Trump not even fit to be a DP member!

[tailfins]

He attacked Jeb Bush's for having a Mexican wife. Trump stoops to attacking rival's family members. I may nominally vote for him IF he's the nominee, however I won't lift a finger to help his campaign organization.

[DLT]

He attacked Jeb Bush's for having a Mexican wife. Trump stoops to attacking rival's family members. I may nominally vote for him IF he's the nominee, however I won't lift a finger to help his campaign organization.

There is no shame in having a Mexican wife. I'm sure she is a very nice woman. She just screwed up when she married down to Jeb Bush...lol.

[NightTrain]

... however I won't lift a finger to help his campaign organization.


This is a crushing blow to the Trump campaign. Hopefully his staff can overcome the huge loss sustained by your lack of support and personal style used in Winning Friends and Influencing People.

[jimnyc]

He attacked Jeb Bush's for having a Mexican wife. Trump stoops to attacking rival's family members. I may nominally vote for him IF he's the nominee, however I won't lift a finger to help his campaign organization.

I think he attacked Jeb and not his wife, while he did bring her up though.


JebBush has to like the Mexican illegals because of his wife

He was stating apparently that since she is Mexican, he needs to support illegals, because they are Mexican too. Certainly insulting to bring her up, but wasn't an attack on her. I think he was more so trying to get a jab in about Bush, that he won't do anything about the illegal immigration for that reason. Nonetheless, he should apologize for even bringing her into things, but we all know that won't happen.

[revelarts]

sheesh, what a class act, that's just low.

Can you imagine How this guy's going to conduct foreign policy?

Is it far fetched to imagine him doing the same to foreign leaders families?
or calling females leaders ugly, among other names ?
This is how he treats friends he's in some dispute with?


Somehow I can see him calling whole countries and peoples various names, because he "tells it like it is" and "is not PC" and says "what real americans really feel" about backwards, podunk, outhouse, 3rd world, 2nd rate, crap eating, slant eyed, ching chong, jungle monkey, sand monkey, wetback, diego, clock making, dog eating, jerk water, piss water, forgettable, countries.

4 years of "the ugly american" in the white house?

I can see people seriously voting for him for High School class president, but that's it.

[fj1200]

This is how he treats friends he's in some dispute with?

Yes.

[tailfins]

This is a crushing blow to the Trump campaign. Hopefully his staff can overcome the huge loss sustained by your lack of support and personal style used in Winning Friends and Influencing People.

America is better off with SKILLED Mexicans. America is better off with more Mexicans because it dilutes the effect of having people like you in our country. America is less of a country because it has people like you.

In an Urban/suburban area, about 30 sufficiently motivated people can defeat a congressman. One doesn't need to win friends and influence people to win a political campaign. I'm particularly adept at digging up dirt on people and destroying their reputation. I try to be a "Macaca". Ask Jim Webb if someone needs social skills to be an effective campaign worker. See video below. Do you remember how that Senate race ended?

Maybe it is time to avoid the Christmas rush and lift a finger NOW to DEFEAT Trump. There must be an existing ABT (Anybody but Trump) organization out there. Thanks for the inspiration. I will bet I can find just a few Mexican-Americans here in Texas that don't like Trump. Defeat Donald "George Wallace" Trump.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r90z0PMnKwI

[jimnyc]

America is better off with SKILLED Mexicans.

As a reminder, Trumps comments in the past, and today, are about ILLEGAL immigrants. He has stated time and time again that he likes Mexican folks and has zero issue with them. And that makes perfect sense to me. And I agree about skilled Mexicans - and those folks can get here legally, and even get assistance in getting skilled once LEGAL citizens.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

This is a crushing blow to the Trump campaign. Hopefully his staff can overcome the huge loss sustained by your lack of support and personal style used in Winning Friends and Influencing People.

Trump has them all pissed of because he kisses nobody's ass. In that, he reminds me of well, -ME!!! :laugh:
EXCEPT I AM NOT FAMOUS OR A BILLIONAIRE.
The famous part may come someday(long odds, one in a million chance) but the billionaire part hasn't a chance in hell of ever arriving. -Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

sheesh, what a class act, that's just low.

Can you imagine How this guy's going to conduct foreign policy?

Is it far fetched to imagine him doing the same to foreign leaders families?
or calling females leaders ugly, among other names ?
This is how he treats friends he's in some dispute with?


Somehow I can see him calling whole countries and peoples various names, because he "tells it like it is" and "is not PC" and says "what real americans really feel" about backwards, podunk, outhouse, 3rd world, 2nd rate, crap eating, slant eyed, ching chong, jungle monkey, sand monkey, wetback, diego, clock making, dog eating, jerk water, piss water, forgettable, countries.

4 years of "the ugly american" in the white house?

I can see people seriously voting for him for High School class president, but that's it.



4 years of "the ugly american" in the white house?

^^^^ 7 years of obama which has been several hundreds times worse and you spout out this inane drivel!

While Trump at least has forced issues that we conservatives want discussed to the forefront and they are now being discussed because of him !--Tyr

[revelarts]

^^^^ 7 years of obama which has been several hundreds times worse and you spout out this inane drivel!

While Trump at least has forced issues that we conservatives want discussed to the forefront and they are now being discussed because of him !--Tyr


Obama and Trump both stink up the place. I don't want ether one.
not sure what issues Trump's brought up.
immigration? been an issue for a lot of years.

what issues are you talking about?

[OAK]

America is better off with SKILLED Mexicans. America is better off with more Mexicans because it dilutes the effect of having people like you in our country. America is less of a country because it has people like you.

In an Urban/suburban area, about 30 sufficiently motivated people can defeat a congressman. One doesn't need to win friends and influence people to win a political campaign. I'm particularly adept at digging up dirt on people and destroying their reputation. I try to be a "Macaca". Ask Jim Webb if someone needs social skills to be an effective campaign worker. See video below. Do you remember how that Senate race ended?

Maybe it is time to avoid the Christmas rush and lift a finger NOW to DEFEAT Trump. There must be an existing ABT (Anybody but Trump) organization out there. Thanks for the inspiration. I will bet I can find just a few Mexican-Americans here in Texas that don't like Trump. Defeat Donald "George Wallace" Trump.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r90z0PMnKwIWhy are you asking Jim Webb about something George Allen said?

[tailfins]

Why are you asking Jim Webb about something George Allen said?

Because Jim Webb successfully used it to defeat him. You can be sure he gave that campaign worker due credit.
.

[NightTrain]

America is better off with SKILLED Mexicans. America is better off with more Mexicans because it dilutes the effect of having people like you in our country. America is less of a country because it has people like you.

People like me? :laugh2: That's pretty awesome, coming from you.

What exactly are people like me? Skilled craftsmen building telecom infrastructure working 16 hour days to get the job done? Or is it the legal US citizen status you don't like? Maybe it's the appalling amount of taxes I pay? Or is it the Christian faith I subscribe to, given that you're such a fan of muzzies and illegal immigrants? Or is it the fact that I respect women and know that they're my equal?

Or is it the way I don't give slack to psychopaths running around saying monumentally stupid things designed to further hurt grieving people?

You can fuck right off, reject. :fu:


Maybe it is time to avoid the Christmas rush and lift a finger NOW to DEFEAT Trump. There must be an existing ABT (Anybody but Trump) organization out there. Thanks for the inspiration. I will bet I can find just a few Mexican-Americans here in Texas that don't like Trump. Defeat Donald "George Wallace" Trump.

Go get em, Tiger!

First, you need a catchy codename... how does Beso de Muerte sound?

Keep us posted with your newfound crusade to take down Trump. Be sure you videotape yourself out there talking to prospective voters with your gang of Mexicans and upload to Youtube, will you?

[Black Diamond]

I wonder how tailfins would do trying to take Trump down. Jeb tried and Trump kicked his ass. Carly drew blood, but not a knockout. And I doubt she will have another shot like that.

[Abbey Marie]

I think he attacked Jeb and not his wife, while he did bring her up though.



He was stating apparently that since she is Mexican, he needs to support illegals, because they are Mexican too. Certainly insulting to bring her up, but wasn't an attack on her. I think he was more so trying to get a jab in about Bush, that he won't do anything about the illegal immigration for that reason. Nonetheless, he should apologize for even bringing her into things, but we all know that won't happen.


Thanks for the details. I agree, that is definitely not "attacking his wife".

I think what has made Trump a phenomenon in this race is the fact that he doesn't apologize for his non-PC statements. I want to hear him turn all that loose on Hillary and Bernie.

[jimnyc]

Thanks for the details. I agree, that is definitely not "attacking his wife".

I think what has made Trump a phenomenon in this race is the fact that he doesn't apologize for his non-PC statements. I want to hear him turn all that loose on Hillary and Bernie.

Carly got in a damn good jab on Trump last night. While I don't think he was attacking Jeb's wife, I think he should still avoid going personal on anyone, unless they give him a reason otherwise.

[tailfins]

I wonder how tailfins would do trying to take Trump down. Jeb tried and Trump kicked his ass. Carly drew blood, but not a knockout. And I doubt she will have another shot like that.

We all do our part. You can bloviate all year long and only count for one vote or you can get busy and count for a couple hundred. An extremely motivated person can count for a thousand.

[Abbey Marie]

Carly got in a damn good jab on Trump last night. While I don't think he was attacking Jeb's wife, I think he should still avoid going personal on anyone, unless they give him a reason otherwise.


I agree

[Black Diamond]

We all do our part. You can bloviate all year long and only count for one vote or you can get busy and count for a couple hundred. An extremely motivated person can count for a thousand.

Even if you need to count for 5000

[tailfins]

Even if you need to count for 5000

Maybe you could if you're retired. That would be a lot of yard signs, leaflets, research, etc., etc., or whatever else an astute campaign could come up with. One of the best organized and smartest campaigns I saw was when John Ashcroft ran for US Senate.

[SassyLady]

I wonder how tailfins would do trying to take Trump down. Jeb tried and Trump kicked his ass. Carly drew blood, but not a knockout. And I doubt she will have another shot like that.

I'm sure Carly will have plenty of opportunities. Because she did so well last night he has put her in his cross-hairs and will probably say something crude and rude that will give her plenty of fodder.

I loved her response to Christie's melt down about her and Trump recounting their successful careers. It must be OK for all the politicians to recount what they've accomplished while in office but it's taboo for a successful non-politician to recount what they accomplished. Christie lost major points with me on that outburst even if it was meant to appeal to the common man.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Obama and Trump both stink up the place. I don't want ether one.
not sure what issues Trump's brought up.
immigration? been an issue for a lot of years.

what issues are you talking about?

Rev., if ya have to ask, no need in me giving the answer.
I seriously doubt that you need an answer. ---Tyr

[sundaydriver]

I don't think Trump would care. I'm pretty certain wouldn't welcome any of us to any of his exclusive golf clubs either. Well, maybe Sassy.

[tailfins]

I don't think Trump would care. I'm pretty certain wouldn't welcome any of us to any of his exclusive golf clubs either. Well, maybe Sassy.

I agree he doesn't care. Wait until he builds a campaign organization and can't keep morale up.

[jimnyc]

Rev., if ya have to ask, no need in me giving the answer.
I seriously doubt that you need an answer. ---Tyr

He says Trump stinks and such, and even though he hasn't watched anything, nor read anything... and now wants specifics... I say just let him continue to hate him. He's not going to change his mind if you waste your time and post all kinds of things for him.

[fj1200]

... take Trump down.

I'm not sure anyone needs to "take him down." I think campaign attrition will eventually catch up to him. There have been many front runners at this point in previous campaign cycles and it doesn't guarantee they are there at the end. Any campaign that tries to out-Trump Trump is playing with fire.

[Black Diamond]

I'm not sure anyone needs to "take him down." I think campaign attrition will eventually catch up to him. There have been many front runners at this point in previous campaign cycles and it doesn't guarantee they are there at the end. Any campaign that tries to out-Trump Trump is playing with fire.

Some of that depends on whether the country and world continues to fall apart and to what extent that happens.

[fj1200]

Some of that depends on whether the country and world continues to fall apart and to what extent that happens.

I don't think that makes Trump more of a choice.

[Black Diamond]

I don't think that makes Trump more of a choice.

Not for you but for the angry masses it would and has.

[tailfins]

I don't think that makes Trump more of a choice.

Especially if he's a liar. I don't want to watch an inauguration suspecting the President-elect's campaign was all a lie. His policies don't bother me. Even the immigration policy only needs minor tweaking to be considered an anti human trafficking initiative and not perceived as treating the trafficking victims as enemies.

[Black Diamond]

Especially if he's a liar. I don't want to watch an inauguration suspecting the President-elect's campaign was all a lie. His policies don't bother me. Even the immigration policy only needs minor tweaking to be considered an anti human trafficking initiative and not perceived as treating the trafficking victims as enemies.

That eliminates all the candidates.

[fj1200]

Not for you but for the angry masses it would and has.

You could be right, populism is a dangerous thing.

[Truth Detector]

I'm sure Carly will have plenty of opportunities. Because she did so well last night he has put her in his cross-hairs and will probably say something crude and rude that will give her plenty of fodder.

I loved her response to Christie's melt down about her and Trump recounting their successful careers. It must be OK for all the politicians to recount what they've accomplished while in office but it's taboo for a successful non-politician to recount what they accomplished. Christie lost major points with me on that outburst even if it was meant to appeal to the common man.

While I have NEVER been a fan of quasi conservatives who appeal to Democratic voters, his liberal populist outburst initially caught me by surprise, then was supplanted by anger and rage. Summary: what a buffoon!!

[SassyLady]

I don't think Trump would care. I'm pretty certain wouldn't welcome any of us to any of his exclusive golf clubs either. Well, maybe Sassy.

I doubt it. I've met him ... wasn't impressed. Talks a good game but I've seen no proof that he does anything for anyone other than to promote himself. He is a user.

He says he can't be bought by anyone. Has anyone even thought about the fact that if he's president he will veto any legislation that would harm his millions? He will be in his own "back pocket". At least the other presidents took money from various people and had to consider the ramifications on all of them when making a decision. He will owe no one except himself.

Thanks Sunday for the vote of confidence ... but I don't think I have the kind of "persona" he's looking for. :slap:

[revelarts]

You could be right, populism is a dangerous thing.
FJ you say that a lot.
Can you give me an example of a "Populous" president or congress person that has cause some terrible damage?
I'm just not sure what your great fear is of populism.

[revelarts]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/cartoons/images/2015/09/15/steve_benson_steve_benson_for_09152015_5_.jpg

[tailfins]

I'm sure Carly will have plenty of opportunities. Because she did so well last night he has put her in his cross-hairs and will probably say something crude and rude that will give her plenty of fodder.

I loved her response to Christie's melt down about her and Trump recounting their successful careers. It must be OK for all the politicians to recount what they've accomplished while in office but it's taboo for a successful non-politician to recount what they accomplished. Christie lost major points with me on that outburst even if it was meant to appeal to the common man.

Thank you for pointing out the one candidate I like even less than Trump.

http://aattp.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/obama-hugs-christie-2.png

[jimnyc]

Thank you for pointing out the one candidate I like even less than Trump.

Fat boy isn't all that bad. He'd still be MUCH better than the alternatives. I'm not saying he's the leader, or should even be near the top - just that I would still take him over the Democrats. But that doesn't say much I suppose, as I would vote for a stray dog before any of them.

[Abbey Marie]

While he's not my top guy, I like Christie, and would happily vote for him.

[Kathianne]

While he's not my top guy, I like Christie, and would happily vote for him.

I could vote for Christie, though don't think he'll be nominee. I will not vote for Trump.

[NightTrain]

I could vote for Christie, though don't think he'll be nominee. I will not vote for Trump.


I'll support whoever the GOP nomination turns out to be.

The alternative is unthinkable.

[Kathianne]

I'll support whoever the GOP nomination turns out to be.

The alternative is unthinkable.

I cannot agree with that. While there's no way to defend or absolve those in politics who have sullied the government, electing a joke isn't a protest, it's suicide for the system. That I will not participate in.

[jimnyc]

I'll support whoever the GOP nomination turns out to be.

The alternative is unthinkable.

Can you imagine Hillary in office for 4-8 years? Look at the amount of damage she's done by just being in Washington!! I can't imagine what she would do if she ran the show. Hell, yes I can, she talks about it all the time. No way in hell I want to see that woman in office. The continued damage that may be done by the loony liberals may be irrecoverable.

[NightTrain]

I cannot agree with that. While there's no way to defend or absolve those in politics who have sullied the government, electing a joke isn't a protest, it's suicide for the system. That I will not participate in.


You can't possibly think that Hillary or Sanders would be a better President than any of the 15 contenders?

[jimnyc]

You can't possibly think that Hillary or Sanders would be a better President than any of the 15 contenders?

The worst of any GOP candidate in the past 40 years would still be better than putting that lying bitch in office to further destroy our country.

[Kathianne]

You can't possibly think that Hillary or Sanders would be a better President than any of the 15 contenders?
I said, 'Trump.' That is it. With Hillary at least there's hope for indictment or impeachment. With Trump it's just flipping the bird at everything the country has stood for.

[Kathianne]

There may be hope that some are seeing through the debates that there are better alternatives. Then again, maybe not.

[NightTrain]

I said, 'Trump.' That is it. With Hillary at least there's hope for indictment or impeachment. With Trump it's just flipping the bird at everything the country has stood for.


So in a scenario between Trump and Sanders, you'd vote Sanders?

[Kathianne]

So in a scenario between Trump and Sanders, you'd vote Sanders?
Possibly or a third candidate. This 'backlash' of electing a progressive, calling him something else, hoping that the 'rebellion' will lead to something better? Good luck with that.

[jimnyc]

Sanders or Hillary = country going further down the shitter = guaranteed

It's obvious the liberal lunacy has been destroying our country. I have a Reese's peanut butter cup to the right of me that I would vote for before purposely putting a liberal in office.

Weak on immigration. Weak on defending our country. All the wrong economic policies. Healthcare "obamanation". Abortion. Welfare/entitlements. Gun control. Horrid foreign policies.

Hillary or Sanders would further have us swirling around the toilet. Even the LEAST of the GOP would be MUCH better than any of them. Trump, I'll take Kasich, even Jinal - hell, I'd take Palin in a heartbeat as well. Let Perry back in and I'd vote for him. Whoever wins the nod is getting my vote, as no way I am party to putting in the very people who are currently destroying our country.

[revelarts]

So in a scenario between Trump and Sanders, you'd vote Sanders?


with the crowd here I wonder If the vote were between Abe Lincoln a republican and Harry Truman a democrat, if Lincoln would win.

At this point in time a 3rd party vote is nearly the only honest vote, anything less is more of the same.
And the parties won't change until they HAVE TO.

[jimnyc]

with the crowd here I wonder If the vote were between Abe Lincoln a republican and Harry Truman a democrat, if Lincoln would win.

At this point in time a 3rd party vote is nearly the only honest vote, anything less is more of the same.
And the parties won't change until they HAVE TO.

Nothing wrong with an honest vote, I'll give you that - but then none of those folks should complain if Hillary or Sanders wins and starts further putting our country in the toilet. Well, I suppose one 'could'.

Oh, and the 'same' is because it's not what YOU want. Not all of us want a "Paul" type 'tard in the office. No offense to you, of course.

[NightTrain]

You two are smart enough to know that voting 3rd party is the same thing as voting directly for the democrats.


I'm surprised & disappointed that this early in the campaign you've both made up your minds not to vote for the leading Republican when everything isn't laid out yet.

I firmly believe that this sort of behavior is exactly how we ended up with Obama in the first place - and there's no doubt that either McCain or Romney, while not flawless by any stretch, would have been a DAMN sight better than the buffoon we ended up with.

[jimnyc]

Ythe leading Republican when everything isn't laid out yet.

Many are jumping on Trump for not having specific plans. In reality, I don't see anything really much more specific from others. I see similarities is all. Sanders, Hillary, Cruz, Walker, Fiorina, Carson - I see a LOT of ideas from ALL of them, but no specifics. But Trump gets hammered for lack of specifics - and often from folks that haven't spent a single second actually researching what he has said thus far at speeches and stops and such. (Not Kath of course, I know she's well informed). But it's curious how the others aren't being lambasted for having lack of specifics as well.

[Kathianne]

You two are smart enough to know that voting 3rd party is the same thing as voting directly for the democrats.


I'm surprised & disappointed that this early in the campaign you've both made up your minds not to vote for the leading Republican when everything isn't laid out yet.

I firmly believe that this sort of behavior is exactly how we ended up with Obama in the first place - and there's no doubt that either McCain or Romney, while not flawless by any stretch, would have been a DAMN sight better than the buffoon we ended up with.

It's not I that is advocating for a 3rd party, not by a longshot. It is becoming obvious to me though that it will happen. The rise of Trump is not the cause, it's just indicative that the schisms between the established parties have left many, if not the majority, without a choice.

[Perianne]

with the crowd here I wonder If the vote were between Abe Lincoln a republican and Harry Truman a democrat, if Lincoln would win.

At this point in time a 3rd party vote is nearly the only honest vote, anything less is more of the same.
And the parties won't change until they HAVE TO.

I would hope Abe Lincoln could never win anything. He was a traitor to the country.

[NightTrain]

I would hope Abe Lincoln could never win anything. He was a traitor to the country.


Lincoln was awesome. But we've been over this before.

[revelarts]

You two are smart enough to know that voting 3rd party is the same thing as voting directly for the democrats.....

but some people have become so upset that they talk seriously about "revolution" and "secession" but still a 3rd party vote is to radical a step?

So when is it going to get bad enough with RINOs or popular personalities like Trump or Palin to jump ship... even temporally.
A significant 3rd party EXODUS by conservatives to the winds would shock the R's and D's to the core.

But I've finally come to the conclusion that most people --liberals and conservatives-- are not really that principal based.
They are far more Party based and are swayed by personality more than substance. And fear more than freedom.

[NightTrain]

but some people have become so upset that they talk seriously about "revolution" and "secession" but still a 3rd party vote is to radical a step?

So when is it going to get bad enough with RINOs or popular personalities like Trump or Palin to jump ship... even temporally.
A significant 3rd party EXODUS by conservatives to the winds would shock the R's and D's to the core.

But I've finally come to the conclusion that most people --liberals and conservatives-- are not really that principal based.
They are far more Party based and are swayed by personality more than substance. And fear more than freedom.


We have to live in the world we live in.


There isn't going to be a Mass Exodus. Sure, it might be wonderful. But it isn't going to happen and accepting that reality is only common sense.


There is only going to be 2 candidates who can win the election, and those 2 are fielded by Republicans or Democrats. Voting for a 3rd party might make you feel righteous, but it didn't do a damn thing to get your best representative out of the 2 elected.

[revelarts]

We have to live in the world we live in.


There isn't going to be a Mass Exodus. Sure, it might be wonderful. But it isn't going to happen and accepting that reality is only common sense.


There is only going to be 2 candidates who can win the election, and those 2 are fielded by Republicans or Democrats. Voting for a 3rd party might make you feel righteous, but it didn't do a damn thing to get your best representative out of the 2 elected.

As i said some people are stocking guns for "revolution" and moving to states for "secession" .
that's part of the real world as well. fringe sure but real.
the tea party was part of the real world. but it's been highjacked by the pragmatist, personalities and RINOs.
the republican party came about originally as a radical 3rd party.
that's real world too.

Voting for a a republican to 1/2 step down deeper into a sea of crap, rather than a democrat to take full step may make you feel like you've accomplished something good,
but it does nothing to stop or reverse the decent into a sea of crap.

[NightTrain]

As i said some people are stocking guns for "revolution" and moving to states for "secession" .
that's part of the real world as well. fringe sure but real.
the tea party was part of the real world. but it's been highjacked by the pragmatist, personalities and RINOs.
the republican party came about originally as a radical 3rd party.
that's real world too.

Voting for a a republican to 1/2 step down deeper into a sea of crap, rather than a democrat to take full step may make you feel like you've accomplished something good,
but it does nothing to stop or reverse the decent into a sea of crap.


The world is much changed from the mid 1800s. There isn't going to be a rise of a new political party in the near future, and certainly not before next year.

So, vote for your 3rd party - there's nothing anyone can do to stop you from helping the Commie / Socialists continue to destroy the country. That's the reality.

[Abbey Marie]

but some people have become so upset that they talk seriously about "revolution" and "secession" but still a 3rd party vote is to radical a step?

So when is it going to get bad enough with RINOs or popular personalities like Trump or Palin to jump ship... even temporally.
A significant 3rd party EXODUS by conservatives to the winds would shock the R's and D's to the core.

But I've finally come to the conclusion that most people --liberals and conservatives-- are not really that principal based.
They are far more Party based and are swayed by personality more than substance. And fear more than freedom.

Of all the bolded, it is fear that rules. As in, you should be very afraid of backdoor-electing a Sanders to the White house. I think it is actually your own fear of government intrusion/big brother, that is blinding you to the horrors of that reality.

[revelarts]

The world is much changed from the mid 1800s. There isn't going to be a rise of a new political party in the near future, and certainly not before next year.
So, vote for your 3rd party - there's nothing anyone can do to stop you from helping the Commie / Socialists continue to destroy the country. That's the reality.

well i suppose we mainly disagree on tacits.

I'm not content to slow a sinking ship by 1/4 over and over and over again until i die.
Or to encourage my kid to or others to do the same when there are ways to stop the sinking altogether. and eventually raise the ship .

as i've said before i've voted for Republicans for 30 years with their promises of balanced budgets, family values, constitutional rule, smaller gov't, pro-small biz and honest corps, and non interventionist foreign policy. and for 30 years never saw real movement or ANY of those fronts and often just the opposite as much or worse than the democrats promised.
on some issues they managed to stop some bad items but overall it's been a STEADY and sometimes SHOCKING declines in the same directions as the democrats.

I cannot bring myself to aid half steps down anymore. If others feel it's better than nothing OK. go for it.
But I'm of the mind set that americans have overcome bad politics on many occasions over the 2 centuries. And the status quo/reality is not a permanent. The reason we are in the state we are is because those on the OTHER side have constantly worked to change the system and culture to this low level. What was once fringe-- for example homosexual marriage lobby-- is now LAW. 40 years ago they weren't a serious part of the democratic party. They were FRINGE and the "reality " was that homosexual marriage would "NEVER" happen. but somehow here we are.

So i don't buy the status quo and change can only happen 150 years ago, and we have to deal with "reality" stance.

the fringe creates the trends, the status quo follows.
With passion and the grace of God the country could move to a more constitutional, more Godly culture and I'll shot for that myself.
Rather than SLOW the sinkage.
It may be a completely failing effort on my part but it's what I'm compelled to do after trying the "realistic" way of voting republican for 30+ years.

But to each his own.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

He says Trump stinks and such, and even though he hasn't watched anything, nor read anything... and now wants specifics... I say just let him continue to hate him. He's not going to change his mind if you waste your time and post all kinds of things for him.

Thanks Jim. That was exactly my thinking on it when I made that reply to him.
As I found it hard to believe that he had absolutely no concept of what and how Trump forced key issues to be pushed up forefront to be debated by candidates that had dodged them before. .-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

well i suppose we mainly disagree on tacits.

I'm not content to slow a sinking ship by 1/4 over and over and over again until i die.
Or to encourage my kid to or others to do the same when there are ways to stop the sinking altogether. and eventually raise the ship .

as i've said before i've voted for Republicans for 30 years with their promises of balanced budgets, family values, constitutional rule, smaller gov't, pro-small biz and honest corps, and non interventionist foreign policy. and for 30 years never saw real movement or ANY of those fronts and often just the opposite as much or worse than the democrats promised.
on some issues they managed to stop some bad items but overall it's been a STEADY and sometimes SHOCKING declines in the same directions as the democrats.

I cannot bring myself to aid half steps down anymore. If others feel it's better than nothing OK. go for it.
But I'm of the mind set that americans have overcome bad politics on many occasions over the 2 centuries. And the status quo/reality is not a permanent. The reason we are in the state we are is because those on the OTHER side have constantly worked to change the system and culture to this low level. What was once fringe-- for example homosexual marriage lobby-- is now LAW. 40 years ago they weren't a serious part of the democratic party. They were FRINGE and the "reality " was that homosexual marriage would "NEVER" happen. but somehow here we are.

So i don't buy the status quo and change can only happen 150 years ago, and we have to deal with "reality" stance.

the fringe creates the trends, the status quo follows.
With passion and the grace of God the country could move to a more constitutional, more Godly culture and I'll shot for that myself.
Rather than SLOW the sinkage.
It may be a completely failing effort on my part but it's what I'm compelled to do after trying the "realistic" way of voting republican for 30+ years.

But to each his own.


With passion and the grace of God the country could move to a more constitutional, more Godly culture and I'll shoot for that myself.
Rather than SLOW the sinkage.
It may be a completely failing effort on my part but it's what I'm compelled to do after trying the "realistic" way of voting republican for 30+ years.

^^^^^^ Oblivious to the fact that if the ship "sinks" there will not be a damn country to save!!!

The slowing is necessary if we are to ever save this nation. Why do you think the obama and the damn dems are moving so damn hard and rapidly to install their minions in power, subvert laws and the Constitution and weaken this nation this mightily this quickly?
Wake up and smell sewage those bastards are slinging while calling it ALL- sweet smelling perfume!-Tyr

[tailfins]

Thanks Jim. That was exactly my thinking on it when I made that reply to him.
As I found it hard to believe that he had absolutely no concept of what and how Trump forced key issues to be pushed up forefront to be debated by candidates that had dodged them before. .-Tyr

Just because Trump's participation is a plus doesn't mean his victory is a plus. The GOP still hasn't learned how to package their immigration policy. I don't see anyone pointing out that protecting wages benefits Latinos too.

[fj1200]

He says he can't be bought by anyone. Has anyone even thought about the fact that if he's president he will veto any legislation that would harm his millions? He will be in his own "back pocket".

When Cheney was going to be the VP nominee I recall he had to jump through some financial hoops regarding his being Halliburton CEO and being insulated from his having any effects on the company. I'm not sure if that was a legal requirement or just him doing the honorable thing.


FJ you say that a lot.
Can you give me an example of a "Populous" president or congress person that has cause some terrible damage?
I'm just not sure what your great fear is of populism.

Yes, I do say that a lot. It may hinge on my definition of populism where populists grab onto something that sounds good and will appeal to the populous rather than advocating for what is correct. I see populism as being dangerous to the rule of law and Constitutional limitations if the citizenry demands action based on their "rage," in the context of the original question, rather than on a correct action. Your definition may be different. I don't see many positives from populism here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism) or here (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/09/07/the-populists). I think Sanders and Trump are both populists, just on different sides.

To your other question, I'm not sure if we've had any purely populist presidents in this country although plenty have used populism to their advantage while running or trying to get something passed.

[fj1200]

You two are smart enough to know that voting 3rd party is the same thing as voting directly for the democrats.

A Clinton as POTUS does wonders for the Republican party. :cough: 1994 :cough:

[NightTrain]

A Clinton as POTUS does wonders for the Republican party. :cough: 1994 :cough:

A perfect example is 1992 - a bunch of chuckleheads voted 3rd party for Perot instead of Bush. And that's how we ended up with Slick Willy, and now the spectre of his charming wife finishing us off 24 years later.

A few moonbats in Congress is one thing; a moonbat president is a whole new level of destruction, both to us and to the world.

[fj1200]

A perfect example is 1992 - a bunch of chuckleheads voted 3rd party for Perot instead of Bush. And that's how we ended up with Slick Willy, and now the spectre of his charming wife finishing us off 24 years later.

A few moonbats in Congress is one thing; a moonbat president is a whole new level of destruction, both to us and to the world.

As we discussed before the outcome may have been the same without Perot but the point being just voting against a Democrat, even Clinton, doesn't mean that the alternative is better if the alternative is merely a RINO who will sign on to the majority of the platform of the other side. A non-principled vote may just get a worse outcome for us and the world four years later.

[Black Diamond]

As we discussed before the outcome may have been the same without Perot but the point being just voting against a Democrat, even Clinton, doesn't mean that the alternative is better if the alternative is merely a RINO who will sign on to the majority of the platform of the other side. A non-principled vote may just get a worse outcome for us and the world four years later.

Which of the current candidates would be the same or worse than Hillary?

[NightTrain]

As we discussed before the outcome may have been the same without Perot but the point being just voting against a Democrat, even Clinton, doesn't mean that the alternative is better if the alternative is merely a RINO who will sign on to the majority of the platform of the other side. A non-principled vote may just get a worse outcome for us and the world four years later.

Bush 41 made his own bed by lying about tax increases, pissing off enough conservatives to vote against him while not voting for a liberal. The result of voting 3rd party threw the race to Clinton. It's common knowledge that Perot was the spoiler.

[fj1200]

Which of the current candidates would be the same or worse than Hillary?

Bernie.


Bush 41 made his own bed by lying about tax increases, pissing off enough conservatives to vote against him while not voting for a liberal. The result of voting 3rd party threw the race to Clinton. It's common knowledge that Perot was the spoiler.

I agree about 41. It's common opinion that Perot was the spoiler, there are arguments to the contrary but it's all rooted in speculation and exit polling.

[Black Diamond]

Bernie.



.

:laugh:

While I completely agree, I was thinking of the republican side. I also think Kerry would be worse so I am praying Biden jumps in.

[Abbey Marie]

Bernie.
...



C'mon, you knew he meant which Republican. So, since you think it could be as bad or worse to vote in some of the Republican candidates as a Dem, which Republican(s) would be worse, and why?

[SassyLady]

Many are jumping on Trump for not having specific plans. In reality, I don't see anything really much more specific from others. I see similarities is all. Sanders, Hillary, Cruz, Walker, Fiorina, Carson - I see a LOT of ideas from ALL of them, but no specifics. But Trump gets hammered for lack of specifics - and often from folks that haven't spent a single second actually researching what he has said thus far at speeches and stops and such. (Not Kath of course, I know she's well informed). But it's curious how the others aren't being lambasted for having lack of specifics as well.

You asked in another thread about Carson's immigration plan and I provided that information for you. I hope you watch the video as he explains his plan.

[Kathianne]

You asked in another thread about Carson's immigration plan and I provided that information for you. I hope you watch the video as he explains his plan.

Here's the thing, I called for 'specifics' from Trump months ago. I wasn't very explicit in what I meant. This is a primary race, what we should be hearing is some coherent philosophy from the candidates on topics of import. Some they are just learning about, especially foreign policy.

Anyone watching Trump when he holds court in the entrance to his empire has heard him start a thought, change topics, then come back to 'how great it will be' when he acts as president.

As I've said a few times, normally skeptical folks just don't question him-blind hope or something.

[tailfins]

Here's the thing, I called for 'specifics' from Trump months ago. I wasn't very explicit in what I meant. This is a primary race, what we should be hearing is some coherent philosophy from the candidates on topics of import. Some they are just learning about, especially foreign policy.

Anyone watching Trump when he holds court in the entrance to his empire has heard him start a thought, change topics, then come back to 'how great it will be' when he acts as president.

As I've said a few times, normally skeptical folks just don't question him-blind hope or something.

This way to the Egress.

[NightTrain]

Here's the thing, I called for 'specifics' from Trump months ago. I wasn't very explicit in what I meant. This is a primary race, what we should be hearing is some coherent philosophy from the candidates on topics of import. Some they are just learning about, especially foreign policy.

Anyone watching Trump when he holds court in the entrance to his empire has heard him start a thought, change topics, then come back to 'how great it will be' when he acts as president.

As I've said a few times, normally skeptical folks just don't question him-blind hope or something.

Well, speaking for myself, of course...

I generally am cynical of any politician talking about what great things they will do when they get elected. I think it's justified - we've all seen the bullshit said during a campaign completely 'forgotten' after they're in the saddle.

I've already said I was disappointed with Trump's performance in the 2nd debate with his lack of specifics, and I know I'm not alone in that opinion from what I've seen others say.

I like the fact that he's paying for this campaign himself and isn't taking money from lobbyists and special interests - or anyone, for that matter. I don't think anyone has done that before, ever. Maybe Washington on the first election...?

I like that he calls a spade a spade. I think he takes the trash talking too far sometimes, but some of it I completely agree with - Rosie is a sorry excuse for a human. Most of the trash talking is a twofold strategy to get under the skin of people he's sparring with, making them angry and making mistakes.

That strategy doesn't work with everyone, naturally. Fiorina rose to the challenge like a champion, and benefited greatly from it. But check out the other candidates - none of them have been able to effectively deal with it, and that's because this sort of thing hasn't ever been done before. He's breaking trail and the establishment has never had to deal with it.

Right or wrong, you have to admit that he effectively disarmed almost all of his competition. He's not in the race to play Patty Cakes, he's in it to kick ass and take names. The list grows.

The second benefit to this strategy is keeping his name in the press and the flames of outrage fanned, getting international coverage for no money spent - one tweet by him gets many millions in free exposure. Sure, lots are offended, and it's a gamble on his part as to whether he goes too far or not.

But so far it's working brilliantly.

I hear complaints that he's changed his opinion over the years - but who among us is static? Who hasn't changed their view on a subject over the course of time? I can't think of even one person I know that hasn't grown and changed their mind.

I guarantee there are multiple millions of Americans that have changed their mind regarding the abortion issue just in the last few months once the undercover videos were released concerning PP. Does that make all those people weak minded and untrustworthy?

I think not. Anyone confronted with hard evidence & information contrary to what they believe will change their mind if they are a reasonable person. Anyone that doesn't is a fool. None of us are infallible and we have to be able to accept reality when it's clear that what we believed was wrong. Trump is a human, and therefore will change his mind as facts continue to present themselves in a contrary manner.

I would be far more suspicious of someone claiming they haven't changed their mind about anything in the last 20 years than someone who freely admits it. Hell, he's getting hammered for changing his mind over topics from 1988, for crying out loud!

I haven't had anyone complain that I've flip-flopped on my views from 1988, when I thought a mullet was awesome and my Camaro with T-Tops were the way to go. People grow, people change. We hope that it's always for the better, and it appears to me that Trump has grown and changed in a positive manner as far as his beliefs go.

I would suggest he does something with that silly hair, but again, I admire the way he freely says that 'No one likes it, but I do.' He doesn't care what anyone else thinks about his hair. How many times has the world talked about Clinton getting his $400 haircut aboard Air Force 1? Someone fretting about their hair like a girl on prom night is going to be a less effective president than one who doesn't give a damn about what people think about his hair, IMO. This shows he's more focused on real matters than inconsequential ones.

Anyway, just a few thoughts this morning as I guzzle my coffee.

[Gunny]

Dude, lay off the coffee. You're sounding like Jim. :laugh:

What I don't like about Trump is he's just another Obama personality-wise. He gets his head up his butt and says and does what he wants. We've already seen what having a pen and a phone gets us.

IMO, two of the most qualified people to be President dropped out. This whole "outsider" thing is a joke to me. I can understand why, but the last "outsider" we had was Carter. His own party quit supporting him in Congress. Of course, Congress actually did things back then.

And this executive order crap has to stop. I want NO ONE in office that's going to short-cut Congress. I'm all for breaking the backs of the McConnells and Boehners who have a lock on the GOP, but not at the expense of another jackass that can't read the Constitution.

[jimnyc]

You asked in another thread about Carson's immigration plan and I provided that information for you. I hope you watch the video as he explains his plan.

Yep, I did. I also re-posted your post in the new thread I started. I also posted Trump's immigration plan. No one responded after that with any specifics. Many have complained about Trump's lack of plans and specifics, so I made that thread to find out the specifics that other candidates are offering. They said he has plans, but won't say how he'll get there. I'm coming up quite empty. Well, not empty, just no different than what Trump has been offering thus far.

I have NO issue if folks don't like him. I can't force others to change their votes. But if people will point out that Trump doesn't have specific plans, I'll point out that neither do the others.

[jimnyc]

Dude, lay off the coffee. You're sounding like Jim. :laugh:

Hey, I'm still on cup number one!! Gimme a few hours!! :coffee:

[jimnyc]

As I've said a few times, normally skeptical folks just don't question him-blind hope or something.

Fwiw, I've been following his campaign for a long time. I have MANY topics of interest and he simply seems to agree with me on so many of them. I think Congress will play a large part in whether or not he can accomplish some things. But do I think he'll get elected and suddenly be a liberal? No, I don't. I do believe that if he gets in he will try to accomplish the things he is campaigning on. If I'm wrong, so be it, then I suck. But it's not blind hope, I've been VERY eyes wide open and I like very much his stances and what he has to say.

[NightTrain]

Dude, lay off the coffee. You're sounding like Jim. :laugh:

What?? You have insulted my honor.

Pistols at Dawn!

Actually, that's a compliment. Our opinions have always seemed to align almost exactly... probably why we've gotten along so well over the years.


What I don't like about Trump is he's just another Obama personality-wise. He gets his head up his butt and says and does what he wants. We've already seen what having a pen and a phone gets us.

I don't see it that way.

Obama said a whole lot of things that pandered to specific audiences in his elections that were utter bullshit. He didn't say anything like Trump as a candidate. Oh yeah, he was totally against Gay Marriage in '08, but then what happened after elected? Obama didn't say a damn thing during his campaigns that weren't first researched with a wet political finger in the wind.

It was only after Obama's 2nd election that he started talking the way he wanted to, but more importantly (disastrously) began doing what he wanted regardless of the fallout - because we all know that a lame duck is a dangerous thing, especially if said Duck is a moonbat.

The two are nothing alike, IMO.


IMO, two of the most qualified people to be President dropped out. This whole "outsider" thing is a joke to me. I can understand why, but the last "outsider" we had was Carter. His own party quit supporting him in Congress. Of course, Congress actually did things back then.

I agree that either Walker or Perry would have been a great President, but we don't always get what we want. They both learned valuable lessons and I think 2020 and 2024 will see both of them taking another swing at the prize.

Carter wasn't a leader, that was his weakness. He was very smart, had great military training (nuclear sub!), good ethics... on paper he looked great, but in the real world was woefully inadequate. Trump has been a leader for decades and his billions speak to his ability to negotiate beneficial deals and cut through the bullshit. If he didn't abide by the rules and did what he wanted, one of his very powerful enemies would have seen to it that he was behind bars or at least at the center of a very public shitstorm. The level of sharks in his league guarantee that.


And this executive order crap has to stop. I want NO ONE in office that's going to short-cut Congress. I'm all for breaking the backs of the McConnells and Boehners who have a lock on the GOP, but not at the expense of another jackass that can't read the Constitution.

I don't, either. Trump hasn't given any indication that he would do anything like that.

He knows his base. None of us like that kind of BS, and he'd be instantly wrecked politically if he did. Only the low information, blindly following liberal sheep go along with crap like that.

[Kathianne]

Fwiw, I've been following his campaign for a long time. I have MANY topics of interest and he simply seems to agree with me on so many of them. I think Congress will play a large part in whether or not he can accomplish some things. But do I think he'll get elected and suddenly be a liberal? No, I don't. I do believe that if he gets in he will try to accomplish the things he is campaigning on. If I'm wrong, so be it, then I suck. But it's not blind hope, I've been VERY eyes wide open and I like very much his stances and what he has to say.

I'm with you on 'not changing people's minds,' we see and hear him differently. That's ok. As you know, I've also been following him along the way pretty closely. He HAS brought up issues that resonate, no denying that. What I've seen/heard is he makes some statement, a short 'position' and garners lots of coverage. Then when later asked about the topic, begins to answer, changes subject, repeats part of what he started to answer, then says, "It'll be great." During the answer he usually resorts to name calling and condemnation of 'incompetents' or some other pejoratives.

Then there are his complete changes of positions on most topics that are on the federal table. I understand changing or modifying positions on some issues, even abortion. What I don't understand is when someone has changed on nearly all positions, most being much more recent than 1988, like over the past 4 years.

[jimnyc]

I'm with you on 'not changing people's minds,' we see and hear him differently. That's ok. As you know, I've also been following him along the way pretty closely. He HAS brought up issues that resonate, no denying that. What I've seen/heard is he makes some statement, a short 'position' and garners lots of coverage. Then when later asked about the topic, begins to answer, changes subject, repeats part of what he started to answer, then says, "It'll be great." During the answer he usually resorts to name calling and condemnation of 'incompetents' or some other pejoratives.

Then there are his complete changes of positions on most topics that are on the federal table. I understand changing or modifying positions on some issues, even abortion. What I don't understand is when someone has changed on nearly all positions, most being much more recent than 1988, like over the past 4 years.

I think Trump is smart, he's using the media and his arrogance and other skills to win people over and take all the attention. That's in addition to his stances of course. If he doesn't sharpen his skills on the issues, and debates, and ultimately come out with specifics enough to be voted for, then he won't be voted for. I know I would switch to one of the other 5 I pointed out in a heartbeat. I like them all.

I want ISIS and other terrorists taken care of. Illegal immigration. Fix our economy. Fuck Iran, or at least be tougher. Help Israel. Tougher deals with other countries (import/export). Anchor babies issue. Education. 2nd amendment (don't want sudden gun control, which I think the Dems would try). Slow down welfare and other entitlements. Job creation (economy again?). I'd have to go search for a few more but still haven't went down for my 2nd cup of java yet. :) Anyway, he seems solid on these issues to me. Granted, there are other issues, but these are the most important to me, right now.

[Gunny]

Yep, I did. I also re-posted your post in the new thread I started. I also posted Trump's immigration plan. No one responded after that with any specifics. Many have complained about Trump's lack of plans and specifics, so I made that thread to find out the specifics that other candidates are offering. They said he has plans, but won't say how he'll get there. I'm coming up quite empty. Well, not empty, just no different than what Trump has been offering thus far.

I have NO issue if folks don't like him. I can't force others to change their votes. But if people will point out that Trump doesn't have specific plans, I'll point out that neither do the others.

Oh, so now you want some attention span. Damned needy-ass MFer. If it ain't in the top 10, I probably don't remember it exists.:laugh:

[Gunny]

What?? You have insulted my honor.

Pistols at Dawn!

Actually, that's a compliment. Our opinions have always seemed to align almost exactly... probably why we've gotten along so well over the years.



I don't see it that way.

Obama said a whole lot of things that pandered to specific audiences in his elections that were utter bullshit. He didn't say anything like Trump as a candidate. Oh yeah, he was totally against Gay Marriage in '08, but then what happened after elected? Obama didn't say a damn thing during his campaigns that weren't first researched with a wet political finger in the wind.

It was only after Obama's 2nd election that he started talking the way he wanted to, but more importantly (disastrously) began doing what he wanted regardless of the fallout - because we all know that a lame duck is a dangerous thing, especially if said Duck is a moonbat.

The two are nothing alike, IMO.



I agree that either Walker or Perry would have been a great President, but we don't always get what we want. They both learned valuable lessons and I think 2020 and 2024 will see both of them taking another swing at the prize.

Carter wasn't a leader, that was his weakness. He was very smart, had great military training (nuclear sub!), good ethics... on paper he looked great, but in the real world was woefully inadequate. Trump has been a leader for decades and his billions speak to his ability to negotiate beneficial deals and cut through the bullshit. If he didn't abide by the rules and did what he wanted, one of his very powerful enemies would have seen to it that he was behind bars or at least at the center of a very public shitstorm. The level of sharks in his league guarantee that.



I don't, either. Trump hasn't given any indication that he would do anything like that.

He knows his base. None of us like that kind of BS, and he'd be instantly wrecked politically if he did. Only the low information, blindly following liberal sheep go along with crap like that.

But what is Trump doing? Pandering to a specific group of people that like what he's saying.

[NightTrain]

I'm with you on 'not changing people's minds,' we see and hear him differently. That's ok. As you know, I've also been following him along the way pretty closely. He HAS brought up issues that resonate, no denying that. What I've seen/heard is he makes some statement, a short 'position' and garners lots of coverage. Then when later asked about the topic, begins to answer, changes subject, repeats part of what he started to answer, then says, "It'll be great." During the answer he usually resorts to name calling and condemnation of 'incompetents' or some other pejoratives.

I'm pretty sure that's natural caution displayed on his part. His platforms aren't fully fleshed out and they have to be diligently and carefully worded, and you have to remember we're still a year away. To jump out there with a statement off-the-cuff in response to a GOTCHA reporter is going to make you look like Biden with one of his many jaw-dropping gaffes and your allies facepalming themselves into a coma.

He knows that every word will be carefully scrutinized when he delivers his official stance, and all of us know there are literally millions waiting with bated breath to twist his words to mean something he didn't mean. Even a pause at the wrong moment will be construed to make something that wasn't intended by his rabid haters in the press.

Caution until he's ready is prudent, and like Jim pointed out, it's not like any of his competitors have laid their stances out yet. The race is young.


Then there are his complete changes of positions on most topics that are on the federal table. I understand changing or modifying positions on some issues, even abortion. What I don't understand is when someone has changed on nearly all positions, most being much more recent than 1988, like over the past 4 years.

Many of the glaring differences between liberal and conservatives haven't been this obvious to many people, ever. Sure, you and I know full well what the differences are - but we're political junkies and that's not.... normal. I think prior to Obama getting elected, most Americans didn't understand how destructive the liberal agenda is until it was in their face affecting them directly. The whole country has turned upside down in the last few years due to liberal agenda running amok and unchecked.

In '08, there were millions that couldn't really tell you what the fundamental differences were between the parties and conservative vs. socialist policies. Those same people could probably teach a college course right now on the differences because we're living them - even us political junkies that knew have said more than a few times "Holy shit, did that really just happen?". I know I have.

This administration has done more to educate people about the danger of the liberal agenda more than anything that any of us could have said. When die-hard liberals say "wtf?" then you know it's really bad.

Nebulous liberal feel-good ideas are one thing, seeing the results of them in real-time are entirely another.

Again, I say if Trump has changed his views on liberal ideas, it's because he's exercising rational judgement to see the where the results of something liberal and the consequences of it.

Sure, he could be lying through his teeth. Any of them could be. But my lie detector hasn't given me the Chris Matthews Tingle yet! :laugh:

I think he's legit, and I'll continue to believe that until he gives me reason to call him a liar.

[NightTrain]

But what is Trump doing? Pandering to a specific group of people that like what he's saying.


If he was pandering, the last thing in the world he would have done is piss off every mexican in the USA.

He would have mealy-mouthed around the issue like all the other candidates were doing until he waded in and called bullshit. It could have easily backfired on him and it took a great amount of intestinal fortitude to say what he said - and then doubled down on it when hostile reporters thought they'd bully him into backing down.

He manhandled them and made them look like the fools they are. It was awesome. I especially enjoyed watching him deport the hostile mexican from his news conference. :coffee:

[fj1200]

:laugh:

While I completely agree, I was thinking of the republican side. I also think Kerry would be worse so I am praying Biden jumps in.

My point was that any Republican POTUS that does irreversible damage to the party and conservatism would be worse than Clinton.

[fj1200]

C'mon, you knew he meant which Republican. So, since you think it could be as bad or worse to vote in some of the Republican candidates as a Dem, which Republican(s) would be worse, and why?


My point was that any Republican POTUS that does irreversible damage to the party and conservatism would be worse than Clinton..

[fj1200]

I'll point out that neither do the others.

Here's my thing. Most of the others, excepting Carson and Fiorina, don't really need reams of specifics to show where they stand because they've been governing and voting and making statements for years. If McCain and Romney get criticized with the RINO label with their attempts to run as true conservatives in later elections then it seems to be fair that Trump gets the same skepticism. Which leads me to my original question regarding Trump; What are his specifics that drive so many to support him? Not that he's required to detail every specific thing but why do his supporters support him? I think most conservatives would have the opinion that property rights are fairly important; what does Trump supporting the Kelo decision do to that support?

When people first started saying that they liked Carson I asked, "what's his tax plan?" That's not because I don't like him it's because I think conservatives should know what a candidates tax plan is.

[jimnyc]

Here's my thing. Most of the others, excepting Carson and Fiorina, don't really need reams of specifics to show where they stand because they've been governing and voting and making statements for years. If McCain and Romney get criticized with the RINO label with their attempts to run as true conservatives in later elections then it seems to be fair that Trump gets the same skepticism. Which leads me to my original question regarding Trump; What are his specifics that drive so many to support him? Not that he's required to detail every specific thing but why do his supporters support him? I think most conservatives would have the opinion that property rights are fairly important; what does Trump supporting the Kelo decision do to that support?

When people first started saying that they liked Carson I asked, "what's his tax plan?" That's not because I don't like him it's because I think conservatives should know what a candidates tax plan is.

I've listed this quite a few times now, and I'll do so again. He's my front runner based on the following stances:

illegal immigration, education, foreign trade, ISIS, Iran deal, economy, repeal Obamacare, gun control, welfare/entitlements, jobs...

And yes, this is based on what he wants to do, and not specific down to written plans of course, but surely not much different than other candidates are offering. And surely, with the politicians you can seek out their voting records and such to see their background. The only one who really impresses me in that department is Cruz. But I still place Trump, Carson and Fiorina in front of him.

[Abbey Marie]

Here's my thing. Most of the others, excepting Carson and Fiorina, don't really need reams of specifics to show where they stand because they've been governing and voting and making statements for years. If McCain and Romney get criticized with the RINO label with their attempts to run as true conservatives in later elections then it seems to be fair that Trump gets the same skepticism. Which leads me to my original question regarding Trump; What are his specifics that drive so many to support him? Not that he's required to detail every specific thing but why do his supporters support him? I think most conservatives would have the opinion that property rights are fairly important; what does Trump supporting the Kelo decision do to that support?

When people first started saying that they liked Carson I asked, "what's his tax plan?" That's not because I don't like him it's because I think conservatives should know what a candidates tax plan is.


Fair points, fj.

But I think after almost 8 years of this buffoon, Conservatives are allowed to get excited about a candidate who says what they have been thirsting to hear. If my favorite candidate doesn't ever get specific enough for me to believe in them, I will look elsewhere. Looked at from another perspective- why can't you wait a bit to hear their plan(s)? And if you think the NH primary is conclusive, are they going to be silenced for the next 4 months?

[fj1200]

I've listed this quite a few times now, and I'll do so again. He's my front runner based on the following stances:

illegal immigration, education, foreign trade, ISIS, Iran deal, economy, repeal Obamacare, gun control, welfare/entitlements, jobs...

And yes, this is based on what he wants to do, and not specific down to written plans of course, but surely not much different than other candidates are offering. And surely, with the politicians you can seek out their voting records and such to see their background. The only one who really impresses me in that department is Cruz. But I still place Trump, Carson and Fiorina in front of him.

OK. You're one but let's pick two of those stances:

Foreign trade and jobs. Is he for protectionism? Is he for lower tax rates/reform/etc.?

[fj1200]

Fair points, fj.

But I think after almost 8 years of this buffoon, Conservatives are allowed to get excited about a candidate who says what they have been thirsting to hear. If my favorite candidate doesn't ever get specific enough for me to believe in them, I will look elsewhere. Looked at from another perspective- why can't you wait a bit to hear their plan(s)? And if you think the NH primary is conclusive, are they going to be silenced for the next 4 months?

Of course they are. Are others not allowed to ask why? If we are excited then I imagine that supporters should be able to say why. For most folks support of candidates is open and a learning process, many (not all of course) Trump supporters are itching to be completely against anyone else.

[jimnyc]

OK. You're one but let's pick two of those stances:

Foreign trade and jobs. Is he for protectionism? Is he for lower tax rates/reform/etc.?

Why don't you follow his campaign and do some research if you want to know these things? It seems like you don't care for Trump, but then ask a ton of questions about his positions.

As for those questions - can you give me the stances of the other republican candidates on those same questions? And please be specific...

[jimnyc]

Of course they are. Are others not allowed to ask why? If we are excited then I imagine that supporters should be able to say why. For most folks support of candidates is open and a learning process, many (not all of course) Trump supporters are itching to be completely against anyone else.


Not here, unless you can give us links? Seems like most like the majority of (R) candidates, or at least a handful. Most have had solid things to say for Fiorina, Carson, Cruz... in addition to others.

[Black Diamond]

OK. You're one but let's pick two of those stances:

Foreign trade and jobs. Is he for protectionism? Is he for lower tax rates/reform/etc.?

More protectionist than we are now. And as Jim indicated, this information is available. He has said so in interviews.

[Abbey Marie]

Originally Posted by fj1200 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png
(http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=765407#post765407)My point was that any Republican POTUS that does irreversible damage to the party and conservatism would be worse than Clinton.

Fair enough. :cool:

[Gunny]

Not here, unless you can give us links? Seems like most like the majority of (R) candidates, or at least a handful. Most have had solid things to say for Fiorina, Carson, Cruz... in addition to others.

Now you want links? You are REALLY getting needy. :laugh:

[fj1200]

Why don't you follow his campaign and do some research if you want to know these things? It seems like you don't care for Trump, but then ask a ton of questions about his positions.

As for those questions - can you give me the stances of the other republican candidates on those same questions? And please be specific...

Clearly I'm not phrasing this right. I've researched and in some respects I see conflicting statements over the years and in some respects there are generalities. Nevertheless I can research what Trump says, I can't research why you think, for example, that protectionism is a good way to go for a Republican candidate these days.


More protectionist than we are now. And as Jim indicated, this information is available. He has said so in interviews.

Yes, I know. Why do Republicans all of a sudden support a protectionist candidate?

[jimnyc]

Clearly I'm not phrasing this right. I've researched and in some respects I see conflicting statements over the years and in some respects there are generalities. Nevertheless I can research what Trump says, I can't research why you think, for example, that protectionism is a good way to go for a Republican candidate these days.

If you knew the answer, why were you asking me the question?

[fj1200]

If you knew the answer, why were you asking me the question?

I don't know why you support protectionist policies.

[jimnyc]

I don't know why you support protectionist policies.

I suppose you could have asked a direct question, instead of trying some sort of gotcha, or to play a game and see what I knew or didn't know. I've watched his speeches, I know how he feels about trade, and wanting to increase tariffs, for example, or to make our trade with other countries comparable to what it cost us to do business with them. He gives examples of how he would handle things with China and Japan, who currently take us to task. I agree with him, but I don't expect everyone to.

[fj1200]

I suppose you could have asked a direct question, instead of trying some sort of gotcha, or to play a game and see what I knew or didn't know. I've watched his speeches, I know how he feels about trade, and wanting to increase tariffs, for example, or to make our trade with other countries comparable to what it cost us to do business with them. He gives examples of how he would handle things with China and Japan, who currently take us to task. I agree with him, but I don't expect everyone to.

I thought I did.


Which leads me to my original question regarding Trump; What are his specifics that drive so many to support him? Not that he's required to detail every specific thing but why do his supporters support him? I think most conservatives would have the opinion that property rights are fairly important; what does Trump supporting the Kelo decision do to that support?

I've done some research on his jobs platform:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/28/news/economy/donald-trump-polls-taxes-wages/

http://nypost.com/2015/06/16/i-will-be-the-greatest-jobs-president-that-god-ever-created-trump/

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/03/news/economy/donald-trump-jobs-created/

Did I miss any?

[jimnyc]

I thought I did.

Ummm, no. You asked a question you knew the answer to already. That reeks of agenda. I played your game and am still waiting on specifics about this same subject about all of the other candidates. I'm asking just as you asked me about Trump.


I've done some research on his jobs platform:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/28/news/economy/donald-trump-polls-taxes-wages/

http://nypost.com/2015/06/16/i-will-be-the-greatest-jobs-president-that-god-ever-created-trump/

http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/03/news/economy/donald-trump-jobs-created/

Did I miss any?

Not sure. I don't keep a running list. But let's be fair and make sure we include all of the candidates. Can you please post for me the same stances for the other candidates, and their specific plans on jobs?

[Gunny]

Don't know, but you guys need to quit talking in code and posting links. You're giving the jarhead a headache. Quit dancing and spit out what you got to say.

I can see Trump's appeal to the pissed off. I can also see through his appeal to the pissed off. My take is pretty simple: I'm voting AGAINST the Dems. If I can hold my nose and vote for McCain, I can probably manage the same with Trump. I'd prefer to see one of the governors.

[fj1200]

Ummm, no. You asked a question you knew the answer to already. That reeks of agenda. I played your game and am still waiting on specifics about this same subject about all of the other candidates. I'm asking just as you asked me about Trump.

Umm, yes, I did. For seemingly months now on the forum and in this particular thread; Link provided. My only agenda is to find out why people are supporting particular candidates.


Not sure. I don't keep a running list. But let's be fair and make sure we include all of the candidates. Can you please post for me the same stances for the other candidates, and their specific plans on jobs?

This is a Trump thread. I inquired specifics regarding Carson in a Carson thread. My point is what are his great conservative policy positions that have some conservatives drooling.

[fj1200]

Don't know, but you guys need to quit talking in code and posting links. You're giving the jarhead a headache. Quit dancing and spit out what you got to say.

But you hate when people post links. :slap:

[jimnyc]

I'm curious, for example, why the same question wouldn't be posed of Carson, who also stated the trade imbalance should be stopped with stiff tariffs.

[jimnyc]

My only agenda is to find out why people are supporting particular candidates.

I can give you a list again, for like the 4th time, if you're still curious why I like Trump, and why so many others do.

[fj1200]

I'm curious, for example, why the same question wouldn't be posed of Carson, who also stated the trade imbalance should be stopped with stiff tariffs.

It should be asked of Carson. It's not a conservative position IMO. The last thing the party needs now is another Hoover; By many accounts a brilliant and accomplished man but an absolutely awful POTUS.

[fj1200]

I can give you a list again, for like the 4th time, if you're still curious why I like Trump, and why so many others do.

A list doesn't tell me anything. Bernie and Hillary say "jobs" a lot as well.

[Gunny]

But you hate when people post links. :slap:

I rarely follow them. Hardly every watch the videos either. I come on here to talk to PEOPLE, not read someone else's work. I can read something and post MY opinion about it without dragging along a Tolstoy novel. I want to hear YOUR opinion. I can find the links on my own.

[fj1200]

I rarely follow them. Hardly every watch the videos either. I come on here to talk to PEOPLE, not read someone else's work. I can read something and post MY opinion about it without dragging along a Tolstoy novel. I want to hear YOUR opinion. I can find the links on my own.

Yes. I'll follow links but can't stand watching videos. But sometimes you gotta post a link to support your position. :)

[Gunny]

Yes. I'll follow links but can't stand watching videos. But sometimes you gotta post a link to support your position. :)

I get your point, but I won't. I didn't fall off a turnip truck. I do the exact opposite. I don't have to prove a thing. Never have in my life, and it's a mindset. If I state something and you want to prove me wrong, do your own homework. I HATED doing mine so I damned sure ain't doing yours.

What I DON'T like seeing is exactly what I predicted. A split among conservatives. Hasn't worked the last two elections. Keep on doing the same wrong thing expecting a different result. My BIGGEST complaint about Trump is he is splitting the right. But I'm NOT going to pick at those supporting him. They aren't supporting Billary at least. I'm kind of waiting and watching.

[Perianne]

I get your point, but I won't. I didn't fall off a turnip truck. I do the exact opposite. I don't have to prove a thing. Never have in my life, and it's a mindset. If I state something and you want to prove me wrong, do your own homework. I HATED doing mine so I damned sure ain't doing yours.

What I DON'T like seeing is exactly what I predicted. A split among conservatives. Hasn't worked the last two elections. Keep on doing the same wrong thing expecting a different result. My BIGGEST complaint about Trump is he is splitting the right. But I'm NOT going to pick at those supporting him. They aren't supporting Billary at least. I'm kind of waiting and watching.

I don't get how Trump is splitting the right. Everyone can support him if they want to. Perhaps it is every other candidate that is splitting the right.

[Gunny]

I don't get how Trump is splitting the right. Everyone can support him if they want to. Perhaps it is every other candidate that is splitting the right.

Because he is NOT a Republican, and he isn't going to get the support of Republicans in Congress. He's got a bunch of angry people supporting him. While the other half of the party are looking at traditional Republicans. Ross Perot did this crap in 92 and we got 8 years of Bill. The GOP is out of touch with its constituency. It's splintered all over the place. As I already posted, you can't keep doing the wrong thing hoping for different results.

The GOP has these stupid debates that do nothing but load the Dem's weapons. They trash themselves. Dems don't have to do a thing. And Trump is one of the worst about doing it for them. If I was a conspiracy theorist I'd swear he was a plant.

Then you got the idealist rightwingers who just ain't voting if it isn't "their" guy. How about we get the Dems out THEN worry about that crap?

[Abbey Marie]

I am willing to placate him for a while to keep him from running third party. That would be a disaster to me.

[revelarts]

Clearly I'm not phrasing this right. I've researched and in some respects I see conflicting statements over the years and in some respects there are generalities. Nevertheless I can research what Trump says, I can't research why you think, for example, that protectionism is a good way to go for a Republican candidate these days.



Yes, I know. Why do Republicans all of a sudden support a protectionist candidate?

Republicans have always supported protectionism in various forms, covert and overt attempts to control foreign countries leadership so trade and taxes and resource ownership iin foringn countries are favorable to U.S. multinational corps..
The U.S. has bought off, assassinated and sent troops in to "protect" U.S. corporate interest. As much as fight for "freedom or democracy".

done so often in South america that Gen Smedly Bulter said that's about all he did during his career.
More recently we saw it in Iraq, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel admitted candidly of the Iraq war in 2007:
"People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America’s national interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not there for figs."
John McCain said in 2008: "My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will — that will then prevent us — that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."Sarah Palin said in 2008: "Better to start that drilling [for oil within the U.S.] today than wait and continue relying on foreign sources of energy. We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go."

when we "freed" Iraq we forc.. pressured the new gov't into "Production Sharing Agreements", basically Oil protectionist policies.

For those that have a problem with that statement. do your homework, i shouldn't have to do it for you.

But on the topic of tariffs in general. IMO tariff are not a the best tool but one i'd great with using. Like sanctions and war it's not something you want continuously. But it's a FAR more honest tool than back room deals with foreign leaders who favor U.S. trading partners as long as we let them run rough shod over their own people. OR overthrowing gov'ts that won't play ball.


just telling it like is.

[Black Diamond]

I am willing to placate him for a while to keep him from running third party. That would be a disaster to me.

He signed a pledge. If he broke that pledge, hed look like a huge idiot. Even to his staunchest supporters

[Abbey Marie]

He signed a pledge. If he broke that pledge, hed look like a huge idiot. Even to his staunchest supporters

The day he signed it, I commented here that I thought he phrased it carefully so that he could renege. I still believe that he will do that very thing.

[Gunny]

Republicans have always supported protectionism in various forms, covert and overt attempts to control foreign countries leadership so trade and taxes and resource ownership iin foringn countries are favorable to U.S. multinational corps..
The U.S. has bought off, assassinated and sent troops in to "protect" U.S. corporate interest. As much as fight for "freedom or democracy".

done so often in South america that Gen Smedly Bulter said that's about all he did during his career.
More recently we saw it in Iraq, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel admitted candidly of the Iraq war in 2007:
"People say we’re not fighting for oil. Of course we are. They talk about America’s national interest. What the hell do you think they’re talking about? We’re not there for figs."
John McCain said in 2008: "My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will — that will then prevent us — that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East."Sarah Palin said in 2008: "Better to start that drilling [for oil within the U.S.] today than wait and continue relying on foreign sources of energy. We are a nation at war and in many [ways] the reasons for war are fights over energy sources, which is nonsensical when you consider that domestically we have the supplies ready to go."

when we "freed" Iraq we forc.. pressured the new gov't into "Production Sharing Agreements", basically Oil protectionist policies.

For those that have a problem with that statement. do your homework, i shouldn't have to do it for you.

But on the topic of tariffs in general. IMO tariff are not a the best tool but one i'd great with using. Like sanctions and war it's not something you want continuously. But it's a FAR more honest tool than back room deals with foreign leaders who favor U.S. trading partners as long as we let them run rough shod over their own people. OR overthrowing gov'ts that won't play ball.


just telling it like is.

Do YOUR homework. The US Civil War was fought over the same reason -- the Northern industrialists wanted high tariffs to protect their industrial interests and the South wanted low tariffs to protect their trade with Europe. The whole idea it was about slavery is ludicrous.

The Banana Wars were fought to expand US control in Central America. DOn't be talking shit about Gen Butler. I'll crawl through this screen. He was one hard corps Marine and did more for Marine aviation than anyone else managed in any other service at the time.

Politics is partly to blame. We stayed in our own sphere of influence until WWI. What we thought we gained out of that beats the Hell out of me. Oh yeah, we got a world-wide depression and Hitler, Mussolini and Franco.

You want to go history bubba, best bone up.

[Black Diamond]

The day he signed it, I commented here that I thought he phrased it carefully so that he could renege. I still believe that he will do that very thing.

Oh I don't blame you. I wonder about him myself. What did the pledge actually say? Is a copy available anywhere?

[fj1200]

just telling it like is.

That had practically zero to do with my post. :)

[Black Diamond]

Oh I don't blame you. I wonder about him myself. What did the pledge actually say? Is a copy available anywhere?

Even if he can find a way out if it, he would look like an idiot imo.

[jimnyc]

Oh I don't blame you. I wonder about him myself. What did the pledge actually say? Is a copy available anywhere?

“I, [name], affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for President of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is,” it reads. “I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/donald_trump_s_loyalty_pledge_to_the_republican_pa rty_how_the_real_estate.html

[Black Diamond]

“I, [name], affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for President of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is,” it reads. “I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/donald_trump_s_loyalty_pledge_to_the_republican_pa rty_how_the_real_estate.html

Thank you Jim. Yeah. He would like a total douchebag if he ran third party or as a write in candidate. He still makes me nervous.

[jimnyc]

Thank you Jim. Yeah. He would like a total douchebag if he ran third party or as a write in candidate. He still makes me nervous.

I would feel nervous if any of them decided to head independent. None of these candidates would have a hope in hell of winning as an independent. But I don't think Trump would do so - as it would be a waste of his money, and he knows that. I don't even think Mr. Arrogance believes he could run and win as independent. Nor do I think he would do so as some sort of conspiracy, to help the dems win. (had to toss that one in there). :)

[revelarts]

...

The Banana Wars were fought to expand US control in Central America. DOn't be talking shit about Gen Butler...

You want to go history bubba, best bone up.
Why do you think i'm talking S*** about Bulter? I just paraphrased what he said. I thank God for his honesty.
I think Gen Butler was great. a great American. I believe what he said about many of his activities.

"I served in all commissioned ranks from a second Lieutenant to a Major General. And during that time, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism."

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in."

"I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."
Gen. Smedley Butler

So it seems Gen. Butler doesn't agree with your opinion on the banana wars Gunny, do some more homework buddy i think you missed a few pages. All the above is history. A history of protectionism for the U.S.. under left and right wing administrations.

Personally i like where Gen. Butler ended up in his ideas regarding war. one quote along that line.
"There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights."
Gen. Smedley Butler

[Gunny]

Why do you think i'm talking S*** about Bulter? I just paraphrased what he said. I thank God for his honesty.
I think Gen Butler was great. a great American. I believe what he said about many of his activities.

"I served in all commissioned ranks from a second Lieutenant to a Major General. And during that time, I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism."

"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in."

"I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."
Gen. Smedley Butler

So it seems Gen. Butler doesn't agree with your opinion on the banana wars Gunny, do some more homework buddy i think you missed a few pages. All the above is history. A history of protectionism for the U.S.. under left and right wing administrations.

Personally i like where Gen. Butler ended up in his ideas regarding war. one quote along that line.
"There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights."
Gen. Smedley Butler




Might want to re-read my opinions. Gen Butler and I completely agree. I spent my entire time being hired muscle for big money. You must get around the board less than I do or you'd know that. You're just trying to argue with someone saying the same thing you are.

[revelarts]

That had practically zero to do with my post. :)
C'mon Fj.

.....Why do Republicans all of a sudden support a protectionist candidate?

your post was a about protectionism. right? and republicans support of it. right?


Investopedia:
DEFINITION of 'Protectionism'
Government actions and policies that restrict or restrain international trade, often done with the intent of protecting local businesses and jobs from foreign competition. Typical methods of protectionism are import tariffs (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tariff.asp), quotas (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quota.asp), subsidies (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/subsidy.asp) or tax cuts to local businesses and direct state intervention.

Bribing or paying off foreign leaders, assassinations, and wars are other methods.
Methods that rank and file republicans don't acknowledge very often (if at all) but big establishment republicans are very aware of and use to their advantage.
And have SUPPORTED IT FOR DECADES.
it's not "all of a sudden."

Also rank and file republicans have always been "America FIRSTers" economically as much as elsewhere. They generally have no problem with tariffs, quotas and subsidies as long as it puts the american worker in a good position. and is framed in the light of "freedom" and "jobs" and a strong U.S. economy, or putting it to those trixsy foreign devils.

[Abbey Marie]

Oh I don't blame you. I wonder about him myself. What did the pledge actually say? Is a copy available anywhere?

It's not the pledge, it was his comment that day that he did not currently see a reason to run 3rd party. I'll try to find it. I recall discussing it on here that day.

[sundaydriver]

Might want to re-read my opinions. Gen Butler and I completely agree. I spent my entire time being hired muscle for big money. You must get around the board less than I do or you'd know that. You're just trying to argue with someone saying the same thing you are.

I just saw a quote from Butler the other day. Can't remember the exact words but "My career was as a mercenary for capitalism" comes close. I think it's in one of his books named "War is A Racket".

[Kathianne]

It's not the pledge, it was his comment that day that he did not currently see a reason to run 3rd party. I'll try to find it. I recall discussing it on here that day.

I too remember that, repeatedly pointing it out. Key word, 'currently.' Those that love him, feel his word is gold.

[Black Diamond]

One of the things that makes me nervous about trump is ehe fact he said he thought Oprah would be great as a running mate. I mean how serious is he about doing this? Does anyone remember that?

[Gunny]

I just saw a quote from Butler the other day. Can't remember the exact words but "My career was as a mercenary for capitalism" comes close. I think it's in one of his books named "War is A Racket".

I don't disagree.. What I'm saying is you don't figure that part out when you're young n dumb. They sell truth, honor, the American way. You don't learn to see through that stuff at 18. Usually have to hit about 30+. THEN you start questioning why you are doing things and for who.

I can remember being in Korea and wondering, "why?" They want to fight over this nowhereville? Let them kill each other for that gray rock on the right. Same in the ME. Want this kitty litter box? Have at it.

[jimnyc]

Trump's words that others are speaking of. I have no issue with what he stated. He has given no reason whatsoever to show he wouldn't honor such a pledge. But I believe the "establishment" has shown that they don't exactly consider him part of their little family.


"I see no circumstances under which I would violate that pledge"

Additionally, backing out on a signed pledge would show his word isn't very solid in 'deals'. I don't see him breaking this pledge anymore than I do any other candidate.

[jimnyc]

One of the things that makes me nervous about trump is ehe fact he said he thought Oprah would be great as a running mate. I mean how serious is he about doing this? Does anyone remember that?

Hopefully that was said for ratings or friendship. If that fat retard was ever made a running mate I would drop him as a favorite instantly.

[NightTrain]

Trump's words that others are speaking of. I have no issue with what he stated. He has given no reason whatsoever to show he wouldn't honor such a pledge. But I believe the "establishment" has shown that they don't exactly consider him part of their little family.



Additionally, backing out on a signed pledge would show his word isn't very solid in 'deals'. I don't see him breaking this pledge anymore than I do any other candidate.


Yeah, if he did go against his pledge, his support would plummet to single digits overnight.

It's a non issue, IMO, because it's political suicide. He knows that.

[jimnyc]

Yeah, if he did go against his pledge, his support would plummet to single digits overnight.

It's a non issue, IMO, because it's political suicide. He knows that.

NONE of them have a shot in hell running as an independent. He would get about Ron Paul numbers if he ran independent.

[fj1200]

C'mon Fj.

your post was a about protectionism. right? and republicans support of it. right?

No, my post was about why do some Republicans/conservatives suddenly support a protectionist candidate when they are typically free traders. :)

[Abbey Marie]

Yeah, if he did go against his pledge, his support would plummet to single digits overnight.

It's a non issue, IMO, because it's political suicide. He knows that.


Unless what he seeks is political homicide.

[fj1200]

Unless what he seeks is political homicide.

There is no logic in that.

[Abbey Marie]

Trump's words that others are speaking of. I have no issue with what he stated. He has given no reason whatsoever to show he wouldn't honor such a pledge. But I believe the "establishment" has shown that they don't exactly consider him part of their little family.



Additionally, backing out on a signed pledge would show his word isn't very solid in 'deals'. I don't see him breaking this pledge anymore than I do any other candidate.

IMO, he earned the skepticism in this regard, as he was the only candidate who wouldn't say at the first debate that he would not run third party. That put question marks in a lot of people's minds about his sincerity when he decided he would take the pledge.

[Black Diamond]

No, my post was about why do some Republicans/conservatives suddenly support a protectionist candidate when they are typically free traders. :)

Depends on the Republican.

[fj1200]

Depends on the Republican.

Hence "typically."

[Motown]

The loyalty pledge Trump signed was for show. No one else had to sign it and even had Trump not signed it he still couldn't run as an independent in many states if he had lost in the primaries because of sore loser laws and simultaneous registration dates.

[Black Diamond]

Trump's words that others are speaking of. I have no issue with what he stated. He has given no reason whatsoever to show he wouldn't honor such a pledge. But I believe the "establishment" has shown that they don't exactly consider him part of their little family.



Additionally, backing out on a signed pledge would show his word isn't very solid in 'deals'. I don't see him breaking this pledge anymore than I do any other candidate.
How long before they turn on Carson and Fiorina?

[Perianne]

How long before they turn on Carson and Fiorina?

They have already started in on Carson. How long until someone from the left calls him an "Uncle Tom"? You know it is coming.

[Perianne]

How long before they turn on Carson and Fiorina?

Oh, and I already read an article about how Fiorina kept a private server at her home when she was head of HP. As if that is the same thing as what Hillary did.

[Black Diamond]

They have already started in on Carson. How long until someone from the left calls him an "Uncle Tom"? You know it is coming.

They did, start on him. but his numbers went up when they did.

[Abbey Marie]

There is no logic in that.


Lol, I'm hearing a robotic voice: "There. Is. No. Logic. In. That."

I would agree. But I'm going in the spirit of the thread- conspiracy theories abound.

Plus, it's more logical than spending millions with the end game being political suicide.

We never know what goes on behind closed doors; anything is possible. But for me, I just see a man who has more money than he can ever spend, and who has achieved fame and financial power of incredible proportions. He can only marry so many young beauties. The thrill of those pursuits is probably gone, he is facing his own mortality, so he now wants what many perceive as the biggest prize of all.

[jimnyc]

IMO, he earned the skepticism in this regard, as he was the only candidate who wouldn't say at the first debate that he would not run third party. That put question marks in a lot of people's minds about his sincerity when he decided he would take the pledge.

Fair enough. But that's because he's not your typical candidate. Many folks complain that they are sick and tired of the status quo, and the kissing ass and such. But then they condemn Trump for not jumping on the bandwagon of the status quo. I think that until such time that he's officially out of the race, he will do his own thing as a candidate, and I have no issue with that, I respect him for that.

[Black Diamond]

They did, start on him. but his numbers went up when they did.

But I haven't seen fox really turn on Fiorina and Carson yet. Liberal media goes after everyone who isnt socialist

[Abbey Marie]

Fair enough. But that's because he's not your typical candidate. Many folks complain that they are sick and tired of the status quo, and the kissing ass and such. But then they condemn Trump for not jumping on the bandwagon of the status quo. I think that until such time that he's officially out of the race, he will do his own thing as a candidate, and I have no issue with that, I respect him for that.

No argument here. I am probably the most fanatically neutral person on Trump you'll meet. :laugh2:

[Motown]

But I haven't seen fox really turn on Fiorina and Carson yet. Liberal media goes after everyone who isnt socialist

The primaries aren't until next Spring, give them time.

[jimnyc]

The loyalty pledge Trump signed was for show. No one else had to sign it and even had Trump not signed it he still couldn't run as an independent in many states if he had lost in the primaries because of sore loser laws and simultaneous registration dates.

This whole pledge thing was nothing more than about Trump, to try and get the idea out of his head that any 3rd party run would be disastrous.

[Motown]

This whole pledge thing was nothing more than about Trump, to try and get the idea out of his head that any 3rd party run would be disastrous.

This wasn't for Trump's benefit, this was solely aimed at voters and political junkies who weren't aware of the fact that Trump couldn't effectively run third party once he took part in the primaries.

[fj1200]

Lol, I'm hearing a robotic voice: "There. Is. No. Logic. In. That."

I would agree. But I'm going in the spirit of the thread- conspiracy theories abound.

Plus, it's more logical than spending millions with the end game being political suicide.

We never know what goes on behind closed doors; anything is possible. But for me, I just see a man who has more money than he can ever spend, and who has achieved fame and financial power of incredible proportions. He can only marry so many young beauties. The thrill of those pursuits is probably gone, he is facing his own mortality, so he now wants what many perceive as the biggest prize of all.

Well I can't really compete with conspiracyisms. ;) I can see logic in other outcomes but not political suicide for its own sake. My conspiracyism? That he got into the race to raise some issues, like illegal immigration, but it caught on more than he expected and it grew beyond his abilities.

[Motown]

Well I can't really compete with conspiracyisms. ;) I can see logic in other outcomes but not political suicide for its own sake. My conspiracyism? That he got into the race to raise some issues, like illegal immigration, but it caught on more than he expected and it grew beyond his abilities.

That's a definite possibility. If I had money to burn I'd probably be in Cabo San Lucas but that's just me. I guess running for President might be fun too.

[Gunny]

Oh, and I already read an article about how Fiorina kept a private server at her home when she was head of HP. As if that is the same thing as what Hillary did.

Figures. Hardly the same. An HP employee is not bound by USC Title 17 as company secrets are not covered by law. They are covered by company rules. Anyone that can't differentiate between company rules and TS material thats disclosure represents a threat to the nation just needs their mouths duct taped.

[jimnyc]

This wasn't for Trump's benefit, this was solely aimed at voters and political junkies who weren't aware of the fact that Trump couldn't effectively run third party once he took part in the primaries.

I know, that's what I meant, that it was AGAINST him. That I agree with, as they didn't go after others to ensure the same. Either way, it's a moot point in my mind.

[Kathianne]

Lol, I'm hearing a robotic voice: "There. Is. No. Logic. In. That."

I would agree. But I'm going in the spirit of the thread- conspiracy theories abound.

Plus, it's more logical than spending millions with the end game being political suicide.

We never know what goes on behind closed doors; anything is possible. But for me, I just see a man who has more money than he can ever spend, and who has achieved fame and financial power of incredible proportions. He can only marry so many young beauties. The thrill of those pursuits is probably gone, he is facing his own mortality, so he now wants what many perceive as the biggest prize of all.

I find some of his comments about hs daughter creepy.

[fj1200]

That's a definite possibility. If I had money to burn I'd probably be in Cabo San Lucas but that's just me. I guess running for President might be fun too.

If we had the kind of money we'd be bored with Cabo. :laugh:

[Gunny]

I know, that's what I meant, that it was AGAINST him. That I agree with, as they didn't go after others to ensure the same. Either way, it's a moot point in my mind.

Okay, but look at what HE has done. Anyone getting attention he's all over them. He is acting no different than the media. He gets attention, the MSM and left go after him. Bush, Fiorina or whoever else climb in the polls, he starts his personal attacks. Kind of a kettle-pot thing in my eyes.

[Motown]

Figures. Hardly the same. An HP employee is not bound by USC Title 17 as company secrets are not covered by law. They are covered by company rules. Anyone that can't differentiate between company rules and TS material thats disclosure represents a threat to the nation just needs their mouths duct taped.

You're right, there is no comparison between Hillary and Fiorina but what Fiorina did still could still work against her just from a poor judgement standpoint depending on the details. I haven't seen that story yet so I can't comment for sure.

[Gunny]

You're right, there is no comparison between Hillary and Fiorina but what Fiorina did still could still work against her just from a poor judgement standpoint depending on the details. I haven't seen that story yet so I can't comment for sure.

I haven't seen it either. Don't think it matters. If she poses a threat, they'll go after her guns blazing, and any old excuse will do. They don't have to worry yet because Trump's doing their jobs for them.

Fact still remains, it's just another misdirection play. "Carly had a server too". BFD. Carly was head of a private corporation, not Secretary of State. I DO understand your point in regard to poor judgement.

[Abbey Marie]

At least we won't have to go through another Palinesque media attack. No way they will get away with portraying Carly or any of the candidates as dumb.

[Motown]

I know, that's what I meant, that it was AGAINST him. That I agree with, as they didn't go after others to ensure the same. Either way, it's a moot point in my mind.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

[fj1200]

At least we won't have to go through another Palinesque media attack. No way they will get away with portraying Carly or any of the candidates as dumb.

Yes. She has proven herself to be able to be effective in debate and won't get outsmarted by Katie Couric. :eek: I did see a few articles on WaPo factchecking her though. But they'll do that to any of the candidates.

[jimnyc]

Sorry, I misunderstood.

No apologies. :)

This was all about the RNC being scared and trying to get a pledge from Trump.

[Gunny]

No apologies. :)

This was all about the RNC being scared and trying to get a pledge from Trump.

Yeah, I didn't think that was right. Matter of act, it made the RNC look weak.

But isn't THAT the whole problem here? The GOP is weak and splintered, but still trying to control things with an outdated mindset instead of fixing the problem. It's THEIR fault Trump and Fiorina and Carson are in to begin with. Try representing your constituency.

[Kathianne]

Yeah, I didn't think that was right. Matter of act, it made the RNC look weak.

But isn't THAT the whole problem here? The GOP is weak and splintered, but still trying to control things with an outdated mindset instead of fixing the problem. It's THEIR fault Trump and Fiorina and Carson are in to begin with. Try representing your constituency.

They should have done something about Boehner and McConnell a long time ago.

[jimnyc]

Yeah, I didn't think that was right. Matter of act, it made the RNC look weak.

But isn't THAT the whole problem here? The GOP is weak and splintered, but still trying to control things with an outdated mindset instead of fixing the problem. It's THEIR fault Trump and Fiorina and Carson are in to begin with. Try representing your constituency.

I'll agree with all of that. It IS splintered, in many directions. And it's been weak for far too long now. :(

[Perianne]

Here's the link to Fiorina server issues. Perhaps there is more than meets the eye.


Her most vulnerable point is her illegal use of a private email server for top secret communications, presumably to cover her influence peddling activities. When the server was subpoenaed by Congress, she tried to wipe it — an arrogant crime that would land you or me in federal prison for some time.

I can't see how it would be "illegal".

http://rightwingnews.com/republicans/carly-fiorina-may-have-server-issues-too/

[Gunny]

They should have done something about Boehner and McConnell a long time ago.

You're talking to the person in the mirror, ma'am. Need a house cleaning of 90's "Contract with America" goofs. But, unless I just dreamed it, Boehner's bowing out. (I usually sleep with the news on).

[Black Diamond]

You're talking to the person in the mirror, ma'am. Need a house cleaning of 90's "Contract with America" goofs. But, unless I just dreamed it, Boehner's bowing out. (I usually sleep with the news on).
Yup. Interesting to see who will replace him.

[Gunny]

Yup. Interesting to see who will replace him.

They're already arguing about it; which, I find interesting in and of itself. Usually it's just the next in line seniority-wise. That they're even questioning it just goes back to my point that the GOP needs to get its act together. All they are doing is showing a lot of indecisiveness and/or ineptness.

[Abbey Marie]

You're talking to the person in the mirror, ma'am. Need a house cleaning of 90's "Contract with America" goofs. But, unless I just dreamed it, Boehner's bowing out. (I usually sleep with the news on).


Do you find you're having a lot of bad dreams? That stuff will seep into your subconscious while you sleep.

[tailfins]

Do you find you're having a lot of bad dreams? That stuff will seep into your subconscious while you sleep.

Doing that actually helps you if learning a foreign language. Sleep with a radio broadcast of language you're trying to learn. I spent many a night listening to 97.3 WJFD, New Bedford, Mass. You can tell when I'm down on my luck. It's when I have a Massachusetts address.

[Gunny]

Do you find you're having a lot of bad dreams? That stuff will seep into your subconscious while you sleep.

No. I just wasn't going to go all into it. I usually leave the news on because there's nothing else on where I live between 2-7 AM. If I'm up, I put on an old 30s-40s movie. Preferably a Universal monster movie. Might sound boring, but they don't trigger me. I'm not allowed to watch war movies.

The news doesn't bother me too much unless Obama's on it. Him or Hillary. I hear either one of them and I wake instantly. I also sleep with one eye half-open. I'm not really paranoid -- just cautious. :laugh:

[Abbey Marie]

No. I just wasn't going to go all into it. I usually leave the news on because there's nothing else on where I live between 2-7 AM. If I'm up, I put on an old 30s-40s movie. Preferably a Universal monster movie. Might sound boring, but they don't trigger me. I'm not allowed to watch war movies.

The news doesn't bother me too much unless Obama's on it. Him or Hillary. I hear either one of them and I wake instantly. I also sleep with one eye half-open. I'm not really paranoid -- just cautious. :laugh:

Yup, you never know when a wasp might show up. ;)

[Gunny]

Yup, you never know when a wasp might show up. ;)

LMAO. We don't have wasps in our house. I tracked them down and killed them all. :laugh:

[Abbey Marie]

LMAO. We don't have wasps in our house. I tracked them down and killed them all. :laugh:


https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3450/3386870767_6c80cd8ba2.jpg

[Motown]

Here's the link to Fiorina server issues. Perhaps there is more than meets the eye.



I can't see how it would be "illegal".

http://rightwingnews.com/republicans/carly-fiorina-may-have-server-issues-too/

I don't know. Top Secret for Fiorina at that time wasn't the same as what Hillary did and the IT guy they interviewed didn't give a lot of detail so I'm still in the dark as to what Fiorina did. "Private" and "Home based" are two very different things in the corporate world. If that's the worst they can come up with about Fiorina then I'm leaning towards saying she didn't do anything wrong.

[Gunny]

I don't know. Top Secret for Fiorina at that time wasn't the same as what Hillary did and the IT guy they interviewed didn't give a lot of detail so I'm still in the dark as to what Fiorina did. "Private" and "Home based" are two very different things in the corporate world. If that's the worst they can come up with about Fiorina then I'm leaning towards saying she didn't do anything wrong.

I do. Corporate secrets are corporate secrets. Company policy. NOT anywhere near the same as having a US Gov't Top Secret clearance wit knowledge that can do harm to this Nation. And playing dumb don't cut it. I know first hand what you go through to get that clearance and there is NO doubt in your mind what the rules are.

We're talking about the Clinton rules here. I'm a lawyer and and trying to play word games. BS. You don't put classified material on ANYTHING unencrypted and the information not being marked is a lame excuse. It's the INFORMATION that's classified, not the markings on the paper and if a dumb LCpl like me can tell the difference, don't try and sell me this "I've been in politics forever and am Secretary of State" crap and don't know what is and isn't classified.

[Motown]

I do. Corporate secrets are corporate secrets. Company policy. NOT anywhere near the same as having a US Gov't Top Secret clearance wit knowledge that can do harm to this Nation. And playing dumb don't cut it. I know first hand what you go through to get that clearance and there is NO doubt in your mind what the rules are.

We're talking about the Clinton rules here. I'm a lawyer and and trying to play word games. BS. You don't put classified material on ANYTHING unencrypted and the information not being marked is a lame excuse. It's the INFORMATION that's classified, not the markings on the paper and if a dumb LCpl like me can tell the difference, don't try and sell me this "I've been in politics forever and am Secretary of State" crap and don't know what is and isn't classified.

I understand that you don't like Hillary, I don't either. I'm disappointed the FBI is playing the game they are, Hillary should have been dogpiled and put in jail by now.

[Gunny]

I understand that you don't like Hillary, I don't either. I'm disappointed the FBI is playing the game they are, Hillary should have been dogpiled and put in jail by now.

It isn't that I "don't like Hillary". I don't like what she represents. Could care less about her. I'm just tired of Clinton's getting away with crap anyone else would be in jail for. I can see me now at a court martial explaining how sex isn't sex. Now it's explaining how classified isn't classified.

I'd have a big chicken dinner (bad conduct discharge) AFTER my time n Leavenworth. "I didn't have sex with that clerk Colonel. The cigar just happened to fall up there". GMAFB.