PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: JeffDG on May 06, 2016, 09:58:30 AM
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChyYIT4XEAA7KP8.jpg:large)
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChyYIT4XEAA7KP8.jpg:large)
So I guess you infer from that that if Cruz won, "well known donors" would be flocking to give downstream candidates money???
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChyYIT4XEAA7KP8.jpg:large)
The link is NG or there is no supporting evidence.
-
So I guess you infer from that that if Cruz won, "well known donors" would be flocking to give downstream candidates money???
More fear mongering. The argument that "down ballot" candidates will be affected by a Trump nomination is pure fantasy. Those that are in danger of losing their congressional or senate seat deserve to lose because they are incompetent or inept. If they can't retain office on their own merits why should they depend on a presidential nominee to do it for them?
John McCain is even trying to blame Trump for what is beginning to look like his last campaign. But McCain deserves to be defeated.
-
My recollection is that no incumbent Republicans have lost primaries.
-
More fear mongering. The argument that "down ballot" candidates will be affected by a Trump nomination is pure fantasy. Those that are in danger of losing their congressional or senate seat deserve to lose because they are incompetent or inept. If they can't retain office on their own merits why should they depend on a presidential nominee to do it for them?
John McCain is even trying to blame Trump for what is beginning to look like his last campaign. But McCain deserves to be defeated.
Wouldn't that mean that we shouldn't have any Decorates in office? :P
-
Wouldn't that mean that we shouldn't have any Decorates in office? :P
#NeverDecorates
-
Those that are in danger of losing their congressional or senate seat deserve to lose because they are incompetent or inept. If they can't retain office on their own merits why should they depend on a presidential nominee to do it for them?
That's a nice fantasy but the reality is that a de-energized electorate does not go to the polls. Very few people are excited about voting for Donald. Slightly more are excited about voting for Hillary. That's her and the Democrat's edge.
I will be voting because I view it as a duty. But I can only say that I will not vote for Donald. I don't think I'll vote for Hillary anyway.
Remember - the key phrase is "Madame President" and you did it by making Donald the candidate. Congratulations.
-
That's a nice fantasy but the reality is that a de-energized electorate does not go to the polls. Very few people are excited about voting for Donald. Slightly more are excited about voting for Hillary. That's her and the Democrat's edge.
I will be voting because I view it as a duty. But I can only say that I will not vote for Donald. I don't think I'll vote for Hillary anyway.
Remember - the key phrase is "Madame President" and you did it by making Donald the candidate. Congratulations.
Sorry, but again that's just fear mongering.
If a candidate or incumbent is a good person supported by his constituents then they will have no problem at the polls. This silly notion "Trump (or whoever) is running for president, so I won't vote for anybody!" Is bovine scatology cooked up by the likes of George Will, Karl Rove and Bill Kristol.
-
More fear mongering. The argument that "down ballot" candidates will be affected by a Trump nomination is pure fantasy. Those that are in danger of losing their congressional or senate seat deserve to lose because they are incompetent or inept. If they can't retain office on their own merits why should they depend on a presidential nominee to do it for them?
John McCain is even trying to blame Trump for what is beginning to look like his last campaign. But McCain deserves to be defeated.
So I guess we should all rally around Donald to take the White House at all costs, but the House, the Senate, state representatives... who cares, right? Talk about short sighted. You guys that voted in primaries for Trump have so screwed us. It could end up a yuuge Democrat win in November. Even if Trump wins, he's likely to get a congress that will flip him the bird. He'll have to make deals the people that voted for him won't like at all, or another four years of nothing getting done.
-
So I guess we should all rally around Donald to take the White House at all costs, but the House, the Senate, state representatives... who cares, right? Talk about short sighted. You guys that voted in primaries for Trump have so screwed us. It could end up a yuuge Democrat win in November. Even if Trump wins, he's likely to get a congress that will flip him the bird. He'll have to make deals the people that voted for him won't like at all, or another four years of nothing getting done.
Here's a novel concept: How about people going to the polls and voting for the best candidate to do the job?
It's totally fucking asinine to claim that because your candidate couldn't get the nomination because he ran a bad campaign and couldn't get people to vote for him, that because of this people will ( or according to you) should sit out the election and not vote for anybody as a form of protest.
Right now congress enjoys a 12% approval rating. TWELVE PERCENT! Most of those career politicians need to be thrown out and get people in their with the citizens interest, not their own political ambitions.
But hey, don't worry. The GOP elites are as we speak cooking up a third party candidate to run not to win, but for the sole purpose of defeating Trump this November. That's right, the people that claim to be soooo conservative and sooo pure and above everyone else is going all out to get Hillary elected. Never mind the next sitting President will probably appoint up to 4 Supreme Court Justices, never mind it would insure Obamacare remains, never mind it means 4 more years of Obama style politics.
Talk about short sighted, go look in the mirror.
-
Here's a novel concept: How about people going to the polls and voting for the best candidate to do the job?
For some, that will mean not voting for either Hillary or Trump.
It's totally fucking asinine to claim that because your candidate couldn't get the nomination because he ran a bad campaign and couldn't get people to vote for him, that because of this people will ( or according to you) should sit out the election and not vote for anybody as a form of protest.
You just said that people should go to the polls and vote for the best candidate to do the job and now here are saying it's asinine that some people should not vote for Trump.
Right now congress enjoys a 12% approval rating. TWELVE PERCENT! Most of those career politicians need to be thrown out and get people in their with the citizens interest, not their own political ambitions.
I agree with this. I'd even take it a step further and say that the elected officials are only part of the problem; the RNC is also a large part of the problem. The establishment goes further than the Congressman, it goes into the RNC leadership as well who enable and support this.
But hey, don't worry. The GOP elites are as we speak cooking up a third party candidate to run not to win, but for the sole purpose of defeating Trump this November.
I really hope this isn't the case. I don't like Trump but the RNC needs to support him. He won the primaries, it's over.
That's right, the people that claim to be soooo conservative and sooo pure and above everyone else is going all out to get Hillary elected. Never mind the next sitting President will probably appoint up to 4 Supreme Court Justices, never mind it would insure Obamacare remains, never mind it means 4 more years of Obama style politics.
If you're referring to people who won't vote for Hillary or Trump, I'd say that's a bit unfair. Republicans and conservatives all agree that Hillary would be terrible and a worse president than Trump. But that doesn't mean that by not voting for Trump, they're going "all out" to get Hillary elected.
As for the SCOTUS nominations, that has been the one thing that has kept me on the fence about voting or not voting for Trump. However, I've seen no indications that Trump would nominate anyone better than Hillary would. Once he starts discussing his philosophy on judicial nominations, I'll revisit this.
-
Go read the latest columns by George Will and Bill Kristol. George Will actually advocates for a Hillary election.
Sickening.
-
Go read the latest columns by George Will and Bill Kristol. George Will actually advocates for a Hillary election.
Sickening.
Why is this surprising? Divisive candidate is divisive. News at 11.
-
Right now congress enjoys a 12% approval rating. TWELVE PERCENT! Most of those career politicians need to be thrown out and get people in their with the citizens interest, not their own political ambitions.
The problem with comparing the Congress approval rating and the President approval rating is that people might be ok with their congresscritter and hate all the others. A more useful measure would be the approval rating of a person's congresscritters (one rep and 2 senators).
-
Here's a novel concept: How about people going to the polls and voting for the best candidate to do the job?
It's totally fucking asinine to claim that because your candidate couldn't get the nomination because he ran a bad campaign and couldn't get people to vote for him, that because of this people will ( or according to you) should sit out the election and not vote for anybody as a form of protest.
Right now congress enjoys a 12% approval rating. TWELVE PERCENT! Most of those career politicians need to be thrown out and get people in their with the citizens interest, not their own political ambitions.
But hey, don't worry. The GOP elites are as we speak cooking up a third party candidate to run not to win, but for the sole purpose of defeating Trump this November. That's right, the people that claim to be soooo conservative and sooo pure and above everyone else is going all out to get Hillary elected. Never mind the next sitting President will probably appoint up to 4 Supreme Court Justices, never mind it would insure Obamacare remains, never mind it means 4 more years of Obama style politics.
Talk about short sighted, go look in the mirror.
So instead of being short sighted, you just choose to ignore facts.
Facts like how Trump contributed not only to long-time incumbent democrats and republicans like McConnell, but he also contributed to the Republican Senatorial and Congressional Committees that are set up precisely to reelect the incumbents that you rail about!!!
They fought against the GOP challenger to big time RINO Thad Cochran. So why did Trump support that? Because he IS the establishment.
-
So instead of being short sighted, you just choose to ignore facts.
Facts like how Trump contributed not only to long-time incumbent democrats and republicans like McConnell, but he also contributed to the Republican Senatorial and Congressional Committees that are set up precisely to reelect the incumbents that you rail about!!!
They fought against the GOP challenger to big time RINO Thad Cochran. So why did Trump support that? Because he IS the establishment.
Maybe, just maybe when you and the other ideologues get over your butt hurt and figure out what's really going on, and the real reason we are where we are today, then you can get your collective heads out of your asses and see past November.
I'm not holding my breath.
-
Maybe, just maybe when you and the other ideologues get over your butt hurt and figure out what's really going on, and the real reason we are where we are today, then you can get your collective heads out of your asses and see past November.
I'm not holding my breath.
So you're happy being blind, deaf, and dumb. Got it.
You never fail to not address the issue raised, and instead make ad hominem attacks against anyone challenging "The Donald." Pathetic.
-
So you're happy being blind, deaf, and dumb. Got it.
You never fail to not address the issue raised, and instead make ad hominem attacks against anyone challenging "The Donald." Pathetic.
That's all you want to see, you are so blinded by your butt hurt. Three words, "Get Over It".
-
That's all you want to see, you are so blinded by your butt hurt. Three words, "Get Over It".
Not when the country's at stake, and a democrat was nominated as the GOP nominee.
-
Maybe, just maybe when you and the other ideologues get over your butt hurt and figure out what's really going on, and the real reason we are where we are today, then you can get your collective heads out of your asses and see past November.
We are where we are today because of the crony establishment, bought and paid for by Trump, now he's pulled the wool over your eyes and made you think he's somehow against what he has worked decades to build.
Sorry, I prefer to think for myself, not follow the pied piper.
-
Not when the country's at stake, and a democrat was nominated as the GOP nominee.
Well what did you expect when the alternative was an unlikable, far right religious ideologue? I would have preferred someone to the right of Trump too, but Cruz was (way) too far right. And Clinton is way too far left. I am thoroughly confused how those of you that wanted the fringe-right guy would prefer the fringe-left candidate over the sometimes left/sometimes right guy that beat your guy.
-
I am thoroughly confused how those of you that wanted the fringe-right guy would prefer the fringe-left candidate over the sometimes left/sometimes right guy that beat your guy.
oh oh oh. I know I know.
They don't like the mystery of how the donald is going to F the country rather than the certainty of how the doormat is going to COMPLETELY F the country.
-
This idea that refusing to vote for one liberal democrat - The Donald - is the same as voting for another progressive democrat - Hilary Clinton - is the type of thing that makes a good sound bite but ignores the truth about free elections. People are FREE to vote for whomever they choose. Voting for the candidate they hate because they hate the other one also is a useless exercise but appropriate for the people who are in love with the Donald.
Correct, this is a free country (to some degree) and we are free to vote for whoever. Or not vote at all.
But for those that will sit out this election due to butt hurt, just keep in mind the next President will likely nominate 4 SC Justices, and appoint several other judges to various courts.
-
Correct, this is a free country (to some degree) and we are free to vote for whoever. Or not vote at all.
But for those that will sit out this election due to butt hurt, just keep in mind the next President will likely nominate 4 SC Justices, and appoint several other judges to various courts.
Obama has not only packed the courts with activist judges, he had loaded up all the departments with politically activist personnel who, as civil servants, can't be easily dismissed. We are stuck for a long time with these people in the IRS, DOJ, EPA, DOE, HHS....it is going to take a long time and a lot of work to even slow down the transformation B.O. has put in place, and it will take someone in the White House who is dedicated to doing that.
-
Well what did you expect when the alternative was an unlikable, far right religious ideologue? I would have preferred someone to the right of Trump too, but Cruz was (way) too far right. And Clinton is way too far left. I am thoroughly confused how those of you that wanted the fringe-right guy would prefer the fringe-left candidate over the sometimes left/sometimes right guy that beat your guy.
I prefer neither. Preferring neither is not the same as preferring the fringe-left over the fringe-right.
-
But for those that will sit out this election due to butt hurt, just keep in mind the next President will likely nominate 4 SC Justices, and appoint several other judges to various courts.
My guy lost, I understand that. I accept that. It's now Trump's job to convince me why I should vote for him, not my duty to get behind him. He isn't entitled to my vote, he has to earn it. If I choose not vote for either and write someone in, that's not sitting out and that's not being "butt hurt", as you say. That's me utilizing my vote to signify that I do not want either candidate.
-
Obama has not only packed the courts with activist judges, he had loaded up all the departments with politically activist personnel who, as civil servants, can't be easily dismissed. We are stuck for a long time with these people in the IRS, DOJ, EPA, DOE, HHS....it is going to take a long time and a lot of work to even slow down the transformation B.O. has put in place, and it will take someone in the White House who is dedicated to doing that.
I agree with this. This was all part of his fundamental transformation. Let's hope that if Trump is elected that he will root out these people and they won't be working there anymore. We know Hillary certainly won't do it.
-
... That's me utilizing my vote to signify that I do not want either candidate.
Its your right to send that signal, a very expensive signal.
-
Its your right to send that signal, a very expensive signal.
No, I reject this argument on all levels. I'm not going to be bullied into voting for Trump simply because he's the GOP nominee. He has to earn my vote like anyone else does.
-
Its your right to send that signal, a very expensive signal.
A signal that, if it puts Hillary in the WH, will affect the Supreme Court for the next 30 to 50 years.
-
A signal that, if it puts Hillary in the WH, will affect the Supreme Court for the next 30 to 50 years.
Trump better work his ass off, then.
-
No, I reject this argument on all levels. I'm not going to be bullied into voting for Trump simply because he's the GOP nominee. He has to earn my vote like anyone else does.
Nobody is bullying you. You are being presented facts. If you choose to ignore to make a statement, then don't complain when the Supreme Court has the majority of liberals that will affect court rulings for the rest of your life.
-
Trump better work his ass off, then.
No doubt. He has a steep hill to climb.
-
Correct, this is a free country (to some degree) and we are free to vote for whoever. Or not vote at all.
But for those that will sit out this election due to butt hurt, just keep in mind the next President will likely nominate 4 SC Justices, and appoint several other judges to various courts.
Or those who sit out because the candidates are horrible.
And enough with the judges thing. Trump will appoint leftist judges too. He is a statist who believes he should wield all power.
-
Nobody is bullying you. You are being presented facts. If you choose to ignore to make a statement, then don't complain when the Supreme Court has the majority of liberals that will affect court rulings for the rest of your life.
What facts are those? The only thing I've heard around here (and elsewhere) is the tag line that a vote not for Trump is actually a vote for Hillary.
As for the SCOTUS judges, that's been the only thing that's kept me on the fence and I'm not convinced that Trump would nominate anyone conservative anyway. As I said in another thread, when he begins discussing his philosophy on judicial nominations, I'll revisit the issue.
I really hope that if Trump is elected he turns out to be a great president and appoints excellent people to the Supreme Court. But based on his statements in the past, I'm not convinced that will happen.
-
But for those that will sit out this election due to butt hurt, just keep in mind the next President will likely nominate 4 SC Justices, and appoint several other judges to various courts.
I am so fucking sick of hearing this! If people really gave a shit about those justices, Trump would have dropped out of the race months ago. This election is clearly not about Supreme Court Justices, so using fear tactics to persuade people to vote for a jack ass that is likely to pick the same sort of people Clinton would, is annoying.
-
Obama has not only packed the courts with activist judges, he had loaded up all the departments with politically activist personnel who, as civil servants, can't be easily dismissed. We are stuck for a long time with these people in the IRS, DOJ, EPA, DOE, HHS....it is going to take a long time and a lot of work to even slow down the transformation B.O. has put in place, and it will take someone in the White House who is dedicated to doing that.
Too bad that person isn't running for president.
-
No, I reject this argument on all levels. I'm not going to be bullied into voting for Trump simply because he's the GOP nominee. He has to earn my vote like anyone else does.
Pointing out the cost is not bullying.
-
What facts are those? The only thing I've heard around here (and elsewhere) is the tag line that a vote not for Trump is actually a vote for Hillary.
As for the SCOTUS judges, that's been the only thing that's kept me on the fence and I'm not convinced that Trump would nominate anyone conservative anyway. As I said in another thread, when he begins discussing his philosophy on judicial nominations, I'll revisit the issue.
I really hope that if Trump is elected he turns out to be a great president and appoints excellent people to the Supreme Court. But based on his statements in the past, I'm not convinced that will happen.
You do realize the President nominates a SC Justice, and the Senate confirms, right?
Right now you have a Republican majority in the Senate, and if a President Trump nominated someone they felt wasn't qualified do you think they wouldn't confirm?
-
I am so fucking sick of hearing this! If people really gave a shit about those justices, Trump would have dropped out of the race months ago. This election is clearly not about Supreme Court Justices, so using fear tactics to persuade people to vote for a jack ass that is likely to pick the same sort of people Clinton would, is annoying.
So you don't give a shit about SC Justices? Then please exclude yourself from any conversations hence forth on them, and please don't come here complaining when a law gets challenged (such as Obamacare) and the court affirms it by calling it a tax. Just one of many examples.
-
You do realize the President nominates a SC Justice, and the Senate confirms, right?
Right now you have a Republican majority in the Senate, and if a President Trump nominated someone they felt wasn't qualified do you think they wouldn't confirm?
Well, thanks to the Trump nomination, the chances of a Hillary presidency with a Democrat Senate rose dramatically, so thanks for that.
-
You do realize the President nominates a SC Justice, and the Senate confirms, right?
Right now you have a Republican majority in the Senate, and if a President Trump nominated someone they felt wasn't qualified do you think they wouldn't confirm?
I'm well aware of how the process works. I don't know if they'd confirm, we haven't seen the nominee yet. We also know that the Republican Senate has never really been strong or stood by conservative principles.
-
So you don't give a shit about SC Justices? Then please exclude yourself from any conversations hence forth on them, and please don't come here complaining when a law gets challenged (such as Obamacare) and the court affirms it by calling it a tax. Just one of many examples.
Request noted. Request denied. If I do complain in the future, it will be about the folks that put Trump on the GOP ticket! The Supreme Court is an afterthought to them. I guarantee you, Clinton or Trump, the ACA is not going away, so get used to that fact.
-
I'm well aware of how the process works. I don't know if they'd confirm, we haven't seen the nominee yet. We also know that the Republican Senate has never really been strong or stood by conservative principles.
Agreed. It's my personal opinion a President Hillary will wield more power over the weak kneed Republicans than a President Trump would. Hillary will play the woman card much like Obama has played the race card to get what they want.
-
My guy lost, I understand that. I accept that. It's now Trump's job to convince me why I should vote for him, not my duty to get behind him. He isn't entitled to my vote, he has to earn it. If I choose not vote for either and write someone in, that's not sitting out and that's not being "butt hurt", as you say. That's me utilizing my vote to signify that I do not want either candidate.
I'm good with that.
I just hope that Trump is able to pull you and others in his direction so that I don't have to relive that completely depressing feeling of Nov. 2012. I might not be thrilled about a President Trump, but I will be devastated if we get another President Clinton.
-
Request noted. Request denied. If I do complain in the future, it will be about the folks that put Trump on the GOP ticket!
How dare people exercise their right to vote!
The Supreme Court is an afterthought to them. I guarantee you, Clinton or Trump, the ACA is not going away, so get used to that fact.
The ACA is but a small example, Roberts cast the deciding vote to keep it. If their would have been one more conservative judge the ACA would be history. But according to you, the nomination of judges doesn't matter.
Got it.
-
Agreed. It's my personal opinion a President Hillary will wield more power over the weak kneed Republicans than a President Trump would. Hillary will play the woman card much like Obama has played the race card to get what they want.
I agree with this and will take it one step further to say that the Republicans are more likely to stand up to Trump because they don't like him. I also think that a President Hillary would continue on with the "pen and phone" doctrine that President Obama started by going around Congress and doing whatever he wants, unchecked. The precedent is there, the courts have not ruled as of yet and the Republicans don't seem to care enough to stop it.
-
I'm good with that.
I just hope that Trump is able to pull you and others in his direction so that I don't have to relive that completely depressing feeling of Nov. 2012. I might not be thrilled about a President Trump, but I will be devastated if we get another President Clinton.
I also reject the notion that if Trump loses, it will be solely because conservatives didn't vote for him. Not that maybe Trump didn't run a good campaign, or maybe he wasn't the candidate people thought he was in the primaries, no, it's only the fault of the conservatives who didn't vote for him.
That being said, the campaign hasn't officially begun (we still don't have an official Democratic nominee, though we know who it's likely to be) so a lot of what I said was speculative. The point was that Trump supporters seem to already be positioning themselves to blame everyone except themselves for a defeat in November. It's almost as if Trump can do no wrong (and so far through the primaries, it certainly seems that way with a lot of his comments).
-
I also reject the notion that if Trump loses, it will be solely because conservatives didn't vote for him.
I dont believe anyone said that. The Rs will lose even if every conservative votes for Trump. He HAS to pull in some Independent and some Democrats to win. Trump has a chance of doing that. Cruz held no chance in hell of doing that.
Not that maybe Trump didn't run a good campaign, or maybe he wasn't the candidate people thought he was in the primaries, no, it's only the fault of the conservatives who didn't vote for him.
How can you say that? Trump ran a phenomenal campaign. He exceeded even the most optimistic supporters from the beginning. I only started going in his direction once I saw he actually has a chance to win.
That being said, the campaign hasn't officially begun (we still don't have an official Democratic nominee, though we know who it's likely to be) so a lot of what I said was speculative. The point was that Trump supporters seem to already be positioning themselves to blame everyone except themselves for a defeat in November.
I will blame everyone that does not vote for Trump for allowing Hillary to become President.
It's almost as if Trump can do no wrong (and so far through the primaries, it certainly seems that way with a lot of his comments).
Trump has done and said a lot of stupid things. But he has said a lot of good things too.
I believe he says what he thinks instead of what is "politically correct". And he doesn't apologize for it. That is how he survived the primary. How many politicians come back grovelling with an apology when they are challenged on an opinion they gave? How many criticized Obama for his "apology tour"?
-
How can you say that? Trump ran a phenomenal campaign. He exceeded even the most optimistic supporters from the beginning. I only started going in his direction once I saw he actually has a chance to win.
I'm referring to the general election campaign, which has yet to happen.
Trump has done and said a lot of stupid things. But he has said a lot of good things too.
I believe he says what he thinks instead of what is "politically correct". And he doesn't apologize for it. That is how he survived the primary. How many politicians come back grovelling with an apology when they are challenged on an opinion they gave? How many criticized Obama for his "apology tour"?
I agree that he says what he thinks instead of what is politically correct, and I like that. He has an ability to hit back at the media (and other candidates) and not care. That's one thing I've always liked about him throughout the primary.
-
I'm referring to the general election campaign, which has yet to happen.
Yeah, the general election campaign is still a mystery. I just hope he does well enough to win over not just conservatives, but also a lot of disillusioned democrats. Funny thing; most of the people that I know that are suffering the most from the economy are democrats. Some of them are disillusioned with the Ds but some of them still buy the party line that their problems are the fault of the greedy conservatives and business owners. I think Trump has a good chance of winning over those poor disillusioned souls.
-
My guy lost, I understand that. I accept that. It's now Trump's job to convince me why I should vote for him, not my duty to get behind him. He isn't entitled to my vote, he has to earn it. If I choose not vote for either and write someone in, that's not sitting out and that's not being "butt hurt", as you say. That's me utilizing my vote to signify that I do not want either candidate.
You're wasting your time. Loyalty to Trump is demanded, not earned.
-
No doubt. He has a steep hill to climb.
And in his first step up that hill, he announced that he doesn't want or need my vote.
-
We are where we are today because of the crony establishment, bought and paid for by Trump, now he's pulled the wool over your eyes and made you think he's somehow against what he has worked decades to build.
Sorry, I prefer to think for myself, not follow the pied piper.
Crony capitalism has been around a lot longer than Trump has been a power broker.
-
Crony capitalism has been around a lot longer than Trump has been a power broker.
That may be, but he has worked the system to his personal enrichment for decades.
He can't be both "different" and benefit from the system at the same time.