I know who I'm voting for

[anatess2]

Now, here's a thing to note:

Hillary controls the news cycle  - not only because the press is rallying on her side concentrating on Trump's negative news (mostly manufactured negative) and not even mentioning Clinton's negative news - but also because she relies on a lot of money so she is blasting the airwaves with negative ad buys.  She's not out there talking a lot.  Even Kaine is not out there talking a lot.  The press is not talking about them - the press is talking about how bad Trump is.

Trump, on the other hand, has made ZERO (not an exaggeration) ad buys.  NOT A SINGLE ONE.  Any Trump ad you see is not coming from Trump nor the RNC but from unconnected PAC somewhere.  Interestingly, Trump raised as much money as Hillary in July.  Trump's are from small donations, Hillary's are from Wall Street.  But even then, Trump still has only less than 100 campaign staffers and running a very small machine.  Trump is still talking a lot - rallies everywhere, interviews everywhere.  So the press has a lot of material to work with - and they're not highlighting positive things, they're only concentrating on negative things.

It's a perception war and I have a feeling a whole slew of voting people are onto it.

 

[anatess2]

8 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I agree with just about everything you said in your post, individually.  The thing is none of it makes me want to vote for him.  I agree that handlers are what create the veneer that most people see.  To be honest though, as much as I admire Trump going after the press openly and directly, I think it's made him careless and it's beginning to hurt him.

I happen to think with McMullin's experience he can get things done.  My biggest concern with Trump is that he's a successful businessman.  He knows the world of business well and is obviously good at it.  The problem is that the Office of the President doesn't work like a business.  It's the same reason military generals  tend to become lackluster Presidents.  The political arena doesn't work the same as the military.

That said, if I felt more comfortable with Trump's judgment and character I'd vote for him in the hope that he could successfully transition from the business environment to the political. 

The problem Trump and his supporters have is that we're in a new phase of the campaign now.  What worked in the primary phase isn't going to work so well now, and he hasn't changed tactics to adapt.  I think it's going to hurt him badly.

Yes, the office of President is not quite the same as a business.  But the only reason it isn't is because of the 3 equal powers.  The CEO can't make unilateral decisions.  And that's why Trump likes to remind people he wrote the Art of the Deal.  Because, that's what the government is with the 3 equal powers - you make deals.  This is the thing that bothers me the most about ideologues.  Sure, ideology is awesome in the Legislature - that's where you need staunch ideologues.  You got right wingers and left wingers duking it out on the Congress floor but without a mediator, nothing will get done or you get things like Obamacare that is rammed through Congress without a minority vote.  Obama solved the problem by just writing executive orders all day long.  That's not how a government is supposed to be run.

Trump is, of course, very well-versed in political matters.  He had to navigate it to get his business going.  Congress has asked him to speak on the Congress floor to get his advice on certain matters - e.g. taxes, regulations, etc.  You mentioned his donations to Hillary - that's in the same vein as his ties made in China.  That's what he had to do to succeed in business.  Hillary is a senator in New York - Trump Organization is headquartered in New York.  These people in government had made it so that businesses has to grease the palms of government and ship their ties from China to succeed.  Nobody understands that better than Trump.  And he has sworn to fix that atrocity.  His support of Romney (quote from Trump: "I will do anything to get Romney elected - you want money, I'll give you money, you want me to make speeches I'll make speeches, anything") is because Romney understands these things.

Okay, here's Trump over the years (first 10 minutes) (ignore the title - I couldn't find the non-partisan version of this video):

 

 

[Colirio]

I don't want Trump or Hillary for President. 

 

Period. 

 

I will be voting for someone who I believe will make decisions based on the Constitution. 

 

I keep hearing, "You are electing Hillary by not voting for Trump." 

 

My answer is simple.

 

YOU are electing someone who is dangerous for the country by voting for Hillary or for Trump. There are too many unforseen events that can happen during a presidential term to elect anyone who is not honest and who does not support the Constitution. 

 

As quoted by Elder Ezra Taft Benson in the April 1972 General Conference talk "Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints":

“… to vote for wicked men, it would be sin,” said Hyrum Smith. (Documentary History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 323.)

[anatess2]

31 minutes ago, Colirio said:

I don't want Trump or Hillary for President. 

 

Period. 

 

I will be voting for someone who I believe will make decisions based on the Constitution. 

 

I keep hearing, "You are electing Hillary by not voting for Trump." 

 

My answer is simple.

 

YOU are electing someone who is dangerous for the country by voting for Hillary or for Trump. There are too many unforseen events that can happen during a presidential term to elect anyone who is not honest and who does not support the Constitution. 

 

As quoted by Elder Ezra Taft Benson in the April 1972 General Conference talk "Civic Standards for the Faithful Saints":

“… to vote for wicked men, it would be sin,” said Hyrum Smith. (Documentary History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 323.)

 

How do you come to the conclusion that Trump does not support the Constitution?  Did you see his list of potential SCOTUS appointments?  Does that show a person who does not support the Constitution?

[unixknight]

7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

How do you come to the conclusion that Trump does not support the Constitution?  Did you see his list of potential SCOTUS appointments?  Does that show a person who does not support the Constitution?

Full disclosure:  That list was compiled by the GOP, not by Trump himself.  It probably would have been exactly the same no matter who got nominated.

[LeSellers]

4 hours ago, unixknight said:

The man gave hundreds of millions to Hillary's various campaigns over the years and I'm supposed to believe he's a bona fide representative of conservative values?

Businesses often support both sides, or the side that is more likely to win, in politics. Just as Trump has said, he hopes to buy influence, or, at least, to keep out of their dog house.

No, I am not supporting or defending Trump. People, however, need to know more than what's on TV.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

3 hours ago, Colirio said:

I don't want Trump or Hillary for President. 

What you want is immaterial. We're going to get either Trump or Hitliary. 

I'm not a big fan of choosing the lesser of two evils, but if we choose neither, it is essentially the same as choosing the greater of two evils.

Lehi

Edited August 11, 2016 by LeSellers

[mirkwood]

4 hours ago, unixknight said:

Full disclosure:  That list was compiled by the GOP, not by Trump himself.  It probably would have been exactly the same no matter who got nominated.

Yea, but we might get good SCOTUS from a Trump presidency, while there is no doubt we will get activist leftists cretins for sure from a Clinton presidency.

[Colirio]

3 hours ago, LeSellers said:

What you want is immaterial. We're going to get either Trump or Hitlairy. 

I'm not a big fan of choosing the lesser of two evils, but if we choose neither, it is essentially the same as choosing the greater of two evils.

Lehi

 

And how well has this strategy worked out for the GOP in the last 2 elections? 

 

Do you really believe the Republican Party has FINALLY picked the right candidate that we will all rally behind in record numbers?

 

[LeSellers]

7 minutes ago, Colirio said:

And how well has this strategy worked out for the GOP in the last 2 elections? 

Not at all well. What do you propose? USAans are not very sophisticated when it comes to party politics. We'll end up with Trump or Hitliary. I prefer another candidate and another party, but it jes' ain't in the cards.

7 minutes ago, Colirio said:

Do you really believe the Republican Party has FINALLY picked the right candidate that we will all rally behind in record numbers?

No. I do not support Trump. But of the two likely candidates, I prefer him by several orders of magnitude over another Clinton. The reasons are many, but they all come down to 33¼ grandchildren. I have skin in this game like few others.

Lehi

Edited August 11, 2016 by LeSellers

[anatess2]

5 hours ago, unixknight said:

Full disclosure:  That list was compiled by the GOP, not by Trump himself.  It probably would have been exactly the same no matter who got nominated.

Where did you get that idea?  That list was compiled by Trump with advicement from several people including The Heritage Foundation.  This was deep in the Republican Primaries (mid-May).  At that time, the "establishment GOP" was making it known that if you work for Trump you just hope and pray he wins because you'll never get a job with anyone else.

Here's Rush Limbaugh's commentary on it:

RUSH: I've read a bunch of different conservative blogs on this.  In some of the conservative think tanks, you find some people upset that he didn't pick from prominent judges and jurists that they would have picked.  From Ivy League schools, yeah.  But aside from a few people in think tanks, apparently across the conservative sphere out there, there was universal applause for this list that Trump put together, and it's epitomized here by Dr. Krauthammer last night on Special Report with Bret Baier.

KRAUTHAMMER:  I think it'll have a dramatic effect in doing that.  The one thing holding back people who've resisted supporting Trump, or at least the major thing, is the fear of what a Clinton presidency would do to the Supreme Court and how it would change it for a generation.  Now you get a list of 11 who are quite sterling, three of them clerked for Justice Thomas, two of them for Justice Scalia, the six federal judges all appointed by George W., which means they are conservative and they are relatively young.  So this is a future-looking list.

RUSH:  Dr. Krauthammer excited about the list.  Other conservatives, some at National Review, were as well.  As I say, some of the think tanks, I can't think off the top of my head, but some think tanks were upset that some of the older jurists that they think are really good -- Patrick Kavanagh is one.  But some of the jurists that they like actually have voted to sustain parts of Obamacare.  And so others in the conservative movement said it's a good thing Trump did not -- we don't need anybody else on the court that thinks Obamacare is okay, no matter what else they are, we don't need anybody else that thinks that. 

And they pointed out, as Dr. Krauthammer did here, that all these names on Trump's list, they are young.  If they got on the court, they'd be there for decades, which is a factor given their lifetime appointment.  

Edited August 11, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

 

No. I do not support Trump.

 

Why not?

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Colirio said:

 

And how well has this strategy worked out for the GOP in the last 2 elections? 

 

Do you really believe the Republican Party has FINALLY picked the right candidate that we will all rally behind in record numbers?

 

No.  The Republican Party is a mess.  Too many times the Republicans put Republican legislators in office.  All those times, these Republican legislators accomplish NOTHING.  Marco Rubio is a perfect example - Floridians put him in the Senate to promote conservative solutions - he ended up selling out.  Even Cruz - a fiery conservative - accomplished nothing. 

W sat in office for 8 years.  Besides keeping the war out of American soil, he wasn't able to champion conservative ideals - Medicare Part D, Patriot Act, sub-prime mortgage crisis, etc. etc. etc... government just keep on getting bloated and bloated, pork by lobbyist rules the day.

Tea Party rose up from the masses to fix the problem - the non-Tea Party Republicans waged war against the Tea Party - shooting at their own base.

Do I believe the Republican Party has FINALLY picked the right candidate that people will rally behind in record numbers?  I don't think so.  Too many Republicans are still too busy complaining about issues that don't matter (like - he's not a true Christian!  or even... he's not a true conservative!) to actually learn to pick a guy that can champion platforms into law.

Say what you want about Democrats, at least they are good at one thing - they know how to band together to get their platform into law.

 

Edited August 11, 2016 by anatess2

[unixknight]

52 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Where did you get that idea? 

Andrew Klavan, Steven Crowder, etc.

I don't know why that's such a scary concept.

[prisonchaplain]

23 hours ago, anatess2 said:

If Republicans wanted a conservative, they would have picked Gingrich in 2012 or Cruz in 2016.  They didn't.  What does that tell you?

We're losing the War on Drugs?  :-)

[Colirio]

So we agree,

Even though the GOP rallied around McCain, he didn't get enough votes. 

Even though the GOP rallied around Romney, he didn't get enough votes. 

 

But despite both of you agreeing that the party isn't going to rally around Trump, I should vote for him? 

 

Why back a candidate who 1. I don't like and 2. has even less support than the last two losers I voted for? Third time's the charm? 

[LeSellers]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Say what you want about Democrats, at least they are good at one thing - they know how to band together to get their platform into law.

Their platform is still evil, united or disunited as they may be.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

3 hours ago, Colirio said:

Why back a candidate who 1. I don't like and 2. has even less support than the last two losers I voted for? Third time's the charm? 

What else are you going to do to insure that a truly evil and amoral woman does not take the oval office?

I've only voted for a GOP candidate about a half dozen times (not just for president) in the last half decade. I'm not thrilled about it this time, but it's a better choice than voting for the crazed, scheming bat the DemoComms chose to run.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

5 hours ago, LeSellers said:

No. I do not support Trump.

Why not?

Because he is no conservative, and even less a libertarian. I don't like his stance on a host of issues, not least the II, nor his history of political meddling and using government for immoral, unconstitutional purposes. (For this last, though, I cannot blame him as much as he deserves because the law, set up as it is, makes not using government immorally catastrophic.)

Lehi

[Colirio]

57 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

What else are you going to do to insure that a truly evil and amoral woman does not take the oval office?

Lehi

 

Avoiding the same strategy that failed during the last two elections might be a good start.

 

Rallying around the lesser of two evils doesn't seem to be working. 

 

Perhaps voting FOR someone instead of AGAINST the greater evil might provide a more solid foundation to receive God's intended blessings. 

 

 

Or... we can just keep pretending that Trump has a remote chance of winning, thereby insuring the Clintons another stay at Taxpayer Inn. 

[LeSellers]

6 minutes ago, Colirio said:

Rallying around the lesser of two evils doesn't seem to be working. 

Perhaps, but that ship has sailed.

7 minutes ago, Colirio said:

Perhaps voting FOR someone instead of AGAINST the greater evil might provide a more solid foundation to receive God's intended blessings. 

You don't want to rally 'roun' Trump. What are you going to do?

Lehi

 

[Colirio]

4 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

 

You don't want to rally 'roun' Trump. What are you going to do?

Lehi

 

 

Prayerfully vote according to conscience for someone I feel would be an excellent president. 

[Colirio]

18 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 

How do you come to the conclusion that Trump does not support the Constitution?  

 

This is just one of the latest examples:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-military-courts-election-2016/index.html

 

Edited August 12, 2016 by Colirio

[LeSellers]

9 hours ago, Colirio said:

20 hours ago, anatess2 said:

 

How do you come to the conclusion that Trump does not support the Constitution?  

This is just one of the latest examples:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/donald-trump-military-courts-election-2016/index.html

But that's not quite accurate.

Hrere's the pull quote:

Quote

The Republican presidential nominee told the Miami Herald that he doesn't "at all" like the idea of trying terrorist suspects in the civilian court system, even though US citizens are constitutionally entitled to due process. He added that he would be "fine" with trying US citizens in military tribunals at Guantánamo Bay, the US naval base that is also home to a military prison housing captured terror suspects.

Those housed at Guantánamo Bay, even those who are USAan citizens, are prisoners of war. It is not only constitutional, but rational, to try them as such.

Lehi

[anatess2]

15 hours ago, unixknight said:

Andrew Klavan, Steven Crowder, etc.

I don't know why that's such a scary concept.

Cite the sources.

There's nothing scary about it.  It's just not what I know and I've been following this election closely.

You're basically claiming that Trump did not compile the list - that the GOP did.  That doesn't make sense.  Why would the GOP compile a list and give it to Trump when Cruz was still nipping at his heels?

Note that this list was what I have shown as a strong indication of Trump's position on the Constitution - there are two things that jump at you from perusing the list of 11 judges on top of that list - 1.)  They're in the vein of Thomas and Scalia, 2.) They're young - can potentially sit on that bench for decades.

Edited August 12, 2016 by anatess2