Post by: nddons on May 09, 2016, 09:00:29 AM
If you don't want to see Trump being attacked with his own words, please don't read any further.
Post by: nddons on May 09, 2016, 09:06:01 AM
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/05/09/trump-on-his-debt-plans-theres-no-risk-of-default-because-we-could-always-print-more-money/
"Presumably this is his fallback plan if/when America’s debt servicing grows so large that we simply can’t borrow enough to cover it anymore. I say, why wait until the crisis hits? Let’s print $19 trillion and pay off the whole thing now."
Post by: JeffDG on May 09, 2016, 12:27:42 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiCSidsVEAA7Hq0.jpg:large)
Post by: PaulS on May 09, 2016, 01:39:39 PM
Trumpy is definitely unifying the electorate.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiCSidsVEAA7Hq0.jpg:large)
How can that be? Real politics aggregate average is 47 Clinton, 40 Trump.... and it hasn't really even started yet.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Post by: Number7 on May 09, 2016, 07:09:25 PM
Both of those above are BS by the way.
Nobody cares what they are told by blowhards working for Goldman Saks.
Post by: nddons on May 10, 2016, 07:53:43 AM
Watch for the ads that will be run by democrats.
http://theresurgent.com/his-words-against-him-trumps-dangerous-nonsense/
Post by: WildEye on May 11, 2016, 01:10:55 PM
Post by: nddons on May 11, 2016, 01:25:05 PM
His tax returns probably shows he give money to planned parenthoodIt's stunning that no one - I mean no one - is badgering him for his tax returns.
In an interview yesterday, Trump said he will not release his tax returns before the November election.
The outrage? Crickets. From BOTH sides of the aisle.
Remember the screaming about Romney releasing his returns?
Now with Trump? Not a peep. Why is that?
By the way, not releasing them because they are allegedly under audit is a canard.
In 2012, Trump said in a Fox News interview that "Mitt has to get those tax returns out. I'm a little surprised they weren't better prepared for that."
Do you like the hypocrisy, Trump fans?
Post by: JeffDG on May 11, 2016, 01:35:00 PM
Post by: PaulS on May 11, 2016, 03:31:26 PM
It's stunning that no one - I mean no one - is badgering him for his tax returns.
In an interview yesterday, Trump said he will not release his tax returns before the November election.
The outrage? Crickets. From BOTH sides of the aisle.
Remember the screaming about Romney releasing his returns?
Now with Trump? Not a peep. Why is that?
By the way, not releasing them because they are allegedly under audit is a canard.
In 2012, Trump said in a Fox News interview that "Mitt has to get those tax returns out. I'm a little surprised they weren't better prepared for that."
Do you like the hypocrisy, Trump fans?
Funny you should mention this, Mitt Romney just posted this to his Facebook page, I didn't read the whole thing since Mitt's last loss, because frankly, he wussed out.
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr. Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
Post by: nddons on May 11, 2016, 03:46:13 PM
Funny you should mention this, Mitt Romney just posted this to his Facebook page, I didn't read the whole thing since Mitt's last loss, because frankly, he wussed out.Romney is absolutely correct.
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr. Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
God, how far have we fallen that I long for the day of a "conservative" GOP candidate Romney.
Post by: asechrest on May 11, 2016, 06:19:17 PM
It's stunning that no one - I mean no one - is badgering him for his tax returns.
In an interview yesterday, Trump said he will not release his tax returns before the November election.
The outrage? Crickets. From BOTH sides of the aisle.
Remember the screaming about Romney releasing his returns?
Now with Trump? Not a peep. Why is that?
By the way, not releasing them because they are allegedly under audit is a canard.
In 2012, Trump said in a Fox News interview that "Mitt has to get those tax returns out. I'm a little surprised they weren't better prepared for that."
Do you like the hypocrisy, Trump fans?
Rachel Maddow has a whole segment on it tonight.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 11, 2016, 06:28:50 PM
Post by: Lucifer on May 11, 2016, 06:37:11 PM
Romney, who turned out to be a fucking loser, is going to lecture us now. How sweet.
Really. Just imagine if Romney had gone after Obama the way he has gone after Trump.
Post by: nddons on May 11, 2016, 08:44:52 PM
Romney, who turned out to be a fucking loser, is going to lecture us now. How sweet.
Really? You're good with Trump refusing to show us - the voters - his tax returns?
Pathetic.
Post by: acrogimp on May 11, 2016, 08:54:35 PM
Funny you should mention this, Mitt Romney just posted this to his Facebook page, I didn't read the whole thing since Mitt's last loss, because frankly, he wussed out.Romney would, using this logic, disqualify Ronald Reagan, Ross Perot and Bill Clinton, and himself, since he only released summaries (and his then current return not until September). The tax return issue is a lose-lose for Trump, just as it was for Romney - there is no requirement for it, it is and has been a courtesy.
"It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse to release tax returns to the voters, especially one who has not been subject to public scrutiny in either military or public service. Tax returns provide the public with its sole confirmation of the veracity of a candidate's representations regarding charities, priorities, wealth, tax conformance, and conflicts of interest. Further, while not a likely circumstance, the potential for hidden inappropriate associations with foreign entities, criminal organizations, or other unsavory groups is simply too great a risk to ignore for someone who is seeking to become commander-in-chief.
Mr. Trump says he is being audited. So? There is nothing that prevents releasing tax returns that are being audited. Further, he could release returns for the years immediately prior to the years under audit. There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them. Given Mr. Trump's equanimity with other flaws in his history, we can only assume it's a bombshell of unusual size.
(Anticipating inquiries regarding my own tax release history, I released my 2010 tax returns in January of 2012 and I released my 2011 tax returns as soon as they were completed, in September of 2012.)"
My real issue is how Romney so easily falls to using the very tactics that were employed to torpedo him in '12, against the guy that the voters have picked, and given more votes than any Republican in Primary history - the guy who is actually showing some real crossover appeal, and the guy who, like it or not, will be the nominee for the party Romney supposedly belongs to.
If Romney had been half as tough on Obama as he has been on Trump he might be on his own second term right now, instead of being a washed-up has been loser.
Romney may have been a better man than Trump, but history may end up showing he was not a better candidate - and his descent into the gutter politics he supposedly despised when running against a Democrat puts the lie to just how good and decent a guy he is.
Atom bomb indeed, and it is apparently long fucking overdue.
'Gimp
Post by: nddons on May 12, 2016, 05:01:03 AM
Romney would, using this logic, disqualify Ronald Reagan, Ross Perot and Bill Clinton, and himself, since he only released summaries (and his then current return not until September). The tax return issue is a lose-lose for Trump, just as it was for Romney - there is no requirement for it, it is and has been a courtesy.What Romney said is "gutter politics", after everything Trump has said during the last 10 months? Did Romney say "look at that face", ridicule a disabled journalist, accuse someone of cavorting with a presidential assassin, accuse someone of being a serial philanderer, or call other people "lyin' x" or "little x"?? You've got to be kidding me. You need to step back and gain some perspective.
My real issue is how Romney so easily falls to using the very tactics that were employed to torpedo him in '12, against the guy that the voters have picked, and given more votes than any Republican in Primary history - the guy who is actually showing some real crossover appeal, and the guy who, like it or not, will be the nominee for the party Romney supposedly belongs to.
If Romney had been half as tough on Obama as he has been on Trump he might be on his own second term right now, instead of being a washed-up has been loser.
Romney may have been a better man than Trump, but history may end up showing he was not a better candidate - and his descent into the gutter politics he supposedly despised when running against a Democrat puts the lie to just how good and decent a guy he is.
Atom bomb indeed, and it is apparently long fucking overdue.
'Gimp
As for the returns, it has been a 40-year expectation for presidential candidates. You are wrong about Reagan and Clinton; the last one to only submit a summary was Ford. And as for Romney's return, the extended due date for an individual return is October 15th, and most high net worth people extend their returns because K-1s for underlying investments and businesses and other things that flow into their returns are not completed by April 15th. So Romney issued his in September, a month before its extended due date.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on May 12, 2016, 05:07:16 AM
Really? You're good with Trump refusing to show us - the voters - his tax returns?
Pathetic.
Really? When did releasing tax returns become a requirement? Is that in the Constitution? I missed it. If your lawyer told you not to do so, would you do it anyway?
Stan, we get that your guy LOST, even while cheating, and you're bitter but Trump will be the nominee of the Republican party. What purpose do you serve to continue the attacks?
Post by: JeffDG on May 12, 2016, 05:16:09 AM
What purpose do you serve to continue the attacks?Like Clinton, Trump is not worthy of the office to which he aspires. He's not worthy of the office Dogcatcher.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on May 12, 2016, 05:18:39 AM
Like Clinton, Trump is not worthy of the office to which he aspires. He's not worthy of the office Dogcatcher.
Given a choice between those two, I'd still have to choose Trump.
the donald vs the doormat
<sigh>
Post by: Little Joe on May 12, 2016, 05:37:26 AM
Like Clinton, Trump is not worthy of the office to which he aspires. He's not worthy of the office Dogcatcher.Are you going to change the fact that one of them WILL be President? Are you abdicating your responsibility to help choose which one will win?
You may think that Clinton will be less worse than Trump, but I don't. Even if I were to disagree with half the things Trump says, and even if he disappoints me on half the things I think I agree with him on, he will only return to me a 25% satisfaction rate. Let's say he is even worse than that and I only get a 10% satisfaction rate with him, that is still 10% more satisfaction than I expect to get from Hillary.
Low expectations? Of course. Could it be worse? Yes, if you are successful in getting Hillary elected.
Post by: JeffDG on May 12, 2016, 05:46:35 AM
Are you going to change the fact that one of them WILL be President?Why? Just because that's the way previous elections have worked? Has not this year taught people that elections have changed?
Are you abdicating your responsibility to help choose which one will win?I choose neither.
Post by: LevelWing on May 12, 2016, 05:51:55 AM
Stan, we get that your guy LOST, even while cheating, and you're bitter but Trump will be the nominee of the Republican party. What purpose do you serve to continue the attacks?Trump will be the nominee of the party, but that doesn't mean he's entitled to votes. There are issues he still has to address and work he must do to earn votes, including from conservatives. There are questions over his business proposals, his stance on the first and second amendments and others that need to be addressed. At least for me, it's not about being bitter that Cruz lost, it's about Trump needing to work hard to win conservatives and unsure Republicans over.
Post by: LevelWing on May 12, 2016, 05:53:55 AM
You may think that Clinton will be less worse than Trump, but I don't. Even if I were to disagree with half the things Trump says, and even if he disappoints me on half the things I think I agree with him on, he will only return to me a 25% satisfaction rate. Let's say he is even worse than that and I only get a 10% satisfaction rate with him, that is still 10% more satisfaction than I expect to get from Hillary.Why is this acceptable? Why are we, as Republicans 94 conservatives being forced to accept this? At what point do we say we've had enough and want a real conservative that's acceptable to everyone?
Low expectations? Of course. Could it be worse? Yes, if you are successful in getting Hillary elected.
Post by: JeffDG on May 12, 2016, 05:54:41 AM
Trump will be the nominee of the party, but that doesn't mean he's entitled to votes. There are issues he still has to address and work he must do to earn votes, including from conservatives. There are questions over his business proposals, his stance on the first and second amendments and others that need to be addressed. At least for me, it's not about being bitter that Cruz lost, it's about Trump needing to work hard to win conservatives and unsure Republicans over.But Trump has said he doesn't need you to vote for him, and he doesn't need to unite the party.
Post by: Lucifer on May 12, 2016, 06:09:49 AM
At what point do we say we've had enough and want a real conservative that's acceptable to everyone?
Where is this conservative? Who is it? Why didn't he (or she) run this time?
You want a conservative "that is acceptable to everyone". The reality is there is no such creature in today's Republican Party. On one side you have the far right ideologues that will accept nothing but conservative purity, and it's their chosen candidate or else. On the other side you have Republican voters that have endured years of lies and broken promises by their party only to be told "c'mon, trust us this time".
Post by: Little Joe on May 12, 2016, 06:14:07 AM
Trump will be the nominee of the party, but that doesn't mean he's entitled to votes. There are issues he still has to address and work he must do to earn votes, including from conservatives. There are questions over his business proposals, his stance on the first and second amendments and others that need to be addressed. At least for me, it's not about being bitter that Cruz lost, it's about Trump needing to work hard to win conservatives and unsure Republicans over.As far as I know, nobody ever said he is "entitled" to your vote. What I, and others have said, is that unless you are ok with "President Hillary", then it is in your best interest to vote for Trump. Of course, that is my opinion. But not voting for Trump, thus giving Hillary that half-vote edge is counter productive. Unless of course, you are doing it out of spite, which you are also entitled to do. But it reminds me of the old adage about "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
Post by: Little Joe on May 12, 2016, 06:18:45 AM
But Trump has said he doesn't need you to vote for him, and he doesn't need to unite the party.While I think that was a stupid thing to say, where is it false? If he gets enough votes without courting the 10-15% big "C" ideologues, then why does he need them.
Along those same lines, if Trump gets enough popular votes, then why does he need people like Ryan or McCain to support him? With a 12% approval rating, it appears Congress is the enemy of 88% of the people. If Trump is the enemy of those Congress Critters that we all despise so much, then perhaps "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" applies.
Post by: JeffDG on May 12, 2016, 06:20:19 AM
While I think that was a stupid thing to say, where is it false? If he gets enough votes without courting the 10-15% big "C" ideologues, then why does he need them.If he doesn't need those votes, then people voting for a third party are not voting for Hillary.
Along those same lines, if Trump gets enough popular votes, then why does he need people like Ryan or McCain to support him? With a 12% approval rating, it appears Congress is the enemy of 88% of the people. If Trump is the enemy of those Congress Critters that we all despise so much, then perhaps "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" applies.
Which is it?
Seriously, the statement "Trump doesn't need conservative votes" and "If you're conservative and vote for not-Trump that equals a vote for Hillary" are logically inconsistent.
Post by: LevelWing on May 12, 2016, 06:27:40 AM
Where is this conservative? Who is it? Why didn't he (or she) run this time?That candidate may not exist today, or perhaps he did and just didn't run a good campaign or didn't have the name recognition or whatever the other reasons are (I'm not referring to Cruz specifically, there were others I liked as well that obviously didn't make it), but that doesn't mean that person won't emerge. It won't happen this cycle and if Trump wins it won't happen for a while, but it can happen.
You want a conservative "that is acceptable to everyone". The reality is there is no such creature in today's Republican Party. On one side you have the far right ideologues that will accept nothing but conservative purity, and it's their chosen candidate or else. On the other side you have Republican voters that have endured years of lies and broken promises by their party only to be told "c'mon, trust us this time".
I also think that you're portraying conservatives incorrectly. This notion that conservatives wil only accept a pure conservative is false. Conservatives want someone who will adhere to the Constitutuon and defend it. That doesn't mean they won't compromise at all, it just means they won't compromise on things like the first or second amendments, for example. If you want to negotiate on the budget or (insert topic here), I'm sure they'd be willing to do that.
I agree that Republican voters have endured years of lies and broken promises, but why are we now being told we have to accept someone who wasn't even a Republican (and I'm not convinced he is even now) until recently? How is that any better? I won't accept "look at the alternative" as an argument, either.
Post by: LevelWing on May 12, 2016, 06:30:16 AM
As far as I know, nobody ever said he is "entitled" to your vote. What I, and others have said, is that unless you are ok with "President Hillary", then it is in your best interest to vote for Trump. Of course, that is my opinion. But not voting for Trump, thus giving Hillary that half-vote edge is counter productive. Unless of course, you are doing it out of spite, which you are also entitled to do. But it reminds me of the old adage about "cutting off your nose to spite your face".That line has been proven false. I'm also tired of the "lesser of two evils" argument. We went from accepting whoever the nominee is as the lesser of two evils to being guilt tripped into it because if we don't, we get Hillary. The bar is set so low this election cycle and it's sad. What's even more sad is that this is somehow acceptable to people.
Post by: Little Joe on May 12, 2016, 06:32:07 AM
If he doesn't need those votes, then people voting for a third party are not voting for Hillary.ok, I"m going to give you a half of a point there. But only because I used the word "if". There is no guarantee that he can win without every possible vote he can get. And if he doesn't win, then Hillary will.
Which is it?
Seriously, the statement "Trump doesn't need conservative votes" and "If you're conservative and vote for not-Trump that equals a vote for Hillary" are logically inconsistent.
Post by: JeffDG on May 12, 2016, 06:34:18 AM
ok, I"m going to give you a half of a point there. But only because I used the word "if". There is no guarantee that he can win without every possible vote he can get. And if he doesn't win, then Hillary will.OK, so which side is it:
"The party must unify behind Trump"
"Trump doesn't need the party to unify"
Post by: JeffDG on May 12, 2016, 06:38:34 AM
Trump: I need appropriations for my wall!
Schumer: OK, appoint Eric Holder to Scalia's seat and I'll give you the appropriations
Trump: Deal!
Post by: Little Joe on May 12, 2016, 06:39:46 AM
OK, so which side is it:There you go again! (with the absolutes).
"The party must unify behind Trump"
"Trump doesn't need the party to unify"
He doesn't need 100% of the entire party to unify. He can do without some percentage, which he acknowledges that he probably won't get any way.
Post by: Little Joe on May 12, 2016, 06:41:59 AM
Another example:
Trump: I need appropriations for my wall!
Schumer: OK, appoint Eric Holder to Scalia's seat and I'll give you the appropriations
Trump: Deal!
Trump: I need appropriations for my wall!
Schumer: OK, appoint Eric Holder to Scalia's seat and I'll give you the appropriations
Trump: You can go f*** your self you small handed, lying sack of manure. Give me the wall and I will let you go play golf with me, like Boehner.
Schumer: Ok, deal.
Two can play at the stupid game.
Post by: LevelWing on May 12, 2016, 06:42:41 AM
There you go again! (with the absolutes).It sounds like you're saying that Trump's comment was similar to Romney's 47% comment. Either way, the optics are bad. You don't come out the day after you become the presumptive nominee and say you don't need to unify the party and you don't need every conservative to vote for you. You instead say that your goal is to unify the party as a whole and win over conservative voters. That you understand that primary was a bitter battle and now you need to work to show the others why you deserve their vote.
He doesn't need 100% of the entire party to unify. He can do without some percentage, which he acknowledges that he probably won't get any way.
Post by: Little Joe on May 12, 2016, 06:46:21 AM
It sounds like you're saying that Trump's comment was similar to Romney's 47% comment. Either way, the optics are bad. You don't come out the day after you become the presumptive nominee and say you don't need to unify the party and you don't need every conservative to vote for you. You instead say that your goal is to unify the party as a whole and win over conservative voters. That you understand that primary was a bitter battle and now you need to work to show the others why you deserve their vote.I have explicitly compared it to Romney's stupid comments.
And I have said it was a stupid thing for Trump to say.
But on a relative scale, it was much less stupid than what Romney said.
I wonder what will come out of today's meetings. I hope it is not more stupidity on either side. But my hopes are not high.
Post by: Lucifer on May 12, 2016, 06:49:22 AM
That candidate may not exist today, or perhaps he did and just didn't run a good campaign or didn't have the name recognition or whatever the other reasons are (I'm not referring to Cruz specifically, there were others I liked as well that obviously didn't make it), but that doesn't mean that person won't emerge. It won't happen this cycle and if Trump wins it won't happen for a while, but it can happen.
The reason none of the others gained ground was in their message. Trump honed in on the voter dissatisfaction and that is the major issue of this election. Right or wrong or however one wants to see it, Trump's message resonated with voters.
I also think that you're portraying conservatives incorrectly. This notion that conservatives wil only accept a pure conservative is false. Conservatives want someone who will adhere to the Constitutuon and defend it. That doesn't mean they won't compromise at all, it just means they won't compromise on things like the first or second amendments, for example. If you want to negotiate on the budget or (insert topic here), I'm sure they'd be willing to do that.
No, I'm portraying the far right ideologues who cannot accept anyone but "one of their own". This is the side of the party that is rigid, and they are a minority. They want a rigid ideologue to run and expect, no, "demand" everyone fall in line "to protect the party".
I agree that Republican voters have endured years of lies and broken promises, but why are we now being told we have to accept someone who wasn't even a Republican (and I'm not convinced he is even now) until recently? How is that any better? I won't accept "look at the alternative" as an argument, either.
I don't think anyone is being told that "have to accept" anyone. In a couple of months the conventions will nominate their candidates, which now look like Trump and Clinton. Voters have to decide whether they are willing to accept 4 more years of the Obama legacy and Obama style programs, along with a drastically left leaning Supreme Court, or go with Trump and at least try to stop the madness of the liberals.
There will be other choices for those who choose "neither".
Post by: LevelWing on May 12, 2016, 06:50:06 AM
I have explicitly compared it to Romney's stupid comments.Nor are mine. Ryan, despite not being very conservative as it turns out, has the ability to help bring voters to Trump. If Ryan can come out if supporting Trump then it goes a long way to uniting the party since he is the head of the convention and the Speaker of the House.
And I have said it was a stupid thing for Trump to say.
But on a relative scale, it was much less stupid than what Romney said.
I wonder what will come out of today's meetings. I hope it is not more stupidity on either side. But my hopes are not high.
Post by: LevelWing on May 12, 2016, 06:55:24 AM
The reason none of the others gained ground was in their message. Trump honed in on the voter dissatisfaction and that is the major issue of this election. Right or wrong or however one wants to see it, Trump's message resonated with voters.Agreed.
No, I'm portraying the far right ideologues who cannot accept anyone but "one of their own". This is the side of the party that is rigid, and they are a minority. They want a rigid ideologue to run and expect, no, "demand" everyone fall in line "to protect the party".Much like how Trump and his supporters demand that people fall in line and vote for him? If they dont, they are clearly voting for Hillary.
I don't think anyone is being told that "have to accept" anyone. In a couple of months the conventions will nominate their candidates, which now look like Trump and Clinton. Voters have to decide whether they are willing to accept 4 more years of the Obama legacy and Obama style programs, along with a drastically left leaning Supreme Court, or go with Trump and at least try to stop the madness of the liberals.I don't think anyone is disputing who the nominees will be. We're past that. Want me to vote for Trump to stop Hillary? Convince me why he should have my vote. Stopping Hillary isn't sufficient anymore because I, and others, are not convinced that Trump would do a lot differently than Hillary. He keeps making statements and then sometimes reversing them depending on how what he said is received. It shows me he can't stick to one message.
There will be other choices for those who choose "neither".
Post by: Little Joe on May 12, 2016, 07:02:16 AM
How do you reconcile that statement of yours with all the statements about Trump saying he doesn't need that far right vote? Either he says he doesn't need them, or he demands that they vote for him. Which is it.
Much like how Trump and his supporters demand that people fall in line and vote for him? If they dont, they are clearly voting for Hillary.
But as with his other statements, he is willing to negotiate with those staunch big "C"s to get their vote, if it can be done as part of a "good deal".
Post by: Lucifer on May 12, 2016, 07:09:45 AM
Much like how Trump and his supporters demand that people fall in line and vote for him? If they dont, they are clearly voting for Hillary.
I have yet to see "demands" from Trump or his supporters to fall in line and vote for him. I have seen people use various reasons to support him, but still haven't seen these so called "demands".
I don't think anyone is disputing who the nominees will be. We're past that. Want me to vote for Trump to stop Hillary? Convince me why he should have my vote. Stopping Hillary isn't sufficient anymore because I, and others, are not convinced that Trump would do a lot differently than Hillary. He keeps making statements and then sometimes reversing them depending on how what he said is received. It shows me he can't stick to one message.
Personally I don't give a fuck who votes for who. I have my reasons to vote who I will support and I'm only concerned with me. I think it's safe to say the crowd that keeps this mantra up of "Trump and his supporters are demanding my vote" are in actually "demanding" that people should not vote for Trump.
Vote your conscience.
Post by: LevelWing on May 12, 2016, 07:17:39 AM
How do you reconcile that statement of yours with all the statements about Trump saying he doesn't need that far right vote? Either he says he doesn't need them, or he demands that they vote for him. Which is it.It's really his supporters. "A vote not for Trump is actually a vote for Hillary".
But as with his other statements, he is willing to negotiate with those staunch big "C"s to get their vote, if it can be done as part of a "good deal".
Post by: LevelWing on May 12, 2016, 07:19:50 AM
Personally I don't give a fuck who votes for who. I have my reasons to vote who I will support and I'm only concerned with me. I think it's safe to say the crowd that keeps this mantra up of "Trump and his supporters are demanding my vote" are in actually "demanding" that people should not vote for Trump.I'm not demanding anybody vote or not vote for Trump. I'm saying that if Trump wands my vote he should earn it. So far he hasn't done that, but we're not officially into the general election campaign yet so there's still plenty of time.
Vote your conscience.
Post by: nddons on May 12, 2016, 07:22:15 AM
Really? When did releasing tax returns become a requirement? Is that in the Constitution? I missed it. If your lawyer told you not to do so, would you do it anyway?He's a vile, despicable human being who is unworthy of the office, who claims to have done so much but is unwilling to provide proof (such as with his tax returns), claims he is pro second amendment when his history shows the opposite, and is a charlatan who seems to be pulling in followers by capitalizing on their anger at "them," while he has been "them" and has funded "them" and has made deals with "them" his entire life.
Stan, we get that your guy LOST, even while cheating, and you're bitter but Trump will be the nominee of the Republican party. What purpose do you serve to continue the attacks?
I'm trying to get people to open their fucking eyes and actually look at what you are doing, before its too late. He ain't president yet.
Post by: nddons on May 12, 2016, 07:32:12 AM
Where is this conservative? Who is it? Why didn't he (or she) run this time?Is that not PRECISELY what Republicans are being asked to do by Trump and his Trumpanzies?
You want a conservative "that is acceptable to everyone". The reality is there is no such creature in today's Republican Party. On one side you have the far right ideologues that will accept nothing but conservative purity, and it's their chosen candidate or else. On the other side you have Republican voters that have endured years of lies and broken promises by their party only to be told "c'mon, trust us this time".
The 58% of us who DIDN'T vote for Trump are being scolded by you, Newt, Hannity, Ingram, Cain, Huckabee, et. al. to "vote Trump, or else..."
Post by: Lucifer on May 12, 2016, 07:39:06 AM
Is that not PRECISELY what Republicans are being asked to do by Trump and his Trumpanzies?
The 58% of us who DIDN'T vote for Trump are being scolded by you, Newt, Hannity, Ingram, Cain, Huckabee, et. al. to "vote Trump, or else..."
You're delusional. Show the "scolding" that is going on. I have seen people make their cases to support Trump as well as others making their cases against. And I have seen the raging butt hurt by the minority who's candidate ran a shitty campaign and LOST. And some in that minority are so butt hurt they want a third party candidate not to win, but to run and "deny Trump" the presidency.
The minority also will not accept that Trump has garnered more votes than any other primary republican candidate in history.
Now, back to Stan's jihad............
Post by: nddons on May 12, 2016, 07:45:04 AM
How do you reconcile that statement of yours with all the statements about Trump saying he doesn't need that far right vote? Either he says he doesn't need them, or he demands that they vote for him. Which is it.I have yet to see the terms of that "deal."
But as with his other statements, he is willing to negotiate with those staunch big "C"s to get their vote, if it can be done as part of a "good deal".
Post by: nddons on May 12, 2016, 07:54:38 AM
You're delusional. Show the "scolding" that is going on. I have seen people make their cases to support Trump as well as others making their cases against. And I have seen the raging butt hurt by the minority who's candidate ran a shitty campaign and LOST. And some in that minority are so butt hurt they want a third party candidate not to win, but to run and "deny Trump" the presidency.I absolutely want to deny Trump the presidency. He is fundamentally against Liberty. He has demonstrated despotic tendencies. And he will irreparably harm the conservative ideal of limited government.
The minority also will not accept that Trump has garnered more votes than any other primary republican candidate in history.
Now, back to Stan's jihad............
Read Brad Thor's statement from Tuesday if you have the courage to do so.
Post by: Lucifer on May 12, 2016, 07:57:59 AM
I absolutely want to deny Trump the presidency. He is fundamentally against Liberty. He has demonstrated despotic tendencies. And he will irreparably harm the conservative ideal of limited government.
So being a disciple of George Will who will they pick to be their third party candidate? Romney? Bush? Maybe Ryan?
Read Brad Thor's statement from Tuesday if you have the courage to do so.
So can I go on the record and say you are "demanding" I fall in line? ::)
btw, I read the article, not impressed.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on May 12, 2016, 07:58:06 AM
Really? You're good with Trump refusing to show us - the voters - his tax returns?
Pathetic.
He doesn't launder his foreign influence income through a phony foundation.
Post by: JeffDG on May 12, 2016, 01:51:17 PM
He doesn't launder his foreign influence income through a phony foundation.You have any evidence of that?
No tax returns, no evidence.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on May 12, 2016, 02:30:28 PM
You have any evidence of that?
No tax returns, no evidence.
Why do you have such a boner for Trump?
Post by: JeffDG on May 12, 2016, 03:16:52 PM
Why do you have such a boner for Trump?Because he's a demagogue and dangerous to the future of the Republic.
Post by: Little Joe on May 12, 2016, 03:42:50 PM
You have any evidence of that?It's hard to prove a negative.
No tax returns, no evidence.
And it's harder to disprove unfounded allegations.
Post by: nddons on May 12, 2016, 04:49:32 PM
Remember Trump's call for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on"?
"Total and complete." Yea! Woo hoo! Trump! Trump! Trump!
Well, apparently now it's "Just a suggestion."
Oh oh.
Would you have voted for him if the wall and immigration and Muslim thing we're "just suggestions?"
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/05/trump_now_says_his_proposed_ban_on_muslims_entering_us_was_just_a_suggestion.html
Post by: Little Joe on May 12, 2016, 05:02:07 PM
Ok, angry white Trump supporters.Yes. What's your point? Who is offering anything else better?
Remember Trump's call for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on"?
"Total and complete." Yea! Woo hoo! Trump! Trump! Trump!
Well, apparently now it's "Just a suggestion."
Oh oh.
Would you have voted for him if the wall and immigration and Muslim thing we're "just suggestions?"
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/05/trump_now_says_his_proposed_ban_on_muslims_entering_us_was_just_a_suggestion.html
Post by: JeffDG on May 12, 2016, 05:22:25 PM
Post by: JeffDG on May 12, 2016, 05:49:43 PM
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/here-is-your-donald-trump-hunger-games-veepstakes-fight-to-the-death-scorecard/
Post by: asechrest on May 12, 2016, 06:51:21 PM
Quote
Trump’s [former] Butler Hates ‘Negroes,’ Wanted to ‘Carpet Bomb’ Ferguson, Called ‘Killery’ Clinton a ‘C**t’
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/12/trump-s-butler-hates-negroes-wanted-to-carpet-bomb-ferguson-called-killery-clinton-a-c-t.html
Post by: nddons on May 12, 2016, 08:08:21 PM
The Trump Veepstakes broken down...remove stick from ass before readingOk, that's pretty funny.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/05/here-is-your-donald-trump-hunger-games-veepstakes-fight-to-the-death-scorecard/
Post by: Little Joe on May 13, 2016, 05:45:09 AM
Trump surrounds himself with the best and brightest once again:Funny might not be the right word.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/12/trump-s-butler-hates-negroes-wanted-to-carpet-bomb-ferguson-called-killery-clinton-a-c-t.html
But the article did leave out the fact that Trump disavowed his statements: Of course, it was a "Mother Jones" article as repeated by the daily Beast. I guess you can't get more non-biased than that! ::)
And it was just his butler. Of course, none of that matters if Trump indicated he agreed with him.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/12/politics/donald-trump-butler-barack-obama/index.html
Quote
Trump's campaign disavowed the "horrible statements" in a statement Thursday afternoon.
"Tony Senecal has not worked at Mar-a-Lago for years, but nevertheless we totally and completely disavow the horrible statements made by him regarding the President," campaign spokeswoman Hope Hicks said.
Post by: asechrest on May 13, 2016, 06:58:18 AM
Funny might not be the right word.It didn't leave it out. It hadn't happened yet.
But the article did leave out the fact that Trump disavowed his statements: Of course, it was a "Mother Jones" article as repeated by the daily Beast. I guess you can't get more non-biased than that! ::)
And it was just his butler. Of course, none of that matters if Trump indicated he agreed with him.Butler and Mar-a-Lago unofficial historian, yes. I'm sure Trump doesn't agree with some of his former butler's sentiments; maybe just the part about the president being a Muslim foreigner whose mother forged his birth certificate in a grande conspiracy to plant a Manchurian candidate in the White House.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/12/politics/donald-trump-butler-barack-obama/index.html
Post by: Little Joe on May 13, 2016, 07:15:03 AM
It didn't leave it out. It hadn't happened yet.What can I say? He should have fired the butler the first time he expressed these views.
Butler and Mar-a-Lago unofficial historian, yes. I'm sure Trump doesn't agree with some of his former butler's sentiments; maybe just the part about the president being a Muslim foreigner whose mother forged his birth certificate in a grande conspiracy to plant a Manchurian candidate in the White House.
But that still doesn't lead me to any other candidate. I guarantee you that they all have skeletons in their closets. Especially Hillary. Remember, some of Obama's associates were unrepentant, murdering, bomb throwing terrorists.
Post by: JeffDG on May 13, 2016, 07:32:50 AM
What can I say? He should have fired the butler the first time he expressed these views.Obama didn't make a centerpiece of his campaign that he only hires the best people.
But that still doesn't lead me to any other candidate. I guarantee you that they all have skeletons in their closets. Especially Hillary. Remember, some of Obama's associates were unrepentant, murdering, bomb throwing terrorists.
Post by: Little Joe on May 13, 2016, 07:47:27 AM
Obama didn't make a centerpiece of his campaign that he only hires the best people.Now I know you have gone over to the dark side! Defending Obama??? ;)
Perhaps this butler was the best person for the job. I don't think he ever said he only hired saints.
Post by: JeffDG on May 13, 2016, 09:11:10 AM
This post contains material not flattering to your Lord and Savior Donald Trump. If you need a safe space, please stop reading now.
*****TRIGGER WARNING*****
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/05/13/trump-now-denies-documented-fact-alter-ego/ (http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/05/13/trump-now-denies-documented-fact-alter-ego/)
Quote
I’ve said for months that my main problem with Donald Trump becoming President is not that he is liberal (although he is), or that his behavior would disgrace the office and the Republican party (although it would), or that he has only the dimmest understanding of any issue of global importance and that accordingly his policies, if implemented, would be disasters (although they would), or that he is an authoritarian petty despot at heart (although he is that, too).
No, my main problem with Donald Trump is and always has been that he acts like a person who is legitimately not right in the head. Trump’s apparent mental problems surface every once in a while in bizarre ways, as they did last Tuesday, on the day he essentially clinched the Republican nomination. On that day, Trump angrily demanded to know, in the course of an actual television interview, why the media wasn’t pointing out that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in JFK’s assassination. He said this, by his own admission, because of something he read in the National Inquirer. As I said at the time, if someone came up to you on the street and said these things to you, you’d begin backing away slowly and making excuses for why you didn’t have any spare change.
Post by: Little Joe on May 13, 2016, 09:24:30 AM
Your head is going to explode when Trump beats Hillary by a landslide.
Post by: JeffDG on May 13, 2016, 09:30:43 AM
Poor JeffWill he take the oath as "Donald Trump" or "John Miller"?
Your head is going to explode when Trump beats Hillary by a landslide.
Post by: pilot_dude on May 13, 2016, 11:23:41 AM
Romney is absolutely correct.No, Romney is absolutely wrong yet again. To not disclose is not disqualifying. Please show me that stipulation in the Constitution.
God, how far have we fallen that I long for the day of a "conservative" GOP candidate Romney.
Post by: pilot_dude on May 13, 2016, 11:24:32 AM
Really? You're good with Trump refusing to show us - the voters - his tax returns?Yes. What's pathetic is thinking it matters.
Pathetic.
Post by: pilot_dude on May 13, 2016, 11:26:58 AM
Like Clinton, Trump is not worthy of the office to which he aspires. He's not worthy of the office Dogcatcher.The plurality of voters find you to be wrong but you're free to believe othewise. FWIW, I didn't vote for Trump.
Post by: pilot_dude on May 13, 2016, 11:28:25 AM
Why is this acceptable? Why are we, as Republicans 94 conservatives being forced to accept this? At what point do we say we've had enough and want a real conservative that's acceptable to everyone?There's no such person alive.
Post by: nddons on May 13, 2016, 12:12:08 PM
Funny might not be the right word.If you were responding to me, I wasn't saying the Butler story was funny. I said that Jeff's Raw Story post about the veepstakes was funny.
But the article did leave out the fact that Trump disavowed his statements: Of course, it was a "Mother Jones" article as repeated by the daily Beast. I guess you can't get more non-biased than that! ::)
And it was just his butler. Of course, none of that matters if Trump indicated he agreed with him.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/12/politics/donald-trump-butler-barack-obama/index.html
Post by: nddons on May 13, 2016, 12:25:11 PM
No, Romney is absolutely wrong yet again. To not disclose is not disqualifying. Please show me that stipulation in the Constitution.Coming out and giving speeches is not in the Constitution either. But it's something you do to expose yourself to The People if you want their votes for President of the United States.
Why are Trumpanzies so worried about what we will see if Trump released his tax returns? And since when is it logical or safe to "just" take someone at their word when they seek your vote for the most powerful position on the planet?
Post by: Little Joe on May 13, 2016, 01:06:20 PM
If you were responding to me, I wasn't saying the Butler story was funny. I said that Jeff's Raw Story post about the veepstakes was funny.I stand corrected.
While I do read almost all of your posts, with respect, I tend to skim over some of Jeff's to avoid the ridiculous assertions.
The sad part is that Jeff used to be one of my favorite posters.
Post by: JeffDG on May 13, 2016, 03:46:33 PM
Post by: FastEddieB on May 13, 2016, 03:51:51 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html)
Have not listened to it yet.
Post by: JeffDG on May 13, 2016, 04:10:09 PM
Post by: nddons on May 13, 2016, 04:27:51 PM
I stand corrected.I'd request that you give Jeff and me a break. I think all of us want what's best for our country. You think Trump is our best hope. We think (if I can speak for Jeff for a moment) that Trump will be worse than Hillary for this country. We also can't understand how Trump fans can't see how he is the antithesis of what the GOP has always stood for.
While I do read almost all of your posts, with respect, I tend to skim over some of Jeff's to avoid the ridiculous assertions.
The sad part is that Jeff used to be one of my favorite posters.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on May 13, 2016, 05:06:14 PM
We think (if I can speak for Jeff for a moment) that Trump will be worse than Hillary for this country.
Given how bad the doormat would be, I'm not sure why you believe that the donald would be worse.
Post by: LevelWing on May 13, 2016, 06:05:41 PM
Given how bad the doormat would be, I'm not sure why you believe that the donald would be worse.I don't think he would be worse, but I'm not entirely sure he would be a tremendous amount better, either.
Post by: JeffDG on May 13, 2016, 06:14:36 PM
Given how bad the doormat would be, I'm not sure why you believe that the donald would be worse.I've described this in some detail already, thanks.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on May 13, 2016, 06:42:35 PM
I'd request that you give Jeff and me a break. I think all of us want what's best for our country. You think Trump is our best hope. We think (if I can speak for Jeff for a moment) that Trump will be worse than Hillary for this country. We also can't understand how Trump fans can't see how he is the antithesis of what the GOP has always stood for.
What has the GOP stood for for the last 7 1/2 years? Enabler for the Kenyan?
Post by: JeffDG on May 13, 2016, 09:49:30 PM
Speaking of Trump being hoisted on his own petard...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/13/politics/donald-trump-support-republican-house-committee-chairs/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/13/politics/donald-trump-support-republican-house-committee-chairs/)
Quote
Washington (CNN)GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson on Friday lined up behind Donald Trump, endorsing the presumptive Republican nominee in an op-ed.
...
Trump called Adelson's backing "an incredible honor" coming from "a person I have such tremendous respect for."
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=868.0;attach=156)
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on May 14, 2016, 04:02:13 AM
I've described this in some detail already, thanks.
Which post/thread, please?
Post by: Little Joe on May 14, 2016, 04:42:38 AM
Speaking of Trump being hoisted on his own petard...Two points:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/13/politics/donald-trump-support-republican-house-committee-chairs/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/13/politics/donald-trump-support-republican-house-committee-chairs/)
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=868.0;attach=156)
1. I guess you can surmise that the endorsement came with a donation, but I didn't see that reported.
2. It is much easier for me to believe that Rubio could be bought and molded than it would be to buy and mold Trump.
Post by: JeffDG on May 14, 2016, 06:59:17 AM
Two points:Looks like north of $100m
1. I guess you can surmise that the endorsement came with a donation, but I didn't see that reported.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279911-adelson-willing-to-donate-100-million-to-trump-report (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279911-adelson-willing-to-donate-100-million-to-trump-report)
2. It is much easier for me to believe that Rubio could be bought and molded than it would be to buy and mold Trump.Why?
Post by: Dav8or on May 14, 2016, 09:05:37 AM
CBS News just reported on this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-alter-ego-barron/2016/05/12/02ac99ec-16fe-11e6-aa55-670cabef46e0_story.html)
Have not listened to it yet.
From this attached article and I guess in Trump's book-
Quote
Trump wrote in “The Art of the Deal,” his bestseller. “The point is that if you are a little different, or a little outrageous, or if you do things that are bold or controversial, the press is going to write about you.”
Trump did not describe using false identities to promote his brand, but he did write about why he strays from the strict truth: “I play to people’s fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration — and a very effective form of promotion.”
Pretty much sums up Trump's campaign. Say whatever it takes to get media coverage and the rabble roused. I think there are a lot of Trump supporters that are in for a big let down should he become president.
Post by: Little Joe on May 14, 2016, 09:23:56 AM
Looks like north of $100mOk, that is pretty far north.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279911-adelson-willing-to-donate-100-million-to-trump-report (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279911-adelson-willing-to-donate-100-million-to-trump-report)
Why?For one thing, if you offered to by my influence for $10k or even $100k, I'd probably laugh at you. But if you offered a couple of $million, you would probably get my attention, assuming what you were asking was slightly unethical but not illegal.
And my net worth is several multiples of Rubio's.
And even using the low estimates of Trump's net worth, it is about 10,000 times Rubio's $445,000. So it would take a LOT more to buy Trump. But still, would YOU trust Trump to do what you wanted just because you donated to his campaign? I think he would take the money and still do exactly what he damn well pleases.
Post by: JeffDG on May 14, 2016, 09:27:51 AM
Ok, that is pretty far north.For one thing, if you offered to by my influence for $10k or even $100k, I'd probably laugh at you. But if you offered a couple of $million, you would probably get my attention, assuming what you were asking was slightly unethical but not illegal.But Trump is the master deal maker, right? You really think there's no quid pro quo?
And my net worth is several multiples of Rubio's.
And even using the low estimates of Trump's net worth, it is about 10,000 times Rubio's $445,000. So it would take a LOT more to buy Trump. But still, would YOU trust Trump to do what you wanted just because you donated to his campaign? I think he would take the money and still do exactly what he damn well pleases.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on May 14, 2016, 12:01:57 PM
From this attached article and I guess in Trump's book-
Pretty much sums up Trump's campaign. Say whatever it takes to get media coverage and the rabble roused. I think there are a lot of Trump supporters that are in for a big let down should he become president.
You forget that once the "promotion" is in place he follows it up with a track record of successful results, unlike his "presumptive" opponent who tells her voters that you and I are responsible for their lot in life.
Post by: nddons on May 14, 2016, 04:42:55 PM
Speaking of Trump being hoisted on his own petard...I'd love to know what Mr. Art of the Deal gave up to make this "deal" with the
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/13/politics/donald-trump-support-republican-house-committee-chairs/ (http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/13/politics/donald-trump-support-republican-house-committee-chairs/)
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=868.0;attach=156)
Committee chairmen.
Post by: nddons on May 14, 2016, 04:45:23 PM
From this attached article and I guess in Trump's book-Bingo.
Pretty much sums up Trump's campaign. Say whatever it takes to get media coverage and the rabble roused. I think there are a lot of Trump supporters that are in for a big let down should he become president.
Post by: nddons on May 14, 2016, 05:39:36 PM
Ok, that is pretty far north.For one thing, if you offered to by my influence for $10k or even $100k, I'd probably laugh at you. But if you offered a couple of $million, you would probably get my attention, assuming what you were asking was slightly unethical but not illegal.I think it's a fallacy to think that people can be bought because it increased their net worth. People can be bought if it influences their power, and status as a power broker. Why else would people spend millions or tens of millions of their own dollars to gain a $400k job?
And my net worth is several multiples of Rubio's.
And even using the low estimates of Trump's net worth, it is about 10,000 times Rubio's $445,000. So it would take a LOT more to buy Trump. But still, would YOU trust Trump to do what you wanted just because you donated to his campaign? I think he would take the money and still do exactly what he damn well pleases.
Post by: JeffDG on May 14, 2016, 09:12:42 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CibbQWtVEAAlWx7.jpg:large)
The contrast speaks to his character.
Post by: nddons on May 15, 2016, 05:16:29 AM
"In fact, the spokesman points out that Trump’s words don’t matter. He actually admits this.
“This words matter stuff is ridiculous.”
http://theresurgent.com/trump-campaign-admits-his-call-for-a-wall-is-just-a-suggestion/
Post by: Little Joe on May 15, 2016, 05:21:17 AM
I think there are a lot of Trump supporters that are in for a big let down should he become president.Undoubtedly.
But I would count on a bigger let down if Hillary is elected.
I agree that it's a shame that one of the other, more qualified candidates didn't get the nomination.
From the first debate I tried to list both the candidates I supported most and the ones I supported least. One by one, the candidates I supported most dropped out until we were left with only Cruz and Trump. And I never ever saw Cruz as having a prayer of beating Hillary in the general. So Trump is all I see left standing between her and the oval office.
If you asked me if I'd rather have my right thumb cut off or my left arm hacked away, I'd choose to lose the thumb. Just as I choose Trump over Hillary.
Give me a third party candidate that can actually beat either of them and I will consider it. But I wouldn't vote for Jesus Christ himself it meant Hillary was going to win.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on May 15, 2016, 05:36:16 AM
But I would count on a bigger let down if Hillary is elected.
If the doormat wins the election, it's not the let down I'm worried about.
Post by: JeffDG on May 15, 2016, 05:24:18 PM
Post by: nddons on May 15, 2016, 06:58:47 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiiFHFKUgAAU96H.jpg:large)
I briefly saw Fox New Sunday. It seems like Reince Priebus' next 6 months are going to be filled with defending Trump's old girlfriend stories, his alter egos, his treatment of women, and who knows what else will turn up.
I hope he really starts hating his life.
Post by: Dav8or on May 15, 2016, 07:53:39 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CiiFHFKUgAAU96H.jpg:large)
That there is funny!! ;D
Post by: Dav8or on May 15, 2016, 08:04:49 PM
I hope he really starts hating his life.
I really don't think that is possible. People like him never see fault in their own character. They are always the victim of unwarranted attacks by others. Besides, remember he is doing this as his latest and greatest project. There are always bumps along the way with any project.
Like he said before, any publicity is good publicity and free air time for him. At this point, I really don't know what they could report about him that would sour the faithful. IMO, everything that is coming up these days is no big deal to the Trump fans, however in the battle for the swing voters and the disenfranchised Democrats, it could hurt him. Time will tell.
Post by: nddons on May 15, 2016, 08:45:03 PM
I really don't think that is possible. People like him never see fault in their own character. They are always the victim of unwarranted attacks by others. Besides, remember he is doing this as his latest and greatest project. There are always bumps along the way with any project.
Like he said before, any publicity is good publicity and free air time for him. At this point, I really don't know what they could report about him that would sour the faithful. IMO, everything that is coming up these days is no big deal to the Trump fans, however in the battle for the swing voters and the disenfranchised Democrats, it could hurt him. Time will tell.
I was talking about Priebus hating his life, not Trump. I don't think Priebus ever thought that he would have to be defending a boorish, self-centered, childish, egomaniacal reality TV star 6 months out from a general election.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on May 16, 2016, 03:55:57 AM
I really don't think that is possible. People like him never see fault in their own character. They are always the victim of unwarranted attacks by others. Besides, remember he is doing this as his latest and greatest project. There are always bumps along the way with any project.
Are you talking about Priebus or the doormat?
Post by: Little Joe on May 16, 2016, 04:09:26 AM
I was talking about Priebus hating his life, not Trump. I don't think Priebus ever thought that he would have to be defending a boorish, self-centered, childish, egomaniacal reality TV star 6 months out from a general election.Except for "TV Star", you just described politicians in general.
Post by: pilot_dude on May 16, 2016, 06:26:07 AM
Coming out and giving speeches is not in the Constitution either. But it's something you do to expose yourself to The People if you want their votes for President of the United States.Can't speak for the "Trumpanzies". I can speak as a voter that whether a candidate presents his/her tax return is a non-starter.
Why are Trumpanzies so worried about what we will see if Trump released his tax returns? And since when is it logical or safe to "just" take someone at their word when they seek your vote for the most powerful position on the planet?
Post by: Little Joe on May 16, 2016, 06:38:57 AM
"Trumpanzies"? Come on Stan, I thought you were above that.
Why are Trumpanzies so worried about what we will see if Trump released his tax returns? And since when is it logical or safe to "just" take someone at their word when they seek your vote for the most powerful position on the planet?
And focusing on releasing tax returns is a very leftist tactic that is designed to drive a wedge between the haves and the have-nots. (He's rich, so he must be evil and hiding something). Another instance of the far right merging with the left.
Post by: FastEddieB on May 16, 2016, 08:05:26 AM
And focusing on releasing tax returns is a very leftist tactic that is designed to drive a wedge between the haves and the have-nots. (He's rich, so he must be evil and hiding something). Another instance of the far right merging with the left.
Plenty of hypocrisy here.
If Hillary refused to release her taxes, don't you think there would be an uproar from the right?
I mean, some on the right have made an issue of her not releasing her paid speech texts, right?
Post by: nddons on May 16, 2016, 08:25:13 AM
Except for "TV Star", you just described politicians in general.I don't recall any other politician in my lifetime calling opponents such 5th grade names as "Lyin' Ted" or "Little Marco" over and over and over so his fans regurgitate the same at his rallies, or threatening to sue opponents, operatives, and reporters for saying things about him with which he disagrees, or threatening that military officers will obey his orders even if they are unlawful. Obama gets close on the egomaniacal side, but he's kind of a piker when compared to Trump.
Post by: nddons on May 16, 2016, 08:27:29 AM
Can't speak for the "Trumpanzies". I can speak as a voter that whether a candidate presents his/her tax return is a non-starter.So you're good that Trump is what he says he is, with no external authentication, relying solely on his word?
Post by: nddons on May 16, 2016, 08:36:25 AM
"Trumpanzies"? Come on Stan, I thought you were above that.That wedge is going to be driven by the left no matter what. It will come at a time of their choosing.
And focusing on releasing tax returns is a very leftist tactic that is designed to drive a wedge between the haves and the have-nots. (He's rich, so he must be evil and hiding something). Another instance of the far right merging with the left.
From what I hear, most people voting for Trump don't care that he's an alleged billionaire, so the have/have not argument won't be coming from our side.
My concern is that Trump ISN'T what he says, and is pulling the wool over everyone. I'm a CPA; I trust no one. He can resolve at least these questions by providing the only independent verification that exists in political campaigns. His unwillingness to PROVE that he is what he says he is raises my skepticism to the highest of levels.
Even FEC disclosures are self-reporting and not subject to verification. If I recall the last time I looked at his FEC disclosures, he said that he earned a salary of $250 million. OK, prove it. Is that too hard?
Apparently it is.
Post by: MarkZ on May 16, 2016, 08:51:23 AM
Post by: nddons on May 16, 2016, 09:04:46 AM
I'm curious, what does the tax return prove or disprove?Magnitude of income or loss.
Nature of income or loss.
Nature of deductions.
Charitable nature of the taxpayer.
Magnitude and nature of foreign sources of income.
Foreign tax credit used to offset US income tax.
Other tax credits taken.
Marginal tax rate.
Effective tax rate.
And on and on.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on May 16, 2016, 09:10:32 AM
"Trumpanzies"? Come on Stan, I thought you were above that.
And focusing on releasing tax returns is a very leftist tactic that is designed to drive a wedge between the haves and the have-nots. (He's rich, so he must be evil and hiding something). Another instance of the far right merging with the left.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Post by: pilot_dude on May 16, 2016, 10:01:04 AM
So you're good that Trump is what he says he is, with no external authentication, relying solely on his word?No, what I'm saying is I couldn't care less about his tax returns, or anyone else. Hope that clears things up.
Post by: nddons on May 19, 2016, 04:08:41 AM
From one of the justices on Trump's Supreme Court list. Brilliant.
Post by: nddons on June 05, 2016, 08:19:08 PM
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/06/trump-endorses-fanatically-open-borders-rino-renee-ellmers
Post by: nddons on June 06, 2016, 04:46:05 AM
http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2016/06/03/new-reutersipsos-national-poll-hillary-clinton-46-donald-trump-35/
Post by: Anthony on June 06, 2016, 04:50:58 AM
Post by: LevelWing on June 06, 2016, 05:12:01 AM
Uh oh. Now it's Clinton 46, Trump 35 among likely voters.The polls are going to bounce back and forth though this is a large swing.
http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2016/06/03/new-reutersipsos-national-poll-hillary-clinton-46-donald-trump-35/
Post by: Anthony on June 06, 2016, 05:29:49 AM
Post by: Little Joe on June 06, 2016, 06:07:43 AM
Uh oh. Now it's Clinton 46, Trump 35 among likely voters.That's because people like you and Jeff are convincing people like me that it is better to elect someone that promises a full liberal agenda rather than someone that might deliver some liberal surprises. It is better for the stock market to know we are going to have liberal SC Justices than to hope we might have conservative ones. Uncertainty is bad for those of us heavily invested in the market.
http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2016/06/03/new-reutersipsos-national-poll-hillary-clinton-46-donald-trump-35/
And after all, it is all about me getting mine, isn't it?
Post by: nddons on June 06, 2016, 06:42:13 AM
That's because people like you and Jeff are convincing people like me that it is better to elect someone that promises a full liberal agenda rather than someone that might deliver some liberal surprises. It is better for the stock market to know we are going to have liberal SC Justices than to hope we might have conservative ones. Uncertainty is bad for those of us heavily invested in the market.Trump will bring certainly to the market? What gives you the impression that he will bring certainty to anything? He just endorsed an open borders congresswoman.
And after all, it is all about me getting mine, isn't it?
Post by: Little Joe on June 06, 2016, 07:08:22 AM
Trump will bring certainly to the market? What gives you the impression that he will bring certainty to anything? He just endorsed an open borders congresswoman.Reread my post and if you still misunderstand me, let me know. I will explain it slower.
Post by: nddons on June 06, 2016, 07:40:38 AM
Reread my post and if you still misunderstand me, let me know. I will explain it slower.I thought I'd try to cut through the snark and cut to the chase. But quite frankly, the "me getting mine" snark escapes me, based on the subject of the thread.
Unless it's ATDS (Anti-Trump Derangement Syndrome) in which case I'm sorry for you.
Post by: JeffDG on June 06, 2016, 07:43:37 AM
Post by: Little Joe on June 06, 2016, 07:55:11 AM
I thought I'd try to cut through the snark and cut to the chase. But quite frankly, the "me getting mine" snark escapes me, based on the subject of the thread.ok,
Unless it's ATDS (Anti-Trump Derangement Syndrome) in which case I'm sorry for you.
My point was that Clinton will bring certainty (liberal certainty). Trump brings uncertainty. The stock market likes certainty, so Clinton will probably be better for the stock market. That would be good for me. The "snark" is because I don't really believe that voting for a liberal is the right thing to do just because it might be good for me when I think it would hurt the country.
We disagree because apparently you think Trump would hurt the country more than Clinton and I don't.
Where we DO agree is that we both want to do what we think is best for the country.
During a bout of insomnia last night, I thought of an analogy:
Suppose you are on a life raft, hundreds of miles from nowhere, with no water and are about to die of dehydration.
Do you (A) drink sea water? (which will positively worsen the dehydration and kill you)
Or do you (B) drink your own urine, which will be positively disqusting and definitely not your first choice, which would be fresh water, of which there is none.
Or do you do (C) Neither. In which case you will die anyway.
I choose the urine, which is sort of like voting for Trump. You may still die, but then again, maybe not.
Voting for Hillary is the sea water. It may go down easier than Trump, but you will be knowingly worsening the situation and die.
If you do neither, you are going to die anyway.
Post by: nddons on June 07, 2016, 08:34:46 AM
Post by: Lucifer on June 07, 2016, 08:50:10 AM
Post by: acrogimp on June 07, 2016, 08:53:38 AM
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160607/7878dfeb996bc697c82de58d61a27345.jpg)FWIW Stan, I believe Ted Cruz is/was a liar and untrustworthy based on his behavior and nothing else - Trump had nothing to do with it.
Trump did not send out the bogus Voter Violation mailers in an attempt to intimdate voters, that was Cruz.
Trump did not create an environment that allowed/encouraged his staffers to openly lie about Rubio's bible statement, that was Cruz.
Trump did not allow his campaign to share, promote and then fail to retract stories about Dr. Carson or Rubio dropping out, that was Cruz.
And that's just a few off the top of my head, since I have not spent a second thinking about Ted Cruz or his campaign since he dropped out.
There are plenty of legitimate issues for people like you to focus on if you want to continue to try and 'defeat' the presumptive nominee, but this is not one of them at least IMO.
This begs the questions for me, what is the actual objective for this thread at this time? What do you actually hope to accomplish?
The other 15 candidates lost, one remains, at least for this party.
French has said he isn't running so Bill Kristol's jump-the-shark moment may well be over.
The Losertarians will probably poll better this year than in previous but still hold less than 150 of the 500,000 elective offices in the US, they are not a credible party by any measure.
Why continue to focus on Trump's foibles or fumbles at this point - how about focusing on defeating Hillary?
'Gimp
Post by: nddons on June 07, 2016, 09:06:56 AM
FWIW Stan, I believe Ted Cruz is/was a liar and untrustworthy based on his behavior and nothing else - Trump had nothing to do with it.What is the point? I'm being asked - told - in most quarters to just be a sheep, to follow the flock of the racist Trump, off the cliff if necessary, so as to support the GOP nominee at all costs.
Trump did not send out the bogus Voter Violation mailers in an attempt to intimdate voters, that was Cruz.
Trump did not create an environment that allowed/encouraged his staffers to openly lie about Rubio's bible statement, that was Cruz.
Trump did not allow his campaign to share, promote and then fail to retract stories about Dr. Carson or Rubio dropping out, that was Cruz.
And that's just a few off the top of my head, since I have not spent a second thinking about Ted Cruz or his campaign since he dropped out.
There are plenty of legitimate issues for people like you to focus on if you want to continue to try and 'defeat' the presumptive nominee, but this is not one of them at least IMO.
This begs the questions for me, what is the actual objective for this thread at this time? What do you actually hope to accomplish?
The other 15 candidates lost, one remains, at least for this party.
French has said he isn't running so Bill Kristol's jump-the-shark moment may well be over.
The Losertarians will probably poll better this year than in previous but still hold less than 150 of the 500,000 elective offices in the US, they are not a credible party by any measure.
Why continue to focus on Trump's foibles or fumbles at this point - how about focusing on defeating Hillary?
'Gimp
People want me to act like McConnell, who has fallen in line like a good little establishment republican, and who can't even say on national TV that Trump's criticism of an Indiana-born judge of Mexican heritage is racist at its core. I've certainly seen no revulsion from you, or lucifer, or others over this. Hell, Hannity was defending Trump's actions on the radio yesterday.
It's disgusting. I refuse to be a sheep.
Post by: Anthony on June 07, 2016, 09:19:07 AM
Post by: Lucifer on June 07, 2016, 09:22:44 AM
What is the point? I'm being asked - told - in most quarters to just be a sheep, to follow the flock of the racist Trump, off the cliff if necessary, so as to support the GOP nominee at all costs.
People want me to act like McConnell, who has fallen in line like a good little establishment republican, and who can't even say on national TV that Trump's criticism of an Indiana-born judge of Mexican heritage is racist at its core. I've certainly seen no revulsion from you, or lucifer, or others over this. Hell, Hannity was defending Trump's actions on the radio yesterday.
It's disgusting. I refuse to be a sheep.
The judge remark is not racist, but nice to see that you are, once again, falling in line with the far left ideologues and promoting the MSM talking points. Funny thing is, Trump has been in the public eye for over 30+ years and never once called racist, until he decided to run for President. And now the liberals are all about the racist slant.
This should explain a few things going on: http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/trump-u-judges-group-tied-to-national-council-of-laraza/
Post by: JeffDG on June 07, 2016, 09:33:15 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhA!
Post by: acrogimp on June 07, 2016, 09:35:50 AM
What is the point? I'm being asked - told - in most quarters to just be a sheep, to follow the flock of the racist Trump, off the cliff if necessary, so as to support the GOP nominee at all costs.So, are you saying that anyone who supports Trump, warts and all, is a sheep and cannot be doing so based on actual, legitimate reasons? I get you won't vote for the guy and beyond pointing out the potential result from too many folks 'standing on principle', I am not calling for you to do anything since as I have repeatedly said, had Cruz ended up with the nomination, or if the RNC 'selects' someone else I would be the one weighing my options and the potential ramifications thereof.
People want me to act like McConnell, who has fallen in line like a good little establishment republican, and who can't even say on national TV that Trump's criticism of an Indiana-born judge of Mexican heritage is racist at its core. I've certainly seen no revulsion from you, or lucifer, or others over this. Hell, Hannity was defending Trump's actions on the radio yesterday.
It's disgusting. I refuse to be a sheep.
FWIW - with respect to this Judge I think Trump is spot on and his concern about bias will be borne out - you do know that The National Council of La Raza (which translates directly to 'The Race') is a racist organization itself that seeks the re-conquest of former Mexican land that is now part of America right?
Imagine a white judge who is a member of the John Birch Society, presiding over a trial of a liberal black man seeking an office somewhere, think there would not be concerns about fairness? What if the Judge was a close-friend of former Grand Kleagel of the KKK Dem. Senator Robert 'Sheets' Byrd?
'Gimp
Post by: JeffDG on June 07, 2016, 09:58:49 AM
GOP is now the abused wife making excuses for her husband, covering up the bruises, telling herself he'll change.
Post by: nddons on June 07, 2016, 10:29:26 AM
It's not racism if the people dwelling on their race have a bias against you. I don't think Trump is getting a fair trial from the American judge with Mexican ethnicity, and financial ties to the Clinton campaign. The prosecutor also has large financial ties to the Clinton campaign. I also don't think many Muslims would be unbiased towards Trump.Et tu, Anthony?
Where exactly is the bias? Because Trump said it exists? Because he's "Mexican" and Trump wants to build "the wall"? That's what Trump said, verbatim. And you believed him?
Did you know that this same judge was targeted for assassination by the Mexican drug cartels when he was a federal prosecutor? He was trying to secure the border before Trump could even pronounce "Republican."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judge-targeted-trump-faced-death-threats-mexican-cartel/story?id=39599422
If there is bias, Trump's attorneys can move to change the venue. Why didn't they? Because calling a judge's heritage into question, without any further evidence of bias, could get them sanctioned, or possibly disbarred.
So failing that, Trump uses the power of the megaphone to challenge this judge, and uses his sycophants in the press and sheep in the electorate to parrot it.
Baaahh. Baaahh.
Maybe Trump should only be judged by wealthy white men of Scottish heritage. That's what everyone seems to be suggesting.
Post by: nddons on June 07, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
So, are you saying that anyone who supports Trump, warts and all, is a sheep and cannot be doing so based on actual, legitimate reasons? I get you won't vote for the guy and beyond pointing out the potential result from too many folks 'standing on principle', I am not calling for you to do anything since as I have repeatedly said, had Cruz ended up with the nomination, or if the RNC 'selects' someone else I would be the one weighing my options and the potential ramifications thereof.Yea, I know what that means. Except the judge doesn't belong to the NCLR. Did you know that?
FWIW - with respect to this Judge I think Trump is spot on and his concern about bias will be borne out - you do know that The National Council of La Raza (which translates directly to 'The Race') is a racist organization itself that seeks the re-conquest of former Mexican land that is now part of America right?
Imagine a white judge who is a member of the John Birch Society, presiding over a trial of a liberal black man seeking an office somewhere, think there would not be concerns about fairness? What if the Judge was a close-friend of former Grand Kleagel of the KKK Dem. Senator Robert 'Sheets' Byrd?
'Gimp
"As evidence of what they say is Curiel's bias, Trump and some of his supporters have pointed to the judge's membership in La Raza Lawyers of San Diego, a local group for Hispanic lawyers that is affiliated with the Hispanic National Bar Association.
"Some Trump supporters have incorrectly linked La Raza Lawyers to the National Council of La Raza, a 50-year-old civil rights group that has been strongly critical of Trump's proposals on immigration, as well as his idea to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States.
"The NCLR's non-profit designation bars it from engaging in political campaigns, and the group's website describes it as a "nonpartisan voice for Latinos."
"A conservative blog, GotNews.com, first noted Curiel's membership in the lawyer's group, which it identified simply as "La Raza," on May 31. A day later, another conservative website, The Daily Caller, made a link to the NCLR."
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-as-trump-fans-attack-la-raza-civil-rights-group-members-cringe-2016-6
Post by: nddons on June 07, 2016, 10:43:47 AM
The judge remark is not racist, but nice to see that you are, once again, falling in line with the far left ideologues and promoting the MSM talking points. Funny thing is, Trump has been in the public eye for over 30+ years and never once called racist, until he decided to run for President. And now the liberals are all about the racist slant.Baaahh. Baaahh.
This should explain a few things going on: http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/trump-u-judges-group-tied-to-national-council-of-laraza/
Post by: nddons on June 07, 2016, 10:47:02 AM
Using World Net Daily to prove something isn't racists?That's because Alex Jones was unavailable for comment.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhA!
Post by: acrogimp on June 07, 2016, 10:52:03 AM
Yea, I know what that means. Except the judge doesn't belong to the NCLR. Did you know that?Do you think there is a difference of any distinction between the terror, political and human services elements of Hezbollah? They have different names too.
"As evidence of what they say is Curiel's bias, Trump and some of his supporters have pointed to the judge's membership in La Raza Lawyers of San Diego, a local group for Hispanic lawyers that is affiliated with the Hispanic National Bar Association.
"Some Trump supporters have incorrectly linked La Raza Lawyers to the National Council of La Raza, a 50-year-old civil rights group that has been strongly critical of Trump's proposals on immigration, as well as his idea to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States.
"The NCLR's non-profit designation bars it from engaging in political campaigns, and the group's website describes it as a "nonpartisan voice for Latinos."
"A conservative blog, GotNews.com, first noted Curiel's membership in the lawyer's group, which it identified simply as "La Raza," on May 31. A day later, another conservative website, The Daily Caller, made a link to the NCLR."
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-as-trump-fans-attack-la-raza-civil-rights-group-members-cringe-2016-6
Stan, I get it, you are not going to give Trump or apparently ANY of his supporters ANY credit, of ANY kind, about ANY opposition, and you are not going to answer my question about what you hope to actually accomplish with this thread - I'll just leave you to your TDS and enjoy your contributions elsewhere.
'Gimp
Post by: LevelWing on June 07, 2016, 11:09:20 AM
The Republicans are supposed to be the actual party of tolerance and acceptance and yet when people express their views for someone other than the presumptive nominee, we're chastised and being told we secretly support Hilary.
The funny thing is, the group that supports Trump because of the anti-establishment attitude and the group that doesn't support Trump but is also anti-establishment are actually trying to achieve the same goals but we're trying to take two different paths to get there.
Unfortunately it's moving away from being anti-establishment to merely trying to stop Hilary without regard to the future of conservatism. We're being told that right now the important thing is to stop Hilary at all costs and then we'll worry about trying to fix the party and conservatism. Never mind the potential damage that'll be caused by Trump. What those who say that don't seem to understand (or don't care) is that we've been told that for a while now and it hasn't worked up until now, so why should I believe it'll work this time?
Post by: Little Joe on June 07, 2016, 11:11:24 AM
Magnitude of income or loss.Regarding Trump's tax returns, you are right. It would tell us those things you listed.
Nature of income or loss.
Nature of deductions.
Charitable nature of the taxpayer.
Magnitude and nature of foreign sources of income.
Foreign tax credit used to offset US income tax.
Other tax credits taken.
Marginal tax rate.
Effective tax rate.
And on and on.
But what does any of that matter, as long as it was all legal? And if he is doing anything illegal, I'm quite sure our fair and lenient IRS would step up to the plate. After all, we're not talking about Clinton here.
You yourself Stan, have many times defended people for using perfectly legal tax law to their own benefit. Why is this different?
Or are you now saying that if someone makes to much of a profit, that is cause to doubt their qualification for President. Would he be better qualified if he was poor?
Post by: Anthony on June 07, 2016, 11:11:45 AM
Post by: acrogimp on June 07, 2016, 11:18:03 AM
I can't speak for Stan but what I'm looking for (not from this thread specifically) is for people to understand that there is a group of us who are either not going to support Trump or are on the fence about it and to stop being demonized for it. I want people to realize that unless I vote for Hilary, that I'm not actually voting for her regardless of whatever math or logic they choose to use. I don't support Hilary, I don't want to see her elected and I won't vote for her under any circumstances.That all makes sense to me LW, but I am not calling people names, accusing them of being sheep, questioning their intellect or demonizing anyone, that seems to be largely directed at me and people like me, from within this and other TDS threads, for being supportive of Trump as a candidate, warts and all.
The Republicans are supposed to be the actual party of tolerance and acceptance and yet when people express their views for someone other than the presumptive nominee, we're chastised and being told we secretly support Hilary.
The funny thing is, the group that supports Trump because of the anti-establishment attitude and the group that doesn't support Trump but is also anti-establishment are actually trying to achieve the same goals but we're trying to take two different paths to get there.
Unfortunately it's moving away from being anti-establishment to merely trying to stop Hilary without regard to the future of conservatism. We're being told that right now the important thing is to stop Hilary at all costs and then we'll worry about trying to fix the party and conservatism. Never mind the potential damage that'll be caused by Trump. What those who say that don't seem to understand (or don't care) is that we've been told that for a while now and it hasn't worked up until now, so why should I believe it'll work this time?
I do not belive Trump can or will damage teh conservative brand in any fashion, since he is not a conventional conservative. Now, he is nowhere near the liberal some make him out to be in the fits of TDS, but I make no mistake about calling him a big 'C' conservative - I do believe that his life's work suggests someone who is far more conservative than liberal, but who clearly does not fit neatly into either camp.
Trump has to market himself to big 'C' conservatives as well as the middle and even the liberals in order to win enough votes to beat Hillary since it appears obvious the FBI and DOJ will do nothing, I think he is doing an OK job of that so far, especially with his SCOTUS list and with his stance on the 2nd Amdt while also speaking about healthcare and other issues - he is a cross-spectrum candidate which is exactly what the wizards of smart on K street have been saying we (the Republicans) needed to do for decades - now someone is doing it, without their help, and everyone is freaking out - Bill Kristol may have had a psychotic break for all we know.
Anyway, as I said, I see that for many on this thread there is no apparent interest for a real, reasoned and respectful conversation so I will focus elsewhere.
'Gimp
Post by: asechrest on June 07, 2016, 11:34:03 AM
Do you think there is a difference of any distinction between the terror, political and human services elements of Hezbollah? They have different names too.
[snip]
'Gimp
Garbage. I guess, then, that La Raza Party Supplies (http://www.yellowpages.com/san-pablo-ca/mip/la-raza-party-supplies-3270460?lid=3270460) in San Pablo, CA is the "party supply" arm of The National Council of La Raza? They seem to have a lot of arms! Grocery store arm, DJ arm, clinic arm, radio station arm, tire sales...sheesh, we've been infiltrated!
Support Trump if you will, but these tactics are slimy.
Post by: JeffDG on June 07, 2016, 11:44:14 AM
Post by: Little Joe on June 07, 2016, 11:59:20 AM
Just remember, these are not all directed at you.
I can't speak for Stan but what I'm looking for (not from this thread specifically) is for people to understand that there is a group of us who are either not going to support Trump or are on the fence about it and to stop being demonized for it.Do you agree that the "demonization" goes both ways? And the name-calling is mostly from the anti-trump side towards the "Trumpkin, Trumpanzie, sheep" people?
I want people to realize that unless I vote for Hilary, that I'm not actually voting for her regardless of whatever math or logic they choose to use. I don't support Hilary, I don't want to see her elected and I won't vote for her under any circumstances.Regardless of whether you vote for her or not, if you stand by and she wins, then you helped allow it to happen. Whether or not that is bad thing on your part is strictly up to you.
The Republicans are supposed to be the actual party of tolerance and acceptance and yet when people express their views for someone other than the presumptive nominee, we're chastised and being told we secretly support Hilary.You may not be supporting her, but you are not preventing her ascension to the throne either. All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.
The funny thing is, the group that supports Trump because of the anti-establishment attitude and the group that doesn't support Trump but is also anti-establishment are actually trying to achieve the same goals but we're trying to take two different paths to get there. [/quote
I do agree with this. But when we are told that if we vote for Trump because he is the lesser of two evils, then that proves that we agree with every thing he says and that he is the kind of person that we want for President.Unfortunately it's moving away from being anti-establishment to merely trying to stop Hilary without regard to the future of conservatism. We're being told that right now the important thing is to stop Hilary at all costs and then we'll worry about trying to fix the party and conservatism.Are you implying that we can fix the party between now and November, or that we should just roll over for the Dems until 2020?
Never mind the potential damage that'll be caused by Trump.I believe that the damage that will be inflicted by Hillary is worse for the country.
What those who say that don't seem to understand (or don't care) is that we've been told that for a while now and it hasn't worked up until now, so why should I believe it'll work this time?I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here, but let me try. What we have been doing the past few years hasn't worked. And it won't work. And electing Hillary won't make anything better. That is why we are willing to back Trump. We have few other choices.
IF you present me with a better choice, I will jump all over it. But I'm not going to stand by and allow Hillary to run away with this thing because Trump is not my ideal candidate. He isn't.
And what I don't understand about the anti-Trumpers is how you think allowing Hillary to win will fix anything or make anything better. Or to use your logic, do you think we should allow Hillary to win just because she isn't Trump (who beat your guy)?
Post by: asechrest on June 07, 2016, 12:30:15 PM
[snip]
Regardless of whether you vote for her or not, if you stand by and she wins, then you helped allow it to happen. Whether or not that is bad thing on your part is strictly up to you.
You may not be supporting her, but you are not preventing her ascension to the throne either. All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.
[snip]
I don't think the guilt trip is working. Unless you actually vote for Hillary, you neither allowed nor helped her "ascend to the throne", assuming that's what will happen. Further, you're drastically debasing our right to vote. Now, instead of the vote signifying support for commander-in-chief of our country, you've reduced it to a simple tool used to put a shitty candidate (in the eyes of the person you're trying to guilt trip) in office in lieu of an arguably more shitty candidate.
Of lesser but still some significance, you are ignoring the power of those who refuse to vote for their party's anointed one. Doing so in enough numbers can send a very clear message to the party elites, and hopefully effect change for the future.
Post by: Little Joe on June 07, 2016, 12:36:39 PM
I don't think the guilt trip is working. Unless you actually vote for Hillary, you neither allowed nor helped her "ascend to the throne", assuming that's what will happen. Further, you're drastically debasing our right to vote. Now, instead of the vote signifying support for commander-in-chief of our country, you've reduced it to a simple tool used to put a shitty candidate (in the eyes of the person you're trying to guilt trip) in office in lieu of an arguably more shitty candidate.I'm not trying to put a guilt trip on anyone. I'm just stating facts. If that makes anyone feel guilty, that is on them, not me.
Of lesser but still some significance, you are ignoring the power of those who refuse to vote for their party's anointed one. Doing so in enough numbers can send a very clear message to the party elites, and hopefully effect change for the future.
And I think electing Trump is sending a mighty strong message, without caving in to Hillary and her liberal agenda.
Oh,and Trump is NOT the anointed one. He is the one that received the most votes.
But I can see why you are defending the Anti-Trump squad. You are helping them get Hillary elected.
Post by: acrogimp on June 07, 2016, 12:41:39 PM
I don't think the guilt trip is working. Unless you actually vote for Hillary, you neither allowed nor helped her "ascend to the throne", assuming that's what will happen. Further, you're drastically debasing our right to vote. Now, instead of the vote signifying support for commander-in-chief of our country, you've reduced it to a simple tool used to put a shitty candidate (in the eyes of the person you're trying to guilt trip) in office in lieu of an arguably more shitty candidate.Oh sweet mother of God the irony in this post.
Of lesser but still some significance, you are ignoring the power of those who refuse to vote for their party's anointed one. Doing so in enough numbers can send a very clear message to the party elites, and hopefully effect change for the future.
It is you and people like you who completely ignore the outcome/ramifications/consequence of a vote/non-vote that are debasing the vote - pointing out the result of an action taken, or not taken is not a guilt-trip - everyone has the right to vote, or not vote, for or against whomever they want, but when the dust settles there will be, in fact, a result - if someone claims to be doing something (or not doing something) based on their principles, then they had damned well better be adult enough to own the consequences or their principles are MEANINGLESS. I expect people on the left to struggle with the concept of personal responsibility - seems they actively oppose the concept in fact, but it always surprises me when someone right of center seems to ignore/obviate it.
That you would suggest Trump was, in any way, the anointed one for the Republicans is ludicrous, they were actively working against him from the get go, the support in enough numbers that put Trump into being the presumptive nominee is the very message to the party elites many have wanted to send, some for decades. Not everybody may like the messenger, but the message was loud and clear and it remains to be seen if it has meant anything, whether he actually wins or loses in November.
'Gimp
Post by: asechrest on June 07, 2016, 01:03:56 PM
I'm not trying to put a guilt trip on anyone. I'm just stating facts. If that makes anyone feel guilty, that is on them, not me.
And I think electing Trump is sending a mighty strong message, without caving in to Hillary and her liberal agenda.
Oh,and Trump is NOT the anointed one. He is the one that received the most votes.
But I can see why you are defending the Anti-Trump squad. You are helping them get Hillary elected.
Screw Hillary. I'll make the same professions about her as I do for Trump.
Post by: Little Joe on June 07, 2016, 01:06:06 PM
Screw Hillary. I'll make the same professions about her as I do for Trump.Ok, that's fine.
But if you don't want Hillary, and you don't want Trump, do you think we can just go the next four years without a President, or if neither of them can get elected, would Obama get to keep his job?
What is your expected outcome of this election if nobody votes for either one?
Post by: nddons on June 07, 2016, 01:33:09 PM
Do you think there is a difference of any distinction between the terror, political and human services elements of Hezbollah? They have different names too.Asked and answered. Post #133.
Stan, I get it, you are not going to give Trump or apparently ANY of his supporters ANY credit, of ANY kind, about ANY opposition, and you are not going to answer my question about what you hope to actually accomplish with this thread - I'll just leave you to your TDS and enjoy your contributions elsewhere.
'Gimp
Post by: Little Joe on June 07, 2016, 01:42:28 PM
I don't think that was what you meant.
The judge remark is not racist, but nice to see that you are, once again, falling in line with the far left ideologues and promoting the MSM talking points. Funny thing is, Trump has been in the public eye for over 30+ years and never once called racist, until he decided to run for President. And now the liberals are all about the racist slant.
This should explain a few things going on: http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/trump-u-judges-group-tied-to-national-council-of-laraza/
Post by: nddons on June 07, 2016, 01:45:15 PM
Regarding Trump's tax returns, you are right. It would tell us those things you listed.Joe, fair question.
But what does any of that matter, as long as it was all legal? And if he is doing anything illegal, I'm quite sure our fair and lenient IRS would step up to the plate. After all, we're not talking about Clinton here.
You yourself Stan, have many times defended people for using perfectly legal tax law to their own benefit. Why is this different?
Or are you now saying that if someone makes to much of a profit, that is cause to doubt their qualification for President. Would he be better qualified if he was poor?
What it would tell me is more about the man than what he is personally telling me, and of which I'm very skeptical.
If he is using the foreign tax credit to reduce his US tax to a very low level (totally legal) it would tell me that he's a damned hypocrite for saying US companies shouldn't be going offshore.
If his FEC personal disclosure statement says that he has $250 million of income, I'd like to see if he is blowing smoke up my ass by seeing it on his returns.
Is he a charitable man? He says he is, though I understand much of what he "gives away" is free rounds of golf at his resorts - you don't get a deduction for foregone income. Is he an uncharitable tightwad? I'd like to know that as well.
Etc.
A LOT can be gleaned from the man based on what is on his return.
Post by: Little Joe on June 07, 2016, 01:52:24 PM
Joe, fair question.Understood. But just for the sake of discussion, if he disclosed those returns and it validated everything he said, would that change your mind about him?
What it would tell me is more about the man than what he is personally telling me, and of which I'm very skeptical.
If he is using the foreign tax credit to reduce his US tax to a very low level (totally legal) it would tell me that he's a damned hypocrite for saying US companies shouldn't be going offshore.
If his FEC personal disclosure statement says that he has $250 million of income, I'd like to see if he is blowing smoke up my ass by seeing it on his returns.
Is he a charitable man? He says he is, though I understand much of what he "gives away" is free rounds of golf at his resorts - you don't get a deduction for foregone income. Is he an uncharitable tightwad? I'd like to know that as well.
Etc.
A LOT can be gleaned from the man based on what is on his return.
But I do understand what you are saying. I suspect he does have money sheltered in many ways, including those off-shore accounts he rails against. But I also rail against the tax law. I think there are way too many deductions and that the law is way too complicated. Yet, I take advantage of every one I am legally able to. I guess for that reason, I will never be President. (along with a few other reasons that I respectively decline to disclose).
Post by: nddons on June 07, 2016, 01:57:43 PM
You have brought up several points that I have been wanting to address.What I don't understand is why no Trump supporter, with the exception of Newt Gingrich on Fox News Sunday, will hold Trump accountable for the dick things he says or does. I would have more respect for Trump supporters if they said "Wait a minute, dumb ass. Knock that shit off." That can be measured by a drop off of support - Trump may listen to that.
Just remember, these are not all directed at you.Do you agree that the "demonization" goes both ways? And the name-calling is mostly from the anti-trump side towards the "Trumpkin, Trumpanzie, sheep" people?
Regardless of whether you vote for her or not, if you stand by and she wins, then you helped allow it to happen. Whether or not that is bad thing on your part is strictly up to you.
You may not be supporting her, but you are not preventing her ascension to the throne either. All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.Are you implying that we can fix the party between now and November, or that we should just roll over for the Dems until 2020?
I believe that the damage that will be inflicted by Hillary is worse for the country.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here, but let me try. What we have been doing the past few years hasn't worked. And it won't work. And electing Hillary won't make anything better. That is why we are willing to back Trump. We have few other choices.
IF you present me with a better choice, I will jump all over it. But I'm not going to stand by and allow Hillary to run away with this thing because Trump is not my ideal candidate. He isn't.
And what I don't understand about the anti-Trumpers is how you think allowing Hillary to win will fix anything or make anything better. Or to use your logic, do you think we should allow Hillary to win just because she isn't Trump (who beat your guy)?
I took McCain and Romney to task for some of the dumb ass things they said on the campaign trail. Others did as well. I don't see the same "Ombudsman" looking out for the people who will be pulling the lever for him.
Post by: pilot_dude on June 07, 2016, 02:02:42 PM
What is the point? I'm being asked - told - in most quarters to just be a sheep, to follow the flock of the racist Trump, off the cliff if necessary, so as to support the GOP nominee at all costs.Please provide detail as to Trump being a racist based on the true definition of the word.
Compliments of dictionary.com:
racist
[rey-sist]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
Post by: nddons on June 07, 2016, 02:22:41 PM
This was post #133.Not on Tapatalk. This a screen shot of my response, followed by Post #134. Thus my response was #133.
I don't think that was what you meant.
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160607/b7960f3e024fe4421599493b50a36db5.jpg)
Post by: nddons on June 07, 2016, 02:27:27 PM
Please provide detail as to Trump being a racist based on the true definition of the word.Oh for the love of God. :rolleyes:
Compliments of dictionary.com:
racist
[rey-sist]
Spell Syllables
Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that one's own racial group is superior or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
No.
Post by: asechrest on June 07, 2016, 02:36:45 PM
Oh sweet mother of God the irony in this post.
It is you and people like you who completely ignore the outcome/ramifications/consequence of a vote/non-vote that are debasing the vote - pointing out the result of an action taken, or not taken is not a guilt-trip - everyone has the right to vote, or not vote, for or against whomever they want, but when the dust settles there will be, in fact, a result - if someone claims to be doing something (or not doing something) based on their principles, then they had damned well better be adult enough to own the consequences or their principles are MEANINGLESS. I expect people on the left to struggle with the concept of personal responsibility - seems they actively oppose the concept in fact, but it always surprises me when someone right of center seems to ignore/obviate it.
[snip]
'Gimp
I simply reject your premise out of hand. You assign consequences to those for whom no culpability should be assigned. Truly, your logic is like a pretzel: A voter who believes on principle that a set of candidates is unfit for office and in doing so decides to abstain or vote for someone else, is suddenly in your eyes "at fault" if the candidate who opposes the one you support wins the presidency; despite the fact that said voter has literally given no support to the winner. Does not follow. It is the very definition of a principle to remain steadfast when others throw their principles out in favor of "results"; a hallmark of Trump as we have learned, and apparently perhaps a feature within his group of supporters. (And let's be clear that said feature is not partisan.)
In a race between two untenable candidates I choose neither. I refuse to be "at fault" for the shitty candidate that gets the seat, because whether I vote for either or I don't (on principle, not due to apathy), we still get a shitty candidate. Whether you subjectively believe one shitty candidate to be less shitty than the other is your subjective right, but not my obligation to accept.
(Edit - fixed wording)
Post by: JeffDG on June 07, 2016, 02:49:45 PM
I simply reject your premise out of hand. You assign consequences to those for whom no culpability should be assigned. Truly, your logic is like a pretzel: A voter who believes on principle that a set of candidates is unfit for office and in doing so decides to abstain or vote for someone else, is suddenly in your eyes "at fault" if the candidate who opposes the one you support fails to win the presidency; despite the fact that said voter has literally given no support to the winner.Not only that, they will resist ever saying that they're voting FOR trump, when they are literally doing that, while at the same time demanding that those who think Trump unfit for the office of dogcatcher (let alone POTUS) admit that they are voting for Hillary because of that belief.
Post by: nddons on June 07, 2016, 03:21:58 PM
I simply reject your premise out of hand. You assign consequences to those for whom no culpability should be assigned. Truly, your logic is like a pretzel: A voter who believes on principle that a set of candidates is unfit for office and in doing so decides to abstain or vote for someone else, is suddenly in your eyes "at fault" if the candidate who opposes the one you support wins the presidency; despite the fact that said voter has literally given no support to the winner. Does not follow. It is the very definition of a principle to remain steadfast when others throw their principles out in favor of "results"; a hallmark of Trump as we have learned, and apparently perhaps a feature within his group of supporters. (And let's be clear that said feature is not partisan.)I think this is what you are looking for:
In a race between two untenable candidates I choose neither. I refuse to be "at fault" for the shitty candidate that gets the seat, because whether I vote for either or I don't (on principle, not due to apathy), we still get a shitty candidate. Whether you subjectively believe one shitty candidate to be less shitty than the other is your subjective right, but not my obligation to accept.
(Edit - fixed wording)
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160607/e8f569d2524b25472a5bf9a39ab2f3b6.jpg)
Post by: LevelWing on June 07, 2016, 05:22:34 PM
Do you agree that the "demonization" goes both ways?Absolutely.
And the name-calling is mostly from the anti-trump side towards the "Trumpkin, Trumpanzie, sheep" people?I believe calling someone an "ideologue" would also fall into this category.
Regardless of whether you vote for her or not, if you stand by and she wins, then you helped allow it to happen. Whether or not that is bad thing on your part is strictly up to you.You and I define "standing by" differently. It would seem that to you, a vote not for Trump is "standing by", which I don't agree with.
You may not be supporting her, but you are not preventing her ascension to the throne either. All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.By not voting for her, I am doing my part to prevent her from "ascending to the throne".
Are you implying that we can fix the party between now and November, or that we should just roll over for the Dems until 2020?Of course we can't fix the party between now and November. Are you implying that something will actually change after November if Trump wins? I've seen no evidence of this. Instead, I've only seen a theme that suggests that we need to stop Hilary now and work on the party later. I saw that in 2008 and again in 2012 which is why I've suggested multiple times that I'm not convinced it'll make a difference this time.
I believe that the damage that will be inflicted by Hillary is worse for the country.We are never going to fix the country by continuing to sit back and be told to just vote for the nominee, whomever it is, when nobody is actually serious about fixing the GOP or conservatism. I firmly believe that Trump will set back conservatism for a long time because he will (or has already, I suppose) become the de facto leader of the GOP. Your comment is an attempt to change the narrative away from what I'm speaking to, which is the future of conservatism. This is a consistent theme here and elsewhere: Don't worry about conservatism, stop Hilary now!
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here, but let me try. What we have been doing the past few years hasn't worked. And it won't work. And electing Hillary won't make anything better. That is why we are willing to back Trump. We have few other choices.Again you're changing the narrative to "stop Hilary now!". What I'm trying to say is that we were told to fall in line in 2008 and it didn't work and then again in 2012 and it didn't work. Each time was to stop Obama, because we had to stop him. We couldn't let him be president or get another 4 years. Why should I be convinced that this time will be different?
you present me with a better choice, I will jump all over it. But I'm not going to stand by and allow Hillary to run away with this thing because Trump is not my ideal candidate. He isn't.I'm not standing by either. I'm going to vote.
And what I don't understand about the anti-Trumpers is how you think allowing Hillary to win will fix anything or make anything better. Or to use your logic, do you think we should allow Hillary to win just because she isn't Trump (who beat your guy)?Not voting for Trump is not "allowing" Hilary to win. Let's try it another way: It's not about Hilary, it's about conservatism and ensuring that conservatism and the principles outlined in the Constitution will be upheld in the future. Hilary is most assuredly going to destroy as much as she can of the Constitution and she doesn't care. Trump has made it clear that the first, second and fifth amendments are of little concern to him as well. Why does nobody ever address this? The only response is "well he's better on them than Hilary!". How far we've fallen. If you think this is about being a sore loser because Cruz lost then you're wrong. I think most people are well past that by now.
I've also said multiple times in the past that I'm still on the fence about Trump. I was waiting to see his SCOTUS list which he released and I was fairly happy with. Of course he gave himself the out he always does so that's even up for change now (and before anyone tries to say anything, I said when he released his list that I was aware that it would be used as a guide and that he may not pick someone from that list). I'm still waiting for reasons to vote for trump other than "because Hilary" and so far the only thing I've been met with is resistance and being told that I actually support Hilary.
Post by: Lucifer on June 07, 2016, 05:35:07 PM
I believe calling someone an "ideologue" would also fall into this category.
Really?
Here's the definition of ideologue:
Quote
Simple Definition of ideologue
: someone who very strongly supports and is guided by the ideology of a particular group
You're grasping at straws on this one.
Post by: LevelWing on June 07, 2016, 05:36:19 PM
Really?I'm aware of the definition but you use it, and intend it, in a derogatory manner. You repetitively use it, almost as if it's an insult. It actually reminds me of Trump's "Lyin' Ted" or "Little Marco" kind of comments. If that's not how you intend it then alright, but that's how it comes across.
Here's the definition of ideologue:
You're grasping at straws on this one.
Post by: LevelWing on June 07, 2016, 05:37:45 PM
What I don't understand is why no Trump supporter, with the exception of Newt Gingrich on Fox News Sunday, will hold Trump accountable for the dick things he says or does. I would have more respect for Trump supporters if they said "Wait a minute, dumb ass. Knock that shit off." That can be measured by a drop off of support - Trump may listen to that.I would like to see this as well, but we don't. There's always a defense of Trump, as if he can do no wrong. He may be the presumptive nominee but why does that mean he can't be held accountable by his party and supporters for his remarks?
I took McCain and Romney to task for some of the dumb ass things they said on the campaign trail. Others did as well. I don't see the same "Ombudsman" looking out for the people who will be pulling the lever for him.
Post by: Little Joe on June 07, 2016, 05:46:25 PM
I'm aware of the definition but you use it, and intend it, in a derogatory manner. You repetitively use it, almost as if it's an insult. It actually reminds me of Trump's "Lyin' Ted" or "Little Marco" kind of comments. If that's not how you intend it then I apologize, but that's how it comes across.I use the word because I think the definition fits. Whether it is taken as a pejorative is up to the listener. Like when I call my wife a liberal. I still love her, but that is what she is.
I really don't use the word "Idealogue" in a bad way, except to point out that idealogues may get the majority of votes on their end of the bell curve, but there are way more votes in the middle and the other side that they won't get. So calling Cruz an Idealogue is not criticizing him. It is explaining why he couldn't win.
How is that the same as "Trumpanzie"?
Or "sheep"
or "Trumpkin"
or "Trumpian"
Post by: LevelWing on June 07, 2016, 05:49:33 PM
I use the word because I think the definition fits. Whether it is taken as a pejorative is up to the listener. Like when I call my wife a liberal. I still love her, but that is what she is.As you said to me, not everything was directed at you. Also, people here are being called "ideologues" and if you look at the context, it comes across as being in a derogatory way.
I really don't use the word "Idealogue" in a bad way, except to point out that idealogues may get the majority of votes on their end of the bell curve, but there are way more votes in the middle and the other side that they won't get. So calling Cruz an Idealogue is not criticizing him. It is explaining why he couldn't win.
How is that the same as "Trumpanzie"?
Or "sheep"
or "Trumpkin"
or "Trumpian"
Post by: Little Joe on June 07, 2016, 05:50:08 PM
I think this is what you are looking for:"Dear God, please don't let it come to this!"
(http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160607/e8f569d2524b25472a5bf9a39ab2f3b6.jpg)
But it has come to this. So where do we go from here?
Post by: LevelWing on June 07, 2016, 05:53:10 PM
"Dear God, please don't let it come to this!"The easy thing is to just do exactly what you and others have suggested: vote for Trump, whether holding your nose or not, and get on with it.
But it has come to this. So where do we go from here?
While I don't think it's really a possibility, this did happen and is a partial answer to your question about where we go from here (in other words, this may not be the exact answer, but that doesn't mean merely accepting the two choices is the only answer):
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/us/politics/18alaska.html?_r=0
Post by: Lucifer on June 07, 2016, 05:55:44 PM
I'm aware of the definition but you use it, and intend it, in a derogatory manner. You repetitively use it, almost as if it's an insult. It actually reminds me of Trump's "Lyin' Ted" or "Little Marco" kind of comments. If that's not how you intend it then alright, but that's how it comes across.
Grow the fuck up. I'm using the word as intended. What next? Are you going to claim it's a "racist" remark?
Post by: LevelWing on June 07, 2016, 06:00:50 PM
Grow the fuck up snow flake. I'm using the word as intended. What next? Are you going to claim it's a "racist" remark?Really? I thought you were better than that.
Also, I haven't been the one using words like "Trumpanzie" or whatever.
Post by: Little Joe on June 07, 2016, 06:09:57 PM
The easy thing is to just do exactly what you and others have suggested: vote for Trump,Voting for Trump is NOT easy.
whether holding your nose or not, and get on with it.Speaking only for myself: Thank you for at least acknowledging that voting for Trump does not mean I do so joyously, and that by voting for him, I am declaring that he is exactly the kind of man I want to be President. Voting for Trump is a very difficult choice that is only possible because of the alternative.
While I don't think it's really a possibility, this did happen and is a partial answer to your question about where we go from here (in other words, this may not be the exact answer, but that doesn't mean merely accepting the two choices is the only answer):I don't think it's possible either, but if something happened in the next few months that did provide an acceptable alternative, I would consider it. But acceptable includes a high probability of winning.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/us/politics/18alaska.html?_r=0
Post by: nddons on June 07, 2016, 06:15:38 PM
Really? I thought you were better than that.You did? Have you been drinking? 😉
Post by: JeffDG on June 07, 2016, 06:46:52 PM
I'm aware of the definition but you use it, and intend it, in a derogatory manner. You repetitively use it, almost as if it's an insult. It actually reminds me of Trump's "Lyin' Ted" or "Little Marco" kind of comments. If that's not how you intend it then alright, but that's how it comes across.No, no, no. You're not supposed to use Lyin' Ted or Little Marco anymore, the God King has so decreed.
Post by: JeffDG on June 07, 2016, 06:47:20 PM
Grow the fuck up. I'm using the word as intended. What next? Are you going to claim it's a "racist" remark?You telling someone to grow up is rich.
Post by: JeffDG on June 07, 2016, 06:50:26 PM
Voting for Trump is NOT easy.Speaking only for myself: Thank you for at least acknowledging that voting for Trump does not mean I do so joyously, and that by voting for him, I am declaring that he is exactly the kind of man I want to be President. Voting for Trump is a very difficult choice that is only possible because of the alternative.I've never said that those voting for Trump do it "joyfully"
I simply point out the fact that by casting a vote for Trump, you are saying that he has the qualifications and temperament to be President of the United States. It's not a vote against Hillary, it's a vote FOR him.
If you can give him that endorsement, that's fine. I cannot do that and sleep at night.
Post by: Anthony on June 08, 2016, 06:50:38 AM
I simply point out the fact that by casting a vote for Trump, you are saying that he has the qualifications and temperament to be President of the United States. It's not a vote against Hillary, it's a vote FOR him.
Your Avatar is delusional. That says it all. It will be one of those two. Get over it.
Post by: JeffDG on June 08, 2016, 06:56:25 AM
Your Avatar is delusional. That says it all. It will be one of those two. Get over it.Delusional is voting for Trump but being unable to admit that it means that vote is an endorsement of his qualifications and temperament to be President.
Post by: Anthony on June 08, 2016, 07:16:16 AM
Delusional is voting for Trump but being unable to admit that it means that vote is an endorsement of his qualifications and temperament to be President.
Trump is reality, so is Hillary. Reality is the antithesis of delusion.
Post by: Little Joe on June 08, 2016, 07:19:23 AM
Delusional is voting for Trump but being unable to admit that it means that vote is an endorsement of his qualifications and temperament to be President.You may sneer at the concept of voting for the lesser of two evils. It makes me sick too. But it is a perfectly valid decision type and in fact is made by nearly all voters in nearly every election to some degree. Unless you have direct control over the choices presented, you often have to decide which one you like less.
Voting for President is not like going into a store to buy a suit or a pair of shoes, where if you don't like the selection you can just walk out. In this Presidential election, one of the two offered will win. You can sit back and let others make the decision for you if you want. That is also a perfectly valid method. But I choose to vote for the one I think will hurt the country less. It's ok if you disagree with my conclusion, but I am in no way delusional about this.
Yeah, Trump has said some stupid things. As I said before he was about my 16th choice out of the 17 original candidates. But I prefer him to the alternative.
And sneering and saying I am voting for him because "he is not Hillary" is equally wrong as calling me and others delusional. When I say I will vote for him because he is not Hillary, what I am saying is that I don't think he will enact the liberal agenda that Hillary will. Yeah, he will do some sickening liberal shit. He might not even attempt to tear down Obamacare. He might allow certain restrictions on the 2nd A. But Hillary will expand O'Care. She will destroy the 2nd. She will appoint more liberal judges. She will raise taxes on the productive and redistribute that (reduced) revenue with the non-productive. She will allow terrorists and free loaders to cross our "Open" borders. She will continue and accelerator the "fundamental transformation" of America. The list goes on.
NO. I don't like Trump. I would prefer that my brother-in-law, or 'Gimp, or even YOU be President. But those choices are not available to me, except as a wasted write-in, send-a-message kind of vote. So I will vote for Trump. And I am not delusional about what I am voting for.
Post by: JeffDG on June 08, 2016, 07:20:00 AM
Trump is reality, so is Hillary. Reality is the antithesis of delusion.You are delusional in that you will not admit your vote for Trump is a vote FOR Trump.
Post by: Little Joe on June 08, 2016, 07:23:45 AM
You are delusional in that you will not admit your vote for Trump is a vote FOR Trump.I don't believe anyone ever said that. You should stick to your real arguments and stop making shit up. When you post facts, you almost persuade me at times. When you say shit like that, I tune you out.
Post by: JeffDG on June 08, 2016, 07:36:18 AM
I don't believe anyone ever said that. You should stick to your real arguments and stop making shit up. When you post facts, you almost persuade me at times. When you say shit like that, I tune you out.No, Anthony has continuously contended three things:
1) He is not voting FOR Trump, but against Hillary.
2) His vote for Trump does not indicate he supports Trump in any way
3) Anyone who votes for someone other than Trump is voting for Hillary.
Post by: Little Joe on June 08, 2016, 07:57:29 AM
No, Anthony has continuously contended three things:I'm not going to go look up all of Anthony's posts. I'll leave it to him to declare whether your summary is accurate.
1) He is not voting FOR Trump, but against Hillary.
2) His vote for Trump does not indicate he supports Trump in any way
3) Anyone who votes for someone other than Trump is voting for Hillary.
But speaking for myself, considering we ONLY have TWO choices at this point:
1) I am voting for Trump OVER Hillary.
2) My vote for Trump indicates I support him more than I support Hillary.
3). Any CONSERVATIVE that votes for someone other than Hillary is giving Hillary an advantage, which is in essence a vote for Hillary.
(Consider the transitive property; If A=B and B=C then A=C).
Post by: JeffDG on June 08, 2016, 08:16:55 AM
2) My vote for Trump indicates I support him more than I support Hillary.Put simply: Your vote for Trump indicates you think he has the necessary qualifications and temperament to be POTUS. This is not "relative" to anyone else.
I cannot give him that endorsement and sleep at night.
Post by: Little Joe on June 08, 2016, 08:21:37 AM
Put simply: Your vote for Trump indicates you think he has the necessary qualifications and temperament to be POTUS. This is not "relative" to anyone else.The only part of that that is true is the part where you wouldn't be able to sleep at night.
I cannot give him that endorsement and sleep at night.
I'll probably lose a few nights sleep too. Maybe even more if it turns out as bad as you predict.
But I'll have fewer sleepless nights than if Hillary is elected, because I know it will be bad if that happens.
Post by: JeffDG on June 08, 2016, 08:24:39 AM
Post by: asechrest on June 08, 2016, 08:41:38 AM
3). Any CONSERVATIVE that votes for someone other than Hillary is giving Hillary an advantage, which is in essence a vote for Hillary.
(Consider the transitive property; If A=B and B=C then A=C).
Huh? Now a vote for someone other than Hillary is a vote for Hillary due to the Transitive Property of Equality? Maybe you meant to say a vote for someone other than Trump. But anyway, you're wrong, and fortunately the Transitive Property is not applicable and remains unscathed for future use in mathematics.
Post by: Little Joe on June 08, 2016, 11:20:22 AM
Huh? Now a vote for someone other than Hillary is a vote for Hillary due to the Transitive Property of Equality? Maybe you meant to say a vote for someone other than Trump. But anyway, you're wrong, and fortunately the Transitive Property is not applicable and remains unscathed for future use in mathematics.You obviously are looking for any way to explain away a simple fact, so when I try to explain it differently, you try to say I am saying something different. Since I don't think you are that dumb, then I have to believe you are doing it on purpose.
It's a two person race. One of them is going to win whether you vote or not, or even if you vote for someone else. Since I am only allowed one vote, I want it to go where it will do the most good, or the least damage. The winner will be the one that gets the most votes. If I don't vote for Trump, then Clinton is one vote closer to winning. (or is it a half vote).
And for Jeff, let me say, that person is Trump. He is my man. He can do no wrong. He is exactly the kind of person I want at the helm. I just love it when he calls a spade a spade in spite of all the politically correct panty waists that get their undies wadded up. When Trump speaks, Putin will bow to him. China will dismantle their stupid little man-made Islands and all "good" Muslims will rise up and defeat ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban and Al Queda.
There Jeff, are you happy now!
Post by: pilot_dude on June 08, 2016, 11:23:02 AM
Oh for the love of God. :rolleyes:You called him a racist. I believe that to be false based on the definition of the word. Please support your allegation with rolling eyes or not. Of course, you're free to state you misspoke and meant to say bigot.
No.
Post by: pilot_dude on June 08, 2016, 11:29:02 AM
I'm not going to go look up all of Anthony's posts. I'll leave it to him to declare whether your summary is accurate.That damned deductive logic almost cost me a college career. Me and the prof just didn't see eye to eye and I was too young and dumb to know how to play the game.
But speaking for myself, considering we ONLY have TWO choices at this point:
1) I am voting for Trump OVER Hillary.
2) My vote for Trump indicates I support him more than I support Hillary.
3). Any CONSERVATIVE that votes for someone other than Hillary is giving Hillary an advantage, which is in essence a vote for Hillary.
(Consider the transitive property; If A=B and B=C then A=C).
Post by: nddons on June 08, 2016, 11:41:16 AM
You may sneer at the concept of voting for the lesser of two evils. It makes me sick too. But it is a perfectly valid decision type and in fact is made by nearly all voters in nearly every election to some degree. Unless you have direct control over the choices presented, you often have to decide which one you like less.What is so different this year is something I haven't felt in the last 36 years of being able to vote for POTUS.
Voting for President is not like going into a store to buy a suit or a pair of shoes, where if you don't like the selection you can just walk out. In this Presidential election, one of the two offered will win. You can sit back and let others make the decision for you if you want. That is also a perfectly valid method. But I choose to vote for the one I think will hurt the country less. It's ok if you disagree with my conclusion, but I am in no way delusional about this.
Yeah, Trump has said some stupid things. As I said before he was about my 16th choice out of the 17 original candidates. But I prefer him to the alternative.
And sneering and saying I am voting for him because "he is not Hillary" is equally wrong as calling me and others delusional. When I say I will vote for him because he is not Hillary, what I am saying is that I don't think he will enact the liberal agenda that Hillary will. Yeah, he will do some sickening liberal shit. He might not even attempt to tear down Obamacare. He might allow certain restrictions on the 2nd A. But Hillary will expand O'Care. She will destroy the 2nd. She will appoint more liberal judges. She will raise taxes on the productive and redistribute that (reduced) revenue with the non-productive. She will allow terrorists and free loaders to cross our "Open" borders. She will continue and accelerator the "fundamental transformation" of America. The list goes on.
NO. I don't like Trump. I would prefer that my brother-in-law, or 'Gimp, or even YOU be President. But those choices are not available to me, except as a wasted write-in, send-a-message kind of vote. So I will vote for Trump. And I am not delusional about what I am voting for.
In ALL elections post-Reagan, my candidate didn't win. (Well, except GWB's second term.) I bitched and moaned, but agreed that the actual GOP nominee was someone I could live with. I had no crisis of conscience in voting for, say, Dole, McCain or Romney.
This is different. It's no longer a choice of someone who is not as conservative as I would like them to be.
This time I'm being asked to vote for a despicable human being - someone who I truly despise because of his own words and actions and history. That request challenges my conscience like never before.
I'm over Ted Cruz. I just don't think I can vote for a prick like Trump.
Post by: Little Joe on June 08, 2016, 12:04:26 PM
What is so different this year is something I haven't felt in the last 36 years of being able to vote for POTUS.That is the best reason I have heard yet and I can't (won't) argue with that. A man's got to do what a man's got to dl.
In ALL elections post-Reagan, my candidate didn't win. (Well, except GWB's second term.) I bitched and moaned, but agreed that the actual GOP nominee was someone I could live with. I had no crisis of conscience in voting for, say, Dole, McCain or Romney.
This is different. It's no longer a choice of someone who is not as conservative as I would like them to be.
This time I'm being asked to vote for a despicable human being - someone who I truly despise because of his own words and actions and history. That request challenges my conscience like never before.
I'm over Ted Cruz. I just don't think I can vote for a prick like Trump.
But I just feel that since the winner is going to be either Hillary or Trump, I would feel worse if Hillary wins. I still haven't gotten over 8 and 4 years ago when Obama won. I knew what he was going to do and it scared me. He won, and he has done all that I feared. AND with the precedents he has set, the path is paved for Clinton to do even more and worse.
Post by: asechrest on June 08, 2016, 01:03:25 PM
You obviously are looking for any way to explain away a simple fact, so when I try to explain it differently, you try to say I am saying something different. Since I don't think you are that dumb, then I have to believe you are doing it on purpose.
It's a two person race. One of them is going to win whether you vote or not, or even if you vote for someone else. Since I am only allowed one vote, I want it to go where it will do the most good, or the least damage. The winner will be the one that gets the most votes. If I don't vote for Trump, then Clinton is one vote closer to winning. (or is it a half vote).
And for Jeff, let me say, that person is Trump. He is my man. He can do no wrong. He is exactly the kind of person I want at the helm. I just love it when he calls a spade a spade in spite of all the politically correct panty waists that get their undies wadded up. When Trump speaks, Putin will bow to him. China will dismantle their stupid little man-made Islands and all "good" Muslims will rise up and defeat ISIS, Boko Haram, the Taliban and Al Queda.
There Jeff, are you happy now!
If you'll just quit saying that a vote for one person is a vote for different person, all will be well. Proof by repeated assertion isn't a thing, and that assertion is literally untrue - and not in the teenage girl "like, literally" way, but it is literally untrue. You could just tell Jeff and others that you want them to ignore their conscience and principles and put their support behind Trump for the sole purpose of attempting to defeat Hillary. That way it doesn't feel like a guilt trip using poor logic.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on June 08, 2016, 02:50:07 PM
This time I'm being asked to vote for a despicable human being - someone who I truly despise because of his own words and actions and history. That request challenges my conscience like never before.
I'm over Ted Cruz. I just don't think I can vote for a prick like Trump.
Well, this is it, isn't it? Even if one overlooks character, which apparently American voters do with enthusiastic regularity, Trump has basic brain shortcomings that render him, in my opinion, actually worse than Hillary. And that is no easy feat.
When I see Trump on TV, here is what he does, in his speeches: He starts to talk. He seems to make sense. He says something that reminds him of something else. He follows that thought and speaks about it. Then something reminds him of something else, so he goes down that road. His first point, which seemed to make sense, and resonated with the crowd, was totally forgotten.
He is basically ADD at the very least. He is not a strong leader, and he could indeed be dangerous, because I honestly don't think he can carry a thought (just ONE thought!) out to its logical conclusion.
Post by: Dav8or on June 08, 2016, 03:23:19 PM
Post by: JeffDG on June 09, 2016, 07:41:19 AM
Quote
He made lobbyists a chief target of his primary campaign—but now, as the general election picks up, they have many seats at the table at Trump Tower.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/08/trump-plots-lobbyist-power-summit.html?via=mobile&source=twitter
Donald Trump will assemble a group of high-powered lobbyists Thursday, so they can pitch him on their special interests behind closed doors at Trump Tower.
The “Trump Leadership Council,” as it has been dubbed, was formed to provide the presumptive Republican nominee with guidance on various industries. Thursday’s multi-hour meeting will include whirlwind rounds of presentations by America’s powerful defense, energy, healthcare, manufacturing, finance, and commerce industries, according to a source involved with planning the meeting.
Post by: Little Joe on June 09, 2016, 10:35:46 AM
Hey, y'all remember when Trump was better because he didn't need to deal with lobbyists? Yeah, good times, good times...Ok, I read the article expecting to find something askew. But I couldn't find it. Did Trump take money from those industrialists and lobbyists? How much? I didn't see any mention of that.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/08/trump-plots-lobbyist-power-summit.html?via=mobile&source=twitter