For NeverTrumpers: An appeal to not vote Hillary over Trump

[anatess2]

And here's Donald Trump in action... fixing government incompetency.

 

 

 

[yjacket]

Anatess2, you are unfortunately wasting your breath. 

Some people just can't seem to get simple numbers. Of votes cast for the 4 candidates who have acquired more than say 10 delegates Trump wins 40% of the vote. Of the votes cast for the current candidates Trump wins 47% of the vote. Of the 4 candidates who have acquired more than 10 delegates Trump has 49%, of the 3 remaining candidates he has 54%. Cruz by contrast is in the 30-35% range for all of the above. With Kasich taking the rest.

There is an assumption that should Kasich drop out that all of his support would go to Cruz, which simply isn't the case.  We don't know how much support would go to Trump but it requires no great logical feat to assume that enough of Kasich's support would drift to Trump to push him over 50%.

Currently, if the delegates nominated Cruz (who hasn't earned more than 32% of the current delegates) over Trump, then I do believe the party will fracture. Cruz has overwhelming grassroots support, but as far as actual voters he has a good chunk-but no where near close to Trump. The perception from the people will be that the system is rigged and in fact Cruz just might do more damage to the conservative cause.  

If Trump and Cruz were close together on support with Cruz behind <5% or so then a good case could be made, but they aren't. Unfortunately, NeverTrumpers seem to think that a vote for Kasich or Cruz is a vote against Trump, which is a pretty large logical leap to make and in fact doing so makes the case for their guy even worse.

Edited April 20, 2016 by yjacket

[anatess2]

yjacket, it's a narrative.  It's the only way the non-Trumpers can win.  That's politics as usual... spin spin spin spin as much as you can and hope people warm up to it.  Cruz decided that since he can't make enough of a case to the general public, he'll make the case to the delegates instead - as it is easier to campaign to 2,474 of them than millions of them - even as it is more expensive to do so.  Hence, his success in the caucuses.  Trump decided that since he has close to 100% name recognition off the bat plus the ability to move the media where he chooses, he's going to deliver his message through a populist campaign - this is the smart route for somebody who doesn't want to spend too much money.

Both methods are fine... and it is legitimate for Cruz... and even Kasich... to hope for a win on the 2nd and succeeding ballots.  Yes, how they're not accused of being the dividers is beyond me... but c'est la vie.

BUT... The Donald is spotlighting a lot of the problems in the political class - his latest spotlight is on a system that was able to disconnect the delegates from the people - the representative part of it allegedly lost in some cases.  He is spinning that yarn right now.  Yes, it is true that this disconnect is built into the rules so that the party can have control over the nomination - the latest target was Ron Paul, eliminated through Romney's Rule 40(b) at the 2012 convention.  I mean yeah, you can say, The Rules, The Rules... but you know how people sign important stuff like home mortgages without reading the fine print - or even if they do, not have any idea how it impacts them.... and so a bubble bursts and the people are left with the bag not knowing what exactly hit them.  So yeah, that's what The Donald is spotlighting.  This can get troublesome because even as he is railing on the system, he is indirectly also railing at the delegates.  A lot of these delegates are die-hard Republicans - your grassroots ordinary citizens.  And they invest sweat blood tears in addition to their own money on these things.

Interestingly... Trump, when plan A did not pan out quite perfectly, is more than ready with Plan B... so, in comes Manafort - campaigner extraordinaire.  I still can't believe he got Manafort.  That's like an Ace of Spades.  He can run circles around Karl Rove.  Anyway, the "establishment" have been saying - anybody who works for Trump will never find a job after the campaign is over... they'll be soiled goods.  Well, I guess Manafort is too old to care about that stuff.  And so, what do you do when you are self-funding your campaign and you find yourself in the midst of a delegates campaign.... Manafort's plan to fit The Donald's way of thinking is - don't bother spending money on them in their own States like Colorado or Wyoming... wait until they are all together in one room.... which is... Cleveland.  Then turn on your 1000kw charm and deliver the message... on Air Trump, as he invites you all to a meeting at the Trump Hotel in Chicago one afternoon and then zip y'all to the Mar-a-lago for a steak dinner before zipping you back to Cleveland for a good night's sleep.  Brilliant.

So yeah, it's just fine for Cruz and Kasich and their supporters to keep their hopes up.  If Trump can't close the deal, then he wasn't as good as his supporters think he is, right?

That said... that's the game of politics that has sunk the good old US of A.  Because unless you're a multi-billionaire like The Donald, you have no recourse but to put yourself at the mercy of the political donor class.  Here's a video that clearly illustrates what I'm talking about:

 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2016 by anatess2

[yjacket]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

yjacket, it's a narrative.  It's the only way the non-Trumpers can win. 

Personally, I really like the delegate system and I think that is the system we should have. All the major decision for the future of the US have been made via a delegate/convention system.  To secede from Britain was decided by delegates from each of the States (who were chosen from state and local conventions).  The South decided to secede based on the delegate/convention system. Neither of those actions where taken by the State governments, it was through a convention process. Even the Electoral College is a delegate system that was originally designed to provide a list of nominees to the House of Representative. The Founders originally believed that groups of states would vote for "their" guy and the House of Reps would have to ultimately decide.

Internally and culturally, the people of this country understood that 75 years ago.  It is why in the 1920s democracy was a bad word, b/c the US never was a democracy-it was a republic based on representative democracy.  The representative portion being electing delegates to represent you and the democracy portion being that in general 50% vote of the representative (or delegates) would carry the day.

The problem right now is that culturally people don't think of it like that anymore.  National Conventions are more of a crowning/infomertial rather than an actual business meeting. Did you know that in ~1972 during General Conference Spence W. Kimball (IIRC) voiced his opinion and encouraged LDS members to attend their local conventions and caucuses? Today, the message is simply to vote.

If we really want to go back to that system as a country (and I think we should) then the parties need to eliminate all primaries and simply hold caucuses. That accomplishes both goals- you get an understanding of how the populace wants to vote at large at the same time maintaining the delegate system. You don't delude voters into thinking that their vote matters.  As of right now, the primary system is completely disconnected from the delegate system and that is why people scream rigged. For example, in my state in order to be considered to be a delegate one must start the process over a month prior to the primary vote! So this idea that "well the rules are there and they should know them" is completely bogus. I guarantee you probably less than 10% (if that) of the actual voters in my state even knew about the delegate system when it mattered. And since I've gone through the process in 2012 of actually recruiting people to be delegates, it is actually a little bit of a sell to convince people who have never heard about the delegate system that the real way the nomination is picked is by the delegates.  Not only is the process completely separate from the primary, but one must take at least 1 Saturday a month from Feb-May to be involved and each Saturday is pretty much at least a half-day (it's not just a 1-2 hour meeting, it's a 4-5 hour affair).

So yeah, I do believe as things stand right now (and it could change) to nominate Cruz over Trump would really piss people off.  If the party wants to solve this problem, then eliminate primaries (but they don't want to do that, b/c many of the State and local (not all) parties actually like it that people don't know about the system-it's easier for people to control and maintain their fiefdoms)

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Personally, I really like the delegate system and I think that is the system we should have. All the major decision for the future of the US have been made via a delegate/convention system.  To secede from Britain was decided by delegates from each of the States (who were chosen from state and local conventions).  The South decided to secede based on the delegate/convention system. Neither of those actions where taken by the State governments, it was through a convention process. Even the Electoral College is a delegate system that was originally designed to provide a list of nominees to the House of Representative. The Founders originally believed that groups of states would vote for "their" guy and the House of Reps would have to ultimately decide.

Internally and culturally, the people of this country understood that 75 years ago.  It is why in the 1920s democracy was a bad word, b/c the US never was a democracy-it was a republic based on representative democracy.  The representative portion being electing delegates to represent you and the democracy portion being that in general 50% vote of the representative (or delegates) would carry the day.

The problem right now is that culturally people don't think of it like that anymore.  National Conventions are more of a crowning/infomertial rather than an actual business meeting. Did you know that in ~1972 during General Conference Spence W. Kimball (IIRC) voiced his opinion and encouraged LDS members to attend their local conventions and caucuses? Today, the message is simply to vote.

If we really want to go back to that system as a country (and I think we should) then the parties need to eliminate all primaries and simply hold caucuses. That accomplishes both goals- you get an understanding of how the populace wants to vote at large at the same time maintaining the delegate system. You don't delude voters into thinking that their vote matters.  As of right now, the primary system is completely disconnected from the delegate system and that is why people scream rigged. For example, in my state in order to be considered to be a delegate one must start the process over a month prior to the primary vote! So this idea that "well the rules are there and they should know them" is completely bogus. I guarantee you probably less than 10% (if that) of the actual voters in my state even knew about the delegate system when it mattered. And since I've gone through the process in 2012 of actually recruiting people to be delegates, it is actually a little bit of a sell to convince people who have never heard about the delegate system that the real way the nomination is picked is by the delegates.  Not only is the process completely separate from the primary, but one must take at least 1 Saturday a month from Feb-May to be involved and each Saturday is pretty much at least a half-day (it's not just a 1-2 hour meeting, it's a 4-5 hour affair).

So yeah, I do believe as things stand right now (and it could change) to nominate Cruz over Trump would really piss people off.  If the party wants to solve this problem, then eliminate primaries (but they don't want to do that, b/c many of the State and local (not all) parties actually like it that people don't know about the system-it's easier for people to control and maintain their fiefdoms)

I have a different idea.  But before I explain it, I first have to point out that it is irrevocable fact that the current system's weaknesses are now clearly exposed because the Republicans got themselves in a situation where each delegate vote matters.  This is not new problems - this is old problems that just never mattered before because there were no NeverWhoevers.  If this was any other election and say, Bush, was the front-runner, we would have a presumptive nominee well before now.  I mean - it's pretty crazy to still have Kasich who needs over 1,000 delegates to attain majority still not conceding the race!

The system of caucuses was good in the days where information is not as accessible as it is today.  So, you have people that caucus to choose delegates who they will entrust with gathering all the information and then they caucus so the delegates can present the information to everybody and they mull it over on what the best course of action is.  This has become an archaic system in the information age.  Primaries are the more sensible system when information is at everybody's fingertips and people have the ability to have the same information that delegates have.

But, this system of a Primary or a Caucus where you vote for a candidate and then somebody else slates the delegates to represent that vote that may have no intention of carrying out the will of his representation is not a Representative Democracy.  It's a political elitist system.

So, this is what I propose - Have each and every candidate choose and submit their delegates in each Congressional District.  Run the campaign with these delegates campaigning for the candidate in their district in addition to the populist rallies.  Then put the delegates for each candidate on the ballot together with their affiliation - for example John Doe (Trumpster).  Then the people get to vote for the delegate they want to send to the convention by popular vote.  Unbound delegates can be put on the ballot as well... if people choose the unbound delegate then they basically vote for any-of-the-above.  Each voter may vote for 2 candidates - 1st choice and 2nd choice.  Then at the convention, the delegates vote their representation and if nobody gets simple majority, then the delegate may vote his representation's 2nd choice.

These delegates are responsible for crafting the party platform for the general election.

Now, this will never happen because the RNC party elites want to keep control of the party.  And State committees want to keep control of their state's conventions.

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

Currently, if the delegates nominated Cruz (who hasn't earned more than 32% of the current delegates) over Trump, then I do believe the party will fracture. Cruz has overwhelming grassroots support, but as far as actual voters he has a good chunk-but no where near close to Trump. The perception from the people will be that the system is rigged and in fact Cruz just might do more damage to the conservative cause. 

I like your idea (expressed in your most recent post) of going back to a conventions-only system; but I'm not sure it's possible because (unless I'm wrong) a lot of open primaries are the result of state statute, not party preference.  A one-party-ruled state like California can compel the Republicans to let Democrats help choose their officers and nominees, and there's not a darned thing that California's Republicans can do about it.

But that perception of rigged systems you talk of--what I find aggravating, is that the perception is largely being cultivated by Trump himself.  That's also where I would take issue with Anatess' complaint that Trump, but not Kasich or Cruz, are getting labelled "dividers".  It's a campaign, so sure, it's supposed to be divisive--up to a point.  The problem is when a candidate pursues a scorched-earth policy by attacking the conservative fixtures--both individuals and institutions--who have declined to support him; and when a candidate ultimately impugns the legitimacy of the nomination process itself.

In other words--Trump, and his surrogates, are deliberately creating the potential of party warfare, and then presenting Trump as the only individual who can stave off the impending warfare.  I find that, frankly, thuggish.

As for damage to the "conservative cause":  unless I'm much mistaken, Donald Trump:

• supported TARP;
• supported the stimulus;
• supported the GM bailout (with, it is true, a hope that they'd go through the bankruptcy courts);
• opposes free trade and advocates a 45% tariff;
• wants to raise taxes on the wealthy;
• opposes fundamental Social Security reform (except to the extent of trimming alleged waste within the system);
• has not disavowed his prior support for affirmative action;
• supported the assault weapons ban;
• has made it a hallmark of his campaign to vilify some of this country's most solid conservative individuals and institutions just because they publicly disagreed with him;
• openly boasts of having bought politicians;
• openly boasts of having slithered out of contractual obligations;
• claims he can--and has--built cozy relationships with insiders the better to get deals done, but also claims to be outside of "the establishment";
• has consistently run a campaign based on advancing himself, not his ideas; and often declines to articulate specifically what those ideas even are.

Most of those kinds of things can be reconciled to a populist or a Rockefeller Republican (as Trump has described himself), but it's pretty hard to reconcile them to conservatism.  Even in the event of a Trump nomination and victory, conservative Republicans will at best be forever keeping a vigilant eye on him; and at worst playing active defense against their own President. 

On the other hand, if the nomination goes to anyone else and Trump supporters decline to turn out for the nominee, it's because they are guilty of the exact same thing of which they accuse the NeverTrumpers:  They find a Hillary candidacy more palatable than any Republican candidate other than their own.  They are more interested in getting their own guy the nomination, than they are concerned about advancing conservatism or containing progressivism. 

A party perennially held hostage by such people isn't going to accomplish much for conservatism anyways; and if the Trumpers decide that it's time for a divorce--who am I to disagree?  Yeah, we may (probably will) lose to Hillary in the 2016 general if the Trumpers make good their threat.  Then again, Trump will just as likely lose to Hillary even if we all unite behind him, which compels us to ask the question, "what then?".  As you may recall, Barry Goldwater lost the 1964 election in spectacular fashion--but he sowed the seeds for a conservative movement that has lasted for fifty years.  I highly doubt Nelson Rockefeller would have accomplished that, had he beaten Goldwater for the nomination; and I'm quite certain that Trump won't do it either, simply because Trump's campaign is mostly about himself. 

Either way--There's no denying that a Clinton election and a new multi-party system will hurt a lot in the short run.  But inter-party coalitions of traditional Republican constituencies--and maybe a few Democratic constituencies as well--could be formed on an ad hoc basis to try to contain various aspects of Hillary's agenda, just as Bill Clinton was in some ways contained and even driven to the right during his own administration.  And a multi-party system offers a lot of intriguing possibilities.  Imagine a Democratic party, many of whose constituent groups are naturally hostile to each other, no longer united by its fear of a monolithic Republican party.  Conservatives might enlist union support in immigration reform, or college students on student loan reform, or hispanic votes on family values issues, or feminist votes on LGBTQ issues.  And once conservatives give up hopes of being in a political, unilateral power-wielding "majority", maybe they can focus on taking their case to the American people and building a movement that will continue to be healthy and vibrant when Donald Trump has gone the way of the dodo.

So yeah, a victorious Republican party united under the banner of conservatism is probably the ideal outcome here; and I'm certainly not calling for the immediate formation of a third party or a purge of the Republican party.  But if the Trumpers--or the NeverTrumpers--are talking about a party schism, then I'm willing to have 'em show their cards and let the hand play out.  Best that any schism come sooner rather than later, in my book.   

48 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

yjacket, it's a narrative.  It's the only way the non-Trumpers can win.  That's politics as usual... spin spin spin spin as much as you can and hope people warm up to it.  Cruz decided that since he can't make enough of a case to the general public, he'll make the case to the delegates instead - as it is easier to campaign to 2,474 of them than millions of them - even as it is more expensive to do so. 

I think Cruz is betting that the delegates will be interested in discussing the actual issues, rather than vagaries or name-calling or boasts about the size of the candidates'--er--anatomy, or analyses of the relative hotness of the candidates' wives.  In short, he's hoping that the level of discourse at convention will be far above the Khardashian-esque train wreck that we've hitherto seen in this election cycle.  (Good luck with that, but whatever . . .)

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think Cruz is betting that the delegates will be interested in discussing the actual issues, rather than vagaries or name-calling or boasts about the size of the candidates'--er--anatomy, or analyses of the relative hotness of the candidates' wives.  In short, he's hoping that the level of discourse at convention will be far above the Khardashian-esque train wreck that we've hitherto seen in this election cycle.  (Good luck with that, but whatever . . .)

Then you haven't been paying attention.  Sad, really.  I just posted video after video of Trump and the issues.  He's been talking issues since day 1 that it has become a mantra - The Wall, Mexico is gonna pay for it, Trade Deals, Hedge Fund Guys, Iran Deal, etc. etc... everybody except you heard it.  But then that's what happens when you let the drive-by media that the Republicans have been railing about year after year after year feed you your election cycle.

Edited April 20, 2016 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

49 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I have a different idea.  But before I explain it, I first have to point out that it is irrevocable fact that the current system's weaknesses are now clearly exposed because the Republicans got themselves in a situation where each delegate vote matters.  This is not new problems - this is old problems that just never mattered before because there were no NeverWhoevers.  If this was any other election and say, Bush, was the front-runner, we would have a presumptive nominee well before now.  I mean - it's pretty crazy to still have Kasich who needs over 1,000 delegates to attain majority still not conceding the race!

The system of caucuses was good in the days where information is not as accessible as it is today.  So, you have people that caucus to choose delegates who they will entrust with gathering all the information and then they caucus so the delegates can present the information to everybody and they mull it over on what the best course of action is.  This has become an archaic system in the information age.  Primaries are the more sensible system when information is at everybody's fingertips and people have the ability to have the same information that delegates have.

But, this system of a Primary or a Caucus where you vote for a candidate and then somebody else slates the delegates to represent that vote that may have no intention of carrying out the will of his representation is not a Representative Democracy.  It's a political elitist system.

So, this is what I propose - Have each and every candidate choose and submit their delegates in each Congressional District.  Run the campaign with these delegates campaigning for the candidate in their district in addition to the populist rallies.  Then put the delegates for each candidate on the ballot together with their affiliation - for example John Doe (Trumpster).  Then the people get to vote for the delegate they want to send to the convention by popular vote.  Unbound delegates can be put on the ballot as well... if people choose the unbound delegate then they basically vote for any-of-the-above.  Each voter may vote for 2 candidates - 1st choice and 2nd choice.  Then at the convention, the delegates vote their representation and if nobody gets simple majority, then the delegate may vote his representation's 2nd choice.

These delegates are responsible for crafting the party platform for the general election.

Now, this will never happen because the RNC party elites want to keep control of the party.  And State committees want to keep control of their state's conventions.

I think there were folks even at the 1860 convention who were pretty determined that they would never vote for Seward, or Chase.  That's a lot of why Lincoln was able to get in and take the nomination. 

I actually agree with you that it would be best to elect the delegates directly, but I'd like to keep a little more power in the hands of the delegates--bind them on the first ballot, and perhaps have them indicate their secondary preference, but also make it very clear that they may reserve the rights to change their mind at convention depending on the quality of the arguments presented there.  I do think that such a reform (heck, even if such a reform isn't made) needs to be accompanied by much stronger statutes preventing bribery/vote-peddling, or anything smacking thereof.

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think there were folks even at the 1860 convention who were pretty determined that they would never vote for Seward, or Chase.  That's a lot of why Lincoln was able to get in and take the nomination. 

I actually agree with you that it would be best to elect the delegates directly, but I'd like to keep a little more power in the hands of the delegates--bind them on the first ballot, and perhaps have them indicate their secondary preference, but also make it very clear that they may reserve the rights to change their mind at convention depending on the quality of the arguments presented there.  I do think that such a reform (heck, even if such a reform isn't made) needs to be accompanied by much stronger statutes preventing bribery/vote-peddling, or anything smacking thereof.

1860 should be your lesson in fracturing the votes.  The Republicans got lucky that the Democrats split, otherwise, Lincoln wouldn't be your President.  But even then... Lincoln won without the South... leading to secession... and.... the Civil War.  You don't want a repeat of that, I'm sure.

Edited April 20, 2016 by anatess2

[Guest MormonGator]

53 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

  I find that, frankly, thuggish.

As for damage to the "conservative cause":  unless I'm much mistaken, Donald Trump:

• supported TARP;
• supported the stimulus;
• supported the GM bailout (with, it is true, a hope that they'd go through the bankruptcy courts);
• opposes free trade and advocates a 45% tariff;
• wants to raise taxes on the wealthy;
• opposes fundamental Social Security reform (except to the extent of trimming alleged waste within the system);
• has not disavowed his prior support for affirmative action;
• supported the assault weapons ban;
• has made it a hallmark of his campaign to vilify some of this country's most solid conservative individuals and institutions just because they publicly disagreed with him;
• openly boasts of having bought politicians;
• openly boasts of having slithered out of contractual obligations;
• claims he can--and has--built cozy relationships with insiders the better to get deals done, but also claims to be outside of "the establishment";
• has consistently run a campaign based on advancing himself, not his ideas; and often declines to articulate specifically what those ideas even are.

 

Amen JAG. 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Then you haven't been paying attention.  Sad, really.  I just posted video after video of Trump and the issues.  He's been talking issues since day 1 that it has become a mantra - The Wall, Mexico is gonna pay for it, Trade Deals, Hedge Fund Guys, Iran Deal, etc. etc... everybody except you heard it.  But then that's what happens when you let the drive-by media that the Republicans have been railing about year after year after year feed you your election cycle.

Interestingly, just a month ago you yourself were openly claiming that we shouldn't expect to see specific plans from a candidate of Trump's magnitude.  More interestingly, a substantial number of the videos you've posted to this thread are puff-pieces and/or anti-free-trade rants, along with a fifty-four minute video from 1991.  Given that Trump failed spectacularly to present specifics in the three different debates I have watched, and instead pursued just the sort of infantile tactics I've described--why do you now insist that I watch more video of the guy--sometimes, video shot twenty-five years ago--as if that's supposed to tell me what his specific plans are for Iran in 2016?  And, come to think of it--why must Trump's arguments be presented via video?  You have to admit, that's kind of a time-intensive way to make your argument.  What is it about Trump that makes you think we have to actually watch him, versus just reading his ideas (such as they are)?  Is this a Kennedy-debates-Nixon-on-TV-versus-the-radio sort of thing?

I would also note that for someone who seems to think party unity is so important, you have been remarkably quick to hector me like an errant schoolboy just because I'm not impressed by your preferred candidate.

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

1860 should be your lesson in fracturing the votes.  The Republicans got lucky that the Democrats split, otherwise, Lincoln wouldn't be your President.  But even then... Lincoln won without the South... leading to secession... and.... the Civil War.  You don't want a repeat of that, I'm sure.

The Wikipedia gods claim that Lincoln had 180 electoral votes, to Breckenridge's (D), Douglas' (D), and Bell's (Constitutional Union) combined 123.  The only Lincoln states where the combined Democratic votes outnumbered Lincoln's were California (4 votes) and Oregon (3 votes)--and don't forget, Lincoln was left off the ballot in nine states (wouldn't have gotten him electoral votes, but probably would have padded his overall popular vote figure)

And re your talk of violence if the preferred candidate doesn't get the nomination:  That dog may have hunted in Egypt under Morsi, or Cuba under Castro, or the Philippines under Marcos. 

Here in the USA, it's just considered thuggery; and it reiterates to me the urgency that Trump and his goon squad not be allowed anywhere near the White House.

Edited April 21, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

1860 should be your lesson in fracturing the votes.  The Republicans got lucky that the Democrats split, otherwise, Lincoln wouldn't be your President.  But even then... Lincoln won without the South... leading to secession... and.... the Civil War.  You don't want a repeat of that, I'm sure.

I agree.  The South seceded specifically b/c Lincoln was elected, they thought (and rightly so) that he would not compromise and work with them. If anything the 1860 election should be a lesson in what happens when people are unwilling to work together.

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Here in the USA, it's just considered thuggery; and it reiterates to me the urgency that Trump and his goon squad not be allowed anywhere near the White House.

JAG, I get it but a significant percentage of the population disagrees with you and it is just amazing to me that people are so blinded by hatred of Trump that they don't see what will very likely occur should they go down this route.

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The Wikipedia gods claim that Lincoln had 180 electoral votes, to Breckenridge's (D), Douglas' (D), and Bell's (Constitutional Union) combined 123. 

By your logic Lincoln should never have been President, Lincoln received 39.8% of the popular vote (about what Trump has). It is very obvious looking at county by county results that the country wanted someone other than Lincoln. Lincoln was unwilling to compromise with the 60% of the vote that didn't vote for him and the Civil War happened.  More reasonable men than Lincoln understood that compromise was necessary and they did so. Unfortunately by the 1860s each side (the North and the South) had vilified each other so dramatically that it would have taken a much better man than Lincoln to have united the country without bloodshed (which was possible).

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Here in the USA, it's just considered thuggery; and it reiterates to me the urgency that Trump and his goon squad not be allowed anywhere near the White House.

Not really . . . we have just become so accustomed to the modern politics, the politics of 100+ years ago were very rough and tumble, Burr vs. Hamilton is an easy example.

[anatess2]

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Interestingly, just a month ago you yourself were openly claiming that we shouldn't expect to see specific plans from a candidate of Trump's magnitude.  More interestingly, a substantial number of the videos you've posted to this thread are puff-pieces and/or anti-free-trade rants, along with a fifty-four minute video from 1991.  Given that Trump failed spectacularly to present specifics in the three different debates I have watched, and instead pursued just the sort of infantile tactics I've described--why do you now insist that I watch more video of the guy--sometimes, video shot twenty-five years ago--as if that's supposed to tell me what his specific plans are for Iran in 2016?  And, come to think of it--why must Trump's arguments be presented via video?  You have to admit, that's kind of a time-intensive way to make your argument.  What is it about Trump that makes you think we have to actually watch him, versus just reading his ideas (such as they are)?  Is this a Kennedy-debates-Nixon-on-TV-versus-the-radio sort of thing?

I would also note that for someone who seems to think party unity is so important, you have been remarkably quick to hector me like an errant schoolboy just because I'm not impressed by your preferred candidate.

The Wikipedia gods claim that Lincoln had 180 electoral votes, to Breckenridge's (D), Douglas' (D), and Bell's (Constitutional Union) combined 123.  The only Lincoln states where the combined Democratic votes outnumbered Lincoln's were California (4 votes) and Oregon (3 votes)--and don't forget, Lincoln was left off the ballot in nine states (wouldn't have gotten him electoral votes, but probably would have padded his overall popular vote figure)

And re your talk of violence if the preferred candidate doesn't get the nomination:  That dog may have hunted in Egypt under Morsi, or Cuba under Castro, or the Philippines under Marcos. 

Here in the USA, it's just considered thuggery; and it reiterates to me the urgency that Trump and his goon squad not be allowed anywhere near the White House.

I didn't say we shouldn't expect specific plans.  I said, staking your pick on a specific plan is practically useless.  Presidents don't make plans - they make visions and missions and EXECUTE plans made by Congress.  You can "I'm gonna do it like this"  all day long on the stump... it's not gonna happen like that... because we're not in a dictatorship.  The past 20 years should be enough to prove that.

But... specific plans have been laid out by the Trump Campaign since day 1... You just don't like it because it's not DETAILED plans.  Well... there's more details now.  We're close to the nomination you know.

No, I have no beef over you not being impressed by Trump.  That's not my intent to have you impressed.  Any of the 17 Republican candidates are impressive enough to be far superior than Hillary.  My intent is for you to realize that when it comes down to Hillary vs Trump, Trump is superior.  I'm also trying to make you realize that Trump voters are not blind idiots.  I don't treat you like an errant schoolboy.  I call you out on your usage of the Democrat playbook.  Party unity is for the candidates to call.  I am simply making the case that Trump is better than Hillary.

And I posted videos because videos are superior - that's why I broke down the 50-minute video into what is talked about on what minute so you can watch pieces of it if you prefer.  It's fact that you reading what I'm trying to say is far less effective than you watching and hearing me say it.  But, I can give it to you in text if you like... it would be news items - which can be biased depending on the source - because, really, how many interviews are provided with transcripts?  But then, a lot of his stuff is in his books... which takes hours to read.

Talk of violence about the nomination?  When did I say that?  I have no problem with Cruz or Kasich - OR ANY OF THE 17 REPUBLICANS getting the nomination.  ZERO.  None whatsoever.  Lindsay Graham is an idiot and a half, but I'll campaign for him over Hillary.

And "Trump and his goon squad" is a drive-by media fabrication.  The guy with the paid protesters is Bernie.

 

[anatess2]

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As for damage to the "conservative cause":  unless I'm much mistaken, Donald Trump:

• supported TARP;
• supported the stimulus;
• supported the GM bailout (with, it is true, a hope that they'd go through the bankruptcy courts);
• opposes free trade and advocates a 45% tariff;
• wants to raise taxes on the wealthy;
• opposes fundamental Social Security reform (except to the extent of trimming alleged waste within the system);
• has not disavowed his prior support for affirmative action;
• supported the assault weapons ban;
• has made it a hallmark of his campaign to vilify some of this country's most solid conservative individuals and institutions just because they publicly disagreed with him;
• openly boasts of having bought politicians;
• openly boasts of having slithered out of contractual obligations;
• claims he can--and has--built cozy relationships with insiders the better to get deals done, but also claims to be outside of "the establishment";
• has consistently run a campaign based on advancing himself, not his ideas; and often declines to articulate specifically what those ideas even are.

 

Trump couldn't have supported TARP or the stimulus or the GM bailout because... he was not a Congressman or a politician.  So, all this is something he said to someone on an interview from a businessman running over 500 businesses...

So here's the interview about TARP:  http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/09/26/donald-trump-on-700-billion-bailout-plan.html

Here's the interview about the auto bailouts:  http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/trump-auto-bailout/2008/12/10/id/327036/

He has repeatedly stated he advocates Free Trade but Trade Deficits is not Free.  "Advocating 45% tarrif" is silly - which country?  What product?.  Nobody - especially not a guy like Trump who is an expert on economy and finance - advocates for across the board tariffs of all imports.  Rather, Trump wants to negotiate trade deals on a country-by-country basis - hence, no NAFTA, TPP, etc.  Here's his plan for China:  https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/us-china-trade-reform  He has a different one for Mexico as it is incorporated into his immigration plan.

Raise taxes on the wealthy - not that simple, but yes, he advocates for a progressive income tax plan with the highest earners taxed higher than middle and low earners.  But his highest income bracket has a 3% lower rate than Kasich's plan.  His reasoning for progressive income tax is that high income earners need to be incentivized to put their assets into investments to drive the economy.  This is supported by low capital gains taxes.  Here's his tax plan. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

Social Security Reform - yes he opposes raising the retirement age or any of that kind of change.  He wants Social Security to be left alone but work to make it more efficient and eliminate fraud within the system.  He believes that there are 2 partners in Social Security - the Contributors and the Recipients.  Say 1 contributor covers the benefits of 1 recipient and the corresponding overhead... if there are 10 contributors and 10 recipients, then SS is balanced.  If there are 5 recipients, you have a surplus.  If there are 15 recipients, you have a deficit.  The system works fine if when the system is in surplus, the money is invested such that it will cover upcoming deficits.  This is the problem - in the hayday of the 80's and 90's, SS surplus was spent on government programs so that when the job participation rate crashed in the 2000's in time for the boomers, there was no money to cover deficits.  Deficits got added to the national debt.  Trump plans to fix it so that surplus stays in SS to cover deficits.  In addition, he plans to increase job participation rates to bring the system back into healthy balance.  He also plans to make it more efficient to reduce overhead.

Affirmative action - Trump Organization is a merit-based corporation.  In any case, this is his answer to this question:

Q: You said that you're "fine" with affirmative action. What about those who say the time for that kind of preferential treatment has come and gone?

TRUMP:ÿI'm fine with it, but we have it, it's there.ÿBut it's coming to a time when maybe we don't need it. That would be a wonderful thing.ÿI don't think we need it so much anymore. It has served its place, and it served its time. Some people have loved it and some people don't like it at all. But I think there will be a time when you don't need it.

Source: Fox News Sunday 2015 Coverage of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Oct 18, 2015

Assault Weapons - note that Trump has a concealed carry permit in NY (a state with strict gun laws) and his kids are marksmen.  That said, in his book published in 2000, "The America We Deserve" he states that he supports the ban on assault weapons - this was already the law back then but it was set to expire in 2004 unless Congress extends it - the Democrats failed to extend it.  So Trump has gone through both conditions where there's a ban and there's no ban.  So when he presented his Presidential stance on the 2nd amendment he came up with this:  https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights.

Conservative is a label.  He doesn't vilify people.  He vilifies actions.  So just because he vilifies the actions of Conservatives doesn't mean he vilifies Conservatism.  For example - he really doesn't like Bush's foreign policy.  Now, you might think Bush's foreign policy is conservative... well, just because a Republican wanted it doesn't mean that going into Iraq was conservative.  Scott Walker - Trump attacked him for not raising taxes when Wisconsin was about to run deficits projected at 2.2B (Wisconsin, by law, has to submit a balanced budget).  Instead, he cut services including the school budget.  Now, this can be seen as a non-conservative position.  But this is the peril of legally ibinding Congress to a balanced budget... when market health takes a dive (which may not be the fault of the State as has happened in Wisconsin), the balanced budget legislation forces Congress to take immediate measures - either raise taxes or cut costs.  It doesn't have the flexibility to float a surplus to cover a deficit or vice versa.  So, there are 2 schools of thought on here - both conservative.  You can temporarily raise taxes (with a projected sunset - we did this in my city sales tax run by a conservative mayor.. and remember the "read my lips" of HW) to cover the deficit and not hurt State services, or you temporarily cut State services.  Trump believes that Walker sacrificed schools because raising taxes looks bad on a Presidential bid.  I don't think that's what Walker did - I think he just really abhors raising taxes.

Bought politicians and cozy relationships - this is part of his bread and butter.  He rails against a system that compels a businessman to have to buy politicians because it's the only way for them to compete in business.  He'd say, "I would know about having to buy politicians - I was a businessman and I had to do it.  Believe me!".  He's saying this same thing about the delegates system.  He rails against a system where the delegates don't have to represent the will of the people - so you court delegates instead of court the people.  He'd say, "I can court delegates, ok?  It would be so easy.  But I don't want to do that.  I want the people to have a voice.  A huge voice.  But, if I have to, I'll court the delegates." 

Contractual obligations - not sure what this is.  But, this is Trump - "of course I try to get away with paying the lowest taxes possible!  It would be so stupid to pay more taxes than you are legally required".  Trump University - "I'm fighting that in court.  These people come and take my course and when it didn't work out for them they try to sue me.  What I wanna know is how they applied what they learned after taking my course."

Advancing himself - no idea what you're saying.  Of course he's advancing himself... he's trying to run for President.  Build the Wall - an idea.  Let Mexico pay for it - another idea. Renegotiate trade deals - more ideas... how many ideas do you need before you become a candidate running on ideas?

Edited April 21, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

More Trump ideas in soundbite format:

“A nation without borders is not a nation,”

“As president .... I would be very, very tough on the borders, and I would be not allowing certain people to come into this country without absolute perfect documentation,”

“We have at least 11 million people in this country that came in illegally. They will go out, they will come back, some will come back, the best, through a process ... it may not be a very quick process, but I think that's very fair and very fine,”

"“I will end forever the use of the H-1B as a cheap labor program."

"Public funding of abortion providers is an insult to people of conscience at the least and an affront to good governance at best.”

“The right of self-defense doesn't stop at the end of your driveway. That's why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states,”

“We will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally -- the state of Israel,”

“there's nothing I would rather do than bring peace to Israel and its neighbors.  Generally, I think it serves no purpose to say you have a good guy and a bad guy.”

“We need to stop paying to defend countries that can afford to defend themselves.”

“I try and pay as little tax as possible, because I hate what they do with my tax money. I hate the way they spend our money.”

“we need leadership in Washington to get the tax code changed so companies will be coming to America, not looking for ways to leave.”

“Simplifying the tax code and cutting every American's taxes will boost consumer spending, encourage savings and investment, and maximize economic growth,”

“When you have a hedge fund guy who's making $200 million a year and ... he's paying a very low rate of taxes, it's not fair and I think it says a lot,”

"I would raise taxes on unfair imports.  The lobbyists are going to come and see me, but I don't give a s-- about lobbyists.”

“No business of any size, from a fortune 500 company to a mom-and-pop shop to a freelancer living from gig to gig, will pay more than 15 percent of their business income in taxes,”

“Raising the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs will force companies to give these coveted entry-level jobs to the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers from overseas,”

“the worst” of Beijing's “sins” is the “wanton manipulation of China's currency, robbing Americans of billions of dollars of capital and millions of jobs.”

(On eminent domain) “If you're going to create 10,000 jobs for a town that's in trouble and you need a piece of property, I'll tell you what folks, I want to create jobs and I want to give the people that own that property more than it's worth,”

“These people always hit me with eminent domain, and frankly I'm not in love with eminent domain,”

“I have to say that the police are absolutely mistreated and misunderstood,”

"Global warming is an expensive hoax!”

“I consider climate change to be not one of our big problems,”

“I'm a huge believer in clean air,”

“EPA is an impediment to both growth and jobs.”

“I'm a tremendous believer in education, but education has to be at a local level. We cannot have the bureaucrats in Washington telling you how to manage your child's education,”

“These student loans are probably one of the only things that the government shouldn't make money from and yet it does,”

“Waterboarding would be fine. If they can expand the laws, I would do a lot more than waterboarding,”

"I would like to build a safe zone in Syria, build a big, beautiful safe zone, and you have whatever it is, so they can live.”

“I will build a military so strong that we'll never have to use it because they are going to be saying, 'I'm not going to mess with that guy,' ”

"<My supporters> are not necessarily loyal to me, they're loyal to the country. They want great security. They want great military. They want to take care of their vets. They want a border. They want a wall.”

"“My record of veteran support is well-documented. I served as co-chairman of the New York Vietnam Veterans Memorial Commission and was responsible, with a small group, for getting it built.”

“The power to choose will stop the wait time backlogs and force the VA to improve and compete if the department wants to keep receiving veterans' healthcare dollars."

"Sources of “green energy” are “really just an expensive way of making the tree-huggers feel good about themselves.”

“Energy independence is a requirement if America is to become great again,”

 

[Just_A_Guy]

12 hours ago, yjacket said:

I agree.  The South seceded specifically b/c Lincoln was elected, they thought (and rightly so) that he would not compromise and work with them. If anything the 1860 election should be a lesson in what happens when people are unwilling to work together.

Compromise on what?  We've had this discussion before.  Lincoln had committed to leaving slavery in place in the states where it already existed.  What he swore to oppose, was the South's effort to expand slavery into the western territories, its effort to force the Northern states to accept slavery in their own borders, and its long-term plans to plunge the United States into additional wars of conquest for the purpose of extending slavery throughout the Caribbean and Central America.  

I would be more than a little disturbed to hear a modern American suggest that Lincoln should have compromised on those issues.

12 hours ago, yjacket said:

JAG, I get it but a significant percentage of the population disagrees with you and it is just amazing to me that people are so blinded by hatred of Trump that they don't see what will very likely occur should they go down this route.

I need you to clarify what you mean by "what will very likely occur".  If you mean a party schism--I do see the possibility; and posted at some length about it in this thread earlier.  If you mean violence--

--well--

do you mean violence?

12 hours ago, yjacket said:

By your logic Lincoln should never have been President, Lincoln received 39.8% of the popular vote (about what Trump has). It is very obvious looking at county by county results that the country wanted someone other than Lincoln. 

I'm having trouble seeing why "my logic" dictates that result.  Lincoln got the nomination by building his delegate count from 22% of the convention on the first ballot, to the required majority on the fourth ballot.  He got the presidency by getting a majority of the electoral college--and if no candidate been able to do that, then the election would have been thrown to the House of Representatives as per the Constitution.  

Once those processes played out, of course Lincoln should have been the President.  But by the same token, before those processes played out, presenting him as the inevitable candidate or suggesting that his opponents should have dropped out of the race for the sake of party/national unity would have been pretty darned ridiculous.

Quote

Lincoln was unwilling to compromise with the 60% of the vote that didn't vote for him and the Civil War happened.  More reasonable men than Lincoln understood that compromise was necessary and they did so. Unfortunately by the 1860s each side (the North and the South) had vilified each other so dramatically that it would have taken a much better man than Lincoln to have united the country without bloodshed (which was possible).

YJacket, you need to quit taking your historical lessons from people whose hearts go all aflutter at the idea of being able to own another human being.  Lincoln was willing to let the Southerners keep their slaves in their home states.  The South had no right to ask for more--but they did, and they started a war when they couldn't get it.

[LeSellers]

9 hours ago, anatess2 said:

And "Trump and his goon squad" is a drive-by media fabrication.  The guy with the paid protesters is Bernie.

How sad that even conservatives, and many libertarians, are still so influenced (for evil) by the left-stream media.

We keep seeing polls showing that no one trusts them, yet the result is not much different from what it would be if we still had three networks and The New York Times.

Lehi

[Just_A_Guy]

12 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I didn't say we shouldn't expect specific plans.  I said, staking your pick on a specific plan is practically useless.  Presidents don't make plans - they make visions and missions and EXECUTE plans made by Congress.  You can "I'm gonna do it like this"  all day long on the stump... it's not gonna happen like that... because we're not in a dictatorship.  The past 20 years should be enough to prove that.

But... specific plans have been laid out by the Trump Campaign since day 1... You just don't like it because it's not DETAILED plans.  Well... there's more details now.  We're close to the nomination you know.

That doesn't mean a president can't plan; it just means his plans need to include how he'll deal with Congress.

And, if there were specific plans since day 1, then why couldn't you show them to me a month ago when I asked you for them?  Why did you defend Trump's nebulousness as if it were some sort of a good thing?

Quote

No, I have no beef over you not being impressed by Trump.  That's not my intent to have you impressed.  Any of the 17 Republican candidates are impressive enough to be far superior than Hillary.  My intent is for you to realize that when it comes down to Hillary vs Trump, Trump is superior.  I'm also trying to make you realize that Trump voters are not blind idiots.  I don't treat you like an errant schoolboy.  I call you out on your usage of the Democrat playbook.  Party unity is for the candidates to call.  I am simply making the case that Trump is better than Hillary.

If that were your sole intention, then an issue-based side-by-side comparison of Hillary's track record versus Trump's track record would have been more helpful.

But frankly, Anatess, I don't think that is your sole intention.  You prefer Trump to Cruz--you said it yourself--and you want Cruz and his supporters to go away so that your boy can skate in with the nomination.  That's fine--but don't pretend to not have a dog in this fight; because you clearly do.  

Quote

Talk of violence about the nomination?  When did I say that?  . . . 

And "Trump and his goon squad" is a drive-by media fabrication.  The guy with the paid protesters is Bernie.

I'm sorry--did you, or did you not, just write in this thread:

Quote

Lincoln won without the South...leading to secession... and... the Civil War.  You don't want a repeat of that, I'm sure.  [Emphasis added --JAG]

So . . . if we don't give Trump what he wants, we've got to be open to the possibility of secession/war/bloodshed.  The drive-by media didn't create that impression, Anatess.  You did.

(For brevity, I'll reply in-quote, in bold, to this next post)

10 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Trump couldn't have supported TARP or the stimulus or the GM bailout because... he was not a Congressman or a politician.  So, all this is something he said to someone on an interview from a businessman running over 500 businesses...

Support for bad policy doesn't count unless you were in elected office when you supported it?  I reject that argument.

So here's the interview about TARP:  http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/09/26/donald-trump-on-700-billion-bailout-plan.html

So . . . he supported it.  A small-government conservative, wouldn't have.

Here's the interview about the auto bailouts:  http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/trump-auto-bailout/2008/12/10/id/327036/

So . . . he supported it.  A small-government conservative, wouldn't have.

He has repeatedly stated he advocates Free Trade but Trade Deficits is not Free.  "Advocating 45% tarrif" is silly - which country?  What product?.  Nobody - especially not a guy like Trump who is an expert on economy and finance - advocates for across the board tariffs of all imports.  Rather, Trump wants to negotiate trade deals on a country-by-country basis - hence, no NAFTA, TPP, etc.  Here's his plan for China:  https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/us-china-trade-reform  He has a different one for Mexico as it is incorporated into his immigration plan.

He advocated a 45% tariff for China during his editorial board meeting with the New York Times.  (He now denies it, but the Times can't release the audio without his authorization because other parts of the same meeting were off-the-record.)  

By the way, Smoot-Hawley was also supposedly merely a response to "unfair trade" practices.  Didn't make it any less disastrous for the country.

Raise taxes on the wealthy - not that simple, but yes, he advocates for a progressive income tax plan with the highest earners taxed higher than middle and low earners.  But his highest income bracket has a 3% lower rate than Kasich's plan.  His reasoning for progressive income tax is that high income earners need to be incentivized to put their assets into investments to drive the economy.  This is supported by low capital gains taxes.  Here's his tax plan. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/tax-reform

So . . . he supported it.  A small-government conservative, wouldn't have.

Social Security Reform - yes he opposes raising the retirement age or any of that kind of change.  He wants Social Security to be left alone but work to make it more efficient and eliminate fraud within the system.  He believes that there are 2 partners in Social Security - the Contributors and the Recipients.  Say 1 contributor covers the benefits of 1 recipient and the corresponding overhead... if there are 10 contributors and 10 recipients, then SS is balanced.  If there are 5 recipients, you have a surplus.  If there are 15 recipients, you have a deficit.  The system works fine if when the system is in surplus, the money is invested such that it will cover upcoming deficits.  This is the problem - in the hayday of the 80's and 90's, SS surplus was spent on government programs so that when the job participation rate crashed in the 2000's in time for the boomers, there was no money to cover deficits.  Deficits got added to the national debt.  Trump plans to fix it so that surplus stays in SS to cover deficits.  In addition, he plans to increase job participation rates to bring the system back into healthy balance.  He also plans to make it more efficient to reduce overhead.

Social Security currently has over $23.7 trillion in unfunded liabilities to current plan participants.  Small-government conservatives understand this.  Trump, like the progressives, would have us continue to sing "everything is awesome!" as we dance on into a cash crunch of epic proportions.

Affirmative action - Trump Organization is a merit-based corporation.  In any case, this is his answer to this question:

Q: You said that you're "fine" with affirmative action. What about those who say the time for that kind of preferential treatment has come and gone?

TRUMP:ÿI'm fine with it, but we have it, it's there.ÿBut it's coming to a time when maybe we don't need it. That would be a wonderful thing.ÿI don't think we need it so much anymore. It has served its place, and it served its time. Some people have loved it and some people don't like it at all. But I think there will be a time when you don't need it.

Source: Fox News Sunday 2015 Coverage of 2016 presidential hopefuls , Oct 18, 2015

So . . . he supports government's right to tell private companies who to hire.  Small-government conservatives, don't.

Assault Weapons - note that Trump has a concealed carry permit in NY (a state with strict gun laws) and his kids are marksmen.  That said, in his book published in 2000, "The America We Deserve" he states that he supports the ban on assault weapons - this was already the law back then but it was set to expire in 2004 unless Congress extends it - the Democrats failed to extend it.  So Trump has gone through both conditions where there's a ban and there's no ban.  So when he presented his Presidential stance on the 2nd amendment he came up with this:  https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights.

So . . . when the assault weapons ban was subject to renewal, he supported it.  Small-government conservatives, wouldn't have.

Conservative is a label.  He doesn't vilify people.  He vilifies actions. . . 

"Lyin' Ted"?  "Little Marco"?  "She had blood coming out of her eyes, she had blood coming out of her everywhere"?

Bought politicians and cozy relationships - this is part of his bread and butter. . .

Thou sayest.  I reject the notion that the evil in society compels us to join in that evil.

Contractual obligations - not sure what this is.  But, this is Trump - "of course I try to get away with paying the lowest taxes possible!  It would be so stupid to pay more taxes than you are legally required".  Trump University - "I'm fighting that in court.  These people come and take my course and when it didn't work out for them they try to sue me.  What I wanna know is how they applied what they learned after taking my course."

No, I was talking about his bankruptcies.  They hurt people, Anatess.  Not paying your contractual obligations, hurts people.  If you file for bankruptcy, and then wind up sitting on four billion or ten billion dollars or however much Trump has--you don't gloat about how you got away with it.  You go to the people you hurt and make them whole.

Advancing himself - no idea what you're saying.  Of course he's advancing himself... he's trying to run for President.  Build the Wall - an idea.  Not his idea.  Let Mexico pay for it - another idea. A bad idea.  Renegotiate trade deals - more ideas... More bad ideas, insofar as they meddle with free trade.  how many ideas do you need before you become a candidate running on ideas?

Not many, actually.  They just need to be good ideas.  So far, the bulk of Trump's campaign has been about how he, personally, is so awesome.  And you understood this back in March when you dismissed the importance of plans in favor of ability and "vision".

 

Edited April 21, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That doesn't mean a president can't plan; it just means his plans need to include how he'll deal with Congress.

And, if there were specific plans since day 1, then why couldn't you show them to me a month ago when I asked you for them?  Why did you defend Trump's nebulousness as if it were some sort of a good thing?

If that were your sole intention, then an issue-based side-by-side comparison of Hillary's track record versus Trump's track record would have been more helpful.

But frankly, Anatess, I don't think that is your sole intention.  You prefer Trump to Cruz--you said it yourself--and you want Cruz and his supporters to go away so that your boy can skate in with the nomination.  That's fine--but don't pretend to not have a dog in this fight; because you clearly do.  

I'm sorry--did you, or did you not, just write in this thread:

Lincoln won without the South...leading to secession... and... the Civil War.  You don't want a repeat of that, I'm sure.

So . . . if we don't give Trump what he wants, we've got to be open to the possibility of secession/war/bloodshed.  The drive-by media didn't create that impression, Anatess.  You did.

(For brevity, I'll reply in-quote, in bold, to this next post)

 

I still don't know how to split a quote...

Plans - You didn't ask for specific plans.  You asked for DETAILED plans, remember?  I gave you lots of plans and then you say... where's the details?

Intention - That may be... but a side-by-side of HIllary is pretty dang obvious just by looking at the D beside her name.  A side by side of Cruz/Kasich and Trump is more helpful... which I've provided.  It shows that if you're voting Cruz, there's not much difference between Cruz and Trump policy positions.

Cruz/Trump - putting words in my mouth is really wierding me out.... it's like an anti-Mormon explaining to me what I believe.  This tells me more about you than it does about me.

Write on this thread - yes, I wrote in this thread.  I don't understand what you're saying.  The point was, I believe a video is better than text - not as easy to spin.  I wrote in this thread because I want to maintain anonymity - I am not going to talk to you through a video even if it is a more superior form of communication.

Lincoln - yes, Lincoln who didn't win the popular delegates vote... much like Cruz and Kasich.  Your juxtaposition on this tells me more about you than it does about me also...

bloodshed - I never said that about 2016.  I only said that about 1860.  You pointed to 1860 as an example - like it supports your NeverTrump position.  It doesn't.  1860 was so bad it led to secession and bloodshed.  You shouldn't equate 2016 to 1860.  Basically - if Trump gets what he wants, you should unite behind him.  If he doesn't get what he wants and Cruz does - unite behind him. 

 

 

[anatess2]

Support for bad policy doesn't count unless you were in elected office when you supported it?  I reject that argument.

Rejected.

So . . . he supported it.  A small-government conservative, wouldn't have.

I've said it many times before... if you want a die-hard conservative ideologue, Cruz is your guy.  Trump is neither conservative nor liberal - he's pragmatic.  Cruz is your ideologue - he'll burn down the country before he'll do anything non-conservative.  Ok, that's exaggerated but it's not that far off the gist of his conservatism.... government shut-down and all that jazz - which is what a lot of conservatives want.  That's not Trump.  That's not Kasich either.  That's not Romney.  That's not Bush.  That's not McCain.  And that's not Reagan - yep.  Trump is closer to Reagan than Cruz is.  Kasich - now, that's Reagan.  Trump will not shut down a government if the alternative is not conservative.  He'll shut down the government if the alternative is stupidity.  Liberal doesn't always mean stupidity.  And that's why he's expanding the Republican voter base.

He advocated a 45% tariff for China during his editorial board meeting with the New York Times.  (He now denies it, but the Times can't release the audio without his authorization because other parts of the same meeting were off-the-record.)  

He advocated 25% before that.... the percentage is not the point.  The point is to put tariffs on China proportional to the trade deficits... See, this is the difference between somebody who says stuff to appeal to a voter base and somebody who says stuff right out of his brain.  The traditional politician will have to focus-group the exact percentage - "which percentage should I say that would not ripple the voter base?  If it would take a 45% tariff to balance the trade deficits, would that make the voters think it's too high?  So, I should just stick with 25% because voters like that better?"  That's one thing about Trump - he doesn't focus-group anything.

 

By the way, Smoot-Hawley was also supposedly merely a response to "unfair trade" practices.  Didn't make it any less disastrous for the country.

 

Social Security currently has over $23.7 trillion in unfunded liabilities to current plan participants.  Small-government conservatives understand this.  Trump, like the progressives, would have us continue to sing "everything is awesome!" as we dance on into a cash crunch of epic proportions.

There's nothing small-government about raising the retirement age.  Trump, unlike the progressives, doesn't think everything is awesome.  He just believes that a more robust economy that increases the job participation rate in record numbers will do more to Social Security than raising the retirement age.  Which one is more small-government conservative?  Because, you know, raising the retirement age is really not that much different than raising taxes (which can be a small-government conservative solution but is not popular on the stump).

So . . . he supports government's right to tell private companies who to hire.  Small-government conservatives, don't.

Small-government conservatives are not that much of an ideologue that they will fully eliminate government regulatory actions on businesses.  They're small-government not NO-government.  Affirmative action, when needed, can be part of that regulatory action...  it's not the action that makes it non-conservative... it's the hobby-horse of the day that makes it non-conservative.  But yes, other people (like me) think affirmative action has served its purpose and needed to sunset 20 years ago.

 

So . . . when the assault weapons ban was subject to renewal, he supported it.  Small-government conservatives, wouldn't have.

He was a Democrat in 2004.

 

"Lyin' Ted"?  "Little Marco"?  "She had blood coming out of her eyes, she had blood coming out of her everywhere"?

It's a campaign slogan.  And it's very effective.  Low-energy Jeb.  Crooked Hillary.  Using Lyin' Ted to make it stick in people's heads is not vilifying Ted Cruz as a person nor Conservatism in general in the same way that Cruz telling people Trump is a liar is not vilifying Trump as a person.  Trump just has a better method of making it stick in people's heads through these little slogans.  Blood coming out of stuff... that's highly sensationalized by drive-by.  It was pretty obvious what he meant - Megyn Kelly was a bulldog in that first debate - she was not a moderator, she was a debater.  She made Candy Crowley look like a tiny puppy.  Now, New York Values is also highly sensationalized by drive-by.  It's also pretty obvious what Cruz meant when he said it.  And Trump took major advantage of it.  It's politics, folks.

 

Thou sayest.  I reject the notion that the evil in society compels us to join in that evil.

There are 2 sides to that evil - the politicians and the businessmen.  So you got 2 choices - vote for the politician or vote for the businessman.  Romney, by the way, was both a politician and a businessman.  The only difference is - he greased Republican politicians only.

 

No, I was talking about his bankruptcies.  They hurt people, Anatess.  Not paying your contractual obligations, hurts people.  If you file for bankruptcy, and then wind up sitting on four billion or ten billion dollars or however much Trump has--you don't gloat about how you got away with it.  You go to the people you hurt and make them whole.

Okay... this is ridiculous.  Trump has 515 businesses (maybe more - this was just the businesses that he is the CEO of).  He failed at 4 - chapter 11's, not chapter 7's.  500-odd ones he succeeded...  So you're saying... if you file for bankruptcy you're hurting people.  Well, duh.  That's the risk of doing business.  In a Chapter 11, the business is handed over to the judge.  The judge decides who-gets-what-money-when while the company restructures.  A bank who invested in that business will be one of the last people to get money - most of the time, they are not given any.  So, if you're saying that not giving the bank a return on their investment is hurting people... then you must be a big supporter of TARP.  But you're not.  So, you're not making any sense whatsoever.

 

Not many, actually.  They just need to be good ideas.  So far, the bulk of Trump's campaign has been about how he, personally, is so awesome.  And you understood this back in March when you dismissed the importance of plans in favor of ability and "vision".

Trump is all about how he is awesome.  And goshdarnit, it's about time we got somebody who thinks he is awesome and has no problem saying it.  It's about time somebody points to himself and says... "I'm rich and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.  As a matter of fact, I want you all to be rich like me!"... it's such a great relief from the, "When we left the White House, we were so poor... we had to eat ramen for months... all the rich people have to be punished!"

But no, his campaign is not about how he is so awesome.  His campaign is about making America awesome.  And that's pretty much the same for Cruz and Kasich.

 

Edited April 21, 2016 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

56 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I still don't know how to split a quote...

I just create another quote box (use the button above the text box that has a quotation mark), and copy/paste the relevant text in.  A little inelegant, but it gets the job done.

Quote

Write on this thread - yes, I wrote in this thread.  I don't understand what you're saying.  The point was, I believe a video is better than text - not as easy to spin.  I wrote in this thread because I want to maintain anonymity - I am not going to talk to you through a video even if it is a more superior form of communication.

I formatted that a little inartfully.  Let me go back and edit it for clarity, because I think you completely misinterpreted what I was trying to say (my fault!).  I'll continue the discussion later in the afternoon, schedule permitting.

 

[yjacket]

9 hours ago, anatess2 said:

"Lyin' Ted"?  "Little Marco"?  "She had blood coming out of her eyes, she had blood coming out of her everywhere"?

It's a campaign slogan.  And it's very effective.  Low-energy Jeb.  Crooked Hillary.  Using Lyin' Ted to make it stick in people's heads is not vilifying Ted Cruz as a person nor Conservatism in general in the same way that Cruz telling people Trump is a liar is not vilifying Trump as a person.  Trump just has a better method of making it stick But no, his campaign is not about how he is so awesome.  His campaign is about making America awesome.  And that's pretty much the same for Cruz and Kasich.

 

Actually, I think on this issue Trump is absolutely brilliant. He picked up on the other candidates own perceived inadequacies and crucified them on it.

Look at their campaign slogans.  Jeb Bush had Jeb!Jeb!Jeb! plastered everywhere.  It is very obvious in that slogan that Jeb was trying to compensate for a perceived inadequacy (not enough excitement). Trump picked up on it and hammered him on it.  Ted Cruz has TrusTed plastered everywhere. Your campaign slogan is that everyone should trust you? Really, that is your slogan? Trump picked up on it that Ted is obviously compensating for a perceived inadequacy. The fact that either he knows he is untrustworthy, or that he wants people to perceive him as trustworthy and he has hammered Ted on it.  Again, your campaign slogan is that we should trust you; in the world I grew up in someone who is trustworthy never has to state they are trustworthy because they know it and the people around them know it.  Only shysters and hustlers say "Trust me". 

So Lyin' Ted is an absolutely brilliant move. Marco Rubio; history states that in general the tallest candidate ends up winning, why because intrinsically people vote for the taller man; people also perceive someone who sweats a lot as either nervous, or untrustworthy.  Hence, Little Marco and comments that he sweats alot.

Absolutely brilliant, it might not be kind, but it is brilliant.  Trump is a master at negotiation and reading people-you absolutely cannot be in his position without being able to do so-he has read his opponents like a book and used it against them.

I don't like most of Trumps policies, but to pass him off as a thug or a baboon is to simply ignore some of his best qualities. It doesn't mean he doesn't miscalculate, but the guy is very good.