Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Hammer + Nail.
On the topic of Ryan's support for Trump. Should support always be unequivocal, regardless of new evidence?
Who will beat Hillary in 2020?
- Thread starter texas_ex2000
- Start date
Hammer + Nail.
On the topic of Ryan's support for Trump. Should support always be unequivocal, regardless of new evidence?
Non support of Trump will cost the Republicans the senate and eventually the house. I think to the point of not enough votes to stop anything HRC wants. Yes, Ryan and other party leaders will be the cause, but also "conservative" voters who cannot even hold their nose and vote for the party nominee. The country will then be in a tailspin it might never recover from given the SCOTUS appointments as well.
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
I really don't see that much difference between the policies Trump supposedly is running on and had failed miserably to talk about and the policies Ryan promotes. There's a difference in the optics and some differences in foreign policy, but really that's it.
So this labeling of Ryan and his supprters, aka the GOP, as establishment or something other than what's true republicanism that Trump supposedly stands for is confusing. Ryan was the Tea Party golden boy not that long ago. What's the difference here? I'll give you a few...Ryan never bragged about assaulting women and subsequently was accused of assaulting women, Ryan never tweeted America to check out a sex tape, etc.
These Trump supporters wanted someone outside of Washington..fine. They didn't even care if this candidate was even all that conservative...fine. They had 3 or 4 other imminetly more mature outside candidates to vote for, and instead they voted for a reality show celebrity who tweets about sex tapes. Shame on you.
And then these Trump supporters have the gall to say Ryan and other Republicans who don't vote for this manchild pervert are to blame? Are you f'in kidding me?
The GOP won't lose the Senate and won't lose the House. GOP voters will come out to vote, but won't vote for Trump. If they GOP does lose, don't blame the voters who supported Cruz, Kasich, Fiorina, Rubio, etc.
Last edited:
I do think they'll lose the Senate, but I don't understand the rationale that the failure of GOP candidates to latch themselves to the most unpopular political figure in a century will be the reason. The only purpose of such a narrative is to promote a stab the back myth.
They didn't have to "latch" on to him nor did they have to openly be against him. I was anti Trump in the primary, but he secured a lot of followers. You can expect the loyalists to be a thorn in their side for years to come.
The reason he won was largely because of people's disdain of the current establishment on both sides.
If you believe HRC and Trumps policies are the same, I think you are naive. And for those who supported Johnson or just had a protest vote, enjoy the Hillary years.
The reason he won was largely because of people's disdain of the current establishment on both sides.
If you believe HRC and Trumps policies are the same, I think you are naive. And for those who supported Johnson or just had a protest vote, enjoy the Hillary years.
I35
5,000+ Posts
I actually was pulling for Obama vs Hillary in 2008, because I thought at the time he would be easier for McCain to beat. But your point is apples to oranges. I support the best candidate that I feel is best for America. Of course what I think is best for America is capitalism and conservative values. I didn't like McCain at all because in my opinion he's borderline Liberal. But I respected what my fellow GOP'er voted as our candidate and went and voted for him. Now that's apples to apples. But he is much closer to my conservative views than Obama was or is. Just like Trump is much closer than Hillary. Just the appointment of the judges puts Trump much closer to my views than Hillary. Is he the idea conservative? No, but you seem to think our primary isn't over yet and someone will be appointed in his spot. New flash....... He's our candidate and not voting for him is voting for Hillary that is 110% liberal and wants much bigger government. I do respect our democracy when the people vote. I still don't have to agree with the other party that we keep electing for the same thing expecting new changes. The problem is our democracy is under assault as we speak.
So a reporter asks a Senate candidate what he or she thinks about the Trump video. Anything short of "I don't want anything to do with this guy" will lead to headlines that say, "Candidate X continues to back Trump despite discovery of video of Trump celebrating sexual assault." These Senate candidates know this and poll on the risks of taking each possible stance. If the candidate stands by Trump, he knows it will cost him votes. In swing states (where the strongest condemnations are coming from), that means defeat. What do you expect them to do? Spin it any way you want, but the guy is a political stain. The people who don't want to associate with him have good reasons for their actions.
And what's the upside to standing by him? Do you think Trump would carry New Hampshire if Kelly Ayotte stood by him? He wouldn't. She doesn't have that kind of pull. (In fact nobody does.)
No Republican would have won the 2008 election, unless the Democrats had nominated their version of Trump, and I'm not sure who that would be. (Maybe Kanye West or Snoop Dogg?). However, if you thought Hillary would have been a tougher opponent than Obama, then your political instincts are pretty poor. He was a dramatically stronger candidate, and it's not even close.
This is interesting. As I've said before, nobody has ever given me flack for voting Libertarian in 2008, but I get all kinds of crap from you and others for doing the same this election. What's interesting about it is that on policy issues, McCain was more conservative than Trump, which tells me that people like you are driven by superficiality rather than substance. Trump speaks your language. McCain didn't.
I don't think that at all.
But you didn't want Congress to deal with Obama or respect his policy priorities. You respect the will of the people when they share your will.
He could say, "I find the remarks reprehensible and I totally reject his behavior. However, I believe his policies better represent the party and I will absolutely vote for him rather than HRC."
The upside of standing beside him helps potentially bring more people into the conservative movement. Nobody can deny Trump has brought millions of new people into the political process. Why not develop a platform that consolidates those voters with historical republican voters versus total destruction and loss of POTUS, SCOTUS and now the House and Senate?
The Republican Party has no leadership. They haven't for a long, long time since Gingrich was House Leader.
That won't cut it in a swing state. Keep in mind. It's a swing state. That means the margin for error is tight. These candidates are going to look at the data both for Trump and for themselves (backing Trump and distancing themselves from him) before making a move. It doesn't make sense to stand by him if he's sinking in the polls and with little expectation of rebounding.
And I see little reason to think Trump will bring people into the conservative movement since he's not running on much of a conservative policy agenda. He's primarily running on himself or more precisely his brains and cock size. Specifically, he's alleging that he'll fix our problems by being smarter and tougher than other politicians. That's not conservatism.
I'm not a fan of their leadership, but I don't think they're the problem. This could be its own topic, but what I think we're really seeing is the further fraying of the old Republican political coalition. I think the various factions' differences are becoming irreconcilable both in terms of style and substance. That's why it may not be as simple as just forming a platform that pleases everybody. The Trump nomination is somewhat of a symptom of that problem.
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
He's a clown. Talking about sex tapes aren't presidential. Have you ever heard a Fortune 500 CEO encouraging people to check out sex tapes on twitter?, Generals? Admirals?
He's a Clown with a capital C. He's also the most incompetent Presidential candidate in history to lose to Hillary.
Last edited:
Brad Austin
2,500+ Posts
Yes Trump is such an incompetent clown that he just so happened to build a multi-national empire.
Media Trump and business Trump are two completely different people. It doesn't take much common sense to sort that out.
Sure he's obnoxious, but no way in hell is he more incompetent than someone who has already committed treason by selling countless millions worth of government favors to foreign parties. Among many other criminal activities and corrupt practices.
I'd rather have a super successful real estate mogul with a brash, big mouth than a horribly failed Secretary of State who was, is, and always will be for sale.
People counting chickens this race is over are foolish. Keep trusting those polls.
Media Trump and business Trump are two completely different people. It doesn't take much common sense to sort that out.
Sure he's obnoxious, but no way in hell is he more incompetent than someone who has already committed treason by selling countless millions worth of government favors to foreign parties. Among many other criminal activities and corrupt practices.
I'd rather have a super successful real estate mogul with a brash, big mouth than a horribly failed Secretary of State who was, is, and always will be for sale.
People counting chickens this race is over are foolish. Keep trusting those polls.
Who will beat Hillary in 2020 (or before)?
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
Brad, I want a businessman in the White House too. Here's Trump's problem. He's a clown. You can be a clown and be a great businessman. But you can't be a clown and be President.Yes Trump is such an incompetent clown that he just so happened to build a multi-national empire.
Media Trump and business Trump are two completely different people. It doesn't take much common sense to sort that out.
Sure he's obnoxious, but no way in hell is he more incompetent than someone who has already committed treason by selling countless millions worth of government favors to foreign parties. Among many other criminal activities and corrupt practices.
I'd rather have a super successful real estate mogul with a brash, big mouth than a horribly failed Secretary of State who was, is, and always will be for sale.
People counting chickens this race is over are foolish. Keep trusting those polls.
Like Hillary, he too is unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief of our servicemen. The thought of that guy in charge of sending men and women to fight overseas is a joke. It's a different joke then Hillary, but just as bad.
And btw, the media, image, and branding are Trump's businesses and he's doing a horrendous job managing them in this election.
/\/\/\/\/\ This.
There's a large segment of the electorate that simply won't vote for someone who talks and acts like Trump, because they expect the President to be a mature adult. It's a prerequisite, and mature adults don't talk and act like Trump does.
and yet the harsh reality is one of them WILL be elected.
It is hard to understand how anyone even if one thinks Trump is a clown( which is as opinion anyone is entitled to have) could want Hillary when there are reams of emails and FOIA revelations showing she sold our country's interests for payments to her and for which there are facts showing she lied about it. Not to mention the personal server or the lies she told about Benghazi
Does anyone think she will change her behavior and all of a sudden put our country first?
It is hard to understand how anyone even if one thinks Trump is a clown( which is as opinion anyone is entitled to have) could want Hillary when there are reams of emails and FOIA revelations showing she sold our country's interests for payments to her and for which there are facts showing she lied about it. Not to mention the personal server or the lies she told about Benghazi
Does anyone think she will change her behavior and all of a sudden put our country first?
texas_ex2000
2,500+ Posts
I know. You're absolutely right...
And that's exactly how bad Trump is. He's that bad.
First, most people aren't hearing very much about those issues, and when they do, they hear about it in dismissive verbiage. In contrast, every time Trump opens his mouth, they hear his comments interpreted in end-of-the-world, apocalyptic verbiage. (Much of that is Trump's own fault.) Second, even those who know Hillary to be sleazy see her sleaziness as something the country will survive. She might be a crook, but she's probably not any more dangerous than Bill was, and we survived him. Most people would choose the devil that they know and believe they'll survive over the devil they don't know and who comes across as a dangerous loose cannon.
People on the sky is falling Right said we wouldn't survive Bill Clinton and said we wouldn't survive Obama. They were wrong, and that's why many have a hard time believing it when folks like you say it won't survive Hillary. If you keep predicting the apocalypse, eventually you need to be right, or people will tune your message out.
Keep in mind that despite what the Left (and apparently Trump) believes, the government isn't what makes America great. It's great because of its people. Americans are generally a good, innovative, and hardworking people. If that's no longer the case, then the country is on the downward spiral regardless of who wins this election.
I don't trust her, and only the most partisan Democrats even claim to. And I think even most of them don't really trust her. However, that really isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not the country can survive her in the White House for 4 years. It can, and once the GOP nominated Trump, we didn't have a meaningful choice anyway.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Is it possible the skills needed to be a successful real estate mogul are vastly different than POTUS? Clearly Trump has already failed in any ability to unite anyone other than his supporters. That should point to a lack of leadership.
I35
5,000+ Posts
It's easy to see now. But at the time she was the establishment and he had a muslim name and wasn't known by many. Remember this was only 7 years after 9/11.
The voters voted for a republican majority in the House and Senate to change directions. So yes the voters spoke and spoke LOUDLY to block Obama's agenda and lawlessness. You can't argue this.
It's not the same thing. I voted to block Obama and his liberal agenda even though I didn't like McCain. You are voting for Hillary and her liberal agenda because your not voting for Trump. This isn't about Trump or McCain. It should be that we will hold our nose and vote for whoever it takes to keep the Liberal agenda from being in the oval office. No way you can even make an intelligent argument that Hillary would be better than Trump. Why? Because you can only argue emotions and dislike of character of Trump, where I can make the argument of all the bad policies she wants to make and her bad character as well if I wanted to. Name one bad policy Trump wants to do that would be worse than.......I don't know.......how about her desire for all open borders? Tell me one worse policy of Trump's than just that one topic alone?
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I35
5,000+ Posts
Deez, I don't understand your thinking. Ok Trump is a clown. But his policies are 1,000% better than what Hillary wants our country to be. Were not talking about the next 4 years. The liberals have already taken us so far left that even if we could get it back to the middle it would seem extreme right. Our justice which will be very liberal will probably be changed for the rest of our life because of this one election. Does it not bother you that she wants to let in 600,000+ refugees and then state in her email that it's impossible to vet them? I could name other policies that would take all day that Hillary is for and I can't imagine that you'd disagree with me.
One thing I haven't touched on at all is that if Hillary is elected, we have set a new precedence that there are no consequences no matter how corrupt if she is elected. We can't keep the politicians in check as it is due to our corrupt media. We have Freedom of Press for the reason to be another watch dog for us the citizens to keep both parties in check. The Press is doing an excellent job on keeping one party in check. We are entering scary ground after all that Obama has done without congress and now our press has turned a blind eye on Hillary's corruption.
I35
5,000+ Posts
Yes I will. I'll be depressed that half our citizens are this ignorant. But I will accept that our country no longer the country I grew up with. This would mean the police are now the bad guys. Corruption at it's highest level is accepted. We will have 600K more new citizens from terrorist hotbed countries. Taxes will go way up. Obamacare will continue and on and on.
I need a drink.
Hillary was establishment, but she didn't have the full backing of the establishment. She had the support of blue collar white Democrats and unions (ironically a similar demographic to the one now sought by Trump). Remember the chugging of beer in the union halls, the "hardworking white people" comment, etc. By 2008, this wasn't the real Democratic establishment anymore. The real establishment was the white, gentry liberals in urban areas - the Goldman Sachs Left. They were mostly with Obama.
And it didn't take a lot of thought to see why he was a tougher candidate. It was "change election." Hillary didn't represent that. She had been in national politics for 16 years. She backed the Iraq War - a major weakness in the primary and the general election. Her husband had been a DLC-style Democrat only slightly to the left of Bush (and arguably to the right on a few things). She was status quo and had many of the same issues she has now - seen as a bullshitter, uninspiring communicator, bitchy, etc. Obama was a dramatically more inspiring communicator, seemed sincere, opposed the Iraq War, and had no connections to the DLC. It's a moot point, because the Democrats could have picked almost anybody and won in 2008, but it would have been closer with Hillary as the nominee.
Yes, but a larger group of voters put Obama in the White House 2 years before. Presidents don't do 180s and lose their legitimacy just because they have a bad off year election. If they did, Bush would have abruptly ended the Iraq War after the 2006 election. (He did the opposite.) Reagan would have rolled over and gone back to the pre-1981 tax rates after the 1986 election. That isn't how this works. A bad off year for the White House certainly shifts the momentum (and it did), but it doesn't mean the President just bends over for the next two years.
You're all over the place. I voted for Bob Barr in 2008. Nobody gave a crap. I voted for Gary Johnson in 2016, and people like you **** a brick. Yes, they are the same thing. If anything, it was much tougher to defend tossing McCain under the bus than throwing Trump under the buss.
And you go back to the emotions/Trump hatred nonsense. I'll readily admit that I have problems with Trump's character. I do think it matters, but it's not driving my vote, because neither candidate has any character. They're both crap. I have MAJOR policy disagreements with Trump. That's what's driving my vote. I'm not going to list them out for you again. I've done it a dozen times.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
