I know who I'm voting for

[unixknight]

4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

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?

The sources are their podcasts.  Give 'em a listen.

And why wouldn't they give it to him?  It's not like this list was a state secret.  I'd be willing to bet this is how it's usually done.  That wasn't a criticism of Trump, just pointing out that it isn't evidence of his Conservative heart either.

[anatess2]

18 minutes ago, unixknight said:

The sources are their podcasts.  Give 'em a listen.

And why wouldn't they give it to him?  It's not like this list was a state secret.  I'd be willing to bet this is how it's usually done.  That wasn't a criticism of Trump, just pointing out that it isn't evidence of his Conservative heart either.

A podcast.  That is awesome.  A source would be - "The RNC email got hacked and they found an email giving Trump the list of 11 SCOTUS wish list"...

The RNC cannot give aid to any of the nominees in the primaries that they are not giving the same to the other nominees.  That's how Schultz got fired from the DNC chair.  Therefore, they will not give a list of SCOTUS wish list to Trump and not give the same to Cruz and Kasich especially since that was part of Trump's campaign stump speech - THAT HE COMPILED THE LIST.  The list actually coming from the RNC would give Cruz and Kasich ammo to stop Trump's nomination.  But, even if it didn't come from the RNC - that the list was compiled by anyone other than Trump - that would ALSO be ammo for the Cruz and Kasich campaigns.  They would challenge Trump's claim of coming up with the list as that list was something that Republican voters have asked him for.

But yeah.  This conversation has just given me an insight on your thought processes.

Edited August 12, 2016 by anatess2

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

A podcast.  That is awesome.  You actually think the GOP would go to Andrew Klavan and tell him - by the way, We, The Republicans, gave him that list.  What a joke.

So what... you want to bicker over whether your radio show is more reliable as a source than my podcasts?  (Incidentally, in the Limbaugh quote you provided he doesn't explicitly make the claim that Trump made the list himself.  The tone of what he said comes across to me that he just meant the Trump campaign, which could have been him or the people working for him.  The distinction isn't important.)

Understand me... I do not CARE whether Trump created the list or whether it was given to him by the party.  I'm not emotionally invested one way or the other, I'm just telling you what I know and what makes sense to me.  If you think Trump had the awareness and knowledge (or the time) to compile that list himself then go right ahead and believe it.  That doesn't make sense to me but if it does to you then by all means run with it.

I'm voting for Evan McMullin because he's respectable, knows how to speak, has actual experience in government and isn't an egomaniac.  Will he win?  Nope, but neither will Trump anyway.

[Guest]

11 hours 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. 

AMEN. Amen. 

[anatess2]

17 minutes ago, unixknight said:

So what... you want to bicker over whether your radio show is more reliable as a source than my podcasts?  (Incidentally, in the Limbaugh quote you provided he doesn't explicitly make the claim that Trump made the list himself.  The tone of what he said comes across to me that he just meant the Trump campaign, which could have been him or the people working for him.  The distinction isn't important.)

Understand me... I do not CARE whether Trump created the list or whether it was given to him by the party.  I'm not emotionally invested one way or the other, I'm just telling you what I know and what makes sense to me.  If you think Trump had the awareness and knowledge (or the time) to compile that list himself then go right ahead and believe it.  That doesn't make sense to me but if it does to you then by all means run with it.

I'm voting for Evan McMullin because he's respectable, knows how to speak, has actual experience in government and isn't an egomaniac.  Will he win?  Nope, but neither will Trump anyway.

I guess you didn't click on the link.  TRUMP compiled the list.  HE SAID SO HIMSELF.  Now, unless Andrew Klavan's podcast proved that he lied, Trump compiled the list and it is on you to prove that he did not.

Now, you may not care if Trump came up with the list or didn't.  But YOU CLAIMING he didn't is another one of those things that give people a bad impression of Trump especially since that was a reason I gave someone on here that shows that Trump is a Constitutionalist.

So, you're saying Trump is not respectable... well, if your reason on why you think he's not respectable is because Klavan said so... giving untruths as ammo for those impressions... no wonder you'd rather give half a vote for Hillary than give a full vote for Trump.

Edited August 12, 2016 by anatess2

[unixknight]

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

But yeah.  This conversation has just given me an insight on your thought processes.

Experience has taught me that the first one to start making it personal is usually the one with the least confidence in their argument.  Just keep that in mind when casting aspersions.

Please don't pretend to know something about my thought process.  I started this thread to express my support for a candidate I believe in and will be supporting and the way you reacted makes it seem as if you took it as some kind of personal affront to Donald Trump.  So now we have to talk about Trump.  Again. Can't you just deal with the fact that I'm not supporting him without turning it into a fight?  The whole SCOTUS list argument is utterly pointless.  What do you think, that if I concede that Trump sat down with a pencil and paper and created that list all by himself that it'll suddenly turn me into a Trump voter?  If so, then think again.  Heck, either every GOP candidate got the same list or McMullin will have an even better one. 

[anatess2]

15 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Experience has taught me that the first one to start making it personal is usually the one with the least confidence in their argument.  Just keep that in mind when casting aspersions.

Please don't pretend to know something about my thought process.  I started this thread to express my support for a candidate I believe in and will be supporting and the way you reacted makes it seem as if you took it as some kind of personal affront to Donald Trump.  So now we have to talk about Trump.  Again. Can't you just deal with the fact that I'm not supporting him without turning it into a fight?  The whole SCOTUS list argument is utterly pointless.  What do you think, that if I concede that Trump sat down with a pencil and paper and created that list all by himself that it'll suddenly turn me into a Trump voter?  If so, then think again.  Heck, either every GOP candidate got the same list or McMullin will have an even better one. 

How is that "casting aspersions"?  You gave me a good idea of how your thought process worked... why is that a personal attack to you?  You'd rather I don't try to understand how your thought process worked?

No, I don't think Trump's SCOTUS picks will make you change your mind.  But, you butted in on a discussion between me and (okay, I don't remember who it was with)... and dropped a lie that many people clicked the Like button on.  That lie cannot stand unchallenged.

Besides, this is not whether any other GOP or McMullin will come up with the same or a better list.  This is whether Trump would choose to support conservative principles - e.g. being a Constitutionalist.  And more importantly, this is whether the person who wins the White House will come up with that list.  You already said McMullin will not win.  So, you're going to hope that Hillary will come up with that list.... fat chance in hades.

Edited August 12, 2016 by anatess2

[unixknight]

22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

How is that "casting aspersions"?  You gave me a good idea of how your thought process worked... why is that a personal attack to you?  You'd rather I don't try to understand how your thought process worked?

Were you trying to be complimentary?  What is it exactly you think you know about my thought process? 

22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

No, I don't think Trump's SCOTUS picks will make you change your mind.  But, you butted in on a discussion between me and (okay, I don't remember who it was with)... and dropped a lie that many people clicked the Like button on.  That lie cannot stand unchallenged.

It's not a lie, it's simple truth.  I'm sorry that "Trump said he compiled it himself" isn't sufficient evidence to convince me.

And by the way, commenting on a public discussion isn't butting in.  It's a public discussion.  Unless you want to concede that you butted in on my McMullin thread.

22 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Besides, this is not whether any other GOP or McMullin will come up with the same or a better list.  This is whether Trump would choose to support conservative principles - e.g. being a Constitutionalist.  And more importantly, this is whether the person who wins the White House will come up with that list.  You already said McMullin will not win.  So, you're going to hope that Hillary will come up with that list.... fat chance in hades.

I have no such hope.  Clinton is a corrupt monster.

Nothing about Trump leads me to believe he's a Constitutionalist.  Some of his own comments from earlier in the campaign indicate a lack of understanding of how the U.S. Constitution works that was breathtaking.  If he's been talking like a Constitutionalist it's probably because he's running for President on a Conservative ticket.

Clinton's going to win, and she's going to win because the Republicans chose their candidate poorly.  Trump's poll numbers are slipping across the board and all he and his supporters can do is whine about how it's the fault of Conservatives who refuse to back him.  I wasn't a big fan of Hannity (Trump's #1 acolyte fan)before but now when I think of him I feel downright hostile.  You want my vote?  Pick a candidate who deserves it.

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, unixknight said:

 

Clinton's going to win, and she's going to win because the Republicans chose their candidate poorly.  Trump's poll numbers are slipping across the board and all he and his supporters can do is whine about how it's the fault of Conservatives who refuse to back him.  I wasn't a big fan of Hannity (Trump's #1 acolyte fan)before but now when I think of him I feel downright hostile.  You want my vote?  Pick a candidate who deserves it.

AMEN!!!!!! It's fascinating to me how Trumpers can't see the upcoming crushing defeat. I feel like you and I are on the Titanic, we see the iceberg and are jumping up down saying "Turn the ship! Turn the ship! Turn the ship!" and the Trumpers are saying "What iceberg? La la la la la la la la la la la." 

And we're the ones that will get to deal with the sinking afterwards. 

[unixknight]

13 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

AMEN!!!!!! It's fascinating to me how Trumpers can't see the upcoming crushing defeat. I feel like you and I are on the Titanic, we see the iceberg and are jumping up down saying "Turn the ship! Turn the ship! Turn the ship!" and the Trumpers are saying "What iceberg? La la la la la la la la la la la." 

And we're the ones that will get to deal with the sinking afterwards. 

This kinda reminds me of one of my sons, who bought an absolute rattletrap of a car against my advice.  (I used to be a mechanic so I know a rattletrap when I see one.)  So now the car is constantly breaking down and I get almost daily phonecalls for advice on how to fix it, or to hear about how frustrated he is.  In spite of all evidence, he still insists that the car is solid and was a good buy.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

This kinda reminds me of one of my sons, who bought an absolute rattletrap of a car against my advice.  (I used to be a mechanic so I know a rattletrap when I see one.)  So now the car is constantly breaking down and I get almost daily phonecalls for advice on how to fix it, or to hear about how frustrated he is.  In spite of all evidence, he still insists that the car is solid and was a good buy.

Sad that your son is going through this. I am NOT trying to sound harsh, but I hope he is learning a life lesson, even though it's a hard one. 

[Guest MormonGator]

3 minutes ago, unixknight said:

This kinda reminds me of one of my sons, who bought an absolute rattletrap of a car against my advice.  (I used to be a mechanic so I know a rattletrap when I see one.)  So now the car is constantly breaking down and I get almost daily phonecalls for advice on how to fix it, or to hear about how frustrated he is.  In spite of all evidence, he still insists that the car is solid and was a good buy.

Sad that your son is going through this. I am NOT trying to sound harsh, but I hope he is learning a life lesson, even though it's a hard one. 

[unixknight]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Sad that your son is going through this. I am NOT trying to sound harsh, but I hope he is learning a life lesson, even though it's a hard one. 

Yeah me too.  I have the same hope for the GOP.

[Guest MormonGator]

6 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Yeah me too.  I have the same hope for the GOP.

My brother went though something like your son is going though. He told me "I feel so stupid. I can't believe this happened to me." I said to him, "If you meet someone who says they have  never been duped or taken advantage of in some way, you are meeting a liar." I think it softened the blow a little bit 

[unixknight]

Anyway, McMullin will hopefully start getting more media attention.  I heard an interesting analysis by Matt Walsh that predicts he could very well carry Utah and Idaho.  Not because of the Mormon thing, but because those are two solidly Republican states that have all but become swing states because of their dislike of Trump.

[mirkwood]

I am no Trump fan, but I am also not convinced Hillary has it wrapped up either...unless Trump has copies of those emails, then he just might be feeling suicidal.

[Hemisphere]

Both your candidates are morally bankrupt and frankly, the media is doing its very best to pour sand into the eyes of the american populace. There is other candidates out there aside from the same corrupt bunch in dc but no media coverage so there you have it, undemocracy in action. It would take an army of exterminators to get those roaches in congress and senate out. If I would be american, I would be hard pressed to find someone I could vote for. But then again, I am not. however unfortunately, whatever happens in the US will sadly affect us in Europe and the rest of the world as well. Your government simply has too many hands in too many honeypots

[Blueskye2]

On 8/11/2016 at 9:22 AM, anatess2 said:

 

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. 

What is the money for, if not for campaigning (such as TV ads)? Granted, Trump gets enough free media attention that paying for more seems redundant.

[LeSellers]

4 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

On 8/11/2016 at 9:22 AM, anatess2 said:

 

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. 

What is the money for, if not for campaigning (such as TV ads)? Granted, Trump gets enough free media attention that paying for more seems redundant.

There's a lot more to a political campaign than television ads.

Just paying staff, printing banners (and sewing hats) is expensive.

Lehi

[Blueskye2]

5 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

There's a lot more to a political campaign than television ads.

Just paying staff, printing banners (and sewing hats) is expensive.

Lehi

Advertising is traditionally the bulk of expenses for a campaign. Trump's staff is 1/10th the size of Clinton's. Hats were 13% of Trump's expenses in May...almost a million dollars. Some spending for Facebook ads, but barely a drop compared to the funds raised. I just wonder what he is saving up that $85+ million for? Nothing costs as much as advertising. Hats and other give-aways are comparatively very inexpensive.

[LeSellers]

15 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Advertising is traditionally the bulk of expenses for a campaign. Trump's staff is 1/10th the size of Clinton's. Hats were 13% of Trump's expenses in May...almost a million dollars. Some spending for Facebook ads, but barely a drop compared to the funds raised. I just wonder what he is saving up that $85+ million for? Nothing costs as much as advertising. Hats and other give-aways are comparatively very inexpensive.

While true, it's a bit misleading.

Trump hasn't been asking for donations for long, so the money he has received is probably being used to build the organization that he hasn't had up to this point. He's miles behind in this regard, so he'll need to spend a yuge pile of cash on catching up.

His ground game, also essentially non-existent is also going to need effort and money.

Lehi

Edited August 16, 2016 by LeSellers

[anatess2]

On 8/12/2016 at 11:36 AM, unixknight said:

Clinton's going to win, and she's going to win because the Republicans chose their candidate poorly.  Trump's poll numbers are slipping across the board and all he and his supporters can do is whine about how it's the fault of Conservatives who refuse to back him.  I wasn't a big fan of Hannity (Trump's #1 acolyte fan)before but now when I think of him I feel downright hostile.  You want my vote?  Pick a candidate who deserves it.

On 8/12/2016 at 11:47 AM, MormonGator said:

AMEN!!!!!! It's fascinating to me how Trumpers can't see the upcoming crushing defeat. I feel like you and I are on the Titanic, we see the iceberg and are jumping up down saying "Turn the ship! Turn the ship! Turn the ship!" and the Trumpers are saying "What iceberg? La la la la la la la la la la la." 

And we're the ones that will get to deal with the sinking afterwards. 

If Clinton is going to win it's because Republicans did not vote Trump.  Romney did not win because Republicans did not vote Romney.  And yeah, I will bet you dollars that both of you will say Romney is a candidate who deserved the Republican vote.  Trump got more votes than Romney for a reason - people are tired of smooth-talking politicians who promise they're this or they're that yet they can't get anything done.

It's silly to say Trumpers don't see the iceberg.  Heck, the NeverTrumpers put it there.  Who could miss it?  Romney didn't have NeverRomneyers and even he lost.

And "we're the ones that will get to deal with the sinking afterwards..."   No dude... All of us - and yes, that includes us Filipinos - will get to deal with the sinking afterwards.

Knowing the Constitution and having the desire to follow the Constitution are 2 different things.  A President does not make decisions unilaterally.  There has not been a President since I've been alive that has been a strict Constitutionalist.  And that's both Republicans and Democrats.  And they all claim to know the Constitution.

[unixknight]

23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If Clinton is going to win it's because Republicans did not vote Trump.

And who's to blame for Republicans not voting Trump?

23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And yeah, I will bet you dollars that both of you will say Romney is a candidate who deserved the Republican vote.

He was.  He didn't deserve the White House, though.

23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Trump got more votes than Romney for a reason - people are tired of smooth-talking politicians who promise they're this or they're that yet they can't get anything done.

And in other news, water is still wet.

23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It's silly to say Trumpers don't see the iceberg.  Heck, the NeverTrumpers put it there.  Who could miss it?  Romney didn't have NeverRomneyers and even he lost.

Hasn't it occurred to you that the NeverTrump phenomenon is kinda unique?  I don't recall a named NeverRomney or NeverMcCain movement.  Will you at least concede there's something about Trump himself that causes this?

23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And "we're the ones that will get to deal with the sinking afterwards..."   No dude... All of us - and yes, that includes us Filipinos - will get to deal with the sinking afterwards.

You got that right.

23 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Knowing the Constitution and having the desire to follow the Constitution are 2 different things.  A President does not make decisions unilaterally.  There has not been a President since I've been alive that has been a strict Constitutionalist.  And that's both Republicans and Democrats.  And they all claim to know the Constitution.

True but not really relevant if he doesn't know the Constitution in the first place.

[Guest MormonGator]

54 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

 

It's silly to say Trumpers don't see the iceberg.  Heck, the NeverTrumpers put it there. 

 :: snickers :: If Trumperdoodles saw the iceberg, they wouldn't have voted for him in the primary. And they brought this on themselves. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 :: snickers :: If Trumperdoodles saw the iceberg, they wouldn't have voted for him in the primary. And they brought this on themselves. 

Themselves and the rest of us, unfortunately.