What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (2 Viewers)

TripItUp said:
Just saw Trump is leading Florida.  :coffee:

In before Tim and the Lefties start insulting Florida GOPers.  :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You know I'm really honored that you keep singling me out as Trump opponent #1 around here. 

It's not true of course. There's several people in this forum who dislike this pompous idiot as much as I do, who are more learned than I am and far more eloquent in their presentation. 

But even so, I'm gratified by the perception. 

 
timschochet said:
You know I'm really honored that you keep singling me out as Trump opponent #1 around here. 

It's not true of course. There's several people in this forum who dislike this pompous idiot as much as I do, who are more learned than I am and far more eloquent in their presentation. 

But even so, I'm gratified by the perception. 
Click to expand...
you seem to be one of a few ring leaders  :shrug:

However, your point is taken.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump with a huge lead in the NY Primary polling that just came out.  45% Trump, 18% each for Kasich and Rubio, 11% for Cruz.  It's gonna take some massive shifting to stop Trump in that one.

 
Shula-holic said:
Trump with a huge lead in the NY Primary polling that just came out.  45% Trump, 18% each for Kasich and Rubio, 11% for Cruz.  It's gonna take some massive shifting to stop Trump in that one.
Click to expand...
There are only two caucus states left Hawaii and Utah. I think the negative media shaming around Trump right now make a caucus hard for Trump. The closed primaries the rest of the way will allow Trump voters to vote unmolested from haters. Plus Cruz has burned his stronghold states. Unless the nukes they hit Trump with last weekend have some immediate effect there is almost no chance of Cruz having more delegates than Trump. 

 
Gr00vus said:
timschochet said:
As terrible as Cruz is he is better than Trump. 
Click to expand...
:oldunsure:

I think this is where the media is really letting us down by focusing so much attention on Trump. I've got a hunch that Cruz is in fact a much worse candidate than Trump.
Click to expand...
I would like to double like this post :goodposting:

 
I don't really want to spend a lot of time defending the sliminess that is Ted Cruz. 

So let me make this short: Cruz respects the Constitution. He has argued before the Supreme Court. He has served in the Senate. And he's a very smart guy. Despite the fact that I disagree with him about 95% of the time his election would not upend our system. He is on the edge of our status quo. 

Trump knows nothing about the Constitutuon and doesn't respect it. He is a white nationalist, a neo-fascist, a bigot and a racist, and his election would represent a tear down of 240 years of civil government. 

ANYBODY but Trump. 

 
timschochet said:
I don't really want to spend a lot of time defending the sliminess that is Ted Cruz. 

So let me make this short: Cruz respects the Constitution. He has argued before the Supreme Court. He has served in the Senate. And he's a very smart guy. Despite the fact that I disagree with him about 95% of the time his election would not upend our system. He is on the edge of our status quo. 

Trump knows nothing about the Constitutuon and doesn't respect it. He is a white nationalist, a neo-fascist, a bigot and a racist, and his election would represent a tear down of 240 years of civil government. 

ANYBODY but Trump. 
Click to expand...
You keep saying this - I don't think it's completely true. He supports the parts of the Constitution that fit his world view and his religion, the rest I'm sure he'd be happy to trample all over if it suits him and his agendas.

 
Gr00vus said:
You keep saying this - I don't think it's completely true. He supports the parts of the Constitution that fit his world view and his religion, the rest I'm sure he'd be happy to trample all over if it suits him and his agendas.
Click to expand...
I'll take someone who respects 40% of the Constitution over somebody who doesn't understand it and has only contempt for the rule of law. 

 
timschochet said:
I don't really want to spend a lot of time defending the sliminess that is Ted Cruz. 

So let me make this short: Cruz respects the Constitution. He has argued before the Supreme Court. He has served in the Senate. And he's a very smart guy. Despite the fact that I disagree with him about 95% of the time his election would not upend our system. He is on the edge of our status quo. 

Trump knows nothing about the Constitutuon and doesn't respect it. He is a white nationalist, a neo-fascist, a bigot and a racist, and his election would represent a tear down of 240 years of civil government. 

ANYBODY but Trump. 
Click to expand...
I'll make it shorter.  Cruz believes every word that comes out of his own mouth.  Trump doesn't.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jesus Christ - some of you people (you know who you are) act like the President is going to run down to the National Archives, break the case, and shred the constitution with his bare hands. You are no better than all the Chicken Littles running around the last two elections predicting Obama would be the end of America. Obama was not the anti-christ. Trump is not Hitler. The U.S. is bigger than the President. Breathe. Damn.

 
timschochet said:
You know I'm really honored that you keep singling me out as Trump opponent #1 around here. 

It's not true of course. There's several people in this forum who dislike this pompous idiot as much as I do, who are more learned than I am and far more eloquent in their presentation.
Click to expand...
Wow thanks Tim, I'm incredibly humbled by that. 

 
The Commish said:
And you open the door for Cruz...in what world is that a good option?
Click to expand...
Cruz probably has the worst chance against a Democrat of any of the Republicans - not that I think any of them have much of a chance.  Trump is probably dead in the water as well, but he's more of a wildcard.  

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Jesus Christ - some of you people (you know who you are) act like the President is going to run down to the National Archives, break the case, and shred the constitution with his bare hands. You are no better than all the Chicken Littles running around the last two elections predicting Obama would be the end of America. Obama was not the anti-christ. Trump is not Hitler. The U.S. is bigger than the President. Breathe. Damn.
Click to expand...
I read this a lot from people, especially Trump supporters. I don't think you have the slightest conception of how much damage he can do to this country. Here is an article from Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institute that explains it far better than I can: 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-national-security-threat

I don’t, as a rule, endorse political candidates. I don’t do work for campaigns. I have never given a dime to a candidate—for any office. I have never signed up to be an adviser to one either. I try, rather, to play more or less the same role in policy debate whichever party is in power in both the executive and legislative branches, and I offer policy counsel to any officer-holder or candidate who comes my way, regardless of party, on the same terms.

But with Donald Trump now the unambiguous front-runner in the Republican field, there’s a question I think readers of this site need to consider seriously—a question John Bellinger raised on this site back in December: Is the putative GOP standard bearer a national security threat?

I ask this question not with the snarky intent of landing a political punch, but in deadly earnest. Never before in my lifetime has either political party been led by a man with such an unusual combination of—from a national security perspective, anyway—terrifying liabilities. Individually, each would be grounds for concern. In combination with one another and as embodied in a single political figure of extreme charisma and proven attractiveness to a significant swath of the electorate, they are a toxic brew that I have no doubt makes this country less secure. They do this, I suspect, even if Trump is not ultimately elected President but merely becomes the Republican nominee.

Let’s start with the fact that Trump displays a near-total ignorance of international policy, military affairs, and intelligence and counterterrorism policy. Ignorance in a politician is often more norm than exception, but Trump’s ignorance is of a particularly proud variety. He’s not just going to mouth off bombastically about what to do in different parts of the world, but he never even pauses to fortify the bombast with facts or rudimentary knowledge. He is an unapologetic yahoo who quite literally has no idea what he’s talking about much of the time. He appears to have no interest in learning anything either about the complex international security environment in which the United States has to operate on a daily basis. And that is a very dangerous thing in a man who would be president.

Second, Trump has done more than any single person to undo two presidents’ earnest and consistent protestations that the United States is not at war with Islam. I have my doubts about whether Guantanamo has really been a major recruiting tool for the enemy. I have no shred of doubt, by contrast, that a promise to bar Muslims from the United States by this country’s president would be a major recruiting tool for the enemy. It certainly would be if I were running ISIS or Al Qaeda! These groups are premised, after all, on civilizational confrontation between Islam and the West. What better evidence could there be that the West is locked in a battle to the death with the umma than the insistence by the President of the United States—or even the Republican nominee for President of the United States—that no Muslim should be allowed to enter the country? What better way to make it impossible for critical Arab and Muslim allies to work with the United States? Why on earth would any sane Muslim cooperate with the law enforcement, intelligence agencies, or military of a country that would exclude him from its shores on the basis of his religion?

Third, compounding this problem are Trump’s open promises to commit war crimes. I suppose it may be possible to “bomb the #### out of them” in a fashion that entirely comports with the law of armed conflict. It is not possible, however, to use interrogation procedures—as Trump has promised to do—much harsher than waterboarding without committing war crimes. Nor is it possible to target terrorists’ families without committing war crimes. So not only is Trump promising a civilizational struggle against Islam and the barring of Muslims from America’s shores, he is promising to conduct that civilizational struggle in a fashion that violates the most basic norms to which this country has committed itself. Even those who led the CIA’s earlier efforts in coercive interrogation are appalled. Consider these comments by former CIA chief Michael Hayden, as quoted in the Washington Post:


During his appearance on “Real Time,” Hayden cited Trump’s pledge to kill family members as being among his most troubling campaign statements.

“That never even occurred to you, right?” [host Bill] Maher asked.

“God, no!” Hayden replied. “Let me give you a punchline: If he were to order that once in government, the American armed forces would refuse to act.”


“That’s quite a statement, sir,” Maher said.

“You are required not to follow an unlawful order,” Hayden added. “That would be in violation of all the international laws of armed conflict.”



Surely, when a candidate is talking in a fashion that raises questions—from a former general and head of both CIA and NSA, no less—about whether the military would be forced to defy the commander in chief, we are in a land in which it is fair to discuss the national security implications of the man’s election.

ourth, even as he endeavors to undo the Bush and Obama administrations’ commitment to separating this country’s engagement with Islam from its struggle with its enemies. Trump openly flirts with America’s actual adversaries. I don’t know what to make of his repeated kind words for Russian President Vladimir Putin, but I think it’s fair to say that Trump has compromised himself with them. He has shown that for all his tough talk, at least where dictators are concerned, he’s actually a bit like a loud barking dog who dissolves in slobbery affection the moment some treat or praise gets thrown his way. Putin is not a fool. He has noticed, I’m sure, that he has gained a would-be client strongman in Trump, and that he has bought him unbelievably cheaply. He has noticed, I am also sure, that with only a modest amount of public ego stroking—a few stray words, really—he bought himself an ally at the top of the GOP field. He has had to pay a lot more, hard cash actually, for his European political allies. Trump likes to boast of the great deals he makes, but he sold himself to Putin for a pittance—and that has national security implications too.

Fifth, this point has an obvious domestic analogue: Trump's recent unwillingness to repudiate support from David Duke or the Ku Klux Klan. Praise Trump even a little and he is putty in your hands. This is a profoundly dangerous quality in an American president.

Sixth, then there is the small matter of Trump’s—there’s no polite way to say this—evident clinical symptoms. I’m not a psychologist qualified to make a diagnosis, but it simply has to be significant that it’s hard to have a serious conversation about Trump without using words like egomania, grandiosity, or narcissism. I have never heard a politician spend a fifth as much time congratulating himself for being ahead in polls, for winning debates (whether or not he actually won them), for making great deals, or for being popular. His self-regard routinely crosses over into what I can only call the delusional. He promises to win voting groups that can be expected to vote against him by wide margins—as when he promises to build a giant wall to keep out Mexicans (who, please remember, are all rapists) yet simultaneously appears to think he will garner significant Latino support. This point is clearly related to the prior two points: His need for constant validation of his self-regard appears to fuel his inability to think ill of anyone—from a foreign dictator to a domestic white supremacist—who obliges him with praise. It is not in the national security interests of the United States to have such a man negotiating with people who can be expected to know at least as I do how much a little flattery will buy.

Finally, Trump’s entire candidacy is predicated on a weird kind of magical thinking that has no place in serious policy discussion generally but is particularly dangerous in the national security sphere. Trump does not propose policy ideas. He identifies and promises outcomes. We’re going to do a lot of winning. We’re going to smash ISIS. We’re going to have great trade deals. We’re going to be tough. We’re going to bring back jobs. We’re going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it. We’re going to make America great again. He never proposes a modality for achieving any of these things. They're going to happen by force of personality and force of will.

Trump got in trouble this past weekend for retweeting a quotation from Mussolini. But the quotation in question was not the Mussolini line that Trump’s candidacy actually embodies.

My nomination for that dubious honor is the following: “Our program is simple: we wish to govern Italy. They ask us for programs but there are already too many. It is not programs that are wanting for the salvation of Italy but men and will power.”

This is Trump: promising outcomes without programs, promising to do by force of personality and will what a country cannot do through policy or democratic deliberation. It is a lie in all spheres. But in the national security space, it is a particularly pernicious lie. Our tools are too dangerous for cults of personality. Our problems are too hard to wish away with magical thinking. The stakes are too high to permit magic to eclipse persuasive thought and analysis. And the relationship between our tools and tyranny is too intimate to allow demagogues anywhere near the decisions the national security apparatus has to make—or the machineries with which it makes them.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
oh get over it, Tim. Norville is dead on in his post. I think Clinton is a fraud, a liar and pretty much a terrible person, but guess what, if she wins (which I believe may happen) the sun will come up tomorrow and the country will go on. I don't plan on leaving the country or hording guns, we will all make it just fine.

And the same will hold true if Sanders, Trump or Cruz wins. Stop the drama. 

 
Courtjester said:
oh get over it, Tim. Norville is dead on in his post. I think Clinton is a fraud, a liar and pretty much a terrible person, but guess what, if she wins (which I believe may happen) the sun will come up tomorrow and the country will go on. I don't plan on leaving the country or hording guns, we will all make it just fine.

And the same will hold true if Sanders, Trump or Cruz wins. Stop the drama. 
Click to expand...
Did you read the article I posted? If so, which parts do you dispute? 

 
RBM said:
I'm intrigued. Examples please?
Click to expand...
Well for example he said the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage was an "illegal decision by 5 people who weren't elected." The guy worked for the Supreme Court. He's argued before the Supreme Court. I'm fairly sure he doesn't believe that any decision of the SC, no matter how much he might disagree with it, is illegal. 

Next he said he would "carpet bomb ISIS." When asked about this he couldn't really define what he meant. Like Trump, he just wanted to sound tough. 

 
bolzano said:
If you're a progressive, then you should fear Cruz more than Trump. Whereas Trump is a deal-maker/ compromiser, Cruz is a disruptive/ transformational force, and he's convicted to the conservative cause. Cruz will burn DC to the ground and throw the lobbyists to the streets.
Click to expand...
Sure, and I don't want to see that. But what people don't seem to get is that, as awful as Cruz would be, he will act within the rules. I don't trust Trump to do that. 

In addition, I'm very worried about the appearance to the world that a Trump presidency would present. 

 
SameSong I agree. Cruz is all about an agenda--a formulated, pre-planned agenda that will include getting as many hard line right wingers on the SC as he can. As much as I lean right, this would not be good for the country. We need balance. 

Trump has already pivoted and is coming to the middle and THAT is what the Establishment doesn't like. They try and dress it up as many different things; but they can't take the fact they won't have a  ventriloquist doll up there repeating the company line. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bolzano said:
If you're a progressive, then you should fear Cruz more than Trump. Whereas Trump is a deal-maker/ compromiser, Cruz is a disruptive/ transformational force, and he's convicted to the conservative cause. Cruz will burn DC to the ground and throw the lobbyists to the streets.
Click to expand...
I hate Ted Cruz but this sounds very appealing 

 
Meh. Cruz would have plenty of lobbyists corrupting him. He is a Republican afterall.

Both Cruz and Trump would be terrible for the country in their own ways.

 
culdeus said:
I can't believe everyone was talking themselves into Rubio two weeks ago as the Trump counter and now he's on the verge of being blown out of the race and might even lose his home state.  

Whatever happens the GOP convention will be the most entertaining convention since 1968 and could surpass it.
Click to expand...
I was saying this two weeks ago...guy was down 20 in his home state at the time...but most would not listen

 
Comparing Ted Cruz and Donald Trump is silly.  It's like comparing a pie filled with #### to one that could be filled with anything from arsenic to rusty nails to #### to nothing at all.  You don't have any idea how they taste compared to one another, you just know you don't want either of them.

 
timschochet said:
I don't really want to spend a lot of time defending the sliminess that is Ted Cruz. 

So let me make this short: Cruz respects the Constitution. He has argued before the Supreme Court. He has served in the Senate. And he's a very smart guy. Despite the fact that I disagree with him about 95% of the time his election would not upend our system. He is on the edge of our status quo. 

Trump knows nothing about the Constitutuon and doesn't respect it. He is a white nationalist, a neo-fascist, a bigot and a racist, and his election would represent a tear down of 240 years of civil government. 

ANYBODY but Trump. 
Click to expand...
He wants to abolish the IRS and immediately repeal Obamacare. 

I don't follow politics to know much about his position, but I picked that up in the last debate while half watching.  The impression I get is that he's a far-right tea party guy, which is the party that you've been slamming for the last 5 years.

 
shader said:
timschochet said:
I don't really want to spend a lot of time defending the sliminess that is Ted Cruz. 

So let me make this short: Cruz respects the Constitution. He has argued before the Supreme Court. He has served in the Senate. And he's a very smart guy. Despite the fact that I disagree with him about 95% of the time his election would not upend our system. He is on the edge of our status quo. 

Trump knows nothing about the Constitutuon and doesn't respect it. He is a white nationalist, a neo-fascist, a bigot and a racist, and his election would represent a tear down of 240 years of civil government. 

ANYBODY but Trump. 
Click to expand...
He wants to abolish the IRS and immediately repeal Obamacare. 

I don't follow politics to know much about his position, but I picked that up in the last debate while half watching.  The impression I get is that he's a far-right tea party guy, which is the party that you've been slamming for the last 5 years.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the department of education.

Timmy, you have a very bizarre view of "edge of our status quo".  He wants to blow up more #### than Trump does :shrug:

 
Rove! said:
I was saying this two weeks ago...guy was down 20 in his home state at the time...but most would not listen
Click to expand...
Most?

I don't think that's true. I was one of the biggest Rubio supporters on this board and even my support was fading even before the Christie ambush. And there were plenty of other people here that were pointing out how much of a lightweight he was long before I came around to it. He never really had a lot of dedicated support here.

He is done and should drop out before he gets embarrassed in Florida.

 
Loan Sharks said:
The fact that the R's have gone negative against one of their own is revolting.
Click to expand...
You seem a bit disconnected from reality:

1. Trump isn't "one of their own".

2. The R's haven't "gone negative" on Trump. The tone of the race is a direct consequence of the tone Trump took from the moment he entered the race.

A Trump supporter trying to stake out the moral high ground on matters of decorum is beyond laughable.

 
The Commish said:
Don't forget the department of education.

Timmy, you have a very bizarre view of "edge of our status quo".  He wants to blow up more #### than Trump does :shrug:
Click to expand...
Disbanding the Department of Education is a much better idea than getting rid of the IRS.

I am philosophically a libertarian and even I see that you can't just get rid of all the tax collectors. You do that and you turn into Greece (where nobody pays their taxes) really fast.

 
RedmondLonghorn said:
The Commish said:
Don't forget the department of education.

Timmy, you have a very bizarre view of "edge of our status quo".  He wants to blow up more #### than Trump does :shrug:
Click to expand...
Disbanding the Department of Education is a much better idea than getting rid of the IRS.

I am philosophically a libertarian and even I see that you can't just get rid of all the tax collectors. You do that and you turn into Greece (where nobody pays their taxes) really fast.
Click to expand...
In the interest of full disclosure, I've not looked at a single policy of Cruz in detail, so all I know about his actual policies is of the summary variety.  That's enough for me.  Getting rid of either of them is blatantly dumb and monumentally stupid.  We don't really need to rank them.  That's not to say I don't believe we should do something significant about the way we are taxed and how those taxes are collected.

 
The Commish said:
In the interest of full disclosure, I've not looked at a single policy of Cruz in detail, so all I know about his actual policies is of the summary variety.  That's enough for me.  Getting rid of either of them is blatantly dumb and monumentally stupid.  We don't really need to rank them.  That's not to say I don't believe we should do something significant about the way we are taxed and how those taxes are collected.
Click to expand...
I agree with you about the IRS.

I don't know about the Department of Education.

Can you explain to me what it does? It is a budget line item of $70.7 bln. Is there any way education in the US would be worse off if that expenditure was cut in half, but the $35 bln remaining was just directly distributed to the states pro-rata based on the number of students in each state?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Polling has Rubio down by -8 in FL but he's winning the early voting big and Trump has been struggling in a couple ways.
Click to expand...
He was winning in early voting in the Monmouth poll, 38-18 (actual votes, not %). Most counties didn't open their early voting until Saturday, a day before the poll ended.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This article sums up what the next weeks means

1. Donald Trump is, realistically, the only Republican candidate who can get to 1,237 delegates before the convention in Cleveland.

2. If Trump wins Ohio and Florida, he will be the Republican nominee.

3. If he loses Ohio and Florida, this race is going to be decided at an open convention.

4. If he wins Ohio or Florida but not both, he could — but probably won't — get to 1,237 before the convention.
Click to expand...
:popcorn:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

lombardi
The Next POTUS - Here are the odds, who is the best bet?
2 3 4
Replies
156
Views
6K
Good Posting Judge
Good Posting Judge
cstu
How Donald Trump Exploited the Media's Greed to Win the Nomination
Replies
17
Views
1K
The General
The General
Chadstroma
Meet the atheist who quizzes presidential candidates about their faith
Replies
32
Views
2K
Joe Summer
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top