For NeverTrumpers: An appeal to not vote Hillary over Trump

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

And see... this is Trump's challenge.

Everything I have said on this thread comes straight from my brain to my computer.  People read it and some think it's condescending.  Now, if I would hire post-writers that will pore through all my posts and edit it to achieve the effect that I wanted, then chances are, I will be successful in not making you think it's condescending.

Anatess, your suggesting that Mormons only dislike Trump out of blind loyalty to Romney (source) wasn't a matter of a lack of finesse or insufficient copy-editing.  It was a substantive insight into the way you approach the issue.

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Interestingly, a lot of people (including myself for a while there) blamed the evangelicals and the ultra-conservatives for sitting out the 2012 elections causing Romney to lose.  According to Karl Rove yesterday, the exit poll numbers don't support the claim.  But the blame remains...

But then, if people don't vote for Trump, then Clinton will win... fact.  The current status of American politics is that the general population lean left.  That means that if all traditionally blue states vote blue and traditionally red states vote red and we don't count the purples... Blue wins.  Now, Florida will vote Trump.  Ohio will vote Trump.  There are not that many NeverTrump people from the average Kasich voter and Trump almost won Ohio with a record voter turnout.  So that offsets the Blue states.  So, really, Trump will lose if a red state doesn't stay red... like Utah.

And yet, when you warned that Trumpkins wouldn't turn out for Cruz if he were the nominee . . . why, that was perfectly acceptable, and just went to show why we should give you what you wanted.

You were full willing to see the party split with the White House left in Hillary's hands, and--oopsies!--turns out, you weren't the only one thinking that way.  Drink the dregs, my friend.  Drink. the. dregs. 

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

2.) There's no "phase out" plan.  He has been pretty adamant about this statement: " On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare."   Ryan and McConnell already have the bill for repeal... it's symbolic at this time because Obama will, of course, veto.

Then again, Donald railed against Cruz on the basis of his supposedly being part of an "establishment" that hadn't done jack squat to repeal Obamacare, and now--mirabile dictu!!!--it turns out that the "establishment" had actually done quite a bit, and Trump knew it all along.

Tell me again how we can trust Trump to do everything he's promised to do . . .

Edited May 4, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

There was nothing wrong before Obamacare.  We don't need anything new.  We just want what we already had.

There was plenty wrong before O'bamaDon'tCare, and 98% of it because of government interference in the medical market. The list could go on for a very long time, but suffice it to say that the cost of health care is at least twice what it would have been had Roosevelt not screwed it up in the 40s. and nothing has happened that would get us back to where we were: doctors and patients, who had catastrophic health insurance.

Lehi

[yjacket]

22 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Tell me again how we can trust Trump to do everything he's promised to do . . .

IMO, who knows what he will actually do. There are a couple of things we do know.

#1 he isn't a politician. And above all, if you want to do a postmortem on why no one else won, look no further than that.  People in this country, especially those in the Republican party are absolutely sick and tired of politicians. How many times did exit polling show Republicans where angry at government and angry at the Republican party for betrayal? Cruz at first came off as a non-politico but unfortunately for him over the past couple of months people began to see him as just another politician who would do and say anything to get elected. Whether or not you agree with that doesn't really matter, he made some very serious strategic missteps that reinforced that perception and in politics as in life perception is reality. More about betrayal, the Repubs have a majority in Congress and what have we actually got to show for it? A smaller government? More freedom? Less regulation? Answers are Nothing, No, No, and NO.  Congress can weld an enormous amount of power, look no further than what happened after the Civil War-Congress was more powerful than the President and let him know that too.

#2 He truly honestly is a hard core American at heart-he is not a globalist, he wants to puts American economy, American blood, American treasure first. What it means practically and what that looks like, I don't know. But he isn't a member of any of the Globalist elite societies, the CFRs, the Rockerfellers, etc. 

#3 The guy has made billions . . .and you don't make billions without a lot of real hard work, ingenuity, luck, skill, etc. I used to think Trump was a really nasty person inside . . .but quite frankly I don't think so anymore. I think above all he is a businessman/salesman first and that requires a skill set that, well it's really hard to be a really nasty person and be a good salesman (possible but very difficult).

Look this country is already sunk, most people just don't know it yet . . .why not give something else a try b/c we sure know the last 30 years has gone in only one direction and that is down. 

[yjacket]

12 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

There was plenty wrong before O'bamaDon'tCare, and 98% of it because of government interference in the medical market. The list could go on for a very long time, but suffice it to say that the cost of health care is at least twice what it would have been had Roosevelt not screwed it up in the 40s. and nothing has happened that would get us back to where we were: doctors and patients, who had catastrophic health insurance.

Lehi

No kidding, implementing wage controls . . .then since companies couldn't pay people more they started offering health insurance to compensate for not paying more.  Tying health insurance to a job . . . about the stupidest thing that could have been done for health insurance.

[Just_A_Guy]

16 minutes ago, yjacket said:

IMO, who knows what he will actually do. There are a couple of things we do know.

#1 he isn't a politician. And above all, if you want to do a postmortem on why no one else won, look no further than that.  People in this country, especially those in the Republican party are absolutely sick and tired of politicians. How many times did exit polling show Republicans where angry at government and angry at the Republican party for betrayal? Cruz at first came off as a non-politico but unfortunately for him over the past couple of months people began to see him as just another politician who would do and say anything to get elected. Whether or not you agree with that doesn't really matter, he made some very serious strategic missteps that reinforced that perception and in politics as in life perception is reality.

I agree that the outsider persona helped.  As far as Cruz, though . . . I think it's cute how Trumpkins act as though the shift in the perception of Cruz happened of its own accord, as if Trump and his minions did nothing to create that perception.  As if there weren't Trump supporters, on this very forum, repeating bold-faced lies about--for example--purported extramarital affairs by Cruz.

Quote

#2 He truly honestly is a hard core American at heart-he is not a globalist, he wants to puts American economy, American blood, American treasure first. What it means practically and what that looks like, I don't know. But he isn't a member of any of the Globalist elite societies, the CFRs, the Rockerfellers, etc.

The same could be said for Al Capone.  So?

Quote

#3 The guy has made billions . . .and you don't make billions without a lot of real hard work, ingenuity, luck, skill, etc.

The same could be said for Vladimir Putin.  So? 

Quote

Look this country is already sunk, most people just don't know it yet . . .why not give something else a try b/c we sure know the last 30 years has gone in only one direction and that is down. 

So . . . we're in the straits we are in because of a national glut of narcissism, entitlement, dishonesty, profligacy (both financial and sexual), and short-sightedness; and you offer us . . . Donald J. Trump.

That's like telling someone with radiation sickness, to try locking themselves inside a nuclear reactor core for a couple of hours--because, what the heck, we've already tried everything else!!!!

Edited May 4, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[yjacket]

6 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Somebody had mentioned that Anderson was running as a Libertarian, and that he was pro-life.  I oppose the isolationism of Libertarians, but was ready to give him consideration.  Then it came out that Johnson was their guy.  He is in favor of legalizing drugs, is pro-abortion (when they give us the respect of calling us pro-life, I'll revert to pro-choice), and he is definitely and isolationist.

I would argue that it isn't isolationism but non-interventionism. Isolationism is North Korea and Iran, cultures that completely cut themselves off from the rest of the world. Absolutely no one in the libertarian wing wants that. I argue that non-interventionism is the original conservative position.  Who got us into WWI, a Democrat, WWII a Democrat; had we minded our own business in WWI and let Europe figure out its own problems WWI would have ended like most wars ended in Europe with the winning side not asking for total unconditional surrender and allowing the losing side some grace in defeat. Instead b/c the US decided to intervene, Germany faced extremely harsh reparations that brought about the right conditions for a Hitler to emerge and seize power.

Getting to the root of the word conservative . . .  there is nothing that conserves in going into other countries and enforcing "democracy" on them like we have in Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc. etc. etc. That is progressive, i.e. to make progress or change someone else's culture.

As far as drugs go . . . I don't think laws against drugs are really stemming the tide of drugs?

http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-01-05/loosened-us-pot-laws-have-sent-mexican-weed-prices-plunging

It's simple economics, if you want to stop gangs and the drug lords eliminate drug laws. Their economic incentive (i.e. ability to make money off of it) will drop like a rock. No money, they go out of business (or at least dramatically scale it down), less violence, less killing. Then we get the people who do drugs help-it's a medical problem not a law enforcement problem.

 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, yjacket said:

#3 The guy has made and lost billions .

 

Fixed that for you.

[yjacket]

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I agree that the outsider persona helped.  As far as Cruz, though . . . I think it's cute how Trumpkins act as though the shift in the perception of Cruz happened of its own accord, as if Trump and his minions did nothing to create that perception.  As if there weren't Trump supporters, on this very forum, repeating bold-faced lies about--for example--purported extramarital affairs by Cruz.

The same could be said for Al Capone.  So?

The same could be said for Vladimir Putin.  So? 

So . . . we're in the straits we are in because of a national glut of narcissism, entitlement, dishonesty, profligacy (both financial and sexual), and short-sightedness; and you offer us . . . Donald J. Trump.

That's like telling someone with radiation sickness, to try locking themselves inside a nuclear reactor core for a couple of hours--because, what the heck, we've already tried everything else!!!!

Bald face lies . . you really want to get into it again JAG? You seem to think your guy is this pristine, Christian man, or is only doing God's work . . . lol. The guy is a slimball; you just can seem to admit you were duped or at least that a significant portion of voters didn't like him.  Really, the guy is going through Indiana saying things like "there are millions of people praying for you right now to make the right decision" give me a break. It smacks of desperation, pandering, an over aggrandized sense of self worth. Geez . . .

 

The guy's more fake than a 3 dollar bill . . .

I don't offer you anybody . . . my goodness you can't seem to read what I type and you insert your own ideas into it. Sorry that I shattered your bubble and your world, but your guy is just as fake as them all.

Edited May 4, 2016 by yjacket

[yjacket]

15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

So . . . we're in the straits we are in because of a national glut of narcissism, entitlement, dishonesty, profligacy (both financial and sexual), and short-sightedness; 

That is very true. . . but it's not going to be fixed by who the country elects as President!!

[Guest]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, let me re-iterate what I actually said:

Social media is bad... but that's all because the majority of the ones I have seen treat politics like a football game - they just want to wear their own jersey.

 

 

This is the condescending part. I didn't swallow what you said, you didn't like what I said, so you must need to re-state it, because obviously I didn't get it. Also "yelling" in bold, because maybe that will make me understand better? Condescending.

Along with illuding that if we aren't on the Trump Train, we're not taking things seriously. Condescending. This is where I meant, disagreeing doesn't mean lack of understanding, or lack of getting the gravity of our situation. It means we disagree. 

Condescending, putting words where they weren't, pushing, shoving, yelling... it's part of what we don't like about Trump, so it's not a way to win over those of us who are wary of him. 

 

[yjacket]

7 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

 

Fixed that for you.

Lol it's still a lot more than you or I will ever have and he.  That's like saying I've made and lost tens of thousands of dollars, it's a pointless meaningless statement.

Are you just a little jealous? Maybe that is what this is about, some people are just extremely jealous of a man who is extremely successful.

[Guest]

Just now, yjacket said:

Lol it's still a lot more than you or I will ever have and he.  That's like saying I've made and lost tens of thousands of dollars, it's a pointless meaningless statement.

Are you just a little jealous? Maybe that is what this is about, some people are just extremely jealous of a man who is extremely successful.

How silly. I'm jealous of... what? That I've only had one marriage? That I have a good relationship with all of my children? That I've never had an affair, or claimed bankruptcy? 

Success is subjective. I feel like I've been extremely successful so far, in the things that count. I think it's not what you make, but how much of it you're able to keep. I'm not jealous of a life that has made the man a miserable, nasty person. I think you're maybe deflecting the conversation in a different direction because you know on some level that I have a point.

Another example of putting the wrong meaning to things in an effort to choke out the conversation. For someone who isn't a Trump lover, you sure talk like one.

[prisonchaplain]

18 minutes ago, yjacket said:

I would argue that it isn't isolationism but non-interventionism. Isolationism is North Korea and Iran, cultures that completely cut themselves off from the rest of the world. Absolutely no one in the libertarian wing wants that. I argue that non-interventionism is the original conservative position.  Who got us into WWI, a Democrat, WWII a Democrat; had we minded our own business in WWI and let Europe figure out its own problems WWI would have ended like most wars ended in Europe with the winning side not asking for total unconditional surrender and allowing the losing side some grace in defeat. Instead b/c the US decided to intervene, Germany faced extremely harsh reparations that brought about the right conditions for a Hitler to emerge and seize power.

Getting to the root of the word conservative . . .  there is nothing that conserves in going into other countries and enforcing "democracy" on them like we have in Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc. etc. etc. That is progressive, i.e. to make progress or change someone else's culture.

As far as drugs go . . . I don't think laws against drugs are really stemming the tide of drugs?

http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-01-05/loosened-us-pot-laws-have-sent-mexican-weed-prices-plunging

It's simple economics, if you want to stop gangs and the drug lords eliminate drug laws. Their economic incentive (i.e. ability to make money off of it) will drop like a rock. No money, they go out of business (or at least dramatically scale it down), less violence, less killing. Then we get the people who do drugs help-it's a medical problem not a law enforcement problem.

 

You've explained well why you would be comfortable voting for Gary Johnson...and why I would not. 

[Just_A_Guy]

29 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Bald face lies . . you really want to get into it again JAG?

No need.  My point was that the perception of Cruz was shaped, in large part, by the Trump campaign.  One example I gave was that recently lies were repeated about Cruz, on this forum, by a Trump supporter; which lies were disproved in fairly short order.  Also instructive is your own recent suggestion that having to do a recorded testimonial in multiple takes is somehow an indicator of insincerity (heaven help your relationship with Mormonism if the outtakes from the "I'm a Mormon" campaign ever hit Youtube).

Quote

I don't offer you anybody . . . my goodness you can't seem to read what I type and you insert your own ideas into it.

Okay, you're not offering Trump; you're just advocating for him.  Some might say that the distinction is somewhat pedantic; but I appreciate your desire for precision.

24 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Are you just a little jealous? Maybe that is what this is about, some people are just extremely jealous of a man who is extremely successful.

As for myself:  Not jealous, really.  But kind of wondering how a man who rapes a woman--and then sends an attack dog lawyer to threaten the reporter investigating the story and defends himself by saying (incorrectly) that it's not legally "rape" if it's your wife--I'm scratching my head over how such an unmitigatedly evil dirtbag managed to get so many otherwise thoughtful folks across a plethora of online fora, to compromise their own logic and honor and integrity by making such dishonest and occasionally bat-shizzle crazy arguments to advance their demi-god's cause.  Yeah, I suppose I am jealous of whatever mind control mojo Trump has going on.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

18 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But kind of wondering how a man who rapes a woman--and then sends an attack dog lawyer to threaten the reporter investigating the story and defends himself by saying (incorrectly) that it's not legally "rape" if it's your wife--I'm scratching my head over how such an unmitigatedly evil dirtbag managed to get so many otherwise thoughtful folks across a plethora of online fora, to compromise their own logic and honor and integrity by making such dishonest and occasionally bat-shizzle crazy arguments to advance their demi-god's cause.

As I recall, Trump's ex-wife later denied the whole "rape" claim. While she didn't outright admit to fabricating the rape claim -- a disturbingly common occurrence, and one that makes rape justifiably difficult to prosecute -- she seemed to indicate that he didn't really rape her. Which to me amounts to the same thing. Anyway, I am in no way, shape, or form a Trumpie, but I think the rape claim is highly dubious, at best, and I don't hold that against Trump. (I have so much more stuff to hold against him that it doesn't seem to matter much, anyway.)

I remember when Mike Tyson was convicted of raping Desiree what's-her-name, who eventually pretty much confirmed that no actual rape took place, and that she was looking for a payday. Of course, this is what Tyson himself claimed, but to no avail. And to this day, the vomitous media will refer to Tyson as a convicted rapist, which technically speaking is true. I recall Tyson himself saying something along the lines that although the rape conviction was wrong and he was innocent of it, he had done enough bad things that he probably deserved to go to jail.

But of course, no man is ever falsely convicted of rape. Just ask the feminists.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Vort

[Just_A_Guy]

I certainly don't deny that false rape accusations abound (one against Trump was just dismissed in the last day or two, by the way, and it was a pretty patent phony).  But whether we use the "r" word or not, Ivana's account of what happened (which she hasn't walked back) are pretty disturbing.  And to me, the real game-changer is the way Trump's attorney responded to it--by launching into a tirade against the reporter, and then insisting that as a matter of law it is impossible to "rape" a woman that you are married to. 

It's hard for me to fathom why he felt he needed to make that argument.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It's hard for me to fathom why he felt he needed to make that argument.

I don't disagree with this at all. And it's not like I need more reasons to despise Trump.

[Just_A_Guy]

No, a Vote for a Third Party is Not the Same as a Vote for Hillary

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Anatess, your suggesting that Mormons only dislike Trump out of blind loyalty to Romney (source) wasn't a matter of a lack of finesse or insufficient copy-editing.  It was a substantive insight into the way you approach the issue.

And yet, when you warned that Trumpkins wouldn't turn out for Cruz if he were the nominee . . . why, that was perfectly acceptable, and just went to show why we should give you what you wanted.

You were full willing to see the party split with the White House left in Hillary's hands, and--oopsies!--turns out, you weren't the only one thinking that way.  Drink the dregs, my friend.  Drink. the. dregs. 

Then again, Donald railed against Cruz on the basis of his supposedly being part of an "establishment" that hadn't done jack squat to repeal Obamacare, and now--mirabile dictu!!!--it turns out that the "establishment" had actually done quite a bit, and Trump knew it all along.

Tell me again how we can trust Trump to do everything he's promised to do . . .

Today must be another one of those days where I just can't seem to get my point across.

1.)  I am not suggesting that Mormons only dislike Trump out of loyalty for Romney.  I am saying that MY MORMON FRIENDS who I talk politics to SAID that they are not changing their minds about being NeverTrumpers because even Romney didn't.  I was answering a direct question from Eowyn.  The only answer I have is, of course, anecdotal.  I'm not a political statistician.

2.)  I said Trumpkins wouldn't turn out for Cruz if he takes the nomination through delegate-wrangling in a contested convention.  Even Cruz supporters do not like it if he does this (as shown in the exit polling in Wisconsin).  The reason is very simple.  This year's election cycle is a backlash against people like Marco Rubio who was elected by the people to carry out their mandate yet did something opposite to it.  Delegate-wrangling is basically a microcosm of this same sentiment where people see delegates from a primary/caucus mandate only carrying the mandate through when rules force them to but have no intention of carrying it beyond that.  The NeverCruz people is very small.  My perception of Trump supporters from my work in social media is that they have no problem voting for Cruz or Kasich or any of the other 14 contestants of the Republican primaries if they win it outright.

3.) Drink the dregs.  I have no idea what you are saying here.  Are you trying to imply that if Cruz would have succeeded in a contested convention to win on the second or succeeding ballot that I would work to get people to not vote for Cruz?  I have NO IDEA how you got that impression simply by me pointing out to you that the Lincoln win was troublesome.  I HAD FULL INTENTION of working for Cruz or Kasich if they would have become the nominee regardless of how they got there.  I have expressed this sentiment here on lds.net.

4.) The "establishment" has done quite a bit AFTER Ryan replaced Boehner.  This was well into campaign season.  I'd give you a video (one of my favorite political videos to date of Gingrich - who I'm an absolute fan of - and Ryan - who I'm also a fan of - walking us through what has been happening in the House) but it is an hour long and I know you hate videos.

5.) Trump and trust.  I can't convince you to trust him.  My reasons for trusting him is what you call in the NFL as "intangible qualities"... it's not something you are interested in (from our previous discussions on the matter).  But what I can do is assure you that you can trust that Hillary will continue the implosion of the United States of America.

Edited May 5, 2016 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

2.)  I said Trumpkins wouldn't turn out for Cruz if he takes the nomination through delegate-wrangling in a contested convention.  Even Cruz supporters do not like it if he does this (as shown in the exit polling in Wisconsin).  The reason is very simple.  This year's election cycle is a backlash against people like Marco Rubio who was elected by the people to carry out their mandate yet did something opposite to it.  Delegate-wrangling is basically a microcosm of this same sentiment where people see delegates from a primary/caucus mandate only carrying the mandate through when rules force them to but have no intention of carrying it beyond that.

The Republican party selects its leadership through republican mechanisms, and we used to be okay with that.

At any rate, your argument boils down to:  Staying home on Election Day is acceptable for me, but not for thee. 

Quote

3.) Drink the dregs.  I have no idea what you are saying here.  Are you trying to imply that if Cruz would have succeeded in a contested convention to win on the second or succeeding ballot that I would work to get people to not vote for Cruz?  I have NO IDEA how you got that impression simply by me pointing out to you that the Lincoln win was troublesome.

The thing is, numerically speaking, the Lincoln win wasn't troublesome; except insofar as a certain subset of Americans were willing to resort to violence rather than accept the result.  Perhaps I read too much into your statement that "You don't want a repeat of that, I'm sure"; but in context--and in conjunction with statements by other Trump supporters in the thread--it had all the earmarks of a threat.

Quote

4.) The "establishment" has done quite a bit AFTER RYAN replaced Boehner.  This was well into campaign season.  I'd give you a video (one of my favorite political videos to date of Gingrich - who I'm an absolute fan of - and Ryan - who I'm also a fan of - walking us through what has been happening in the House) but it is an hour long and I know you hate videos.

Does the video mention that the House voted eight times to repeal Obamacare and another 40 times to defund at least portions of it, between 2009 and 2014? 

Quote

5.) Trump and trust.  I can't convince you to trust him.  My reasons for trusting him is what you call in the NFL as "intangible qualities"... it's not something I can use to convince people to trust him.  But what I can do is assure you that you can trust that Hillary will continue the implosion of the United States of America.

Yes, she will.  But I have more confidence in the current Republican party's ability to contain her, than in a future Republican party that follows Trump's lead in openly rejecting conservatism in favor of crony capitalism with a populist veneer.

 

 

[anatess2]

36 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The Republican party selects its leadership through republican mechanisms, and we used to be okay with that.

At any rate, your argument boils down to:  Staying home on Election Day is acceptable for me, but not for thee. 

The thing is, numerically speaking, the Lincoln win wasn't troublesome; except insofar as a certain subset of Americans were willing to resort to violence rather than accept the result.  Perhaps I read too much into your statement that "You don't want a repeat of that, I'm sure"; but in context--and in conjunction with statements by other Trump supporters in the thread--it had all the earmarks of a threat.

Does the video mention that the House voted eight times to repeal Obamacare and another 40 times to defund at least portions of it, between 2009 and 2014? 

Yes, she will.  But I have more confidence in the current Republican party's ability to contain her, than in a future Republican party that follows Trump's lead in openly rejecting conservatism in favor of crony capitalism with a populist veneer.

 

 

1.)  We used to be okay with electing establishment politicians too.  But that's not the case in this election cycle.

2.)  The subject of this thread is "An appeal... to not vote for Hillary".

3.)  A threat it wasn't.  A commentary it was.

4.) The video doesn't mention it as it is a commentary on the changes that have been put into place since Ryan replaced Boehner.  It mentions the state of "sickness" (my word) that Congress was in and how they are now finally getting the House to a point where it functions like it is supposed to function.. it mentions that most of the Congressmen in the house has never seen a House that functions properly.  Symbolic votes that has to balance tons of pork is not how the House is supposed to function.  In case you wanna just see for yourself click on this 30-minute version.

5.) The Republicans have not successfully contained Obama even as they put their political careers on the line to be obstructionists.  Now, about openly rejecting conservatism... this Zonation video (Alfonzo is one of my favorites) is short and entertaining so you might wanna give it a glance.  It points out the problems with conservatives.  Just to prep - Alfonzo is not a Trumpster.  Here's the video of "who" he actually endorses - which is also a really good video that puts the issues in a way where you can match it with Presidential nominees (at this time we're left with Hillary, Trump, and the 3rd parties).  Just in case you're in the mood for videos.

 

Edited May 5, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I agree that the outsider persona helped.  As far as Cruz, though . . . I think it's cute how Trumpkins act as though the shift in the perception of Cruz happened of its own accord, as if Trump and his minions did nothing to create that perception.  As if there weren't Trump supporters, on this very forum, repeating bold-faced lies about--for example--purported extramarital affairs by Cruz.

Actually, having extramarital affairs and the like has no bearing on whether one gets the impression of being "establishment".  What got that perception to sink in - and a lot of this has to do with Trump effectively burning it into people's minds on the stump - is Cruz's absolutely amazing mechanism of winning delegates and tailoring his stump message to computerized demographic targeting.  In previous election cycles, this would be absolutely applauded as a very smart campaign strategy (Karl Rove was hailed a campaign hero for this reason).  In this election cycle - that effectively made Cruz "establishment".  He didn't help himself when he and PACs sympathetic to him saturated Indiana airwaves with negative political ads.  And then when he debated that Trumpster by opening with "Trump behind the scenes with The New York Times...", that was the only thing people heard... they rejected the rest of his message (which was very good, actually - Cruz gave it his best shot) because it smacks of the same establishment playbook that Reid/Romney used about the tax returns.  Because, if there is one thing that is smack solid in this election cycle it is that Trump will build the wall and that he will make Mexico pay for it.  That is as firm as concrete on the minds of most voters including the Democrats who use it as their canon fodder.

So, how Cruz lost the nomination?  He, like all the others including the media (including Rush Limbaugh even - but at least he is open about acknowledging he is trying to figure it all out), really failed to understand the sentiment of the current election cycle's voter.  By the way, this is not limited to the Republican party - this is also displayed in the Democrat party.

 

In any case, we're past that now...

Edited May 5, 2016 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

17 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 In previous election cycles, this would be absolutely applauded as a very smart campaign strategy (Karl Rove was hailed a campaign hero for this reason).  In this election cycle - that effectively made Cruz "establishment".

So, how Cruz lost the nomination?  He, like all the others including the media (including Rush Limbaugh even - but at least he is open about acknowledging he is trying to figure it all out), really failed to understand the sentiment of the current election cycle's voter.  By the way, this is not limited to the Republican party - this is also displayed in the Democrat party.

Right, but as you yourself said--a lot of this perception is indeed a result of Trump's own antics.  So your bottom lines remains:  Negative campaigning for me, but not for thee.  Your apologia for Trump seems to boil down to the fact that Cruz should have recognized from the get-go 1) what a complete and utter dirtbag Trump was, and 2) how many Republicans were ready for a complete and utter dirtbag to be the party nominee.  Which is, objectively speaking, probably true; but it's hardly a persuasive reason for me to support Trump (or the party at all, really) in the general.

I am inclined to think that fundamentally, Trump won by doing what the Dems have been doing for years:  Fully embracing a campaign based on emotion, rather than logic and reason.  That's one reason why I think it's so important that he lose the general--because if he wins, then all future campaigns (not just the Democrats') will be run like Trump's (and Hillary's, and Obama's); and we may as well quit having debates and just throw the party nominees in a pit for two or three sessions of mud-wrestling over the course of campaign season.  It'd be just as enlightening, three times more entertaining, and maybe we might actually win once in a while.

Quote

The video doesn't mention it as it is a commentary on the changes that have been put into place since Ryan replaced Boehner.  It mentions the state of "sickness" (my word) that Congress was in and how they are now finally getting the House to a point where it functions like it is supposed to function.. it mentions that most of the Congressmen in the house has never seen a House that functions properly.  Symbolic votes that has to balance tons of pork is not how the House is supposed to function.  In case you wanna just see for yourself click on this 30-minute version.

Yet in spite of this "sickness", the votes happened.  The bottom line is, Trump campaigned on the proposition that congressional Republicans weren't doing anything, when in fact he knew darned well that under their leadership the House had voted to repeal Obamacare at least half a dozen times by 2014. If you want to start saying that those were all merely "symbolic" because the congressional Republicans knew the President wouldn't sign off on it--okay, then.  But I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone in the Republican congressional leadership who heralded Obama's entry to the White House as "very good news", the way Donald Trump did.

Quote

The Republicans have not successfully contained Obama even as they put their political careers on the line to be obstructionists.  Now, about openly rejecting conservatism... this Zonation video (Alfonzo is one of my favorites) is short and entertaining so you might wanna give it a glance.  It points out the problems with conservatives.  Just to prep - Alfonzo is not a Trumpster.  Here's the video of "who" he actually endorses - which is also a really good video that puts the issues in a way where you can match it with Presidential nominees (at this time we're left with Hillary, Trump, and the 3rd parties).  Just in case you're in the mood for videos.

I think they've done a very good job at containing his legislative agenda.  Now, the imperial presidency has developed to a point where a president now has many ways to go around Congress; but I think the judiciary--even the libs among them--is starting to hit back a little bit.  The federal bench, speaking collectively, may like leftism politically; but getting into any branch of government tends to make a person become very jealous of the prerogatives of that branch and suspicious of the other two branches.  Moreover, there's anecdotal evidence suggesting that for all her other failings Hillary does respect the process, the governmental institutions and traditions, and the notion of "checks and balances" a bit more than Obama does (she has apparently been overheard railing against his politicization of the IRS and his going after conservative journalists, for example).  I suspect we can deal with her, and even if we can't--a failure to re-enthrone conservative principles in the party and in the country merely guarantees that we will see many, many more presidents like her in the future.

We've gone over Trump's breaks with conservatism ad nauseum on this thread already, with the tenor of your responses being generally (and perhaps I'm over-generalizing somewhat, but if I am--I don't think it's by much) that to the extent Trump departs from conservatism, it's because conservatism is unimportant or just plain wrong.  Those responses were unconvincing to me then; and frankly third party videos that make the same point aren't really going to make much difference.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Right, but as you yourself said--a lot of this perception is indeed a result of Trump's own antics.  So your bottom lines remains:  Negative campaigning for me, but not for thee.  Your apologia for Trump seems to boil down to the fact that Cruz should have recognized from the get-go 1) what a complete and utter dirtbag Trump was, and 2) how many Republicans were ready for a complete and utter dirtbag to be the party nominee.  Which is, objectively speaking, probably true; but it's hardly a persuasive reason for me to support Trump (or the party at all, really) in the general.

I am inclined to think that fundamentally, Trump won by doing what the Dems have been doing for years:  Fully embracing a campaign based on emotion, rather than logic and reason.  That's why I think it's so important that he lose the general--because if he wins, then all future campaigns (not just the Democrats') will be run like Trump's (and Hillary's, and Obama's); and we may as well quit having debates and just throw the party nominees in a pit for two or three sessions of mud-wrestling over the course of campaign season.  It'd be just as enlightening, three times more entertaining, and maybe we might actually win once in a while.

First paragraph:

You have not (or refuse to) see what is happening in this election cycle.  Trump voters - and I have named several prominent ones in Vort's thread - do not see Trump as a dirtbag nor did they vote for him because they think he is a dirtbag and they are not trying to persuade anybody to vote for a dirtbag.

Second paragraph:

Same thing.  Now, if you think that elections are won without engaging in emotion, then I don't know what you've been looking at in elections.  Great rousing speeches has been a critical component of every campaign.  Cruz's and Kasich's exit speeches was as emotionally heavy as all get.  What you have dismissed simply by your belief that Trump is nothing more than a dirtbag is the logic and reason that went with the Trump campaign.  The media and many others dismissed him right out of the gate as a joke.

Trump achieved what other Republicans have not.  He busted through the albatross of political correctness that has provided cannon fodder for Democrats to bury Republicans... you can't say All Lives Matter because that's racist... You can't say Binders of Women because that's sexist... etc. etc. which has successfully painted Republicans in the minds of the general voting public as racists, sexists, bigots who will push grandma off a cliff.  Republicans have walked within the Democrat-imposed PC rules for fear of being rejected so much so that they have become willing to give in to Amnesty to prove that they're not racists.  That's finally in the coffin.  Trump has proved that voters don't just swallow Democrat-and media-imposed societal rules.  Now, from what I see... people are still in a state of shock that PC died in this election cycle and the Republicans can't quite grasp that you can say we are going to put a temporary ban on Muslim immigration or I want to punch him in the face and not die.  Now, if you believe that elections should be run by robotic campaigns who strips away every single personal quirk out of a candidate to polish him up for a perceived set of qualities that is "electable"... then yeah, you're going to not like this change.

Another thing that Trump achieved in this election cycle is that a Republican can put a shackle on the media.  It has always been that the Democrat-controlled media has the power to MAKE news... not just report news.  The media in this election cycle has had a very limited influence on shaping public opinion.  This is a Trump gift to Republicans - showing one and all that they can get through to the people by USING the media instead of AVOIDING the media.  The norm has been - if you're a Republican, do not go on MSNBC, they will bury you.  If you're a Democrat, don't go on Fox, they'll bury you.  That's something nailed shut in the coffin now too due to Trump's ability to shackle the media to cover his every move while at the same time pointing out their "badness".  He will interview with anybody - MSNBC, CNN, Fox, anybody.  When they try to eliminate him, he just blasts right through.  That is another Trump gift to the Republican party.

Now, if you think that Supreme Court Judges, $21 Trillion in debt and rising, Obamacare, the state of our economy is worth it just so we can't have another Trump-like campaign (I still don't understand how you can say it is devoid of reason and logic with people like Jeff Sessions solidly behind him)... all I can really tell you is once again to ask the question... "Are you willing to consider the possibility that you are wrong about Trump?".

 

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Trump voters - and I have named several prominent ones in Vort's thread - do not see Trump as a dirtbag nor did they vote for him because they think he is a dirtbag and they are not trying to persuade anybody to vote for a dirtbag.

Anyone who votes for Trump yet critcized anyone for voting for Bill Clinton because "Character Matters" is a hypocrite.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Guest