Trump!!!

[mchammer]

Only better than some people - better than Trump supporters, but that isn't saying much.



Very unlikely, and God help us if he does.

Deez,
I've enjoyed yanking your chain. I didn't vote for Trump, but I understand why others did. I'm afraid you are going to be sorely disappointed on the evening of Nov 1. Look for Trump to take the lead in July and not relinquish it. He is already tied in PA at 44-44 and comfortably ahead in GA and NC. Like Reagan, people will get more comfortable with Trump leading up to the election while Hillary will be despised even more. Enjoy the ride.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I didn't vote for Trump, but I understand why others did.

I understand why they did. Their frustration is understandable in in some regards, justifiable. Their problem is what they've chosen as their solution.

I'm afraid you are going to be sorely disappointed on the evening of Nov 1. Look for Trump to take the lead in July and not relinquish it. He is already tied in PA at 44-44 and comfortably ahead in GA and NC.

According to Real Clear Politics, she's winning in all battleground states except GA and NC, where he leads by 1 point. If he behaves as he has in the last two weeks, his numbers are going down, not up. Right now he's losing Republican support and not gaining anywhere.

Like Reagan, people will get more comfortable with Trump leading up to the election while Hillary will be despised even more. Enjoy the ride.

If Trump was remotely similar to Reagan, you might have a point. They could not be more different. Furthermore, Trump virtually has no campaign infrastructure. I know, who cares? It's Trump. The rules don't apply to him, right? Well, that may be true to a point, but ultimately people have to show up and vote for you in order to win. For that to happen, you need a way to find the voters and get them to the polls. That's how Obama took almost all the swing states. David Axelrod built a superb GOTV operation in places like Ohio and Virginia - had extremely accurate and comprehensive data and a massive volunteer force. Trump has virtually nothing (far less than Romney had, which was obviously inadequate), and you can't just throw that together on the fly. It takes time and work. An active Twitter account isn't enough to win a presidential election. It you gets attention when you say stupid things on it, but it doesn't get people to the polls.

 

[Joe Fan]

The celebration of the insult, demean, and ridicule tactics is a response to political correctness? Suddenly civility is being defined by 2nd grade behavior....

The responses certainly are that level
The Brits have a new phrase for y'all -- "Generation Snowflake"

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12542...odern-kids-who-cant-cope-with-being-offended/

 

[theiioftx]

My disdain for the Republican establishment grows as I watch them refuse to accept the person they helped get the nomination. If they had even remotely supported Cruz, they would not be faced with their nominee. Even if you do not like Cruz, he was a much better choice than Trump.

I can see a coup at the convention where they put someone else in as their nominee. It would be someone preferable to Trump, but un-electable as a result because they would lose the Trump voters. Honestly, the only one who would stand a chance would be Kasich who could pull from HRC and take the independent vote.

Time to buckle up for a rough ride in the USA. It is going to be an ugly next 20 years.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The responses certainly are that level
The Brits have a new phrase for y'all -- "Generation Snowflake"

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12542...odern-kids-who-cant-cope-with-being-offended/

That's right, SH. If you don't think a presidential candidate should be above name calling, making fun of someone's physical disabilities, and claiming someone's ethnic heritage or religion should exclude him from being a judge, you're just a "snowflake."

Note to Trump supporters - just because political correctness and "sensitivity" have gone too far on college campuses doesn't mean we should abandon all standards of civility. It is possible to have a balance.

 

[Mr. Deez]

My disdain for the Republican establishment grows as I watch them refuse to accept the person they helped get the nomination. If they had even remotely supported Cruz, they would not be faced with their nominee. Even if you do not like Cruz, he was a much better choice than Trump.

Reince Priebus might be the worst party chairman from either party of all time. He is a dumpster fire. (FWIW, he does have a hot wife, who could have done a lot better than him.) I think he figured that the establishment wouldn't back Cruz, because he was a ****-stirer in the Senate and figured that Trump would eventually start acting like an adult after the primary (a stupid assumption) and that he'd get along better with the establishment because he's rich. Bad moves all the way around. I don't think Cruz was a good candidate and in some ways had less appeal than Trump, but he'd be a hell of a lot more disciplined and more capable of running a respectable campaign. I think he'd have a better chance at actually convincing people to vote for him.

I can see a coup at the convention where they put someone else in as their nominee. It would be someone preferable to Trump, but un-electable as a result because they would lose the Trump voters. Honestly, the only one who would stand a chance would be Kasich who could pull from HRC and take the independent vote.

I've read this, but after promising to back the nominee even if it's Trump and promising not to play any games at the convention, I don't see how they pull this off. Nobody will ever trust them again. (Again, Reince Priebus sucks.)

 

[Joe Fan]

Back to the judge --

This is from Snopes (I think you guys like Snopes, right?)

Mario Obledo was a co-founder of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the La Raza Lawyers of California bar association ....... ---

Obledo: “We’re going to take over all the political institutions of California. In five years the Hispanics are going to be the majority population of this state.”

Caller: “You also made the statement that California is going to become a Hispanic state, and if anyone doesn’t like it, they should leave. Did you say that?”

Obledo: “I did. They ought to go back to Europe.”

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/hispanicleaders.asp


And from NYT obit --

When someone put up a sign at the California border saying, “Illegal Immigration State,” he threatened to burn it down personally.

He ignited an explosive response in 1998 when he said in a radio interview that Hispanics were on the way to taking over all of California’s political institutions. He suggested that people who did not like it go back to Europe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/21/us/21obledo.html?_r=0

Curiel is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which is a local affiliate of the La Raza Lawyers Association of California. The website for the group lists Mario Obledo as one of three co-founders. He is listed first.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Back to the judge --

This is from Snopes (I think you guys like Snopes, right?)

Mario Obledo was a co-founder of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the La Raza Lawyers of California bar association ....... ---

Obledo: “We’re going to take over all the political institutions of California. In five years the Hispanics are going to be the majority population of this state.”

Caller: “You also made the statement that California is going to become a Hispanic state, and if anyone doesn’t like it, they should leave. Did you say that?”

Obledo: “I did. They ought to go back to Europe.”

http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/hispanicleaders.asp


And from NYT obit --

When someone put up a sign at the California border saying, “Illegal Immigration State,” he threatened to burn it down personally.

He ignited an explosive response in 1998 when he said in a radio interview that Hispanics were on the way to taking over all of California’s political institutions. He suggested that people who did not like it go back to Europe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/21/us/21obledo.html?_r=0

Curiel is a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which is a local affiliate of the La Raza Lawyers Association of California. The website for the group lists Mario Obledo as one of three co-founders. He is listed first.

So let me see if I've got this straight. Curiel should recuse himself because he's in a chapter of a trade organization whose parent organization was co-founded almost 40 years ago (but never operated by) a guy who about 20 years later (and almost 20 years ago) said some goofy things and has been dead for six years. Joe, you're reaching pretty far here.

To be fair, if Mario Obledo was brought back from the dead, appointed to the federal bench, and became the trial judge in Trump's case, I'd probably be inclined to agree with you. And if my grandmother had balls . . .

 

[mchammer]

I understand why they did. Their frustration is understandable in in some regards, justifiable. Their problem is what they've chosen as their solution.



According to Real Clear Politics, she's winning in all battleground states except GA and NC, where he leads by 1 point. If he behaves as he has in the last two weeks, his numbers are going down, not up. Right now he's losing Republican support and not gaining anywhere.



If Trump was remotely similar to Reagan, you might have a point. They could not be more different. Furthermore, Trump virtually has no campaign infrastructure. I know, who cares? It's Trump. The rules don't apply to him, right? Well, that may be true to a point, but ultimately people have to show up and vote for you in order to win. For that to happen, you need a way to find the voters and get them to the polls. That's how Obama took almost all the swing states. David Axelrod built a superb GOTV operation in places like Ohio and Virginia - had extremely accurate and comprehensive data and a massive volunteer force. Trump has virtually nothing (far less than Romney had, which was obviously inadequate), and you can't just throw that together on the fly. It takes time and work. An active Twitter account isn't enough to win a presidential election. It you gets attention when you say stupid things on it, but it doesn't get people to the polls.

According to this polling site, Trump is ahead in most swing states.
http://axiomstrategies.com/abc/

If look beneath the top line numbers of the RCP state averages, some are using polls from a few months ago or even last year.

 

[Htown77]

The responses certainly are that level
The Brits have a new phrase for y'all -- "Generation Snowflake"

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12542...odern-kids-who-cant-cope-with-being-offended/

There is only one Snowflake and his name is Mayfield... sorry, wrong board.

 

[Htown77]

I understand why they did. Their frustration is understandable in in some regards, justifiable. Their problem is what they've chosen as their solution

^ this is where I and many people (including on the left with Hillary) are at. I mean does Trump sometimes say something I agree with? Sure. Does Hillary sometimes say something I agree with? Sure. However when you have two candidates that really do not represent you, you cannot choose one or the other. People say "well [Trump/Hillary] is more to the [left/right] than the other and should get your vote because the other will be a disaster."

Both will be disasters and neither will solve any of this country's problems. It's like choosing between the fascists and communists in the Spanish Civil War. You read about it in history and say "these were really the only options people wanted to support? I do not want either side to win."

 

[Seattle Husker]

^ this is where I and many people (including on the left with Hillary) are at. I mean does Trump sometimes say something I agree with? Sure. Does Hillary sometimes say something I agree with? Sure. However when you have two candidates that really do not represent you, you cannot choose one or the other. People say "well [Trump/Hillary] is more to the [left/right] than the other and should get your vote because the other will be a disaster."

Both will be disasters and neither will solve any of this country's problems. It's like choosing between the fascists and communists in the Spanish Civil War. You read about it in history and say "these were really the only options people wanted to support? I do not want either side to win."

I'm considering Gary Johnson but does anyone else get a "goofy" vibe from him? The isolationist stance of the libertarian party is also concerning.

 

[UTChE96]

Furthermore, Trump virtually has no campaign infrastructure. I know, who cares? It's Trump. The rules don't apply to him, right? Well, that may be true to a point, but ultimately people have to show up and vote for you in order to win. For that to happen, you need a way to find the voters and get them to the polls.

Yep. IMO Trump is really lazy or ignorant about the importance of a good organization. Cruz ate his lunch in several states simply because of his organization and better understanding of the caucus rules. I am struggling to see a path to victory for Trump given that he continues to divide his own party and his lack of organization.

 

[Htown77]

I'm considering Gary Johnson but does anyone else get a "goofy" vibe from him?

I'll probably vote for Gary Johnson, only because he, sadly, is the closest thing there is to representing me. Many of his ideas are goofy and he would never have my vote if either party produced a viable alternative.

 

[nashhorn]

I understand the feelings but I could never vote for 'goofy' because it would be an indirect vote for 'Sleazy' and I am not sure we can recover from 4 yrs of HRC.
Stupidly, I know many of you will think, but I feel we can much more likely recover, or survive, 4 years of Trump although my prediction is no one is beating Hillary. Her victory is 'in the stars' as Nancy would say.

 

[Brad Austin]

This thing is far from over. Wait until the ammunition goes from machine guns to rocket launchers. We haven't seen nothing yet. The actual general race won't kick into overdrrive until after the conventions and the nominees are made official.

There will be a point this summer everyone is talking about how Trump is rising and Clinton is sliding in trouble, just like two weeks ago. Denying Trump's illogical ability to recover is ignoring reality.

The FBI recommendation will be handed over by the end of summer and there's no doubt the details will be leaked. Countless money and man hours were spent on this and laws were broken without question. It won't just move along secretly and be squashed by Obama's boot.

Then there's "Clinton Cash" documentary debuts in late July connecting multiple donations with an ensuing government action in the donating party's favor.

The book was an instant NYT best-seller but the book reading public is slim...now voters will see the shady high dollar transactions/connections with their own eyes.

As for Trump, he simply can't STFU about any topic or insult that he becomes aware of. So there's no doubt he will eat his own shoe again.

Folks all we have season now is peewee football, the playoffs start in August and it will get nasty. There's no way anyone knows at this point who will be left standing.

 

[mchammer]

I understand the feelings but I could never vote for 'goofy' because it would be an indirect vote for 'Sleazy' and I am not sure we can recover from 4 yrs of HRC.
Stupidly, I know many of you will think, but I feel we can much more likely recover, or survive, 4 years of Trump although my prediction is no one is beating Hillary. Her victory is 'in the stars' as Nancy would say.

Ha! This is so funny. I went back and read the first posts on this topic. I can't believe some of you are still posting given the general lack of accuracy.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Ha! This is so funny. I went back and read the first posts on this topic. I can't believe some of you are still posting given the general lack of accuracy.

Looking through page 1, the only thing "inaccurate" were the conspiracy theories that stated Trump was essentially a Democratic plant who would pull out of the race after making the right look bad. Should we evaluate your posts for 100% accuracy?

 

[Seattle Husker]

I understand the feelings but I could never vote for 'goofy' because it would be an indirect vote for 'Sleazy' and I am not sure we can recover from 4 yrs of HRC.
Stupidly, I know many of you will think, but I feel we can much more likely recover, or survive, 4 years of Trump although my prediction is no one is beating Hillary. Her victory is 'in the stars' as Nancy would say.

I take the opposite stance. 4yrs of HRC if like the 16 under Bill and Obama would be better than anything I'd imagine Trump would do. Yes, it can get worse. At this point it's either Gary Johnson or hold my nose and vote against Trump.

 

[mchammer]

Looking through page 1, the only thing "inaccurate" were the conspiracy theories that stated Trump was essentially a Democratic plant who would pull out of the race after making the right look bad. Should we evaluate your posts for 100% accuracy?

Yes, though I would expand that to anyone posting on this topic as a know-it-all. The gist of my argument is you guys don't appear to have a clue, which will be even more evident when Trump wins.

 

[Seattle Husker]

though I would expand that to anyone posting on this topic as a know-it-all.

You posted on this thread, right? I get it though...you are a Trumpster and can't fathom any possibility that he won't win. Why not stick around and debate the matter intelligently with facts rather than try to claim some fictitious superiority?

 

[mchammer]

You posted on this thread, right? I get it though...you are a Trumpster and can't fathom any possibility that he won't win. Why not stick around and debate the matter intelligently with facts rather than try to claim some fictitious superiority?

I'm claiming impartiality. I am not a Trumpster - I didn't vote for him. If you are trying to be rational regarding the Trump campaign, you are missing the point, which is why the pundits and most of you since this topic was posted have been wrong.

 

[Seattle Husker]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/politics/donald-trump-race-comments-faith-and-freedom/index.html

"Freedom of any kind means no one should be judged by their race or their color and the tone of his hue -- should not be judged that way," Trump said as he read from prepared remarks while speaking in Washington. "Right now, we have a very divided nation. We're going to bring our nation together."

 

[I35]

I'm going to try to break this down. First I'll start with Trump. He was not my 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and only became my 5th choice when there were 5 republicans left. When I look at Trump I see two things. 1) Presidential Characteristic? Smearing the other candidate has always happened way before I was even born. Trump goes beyond what I'd feel comfortable with. At the same time I'm tired of my party getting bullied by the left. I'm so sick of the whiney PC crowd that gets offended over everything. Toughen up buttercups. Also I'm so fed up with the establishment that allowed Obama to rule like a dictator and sat back and watch him run our great country into the ground. I also like that Trump scares people with how he talks about foreign policy. Because if he worries our citizens what he might do then think how the other countries feel. Obama is not respected by anybody and they sense it. No way Russia flies jets 100's of feet from our navy ships if any other president was in Office besides Obama. I'm not sure they would have even with Jimmy Carter in Office. I wish Trump tone down his language some, but at the same time not allow the left and all their media bully him. It's actually refreshing to seeing the left media getting butthurt.

2) Policies? I get a kick out of people that think he will be a horrible president. None of us know because he hasn't been in politics before. He could be as great as Ronald Reagan or he could be as bad as Obama (I doubt even Hillary could be this bad). If you are gauging your opinion on what is being promised or refusal on any policies then that is where you're going wrong. At least for someone that has never been in politics before. Trump has no political history to criticize or praise. Besides, we all know a good President will make good decisions as things come up. If they are so stuck on their ideology that he (or she) can't make decisions that's best for America then we're in trouble. A good CEO can and will adapt for what's best for the company. Obama never could get past his ideology even when everything was fallen apart right before his eyes. We do know Hillary's record and it's not pretty at all. Everything she does ends up with corruption. She's failed way too many times to count. Don't ask a liberal to name her accomplishments because they respond with something like "she fought for women rights." Really? Pretty general statement. No ask them what specifically is her biggest accomplishment? They won't answer because they know they will sound silly naming something specific.

Let's turn this around and ask a Trump supporter what is his biggest accomplishment? Since he hasn't been in politics we will have to point out his business career. One would have to be his estimated inheritance of $40,000,000 and turning it into $2,700,000,000. That's $40 million to $2.7 billion for those that don't have their bifocals close to read the zeros. There are only about 1800 billionaire in the whole world. That tells me he surrounds himself with smart driven people. It also tells me that he is a great leader in the business world. Can that relate to being President? None of us knows if he can or can't. What we do know is what we get from Hillary. On a scale of 1 to 10, Hillary has proven to be a zero when the scale starts at 1. Trump might be a zero or he could be a 10. I'd take my chances where at least there's a chance it won't be a zero. I know Deez and a few others don't like him as a person and there are even more that don't like Hillary according to the polls. I can tolerate him as a blabber mouth if he can make America safe and prosperous again. I don't see Hillary doing either because of her corruption and what happened in Benghazi. There is so much more things I could name about Hillary, but I'd be here all night. Hillary has had her chance in politics and it's time for the Clintons to just leave. Not sure if I'm ready for a Trump Presidency, but what choice do we have? It's one or the other so the decision is easy for me.

 

[Joe Fan]

I'm considering Gary Johnson but does anyone else get a "goofy" vibe from him? ....

I'll probably vote for Gary Johnson,......

A vote for Johnson is an effective vote for Hillary for President and, IMO more importantly, a vote to let her have the next several SCOTUS appointees. Which is the end of the Constitution and the American Experiment (the beginning of the end has already begun). It may take 30 years or so before it becomes obvious to everyone, but no need for us to wait that long.

 

[Mr. Deez]

A vote for Johnson is an effective vote for Hillary for President

That's only true for a voter who, if forced to choose, would vote for Trump over Clinton. For a voter like SH, that's not going to be the case. Frankly, that's not the case for me anymore either. Early on, I would have chosen Trump over Clinton, but not anymore. He has just got worse and worse.

 

[I35]

That's only true for a voter who, if forced to choose, would vote for Trump over Clinton. For a voter like SH, that's not going to be the case. Frankly, that's not the case for me anymore either. Early on, I would have chosen Trump over Clinton, but not anymore. He has just got worse and worse.

 

[Joe Fan]

That's only true for a voter who, if forced to choose, would vote for Trump over Clinton. ....

It is a binary choice. One of the two will be president

 

[Htown77]

I believe that Hillary and Trump will both be disasters. I cannot in good conscience vote for either. It's like choosing between the communists and nazis in the spanish civil war. I will not support either of these things.

A vote for Gary Johnson tells both parties "I am a voter that will vote but you have failed to capture my vote by failing to give me a reasonable candidate. I have a vote that your parties could have. If you would like my vote in a future election, give me someone I can vote for."

If you wanted my vote, your party should not have given me trump or hillary to choose from. I am with Deez and Seattle. Neither Trump nor Hillary is better than the other. If you think one is better, that's great for you, but expect to lose a lot of votes this November.

 

[Mr. Deez]

/\/\/\/\ This.