Trump!!!

The polls at this point indicate Cruz would have a better chance of winning against Hillary than would Trump. I think those numbers are skewed by the number of people who don't know Ted Cruz very well yet. He is the true conservative in the race, unquestionably. I'm just guessing though that in the purple states needed to win, they won't be all in on a flat tax, no health care plan, abolishing the IRS (I guess we'll have bake sales to fund the military and social services) unilaterally shredding the treaty with Iran and lots of boots on the ground in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan ... and wherever else problems arise.

 

There is a growing number of Republicans who see Trump as a worse option than Clinton. This includes moderates who actually prefer Clinton, and conservatives who don't want Trump to succeed in usurping the Republican brand.

 

Aren't these quotes contradictory:

I think that GOP official might be advocating changing the rules so that the party establishment doesn't disenfranchise the voters. As the rules stand now, they have every right to do that.

 

Yet, Trump is stealing the blue collar union base of the Democrats. That could offset the moderate conservatives fleeing Trump.

 

I get that, and I'm one of those conservatives who will vote third party. However, if the Party tries to rig the game, they'll lose the Trump supporters forever. Even worse, no faction will ever trust them or their primary system again.

 

There is open talk of running a third party guy now (a Ryan-Kasich ticket?)

And the agitators are already promising the "protest of the century" for Cleveland

Fasten seat belts



ps - been telling you since the summer, this is the most interesting election ever

 

If I leave my garage open with my brand new Mercedes running unattended, it may not justify someone stealing it but I may as well be "begging" for someone to steal it. Begging was obviously a figure of speech in that statement. No one begs to have bad stuff happen to them but when you do something very stupid and inflammatory to others with negative and foreseeable consequences, it's hard to feel sorry for you when the bad consequences occur.

I suspect that you would understand this pretty basic point if it were a conservative doing something aggressive and inflammatory at a liberal group's rally.

 

There would be riots both inside and outside
How odd would that be?

 

I think any scenario other than Trump getting the nomination will result in his base losing trust in the primary process. That includes if a brokered convention is the result of Trump not getting the needed 1237(?) delegates. To the primary voters and based on the media fueled perception, Trump is the clear leader. The only options I see if he doesn't emerge the nominee would be:

1. Trump goes 3rd party and his base follows him.
2. Trump accepts he's not the nominee (is that possible?) and his base simply doesn't show up at the polls.

Both of those are nuclear options for the Republican party.

 

I do not see any good outcome for the Republicans this year. Either Trump is on the ballot and they get routed possibly bad enough that they lose the House or Senate. The other option is a brokered convention where the Trump supporters feel betrayed and end up staying home or going 3rd party. Not sure which choice is better but neither is good.

 

LOL

 

I think stories about the destruction of the Republican Party are way overblown. Trump has brought a lot of new voters under the tent. If he wins maybe most of the newcomers stay ... if Trump meets their expectations. If he loses in the general election or becomes a terrible president, chances are they lose interest and take up some other hobby. The old time true believing Republicans will continue to do what they've always done, maybe evolving a little on gay marriage and immigration, but continuing to offer a more socially conservative focus at home and a more big military, big overseas involvement option on foreign policy.

 

I don't get the argument here. Trump thought we should steal the oil? Wouldn't that validate the accusation from many anti-Iraq war critics that we took out a leader for the oil?

 

I totally agree. It's a bad result for the Party either way. However, if some backroom shenanigan takes place or if the nomination truly gets rigged through result-oriented rules changes I think that makes the long term damage worse.

 

Maybe there isnt one?
That was Jan 2013

Here is another good one

 

And get ready for lots and lots of stories like this.

 

No person can be elected president without a lot of stupid supporters.

 

I know, and I'm sure all the candidates have some volunteers they aren't particularly proud to have. Hell, how many of Obama's volunteers were convicted felons? It wouldn't surprise me if the number was in the thousands, and I'm sure Hillary has several of her own. However, a very convenient political narrative is served by showing white supremacists working for Trump, and it reinforces what the Left's (and the media's) portrayal of Trump is going to be . This kind of story will get reported, and Trump will be asked to condemn white supremacists. If he doesn't do it or doesn't do it fast enough or with the requisite level of outrage, it'll be used against him.

I'm not an idiot. I know that all Republican nominees will be called racists, because that's part of the Democrats' strategy. It would happen with Trump, Cruz, or Kasich as the nominee. However, it certainly makes things more difficult when the candidate is providing so much evidence to support the Democrats' charge.

 

Condemning Trump for having racist supporters is unfair. Racists are entitled to support a candidate, and I don't think any politician should be obligated to turn the votes (or donations) away.

However, condemning Trump for saying outrageous things that seem to be designed to woo racist supporters is fair. It's not that racists just happen to support him. It's that racists support him because he says things that get them excited.

 

I completely agree. I think that anything a candidate says is fair game for criticism, and Trump gives more material for legitimate criticism than any candidate I've ever heard.

 

Jews against Trump? Say it ain't so: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/polit...cott-protest-rabbis-jewish-leaders/index.html

 

China had a "strong and powerful" response to the Tieneman(sp?) Square riots in 1989.
C

 

Trump is a unifier. He's managed to unify Chinese dissidents and the government against him.

 

Life imitating the internet?

 

Four years ago, Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin led the charge of comparing policies they disliked to "slavery." Fortunately there was enough blowback that I haven't seen something like marginal tax rate, school vaccination requirements, airport security screenings or common core compared to slavery lately. I'm taking this opportunity now to show gratitude.

 

First-hand account of Trump rally in Arizona on Saturday

 

Any guesses who is funding the opposition at the Trump rallies?
(organizing aint free)

Here is the lowdown on one of the women who chained herself to a vehicle

 

And still MSM is putting the blame on Trump and his supporters
Still reporting that Trump did not denounce the KKK. Most people will believe that as well as Trump bring against Mexicans and Muslims and all immigrants.
I do not know if he will get the nomination and am not sure he should.
I would just like to see some actual truth being reported.