For NeverTrumpers: An appeal to not vote Hillary over Trump

[Guest MormonGator]

His calling people "Lying Ted" or "Little Marco" is childish bullying. People who use name calling do so because they aren't mature enough to talk like adults, or have the manners of someone who belongs on the Maury show. 

I seriously wonder what his mother would say to him.  Does it make him feel better about his own inadequacies as a man, father, husband...? It must, because truly stable and secure people don't use name calling or childish bullying. 

It happens online all the time. "Oh, you are stupid" or "Oh, you are a nazi." "That the dumbest thing I ever heard." I seriously wonder what THEIR mothers would say too. I know my mother would be ashamed of me if I acted like that.

What tragic cases these people are. Trump is like every rude online poster who is somehow deficient in their own lives in some way (maybe a sad job, no friends, no loved ones) and takes out their anger online while they try to feel tough. 

To be clear: I am not saying every Trumper is insecure or afraid. I'm saying Donald himself and everyone online who uses name calling is. 

People who can't see that disturb me. Those are the people who made high school miserable for all of us. 

Edited April 22, 2016 by MormonGator

[Guest]

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

People who can't see that disturb me. Those are the people who made high school miserable for all of us.

Maybe that's why I'm never surprised to find out who is a Trumpkin.  It's a pretty easy demographic to spot.

[yjacket]

10 hours ago, MormonGator said:

His calling people "Lying Ted" or "Little Marco" is childish bullying. 

It might be bullying, but it is still brilliant. He didn't pick those terms just for giggles and grins to be mean. He picked those specific terms on purpose-specifically to attack their inadequacies that they were trying to make up for.  Give the devil his due-it's brilliant.  

Look, pretty much every single candidate running is a narcissistic, egotistical, psychopath. They are running for the most powerful position in the world, it only pays $400k a year.  Once elected they are the most important and powerful person in the world out of 7 billion people.  They determine the outcome for over 300 million people.  I know what the Constitution says, but there is what it says and the current reality.  The current reality is that being President is like being a modern day elected King.

People think Ted Cruz is this humble, Christian guy . . . I got news for you-he isn't. He puts on a show, just like all of them do.  There are very, very few individuals who have run (especially in the last 100 years) who are actually good, decent people who are not narcissists.  

 

[yjacket]

7 hours ago, Eowyn said:

Maybe that's why I'm never surprised to find out who is a Trumpkin.  It's a pretty easy demographic to spot.

And it never surprises me who is naive enough to believe everything will be hunky dory if we just elect a true "conservative".  

We'll take back the Constitution, restore gun rights, we'll have a limited government, we'll get rid of the IRS . . . .lol what a load of crap. It's one thing to say it and throw red meat to people, it's another thing to actually do it.

Republicrats have had control of Congress for the past 2 years; they could have easily reduced the size and scope of the government. Yet they continually roll over and play dead. You think Cruz will stand on principle when he is elected? Hah, when asked why he didn't vote for the NDAA in 2013, he simply said it was to fulfill a "campaign promise". That isn't being principle, that is being slimy.  He could have easily said, look the NDAA contained provisions within that I believe are unconstitutional and I stand on principle.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, yjacket said:

Hah, when asked why he didn't vote for the NDAA in 2013, he simply said it was to fulfill a "campaign promise". That isn't being principle, that is being slimy.  He could have easily said, look the NDAA contained provisions within that I believe are unconstitutional and I stand on principle.

You mean like this:

Quote

December 19, 2013

WASHINGTON, DC — U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, released the following statement regarding today’s final vote on the National Defense Authorization Act:

"Today I voted against the National Defense Authorization Act. I am deeply concerned that Congress still has not prohibited President Obama’s ability to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens arrested on American soil without trial or due process.

"The Constitution does not allow President Obama, or any President, to apprehend an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, and detain these citizens indefinitely without a trial. When I ran for office, I promised the people of Texas I would oppose any National Defense Authorization Act that did not explicitly prohibit the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens. Although this legislation does contain several positive provisions that I support, it does not ensure our most basic rights as American citizens are protected.

"I hope that next year the Senate and the House can come together in a bipartisan way to recognize the importance of our constitutional rights even in the face of ongoing terrorist threats and national security challenges. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee toward this common goal."

It's easy to take things out of context and twist them to your own ends.  The fact that you did so, or at least trusted Trump when he said it is very telling about your "neutral" position between the two.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Guest

[yjacket]

37 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

You mean like this:

It's easy to take things out of context and twist them to your own ends.  The fact that you did so, or at least trusted Trump when he said it is very telling about your "neutral" position between the two.

Lol . . . this is what I mean about Cruz being a snake in the grass (look at the date 2013).  He was asked in a National Debate (2016), why he voted against it. Had he simply stated something similar to what you posted I would completely agree, but he didn't. He simply said, I voted against it to fulfill a campaign process.  He had an opportunity on National TV in front of millions of people to say I voted against the NDAA because it contained provisions about indefinite detention of American citizens.

He did not! Why didn't he, b/c he thought it was politically expedient for him not to. Rather than steer the debate to a substantive conversation about the rights and liberties of all  American citizens, he took the politically expedient route and simply said, "well I was fulfilling a campaign promise".

How many times have I said a pox on both their houses.  The problem is that I think Cruz is no better than Trump. You think me not trusting Cruz is a sign that I'm not "neutral".  It is just simple facts, if a guy has to put in his slogan "trust me", that guy is not trustworthy.  They are both narcissistic, egotistical individuals.

So basically, b/c I don't buy Cruz's schtick hook, line, and sinker means I'm not neutral . . . lol politics-where people's brains go completely out the window.

Edited April 22, 2016 by yjacket

[Guest]

2 hours ago, yjacket said:

And it never surprises me who is naive enough to believe everything will be hunky dory if we just elect a true "conservative".  

We'll take back the Constitution, restore gun rights, we'll have a limited government, we'll get rid of the IRS . . . .lol what a load of crap. It's one thing to say it and throw red meat to people, it's another thing to actually do it.

Republicrats have had control of Congress for the past 2 years; they could have easily reduced the size and scope of the government. Yet they continually roll over and play dead. You think Cruz will stand on principle when he is elected? Hah, when asked why he didn't vote for the NDAA in 2013, he simply said it was to fulfill a "campaign promise". That isn't being principle, that is being slimy.  He could have easily said, look the NDAA contained provisions within that I believe are unconstitutional and I stand on principle.

That's a lot of words you're putting in my mouth. Prove where I've ever said any of these things.

[Guest MormonGator]

10 hours ago, Eowyn said:

Maybe that's why I'm never surprised to find out who is a Trumpkin.  It's a pretty easy demographic to spot.

 Absolutely! Eowyn, you are a mom right? (apologies if you are not) If your grown, adult son started acting like this, how would you feel? 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

 Absolutely! Eowyn, you are a mom right? (apologies if you are not) If your grown, adult son started acting like this, how would you feel? 

Mom of five.  I would be horrified. I might even take him over my knee. 

[Guest MormonGator]

18 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Mom of five.  I would be horrified. I might even take him over my knee. 

My old man is 70 and I'm 36. If I talked to people like Trump does -or worse, like his followers do-my dad would probably do the same. 

[Guest MormonGator]

18 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Mom of five.  I would be horrified. I might even take him over my knee. 

My old man is 70 and I'm 36. If I talked to people like Trump does -or worse, like his followers do-my dad would probably do the same. 

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, Eowyn said:

That's a lot of words you're putting in my mouth. Prove where I've ever said any of these things.

Prove where I said that is what you were saying.

[yjacket]

More proof of what I'm saying (just found this):

 

 

You don't have to like the guy to admire his skill set. The words he is using isn't just to be a jerk, it is extremely tactical.

[Guest]

10 hours ago, yjacket said:

Lol . . . this is what I mean about Cruz being a snake in the grass (look at the date 2013).  He was asked in a National Debate (2016), why he voted against it. Had he simply stated something similar to what you posted I would completely agree, but he didn't. He simply said, I voted against it to fulfill a campaign process.  He had an opportunity on National TV in front of millions of people to say I voted against the NDAA because it contained provisions about indefinite detention of American citizens.

He did not! Why didn't he, b/c he thought it was politically expedient for him not to. Rather than steer the debate to a substantive conversation about the rights and liberties of all  American citizens, he took the politically expedient route and simply said, "well I was fulfilling a campaign promise".

How many times have I said a pox on both their houses.  The problem is that I think Cruz is no better than Trump. You think me not trusting Cruz is a sign that I'm not "neutral".  It is just simple facts, if a guy has to put in his slogan "trust me", that guy is not trustworthy.  They are both narcissistic, egotistical individuals.

So basically, b/c I don't buy Cruz's schtick hook, line, and sinker means I'm not neutral . . . lol politics-where people's brains go completely out the window.

Both statements were true.  Yet you are calling him a snake in the grass.  Based on what?  Because it was politically expedient (as you call it) to mention one thing at one time and another at another time?  If they're both true and both a matter of public record, why keep repeating yourself?

You say a pox on both houses, yet it's fine that Trump keeps changing positions all the time and lying -- and call Cruz saying two NON-MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE statements three years apart as being a snake in the grass.

That's why you're not neutral.

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

You say a pox on both houses, yet it's fine that Trump keeps changing positions all the time and lying

??? Where did I say it was fine he was changing his positions?  Again because I'm anti-both I'm accused of not being neutral.

All I'm saying is that both are bad, it takes more work to convince people Cruz is bad, simply b/c he is also a very good manipulator. I don't jump on the Cruz bandwagon, like he is the great savior that will restore this country, nor do I do that with Trump. And no Cruz was not saying two-mutually exclusive things.  The same basic question, why did you vote against NDAA, in 2013 it was b/c of principle, 2015 to fulfill a campaign promise.  Trump can do the same thing but to anti-Trumpers, he is the devil. Cruz does the same thing and he is a savior.

Cruz can say he wants to find out whether "sand can glow in the dark" and no one cares, Trump says he wants to kill ISIS family members and everyone is in an uproar.  It is hypocrisy of the highest degree. Trump comes out with an incredibly sane response on abortion.  If abortion is murder, then the parties involved in abortion should be punished, one would be for actual murder, the other would be for manslaughter.  But to hear the uproar-it is logically inconsistent.

Now you have this junk:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/22/go-ahead-donald-get-1237-it-wont-matter-rnc-delegate.html

Lol . . . go ahead the Republican Party will sign their own death warrant.  I have been apart on a very local scale, many local fights where the local Repub. party wants to keep other people out that don't conform to "their" club.  You know where it always end after many years . . . the people who want to retain power always get overthrown; however in the meantime a lot of strive, angst and political war happens.  People become very bitter, things get really bad as instead of actually coming together on common ground they end up killing each other.  In the meantime, politicians that make the place worse get elected until finally people learn to work together.

And it never ceases to amaze me how people can be so offended by what is said on a National Debate, when these same people are the ones that will watch Survivor, Desperate Housewives, or any other number of TV shows full of junk. These shows, the vulgar, the disrespect, etc. would never be on if the people didn't buy it.  Many of the loudest criers against Trump are full of hypocrisy. Their children will watch it, yet they will get so offended by an innuendo on a debate.  

" Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. "

Edited April 23, 2016 by yjacket

[yjacket]

Quite frankly, the biggest decisions the President can make are with regard to foreign policy. I have learned in my lifetime that War is the Health of the State.  It is wartime that the most oppressive regulations, the worst fear, the biggest growth in government occur.  

I hate war, there are times to fight, but they are very few and far between. The myth of WWII, is just absolute bunk.  John Q. Adams said it the best:

" Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. "

Adams words have become the truth; and quite frankly I see a Cruz president willing to get us involved in another war, be it Syria, Iran, Israel, etc. Trump certainly could do so too, but I've only heard him say he would go after ISIS. And no I don't think Trump is a loose cannon, you don't become a billionaire by being a loose cannon. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, yjacket said:

??? Where did I say it was fine he was changing his positions?  Again because I'm anti-both I'm accused of not being neutral.

All I'm saying is that both are bad

For starters...

Quote

I'd rather have Trump over Cruz.

Yes his 4-year voting record is really good . . .but man there is just something about the guy that really concerns me. (Based on...?  Your subsequent explanations are all "maybe...)

To be a successful businessman you can not be a jerk to customers-if you are you will quickly find yourself out of business. (statement made to excuse Trump's behavior, but you flat-out refuse to accept any such explanations for any of your negative Cruz statements).

Trump has some very good points (you then list several good points, yet I haven't seen any similar list about Cruz without a "but...")

That was just the first page of your posting.  Yes, I heard loud and clear your "A pox on both their houses" comment.  But I keep hearing a defense of Trump and a condemnation of Cruz in all your posts in this thread.  Not once did you issue a condemnation post to Anatess -- an obvious Trump supporter.  In fact, you commiserated with her.

When you say you're going to vote Libertarian, I believe you.  But then why waste your breath defending a man you disapprove of?  Nothing you've said here to defend Trump or condemn Cruz is "clear and convincing".  All of it is subjective interpretations of what we perceive.

Quote

Cruz plays the guy who takes the moral high ground but in his soul he is just as Machiavellian and immoral as the rest.  I've evaluated the links between Amanda Carpenter and Cruz and while I can't say for sure; there is smoke, whether it was simply an unprofessional relationship or more I don't know-all I do know is that there is something there.

Yup, I'm convinced.  Hey, everyone, let's burn the witch based on accusation and suspicion alone.

[Guest MormonGator]

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

For starters...

That was just the first page of your posting.  Yes, I heard loud and clear your "A pox on both their houses" comment.  But I keep hearing a defense of Trump and a condemnation of Cruz in all your posts in this thread.  Not once did you issue a condemnation post to Anatess -- an obvious Trump supporter.  In fact, you commiserated with her.

When you say you're going to vote Libertarian, I believe you.  But then why waste your breath defending a man you disapprove of?  Nothing you've said here to defend Trump or condemn Cruz is "clear and convincing".  All of it is subjective interpretations of what we perceive.

Yup, I'm convinced.  Hey, everyone, let's burn the witch based on accusation and suspicion alone.

 Carb, I have no love for Trump (in case that's not obvious) or Trumpers (again, that shouldn't be a surprise) but Cruz didn't deny the allegations. If your wife finds your cellphone and you break it before she can look at it, there is fire. Do I know Cruz is guilty? No. Do Trumpers know he is guilty? No. However it doesn't look good. 

It's important to remember that our politicians-even if we agree with them 100%-are human. They'll make mistakes, sin, and are fragile people. 

Edited April 23, 2016 by MormonGator

[yjacket]

On 4/23/2016 at 9:13 PM, MormonGator said:

 Carb, I have no love for Trump (in case that's not obvious) or Trumpers (again, that shouldn't be a surprise) but Cruz didn't deny the allegations. If your wife finds your cellphone and you break it before she can look at it, there is fire. Do I know Cruz is guilty? No. Do Trumpers know he is guilty? No. However it doesn't look good. 

It's important to remember that our politicians-even if we agree with them 100%-are human. They'll make mistakes, sin, and are fragile people. 

My big point here is that people seem to have a love affair with Cruz and he is just as slimy as the rest. While politicians can certainly sin and make mistakes; one can't claim the moral high ground while there is a lot of smoke. And I'd say having an affair (or more accurately at this point a highly suspicious relationship) while being a Senator is well quite untrustworthy.  I learned a long time ago you can tell a lot about an individual by what they do when they think no one is watching. A highly suspicious relationship(s) that could possible involve breaking one of the most sacred vows a man can make in this life (marriage), does not speak well at all for his character. 

For all the LDS people who have attached themselves to Cruz as if he is somehow more moral and upright than Trump-I got news for you he isn't.   

Now yes, Trump at least from what I remember had an affair Marla Maples-which does not speak well at all of his character; however, I do make allowances for actions committed a long time ago and where the person has had an opportunity to learn from them and make amends.  

[Traveler]

Just a note in passing for those, that for whatever reason, think that the election of a single individual is going to make an actual difference in this country.  You seriously ought to review history.  The following is a method that anyone can use to realize that a candidate has no clue or intention to change anything.

1. They claim that they can bring lost jobs back to America.  The truth is – at this point, we really do not what the jobs that were lost; back – That ship sailed a long time ago - what we should focus on is creating new jobs that fit better the economic and educational demographics of this country.

2. They claim they can solve the national debt.  This actually proves that they are an idiot that is incapable of doing math.  But then being math literate in our current society is considered to be a negative trait.  Go figure! 

3. They claim they can bring people together and unite the nation.  This only proves that they do not understand what divides this nation.  No one has ever solved a problem that they do not understand.

4. They claim they are the only one that can solve the nation’s problems.   If this claim has any chance of being true they will have to destroy our republic form of government in order for this to make any sense of possibility.

Having followed politics since my childhood – I am convinced that the political evolution that has continued in this country has had nothing at all to do with who was elected president.  I purport that the government of this country is a reflection of the citizens – not that the citizens are a reflection of this country.

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Traveler said:

I purport that the government of this country is a reflection of the citizens – not that the citizens are a reflection of this country.

I can agree with the first part of this remark for the most part.  After all, the government is made of people (citizens) like you and like me in many ways. Most people are motivated by pretty much the same basics--and the basics have been universal around the world and through mortal time. Isn't it true that the Founders recognized this and intended to compensate for human tendencies (such as the tendency for individuals to behave differently in a large group compared to a small one)?  And we are certainly a much larger more densely populated group today than we were in our beginning.  I'm having trouble making sense of the second part of your remark. Did you insert "this country" when you actually meant to insert "the government of this country"?

[Just_A_Guy]

On 4/23/2016 at 7:13 PM, MormonGator said:

 Carb, I have no love for Trump (in case that's not obvious) or Trumpers (again, that shouldn't be a surprise) but Cruz didn't deny the allegations. If your wife finds your cellphone and you break it before she can look at it, there is fire. Do I know Cruz is guilty? No. Do Trumpers know he is guilty? No. However it doesn't look good. 

It's important to remember that our politicians-even if we agree with them 100%-are human. They'll make mistakes, sin, and are fragile people. 

Where is this story about Cruz breaking a cell phone coming from?  I'm having trouble Googling for it.

As for the lack of denial--I think Cruz is a sufficient rhetorician to know how his initial response would be taken; and that--if caught with his hand in the cookie jar later--even an attempt to point out that, semantically, he hadn't lied; wouldn't be enough to save his campaign. 

On 4/24/2016 at 10:16 PM, yjacket said:

My big point here is that people seem to have a love affair with Cruz and he is just as slimy as the rest. While politicians can certainly sin and make mistakes; one can't claim the moral high ground while there is a lot of smoke. And I'd say having an affair (or more accurately at this point a highly suspicious relationship) while being a Senator is well quite untrustworthy.  I learned a long time ago you can tell a lot about an individual by what they do when they think no one is watching. A highly suspicious relationship(s) that could possible involve breaking one of the most sacred vows a man can make in this life (marriage), does not speak well at all for his character. 

For all the LDS people who have attached themselves to Cruz as if he is somehow more moral and upright than Trump-I got news for you he isn't.   

Now yes, Trump at least from what I remember had an affair Marla Maples-which does not speak well at all of his character; however, I do make allowances for actions committed a long time ago and where the person has had an opportunity to learn from them and make amends.  

"Highly suspicious"?  Well, of course.  I mean, she WORKED FOR him.  And then she QUIT.  But before then, sometimes they SHARED MEALS!  And once HE LENT HER HIS JACKET!  And sometimes they LAUGHED.  In the same room.  Together!  And she still SUPPORTS HIS CANDIDACY!  And they (and the rest of their office) got MATCHING WINSTON CHURCHILL TATTOOS!

Yeah, you're right.  What a strumpet she is!

Meanwhile, there's this . . .

[Guest MormonGator]

5 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Where is this story about Cruz breaking a cell phone coming from?  I'm having trouble Googling for it.

 

I was using it as a comparison for his denial. If someone accused me of cheating on LadyGator, I'd deny it if it didn't happen. If it did happen, I'd talk around it. 

Edited April 26, 2016 by MormonGator

[Just_A_Guy]

On 4/21/2016 at 9:07 AM, anatess2 said:

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?

No, you posted videos.  Scads and scads of videos, most of which were puff pieces or twenty years old.

Quote

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.

Except for the differences I've provided, and the utter repugnance of Trump's character; which you've glossed over (more on that below).

Quote

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. 

1860 shows that a candidate can legitimately receive his party's nomination--and even win in the general--even if he doesn't get a majority of delegates on the first party convention ballot.  You were the one who, in response, started talking about secession and war; and then summed up with "You don't want a repeat of that, I'm sure."

Look, you obviously want us all to understand that Very Bad Things will happen if we don't embrace Trump now, before the nomination.  We get it.

On 4/21/2016 at 9:56 AM, anatess2 said:

He advocated 25% [tariff] before that.... the percentage is not the point.  The point is to put tariffs on China proportional to the trade deficits...

The point is that tariffs are counterproductive.

Quote

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).

SSA isn't an issue of big-government versus small-government.  It's an issue of finding $23 trillion that isn't there.  We aren't going to grow our way out of this mess; and by suggesting otherwise Trump is just trying to buy votes (again) by telling people that they won't have to sacrifice. 

Quote

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.

You argue that affirmative action doesn't conflict with small-government conservatism, but then maintain that my position is ridiculous?

This is the kind of "who are you gonna believe--me or your own lyin' eyes?!" nonsense that gets Trump a reputation as a snake-oil salesman.

Quote

He was a Democrat in 2004.

Oh, that makes me feel better.

Quote

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.

Except that you said he doesn't vilify people.  Now you're acknowledging that he does, but that it's part of what makes him awesome.

He's tearing down the intellectual and institutional house that conservatism lives in.  Conservatives shouldn't do that unless they are well and truly convinced that they will never need to persuade another American, or win another election, ever again.

Is there something about Trump that makes you think that may be the case?

Quote

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.

Except that the slimiest political move your friend YJacket was able to dredge up against Cruz, was that he actually voted against a bill he'd promised to vote against.

What a shill.

Quote

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.

So, the best you can come up with is, "they messed up.  They trusted Trump".

Never mind that Trump has the ability to make whole the people he hurt, and has not done so.  They deserve it--because, banks.

Quote

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. . . .

. . . by giving us a redux of Smoot-Hawley, taxing the rich, getting Congress to acquiesce to his decrees, making deals with foreign dictators for which he will magically have to concede nothing, and setting precedents against Muslims that secularists and hard-line Christianists alike will seek to deploy against Mormons in coming years.

I thought Republicans didn't believe in Santa Claus?

[yjacket]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

"Highly suspicious"?  Well, of course.  I mean, she WORKED FOR him.  And then she QUIT.  But before then, sometimes they SHARED MEALS!  And once HE LENT HER HIS JACKET!  And sometimes they LAUGHED.  In the same room.  Together!  And she still SUPPORTS HIS CANDIDACY!  And they (and the rest of their office) got MATCHING WINSTON CHURCHILL TATTOOS!

Yeah, you're right.  What a strumpet she is!

Meanwhile, there's this . . .

So if you as a male shared cheesecake with a female co-worker at ~2:50am in the morning in a private setting, your wife would be fine with that.  And not just any female, but a very attractive young female?

Oh let's add a little bit more to it, this is the same reporter who tweeted out the night of the Iowa caucuses that Ben Carson was leaving the race.  So here we have a very attractive woman who ~6 months earlier worked as Cruz's Communications Director, the two were obviously very close together (reading her tweets she is at best a fan-girl at worst something more). The Cruz campaign was then able to put out a report that CNN had reported that Ben Carson was leaving the race. The Cruz campaign had complete deniability . . ."it wasn't us, it was CNN".  Right, I'm to believe there was no collusion between this CNN reporter who worked as Cruz's communication director and the Cruz campaign?

Quit, or forced out by the wife? It's not just one thing, it's a combination, add up all the little pieces and yes it highly is suspicious.  I dare you, go have a piece of cheesecake at 2:50am with a very attractive female subordinate in a private setting and see what your wife says.  Any married man, knows that's just not appropriate.  She has tweets with pictures of him in his 20s saying things like "I love the floppy young lawyer hair", and "Daddy Cruz is going to get you".  

Come on JAG, you are smarter than this.

You'd give your suit coat jacket to a young pretty thing  and the picture is in a hotel room??? Come on man.

Edited April 25, 2016 by yjacket