sonicshoulder Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 So where does Cruz go from here...back to Zodiac killing? Is Trump's life in danger? Should he avoid book depositories when in convertibles? These are the questions facing the Trump campaign now, Hillary should be the least of his worries. Although apparently the Clintons have left a trail of corpses since their Arkansas days. I believe at one time an "associate" was found beheaded in a dumpster in some back alley in Little Rock and it was deemed natural causes. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 The concept of someone doing anything to increase the chance that Donald Trump becomes president is bizarre. Whether it be vote for Trump, not vote at all, vote for someone other than Clinton, disparage Clinton, or anything else that could hurt Clinton's/help Trump's chances. I can't grasp why any thinking person, regardless of their politics, would want Trump over Clinton. It is over my head (and it sure does not feel nice). Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 So today, the unthinkable has happened. Donald Trump is the the likely presidential nominee for the Republican Party. In November conservative voters will have to truly decide if they want to vote for Trump. They have to decide if they want a man who is a racist, misogynist, failed businessman, conspiracy theorist, xenophobe, whose foreign policy stance can be described as baffling at best (not to mention the ridiculous and inconceivable "Wall" that is central to his campaign.) to be the leader of the free world. Also, lest we forget, probably wants to bang his daughter. But hey I guess some people's love of guns will trump those glaring faults and they will vote for him to be our next President. I cannot believe that a major political party has nominated a such horrible human begin for the office of president. Republicans, Donald Trump is your nominee. You need to look at yourself, you need to look at the party you support. Trump is now your leader. This is the company you are in. Congratulations, now you have deal with the consequences. Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 Why is it unthinkable that Trump is the nominee? I see his nomination as the predictable result of the vitriol and hate that has been the discourse for the past 25 years. The base has been screaming for an outsider for years, they got him. The base has been increasingly xenophobic for years, they got a guy to fit their desires. The base wants a tough talker who isn't going to ruin things with nuance or thought, they have a guy who is campaigning on a "we'll do it my way or else" platform. Trump is exactly what the base wanted. Between him and Cruz the base was not going to lose. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 Why is it unthinkable that Trump is the nominee? Let's go back to July of 2015, when Trump announced his candidacy. Everyone said he was not going to be the nominee. That is why is why I said it was unthinkable. It will be interesting in the next couple of days to see where Kaisch (who also dropped out) and Cruz stand on Trump. They pretty much painted him as the worst person in the world (rightfully so). But his he worst than Clinton (or possibly Sanders)? Does the specter of his presidency inspire confidence for our country? Does Trump's many failings, lack of experience, boorish behavior, and unpredictability, still make him a better person to run our country then whomever the Democrats puts up. It will be interesting to hear the verbal gymnastics that so many conservatives will go through now that they are faced with a choice they thought would never happen. It has been called un-polite to call people out on the internet. But when has the internet ever been a polite place. But I am directly calling out conservative posters here on this board. This is something that I think you need to explain, why is Trump a better person to run this country then Clinton or Sanders? Link to post Share on other sites
John Smith Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 I guess what I am getting at is that the Republicsn party has been building up to Trump for years. Not necessarily him per se but a candidate like him. Trump/Cruz didn't matter the party has aligned it's self in such a way that an extremist candidate was the only option. Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 It'll be interesting to see which states flip from red to blue, or vice versa, this election. It'll also be interesting to see who Trump's VP choice will be, because if he wins, once his first security briefing scares him so badly that he resigns, that is who will be president. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 I'm hoping it's Gary Busey. Link to post Share on other sites
NoJ Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 Jimmy Walker is sure to get the nod. At least, I'm hopin'. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted May 4, 2016 Share Posted May 4, 2016 I guess what I am getting at is that the Republicsn party has been building up to Trump for years. Not necessarily him per we but a candidate like him. Trump/Cruz didn't matter the party has aligned it's self in such a way that an extremist candidate was the only option. Yes for sure. I am sure the conservatives who latched on/encouraged the TEA party are kicking themselves right now. Not to say Trump is the TEA party candidate. But Right Wing Media and their false outrage over Obama certainly got us to where we are today. Link to post Share on other sites
remphish1 Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Food for thought. Trump is considering Lyin' Ted Cruz for his running mate. This gets stranger by the minute! Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 "Republicans have a massive electoral math problem that has nothing to do with Donald Trump" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/02/republicans-have-a-massive-electoral-map-problem-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-donald-trump/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_p1most-partner-1 Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 The concept of someone doing anything to increase the chance that Donald Trump becomes president is bizarre. Whether it be vote for Trump, not vote at all, vote for someone other than Clinton, disparage Clinton, or anything else that could hurt Clinton's/help Trump's chances. I can't grasp why any thinking person, regardless of their politics, would want Trump over Clinton. It is over my head (and it sure does not feel nice).Nice or not, much of those who are leftish really don't give a shit. Clinton is as much a devil as Trump and look for Bernie supporters to stay home in droves or vote Green or vote for Trump. It seems unreal, but I do believe this may be the lowest voter turnout for a very long time. Plenty of people are in the Susan Sarandon camp and figure that a Trump presidency will be a good thing for progress. Personally I don't get it, but I am sure there are plenty of people on this board who will tell you they were only in it for Bernie and not for the Democrats. So who got the contested convention? Not the GOP. Even if Bernie makes nice in Philly it isn't going to persuade vast numbers of voters to vote for Hillary. I am, but then I am a wimp and a sell out I suppose. The idea of a Trump Supreme Court gives me nightmares, because that is really the bottom line of this election. I don't think Hillary is bad, but by this point in the process, I would like a real alternative to all of this (including Bernie.) So long as Bernie uses his influence to move the platform left and doesn't end up totally spoiling this thing, his legacy is safe. But ultimately he is finished. As a total flip-flopper i don't think he should quit, but he is running out of money and time. LouieB Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Sad, but true, Lou. Hopefully not true to the degree that provides President Trump. I saw Sarandon talking about that nonsense on Bill Maher. It made her sound like an idiot. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Sad, but true, Lou. Hopefully not true to the degree that provides President Trump. I saw Sarandon talking about that nonsense on Bill Maher. It made her sound like an idiot.She thinks a Clinton presidency is worse than a Trump presidency. Just an opinion. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 She thinks a Clinton presidency is worse than a Trump presidency. Just an opinion.I agree, but I can't grasp how a Democrat/liberal/leftist/progressive/etc. could see a Clinton presidency as worse than a Trump presidency. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Sad, but true, Lou. Hopefully not true to the degree that provides President Trump. I saw Sarandon talking about that nonsense on Bill Maher. It made her sound like an idiot. Unfortunately a lot of Sanders supporters are talking nonsense. Especially when it comes to Super Delegates, fair or not, the Super Delegates have been a part of the Democratic nominating process for decades. When Bernie Sanders entered the race the rules were clearly laid out, he knew about the Super Delegates. It is not like this has been something that is has been sprung upon him at the last minute as a way to steal the nomination from him. It is how the process works. There is nothing in our constitution that says how a party must provide a nominee. The Dems could hold a Step it Up style dance competition if they wanted to. Of course, Sanders is free to court super delegates, it is within the rule. But I found this bit from a WSJ article particularly telling: One argument the Sanders campaign is making to Clinton supporters: Superdelegates in states that voted for Mr. Sanders should back his candidacy so that they are in sync with voters. Yet the Sanders campaign also said it intends to court superdelegates in states that Mrs. Clinton won. So the Sanders campaign feels that the Superdelegates should reflect the will of the state they represent if Sanders won that state. However if Clinton won that state they should vote for Sanders. Truly frustrating. I liked Sanders quite a bit. I thought he was a good senator and one of the honest Politicians out there. But the more he goes on with his campaign he is proving to be just like the rest. As for his supporters who will refuse to support Clinton if she is the nominee. You are petulant little children. You are willing to risk the future of our country for decades to come. Because the next president will nominate 2 or more Supreme Court Justices. And just imagine if the Notorious RBG suddenly passes away, do think President Trump will nominate any sort of moderate (like Obama did with Merrick)? Hell no. Is Clinton the ideal presidential candidate of course not. But with the spectre of a Trump presidency looming over our heads, any sane or rational person should do everything in their power not see Trump elected. She thinks a Clinton presidency is worse than a Trump presidency. Just an opinion. She is a limousine liberal. She could probably ride out a Trump presidency, with her massive wealth (in fact a Trump Presidency would probably benefit her more than a Clinton presidency). The next four years are going to be hugely important and will affect the poor and middle class way more than rich. Link to post Share on other sites
NoJ Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 There is a raving nutjob element to the Left, just like the Right. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 I agree, but I can't grasp how a Democrat/liberal/leftist/progressive/etc. could see a Clinton presidency as worse than a Trump presidency. Well, she has cited her displeasure with Clinton as a "warmonger", a supporter of fracking, and her stance on minimum wage. She has stated that she doesn't trust her. Seems pretty attuned to her ideals to me. She is a limousine liberal. She could probably ride out a Trump presidency, with her massive wealth (in fact a Trump Presidency would probably benefit her more than a Clinton presidency). The next four years are going to be hugely important and will affect the poor and middle class way more than rich. I'd wager that her wealth/fear of losing her money has very little if nothing at all to do with whom she supports or does not support. Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Well, she has cited her displeasure with Clinton as a "warmonger", a supporter of fracking, and her stance on minimum wage. She has stated that she doesn't trust her. Seems pretty attuned to her ideals to me.Trump isn't going to keep us out of war, won't end fracking or raise the minimum wage. Nor will he support most of Sarandon's concerns. Clinton will. The Supreme Court alone should be enough for a "liberal" or " progressive" like Sarandon to support Clinton over trump. I stand by my statement that she sounds like an idiot. Link to post Share on other sites
NoJ Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 I expect a drunken Tim Robbins to show up here any minute now..... Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 I stand by my statement that she sounds like an idiot.You watch your mouth! Link to post Share on other sites
jff Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 OK, so now that we're on the topic of the supreme court, it needs to be pointed out that a president typically appoints hundreds of federal court judges. To date, Obama has placed 324 judges on the federal bench. George W. Bush appointed 327. Bill Clinton, 379. H.W. Bush, 197 in a one term. These are extremely important appointments, but they always to go ignored when it comes to promoting one's favored candidate with the "think of the supreme court" line. Link to post Share on other sites
Ghost of Electricity Posted May 5, 2016 Share Posted May 5, 2016 Actually, when I think about a Trump presidency, the issue of the courts is one that doesn't bother me that much. In terms of traditional left-right continuum he's not all that extreme (insure as he can be without having a real policy on anything). A Cruz presidency would have been much worse for the courts. The things that worries me about a Trump presidency are things like "do I really want that man's finger on the button?" and "if the world survives world war three what will this do for the standing and the future of our country in the future?". That and the simple fact of having a blatantly despicable human being as the leader of the so-called free world... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts