View Full Version : National Review is Against Trump
Roguish Lawyer
01-21-2016, 21:35
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430137/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430137/donald-trump-conservative-movement-menace
They won't support Cruz either. ;) Let Trump draw fire that would be aimed at Cruz otherwise.
(I'm hopping that there is a Palin Gambit being played. ;))
Pat
UWOA (RIP)
01-21-2016, 22:08
Two words of the article pretty much sums it up -- "political opportunist". I'm reminded of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. I just wonder when people are going to wake up and perceive the 'naked' truth about Donald Trump. He's a buffoon, a bully, and a jerk. The article properly singled out that on several occasions he has advanced positions relative to our adversaries in the Middle East that are, on their face, war crimes.
Obviously, I agree wholeheartedly with this review and will continue to support reasonable Republicans who exhibit common sense and logical assessment of the issues and their resolution.
Just my $0.02.
.
mark46th
01-21-2016, 22:56
I will vote for whomever the Republicans nominate.
Hopefully, Hillary will be under indictment in a month or two and out of the picture. If she is not indicted, the FBI will lose all credibility. The Dems will have either Biden or Bernie as their candidate. Lets hope the Republicans don't implode and lose the Whitehouse. There will be at least three new Supreme Court Justices appointed over the next term. If they aren't conservatives, the country may be damaged beyond repair.
I will vote for whomever the Republicans nominate.
Hopefully, Hillary will be under indictment in a month or two and out of the picture. If she is not indicted, the FBI will lose all credibility. The Dems will have either Biden or Bernie as their candidate. Lets hope the Republicans don't implode and lose the Whitehouse. There will be at least three new Supreme Court Justices appointed over the next term. If they aren't conservatives, the country may be damaged beyond repair.
New Federal Judge supported by 13 GOP Senators: Wilhelmina Wright.
Writing in a law review questioning the constitutional protections of property rights, Write observed:
White people are running and hiding. Their mad scramble is aided by a Chief Justice [Justice Rehnquist] who owned racially restrictive property and a Presidential administration [President Reagan] that believes bigotry, poverty, and poor educational opportunities for most public school students are the unavoidable fruits of a “thriving” free market economy.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/19/senate-gop-set-to-approve-judge-who-thinks-property-rights-racist/
She's rumored to be on a fast track to The SCOTUS.
We must repeal the 17th Amendment. The states need to regain control of their Senators.
Pat
If Trump doesn't get the nomination, I wonder if he has the financial clout and enough history of back room dealings with figures in power to exact a little revenge on one or both sides?
Whether or not he is elected, I am excited to see him (and Cruz for that matter) shaking up the GOP the way they are.
HRC's a loser. Trump's a winner. That's how it should play out.
^^^^^I would STRONGLY recommend that you look into Trump's actions / behavior instead of what he is saying. He is no conservative.
^^^^^I would STRONGLY recommend that you look into Trump's actions / behavior instead of what he is saying. He is no conservative.
Oh, I know, Sir.
I'm just saying he's a winner; has a history of it.
Clinton has a history of losing, and she'll lose again.
That's the point I'm trying to make.
^^^^^I would STRONGLY recommend that you look into Trump's actions / behavior instead of what he is saying. He is no conservative.
Conservative Review has a good summary of Trump:
https://www.conservativereview.com/2016-presidential-candidates/candidates/donald-trump
It was previously linked to here:
http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=587228&postcount=70
Trump's a good businessman. It'll help. He's got clangers, too.
I realize the Evangelicals will flock away from the polls because he owns a casino, but I don't want to feel the bern, personally. Nor do I want to live through another few years of Marxist leadership.
I feel that Trump would, repeal many of Obamas executive orders, be strong on defense, strong on foreign policy and enogh of a wild-card to give others on the world stage a pause , good for business, smart enough not to go after people's guns, and with a big enough ego to want to be considerd "successful" by history, and enough personal wealth to give the entrenched establishment the big one finger salute and continue to be a de-stabilizing force to the status quo.
I also think that he is riding a wave now... and can't see how he would be any less electable than ted cruz.
the squid
01-22-2016, 09:43
Trump's a good businessman. It'll help. He's got clangers, too.
I realize the Evangelicals will flock away from the polls because he owns a casino, but I don't want to feel the bern, personally. Nor do I want to live through another few years of Marxist leadership.
I disagree - as far as him having balls.
Trump is the kid on the playground who's bigger than everyone - so everyone backs down. Being ham fisted and loud doesn't necessarily mean strength - to me at least.
I'd rather vote for an actual conservative - not a media creation whose biggest strength seems to be his opportunism.
UWOA (RIP)
01-22-2016, 09:49
Hopefully, Hillary will be under indictment in a month or two and out of the picture. If she is not indicted, the FBI will lose all credibility.
She should have already been indicted .... There has to be enormous pressure at the top to delay, delay, delay. Probably until, as one of his last acts in office, Obama pardons her. I wish I could say that it might turn out otherwise. She deserves to go to jail ....
.
Roguish Lawyer
01-22-2016, 11:09
There will be at least three new Supreme Court Justices appointed over the next term. If they aren't conservatives, the country may be damaged beyond repair.
Yep, and I guarantee that Trump is not going to appoint conservatives.
IMO...they all have warts...some more than others.
The best interests of the nation must be the focus.
Primary leaders at the moment (it's no wonder this process is uncomfortable):
Democrats:
1).A criminal
2).A socialist/communist
3).An incompetent
Republicans:
1).A boorish business man - albeit a self-promoting genius and political opportunist shaking the establishment of both parties
2).A Tea Party Senator/consitutional advocate - shaking up the party
3).Various folks move in and out of this third spot...each better for the country than the Dems as outlined above.
A "third term" for BHO will be terminal for the nation as we know it...the fundamental transformation will be in place.
Western Europe (and all their problems) is a crystal clear indication of where the Dems want to take this nation.
Yep, and I guarantee that Trump is not going to appoint conservatives.
I don't know about the guarantee.. but this is a very strong point for cruz.
Having worked for some lesbians activists, I found their biggest fear was not Cruz, it was that Trump would become President and he would reverse everything they have achieved under Zero.
They view Trump in the context of Hitler.
3).Various folks move in and out of this third spot...each better for the country than the Dems as outlined above.
I haven't counted the dark horse (Bush) and his juggernaut out, yet.
I haven't counted the dark horse (Bush) and his juggernaut out, yet.
Concur. It is a reasonable possibility.
#1 and #2 bash each other's brains...conservatives cannibalize their candidates in the primary build up...the juggernaut puts an "acceptable" DC player in position...
Obama term 3 light...(strike that overstatement re Jeb being Obama term 3 light...more like another BIG Government Republicrat) versus a pick your poison Statist...Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden or both may be in that Dem list too, depending...
Let's hope we don't go there.
I haven't counted the dark horse (Bush) and his juggernaut out, yet.
Yeah, but it is too the point where people are sick of voting for the lesser of two evils. A vote for Bush or Clinton is a vote for a continuation of the same BS. So I see a lot of people sitting the election out if Rove & Co weasle Little Jebby in for the nomination.
I just don't see Jeb and his Plan toppling Hillary or Sanders. He is too much of a whiner.
Yeah, but it is too the point where people are sick of voting for the lesser of two evils. A vote for Bush or Clinton is a vote for a continuation of the same BS. So I see a lot of people sitting the election out if Rove & Co weasle Little Jebby in for the nomination.
I just don't see Jeb and his Plan toppling Hillary or Sanders. He is too much of a whiner.
Makes sense.
There will be a PONR for HRC, in my opinion, re: indictments. Sanders only has the kooks and idiots to back him up. There won't be a groundswell for the dem candidate this time.
My prediction: Trump survives the lib attacks, wins, goes tandem with Cruz, opens the pipeline, nips illegal immigration in the bud, opens up a surgical removal of the daesh and bombs Teheran level. At some point, he will go up to certain libs who have to exit the admin, get in their faces, and say, "You're fired."
I believe this is the future Bibi is betting on, as well.
(1VB)compforce
01-23-2016, 06:49
At some point, he will go up to certain libs who have to exit the admin, get in their faces, and say, "You're fired."
I like it, let's do it publically.... White House Apprentice
Makes sense.
There will be a PONR for HRC, in my opinion, re: indictments. Sanders only has the kooks and idiots to back him up. There won't be a groundswell for the dem candidate this time.
My prediction: Trump survives the lib attacks, wins, goes tandem with Cruz, opens the pipeline, nips illegal immigration in the bud, opens up a surgical removal of the daesh and bombs Teheran level. At some point, he will go up to certain libs who have to exit the admin, get in their faces, and say, "You're fired."
I believe this is the future Bibi is betting on, as well.
I hear people discuss how Trump doesn't have the experience needed, he doesn't know foreign policy. he is not a politician...and the first thing that comes to mind is Benghazi and the absolute mess the Arab Spring has become on the 'Experienced Politicians' watch.
So you are either voting for a sure continuation of Benghazi like foreign policy or take a chance and vote for the possibility of something different.
For some it would be nice to hear You're Fired along with a perp walk to life sentence w/o parole
UWOA (RIP)
01-23-2016, 11:02
I hear people discuss how Trump doesn't have the experience needed, he doesn't know foreign policy. he is not a politician...and the first thing that comes to mind is Benghazi and the absolute mess the Arab Spring has become on the 'Experienced Politicians' watch.
So you are either voting for a sure continuation of Benghazi like foreign policy or take a chance and vote for the possibility of something different.
For some it would be nice to hear You're Fired along with a perp walk to life sentence w/o parole
Based on what you're saying, we don't need SFQC ... or experience. Go figure ....
Me, I figure the next President needs the right kind of training (i.e. job path) and the right kind of experience. Not much to choose from right now.
.
GratefulCitizen
01-23-2016, 11:15
Trump compared to anyone else, of any political party, is a case of the devil you don't know vs the devil you do know.
It is difficult to predict what the man would do given the powers of the office.
Many voters are exasperated by the lather, rinse, repeat of the federal government.
They've been pushed to the point where they're willing to roll the dice on a dangerous bet.
Many entrenched in power will lose if he's elected.
Whether the people at large would also lose is an unknown.
Guymullins
01-23-2016, 14:27
If I were American, the thing I would be most worried about is the famous Checks and Balances built into the Constitution and political system.
These don't seem to have worked very well with the current President and because of that, I would worry that they wouldn't work with any new President too.
It seemed that the people were powerless in stopping Obama from doing stupid or even traitorous things and if the Donald proves to be another loose cannon, albeit in another way, will the people be able to stop him doing stupid things?
Based on what you're saying, we don't need SFQC ... or experience. Go figure ....
Me, I figure the next President needs the right kind of training (i.e. job path) and the right kind of experience. Not much to choose from right now.
.
I did not mention anything about SFQC, but it takes far more than whoring yourself to pass the course. Qualifications for SF and DC is like comparing apples to oranges.
The choices aren't all that great, very true. The choice haven't been that great for quite awhile, and every cycle we continue the insanity by voting for the preceived lesser of two evils. The last two lacky's that come to mind were John McCain and Mitt Romney and both were complete jokes.
So if you don't mind a continuation of the DC circus and its insane clown posse by all means vote for Hillary or Jeb, and kick the can down the road for another 4-8 years. A vote for Hillary is a vote for more Benghazi's. A vote for Jeb means fours years of him tellng eveyone he has a plan and hearing what a genuis Karl Rove is.
Nothing is ever going to change as long as you keep playing their game.
T
They've been pushed to the point where they're willing to roll the dice on a dangerous bet..
Anyway you look at it this could be the final roll of the game, and the choices are all dangerous. And with that in mind, Jeb, Hillary and Sanders are all losing bets and you are rolling for either Cruz or Trump to take you to the promised land.
I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters
UWOA (RIP)
01-23-2016, 21:52
I did not mention anything about SFQC, but it takes far more than whoring yourself to pass the course. Qualifications for SF and DC is like comparing apples to oranges.
The choices aren't all that great, very true. The choice haven't been that great for quite awhile, and every cycle we continue the insanity by voting for the preceived lesser of two evils. The last two lacky's that come to mind were John McCain and Mitt Romney and both were complete jokes.
So if you don't mind a continuation of the DC circus and its insane clown posse by all means vote for Hillary or Jeb, and kick the can down the road for another 4-8 years. A vote for Hillary is a vote for more Benghazi's. A vote for Jeb means fours years of him tellng eveyone he has a plan and hearing what a genuis Karl Rove is.
Nothing is ever going to change as long as you keep playing their game.
I was using SFQC premise as an analogy counter to you alluding that neither training nor experience should be deciding factors in selecting/voting for a candidate ... also, given the nature of the process you're always going to be faced with picking 'the lesser of two evils' -- because none of the choices are perfect, so your statement is disingenuous at best; otherwise, based on your subsequent statement it seems we are more in agreement than disagreement ....
.
I think this captures Trump well:
"The appeal of a Donald Trump is obvious:
1) He has his own money, which means he’s beholden to no one.
2) He eschews political correctness and focus-group-approved language.
3) He has charisma and guts enough to broach topics considered radioactive for other candidates.
On those fronts, Trump is an ideal candidate. Unfortunately, behind those positive points lies a mess of unprincipled confusion, pandering and shameless self-promotion all disguised as policy."
http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2016/01/24/welcome-to-the-party-pal-n2108964
I think this captures Trump well:
"The appeal of a Donald Trump is obvious:
1) He has his own money, which means he’s beholden to no one.
2) He eschews political correctness and focus-group-approved language.
3) He has charisma and guts enough to broach topics considered radioactive for other candidates.
On those fronts, Trump is an ideal candidate. Unfortunately, behind those positive points lies a mess of unprincipled confusion, pandering and shameless self-promotion all disguised as policy."
http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2016/01/24/welcome-to-the-party-pal-n2108964
It's unfortunate that he's the frontrunner, but he beats the alternative-long run and short-and that is an undeniable fact.
Unfortunately, behind those positive points lies a mess of unprincipled confusion, pandering and shameless self-promotion all disguised as policy."
I believe you could much the same about the vast majority of politicans. It seems seems to me their 'Policy' revolves around personal-enrichment, covering ones ass and growing their teams brand over the needs of the nation.
Trump only said he could get away with murder, HRC on the other hand actually has gotten away with murder and a long list of other crimes. So the longer this circus continues the more it looks like Trump may be more qualified than he is been given credit.
craigepo
01-24-2016, 09:56
I think this captures Trump well:
"The appeal of a Donald Trump is obvious:
1) He has his own money, which means he’s beholden to no one.
2) He eschews political correctness and focus-group-approved language.
3) He has charisma and guts enough to broach topics considered radioactive for other candidates.
On those fronts, Trump is an ideal candidate. Unfortunately, behind those positive points lies a mess of unprincipled confusion, pandering and shameless self-promotion all disguised as policy."
http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2016/01/24/welcome-to-the-party-pal-n2108964
I think it was Eric Erickson who recently opined that, while we should welcome Trump and his newfound conservatism, his is too new to be elected as a "trusted conservative" to the most powerful position on the planet. I'm finding it rather difficult to logically merge Trump's present statements with his past actions.
Opinions are preferences which can change. Conversely, a person can't compromise his convictions without redefining who he is. Applying this logic to Trump does not paint an electable picture.
I was using SFQC premise as an analogy counter to you alluding that neither training nor experience should be deciding factors in selecting/voting for a candidate ... also, given the nature of the process you're always going to be faced with picking 'the lesser of two evils' -- because none of the choices are perfect, so your statement is disingenuous at best; otherwise, based on your subsequent statement it seems we are more in agreement than disagreement ....
.
I agree with you 100% on the need of qualifications. Whether it is me, you or whomever, people find comfort in knowing that a person or persons is up to the task. We all want to people we can count on....
The problem is the standard bar for politicians includes the unsavory qualifications of adultry, lying, cheating, theft, treason, sedition and many other unsavory characteristics......you must be very short on integrity to be a present day politician.
ddoering
01-24-2016, 10:43
I agree with you 100% on the need of qualifications. Whether it is me, you or whomever, people find comfort in knowing that a person or persons is up to the task. We all want to people we can count on....
And they found that in Obama? Sorry but I disagree. The uneducated masses got for celebrity. They are used to shallow personallities. They also don't expect a politician to really follow thru on his campaign promises, at least not during the first term. We are a nation of idiots.
I think it was Eric Erickson who recently opined that, while we should welcome Trump and his newfound conservatism, his is too new to be elected as a "trusted conservative" to the most powerful position on the planet. I'm finding it rather difficult to logically merge Trump's present statements with his past actions.
Opinions are preferences which can change. Conversely, a person can't compromise his convictions without redefining who he is. Applying this logic to Trump does not paint an electable picture.
Ronnie backed up Truman on the single-payer crap and hung with Humphrey.
People can change.
We may not have a choice other than Trump or a Marxist. What are you gonna do?
And they found that in Obama? Sorry but I disagree. The uneducated masses got for celebrity. They are used to shallow personallities. They also don't expect a politician to really follow thru on his campaign promises, at least not during the first term. We are a nation of idiots.
Heck no, they/we got a bag of crap with Obama. But they do believe and expect all the promises that are made to be cashed in full....just as with Read my lips, No new taxes. When they don't get what was promised they run to a new savior.
Do you expect politians to follow through? If not, then why cast a vote?
I think it was Eric Erickson who recently opined that, while we should welcome Trump and his newfound conservatism, his is too new to be elected as a "trusted conservative" to the most powerful position on the planet. I'm finding it rather difficult to logically merge Trump's present statements with his past actions.
Opinions are preferences which can change. Conversely, a person can't compromise his convictions without redefining who he is. Applying this logic to Trump does not paint an electable picture.
I can agree with that premise, however I do not believe so-called established conservatives like John Bohner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, John McCain and Mitch McConnell (too name just a few) can be considered 'Trusted Conservatives'.
As I see it you could put any of the fives names above in place of Trumps
'I'm finding it rather difficult to logically merge _______________ present statements with his past actions.'
UWOA (RIP)
01-24-2016, 13:49
Heck no, they/we got a bag of crap with Obama. But they do believe and expect all the promises that are made to be cashed in full....just as with Read my lips, No new taxes. When they don't get what was promised they run to a new savior.
Do you expect politians to follow through? If not, then why cast a vote?
I don't expect anyone to save me ... I'll take care of that myself (using a few close friends). That's what sheeple expect -- a saviour ....
.
Roguish Lawyer
01-24-2016, 15:17
You know what they say about pictures . . . :munchin
(1VB)compforce
01-24-2016, 15:24
You know what they say about pictures . . . :munchin
Is that the pocket flap of Ted Cruz's suit? :D
(1VB)compforce
01-24-2016, 15:54
You know what they say about pictures . . . :munchin
Seriously though... His ties are made in China, his suits in Mexico. It's the way the regulations and tariff structures are set up. When it's cheaper to make something overseas/in another country and import it than it is to make it here, it sets up a trade imbalance that is a big part of why manufacturing in the US is dying. I will tell you that I do believe that Trump is a patriot. If the choice between manufacturing overseas or doing it here had roughly the same costs, I'd be willing to wager that he would choose to make them here.
The US has some of the highest business taxes in the world.
The United States has the third highest general top marginal corporate income tax rate in the world at 39.1 percent, exceeded only by Chad and the United Arab Emirates.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/corporate-income-tax-rates-around-world-2014
China is either 33% or 25% depending on various factors. They also have Government sponsored subsidies on goods that are exported. There's a reason that there are so many companies going there for manufacturing, not just Trump.
Interestingly, even though it would hurt his own business, Trump is advocating for a tariff on goods manufactured in China (even though he argued badly in the debate that it wasn't a tariff). This was one of the points that Ted Cruz opposed in the debate.
"Both Donald and Jeb have good points, and there is a middle ground. Donald is right that China is running over President Obama like he is a child, that President Obama is not protecting American workers and we are getting hammered," Cruz said. "But Jeb is also right that if we just impose a tariff, they'll put a reciprocal tariffs, which will hurt Iowa farmers and South Carolina producers and 20% of the American jobs that depend on exports."
Personally, I agree with doing it. China is manipulating currency and now their stock market to undermine the dollar. If it wasn't so much cheaper to build in China and import into the US, we'd actually have higher tax revenue AND create more jobs here in the US. My belief is that the impacts that Cruz cited would happen, but the additional revenue and jobs would more than make up for it. The economy is not a zero sum game...
Change the rules to make manufacturing in the US a value proposition and businesses will adjust, albeit slowly.
I did not mention anything about SFQC, but it takes far more than whoring yourself to pass the course. Qualifications for SF and DC is like comparing apples to oranges.
The choices aren't all that great, very true. The choice haven't been that great for quite awhile, and every cycle we continue the insanity by voting for the preceived lesser of two evils. The last two lacky's that come to mind were John McCain and Mitt Romney and both were complete jokes.
So if you don't mind a continuation of the DC circus and its insane clown posse by all means vote for Hillary or Jeb, and kick the can down the road for another 4-8 years. A vote for Hillary is a vote for more Benghazi's. A vote for Jeb means fours years of him tellng eveyone he has a plan and hearing what a genuis Karl Rove is.
Nothing is ever going to change as long as you keep playing their game.
Here's what will never change: not voting for the non-dem gives the dem half a vote.
craigepo
01-24-2016, 19:54
Ronnie backed up Truman on the single-payer crap and hung with Humphrey.
People can change.
We may not have a choice other than Trump or a Marxist. What are you gonna do?
As I've said before, anybody in the GOP field is preferable what the Democrats are offering. But the point remains, that the GOP needs to put forward the best we have.
Here's one huge problem as an illustration: Imagine you're Hillary's campaign manager (disgusting, I know, but bear with me). One of your jobs is to put together Hillary's commercials, emails, facebook posts, mailers, etc. Your goal is to galvanize your base, demoralize the GOP base, and to try and get independents and cross-over voters.
The script against Trump writes itself. Trump has traded in two wives for younger women, he owns casinos, he was previously pro-abortion, and his religious faith is lukewarm at best (how many Christians now stay home). He was previously for an assault rifle ban (now the NRA folks get squeemish). He is for expanding use of eminent domain (property rights issues are pretty important in rural areas). He received a ton of deferments to avoid the draft (now your veteran groups are groaning). So, how many commercials could we come up with so far, and we haven't even had a Hillary-Trump debate?
So far, the field has been so broad that he hasn't had to answer any tough questions. He hasn't had to put forward a tax plan, proposals on foreign affairs, etc. Once the field narrows, his off-the-cuff remarks must be replaced by solid policy proposals. I hope that he doesn't come up with anything too crazy, but Trump's history shows that there is no guarantee.
It's one thing to say that a person will vote for Trump vs. the democrats. It's wholly another to say that he should be the GOP nominee. We have some pretty impressive candidates up there, but the problem is that Trump steals the oxygen from the room with a lot of bluster and zero substance. The voters in Iowa and New Hampshire go to the polls in the next few weeks, hopefully they send us some pretty good winners.
As I've said before, anybody in the GOP field is preferable what the Democrats are offering. But the point remains, that the GOP needs to put forward the best we have.
Here's one huge problem as an illustration: Imagine you're Hillary's campaign manager (disgusting, I know, but bear with me). One of your jobs is to put together Hillary's commercials, emails, facebook posts, mailers, etc. Your goal is to galvanize your base, demoralize the GOP base, and to try and get independents and cross-over voters.
The script against Trump writes itself. Trump has traded in two wives for younger women, he owns casinos, he was previously pro-abortion, and his religious faith is lukewarm at best (how many Christians now stay home). He was previously for an assault rifle ban (now the NRA folks get squeemish). He is for expanding use of eminent domain (property rights issues are pretty important in rural areas). He received a ton of deferments to avoid the draft (now your veteran groups are groaning). So, how many commercials could we come up with so far, and we haven't even had a Hillary-Trump debate?
So far, the field has been so broad that he hasn't had to answer any tough questions. He hasn't had to put forward a tax plan, proposals on foreign affairs, etc. Once the field narrows, his off-the-cuff remarks must be replaced by solid policy proposals. I hope that he doesn't come up with anything too crazy, but Trump's history shows that there is no guarantee.
It's one thing to say that a person will vote for Trump vs. the democrats. It's wholly another to say that he should be the GOP nominee. We have some pretty impressive candidates up there, but the problem is that Trump steals the oxygen from the room with a lot of bluster and zero substance. The voters in Iowa and New Hampshire go to the polls in the next few weeks, hopefully they send us some pretty good winners.
I'm not arguing with your logic/facts.
With this election, the populist beast is in charge, though; not reasoning men.
The cross-section is just too frustrated with the status quo because of Obama.
I think even college kids and many gun-bearing dems will vote for the guy.
He'll be quite a cagy saddle bronc to ride, but it beats the alternative.
I don't hold out much hope for sanity to overcome the swell, though it would be outstanding to wake up and have Cruz in the driver's seat.
My druthers would have been a Carson presidency, but he lacks dynamism. Pity.
...
We may not have a choice other than Trump or a Marxist. What are you gonna do?
Not a big Trump fan, but if that's what happens, Trump's an easy choice.
My concern is that Trump savages the GOP field to the point no one viable is left standing, he decides it isn't worth the hassle, drops out, and his followers stay home. That leaves an opening for someone like Michael Bloomberg to step in to the gap as an independent. What if the choice ends up being Bloomberg vs a Marxist?
If Trump doesn't end up being the nominee, his slash and burn tactics with the other GOP candidates is only benefiting the Dem's and someone like Bloomberg.
Not a big Trump fan, but if that's what happens, Trump's an easy choice.
My concern is that Trump savages the GOP field to the point no one viable is left standing, he decides it isn't worth the hassle, drops out, and his followers stay home. That leaves an opening for someone like Michael Bloomberg to step in to the gap as an independent. What if the choice ends up being Bloomberg vs a Marxist?
If Trump doesn't end up being the nominee, his slash and burn tactics with the other GOP candidates is only benefiting the Dem's and someone like Bloomberg.
Normally, I'd say you're stretching it and being paranoid, but these aren't normal times.
Who knows?
All I know is, the Country's carrying a bone in her teeth right now, and it's The Donald.
I'...
I think even college kids and many gun-bearing dems will vote for the guy...
My 18yr old kid who can vote follows him on twitter and will likely vote for him.
My 15yr old son's friends that will be 18 by the time the election rolls around follow Trump on twitter and will probably vote for him.
They are both in different places so we are not talking the same circle of friends. Its not in any way a statistically valid sample size but it is to me, an indicator.
Young people will not be turning out en mass to vote for Benie Sanders or the Hildabeast...assuming of course that she will evade prosecution and actually be the nominee...which is not certain.
Trump is a showman. He is entertaining and he and his campain are doing a masterful job of using the media. Both mainstream and social.
Here's what will never change: not voting for the non-dem gives the dem half a vote.
The way I look at Hillary, Jeb, Rubio and Sanders is a continuation of Death by 1000 cuts, I really like Cruz but he pisses too many people off and then we have the surprise package of Trump.
What are we going to get with Trump? One can only speculate what a President Trump will bring, but I would wager he will cause the reset button to be hit.
I don't expect anyone to save me ... I'll take care of that myself (using a few close friends). That's what sheeple expect -- a saviour ....
.
Same here.
Phyllis Schlafly is no fan of National Review.
Phyllis Schlafly: National Review Is Not the Authority on Conservatism
Living legend and conservative heroine Phyllis Schlafly slammed National Review for their efforts to take down GOP frontrunner, Donald Trump.
On Friday’s program of The Laura Ingraham Show, Schlafly declared, “I don’t recognize National Review as the authority on conservatism.” Schlafly blasted National Review for being more eager to fight Donald Trump than they are to fight the Republican donor-class, whom Schlafly calls the Kingmakers.
Schlafly said:
National Review is not the authentic conservative. You know, Bill Buckley was for giving away the Panama Canal, which was an enormous issue with conservatives. And in ten years they never wrote a single article about the Equal Rights Amendment, so they were no help against that. So I don’t recognize National Review as the authority on conservatism.
The 91 year-old Phyllis Schlafly helped launch the conservative movement and has been active in politics for more than one-fourth of American history...
...“The Kingmakers,” Schlafly told Breitbart, “have picked our last bunch of losers. And there’s one loser after another because they were more interested in maintaining their flow of money from the big donors and their cooperation with the Democrats—their bipartisanship—and that’s not my goal. I’m for America [Schlafly slams hand on table] and America first [slams hand on table again].”
“Trump is the only hope to defeat the Kingmakers,” Schlafly told Breitbart resolutely. “Because everybody else will fall in line. The Kingmakers have so much money behind them.” {I could be wrong, but from what I have seen of Ted Cruz, I don't think he will 'fall in line.'}
Continue reading (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/01/23/phyllis-schlafly-national-review-not-authority-conservatism/)
Pat Caddell claims this election is about an insurgency, not an ideology. He attributes the Republican party consultants with destroying the campaigns of all but Trump and Cruz (they didn't hire national Republican party consultants).
“The election is not about ideology, not about issues, it’s about insurgency,” noted Democrat pollster Pat Caddell told Breitbart News Network editor-in-chief Alexander Marlow.
Appearing on the Sunday edition of Breitbart’s radio show on Sirius XM 125 the Patriot Channel, Caddell gave his take on the state of the Presidential race.
With voting set to begin with the Iowa caucuses next week, Caddell’s take is a must-listen for those closely following the nomination contest in both parties. A veteran of Presidential campaigns stretching over four decades, Caddell has had a front-row seat at many political defining moments in recent history.
For Caddell, the 2016 election is about voters revolting against Washington and the political classes that have dominated government and policy in recent years. “The system is on the verge of coming apart,” Caddell noted. “The politicians in Washington aren’t going to be able to put the genie back in the bottle.”
Most Republican campaigns have been left flat-footed in response, according to Caddell. He places the blame squarely on Republican party consultants, coming out of DC and the Republican National Committee, misunderstanding the mood of voters.
“They have less feel for the electorate than the man in the moon,” Caddell observed.
Caddell noted that the only two Republican candidates who have not hired or surrounded themselves with national Republican consultants are Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
97%
. Scott Walker, he said, surrounded himself with consultants out of Washington and out of the RNC and they immediately destroyed his candidacy...
Continue reading (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/25/pat-caddell-election-about-insurgency-not-ideology/) (in the article is a podcast of the interview with Pat Caddell)
Pat Caddell claims this election is about an insurgency, not an ideology. He attributes the Republican party consultants with destroying the campaigns of all but Trump and Cruz (they didn't hire national Republican party consultants).
And, this is one of the (many) reasons Trump and Cruz are both despised by establishment Republicrats.
IMO this is both an insurgency AND an ideology. Many folks want leadership that truly puts the nation (not party) first, again.
Add to that, too many folks also see the edge of the precipice for this once great nation...the irony is that with the right leadership we could DOMINATE the world stage like perhaps no other period in our history.
GratefulCitizen
01-25-2016, 19:06
People will tolerate many flaws in their leaders.
Weakness is not among them.
Most candidates demonstrate groveling at some point, usually towards the media.
Trump never grovels.
Trump never grovels
Is that due to a vast reservoir of grit or the fact he was born with a silver spoon, and acts like he's never been hit in the mouth?
The more Trump talks, the less I like him. If establishment republicans are beginning to support Trump, to me, that is a solid endorsement of Ted Cruz.
Monday on CNN’s “Wolf,” Republican front-runner Donald Trump said establishment Republicans are now switching to his side because they do not like his opponent Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).
Trump said, “Well I think the establishment actually is against me but really coming on line because they see me as opposed to Cruz, who is a nasty guy who can’t get along with anybody. Look, at a certain point, we got to make deals. We can’t have a guy who stands in the middle of the Senate floor and every other senator thinks he’s a whack job. Right you know — You have to make deals, you have to get along, that’s the purpose of what our founders created, and Ted cannot get along with anybody. He’s a nasty person.”
Link (http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/01/25/trump-establishment-rallying-behind-me-to-stop-nasty-cruz/)
GratefulCitizen
01-25-2016, 22:47
Is that due to a vast reservoirs of grit or the fact he was born with a silver spoon, and acts like he's never been hit in the mouth?
Reagan never groveled.
Not groveling doesn't also require boorish behavior.
Unfortunately, too many candidates equate polite behavior with submissive behavior.
It's the emasculation of the American male.
The more Trump talks, the less I like him. If establishment republicans are beginning to support Trump, to me, that is a solid endorsement of Ted Cruz.
I hear you, Brother, but you gotta look at why the rinos are forming up on Trump rather than Cruz. They have no choice. There's 9 months left-they figure the die is cast.
We'll know the results of this nomination process immediately if Megyn Kelly gets stifled. ;)
The more Trump talks, the less I like him. If establishment republicans are beginning to support Trump, to me, that is a solid endorsement of Ted Cruz.
You have a point there, however there is a Cruz commercial playing in our area where Cruz (imo) come off as a well scripted politician.......it actually reminds me of Hillary's speeches and makes my skin crawl. And I like Ted Cruz.
Trump's comment on shooting someone on 5th Ave could play out well in a Trump/HRC battle.
Trump said, “Well I think the establishment actually is against me but really coming on line because they see me as opposed to Cruz, who is a nasty guy who can’t get along with anybody. Look, at a certain point, we got to make deals. We can’t have a guy who stands in the middle of the Senate floor and every other senator thinks he’s a whack job. Right you know — You have to make deals, you have to get along, that’s the purpose of what our founders created, and Ted cannot get along with anybody.
So, Trump is the outsider-insider and Ted Cruz is the insider-outsider?
John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Paul Ryan, et al made deals with the Democrats and 'got along.' How has that worked out? If you support crony capitalism and big government, or statist policies, great. If you support limited, constitutional government, not so much.
Reagan never groveled
Agreed, and Trump is no Reagan. Reagan was a self made man and not born into wealth. His autobiography mentions growing up eating oatmeal with hamburger in it as a daily meal while struggling with an alcoholic father in the Great Depression.
Two small anecdotes from his autobiography show his humility. President Reagan was pistol shooting at his ranch with his secret service detail when he asked them why they didn't shoot from a natural crouch. He then realized with humble gratitude they trained to make themselves as big targets as possible while protecting him.
The second deals with the crucial nuclear arms talks with Gorbachev in Switzerland. The Reagan's were staying in a private villa. He promised the owner's kids he would feed their goldfish. The most powerful man in the world under stress from high stakes nuclear negotiations apologized to these kids for forgetting to feed their goldfish, and had the goldfish replaced.
My $.02, I don't see anything close to this level of strength or humility in Trump, which is why the prospects of replacing a divisive Marxist wimp with an equally divisive arrogant bully does not bode well for our nation.
GratefulCitizen
01-26-2016, 12:09
Agreed, and Trump is no Reagan. Reagan was a self made man and not born into wealth. His autobiography mentions growing up eating oatmeal with hamburger in it as a daily meal while struggling with an alcoholic father in the Great Depression.
Two small anecdotes from his autobiography show his humility. President Reagan was pistol shooting at his ranch with his secret service detail when he asked them why they didn't shoot from a natural crouch. He then realized with humble gratitude they trained to make themselves as big targets as possible while protecting him.
The second deals with the crucial nuclear arms talks with Gorbachev in Switzerland. The Reagan's were staying in a private villa. He promised the owner's kids he would feed their goldfish. The most powerful man in the world under stress from high stakes nuclear negotiations apologized to these kids for forgetting to feed their goldfish, and had the goldfish replaced.
My $.02, I don't see anything close to this level of strength or humility in Trump, which is why the prospects of replacing a divisive Marxist wimp with an equally divisive arrogant bully does not bode well for our nation.
Haven't been trying to endorse Trump, just making observations concerning his appeal.
There are things he does right from which the other candidates (or any potential leader) could learn.
Team Sergeant
01-26-2016, 13:47
What's the National Review? A blog that no one reads like the huffington post?
:munchin
What's the National Review? A blog that no one reads like the huffington post?
:munchin
NR, like the HuffPo is a vehicle of propaganda.
My $.02, I don't see anything close to this level of strength or humility in Trump, which is why the prospects of replacing a divisive Marxist wimp with an equally divisive arrogant bully does not bode well for our nation.
Do you just not understand, or is there some inexplicable trend toward self-destruction going on with you people?
What's better for the Country, a marxist-feminist or a capitalist bully? 'Cause that's the choice we seem to have right now.
You perfectionists need to wake up
Do you just not understand, or is there some inexplicable trend toward self-destruction going on with you people?
What's better for the Country, a marxist-feminist or a capitalist bully? 'Cause that's the choice we seem to have right now.
You perfectionists need to wake up
:lifter
Some oldies but goodies - quotes on socialism in one recent article.
Everything You Need To Know About Socialism in 20 Quotes
John Hawkins | Jan 12, 2016
TownHall
1) "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money." -- Margaret Thatcher
2) "It is the common error of Socialists to overlook the natural indolence of mankind; their tendency to be passive, to be the slaves of habit, to persist indefinitely in a course once chosen. Let them once attain any state of existence which they consider tolerable, and the danger to be apprehended is that they will thenceforth stagnate; will not exert themselves to improve, and by letting their faculties rust, will lose even the energy required to preserve them from deterioration. Competition may not be the best conceivable stimulus, but it is at present a necessary one, and no one can foresee the time when it will not be indispensable to progress." -- John Stuart Mill
3) "Socialism is when government's taking care of you, you send all your money to the government, the government decides how to spend it instead of letting the people spend it and make all those decisions." -- Bob Latta
4) "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." -- Adolf Hitler
5) "What distinguished Nazism from other brands of socialism and communism was not so much that it included more aspects from the political right (though there were some). What distinguished Nazism was that it forthrightly included a worldview we now associate almost completely with the political left: identity politics. This was what distinguished Nazism from doctrinaire communism, and it seems hard to argue the marriage of one leftist vision to another can somehow produce right-wing progeny." -- Jonah Goldberg
6) "The goal of socialism is communism." -- Vladimir Lenin
7) "This isn't new. Those who favor socialism always make the moral case for it. The truth is, maybe they actually believe in it, but in the real world, socialism harms, it weakens the economies of countries that have tried it. It just does. Weaker economies hurt everybody in them. Socialism kills incentive, opportunity, freedom. It is the opposite of what America is all about. Look, socialism always harms the people it claims to help the most. It handicaps them, leaving them weaker, less self-determined, less free." -- Bobby Jindal
8) “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” -- Frédéric Bastiat
9) "Socialism states that you owe me something simply because I exist. Capitalism, by contrast, results in a sort of reality-forced altruism: I may not want to help you, I may dislike you, but if I don't give you a product or service you want, I will starve. Voluntary exchange is more moral than forced redistribution." -- Ben Shapiro
10) “I was guilty of judging capitalism by its operations and socialism by its hopes and aspirations; capitalism by its works and socialism by its literature.” -- Sidney Hook
11) "In 1989, for two hours' labor at the minimum wage, an American worker could obtain, at a corner Sizzler, a feast more opulent, more nutritionally rich and gastronomically diverse than anything available to almost all the citizens of the socialist world (including the elite) at almost any price." -- David Horowitz
12) “In practice, socialism didn’t work. But socialism could never have worked because it is based on false premises about human psychology and society, and gross ignorance of human economy.” -- David Horowitz
13) "I believe that all forms of socialism have been proven over time to result in a loss of both economic and civil liberties, with increasing poverty." -- John Mackey
14) "Socialism values equality more than liberty." -- Dennis Prager
15) "Socialism is for those who think most people are losers. Capitalism is for those who think most people can take care of themselves." -- John Hawkins
16) "Socialism proposes no adequate substitute for the motive of enlightened selfishness that today is at the basis of all human labor and effort, enterprise and new activity." -- William Howard Taft
17) “Socialism provides safety in numbers. And that’s OK, if you don’t mind trading your name—your identity and individualism — for a number.” -- Jarod Kintz
18) “The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office." -- Ludwig von Mises
19) "Socialists cry 'Power to the people', and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean--power over people, power to the State." -- Margaret Thatcher
20) "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." -- Winston Churchill
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/01/12/everything-you-need-to-know-about-socialism-in-20-quotes-n2103130
Do you just not understand, or is there some inexplicable trend toward self-destruction going on with you people?
What's better for the Country, a marxist-feminist or a capitalist bully? 'Cause that's the choice we seem to have right now.
You perfectionists need to wake up
I will take the Bully for $100.
NurseTim
01-27-2016, 21:23
So far he is all talk, no action. He talks a good game. But his properties are still posted no firearms, yet he claims to be a staunch second amendment supporter. Any pictures of him even holding a gun? He has a ccw in NYC, so what, that ain't hard for a billionaire.
He has come out for universal health care.
This is reminding me of pelosi saying, " we have to pass it to find out what's in it." We have to elect him to see if he was just playing us. Pass, didn't work out well when pelosi did it, I learned my lesson. At least there are pictures of Cruz with a weapon in his hands.
So far he is all talk, no action. He talks a good game.
This is true, but it appears that no matter what, Trump is going to run away with the RNC nomination and the only option to counter Bern and HRC.
Do you just not understand, or is there some inexplicable trend toward self-destruction going on with you people? What's better for the Country, a marxist-feminist or a capitalist bully? 'Cause that's the choice we seem to have right now.
You perfectionists need to wake up
Respectfully, perfectionist? Really? The only semblance of perfection here is Trump is such a perfect asshat the man is immune from hemorrhoids. This "lesser evil" strategy is a losing bet.
Trump, a Vietnam draft dodger, who then had the gall to badmouth POW John McCains service, this is the guy the nation will unite behind? We bash Zero for abandoning our allies, you know the British Parliament debated banning Trump from their country this month. What do we tell the Kurds or our interpreter allies who fought and bled alongside our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq if Trump is elected? Hey sorry, we promised to get you and your families out for your service to America, but you know we have this Muslim ban now?
Hope and wishful thinking led to people blindly pounding the table for candidates like Herman Cain before realizing a dirtball who happens to be a Republican is still a dirtball.
If you want to win this election either, Cruz or maybe Rubio can beat the witch. She will eat Trump alive because while entertaining, he alienates so many demographics for so many reasons it's like a dark comedy, for those of you who support him do you really believe the recent 180 he has done to the right, or are you just hoping?
So far he is all talk, no action. He talks a good game. But his properties are still posted no firearms, yet he claims to be a staunch second amendment supporter. Any pictures of him even holding a gun? He has a ccw in NYC, so what, that ain't hard for a billionaire.
He has come out for universal health care.
This is reminding me of pelosi saying, " we have to pass it to find out what's in it." We have to elect him to see if he was just playing us. Pass, didn't work out well when pelosi did it, I learned my lesson. At least there are pictures of Cruz with a weapon in his hands.
^^^^^Hear, hear!
If you want to win this election either, Cruz or maybe Rubio can beat the witch.
Then what? 4-8 more years of business as usual with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. The repubs have had the majority in both houses for at least 4 years, they had a mandate and haven't done squat.
Bottom line we need to throw our weight behind whoever OPPOSES the unindicted (yet) criminal socialist.
Sitting on the sidelines because your candidate may not be the one you support is national suicide by Commie.
It really is early...anything can happen.
I did like this quote...
Ted Cruz: "If You See a Candidate Who Washington Embraces, Run and Hide."
I'd like to add my own twist...if you see a candidate that the establishment Republicrats embrace...prepare to lose...again !
My wife, A Right-leaning, Southern woman came out yesterday and said that skipping the debate would not hurt Trump. She said this morning that it has made her like him more. She has changed from being a Jeb,Cruz,Rubio person to now moving towards Trump. She wants more details from him and thinks he is a bit "scary", as in "fear of the unknown", but likes the fact that he seems to be making his own decisions, and does not feel obliged to do what other people think that he should. She also believes that he will be good for business in this country.
She thinks that that Trump will be attractive to mainstream women voters and is convinced that Trump will take the South.
This was in the context of a conversation we werehaving about the upcoming Repub debate.
For reference she believes that the last 8yrs under Obama has been a disaster and distrusts all politicians in general.
just another data point...
(1VB)compforce
01-28-2016, 09:28
With him airing on CNN at the same time as the debate, he's still getting the air time, probably more than if he was at the debate...and it's raising money for Veterans. Technically it's a brilliant move that the establishment (on both sides) is going to take as a lesson in marketing if it works the way it should.
Imagine the uproar if the ratings for Trump on CNN is higher than the Fox debates...
I am a bit perplexed. Trump is now boasting of his ability to get along with the likes of Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. John Boehner famously got along with the same, which is why he was detested by constitutional conservatives.
How is this a positive for Trump?
Additionally, I am disgusted by his attacks on Ted Cruz, a principled conservative. One who has consistently fought to uphold the constitution, regardless of the political price. It should give pause that the establishment Republican cabal, at least now, appear to support Trump over Cruz.
Senate Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)2% said Wednesday that he’s considering backing Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.
“Look, we’ve gotten along fine,” Reid said. “With that bunch of people running, I’m kind of pulling for him.”
According to The Hill, Reid then tried to walk back his comments.
Asked about Trump’s statement, Reid added, ‘Oh, I remember the good old days when he did a fundraiser or two for me.’
Reid quickly walked back his comments, apologizing for joking about supporting Trump — whom he called a ‘hateful demagogue who will do immeasurable damage to our country.’
‘There’s some things I shouldn’t joke about,’ he said from the Senate floor. ‘The danger of a Donald Trump candidacy to our country is not a joke.’
On Tuesday Donald Trump appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe and spoke of his good relationship with Reid. From the Washington Times:
‘I’ve always had a good relationship with Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)9%. I’ve never had a problem,’ Mr. Trump said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” ‘[Harry] Reid’s going to be gone. I always had a decent relationship with Reid, although lately obviously I haven’t been dealing with him, so he’ll use my name as the ultimate … of the billionaires in terms of people you don’t want.’
‘But I’ve always had a great relationship with Harry Reid,” Mr. Trump said. “Frankly, if I weren’t running for office, I’d be able to deal with [Pelosi], I’d be able to deal with Reid — I’d be able to deal with anybody.’
‘But I think I’d be able to get along very well with Nancy Pelosi and just about everybody,’ he said. ‘Hey look, I think I’ll be able to get along well with Schumer, Chuck Schumer. I was always very good with Schumer. I was close to Schumer in many ways.’
Link (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/27/harry-reid-im-ki/)
I am a bit perplexed. Trump is now boasting of his ability to get along with the likes of Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. John Boehner famously got along with the same, which is why he was detested by constitutional conservatives.
How is this a positive for Trump?
Additionally, I am disgusted by his attacks on Ted Cruz, a principled conservative. One who has consistently fought to uphold the constitution, regardless of the political price. It should give pause that the establishment Republican cabal, at least now, appear to support Trump over Cruz.
I'm nobody. And I'm the admitted angry voter so I am probably less than logical.
I think that:
All politicians to some degree or anthother are ego-manicas and attention whores.
All politicians have to change their tune either publically or privately and compromise when comes time to get things done. Its fine to granstand now and agin.. but if you want to get things done... compromise is the name of the game. Otherwise gridlock ensues.
So,
I believe that Trump is making his case for being a deal-maker. A guy who makes compromises that are at least 51% in his favor (if not more) and gets things done.
He is proving to me that he smart enough to understand "the game" (in this case its the primary election game) and then shrewd at knowing when to play by the rules and when to totally go outside them and that he has the guts to do it. He is showing a ruthless streak (bordering on mean) towards those who oppose him. Trump wants to WIN. Attack him a little and he will hit back hard. It appears to me that if he can knock you down, he's not afraid to give you one more stomp before walking away tp send a message to others.
I like that. Play to win or don't play. (anyone donate $$ to Fred Thompson that was happy that they did? )
I am confident that if Cruz drops out, and stops trying to WIN against Trump then trump will stop attacking him and try to get him on the team. Why doesn't Ted drop out and volunteeer for the VP spot? It would be a good compromise. Why? because HE wants to win. Stop wanting to win and the attacks will stop (IMO).
Edit to add: I believe Trump, like all politicians is out for himself. But I also believe that he is more pro-American and pro-American Business than he is pro any other country. So, in the state I'm in as a voter I'm Ok with Trump getting what he wants as long as he looks out for me even a little... the last guy didn't do anything. In fact just the opposite. Trump is really trashing the established political order right now and to me that is of great value.
Hypothetically, let's say, Trump continues to thrash the repup primary competitors. In the process he gains repub establishment support as they increasingly fear that he will actually be the nominee. That becomes a self-reinforcing loop which totally sinks any hope that any competitor has a chance.
He wins the nomination. Big. Really big.
Then, because the strength of his candidacy and popular support is that he is really a populist and anti-party elites / anti-establishment.
Could he then decare himself an Independent?
Could he then decare himself an Independent?
He could. But, I wonder if he would then lose the "base" because he broke his signed "commitment" letter that he pledged to the RNC.
craigepo
01-28-2016, 11:26
This Iowa caucus is going to be fun to watch. We (non-Iowa citizens) are getting bombarded by macro-advertising. But, if you ever get involved in a campaign, you will find out that "all politics are local". The ground game is really, really important.
Iowa is similar to a lot of other states, in that it has a few metro areas, some middle size cities, and a lot of rural area. In a GOP primary, a politician is looking to win two groups of people that always vote; (1) people with some business sense; and (2) people that know what the inside of a church looks like. You can throw veterans' groups in as well for a number 3.
I am very curious as to how the ground game in Iowa is going. Who is resonating with people from the above 2-3 groups? Who are the local vote-handlers liking? Who has an office in all 99 counties? Remember, the last two GOP caucus winners in Iowa were Santorum (2012) and Huckabee (2008). Both of whom were well behind in the polls until the caucus' were decided.
When you drive through the Heartland, and get off the interstate, you will notice it is different than other places. A lot of small towns. Bigger churches in town, with smaller churches located on dirt roads with congregations of 20-50 people. Many of the kids from small towns move to the cities to find work.
There will be a lot of small dynamics at play from now to Monday. As to Trump skipping a debate, I'm not sure how that will play to Iowa voters who like to see people show up at the local VFW hall to talk and answer questions. But we will know on Monday.
Then what? 4-8 more years of business as usual with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. The repubs have had the majority in both houses for at least 4 years, they had a mandate and haven't done squat.
Then a Republican in the oval office. It's been a while do you remember what its like?
Bottom line to me Trump getting the GOP nomination ensures Hillary wins.
YMMV
I WAS open minded towards Trump. But, the more he talks, (Trump) the more I have become a Ted Cruz fan.
The Iowa results are overrated. Sanatorium and Huckabee yeah real strong candidates there. Lol
The Iowa results are overrated. Sanatorium and Huckabee yeah real strong candidates there. Lol
Exactly...still early.
Bottom line to me Trump getting the GOP nomination ensures Hillary wins.
Why?
(if you've already stated that then let me know and I'll go digging for a previous post.)
GratefulCitizen
01-28-2016, 13:51
My wife, A Right-leaning, Southern woman came out yesterday and said that skipping the debate would not hurt Trump. She said this morning that it has made her like him more. She has changed from being a Jeb,Cruz,Rubio person to now moving towards Trump. She wants more details from him and thinks he is a bit "scary", as in "fear of the unknown", but likes the fact that he seems to be making his own decisions, and does not feel obliged to do what other people think that he should. She also believes that he will be good for business in this country.
She thinks that that Trump will be attractive to mainstream women voters and is convinced that Trump will take the South.
This was in the context of a conversation we werehaving about the upcoming Repub debate.
For reference she believes that the last 8yrs under Obama has been a disaster and distrusts all politicians in general.
just another data point...
Trump understands women voters.
That's why he won't deal with Kelly again.
When a man challenges him in a disrespectful manner, he'd better answer the challenge lest he look weak and encourage continued disrespect.
The same is necessary with a disrespectful challenge from a woman.
But, when he bumps her back, she plays the "you can't hit me, I'm a girl" card.
Bumping her back was the lesser of two evils.
He won't put himself in that no-win situation again.
Women voters aren't stupid and understand the game being played.
By excusing himself, he demonstrated dominance over the situation.
Many women might not like him, but they will respect him more than the weak man, and that translates into votes.
Then a Republican in the oval office. It's been a while do you remember what its like?
Bottom line to me Trump getting the GOP nomination ensures Hillary wins.
YMMV
I live near Iowa City, Iowa which is without a doubt the most liberal city in Iowa. If an election could be measured by yard signs then HRC is toast. Bernie seems to be the hands down favorite with 99 signs to 1 for HRC. She has been courting Iowa forever but she plays to a very limited audience, for the most part hand picked with no dissenters.
She is not a likable person which will be her downfall, Trumps nomination/success will not mean her inevitable coronation. I like Trump because he speaks up on issues with a bluntness that the others seem to shy away from. We need Donald to remind the voters just who HRC is and what she is, he won't mince words where the others will. That being said I will be pulling the trigger for Cruz on Monday night. In the end come next November I will be supporting whoever opposes the candidate from the left, we cannot afford another 8 years of decline.
Why?
My $.02, Trump while entertaining, is alienating enough to motivate many demographics the GOP would need to win in 2016 to vote Dim instead. In contrast I think Cruz/Rubio would have GOP support and lure away critical swing voters from the Dims.The irony to me is that Hillary, given the state of the economy, with a possible FBI indictment looming, and her lack of eloquence in debates relative to someone like Cruz/Rubio is vulnerable.
Part of it seems to be shifting demographics, the American people for better or worse deserve the politicians we elect. Zero's technology aided upset of Hillary in 2008 and re-election in 2012 to me seem indicative of a trend towards younger, articulate, telegenic, Senator types. Younger voters seem to value eloquence and flash over experience, and to me candidates like Cruz and Rubio play into this trend. In contrast both Hillary and Trump come across as bitter old people, the former as untrustworthy to boot and the latter as polarizing as it gets. Bernie Sanders comes across as that crazy old Jewish uncle no one takes seriously.
Second, Let's also not forget Trump has recently become a Republican, after praising Hillary Clinton and saying he identified himself more as a Democrat as recently as 2004. And before someone brings up Reagan, one Trump is no Reagan, and frankly Reagan related to people so well many a Democrat voted Reagan. As someone stated earlier most politicians sway their views to get elected so maybe he gets a pass there, but a complete 180?
Third, Trump himself is the most polarizing candidate in recent memory, even to conservatives. It seems there comes a moment with Trump where the audience goes from entertainment " WOW, lol he doesn't have a filter" to the eventual stark realization that Trump is actually a petty rich jerk with no respect for anything but money. I'm a Republican who is DISGUSTED with the path Zero has taken our country the past eight years, yet Trump says things that if taken seriously at best imply a lack of critical thinking and frankly ring a jingoistic tone.
The man runs on a platform of making America great again. God bless, he has had financial success but as north easterner who was born into great wealth, what percent of the country can relate to him?
Other than other wealthy men who or what is Trump respectful too?
Women, not a chance , Veterans, see John McCain. Our NATO allies? He has already insulted the French, called Brussels a hellhole, and may be banned from England. Heck even Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel rejected Trump's Muslim views as sophomoric. How about minorities particularly the key Hispanic vote, after what he has said? Even his rhetoric to our adversaries is short sighted. The Chinese aren't stupid, they would retaliate with further tariffs of their own. And then there is Putin, clearly no friend of America, who realizing what a train wreck Trump would be in office now openly endorses him.
Trump's strength is supposed to be business, yet his companies have faced multiple bankruptcies and he has been pro eminent domain in the past. Becoming a billionaire is markedly less impressive if daddy left you eight figures to start. Trump boasts about his wealth, ok but a monkey who put the kind of money he inherited in the early 1970's into the S&P 500 and didn't touch it would be worth what Trump is now. He hasn't outperformed in any way but arrogance.
How does anyone take this belligerent class clown seriously enough to actually vote for him for POTUS when it's for real?
So, these are a few reasons why I think Trump if the GOP nominee hands the Dims the election.
Then a Republican in the oval office. It's been a while do you remember what its like?
Bottom line to me Trump getting the GOP nomination ensures Hillary wins.
YMMV
Ronnie Raygun was the last true Republican in the Oval Office.
Personally, I think HRC is toast with or without Trump. Her only chance is if Jeb, Rand, Kaisich or Jim Gilchrist is her opponent.
Trump is going to run it home because people are sick and tired of career politicians, they are sick of Clinton, Obama, Kerry, Reed, Pelosi, Boxer, Hastings, Boner, McConnell, Ryan and th rest of the trash the roams the streets of DC. DC and it's perisites need to be burned to the the ground.
Trump is making an absolute mockery of the system and he will be the very first setting President to float the F-Bomb on live TV.
My $.02, Trump while entertaining, is alienating enough to motivate many demographics the GOP would need to win in 2016 to vote Dim instead. In contrast I think Cruz/Rubio would have GOP support and lure away critical swing voters from the Dims.The irony to me is that Hillary, given the state of the economy, with a possible FBI indictment looming, and her lack of eloquence in debates relative to someone like Cruz/Rubio is vulnerable.
Part of it seems to be shifting demographics, the American people for better or worse deserve the politicians we elect. Zero's technology aided upset of Hillary in 2008 and re-election in 2012 to me seem indicative of a trend towards younger, articulate, telegenic, Senator types. Younger voters seem to value eloquence and flash over experience, and to me candidates like Cruz and Rubio play into this trend. In contrast both Hillary and Trump come across as bitter old people, the former as untrustworthy to boot and the latter as polarizing as it gets. Bernie Sanders comes across as that crazy old Jewish uncle no one takes seriously.
Second, Let's also not forget Trump has recently become a Republican, after praising Hillary Clinton and saying he identified himself more as a Democrat as recently as 2004. And before someone brings up Reagan, one Trump is no Reagan, and frankly Reagan related to people so well many a Democrat voted Reagan. As someone stated earlier most politicians sway their views to get elected so maybe he gets a pass there, but a complete 180?
Third, Trump himself is the most polarizing candidate in recent memory, even to conservatives. It seems there comes a moment with Trump where the audience goes from entertainment " WOW, lol he doesn't have a filter" to the eventual stark realization that Trump is actually a petty rich jerk with no respect for anything but money. I'm a Republican who is DISGUSTED with the path Zero has taken our country the past eight years, yet Trump says things that if taken seriously at best imply a lack of critical thinking and frankly ring a jingoistic tone.
The man runs on a platform of making America great again. God bless, he has had financial success but as north easterner who was born into great wealth, what percent of the country can relate to him?
Other than other wealthy men who or what is Trump respectful too?
Women, not a chance , Veterans, see John McCain. Our NATO allies? He has already insulted the French, called Brussels a hellhole, and may be banned from England. Heck even Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel rejected Trump's Muslim views as sophomoric. How about minorities particularly the key Hispanic vote, after what he has said? Even his rhetoric to our adversaries is short sighted. The Chinese aren't stupid, they would retaliate with further tariffs of their own. And then there is Putin, clearly no friend of America, who realizing what a train wreck Trump would be in office now openly endorses him.
Trump's strength is supposed to be business, yet his companies have faced multiple bankruptcies and he has been pro eminent domain in the past. Becoming a billionaire is markedly less impressive if daddy left you eight figures to start. Trump boasts about his wealth, ok but a monkey who put the kind of money he inherited in the early 1970's into the S&P 500 and didn't touch it would be worth what Trump is now. He hasn't outperformed in any way but arrogance.
How does anyone take this belligerent class clown seriously enough to actually vote for him for POTUS when it's for real?
So, these are a few reasons why I think Trump if the GOP nominee hands the Dims the election.
It's a deal, AKV. Trumps does deals.
He'll probably do this one, too.
He leads off with prosperous offers only to settle for a good deal...
Be nice if Cruz got his treads under him and took over, but it ain't lookin' like it.
We'll know better after Iowa.
From the editorial staff in yesterday's WSJ.
Richard
The Leap Of Trump
WSJ, 28 Jan 2016, p.A12
<snip> But history teaches that Presidents try to do what they say they will during a campaign, and Mr. Trump is threatening a trade war with China, Mexico, and Japan, among others. He sometimes says he merely wants to start a negotiation with China that will end happily when it bows to his wishes. China may have other ideas. A bad sign is that Mr. Trump has hired as his campaign policy adviser Stephen Miller, who worked for Jeff Sessions (R, Ala.), the most anti-trade, anti-immigration Senator.
Foreign policy would also be a leap in the dark. Mr. Trump has said he respects former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, and so do we. But Mr. Trump also admires Vladimir Putin - enough so that even after a British judge found last week that Mr. Putin had "probably" ordered the murder in London of a Russian defector, Mr. Trump defended Mr. Putin because he wasn't found guilty.<snip>
<snip> Ted Cruz has his own electoral and governing issues and he isn't the only alternative to Mr. Trump, despite what both men would like Americans to believe. Voters could still elevate one of the other candidates. Republicans should look closely before they leap. <snip>
From the editorial staff in yesterday's WSJ.
Richard
The Leap Of Trump
WSJ, 28 Jan 2016, p.A12
<snip> But history teaches that Presidents try to do what they say they will during a campaign, and Mr. Trump is threatening a trade war with China, Mexico, and Japan, among others. He sometimes says he merely wants to start a negotiation with China that will end happily when it bows to his wishes. China may have other ideas. A bad sign is that Mr. Trump has hired as his campaign policy adviser Stephen Miller, who worked for Jeff Sessions (R, Ala.), the most anti-trade, anti-immigration Senator.
Foreign policy would also be a leap in the dark. Mr. Trump has said he respects former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, and so do we. But Mr. Trump also admires Vladimir Putin - enough so that even after a British judge found last week that Mr. Putin had "probably" ordered the murder in London of a Russian defector, Mr. Trump defended Mr. Putin because he wasn't found guilty.<snip>
<snip> Ted Cruz has his own electoral and governing issues and he isn't the only alternative to Mr. Trump, despite what both men would like Americans to believe. Voters could still elevate one of the other candidates. Republicans should look closely before they leap. <snip>
Thanks for that link, Richard.
It always amuses me when libs try to pick our candidates for us.
Rupert Murdoch owns the Wall Street Journal. He is also an advocate for immigration 'reform', which includes allowing those that have flaunted our immigration laws a path to citizenship.
Is it any wonder Fox News has targeted Trump and Cruz and favors the establishment Republicans, especially Rubio?
Partnership for a New American Economy
http://www.renewoureconomy.org/featured-members/rupert-murdoch/
Breitbart article on the August Republican Debate:
Fox News Fails to Ask Rubio About Gang of Eight Bill
But the most remarkable omission was that, before an unprecedentedly large debate audience, not one of the three moderators asked Senator Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)79% about his role in writing, selling, misrepresenting, and ultimately passing through the Senate the Gang of Eight immigration bill. This is also significant since several prominent FOX personalities praised the bill at the time. Sean Hannity, in 2013, described the Schumer-Rubio plan as, “probably the most thoughtful bill that I have heard heretofore.” Bill O’Reilly formally endorsed it; so did the immigration lobbying group, the Partnership for A New American Economy, run by Rupert Murdoch.
By contrast, the moderators did go after Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker on immigration. Walker, unlike Rubio, has said he opposes citizenship for illegals and believes that too much immigration hurts American workers. Rubio endorsed citizenship for illegals as recently as Monday night in a New Hampshire Republican presidential candidates forum, and only months ago, Rubio introduced legislation known as the I-Squared bill which would triple the number of wage-cutting H-1B visas for big tech and lift the green card cap at universities. I-Squared would expand Muslim immigration into the United States as well. I-squared has also been endorsed by Rupert Murdoch through his immigration lobbying group the Partner For A New American Economy.
Complete article (http://www.breitbart.com/immigration/2015/08/07/fox-news-fails-to-ask-rubio-about-gang-of-eight-bill/)
Interesting editorial to ponder.
Richard
Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar and Right - And, my dear fellow Republicans, he's all your fault.
Tucker Carlson, Politico, 28 Jan 2016
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-is-shocking-vulgar-and-right-213572#ixzz3ymNTmiZH
Looking at this moment that Ted Cruz will win Iowa...my wife is very uneasy. Does not like Cruz. Now wants Trump but likes Rubio. Likes cruz on defense and foreign policy but just doesn't like him too "bible thumping" also "something about him that I don't exactly trust"
I think cruz and Rubio got what they needed. It's not fatal to trump..i'm still got Trump, personally
Cruz, Trump and Rubio are pretty much tied at this point.
Bush got smoked :boohoo
Cruz, Trump and Rubio are pretty much tied at this point.
Bush got smoked :boohoo
I don't see how Bush is even still running.
He has very little support that I can find.
Then again, that BITCH Hillary has huge support, do these people not read the news :confused:
Ret10Echo
02-02-2016, 08:32
Maybe Trump realizes after this that a ground game is required. You can't win just from the network studio.
On the flip side we see the rise of the Social Democrats. Here we go.
{At least O'Malley went away.....}
Noted that in the years between 1980 and 2012, when both parties held caucus in Iowa,(1980, 1988, 2000, 2008) that the Iowa winner went on to be the party nominee 3 out of 4 times on the "D" side and 1 out of 4 times on the "R" side.
But in ALL 4 instances, one of the winners from either Iowa or NH went on to be the party nominee.
Something to chew on.
PedOncoDoc
02-02-2016, 08:58
...Likes cruz on defense and foreign policy but just doesn't like him too "bible thumping" also "something about him that I don't exactly trust"
I was put off a bit by how central religion was in his victory speech - I have no problem with a candidate being a man of faith, but it does get my heckles up when it's central to his (or her) speeches when they are to represent and serve a very diverse nation.
I was put off a bit by how central religion was in his victory speech - I have no problem with a candidate being a man of faith, but it does get my heckles up when it's central to his (or her) speeches when they are to represent and serve a very diverse nation.
I agree with you on that one. His speech was about 95% pandering.
If you paid careful attention, you could tell when he was saying something he meant and when he was saying something he didn't.
He was careful to keep the mike in his left hand so that his freshly polished wedding ring would catch the eye. He switched hands occasionally when he slipped from pandering theatrics to real thoughts, then would switch right back.
I also noticed that he was the only one who's wife was in the camera shot the whole time. She stood there and looked at him like he was Jesus himself, touching his arm to show her support and reverence.
Trump was trump. He always is, just Trump.
Rubio my god, his speech was all about immigration. Why is he still campaigning on that platform?
I was put off a bit by how central religion was in his victory speech - I have no problem with a candidate being a man of faith, but it does get my heckles up when it's central to his (or her) speeches when they are to represent and serve a very diverse nation.
Perhaps you would be more comfortable with a Mitt Romney, John McCain or Bob Dole. Or, any of the current Republican candidates that represent and serve their donors and kingmakers, over their constituents (Rubio, Bush, Christie)?
I prefer a candidate to worship a Christian God, rather than a statist government.
Diversity is protected by the Constitution. If you desire a candidate that will best represent and serve a very diverse nation, I suggest the best candidate is the one who has demonstrated through word and deed his devotion to uphold and defend that Constitution.
John Adams noted over two-hundred years ago that the Constitution was "wholly inadequate" to protect us from human nature "unbridled by morality and religion."
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams
PedOncoDoc
02-02-2016, 09:50
Perhaps you would be more comfortable with a Mitt Romney, John McCain or Bob Dole. Or, any of the current Republican candidates that represent and serve their donors and kingmakers, over their constituents (Rubio, Bush, Christie)?
I prefer a candidate to worship a Christian God, rather than a statist government.
Diversity is protected by the Constitution. If you desire a candidate that will best represent and serve a very diverse nation, I suggest the best candidate is the one who has demonstrated through word and deed his devotion to uphold and defend that Constitution.
John Adams noted over two-hundred years ago that the Constitution was "wholly inadequate" to protect us from human nature "unbridled by morality and religion."
I think you misunderstand me - I am as sick of the career politicians and think Cruz is probably the best of the lot currently in the race.
All I am saying is that I would prefer a candidate who appears to be a constitutionalist first and a preacher second (if at all). In his speech, Cruz seemed to have those priorities reversed.
I agree with you on that one. His speech was about 95% pandering.
If you paid careful attention, you could tell when he was saying something he meant and when he was saying something he didn't.
He was careful to keep the mike in his left hand so that his freshly polished wedding ring would catch the eye. He switched hands occasionally when he slipped from pandering theatrics to real thoughts, then would switch right back.
I also noticed that he was the only one who's wife was in the camera shot the whole time. She stood there and looked at him like he was Jesus himself, touching his arm to show her support and reverence.
YGBFSM!
Bill Whittle on Trump: https://www.billwhittle.com/afterburner/trump
Pat
I think you misunderstand me - I am as sick of the career politicians and think Cruz is probably the best of the lot currently in the race.
All I am saying is that I would prefer a candidate who appears to be a constitutionalist first and a preacher second (if at all). In his speech, Cruz seemed to have those priorities reversed.
Go back not that far in time, before the Country 'progressed'. The references would not have been extreme, but the norm.
The Body of Christ actually does need to be awakened.
You guys are not mentioning Smokin' Joe for some reason, incidentally...