Official 2016 GOP thread: Is it really going to be Donald Trump?? (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

I used a five year time table because that's what the American Society of Civil Engineers used in their repair estimates. Its the number that was available.

Re the bolded: it's always amazing how people think free market principles don't apply in the public sector. If you don't like the current leadership in Washington this is pretty much the worst thing you could do to improve it.

Fair enough. And I agree with the last part...it won't improve it. Silver lining is, it wouldn't make it any worse either and those dolts would have a paycheck that accurately reflected their performance.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I used a five year time table because that's what the American Society of Civil Engineers used in their repair estimates. Its the number that was available.

Re the bolded: it's always amazing how people think free market principles don't apply in the public sector. If you don't like the current leadership in Washington this is pretty much the worst thing you could do to improve it.

Fair enough. And I agree with the last part...it won't improve it. Silver lining is, it wouldn't make it any worse either and those dolts would have a paycheck that accurately reflected their performance.

Yes, it would. That's how the free market works. If you offer lower pay and benefits you get a smaller pool of prospective employees. Fairly simple. In this case it would be particularly harmful because it would reduce the level of representation of the middle class and would eliminate younger and more energetic candidates, both because those people would be less inclined to run in the first place and because they'd be more inclined to leave early for bigger paydays at law firms and such.

 

[The Commish]

I used a five year time table because that's what the American Society of Civil Engineers used in their repair estimates. Its the number that was available.

Re the bolded: it's always amazing how people think free market principles don't apply in the public sector. If you don't like the current leadership in Washington this is pretty much the worst thing you could do to improve it.

Fair enough. And I agree with the last part...it won't improve it. Silver lining is, it wouldn't make it any worse either and those dolts would have a paycheck that accurately reflected their performance.

Yes, it would. That's how the free market works. If you offer lower pay and benefits you get a smaller pool of prospective employees. Fairly simple. In this case it would be particularly harmful because it would reduce the level of representation of the middle class and would eliminate younger and more energetic candidates, both because those people would be less inclined to run in the first place and because they'd be more inclined to leave early for bigger paydays at law firms and such.

I have been led to believe that our government isn't a business. If that's true, and these are positions crafted out of duty to the country (as they should be) salary wouldn't matter. Furthermore, I don't see why leaving early is a bad thing and I struggle to see how you can reduce the representation of the middle class in any significant way from it's current levels.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I used a five year time table because that's what the American Society of Civil Engineers used in their repair estimates. Its the number that was available.

Re the bolded: it's always amazing how people think free market principles don't apply in the public sector. If you don't like the current leadership in Washington this is pretty much the worst thing you could do to improve it.

Fair enough. And I agree with the last part...it won't improve it. Silver lining is, it wouldn't make it any worse either and those dolts would have a paycheck that accurately reflected their performance.

Yes, it would. That's how the free market works. If you offer lower pay and benefits you get a smaller pool of prospective employees. Fairly simple. In this case it would be particularly harmful because it would reduce the level of representation of the middle class and would eliminate younger and more energetic candidates, both because those people would be less inclined to run in the first place and because they'd be more inclined to leave early for bigger paydays at law firms and such.

I have been led to believe that our government isn't a business. If that's true, and these are positions crafted out of duty to the country (as they should be) salary wouldn't matter. Furthermore, I don't see why leaving early is a bad thing and I struggle to see how you can reduce the representation of the middle class in any significant way from it's current levels.

The government isn't a business but it is a participant in the free market for labor. You can throw out all the idealistic nonsense you want but the free market doesn't care. And yes, there's not enough representatives from the middle class or even the upper middle class. But there are some, and there would be fewer if you cut pay and benefits. That's a fact, I don't know how you can possibly argue otherwise.

 

[shadrap]

I used a five year time table because that's what the American Society of Civil Engineers used in their repair estimates. Its the number that was available.

Re the bolded: it's always amazing how people think free market principles don't apply in the public sector. If you don't like the current leadership in Washington this is pretty much the worst thing you could do to improve it.

Fair enough. And I agree with the last part...it won't improve it. Silver lining is, it wouldn't make it any worse either and those dolts would have a paycheck that accurately reflected their performance.

Paycheck=performance?

Novel idea, but 90% with government jobs would be out of work. Love the "dolt" reference. Perfect.

 

[The Commish]

I used a five year time table because that's what the American Society of Civil Engineers used in their repair estimates. Its the number that was available.

Re the bolded: it's always amazing how people think free market principles don't apply in the public sector. If you don't like the current leadership in Washington this is pretty much the worst thing you could do to improve it.

Fair enough. And I agree with the last part...it won't improve it. Silver lining is, it wouldn't make it any worse either and those dolts would have a paycheck that accurately reflected their performance.

Yes, it would. That's how the free market works. If you offer lower pay and benefits you get a smaller pool of prospective employees. Fairly simple. In this case it would be particularly harmful because it would reduce the level of representation of the middle class and would eliminate younger and more energetic candidates, both because those people would be less inclined to run in the first place and because they'd be more inclined to leave early for bigger paydays at law firms and such.

I have been led to believe that our government isn't a business. If that's true, and these are positions crafted out of duty to the country (as they should be) salary wouldn't matter. Furthermore, I don't see why leaving early is a bad thing and I struggle to see how you can reduce the representation of the middle class in any significant way from it's current levels.

The government isn't a business but it is a participant in the free market for labor. You can throw out all the idealistic nonsense you want but the free market doesn't care. And yes, there's not enough representatives from the middle class or even the upper middle class. But there are some, and there would be fewer if you cut pay and benefits. That's a fact, I don't know how you can possibly argue otherwise.

I'm not arguing otherwise. What I'm asking if the "less" would have any impact. Will we notice a significant problem if representation goes from say 10% to 8% or 5%? I suspect the answer is no. To the overall discussion, one could argue that if politicians were held accountable through their paychecks, their performance has the potential of increasing. One thing's for certain....the way things are right now isn't really working. However, this shouldn't be the focus of my comments as I fully admitted and acknowledged this part would be driven out of spite more than anything else and I understand it wouldn't really matter to the original question posed.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I used a five year time table because that's what the American Society of Civil Engineers used in their repair estimates. Its the number that was available.

Re the bolded: it's always amazing how people think free market principles don't apply in the public sector. If you don't like the current leadership in Washington this is pretty much the worst thing you could do to improve it.

Fair enough. And I agree with the last part...it won't improve it. Silver lining is, it wouldn't make it any worse either and those dolts would have a paycheck that accurately reflected their performance.

Yes, it would. That's how the free market works. If you offer lower pay and benefits you get a smaller pool of prospective employees. Fairly simple. In this case it would be particularly harmful because it would reduce the level of representation of the middle class and would eliminate younger and more energetic candidates, both because those people would be less inclined to run in the first place and because they'd be more inclined to leave early for bigger paydays at law firms and such.

I have been led to believe that our government isn't a business. If that's true, and these are positions crafted out of duty to the country (as they should be) salary wouldn't matter. Furthermore, I don't see why leaving early is a bad thing and I struggle to see how you can reduce the representation of the middle class in any significant way from it's current levels.

The government isn't a business but it is a participant in the free market for labor. You can throw out all the idealistic nonsense you want but the free market doesn't care. And yes, there's not enough representatives from the middle class or even the upper middle class. But there are some, and there would be fewer if you cut pay and benefits. That's a fact, I don't know how you can possibly argue otherwise.

I'm not arguing otherwise. What I'm asking if the "less" would have any impact. Will we notice a significant problem if representation goes from say 10% to 8% or 5%? I suspect the answer is no. To the overall discussion, one could argue that if politicians were held accountable through their paychecks, their performance has the potential of increasing. One thing's for certain....the way things are right now isn't really working. However, this shouldn't be the focus of my comments as I fully admitted and acknowledged this part would be driven out of spite more than anything else and I understand it wouldn't really matter to the original question posed.

Fair enough. I did like the idea of a gradual reduction in defense. Not sure on the consumption tax- makes sense from a social justice standpoint but I don't know what it would do to the economy if we discouraged consumption like that. Gonna have to read up a bit.

 

[B-Deep]

I think the salary talk is a red herring.

The paycheck is not why people go into politics, because it is not where people make their money in politics. The access, influence, and information you get as an elected official allows you to make money in many other areas. Eventually you can leave office and get really paid a good salary as a lobbyist or a member of some board somewhere.

it is also such a small portion of our expenses as to not make a difference

 

[The Commish]

I used a five year time table because that's what the American Society of Civil Engineers used in their repair estimates. Its the number that was available.

Re the bolded: it's always amazing how people think free market principles don't apply in the public sector. If you don't like the current leadership in Washington this is pretty much the worst thing you could do to improve it.

Fair enough. And I agree with the last part...it won't improve it. Silver lining is, it wouldn't make it any worse either and those dolts would have a paycheck that accurately reflected their performance.

Yes, it would. That's how the free market works. If you offer lower pay and benefits you get a smaller pool of prospective employees. Fairly simple. In this case it would be particularly harmful because it would reduce the level of representation of the middle class and would eliminate younger and more energetic candidates, both because those people would be less inclined to run in the first place and because they'd be more inclined to leave early for bigger paydays at law firms and such.

I have been led to believe that our government isn't a business. If that's true, and these are positions crafted out of duty to the country (as they should be) salary wouldn't matter. Furthermore, I don't see why leaving early is a bad thing and I struggle to see how you can reduce the representation of the middle class in any significant way from it's current levels.

The government isn't a business but it is a participant in the free market for labor. You can throw out all the idealistic nonsense you want but the free market doesn't care. And yes, there's not enough representatives from the middle class or even the upper middle class. But there are some, and there would be fewer if you cut pay and benefits. That's a fact, I don't know how you can possibly argue otherwise.

I'm not arguing otherwise. What I'm asking if the "less" would have any impact. Will we notice a significant problem if representation goes from say 10% to 8% or 5%? I suspect the answer is no. To the overall discussion, one could argue that if politicians were held accountable through their paychecks, their performance has the potential of increasing. One thing's for certain....the way things are right now isn't really working. However, this shouldn't be the focus of my comments as I fully admitted and acknowledged this part would be driven out of spite more than anything else and I understand it wouldn't really matter to the original question posed.

Fair enough. I did like the idea of a gradual reduction in defense. Not sure on the consumption tax- makes sense from a social justice standpoint but I don't know what it would do to the economy if we discouraged consumption like that. Gonna have to read up a bit.

And before the conservative "why do you hate America" crazies jump my ### for daring to touch defense, I am not suggesting we stop giving our funds to the military. I am suggesting that instead of buying say 300 $50 million planes, maybe we only buy half that amount. Cuts like that. I wasn't aware of this until talking to a Navy friend of mine, but he told me that over 70% of the equipment we have in our military inventory never sees a live battlefield. I dont' know if that's true or not, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were.

 

[Instinctive]

My military spending and infrastructure solution is to keep giving them the money, but reallocate it to massive infrastructure upgrades. The way over-simplified version of this is: use the military as a gigantic construction company.

You would think defense companies building tanks would be able to build some war machines that also have use for these jobs. That would be kinda cool, actually. Sort of like Transformers (but not sentient) HAHA.

 

[The Commish]

My military spending and infrastructure solution is to keep giving them the money, but reallocate it to massive infrastructure upgrades. The way over-simplified version of this is: use the military as a gigantic construction company.

You would think defense companies building tanks would be able to build some war machines that also have use for these jobs. That would be kinda cool, actually. Sort of like Transformers (but not sentient) HAHA.

I like it, but the big construction companies would never go for it.

 

[kface]

I think the salary talk is a red herring.

The paycheck is not why people go into politics, because it is not where people make their money in politics. The access, influence, and information you get as an elected official allows you to make money in many other areas. Eventually you can leave office and get really paid a good salary as a lobbyist or a member of some board somewhere.

it is also such a small portion of our expenses as to not make a difference

Not too mention a lot of them are rich before they even think about it.

 

[B-Deep]

ok, on the "pledge"

so GOP says "sign this pledge to support our candidate and not run as an independent or in any other party"

trump signs

trump for whatever reason does not get the nomination

what makes trump abide by what he signed?

it is not legally binding

will the people who would support him in an independent run NOT support him because the pledge?

I doubt it

sign it then if you want to run later tell them stick their pledge up their asses, you are Donald, you can change your mind when you want

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I find it incredible that the party of William F. Buckley (who I respected even if I disagreed philosophically) has reduced itself to this level of ignorance and idiocy.

I've been thinking about this.

I think conservatism as an intellectual concept in politics at least died during the Bush administration, and it might have begun in the Clinton administration (and in some respects Clinton himself was a conservative). International restraint? Gone. Monetary restraint and monetary policy as policy? Gone. Faith and maintenance of institutions? Gone.

What we see is an intellectual and principled void in the GOP, and Trump is the result. The GOP was supposed to have a deep bench, all those governors, the voice of the states, where have they gone? They have been swept away by Trump. And frankly I think some people were hopeful of Obama and they're frustrated, That's not a knock on Obama, he attracted people in the middle and right. "Change" means a lot of things to a lot of people, and people still want change, they feel they haven't gotten it.

 

[Fennis]

ok, on the "pledge"

so GOP says "sign this pledge to support our candidate and not run as an independent or in any other party"

trump signs

trump for whatever reason does not get the nomination

what makes trump abide by what he signed?

it is not legally binding

will the people who would support him in an independent run NOT support him because the pledge?

I doubt it

sign it then if you want to run later tell them stick their pledge up their asses, you are Donald, you can change your mind when you want

most people don't like politicians who flip flop and do things that are just politically expedient at the moment. He already flopped once on the issue.

 

[The Commish]

ok, on the "pledge"

so GOP says "sign this pledge to support our candidate and not run as an independent or in any other party"

trump signs

trump for whatever reason does not get the nomination

what makes trump abide by what he signed?

it is not legally binding

will the people who would support him in an independent run NOT support him because the pledge?

I doubt it

sign it then if you want to run later tell them stick their pledge up their asses, you are Donald, you can change your mind when you want

most people don't like politicians who flip flop and do things that are just politically expedient at the moment. He already flopped once on the issue.

The voting habits of this country tell a different story. Yeah, it's good for political but in the end, I'm not sure if it matters especially if he owns it, sells it as a soul searching exercise where he believes it was the wrong thing to do and is trying to right that wrong. People will slurp that load of #### up!!!!!!!!!

 

[bakes]

Yep. He will tear it up on camera, state that "no established political party will tell him what to do" and then go third party.

 

[Fennis]

ok, on the "pledge"

so GOP says "sign this pledge to support our candidate and not run as an independent or in any other party"

trump signs

trump for whatever reason does not get the nomination

what makes trump abide by what he signed?

it is not legally binding

will the people who would support him in an independent run NOT support him because the pledge?

I doubt it

sign it then if you want to run later tell them stick their pledge up their asses, you are Donald, you can change your mind when you want

most people don't like politicians who flip flop and do things that are just politically expedient at the moment. He already flopped once on the issue.

The voting habits of this country tell a different story. Yeah, it's good for political but in the end, I'm not sure if it matters especially if he owns it, sells it as a soul searching exercise where he believes it was the wrong thing to do and is trying to right that wrong. People will slurp that load of #### up!!!!!!!!!

Norquist's Taxpayer Protection Pledge has been a pretty powerful tool for those who oppose raising taxes under any circumstance.

 

[Fennis]

A third party run is getting close to impossible at this late time. He cant run third party after the primaries occur.

 

[The Commish]

ok, on the "pledge"

so GOP says "sign this pledge to support our candidate and not run as an independent or in any other party"

trump signs

trump for whatever reason does not get the nomination

what makes trump abide by what he signed?

it is not legally binding

will the people who would support him in an independent run NOT support him because the pledge?

I doubt it

sign it then if you want to run later tell them stick their pledge up their asses, you are Donald, you can change your mind when you want

most people don't like politicians who flip flop and do things that are just politically expedient at the moment. He already flopped once on the issue.

The voting habits of this country tell a different story. Yeah, it's good for political but in the end, I'm not sure if it matters especially if he owns it, sells it as a soul searching exercise where he believes it was the wrong thing to do and is trying to right that wrong. People will slurp that load of #### up!!!!!!!!!

Norquist's Taxpayer Protection Pledge has been a pretty powerful tool for those who oppose raising taxes under any circumstance.

For those that give a #### what Washington thinks. Isn't it clear by now that Donald doesn't fit in that category?

 

[bakes]

ok, on the "pledge"

so GOP says "sign this pledge to support our candidate and not run as an independent or in any other party"

trump signs

trump for whatever reason does not get the nomination

what makes trump abide by what he signed?

it is not legally binding

will the people who would support him in an independent run NOT support him because the pledge?

I doubt it

sign it then if you want to run later tell them stick their pledge up their asses, you are Donald, you can change your mind when you want

most people don't like politicians who flip flop and do things that are just politically expedient at the moment. He already flopped once on the issue.

The voting habits of this country tell a different story. Yeah, it's good for political but in the end, I'm not sure if it matters especially if he owns it, sells it as a soul searching exercise where he believes it was the wrong thing to do and is trying to right that wrong. People will slurp that load of #### up!!!!!!!!!

Norquist's Taxpayer Protection Pledge has been a pretty powerful tool for those who oppose raising taxes under any circumstance.

Especially hypocrites like Norquist. How's you get to the meeting Grover? Take a public thoroughfare, or hover? Take a dump in a toilet, or squat behind a tree? One of the few people of whom I can unequivocally state that the world would have been better off if he were left on his daddy's sheets.

 

[Fennis]

ok, on the "pledge"

so GOP says "sign this pledge to support our candidate and not run as an independent or in any other party"

trump signs

trump for whatever reason does not get the nomination

what makes trump abide by what he signed?

it is not legally binding

will the people who would support him in an independent run NOT support him because the pledge?

I doubt it

sign it then if you want to run later tell them stick their pledge up their asses, you are Donald, you can change your mind when you want

most people don't like politicians who flip flop and do things that are just politically expedient at the moment. He already flopped once on the issue.

The voting habits of this country tell a different story. Yeah, it's good for political but in the end, I'm not sure if it matters especially if he owns it, sells it as a soul searching exercise where he believes it was the wrong thing to do and is trying to right that wrong. People will slurp that load of #### up!!!!!!!!!

Norquist's Taxpayer Protection Pledge has been a pretty powerful tool for those who oppose raising taxes under any circumstance.

For those that give a #### what Washington thinks. Isn't it clear by now that Donald doesn't fit in that category?

No. The money guys, like Trump, who feed money in to Washington are the ones who create the rules.

 

[Fennis]

ok, on the "pledge"

so GOP says "sign this pledge to support our candidate and not run as an independent or in any other party"

trump signs

trump for whatever reason does not get the nomination

what makes trump abide by what he signed?

it is not legally binding

will the people who would support him in an independent run NOT support him because the pledge?

I doubt it

sign it then if you want to run later tell them stick their pledge up their asses, you are Donald, you can change your mind when you want

most people don't like politicians who flip flop and do things that are just politically expedient at the moment. He already flopped once on the issue.

The voting habits of this country tell a different story. Yeah, it's good for political but in the end, I'm not sure if it matters especially if he owns it, sells it as a soul searching exercise where he believes it was the wrong thing to do and is trying to right that wrong. People will slurp that load of #### up!!!!!!!!!

Norquist's Taxpayer Protection Pledge has been a pretty powerful tool for those who oppose raising taxes under any circumstance.

Especially hypocrites like Norquist. How's you get to the meeting Grover? Take a public thoroughfare, or hover? Take a dump in a toilet, or squat behind a tree? One of the few people of whom I can unequivocally state that the world would have been better off if he were left on his daddy's sheets.

his pledge may or may not be bad policy, but that's not the point.

 

[bakes]

Someone explain this whole pledge thing that the GOP likes to trot out. Why? It looks like a fifth grade "OK, we all pledge not to be friends with the funny looking kid" note.

 

[timschochet]

Why should he run 3rd party? He thinks he's going to win the primaries. According to all the polls he's right.

Like everyone else I've been waiting and waiting for something or someone to take him down...it's not happening.

 

[PlasmaDogPlasma]

Why should he run 3rd party? He thinks he's going to win the primaries. According to all the polls he's right.

Like everyone else I've been waiting and waiting for something or someone to take him down...it's not happening.

We'll see as the crowd thins out. Right now there's 70% of the GOP that aren't backing Trump.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Why should he run 3rd party? He thinks he's going to win the primaries. According to all the polls he's right.

Like everyone else I've been waiting and waiting for something or someone to take him down...it's not happening.

It's September 3, 2015. You haven't been waiting very long. Even that Five Thirty Eight piece that confidently predicted that he would crash and burn in six "stages" didn't think we would move past the free for all to the next stage until November or December.

 

[The Commish]

ok, on the "pledge"

so GOP says "sign this pledge to support our candidate and not run as an independent or in any other party"

trump signs

trump for whatever reason does not get the nomination

what makes trump abide by what he signed?

it is not legally binding

will the people who would support him in an independent run NOT support him because the pledge?

I doubt it

sign it then if you want to run later tell them stick their pledge up their asses, you are Donald, you can change your mind when you want

most people don't like politicians who flip flop and do things that are just politically expedient at the moment. He already flopped once on the issue.

The voting habits of this country tell a different story. Yeah, it's good for political but in the end, I'm not sure if it matters especially if he owns it, sells it as a soul searching exercise where he believes it was the wrong thing to do and is trying to right that wrong. People will slurp that load of #### up!!!!!!!!!

Norquist's Taxpayer Protection Pledge has been a pretty powerful tool for those who oppose raising taxes under any circumstance.

For those that give a #### what Washington thinks. Isn't it clear by now that Donald doesn't fit in that category?

No. The money guys, like Trump, who feed money in to Washington are the ones who create the rules.

I have no idea where this has gone

 

[B-Deep]

ok, on the "pledge"

so GOP says "sign this pledge to support our candidate and not run as an independent or in any other party"

trump signs

trump for whatever reason does not get the nomination

what makes trump abide by what he signed?

it is not legally binding

will the people who would support him in an independent run NOT support him because the pledge?

I doubt it

sign it then if you want to run later tell them stick their pledge up their asses, you are Donald, you can change your mind when you want

most people don't like politicians who flip flop and do things that are just politically expedient at the moment. He already flopped once on the issue.

he has flopped on tons of issues

i don;t see flopping on this as a bad thing, the people who support him won;t be phased. Do you think running for president as an indpendant is worse to his followers than being strongly pro choice?

the pledge is meaningless

 

[B-Deep]

Why should he run 3rd party? He thinks he's going to win the primaries. According to all the polls he's right.

Like everyone else I've been waiting and waiting for something or someone to take him down...it's not happening.

I am saying if he doesn't win

if he still thinks he can win as an independent, this stupid pledge is not going to stop him

 

[timschochet]

Why should he run 3rd party? He thinks he's going to win the primaries. According to all the polls he's right.

Like everyone else I've been waiting and waiting for something or someone to take him down...it's not happening.

It's September 3, 2015. You haven't been waiting very long. Even that Five Thirty Eight piece that confidently predicted that he would crash and burn in six "stages" didn't think we would move past the free for all to the next stage until November or December.

i hope you're right obviously. The amount of time Trump has led the polls already is a huge embarrassment, and unmitigated disaster, for the GOP.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Why should he run 3rd party? He thinks he's going to win the primaries. According to all the polls he's right.

Like everyone else I've been waiting and waiting for something or someone to take him down...it's not happening.

It's September 3, 2015. You haven't been waiting very long. Even that Five Thirty Eight piece that confidently predicted that he would crash and burn in six "stages" didn't think we would move past the free for all to the next stage until November or December.

i hope you're right obviously. The amount of time Trump has led the polls already is a huge embarrassment, and unmitigated disaster, for the GOP.

Give it time. He's a pop culture phenomenon more than a candidate. Pop culture phenomena tend to fade out when we reach a certain point of saturation. In the meantime we get to enjoy jokes like this classic:

I want Trump to start claiming things like he's eaten 1,000 bees in his life so we can see Scott Walker try to eat a bunch of bees.

 

[jamny]

Why should he run 3rd party? He thinks he's going to win the primaries. According to all the polls he's right.

Like everyone else I've been waiting and waiting for something or someone to take him down...it's not happening.

It's September 3, 2015. You haven't been waiting very long. Even that Five Thirty Eight piece that confidently predicted that he would crash and burn in six "stages" didn't think we would move past the free for all to the next stage until November or December.

i hope you're right obviously. The amount of time Trump has led the polls already is a huge embarrassment, and unmitigated disaster, for the GOP.

How do you know? Maybe in the long run this is the kick in the ### they need.

 

[bakes]

Why should he run 3rd party? He thinks he's going to win the primaries. According to all the polls he's right.

Like everyone else I've been waiting and waiting for something or someone to take him down...it's not happening.

It's September 3, 2015. You haven't been waiting very long. Even that Five Thirty Eight piece that confidently predicted that he would crash and burn in six "stages" didn't think we would move past the free for all to the next stage until November or December.

i hope you're right obviously. The amount of time Trump has led the polls already is a huge embarrassment, and unmitigated disaster, for the GOP.

Give it time. He's a pop culture phenomenon more than a candidate. Pop culture phenomena tend to fade out when we reach a certain point of saturation. In the meantime we get to enjoy jokes like this classic:

I want Trump to start claiming things like he's eaten 1,000 bees in his life so we can see Scott Walker try to eat a bunch of bees.

Walker, being dumb as a post, would probably do that.

 

[timschochet]

Why should he run 3rd party? He thinks he's going to win the primaries. According to all the polls he's right.

Like everyone else I've been waiting and waiting for something or someone to take him down...it's not happening.

It's September 3, 2015. You haven't been waiting very long. Even that Five Thirty Eight piece that confidently predicted that he would crash and burn in six "stages" didn't think we would move past the free for all to the next stage until November or December.

i hope you're right obviously. The amount of time Trump has led the polls already is a huge embarrassment, and unmitigated disaster, for the GOP.

How do you know? Maybe in the long run this is the kick in the ### they need.

No, because it's revealed that there are a loud and significant minority of Republicans who are bigoted towards Latinos, and a much larger group of Republicans who are tolerant of such bigotry.

 

[jamny]

Why should he run 3rd party? He thinks he's going to win the primaries. According to all the polls he's right.

Like everyone else I've been waiting and waiting for something or someone to take him down...it's not happening.

It's September 3, 2015. You haven't been waiting very long. Even that Five Thirty Eight piece that confidently predicted that he would crash and burn in six "stages" didn't think we would move past the free for all to the next stage until November or December.

i hope you're right obviously. The amount of time Trump has led the polls already is a huge embarrassment, and unmitigated disaster, for the GOP.

How do you know? Maybe in the long run this is the kick in the ### they need.

No, because it's revealed that there are a loud and significant minority of Republicans who are bigoted towards Latinos, and a much larger group of Republicans who are tolerant of such bigotry.

Yeah, because that's all there is to Trump's appeal.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Why should he run 3rd party? He thinks he's going to win the primaries. According to all the polls he's right.

Like everyone else I've been waiting and waiting for something or someone to take him down...it's not happening.

It's September 3, 2015. You haven't been waiting very long. Even that Five Thirty Eight piece that confidently predicted that he would crash and burn in six "stages" didn't think we would move past the free for all to the next stage until November or December.

i hope you're right obviously. The amount of time Trump has led the polls already is a huge embarrassment, and unmitigated disaster, for the GOP.

How do you know? Maybe in the long run this is the kick in the ### they need.

No, because it's revealed that there are a loud and significant minority of Republicans who are bigoted towards Latinos, and a much larger group of Republicans who are tolerant of such bigotry.

Yeah, because that's all there is to Trump's appeal.

Fair point here. Many people are also drawn to his "something terrific" health care proposal.

 

[jamny]

Why should he run 3rd party? He thinks he's going to win the primaries. According to all the polls he's right.

Like everyone else I've been waiting and waiting for something or someone to take him down...it's not happening.

It's September 3, 2015. You haven't been waiting very long. Even that Five Thirty Eight piece that confidently predicted that he would crash and burn in six "stages" didn't think we would move past the free for all to the next stage until November or December.

i hope you're right obviously. The amount of time Trump has led the polls already is a huge embarrassment, and unmitigated disaster, for the GOP.

How do you know? Maybe in the long run this is the kick in the ### they need.

No, because it's revealed that there are a loud and significant minority of Republicans who are bigoted towards Latinos, and a much larger group of Republicans who are tolerant of such bigotry.

Yeah, because that's all there is to Trump's appeal.

Fair point here. Many people are also drawn to his "something terrific" health care proposal.

No doubt it's time for these people to start putting out specifics. Summer is over, time to get real. I'm still rooting for Rubio and I think he'll blow Trump out of the water when it comes to real plans but if Trump is doing this well without any real specifics, it'll be interesting to see when he puts out actual details.

 

[Sand]

Why should he run 3rd party? He thinks he's going to win the primaries. According to all the polls he's right.

Like everyone else I've been waiting and waiting for something or someone to take him down...it's not happening.

It's September 3, 2015. You haven't been waiting very long. Even that Five Thirty Eight piece that confidently predicted that he would crash and burn in six "stages" didn't think we would move past the free for all to the next stage until November or December.

i hope you're right obviously. The amount of time Trump has led the polls already is a huge embarrassment, and unmitigated disaster, for the GOP.

How do you know? Maybe in the long run this is the kick in the ### they need.

No, because it's revealed that there are a loud and significant minority of Republicans who are bigoted towards Latinos, and a much larger group of Republicans who are tolerant of such bigotry.

Yeah, because that's all there is to Trump's appeal.

Fair point here. Many people are also drawn to his "something terrific" health care proposal.

No doubt it's time for these people to start putting out specifics. Summer is over, time to get real. I'm still rooting for Rubio and I think he'll blow Trump out of the water when it comes to real plans but if Trump is doing this well without any real specifics, it'll be interesting to see when he puts out actual details.

At this point I'm hoping Fiorina knocks the cover off the ball at the next debate. She has a ton going for her, not the least of which would be that she scalps some of the "we need a ###### in the presidency" identity voters from Hill.

That said I also think Rubio is 1a in the list of candidates most likely to win the general.

 

[jamny]

Why should he run 3rd party? He thinks he's going to win the primaries. According to all the polls he's right.

Like everyone else I've been waiting and waiting for something or someone to take him down...it's not happening.

It's September 3, 2015. You haven't been waiting very long. Even that Five Thirty Eight piece that confidently predicted that he would crash and burn in six "stages" didn't think we would move past the free for all to the next stage until November or December.

i hope you're right obviously. The amount of time Trump has led the polls already is a huge embarrassment, and unmitigated disaster, for the GOP.

How do you know? Maybe in the long run this is the kick in the ### they need.

No, because it's revealed that there are a loud and significant minority of Republicans who are bigoted towards Latinos, and a much larger group of Republicans who are tolerant of such bigotry.

Yeah, because that's all there is to Trump's appeal.

Fair point here. Many people are also drawn to his "something terrific" health care proposal.

No doubt it's time for these people to start putting out specifics. Summer is over, time to get real. I'm still rooting for Rubio and I think he'll blow Trump out of the water when it comes to real plans but if Trump is doing this well without any real specifics, it'll be interesting to see when he puts out actual details.

At this point I'm hoping Fiorina knocks the cover off the ball at the next debate. She has a ton going for her, not the least of which would be that she scalps some of the "we need a ###### in the presidency" identity voters from Hill.

That said I also think Rubio is 1a in the list of candidates most likely to win the general.

Right now I have Rubio/Fiorina/Kasich on my Top 3 list with Christie actually gaining a little lately.

 

[Eephus]

Right now I have Rubio/Fiorina/Kasich on my Top 3 list with Christie actually gaining a little lately.

The only thing Christie is gaining is weight

 

[jon_mx]

I find it incredible that the party of William F. Buckley (who I respected even if I disagreed philosophically) has reduced itself to this level of ignorance and idiocy.

And you believe those who vote Democrat would not have stupid answers to questions? The American public has a lot of misinformation on numerous topics.

 

[Fennis]

ok, on the "pledge"

so GOP says "sign this pledge to support our candidate and not run as an independent or in any other party"

trump signs

trump for whatever reason does not get the nomination

what makes trump abide by what he signed?

it is not legally binding

will the people who would support him in an independent run NOT support him because the pledge?

I doubt it

sign it then if you want to run later tell them stick their pledge up their asses, you are Donald, you can change your mind when you want

most people don't like politicians who flip flop and do things that are just politically expedient at the moment. He already flopped once on the issue.

The voting habits of this country tell a different story. Yeah, it's good for political but in the end, I'm not sure if it matters especially if he owns it, sells it as a soul searching exercise where he believes it was the wrong thing to do and is trying to right that wrong. People will slurp that load of #### up!!!!!!!!!

Norquist's Taxpayer Protection Pledge has been a pretty powerful tool for those who oppose raising taxes under any circumstance.

For those that give a #### what Washington thinks. Isn't it clear by now that Donald doesn't fit in that category?

No. The money guys, like Trump, who feed money in to Washington are the ones who create the rules.

I have no idea where this has gone

and another thing, What's the deal with Aquaman? Could he go on land, or was he just restricted to water?

 

[Fennis]

Right now I have Rubio/Fiorina/Kasich on my Top 3 list with Christie actually gaining a little lately.

The only thing Christie is gaining is weight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upmtawWwXmg

 

[cstu]

I find it incredible that the party of William F. Buckley (who I respected even if I disagreed philosophically) has reduced itself to this level of ignorance and idiocy.

And you believe those who vote Democrat would not have stupid answers to questions? The American public has a lot of misinformation on numerous topics.

There's no shortage of stupid voters, I'm talking about the people running for President and in leadership positions. I can't remember the last time I heard a Republican leader talk and thought "I disagree but that's well thought out reasoning"..

 

[MaxThreshold]

I find it incredible that the party of William F. Buckley (who I respected even if I disagreed philosophically) has reduced itself to this level of ignorance and idiocy.

And you believe those who vote Democrat would not have stupid answers to questions? The American public has a lot of misinformation on numerous topics.

There's no shortage of stupid voters, I'm talking about the people running for President and in leadership positions. I can't remember the last time I heard a Republican leader talk and thought "I disagree but that's well thought out reasoning"..

Yeah, funny, I say said the same thing about the current crop of Democrat presidential hopefuls.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I find it incredible that the party of William F. Buckley (who I respected even if I disagreed philosophically) has reduced itself to this level of ignorance and idiocy.

And you believe those who vote Democrat would not have stupid answers to questions? The American public has a lot of misinformation on numerous topics.

There's no shortage of stupid voters, I'm talking about the people running for President and in leadership positions. I can't remember the last time I heard a Republican leader talk and thought "I disagree but that's well thought out reasoning"..

Yeah, funny, I say said the same thing about the current crop of Democrat presidential hopefuls.

Lie.

 

[Daywalker]

Don't know why Jeb doesn't attack Trump by saying something like, "America has always been great and will continue to be so by doing xyz."

Does Trump not think America is great?

Use his own slogan. "Make America great again." If a liberal said that they'd get crucified.

Whenever Trump cuts into you. Say, "Why don't you think America is great." Just repeat it over and over. When Trump backtracks and says America is great. Then just ask Trump why is that your slogan? Do you not have respect for what we do around the world.

Over and over.

 

[Daywalker]

Jeb should just challenge Trump on the details. Let's talk foreign policy. Mr. Trump do you even know the players or the lay of the land?

When he cuts you down for low energy or low poll numbers just challenge him to talk one on one. Over and over.

 

[Daywalker]

Jeb's slogan should be, "Make America Greater."

Come up with a sensible immigration plan and wrap your arms around Reagan's amnesty. Not going that far. Just say Reagan over and over.

With the immigration problem in Europe our issues seem minor.

The goal is to win the executive not win the Republican nomination and get 12% the Latino vote on election day.