looks to me like keeping Syrians and Mexicans out of the country, not being PC and flipping the bird to the "establishment" is more important to a majority of conservatives. This "save the Supreme Court" plea now after having chosen the absolute worst guy to do that from among the GOP choices is pathetic.
See my previous post. Also, do a refresher on the three branches of government and checks and balances. See also the constitution.
As to your question of why Trump has gained so much support, the answers are out there.
-
See my previous post. Also, do a refresher on the three branches of government and checks and balances. See also the constitution.
As to your question of why Trump has gained so much support, the answers are out there.
Yes, yes. Checks and balances. ::) So why don't these checks and balances work equally well against Hillary? Why should I give a crap who gets nominated for the SCOTUS if we have this awesome check and balance system in place?
-
Isn't it a shame that Cruz is such an unelectable religious dweeb zealot.
There were more choices than just Trump and Cruz.
-
Yes, yes. Checks and balances. ::) So why don't these checks and balances work equally well against Hillary? Why should I give a crap who gets nominated for the SCOTUS if we have this awesome check and balance system in place?
Hillary will enjoy the same passes given to Obama. Criticize her and be called a bigot, anti feminist or something similar. Obama has played the race card very well to the point the republicans in both houses back away from anything he does in fear of being labeled. The same will be true for Hillary.
Trump will not have the advantage that Obama and Clinton do. In fact it will be just the opposite.
-
There were more choices than just Trump and Cruz.
And where are they? The GOP hand picked a Bush for you to support, and he failed miserably. They had Rubio as their backup, and he couldn't even win his home state.
The GOP has long stated in order to win the WH they would need to reach out and attract more voters from all demographics and even across party lines. They now have done that, but in horror of the candidate that has done it. Now the GOP brain trust is going to sabotage the convention and save everyone with a hand picked candidate. Guess what that will result in? President Hillary.
-
Yes, yes. Checks and balances. ::) So why don't these checks and balances work equally well against Hillary? Why should I give a crap who gets nominated for the SCOTUS if we have this awesome check and balance system in place?
Because the Rs are notoriously bad about "checking" the Ds because they are afraid they will look bad. But D's don't seem to have that worry because all they have to do is promise more free stuff to keep from looking bad.
-
I've yet to receive credible information that Hillary isn't to the right of Trump.
I'll be voting for SMOD.
-
I'll be voting for SMOD.
???
SMOD?
Are you legal to vote in the US yet?
-
???
SMOD?
Are you legal to vote in the US yet?
The Sweet Meteor of Death.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/418998/real-primary-cthulhu-v-smod-jonah-goldberg (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/418998/real-primary-cthulhu-v-smod-jonah-goldberg)
I suggest that for the principled conservative looking to chuck it all in and give up, there’s only one candidate with the credentials and philosophy the times require. I’m referring, of course, to the Sweet Meteor of Death, Smod to his friends. Smod describes himself as a “pre-cambrian conservative.” He has no cultists looking to rule in his name. He doesn’t endorse evil, merely the sweet release of planetary destruction.
-
(http://www.nothinguncut.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/king-kong-vs-godzilla.jpg)
-
It's a tough call. I abstained in 2008 on principal. But right now I feel Trump must be stopped in the most effective way possible - the pragmatic view, as it were.
His repeated telling the tale of executing Muslim soldiers with bullets dipped in pig's blood really, really disgusted me. It's also probably not true. We'll need Muslim partners to fight ISIS and across the mideast and the world in general.
I am NOT for coddling radical extremists nor always needing to be politically correct. But this race downhill to barbarism has led to very dark places before, leading otherwise moral people to do really horrific things - the banality of evil and all that.
Is it better for Hillary to just leave our people to be slaughtered by the Muslim horde in order to continue the masquerade of political "progress" in the ME? Because that's the kind of person you will put in office, whether you vote for her, or abstain.
-
This situation is a stinky pile of Catch 22 crap.
One could say that a President Hillary could, like Obama, be so damaging and dividing that in 2020 the Democratic Party will have to cool its heels for decades to come, as all the hidden Obama crap spews forth under Hillary's ineffectual leadership. Because she is not a leader, and will serve herself first.
But such a sunny scenario depends on the Republicans bringing forth a REAL LEADER in 2020 who can GET ELECTED.
"Bringing forth" is an ACTION. Sitting around waiting for whoever decides to run? So how's that working?
Trump is an unknown, really, who probably should have run as a Democrat. No disagreement there. But how is a thinking person to feel comfortable with choosing him over a known like Hillary? She is as obvious as water. Trump is murky and, no matter how you slice it, not going to beat Hillary because in the end, people go for what they KNOW. The devil you know, and all that.
-
Trump is an unknown, really, who probably should have run as a Democrat. No disagreement there. But how is a thinking person to feel comfortable with choosing him over a known like Hillary? She is as obvious as water. Trump is murky and, no matter how you slice it, not going to beat Hillary because in the end, people go for what they KNOW. The devil you know, and all that.
I totally disagree. People, even Democrats want change from the hate America first mantra that Obama/Clinton has given us. I think Trump represents that change and is electable. More so than Cruz, Kasich or Rubio.
-
This situation is a stinky pile of Catch 22 crap.
One could say that a President Hillary could, like Obama, be so damaging and dividing that in 2020 the Democratic Party will have to cool its heels for decades to come, as all the hidden Obama crap spews forth under Hillary's ineffectual leadership. Because she is not a leader, and will serve herself first.
But such a sunny scenario depends on the Republicans bringing forth a REAL LEADER in 2020 who can GET ELECTED.
"Bringing forth" is an ACTION. Sitting around waiting for whoever decides to run? So how's that working?
Trump is an unknown, really, who probably should have run as a Democrat. No disagreement there. But how is a thinking person to feel comfortable with choosing him over a known like Hillary? She is as obvious as water. Trump is murky and, no matter how you slice it, not going to beat Hillary because in the end, people go for what they KNOW. The devil you know, and all that.
Do you remember those people jumping from the towers on 9/11 because of the fires behind them? They chose the unknown results of jumping, and possibly landing in a net, than to suffer the known pain and death of the fire.
-
Then you're voting for Hillary, and 3 - 4 far left, radical, activist SCOTUS judges.
You could as easily say that I am voting for Trump on that logic.
The GOP is being stupid by refusing to confirm the moderate judge that Obama announced as his nominee. They run too great a risk of losing the Senate and the WH. If that happens, you can guarantee that Hillary will nominate someone far to the left and the Senate will cram it down the GOP's throat. Better a moderate than a liberal. But then the GOP has not been able to smell the coffee for a long time, hence Trump.
-
Is it better for Hillary to just leave our people to be slaughtered by the Muslim horde in order to continue the masquerade of political "progress" in the ME?
Hyperbole. It's a thing.
-
That Judge is on record as being anti-second-amendment. NO Thanks.
-
I'm half inclined to see the Hildebeast (Does that make me a misogynist? Sure hope so) win the WH in order to let her deal with all of the current WH occupant's dealings the previous 8 years. The ACA is a house of cards which will collapse shortly and it may be better to have a D in the WH to deal with the disaster which will all but guarantee a R in the WH for the foreseeable future. Just a thought. And no, I can't vote for the Hildebeast.
-
Asked on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” who he talks with consistently about foreign policy, Trump responded, “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-foreign-policy-adviser-220853#ixzz436H25xU9
Jesus. Trump vs. Hillary really would be the lesser of two. Sigh.
-
And where are they? The GOP hand picked a Bush for you to support, and he failed miserably. They had Rubio as their backup, and he couldn't even win his home state.
I can't help the fact that conservatives have chosen to get all emotional and vote angry. I'm in California, so I never get a say, but don't expect me to just suck it up and step in line behind the douche bag Trump just because everybody's doing it. I believe Trump would be an absolute disaster as POTUS. If Cruz somehow manages to upset Trump's lead, I will then more seriously consider him, but Trump is a non starter. I think I would rather have Hillary, but I will not be voting for her either.
-
I can't help the fact that conservatives have chosen to get all emotional and vote angry. I'm in California, so I never get a say, but don't expect me to just suck it up and step in line behind the douche bag Trump just because everybody's doing it. I believe Trump would be an absolute disaster as POTUS. If Cruz somehow manages to upset Trump's lead, I will then more seriously consider him, but Trump is a non starter. I think I would rather have Hillary, but I will not be voting for her either.
Mostly, I think we are just out of luck. Neither Hillary, Trump, or Cruz is palatable and the latter two can't win. Hillary is probably the lesser of the evils, but it is a depressing thought. Cruz would probably be as bad as Trump as he is not a leader. He is an ideologue hated by both parties. The only thing good that would come from a Cruz nomination is that his defeat would once and for all put to death the myth that there is a silent majority of voters who are willing to embrace a right-wing ideologue as long as he is right-wing enough.
-
I was one of the two (so far) who said they'd vote for Hillary.
That's not for sure. Maybe if people stayed away from the polls en masse, it might send a message that none of the choices were palatable.
But the thought of a President Trump brings out my desire for the most practical way to avoid that.
Decisions, decisions...
-
preservation of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment
Has the Constitution been rewritten lately that there is now a non-original intent?
-
You could as easily say that I am voting for Trump on that logic.
The GOP is being stupid by refusing to confirm the moderate judge that Obama announced as his nominee. They run too great a risk of losing the Senate and the WH. If that happens, you can guarantee that Hillary will nominate someone far to the left and the Senate will cram it down the GOP's throat. Better a moderate than a liberal. But then the GOP has not been able to smell the coffee for a long time, hence Trump.
So the GOP Senate should sacrifice the Second Amendment by confirming a judge who sounds like he would have voted with the minority in Heller, just so they can secure reelection?
That's the lack of principles that got us the current GOP establishment.
If you think the electorate will moderate in attacking GOP Senate incumbents because they confirm a moderate judge for Obama, I've got a bridge to sell you.
-
Maybe if people stayed away from the polls en masse, it might send a message that none of the choices were palatable.
If only a dozen people showed up for a national election the parties could care less. All they care is their candidate get the majority, whether it's 50 million votes or 50.
Decisions, decisions
I've been reading what you are writing, and honestly I keep seeing you trying to justify your vote for Clinton.
If you don't vote, you are helping the democrats retain control. If you vote for Clinton you are helping democrats retain control. If you vote 3rd party or write in, you are helpin democrats retain control.
-
If only a dozen people showed up for a national election the parties could care less. All they care is their candidate get the majority, whether it's 50 million votes or 50.
I've been reading what you are writing, and honestly I keep seeing you trying to justify your vote for Clinton.
If you don't vote, you are helping the democrats retain control. If you vote for Clinton you are helping democrats retain control. If you vote 3rd party or write in, you are helpin democrats retain control.
Ya missed one: If you vote for Trump, you help the Democrats retain control.
-
I've been reading what you are writing, and honestly I keep seeing you trying to justify your vote for Clinton.
If you don't vote, you are helping the democrats retain control. If you vote for Clinton you are helping democrats retain control. If you vote 3rd party or write in, you are helpin democrats retain control.
But a vote for Trump is a vote for someone who enjoys telling a tale of prisoners executed with bullets dipped in pig's blood. Who wants to go much farther than water boarding. And so on.
I just feel like I've seen this movie before.
I will likely vote in the manner most likely to deny him the White House. As I said in my OP, holding my nose the entire time, if necessary.
-
I'd vote twice for Bozo "You don't say" Schultz before I'd cast a ballot for that criminal, carpetbagging, Mao-jacket wearing, barking, coughing, cackling, cankley old harpy from Little Rock.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQmTDlXUkAAviXW.jpg)
-
If only a dozen people showed up for a national election the parties could care less. All they care is their candidate get the majority, whether it's 50 million votes or 50.
I've been reading what you are writing, and honestly I keep seeing you trying to justify your vote for Clinton.
If you don't vote, you are helping the democrats retain control. If you vote for Clinton you are helping democrats retain control. If you vote 3rd party or write in, you are helpin democrats retain control.
And what he's saying is, he would rather have Hillary in the White House than Trump. If the senate remains as it is, Hillary will be no more effective than Obama. I think I too would rather have that than Trump. Four more years of stalemate and try again. Yeah, there's the SCOTUS appointments, but again the Senate can block if they have to and even if they cave in, I'm not convinced it would be any better choices with Trump.
-
Has the Constitution been rewritten lately that there is now a non-original intent?
Oh brother. Well, I guess since it hasn't been rewritten there's no problem with whoever gets elected, or whoever Obama nominates.
-
And what he's saying is, he would rather have Hillary in the White House than Trump. If the senate remains as it is, Hillary will be no more effective than Obama. I think I too would rather have that than Trump. Four more years of stalemate and try again. Yeah, there's the SCOTUS appointments, but again the Senate can block if they have to and even if they cave in, I'm not convinced it would be any better choices with Trump.
I am. Any resistance to Hitlery will be met with cries of being anti-woman bigots.
Resisting Orange Julius won't be as hard, because as of today, being an orange male is not a protected class.
-
So the GOP Senate should sacrifice the Second Amendment by confirming a judge who sounds like he would have voted with the minority in Heller, just so they can secure reelection?
That's the lack of principles that got us the current GOP establishment.
If you think the electorate will moderate in attacking GOP Senate incumbents because they confirm a moderate judge for Obama, I've got a bridge to sell you.
They need to play the odds. What are the chances that they get someone more attached to the Second Amendment? I would give it an 80% chance that Hillary is the next president. What do you think that chances are of her nominating a conservative? If you think it is anything other than zero, you haven't been paying attention. You probably also have at least 25% chance that the Dems will capture the Senate. If that happens, you will very likely have Hillary nominate someone who is far, far to the left and someone who is young, so will be on the Court for 30+ years. I don't want to take that risk for ideological purity. But then, I am a realist.
Even if Trump wins, there is no guarantee who he will nominate. He could go liberal too. On top of that, we don't know that Judge Garland would be anti-Second Amendment, or to what degree. We are just guessing as his previous votes were either procedural or didn't directly speak to the issues, as far as I can tell.
The problem with being an ideologue is that you have to have 51% ideologue to win. If you don't have 51%, you have to compromise from time to time and get the best you can. I see no evidence that right wing ideologues are a majority in this country. If the hard right conservatives split the GOP, and cannot come up with a majority themselves, they will hand everything to the Dems and it will be Katie-bar-the-door. Creeping socialism will be coming at us in a flood.
-
If the senate remains as it is, Hillary will be no more effective than Obama. I think I too would rather have that than Trump.
Obama has not been effective? Where have you been the last 7 years?
He's pushed through Obamacare against the will of the people. He's selected 2 liberals to the Supreme Court without challenge. He has increased government spending and borrowing unimpeded. He has relaxed immigration laws and has under his watch increased the illegal aliens into this country. And on, and on, and on.
And he's done it playing the race card against the republicans. If you want a Hillary, be prepared for her to use the same playbook.
-
Obama has not been effective? Where have you been the last 7 years?
He's pushed through Obamacare against the will of the people. He's selected 2 liberals to the Supreme Court without challenge. He has increased government spending and borrowing unimpeded. He has relaxed immigration laws and has under his watch increased the illegal aliens into this country. And on, and on, and on.
And he's done it playing the race card against the republicans. If you want a Hillary, be prepared for her to use the same playbook.
"effective" usually connotes positive results. In that light, obama hasn't been effective. he has been destructive.
-
-
Good advertising! Comparing Hillary to a small dog. Great way to win over the 52% of the voters. If Trump is going to rely on tone-deaf morons to run his campaign, Hillary will mop up the country with his comb-over.
-
Good advertising! Comparing Hillary to a small dog. Great way to win over the 52% of the voters. If Trump is going to rely on tone-deaf morons to run his campaign, Hillary will mop up the country with his comb-over.
In case you missed it, Hillary actually did the barking. That isn't dubbed. Oh, she was attacking Republicans when she did it...
-
Good advertising! Comparing Hillary to a small dog. Great way to win over the 52% of the voters. If Trump is going to rely on tone-deaf morons to run his campaign, Hillary will mop up the country with his comb-over.
He's trying to grow his poll numbers.
Over 50% of women already have a "very unfavourable" view of Mr Trump, and he's working to build on that.
Remember last time he attacked a female competitor? He backed down to Carly pretty quick.
-
In case you missed it, Hillary actually did the barking. That isn't dubbed. Oh, she was attacking Republicans when she did it...
I did miss it, but so too will have a lot of women voters as the vast majority have not seen that little clip. This will not play well for Trump in Peoria, notwithstanding.
-
I did miss it, but so too will have a lot of women voters as the vast majority have not seen that little clip. This will not play well for Trump in Peoria, notwithstanding.
I doubt Trump even considers the women's vote. He has built his entire campaign on pandering to the angry white man. So far it has served him very well and his base will love this ad. Come the general election though... he will have to completely change his image if he wants to win.
-
They need to play the odds. What are the chances that they get someone more attached to the Second Amendment? I would give it an 80% chance that Hillary is the next president. What do you think that chances are of her nominating a conservative? If you think it is anything other than zero, you haven't been paying attention. You probably also have at least 25% chance that the Dems will capture the Senate. If that happens, you will very likely have Hillary nominate someone who is far, far to the left and someone who is young, so will be on the Court for 30+ years. I don't want to take that risk for ideological purity. But then, I am a realist.
Pure speculation on your part with no data to back it up. Don't bother citing me polls 8 months out, either. I will gladly support the Senate in not confirming Judge Garland until the next President is elected. Your attempt to rationalize why the Republicans should confirm him only shows your liberal bias. There's a few cases in which people may or may not care how SCOTUS rules but the 2nd Amendment is one that is non-negotioable. We all knew President Obama was going to nominate a far left wing ideologue and he did exactly that.
-
I doubt Trump even considers the women's vote. He has built his entire campaign on pandering to the angry white man. So far it has served him very well and his base will love this ad. Come the general election though... he will have to completely change his image if he wants to win.
So why do you think other demographics (moderate republicans, moderate democrats, evangelicals) are supporting him as well? Or all of them "angry white men" as well?
BTW, the latest DNC talking points is pushing the term "angry white men" as well. Good job.
-
Pure speculation on your part with no data to back it up. Don't bother citing me polls 8 months out, either. I will gladly support the Senate in not confirming Judge Garland until the next President is elected. Your attempt to rationalize why the Republicans should confirm him only shows your liberal bias. There's a few cases in which people may or may not care how SCOTUS rules but the 2nd Amendment is one that is non-negotioable. We all knew President Obama was going to nominate a far left wing ideologue and he did exactly that.
There is no particular evidence of how Garland would rule on 2nd Amendment cases.
-
There is no particular evidence of how Garland would rule on 2nd Amendment cases.
The fact that the President nominated a far left wing ideologue is evidence enough. I've never seen a liberal ideologue who was liberal on everything but pro-2nd Amendment.
-
The fact that the President nominated a far left wing ideologue is evidence enough. I've never seen a liberal ideologue who was liberal on everything but pro-2nd Amendment.
There is no particular evidence that he's a far left ideologue.
-
There is no particular evidence that he's a far left ideologue.
Incorrect:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/us/politics/garland-supreme-court-nomination.html?_r=0
-
I wouldn't vote for clinton even with a gun to my head.
I wonder how far off that day is... The progressive (communist) democrat party is embracing all kinds of totalitarianism and their merry band of screw ups are loving it.
-
Incorrect:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/16/us/politics/garland-supreme-court-nomination.html?_r=0
Correct:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/17/how-liberal-is-merrick-garland/
Left of Scalia? Probably. A "far left idealogue"? No evidence.
-
I doubt Trump even considers the women's vote. He has built his entire campaign on pandering to the angry white man. So far it has served him very well and his base will love this ad. Come the general election though... he will have to completely change his image if he wants to win.
I doubt Trump has it in him to change, but even if he does, he will have a lot to undo.
-
Pure speculation on your part with no data to back it up. Don't bother citing me polls 8 months out, either. I will gladly support the Senate in not confirming Judge Garland until the next President is elected. Your attempt to rationalize why the Republicans should confirm him only shows your liberal bias. There's a few cases in which people may or may not care how SCOTUS rules but the 2nd Amendment is one that is non-negotioable. We all knew President Obama was going to nominate a far left wing ideologue and he did exactly that.
You claim I have provided no data, yet you claim in the next breath that you would not believe any data anyway. However, that is rather moot as it was an opinion. My opinion! You don't have to have that opinion.
IMO, the GOP is making themselves look foolish to the general electorate and increasing the chances of losing control of the Senate. If the GOP loses the Senate, I would expect Obama to withdraw Garland's name. If Clinton wins, he will let her nominate someone who is clearly left wing. If Trump wins and the GOP loses the Senate, there will be a two week window between when the new Senate is sworn in and Obama leaves office. Guess what he and the Senate will be doing on those two weeks.
Garland is nowhere near a left wing ideologue. Some professor's theory dreamed up in hopes of making tenure or whatever, based only one what president appoints, is not much evidence. I will remind you that Bush nominated Roberts and Eisenhower nominated Warren. If you had read down further in your NYTimes article you would have noted this statement made by Garland years ago. In a 1995 confirmation hearing, Judge Garland explained his belief that “judges do not have roving commissions to solve societal problems. The role of the court is to apply law to the facts of the case before it.” He has also stated that the death penalty is settled law. While you are at it, you might explain who he got so many Republican votes for his seat on the D.C. Circuit if he is a left wing ideologue.
My concern is that I don't want a left wing ideologue and I particularly don't want a young, left wing ideologue. However, since I am not a right wingnut, I can accept the less worse option even though it is not exactly want I was hoping for. At least Garland is old, so whatever he turned out to be, we are not stuck with him for 30+ years.
-
You claim I have provided no data, yet you claim in the next breath that you would not believe any data anyway. However, that is rather moot as it was an opinion. My opinion! You don't have to have that opinion.
Polls 8 months out mean little, if anything. Not to mention that neither party has official nominees yet (though it's starting to look like we do).
IMO, the GOP is making themselves look foolish to the general electorate and increasing the chances of losing control of the Senate. If the GOP loses the Senate, I would expect Obama to withdraw Garland's name. If Clinton wins, he will let her nominate someone who is clearly left wing. If Trump wins and the GOP loses the Senate, there will be a two week window between when the new Senate is sworn in and Obama leaves office. Guess what he and the Senate will be doing on those two weeks.
Why is the GOP making themselves look foolish? Because they won't hold hearings and an up or down vote? I can argue that one either way but we can start with the simple fact that they are under no Constitutional obligation to do so. They're already starting to push back by citing the "Biden Rule", etc.
Garland is nowhere near a left wing ideologue. Some professor's theory dreamed up in hopes of making tenure or whatever, based only one what president appoints, is not much evidence. I will remind you that Bush nominated Roberts and Eisenhower nominated Warren. If you had read down further in your NYTimes article you would have noted this statement made by Garland years ago. In a 1995 confirmation hearing, Judge Garland explained his belief that “judges do not have roving commissions to solve societal problems. The role of the court is to apply law to the facts of the case before it.” He has also stated that the death penalty is settled law. While you are at it, you might explain who he got so many Republican votes for his seat on the D.C. Circuit if he is a left wing ideologue.
I actually did read that. That doesn't mean that he won't push the court to be more progressive.
My concern is that I don't want a left wing ideologue and I particularly don't want a young, left wing ideologue. However, since I am not a right wingnut, I can accept the less worse option even though it is not exactly want I was hoping for. At least Garland is old, so whatever he turned out to be, we are not stuck with him for 30+ years.
Nor am I a "right wing nut", as you say. I don't think the Republicans are in danger of losing either house and I'm really not interested in hearing why they should confirm this guy. When Chuck Schumer, Vice President Biden (then Senator Biden) and then Senator Obama all say at varying times how Republican nominees shouldn't be confirmed during an election year, I'm not really interested in hearing from liberals why Republicans should do this. I have yet to hear a single argument that sways my opinion. The argument of "he could be a lot more liberal and if Republicans don't win the White House then it will be a more liberal nominee" holds about as much water with me as saying that refusing to vote for Trump (should he be the nominee) is the same as voting for Hilary.
Further, if the President is using Judge Garland as a pawn, knowing ahead of time that he is not likely to be confirmed then I would hope Judge Garland wouldn't have accepted the nomination. It's a potential win-win for the President regardless of the outcome.
-
How'd we go from proclaiming Garland is a far left ideologue to now just nudging the court more progressive? Hope ya got backup lights.
-
I doubt Trump even considers the women's vote. He has built his entire campaign on pandering to the angry white man. So far it has served him very well and his base will love this ad. Come the general election though... he will have to completely change his image if he wants to win.
Went to a Trump meetup last night. At least half of the 150 people who showed up, and the most outspoken in support of Trump, were women. And they were definitely angry.
Oh yeah, these two look like angry white males:
http://www.diamondandsilkinc.com/
-
We can agree that this is a win-win for Obama. The only way for the GOP to have come out of this smelling a bit more like a rose, IMO, would have been to announce that they were just sandbagging Obama to get him to put up someone qualified and then go ahead and have hearings. They should have dragged it out until they had a better idea of what the election was going to look like and then decide whether Garland was the lesser of other potential evils.
If you don't like may opinions, feel free not to read them or respond.
-
We can agree that this is a win-win for Obama. The only way for the GOP to have come out of this smelling a bit more like a rose, IMO, would have been to announce that they were just sandbagging Obama to get him to put up someone qualified and then go ahead and have hearings. They should have dragged it out until they had a better idea of what the election was going to look like and then decide whether Garland was the lesser of other potential evils.
I agree that the Republicans shouldn't have come out immediately saying they won't approve any nominee. I think they could have put out some better messages and shaped this better. That being said, I don't disagree with them, either. Again, see the statements of Schumer, Biden and then Senator Obama, among others.
If you don't like may opinions, feel free not to read them or respond.
Isn't that the point of this message board? :D
-
We can agree that this is a win-win for Obama. The only way for the GOP to have come out of this smelling a bit more like a rose, IMO, would have been to announce that they were just sandbagging Obama to get him to put up someone qualified and then go ahead and have hearings. They should have dragged it out until they had a better idea of what the election was going to look like and then decide whether Garland was the lesser of other potential evils.
If you don't like may opinions, feel free not to read them or respond.
They can always drag it out until the election, and if Hillary wins, confirm him in the lame-duck session to deny her the seat.
That said, even if the Senate approves him, POTUS can still choose not to appoint him. Just because the Senate has granted its advice and consent, does not obligate POTUS to appoint. Nomination, Advice-and-Consent, and Appointment are 3 separate actions, two of which are made by POTUS.
-
So why do you think other demographics (moderate republicans, moderate democrats, evangelicals) are supporting him as well? Or all of them "angry white men" as well?
BTW, the latest DNC talking points is pushing the term "angry white men" as well. Good job.
Yes. You can be an angry white guy and have differing political persuasions and religious beliefs. However a review of Trump rally photos does want to make alter my view.
(http://www.nationofchange.org/2015/wp-content/uploads/trump-rally.jpg)
(http://renegadetribune.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/gettyimages-484797712-trump-alabama-rally-800x445.jpg)
(http://meredithaz.images.worldnow.com/images/8291225_G.jpg)
Perhaps it should be angry white people. There do appear to be a number of women that have drunk the Kool Aid as well.
-
I doubt Trump has it in him to change, but even if he does, he will have a lot to undo.
I don't think so either. He has been pretty consistent for decades. Make declarations and promises and then go back on them. Demand rules be applied to others, but not himself. Politically swing back and forth, however it suits him. Value money over all else. Compete to win no matter what the cost, consequences, or morality. Demean people he views beneath him.
How people actually think this guy would be good for America is so beyond me I can't understand.
-
With Clinton it will be another 4 years of Obama policies and all that crap. With Trump it'll be a circus show---hard to see which is the lesser of evils.
-
Yes. You can be an angry white guy and have differing political persuasions and religious beliefs. However a review of Trump rally photos does want to make alter my view.
Perhaps it should be angry white people. There do appear to be a number of women that have drunk the Kool Aid as well.
Those people don't look angry either. But they do look excited that we finally have a chance to have a President that actually cares about the country and improving the lives of everyone.
-
Make declarations and promises and then go back on them. Demand rules be applied to others, but not himself. Politically swing back and forth, however it suits him. Value money over all else. Compete to win no matter what the cost, consequences, or morality. Demean people he views beneath him.
How people actually think this guy would be good for America is so beyond me I can't understand.
Are we talking about Obama here? ::)
-
Are we talking about Obama here? ::)
hillary.
-
Are we talking about Obama here? ::)
What does it say about Trump that you feel the descriptions are interchangeable? :o
-
What does it say about Trump that you feel the descriptions are interchangeable? :o
Not interchangeable.
Just misapplied.
I remember when the "Establishment Rs" were saying the same things about Reagan. Not that I think that Trump is = Reagan. Just that the establishment is afraid of someone they can't control so they mock and disparage them.
Perhaps some of the things Jeff and Stan are saying about Trump are true. But they don't know for sure what he will do any more than I do. They just know they like Cruz so they must hate Trump. In other words, "politics as usual", which is what some of us want to escape from.
-
Trump is the establishment. He's built and funded the establishment from both parties.
Now he's playing his supporters like a fiddle.
-
Trump is the establishment. He's built and funded the establishment from both parties.
Now he's playing his supporters like a fiddle.
I guess it depends on how you define the word "the"!
According to my definition, "the" establishment is scared to death of Trump because he knows how corrupt they are, which is why he was able to use that to his advantage. Is that a bad thing? Maybe; maybe not. I don't think so. I think "the" establishment needs a little fear thrown their way.
-
I guess it depends on how you define the word "the"!
According to my definition, "the" establishment is scared to death of Trump because he knows how corrupt they are, which is why he was able to use that to his advantage. Is that a bad thing? Maybe; maybe not. I don't think so. I think "the" establishment needs a little fear thrown their way.
Trump knows how corrupt the Establishment is because he did the corrupting. Their only fear is that they'll be cut out as the middle-man.
-
Not interchangeable.
Just misapplied.
I remember when the "Establishment Rs" were saying the same things about Reagan. Not that I think that Trump is = Reagan. Just that the establishment is afraid of someone they can't control so they mock and disparage them.
Perhaps some of the things Jeff and Stan are saying about Trump are true. But they don't know for sure what he will do any more than I do. They just know they like Cruz so they must hate Trump. In other words, "politics as usual", which is what some of us want to escape from.
Hate Trump? No.
But as I've explained before, when I put together my model of the perfect Conservative, Constitutionalist candidate, Trump doesn't even appear on the radar.
The only think I respect, and what a GOP candidate will need to overcome the knee-pad wearing liberal press, is his marketing ability.
Beyond that, "Conservative" and "Constitutionalist" doesn't even register for Trump.
-
I guess it depends on how you define the word "the"!
According to my definition, "the" establishment is scared to death of Trump because he knows how corrupt they are, which is why he was able to use that to his advantage. Is that a bad thing? Maybe; maybe not. I don't think so. I think "the" establishment needs a little fear thrown their way.
On that we agree.
-
Trump knows how corrupt the Establishment is because he did the corrupting. Their only fear is that they'll be cut out as the middle-man.
Exactly.
-
Trump knows how corrupt the Establishment is because he did the corrupting. Their only fear is that they'll be cut out as the middle-man.
Cause and effect? Which is which?
Politicians have been corrupt since way before Trump learned to use the system that was in place.
-
With Clinton it will be another 4 years of Obama policies and all that crap. With Trump it'll be a circus show---hard to see which is the lesser of evils.
No kidding. Can you imagine the remodel the White House will get?? That place will look like a Vegas bordello when Trump gets done. You know he can't help but rebuild the place in his image and with his money, which he will remind you of at least 100 times.
-
Cause and effect? Which is which?
Politicians have been corrupt since way before Trump learned to use the system that was in place.
I find it difficult for Trump to have rolled in the same shit as the politicians, and then claim to smell like a rose.
Is he more pure because he was doing the buying instead of the selling?
-
I find it difficult for Trump to have rolled in the same shit as the politicians, and then claim to smell like a rose.
Is he more pure because he was doing the buying instead of the selling?
Yes.
He used the system that was in place. That is no different than businesses that use legitimate tax law and then have the libs complain about "loopholes" and tax cheats. Were any of his contributions illegal?
Politicians that accept "donations" (bribes) and dispense favors in return are the disease that we need to exorcise.
-
Those people don't look angry either. But they do look excited that we finally have a chance to have a President that actually cares about the country and improving the lives of everyone.
Oh man! That must be some sweet tasting Kool Aid!! Do you actually believe what you typed? In business you can have many "do overs", but with the US of A, not so much. Ask the folks in Atlantic city about his caring.
http://www.wnyc.org/story/trump-gone-atlantic-city-far-forgotten/ (http://www.wnyc.org/story/trump-gone-atlantic-city-far-forgotten/)
-
Are we talking about Obama here? ::)
Yes, you can apply what I said about Trump to Obama if you want except the money part. I see no evidence that Obama values money over all else, but with Trump he will remind you about 85 times a day. Why it is that you brought up Obama is lost on me though. I guess you assume that because I oppose Trump I must be a Hillary supporter and by extension an Obama supporter. That idea is so far from the truth it's not even in the same county. Say all the bad things you want about Obama, or Hillary, or even Bernie, I don't care and I won't even get slightly annoyed. I might even agree with you on some points.
-
Yes.
He used the system that was in place. That is no different than businesses that use legitimate tax law and then have the libs complain about "loopholes" and tax cheats. Were any of his contributions illegal?
Politicians that accept "donations" (bribes) and dispense favors in return are the disease that we need to exorcise.
So, wait.
The person who makes the donation (bribe) is sweetness and light.
The politician who accepts the donation (bribe) is "the disease that we need to exorcise"?
Seriously?
-
Perhaps some of the things Jeff and Stan are saying about Trump are true. But they don't know for sure what he will do any more than I do. They just know they like Cruz so they must hate Trump. In other words, "politics as usual", which is what some of us want to escape from.
Liking one candidate does not necessarily equate to hating another. Conservatives want a true conservative, which Trump is not.
-
Yes.
He used the system that was in place. That is no different than businesses that use legitimate tax law and then have the libs complain about "loopholes" and tax cheats. Were any of his contributions illegal?
Politicians that accept "donations" (bribes) and dispense favors in return are the disease that we need to exorcise.
But he played a part in that disease! And they weren't all "business" necessities either.
-
Liking one candidate does not necessarily equate to hating another. Conservatives want a true conservative, which Trump is not.
The fact that Jeff likes Cruz isn't what causes me to think he hates Trump. What causes me to think Jeff hates trump is all of all the things he has said about Trump, and the "Trumpkins".
I'd like to have a true conservative candidate too. And there are millions of true conservatives. But there are no true conservatives running that I think would make an effective leader. If we put a true conservative in the whitehouse that turns out to be an incompetent president, THAT would spell the death of the conservative movement.
-
The fact that Jeff likes Cruz isn't what causes me to think he hates Trump. What causes me to think Jeff hates trump is all of all the things he has said about Trump, and the "Trumpkins".
I'd like to have a true conservative candidate too. And there are millions of true conservatives. But there are no true conservatives running that I think would make an effective leader. If we put a true conservative in the whitehouse that turns out to be an incompetent president, THAT would spell the death of the conservative movement.
The same could be said for putting someone like Trump into the White House as well. Electing him could set back conservatism for a long time.
-
But he played a part in that disease! And they weren't all "business" necessities either.
Lots of businesses make decisions that are based strictly on tax consequences instead of business necessities. You play the cards you are dealt. If the dealer is crooked, hang the dealer. If the player cheats, hang the cheater.
I'm not saying Trump is lilly white, but he played by the rules as they are defined.
-
The same could be said for putting someone like Trump into the White House as well. Electing him could set back conservatism for a long time.
Just to play the devil's advocate here, how could Trump set conservationism back if nobody thinks he is conservative?
-
Lots of businesses make decisions that are based strictly on tax consequences instead of business necessities. You play the cards you are dealt. If the dealer is crooked, hang the dealer. If the player cheats, hang the cheater.
I'm not saying Trump is lilly white, but he played by the rules as they are defined.
It does say something about his principles, or lack thereof.
-
Just to play the devil's advocate here, how could Trump set conservationism back if nobody thinks he is conservative?
Trump claims he is conservative, as delusional as that is. With the bully pulpit of the POTUS, he will redefine the term so as to make it meaningless.
-
Just to play the devil's advocate here, how could Trump set conservationism back if nobody thinks he is conservative?
It would prevent a true conservative from getting into the White House. He would become the de facto leader of the Republican Party, certainly the face of it, which comes with significant influence over how the party runs. Because Trump is not a conservative and there's no evidence to suggest that he would implement true conservative policies, it will take at least 4-8 years before conservatives have another shot at the White House. He's already making comments about how he's starting to like certain influential Republican politicians more and more (the establishment ones) which suggests the establishment will continue on even longer with business as usual.
-
So, wait.
The person who makes the donation (bribe) is sweetness and light.
The politician who accepts the donation (bribe) is "the disease that we need to exorcise"?
Seriously?
Absolutely, I all politicians never held their hand out how is the briber gonna bribe?
-
Absolutely, I all politicians never held their hand out how is the briber gonna bribe?
If nobody was offering money, there'd be no reason to hold the hand out.
Without the briber, there's no bribe to take.
-
If nobody was offering money, there'd be no reason to hold the hand out.
Without the briber, there's no bribe to take.
You are grabbing at straws Jeff. I am tempted to say you are blaming the victim.
-
You are grabbing at straws Jeff. I am tempted to say you are blaming the victim.
How so?
Why is the politician to blame for receiving a donation, entirely legally, but the donor, also completely legally, is blameless?
It's a complete double standard.
-
Absolutely, I all politicians never held their hand out how is the briber gonna bribe?
By offering. Politicians are human and have weaknesses. Having never offered, or received any bribes myself, I can only guess at how these transactions work based on TV drama and hear say, but you have to figure that somebody like a big corporation is going to be the one offering up the bribe for favor. It's not like politicians have a big sign on their office that reads- "Now accepting bribes for favors."
-
By offering. Politicians are human and have weaknesses. Having never offered, or received any bribes myself, I can only guess at how these transactions work based on TV drama and hear say, but you have to figure that somebody like a big corporation is going to be the one offering up the bribe for favor. It's not like politicians have a big sign on their office that reads- "Now accepting bribes for favors."
I can see it now.
Someone, let's call him Mr. Smith, is approached by a city Councillor who says "Mr. Smith, I see you have a big...Non-Casino project happening. You know what it's missing? This little plot of land for...non-limo parking. Give me some cash, and I'll grab it with eminent domain for you."
* Any similarity of this purely hypothetical scenario to any current politician/businessman is purely coincidental.
-
They can always drag it out until the election, and if Hillary wins, confirm him in the lame-duck session to deny her the seat.
That said, even if the Senate approves him, POTUS can still choose not to appoint him. Just because the Senate has granted its advice and consent, does not obligate POTUS to appoint. Nomination, Advice-and-Consent, and Appointment are 3 separate actions, two of which are made by POTUS.
Yup! And I could see him pull the nomination or as you suggest, not appoint and say that since the election was over and the Congress was not in session anyway, that he would leave it to Clinton to appoint or nominate someone else.
-
It would prevent a true conservative from getting into the White House. He would become the de facto leader of the Republican Party, certainly the face of it, which comes with significant influence over how the party runs. Because Trump is not a conservative and there's no evidence to suggest that he would implement true conservative policies, it will take at least 4-8 years before conservatives have another shot at the White House. He's already making comments about how he's starting to like certain influential Republican politicians more and more (the establishment ones) which suggests the establishment will continue on even longer with business as usual.
There is no possibility of getting a true conservative who is a great leader in the WH. Anyone who is a great leader will on occasion need to compromise. True conservatives won't vote for a true conservative who compromises. The rest of the country will not vote for a true conservative who won't compromise, like Cruz. Catch-22.
-
There is no possibility of getting a true conservative who is a great leader in the WH. Anyone who is a great leader will on occasion need to compromise. True conservatives won't vote for a true conservative who compromises. The rest of the country will not vote for a true conservative who won't compromise, like Cruz. Catch-22.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Reagan was a conservative who compromised on a lot of issues. Incremental progress in the right direction is better than nothing or going backwards. Unless you're President Obama, who demands everything his way or he'll just use that pen and phone of his and do it his way anyway.
-
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. Reagan was a conservative who compromised on a lot of issues. Incremental progress in the right direction is better than nothing or going backwards. Unless you're President Obama, who demands everything his way or he'll just use that pen and phone of his and do it his way anyway.
I am not sure that the Tea Party would support Reagan today as I don't think he fits the definition of "True Conservative". However, if another Reagan shows up, I will vote for him like I voted for Reagan . . . twice.
-
I am not sure that the Tea Party would support Reagan today as I don't think he fits the definition of "True Conservative". However, if another Reagan shows up, I will vote for him like I voted for Reagan . . . twice.
I think the TEA party would support Reagan today. TEA = Taxed Enough Already, and make the Constitution matter. That's it. Don't buy into the media demonization.
-
Someone else posted a similar poll to the Skeptic's Guide To The Universe site. A forum for listeners of a podcast by the same name.
It's a science-oriented site where critical thinking is held in high regard.
Here's the result there, so far:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1709/25302206173_89e00b748f_z.jpg)
Again, nothing inherently left wing about the sample group*. I think it points out how one can get a weird view of the nation's sentiment if one only focuses on "echo chamber" sites supporting one's position.
*Though I have seen the thought, "Reality has a liberal bias".
-
Someone else posted a similar poll to the Skeptic's Guide To The Universe site. A forum for listeners of a podcast by the same name.
It's a science-oriented site where critical thinking is held in high regard.
Here's the result there, so far:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1709/25302206173_89e00b748f_z.jpg)
Again, nothing inherently left wing about the sample group*. I think it points out how one can get a weird view of the nation's sentiment if one only focuses on "echo chamber" sites supporting one's position.
*Though I have seen the thought, "Reality has a liberal bias".
And here is the falicy on polling. Some polls are conducted without bias (Rasmussen, Monmouth, Quinnipiac, etc) and give a fairly accurate picture while others are a tool to attempt to sway public opinion (NBC/WSJ, Fox, ABC, CBS, etc) It all boils down to which group the poll is targeted to in questioning and the way the questions are worded.
Simply put, only sample a liberal group on the electability of a Republican candidate and carefully word the questions and the poll will indicate very badly. Do the above and change from Republican to Democrat, then poll a very conservative group and get the same result.
-
Someone else posted a similar poll to the Skeptic's Guide To The Universe site. A forum for listeners of a podcast by the same name.
It's a science-oriented site where critical thinking is held in high regard.
Here's the result there, so far:
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1709/25302206173_89e00b748f_z.jpg)
Again, nothing inherently left wing about the sample group*. I think it points out how one can get a weird view of the nation's sentiment if one only focuses on "echo chamber" sites supporting one's position.
*Though I have seen the thought, "Reality has a liberal bias".
How many of those folks are middle income blue collar types?
-
And here is the falicy on polling. Some polls are conducted without bias (Rasmussen, Monmouth, Quinnipiac, etc That support Dear Leader) and give a fairly accurate picture while others are a tool to attempt to sway public opinion (NBC/WSJ, Fox, ABC, CBS, etc That question Dear Leader ) It all boils down to which group the poll is targeted to in questioning and the way the questions are worded.
Simply put, only sample a liberal group on the electability of a Republican candidate and carefully word the questions and the poll will indicate very badly. Do the above and change from Republican to Democrat, then poll a very conservative group and get the same result.
Corrected that for you to make your point more honestly.
-
Corrected that for you to make your point more honestly.
Attacking your post because I am clueless to how polling works and I'm only here to pick fights.
Corrected that to make your point more honestly.
-
Corrected that to make your point more honestly.
I don't think Jeff is clueless. I think he is extremely smart and very opinionated. When I am on his side (most of the time), I appreciate his depth of knowledge and his insight. But when we are on opposite sides, he is extremely annoying. His continuous use of "Dear Leader" really turns me off and makes me not even want to debate him, or read his posts.
-
How many of those folks are middle income blue collar types?
Have no idea, but my perception is that there's a pretty wide range of economic status there.
It would be depressing if only "egghead intellectuals" we're interested in critical thinking and skepticism, and that "blue collar types" were not.
-
I don't think Jeff is clueless. I think he is extremely smart and very opinionated. When I am on his side (most of the time), I appreciate his depth of knowledge and his insight.
His inane rants and diatribes quickly expose his real intent and he is incapable of adding anything positive to a discussion.
But when we are on opposite sides, he is extremely annoying. His continuous use of "Dear Leader" really turns me off and makes me not even want to debate him, or read his posts.
He's a petulant kid constantly demanding attention. His replies are simply unwanted noise.
-
I don't think Jeff is clueless. I think he is extremely smart and very opinionated. When I am on his side (most of the time), I appreciate his depth of knowledge and his insight. But when we are on opposite sides, he is extremely annoying. His continuous use of "Dear Leader" really turns me off and makes me not even want to debate him, or read his posts.
The "Dear Leader" is an allusion to the fact that Trump is running purely on a "Cult of Personality". He is the biggest threat to the Republican Party I've seen in my lifetime, and as such, I will do what little I can to try and stop him.
-
His inane rants and diatribes quickly expose his real intent and he is incapable of adding anything positive to a discussion.
He's a petulant kid constantly demanding attention. His replies are simply unwanted noise.
I've yet to see a single substantive post from you on any topic whatsoever. Everything out of you is pure ad hominem.
-
The "Dear Leader" is an allusion to the fact that Trump is running purely on a "Cult of Personality". He is the biggest threat to the Republican Party I've seen in my lifetime, and as such, I will do what little I can to try and stop him whatever I can to use this as a way to attempt to start inane childish arguments.
Corrected that for you to make your point more honestly.
-
The "Dear Leader" is an allusion to the fact that Trump is running purely on a "Cult of Personality". He is the biggest threat to the Republican Party I've seen in my lifetime, and as such, I will do what little I can to try and stop him.
Forget the Republican party, it's a broken mess. IMO, Trump is the biggest threat to our country I've seen in my lifetime.
-
The "Dear Leader" is an allusion to the fact that Trump is running purely on a "Cult of Personality". He is the biggest threat to the Republican Party I've seen in my lifetime, and as such, I will do what little I can to try and stop him.
"Dear Leader" is a reference to the North Korean leadership under the Kim Jong rule.
I"m sure you know of the violence and atrocities they have perpetrated on their own people. Your comparison of Trump to them is outlandish and disgusting. I don't care how you rationalize it.
If Trump is anywhere near as bad as you say he would be out of office in 4 years, if not sooner. Perhaps he can't deliver on all of his promises, but at least he doesn't promise to transform America into a weak, third world socialist clone of Eastern Europe.
-
Forget the Republican party, it's a broken mess. IMO, Trump is the biggest threat to our country I've seen in my lifetime.
I see a DNC with Hillary as President more threatening, a DNC with Obama as an elder is more threatening, an RNC with its current leadership and attitudes as more threatening, I see "politics as usual" as more threatening.......
-
His inane rants and diatribes quickly expose his real intent and he is incapable of adding anything positive to a discussion.
He's a petulant kid constantly demanding attention. His replies are simply unwanted noise.
Pot, meet kettle.
-
Pot, meet kettle.
I knew Jeff's sycophant would chime in shortly. Thanks for not disappointing!
-
"Dear Leader" is a reference to the North Korean leadership under the Kim Jong rule.
I"m sure you know of the violence and atrocities they have perpetrated on their own people. Your comparison of Trump to them is outlandish and disgusting. I don't care how you rationalize it.
If Trump is anywhere near as bad as you say he would be out of office in 4 years, if not sooner. Perhaps he can't deliver on all of his promises, but at least he doesn't promise to transform America into a weak, third world socialist clone of Eastern Europe.
Trump is running as a populist without any guiding principles. That's why he can keep changing his position, and his cult following would let him shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue, and still support him.
A populist + a lack of guiding principles + a cult like following = Perfect recipe for a banana republic style strongman.
-
I knew Jeff's sycophant would chime in shortly. Thanks for not disappointing!
So, are you going for a record of ad hominem attacks?
Yet to see a single actual point coming from you yet.
-
Yet to see a single actual point coming from you yet.
You mean like challenging me on polling data and I provided 40 years worth, and all you could do is tuck tale and run?
For a guy that claims he is conservative with libertarian leanings you sure love playing liberal games and heavy use of Alinsky tactics.
As I've stated many times, you are not what you try to say you are, not by a long shot.
-
You mean like challenging me on polling data and I provided 40 years worth, and all you could do is tuck tale and run?
For a guy that claims he is conservative with libertarian leanings you sure love playing liberal games and heavy use of Alinsky tactics.
As I've stated many times, you are not what you try to say you are, not by a long shot.
Right, because 40 year old data is SOOOOO much better than recent data.
Trump is not Reagan, not by a freaking light year. He's a liberal, corrupt jackass who has sold a lot of people a bill of goods. But you and your Trumpalumpa friends will never see it, because you've joined the cult and drunk deeply of the Kool-Aid.
-
Right, because 40 year old data is SOOOOO much better than recent data.
Trump is not Reagan, not by a freaking light year. He's a liberal, corrupt jackass who has sold a lot of people a bill of goods. But you and your Trumpalumpa friends will never see it, because you've joined the cult and drunk deeply of the Kool-Aid.
Thanks for that exceptional display of ignorance. If anything, you are consistent.
Funny thing here is I've never said I am supporting Trump, but many many times I have stated I will vote for whoever the Republican Party nominates and run because I believe I do not want another 4 years of Obama. I've challenged you to show a post where I throw my support to Trump and you can't. Others here have clearly stated they are backing Trump yet you are too afraid to challenge them.
I do know you are a phony and mascarade yourself as something you are not. A blind man can see that. You're liberal tactics and talking points give you away.
-
You mean like challenging me on polling data and I provided 40 years worth, and all you could do is tuck tale and run?
For a guy that claims he is conservative with libertarian leanings you sure love playing liberal games and heavy use of Alinsky tactics.
As I've stated many times, you are not what you try to say you are, not by a long shot.
Right, because 40 year old data is SOOOOO much better than recent data.
Trump is not Reagan, not by a freaking light year. He's a liberal, corrupt jackass who has sold a lot of people a bill of goods. But you and your Trumpalumpa friends will never see it, because you've joined the cult and drunk deeply of the Kool-Aid.
Thanks for that exceptional display of ignorance. If anything, you are consistent.
Funny thing here is I've never said I am supporting Trump, but many many times I have stated I will vote for whoever the Republican Party nominates and run because I believe I do not want another 4 years of Obama. I've challenged you to show a post where I throw my support to Trump and you can't. Others here have clearly stated they are backing Trump yet you are too afraid to challenge them.
I do know you are a phony and mascarade yourself as something you are not. A blind man can see that. You're liberal tactics and talking points give you away.
So, are you going for a record of ad hominem attacks?
Yet to see a single actual point coming from you yet.
Ok, you two need to quit playing hard to get with each other and just get a room.
-
Ok, you two need to quit playing hard to get with each other and just get a room.
Nah, Lucifer has a serious hard-on for Glenn Beck.
-
Ok, you two need to quit playing hard to get with each other and just get a room.
Not sure what his infatuation with me is.
-
I think the TEA party would support Reagan today. TEA = Taxed Enough Already, and make the Constitution matter. That's it. Don't buy into the media demonization.
You might recall that the far right was not too happy with Reagan at the end of his term as they did not feel that he had done enough to push their agenda.
-
Trump is running as a populist without any guiding principles. That's why he can keep changing his position, and his cult following would let him shoot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue, and still support him.
A populist + a lack of guiding principles + a cult like following = Perfect recipe for a banana republic style strongman.
A 1%'er who is a populist! Only in America! Whatta coontry!
-
You might recall that the far right was not too happy with Reagan at the end of his term as they did not feel that he had done enough to push their agenda.
I don't remember anything of the sort. I do remember the centrists (liberal) wing of the party hating all the attention he got and kept them from getting.
I also remember all the liberals running around revising history to attack Reagan for the last twenty years.
-
I don't remember anything of the sort. I do remember the centrists (liberal) wing of the party hating all the attention he got and kept them from getting.
I also remember all the liberals running around revising history to attack Reagan for the last twenty years.
Yes, I missed that one too.
-
I don't remember anything of the sort. I do remember the centrists (liberal) wing of the party hating all the attention he got and kept them from getting.
I also remember all the liberals running around revising history to attack Reagan for the last twenty years.
A clear case of selective memory or you weren't paying attention. Just a quick couple of examples:
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-09-06/news/mn-6253_1_arms-control
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19880714&id=Q4oyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=uOYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6332,2881666&hl=en
Or you could take in a book on the subject of the Reagan years: "The Reagan Era: A History of the 1980s" by Doug Rossinow.
Reagan was an excellent President, but he was in part because he could compromise and he could sell his ideas, not just try to cram them down people's throats.
-
Reagan was an excellent President, but he was in part because he could compromise and he could sell his ideas, not just try to cram them down people's throats.
And because he had Tip O'neil to work with, who was a decent guy to have a beer with and willing to make a compromise.
-
And because he had Tip O'neil to work with, who was a decent guy to have a beer with and willing to make a compromise.
You forgot the /sarc tag.
O'Neil was a terrible person who despised Reagan and who shutdown the government whenever he did not get his way.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/09/26/sorry-chris-matthews-tip-oneill-and-ronald-reagan-were-terrible-at-averting-shutdowns/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/10/30/reagan_oneill_and_someone_named_chris__120502.html
Tip O’Neill said it was “sinful” that Reagan had been elected president. He said Reagan didn’t care about the poor, and that Reagan would have made a better “king” than a president -- and that, in any event, Reagan was the “worst” president of his lifetime; a period that encompassed Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon. There are dozens of other examples of Reagan-bashing, not excluding O’Neill’s ungentlemanly claim that Nancy Reagan was “the queen of Beverly Hills.”
Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/10/30/reagan_oneill_and_someone_named_chris__120502.html#ixzz43VAIg3mt
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
'Gimp
-
You forgot the /sarc tag.
O'Neil was a terrible person who despised Reagan and who shutdown the government whenever he did not get his way.
'Gimp
Point taken. However, I think Tip was different behind closed doors than he was in front of the cameras.
-
Point taken. However, I think Tip was different behind closed doors than he was in front of the cameras.
That's not what I hear. Tip and Reagan were NOT friends.
-
That's not what I hear. Tip and Reagan were NOT friends.
You don't have to be friends to make a deal that is acceptable to both parties. You only need trust.