I am an Anti-NeverTrumper. And you should be too.

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

We suspect the country can survive four years of HRC. We seriously doubt the party can survive 4 years of Trump.  People will decide...all we're doing is informing....ain't going nowhere.  :-)

You think a liberal Supreme Court will only last 4 years?  You think the current US policy - the Iran Deal, the Castro deal, ISIS terrorist attacks, etc... will only be in effect for 4 years?  All because Trump is a jerk?

[prisonchaplain]

Vs. the type of depression Trump's protectionism may create, along with the grandiose debt from border walls, along with our new "neutral" policy towards Israel, along with SCOTUS nominees like Trump's sister (very pro-choice)?  I can accept a strong personality, but not combined with the shoot-from-the-hipsterism I see in Trump.

[Just_A_Guy]

57 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You think a liberal Supreme Court will only last 4 years?  You think the current US policy - the Iran Deal, the Castro deal, ISIS terrorist attacks, etc... will only be in effect for 4 years?  All because Trump is a jerk?

The effects of the Iran and Cuba deals will be irreversible by Inauguration Day, if they aren't already--Iran will have their money and their spinning centrifuges; and Cuba will have their money and their tourists.  So let's not pretend Trump (or any other Republican) will be able to cram those particular genies back into their bottles--it isn't happening.  I see no evidence that Trump is really devoted to federalism, or even cognizant of originalist constitutional interpretive theory; so I don't harbor much hope for his SCOTUS nominees.  And as far as ISIS is concerned--I don't particularly want to spend American blood and treasure in an all-out attempt to annihilate them while Europe and the Arab world sit back and berate us for our "inhumane" methods of waging war.  Let 'em keep order in their own backyards, for a change.

I don't think Trump is Hitler.  I do think he is very like Kaiser Wilhelm II, whose ego and bombast created or exacerbated international crises that ultimately got people killed--Trump's tangles will be smaller in scale, but they will still cost American lives.  I also think once Trump finds that other countries don't cower before him like his boards of directors do, he will flail ineffectually for the next three years of his term and be regarded as a singular failure. 

Which, in and of itself, wouldn't be so bad--except that he'll be regarded as a failure with an "R" after his name and the poster boy for American conservatism.  We may be driven into the political wilderness for decades to come.  Like Dubya, but without the quiet dignity or the folksy charm.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

34 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The effects of the Iran and Cuba deals will be irreversible by Inauguration Day, if they aren't already--Iran will have their money and their spinning centrifuges; and Cuba will have their money and their tourists.  So let's not pretend Trump (or any other Republican) will be able to cram those particular genies back into their bottles--it isn't happening.  I see no evidence that Trump is really devoted to federalism, or even cognizant of originalist constitutional interpretive theory; so I don't harbor much hope for his SCOTUS nominees.  And as far as ISIS is concerned--I don't particularly want to spend American blood and treasure in an all-out attempt to annihilate them while Europe and the Arab world sit back and berate us for our "inhumane" methods of waging war.  Let 'em keep order in their own backyards, for a change.

I don't think Trump is Hitler.  I do think he is very like Kaiser Wilhelm II, whose ego and bombast created or exacerbated international crises that ultimately got people killed--Trump's tangles will be smaller in scale, but they will still cost American lives.  I also think once Trump finds that other countries don't cower before him like his boards of directors do, he will flail ineffectually for the next three years of his term and be regarded as a singular failure. 

Which, in and of itself, wouldn't be so bad--except that he'll be regarded as a failure with an "R" after his name and the poster boy for American conservatism.  We may be driven into the political wilderness for decades to come.  Like Dubya, but without the quiet dignity or the folksy charm.

But then, that's just one possibility.

If you're more inclined to favor the Ron Paul stance in the European/Middle Eastern war, then Trump is more up your alley.  He's been saying going to Iraq was terrible and leave Putin to take care of Assad and give Jordan and their coalition free-reign to bomb ISIS.  But he did say, he'll take out the oil and build a Syrian safe zone.  It will be a beautiful zone.  With a great economy.  And maybe a wall.  Maybe he'll put Trump in big letters on that wall....

Yes, Bush got Americans killed.  Obama would rather call it workplace violence than risk having to send troops to get killed.  Both Cruz and Trump will fall somewhere in between.  One thing Trump doesn't do is flail ineffectually. He could possibly fail, he could possibly succeed.  But either way, it won't be flailing ineffectually.  That's just not his personality.  Cruz and Rubio, on the other hand, have been flailing ineffectually in the Senate their entire terms.  Can't win with that establishment.  Maybe Trump will succeed where the Republicans have failed.  I'm more than willing to give him a chance.

A failure of an "R" is better than success of a "D".  MUCH MUCH MUCH BETTER.  Believe me (Trumpism)!  And nobody - neither left nor right - believes Trump is part of American conservatism.  Heck, they don't even believe Bush was part of American conservatism.

Edited March 24, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

P.S.  On Iran... that deal can be reversed.  You can invoke the clause that puts sanctions back in place just from the missile tests alone.  And if there's anybody who understands how money flows, it's Trump.

But yes, he is a political neophyte.  One thing that made Schwarzenegger endorse Kasich over Trump is because he said his experience as a political neophyte serving as governor was that there were times when he just didn't know which questions to ask.

So, in this sense, he really needs the right people around him.  Obama was a political neophyte too - and he surrounded himself with neophytes too.  So you see him blundering over and over in his first 4 years.  And so yes, this is a big issue.  This is where the Republicans need to help him rather than oppose him when it becomes clear that he is the nominee.

One thing that's promising... he is consulting with The Heritage Foundation to advise him on Supreme Court nominees.

Oh, his foreign policy advisers... did you hear of that?  What do you think about it?

[LeSellers]

41 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

On Iran... that deal can be reversed.  You can invoke the clause that puts sanctions back in place just from the missile tests alone.  And if there's anybody who understands how money flows, it's Trump.

How? The money has already been released. The sanctions will not be re-imposed because Russia has no interest in doing it, and Russia is Iran's biggest trading partner.

Lehi

[Just_A_Guy]

23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

But then, that's just one possibility.

If you're more inclined to favor the Ron Paul stance in the European/Middle Eastern war, then Trump is more up your alley.  He's been saying going to Iraq was terrible and leave Putin to take care of Assad and give Jordan and their coalition free-reign to bomb ISIS.  But he did say, he'll take out the oil and build a Syrian safe zone.  It will be a beautiful zone.  With a great economy.  And maybe a wall.  Maybe he'll put Trump in big letters on that wall....

 

The beauty of Trump is that he's so all-over-the-map on issues, that you can always find something he's said on a particular issue that you can agree with.  Trump was in favor of sending ground troops before he was against it.

Quote

Yes, Bush got Americans killed.  Obama would rather call it workplace violence than risk having to send troops to get killed.  Both Cruz and Trump will fall somewhere in between.  One thing Trump doesn't do is flail ineffectually. He could possibly fail, he could possibly succeed.  But either way, it won't be flailing ineffectually.  That's just not his personality.  Cruz and Rubio, on the other hand, have been flailing ineffectually in the Senate their entire terms.  Can't win with that establishment.  Maybe Trump will succeed where the Republicans have failed.  I'm more than willing to give him a chance.

This is the sort of cult-of-personality thing that concerns me a little bit with Trump supporters.  Not "he won't flail, because he has a plan which involves doing a, b, and c"; but "he won't flail, because that's not what he does, because he's so yuuuuuge".  Show me the plan, Anatess--preferably one that's been consistent for more than six months.

Cruz and Rubio's lack of progress in enacting legislation is, frankly, a result of the fact that the Senate is full of people who are either ideologically committed to other agendas or bought-and-paid-for by donors like Trump.  But they've been very able spokesmen for conservatism, who have built the movement.  Trump surfs waves of public opinion to great effect--but Cruz and Rubio have been out making the waves.

Quote

A failure of an "R" is better than success of a "D".  MUCH MUCH MUCH BETTER.  Believe me (Trumpism)! 

Depends on what we're failing (or succeeding) at.  If we're secure in our conservatism, we shouldn't have to "worry" that Hillary's domestic agenda might actually make for a more prosperous country--because it won't; all we need to do is to be ready to show a better way when (not if) her policies fail.  On the other hand, if the goal is to save American lives by avoiding a stupid war--if Hillary is better at that than Trump is, I am quite willing to let her claim success.

Quote

And nobody - neither left nor right - believes Trump is part of American conservatism.

Anatess, that's just not correct.  Talk to a few progressives--see how they regard the guy.

13 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

P.S.  On Iran... that deal can be reversed.  You can invoke the clause that puts sanctions back in place just from the missile tests alone.  And if there's anybody who understands how money flows, it's Trump.

Maybe you can, but the political will to do it isn't there.  The Senate Republicans wouldn't kill the deal before it went through--they sure as heck won't do it afterwards.  Meanwhile, Iran keeps building commercial ties with foreign nations who will spring to its defense if we seek action from the UN (much as France did during Operation Iraqi Freedom--didn't want to lose all those lucrative oil-for-food contracts).  And while you can unilaterally wage war, you can't unilaterally make someone a pariah state.

Quote

But yes, he is a political neophyte.  One thing that made Schwarzenegger endorse Kasich over Trump is because he said his experience as a political neophyte serving as governor was that there were times when he just didn't know which questions to ask.

So, in this sense, he really needs the right people around him.  Obama was a political neophyte too - and he surrounded himself with neophytes too.  So you see him blundering over and over in his first 4 years.  And so yes, this is a big issue.  This is where the Republicans need to help him rather than oppose him when it becomes clear that he is the nominee.

One thing that's promising... he is consulting with The Heritage Foundation to advise him on Supreme Court nominees.

Oh, his foreign policy advisers... did you hear of that?  What do you think about it?

Re SCOTUS nominees - consulting is nice; but I don't think Trump really wants originalists or federalists on the court; whereas Cruz definitely does (and has the legal chops to discern the true believers from the imposters).

I don't know much about the foreign policy team he's announced.  National Review doesn't seem to think highly of them; but I haven't really heard of any of them except for Papadopoulos--I think maybe I read one of his columns over at Haaretz's website, once upon a time, but I don't remember much of it.

[The Folk Prophet]

I will never stamp my name for Trump or Hilary. Never.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

You think a liberal Supreme Court will only last 4 years?  You think the current US policy - the Iran Deal, the Castro deal, ISIS terrorist attacks, etc... will only be in effect for 4 years?  All because Trump is a jerk?

The strongest case to vote for Trump is for sure the Supreme court nominee. If you don't vote for him and Hillary nominates three liberals you have no right whatsoever to complain. 

[prisonchaplain]

MormonGator...I get the argument...but no, that is not enough...and the conclusion is not fair.  Trump has joked he would nominate his sister--a pro-choice supporter. When he backtracked (I was just joking), the withdrawal was due to nepotism, not her pro-abortion views.  He might nominate a conservative--he might not.  That is hardly solid ground for me to vote for him. Further, if HRC wins, and nominates a slate of liberal SCOTUS judges I will complain to high heaven...each time.  This is America--we get to yell at our politicians no matter how many bad votes we make.

[jerome1232]

Normally, I'm all for the general idea of this, get behind the Republican guy even if he's not your favorite one. 

But then Trump came around. If Trump is the face of the Republican party, then I guess the Republican party doesn't align as closely with my values as I thought. Perhaps there is a third party that does align with my values more closely. It could have been anyone but him, and I would've backed them. 

[Guest MormonGator]

12 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

MormonGator...I get the argument...but no, that is not enough...and the conclusion is not fair.  Trump has joked he would nominate his sister--a pro-choice supporter. When he backtracked (I was just joking), the withdrawal was due to nepotism, not her pro-abortion views.  He might nominate a conservative--he might not.  That is hardly solid ground for me to vote for him. Further, if HRC wins, and nominates a slate of liberal SCOTUS judges I will complain to high heaven...each time.  This is America--we get to yell at our politicians no matter how many bad votes we make.

You absolutely do, but it's hard to be taken seriously if you complain about HRC and they say "Oh I didn't vote." or "I voted for the Constitution party". Not that I don't take you seriously-but others have a right to be irritated if you use that argument. 

Edited March 25, 2016 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

14 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The beauty of Trump is that he's so all-over-the-map on issues, that you can always find something he's said on a particular issue that you can agree with.  Trump was in favor of sending ground troops before he was against it.

This is the sort of cult-of-personality thing that concerns me a little bit with Trump supporters.  Not "he won't flail, because he has a plan which involves doing a, b, and c"; but "he won't flail, because that's not what he does, because he's so yuuuuuge".  Show me the plan, Anatess--preferably one that's been consistent for more than six months.

Cruz and Rubio's lack of progress in enacting legislation is, frankly, a result of the fact that the Senate is full of people who are either ideologically committed to other agendas or bought-and-paid-for by donors like Trump.  But they've been very able spokesmen for conservatism, who have built the movement.  Trump surfs waves of public opinion to great effect--but Cruz and Rubio have been out making the waves.

Depends on what we're failing (or succeeding) at.  If we're secure in our conservatism, we shouldn't have to "worry" that Hillary's domestic agenda might actually make for a more prosperous country--because it won't; all we need to do is to be ready to show a better way when (not if) her policies fail.  On the other hand, if the goal is to save American lives by avoiding a stupid war--if Hillary is better at that than Trump is, I am quite willing to let her claim success.

Anatess, that's just not correct.  Talk to a few progressives--see how they regard the guy.

Maybe you can, but the political will to do it isn't there.  The Senate Republicans wouldn't kill the deal before it went through--they sure as heck won't do it afterwards.  Meanwhile, Iran keeps building commercial ties with foreign nations who will spring to its defense if we seek action from the UN (much as France did during Operation Iraqi Freedom--didn't want to lose all those lucrative oil-for-food contracts).  And while you can unilaterally wage war, you can't unilaterally make someone a pariah state.

Re SCOTUS nominees - consulting is nice; but I don't think Trump really wants originalists or federalists on the court; whereas Cruz definitely does (and has the legal chops to discern the true believers from the imposters).

I don't know much about the foreign policy team he's announced.  National Review doesn't seem to think highly of them; but I haven't really heard of any of them except for Papadopoulos--I think maybe I read one of his columns over at Haaretz's website, once upon a time, but I don't remember much of it.

I still haven't figured out how to split quotes... so this won't be a direct response to your specific points.  I'm just going to take the whole thing at its general point.

 

Once again.  I'm not a Trump supporter.  I'm Huckabee in 2008 (I really really wanted to get that Fair Tax moved forward), Gingrich in 2012, Carson in 2016.  But I'm not American.  So I only pick the guy that would be good for both the US and the Philippines but can't really do anything about it.  But, I'm a VERY ACTIVELY VOCAL anti-NeverTrump campaigner.  Cruz, Trump, and Kasich are all flawed candidates.  I can debate for or against all 3 of them.  They will all appeal to different types of voters.  I have no problem with Utah landsliding for Cruz or Florida landsliding for Trump or Ohio squeaking to Kasich.  No problem.  I don't even have a problem with a contested convention.  Any of the 3 will be fine with me, although I have a feeling Cruz/Trump supporters are going to jet if Kasich gets the nod and it will be more difficult to convince them to stay in the tent.  What twists my bloomers is when a Republican helps put Hillary in the White House... and that's the NeverTrumpsters.  They would rather have Hillary than Trump.  And so I find myself having to defend the guy!  I had to defend RomneyCare and being Mormon back in 2012 when I was not much of a Romney fan too.  But the Romney attacks back in 2012 was not as vicious from the Republican side, so I didn't get involved until the general elections.  This is really the very first time that I've seen Republicans cannibalize their own front-runner.

Okay, that said.

If you're going to analyze Trump, you can't do it from consistent political plans.  He's never, in his entire life, been a politician.  His entire life experience is dealing with politics from the outside.  So, if you want a proven political platform, Trump won't be your guy.  He has none.  He doesn't know enough about the inside workings of Washington to come up with one that would be solid and he won't have to change when he gets into office and surveys the lay of the land.  Forming a policy is not a one-man show.  Trump is essentially a one-man show right now.  He has no political handlers, he has no political analysts, he has no campaign speech writers (except for the AIPAC speech - his newly minted foreign policy team collaborated on that).  He has no meaningful team of advisers (his foreign policy one is just a starter pack).  He has a campaign staff - experts at running campaigns, presenting a Vision and Mission statement but no farther.  That team is an impressive bunch maximizing their campaign results from a small budget.  But they can't run the White House.  He can't have detailed plans until he forms his advisory team - the political experts.  And if he has to form a team right now, he'll have a very tiny pool of choices - he has first to convince people they won't go to hell if their names get floated as a potential part of his team, let alone pick the best out of them.  Having to pull a team off of that scenario is suicidal.  That's just a fact.  All the other politicians have developed their platform their entire careers.  They didn't just start laying it out last July.  Carson had the same challenge.  Besides his healthcare plan, the rest is really bare bones especially his foreign policy.

That's the prism you have to look at when talking about a Carson or Trump candidacy.  Now, for a one-man-show having stood on the debate floor against Rubio and Cruz - whose entire careers are spent debating policies and laws day in and day out - and still remain standing is short of miraculous.  Especially since, for some reason, Americans think the best debater should be President... uhm... hello, the best debater should be in Congress - that's what Congressmen do day in and day out. 

Anyway, If you'd rather elect Hillary than a political neophyte, then you'll pick Hillary over Carson too.  I can't help you with that other than to say, just observe how he picks his team and see if Hillary would still be better.  There's no other defense for that.

So, about the team that he has picked from his very meager choices... Half of them agrees with him, the other half were vocal with their criticisms of his foreign policy statement so much so that the spin is Trump is such an idiot that he doesn't even know that half the people in his team are anti-Trumpsters.  One of them is an oil/energy expert.  None of them have served the foreign policies of the last 2 presidencies.  None of them have loyalties to current or previous foreign policies so much so that the spin is Trump shows no respect for existing treaties and alliances (and the establishment, once again, is fit to be tied over this).  Yes, I'm skeptical but at the same time I'm impressed.  This is a totally new way of doing things.  So from this, I can see several premature conclusions:  1.) He will not have an all-Republican cabinet... pros - no echo chamber, cons - challenge for ultra conservatives, 2.) He is serious about that oil... pros - hit them at the heart of their resources regardless of optics, cons - bad optics, 3.) This will not be a continuation of either Bush's or Obama's policies... pros - avoid the failures of both, cons - introduces a measure of unpredictability (I'm still not sure if this is a complete con... unpredictability can also work for us as the enemy can't predict how we are going to respond as well).  I don't have high expectations that a detailed plan is coming out soon.  This initial group sounds like they're going to be arguing for a while before the plan gets formed.

Now, both Rubio and Cruz are career politicians.  They've never had to work outside of it.  So, just like Carson/Trump would understand political procedures and constitutional law from a theoretical standpoint, Rubio and Cruz would understand political impacts on economic movement from a theoretical standpoint.  So, at that level, you have a choice whether it matters to you more that Rubio/Cruz has no private sector experience or it matters to you more that Carson/Trump has no public sector experience.  Hillary is an ingrained career politician - she's grown moss in there.  So, would you rather have her lifetime-long public sector experience or would you rather have Trump's lifetime-long private sector experience.  If you really think public sector experience is a hard requirement and you'd rather have Hillary than no-experience Trump, then I can't help you with that either. 

But, if you're voting Hillary because Trump is vindictive, cold-blooded, rude, and crass... then there's A WHOLE SLEW OF DEFENSE FOR THAT.  I can debate that all day long.  Hillary runs circles around Trump in the vindictive, cold-hearted arena.  She just has a whole team of political imagery presenters that polishes and brushes and makes her shiny so you don't remember the people that has ended up dead on her doorstep.

[anatess2]

15 hours ago, LeSellers said:

How? The money has already been released. The sanctions will not be re-imposed because Russia has no interest in doing it, and Russia is Iran's biggest trading partner.

Lehi

The money flows.  Iran spending the money on Iranian economy - fine... especially if they buy Airbuses with it.  Iran spending the money to fund Hezbollah weaponry... not fine.  That money trail can be tracked and can be stopped.

[anatess2]

14 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I will never stamp my name for Trump or Hilary. Never.

That's half a vote for Hillary.  But it's better than a full vote.

Just a note:  You got Obama for 8 because evangelicals thought the same of Romney.

[LeSellers]

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The money flows.  Iran spending the money on Iranian economy - fine... especially if they buy Airbuses with it.  Iran spending the money to fund Hezbollah weaponry... not fine.  That money trail can be tracked and can be stopped.

Once it's spent, it's spent,whether on Hezbollah or tobacco.

And the oil income will not stop, nor will anything else, income or outgo, because they have friends who will take that cash, irrespective of the items bought.

Lehi

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Once it's spent, it's spent,whether on Hezbollah or tobacco.

And the oil income will not stop, nor will anything else, income or outgo, because they have friends who will take that cash, irrespective of the items bought.

Lehi

Yes, most of the money has been spent paying debts.  But money doesn't just disappear into the ether.

Oil income will not stop... and shouldn't.  You don't want civilian Iranians to starve.  But the friends who will take that cash... can be tracked.

 

[LeSellers]

37 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, most of the money has been spent paying debts.  But money doesn't just disappear into the ether.

But the friends who will take that cash... can be tracked.

 

The money may not disappear, but you cannot unbuy rifles and bullets, trucks, tanks and howitzers. And tracking the money only "counts" if there is something you can do to those friends. That's highly unlikely. The world is too interconnected for that.

Further, almost no one who was a party to the Bush sanctions is now willing to reinstate them, no matter what Iran does with the money, the oil, or anything else.

Lehi

[anatess2]

26 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

The money may not disappear, but you cannot unbuy rifles and bullets, trucks, tanks and howitzers. And tracking the money only "counts" if there is something you can do to those friends. That's highly unlikely. The world is too interconnected for that.

Further, almost no one who was a party to the Bush sanctions is now willing to reinstate them, no matter what Iran does with the money, the oil, or anything else.

Lehi

I can agree with this.

[zil]

12 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

...  Trump has joked he would nominate his sister--a pro-choice supporter. When he backtracked (I was just joking), the withdrawal was due to nepotism, not her pro-abortion views.  He might nominate a conservative--he might not.  That is hardly solid ground for me to vote for him. Further, if HRC wins, and nominates a slate of liberal SCOTUS judges ....

PC: do you see the logic flaw?  Trump may or may not nominate a pro-abortion judge.  HRC *certainly* will nominate a pro-abortion judge.  So if you want a *chance* that the nominated judge will be pro-life, Trump is the better chance.

That said, the only things worse than Trump are Sanders and Hillary.  IMO, if Republicans were smart, they'd all (including the remaining "candidates", and prior candidates who have backed Trump) get behind Cruz.  At this point, Cruz is the only viable alternative to Trump, and I don't believe for a minute that Trump is capable of defeating Hillary.

[Guest MormonGator]

To me many Trumpers are obnoxious (not you Anatess). They seem as arrogant, condescending and mean as the man they admire. They don't know or don't care that in politics you have to build relationships, or else you will lose. 

They say horrible nasty things, basically try to push you around then say "vote for our guy." No. 

Edited March 25, 2016 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

Here you go...

Fresh off the press.

1.) PAC puts Melania's GQ nude photo on a negative ad.
... okay, I know Mormons go ape over nude photos.  But it is hard fact that a majority of Americans - especially women - don't worry about this stuff. 

2.) Trump threatens to dump a Heidi-related bomb into the ring.
... yes, Cruz is not related to the PAC - but unlike the GOP immediately distancing themselves from the attack on Cruz' children, Cruz was silent about the Melania ad, so I can see the logic of tying this to Cruz.  Trump goes farther (ugh, this guy needs to get his tweeter account handed over to Pierson's team) and puts a side-by-side photo of Melania and Heidi...  He doesn't say it directly.... but it's Trump... it's his M.O. - he drops a one-liner and leaves you to figure out what he means by it.  So, the direct implication is that Melania looks happy, Heidi looks angry.  The indirect implication is - Melania smokes Heidi in the looks department.  The impression is calculated.  Of course it is.

3.)  Cruz defends Heidi
... even goes Trumpism by name-calling Trump a sniveling coward.  Par for the course.  Brilliant move.  The Real Men comment will get a lot of mileage well into the general elections.  This is how it's done folks!

4.)  Trump drops the bomb.
... via National Enquirer.  Not sure if this is all of it, but it's a pretty significant blast.

So, I'm looking at this and here's my conclusions:
A Trump Presidency will leave you alone until you attack.  When you do, not only is he willing to hit below the belt, he will pull your pants off.  I'm almost wanting him to win just to see how he deals with Hillary.

Now, you might think... pants off?  He's going to nuke Iran!  Okay, nuking Iran is not a one-person decision folks.  It's not that easy to push that red button.  But... pushing that button will always be on the table of options with Trump.  Same with going to war - that needs Congress approval.  Is this a better deal than Hillary?  Hillary will first check if it is good for her legacy or her pocketbook to push that button... even if it's the last national security option available.

Or... he's going to do unconstitutional stuff!  He's going to do illegal stuff!  That's more possible - He plays within legal bounds but he will push those bounds.  Lots of examples... Mar-a-lago flagpole brouhaha... the flagpole he put in was too tall.  Many estates around the area also had too tall flagpoles, so he decided to put one on knowing it's against ordinances.  He got fined by Palm Beach, he sued them for discrimination.  They settled by him lowering the flagpole and everyone else lowering the flagpole and him having to give money to veterans.  But... instead of just getting a shorter flagpole, he raised the ground and then put the shorter flagpole on it.  Now it's legal but the size of Mar-a-lago still didn't dwarf his flag.  Same thing for the helicopter rides at Iowa State Fair.  State fair says he can't give helicopter rides to kids in the fair so he rents the lot across from the fair entrance and gave helicopter rides.  Is this a better deal than Hillary?  Uhm... Email Server.  Clinton Foundation.  Need I say more?

But, but... Trump is dirty!  He'll soil the White House!  Nude photos of a First Lady!  And he'll expose other people's dirt too!  No defense there.  Is this better than Hillary?  Which one would you rather have - GQ nude photo of Melania or the trail of irreparably smeared women after Hillary was done with them.

 

[anatess2]

27 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

To me many Trumpers are obnoxious (not you Anatess). They seem as arrogant, condescending and mean as the man they admire. They don't know or don't care that in politics you have to build relationships, or else you will lose. 

They say horrible nasty things, basically try to push you around then say "vote for our guy." No. 

You can pretty much say this about any top-tier candidate's supporters.  Take your pick... Obama supporters, Hillary supporters, Bernie supporters, Cruz supporters... does Kasich have supporters (just kidding!)?.  Especially if you're engaging them on social media.  Social media is just the garbage dump of drive-by commenters.  But yes, Trump and Bernie have larger social media presence, so they're louder there.

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You can pretty much say this about any top-tier candidate's supporters.  Take your pick... Obama supporters, Hillary supporters, Bernie supporters, Cruz supporters... does Kasich have supporters (just kidding!)?.  Especially if you're engaging them on social media.  Social media is just the garbage dump of drive-by commenters.  But yes, Trump and Bernie have larger social media presence, so they're louder there.

So they don't understand that it turns other people off, or they don't care?  As a Trumper you might want to seriously let people know to cool it down a notch. You can be a polite person who supports your candidate. I supported Rand vehemently but shockingly, I never used name calling or bullying. 

Edited March 25, 2016 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

So they don't understand that it turns other people off, or they don't care? You can be a polite person who supports your candidate. I supported Rand vehemently but shockingly, I never used name calling or bullying. 

No... they don't understand basic good manners and right conduct.  I took myself out of Mommy groups and even the Disney group because of it.