A Few Thoughts

[indago]

If anyone here is fond of granola and trail mix, you are a worse tree hugger than I am.

When I want a snack, you better not try to get between me and a chocolate bar.

Good Ol' Baby Ruth...

[Kathianne]

Greenfield is left, but his analysis is reflective of many. This of course is really speaking of the party splitting:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...rty-bid-213449

<header style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: proxima-nova, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">Will the GOP Mount a Third-Party Challenge to Trump?

Experts—and history—suggest it's an increasingly plausible scenario. And could end in disaster.
</header><footer class="meta" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: proxima-nova, 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;">By Jeff Greenfield
<time datetime="2015-12-20T07:41-0500" style="box-sizing: border-box;">December 20, 2015</time>
</footer>

...This is not the usual rhetoric of intraparty battles, the kind of thing that gets resolved in handshakes under the convention banners. These are stake-in-the-ground positions, strongly suggesting that a Trump nomination would create a fissure within the party as deep and indivisible as any in American political history, driven both by ideology and by questions of personal character.


Indeed, it would be a fissure so deep that, if the operatives I talked with are right, Trump running as a Republican could well face a third-party run—from the Republicans themselves.


That threat, in turn, would leave Republican candidates, contributors and foot soldiers with painful choices. A look at the political landscape, the election rules and the history of intraparty insurgencies suggests that it could turn 2016, a year that offered Republicans a reasonable chance to win the White House and with it total control of the national political apparatus, into a disaster...


Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz3uyNpFUC5

[gabosaurus]

If you want to stand up for your far right conservative principles, you will endorse Trump or Cruz.
If you want to have any chance to win back the White House, you will endorse Rubio.

That is about as simple as it gets.
My father in law says this is the worst choice of candidates since 1988.

[Gunny]

If you want to stand up for your far right conservative principles, you will endorse Trump or Cruz.
If you want to have any chance to win back the White House, you will endorse Rubio.

That is about as simple as it gets.
My father in law says this is the worst choice of candidates since 1988.

Nah. FIL lives in his own world. We got a good president in 88. In 2008? The biggest pussy in the world who is a worthless piece of sh*t and I just am amazed nobody's capped his dumb ass yet. He's probably only still alive because Biden would take over if it happened.

Try again. As usual.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Greenfield is left, but his analysis is reflective of many. This of course is really speaking of the party splitting:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...rty-bid-213449

Politico article, why would it present this and why would it seek to scare Trump voters???
Is it for a REPUBICAN CANDIDATE WINNING?--No
IS IT A SITE THATS GEARED FOR LOUSY DEMS TO WIN?--YES

Duly noted that you prefaced that Greenfield is left!!
AND HIS ANALYSIS IS REFLECTIVE OF "MANY"..
Of course in that "many" are dems that not only want Trump destroyed but also want a weaker Republican candidate to run against the Hildabeast.

Thus for me -- the accuracy, and judgment value of the cited article is nil....
As its just a hit piece on Trump, that attempts to actually bring about the fracture it so desperately wants, IMHO.-TYR