PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: JeffDG on January 29, 2016, 11:09:49 AM
-
Can any of you cite a single example of Mr. Trump passionately advocating a conservative position when not actively running for something?
-
I loathe him. The debate was more mature and meaningful without him. To answer your question, I do not care. He is a loose cannon and a petulant child.
Carry on.
-
I loathe him. The debate was more mature and meaningful without him. To answer your question, I do not care. He is a loose cannon and a petulant child.
Carry on.
I ask, because the Trumpkins portray him as the great conservative saviour, and I'm not seeing it.
-
If electing a conservative, I prefer it to be a conservative from birth, not a "converted one."
-
If electing a conservative, I prefer it to be a conservative from birth, not a "converted one."
I'll take a converted one. However, I'd like to see at least some commitment to the cause over an extended period of time. As Churchill said "If you're a conservative at 20, you have no heart. If you're a liberal at 40 you have no brain." Plenty of good conservatives converted at some point in their life.
That said, someone who "converts" upon announcing his candidacy is more likely an opportunistic charlatan than a true convert.
-
I'll take a converted one. However, I'd like to see at least some commitment to the cause over an extended period of time. As Churchill said "If you're a conservative at 20, you have no heart. If you're a liberal at 40 you have no brain." Plenty of good conservatives converted at some point in their life.
That said, someone who "converts" upon announcing his candidacy is more likely an opportunistic charlatan than a true convert.
I even have a liberal quote for your brilliant term for Trump: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them." Maya Angelou!
-
I don't think I'm a "Trumpkin", yet, but as far back as I can research Trump has always claimed to be conservative. From the 1990 interview linked in another thread to other links referenced in Snopes such as this one: http://www.snopes.com/1998-trump-people-quote/
I think you guys and gals are falling for the hatchet job being done on the guy.
-
I don't think I'm a "Trumpkin", yet, but as far back as I can research Trump has always claimed to be conservative. From the 1990 interview linked in another thread to other links referenced in Snopes such as this one: http://www.snopes.com/1998-trump-people-quote/ (http://www.snopes.com/1998-trump-people-quote/)
I think you guys and gals are falling for the hatchet job being done on the guy.
Claiming to be a conservative is not the same as advocating for conservative principles. I'm looking for one example of him actually doing so.
-
Claiming to be a conservative is not the same as advocating for conservative principles. I'm looking for one example of him actually doing so.
He's not a politician, what could he do to satisfy you. Read his older interviews, I don't think his mantra has changed over the years and certainly living in NYC, were he liberal claiming and speaking the moonbat mantra could have been more lucrative for him than saying he is conservative.
-
Who specifically has claimed Trump to be a Conservative?
'Gimp
-
Who specifically has claimed Trump to be a Conservative?
'Gimp
Trump.
-
Who specifically has claimed Trump to be a Conservative?
'Gimp
Actually Trump himself has claimed to be conservative, many times, throughout the years.
-
Trump.
JeffDG said 'the Trumpkins portray his as a conservative savior' - curious who specifically Jeff was talking about.
'Gimp
-
If electing a conservative, I prefer it to be a conservative from birth, not a "converted one."
So you didn't like Reagan?
-
So you didn't like Reagan?
Good point. But Trump is no Reagan.
-
Good point. But Trump is no Reagan.
I knew Ronald Reagan. Reagan was an idol of mine. Trump is no Reagan.
-
Good point. But Trump is no Reagan.
No one said he was.
-
If electing a conservative, I prefer it to be a conservative from birth, not a "converted one."
Then I'm your man, Becky! I was the Alex P. Keaton of my 8th grade class. :)
-
I don't think I'm a "Trumpkin", yet, but as far back as I can research Trump has always claimed to be conservative. From the 1990 interview linked in another thread to other links referenced in Snopes such as this one: http://www.snopes.com/1998-trump-people-quote/
I think you guys and gals are falling for the hatchet job being done on the guy.
Please, Paul. Please do some research. There is a LOT out there.
Trump went from independent to a Democrat in 2001, and only converted to Republican in 2009 or 2012 depending on the source. Can we presume we was AWOL from conservative principles at least from 2001 to 2009?
He was "very pro choice."
He supported the assault weapons ban.
He supported universal healthcare.
He donated $100,000 to the fucking Clinton Foundation!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/09/ths-many-ways-in-which-donald-trump-was-once-a-liberals-liberal/
Trump is a poser at best, a Trojan Horse or Manchurian candidate at worst.
-
So stick with the career politicians (lawyers).
BTW, how's that been working out for you so far?
-
So stick with the career politicians (lawyers).
BTW, how's that been working out for you so far?
If the non politician is a liberal wearing conservative clothes, I'll take a politician. Reagan worked out pretty well, thanks for asking.
-
Please, Paul. Please do some research. There is a LOT out there.
Trump went from independent to a Democrat in 2001, and only converted to Republican in 2009 or 2012 depending on the source. Can we presume we was AWOL from conservative principles at least from 2001 to 2009?
He was "very pro choice."
He supported the assault weapons ban.
He supported universal healthcare.
He donated $100,000 to the fucking Clinton Foundation!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/09/ths-many-ways-in-which-donald-trump-was-once-a-liberals-liberal/
Trump is a poser at best, a Trojan Horse or Manchurian candidate at worst.
Thanks Stan, I'll check this out, every time I research claims they turn out false, I'll get back to ya.
-
If the non politician is a liberal wearing conservative clothes, I'll take a politician. Reagan worked out pretty well, thanks for asking.
Yes Reagan did. In this election we have the usual cadre of career politicians, or an outsider.
Take your pick. As for the career politicians in the present group, sorry, same old shit, different election.
-
Yes Reagan did. In this election we have the usual cadre of career politicians, or an outsider.
Take your pick. As for the career politicians in the present group, sorry, same old shit, different election.
Why aren't you supporting Carson or Fiorina? They could use your
help.
.
-
Why aren't you supporting Carson or Fiorina? They could use your
help.
.
Carson is a nice guy, but he's outside his realm running for president.
Fiorina is a whiny bitch.
-
Almost 2 pages and no response on point yet...
-
Almost 2 pages and no response on point yet...
Same with my other thread. It's a little disturbing, kind of like Ann Coulter's columns in support of Trump.
-
Same with my other thread. It's a little disturbing, kind of like Ann Coulter's columns in support of Trump.
The line that he could shoot someone and not lose voters is also deeply concerning. That's not someone who is winning based on policy or principle. That's a "Cult of Personality", more akin to the Kims in the DPRK than it is to a functioning democracy.
-
The line that he could shoot someone and not lose voters is also deeply concerning. That's not someone who is winning based on policy or principle. That's a "Cult of Personality", more akin to the Kims in the DPRK than it is to a functioning democracy.
Trump wants to get all Gangsta to show his NY values.
By the way, didn't we recently have an election win by the Cult of Personality of a certain Community Organizer? How's that working out?
-
He donated $100,000 to the fucking Clinton Foundation!
Hard to see anyone spending that kind of money to do her.
Unless you're talking about Bill?
-
Almost 2 pages and no response on point yet...
Maybe because you are tilting at a strawman?? Who here has claimed Trump is a conservative?
'Gimp
-
Hard to see anyone spending that kind of money to do her.
Unless you're talking about Bill?
Maybe he used that to find his many trips to Orgy Island.
-
I loathe him. The debate was more mature and meaningful without him. To answer your question, I do not care. He is a loose cannon and a petulant child.
Carry on.
congratulations on using the word "loose" correctly.
-
congratulations on using the word "loose" correctly.
Is this an inside joke?
-
Hard to see anyone spending that kind of money to do her.
Unless you're talking about Bill?
I think for that much, you get them both.
-
Jeff, I think you're asking the choir here. Trump attracts mostly middle class folks that are tired of the bull shit and like someone that is not the usual politician.
-
Is this an inside joke?
Not at all.
It is just one of my pet peeves when people keep using the word "loose" when they should be using "lose'. And rather than criticize those that use it incorrectly, I chose congratulate someone that used the word correctly.
Or are you "looseing" your mind?
-
Not at all.
It is just one of my pet peeves when people keep using the word "loose" when they should be using "lose'. And rather than criticize those that use it incorrectly, I chose congratulate someone that used the word correctly.
Or are you "looseing" your mind?
your kidding me. their orta be a law.
-
Or are you "looseing" your mind?
I thought I was when iOS suggested this:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7336/15734292113_dfde177053_z.jpg)
-
Not at all.
It is just one of my pet peeves when people keep using the word "loose" when they should be using "lose'. And rather than criticize those that use it incorrectly, I chose congratulate someone that used the word correctly.
Or are you "looseing" your mind?
As if anyone should give a shit about your "pet peeves".
-
As if anyone should give a shit about your "pet peeves".
Now THAT'S how you build a community! 8)
-
Now THAT'S how you build a community! 8)
Yep, my pet peeve is reading about other people's pet peeves....
-
congratulations on using the word "loose" correctly.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/693782388564865024 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/693782388564865024)
-
Trump finds a debate opponent worthy of him.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpKiP_gmDS8)
-
I'll take a converted one. However, I'd like to see at least some commitment to the cause over an extended period of time. As Churchill said "If you're a conservative at 20, you have no heart. If you're a liberal at 40 you have no brain." Plenty of good conservatives converted at some point in their life.
That said, someone who "converts" upon announcing his candidacy is more likely an opportunistic charlatan than a true convert.
Just curious, you advertise yourself as a "libertarian", so are you? Shouldn't you be supporting one of these guys since they adhere to your party's principals? https://www.lp.org/candidates/presidential-candidates-2016
-
Trump finds a debate opponent worthy of him.
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpKiP_gmDS8)
Love it. In all fairness, I'm sure you could edit together a skit like this for any of the candidates. This skit does nicely illustrate that Trump is not that "outsider" anti-politician. He is politician through and through. He will say whatever he has to say at any given moment to get short term approval. He is just as phony as the rest of them, but with an enormous ego and people don't like him much. I guess that also describes Cruz and Hillary as well I guess... So Trump fits in well.
Trump is not ready to be president, but he is ready for public office.
-
Trump is not ready to be president, but he is ready for public office.
So which one of the candidates running is "ready to be president"?
-
So which one of the candidates running is "ready to be president"?
Any of those that actually have real experience in government. What I mean by real experience is, more than just one term at some public office. Two term state senator, one term US senator and community organizer clearly isn't enough either. State governors often do well, but not always.
-
Any of those that actually have real experience in government. What I mean by real experience is, more than just one term at some public office. Two term state senator, one term US senator and community organizer clearly isn't enough either. State governors often do well, but not always.
So being a bureaucrat qualifies one to be President? So far we keep sending these bureaucrats and career politicians to Washington and its not working. Albert Einstein once said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results".
-
Yep, my pet peeve is reading about other people's pet peeves....
John was asked, he answered. That the answer was a pet peeve is happenstance. Personally, I detest the incorrect use of "its" and "it's," and if asked, I'd answer. Closing the loop.
-
So being a bureaucrat qualifies one to be President? So far we keep sending these bureaucrats and career politicians to Washington and its not working. Albert Einstein once said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results".
Over the last 227 years, that has overwhelmingly been the case with both success and failure, with obviously most being successful. Over those 227 years, there have only been 11 presidents that were not either lawyers, or career military. Of those only two were businessmen, but they both held elected office prior. They are Bush Sr. and Jr. How well they did at the job is seriously debatable.
In those 227 years, only 4 presidents have come to power without serving as an elected official previously. Taylor, Grant and Eisenhower all were career military prior. Hoover was only Secretary of Commerce prior under Harding and Coolidge, so not elected. He also was the only engineer to be president and sadly, was considered to be a pretty lousy president. The only other president that came to power with little previous experience was Chester Arthur. He was elected to Vice President of the US under Garfield and served in that position for only a year before Garfield was assassinated and he became president. He was of course though, a lawyer.
So maybe we have been insane and getting it all wrong for the last 227 years. IDK. However I see nothing at all presidential about Trump. I see no qualities in him that make me think he would be any good at the job and he has no experience at all as an elected official. Voting for him just because "He's not one of them." seems poor logic too me. Also, I felt (both times) that Obama was an incredibly poor choice and that a large number of people voted for him for the wrong reasons too. I hope we can vote this time in a more analytical way rather than emotion.
-
Over the last 227 years, that has overwhelmingly been the case with both success and failure, with obviously most being successful. Over those 227 years, there have only been 11 presidents that were not either lawyers, or career military. Of those only two were businessmen, but they both held elected office prior. They are Bush Sr. and Jr. How well they did at the job is seriously debatable.
In those 227 years, only 4 presidents have come to power without serving as an elected official previously. Taylor, Grant and Eisenhower all were career military prior. Hoover was only Secretary of Commerce prior under Harding and Coolidge, so not elected. He also was the only engineer to be president and sadly, was considered to be a pretty lousy president. The only other president that came to power with little previous experience was Chester Arthur. He was elected to Vice President of the US under Garfield and served in that position for only a year before Garfield was assassinated and he became president. He was of course though, a lawyer.
So maybe we have been insane and getting it all wrong for the last 227 years. IDK. However I see nothing at all presidential about Trump. I see no qualities in him that make me think he would be any good at the job and he has no experience at all as an elected official. Voting for him just because "He's not one of them." seems poor logic too me. Also, I felt (both times) that Obama was an incredibly poor choice and that a large number of people voted for him for the wrong reasons too. I hope we can vote this time in a more analytical way rather than emotion.
"Well, we've always done it that way, so no need to change now"...........
Seriously?
Put another Washington politician, another party "elite" or a career politician in and the voter gets the government he deserves.
Career politicians and party loyalist have got us in this mess. It's time to think "outside the box".
-
Well, this thread is confirming my original hypothesis.
Trump's fans cannot cite a single conservative position he advanced when not a candidate.
-
As if anyone should give a shit about your "pet peeves".
I don't give a shit if anyone gives a shit or not. I never criticized anyone for misusing the word "Loose". I only congratulated one person that used it correctly. You can show your ignorance all you want. I won't say a word.
Well, maybe that's not true. If you say something stupid, I suppose I will tell you.
-
Any of those that actually have real experience in government. What I mean by real experience is, more than just one term at some public office. Two term state senator, one term US senator and community organizer clearly isn't enough either. State governors often do well, but not always.
Obama has two years as a Senator and SEVEN years as PRESIDENT. He has more experience being President than any of those running today. But even with SEVEN YEARS experience, he is still incompetent.
Experience has it's place, but it is not the most important qualification to be President.
-
I don't give a shit if anyone gives a shit or not. I never criticized anyone for misusing the word "Loose". I only congratulated one person that used it correctly. You can show your ignorance all you want. I won't say a word.
Well, maybe that's not true. If you say something stupid, I suppose I will tell you.
I don't give a shit that you don't give a shit.......
So there!
-
I don't give a shit that you don't give a shit.......
Just curious...
...if I say I had a "loose shit", am I using it correctly?
-
Just curious...
...if I say I had a "loose shit", am I using it correctly?
Yes, unless you are talking about when you "lose your shit" but even then "loose your shit" could be correct dependent upon the circumstance.
-
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/693782388564865024 (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/693782388564865024)
Sigh.
-
I am tired of the GOVERNMENT/POLITICAL CLASS. Get a real job assholes! I also don't think I will vote for Trump. Experience in government, and/or office is not a good thing in my opinion. I don't want more CORRUPTION which has become accepted in government and society.
-
I am tired of the GOVERNMENT/POLITICAL CLASS. Get a real job assholes! I also don't think I will vote for Trump. Experience in government, and/or office is not a good thing in my opinion. I don't want more CORRUPTION which has become accepted in government and society.
So you'd rather have the Hildebeast?
-
So you'd rather have the Hildebeast?
isn't it her turn now?
-
So you'd rather have the Hildebeast?
What difference, at this point, does it make?
-
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-iowa-218510
-
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/01/trumps-use-government-power-against-the-less-powerful/
-
So Jeff, I asked you this question several pages back and you didn't answer:
Just curious, you advertise yourself as a "libertarian", so are you? Shouldn't you be supporting one of these guys since they adhere to your party's principals? https://www.lp.org/candidates/presidential-candidates-2016
??
-
So Jeff, I asked you this question several pages back and you didn't answer:
??
I identify as having libertarian leaning principles. On the political spectrum, I am kind of conservatarian.
That said, I belong to no political party.
And if you recall, the first post in this thread posed a question which you didn't answer either:
Can any of you cite a single example of Mr. Trump passionately advocating a conservative position when not actively running for something?
-
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/01/trumps-use-government-power-against-the-less-powerful/
Isn't that what every elected (and unelected) government official does?
-
Isn't that what every elected (and unelected) government official does?
It is the role of every elected government official to utilize the powers of the State to seize property from others to their personal profit? You and I have a very different view of the role of the government apparently.
-
I identify as having libertarian leaning principles. On the political spectrum, I am kind of conservatarian.
That said, I belong to no political party.
So you lambaste a candidate for basically doing the same thing you are doing?
And if you recall, the first post in this thread posed a question which you didn't answer either:
Because I choose not to answer it. I don't "litmus test" candidates, nor do I proclaim they have to meet certain standards from birth. I look at the individual and decide if they can do the job or not.
-
So you lambaste a candidate for basically doing the same thing you are doing?
So...I, as a non-voter, am required to maintain the same standards as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States? Interesting...
Because I choose not to answer it. I don't "litmus test" candidates, nor do I proclaim they have to meet certain standards from birth. I look at the individual and decide if they can do the job or not.
Actually, I think it's more of you "can't" not that you "choose" not to. I'm not asking for a demonstration of conservative purity here, I'm asking for one single example of him advocating for a conservative policy, from someone who wishes to represent the conservative party. I think that's just about the absolute bare minimum.
-
So you'd rather have the Hildebeast?
Of course not. If Trump is the nominee I will vote for him over Hillary. How did you get that out of what I said? I just don't like career politicians of any party, but I also do not trust Trump to not sell out conservative values.
-
So...I, as a non-voter, am required to maintain the same standards as a candidate for the Presidency of the United States? Interesting...
Actually, I think it's more of you "can't" not that you "choose" not to. I'm not asking for a demonstration of conservative purity here, I'm asking for one single example of him advocating for a conservative policy, from someone who wishes to represent the conservative party. I think that's just about the absolute bare minimum.
Conservative purity=litmus test. Using this none of the candidates will pass.
I want someone who can think outside the box and is not beholden to a bunch of party elites who cut backroom deals. Look at the current leadership in Congress and the Senate, they would rather support the elites as to represent the people.
Trump scares a lot of people, especially those in the elites (both sides) because they know he will not fear them and they cannot buy him off to do their bidding. Maybe it's time to have a real CEO in charge that isn't afraid to call bullshit when he sees it.
-
Conservative purity=litmus test. Using this none of the candidates will pass.
Again...not asking for "purity". Just one single position he has advocated when not at candidate. Just one. Shouldn't be difficult. I can pick out many for all the others, including those who are clearly RINOs, but I cannot, for the life of me, find a single one for Trump.
If you want to vote for a Cult of Personality, be my guest. But he'd be a much better fit in the Democrat primary than the Republican one.
-
I want someone who can think outside the box and is not beholden to a bunch of party elites who cut backroom deals. Look at the current leadership in Congress and the Senate, they would rather support the elites as to represent the people.
Have you been watching the news? The Republican establishment is all-in for Trump now. He's cut his deal with them already. His whole campaign is about him being able to cut deals.
-
Have you been watching the news? The Republican establishment is all-in for Trump now. He's cut his deal with them already. His whole campaign is about him being able to cut deals.
Yes, I watch the news, and read quite a bit. The elites are still trying to figure out how to undermine Trump. Read the latest Weekly Review?
Even if he clears the delegate count at the convention they will still try to circumvent him. In their world they, and only they will decide who the rightful candidate is.
-
Yes, I watch the news, and read quite a bit. The elites are still trying to figure out how to undermine Trump. Read the latest Weekly Review?
Even if he clears the delegate count at the convention they will still try to circumvent him. In their world they, and only they will decide who the rightful candidate is.
Ahhh...so when Bob Dole (about as establishment as it gets) supports him as "someone we can deal with" that's just them not knowing anything, it's not that they understand that Trump has no actual principles that will hold him to any position, so he'll be free to cut a deal.
The establishment dislikes Trump, but know they can deal with him. They fear Cruz, because they know he actually has principles, something Trump is wholly unencumbered by.
-
http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/01/trumps-use-government-power-against-the-less-powerful/
Yea but, yea but, yea but ... He's against illegal immigrants!!!!! That's all that matters. Just ask Ann Coulter.
-
So you lambaste a candidate for basically doing the same thing you are doing?
Because I choose not to answer it. I don't "litmus test" candidates, nor do I proclaim they have to meet certain standards from birth. I look at the individual and decide if they can do the job or not.
Advocating a conservative principle is now a distasteful "litmus test" for a GOP candidate for POTUS? Ooookaaay. :rolleyes:
-
Our resident Trumpkin is long on deflection and character assassination, short on actual answers to questions.
-
Conservative purity=litmus test. Using this none of the candidates will pass.
I want someone who can think outside the box and is not beholden to a bunch of party elites who cut backroom deals. Look at the current leadership in Congress and the Senate, they would rather support the elites as to represent the people.
Trump scares a lot of people, especially those in the elites (both sides) because they know he will not fear them and they cannot buy him off to do their bidding. Maybe it's time to have a real CEO in charge that isn't afraid to call bullshit when he sees it.
Re-read. Jeff said he's NOT asking for conservative purity.
So people can't buy off Trump. But Trump buys off people. You're OK with that? Last I heard quid pro quo is illegal.
Fortunately, I call bullshit when I see it. The question is how can Trump supporters not see it?
-
Fortunately, I call bullshit when I see it. The question is how can Trump supporters not see it?
Maybe they need to start a new chant.
Na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, na, TRUMP!
-
Ahhh...so when Bob Dole (about as establishment as it gets) supports him as "someone we can deal with" that's just them not knowing anything, it's not that they understand that Trump has no actual principles that will hold him to any position, so he'll be free to cut a deal.
The establishment dislikes Trump, but know they can deal with him. They fear Cruz, because they know he actually has principles, something Trump is wholly unencumbered by.
Cruz's main problems are 1) he's disliked in the Senate and 2) he is so far Right he is the equivalent of Bernie just 180 degrees the other way.
After 7 years of an extremist in the oval office, the public is sick and tired. The voter anger is at all time highs. People are sick and tired of a weak dick Republican led Congress and Senate that constantly caves in to the left. They are sick and tired of "political correctness" that basically has the career politicians having to watch each and every word they utter. They are sick and tired of the extremist wanting reparations for every fucking perceived wrong that has (or has not) happened in the last 3 centuries. They are sick and tired of watching our borders thrown wide open inviting everyone to cross without fear and then move to "sanctuary cities" and immediately get on public assistance.
And the list goes on and on.
Yes, the DNC wants desperately for a Bush, Rubio or Cruz nomination because they know the Clinton machine will wipe them out. That's why I laugh every time someone utters "unelectable" in reference to a republican candidate because it comes straight from Debbie Wasserman Schults lips.
-
After 7 years of an extremist in the oval office, the public is sick and tired.
After 7 years of an extreme narcissistic in the White House, you want to put another one in.
-
Our resident Trumpkin is long on deflection and character assassination, short on actual answers to questions.
And you twist what others have wrote to make your point.
BTW, not a "Trumpkin" as you put it, just an observer of the process in action.
-
After 7 years of an extreme narcissistic in the White House, you want to put another one in.
I never said that. I'm making observations based upon what I read and see.
-
And you twist what others have wrote to make your point.
How so? I asked a simple question, asking for one single example. Nobody has been able to provide same.
You are the one twisting, both words (somehow conflating wanting to see a single example of conservatism from Dear Leader Trump to some test of ideological purity), and in the wind (as you cannot surmount that incredibly low bar).
BTW, not a "Trumpkin" as you put it, just an observer of the process in action.
That's about the same as Trump's claims that he's a conservative. Your actions speak louder about your being a Trumpkin than your words do.
-
Jeff I have been holding off for a while but you still have not acknowledged that this is a strawman argument.
As far as I can recall, nobody here, before your question, was calling Trump a true conservative - I know I haven't.
As for people saying one thing when campaigning and doing another if/when elected show me one person who has not 'matured' a position - not Cruz, not Rubio, not any of them.
None of them are ideologically pure or truly principled from a Conservatism standpoint, not one.
I get it, you don't like Trump, the petty name calling (Trumpkins), the endless links to anti-Trump stuff - OK.
I just wish that those of us on the Right would spend more time formulating a strategy of exposing and defeating the failures of the Left rather than forming a circular firing squad to torpedo the top two candidates on our own freaking side.
Imagine if we spent even half the energy currently being invested in bashing Trump or Cruz on educating the middle and left-of-center voters on who is actually responsible for their suffering and powerfully and positively espousing conservative ideals (no matter how recently acquired).
I think people still totally fail to understand the Trump approach and continue to try and use conventional campaign thinking an conventional campaign tactics on a clearly asymmetric campaign - like sending an Aircraft Carrier after 6 Somali pirates in a dinghy with a 40hp Evinrude.
And as a reminder, I am not a Trump supporter, not supporting his campaign with dollars or time - I am only voting 'FOR' this time, voting against is a waste and keeps the elites in power. If they can't produce a candidate and campaign I want to vote for I am not voting. I could vote for Trump if he is the candidate, but that is a ways off yet.
'Gimp
-
I am a big 2A supporter. You could call me a single issue voter in that regard as that protects all the other issues I care about. I do not trust Trump to continue his current statements on conservative values like protecting the 2A. I see him as a deal maker, that will sacrifice things to advance his agenda du jour.
That being said, if Trump is the R nominee I will vote for him. I would vote for Genghis Kahn against Hillary, Biden, Sanders, or O'Malley. I think Biden will be the nominee btw.
-
Jeff I have been holding off for a while but you still have not acknowledged that this is a strawman argument.
As far as I can recall, nobody here, before your question, was calling Trump a true conservative - I know I haven't.
As for people saying one thing when campaigning and doing another if/when elected show me one person who has not 'matured' a position - not Cruz, not Rubio, not any of them.
None of them are ideologically pure or truly principled from a Conservatism standpoint, not one.
I get it, you don't like Trump, the petty name calling (Trumpkins), the endless links to anti-Trump stuff - OK.
I just wish that those of us on the Right would spend more time formulating a strategy of exposing and defeating the failures of the Left rather than forming a circular firing squad to torpedo the top two candidates on our own freaking side.
Imagine if we spent even half the energy currently being invested in bashing Trump or Cruz on educating the middle and left-of-center voters on who is actually responsible for their suffering and powerfully and positively espousing conservative ideals (no matter how recently acquired).
I think people still totally fail to understand the Trump approach and continue to try and use conventional campaign thinking an conventional campaign tactics on a clearly asymmetric campaign - like sending an Aircraft Carrier after 6 Somali pirates in a dinghy with a 40hp Evinrude.
And as a reminder, I am not a Trump supporter, not supporting his campaign with dollars or time - I am only voting 'FOR' this time, voting against is a waste and keeps the elites in power. If they can't produce a candidate and campaign I want to vote for I am not voting. I could vote for Trump if he is the candidate, but that is a ways off yet.
'Gimp
Very well written!
-
Jeff I have been holding off for a while but you still have not acknowledged that this is a strawman argument.
As far as I can recall, nobody here, before your question, was calling Trump a true conservative - I know I haven't.
I've never asked for a demonstration of Dear Leader Trump as a "true conservative". I'm simply asking that the person seeking the nomination of the more conservative mainstream party demonstrate a single example of a conservative position when not running for office. That's an incredibly low bar, yet Dear Leader Trump and his Trumpkins seem wholly incapable of crossing it.
As for people saying one thing when campaigning and doing another if/when elected show me one person who has not 'matured' a position - not Cruz, not Rubio, not any of them.
None of them are ideologically pure or truly principled from a Conservatism standpoint, not one.
Again, not asking for that. Just one, only one, example of Dear Leader Trump advocating for a conservative position.
I get it, you don't like Trump, the petty name calling (Trumpkins), the endless links to anti-Trump stuff - OK.
I just wish that those of us on the Right would spend more time formulating a strategy of exposing and defeating the failures of the Left rather than forming a circular firing squad to torpedo the top two candidates on our own freaking side.
Here's the thing. The point of asking for a single position by Trump that is conservative is to point out that he is of the Left. He is a Democrat in the Republican Primary. The goal is to go into the general with two Democrats (maybe 3 if Bloomberg runs as an "Independent")
-
I've never asked for a demonstration of Dear Leader Trump as a "true conservative". I'm simply asking that the person seeking the nomination of the more conservative mainstream party demonstrate a single example of a conservative position when not running for office. That's an incredibly low bar, yet Dear Leader Trump and his Trumpkins seem wholly incapable of crossing it.
Again, not asking for that. Just one, only one, example of Dear Leader Trump advocating for a conservative position.
Here's the thing. The point of asking for a single position by Trump that is conservative is to point out that he is of the Left. He is a Democrat in the Republican Primary. The goal is to go into the general with two Democrats (maybe 3 if Bloomberg runs as an "Independent")
Pure bovine scatology.
You set up a strawman argument. As has been pointed out to you, by your own logic Reagan would be ineligible for your support since he was a Democrat before he was a Republican - he advocated Democrat ideals until he changed his position and campaigned as a Republican. If Ronaldus Magnus can't make it no way that Trump or Cruz or anyone else can.
Newsflash - we have been picking between Democrat and Democrat "Light" since Bush '41 - how well has that been working out for us?
The reason Trump is attractive to many, as has also been pointed out to you endlessly, is the perception that he takes no shit and can not be 'bought'.
If you review Trump's body of work he is clearly a pro-business candidate, most likely a Fiscal Conservative, Socially Liberal North East Republican. His previous party affiliation means no more than did Reagan's or anybody else's.
Did he change his position on abortion? Yes. Did Cruz change on imigration and ethanol subsidies Syria, etc.? Yes. Did Rubio change on immigration and 2A etc.? Yes.
There are no ideological pure Conservatives in this fight, none. And if we don't win it means nothing.
Would Cruz be more Conservative than Trump on matters of substance? Maybe, can't say for sure since both have changed positions - would either be way more Conservative than the alternative - yes.
'Gimp
-
Pure bovine scatology.
You set up a strawman argument. As has been pointed out to you, by your own logic Reagan would be ineligible for your support since he was a Democrat before he was a Republican - he advocated Democrat ideals until he changed his position and campaigned as a Republican. If Ronaldus Magnus can't make it no way that Trump or Cruz or anyone else can.
No...how is asking for a single conservative position a "strawman" argument? Where have I asked for purity test, or even denying that people can switch?
Reagan left the Democrats and campaiged for conservative causes for years, no decades, before he had the temerity to ask the Republican Party to make him their nominee for the presidency.
People keep avoiding the actual question and putting other questions into my mouth, mainly because the original question is fundamental, and highly unfavourable to Dear Leader Trump.
He is running as a Cult of Personality the likes of which the Kims of DPRK would be proud.
-
If you review Trump's body of work he is clearly a pro-business candidate, most likely a Fiscal Conservative, Socially Liberal North East Republican. His previous party affiliation means no more than did Reagan's or anybody else's.
If that's true it should be incredibly easy for you to cite multiple examples.
-
No...how is asking for a single conservative position a "strawman" argument? Where have I asked for purity test, or even denying that people can switch?
Reagan left the Democrats and campaiged for conservative causes for years, no decades, before he had the temerity to ask the Republican Party to make him their nominee for the presidency.
People keep avoiding the actual question and putting other questions into my mouth, mainly because the original question is fundamental, and highly unfavourable to Dear Leader Trump.
He is running as a Cult of Personality the likes of which the Kims of DPRK would be proud.
Again, you are excluding anything he has said since he became a candidate which makes it a strawman. People as a rule don't go out and make huge political speeches or take positions when not seeking office.
Not impressed with the moving goalpost badger attacks either. Trump's current positions are at least as if not more conservative than even Cruz on immigration, economy/budget, etc.
But, since I am not a supporter I am not doing your homework for you - how about you focus on promoting who you support? The circular firing squad bullshit is tiring and unproductive.
Convince me to support somebody you like.
BTW, Reagan entered politics as a Republican (having been an admitted life long Democrat) when he ran for Governor of California, fully 12 years prior to seeking the Presidency. Using your logic he would not be able to meet your requirement - the Time for Choosing speech was his entrance into the Republican party and was him campaigning for the nomination to run for Governor.
'Gimp
-
Again, you are excluding anything he has said since he became a candidate which makes it a strawman. People as a rule don't go out and make huge political speeches or take positions when not seeking office.
Yes...they do, if they actually hold things called "principles". Reagan went out and campaigned aggressively for Republicans when he was not running as an example.
Again, just asking for ONE example.
-
Yes...they do, if they actually hold things called "principles". Reagan went out and campaigned aggressively for Republicans when he was not running as an example.
Again, just asking for ONE example.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Donald_Trump.htm
-
Pure bovine scatology.
You set up a strawman argument. As has been pointed out to you, by your own logic Reagan would be ineligible for your support since he was a Democrat before he was a Republican - he advocated Democrat ideals until he changed his position and campaigned as a Republican. If Ronaldus Magnus can't make it no way that Trump or Cruz or anyone else can.
Newsflash - we have been picking between Democrat and Democrat "Light" since Bush '41 - how well has that been working out for us?
The reason Trump is attractive to many, as has also been pointed out to you endlessly, is the perception that he takes no shit and can not be 'bought'.
If you review Trump's body of work he is clearly a pro-business candidate, most likely a Fiscal Conservative, Socially Liberal North East Republican. His previous party affiliation means no more than did Reagan's or anybody else's.
Did he change his position on abortion? Yes. Did Cruz change on imigration and ethanol subsidies Syria, etc.? Yes. Did Rubio change on immigration and 2A etc.? Yes.
There are no ideological pure Conservatives in this fight, none. And if we don't win it means nothing.
Would Cruz be more Conservative than Trump on matters of substance? Maybe, can't say for sure since both have changed positions - would either be way more Conservative than the alternative - yes.
'Gimp
Gimp, sorry, but you set up a straw man yourself. Reagan became a Republican in 1962, and by 1964 he became the spokesman for the conservative movement, 18 years before seeking the presidency.
Trump became a Republican in 2009 or 2012, depending on the source of that information.
The comparison is pretty invalid in light of Jeff's question.
-
Gimp, sorry, but you set up a straw man yourself. Reagan became a Republican in 1962, and by 1964 he became the spokesman for the conservative movement, 18 years before seeking the presidency.
Trump became a Republican in 2009 or 2012, depending on the source of that information.
The comparison is pretty invalid in light of Jeff's question.
...and CA Governor in '66 - the timelines are actually very comparable. Both supported Dem causes/positions and candidates prior to their conversion.
Look, Trump is no Reagan and that is not at all what I am saying - my point is Jeff wants to invalidate what is said on the campaign trail and focus on policy proclamations or other position statements made when NOT on the campaign trail and by that logic Reagan would not pass the same test since he was effectively campaigning when he started making speeches (first for Governor and then President).
And once more, where is the energy to convince me to support somebody? Why the circular firing squad?
Give me something to have a reason to vote FOR somebody.
'Gimp
-
If that's true it should be incredibly easy for you to cite multiple examples.
I think we are in an age when what you say trumps (no pun intended - seriously) what you do.
That being said, lots of people think Trump is a conservative and cite someplace where he said so as proof.
What makes me think that way is how the fruit loops united behind spray tan loves matter, and the unicorns who think they should be women, so they want to shower with little girls. The only proof required is that they said so.
-
I think we are in an age when what you say trumps (no pun intended - seriously) what you do.
That being said, lots of people think Trump is a conservative and cite someplace where he said so as proof.
What makes me think that way is how the fruit loops united behind spray tan loves matter, and the unicorns who think they should be women, so they want to shower with little girls. The only proof required is that they said so.
Ramesh Ponnuru and Rich Lowry wrote on article on 1/15 in National Review where they say:
"Trump promises not to limit government but to manage it better. He will hire the best, smartest people, who will come up with terrific plans, and the results will be excellent. What's wrong with our government, on Trump's telling, is not that it has overextended itself, taking on tasks that it has no business performing and by it's very nature cannot perform well. It is that 'we are led by very, very stupid people' rather than the 'terrific' people who would staff his administration and bring America back to greatness."
That is the depth of Trump's rhetoric. I've watched every debate this year, and never heard him use the words "Constitution" or "limited government." It's very disappointing.
-
That is the depth of Trump's rhetoric. I've watched every debate this year, and never heard him use the words "Constitution" or "limited government." It's very disappointing.
Yet Obama speaks often of the Constitution and limited government (his version). Must send thrills up your leg......
-
Yet Obama speaks often of the Constitution and limited government (his version). Must send thrills up your leg......
You haven't been around here long, have you? Are you expecting me to respond re: Obama? Nice try.
So you haven't heard Trump speak about the Constitution or limited government either, correct?
-
You haven't been around here long, have you? Are you expecting me to respond re: Obama? Nice try.
So you haven't heard Trump speak about the Constitution or limited government either, correct?
I've heard every promise and every lie from everyone in this race. In reality the only one being anywhere near truthful is Bernie Sanders. He makes no bones about who he is and what he stands for.
-
Obama has two years as a Senator and SEVEN years as PRESIDENT. He has more experience being President than any of those running today. But even with SEVEN YEARS experience, he is still incompetent.
Experience has it's place, but it is not the most important qualification to be President.
All true. I'm not sure what the most important qualification for president is practically speaking. Whatever it is, none of the people running have it. It is another sad election cycle with terrible choices.
-
Maybe it's time to have a real CEO in charge that isn't afraid to call bullshit when he sees it.
Yabbut... what if the CEO is the bullshit? I think that's what we are facing with Trump.
-
All true. I'm not sure what the most important qualification for president is practically speaking. Whatever it is, none of the people running have it. It is another sad election cycle with terrible choices.
Not from my perspective.
-
Ramesh Ponnuru and Rich Lowry wrote on article on 1/15 in National Review where they say:
"Trump promises not to limit government but to manage it better. He will hire the best, smartest people, who will come up with terrific plans, and the results will be excellent. What's wrong with our government, on Trump's telling, is not that it has overextended itself, taking on tasks that it has no business performing and by it's very nature cannot perform well. It is that 'we are led by very, very stupid people' rather than the 'terrific' people who would staff his administration and bring America back to greatness."
That is the depth of Trump's rhetoric. I've watched every debate this year, and never heard him use the words "Constitution" or "limited government." It's very disappointing.
Yes and remember that his "terrific" people allowed his company to go bankrupt four times. Trump is not the real deal.
-
Not from my perspective.
See... this is where you can actually follow up with your perspective instead of a one line sentence that leaves us- wonder what that might be???.
-
Yes and remember that his "terrific" people allowed his company to go bankrupt four times. Trump is not the real deal.
Trump talks about Cruz' $1 million loan, which was paid back.
I'd love to know the sum total that Trump's creditors were left holding the bag over his 4 bankruptcies.
-
See... this is where you can actually follow up with your perspective instead of a one line sentence that leaves us- wonder what that might be???.
Really, Dave? I thought we might leave this crap over at POA. You expressed an "opinion" that "It is another election cycle with terrible choices." It wasn't a fact, it was your belief.
I did something similar. I expressed an "opinion" that it isn't an election cycle with "terrible choices" from my perspective. I'll bet most people here probably understand what I was conveying. I'm sorry you missed it. So I'll explain it for you. These aren't terrible choices on the GOP side.
-
I'm reading here that folks want the bankruptcy laws to go away.
-
I'm reading here that folks want the bankruptcy laws to go away.
Not from me. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of Trump's loan attack against Cruz. It's also fun to highlight how Trump's world is fabulous, beautiful, and yuuuge, until it's not, like when you are a creditor of Trump and he choses to declare bankruptcy and stick it to his suppliers who gave him goods and services and never got paid, or uses the full force of government to take someone's home so he can use it as a limo parking lot. I sense the Trump sycophants don't see the dark side of this "successful" business man.
-
Yes and remember that his "terrific" people allowed his company to go bankrupt four times. Trump is not the real deal.
I think that's a completely dumb argument. It sounds to me like he has been an overall outstanding success, with only a few properties failing. The company is structured to take advantage of bankruptcy laws to minimize damage if an individual property fails.
The guy is worth billions of dollars and he is the "real deal". Let me repeat that I think the bankruptcy thing is a completely dumb argument.
-
like when you are a creditor of Trump and he choses to declare bankruptcy and stick it to his suppliers who gave him goods and services and never got paid, or uses the full force of government to take someone's home so he can use it as a limo parking lot. I sense the Trump sycophants don't see the dark side of this "successful" business man.
Yeah, buy you have to give the guy props for playing the existing rules and laws to his best advantage, and he's even admitted as much when asked about his bankruptcies.
-
I am supporting Cruz at this point, but Trump's bankruptcies don't bother me. Often it is just restructuring. Yes, suppliers, and lenders can take it on the chin, but that's the law.
-
I'm happy Cruz won, but it's a little disconcerting about the dirty tactics if true. New Hampshire is next and all the solons are out in full force around here.
-
Trump's only real claim to fame is invention "too big to fail".
-
Trump talks about Cruz' $1 million loan, which was paid back.
I'd love to know the sum total that Trump's creditors were left holding the bag over his 4 bankruptcies.
Depends on what Chapter he filed under.
-
I'm happy Cruz won, but it's a little disconcerting about the dirty tactics if true. New Hampshire is next and all the solons are out in full force around here.
That guy strikes me as a little oily. Also I support Trump's assertion that he is not Native Born.
-
Depends on what Chapter he filed under.
Yea, God forbid anyone to follow the laws as written.
-
I think that's a completely dumb argument. It sounds to me like he has been an overall outstanding success, with only a few properties failing. The company is structured to take advantage of bankruptcy laws to minimize damage if an individual property fails.
The guy is worth billions of dollars and he is the "real deal". Let me repeat that I think the bankruptcy thing is a completely dumb argument.
OK, if you want to call it dumb, but still think about it for one moment. Yes, HE as done really well for himself. The same can't always be said for those under his direction. So, you're just fine handing the rains of the country to a guy that ran companies broke four times, but personally came out smelling like a rose, but I'm not. The great CEO of America and when it goes bankrupt (even more than it is), guess what? He'll still get his golden parachute and you will still be able to call him "a success".
To me that is lame. There is nothing in Trump's business dealings that inspire confidence, or even the right direction for America. Obviously you disagree and that's fine.
-
Thomas Sowell formed things nicely:
"Senator Cruz's refusal to pander to the sacred cow of ethanol subsidies in Iowa showed a resolve that is rare in politics, and may account for the Republican establishment's sudden shift to a more favorable view of wheeler-dealer Trump-- someone who can "rise above principle," as an old-time politician once put it."
http://m.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2016/02/03/after-iowa-n2113745?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&newsletterad
-
OK, if you want to call it dumb, but still think about it for one moment. Yes, HE as done really well for himself. The same can't always be said for those under his direction. So, you're just fine handing the rains of the country to a guy that ran companies broke four times, but personally came out smelling like a rose, but I'm not. The great CEO of America and when it goes bankrupt (even more than it is), guess what? He'll still get his golden parachute and you will still be able to call him "a success".
To me that is lame. There is nothing in Trump's business dealings that inspire confidence, or even the right direction for America. Obviously you disagree and that's fine.
So let me repeat this and maybe you will understand.
Trump reduces his company's risk by setting individual properties, or groups of properties into their own entities. He buys them with the intention they will suceed, but if one of them does not work out, his liability is reduced because that entity can file for bankruptcy on its own. Are you suggesting this is a bad idea?
He's done this hundreds of times, and only 4 have failed. The overwhelming majority of his properties have done well, and that is why he is considered to be successful. The lenders and banks that had to eat the bankruptcy knew 100% the structure of the company, and knew the risk involved. They aren't loaning money for free and without doing due diligence.
This type of thing is done all the time. Our company does it. Individuals do it, when they incorporate a business or start an LLC. Limiting risk is smart business.
-
So let me repeat this and maybe you will understand.
Trump reduces his company's risk by setting individual properties, or groups of properties into their own entities. He buys them with the intention they will suceed, but if one of them does not work out, his liability is reduced because that entity can file for bankruptcy on its own. Are you suggesting this is a bad idea?
He's done this hundreds of times, and only 4 have failed. The overwhelming majority of his properties have done well, and that is why he is considered to be successful. The lenders and banks that had to eat the bankruptcy knew 100% the structure of the company, and knew the risk involved. They aren't loaning money for free and without doing due diligence.
This type of thing is done all the time. Our company does it. Individuals do it, when they incorporate a business or start an LLC.
So, what you're saying is that his success is predicated upon leaning on a crutch that will not be at all available to him should he become POTUS. You can't just say "Well, the FAA is overburdened by debt, we'll just default on that and move their responsibilities to the CAA" after all.
-
So, what you're saying is that his success is predicated upon leaning on a crutch that will not be at all available to him should he become POTUS. You can't just say "Well, the FAA is overburdened by debt, we'll just default on that and move their responsibilities to the CAA" after all.
That's a ridiculous stretch.
I am saying that the claims that he is not successful, or poorly manages his business due to the bankruptcies are baseless. The business is set up to reduce risk wherever possible, all modern companies are run this way. Its the smart way to run a business.
-
Oh my God. Do a Google search of "trump" and "unfair". Is it me or is it just fucking bizarre that a 69 year old man sounds like a 12-year old girl by crying "unfair!" every time he gets a microphone in front of him?
How thin IS his skin?
-
I'm more offended by the term "fair share."
-
I'm more offended by the term "fair share."
I don't know what "fair" means. I guess the government decides what is "fair". It will surely be the level to sustain and grow them. That's for sure.
-
Trump reduces his company's risk by setting individual properties, or groups of properties into their own entities. He buys them with the intention they will suceed, but if one of them does not work out, his liability is reduced because that entity can file for bankruptcy on its own. Are you suggesting this is a bad idea?
No, that's a great idea!! We'll set up each department of the federal government to be it's own "entity" and then when they go bankrupt, they can crash and burn on their own and the rest of the government can carry on. Brilliant! The federal government should be slashed to nothing in about six months. ;D
All these sorts of shell games and hedging of bets that go on in the world of high finance, corporate holdings and Wall Street betting... er, um, I mean trading, is exactly why Trump's vast business experience is pretty much useless when it comes to running our country. It has nothing to do with how government is run.
-
No, that's a great idea!! We'll set up each department of the federal government to be it's own "entity" and then when they go bankrupt, they can crash and burn on their own and the rest of the government can carry on. Brilliant! The federal government should be slashed to nothing in about six months. ;D
All these sorts of shell games and hedging of bets that go on in the world of high finance, corporate holdings and Wall Street betting... er, um, I mean trading, is exactly why Trump's vast business experience is pretty much useless when it comes to running our country. It has nothing to do with how government is run.
Shell game? Standard business practice. It's called being smart, and Trump is a very smart guy. Though not as smart as Barry, who got himself elected President with ZERO accomplishments except putting his name on a ghost-written phony book.
Say you had a small portfolio of singe family homes that you rent out. Don't you think it would make good business sense to have each owned by its own LLC?
-
Shell game? Standard business practice. It's called being smart, and Trump is a very smart guy. Though not as smart as Barry, who got himself elected President with ZERO accomplishments except putting his name on a ghost-written phony book.
Sure, of course. Standard business practice. Using knowledge of US business laws and regulations to your advantage is smart business practice. However it has nothing to do with running a country. My point being that Trump's "business experience" is a poor reason to elect him POTUS.
-
Sure, of course. Standard business practice. Using knowledge of US business laws and regulations to your advantage is smart business practice. However it has nothing to do with running a country. My point being that Trump's "business experience" is a poor reason to elect him POTUS.
I want a leader, and a manager. Someone that has had to make executive decisions in which their performance is measured. Senators don't have to make decisions. They can vote, or they can not vote. Obama was great at that. I would rather have a Governor or CEO as President. That being said, I am in the Cruz camp right now. I don't trust Trump on the 2A. He's a New Yorker.
-
I want a leader, and a manager. Someone that has had to make executive decisions in which their performance is measured. Senators don't have to make decisions. They can vote, or they can not vote. Obama was great at that. I would rather have a Governor or CEO as President. That being said, I am in the Cruz camp right now. I don't trust Trump on the 2A. He's a New Yorker.
Cruz has already shown he will use deception to get what he wants. Sorry, he reminds me of a 1930's bible salesman.
-
Cruz has already shown he will use deception to get what he wants. Sorry, he reminds me of a 1930's bible salesman.
Cruz is using the religious rhetoric to solidify the religious right. I don't like it either. It is an unfortunate part of politics.
I don't trust Rubio due to his stance on illegal immigration and the Gang of eight crap he pulled. I don't like Trump because I think he's a Progressive, and will sell out conservative values to make deals. However, I would vote for any of them over Hillary or Bernie.
-
Cruz is using the religious rhetoric to solidify the religious right. I don't like it either. It is an unfortunate part of politics.
I don't trust Rubio due to his stance on illegal immigration and the Gang of eight crap he pulled. I don't like Trump because I think he's a Progressive, and will sell out conservative values to make deals. However, I would vote for any of them over Hillary or Bernie.
Agreed, but Cruz is a bible salesman and will use whatever deceit he can to get elected. His true colors are coming through.
Rubio, yep, agreed.
-
Agreed, but Cruz is a bible salesman and will use whatever deceit he can to get elected. His true colors are coming through.
Rubio, yep, agreed.
They all have warts. There is no Reagan in the lot, not the Reagan was perfect, but he had charisma, character, and principles.
-
Cruz is using the religious rhetoric to solidify the religious right. I don't like it either. It is an unfortunate part of politics.
I don't trust Rubio due to his stance on illegal immigration and the Gang of eight crap he pulled. I don't like Trump because I think he's a Progressive, and will sell out conservative values to make deals. However, I would vote for any of them over Hillary or Bernie.
Let's all sit down and take a long sip of some fine Kentucky bourbon (I like Knob Creek), and relax for a minute.
I didn't like Cruz's speech either. I'm a Catholic, but most Catholics would not call themselves Evangelicals. I didn't like Rubio's Gang of Eight stuff either, though he's admitted he was wrong, which is more than some politicians would ever do.
But with Rubio and Cruz, we have the best chance of nominating the most conservative candidate fielded by the GOP since Ronald Reagan 35 years ago!
There is no question in my mind that either of them would hold firm on most conservative principles that are important to me. Add to that the fact that Marco Rubio has a gift for explaining and advocating conservatism that we haven't seen since the Gipper, and that will be necessary to win in the general election. That's how "Reagan Democrats" came to be.
The circular firing squad is getting tiresome. I'm ready to start directing fire to the real enemy, though that will be impossible until Thin Skin Trump gets tired of the race and drops out.
-
Let's all sit down and take a long sip of some fine Kentucky bourbon (I like Knob Creek), and relax for a minute.
I didn't like Cruz's speech either. I'm a Catholic, but most Catholics would not call themselves Evangelicals. I didn't like Rubio's Gang of Eight stuff either, though he's admitted he was wrong, which is more than some politicians would ever do.
But with Rubio and Cruz, we have the best chance of nominating the most conservative candidate fielded by the GOP since Ronald Reagan 35 years ago!
There is no question in my mind that either of them would hold firm on most conservative principles that are important to me. Add to that the fact that Marco Rubio has a gift for explaining and advocating conservatism that we haven't seen since the Gipper, and that will be necessary to win in the general election. That's how "Reagan Democrats" came to be.
The circular firing squad is getting tiresome. I'm ready to start directing fire to the real enemy, though that will be impossible until Thin Skin Trump gets tired of the race and drops out.
The Bible salesman is beginning to show his true colors, and they ain't pretty.
Rubio? He's just sticking to his tightly scripted campaign, never let them peek behind the curtain.
One thing you can say about Trump, like him or hate him, is that he has made people take a hard look at both sides, and has actually made them talk about real issues confronting this country.
-
One thing you can say about Trump, like him or hate him, is that he has made people take a hard look at both sides, and has actually made them talk about real issues confronting this country.
That's a load of horseshit. He just panders to the LCD constantly. He has zero principles. He is, in the words of Jimmy Carter, "Completely malleable"
-
That's a load of horseshit. He just panders to the LCD constantly. He has zero principles. He is, in the words of Jimmy Carter, "Completely malleable"
Thanks for calling roughly 30% of the polled electorate the lowest common denominator - exactly which chapter was that in How To Win Friends and Influence People?
'Gimp
-
One thing you can say about Trump, like him or hate him, is that he has made people take a hard look at both sides, and has actually made them talk about real issues confronting this country.
This is where I appreciate Trump. He is anti PC as I think much of this country is but we've been bullied by corporations, the media, education, government, etc. I like his focus on the economy, the 2A, and illegal immigration. However, is he saying these things just to win the primary, or does he really believe them? I'm not so sure.
-
Thanks for calling roughly 30% of the polled electorate the lowest common denominator - exactly which chapter was that in How To Win Friends and Influence People?
'Gimp
I ain't running for office. That's his campaign strategy though.
-
That's a load of horseshit. He just panders to the LCD constantly. He has zero principles. He is, in the words of Jimmy Carter, "Completely malleable"
And your Bible Salesman is squeeky clean, right?? And talk about pandering, listened to the Bible Salesman lately??
-
I ain't running for office. That's his campaign strategy though.
And the Bible Salesman's strategy is using lies and deceit to get last minute votes............Nice.
-
And the Bible Salesman's strategy is using lies and deceit to get last minute votes............Nice.
I love how the Trumpkins love it when Dear Leader insults people, but can't seem to take it whenever anyone says something negative about their Dear Leader.
-
I love how the Trumpkins love it when Dear Leader insults people, but can't seem to take it whenever anyone says something negative about their Dear Leader.
I love how a fake libertarian will use derogatory terms towards some (Trumpkins) but can't seem to take it when someone says something negative about the Bible Salesman.
;D
-
I love how a fake libertarian will use derogatory terms towards some (Trumpkins) but can't seem to take it when someone says something negative about the Bible Salesman.
;D
Just remember, Dear Leader accused Cruz of committing a crime. I've not heard that level of vitriol coming from other campaigns.
-
I love how a fake libertarian will use derogatory terms towards some (Trumpkins) but can't seem to take it when someone says something negative about the Bible Salesman.
;D
-
Just remember, Dear Leader accused Cruz of committing a crime. I've not heard that level of vitriol coming from other campaigns.
So your OK with using deceit and lies during a caucus to garner a few more votes? How libertarian of you..... :o
BTW, your Bible Salesman is on the news right now crying about how Rubio is "the chosen one" and whining about Rubio getting too much media attention from the Iowa results.
-
So your OK with using deceit and lies during a caucus to garner a few more votes? How libertarian of you..... :o
So, you're OK with Dear Leader accusing other candidates of criminal offenses? How asshatish of you.
-
So, you're OK with Dear Leader accusing other candidates of criminal offenses? How asshatish of you.
Guess election fraud is ok as long as one totes a bible around with him.
-
The Bible salesman is beginning to show his true colors, and they ain't pretty.
Rubio? He's just sticking to his tightly scripted campaign, never let them peek behind the curtain.
One thing you can say about Trump, like him or hate him, is that he has made people take a hard look at both sides, and has actually made them talk about real issues confronting this country.
Give me a break. You are parroting the same talking points I heard coming from Christie and Trump just yesterday! This "tightly scripted" and "never let them peek behind the curtain" crap is the lamest thing I've heard Christie say in this entire campaign. What politician doesn't have some scripted statements? Is it just coincidence that I heard in every single fucking debate that Christie was "fighting terrorism" as a federal prosecutor after 9/11?
And what's with the peaking behind the curtain thing? Is Rubio hiding from interviews somewhere? I seem to see him being interviewed at least weekly. That's a lame ass characterization trying to make him look cloistered like Hillary, when it couldn't be any farther from the truth.
Except for immigration, what exactly has Trump raised that wasn't being discussed by the other candidates?
-
Give me a break. You are parroting the same talking points I heard coming from Christie and Trump just yesterday!
What do you expect from someone who wants a "completely malleable" candidate!
-
Except for immigration, what exactly has Trump raised that wasn't being discussed by the other candidates?
Trade?
-
See attached. Huge props if you can name the artist and painting.
-
Trade?
Oh yeah. Dear Leader, who runs and hides from a blonde news anchor, is going to beat the hell out of the Chinese.
-
Oh yeah. Dear Leader, who runs and hides from a blonde news anchor, is going to beat the hell out of the Chinese.
(don't take this the wrong way) Trump couldn't do worse than obama or the bitch when it comes to handling the Chinese.
-
Our economy sucks. We have created a culture of demonizing capitalism. Remember the 80's, and 90's when people were excited about making money? I know I was. What do we have today? Fasco-Communism. Trump understands capitalism, and the economy. He talks about:
Illegal immigration
The economy
Foreign trade practices
National defense
Muslim terrorism
What else?
-
Oh yeah. Dear Leader, who runs and hides from a blonde news anchor, is going to beat the hell out of the Chinese.
Hey, Megyn Kelly wasn't "fair", and Cruz wasn't "fair", and the debates weren't "fair", and having the Koch brothers not support him wasn't "fair", and having the old lady not sell her 30-year homestead to Trump for a limo parking lot isn't "fair."
-
http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/marco-rubio-the-remainderman/
-
Our economy sucks. We have created a culture of demonizing capitalism. Remember the 80's, and 90's when people were excited about making money? I know I was. What do we have today? Fasco-Communism. Trump understands capitalism, and the economy. He talks about:
Illegal immigration
The economy
Foreign trade practices
National defense
Muslim terrorism
What else?
I hear what you're saying, Anthony, but when I hear "We're going to kill ISIS!" I hear an unserious man that hasn't thought much about the topic.
-
I hear what you're saying, Anthony, but when I hear "We're going to kill ISIS!" I hear an unserious man that hasn't thought much about the topic.
Stan, I am not a Trump guy, but he has at least opened up discussion about the real issues. Rubio, and Cruz are just politicians. Senators that vote or not vote, and talk about stuff. Even Christie, and Kasich have managed stuff. That being said, I am still in the Cruz camp, but he isn't perfect.
-
http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/schlafly-unloads-on-rubio-he-betrayed-us-all/
-
(don't take this the wrong way) Trump couldn't do worse than obama or the bitch when it comes to handling the Chinese.
If I have to hear that screeching harpy's voice on TV every night for at least the next four years I'm going to dump battery acid into my ears.
-
So your OK with using deceit and lies during a caucus to garner a few more votes? How libertarian of you..... :o
BTW, your Bible Salesman is on the news right now crying about how Rubio is "the chosen one" and whining about Rubio getting too much media attention from the Iowa results.
I'm curious, which thing that Cruz did has you most upset?
-
I'm curious, which thing that Cruz did has you most upset?
He dared to say bad things about Dear Leader
-
I hear what you're saying, Anthony, but when I hear "We're going to kill ISIS!" I hear an unserious man that hasn't thought much about the topic.
Watch yourself, or you'll end up the target of the next Trumpertantrum.
-
I'm curious, which thing that Cruz did has you most upset?
I'm not "upset" with the Bible Salesman, just tired of his rhetoric and bullshit. His true colors are emerging in his desperation to get elected. It should be interesting to watch and see what other deceitful practices he comes up with as the primaries progress.
If he does make it to the nomination, the DNC and Hillary will be overcome with joy and laughter as this paves her way to the White House.
-
Watch yourself, or you'll end up the target of the next Trumpertantrum.
:)
The arguments against Cruz by the Trumpkins are as cogent as Trump's argument against Congress. "They're just stupid. They're stupid people."
-
http://www.factcheck.org/person/ted-cruz/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/ted-cruz-and-the-art-of-the-dirty-trick
http://www.thenation.com/article/ted-cruzs-trouble-truth-his-biggest-liability/
-
The Trumpkins do know that 2nd Place is "The Biggest Loser", right?
-
The Trumpkins do know that 2nd Place is "The Biggest Loser", right?
No, they don't.
Of course, they have to resort to the far leftist rag "The Nation" to slam Cruz.
-
I am concerned that the Trumpkins will go "scorched earth" if their boy doesn't win, and give the election to Hitlary or the Socialist. Either would benefit Trump personally, so he doesn't care.
-
I am concerned that the Bible Salesman sycophants will go "scorched earth" if their boy doesn't win, and give the election to Hitlary or the Socialist.
FTFY
-
No, they don't.
Of course, they have to resort to the far leftist rag "The Nation" to slam Cruz.
BTW, if you want to get a complete picture of what's going on (politically) one needs to read publications from both sides of the fence. Strictly reading from just one sides perspectives leaves one very ill informed. You don't have to agree with what is written, but it does help in understanding the entire picture.
-
I am concerned that the Trumpkins will go "scorched earth" if their boy doesn't win, and give the election to Hitlary or the Socialist. Either would benefit Trump personally, so he doesn't care.
I think that's pretty much Dear Leader's plan, to have two Democrats (Dear Leader and Hillary) in the general, either with or without a Republican.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaiqFccW8AI2-Q7.jpg:large)
-
I think that's pretty much Dear Leader's plan, to have two Democrats (Dear Leader and Hillary) in the general, either with or without a Republican.
Oh, I think it will be much worse than that.
I can see that if Cruz or Rubio wins the nomination, Trump will tell his sycophants:
"Hillary is a wonderful, powerful woman, and a close friend of mine. I even invited her to my wedding, which was a yuuuge event in Trump Tower. She is so experienced, and so presidential, that I just can't turn my back in my friend. Ted's [Cruze] experience as a one-term Senator just can't compare, plus, he's just stuuupid. So I encourage all of my fans and supporters to support Hillary Clinton as the next president of the United States."
That would be the ultimate power- broker move, and will indebt the Clinton's to Trump forever. Win-win.
.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaiWc_hXEAAjoTO.jpg)
-
I personally hope Trump and Cruz beat each other up, say a lot of dumb things, lose public favor and then ultimately get out of the way for Rubio and Kasich to come forward.
-
Still unable to find Trump give a full throated endorsement of any conservative value I see.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cai1GNPVIAELJPM.png)
-
Here's an honest question for the bible salesman fans:
If Cruz becomes the nominee, how can he win the general election? What part of the demographics will be attracted to his candidacy?
-
Here's an honest question for the bible salesman fans:
If Cruz becomes the nominee, how can he win the general election? What part of the demographics will be attracted to his candidacy?
It's quite easy.
Cruz (or Rubio) won virtually every demographic in Iowa - age, sex, race, education.
The only two demographics that Trump won were "high school or less" and the "moderate" voters.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/primaries/IA
-
This thread has been very entertaining. Thank you Lucifer and Jeff.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
This thread has been very entertaining. Thank you Lucifer and Jeff.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Not me? I don't get a participation ribbon? I'm feeling a microaggression coming on.
-
It's quite easy.
Cruz (or Rubio) won virtually every demographic in Iowa - age, sex, race, education.
The only two demographics that Trump won were "high school or less" and the "moderate" voters.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/primaries/IA
In Iowa. Iowa does not represent the total US electorate.
Cruz attracts the far right wing and the evangelicals. He is opposed by moderates and absolutely despised by the left.
Rubio attracts moderates and the conservative left.
To win the White House one needs a solid majority of his party and a small percentage of independents and democrats crossing the line.
Go back the previous two elections and look at the demographics for McCain and Romney.
-
This thread has been very entertaining. Thank you Lucifer and Jeff.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
The "devil" is in the details...... ;D
-
In Iowa. Iowa does not represent the total US electorate.
Cruz attracts the far right wing and the evangelicals. He is opposed by moderates and absolutely despised by the left.
Rubio attracts moderates and the conservative left.
To win the White House one needs a solid majority of his party and a small percentage of independents and democrats crossing the line.
Go back the previous two elections and look at the demographics for McCain and Romney.
We'll see, won't we? And polls don't represent the electorate either. If it did, Trump would be doing the victory dance on Cruz' and Rubio's heads.
-
Not me? I don't get a participation ribbon? I'm feeling a microaggression coming on.
Wanna hug it out? Haha!
I kill me
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
We'll see, won't we?
Thanks for the honest answer.
So how does the bible salesman attract the independents and conservative democrats? ANYONE who expects to win the the WH must have the backing of a portion of those two groups.
The extreme right wing and the evangelicals will not give enough votes to have a majority.
Rubio claims he "will unite the Republican Party", but how will he? Rubio has already shit in his mess kit with a large part of the Republicans.
Politics are a numbers game, period. If one can't add up enough numbers to get a majority then you don't win.
-
Thanks for the honest answer.
So how does the bible salesman attract the independents and conservative democrats? ANYONE who expects to win the the WH must have the backing of a portion of those two groups.
The extreme right wing and the evangelicals will not give enough votes to have a majority.
Rubio claims he "will unite the Republican Party", but how will he? Rubio has already shit in his mess kit with a large part of the Republicans.
Politics are a numbers game, period. If one can't add up enough numbers to get a majority then you don't win.
We can do this all day.
So how does Trump overcome his 57.8% unfavorable rating (Real Clear Politics average)?
Cruz' unfavorable is 40%. Rubio is 38%.
Clinton's is only 51.4%! Sanders is 38.2. And Obama is only 48.4%.
How is Trump going to appeal to the people who have an unfavorable opinion of him? He is more disliked than Obama. Now THAT'S a winning formula for the GOP, isn't it?
-
Here's an honest question for the bible salesman fans:
If Cruz becomes the nominee, how can he win the general election? What part of the demographics will be attracted to his candidacy?
Here's an honest question for the Trumpateers:
If Trump becomes the nominee, how can he win the general election? What part of the demographics will be attracted to his candidacy?
You see the exact same question can be asked of either candidate. We need to stop backing butt holes that make stuff up.
-
Cruz attracts the far right wing and the evangelicals. He is opposed by moderates and absolutely despised by the left.
And Trump is opposed by the far right and the evangelicals and despised by the left. Same problem, different blowhard.
Rubio attracts moderates and the conservative left.
To win the White House one needs a solid majority of his party and a small percentage of independents and democrats crossing the line.
Go back the previous two elections and look at the demographics for McCain and Romney.
Now we're getting somewhere. Rubio is a much better choice. Kasich as well.
-
We can do this all day.
So how does Trump overcome his 57.8% unfavorable rating (Real Clear Politics average)?
Cruz' unfavorable is 40%. Rubio is 38%.
Clinton's is only 51.4%! Sanders is 38.2. And Obama is only 48.4%.
How is Trump going to appeal to the people who have an unfavorable opinion of him? He is more disliked than Obama. Now THAT'S a winning formula for the GOP, isn't it?
First of all, you are trying to assert I'm somehow backing Trump. While there are certain aspects I like about him, he too has a problem in coming up with the numbers.
The unfavorable ratings are polling gibberish. To win a national election requires support from all sectors of your party, plus a portion of independents and democrats, period.
Now, stay on topic. How does a Rubio or Cruz attract people from these demographics?
-
And Trump is opposed by the far right and the evangelicals and despised by the left. Same problem, different blowhard.
Now we're getting somewhere. Rubio is a much better choice. Kasich as well.
Trump indeed has a problem at this point. Rubio has the same problem as well.
Kasich doesn't stand a chance.
-
First of all, you are trying to assert I'm somehow backing Trump. While there are certain aspects I like about him, he too has a problem in coming up with the numbers.
The unfavorable ratings are polling gibberish. To win a national election requires support from all sectors of your party, plus a portion of independents and democrats, period.
Now, stay on topic. How does a Rubio or Cruz attract people from these demographics?
Sorry. Unfavorable ratings goes to electability. Your candidate isn't electable.
-
Sorry. Unfavorable ratings goes to electability. Your candidate isn't electable.
Reading comprehension problem I see.
Your whole focus is why Trump is unelectable, but you refuse or can't come up with a cognizant reason of how Rubio or Cruz can overcome the same problem.
Chanting "Trump is unelectable" will not persuade people to vote for a polarizing politician such as Cruz, nor will it help Rubio.
You can throw out all of the junk polling you want, but the basics confirm what I've been telling you. Go do some homework.
-
Reading comprehension problem I see.
Your whole focus is why Trump is unelectable, but you refuse or can't come up with a cognizant reason of how Rubio or Cruz can overcome the same problem.
Chanting "Trump is unelectable" will not persuade people to vote for a polarizing politician such as Cruz, nor will it help Rubio.
You can throw out all of the junk polling you want, but the basics confirm what I've been telling you. Go do some homework.
Dude, I know facts is hard, and you don't like to admit that they exist, but the RCP average is just that - an average of all polls. Throw out whatever "junk polling" you want, and average the rest. Trump still loses the electorate.
The same polls , as well as the demographics from the only voting to take place this election season shows that Cruz and Rubio can win. Not will win , but can win.
-
The only poll that matters to me is the one in November. Early front runners like Trump often go by the wayside as the summer approaches. Where was Nixon, Reagan, etc in the polls early on? Both were TWO term Presidents. How about Rudy Giuliani? Where was he early on?
-
Dude, I know facts is hard, and you don't like to admit that they exist, but the RCP average is just that - an average of all polls. Throw out whatever "junk polling" you want, and average the rest. Trump still loses the electorate.
The same polls , as well as the demographics from the only voting to take place this election season shows that Cruz and Rubio can win. Not will win , but can win.
So, "dude", how well did those polls work in Iowa? And how well did those polls work in the previous 2 presidential election cycles?
You clearly don't understand demographics and your vitriol towards a certain candidate is clouding any reasoning you can hope to have. In fact, you are a great representation of why the GOP is facing such an uphill battle in this election.
You have yet to answer a very simple question: How does Cruz and Rubio overcome the disparity in the demographics to win the WH?
-
Lucifer. Who are you from AOPA/POA days?
-
Lucifer. Who are you from AOPA/POA days?
How does that relate to the subject at hand?
-
How does that relate to the subject at hand?
thread drift is nothing new.
-
One thing is certain...
...if we ever get a candidate with the middle name "Hussein", he or she will be clearly unelectable!
-
How does that relate to the subject at hand?
Just curious. No sympathy. Remember? ;D
I'm not a thread drift Nazi. I don't really care what the topic is about. YMMV.
I like your posts and your input.
-
Simple question:
How does Cruz and Rubio overcome the disparity in the demographics to win the WH?
-
One thing is certain...
...if we ever get a candidate with the middle name "Hussein", he or she will be clearly unelectable!
That's what I thought Fast. I was WRONG.
-
Simple question:
How does Cruz and Rubio overcome the disparity in the demographics to win the WH?
The only hope any GOP candidate has is a huge backlash against the Obama/Democrat/Hillary/Bernie Fasco-Communism. The Oligarchy I always talk about. You're probably getting bored with it, but I truly believe that we are now under the yoke (yolk?) of tyranny.
The country's demographics may be beyond the two party system. If so, we are done as the beacon of liberty and freedom as the Progressive movement is destroying the reason people want to come here. This is the last battle. If Hillary/Bernie/Biden wins we are gone. I think the reason I still fly, and carry a gun in the woods, or for self defense is to make me still feel like an American. When I go to Valley Forge, I almost want to cry, but do not because I am not a Girly Man. Those men didn't cry. They fought back, they froze to death, and they starved for our freedom. We need to remember that.
Keep your powder dry gentlemen.
-
Not me? I don't get a participation ribbon? I'm feeling a microaggression coming on.
(http://www.dinntrophy.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/r/a/ras05.jpg)
-
The only poll that matters to me is the one in November. Early front runners like Trump often go by the wayside as the summer approaches. Where was Nixon, Reagan, etc in the polls early on? Both were TWO term Presidents. How about Rudy Giuliani? Where was he early on?
For some reason this post made me think of The Eagleton Summer. :(
He was a candidate for only 18 days.
-
(http://www.dinntrophy.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/r/a/ras05.jpg)
You love me! You really really love me!
-
Simple question:
How does Cruz and Rubio overcome the disparity in the demographics to win the WH?
I don't think Cruz can. He is just not charismatic and comes with too much baggage that the moderates don't like. Rubio has a chance, but has to start outlining actual plans for America that move towards the conservative roots, but clearly explained as to how it would benefit the people of America. That would mean more actual policy and less attack plans. You know, make an argument for why somebody in the middle should actually vote for them other than- "I'm not Hillary and I want to fix Obama's mess."
A certain amount of the electorate will vote Democrat no matter what, just as a certain amount will vote Republican no matter what. This is why you shouldn't waste too much time talking to these people. The GOP candidate should focus on the folks that really don't make any party affiliations and convince them that Republican is the way to go. A sales pitch for the future, not a whiny bitch fest about Obama and the Democrats.
In fact they should avoid Obama's name and Hillary's name in speeches. They should refer to the Democrats as "the opposition". They should avoid talking about the dogmatic social issues of the GOP, like abortion, gay marriage, school prayers and also gun rights. Of course the Democrats will try to force these issues to debate, but I would deflect to the issues that I think moderates are more concerned about.
They should hammer on these points-
- The Economy and how to fix it.
- The National debt, why it's bad and how to fix it.
- National security and the plan for America around the globe.
- Immigration, both south of the border, but also the Syrian and Muslim immigrants
- How to fix, or replace Obamacare. Simply saying "repeal" is not enough. Solutions are needed.
- How to address racial tensions and inner city unrest. Again with solutions.
Keep hammering on these. To address the other issues that are important and will likely come up, I would have a very comprehensive and detailed website that covers those things and then hand out the URL like candy. When the opposition, or the media wants to corner the candidate on say gay marriage, say as little as possible, reference the URL and get back to the list above.
Above all, be a polished, likable salesman for the GOP product. Nobody likes a harsh, complaining whiner. Let Hillary fill that role. Obama won both times in part because he was more "likable" and at ease with the cameras. Dogmatic shrews and loudmouths turn people off. Do this stuff and the GOP has a chance. Do as they always do and we get Hillary, or Bernie.
-
I don't think Cruz can. He is just not charismatic and comes with too much baggage that the moderates don't like. Rubio has a chance, but has to start outlining actual plans for America that move towards the conservative roots, but clearly explained as to how it would benefit the people of America. That would mean more actual policy and less attack plans. You know, make an argument for why somebody in the middle should actually vote for them other than- "I'm not Hillary and I want to fix Obama's mess."
A certain amount of the electorate will vote Democrat no matter what, just as a certain amount will vote Republican no matter what. This is why you shouldn't waste too much time talking to these people. The GOP candidate should focus on the folks that really don't make any party affiliations and convince them that Republican is the way to go. A sales pitch for the future, not a whiny bitch fest about Obama and the Democrats.
In fact they should avoid Obama's name and Hillary's name in speeches. They should refer to the Democrats as "the opposition". They should avoid talking about the dogmatic social issues of the GOP, like abortion, gay marriage, school prayers and also gun rights. Of course the Democrats will try to force these issues to debate, but I would deflect to the issues that I think moderates are more concerned about.
They should hammer on these points-
- The Economy and how to fix it.
- The National debt, why it's bad and how to fix it.
- National security and the plan for America around the globe.
- Immigration, both south of the border, but also the Syrian and Muslim immigrants
- How to fix, or replace Obamacare. Simply saying "repeal" is not enough. Solutions are needed.
- How to address racial tensions and inner city unrest. Again with solutions.
Keep hammering on these. To address the other issues that are important and will likely come up, I would have a very comprehensive and detailed website that covers those things and then hand out the URL like candy. When the opposition, or the media wants to corner the candidate on say gay marriage, say as little as possible, reference the URL and get back to the list above.
Above all, be a polished, likable salesman for the GOP product. Nobody likes a harsh, complaining whiner. Let Hillary fill that role. Obama won both times in part because he was more "likable" and at ease with the cameras. Dogmatic shrews and loudmouths turn people off. Do this stuff and the GOP has a chance. Do as they always do and we get Hillary, or Bernie.
Very good. Nice to see someone who actually gets it.
I agree with most of what you have written, except I don't agree that Rubio is electable. The DNC will mop the floor with Rubio and leave him in the dust.
-
Here's an honest question for the Trumpateers:
If Trump becomes the nominee, how can he win the general election? What part of the demographics will be attracted to his candidacy?
You see the exact same question can be asked of either candidate. We need to stop backing butt holes that make stuff up.
My sister and friends of hers. She never finished high school has worked in small factories all of her life. She does QC work. She works besides Hispanics and tells me stories about how they understand English fine when they want to and not so much when they don't want to. She voted for Obama, but told me she would vote for Trump.
You can't keep asking your friends that are making good money, ask the folks in the trenches making $15-20 hour and watch Hispanics come in and take some of those jobs.
-
Christie sure tore Marco a new one early in this debate. ;D
-
My sister and friends of hers. She never finished high school has worked in small factories all of her life. She does QC work. She works besides Hispanics and tells me stories about how they understand English fine when they want to and not so much when they don't want to. She voted for Obama, but told me she would vote for Trump.
You can't keep asking your friends that are making good money, ask the folks in the trenches making $15-20 hour and watch Hispanics come in and take some of those jobs.
Yeah, there will always be the low information voters that will grab onto sound bites and shallow campaign rhetoric. That's why the GOP candidate needs to create simple and persuasive arguments to those concerns.
-
We are all just guessing. Who knows what will happen. We could get Jeb or Kasich in the end. No I don't think that will happen, but it is possible. Personally I think Biden will be the Democrat nominee.
-
We are all just guessing. Who knows what will happen. We could get Jeb or Kasich in the end. No I don't think that will happen, but it is possible. Personally I think Biden will be the Democrat nominee.
Don't forget granny lie-a-watha
-
This is the most depressing thread here so far.
So much animosity and inward directed fire - would that we spent a fraction of this energy on the real issues, the real 'enemies' if you will.
Really disheartened to see such dismissiveness towards vast swaths of the general electorate as well as folks here with insulting derisive names and stupid memes.
It's actually changed my opinion of some folks and again, I am not a Trump guy, not sending money or investing time in his campaign.
That said I wholeheartedly believe the campaign itself has been far more substantive and as a result more enlightening about where candidates actually stand as a direct result of his involvement to-date.
Disappointed with the level and quality of discourse on this one - but it is fun to be able to swear at will.
'Gimp
-
This is the most depressing thread here so far.
So much animosity and inward directed fire - would that we spent a fraction of this energy on the real issues, the real 'enemies' if you will.
So, if Hillary were to switch and run in the Republican primary, conservatives would be prohibited from criticizing the fact that she's actually a democrat because "inward directed fire"?
Trump is a democrat in all but name. As such, he is a far more dangerous enemy than Hillary, as some folks think you can't call attention to that fact because it's "inward directed fire". He is running purely on a Cult of Personality, one that would make the Kims of DPRK jealous.
-
So, if Hillary were to switch and run in the Republican primary, conservatives would be prohibited from criticizing the fact that she's actually a democrat because "inward directed fire"?
Trump is a democrat in all but name. As such, he is a far more dangerous enemy than Hillary, as some folks think you can't call attention to that fact because it's "inward directed fire". He is running purely on a Cult of Personality, one that would make the Kims of DPRK jealous.
Jeff you can THINK that all you want, but to state it as FACT is just wrong and totally unsupported by the actual evidence.
I don't understand your obsessive hard-on for Trump, makes no sense but is a real turn-off and the aggro you have for Trump and anyone who says anything positive about him or disagrees with you about it is equally off-putting.
Suggesting that Trump and Hillary are in any way interchangeable is just jumping the shark and demonstrates you shouldn't be taken seriously on this subject.
We get it, you don't like Trump.
Who DO you like?
What do you stand FOR?
As a self-identified Libertarian why should anybody on the Republican side give one flying fuck what you think about their candidates in the first place?
'Gimp
-
As a self-identified Libertarian why should anybody on the Republican side give one flying fuck what you think about their candidates in the first place?
'Gimp
Jeff is a LINO. ;D
-
Jeff you can THINK that all you want, but to state it as FACT is just wrong and totally unsupported by the actual evidence.
You mean other than all of his statements before he entered the race, and the money he's given to many prominent democrats? Facts like that?
As a self-identified Libertarian why should anybody on the Republican side give one flying fuck what you think about their candidates in the first place?
'Gimp
As a self-identified "Conservative" why should anyone on the Republican (ie. you're conservative, not Republican) give one flying fuck what you think about their candidates in the first place?
-
I don't understand your obsessive hard-on for Trump, makes no sense but is a real turn-off and the aggro you have for Trump and anyone who says anything positive about him or disagrees with you about it is equally off-putting.
Jeff's attitude towards Trump is exactly why IMO, Trump is unelectable. Many, many people on both sides of the isle have been disgusted with the man for decades. He is definitely a celebrity, but not a warm fuzzy likable celebrity, more of a loudmouth asshole celebrity that people love to hate. He has celebrity baggage and nothing he has said, or done in his run for president, either this time or the last, has done anything to change people's perception of him.
As to why Jeff has such a "hard on" for Trump I'm not sure and couldn't say. I too loath Trump and am completely bewildered by Trump supporters, but I don't go starting threads about it.
-
Jeff is a LINO. ;D
This is true of nearly everyone is who claims they are a Libertarian. It is a trendy, hip thing to say amongst conservatives and even liberals today. Very few actually subscribe to the whole Libertarian party platform and will vote that way. Saying you are a Libertarian now is just a way to show your disgust for the parties that do matter and to distance yourself from them, but in the end, the Democrat and the Republican parties are the only parties that actually matter.
-
This is true of nearly everyone is who claims they are a Libertarian. It is a trendy, hip thing to say amongst conservatives and even liberals today. Very few actually subscribe to the whole Libertarian party platform and will vote that way. Saying you are a Libertarian now is just a way to show your disgust for the parties that do matter and to distance yourself from them, but in the end, the Democrat and the Republican parties are the only parties that actually matter.
True. It's just disingenuous to claim a label but disallow the party it represents.
-
I like to play Bridge (and pinochle), and I like NO TRUMP.
However, he would get my vote in an instant over either the avowed socialist or the non-avowed one on the other side.
-
True. It's just disingenuous to claim a label but disallow the party it represents.
Why?
Does the Libertarian Party have a trademark on a philosophy of limited government?
-
Why?
Does the Libertarian Party have a trademark on a philosophy of limited government?
But it upsets you Trump is running as a Republican. Can Trump not use the Republican label the way you use the Libertarian label???
-
But it upsets you Trump is running as a Republican. Can Trump not use the Republican label the way you use the Libertarian label???
Yep, but you seem unable to deal with the fact.
He's a Democrat in all but name. That's demonstrable from his history. You want to vote for Democrat to be the Republican nominee, that's your business, but don't expect me to shut up about it...telling people who have opinions other than your own is a tactic of long-standing among Democrats.
Don't worry...Dear Leader will throw another Trumpertantrum soon.
-
Yep, but you seem unable to deal with the fact.
He's a Democrat in all but name. That's demonstrable from his history. You want to vote for Democrat to be the Republican nominee, that's your business, but don't expect me to shut up about it...telling people who have opinions other than your own is a tactic of long-standing among Democrats.
Now wait a minute. You use the Libertarian label but refuse to support the party for your own agenda. Trump uses the Republican label but doesn't necessarily support the Republican party.
And you have a problem with that???? LOL!!! ;D
And, BTW, for such a Libertarian you claim to be, you sure enjoy using Alinsky tactics against anyone who disagrees with you. :o
-
Now wait a minute. You use the Libertarian label but refuse to support the party for your own agenda. Trump uses the Republican label but doesn't necessarily support the Republican party.
And you have a problem with that? ??? LOL!!! ;D
And, BTW, for such a Libertarian you claim to be, you sure enjoy using Alinsky tactics against anyone who disagrees with you. :o
Where have I ever called myself a "Libertarian"?
I am a libertarian.
-
And, BTW, for such a Libertarian you claim to be, you sure enjoy using Alinsky tactics against anyone who disagrees with you. :o
That's funny for a Trumpkin to say that...really it is. Hilarious. Dear Leader, like the rest of the Democrats in the race, is running the Allinsky playbook on a daily basis.
-
Where have I ever called myself a "Libertarian"?
I am a libertarian.
Look just under your name. ;D
-
That's funny for a Trumpkin to say that...really it is. Hilarious. Dear Leader, like the rest of the Democrats in the race, is running the Allinsky playbook on a daily basis.
Oh please, make it stop! LOL!!! ;D
-
Look just under your name. ;D
Note that I have no control over the capitalization.
Am I to presume that all the CONSERVATIVES voted to Steven Harper last fall? Why don't they support the Conservative Party?
-
Note that I have no control over the capitalization.
Am I to presume that all the CONSERVATIVES voted to Steven Harper last fall? Why don't they support the Conservative Party?
Totally lame.
You're all over the map (politically) which only proves you truly don't understand politics. You seem to be more interested in flame throwing than discussing (or understanding) the real issues.
Like my old Uncle use to say "Either you is, or you ain't boy"......
And you ain't. ;)
-
Totally lame.
You're all over the map (politically) which only proves you truly don't understand politics. You seem to be more interested in flame throwing than discussing (or understanding) the real issues.
Like my old Uncle use to say "Either you is, or you ain't boy"......
And you ain't. ;)
I don't understand politics, but you don't understand the difference between a Libertarian and a libertarian.
You are certainly Dear Leader Trump's target voting demographic.
-
I don't understand politics, but you don't understand the difference between a Libertarian and a libertarian.
You are certainly Dear Leader Trump's target voting demographic.
OMG!!! Please make it stop!!! ;)
Seriously, is this the best you can come up with?
-
I don't understand politics, but you don't understand the difference between a Libertarian and a libertarian.
I do not understand the difference between a Libertarian and a libertarian.
I know what a librarian is, however!
(http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journaltimes.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/64/364402e2-46b1-5030-9dab-ce334f8529cc/364402e2-46b1-5030-9dab-ce334f8529cc.image.jpg)
-
I do not understand the difference between a Libertarian and a libertarian.
I know what a librarian is, however!
(http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journaltimes.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/64/364402e2-46b1-5030-9dab-ce334f8529cc/364402e2-46b1-5030-9dab-ce334f8529cc.image.jpg)
Careful! Jeff will start attacking the Librarian Party next!
-
I do not understand the difference between a Libertarian and a libertarian.
I know what a librarian is, however!
(http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journaltimes.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/64/364402e2-46b1-5030-9dab-ce334f8529cc/364402e2-46b1-5030-9dab-ce334f8529cc.image.jpg)
Simply put, a Libertarian is a supporter of the Libertarian Party, including their platform.
A libertarian supports smaller government and a platform of individual freedom, but not necessarily the Libertarian Party.
Similarly, you can be a democrat and support the principle of rule by the people, but not support the Democrat Party.
-
Simply put, a Libertarian is a supporter of the Libertarian Party, including their platform.
A libertarian supports smaller government and a platform of individual freedom, but not necessarily the Libertarian Party.
Similarly, you can be a democrat and support the principle of rule by the people, but not support the Democrat Party.
So the Libertarian Party supports that. Why don't you support the Libertarian Party? Don't they have the same ideals you do?
-
So the Libertarian Party supports that. Why don't you support the Libertarian Party? Don't they have the same ideals you do?
Hush now,modules are talking, you Trumpkins go play outside.
-
Hush now,modules are talking, you Trumpkins go play outside.
OK, so you can't answer that.
Thanks for playing. ;D
-
OK, so you can't answer that.
Thanks for playing. ;D
I have a political philosophy. Unlike yourself...
There are plenty of platforms the Libertarian Party takes that I cannot support myself.
Why don't you insist that CONSERVATIVES also support the Conservative Party? http://home.conservativepartyusa.org/
-
I have a political philosophy.
No you don't, you've read a second hand copy of "Politics for Dummies" and it shows. You're simply more interested in flame throwing than talking any serious political philosophy.
There are plenty of platforms the Libertarian Party takes that I cannot support myself.
So as a so called libertarian, you cannot support libertarian principals......... :o
Why don't you insist that CONSERVATIVES also support the Conservative Party? http://home.conservativepartyusa.org/
Don't deflect here Jeff. You call yourself a libertarian, and libertarian appears twice under your name. But yet you can't support the libertarian platforms? ::) :o
But please, keep digging that hole......................
-
No you don't, you've read a second hand copy of "Politics for Dummies" and it shows. You're simply more interested in flame throwing than talking any serious political philosophy.
So as a so called libertarian, you cannot support libertarian principals......... :o
Don't deflect here Jeff. You call yourself a libertarian, and libertarian appears twice under your name. But yet you can't support the libertarian platforms? ::) :o
But please, keep digging that hole......................
Good, you have the capitalization right.
Not deflecting. You seem to think libertarian=Libertarian, so you really have no concept of political philosophy. Typical of the Cult of Personality demanded of your Dear Leader. Confusing bluster and insult for philosophy and policy.
-
No you don't, you've read a second hand copy of "Politics for Dummies" and it shows. You're simply more interested in flame throwing than talking any serious political philosophy.
So as a so called libertarian, you cannot support libertarian principals......... :o
Don't deflect here Jeff. You call yourself a libertarian, and libertarian appears twice under your name. But yet you can't support the libertarian platforms? ::) :o
But please, keep digging that hole......................
Do you really need to be this childish?
-
Good, you have the capitalization right.
Not deflecting. You seem to think libertarian=Libertarian, so you really have no concept of political philosophy. Typical of the Cult of Personality demanded of your Dear Leader. Confusing bluster and insult for philosophy and policy.
Oh c'mon Jeff.....bob and weave, deflect, throw flames, etc, etc.......
Capitalize, not capitalize, bullshit. "I'm a Libertarian but I'm not really a libertarian" :o
You are only interested in flame throwing, period.
Come back when you came make a coherent argument for a political philosophy. Until then all you are is worthless noise.
-
Do you really need to be this childish?
For pointing out his inconsistencies?
-
Come back when you came make a coherent argument for a political philosophy. Until then all you are is worthless noise.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Coming from a Trumpkin this is PRICELESS!
-
For pointing out his inconsistencies?
You're killing me with all this lack of self-awareness from a Trumpkin!
At least you've stopped denying that you support your Dear Leader.
-
Hush now,modules are talking, you Trumpkins go play outside.
Modules are talking? that went right over my head.
-
You're all over the map (politically) which only proves you truly don't understand politics.
What in the world is that supposed to mean? Are you suggesting that if you don't agree with every single position on an issue that one party, or the other has, that you don't understand politics??
-
Modules are talking? that went right over my head.
Mine too. I assume it's a spell check replacement word?? ???
-
You're killing me with all this lack of self-awareness from a Trumpkin!
At least you've stopped denying that you support your Dear Leader.
I've never thrown support for any candidate. I have had commentary on different candidates and how I thought they were performing, and their chances for the general election.
Keep playing your silly games Jeff. You're only interested in flame throwing. I gave you a little taste of your bullshit back and you can't take it.
-
Modules are talking? that went right over my head.
goddamn autocorrect...grown-ups
-
I've never thrown support for any candidate. I have had commentary on different candidates and how I thought they were performing, and their chances for the general election.
Keep playing your silly games Jeff. You're only interested in flame throwing. I gave you a little taste of your bullshit back and you can't take it.
RIIIIIIIGHT
-
RIIIIIIIGHT
Believe what you want, but you should be honest and admit you are only interested in flame throwing to entertain yourself.
-
Believe what you want, but you should be honest and admit you are only interested in flame throwing to entertain yourself.
No, I just don't want Trump as the Republican nominee. I don't want a Democrat in all but name to be the nominee. There are several candidates that will be excellent nominees, but Dear Leader is a clown.
-
No, I just don't want Trump as the Republican nominee. I don't want a Democrat in all but name to be the nominee. There are several candidates that will be excellent nominees, but Dear Leader is a clown.
Nominees that don't stand a chance in the general election. Seems to me you are in a losing proposition.
-
Nominees that don't stand a chance in the general election. Seems to me you are in a losing proposition.
Well, I'd rather have the choice of one actual Republican on the ballot, not just Democrat Hillary v. Democrat Trump.
-
Well, I'd rather have the choice of one actual Republican on the ballot, not just Democrat Hillary v. Democrat Trump.
So if Trump was to get the nomination, you would not vote or vote for Hillary?
-
For pointing out his inconsistencies?
For either not understanding that people can be somewhere on a spectrum of political philosophy, or insisting that people be pigeonholed into a particular party because of what they put on a profile on a website.
But you already knew that.
-
Nominees that don't stand a chance in the general election. Seems to me you are in a losing proposition.
And you are utterly ignoring the unelectable unfavorable ratings of Trump.
-
So if Trump was to get the nomination, you would not vote or vote for Hillary?
Vote for Hillary: Only with a gun to my head, then it would be 50-50
Not Vote: Unknown at this time.
-
And you are utterly ignoring the unelectable unfavorable ratings of Trump.
Yep, with a 60% unfavourable rating, election is highly unlikely.
-
And you are utterly ignoring the unelectable unfavorable ratings of Trump.
Not at all.
-
Yep, with a 60% unfavourable rating, election is highly unlikely.
True. But Cruz is unelectable and so is Rubio.
So again, if Trump was to win the nomination, are you gonna say that you would not vote for him, which would guarantee a Hillary election?
Remember, in the last election Republicans stayed home and didn't vote because they didn't like Romney. Yet then they bemoaned the fact BHO got re elected. This election is headed in the same direction.
So, how will you proceed? Not voting for the republican is essentially a vote for the democrats, wouldn't you agree?
-
For either not understanding that people can be somewhere on a spectrum of political philosophy, or insisting that people be pigeonholed into a particular party because of what they put on a profile on a website.
But you already knew that.
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of lambasting a candidate for being a democrat but running as a republican while he uses the libertarian label but will not support the libertarians.
But you already knew that. ::)
-
True. But Cruz is unelectable and so is Rubio.
You keep saying that, but I'm curious, in your opinion, why is Rubio unelectable? I see it very differently, but perhaps I'm over looking something. In addition, say Trump is out for whatever reason, in your opinion, who is the GOP's next best option?
-
You keep saying that, but I'm curious, in your opinion, why is Rubio unelectable? I see it very differently, but perhaps I'm over looking something. In addition, say Trump is out for whatever reason, in your opinion, who is the GOP's next best option?
Rubio has burned bridges with the GOP establishment. He will need them to get elected. Unfortunately if he could get nominated he would wind up like Romney.
-
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of lambasting a candidate for being a democrat but running as a republican while he uses the libertarian label but will not support the libertarians.
But you already knew that. ::)
And I've pointed out many times that a libertarian philosophy does not equal the Libertarian Party. I'd say you already knew that, but as a Trumpkin, I don't think you know any political concepts that go deeper than talking-point form.
-
I was pointing out the hypocrisy of lambasting a candidate for being a democrat but running as a republican while he uses the libertarian label but will not support the libertarians.
But you already knew that. ::)
Troll
-
Troll
LOL!!!! ;D
-
And I've pointed out many times that a libertarian philosophy does not equal the Libertarian Party.
Sure Jeff. So what you are saying is that you are a LINO, correct?
I'd say you already knew that, but as a Trumpkin, I don't think you know any political concepts that go deeper than talking-point form.
So when you can't when a political argument your only retort is childish name calling? :o
Come back when you can make a coherent argument.
-
Sure Jeff. So what you are saying is that you are a LINO, correct?
If I had ever claimed to be a Libertarian, you might have a point. But like your Dear Leader, you don't.
-
If I had ever claimed to be a Libertarian, you might have a point. But like your Dear Leader, you don't.
You have. You even stated you have Libertarian viewpoints. And you have Libertarian posted TWICE under your name.
But yet, you claim not to be? :o
So are you a LibCon? Or just a run of the mill LINO? ::)
-
True. But Cruz is unelectable and so is Rubio.
So again, if Trump was to win the nomination, are you gonna say that you would not vote for him, which would guarantee a Hillary election?
Remember, in the last election Republicans stayed home and didn't vote because they didn't like Romney. Yet then they bemoaned the fact BHO got re elected. This election is headed in the same direction.
So, how will you proceed? Not voting for the republican is essentially a vote for the democrats, wouldn't you agree?
So Jeff, you've managed to avoid the question so far. Care to answer?
-
You have. You even stated you have Libertarian viewpoints. And you have Libertarian posted TWICE under your name.
But yet, you claim not to be? :o
So are you a LibCon? Or just a run of the mill LINO? ::)
I'm done with you, troll.
-
So Jeff, you've managed to avoid the question so far. Care to answer?
I did answer. I said I've not made that decision yet. Unlike Dear Leader, I consider decisions before making them. I don't just say the first dumb thing to pop into my head.
-
I'm done with you, troll.
OK, thanks for playing.
Oh, don't forget your ball! ;D
-
I did answer. I said I've not made that decision yet. Unlike Dear Leader, I consider decisions before making them. I don't just say the first dumb thing to pop into my head.
So you are actually considering not voting and helping the democrats retain the White House. :o
-
What do you expect from someone who wants a "completely malleable" candidate!
Didn't know you were in lockstep with Pres. Carter. With what other statements/positions of his do you find yourself agreeing?
-
OK, thanks for playing.
Oh, don't forget your ball! ;D
Again, another affectation of Dear Leader that you're projecting.
-
So you are actually considering not voting and helping the democrats retain the White House. :o
I don't know if Jeff can vote. He's Canadian. A subject of the Crown. You know who we rebelled against? ;D
Are we still citizens or subjects of the RULING CLASS? Oh yeah 2A.
-
This is true of nearly everyone is who claims they are a Libertarian. It is a trendy, hip thing to say amongst conservatives and even liberals today. Very few actually subscribe to the whole Libertarian party platform and will vote that way. Saying you are a Libertarian now is just a way to show your disgust for the parties that do matter and to distance yourself from them, but in the end, the Democrat and the Republican parties are the only parties that actually matter.
There is nothing here in which I cannot support.
https://www.lp.org/platform
-
Rubio has burned bridges with the GOP establishment. He will need them to get elected. Unfortunately if he could get nominated he would wind up like Romney.
Romney was 10x better presidential material than Rubio (as well as most of the GOP field) but he got his ass kicked by free Obama's handouts.
The only hope for a Republican to win the WH is to have Comrade Bernie as the D candidate; people will be too afraid of him (I hope) taking the country too far to the Left. Clinton Media Machine will run right over any GOP choice. If they can't win fair and square they will cheat.
-
I don't know if Jeff can vote. He's Canadian. A subject of the Crown. You know who we rebelled against? ;D
Are we still citizens or subjects of the RULING CLASS? Oh yeah 2A.
Working on this form right now...
https://www.uscis.gov/n-400
I have to find out every speeding and parking ticket ever for the form. :(
-
I have to find out every speeding and parking ticket ever for the form. :(
Good grief, that's Yeoman's work for anyone.
-
Romney was 10x better presidential material than Rubio (as well as most of the GOP field) but he got his ass kicked by free Obama's handouts.
The only hope for a Republican to win the WH is to have Comrade Bernie as the D candidate; people will be too afraid of him (I hope) taking the country too far to the Left. Clinton Media Machine will run right over any GOP choice. If they can't win fair and square they will cheat.
Sure Romney was. But what really kicked Romney's ass was the Republicans that didn't like him refusing to show up at the polls to vote as a "silent protest" and thus handing the election to BHO.
We are headed down the same path again. Cruz is not electable, neither is Rubio. And yes, Trump falls into that category as well. So if (insert name here) actually gets the nomination, are the Republicans going to do another 2012 and put another democrat in the WH?
-
Sure Romney was. But what really kicked Romney's ass was the Republicans that didn't like him refusing to show up at the polls to vote as a "silent protest" and thus handing the election to BHO.
Good point and I agree. The purists who sit out elections "on principle" are deadly to the Conservative cause.
-
Good point and I agree. The purists who sit out elections "on principle" are deadly to the Conservative cause.
The purist and the flame throwers who insist "my candidate or no vote!" are the deadly ones.
-
Good point and I agree. The purists who sit out elections "on principle" are deadly to the Conservative cause.
Wait? You're a Conservative and you are not voting for the Conservative Party? You're a CINO!!!
-
You have. You even stated you have Libertarian viewpoints. And you have Libertarian posted TWICE under your name.
But yet, you claim not to be? :o
So are you a LibCon? Or just a run of the mill LINO? ::)
Bullshit, he has stated several times that he aligns with libertarian ideals, but is not part of the Libertarian party. I am in much the same situation as Jeff. Frankly, with a two party system voting for the Libertarian candidate is a wasted vote, just like your vote would be if you cast it for the Conservative Party candidate.
Being a jerk doesn't validate whatever ridiculous point you're attempting to make.
-
Good point and I agree. The purists who sit out elections "on principle" are deadly to the Conservative cause.
The point is well taken, and I think we have a very good chance of that happening on the Democrat side of the isle this election. The Bernie fans will never settle for the idiot that is Mrs Clinton.
-
Being a jerk doesn't validate whatever ridiculous point you're attempting to make.
But his Dear Leader, Mr. Trump, does that all the time.
-
Bullshit, he has stated several times that he aligns with libertarian ideals, but is not part of the Libertarian party.
That just doesn't make sense, at all.
So what part of the Libertarian party do you not agree with?
-
The point is well taken, and I think we have a very good chance of that happening on the Democrat side of the isle this election. The Bernie fans will never settle for the idiot that is Mrs Clinton.
The democrats will coalesce much more readily to keep control of the WH. Don't count that out.
-
The point is well taken, and I think we have a very good chance of that happening on the Democrat side of the isle this election. The Bernie fans will never settle for the idiot that is Mrs Clinton.
I see the reverse as well. Can you see the college "Feel the Bern" kids actually going to the polls for Sander's opponent? I can't, except for the most devoted Marxist Millennials.
-
That just doesn't make sense, at all.
So what part of the Libertarian party do you not agree with?
What's so hard to understand? A Libertarian Presidential candidate hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. Your whining about team R voters sitting out the last elections.... A vote for the Libertarian candidate does the exact same thing.
-
That just doesn't make sense, at all.
So what part of the Libertarian party do you not agree with?
Trolls don't have to be deep thinkers. To the rest of us, it makes total sense.
-
I see the reverse as well. Can you see the college "Feel the Bern" kids actually going to the polls for Sander's opponent? I can't, except for the most devoted Marxist Millennials.
No. They are coming to hate Mrs Clinton for what she is doing to their beloved Bernie.
-
Trolls don't have to be deep thinkers. To the rest of us, it makes total sense.
Exactly, if someone is hell bent on being the south end of a north facing horse...I suppose the mind gets preoccupied.
-
Second set of votes are in, and again Trump is "The Biggest Loser"
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CayCteyUUAIk0x9.jpg)
-
Schadenfreude is a thing...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude)
Maybe not admirable, but sums up how I feel about Hillary suffering setbacks.
-
538 Blog has a 99% probability of Sanders beating Hitlary in NH today.
http://fivethirtyeight.com
-
538 Blog has a 99% probability of Sanders beating Hitlary in NH today.
http://fivethirtyeight.com
I think Hillary is in trouble and knows it. The Clintons are going away from public life in a big way. Bill looks like an old robot, and Hillary looks like an old hippie protester. And guess what? In less than a year the Obama's are going away.
-
Second set of votes are in, and again Trump is "The Biggest Loser"
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CayCteyUUAIk0x9.jpg)
Just curious, how well do you think the "Greased Pig of Politics" will fare in tonight's vote? Do you think he has staffers outside of polling areas announcing everyone else has dropped out of the race? ::)
-
Don't get suicidal Jeff, but looks like Trump has won NH.
The Bible Salesman didn't fare so well. So much for that Iowa momentum........
-
Don't get suicidal Jeff, but looks like Trump has won NH.
The Bible Salesman didn't fare so well. So much for that Iowa momentum........
The fact that Cruz is currently in 3rd in NH with 52 percent of the vote counted is remarkable.
Are you still facing north, or are you whinnying to the south now?
-
Don't get suicidal Jeff, but looks like Trump has won NH.
The Bible Salesman didn't fare so well. So much for that Iowa momentum........
He doesn't have to get suicidal. He, unlike most of us, has the option of staying in Canada should Trump become president. Seriously, Trump becoming the nominee is a Democrat's wet dream. What the hell is wrong with people?? Trump is a douche bag Democrat, with a load of money and an enormous ego pretending to be a Republican. Why can't more people see this??!! :o >:(
-
The fact that Cruz is currently in 3rd in NH with 52 percent of the vote counted is remarkable.
Are you still facing north, or are you whinnying to the south now?
The fact that Cruz is currently in 3rd in NH is remarkable??? Damn, talk about spin! LOL.
He LOST. No "momentum", hell he lost to Kasich!
Remarkable? :o ;D
-
The fact that Cruz is currently in 3rd in NH is remarkable??? Damn, talk about spin! LOL.
He LOST. No "momentum", hell he lost to Kasich!
Remarkable? :o ;D
Give me a break.... Kasich is a one-state wonder that blew all his ammo on NH. Hell the guy practically lived in NH in the weeks leading up to primary. For you to bring him up in this discussion is laughable.
Rubio's finish in Iowa had all the pundits lapping at his heals thinking it would sling shot him into a great showing in NH....blah blah blah. He didn't even live up to pre-primary polling numbers. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-3350.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-3350.html)
On the other hand, Cruz did live up to his polling numbers in a region of the country not known for embracing true conservatives. Like him or not, Cruz is doing very well after the first two states.
See ya later Christie, Florina and Carson. After them, Bush will be the next one out...IMHO
-
Give me a break.... Kasich is a one-state wonder that blew all his ammo on NH. Hell the guy practically lived in NH in the weeks leading up to primary. For you to bring him up in this discussion is laughable.
No, the laughable part is watching the spin. Entertaining.
Rubio's finish in Iowa had all the pundits lapping at his heals thinking it would sling shot him into a great showing in NH....blah blah blah. He didn't even live up to pre-primary polling numbers. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-3350.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-3350.html)
Agreed. The SS Christie didn't help by slamming a torpedo into his side Saturday.
On the other hand, Cruz did live up to his polling numbers in a region of the country not known for embracing true conservatives. Like him or not, Cruz is doing very well after the first two states.
If losing is "doing well"........ :o
See ya later Christie, Florina and Carson. After them, Bush will be the next one out...IMHO
Agreed.
South Carolina should bode better for the Bible Salesman. SC is known for a more brutal type of campaigning and the dirty tricks will abound. This is right up his alley and like he showed in Iowa, anything to get a vote.
Should be interesting.
-
Seriously, Trump becoming the nominee is a Democrat's wet dream. What the hell is wrong with people?? Trump is a douche bag Democrat, with a load of money and an enormous ego pretending to be a Republican. Why can't more people see this??!! :o >:(
You can thank the Republican Party (and the Democrats) for this. You now have a train wreck for sure, the question is, how to deal with it?
Unfortunately I see the Republicans once again, as in 2012 dealing with it by staying home and handing the election to the democrats. And of course they'll blame Trump just like they blamed Romney.
For the life of me I still can't figure out how the Republicans figured a second Obama term was a better deal than a President Romney.
-
...If losing is "doing well"........ :o
Winning Iowa and coming in third in NH as a conservative is losing? I don't know if Cruz can go the distance, but he is certainly making the establishment candidates look foolish. Other than Trump, all of the lefty-lite RINOS seem to not be fairing well.... The pendulum is swinging because the country has had enough...just like in 2010 and 2014.
-
I am still with Cruz at this point although I hear the Bible Salesman comments by our friend Lucifer here. I trust him more than Trump, that's all.
Have you read Milton?
-
So, we have a 74 year old Brooklyn Socialist and a 69 year old Manhattan Democrat are leading the presidential primaries.
I guess that's New York Values for you.
I doubt the rest of the country wants to be like New York.
-
I'm not on Twitter, but I chuckled when I saw this:
#FeeltheUrn
-
I am still with Cruz at this point although I hear the Bible Salesman comments by our friend Lucifer here. I trust him more than Trump, that's all.
Have you read Milton?
http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/why-ted-cruz-is-now-the-republican-front-runner/article/2582915
-
In 2012 the RNC couldn't stand the thought of a non-establishment hack not gaining the nomination. That many conservatives stayed home is proof that they have at least some integrity.
In 2016 the RNC is dealing with a full on rebellion, just as the DNC is doing the same with the anti-establishment, we won't vote for Hilary Clinton contingent.
I suspect Bernie Sanders will win the nomination despite the best efforts of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and the rest of the Hilary is a Goddess cabal. Then Bernie will lose big to Ted Cruz in an anti-liberal/anti-republican establishment smack down.
-
Here is Cruz' new ad:
http://injo.com/2016/02/533850-check-out-ted-cruzs-toddler-themed-ad-warning-against-playing-trump/
-
So, we have a 74 year old Brooklyn Socialist and a 69 year old Manhattan Democrat are leading the presidential primaries.
I guess that's New York Values for you.
I doubt the rest of the country wants to be like New York.
So what's the choice? IF Sanders gets the nomination (he won't) and IF Trump gets the nomination (likely) do you "protest" and stay home and give the vote to the democrats? Just like 2012?
-
http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/why-ted-cruz-is-now-the-republican-front-runner/article/2582915
Wow, talk about a "spin".........
-
So what's the choice? IF Sanders gets the nomination (he won't) and IF Trump gets the nomination (likely) do you "protest" and stay home and give the vote to the democrats? Just like 2012?
No , I'd vote for Trump. I've said that multiple times.
What would you do if Cruz wins the nomination?
-
In 2012 the RNC couldn't stand the thought of a non-establishment hack not gaining the nomination. That many conservatives stayed home is proof that they have at least some integrity.
In 2016 the RNC is dealing with a full on rebellion, just as the DNC is doing the same with the anti-establishment, we won't vote for Hilary Clinton contingent.
I suspect Bernie Sanders will win the nomination despite the best efforts of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and the rest of the Hilary is a Goddess cabal. Then Bernie will lose big to Ted Cruz in an anti-liberal/anti-republican establishment smack down.
Bernie won't get the nomination. If he beats Hillary to the convention, the DNC will draft Biden.
Ted Cruz will not be the nominee for the RNC. He simply doesn't appeal to half of the Republican electorate, Independents and Democrats (moderate) hate him as well. His ONLY hope is to attempt to get more far right wing voters to turn out as the same with the evangelicals which is his only base. And yet if he did that, he still can't get enough to get him to the nomination.
John Sununu let the cat out of the bag during a Fox interview. He is in with the Republican establishment and he stated after Trump's win that if Trump is the nominee at the convention "the party will have to find a more suitable candidate" to run, i.e. draft someone and kick Trump to the curb. And if they do that, a great number of the Trump followers will be disenfranchised and simply stay home, thus insuring a democratic win.
Get use to saying "President Biden". :(
-
No , I'd vote for Trump. I've said that multiple times.
What would you do if Cruz wins the nomination?
I'm voting "R" for whoever gets the nomination, period. I will not be foolish and sit home as a "protest".
Here is an interesting article which is concise and too the point: http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2001015/
-
I'm voting "R" for whoever gets the nomination, period. I will not be foolish and sit home as a "protest".
Here is an interesting article which is concise and too the point: http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2001015/
Me too.
-
This campaign season has been following the script for the movie The Campaign. I swear that we're going to see Trump punch a dog any day now which will, of course, give him a bump in the polls.
The Campaign is a belly buster of a movie if you haven't seen it.
-
So what's the choice? IF Sanders gets the nomination (he won't) and IF Trump gets the nomination (likely) do you "protest" and stay home and give the vote to the democrats? Just like 2012?
If Trump gets the Republican nomination, voting for him is voting for a democrat. Only way not to vote for a D is to not vote.
-
If Trump gets the Republican nomination, voting for him is voting for a democrat. Only way not to vote for a D is to not vote.
Soooooooo..............
What you are saying is if Trump gets the nomination you will not vote? Correct?
And you will be happy with a President Hillary or President Biden (or maybe Sanders)?
What you replied above is what happened in 2012, Republicans didn't like Romney so they stayed home.........and gave the WH to Obama.
-
Trump would definitely a better choice than Hillary, Biden, or Sanders. Yes, Trump has shown some Progressive leanings in the past, but with those three Democrats you know you're going to get the ultimate fasco-communism.
-
Trump would definitely a better choice than Hillary, Biden, or Sanders. Yes, Trump has shown some Progressive leanings in the past, but with those three Democrats you know you're going to get the ultimate fasco-communism.
Agreed. After 2012 and giving BHO a second term, I can't understand why anyone would even consider not voting and handing the WH to the democrats for a third term.
-
I didn't research it, but saw this on Facebook so it must be true.
Allegedly, the former Mexican president said that Mexico wouldn't pay anything toward the building of the wall, and allegedly Trump's response was "The wall just got taller."
Hehe. That's pretty good if true.
-
Ted Cruz will not be the nominee for the RNC. He simply doesn't appeal to half of the Republican electorate, Independents and Democrats (moderate) hate him as well. His ONLY hope is to attempt to get more far right wing voters to turn out as the same with the evangelicals which is his only base. And yet if he did that, he still can't get enough to get him to the nomination.
In 2010, I would have believed you.
But then, the Tea Party came around and changed my mind. I think Cruz could get the nomination. The same way he, Mike Lee, and many others won their first terms in Congress.
Take everything you think you know about partisan politics, and throw it right out the window. Especially when it comes to the GOP.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
Ted Cruz will not be the nominee for the RNC. He simply doesn't appeal to half of the Republican electorate, Independents and Democrats (moderate) hate him as well. His ONLY hope is to attempt to get more far right wing voters to turn out as the same with the evangelicals which is his only base. And yet if he did that, he still can't get enough to get him to the nomination.
Yet his negatives in polling are dwarfed by about 30 points by your boy Trumpy.
-
In 2010, I would have believed you.
But then, the Tea Party came around and changed my mind. I think Cruz could get the nomination. The same way he, Mike Lee, and many others won their first terms in Congress.
Take everything you think you know about partisan politics, and throw it right out the window. Especially when it comes to the GOP.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
Independents won't support Cruz, no Democrats will support him and the moderate Republicans won't support him. Basically he has the evangelicals and Tea Party Conservatives.
If he got the nomination he couldn't win the general election.
-
Yet his negatives in polling are dwarfed by about 30 points by your boy Trumpy.
You do understand in order to win the WH, one has to carry his party, half of the independents and a small portion of the other party.
The Bible Salesman only has the evangelical and the Tea Party support of the Republican party. And in New Hampshire the Independents and evangelicals over overwhelmingly went with Trump. So if this trend continues, the Bible Salesman doesn't even have that to fall back on.
-
Independents won't support Cruz, no Democrats will support him and the moderate Republicans won't support him. Basically he has the evangelicals and Tea Party Conservatives.
If he got the nomination he couldn't win the general election.
Real Clear Politics Averages for the General Election:
Trump 43.0% vs. Clinton 47.0%
Trump 40.3% vs. Sanders 48.0%
Cruz 46.7% vs. Clinton 45.7%
Cruz 42.0% vs. Sanders 43.5%
Rubio 48.0% vs. Clinton 43.0%
Rubio 42.5% vs. Sanders 41.0%
Trump gets trounced by both Hillary and Sanders. Cruz beats Clinton and loses to Sanders, and Rubio beats both Clinton and Sanders. So who can't win the general election again?
RCP Favorable / Unfavorable:
Trump: 34.4% / 57.8% = -23.4%
Cruz: 34.6% / 40.0% = -5.4%
Rubio: 35.2% / 38.0% = -2.8%
Clinton: 42.2% / 51.4% = -9.2%
Sanders: 38.4% / 38.2% = +0.2%
Trump's favorables are the lowest in the field, and his negatives are the highest in the field. Yea, that's a formula for GOP success in the general. Not.
-
You do understand in order to win the WH, one has to carry his party, half of the independents and a small portion of the other party.
No, to win the WH one must capture 270 electoral votes in December.
-
Real Clear Politics Averages for the General Election:
Trump 43.0% vs. Clinton 47.0%
Trump 40.3% vs. Sanders 48.0%
Cruz 46.7% vs. Clinton 45.7%
Cruz 42.0% vs. Sanders 43.5%
Rubio 48.0% vs. Clinton 43.0%
Rubio 42.5% vs. Sanders 41.0%
Trump gets trounced by both Hillary and Sanders. Cruz beats Clinton and loses to Sanders, and Rubio beats both Clinton and Sanders. So who can't win the general election again?
RCP Favorable / Unfavorable:
Trump: 34.4% / 57.8% = -23.4%
Cruz: 34.6% / 40.0% = -5.4%
Rubio: 35.2% / 38.0% = -2.8%
Clinton: 42.2% / 51.4% = -9.2%
Sanders: 38.4% / 38.2% = +0.2%
Trump's favorables are the lowest in the field, and his negatives are the highest in the field. Yea, that's a formula for GOP success in the general. Not.
Apparently your reading comprehension is lacking. While you and the LINO keep insisting Trump is "my man" I've been very objective about all of the candidates, Trump included.
Polls for a general election 9 months away are, well, not very reliable. And "favorable" polls are gibberish at best. When you read some of the questions that derive the polling you would see how meaningless they are.
Polls that have any meaning are usually within a few days of voting. Exit polls give a better picture of what's going on with the voters. Take a look at the exit polls of New Hampshire and Iowa.
Kasich will be out soon as will Carson. Bush still has money but he's not gaining traction. The Rubio camp is already starting to see the end for their guy.
So this leaves Trump and Cruz. Cruz is hurting himself with the nasty negative campaigning. People generally don't like watching a guy telling you in a speech about what a devout Christian he is and then on the other hand running a nasty negative campaign.
And Trump is being Trump.
But not to worry, Michael Bloomberg is looking at jumping in. So this fall we could possibly see a Trump/Biden/Sanders/Bloomberg race, and someone with just over 25% of the vote become President. :o
-
No, to win the WH one must capture 270 electoral votes in December.
Do you understand how the Electoral College works? And how each state decides upon electors?
Do you understand who these electors are?
-
Do you understand how the Electoral College works? And how each state decides upon electors?
Do you understand who these electors are?
I'm pretty sure he does. Our Canadian friend has schooled many US citizens on the blue board on our Constitution and our political process. He's a freak. ;)
-
I'm pretty sure he does. Our Canadian friend has schooled many US citizens on the blue board on our Constitution and our political process. He's a freak. ;)
So he should understand that Cruz won't win California,Oregon or Washington, he won't win any of the Northeast nor will he win the upper midwest. Florida would be a toss up, as would Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Take a look at the 2012 Electoral map, and look at the Bible Salesman's poling in those blue states. It ain't pretty.
-
So he should understand that Cruz won't win California,Oregon or Washington, he won't win any of the Northeast nor will he win the upper midwest. Florida would be a toss up, as would Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Take a look at the 2012 Electoral map, and look at the Bible Salesman's poling in those blue states. It ain't pretty.
It's a good thing you weren't an advisor to Ronald Reagan when he won 49 states in 1984, and only lost Minnesota (Mondale's home state) by less than 4,000 votes (0.18%), and earned 525 electoral votes. He would have had to step out of the race because there was NO WAY he could win.
-
It's a good thing you weren't an advisor to Ronald Reagan when he won 49 states in 1984, and only lost Minnesota (Mondale's home state) by less than 4,000 votes (0.18%), and earned 525 electoral votes. He would have had to step out of the race because there was NO WAY he could win.
So we are now comparing Reagan in 1984 to the election of 2016??? And you are trying to imply that Cruz has the same following as Reagan? REALLY?
Guess you've never heard the term "Reagan Democrat". (Hint) One of the reasons he carried 49 states.
Do you honestly think there are "Cruz Democrats"?
BTW, are your hands hurting yet from all of the straw grasping?
-
So we are now comparing Reagan in 1984 to the election of 2016??? And you are trying to imply that Cruz has the same following as Reagan? REALLY?
Guess you've never heard the term "Reagan Democrat". (Hint) One of the reasons he carried 49 states.
Do you honestly think there are "Cruz Democrats"?
BTW, are your hands hurting yet from all of the straw grasping?
You believe that you're so brilliant as to who will and won't win the general, who's going to vote for whom, who's not going to vote for whom, and how this election will play out, I just thought I'd point out one election where every pundit in the country got their ass handed to them by the electorate.
So, are you a political consultant, or do you just play one on PS?
-
You believe that you're so brilliant as to who will and won't win the general, who's going to vote for whom, who's not going to vote for whom, and how this election will play out, I just thought I'd point out one election where every pundit in the country got their ass handed to them by the electorate.
So, are you a political consultant, or do you just play one on PS?
The 1984 election was well predicted. Plus you had Ronald Reagan who appealed to the Republicans, Independents and "Reagan Democrats", thus he had a landslide election.
I look at everything and read a lot. I don't get caught up in the emotions ( like most people).
Bottom line: No matter how you slice it, the Republicans are in a mess. Thankfully he Democrats are much better.
I can see the democrats tossing Hillary and drafting Biden, Sanders getting pissed off and going independent. Then toss in Bloomberg and the Republicans nominating Trump.
Gonna get interesting.
-
Apparently your reading comprehension is lacking. While you and the LINO keep insisting Trump is "my man" I've been very objective about all of the candidates, Trump included.
Riiiiight. You keep telling people that. Yet you seem good at parroting Dear Leader's talking points.
Did I call him your man? Sorry, let me correct that. I meant your boy. He's a petulant child in a man's body.
Still trying to figure out how Dear Leader can win the general with a 60%+ disapproval rating. To break that down for you and the other Trumpkins...that means that 3/5 of people despise him. Let's see...that leaves him with 40% who don't and might be persuadeable.
Cruz, by contrast, has disapproval ratings in the 30s-40s. But he's totally unelectable....Again....Riiiiiight.
-
Riiiiight. You keep telling people that. Yet you seem good at parroting Dear Leader's talking points.
Did I call him your man? Sorry, let me correct that. I meant your boy. He's a petulant child in a man's body.
Still trying to figure out how Dear Leader can win the general with a 60%+ disapproval rating. To break that down for you and the other Trumpkins...that means that 3/5 of people despise him. Let's see...that leaves him with 40% who don't and might be persuadeable.
Cruz, by contrast, has disapproval ratings in the 30s-40s. But he's totally unelectable....Again....Riiiiiight.
And your the guy that is willing to help the democrats remain in the White House. It's voters with your mentality that gave BHO a second term.
That speaks volumes Jeff.
-
And your the guy that is willing to help the democrats remain in the White House.
That speaks volumes Jeff.
So are you, you just can't admit that Trump is a Democrat. He has been his entire life, his policies are Democrat policies, he's working the Democrat/Alinksy playbook.
The only way to avoid a Democrat in the White House in 2017 is to get someone who is not Trump as the Republican nominee
-
So are you, you just can't admit that Trump is a Democrat. He has been his entire life, his policies are Democrat policies, he's working the Democrat/Alinksy playbook.
The only way to avoid a Democrat in the White House in 2017 is to get someone who is not Trump as the Republican nominee
I've never stated an opinion on it one way or the other. I did state I will vote (as others said) for whoever the republican nominee is.
But YOU have admitted you would help the democrats keep the WH if your guy isn't the nominee.
Plain and simple, people with your mentality gave BHO his second term.
-
I've never stated an opinion on it one way or the other. I did state I will vote (as others said) for whoever the republican nominee is.
But YOU have admitted you would help the democrats keep the WH if your guy isn't the nominee.
Riiiiiight. You're always there to defend Dear Leader, but you're totally not a Trumpkin.
If your boy wins the nomination, there will be 2 democrats on the ballot, so you're guaranteeing a democrat.
-
Riiiiiight. You're always there to defend Dear Leader, but you're totally not a Trumpkin.
I've spoken of the negatives of Trump many times.
You just want a punching bag because of your hatred of the man. Anyone that won't join in with you and you begin the childish attacks. Who knows, maybe the Bible Salesman will go real negative and come up with a new bag of dirty tricks to get the nomination.
But for you, as long as he holds the bible in one hand and the constitution in the other, you will follow blindly.
-
Did I call him your man? Sorry, let me correct that. I meant your boy. He's a petulant child in a man's body.
That's how I see him too.
Holy shitballs. I just agreed with Jeff.
You win, universe.
-
That's how I see him too.
Holy shitballs. I just agreed with Jeff.
You win, universe.
Trump is as or more thin-skinned than Obama, and that is quite an accomplishment.
-
Trump is as or more thin-skinned than Obama, and that is quite an accomplishment.
He has a huge, huge ego, and is not used to hearing negatives about himself.
-
Trump is as or more thin-skinned than Obama, and that is quite an accomplishment.
see how "presidential" trump is?
:-)
-
Trump is as or more thin-skinned than Obama, and that is quite an accomplishment.
Do you think it's thin skinned, or simply doesn't want to take shit off people?
I kinda find it refreshing someone doesn't feel compelled to grovel under the PC mantra.
-
He has a huge, huge ego, and is not used to hearing negatives about himself.
Watch this:
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/ad38087bac/donald-trump-art-of-the-deal-movie?_cc=__t___&_ccid=8b9f0da1013dceee (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/ad38087bac/donald-trump-art-of-the-deal-movie?_cc=__t___&_ccid=8b9f0da1013dceee)
BTW, Karen and I were both shocked to find out who played Donald Trump.
Please, if you know, don't give it away.
-
Do you think it's thin skinned, or simply doesn't want to take shit off people?
I kinda find it refreshing someone doesn't feel compelled to grovel under the PC mantra.
Oh yea, you're not a Trump supporter. ???
-
Can any of you cite a single example of Mr. Trump passionately advocating a conservative position when not actively running for something?
Jeff, did you ever get an answer to this question?
-
For those who live by polls, here's an interesting article:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269229-poll-over-4-in-10-back-trump-nationwide
Trump earns 44 percent support from registered Republican and Republican-leaning independent voters. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) comes in a distant second, with 17 percent.
Interesting when you factor in there are still 6 in the field, it will be interesting to see the numbers when it narrows down to 2 or 3.
So go ahead, spin away!
-
Oh yea, you're not a Trump supporter. ???
Because I like someone that isn't PC?? I also liked Rand Paul for his no nonsense approach as well as Ben Carson for not succumbing to the PC crowd.
The race is still in it's early stages, and as I have stated, many times, I will support whoever winds up with the Republican nomination.
So how about you? Will you support whoever gets the nomination?
-
Jeff, did you ever get an answer to this question?
Here's an answer; closing the borders.
That has been a mantra of the "conservatives" for over a decade although not a single Repub has pushed for that agenda with even a modicum of success.
-
Here's an answer; closing the borders.
That has been a mantra of the "conservatives" for over a decade although not a single Repub has pushed for that agenda with even a modicum of success.
Mainstream Republicans will not close the border.
1. Fear of losing Latino votes
2. Fear of pissing off Corporations and companies who depend upon cheap labor.
-
Because I like someone that isn't PC?? I also liked Rand Paul for his no nonsense approach as well as Ben Carson for not succumbing to the PC crowd.
The race is still in it's early stages, and as I have stated, many times, I will support whoever winds up with the Republican nomination.
So how about you? Will you support whoever gets the nomination?
No, because your defense about not taking any shit is the same defense for bad behavior that every other Trump supporter uses. So when he cries when someone commented about Trumps experience, to Trump that's an "Attack" and gives him permission to attack his opponents personally and viciously. It's grade school level stuff.
As to your last sentence: asked, and answered, at least a half dozen times. I'm not answering it again.
-
Mainstream Republicans will not close the border.
1. Fear of losing Latino votes
2. Fear of pissing off Corporations and companies who depend upon cheap labor.
1) What is the psychology behind the "Latino vote", where presumably voting Latinos who are citizens and either came through legitimately/naturalized or where born Americans, punishing candidates who advocate enforced sovereignty?
2) A candidate who is not beholdened to corporate masters doesn't have this problem.
-
No, because your defense about not taking any shit is the same defense for bad behavior that every other Trump supporter uses. So when he cries when someone commented about Trumps experience, to Trump that's an "Attack" and gives him permission to attack his opponents personally and viciously. It's grade school level stuff.
As to your last sentence: asked, and answered, at least a half dozen times. I'm not answering it again.
You are living up to your title "Spin Master".
-
1) What is the psychology behind the "Latino vote", where presumably voting Latinos who are citizens and either came through legitimately/naturalized or where born Americans, punishing candidates who advocate enforced sovereignty?
Those latinos supposedly support their fellow latinos who are flooding across the border illegally. To what degree that holds true is unknown, but conventional wisdom says don't make that an issue to get elected.
2) A candidate who is not beholdened to corporate masters doesn't have this problem.
True. But most candidates are beholden to the corporate masters as they need campaign donations.
-
Jeff, did you ever get an answer to this question?
This has been asked and answered already - Ronald Reagan, inarguably the most impactful conservative leader in American history, would not pass this 'test' since he did not 'passionately advocate conservative positions when not running for office'. He was campaigning for Governor of CA when he gave the Time for Choosing speech - and had been a Democrat previously.
Trump has used plain language to explain his previous monetary support for candidates on BOTH side of the spectrum and it makes total sense to anyone who has run a business, let alone a large concern where government interference and oversight is arguably more intrusive and open to abuse than many (real estate development/banking). Anyone not accepting that is simply not listening with an open mind IMO.
Does anyobody recall Trump nearly getting into the mix before now? Started in 1988 friends, there was a draft Trump movement within the Republican party. He almost ran as a Reform Party/Independent in 2000, and as a Republican in 2012. None of these are Democrat, even Reform Party was Center/Right.
It is a total bullshit strawman because it limits the timeframe/frame of reference in such a way as to 'theoretically' only favor one answer and as pointed out, not even Reagan would pass given the restrictions on timeframe.
'Gimp
-
Yep...he's totally winning, so he's gonna sue.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269299-trump-threatens-to-bring-birther-lawsuit-against-cruz
Ticking off the Obama/Alinksy playbook very nicely.
-
Yep...he's totally winning, so he's gonna sue.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269299-trump-threatens-to-bring-birther-lawsuit-against-cruz
Ticking off the Obama/Alinksy playbook very nicely.
Yea, I hear ya. We all know the Bible Salesman, who reminds everyone of his devout christianity at every speech would never, ever stoop to dirty campaign tactics or outright lying. That would be so unchristian like, ya know?
-
Yea, I hear ya. We all know the Bible Salesman, who reminds everyone of his devout christianity at every speech would never, ever stoop to dirty campaign tactics or outright lying. That would be so unchristian like, ya know?
There's guy who won't admit that Trump's his boy jumping to the defense of another Trumpertantrum.
-
There's guy who won't admit that Trump's his boy jumping to the defense of another Trumpertantrum.
Not really, I just have fun showing you what an absolute phony the Bible Salesman is and in his desperation will do anything to get what he wants, including lying, cheating and using deceptive advertising.
So Christian of him. ::)
-
Not really, I just have fun showing you what an absolute phony the Bible Salesman is and in his desperation will do anything to get what he wants, including lying, cheating and using deceptive advertising.
So Christian of him. ::)
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! He's saying mean things about Trump!
-
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! He's saying mean things about Trump!
So, honest question: Do you believe someone who proclaims their devout Christianity daily should engage in lying, deceptive advertising and dirty campaign tricks?
Honest answer please?
-
So, honest question: Do you believe someone who proclaims their devout Christianity daily should engage in lying, deceptive advertising and dirty campaign tricks?
Honest answer please?
Not my concern.
I do think it's a sign of total weakness when one candidate threatens to sue another.
-
Not my concern.
So you are OK with a candidate using religion as a tactic to get votes? And you are OK that he uses that religion as a ruse?
I do think it's a sign of total weakness when one candidate threatens to sue another.
But it's acceptable to use outright lies and deception in order to get ahead?
Interesting............
-
So you are OK with a candidate using religion as a tactic to get votes? And you are OK that he uses that religion as a ruse?
But it's acceptable to use outright lies and deception in order to get ahead?
Interesting............
Well, you're just peachy with a Democrat running the Republican primary.
-
Well, you're just peachy with a Democrat running the Republican primary.
But you've already stated you will gladly help the democrats retain the WH if your chosen candidate doesn't get the nomination.
I've repeatedly stated I will support whoever wins the nomination.
You? Not so much.
-
So you are OK with a candidate using religion as a tactic to get votes? And you are OK that he uses that religion as a ruse?
But it's acceptable to use outright lies and deception in order to get ahead?
Interesting............
Trump uses religion as a ruse, too. Just read Two Corinthians.
-
Trump uses religion as a ruse, too. Just read Two Corinthians.
Not to the degree the Bible Salesman puts it on.
BTW, we don't allow bibles down here. ;D
-
BTW, we don't allow bibles down here. ;D
Dante's Inferno?
-
Dante's Inferno?
Ya know what Mark Twain said: "Choose Heaven for the climate and Hell for the company"....
-
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! He's saying mean things about Trump!
That's an attack!
-
But you've already stated you will gladly help the democrats retain the WH if your chosen candidate doesn't get the nomination.
I've repeatedly stated I will support whoever wins the nomination.
You? Not so much.
I've never said any such thing. I've said I will have to think about it if Trump is the nominee, because then it's simply choosing between two democrats, so they will have already retained the WH.
My preferred candidate (leaning) unfortunately chose to suspend her campaign after New Hampshire.
-
I've never said any such thing. I've said I will have to think about it if Trump is the nominee, because then it's simply choosing between two democrats, so they will have already retained the WH.
My preferred candidate (leaning) unfortunately chose to suspend her campaign after New Hampshire.
Interesting. I think she would be an EXCELLENT VP candidate.
-
I've never said any such thing. I've said I will have to think about it if Trump is the nominee, because then it's simply choosing between two democrats, so they will have already retained the WH.
My preferred candidate (leaning) unfortunately chose to suspend her campaign after New Hampshire.
Duck and weave.
Hard to believe anyone that has conservative leanings, or even libertarian leanings could even conceive doing something to give the WH over to the democrats.
Says a lot, actually.
-
Interesting. I think she would be an EXCELLENT VP candidate.
4 years listening to that whiny bitch voice?....... I'll pass.
-
At least Trump is a capitalist. We know what Bernie, and Hillary are.
-
At least Trump is a capitalist. We know what Bernie, and Hillary are.
You would think after 2012 some would have learned. Guess not.
-
Duck and weave.
Hard to believe anyone that has conservative leanings, or even libertarian leanings could even conceive doing something to give the WH over to the democrats.
Says a lot, actually.
My preference is to have a conservative for the general election. A vote for Trump for the republican nomination is a vote to guarantee a Democrat in the WH
-
My preference is to have a conservative for the general election. A vote for Trump for the republican nomination is a vote to guarantee a Democrat in the WH
So you don't get your preferred candidate, so your solution is to stay home and help the democrats. :o
2012 all over again.
-
So you don't get your preferred candidate, so your solution is to stay home and help the democrats. :o
2012 all over again.
How is not voting for a Democrat (Trump) helping the Democrats?
What's the difference if I vote for Democrat A (Hillary) or Democrat B (Trump)?
You're advocating voting for a Democrat in the Republican primary...preemptively surrendering to them.
And you have the gall to say I'm helping the Democrats?
-
My preference is to have a conservative for the general election. A vote for Trump for the republican nomination is a vote to guarantee a Democrat in the WH
You can keep repeating this bullshit trope all you want Jeff but it simply ain't so. Trump's actual history with the Republican party 'trumps' your blind losertarian-jihad since the party itself sought to have him run almost 30 years ago now. This is the second time he has been a candidate within the party primary series.
Here is a clue - in order to 'leave' the Republican party as he did in 2000 when he joined the Independent/Reform party (Center-Right), you first have to be a fucking Republican in the first place.
Is he party-ideology pure? Nope, nobody says so, not even him. But then, neither is anybody else still or previously in the running. Cruz comes closest but I won't vote for him, I find him generally untrustworthy, like everyone else he has flopped on issues of improtance to me, and there is something else that I can still can't put my finger on that just sets off the red flags for me, your mileage may vary.
Frankly, the scorched-earth hard-on you have Trump is actually making me like him more since it makes me do the tiniest bit of research before I put finger to keyboard - you might try it sometime. Still not supporting him with my time or money, but I could vote FOR him if he ends up the candidate - can't say that about Cruz, Bush or Kasich - even with recent missteps Rubio has almost worked his way back into contention although I don't trust him thanks to the Gang of Eight crap.
It's South Park Turd Sandwich vs Giant Douche, and if I can't vote FOR, I am not voting - we may need to more fully experience the pain of failure before people wake up in large enough numbers to make a real difference.
'Gimp
-
How is not voting for a Democrat (Trump) helping the Democrats?
What's the difference if I vote for Democrat A (Hillary) or Democrat B (Trump)?
You're advocating voting for a Democrat in the Republican primary...preemptively surrendering to them.
And you have the gall to say I'm helping the Democrats?
Yep, you would be helping the democrats, no doubt.
The President appoints members to the Supreme Court. We have a few Justices that will be retiring (thankfully they have waited for BHO to leave office). So you will be happy with a Clinton/Sanders/Biden appointed justice?
Right now the Republicans hold both houses. If that continues would you rather have a Clinton/Sanders/Biden President casting the veto vote each and every time?
-
You can keep repeating this bullshit trope all you want Jeff but it simply ain't so. Trump's actual history with the Republican party 'trumps' your blind losertarian-jihad since the party itself sought to have him run almost 30 years ago now. This is the second time he has been a candidate within the party primary series.
Here is a clue - in order to 'leave' the Republican party as he did in 2000 when he joined the Independent/Reform party (Center-Right), you first have to be a fucking Republican in the first place.
Is he party-ideology pure? Nope, nobody says so, not even him. But then, neither is anybody else still or previously in the running. Cruz comes closest but I won't vote for him, I find him generally untrustworthy, like everyone else he has flopped on issues of improtance to me, and there is something else that I can still can't put my finger on that just sets off the red flags for me, your mileage may vary.
Frankly, the scorched-earth hard-on you have Trump is actually making me like him more since it makes me do the tiniest bit of research before I put finger to keyboard - you might try it sometime. Still not supporting him with my time or money, but I could vote FOR him if he ends up the candidate - can't say that about Cruz, Bush or Kasich - even with recent missteps Rubio has almost worked his way back into contention although I don't trust him thanks to the Gang of Eight crap.
It's South Park Turd Sandwich vs Giant Douche, and if I can't vote FOR, I am not voting - we may need to more fully experience the pain of failure before people wake up in large enough numbers to make a real difference.
'Gimp
-
-
Was just about to post this. Not sure if I'm on board with Trump, but he is a conservative...not a covert dem like some will try to make you believe.
-
With Justice Scalia's sad and unexpected passing I will very likely have to hold my nose, yet again, and just vote R even though my vote is all but wasted out here in the People's Republic of Commiefornia. We will not survive as a nation of free men with another liberal activist on SCOTUS, although I can only see Cruz or Trump trying to appoint a strict constructionist, if there even are any out there - the rest will find another Roberts, a disappointment even greater than Sandra Day O'Connor.
'Gimp
-
Was just about to post this. Not sure if I'm on board with Trump, but he is a conservative...not a covert dem like some will try to make you believe.
Is this the same Trump organization that contributed $150,000 to the Democratic Party, and only $45,000 to the Republican Party during the 2007-2008 election cycle - you know, when Mitt Romney was in the fight of his life against Obama?
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/all_summary.php?id=D000030559&cycle=2014&nid=16671
-
Is this the same Trump organization that contributed $150,000 to the Democratic Party, and only $45,000 to the Republican Party during the 2007-2008 election cycle - you know, when Mitt Romney was in the fight of his life against Obama?
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/all_summary.php?id=D000030559&cycle=2014&nid=16671
So "spin master", why don't you use all of the data? Notice where contributions to candidates the amounts were slightly more to "R" than "D"? Or doesn't that fit your narrative?
How many times does the man have to explain to you (he's been very open about it) that he made contributions to both sides in order to benefit his business? In 2008 he was a private businessman and had obligations to his business.
Please, spin away as you can't seem to add anything substantive to the conversation.
-
So "spin master", why don't you use all of the data? Notice where contributions to candidates the amounts were slightly more to "R" than "D"? Or doesn't that fit your narrative?
How many times does the man have to explain to you (he's been very open about it) that he made contributions to both sides in order to benefit his business? In 2008 he was a private businessman and had obligations to his business.
Please, spin away as you can't seem to add anything substantive to the conversation.
Do I have to explain everything to you? The candidate contributions were a push, and paled in comparison to the contribution to the parties, whereby current GOP candidate gave more than 3 times the amount of contributions to the democratic PARTY than he gave to the GOP PARTY.
How does giving to a party help a business? A candidate with a quid pro quo? Maybe. To a PARTY? That you will be running against 7 years later?
You're so far up Trump's backside that your eyes are brown.
-
Do I have to explain everything to you? The candidate contributions were a push, and paled in comparison to the contribution to the parties, whereby current GOP candidate gave more than 3 times the amount of contributions to the democratic PARTY than he gave to the GOP PARTY.
How does giving to a party help a business? A candidate with a quid pro quo? Maybe. To a PARTY? That you will be running against 7 years later?
You're so far up Trump's backside that your eyes are brown.
As usual, spin, spin, spin................
-
We will not survive as a nation of free men with another liberal activist on SCOTUS...
Sure we will, despite the hyperbole.
These swings have historically been like a pendulum, always swinging back to the center after trending too far left or right.
This image was just posted to another forum. Can't validate the data contained therein, but it perhaps, in theory, shows that maybe a fine-tuning back to the left might be in the cards to keep things balanced.
(https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/enten-feature-supremecourt-matrix1.png?w=575)
Regardless, since the president gets to choose, and the president was duly elected by a majority of the electorate, time to suck it up and realize the system is likely working exactly as it was designed to.
-
Sorry, I don't see a "fine tuning to the left" of the court as being helpful, especially after the last 7 years.
-
Sorry, I don't see a "fine tuning to the left" of the court as being helpful, especially after the last 7 years.
Nor do I.
But democracy's a bitch, and most Obama voters - the majority of voters, remember - seem quite eager for that "fine tuning".
Don't like it? Get a Republican President voted in. Can't do that? Then, again, suck it up and accept the will of the people until you can.
-
Sure we will, despite the hyperbole.
These swings have historically been like a pendulum, always swinging back to the center after trending too far left or right.
Regardless, since the president gets to choose, and the president was duly elected by a majority of the electorate, time to suck it up and realize the system is likely working exactly as it was designed to.
No, I am sorry, it is different this time. We have had 50 years of socialist indoctrination by education, media, and government. In addition, we have a purposeful invasion of illegal immigrants which will be liberal/progressive, vote Democrat just to get free stuff. We are in a different age, and at or past the tipping point of what this country is all about. Capitalism is going away, cronie capitalism, and socialism is replacing it. The pendulum will not swing back. The President is purposely Fundamentally Transforming the nation like he said he would, the system is now rigged to the point of no return.
Open your eyes.
-
But democracy's a bitch
Exactly why the Founding Fathers did not set this country up as a Democracy. Historically Mob Rule has never worked.
-
Exactly why the Founding Fathers did not set this country up as a Democracy. Historically Mob Rule has never worked.
Correct. We are a Representative Republic, NOT a Democracy.
-
Sure we will, despite the hyperbole.
These swings have historically been like a pendulum, always swinging back to the center after trending too far left or right.
This image was just posted to another forum. Can't validate the data contained therein, but it perhaps, in theory, shows that maybe a fine-tuning back to the left might be in the cards to keep things balanced.
(https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/enten-feature-supremecourt-matrix1.png?w=575)
Regardless, since the president gets to choose, and the president was duly elected by a majority of the electorate, time to suck it up and realize the system is likely working exactly as it was designed to.
I don't believe that legislating from the bench is a sign of being qualified. Quite the contrary. I believe it should be disqualifying.
Inability to read and comprend "shall not be infringed" should also be disqualifying.
-
Regardless, since the president gets to choose, and the president was duly elected by a majority of the electorate, time to suck it up and realize the system is likely working exactly as it was designed to.
You know, the Senate is provided authority to consent (and implicitly to withhold consent) to that choice, and the Senate was duly elected too.
-
No, I am sorry, it is different this time.
Cardinal default position: It's never different this time.
Usually in regards to economics, but a fair starting point across many different fields.
-
You know, the Senate is provided authority to consent (and implicitly to withhold consent) to that choice, and the Senate was duly elected too.
Yep! Checks and balances when allowed to work as designed.
-
Cardinal default position: It's never different this time.
Usually in regards to economics, but a fair starting point across many different fields.
You just don't get it, do you?
-
Yep! Checks and balances when allowed to work as designed.
I think they should treat the Obama nominee in the same manner as they treat his annual budget, bring it immediately to the floor and defeat it.
-
Sure we will, despite the hyperbole.
These swings have historically been like a pendulum, always swinging back to the center after trending too far left or right.
This image was just posted to another forum. Can't validate the data contained therein, but it perhaps, in theory, shows that maybe a fine-tuning back to the left might be in the cards to keep things balanced.
(https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/enten-feature-supremecourt-matrix1.png?w=575)
Regardless, since the president gets to choose, and the president was duly elected by a majority of the electorate, time to suck it up and realize the system is likely working exactly as it was designed to.
The chart is fucked as it places Sotamayor and Kagan as more 'qualified' than Thomas which is a joke.
With respect to how things worked over the last 200+ years I would almost agree with your sentiment, but everything has become so politicized and the Left so emboldened by their historic successes of the last 10-12 years in particular, no - we will not survive a more liberal SCOTUS since it will mean the end of the Constitution as constructed.
'Gimp
-
Sure we will, despite the hyperbole.
These swings have historically been like a pendulum, always swinging back to the center after trending too far left or right.
This image was just posted to another forum. Can't validate the data contained therein, but it perhaps, in theory, shows that maybe a fine-tuning back to the left might be in the cards to keep things balanced.
(https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/enten-feature-supremecourt-matrix1.png?w=575)
Regardless, since the president gets to choose, and the president was duly elected by a majority of the electorate, time to suck it up and realize the system is likely working exactly as it was designed to.
Four liberal justices ruled in Heller that the Second Amendment did not guarantee an individual right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Liberals wish to have the federal government regulate political speech.
At least 20% of the Bill of Rights will not survive a "fine-tuning back to the left."
Further, a Republican-controlled Senate was also duly elected, two years after Obama's election. Are you saying they need to "suck it up" and cave to Obama's will?
-
The chart is fucked as it places Sotamayor and Kagan as more 'qualified' than Thomas which is a joke.
With respect to how things worked over the last 200+ years I would almost agree with your sentiment, but everything has become so politicized and the Left so emboldened by their historic successes of the last 10-12 years in particular, no - we will not survive a more liberal SCOTUS since it will mean the end of the Constitution as constructed.
'Gimp
Exactly.
-
The chart is fucked as it places Sotamayor and Kagan as more 'qualified' than Thomas which is a joke.
With respect to how things worked over the last 200+ years I would almost agree with your sentiment, but everything has become so politicized and the Left so emboldened by their historic successes of the last 10-12 years in particular, no - we will not survive a more liberal SCOTUS since it will mean the end of the Constitution as constructed.
'Gimp
The idea that Ginsberg is a moderate says it all... What far-left kook published this nonsense FastEddieB?
-
Jeff - you haven't responded to post #368 which was a direct response to your question.
-
The idea that Ginsberg is a moderate says it all... What far-left kook published this nonsense FastEddieB?
Ginsburg has publicly stated she does not like the Constitution and thinks it should be changed, and re-interpreted. She is as radical, far left as you can get.
-
Ginsburg has publicly stated she does not like the Constitution and thinks it should be changed, and re-interpreted. She is as radical, far left as you can get.
The idea that she and Fortas are equals to Scalia on the vertical axis is laughable.
-
Here (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/obama-wont-be-able-to-replace-scalia-with-a-justice-as-liberal-as-sotomayor/) is the article from which the chart originates. Note that it's from FiveThirtyEight, a respectable organization for this kind of thing. I haven't finished the article yet.
-
Here (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/obama-wont-be-able-to-replace-scalia-with-a-justice-as-liberal-as-sotomayor/) is the article from which the chart originates. Note that it's from FiveThirtyEight, a respectable organization for this kind of thing. I haven't finished the article yet.
Say no more.....
Nate Silver Political orientation
In a 2012 interview with Charlie Rose he stated, "I'd say I am somewhere in-between being a libertarian and a liberal. So if I were to vote it would be kind of a Gary Johnson versus Mitt Romney decision, I suppose."
-
Say no more.....
Your blind partisanship is noted.
-
Your blind partisanship is noted.
Calling a spade buddy, nothing more.
-
Calling a spade buddy, nothing more.
Me too.
You may want to read the article and sources. This is an organization that is known to be respectable by folks on both sides of the aisle.
-
Me too.
You may want to read the article and sources. This is an organization that is known to be respectable by folks on both sides of the aisle.
You're the same people that call those that want to follow the Constitution as RADICAL. Ooooh, that evil Constitution that made our Country great.
-
You're the same people that call those that want to follow the Constitution as RADICAL. Ooooh, that evil Constitution that made our Country great.
I am?
-
Me too.
You may want to read the article and sources. This is an organization that is known to be respectable by folks on both sides of the aisle.
Hardly, but one can attempt to keep the illusion going.
-
I am?
We is?
-
We is?
Exactly.
;D
-
Hardly, but one can attempt to keep the illusion going.
You scared you might learn something if you actually read it? At the very least, you could refute it instead of dismissing it out of hand.
I calculate the ideological distance between a nominee and a senator by taking the absolute difference between a nominee’s Segal-Cover ideological score and a senator’s joint scale DW-Nominate score. (Segal-Cover scores were created by Professors Jeffrey Segal and Albert Cover of Stony Brook University by analyzing the editorials from top newspapers in the country.)
For those that have served in the House or Senate, we already have their DW-Nominate scores. For those that haven’t, I’ve created an average score from three different sources: Adam Bonica’s fundraising scores, OnTheIssues.org, and Voteview’s method of taking into account the state and candidate’s characteristics.
All three scores were standardized to DW-Nominate’s -1 to +1 scale. Different methods of making the scales compatible make no difference in explaining how past nominees have done. I prefer this method because it is straightforward and doesn’t rely on a president’s DW-Nominate score, as Epstein’s work did. A president’s DW-Nominate score may, as my colleague Nate Silver pointed out, not be representative of his true ideology. Nor is there any guarantee that a president’s Supreme Court nominee is representative of his ideology. Ronald Reagan nominated both Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, who had very different Segal-Cover scores.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-court-wont-be-getting-another-sotomayor-anytime-soon/#fn-2
Here's (http://epstein.wustl.edu/research/Bork.pdf) some light reading
-
You scared you might learn something if you actually read it? At the very least, you could refute it instead of dismissing it out of hand.
Here's (http://epstein.wustl.edu/research/Bork.pdf) some light reading
I did read some of it and also did background checking. It's a liberal blog with a definitive liberal angle.
Are you next going to tell us the MSM is not really biased as well?
-
I did read some of it and also did background checking. It's a liberal blog with a definitive liberal angle.
Are you next going to tell us the MSM is not really biased as well?
Then you won't be surprised to learn that the substance of the article agrees with some of what you've said in this thread (Edit: or maybe the other thread? Can't find it now.)
What are your opinions on the methodology of Segal-Cover?
-
What are your opinions on the methodology of Segal-Cover?
Just more academics trying to develop a scoring process, and with most of those I'm not really impressed.
-
Just more academics trying to develop a scoring process, and with most of those I'm not really impressed.
It's clear you're not willing to muster the intellectual curiosity to have a conversation with some depth about this topic. Life is simple when you just hand-wave it all away. So, I'll call this one a day.
-
It's clear you're not willing to muster the intellectual curiosity to have a conversation with some depth about this topic. Life is simple when you just hand-wave it all away. So, I'll call this one a day.
I just don't like wasting my time arguing with mental midgets.
Glad you called it a day. Have a good one.
-
-
A friend sent this too me via email. Take it for what it's worth:
1.) Trump believes that America should not intervene militarily in other country’s problems without being compensated for doing so. If America is going to risk the lives of our soldiers and incur the expense of going to war, then the nations we help must be willing to pay for our help. Using the Iraq War as an example, he cites the huge monetary expense to American taxpayers (over $1.5 trillion, and possibly much more depending on what sources are used to determine the cost) in addition to the cost in human life. He suggests that Iraq should have been required to give us enough of their oil to pay for the expenses we incurred. He includes in those expenses the medical costs for our military and $5 million for each family that lost a loved one in the war and $2 million for each family of soldiers who received severe injuries.
2.) Speaking of the military, Trump wants America to have a strong military again. He believes the single most important function of the federal government is national defense. He has said he wants to find the General Patton or General MacArthur that could lead our military buildup back to the strength it needs to be. While he hasn’t said it directly that I know of, Trump’s attitude about America and about winning tells me he’d most likely be quick to eliminate rules of engagement that handicap our military in battle. Clearly Trump is a “win at all costs” kind of guy, and I’m sure that would apply to our national defense and security, too.
3.) Trump wants a strong foreign policy and believes that it must include 8 core principles :
American interests come first. Always. No apologies.
Maximum firepower and military preparedness.
Only go to war to win.
Stay loyal to your friends and suspicious of your enemies.
Keep the technological sword razor sharp.
See the unseen.
Prepare for threats before they materialize.
Respect and support our present and past warriors.
4.) Trump believes that terrorists who are captured should be treated as military combatants, not as criminals like the Obama administration treats them.
5.) Trump makes the point that China’s manipulation of their currency has given them unfair advantage in our trade dealings with them. He says we must tax their imports to offset their currency manipulation, which will cause American companies to be competitive again and drive manufacturing back to America and create jobs here. Although he sees China as the biggest offender, he believes that America should protect itself from all foreign efforts to take our jobs and manufacturing. For example, Ford is building a plant in Mexico and Trump suggests that every part or vehicle Ford makes in Mexico be taxed 35% if they want to bring it into the U. S., which would cause companies like Ford to no longer be competitive using their Mexican operations and move manufacturing back to the U. S., once again creating jobs here.
6.) Trump wants passage of NOPEC legislation (No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act – NOPEC – S.394), which would allow the government to sue OPEC for violating antitrust laws. According to Trump, that would break up the cartel. He also wants to unleash our energy companies to drill domestically thereby increasing domestic production creating jobs and driving domestic costs of oil and gas down while reducing dependence on foreign oil.
7.) Trump believes a secure border is critical for both security and prosperity in America. He wants to build a wall to stop illegals from entering and put controls on immigration. He also wants to enforce our immigration laws and provide no path to citizenship for illegals.
8.) Trump wants a radical change to the tax system to not only make it better for average Americans, but also to encourage businesses to stay here and foreign businesses to move here. The resulting influx of money to our nation would do wonders for our economy. He wants to make America the place to do business. He also wants to lower the death tax and the taxes on capital gains and dividends. This would put more than $1.6 trillion back into the economy and help rebuild the 1.5 million jobs we’ve lost to the current tax system. He also wants to charge companies who outsource jobs overseas a 20% tax, but for those willing to move jobs back to America they would not be taxed. And for citizens he has a tax plan that would allow Americans to keep more of what they earn and spark economic growth. He wants to change the personal income tax to:
Up to $30,000 taxed at 1%
From $30,000 to $100,000 taxed at 5%
From $100,000 to $1,000,000 taxed at 10%
From $1,000,000 and above taxed at 15%
9.) Trump wants Obamacare repealed. He says it’s a “job-killing, health care-destroying monstrosity” that “can’t be reformed, salvaged, or fixed.” He believes in allowing real competition in the health insurance marketplace to allow competition to drive prices down. He also believes in tort reform to get rid of defensive medicine and lower costs.
10.) Trump wants spending reforms in Washington, acknowledging that America spends far more than it receives in revenue. He has said he believes that if we don’t stop increasing the national debt once it hits $24 trillion it will be impossible to save this country.
Even though he says we need to cut spending, he does not want to harm those on Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. He believes that the citizens have faithfully paid in to the system to have these services available and that the American government has an obligation to fulfill its end of the bargain and provide those benefits.
Therefore, he wants to build the economy up so that we have the revenue to pay those costs without cutting the benefits to the recipients. He disagrees with Democrats who think raising taxes is the answer and says that when you do that you stifle the economy. On the other hand, when you lower taxes and create an environment to help businesses they will grow, hire more workers, and those new workers will be paying taxes that become more tax revenue for the government.
11.) Trump also wants reform of the welfare state saying that America needs “a safety net, not a hammock.” He believes in a welfare to work program that would help reduce the welfare roles and encourage people to get back to work. And he wants a crackdown on entitlement fraud.
12.) Trump believes climate change is a hoax.
13.) Trump opposes Common Core.
14.) Trump is pro-life, although he allows for an exception due to rape, incest, or the life of the mother.
15.) Trump is pro 2nd Amendment rights.
16.) Trump’s view on same-sex marriage is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he also believes that this is a states’ rights issue, not a federal issue.
17.) Trump supports the death penalty.
Trump believes that there is a lack of common sense, innovative thinking in Washington. He says it’s about seeing the unseen and that’s the kind of thinking we need to turn this country around. He tells a personal story to illustrate the point:
“When I opened Trump National Golf Club at Rancho Palos Verdes in Los Angeles, I was immediately told that I would need to build a new and costly ballroom. The current ballroom was gorgeous, but it only sat 200 people and we were losing business because people needed a larger space for their events. Building a new ballroom would take years to get approval and permits (since it’s on the Pacific Ocean), and cost about $5 million. I took one look at the ballroom and saw immediately what needed to be done. The problem wasn’t the size of the room, it was the size of the chairs. They were huge, heavy, and unwieldy."
"We didn’t need a bigger ballroom, we needed smaller chairs! So I had them replaced with high-end, smaller chairs. I then had our people sell the old chairs and got more money for them than the cost of the new chairs. In the end, the ballroom went from seating 200 people to seating 320 people. Our visitors got the space they desired, and I spared everyone the hassle of years of construction and $5 million of expense. It’s amazing what you can accomplish with a little common sense.”
On top of his saving years of construction and $5 million in expenses, he also was able to keep the ballroom open for business during the time it would have been under remodeling, which allowed him to continue to make money on the space instead of losing that revenue during construction time.
Donald Trump’s entire life has been made up of success and winning. He’s been accused of bankruptcies, but that’s not true. He’s never filed personal bankruptcy. He’s bought companies and legally used bankruptcy laws to restructure their debt, just as businesses do all the time. But he’s never been bankrupt personally. He’s a fighter that clearly loves America and would fight for our nation.
Earlier I quoted Trump saying, “I love America. And when you love something, you protect it passionately – fiercely, even.” We never hear that from Democrats or even from most Republicans.
Donald Trump is saying things that desperately need to be said but no other candidate has shown the fortitude to stand up and say them.
-
No, I am sorry, it is different this time. We have had 50 years of socialist indoctrination by education, media, and government. In addition, we have a purposeful invasion of illegal immigrants which will be liberal/progressive, vote Democrat just to get free stuff. We are in a different age, and at or past the tipping point of what this country is all about. Capitalism is going away, cronie capitalism, and socialism is replacing it. The pendulum will not swing back. The President is purposely Fundamentally Transforming the nation like he said he would, the system is now rigged to the point of no return.
Open your eyes.
This isn't your father's America.
-
This isn't your father's America.
It's not recognizable in my lifetime.
-
Trump is going to sue Ted Cruz. I guess political speech isn't "Free" in Donald Trump's America.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/15/more-trump-ill-sue-cruz-over-his-eligibility-if-he-doesnt-take-down-his-false-ads-asap-and-i-want-the-rnc-to-intervene/
-
Trump is going to sue Ted Cruz. I guess political speech isn't "Free" in Donald Trump's America.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/15/more-trump-ill-sue-cruz-over-his-eligibility-if-he-doesnt-take-down-his-false-ads-asap-and-i-want-the-rnc-to-intervene/
He won't sue him.
Trump masterfully plays the media. Say something outrageous or over the top and the media hounds run it full news cycle 24/7. Trump is constantly in the news and drowning out the other candidates. Even Hillary was complaining it's hurting her in air time when the networks use to follow everything she said and did.
Like him or hate him, he has certainly turned the world of conventional politics on it's head.
-
Jeff - you haven't responded to post #368 which was a direct response to your question.
*Crickets*
-
Pretty much sums it up except he left out that Trump is mean douche bag and has been for decades.
-
Yep. Turned it into something even shittier. Sound bite manipulation.
-
Unlike the anti trump video which takes all of 5 minutes of the guy ranting (without anything to back up his rants) the video below takes well over an hour to watch while he gives detailed analysis and backs them up with references.
For your viewing pleasure. ;D
-
http://www.jebbush.com
-
http://www.jebbush.com
Now that there is funny, I don't care who ya are!
-
Trump is going to sue Ted Cruz. I guess political speech isn't "Free" in Donald Trump's America.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/15/more-trump-ill-sue-cruz-over-his-eligibility-if-he-doesnt-take-down-his-false-ads-asap-and-i-want-the-rnc-to-intervene/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2016/02/15/more-trump-ill-sue-cruz-over-his-eligibility-if-he-doesnt-take-down-his-false-ads-asap-and-i-want-the-rnc-to-intervene/)
What I get a kick out of is the Trumpkins saying this is some great demonstration of character on Dear Leader's part.
OK, so Trump is willing to enforce the constitution...if Cruz doesn't stop saying mean things about him. If Cruz stops saying things that hurt Dear Leader's feelings, then he'll let him violate the Constitution to his heart's content.
Yeah, that's a deep and abiding commitment to the Constitution, Trump style!
-
What I get a kick out of is the Trumpkins saying this is some great demonstration of character on Dear Leader's part.
OK, so Trump is willing to enforce the constitution...if Cruz doesn't stop saying mean things about him. If Cruz stops saying things that hurt Dear Leader's feelings, then he'll let him violate the Constitution to his heart's content.
Yeah, that's a deep and abiding commitment to the Constitution, Trump style!
Oh, it's even better than that. Apparently Code Pink is a big fan, as is Michael Moore.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/15/trump-scores-crucial-code-pink-endorsement/
Let's see. Bush is responsible for 9/11. Bush LIED about WMD and lead us to war on a known lie.
Is he running for the Democratic nomination, or is he just willing to adopt the most far left talking points and destroy the rest of the field by threats of lawsuits and retribution and lies and distortions to secure the nomination via the most despicable scorched earth destruction of the Republican Party?
EDIT: Oh, that's right. I forgot.
IMMIGRATION!!!!!
So all tactics are acceptable.
-
Unlike the anti trump video which takes all of 5 minutes of the guy ranting (without anything to back up his rants) the video below takes well over an hour to watch while he gives detailed analysis and backs them up with references.
For your viewing pleasure. ;D
Kinda amusing that the Bible Salesman's big supporters here won't acknowledge this video.
Gotta keep the dream alive!
-
Oh, it's even better than that. Apparently Code Pink is a big fan, as is Michael Moore.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/15/trump-scores-crucial-code-pink-endorsement/
Let's see. Bush is responsible for 9/11. Bush LIED about WMD and lead us to war on a known lie.
Is he running for the Democratic nomination, or is he just willing to adopt the most far left talking points and destroy the rest of the field by threats of lawsuits and retribution and lies and distortions to secure the nomination via the most despicable scorched earth destruction of the Republican Party?
EDIT: Oh, that's right. I forgot.
IMMIGRATION!!!!!
So all tactics are acceptable.
Rush had a great show today about why Trump may be doing/saying some of what he is doing/saying and it has to do with the open primary in SC - some interesting points raised and a couple excellent calls that would put to rest a lot of the 'controversy' in this thread in particular.
Trump is definitely not playing by the normal rules and it really confuses/consternates a lot of folks - right, wrong or indifferent he has changed the narrative and if he dropped out tomorrow that would be the lasting impact of his involvement this cycle. I hope he does not drop out, do not expect him to drop out because the elitist ruling class need a collective punch in the gut and kick to the teeth regardless of which side of the aisle they reside on.
'Gimp
-
Kinda amusing that the Bible Salesman's big supporters here won't acknowledge this video.
Gotta keep the dream alive!
An hour and a half video? Um, no.
-
http://www.jebbush.com
A nice illustration of the douche baggery some people seem to want our nation's president to sink to. Not me.
-
An hour and a half video? Um, no.
Just easier to watch short 5 minute videos of ranting with no factual truth to back it up. Got it.
Actually the Cruz video is exceptionally well done and researched and very factual, but it does deflate Cruz as the ultra conservative that he's pretending to be.
-
I find it amazing that stupid is so attractive to democrats these days.
Maybe the barking dog will be a better president, so destroy everybody else and make the run safe for cankles, and the world is saved.
-
I find it amazing that stupid is so attractive to democrats these days.
Maybe the barking dog will be a better president, so destroy everybody else and make the run safe for cankles, and the world is saved.
Our parents were so much smarter, more practical, and had real common sense. They did not live beyond their means, and also wanted what was the best for our country, and did not demonize us as a colonial power like their kids have. The 60's Vietnam, anti establishment, protest generation created an anti American MONSTER. Instead of respecting what we've created, they blame America first, yet the rest of the world's masses want to come here by any means possible. Why?
-
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/Q-poll-Freight-train-Trump-had-2-1-lead-6835989.php
-
Our parents were so much smarter, more practical, and had real common sense. They did not live beyond their means, and also wanted what was the best for our country, and did not demonize us as a colonial power like their kids have. The 60's Vietnam, anti establishment, protest generation created an anti American MONSTER. Instead of respecting what we've created, they blame America first, yet the rest of the world's masses want to come here by any means possible. Why?
Honestly, I think it is nothing but petty jealousy. The entitlement generation had everything handed ot them by politicians who had to buy votes or get a real job, and their parents were too busy working and buying a bigger house to properly raise their own kids, so those kids grew up believing the shit shoveled by the public school system, and college socialists.
-
An hour and a half video? Um, no.
I'm about half-way through, and so far it's quite enlightening.
I am not opposed to some form of amnesty, nor a long path to citizenship - people are an asset, not a liability.
But Cruz's squirming to try to explain away previous pro-amnesty statements and actions is pathetic. I'd respect him more if he owned his prior positions and explained how his views have changed over time and why.
It's clear he's just morphing into whatever position he thinks will get him elected.
And before you say, "They all do that...", maybe study up on logical fallacies and tell us which one you'd be committing.
-
I am not opposed to some form of amnesty, nor a long path to citizenship - people are an asset, not a liability.
How do you know that? Most countries screen on skills they need to improve their work force, and also screen for criminal, and terrorist backgrounds. We don't screen as we are allowing un-vetted illegals in, and actually delivering un-vetted Syrians to states around the U.S.
-
How do you know that? Most countries screen on skills they need to improve their work force, and also screen for criminal, and terrorist backgrounds. We don't screen as we are allowing un-vetted illegals in, and actually delivering un-vetted Syrians to states around the U.S.
No kidding, right?!! We let all the undocumented Italians in here years ago and what did we get out of it? The fucking Mafia and the blue print for all organized crime there after. Then there's the drunken Irish that just end up a burden on welfare, all become liberal democrats and half of them give money to terrorists. We thought the Japanese would be OK and then they end up bombing our pacific fleet!! The bastards!
At least the Germans, Poles, Swedes, Norwegians and Czechs could be shoved off to farm lands in miserable places and were too dumb realize we were just using them for farm labor, but we ended up with names nobody can pronounce and stupid accents. The Chinese and Mexicans were useful for getting shit built around here, but if they could now just take all their drugs and street gangs and go home it would be appreciated as they don't even speak english very well.
I could go on and on, but I swear, as soon as the English got here, they should have closed the borders to all the lesser nationalities.
;)
-
How do you know that? Most countries screen on skills they need to improve their work force, and also screen for criminal, and terrorist backgrounds. We don't screen as we are allowing un-vetted illegals in, and actually delivering un-vetted Syrians to states around the U.S.
Of course.
Maybe I needed to say, in general people are an asset.
This stems from a humanist perspective, where the default assumption is that people are good and have value.
But I lived in Miami during the Mariel Boatlift, so no one needs to tell me that not every immigrant is a positive addition to a society. But even with that fiasco, in a generation or so the Cuban community in Miami sorted itself out and now I think contributes to society in a positive way.
-
No kidding, right?!! We let all the undocumented Italians in here years ago and what did we get out of it? The fucking Mafia and the blue print for all organized crime there after. Then there's the drunken Irish that just end up a burden on welfare, all become liberal democrats and half of them give money to terrorists. We thought the Japanese would be OK and then they end up bombing our pacific fleet!! The bastards!
At least the Germans, Poles, Swedes, Norwegians and Czechs could be shoved off to farm lands in miserable places and were too dumb realize we were just using them for farm labor, but we ended up with names nobody can pronounce and stupid accents. The Chinese and Mexicans were useful for getting shit built around here, but if they could now just take all their drugs and street gangs and go home it would be appreciated as they don't even speak english very well.
I could go on and on, but I swear, as soon as the English got here, they should have closed the borders to all the lesser nationalities.
;)
Ridiculous.
Back then there was no government safety net. There was only opportunity. That's why my wife's Irish relatives dug coal around Scranton, PA, her Polish relatives were print press operators in Detroit, my Polish relatives built caskets and made steel in Chicago, and my Lithuanian relatives became share crop farmers in Kankakee, IL.
If they failed to work hard, and couldn't be supported by their families, they died.
Today's dynamic is different, and you know it. The public trough is what drives many (not all) illegal immigrants here, willing to break the law to sneak into the country as opposed to following our legal immigration system.
-
If they failed to work hard, and couldn't be supported by their families, they died.
Oh, for the good old days!
-
Oh, for the good old days!
The point was that people were motivated to make something of themselves, out of a need to survive. And it worked.
-
Today's dynamic is different, and you know it. The public trough is what drives many (not all) illegal immigrants here, willing to break the law to sneak into the country as opposed to following our legal immigration system.
This is not true. Adult male illegal immigrants have a higher labor participation rate than both citizens and legal immigrants. And the vast majority of illegal immigrants do not use welfare.
They come here to work and for a better life. Just like they always have.
-
This is not true. Adult male illegal immigrants have a higher labor participation rate than both citizens and legal immigrants. And the vast majority of illegal immigrants do not use welfare.
They come here to work and for a better life. Just like they always have.
Unless of course they come to infiltrate, settle among us, and then take us down when we once again grow complacent, thinking as we do that no one could harbor ill will toward us for the decades that the infiltrators, patiently, do.
-
I don't understand what part of "Handouts destroy initiative" you don't understand, asechrest. You skim along the top of the unicorn-filled utopia, throwing down glittery moralisms that completely ignore the root causes of the immigration problem (our failure to maintain our border and laws, and Mexico's failure to create a country its citizens can flourish in).
Of course, I value your opinion as always, but you are sinking to some awfully detached-from-reality sorts of comments.
-
I don't understand what part of "Handouts destroy initiative" you don't understand, asechrest. You skim along the top of the unicorn-filled utopia, throwing down glittery moralisms that completely ignore the root causes of the immigration problem (our failure to maintain our border and laws, and Mexico's failure to create a country its citizens can flourish in).
Of course, I value your opinion as always, but you are sinking to some awfully detached-from-reality sorts of comments.
I don't know where you're coming from. His point seemed to be that the welfare state was the driving force behind illegal immigration, and that it was the primary difference between the impetus of current immigrants and those of the past. I simply refute that point, based on data I have reviewed, and people I know and have spoken with.
I don't know why that seems like glittery moralizing to you, and no unicorns were harmed during the making of my post. There are plenty of valid points to be made about the issues with immigration. This just happens not to be one of those, in my opinion.
-
Yep, Dear Leader will hire the most FANTASTIC people to advise him.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/29c255c0b69a48258ecae69a61612537/trump-picked-stock-fraud-felon-senior-adviser
-
I can see why Dear Leader is threatening to sue to keep this burried
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cbb1vTIW0AAETef.jpg:large)
-
Pot, meet Kettle....
New York Times- July 31,2015 "More than 95% of the total contributions to Super Pacs supporting Ted Cruz came from donations of $1 million or more, more than any other candidate."
August 2015- the New York Times confirmed that hedge fund investor Robert Mercer had contributed $11 million to the Pro-Cruz PAC's- the largest donation amount from a single person in this election cycle.
Robert Mercer has worked for the hedge fund Renaissance Technologies since 1993 and now serves as co-CEO. Renaissance Technologies flagship Medalillion fund has earned average annual returns of 35% for 20 years- including averaging 71.8% from 1994 through mid-2014 before fees.
Ted Cruz-" My criticism with Washington is they engage in crony capitalism...They give favors to Wall Street and big business and that's why I've been an outspoken opponent of crony capitalism, taking on leaders of both parties."
-
Cruz has depicted the financing of his Senate campaign as a story of loyalty and shared sacrifice for his family: "Sweetheart, I'd like us to liquidate our entire net worth, liquid net worth and put it into the campaign...What astonished me, then and now, was Heidi within 60 seconds said 'Absolutely', with no hesitation."
New York Times: 'A review of personal financial disclosures that Mr. Cruz filed later with the Senate does not find a liquidation of assets that would have accounted for all of the money he spent on his campaign....the value of their cash and securities in 2012 saw a net increase of as much as $400,000- even with the Cruzes were supposedly liquidating everything to finance Mr. Cruz's Senate campaign."
-
Getting where I don't trust Trump for so many reasons
Don't trust Cruz, don't like the shit he pulled in Iowa and how he is spinning it to seem like it was no big deal and the lame apology to Carson. "Gee Ben, so sorry we used a news report that was subsequently corrected to tell your supporters they should vote for me"
Rubio, part of the gang of eight.....shameful
At the debate they acted little children.
-
Cruz has depicted the financing of his Senate campaign as a story of loyalty and shared sacrifice for his family: "Sweetheart, I'd like us to liquidate our entire net worth, liquid net worth and put it into the campaign...What astonished me, then and now, was Heidi within 60 seconds said 'Absolutely', with no hesitation."
New York Times: 'A review of personal financial disclosures that Mr. Cruz filed later with the Senate does not find a liquidation of assets that would have accounted for all of the money he spent on his campaign....the value of their cash and securities in 2012 saw a net increase of as much as $400,000- even with the Cruzes were supposedly liquidating everything to finance Mr. Cruz's Senate campaign."
You have links we can look at?
-
You have links we can look at?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtL41Pr2d5s
-
I can see why Dear Leader is threatening to sue to keep this burried
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cbb1vTIW0AAETef.jpg:large)
Yea, he's a conservative. >:( It was just business, Jeff. EVERYONE does it.
The funny thing is, it doesn't have to be that way, if you have principles. I get significant pressure from my firm to contribute to a PAC being run by my profession's professional association. I don't contribute, but not because I have a problem with PACS. I have no problem with PACs. I don't contribute because in the last couple of election cycles the PAC contributed about 45% to Democrat candidates. That's unacceptable to me.
-
Yea, he's a conservative. >:( It was just business, Jeff. EVERYONE does it.
The funny thing is, it doesn't have to be that way, if you have principles. I get significant pressure from my firm to contribute to a PAC being run by my profession's professional association. I don't contribute, but not because I have a problem with PACS. I have no problem with PACs. I don't contribute because in the last couple of election cycles the PAC contributed about 45% to Democrat candidates. That's unacceptable to me.
So, he's qualified to root out corruption because he is so accomplished at corrupting Democrats?
-
At least Obama waits months, not days, before completely contradicting himself:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cbg2VucW4AAxByH.jpg:large)
-
If you would watch the video I posted there is an hour and a half of researched data with references citing all of the contradictions of the Bible Salesman.
But I guess it's just too painful. Better to have quick sound bites from obscure people.
-
If you would watch the video I posted there is an hour and a half of researched data with references citing all of the contradictions of the Bible Salesman.
But I guess it's just too painful. Better to have quick sound bites from obscure people.
Yeah, obscure people like Trump.
All his words.
-
-
Yep, you're definitely not all-in for Dear Leader.
What do his contributions to dems say about him anyway?
-
Yep, you're definitely not all-in for Dear Leader.
Both of the people I would have liked to have seen get the nomination are no longer in the race. As for the remainder, I just call it the way I see it.
I will take Trump over the Bible Salesman. I'll take Rubio over the Bible Salesman. Bush is history after Saturday, and so is Kasich.
The Bible Salesman has earned the nickname the "Greased Pig of Politics". His flip flops are astounding as well as his dubious campaign financing and tactics. But he does have Wall Street squarely in his corner, so he's bought and paid for.
More "Greased Pig of Politics" in action: http://www.mediaite.com/online/cruz-campaign-pushes-photoshopped-image-of-rubio-shaking-hands-with-obama/
But fear not, the GOP will pull off a "brokered convention" to snatch the nomination from Trump and will give you who they feel you should vote for. And of course in doing so will blow the election of 2016 and give the democrats an unprecedented 3 consecutive terms, thus cementing the legacy of BHO and proving that his "fundamentally changing of America" is really what the voters want.
What do his contributions to dems say about him anyway?
I could tell you, but all it would lead to is a bunch of ranting, so why bother?
-
Cruz has depicted the financing of his Senate campaign as a story of loyalty and shared sacrifice for his family: "Sweetheart, I'd like us to liquidate our entire net worth, liquid net worth and put it into the campaign...What astonished me, then and now, was Heidi within 60 seconds said 'Absolutely', with no hesitation."
New York Times: 'A review of personal financial disclosures that Mr. Cruz filed later with the Senate does not find a liquidation of assets that would have accounted for all of the money he spent on his campaign....the value of their cash and securities in 2012 saw a net increase of as much as $400,000- even with the Cruzes were supposedly liquidating everything to finance Mr. Cruz's Senate campaign."
Man. Brutal expose. Obviously those "facts" disqualify him for the presidency. :rolleyes:
-
If you would watch the video I posted there is an hour and a half of researched data with references citing all of the contradictions of the Bible Salesman.
But I guess it's just too painful. Better to have quick sound bites from obscure people.
So who produced this video? Who is backing it? I'd like to know that before I watch 90 minutes of something produced by someone with an axe to grind.
-
So who produced this video? Who is backing it? I'd like to know that before I watch 90 minutes of something produced by someone with an axe to grind.
You don't even have the gumption to click on the play button. If you did you would see who produced it.
Better keep your head in the sand.
-
You don't even have the gumption to click on the play button. If you did you would see who produced it.
Better keep your head in the sand.
So, basically that's "I dunno, but I'm a Trumpkin so facts are not relevant to me"
-
So, basically that's "I dunno, but I'm a Trumpkin so facts are not relevant to me"
It's right there at the beginning of the video. Afraid to watch it? ::)
BTW, the new Fox poll just out has Trump 36, Cruz 19 and Rubio 15. Two days before the SC vote.
So do you think the Bible Salesman is gonna pull out a "big win" Saturday?
-
So, what do Dear Leader's donations to democrats, and hiring felon stock swindlers say about him again?
-
So, what do Dear Leader's donations to democrats, and hiring felon stock swindlers say about him again?
And how about the Bible Salesman's connection with the Council on Foreign Relations?
So back to my question: Think the Bible Salesman is gonna pull out a huge win on Saturday?
-
And how about the Bible Salesman's connection with the Council on Foreign Relations?
So back to my question: Think the Bible Salesman is gonna pull out a huge win on Saturday?
Have we found Henning? Council on Foreign Relations? Maybe he's tied to European Financial Interests too.
-
#RealDonaldTrump when asked about JeffDG's hard-on for him....
-
Have we found Henning? Council on Foreign Relations? Maybe he's tied to European Financial Interests too.
Ah, so no answer. Nice dodge. ;D
BTW, How do you think the Greased Pig of Politics will do Saturday? Big victory??
-
You don't even have the gumption to click on the play button. If you did you would see who produced it.
Better keep your head in the sand.
I repeated the first minute several times trying to understand his name and organization. It is undecipherable. So I went to the end and noted it was from "Freedomainradio" (FDR) and the speaker is a Canadian blogger named Stefan Basil Molyneux, age 49.
The guy looks like a real intellectual giant.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux#.22Freedomain_Radio.22_podcast
He believes in "anarcho-capitalism", "secular ethics", "cryptocurrencies", "moral universalism", libertarianism, and "deFOOing" (cutting off contact with ones "family of origin").
The British "Cult Information Centre" said that they were following FDR because of his urging people to deFOO which is a sign of cult activity.
He's also been called the leader of a "therapy cult." He has been sued for listening in on confidential therapy sessions of his psychologist wife's therapy sessions without the patient's consent, and then bragging about it on podcasts.
He is also a "Voice for Men." He spoke at a conference held by the men's rights movement and "manosphere" organization, arguing that violence in the world is the result of how women treat their children.
Well, Lucifer, you've got quite a resource there for what you call "the truth." I was wondering why you were pushing it so hard. Are you getting royalties or something for every cult convert?
I suspect the apple doesn't fall far from the cult leader's tree.
Thanks for making me look this up. Unfortunately, this says way more about YOU than it does about Cruz.
I'll keep this in mind every time you continue to rail against Cruz and defend Trump.
-
And how about the Bible Salesman's connection with the Council on Foreign Relations?
So back to my question: Think the Bible Salesman is gonna pull out a huge win on Saturday?
Jeff asked his question first. Why don't you want to respond? It's not in the cult handbook?
-
I'll keep this in mind every time you continue to rail against Cruz and defend Trump.
Or talk about how it's telling that Glenn Beck supports Cruz, but ignores that Trump supports Hillary, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer...
-
I repeated the first minute several times trying to understand his name and organization. It is undecipherable. So I went to the end and noted it was from "Freedomainradio" (FDR) and the speaker is a Canadian blogger named Stefan Basil Molyneux, age 49.
The guy looks like a real intellectual giant.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux#.22Freedomain_Radio.22_podcast
He believes in "anarcho-capitalism", "secular ethics", "cryptocurrencies", "moral universalism", libertarianism, and "deFOOing" (cutting off contact with ones "family of origin").
The British "Cult Information Centre" said that they were following FDR because of his urging people to deFOO which is a sign of cult activity.
He's also been called the leader of a "therapy cult." He has been sued for listening in on confidential therapy sessions of his psychologist wife's therapy sessions without the patient's consent, and then bragging about it on podcasts.
He is also a "Voice for Men." He spoke at a conference held by the men's rights movement and "manosphere" organization, arguing that violence in the world is the result of how women treat their children.
Well, Lucifer, you've got quite a resource there for what you call "the truth." I was wondering why you were pushing it so hard. Are you getting royalties or something for every cult convert?
I suspect the apple doesn't fall far from the cult leader's tree.
Thanks for making me look this up. Unfortunately, this says way more about YOU than it does about Cruz.
I'll keep this in mind every time you continue to rail against Cruz and defend Trump.
Attack the messenger. So you are denying ALL of the cited references in the video? EVERY reference for EVERY talking point is we documented.
Cruz is the Greased Pig of Politics. You and Jeff look at him as if he's some kind of conservative savior. But keep singing his praises, maybe Jesus will appear and give the Bible Salesman a victory........maybe.
-
Or talk about how it's telling that Glenn Beck supports Cruz, but ignores that Trump supports Hillary, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer...
So you're a Beck devotee also? Interesting.
-
Or talk about how it's telling that Glenn Beck supports Cruz, but ignores that Trump supports Hillary, Reid, Pelosi, Schumer...
In a thread questioning the cult-like responses of Trump supporters, it's ironic and a little disconcerting that lucifer posted and instructed us to watch a 92 minute anti-Cruz video from a real life cult leader.
-
So you're a Beck devotee also? Interesting.
You have reading comprehension issues, don't ya?
-
In a thread questioning the cult-like responses of Trump supporters, it's ironic and a little disconcerting that lucifer posted and instructed us to watch a 92 minute anti-Cruz video from a real life cult leader.
Disconcerting, or predictable?
-
In a thread questioning the cult-like responses of Trump supporters, it's ironic and a little disconcerting that lucifer posted and instructed us to watch a 92 minute anti-Cruz video from a real life cult leader.
So why won't you discuss the information contained within the video? All of the researched and DOCUMENTED evidence.
Oh I see, just easier to attack the messenger.
-
So why won't you discuss the information contained within the video? All of the researched and DOCUMENTED evidence.
Oh I see, just easier to attack the messenger.
Whats next? An Alex Jones rant?
-
Disconcerting, or predictable?
Ah my little LINO friend. So you think there is a huge victory Saturday for Cruz? Are you going to call a second place coming in 15+ points a "big win" like you did for NH?
-
Attack the messenger. So you are denying ALL of the cited references in the video? EVERY reference for EVERY talking point is we documented.
Cruz is the Greased Pig of Politics. You and Jeff look at him as if he's some kind of conservative savior. But keep singing his praises, maybe Jesus will appear and give the Bible Salesman a victory........maybe.
Dude, this goes WAY beyond shooting the messenger. Shooting the messenger would be to dismiss an article because it came from Salon or the Nation.
I did what you were unwilling to disclose. I investigated your cult leader. He doesn't appear to have a cogent thought in his head, and certainly sees conspiracies around every corner.
If you've ever written a college paper, you should know that you can cite anything. The rubber meets the road when you can independently check those citations. I have no interest or time to fact-check a certifiable lunatic on a 92-minute video of dubious content.
I now see how cult leaders draw in members to the cult. Blind loyalty and ignorance. Does your cult leader happen to serve grape Kool-aide at your gatherings?
-
Dude, this goes WAY beyond shooting the messenger. Shooting the messenger would be to dismiss an article because it came from Salon or the Nation.
I did what you were unwilling to disclose. I investigated your cult leader. He doesn't appear to have a cogent thought in his head, and certainly sees conspiracies around every corner.
If you've ever written a college paper, you should know that you can cite anything. The rubber meets the road when you can independently check those citations. I have no interest or time to fact-check a certifiable lunatic on a 92-minute video of dubious content.
I now see how cult leaders draw in members to the cult. Blind loyalty and ignorance. Does your cult leader happen to serve grape Kool-aide at your gatherings?
Lol, "dude"....
You are the spin master, yes you are... ::)
BTW, I did check the references, and they hold up. "Google is your friend".
"Dude", ;D
-
Lol, "dude"....
You are the spin master, yes you are... ::)
BTW, I did check the references, and they hold up. "Google is your friend".
"Dude", ;D
Riiiiight. I'm sure you did. :rolleyes:
Just like Trump KNOWS Bush lied about WMDs, right?
-
In a thread questioning the cult-like responses of Trump supporters, it's ironic and a little disconcerting that lucifer posted and instructed us to watch a 92 minute anti-Cruz video from a real life cult leader.
Says the Glenn Beck follower......
-
Says the Glenn Beck follower......
Swing and a miss.
-
Ah my little LINO friend. So you think there is a huge victory Saturday for Cruz? Are you going to call a second place coming in 15+ points a "big win" like you did for NH?
I did? Citation needed.
-
I can see why Dear Leader is threatening to sue to keep this burried
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cbb1vTIW0AAETef.jpg:large)
Why am I supposed to believe that this is some sort of "secret document"?? A generic, typed up page with an obvious agenda, held up and photographed with a cell phone. Why would I think any of that was "real"? I'm surprised it doesn't have "Super Triple Top Secret" Stamped on it somewhere. ::)
-
And of course in doing so will blow the election of 2016 and give the democrats an unprecedented 3 consecutive terms, thus cementing the legacy of BHO and proving that his "fundamentally changing of America" is really what the voters want.
Ummm... FDR was elected and sworn in four times. If you chuck Truman in there it makes five consecutive terms for the Democrats. Not unprecedented.
-
Why am I supposed to believe that this is some sort of "secret document"?? A generic, typed up page with an obvious agenda, held up and photographed with a cell phone. Why would I think any of that was "real"? I'm surprised it doesn't have "Super Triple Top Secret" Stamped on it somewhere. ::)
All FEC public records...just a greatest hits compilation of Dear Leader putting his money where his heart is.
-
Why am I supposed to believe that this is some sort of "secret document"?? A generic, typed up page with an obvious agenda, held up and photographed with a cell phone. Why would I think any of that was "real"? I'm surprised it doesn't have "Super Triple Top Secret" Stamped on it somewhere. ::)
It's all available on www.opensecrets.org.
I posted a link earlier in this thread. I think Cruz just copied my link, the LIAR!! ;) :D
-
Ummm... FDR was elected and sworn in four times. If you chuck Truman in there it makes five consecutive terms for the Democrats. Not unprecedented.
Speaking modern times here ::)
-
All FEC public records...just a greatest hits compilation of Dear Leader putting his money where his heart is.
Uhhh... OK, but why all the take a picture of word document with a cellphone stuff?? It seems like a very cheesy way to make it seem like "secret insider" information. Like the document was stolen from the desk of Donald Trump and photographed in the janitor's closet or some such spy vs. spy stuff. Lame propaganda for moron voters I guess.
-
Speaking modern times here ::)
Sure... OK. What's "modern times"?? When does that begin and how would I know you were speaking only of "modern times"?
-
Uhhh... OK, but why all the take a picture of word document with a cellphone stuff?? It seems like a very cheesy way to make it seem like "secret insider" information. Like the document was stolen from the desk of Donald Trump and photographed in the janitor's closet or some such spy vs. spy stuff. Lame propaganda for moron voters I guess.
How about because it was a "summary"? Geeze, aren't there bigger fish to fry?
If you look this info up on opensecrets.org, your searches are limited as to election cycles, etc. So you would not get all of this information appear on a single search on that site.
-
Whats next? An Alex Jones rant?
I thought that was a shot in the dark, but aparently, Dear Leader is actually an Alex Jones fan!
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-praises-9-11-truther-alex-jones/ (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-praises-9-11-truther-alex-jones/)
Washington (CNN)Donald Trump is heaping praise on a radio host who has asserted that the U.S. government was involved in the Oklahoma City bombing and the September 11 terrorist attacks.
"Your reputation is amazing. I will not let you down," Trump told Alex Jones during a Wednesday afternoon appearance on the Infowars.com proprietor's show.
-
I thought that was a shot in the dark, but aparently, Dear Leader is actually an Alex Jones fan!
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-praises-9-11-truther-alex-jones/ (http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-praises-9-11-truther-alex-jones/)
Wow. It's all starting to fall into place. I think Trump is literally following a Hollywood script connecting the dots to every caricature of what the East Coast and Hollywood elites THINK the Conservative Movement is all about. In the end, if he drops out, he will have assembled so much audio and video about the "far right wing" that he will star in the biggest reality TV show of all time exposing how red necked us "conservatives" (in his definition only) really are. It will be yuuuge.
So, Alex Jones' reputation is "amazing."
On Monday, Trump appeared on Michael Savage's radio show in a discussion about Scalia being murdered, and Trump said Savage's support has been "amazing."
I suspect Trump gets his intelligence briefing from the callers on Coast to Coast AM.
And then lucifer posts a 92 minute anti-Cruz video manifesto by a known cult leader.
Cruz and his cabal of sycophants are getting nuttier and more disturbing by the day.
-
Maybe Dear Leader will make Art Bell his running mate.
-
Maybe Dear Leader will make Art Bell his running mate.
If it locks up "that audience" take it to the bank.
-
He's got the Alex Jones machine working for him now!
http://www.infowars.com/trump-vows-elect-me-and-youll-find-out-who-really-knocked-down-the-twin-towers/
TRUMP VOWS: ‘ELECT ME AND YOU’LL FIND OUT WHO REALLY KNOCKED DOWN THE TWIN TOWERS’
-
He's got the Alex Jones machine working for him now!
http://www.infowars.com/trump-vows-elect-me-and-youll-find-out-who-really-knocked-down-the-twin-towers/
Excellent!
In other news, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump discloses that the alleged Apollo moon walks were all fabrications and were filmed just north of the 17th green on the grounds of the Trump Death Valley Hotel and Casino.
-
Excellent!
In other news, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump discloses that the alleged Apollo moon walks were all fabrications and were filmed just north of the 17th green on the grounds of the Trump Death Valley Hotel and Casino.
Which, of course, is a fabulous hotel, the best in all of Death Valley. We only have the best steaks in the restaurant.
-
I repeated the first minute several times trying to understand his name and organization. It is undecipherable. So I went to the end and noted it was from "Freedomainradio" (FDR) and the speaker is a Canadian blogger named Stefan Basil Molyneux, age 49.
The guy looks like a real intellectual giant.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Molyneux#.22Freedomain_Radio.22_podcast
He believes in "anarcho-capitalism", "secular ethics", "cryptocurrencies", "moral universalism", libertarianism, and "deFOOing" (cutting off contact with ones "family of origin").
The British "Cult Information Centre" said that they were following FDR because of his urging people to deFOO which is a sign of cult activity.
He's also been called the leader of a "therapy cult." He has been sued for listening in on confidential therapy sessions of his psychologist wife's therapy sessions without the patient's consent, and then bragging about it on podcasts.
He is also a "Voice for Men." He spoke at a conference held by the men's rights movement and "manosphere" organization, arguing that violence in the world is the result of how women treat their children.
Well, Lucifer, you've got quite a resource there for what you call "the truth." I was wondering why you were pushing it so hard. Are you getting royalties or something for every cult convert?
I suspect the apple doesn't fall far from the cult leader's tree.
Thanks for making me look this up. Unfortunately, this says way more about YOU than it does about Cruz.
I'll keep this in mind every time you continue to rail against Cruz and defend Trump.
Typical Canadian, eh?
-
At least Obama waits months, not days, before completely contradicting himself:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cbg2VucW4AAxByH.jpg:large)
I'd like to formally apologize to Mr. Trump.
I see there is no inconsistency between these statements. The more recent statement said that "leaders" should not question the faith of others. So, his questioning of the faith of Sen Cruz is not inconsistent, given that Mr Trump in no way qualifies as a "leader" except in his, and his cult's, own mind.
-
New Endorsement for Trump!
(Pyongyang) — Great Leader Donald J. Trump today addressed the peoples of Nevada and South Carolina from the podium of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” stating that for too long, America has been a nation of losers, and not of winners. Marshal Trump blamed America’s sorry state on the vile machinations of dummies, cheats, low-energy people, liars, false Christians, and jackals, chief among them thrice-accursed traitor for all times Ted Cruz, whose name shall be uttered in damnation forevermore.
...
The good peoples agree that Supreme Leader Donald J. Trump, matchless and invincible conqueror of New Hampshire, will go from triumph to triumph in Nevada and South Carolina and beyond, leading America once again into a new dawn of greatness. The contemptible slanderers of Donald J. Trump and America shall be forced to drink the brackish and urine-tainted waters of shame, in Canada or wherever it is they came from.
Make America great again! Vote for Great Leader and Eternal President Donald J. Trump!
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/18/statement-of-donald-j-trump-on-eve-of-huge-victory/
-
Okay, men. Just got this in my facebook feed. Lots of liberal hating going on because Trump "trades wives in like used cars," and of course anyone supporting Trump is a hypocrite because of his obviously flawed values. What do you think?
https://www.facebook.com/LiberalLicious/photos/a.193064114163875.50931.193062840830669/754475994689348/?type=3
-
Okay, men. Just got this in my facebook feed. Lots of liberal hating going on because Trump "trades wives in like used cars," and of course anyone supporting Trump is a hypocrite because of his obviously flawed values. What do you think?
https://www.facebook.com/LiberalLicious/photos/a.193064114163875.50931.193062840830669/754475994689348/?type=3
So Bill Clinton raped several women and had an affair while in the White House. I could go on and on with several high profile liberals and their womanizing and multiple marriages.
Different set of standards I do believe.
-
https://youtu.be/D31cNNJEVE8
Most Republicans do not want Trump.
-
https://youtu.be/D31cNNJEVE8
Most Republicans do not want Trump.
Or McConnell but that's what we have.
-
Okay, men. Just got this in my facebook feed. Lots of liberal hating going on because Trump "trades wives in like used cars," and of course anyone supporting Trump is a hypocrite because of his obviously flawed values. What do you think?
https://www.facebook.com/LiberalLicious/photos/a.193064114163875.50931.193062840830669/754475994689348/?type=3
I think they are spot on. Trump does not have family values, or religious values, or traditional values. He has Trump values and they are whatever he sees fit. Like he said himself, he could shoot somebody and his supporters wouldn't care. They would just assume that person had it coming. He can do no wrong in their eyes.
Trump supporters are so drunk with this false idea that he is some sort of outsider maverick that is going to come to Washington, kick ass, yell "You're fired!!", shout down liberals, those in congress and clean house. They really hope they are somehow electing King Donald the 1st that will right this ship short order. So whatever he did, does or says is irrelevant. Sadly, they are delusional and it seems nothing can stop this train wreck in the making.
-
I think they are spot on. Trump does not have family values, or religious values, or traditional values. He has Trump values and they are whatever he sees fit. Like he said himself, he could shoot somebody and his supporters wouldn't care. They would just assume that person had it coming. He can do no wrong in their eyes.
Trump supporters are so drunk with this false idea that he is some sort of outsider maverick that is going to come to Washington, kick ass, yell "You're fired!!", shout down liberals, those in congress and clean house. They really hope they are somehow electing King Donald the 1st that will right this ship short order. So whatever he did, does or says is irrelevant. Sadly, they are delusional and it seems nothing can stop this train wreck in the making.
If this is what you actually think then you hold a pretty poor view of a large and growing number of the population.
This is why Trump does well and people are left scratching their heads (Bush, Christie, Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, the establishment, etc.) - they, and you, are assigning/projecting onto the electorate in a haphazard, ill informed and ultimately petty way, underestimating the reasons why people support him, and worse, debasing people who do as stupid, angry, hate-filled, racist, homophobic anti-immigrant blind followers, etc.
This is the same language used to describe people who listen to Rush Limbaugh, by people on the left who completely don't understand his listeners. It's the same derisive, dismissive and insulting look-down-your-snoot that we on the right have had to deal with from the left for decades, and now we are using the same tactics in describing people arguably on our side of the fence or those who would join us, for choosing to support the 'wrong' guy - it is truly disappointing.
There are rational and fact-based reason to support or oppose Trump as a candidate, the fact so many folks resort to name-calling not just towards Trump but the people who support him, and the hyperventilating about what those people believe he may or may not do is juvenile. The fact people who apparently consider themselves intelligent and erudite fall for the very sound-bite attack dog misrepresentation or fabrications about the guy they say are why they can't support him only show they have largely not done any real research themselves, really pot and kettle stuff IMO.
'Gimp
-
I think they are spot on. Trump does not have family values, or religious values, or traditional values. He has Trump values and they are whatever he sees fit. Like he said himself, he could shoot somebody and his supporters wouldn't care. They would just assume that person had it coming. He can do no wrong in their eyes.
Trump supporters are so drunk with this false idea that he is some sort of outsider maverick that is going to come to Washington, kick ass, yell "You're fired!!", shout down liberals, those in congress and clean house. They really hope they are somehow electing King Donald the 1st that will right this ship short order. So whatever he did, does or says is irrelevant. Sadly, they are delusional and it seems nothing can stop this train wreck in the making.
What's the alternative?
The Criminal? The Socialist? Mr Haney? Junior Sanchez?
-
What's the alternative?
The Criminal? The Socialist? Mr Haney? Junior Sanchez?
If only Jim Gilmore hadn't dropped out. :(
-
If only Jim Gilmore hadn't dropped out. :(
We've always got John McAfee! Woo hoo!
-
What's the alternative?
The Criminal? The Socialist? Mr Haney? Junior Sanchez?
Dirty Sanchez?
-
Dirty Sanchez?
Maybe Mr Roboto is a better moniker. Think I'll use that from now on.
-
If this is what you actually think then you hold a pretty poor view of a large and growing number of the population.
Yep. That is true. I am truly dumbfounded. It setting up to be a Trump vs. Clinton face off and that is so depressing and disappointing. That vision makes me ill.
There are rational and fact-based reason to support or oppose Trump as a candidate, the fact so many folks resort to name-calling not just towards Trump but the people who support him, and the hyperventilating about what those people believe he may or may not do is juvenile.
I'd love to hear these supposed rational fact based reasons to support him. I haven't heard any such thing yet. Anywhere.
-
Yep. That is true. I am truly dumbfounded. It setting up to be a Trump vs. Clinton face off and that is so depressing and disappointing. That vision makes me ill.
While I am similarly flummoxed, can you see how this paints you as elitist?
Which is something the right often accuses the left of?
-
What's the alternative?
The Criminal? The Socialist? Mr Haney? Junior Sanchez?
Sadly, no one that would be a great president rarely raises their hand. We seem to always be stuck with 3rd rate wannabes that eventually become actuallybes. In this case though with the choices you have laid out-
- The criminal? No. She is equally as bad.
- The socialist? No. He will bankrupt in this country in a month and tear up the constitution if he gets his way. At least his heart is in the right place. He is just seriously misguided.
- Mr. Haney? I think the reference is from Green Acres and is meant to mean Ted Cruz. I don't like the man at all and disagree with him on probably 50+% of his positions, but at least the constitution would stay intact. I would vote for him over Trump, but I would not want him to be the candidate.
- Junior Sanchez? I'm assuming you mean Marco Rubio. I'm not up on my childish internet name calling. Yes. I think he is the best choice of the remaining candidates that might have a chance. I would support him.
You left out Kasich and Carson. Of those, I think Kasich would have been a very good choice and would have supported him. Carson needs to get back to brain surgery right away.
-
While I am similarly flummoxed, can you see how this paints you as elitist?
How? Because I don't support a crony politician, or a millionaire that wants to buy his way into the presidency? Should I just nod and smile as I watch the country make the most horrible choice of perhaps it's entire history? How is anything I have said more egregious than what any number of the folks here have said that turn to name calling faster than a five year old? I'm sorry if I offend anybody, but this shit is getting depressing. I seriously am thinking we are super duper screwed come November.
-
How?
Because you're holding out your views and selections to be the only correct ones, and different ones to be from those of lesser intelligence, or less rational, or whatever.
I don't get it either. I know some rather bright, perceptive and compassionate people who have signed on with Trump. I just did not expect that.
-
Hatchet Job On Trump Supporters (http://www.vox.com/2016/2/23/11099644/trump-support-authoritarianism)
"In the five days leading up to the South Carolina Republican primary I fielded a survey of 358 likely voters, hoping to better understand who supports Donald Trump, why, and what it may mean for the Republican presidential nominating contest.
What I found is a trend that has been widely overlooked. A voter’s gender, education, age, ideology, party identification, income, and race simply had no statistical bearing on whether someone supported Trump. Neither, despite predictions to the contrary, did evangelicalism.
Here is what did: authoritarianism, by which I mean Americans’ inclination to authoritarian behavior."
-
Here is what did: authoritarianism, by which I mean Americans’ inclination to authoritarian behavior."
Yep. History has shown throughout the ages, that when things get tough, people turn to and desire a strong caesar, king, dictator, or chairman to save the day. Many times this desire ends in ruin for the people and country. Americans are no better and no worse than all of the peoples throughout the ages.
-
Because you're holding out your views and selections to be the only correct ones, and different ones to be from those of lesser intelligence, or less rational, or whatever.
Doesn't everybody on this forum hold out their own views as absolutely correct?? How am I different? There isn't a whole lot of unbiased, un opinionated comment here. It is what it is. My opinion is Trump sucks. I have seen nothing to sell me on him. Zero. My apologies to any conservative snowflakes out there that might be offended.
-
Doesn't everybody on this forum hold out their own views as absolutely correct?? How am I different? There isn't a whole lot of unbiased, un opinionated comment here. It is what it is. My opinion is Trump sucks. I have seen nothing to sell me on him. Zero. My apologies to any conservative snowflakes out there that might be offended.
Got it.
"Trump sucks" is a perfectly valid opinion. To persuade others, one might put forth a list of reasons why he sucks. I can think of quite a few.
Where it becomes elitist is when it's proffered that "Trump supporters are idiots". Or "irrational".
Something is behind their support, and to simplistically write it off as ignorance is misguided - and elitist.
-
Doesn't everybody on this forum hold out their own views as absolutely correct?? How am I different? There isn't a whole lot of unbiased, un opinionated comment here. It is what it is. My opinion is Trump sucks. I have seen nothing to sell me on him. Zero. My apologies to any conservative snowflakes out there that might be offended.
"absolutely correct"?
Are you being sarcastic or do you not recognize that at least some people are open to reading/hearing facts that could contradict their beliefs?
-
Christie Endorses Trump (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/26/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump/)
...and calls Rubio "desperate."
-
Christie Endorses Trump (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/26/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump/)
...and calls Rubio "desperate."
I guess it makes sense. Both Donald and Christie speak Jersey.
-
The debate was amazing.
Cruz: "Relax, Donald."
Trump: "I am relaxed. You're the basket case."
;D
-
Christie Endorses Trump (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/02/26/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump/)
...and calls Rubio "desperate."
While I don't think the Christie endorsement is particularly helpful for Trump I absolutely agree that Rubio's new dismissive and mocking approach to Trump smack's of desperation and is a total put off for me.
Too bad since I was warming back up to Rubio as a candidate, he should have stuck to his own record (except of course for a few obvious mistakes) and a positive message for America - the circular firing squad from establishment candidates is just a non-starter for me anymore.
'Gimp
-
The debate was amazing.
Cruz: "Relax, Donald."
Trump: "I am relaxed. You're the basket case."
;D
Carson (off camera): "Will someone attack me, please?"
-
The debate was amazing.
Cruz: "Relax, Donald."
Trump: "I am relaxed. You're the basket case."
;D
Dem debate:
Clinton: "After you."
Sanders: "No, after you. Ladies first."
Clinton: "How gallant of you, Bernie. But I insist, after you."
Sanders: "You are so special, as special as any snowflake could be special."
Clinton: "Thank you so much- you are special, too."
Leftist Moderator: "We're all special snowflakes. Except Republicans."
-
GOP debate:
(http://i.imgur.com/IWek1ZU.jpg)
-
Yep. History has shown throughout the ages, that when things get tough, people turn to and desire a strong caesar, king, dictator, or chairman to save the day. Many times this desire ends in ruin for the people and country. Americans are no better and no worse than all of the peoples throughout the ages.
We are the most multicultural melting pot the world has ever known. Are you saying that hasn't helped?
-
While I don't think the Christie endorsement is particularly helpful for Trump I absolutely agree that Rubio's new dismissive and mocking approach to Trump smack's of desperation and is a total put off for me.
Too bad since I was warming back up to Rubio as a candidate, he should have stuck to his own record (except of course for a few obvious mistakes) and a positive message for America - the circular firing squad from establishment candidates is just a non-starter for me anymore.
'Gimp
Makes him sound like a little baby.
-
We are the most multicultural melting pot the world has ever known. Are you saying that hasn't helped?
I guess you're asking if the multicultural melting pot of America has helped to stave off the desire for a dictator?? It probably has helped a bit. Many of these immigrants came here fleeing dictators in their home countries. However, I believe that people are people wherever you go in the world and the desire to "fix" a country's problem with a strong authoritarian hand is universal. Trump's success thus far seems to bear this out.
The melting pot you credit as an asset to our country is exactly what Trump and his followers seem to want to greatly restrict.
-
The melting pot you credit as an asset to our country is exactly what Trump and his followers seem to want to greatly restrict.
So wrong as to not be in the same universe. Immigration does not equal illegal immigration, not the same.
Show one single direct quote from Trump (or any of the folks here who people seem to think support him) that is blanket against legal immigration, I quadruple dog dare you.
All sovereign nations control immigration to one extent or another - to include legally picking who can and cannot immigrate - without a border a nation is not sovereign. This can include religious, ethnic or political grounds, and has, not only for America but for many other nations (like Mexico, or Cuba or Japan - basically all of them). Many do so with fences and walls (e.g., Vatican City).
Many if not most of us are immigrants - my mom's family has been here since the 1700's but my Dad's family didn't come over until the early 1900's. Came in accordance with the laws in place at the time - processed in through Ellis Island direct from Poland.
Trump is married to an immigrant (Slovenia), his previous wife was an immigrant (Czech) - look past the 2 second soundbites and do some actual research and think for yourself.
'Gimp
-
Trump’s Character (http://patriotpost.us/commentary/40945) apparently has a few shortcomings...
-
Trump’s Character (http://patriotpost.us/commentary/40945) apparently has a few shortcomings...
And that doesn't even touch his expected quid pro quo for all of the politicians that he proudly "bought."
-
GOP debate:
(http://i.imgur.com/IWek1ZU.jpg)
I like this one better:
-
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) today endorsed Donald Trump for President.
Not Sen. Marco Rubio with whom who he has actually served (since Marco arrived in 2011), and not Sen. Ted Cruz with whom he has actually served (since Ted arrived in 2013) and with whom he actually cosponsored an immigration bill. Can't say he wouldn't know both men and their character and yet he endorses the outsider.
Sessions has a very conservative rating on immigration, gun rights, and overall is considered very socially conservative.
Very interesting.
'Gimp
-
An interesting take from a variety of self-described Trump supporters on the nature/reasoning of their support.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/donald-trump-voters/401408/
'Gimp
-
And in unrelated news the vice chair of the DNCC resigned and has endorsed Bernie.
-
"Conservative" Donald Trump intends to weaken the First Amendment and "open up the libel laws." In support, he cites the libel laws in England.
You can fast forward to 10:30 in the interview for that jewel.
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/02/28/donald-trump-responds-critics-his-business-practices-fox-news-sunday
But you may want to watch the whole thing, and then compare that to the Cruz interview.
Mark Levin is totally correct. Fox is in the bag for Trump, and is trying to bring Cruz down. These interviews were stunning. Chris Wallace raises the tax return issue, lets trump blockade about an unrelated thing, and then never forces him to answer the fucking question.
And Wallace's FIRST question is "What do you think of Marco Rubio.
Unfuckingbelievable.
And then the Cruz interview was 180 degrees different. Watch them.
-
"Conservative" Donald Trump intends to weaken the First Amendment and "open up the libel laws." In support, he cites the libel laws in England.
Dear Leader has a two-fer on that one. Not only is his proposal a massive undercutting of the 1st Amendment, but also the 10th, as defamation and other tort law is the domain of the States, not the Feds.
-
Now, since our buddy Lucifer insists that people answer for every stupid thing folks who support Cruz do (ie Glenn Beck), where's the same demand for Dear Leader to answer for David Duke who has endorsed Trump?
Hell, Dear Leader isn't even asked to answer for those whom he supports, like the convicted stock-swindler that he hired as a senior advisor.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcY-3-bUsAAsDo7.jpg)
-
Trump tweeted a Mussolini quote, and said "what difference does it make?"
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/02/28/donald-trump-quotes-mussolini-says-hat-difference-make/(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160229/f750d9b8177c696e02b2f1a221b91b30.jpg)
-
Now, since our buddy Lucifer insists that people answer for every stupid thing folks who support Cruz do (ie Glenn Beck), where's the same demand for Dear Leader to answer for David Duke who has endorsed Trump?
Hell, Dear Leader isn't even asked to answer for those whom he supports, like the convicted stock-swindler that he hired as a senior advisor.
What's wrong Jeff, getting so lonely you need to find someone to bully? Nice lame attempt to try to drag me into one of your inane diatribes. You are a petulant child.
-
What's wrong Jeff, getting so lonely you need to find someone to bully? Nice lame attempt to try to drag me into one of your inane diatribes. You are a petulant child.
Well, as a Trumpkin, you certainly know about petulant children. I'm not running for President though.
-
And here's the convicted swindler's business card:
(http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Jeff%20Dunetz/abc_sater_card_lf_151130.jpg)
-
Well, as a Trumpkin, you certainly know about petulant children. I'm not running for President though.
You're pathetic.
-
You're pathetic.
Wow, that's almost as substantive as anything Dear Leader says.
So, how 'bout it? Since Dear Leader surrounds himself with only the best-and-brightest, are mob-connected stock swindlers the best and brightest to be be Senior Advisors?
I guess Hillary might be able to come back as SecState under Dear Leader, but only if she's convicted first, right? Indictments are for losers, only the best scammers, those convicted, are good enough.
-
Now, since our buddy Lucifer insists that people answer for every stupid thing folks who support Cruz do (ie Glenn Beck), where's the same demand for Dear Leader to answer for David Duke who has endorsed Trump?
Hell, Dear Leader isn't even asked to answer for those whom he supports, like the convicted stock-swindler that he hired as a senior advisor.
This may come as a surprise to you Jeff but in America once someone has paid their debt to society, for a crime committed nearly 2 decades ago and 10 years prior to being involved in any business or campaign dealings with Trump for example, that person can go on their merry way and people might even seek them out for advice as they work to overcome their past mistakes. That is how our justice system is supposed to work.
Or does having a criminal act in one's past invalidate a person form every doing anything possibly good or constructive in your mind? If so that might make it essentially impossible for you to vote, or trust anyone to do basically anything. Or could it be, that once again, your hard-on for Trump prevents you from seeing rationally?
As I have said, there are rational and fact based reasons to support or oppose Trump, like almost any other candidate - but the one-trick pony repetitive namecalling, dumb-ass cartoons and posting of left-media dredged-up 2 decades old misdeeds of someone tangentially related to a campaign is truly low grade weak shit. Others at least try to make it about actual policy issues, or questions of specific beliefs Trump may or may not hold.
By all means though, please continue your jihad. Just like the establishment and the lamestream media you just don't get it, you don't understand why the guy is gaining ground with every attack made, and in the end it just makes you look immature, petty and small-minded. Like Rubio and Cruz's latest schoolyard level shenanigans, pure childishness.
With Justice Scalia's untimely passing, I will grudgingly pull the handle for whoever takes the R nom this year since even a slight move left in the makeup of SCOTUS will essentially end the American experiment. I am confident that any of the remaining candidates, Trump included, will make the right decision on SCOTUS with help from the rest of the party and the Conservative movement at large - if there is not a Republican in the White House you can count on McConnell and the Republican Senate folding like a cheap lawn chair.
'Gimp
-
This may come as a surprise to you Jeff but in America once someone has paid their debt to society, for a crime committed nearly 2 decades ago and 10 years prior to being involved in any business or campaign dealings with Trump for example, that person can go on their merry way and people might even seek them out for advice as they work to overcome their past mistakes. That is how our justice system is supposed to work.
Or does having a criminal act in one's past invalidate a person form every doing anything possibly good or constructive in your mind? If so that might make it essentially impossible for you to vote, or trust anyone to do basically anything. Or could it be, that once again, your hard-on for Trump prevents you from seeing rationally?
As I have said, there are rational and fact based reasons to support or oppose Trump, like almost any other candidate - but the one-trick pony repetitive namecalling, dumb-ass cartoons and posting of left-media dredged-up 2 decades old misdeeds of someone tangentially related to a campaign is truly low grade weak shit. Others at least try to make it about actual policy issues, or questions of specific beliefs Trump may or may not hold.
By all means though, please continue your jihad. Just like the establishment and the lamestream media you just don't get it, you don't understand why the guy is gaining ground with every attack made, and in the end it just makes you look immature, petty and small-minded. Like Rubio and Cruz's latest schoolyard level shenanigans, pure childishness.
With Justice Scalia's untimely passing, I will grudgingly pull the handle for whoever takes the R nom this year since even a slight move left in the makeup of SCOTUS will essentially end the American experiment. I am confident that any of the remaining candidates, Trump included, will make the right decision on SCOTUS with help from the rest of the party and the Conservative movement at large - if there is not a Republican in the White House you can count on McConnell and the Republican Senate folding like a cheap lawn chair.
'Gimp
So what makes you think Trump will make it to the White House? He is losing in nearly every poll to Hillary Clinton (RCP Clinton + 2.8), and his negatives are lodged at 58%.
Meanwhile Cruz beats Clinton (RCP Cruz + .8) and Rubio beats Clinton (RCP Rubio +4.7).
Did you watch the Chris Wallace interview that I posted here yesterday? Tell me where he actually answered a question.
What troubles me is that you talk about the Cruz and Rubio schoolyard shenanigans, but never say the same thing or worse about Trump, and that's consistent with all Trump supporters that I know.
Take any issue that I've posted here: pro-eminent domain to give property to private owners, anti-First Amendment desire to "open up" the libel laws so he can sue people, and numerous other liberal positions, and I don't think I've received one post in defense of Trump. Not one. They have just been ignored.
But they will not go away.
I've heard that the dems are surfacing videos from Trump's appearances on the Howard Stern show, where he is rating women, saying "look at that face, she's only a 5" and "I'd do her". I'll see if I can find that. But how will that work with the "GOP war on women" narrative that is guaranteed to come out?
-
So what makes you think Trump will make it to the White House? He is losing in nearly every poll to Hillary Clinton (RCP Clinton + 2.8), and his negatives are lodged at 58%.
Meanwhile Cruz beats Clinton (RCP Cruz + .8) and Rubio beats Clinton (RCP Rubio +4.7).
Did you watch the Chris Wallace interview that I posted here yesterday? Tell me where he actually answered a question.
What troubles me is that you talk about the Cruz and Rubio schoolyard shenanigans, but never say the same thing or worse about Trump, and that's consistent with all Trump supporters that I know.
Take any issue that I've posted here: pro-eminent domain to give property to private owners, anti-First Amendment desire to "open up" the libel laws so he can sue people, and numerous other liberal positions, and I don't think I've received one post in defense of Trump. Not one. They have just been ignored.
But they will not go away.
I've heard that the dems are surfacing videos from Trump's appearances on the Howard Stern show, where he is rating women, saying "look at that face, she's only a 5" and "I'd do her". I'll see if I can find that. But how will that work with the "GOP war on women" narrative that is guaranteed to come out?
I am not a Trump supporter and feel no need to provide any defense. I do find several positions he holds problematic although I think each of those issues have had more hay made about them than they deserve with respect to what it appears Trump's position actually is - bottom line is nobody in consideration is an ideal candidate, frankly none of them are even good candidates for a variety of reasons both political as well as personal.
WRT to national polling, it may or may not be accurate - the big unpredictable element is how a candidate Trump would campaign against Hillary (or Bernie), I believe scorched earth doesn't even begin to describe the withering assault I would expect a candidate Trump to unleash - if anyone can move the needle on Hillary (or Bernie) it is Trump, since the establishment has demonstrated again and again they are unwilling/incapable of actually taking it to the opposition - this belief I have by the way is one of the fundamental reasons that people who actively support Trump do so, in their own words - he takes no shit - we the people are tired of being shit on again and again by both parties and Trump is capitalizing on that (almost like he knows what he is doing).
WRT to shenanigans, the reason Trump folks call it out when others do it and not when he does is based on expectations I think more than anything - it is expected from Trump and is considered out of character for the Pols, that is also why they are so bad at it IMO. He gets benefit of the doubt for his behavior in the same way Cruz is excused by his supoprters, and Rubio is excused by his supporters - there is zero difference there, it is pure human nature to support 'your guy'
WRT war on women trope, my belief is that like every other thing that was supposed to torpedo Trump's campaign, it is based on conventional beliefs, conventional experience and conventional assumptions which are inapplicable for Trump because unlike the other candidates (with notable exception of Dr. Carson) he is not a creation of the establishment or of the political media therefore neither can truly destroy him. The bullshit identity politics victim card is overplayed and anyone trying to continue using it will be seen as, you guessed it a loser, a yuuuuuuge loooooser.
Trump is riding a populist groundswell that has not, in my opinion, even come close to its zenith - and the continued 'attacks' against him from the esablishment, the media and the Democrats will all only serve to continue to expand his support from the vast middle ground. The consultant class has been telling both parties for decades that they can only win if they secure the middle, and that only they (the consultants) can help them - Trump is nuking that and that may be one of the best results of his involvement in this campaign season, but only if future candidates are taking notes.
'Gimp
-
OK, so question for you:
Does the fact that Trump said he needs to do more research on the KKK before denouncing them give you any pause?
Personally, I need zero, zip, nil, nada research to denounce the KKK.
I find it deeply disturbing that a candidate whose cachet is "Damn the torpedoes, I'll just say the first thought that pops into my head." on EVERY OTHER ISSUE is temporizing on this one.
-
I think this is the best analysis of the Trump campaign so far: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4772968701001/donald-trumps-populist-campaign/?#sp=show-clips
The RNC is squarely responsible for this. Two failed presidential campaigns (McCain and Romney), Congress and the Senate being run by RINO's with the RNC backing and then they bring out another Bush as their "establishment candidate" and expected the voters to fall right in line.
But don't fear, the RNC will come up with some really stupid last minute tricks (such as having Romney attack Trump on tax returns) or keep the weekly debates moderated by liberal news outlets, or.......you get the picture.
I fully expect the fall campaign to be a three way, or even possible 4 way race.
One thing is for sure, the RNC will never be the same. And that's quite possible a good thing.
-
On the subject of the KKK and the "endorsement" of David Duke.
First of all, a candidate cannot control who endorses him. As far as Trump, he has disavowed Duke and the KKK.
And while we are talking KKK, does anyone remember the Senate icon Robert Byrd (D) of West Virginia? Very highly regarded by the democrats and very close friends of the Clintons. And he had a documented history of being a member of the Klan. Will the media go after Clinton (or any member of the senate or congress) and want to have them publicly denounce Byrd?
-
First of all, a candidate cannot control who endorses him. As far as Trump, he has disavowed Duke and the KKK.
Funny, you were singing a different tune when Glenn Beck endorsed Cruz...odd that you would be inconsistent.
And Trump didn't denounce Duke and the KKK right away, he temporized and needed to do some research first. That's a BS politician answer.
-
OK, so question for you:
Does the fact that Trump said he needs to do more research on the KKK before denouncing them give you any pause?
Personally, I need zero, zip, nil, nada research to denounce the KKK.
I find it deeply disturbing that a candidate whose cachet is "Damn the torpedoes, I'll just say the first thought that pops into my head." on EVERY OTHER ISSUE is temporizing on this one.
If you are asking me here is my belief:
Trump said he did not personally know David Duke and would want to understand what was being said (I assume by Duke) before making a determination about Duke's stated support (which itself was not an endorsement by the way). I find it refreshing to see anyone not do the kneejerk condemnation, even when it is deserved (as it is with Duke) and say they want to understand what was said and what a person now believes (my words not Trump's) BEFORE condemning someone.
He did not say he needed to research the KKK, that is a pure deliberate misrepresentation by the left media, and repeated (with far too great ease) by the Cruz and Rubio campaigns. Keep in mind, Duke is no longer in the KKK although he is an avowed White Supremacist, therefore it was not Duke endorsing/supporting a candidate on the KKK's behalf. Doesn't make his position any less bad, but it is not the same as a KKK endorsement, guilt by association is an ugly and slippery slope that NONE of the candidates would likely survive in a digital 1 or 0 sense.
Back when he was in consideration for being the Reform Party's Presidential Candidate in 2000, Trump left the party when it continued to attract strange bedfellows like Pat Buchannan (Conservative), Lenora Fulani (Marxist) and Duke (KKK at the time). So he has at least marginally been exposed to Duke in the past, and he has rejected those beliefs.
You guys can't have it both ways - either you want him to be more thoughtful before blurting out the first thing that comes to his mind or you don't. Either snap decisions are OK or they aren't. Or, gasp, there may be a time and a place for both behaviors (this is my shocked face : ^ | ).
If, as he said, Trump doesn't really understand what White Supremacy is about it says two things to me, one, he probably doesn't know anybody who holds that belief system personally which is a good thing, but if he wants to be President he must have a better understanding of the landscape with respect to all forms of Racism and the challenges that drive people to those belief systems. I actually believe the support from Duke surprised him.
This is not the same though as Hillary and Bernie actively courting the support of the Black Lies Matter racists, or the Black Panther racists, or Nation of Islam, etc.
Again, Cruz and Rubio fall in with the lamestream media and use the tactics of the Left with such ease, that is what I have a problem with.
'Gimp
-
If you are asking me here is my belief:
Trump said he did not personally know David Duke and would want to understand what was being said (I assume by Duke) before making a determination about Duke's stated support (which itself was not an endorsement by the way). I find it refreshing to see anyone not do the kneejerk condemnation, even when it is deserved (as it is with Duke) and say they want to understand what was said and what a person now believes (my words not Trump's) BEFORE condemning someone.
That would be well and good, but Trump had in the past shown that he knew who Duke was. He mentioned leaving the Reform party to the likes of David Duke and Pat Buchanan. So, for him to claim he didn't know him is, at best, disingenuous, and at worst, an outright lie to pander to Duke's supporters.
-
Funny, you were singing a different tune when Glenn Beck endorsed Cruz...odd that you would be inconsistent.
Not inconsistent. Beck had Cruz there with him when he endorsed and Cruz accepted it.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/23/glenn-beck-endorses-ted-cruz-for-president/
Just before Beck officially made his endorsement, he brought Cruz onstage and handed him his George Washington compass, a symbol of radio host’s pursuit of truth.
And Trump didn't denounce Duke and the KKK right away, he temporized and needed to do some research first. That's a BS politician answer.
Since you obviously only read the liberal media you have missed where Trump has denounced the KKK and Duke several times, even going as far as saying "How many times do I have to denounce this guy?"
-
Not inconsistent. Beck had Cruz there with him when he endorsed and Cruz accepted it.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/23/glenn-beck-endorses-ted-cruz-for-president/
Since you obviously only read the liberal media you have missed where Trump has denounced the KKK and Duke several times, even going as far as saying "How many times do I have to denounce this guy?"
First of all, Trump claimed he didn't know Duke as late as yesterday on CNN with Jake Tapper.
Second, you intentionally miss the point.
You slammed Cruz for accepting the endorsement of Glen Beck because you think Glen Beck is crazy or something. The object was the character of Beck, not Cruz. Granted, Beck is no white supremacist or anything. :rolleyes:
-
First of all, Trump claimed he didn't know Duke as late as yesterday on CNN with Jake Tapper.
Second, you intentionally miss the point.
You slammed Cruz for accepting the endorsement of Glen Beck because you think Glen Beck is crazy or something. The object was the character of Beck, not Cruz. Granted, Beck is no white supremacist or anything. :rolleyes:
Lame.
-
Meanwhile Cruz beats Clinton (RCP Cruz + .8) and Rubio beats Clinton (RCP Rubio +4.7).
Stan I find this VERY hard to believe. NOBODY likes Cruz (0.8% "lead"-( that's in the noise), and Mario looks like a little boy- he has no street cred, he's Obama-white. How either of them wins in a national brawl with The Untouchable One is beyond credulity.
-
Read the whole thing:
I still hope, and pray, that Republicans won’t fall for this Democratic demagogue. But if Trump were to win the nomination, it would prove that the Party of Lincoln and Reagan was dead.
Political parties are created to serve us, not the other way around. The GOP has been a flawed vehicle to promote individual liberty, a sound national defense, and a dynamic economy. I had to swallow hard to vote for moderates like Romney and McCain. But voting for a big-government liberal is a bridge too far.
If the keys are handed to a would-be strongman, I have no choice but to step out of the car and walk my own way. Unlike many in the GOP establishment, for me principle is always more important than power. My conscience can have it no other way.
I joined the Party of Lincoln and the Party of Reagan. I will leave the Party of Trump.
If that makes me a bad Republican, so be it. I seek to be a good American.
https://ricochet.com/never-trump/
-
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/the-suicide-of-the-gop-establishment/
The Suicide of the GOP Establishment
Despite the Trump juggernaut, they refuse to rethink Bushism in their support for Rubio
by Laura Ingraham
It is this fanaticism — this complete unwillingness to change their policy or even to debate the possibility of serious change — that has put us in the position we are today.
But I do not see how things can go on as they are now. I do not see how you can ask the working-class people of this country to support a collection of policies that have failed them over and over and over.
Even today, with the fate of the party at stake, their only argument is to attack Trump and his supporters, to call them stupid, and racist, nativist, and isolationist and every other epithet they can lift from the editorial pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post.
In the end, they have left the opponents of the status quo no choice — they must either defeat Rubio, and radically change the power structure of the GOP, or they must watch Obama's immigration policy, Obama's trade policy, Bush’s foreign policy, and Bush’s economic policy, be implemented.
On Tuesday, we’ll know how the voters react to those alternatives.
-
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/the-suicide-of-the-gop-establishment/
The Suicide of the GOP Establishment
Despite the Trump juggernaut, they refuse to rethink Bushism in their support for Rubio
by Laura Ingraham
Mark Levin has moved on from the Trump hangover, and has seen him for what he is. Laura sadly has not.
-
Mark Levin has moved on from the Trump hangover, and has seen him for what he is. Laura sadly has not.
Laura Ingraham has correctly identified where the problem lies with the RNC. I don't see her column as pro Trump but instead a critical review of the Republicans and why they are now in the mess they are in.
And she is dead on with her assessment of Rubio.
-
Laura Ingraham has correctly identified where the problem lies with the RNC. I don't see her column as pro Trump but instead a critical review of the Republicans and why they are now in the mess they are in.
And she is dead on with her assessment of Rubio.
Correct on all counts, and why Trump is popular. We all know 16 years of the Bush/Obama presidency has gotten us nowhere, and both sides continue to foist the same shit sandwich upon the populace.
I'm damned near ready to vote for Trump, as I feel we need to blow the place up, burn it down, and start over. Trump can certainly do no worse than the past 16 years of asshatery.
-
-
So a flaming liberal attacks Trump............Oh wait, he's a part of the "Daily Show", you know, the place liberals get their "news" from....
-
Lol, I don't think most of his satirical rant on Trump had a lot of left-leaning rhetoric. It was pretty spot-on with the reality of what we are presented with regarding Trump: A guy whom no one really knows what side of any issue he's on. Period. He just rambles on about "Making America Great Again" without any specific stances or plans to hold him accountable to. No one will be able to say "Trump said he'd do X, but he never did", because he has made just about zero concrete promises/goals. I also don't find petulance and schoolyard insults to be the characteristics I'd want in a President. I'm not saying that Trump should be politically correct in any form or fashion, but he definitely undermines his intelligence by resorting to such childish behavior.
-
Correct on all counts, and why Trump is popular. We all know 16 years of the Bush/Obama presidency has gotten us nowhere, and both sides continue to foist the same shit sandwich upon the populace.
I'm damned near ready to vote for Trump, as I feel we need to blow the place up, burn it down, and start over. Trump can certainly do no worse than the past 16 years of asshatery.
You and I are pretty conservative, but we saw and acknowledged the Bush failures. He was a big government, big spender and helped to give us the DHS. I don't want another President like GWB, and I certainly don't want another Obama.
-
Lol, I don't think most of his satirical rant on Trump had a lot of left-leaning rhetoric. It was pretty spot-on with the reality of what we are presented with regarding Trump: A guy whom no one really knows what side of any issue he's on. Period. He just rambles on about "Making America Great Again" without any specific stances or plans to hold him accountable to. No one will be able to say "Trump said he'd do X, but he never did", because he has made just about zero concrete promises/goals. I also don't find petulance and schoolyard insults to be the characteristics I'd want in a President. I'm not saying that Trump should be politically correct in any form or fashion, but he definitely undermines his intelligence by resorting to such childish behavior.
There's a difference between not being politically correct, and being a petulant child. Haven't we had enough of the petulant child for the last 7 years?
-
You and I are pretty conservative, but we saw and acknowledged the Bush failures. He was a big government, big spender and helped to give us the DHS. I don't want another President like GWB, and I certainly don't want another Obama.
Trump combines the worst of GWB (big government) with the worst of Obama (narcissism and megalomania) into one convenient package.
-
So a flaming liberal attacks Trump............Oh wait, he's a part of the "Daily Show", you know, the place liberals get their "news" from....
Enjoy the piece or not, it's no matter to me.
PS - He's not part of the Daily Show.
-
Enjoy the piece or not, it's no matter to me.
PS - He's not part of the Daily Show.
It's TERRIFIC entertainment. FANTASTIC, TOP-NOTCH.
And in fairness, he is a Daily Show alum.
-
Read the whole thing:https://ricochet.com/never-trump/
I didn't leave the GOP, the GOP left me. I couldn't care less what the establishment opinion is any longer. That doesn't mean I'm voting for Trump but it does mean the GOP can fuck off.
-
http://www.nysun.com/national/fears-of-trump-as-fascist-echo-similar-warnings/89476/
-
There's a difference between not being politically correct, and being a petulant child. Haven't we had enough of the petulant child for the last 7 years?
I don't see much difference between Obama and Trump to be honest. They both manage to alienate a ton of people, and will likely go down in history as being mostly ineffective at bringing the country together.
Trump combines the worst of GWB (big government) with the worst of Obama (narcissism and megalomania) into one convenient package.
Agreed.
-
Stan I find this VERY hard to believe. NOBODY likes Cruz (0.8% "lead"-( that's in the noise), and Mario looks like a little boy- he has no street cred, he's Obama-white. How either of them wins in a national brawl with The Untouchable One is beyond credulity.
Here's some confirmation of these numbers from Allen West and Redstate:
http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/03/uh-oh-new-poll-has-very-very-bad-news-for-trump/
-
I loathe Hillary Clinton for a number of reasons, the mildest of which is that she is barely able to impersonate a human being. It is hard for anyone to make her look capable, trustworthy and mature. But Trump does.
-
I loathe Hillary Clinton for a number of reasons, the mildest of which is that she is barely able to impersonate a human being. It is hard for anyone to make her look capable, trustworthy and mature. But Trump does.
:thumbsup:
-
I loathe Hillary Clinton for a number of reasons, the mildest of which is that she is barely able to impersonate a human being. It is hard for anyone to make her look capable, trustworthy and mature. But Trump does.
OK, so assuming it comes down to Trump vs Hillary, with everything that is on the line (SCOTUS, Obamacare, future of the nation, you know little things, etc.) - who do you pull the handle for?
'Gimp
-
OK, so assuming it comes down to Trump vs Hillary, with everything that is on the line (SCOTUS, Obamacare, future of the nation, you know little things, etc.) - who do you pull the handle for?
'Gimp
The Sweet Meteor of Death
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CQub9uaUwAE3oOJ.jpg)
-
OK, so assuming it comes down to Trump vs Hillary, with everything that is on the line (SCOTUS, Obamacare, future of the nation, you know little things, etc.) - who do you pull the handle for?
'Gimp
They won't tell you this because they do not want to admit they will help elect Hillary, being the good conservatives they pretend to be.
-
OK, so assuming it comes down to Trump vs Hillary, with everything that is on the line (SCOTUS, Obamacare, future of the nation, you know little things, etc.) - who do you pull the handle for?
'Gimp
I typically vote for the most electable conservative candidate. I honestly don't think Trump is electable. However, the Democratic Death Star will be aimed at whoever the GOP puts up, and Trump seems to have stronger deflector shields than Rubio or Cruz. While Trump is not reliably conservative, he is also not reliably liberal. He cancels himself out, I think. Which makes him the kind of blank slate that Obama was and is: He is whatever a voter wants him to be. That has not worked out well.
I know, I haven't answered your question. Let's just say it would be really, really repugnant to me to vote for an adulterer who is also a childish bully, and give him the nuclear codes. I have eight months to swallow the bile he raises in me. We'll see.
-
They won't tell you this because they do not want to admit they will help elect Hillary, being the good conservatives they pretend to be.
"They" weren't asked the question. Becky was asked the question.
-
I typically vote for the most electable conservative candidate. I honestly don't think Trump is electable. However, the Democratic Death Star will be aimed at whoever the GOP puts up, and Trump seems to have stronger deflector shields than Rubio or Cruz. While Trump is not reliably conservative, he is also not reliably liberal. He cancels himself out, I think. Which makes him the kind of blank slate that Obama was and is: He is whatever a voter wants him to be. That has not worked out well.
I know, I haven't answered your question. Let's just say it would be really, really repugnant to me to vote for an adulterer who is also a childish bully, and give him the nuclear codes. I have eight months to swallow the bile he raises in me. We'll see.
I understand Becky, no worries on my end and I appreciate the honest answer. Each election cycle since I have been able to vote has sucked on one level or another - some more than others - and had Scalia not passed away I was pursuing a path of pure scorched earth, but that changed things for me a bit. I am encouraged by some of what I see in terms of turnout although it is primaries not general, but the issue of voter enthusiasm is keeping a lot on the Left up late at night.
As you said, there is time.
It is possible Trump flamesout tonight and does not put Rubio and/or Cruz away - or that more comes to light that either improves or confirms your low opinion of him - but I appreciate the time to put an answer together and know exactly how you feel.
'Gimp
-
I understand Becky, no worries on my end and I appreciate the honest answer. Each election cycle since I have been able to vote has sucked on one level or another - some more than others - and had Scalia not passed away I was pursuing a path of pure scorched earth, but that changed things for me a bit. I am encouraged by some of what I see in terms of turnout although it is primaries not general, but the issue of voter enthusiasm is keeping a lot on the Left up late at night.
As you said, there is time.
It is possible Trump flamesout tonight and does not put Rubio and/or Cruz away - or that more comes to light that either improves or confirms your low opinion of him - but I appreciate the time to put an answer together and know exactly how you feel.
'Gimp
I concur.
-
I think Rubio has been put away, he just doesn't realize it yet. He makes placing third sound like a victory. If he decides to stay in the headlines down the road will remind us how Rubio allowed Trump to win.
-
I know, I haven't answered your question. Let's just say it would be really, really repugnant to me to vote for an adulterer who is also a childish bully, and give him the nuclear codes. I have eight months to swallow the bile he raises in me. We'll see.
Wow, hard to believe. Yes, Trump is hard to swallow sometimes, but at least he's DONE something. He took a $1M loan from his father and turned it into ~$4.5B of net worth[1]. That's a 450,000% return on that original seed money[2]. WHAT has Hillary done, really, other than break laws and get people killed?
Hillary is like Obama, big on hot air, little on accomplishment.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/
There is some argument that his net worth could be anywhere from $3.5B to $10B.
[2] True, his father's good name and connections did help pave the way to success. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/opinions/dantonio-trump-small-loan-from-father/
But still, he's accomplished a lot.
-
Wow, hard to believe. Yes, Trump is hard to swallow sometimes, but at least he's DONE something. He took a $1M loan from his father and turned it into ~$4.5B of net worth[1]. That's a 450,000% return on that original seed money[2]. WHAT has Hillary done, really, other than break laws and get people killed?
Hillary is like Obama, big on hot air, little on accomplishment.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/profile/donald-trump/
There is some argument that his net worth could be anywhere from $3.5B to $10B.
[2] True, his father's good name and connections did help pave the way to success. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/26/opinions/dantonio-trump-small-loan-from-father/
But still, he's accomplished a lot.
And yet the State Media, in their usual lockstep, insists on referring to him as "a former reality TV star."
-
And yet the State Media, in their usual lockstep, insists on referring to him as "a former reality TV star."
That's because they are all current reality TV stars, and nothing more.
Journalism died long, long ago.
-
That's because they are all current reality TV stars, and nothing more.
Good one!
-
-
They both manage to alienate a ton of people, and will likely go down in history as being mostly ineffective at bringing the country together.
Agreed.
Bringing the country together is no longer possible, or even desired by the American people. We seem to like our divided war camps and inflexible dogma. There is no "middle ground". Bringing people together mean compromise and compromise means behaving like the "establishment" and establishment is a dirty word now.
You can't fault Obama for not uniting the people and bringing us together. We don't want to be united, or together.
-
Bringing the country together is no longer possible, or even desired by the American people. We seem to like our divided war camps and inflexible dogma. There is no "middle ground". Bringing people together mean compromise and compromise means behaving like the "establishment" and establishment is a dirty word now.
You can't fault Obama for not uniting the people and bringing us together. We don't want to be united, or together.
I don't agree at all. I think the media, education, and government (Dems and Obama) have promoted a divided society where we are not "American" anymore, but a bunch of special interests with different agendas and identities. I think people want a united purpose, but politicians want to keep us divided for control purposes.
-
Bringing the country together is no longer possible, or even desired by the American people. We seem to like our divided war camps and inflexible dogma. There is no "middle ground". Bringing people together mean compromise and compromise means behaving like the "establishment" and establishment is a dirty word now.
You can't fault Obama for not uniting the people and bringing us together. We don't want to be united, or together.
Even if your premise (bringing the country together isn't desired) were true, that's a cop out.
I expect (demand) leadership from the President.
-
I don't agree at all. I think the media, education, and government (Dems and Obama) have promoted a divided society where we are not "American" anymore, but a bunch of special interests with different agendas and identities. I think people want a united purpose, but politicians want to keep us divided for control purposes.
Divide and Conquer, one of the oldest games around.
Also see Saul Alinsky's writings as well as Cloward and Priven and much of what we've been seeing comes to light.
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3474215/Ted-Cruz-s-former-roommate-Craig-Mazin-shares-horror-stories-Princeton-dorm.html
'Ted Cruz will become the thing you need him to be so that he wins an election,' Mazin wrote. 'No principles, no moral center, no values. Just ambition.'
-
Even if your premise (bringing the country together isn't desired) were true, that's a cop out.
I expect (demand) leadership from the President.
On of my favourite Ralph Klein lines was "Sometimes leadership is finding out where the mob is going and getting to the front."
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3474215/Ted-Cruz-s-former-roommate-Craig-Mazin-shares-horror-stories-Princeton-dorm.html
Oh my God. That is eye opening. Thanks for posting! I just learned that Cruz may have been the only horny guy ever to enroll in college.
And the deal breaker is this:
'Other than existing, what's the worst thing Ted did to you?' one asked.
'Set his alarm for 7am and then hit the snooze button seven times in a row,' Mazin replied. 'Day after day. Until I crazy-glued it.'
I'm sorry, I'm also a snooze-button hitter, but I expect more from my president. How disappointing. :(
Thanks again.
#NeverCruz
-
I don't agree at all. I think the media, education, and government (Dems and Obama) have promoted a divided society where we are not "American" anymore, but a bunch of special interests with different agendas and identities. I think people want a united purpose, but politicians want to keep us divided for control purposes.
Let me see I have this right. The media, educational institutions and the government have brain washed half of America with poisonous ideas with nefarious intent of destroying America and the other half of America just knows what is right and true. So if we want a united people, we just need to force the media, the educational institutions and all the branches of government to espouse only what is right and true, then the misguided half of the country will come around and join the "right" side of the country.
"Special interest" groups seem to be the boogie man to people until it's one of their special interests, then it's a collective voice on capitol hill speaking for the people. Why would people need these groups in the first place? Now I see how unification works for conservatives, just get everyone on the left to think as they do and we'll all be unified. No compromise required. ::)
Since the beginning of this country, there have been people on the left and people on the right. The founding fathers fought and argued all the time. It is believed that the majority of the people in the colonies in revolutionary times took the conservative position of sticking with the king and remaining royal subjects of the crown. It is those that we hold dear now that were the lefty progressives of that era. What a radical and dangerous idea, that people should have a say in government!!
I agree that the media and particularly the internet, has amplified and increased the intensity of our opinions. They do this because there is good money in conflict. Ultimately though, it is the people that choose to be divided. If there were no TV, radio, newspaper, or internet, we would still have differences of opinion, but likely be much closer together as our positions wouldn't be so extreme and inflexible. There are millions of people in the country like this now. They avoid politics and the political media out there and they are much more open to other ideas. They are those annoying swing voters, or worse yet, those that don't vote at all.
How in the world that a single individual is supposed emerge and overcome the power of the media and all the rhetoric to bring the country together is beyond me. A very tall order for a mere mortal that was placed in that position by practitioners of partisan politics in the first place.
-
Let me see I have this right. The media, educational institutions and the government have brain washed half of America with poisonous ideas with nefarious intent of destroying America and the other half of America just knows what is right and true. So if we want a united people, we just need to force the media, the educational institutions and all the branches of government to espouse only what is right and true, then the misguided half of the country will come around and join the "right" side of the country.
"Special interest" groups seem to be the boogie man to people until it's one of their special interests, then it's a collective voice on capitol hill speaking for the people. Why would people need these groups in the first place? Now I see how unification works for conservatives, just get everyone on the left to think as they do and we'll all be unified. No compromise required. ::)
Since the beginning of this country, there have been people on the left and people on the right. The founding fathers fought and argued all the time. It is believed that the majority of the people in the colonies in revolutionary times took the conservative position of sticking with the king and remaining royal subjects of the crown. It is those that we hold dear now that were the lefty progressives of that era. What a radical and dangerous idea, that people should have a say in government!!
I agree that the media and particularly the internet, has amplified and increased the intensity of our opinions. They do this because there is good money in conflict. Ultimately though, it is the people that choose to be divided. If there were no TV, radio, newspaper, or internet, we would still have differences of opinion, but likely be much closer together as our positions wouldn't be so extreme and inflexible. There are millions of people in the country like this now. They avoid politics and the political media out there and they are much more open to other ideas. They are those annoying swing voters, or worse yet, those that don't vote at all.
How in the world that a single individual is supposed emerge and overcome the power of the media and all the rhetoric to bring the country together is beyond me. A very tall order for a mere mortal that was placed in that position by practitioners of partisan politics in the first place.
If you can't see that Obama is the most divisive president in my lifetime, and has purposefully and willingly stoked the flames of racial, class, economic and social divides, you are delusional.
The fact that he has an accomplice media and sycophantic supporters in government and among the electorate is simply a bonus.
The president has the ultimate bully pulpit. Unfortunately, Obama used it to further the divides, not bridge them.
-
If you can't see that Obama is the most divisive president in my lifetime, and has purposefully and willingly stoked the flames of racial, class, economic and social divides, you are delusional.
The fact that he has an accomplice media and sycophantic supporters in government and among the electorate is simply a bonus.
The president has the ultimate bully pulpit. Unfortunately, Obama used it to further the divides, not bridge them.
Exactly, and it's just not Obama. It is all the Dems, and the PROGRESSIVE movement that has invaded the media, education, and government purely for their own gain. These institutions have convinced half of the populace that America is evil, and that being American is the problem in the world while we have been the beacon of freedom and liberty from the start.
-
Oh my God. That is eye opening. Thanks for posting! I just learned that Cruz may have been the only horny guy ever to enroll in college.
And the deal breaker is this:
'Other than existing, what's the worst thing Ted did to you?' one asked.
'Set his alarm for 7am and then hit the snooze button seven times in a row,' Mazin replied. 'Day after day. Until I crazy-glued it.'
I'm sorry, I'm also a snooze-button hitter, but I expect more from my president. How disappointing. :(
Thanks again.
#NeverCruz
So if someone post something ridiculous, such as a left wing comedian slamming Trump it's the gospel truth, but if I post something from someone slamming Cruz it's to be dismissed immediately....
So to be clear, which side of your mouth are you speaking from?
-
If you can't see that Obama is the most divisive president in my lifetime, and has purposefully and willingly stoked the flames of racial, class, economic and social divides, you are delusional.
The fact that he has an accomplice media and sycophantic supporters in government and among the electorate is simply a bonus.
The president has the ultimate bully pulpit. Unfortunately, Obama used it to further the divides, not bridge them.
And all of the "Establishment" Republicans are just squeaky clean, church going card carrying members of the Heritage Foundation........Right?
-
So if someone post something ridiculous, such as a left wing comedian slamming Trump it's the gospel truth, but if I post something from someone slamming Cruz it's to be dismissed immediately....
So to be clear, which side of your mouth are you speaking from?
Did I comment or endorse what a left wing comedian said? I don't think so but please refresh my memory.
We're selecting the leader of the free world here. In case you didn't notice, this isn't Celebrity Apprentice.
My point was that the anecdotal recollections of a college roommate from decades ago, who is also a screen writer and needs publicity, is about the lamest thing I've seen thrown up against Ted Cruz. So I ridiculed it, and I ridicule you for posting something so lame.
Should we all start posting every anecdote against our opponents? How many people have something to say about getting fucked by Donald Trump, forced into bankruptcy, forced into an expensive legal fight to save their own home, and other experiences with "the Donald"?
Man, you Trumpians are a sensitive bunch, aren't you? You're acting just like your leader, who pouts and takes jabs when someone wasn't nice to him. Wow.
-
And all of the "Establishment" Republicans are just squeaky clean, church going card carrying members of the Heritage Foundation........Right?
Are you defending Obama? Wow, yet another sign of what's to come under a Trumpian presidency.
-
Oh my God. That is eye opening. Thanks for posting! I just learned that Cruz may have been the only horny guy ever to enroll in college.
And the deal breaker is this:
'Other than existing, what's the worst thing Ted did to you?' one asked.
'Set his alarm for 7am and then hit the snooze button seven times in a row,' Mazin replied. 'Day after day. Until I crazy-glued it.'
I'm sorry, I'm also a snooze-button hitter, but I expect more from my president. How disappointing. :(
Thanks again.
#NeverCruz
What happens when he gets the proverbial 3AM call?
-
What happens when he gets the proverbial 3AM call?
Grabs his clubs and heads for Andrews AFB (http://www.aafbgc.com/)?
Sorry, that's the current POTUS. My bad.
-
Are you defending Obama? Wow, yet another sign of what's to come under a Trumpian presidency.
First of all, I have NEVER stated here or anywhere I'm a Trump supporter. I do like observing the nomination and election process and have posted my views on such. But since I don't fall lock step into an ideologue such as yourself, I must be flawed. So your only defense is calling me silly childish names. Oh how conservative of you!
Secondly, you are blinded by you ideology. Are you trying to assert the Republican Party has done NOTHING wrong in the past 20 years? I'm not defending Obama, I can't wait to see that guy gone. But I'm a realist, and when I see the RNC pushing another Bush, Romney, McConnell, Ryan or Boehner down our throats and telling me "This is what's best for you" I call bullshit.
Go check your email, I'm sure the RNC and Reince Priebus have sent you yet another email with your daily talking points.
-
Did I comment or endorse what a left wing comedian said? I don't think so but please refresh my memory.
We're selecting the leader of the free world here. In case you didn't notice, this isn't Celebrity Apprentice.
My point was that the anecdotal recollections of a college roommate from decades ago, who is also a screen writer and needs publicity, is about the lamest thing I've seen thrown up against Ted Cruz. So I ridiculed it, and I ridicule you for posting something so lame.
Should we all start posting every anecdote against our opponents? How many people have something to say about getting fucked by Donald Trump, forced into bankruptcy, forced into an expensive legal fight to save their own home, and other experiences with "the Donald"?
Man, you Trumpians are a sensitive bunch, aren't you? You're acting just like your leader, who pouts and takes jabs when someone wasn't nice to him. Wow.
New tagline for you: TPINO. Seems to fit you.
-
First of all, I have NEVER stated here or anywhere I'm a Trump supporter.
RIIIIIIIGHT. SUUUURE
-
RIIIIIIIGHT. SUUUURE
Please show the post.
-
Please show the post.
Every one of your posts in this thread has been in support of Dear Leader. But you don't support him...RIIIIGHT
-
Every one of your posts in this thread has been in support of Dear Leader. But you don't support him...RIIIIGHT
OK fatboy, go ahead and link all of these post where I have stated that I support Trump.
-
OK fatboy, go ahead and link all of these post where I have stated that I support Trump.
Every post in this thread demonstrates your love of Dear Leader.
And nice jump to ad hominem. You've learned name calling from your Dear Leader. You're just a Trump fanboy.
-
Every post in this thread demonstrates your love of Dear Leader.
And nice jump to ad hominem. You've learned name calling from your Dear Leader. You're just a Trump fanboy.
And of course thread title 'Question for the Trumpkins'
Pot, kettle, kettle, pot.
Carry on.
'Gimp
-
I love all these Trump fanbois who get offended when you say they support Dear Leader.
-
Every post in this thread demonstrates your love of Dear Leader.
And nice jump to ad hominem. You've learned name calling from your Dear Leader. You're just a Trump fanboy.
So, I'll wait while you post a link to any post here where I've stated I support Trump......
Oh wait, you can't.
Says it all Jeff.
-
You've ably demonstrated your support many times.
-
You've ably demonstrated your support many times.
LOL. That's what you want to see, and believe. You're blinded by hatred and stupidity.
-
Just my take, of course...
...but the whole "Dear Leader" shtick is childish and tiresome.
If anyone cares what I think - which is probably an unwarranted assumption right there.
-
Just my take, of course...
...but the whole "Dear Leader" shtick is childish and tiresome.
If anyone cares what I think - which is probably an unwarranted assumption right there.
I agree. "Dear Leader" is better reserved for Obama and his sycophants.
A better term for Trump is IL DOUCHE'.
-
I agree. "Dear Leader" is better reserved for Obama and his sycophants.
A better term for Trump is IL DOUCHE'.
I'm more comparing Trump to the DPRK Kims and their cult of personality.
-
I'm more comparing Trump to the DPRK Kims and their cult of personality.
And that is why you are so patently, glaringly and completely wrong.
The Kim's enjoy a forced support, given 'willingly' at the point of gun and in exchange for a pittance of rice to avoid starvation - in much the same way as they 'receive' an astonishing 99.2% of the 'vote'.
You can dislike Trump all you want but the support he is garnering is genuine, and it results from from more than a mere cult of personality. To suggest otherwise is to once again demean and diminish and completely misunderstand the nature of the phenomenon he is benefiting from. For a portion of those who support Trump it is no doubt akin to the support Obama enjoyed 8 years ago, but to suggest that Obama's support was solely a result of 'cult of personality' would be to miss the substantial support he recevied from fellow travellers for what he said, and what he represented in terms of governance.
We dismissed his support as shallow and driven by self-centered skulls full of mush, not substantive and deliberate, and we lost not one but two elections to him as a result.
And now, the same wizards of smart who misjudged the electorate in '08 and '12 are doing it again, only this time they are training their fire on one of their own instead of the actual opposition.
'Gimp
-
Has anyone looked at the network news tonight? The media/GOP smear campaign against Trump is in top gear. It's disgusting, actually. The republicans are eating their own, and the result is going to be a loss to Hillary. It almost looks like they WANT to lose.
I guess I just don't get it.
-
Has anyone looked at the network news tonight? The media/GOP smear campaign against Trump is in top gear. It's disgusting, actually. The republicans are eating their own, and the result is going to be a loss to Hillary. It almost looks like they WANT to lose.
I guess I just don't get it.
That's OK. Fox News and Sean Hannity in particular is giving Donald Trump nightly handjobs, so Trump should enjoy being in the "Fair and Balanced" massage parlor.
-
Has anyone looked at the network news tonight? The media/GOP smear campaign against Trump is in top gear. It's disgusting, actually. The republicans are eating their own, and the result is going to be a loss to Hillary. It almost looks like they WANT to lose.
I guess I just don't get it.
I've lost any and all respect for the GOP "Establishment". From the Bush's, Romney, McCain, McConnell, Boehner, Ryan, etc, etc, they have gone straight into the gutter. They insult their constituents and cling to failed policies.
Lately the GOP is beginning to look like the DNC.
-
I've lost any and all respect for the GOP "Establishment". From the Bush's, Romney, McCain, McConnell, Boehner, Ryan, etc, etc, they have gone straight into the gutter. They insult their constituents and cling to failed policies.
Lately the GOP is beginning to look like the DNC.
I agree.
And I find it shocking that you got post #666. ;)
-
I agree.
And I find it shocking that you got post #666. ;)
and you got reply #666
-
and you got reply #666
Wierd, on Tapatalk lucifer's post is 666, and my response is 667. But on the website, it's one post off.
-
Wierd, on Tapatalk lucifer's post is 666, and my response is 667. But on the website, it's one post off.
Lucifer's post is #667, but it's Reply 666.
Go back to the first post, it's the first reply that's #1
-
Wierd, on Tapatalk lucifer's post is 666, and my response is 667. But on the website, it's one post off.
It's the Devil's work!
-
It's the Devil's work!
;D
-
If you can't see that Obama is the most divisive president in my lifetime, and has purposefully and willingly stoked the flames of racial, class, economic and social divides, you are delusional.
The fact that he has an accomplice media and sycophantic supporters in government and among the electorate is simply a bonus.
The president has the ultimate bully pulpit. Unfortunately, Obama used it to further the divides, not bridge them.
Oh, we were talking about Obama?? I guess your implication is, that before Obama we were all united and mostly in agreement. I guess George W Bush just had that effect on people. ::)
I was talking about the division of the people in general and I hate to break it to you, but it has been going on long before anybody knew Obama's name. In fact, Obama is the direct result of this division. He is a product of his times. Just as the next president is that will divide us further. It's what we demand unless I've missed something and conservatives are starting to warm up to some of the liberals positions and/or the liberals are warming up to some of the conservatives positions.
-
Oh, we were talking about Obama?? I guess your implication is, that before Obama we were all united and mostly in agreement. I guess George W Bush just had that effect on people. ::)
I was talking about the division of the people in general and I hate to break it to you, but it has been going on long before anybody knew Obama's name. In fact, Obama is the direct result of this division. He is a product of his times. Just as the next president is that will divide us further. It's what we demand unless I've missed something and conservatives are starting to warm up to some of the liberals positions and/or the liberals are warming up to some of the conservatives positions.
Did George Bush pit American against American, even once, during his eight years? I look forward to your response.
-
It's what we demand unless I've missed something and conservatives are starting to warm up to some of the liberals positions and/or the liberals are warming up to some of the conservatives positions.
You've bought into the mainstream media propaganda. "Conservative positions" are essentially allowing the Constitution to matter. That's all. It's not legislating from the bench or Federal government social engineering which was never intended. So compromising the liberal/progressive/democrat mean violating the Constitution and states rights.
-
Question for Trump fans:
What do you think of his response when he was asked what he would do if the military refused an order they considered to be illegal, such as torture or targeting terrorists' families.
Trump's response was "They won't refuse; they're not going to refuse me...If I say do it, they're going to do it."
What say you? By the way, that quote is verbatim. Check any transcript.
-
You've bought into the mainstream media propaganda. "Conservative positions" are essentially allowing the Constitution to matter. That's all. It's not legislating from the bench or Federal government social engineering which was never intended. So compromising the liberal/progressive/democrat mean violating the Constitution and states rights.
Exactly. Thank you for saying that. Compromise would mean exactly that. Take the ACA for instance. The GOP knew the individual mandate was unconstitutional and an an overreach by FedGov. It was only made constitutional when John Roberts legislated from the bench and changed the word "fine" into the word "tax."
-
Trump's response was "They won't refuse; they're not going to refuse me...If I say do it, they're going to do it."
What say you? By the way, that quote is verbatim. Check any transcript.
I'll go full Godwin here and say that was frightening, as was his standing by "going after the families".
As John Oliver pointed out, he's shamelessly recommending a war crime as a strategy.
Nuremberg should have taught everyone a lesson that "I was only following orders" is not a defense that will keep one from the gallows.
-
I'll go full Godwin here and say that was frightening, as was his standing by "going after the families".
As John Oliver pointed out, he's shamelessly recommending a war crime as a strategy.
Nuremberg should have taught everyone a lesson that "I was only following orders" is not a defense that will keep one from the gallows.
Thank you. I thought the same thing.
Good luck finding that jewel being discussed anywhere. Apparently the size of his hands is much more important.
-
Dark, dark stuff. He's amoral and self aggrandizing. Not a good combo. Demagoguery, control ... if the people think they're silenced now, Trump's presidency would see the supreme silencing of all dissent.
-
I'll go full Godwin here and say that was frightening, as was his standing by "going after the families".
As John Oliver pointed out, he's shamelessly recommending a war crime as a strategy.
Nuremberg should have taught everyone a lesson that "I was only following orders" is not a defense that will keep one from the gallows.
First off, terrorists as non-state actors are not subject to any concept of the rules of war, so no war crimes are possible, on either side. I favor going after their families personally (assuming a minimum level of confidence in the intel is maintained - you win wars by removing the will of the opposition to fight, that includes not just the soldiers but the civilians as well).
With respect to him stating his belief, I'd say he expressed his belief that his orders would be followed. I assume he may have answered from a perspective that any order he may give as being something that would not be considered illegal but I don't watch these stupid debates and would be guessing based on having followed Trump as a business leader for 30 years.
'Gimp
-
Dark, dark stuff. He's amoral and self aggrandizing. Not a good combo. Demagoguery, control ... if the people think they're silenced now, Trump's presidency would see the supreme silencing of all dissent.
That's becoming very clear, Becky. Just look at what he said about "opening up the libel laws." Frightening attitude from someone who wants to be POTUS.
-
I favor going after their families personally (assuming a minimum level of confidence in the intel is maintained - you win wars by removing the will of the opposition to fight, that includes not just the soldiers but the civilians as well).
'Gimp
I just lost a lot of respect for you.
As if you care, of course.
I was going to go on and articulate why, but it's pointless.
-
What is meant by "going after families?" Investigation and questioning, or torture and extortion? Big diff.
-
First off, terrorists as non-state actors are not subject to any concept of the rules of war, so no war crimes are possible, on either side. I favor going after their families personally (assuming a minimum level of confidence in the intel is maintained - you win wars by removing the will of the opposition to fight, that includes not just the soldiers but the civilians as well).
You are aware that the Constitution forbids corruption of blood as a punishment, right?
-
I just lost a lot of respect for you.
As if you care, of course.
I was going to go on and articulate why, but it's pointless.
I care as much as I would about anyone else saying that, curious specifically why?
What do you think the bombing of Tokyo and Dresden were, if not going after families?
And that was in the context of justifiable massive scale combat where what we now call collateral damage was the objective, not something to be avoided.
Either we are in an existential conflict with people whose stated goal is to kill or subjugate us, or we are not. If, as I believe, we are in an existential conflict, then we had damned well better act like it, or we will eventually lose. Just look at what is happening in Europe.
'Gimp
-
What is meant by "going after families?" Investigation and questioning, or torture and extortion? Big diff.
He said to "take them out" meaning kill them.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/428719/kill-terrorists-families-gangsta-trump
-
You are aware that the Constitution forbids corruption of blood as a punishment, right?
You are aware that is related explicitly to Treason? Meaning a citizen has to be the original target, and it IS allowed during the life of the Traitor.
'Gimp
-
"If the President does it, it is legal." - Richard Nixon.
Didn't do him much good though.
-
"If the President does it, it is legal." - Richard Nixon.
Didn't do him much good though.
If replying to my supposition let me clarify, I didn't mean to suggest that the President can't issue an illegal order, that is why the military has a duty to disobey illegal orders if received, I meant only that my supposition was that in the context of the question Trump did not consider any order he would give as being illegal (meaning he would not deliberately give an illegal order, not that any order he might give is legal simply because he gave it as CinC).
This really boils down, in my opinion, to whether the guy is 'your guy' or not, and how much slack, or not, you are willing to give to the answer and how much thought you are willing to put into what he said vs. what he may have meant, as a result.
Nothing in Trump's background as a business leader suggests to me he would suddenly become some rabid Mussolini-esque fascist barking out illegal orders, nor that he is unwilling to accept input and if needed modify a near-term position to meet a long-term goal/objective.
'Gimp
-
"If the President does it, it is legal." - Richard Nixon.
Close, but...
"If the President does it, that means it's not illegal". Richard Nixon, interviewed by David Frost
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a040677nixonnotillegal (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a040677nixonnotillegal)
-
I care as much as I would about anyone else saying that, curious specifically why?
What do you think the bombing of Tokyo and Dresden were, if not going after families?
And that was in the context of justifiable massive scale combat where what we now call collateral damage was the objective, not something to be avoided.
Either we are in an existential conflict with people whose stated goal is to kill or subjugate us, or we are not. If, as I believe, we are in an existential conflict, then we had damned well better act like it, or we will eventually lose. Just look at what is happening in Europe.
'Gimp
There is a fairly marked difference between large-scale bombing and targeting specific families for torture or execution. Your likening it to "collateral damage" doesn't seem a good fit. It is direct damage; the object of the violence being perpetrated.
-
There is a fairly marked difference between large-scale bombing and targeting specific families for torture or execution. Your likening it to "collateral damage" doesn't seem a good fit. It is direct damage; the object of the violence being perpetrated.
Missed my point, we didn't use to call families, or civilians and cities collateral damage, we called them targets, and we bombed the shit out of them to end wars by removing the will of the other side to fight - both militarily as well as politically.
Terrorists currently operate outside the of the sphere of 'civilized warfare' and as a result face no repercussions for their actions beyond occasionally their own death - there is a school of thought of which I am a member, that total war, as we used to practice, is the only answer to the existential threat we face. Make sure they understand there will be repercussions on their people, their families, their holy sites, etc., and even if you don't change their minds you can change the minds of everyone around them to the point they no longer have the money or safe hiding places they currently enjoy.
As we have sought to achieve surgical levels of precision in combat to avoid collateral damage there is no denying that our win-ratio has decreased, and fear of us as a dangerous opponent has been diminished.
'Gimp
-
Missed my point, we didn't use to call families, or civilians and cities collateral damage, we called them targets, and we bombed the shit out of them to end wars by removing the will of the other side to fight - both militarily as well as politically.
Terrorists currently operate outside the of the sphere of 'civilized warfare' and as a result face no repercussions for their actions beyond occasionally their own death - there is a school of thought of which I am a member, that total war, as we used to practice, is the only answer to the existential threat we face. Make sure they understand there will be repercussions on their people, their families, their holy sites, etc., and even if you don't change their minds you can change the minds of everyone around them to the point they no longer have the money or safe hiding places they currently enjoy.
As we have sought to achieve surgical levels of precision in combat to avoid collateral damage there is no denying that our win-ratio has decreased, and fear of us as a dangerous opponent has been diminished.
'Gimp
I got your point. I just don't agree with connection. Torture and execution of individual civilians has always been a different animal than large-scale bombing.
-
I got your point. I just don't agree with connection. Torture and execution of individual civilians has always been a different animal than large-scale bombing.
Fair enough, difference with no distinction in my opinion.
'Gimp
-
Fair enough, difference with no distinction in my opinion.
'Gimp
There is a YUGE difference between intentionally targeting no combatants, and attacking military targets and killing non combatants incidentally.
-
There is a YUGE difference between intentionally targeting no combatants, and attacking military targets and killing non combatants incidentally.
In the context of what passes as 'conflict' today I agree, but in my frame of reference which has been clearly explained as a total war doctrine, more in line with what was practiced in WWII, not so much. The fire bombing of Tokyo and the leveling of Dresden are the specific examples I gave - that is what I mean - and I qualified it specifically as it relates to being locked in an existential conflict with a determined enemy.
Nobody has to agree with me, it is my belief system, my ethics based on my knowledge of history and such.
Difference is I can state, and have repeatedly stated, it is my opinion/belief system without passing judgement (direct or implied) on the opinion/belief system of folks who disagree.
Maybe you/anyone don't see Islamic Fundamentalism/Terrorism as an existential threat, makes no difference to me other than I believe that that approach makes all of us less safe because it fails to acknowledge the nature of our enemy.
Since I am no more in charge of strategery than you or asechrest are, it means nothing and is nothing more than a thought exercise.
Strikes me funny though.
'Gimp
-
I care as much as I would about anyone else saying that, curious specifically why?
What do you think the bombing of Tokyo and Dresden were, if not going after families?
And that was in the context of justifiable massive scale combat where what we now call collateral damage was the objective, not something to be avoided.
Either we are in an existential conflict with people whose stated goal is to kill or subjugate us, or we are not. If, as I believe, we are in an existential conflict, then we had damned well better act like it, or we will eventually lose. Just look at what is happening in Europe.
'Gimp
I think there's quite a but if difference. Dresden was an industrial and rail center, with hundreds of factories supporting the German military. Same with Tokyo.
Yes the allies knew we would be killing civilians. But the cities themselves were not just little hamlets with women and children waiting for their soldier to come home. They were industrial centers. The Norden Bombsite notwithstanding, bombing was anything but precision. And that's why there were over 1,000 bombers in that mission.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160304/48fc1f1f0d27c18d08e4ca581fd19dde.jpg)
Is that 30,000 ft over Germany, or 4,500 MSL over southern Wisconsin?
(I got to fly in Aluminum Overcast when they repositioned her from Waukesha to Springfield, IL. The trip of a lifetime. I got 0.3 hrs in the left seat, and I got the copilot to sign my logbook. :) )
-
I think there's quite a but if difference. Dresden was an industrial and rail center, with hundreds of factories supporting the German military. Same with Tokyo.
Yes the allies knew we would be killing civilians. But the cities themselves were not just little hamlets with women and children waiting for their soldier to come home. They were industrial centers. The Norden Bombsite notwithstanding, bombing was anything but precision. And that's why there were over 1,000 bombers in that mission.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160304/48fc1f1f0d27c18d08e4ca581fd19dde.jpg)
Is that 30,000 ft over Germany, or 4,500 MSL over southern Wisconsin?
(I got to fly in Aluminum Overcast when they repositioned her from Waukesha to Springfield, IL. The trip of a lifetime. I got 0.3 hrs in the left seat, and I got the copilot to sign my logbook. :) )
Was out with WifeyGimp. Other than the fact that most of the actual strategic targets in Dresden were not actually targeted or bombed you are almost right. Quite a lot has been written about the attack on Dresden by folks who were there - official deathcount from the one raid was over 22,000 - with Tokyo estimating over 125,000 casualties from one raid. Unlike Dresden, Tokyo did see a material impact on the Japanese war effort but that was due to the mass civilian casualties and displacement of workers as well as actual destruction of industrial targets.
By comparison, Little Boy killed roughly 66,000 in Hiroshima, only 1/3 of whom were actually soldiers/military.
Understand I am not in any way condemning those attacks as I believe they were necessary, but they were not substantively different, to my way of thinking, from the idea of seeking out terrorist family members for information, punishment or other.
FWIW, Trump actually walked back his statement somewhat - something I would not, and have not done.
'Gimp
-
When I lived in Colorado, Aluminum Overcast came to Centennial (KAPA). I actually lived very close to Centennial but instead I wanted to be in the pattern with it so I drove the 40 or so minutes to my airport, Front Range, and flew down to Centennial. They were giving rides in the B-17, so it was flying a lot, and I happen to catch it returning, so I got my wish. I parked on the ramp near it also, and got shooed away by the Signature folks who wanted some exorbitant ramp fee.
-
Understand I am not in any way condemning those attacks as I believe they were necessary, but they were not substantively different, to my way of thinking, from the idea of seeking out terrorist family members for information, punishment or other.
It's always (or at least almost always) flawed to judge past actions by today's standards.
-
"Kill 'em all, let Allah sort 'em out!"
-
When I lived in Colorado, Aluminum Overcast came to Centennial (KAPA). I actually lived very close to Centennial but instead I wanted to be in the pattern with it so I drove the 40 or so minutes to my airport, Front Range, and flew down to Centennial. They were giving rides in the B-17, so it was flying a lot, and I happen to catch it returning, so I got my wish. I parked on the ramp near it also, and got shooed away by the Signature folks who wanted some exorbitant ramp fee.
I was on my second "within 25nm" flight from my home base airport and had just been cleared for my crosswind to downwind turn at Concord (JQF) runway 2. I lifted my wing to make sure it was clear and I see a giant 4-engine plane on a LONG downwind. I thought it might be a B-17 from the head-on profile.
Tower told me to extend my downwind, and I think they forgot about me. In the mean time, I'm wondering what the closure rate was between a B-17 and an OMF Symphony. I was scared shitless.
I finally told them that 380MF is still on downwind, and they finally cleared me to land. I cleared the runway and just began my taxi back when the B-17 landed. It was pretty cool.
-
Did George Bush pit American against American, even once, during his eight years? I look forward to your response.
Sure he did. When he decided to invade Iraq for no good reason. A lot of people bought his dip shit story, including enough of congress and the rest of the people didn't. I do believe there were protests about it with people shouting at each other in the street. You are so damned stuck on Obama that you just can't see anything else. Sure Obama is a divider and a crappy president, but that's not what I was posting about.
I have been saying that this concept of a "true leader" that will unite the people is poppycock. There is no person like that and further more, a great many Americans don't really want this person because to unite the people would mean compromise on positions. I don't hear a lot of support for that idea here in these forums. I wish you would quit on the Obama crap. I don't support him, like him or voted for him. He has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
-
Sure he did. When he decided to invade Iraq for no good reason. A lot of people bought his dip shit story, including enough of congress and the rest of the people didn't. I do believe there were protests about it with people shouting at each other in the street. You are so damned stuck on Obama that you just can't see anything else. Sure Obama is a divider and a crappy president, but that's not what I was posting about.
I have been saying that this concept of a "true leader" that will unite the people is poppycock. There is no person like that and further more, a great many Americans don't really want this person because to unite the people would mean compromise on positions. I don't hear a lot of support for that idea here in these forums. I wish you would quit on the Obama crap. I don't support him, like him or voted for him. He has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Yea, that's not going to happen. And if you can't see the difference between a president who in virtually ever speech he divides people among racial, class, economic and social lines and a president that made a decision to go to war that WAS supported by Congress and the electorate (I think you have selective memory; there are ALWAYS anti-war protesters, but the mandate was clear at that time), then you're hopeless.
I've never listened to State of the Union speeches where I was figuratively scolded by the president each and every time until Obama.
-
You've bought into the mainstream media propaganda. "Conservative positions" are essentially allowing the Constitution to matter. That's all. It's not legislating from the bench or Federal government social engineering which was never intended. So compromising the liberal/progressive/democrat mean violating the Constitution and states rights.
Neat. That's all so simple. So how does this unite the country?? That's actually what I'm talking about.
Here's the constitution-
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And aslo...
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
It sounds like much of what the lefties have wanted and gotten is constitutional and should be uniform across state lines. Things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA. Sounds like general welfare to me. Sounds like these expenditures have just as much right to the people's money as the military does to go off and invade foreign countries. It sounds like the constitution does matter.
-
Sure he did. When he decided to invade Iraq for no good reason. A lot of people bought his dip shit story, including enough of congress and the rest of the people didn't. I do believe there were protests about it with people shouting at each other in the street. You are so damned stuck on Obama that you just can't see anything else. Sure Obama is a divider and a crappy president, but that's not what I was posting about.
I have been saying that this concept of a "true leader" that will unite the people is poppycock. There is no person like that and further more, a great many Americans don't really want this person because to unite the people would mean compromise on positions. I don't hear a lot of support for that idea here in these forums. I wish you would quit on the Obama crap. I don't support him, like him or voted for him. He has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
good grief. You have a very strange definition of "pitting american against american"
<insert MASSIVE rolleyes simile>
-
Neat. That's all so simple. So how does this unite the country?? That's actually what I'm talking about.
Here's the constitution-
And aslo...
It sounds like much of what the lefties have wanted and gotten is constitutional and should be uniform across state lines. Things like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the ACA. Sounds like general welfare to me. Sounds like these expenditures have just as much right to the people's money as the military does to go off and invade foreign countries. It sounds like the constitution does matter.
I think you are putting more into the general welfare clause than was intended. Joseph Story spoke about that:
“Sec. 909. The constitution was, from its very origin, contemplated to be a frame of a national government, of special and enumerated powers, and not general and unlimited powers. This is apparent, as will be presently seen, from the history of the proceedings of the convention, which framed it; and it has formed the admitted basis of all legislative and judicial reasoning upon it; ever since it was put into operation, by all, who have been its open friends and advocates, as well as by all, who have been its enemies and opponents. If the clause, ‘to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States,’ is construed to be an independent and substantive grant of power, it not only renders wholly unimportant and unnecessary the subsequent enumeration of specific powers; but it plainly extends far beyond them, and creates a general authority in congress to pass all laws, which they may deem for use common defense or general welfare. Under such circumstances, the constitution would practically create an unlimited national government. The enumerated powers would tend to embarrassment and confusion: since they would only give rise to doubts, as to the true extent of the general power, or of the enumerated powers."
http://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/review/judge-storys-position-on-the-so-called-general-welfare-clause/
-
I think you are putting more into the general welfare clause than was intended.
Did I? Maybe I did, I wasn't there. I'm not a legal scholar of the Constitution, so I'll have to defer to those who are, the SCOTUS. It has been decades since FDR's new deal and these programs still stand. There has been ample time to strike them down as unconstitutional, but that hasn't happened. So me being just a regular bone headed citizen that can only understand plain english, I'll have to assume "general welfare" means general welfare because nobody in a position of expertise has been able to convince those in power otherwise.
It seems kind of like the 2nd amendment. It says what it means and it means what it says.
-
The preamble isn't governing; it is an introduction and an overall statement of purpose. The articles of the Constitution are governing.
-
Did I? Maybe I did, I wasn't there. I'm not a legal scholar of the Constitution, so I'll have to defer to those who are, the SCOTUS. It has been decades since FDR's new deal and these programs still stand. There has been ample time to strike them down as unconstitutional, but that hasn't happened. So me being just a regular bone headed citizen that can only understand plain english, I'll have to assume "general welfare" means general welfare because nobody in a position of expertise has been able to convince those in power otherwise.
It seems kind of like the 2nd amendment. It says what it means and it means what it says.
Neither was anyone on SCOTUS.
James Maddison, however, was there, and he was pretty clear what he thought of it:
He veto'd a bill for building roads and canals and specifically cited that such could not be justified under the GW clause:
To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.
http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm (http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm)
-
Neither was anyone on SCOTUS.
James Maddison, however, was there, and he was pretty clear what he thought of it:
He veto'd a bill for building roads and canals and specifically cited that such could not be justified under the GW clause:http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm (http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm)
Then, just like now, there were differences of opinion. If they didn't want the the Federal government to raise taxes and spend money on the general welfare, they shouldn't have put those words in there. The constitution is a very carefully crafted document. I'm sure every word was examined and discussed. So why did they include words "general welfare"? Just some flowery prose to make it sound warm and fuzzy?
-
The preamble isn't governing; it is an introduction and an overall statement of purpose. The articles of the Constitution are governing.
Yes and I included Article 1, Section 8.
-
Totally not a creepy cult of personality thing going on here...
https://vine.co/v/iHuir3YZxQ5
-
OK, I take it all back. Mr Trump is definitely a shoe-in for the General...I mean look at this polling!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CdC9W4DW8AAsbHJ.jpg)
He's definitely competitive with Hillary on all these.
-
And, if you're not into Trump University (D- BBB rating and all), maybe the Trump
Pyramid Scheme Network would be more to your liking:
-
OK, I take it all back. Mr Trump is definitely a shoe-in for the General...I mean look at this polling!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CdC9W4DW8AAsbHJ.jpg)
He's definitely competitive with Hillary on all these.
THIS. ^^^^^
I don't enjoy pissing in Trump fan's Cheerios. I just don't want to lose in November.
-
OK, I take it all back. Mr Trump is definitely a shoe-in for the General...I mean look at this polling!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CdC9W4DW8AAsbHJ.jpg)
He's definitely competitive with Hillary on all these.
I don't want someone who "understands my problems", I want someone who is going to take the federal jackboot off my neck.
-
Trump is the master of saying NOTHING while running his mouth.
-
Question for Trump supporters: I was watching Trump's speech tonight, and once again he believes that Mexico will pay for the wall. In support, he cites the $58 billion trade deficit with Mexico, and then says "You don't think they will build a $10 billion wall?"
A trade deficit is due to only two things: our imports FROM Mexico exceed our exports TO Mexico.
So how, precisely, will Trump impact either of these two parts of the equation?
Will he put tariffs on our imports, raising the cost to US consumers? Or will he somehow impact exports to Mexico?
I know a little something about taxation, business, economics and politics, but I'm just not quite sure I understand the "art" of this deal.
-
Question for Trump supporters: I was watching Trump's speech tonight, and once again he believes that Mexico will pay for the wall. In support, he cites the $58 billion trade deficit with Mexico, and then says "You don't think they will build a $10 billion wall?"
A trade deficit is due to only two things: our imports FROM Mexico exceed our exports TO Mexico.
So how, precisely, will Trump impact either of these two parts of the equation?
Will he put tariffs on our imports, raising the cost to US consumers? Or will he somehow impact exports to Mexico?
I know a little something about taxation, business, economics and politics, but I'm just not quite sure I understand the "art" of this deal.
Trump's explanation from almost a year ago when asked this question:
Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.
With the exception of how to determine which remittance payments are legal vs illegal (I don't know how you would do that without some truly draconian/invasive financia data) these are all things that he as CinC could either direct via various Secretariats or advocate for with respect to pushing Congress to act (e.g., taxes/tariffs, foreign aid).
I believe properly explained that the general public would accept the higher prices that a protectionist stance would create, and I do believe Trump is someone who could do so.
The likely result in Trump's belief (my suspicion) is that the mere threat of a full on trade war with the US, still the largest single economy on Earth (without currency manipulation), with tariffs, taxes and increased costs for visa's, etc., that Mexico would blink. He has said as much on multiple occasions including his post victory press conference this evening.
Most of the answers to the specifics that people say he has not addressed actually do exist if you use a little Google-Fu.
'Gimp
-
I don't want someone who "understands my problems", I want someone who is going to take the federal jackboot off my neck.
Why in the world do you think Trump would do that?? I really don't Trump as a guy that would gladly give up power and control.
-
Trump's explanation from almost a year ago when asked this question:
With the exception of how to determine which remittance payments are legal vs illegal (I don't know how you would do that without some truly draconian/invasive financia data) these are all things that he as CinC could either direct via various Secretariats or advocate for with respect to pushing Congress to act (e.g., taxes/tariffs, foreign aid).
I believe properly explained that the general public would accept the higher prices that a protectionist stance would create, and I do believe Trump is someone who could do so.
The likely result in Trump's belief (my suspicion) is that the mere threat of a full on trade war with the US, still the largest single economy on Earth (without currency manipulation), with tariffs, taxes and increased costs for visa's, etc., that Mexico would blink. He has said as much on multiple occasions including his post victory press conference this evening.
Most of the answers to the specifics that people say he has not addressed actually do exist if you use a little Google-Fu.
'Gimp
Thanks for the explanation. But if I'm reading it correctly, the country of Mexico won't actually be paying for the wall. Some Mexican workers, legal and illegal, may, but that's about it, right?
-
Thanks for the explanation. But if I'm reading it correctly, the country of Mexico won't actually be paying for the wall. Some Mexican workers, legal and illegal, may, but that's about it, right?
As I read it, he would punish the Mexican people (visa's and fees, etc.,) and Mexican Businesses (tariffs) until the Mexican Government pays for the wall (presumably because the people and the business community would demand it) - but I am not him so I can only offer my thoughts on what has been said.
I really do believe that he believes it would not come to that, the threat coming from someone like him would be enough to get Mexico to come to the table and then there would probably be some negotiations/trade offs because nobody signs up for a lopsided deal, but it would differ in that we would finally be negotiating from a position of strength. Think Reagan and Gorbachev, or Reagan and the Iranian 'students' with the hostages.
'Gimp
-
Why in the world do you think Trump would do that?? I really don't Trump as a guy that would gladly give up power and control.
There was a National Review article today right on that point:
"The conservative critique of the status quo is (1) that the federal government is too big and too intrusive; (2) that governments that are too big and too intrusive are quickly captured by special interests who do not promote the general good; and (3) that that this can be mitigated by limiting the size and scope of the government so that those who would use it to their advantage have fewer incentives to do so. Wisely, Donald Trump has signed on to part (1) and part (2) of this diagnosis. But then, alarmingly, he has stopped. Certainly, Trump can be heard proposing that the government has been taken over by “elites” and by rent-seekers; and yet, having done so, he does not go on to suggest reform as the remedy so much as to suggest himself. To hear Trump tell it, he will save the country by striking better “deals,” by refusing to be bought, and by channeling, in neo-Wilsonian fashion, what he perceives to be the will of the people. Or, put another way, Trump will solve the problem by playing the man on the white horse."
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432497/donald-trump-2016-platform-not-what-america-needs
-
Time for Rubio to go.
-
From the above Trump site quote-
We will not be taken advantage of anymore.
As we build more and more factories in Mexico to exploit their low standard of living to our advantage. ::)
-
Two more polls that say Trump loses badly to Hillary - NBC and ABC.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/03/09/another-poll-suggests-trump-will-struggle-in-the-general-election/
I fucking hate the idea of jumping into the Trumpmobile when the story ends like Thelma and Louise.
-
Carly endorses Cruz.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/03/09/carly-fiorina-endorses-ted-cruz-says-donald-trump-must-be-defeated/
-
Clinton leads Trump 50 percent to 41 percent among registered voters and has made steady progress against her potential rival over the past six months. Her margin over Trump has increased from three points last September to six points in December to the current nine points.
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_1484w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/03/09/National-Politics/Graphics/030916_ABCPoll-3.jpg?uuid=q-dcJOWNEeWpzmgQVcegXw)
...
On four issues — the economy, terrorism, immigration and dealing with international crises — Clinton was rated better by Americans on each one, by varying margins.
Trump does best on the economy, where Clinton’s advantage is just four points, 49 percent to 45 percent. Clinton’s advantage grows to 14 points on terrorism; 19 points on Trump’s signature issue of immigration; and 29 points on dealing with an overseas crisis. Almost a quarter of registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they trust Clinton more than Trump on immigration.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-clinton-leads-trump-aided-by-obama-coalition/2016/03/08/40dd6698-e575-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html
When you're 10 points behind Hillary on the question of whether you're "Is honest and trustworthy?" you're gonna get trounced in the general.
-
Ummm... I think that "poll" is just a wee bit biased, but I do agree, I think Trump likely will hand it to Hillary in the general. I cringe at the thought of the Clinton/Trump debates.
-
Ummm... I think that "poll" is just a wee bit biased, but I do agree, I think Trump likely will hand it to Hillary in the general. I cringe at the thought of the Clinton/Trump debates.
Here's the details on it, feel free to read the questions and methodology.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/washington-post-abc-news-national-poll-march-3-6-2016/1982/
-
Jonah Goldberg summing up the problem:
I’m losing the will to rebut Donald Trump’s “arguments” because he really doesn’t make any. First of all, most of his interviews are rapidly becoming as journalistically adversarial as the infomercial host asking, “Mr. Foreman, is it really true I’ll lose weight and save money by using the George Foreman grill?”
But more importantly, if you listen to Trump’s answers to almost any question about how he will fix a problem, he uses up the first 95 percent of his time explaining, re-explaining and demagoguing about how bad the problem is. (That is, if he’s not talking about polls.) Then in the last few seconds, he says we’ll fix the problem by being really smart or by winning or by hiring the best people.
In other words, he has no idea how to fix it.
-
Jonah Goldberg summing up the problem:
That's been my point precisely.
-
That's been my point precisely.
And with due respect to 'Gimp, putting the solutions on your website, vs. ever articulating it with your own mouth, gives me no confidence that the ideas are your own, or that you have a modicum of working knowledge of said solutions.
-
And with due respect to 'Gimp, putting the solutions on your website, vs. ever articulating it with your own mouth, gives me no confidence that the ideas are your own, or that you have a modicum of working knowledge of said solutions.
I understand a lot of people are frustrated with his approach to this but I will try to explain what I believe is driving it.
If you are trying to sell something to someone, do you endlessly blabber on and on or do you provide enough info to get them to say yes?
I know some folks will recoil at the thought of a candidate 'selling' something but that is exactly what everyone of them does IMO, they are the product, their campaign and their appearances are their ads.
What follows is my belief about modern politics, your mileage may vary.
With extremely limited exceptions, the 'face' of a brand is not the same person who did all the work, think Musk and Tesla or SpaceX for example. Did Elon Musk personally design every component? Negotiate every specific contract clause? Of course not, but he is the face of the product, he represents the brand. Same goes for every modern politician here or elsewhere. They are the face, supported by a cast of experts, apparatchiks and policy wonks. Collectively these players including the candidate develop the specifics that flesh out what start as high level goals and objectives of the candidate (usually but sometimes the candidate is being handled vs actually leading).
In Trump's case, he happens to be an extremely successful salesman and performer, so he is, I think, taking full advantage of his knowledge of human nature gathered over decades of easy to complicated interactions, to define the extent to which he communicates based on the environment he is in and what he wants to get out of it.
There are videos of interviews both recent and from 2-3 decades ago, where he is obviously well informed and has a reasoned and rational position - but that doesn't make news so you kind of have to find them yourselves.
He understands the soundbite nature of the campaign trail, and is providing what he believes to be the necessary level of detail to 'make the sale'. Does it leave him wiggle room if need be? Probably yes and that is a valid criticism if you think he has no core principles - I think his body of work so to speak demonstrates his core principles enough to make an evaluation when combined with his public statements, policy plank statements, etc.
I suspect he is not going into as much detail because he realizes there are already portions of the audience that he either will never reach or who already support him.
He is not a big "C" conservative despite what he says, too liberal for many on some important issues but that is OK IMO since as President he would be leading only one of the 3 co-equal branches of government.
I am not currently convinced he will win the nomination since there are so many strange efforts afoot right now to deny him the nomination and he has yet to face a real one-on-one contest so he may well have a 'ceiling' as the conventional wisdom has suggested, but they have yet to be right about a single thing in this primary cycle so we'll have to wait and see. If he sweeps next week though, then the Republican coalition is going to have to decide whether or not they can coalesce behind him.
As someone who is, at this point, unwilling to vote for Ted Cruz, even to deny Hillary or Bernie the Whitehouse and knowing full well the ramifications with SCOTUS in particular, I will understand if folks can't support Trump.
Again, all my own supposition here, might be giving too much or not enough credit.
'Gimp
-
Good response. Thanks for writing.
PS - The Trump really is erupting into violence.
-
Good response. Thanks for writing.
PS - The Trump really is erupting into violence.
It's cancelled. The protesters won. WTF is going on?
-
It's cancelled. The protesters won. WTF is going on?
Party of tolerance wins again!!
F'ing thugs.
'Gimp
-
It's cancelled. The protesters won. WTF is going on?
What's cancelled?
Never mind - Googled it.
-
From a CNN piece:
"Last fall, Trump said a Black Lives Matter protester maybe "should have been roughed up." And despite an announcement at the start of his rallies urging protesters not to be violent toward protesters, Trump in February urged his supporters to "knock the crap out of" anybody "getting ready to throw a tomato" and vowed to pay for their legal fees should they face charges.
"Knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. OK? Just knock the hell -- I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise," Trump said.
And Trump also said he personally wanted to punch a protester "in the face" during a rally in February."
When do we start seeing brown shirts?
-
He also said folks like the disruptors used to go home on a stretcher. He made this bed.
-
From a CNN piece:
"Last fall, Trump said a Black Lives Matter protester maybe "should have been roughed up." And despite an announcement at the start of his rallies urging protesters not to be violent toward protesters, Trump in February urged his supporters to "knock the crap out of" anybody "getting ready to throw a tomato" and vowed to pay for their legal fees should they face charges.
"Knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously. OK? Just knock the hell -- I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise," Trump said.
And Trump also said he personally wanted to punch a protester "in the face" during a rally in February."
When do we start seeing brown shirts?
They started showing up in 2011:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/16/report-black-lives-matter-protesters-assault-students-dartmouth-hurl-racial-epithets-f-filthy-white-fs/
https://www.rt.com/usa/217835-oakland-protest-black-violence/
The rhetoric all around has been getting worse for some time - I have my opinions on the why's and wherefore's and when it began, as I suspect others do from their point of view - but in general it would be great if everyone could calm down.
We can't resort to mob rule though, and this actual violence/threat of violence cannot be allowed to shut down the free exchange of ideas or political speech.
The ongoing thuggish intimidation must stop.
'Gimp
-
The ongoing thuggish intimidation must stop.
'Gimp
On this we agree.
-
And with due respect to 'Gimp, putting the solutions on your website, vs. ever articulating it with your own mouth, gives me no confidence that the ideas are your own, or that you have a modicum of working knowledge of said solutions.
How was Obama with that? How about Hellery?
-
It's cancelled. The protesters won. WTF is going on?
This has Soros's fingerprints all over it.
-
I don't think Chicago thugs need any help from Soros to engage in destruction.
-
It's cancelled. The protesters won. WTF is going on?
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/03/leftist-mob-forces-cancellation-of-trump-rally.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/03/for-once-i-am-on-trumps-side.php
MSNBC applauded the borderline violent demonstration that shut down Trump’s Chicago event, and Chris Matthews and his guests suggested that Trump had it coming. Even Ted Cruz laid blame at Trump’s feet for the fact that scuffles have broken out at his rallies.
Blaming Trump for inflammatory rhetoric would make sense if his followers were roaming the streets attacking passers-by, or infiltrating Clinton and Sanders rallies and attacking Democrats. But they aren’t. Not a single such instance has occurred. On the contrary, every violent or disruptive event has involved people associated with the Democratic Party trying to prevent Trump from being heard. Whose inflammatory rhetoric has inspired them? Certainly not Trump’s. The brownshirts are all on the left, as usual.
Leftists are the instigators here, and they deserve unqualified condemnation. There is no excuse for trying to shut down a speech by a politician with whom you disagree. None. And it is shameful that many liberals, and even a few conservatives, have seized the opportunity to blame anti-Trump excesses on Trump.
-
How was Obama with that? How about Hellery?
Kinda typical American response. Do the least you have to. Because the bar is set low, that's all you are required to do.
We need to expect more from our politicians and if they can't deliver, don't vote for them. In Reagan's day, they didn't have a website. He had to actually know what he was talking about and articulate it over and over again. I think that is the bar we should expect our politicians to clear. I don't think that's asking too much. It's their job.
-
Kinda typical American response. Do the least you have to. Because the bar is set low, that's all you are required to do.
We need to expect more from our politicians and if they can't deliver, don't vote for them. In Reagan's day, they didn't have a website. He had to actually know what he was talking about and articulate it over and over again. I think that is the bar we should expect our politicians to clear. I don't think that's asking too much. It's their job.
Difficult to do that when a death cage match substitutes for a "debate".
-
Blaming Trump for inflammatory rhetoric would make sense if his followers were roaming the streets attacking passers-by, or infiltrating Clinton and Sanders rallies and attacking Democrats. But they aren’t. Not a single such instance has occurred. On the contrary, every violent or disruptive event has involved people associated with the Democratic Party trying to prevent Trump from being heard. Whose inflammatory rhetoric has inspired them? Certainly not Trump’s. The brownshirts are all on the left, as usual.
Leftists are the instigators here, and they deserve unqualified condemnation. There is no excuse for trying to shut down a speech by a politician with whom you disagree. None. And it is shameful that many liberals, and even a few conservatives, have seized the opportunity to blame anti-Trump excesses on Trump.
Totally agree. Really stupid tactic by the liberals. By shutting down free speech by force, (something they supposedly hold sacrosanct) they completely galvanize Trump supporters to fight harder and draw in new Trump supporters. Trump got exactly what he wanted and didn't have to actually perform. A complete win for Trump and a huge back fire for the liberals no matter what Chris Matthews says.
-
Difficult to do that when a death cage match substitutes for a "debate".
No, it's not. It's an opportunity to rise above the fray.
-
It's cancelled. The protesters won. WTF is going on?
I wonder - is this what the summer and fall will look like with a GOP nominee Trump?
-
I wonder - is this what the summer and fall will look like with a GOP nominee Trump?
Chances are good it will happen regardless of who the nominee is.
-
Chances are good it will happen regardless of who the nominee is.
Civil unrest is going to increase as the divide in the country widens before and after this election. The current idiot in the Whitehouse has spent 7 years dividing the country in every way possible. Obama's fundamental transformation is in full swing, and because of that fact, the risk of all-out civil war is very real in the months ahead. The founders would be completely disgusted with what has become of their great experiment.
-
Obama is not an idiot,although he has engaged in idiotic actions. He is a very smart idealogue who came into office clearly announcing his intentions to "transform America."
The concern is that he isn't done yet. And there is no motivation for him to proceed with any caution at all. It is going to be a long 10 months.
It will take years to reverse all his America-killing actions. People committed to his misbegotten policies are buried deep into the bureaucracy and will tenaciously resist being rooted out. Some will be protected by Civil Service rules. The IRS is only one small example. The DOJ is another. EPA, Department of Energy, and on and on. We can only hope the Senate remains firm on the next SC Justice.
-
I wonder - is this what the summer and fall will look like with a GOP nominee Trump?
The asshole "pundits" on CNN last night were rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect.
-
Civil unrest is going to increase as the divide in the country widens before and after this election. The current idiot in the Whitehouse has spent 7 years dividing the country in every way possible. Obama's fundamental transformation is in full swing, and because of that fact, the risk of all-out civil war is very real in the months ahead. The founders would be completely disgusted with what has become of their great experiment.
Arm-up, lads.
-
We haven't seen anything yet.
The Black Lies Matter thugs, Occupy Whatever, and Soros Rent-A-Mob brigades are going to set a new low throughout this cycle, mark my words (although not a difficult prediction to make given the deliberate balkanization of the people straight out of Alinsky).
Disgusted with this.
The thing that the special snowflakes, New Black Panther Party, Black Lies Matter and other need to recall as they ratchet this shit up, is that it is not their side that owns the 200 million+ firearms in the country, and if Trump's popularity should show them anything, it is that the silent majority has had just about enough of this bullshit.
Oh well, out the door to kick off Airshow Season 2016 - NAF El Centro for Blue Angels first of the year!!
'Gimp
-
Arm-up, lads.
Done.
-
We haven't seen anything yet.
The Black Lies Matter thugs, Occupy Whatever, and Soros Rent-A-Mob brigades are going to set a new low throughout this cycle, mark my words (although not a difficult prediction to make given the deliberate balkanization of the people straight out of Alinsky).
Disgusted with this.
The thing that the special snowflakes, New Black Panther Party, Black Lies Matter and other need to recall as they ratchet this shit up, is that it is not their side that owns the 200 million+ firearms in the country, and if Trump's popularity should show them anything, it is that the silent majority has had just about enough of this bullshit.
Oh well, out the door to kick off Airshow Season 2016 - NAF El Centro for Blue Angels first of the year!!
'Gimp
Fly safely, sir.
-
The desperation among the liberals is showing. Their chosen candidate, while even having the path paved for her in the nomination process using "super delegates" is having difficulty running against an aging hippy socialist. Even during DNC debates questions of her scandals are coming up, and her air time on the news cycle is about scandals and not her nomination.
Toss in that democrats in record numbers are switching party affiliation to vote in the primaries and general, and polls showing the GOP front runner is gaining democrat voters, coupled with staggering GOP turn outs at the primaries.
In comes moveon.org and George Soros taking a chapter right out of "Rules for Radicals" in an effort to shut down the GOP front runner, and even getting help from other GOP establishment.
During the protest the news people tried to interview the protesters, and when asked "why are you here?" Many responded "I don't know" or "I'd rather not say" or even "I can't say on camera". In other words, they really don't know, they just want the excitement of being part of a protest, no reason needed.
Look for the desperation to increase. The democrats realize they can actually lose this election and are willing to go to extremes to hold on. And it is sad to note they will be willingly helped by a hapless GOP establishment.
-
I guess I'll have to dredge the lake. I lost all my firearms in a tragic boating accident.
Yeah, it's getting UGLY.
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4a2bu9/what_really_happened_at_the_chicago_rally_my/
-
Obama's best buddy even showed up.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/bill-ayers-protests-trump-in-chicago/
-
Ted Cruz should be smarter than this, all he is doing is helping Trump solidify his lead. Cruz's desperation will eventually be his downfall.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/03/ted-cruz-blames-donald-trump-for-chicago-rally-cancellation-and-violence/
-
Thanks for posting that CT. Very powerful.
-
Well, by Donnie Boy's own standards, the protest was all his fault:
I watched Pam prior, and it looks like she's just taunting everybody. What is she doing? Drawing Mohammed and it looks like she's taunting people...
What are they doing drawing Mohammed? Isn't there something else they can draw? They can't do something else? They have to be in the middle of Texas and on Mohammed?
You know, I'm one that believes in free speech, probably more than she does. What's the purpose of this? She's taunting them...
I don't know, maybe she likes risk. What the hell is she doing?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/05/04/donald_trump_pamela_geller_taunting_muslims_with_contest_to_draw_mohammed.html
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4a2bu9/what_really_happened_at_the_chicago_rally_my/
Thanks for posting.
-
Well, by Donnie Boy's own standards, the protest was all his fault:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/05/04/donald_trump_pamela_geller_taunting_muslims_with_contest_to_draw_mohammed.html
That was then. This is 2016. Geeze, can't a guy be "flexible"? ;)
-
That was then. This is 2016. Geeze, can't a guy be "flexible"? ;)
But, but...he'll totally do everything he's saying in 2017!
-
But, but...he'll totally do everything he's saying in 2017!
At least he'll be "very Presidential" in 2017, according to himself. I guess that means he doesn't need to try to be presidential while he's running for the presidential nomination. But since he's flexible, he can flex to being presidential after he's sworn in as president.
Or something like that.
-
Just watched most of a Trump speech today.
Disgusting. And, for me, scary.
He told the same story about executing enemy soldiers with bullets dipped in pig's blood. And the crowd cheered their approval.
Essentially the account below:
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/02/20/donald-trump-tells-pigs-blood-bullets-tale-at-s-c-rally/21315881/ (http://www.aol.com/article/2016/02/20/donald-trump-tells-pigs-blood-bullets-tale-at-s-c-rally/21315881/)
I believe the whole account is apocryphal*, but the fact that he keeps recounting it as if were a commendable way to deal with terrorism is beyond the pale.
*http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp)
-
Just watched most of a Trump speech today.
Disgusting. And, for me, scary.
He told the same story about executing enemy soldiers with bullets dipped in pig's blood. And the crowd cheered their approval.
Essentially the account below:
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/02/20/donald-trump-tells-pigs-blood-bullets-tale-at-s-c-rally/21315881/ (http://www.aol.com/article/2016/02/20/donald-trump-tells-pigs-blood-bullets-tale-at-s-c-rally/21315881/)
I believe the whole account is apocryphal*, but the fact that he keeps recounting it as if were a commendable way to deal with terrorism is beyond the pale.
*http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp (http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp)
And Cruz is the bad guy for pointing out Trump's tone of his campaign. :rolleyes:
I'm not shitting you when I say Obama is the most divisive president in my lifetime.
He has directly caused the violent protests we are seeing today by feeding racial and social division every times he opens up his fucking mouth.
But I'm not going to sit here and support a divisive candidate just because he's wearing my jersey.
-
Trump picks up another endorsement:
(http://i1.wp.com/www.reelnewsnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/image.jpeg?w=782) (http://www.reelnewsnetwork.com/sauron-endorses-donald-trump-for-president/)
-
Is that a flaming vagina wearing a trump hat?
-
Is that a flaming vagina wearing a trump hat?
seriously?
There are people who haven't seen the Lord of the Rings movies out there?
Click the picture, it's a funny link
-
seriously?
There are people who haven't seen the Lord of the Rings movies out there?
Click the picture, it's a funny link
There is at least two of us.
-
seriously?
There are people who haven't seen the Lord of the Rings movies out there?
Click the picture, it's a funny link
I did not realize that was a link. Pretty clever, that!
-
There is at least two of us.
three
-
three
Four.
-
Seventeen academy awards and based on the best selling novel of all time. Y'all should see it.
-
Four.
To be honest, five.
-
Six.
-
You uncultured brutes! Read the book at least?
-
You uncultured brutes! Read the book at least?
I might think about that.
-
You uncultured brutes! Read the book at least?
Bunch of them.
Albeit nearly 50 years ago.
And that image did not recall the books for me.
-
OK, gotta hand it to Huck, he's pretty funny sometimes:
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=272.0;attach=119)
-
Bunch of them.
Albeit nearly 50 years ago.
And that image did not recall the books for me.
Yeah, it wouldn't have if you haven't seen the movies.
-
You uncultured brutes! Read the book at least?
Not the genre that has any appeal to me.
-
Trump picks up another endorsement:
(http://i1.wp.com/www.reelnewsnetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/image.jpeg?w=782) (http://www.reelnewsnetwork.com/sauron-endorses-donald-trump-for-president/)
That is excellent!!
Gary
-
Looking back over this thread I am astounded at how President Trump will be remembered as the MOST conservative President in history.
Then I look at the scum of the earth that surround the senile imposter, pedo jo and wonder how anyone remains fooled by that pile of dog shit on a moldy roll.
Then I remember that people still vote for nancy pelosi and wonder how long life on earth can remain.
-
Looking back over this thread I am astounded at how President Trump will be remembered as the MOST conservative President in history.
Then I look at the scum of the earth that surround the senile imposter, pedo jo and wonder how anyone remains fooled by that pile of dog shit on a moldy roll.
Then I remember that people still vote for nancy pelosi and wonder how long life on earth can remain.
Depends on how you define the word "life"!
-
It’s fascinating reading what everybody thought about Trump in early 2016 vs what you think of him today.