National Review is Against Trump

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by akv

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.

[Richard]

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>

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Richard

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.

[SF-TX]

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/featu...upert-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

[Richard]

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/sto...#ixzz3ymNTmiZH

[abc_123]

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

[Paslode]

Cruz, Trump and Rubio are pretty much tied at this point.

Bush got smoked

[Hand]

Originally Posted by Paslode

Cruz, Trump and Rubio are pretty much tied at this point.

Bush got smoked

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

[Ret10Echo]

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]

Originally Posted by abc_123

...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.

[Hand]

Originally Posted by PedOncoDoc

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?

[SF-TX]

Originally Posted by PedOncoDoc

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]

Originally Posted by SF-TX

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.

[SF-TX]

Originally Posted by Hand

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!

[PSM]

Bill Whittle on Trump: https://www.billwhittle.com/afterburner/trump

Pat