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?? (5 Viewers)

"I don't have time for political correctness" gets them all good and moist. Not being an ####### being a very time-consuming pursuit.
His focus is on getting things done. If feelings get hurt in the process so be it. He doesn't have time to waste worrying about that. I love that attitude from a Presidential candidate. The upside far outweighs the downside. If he can get this country back on track I have no problem sacrificing a few hurt feelings. You may think he's an #######, but does that necessarily mean he couldn't be the best choice to fix some of the major problems our country is facing?
Dude, the country isn't off track. The country is changing. The country is always changing. People who don't like change think the country is off track. It's not; change is the natural order of things.
Half the country think it's ####ed, the other half thinks it's fine. That's how it's always going to be going forward. But Dems will win major elections because of dumb young voters who are only concerned with social issues and minorities who are willing to put their social stances aside for the entitlements Dems will throw at them. It's as simple as that.

 
Jesus wept this debate needs a moderator to focus these guys. Senator, Governor, whatever you are, can you answer how you will change America?

Well Megyn I get up in the morning, I eat eggs sometimes, sometimes not, I like toast, and I think that breakfast is the best meal of the day. And, I tell you something else Megyn, it is the most important meal as well! My family adopted a kennel dog, and I tell you that little dog is not so easy to raise on what America is being paid today.

In all seriousness if you don't answer the question directly you don't get to speak again.

 
Jesus wept this debate needs a moderator to focus these guys. Senator, Governor, whatever you are, can you answer how you will change America?

Well Megyn I get up in the morning, I eat eggs sometimes, sometimes not, I like toast, and I think that breakfast is the best meal of the day. And, I tell you something else Megyn, it is the most important meal as well! My family adopted a kennel dog, and I tell you that little dog is not so easy to raise on what America is being paid today.

In all seriousness if you don't answer the question directly you don't get to speak again.
That would have been legendary. Holy crap.

 
In retrospect I will also give Rand Paul more credit - he stood up to Trump twice, once on the 3rd party run issue and again on the Hillary-corruption issue - and he also stood up to Christie. I do think Christie landed points with the 'real life vs ivory tower' argument but I happen to agree with Paul on the NSA issue and at any rate he actually won on that point, the courts agreed. - But aside from that it was like watching a bully beat up a kid at recess and everyone standing around doing nothing, except Paul, which I respect.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump had some great applause lines about political correctness, the corruption in the system and the role of the media. He did nothing, however, to convince anybody that he has the qualifications, nuance, character or temperament to hold office. Rubio indirectly destroyed him on his key issue - illegal immigration....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump had some great applause lines about political correctness, the corruption in the system and the role of the media. He did nothing, however, to convince anybody that he has the qualifications, nuance or temperament to hold office. Rubio indirectly destroyed him on his key issue - illegal immigration....
He did, I thought that response by Rubio about where our immigrants are actually coming from was a great one.

 
"I don't have time for political correctness" gets them all good and moist. Not being an ####### being a very time-consuming pursuit.
His focus is on getting things done. If feelings get hurt in the process so be it. He doesn't have time to waste worrying about that. I love that attitude from a Presidential candidate. The upside far outweighs the downside. If he can get this country back on track I have no problem sacrificing a few hurt feelings. You may think he's an #######, but does that necessarily mean he couldn't be the best choice to fix some of the major problems our country is facing?
What makes you think Donald Trump is the best choice to fix some of the major problems our country is facing? What are those problems, and what sets Trump apart from others?
Helping our economy flourish: I think his business acumen/experience, and the fact that he won't owe any favors to politicians and/or interest groups cleay separates him from the pack.Illegal immigration: Trump brought this issue to the forefront and it's obviously very important to him. He's the only candidate who would be willing to hurt feelings and potentially offend some people in order to fix the problem. I believe that the rest of the field would be too pc to get anything substantial done, just like the last 30 years.

Terrorism: I believe Trump's responses to terrorist attacks would be stronger and more direct than those of the other candidates, and he would take steps to thwart terrorism, both foreign and donestic, that the other candidates would be afraid to take due to political correctness.
What specifically is off track about the current economy? Also, Trump won't be the CEO of America. He can't just bark orders and get things done or fire those that he doesn't like. He still will have to deal with lobbyists, special interests, and all the other elected officials that a President has to find a way to work with to get anything done.
Same applies for the other candidates. The difference is, Trump won't owe anyone any favors, whereas the other candidates will. This is a huge difference in my opinion, and a key factor when talking about fixing a political machine that many believe is broken. Trump admittedly has been on the other side of this equation. He donated millions to campaigns, then when he needed something in return those politicians owed him a favor. They made decisions based on that, not necessarily what was "right" or best for the country. It's the foundation of corruption. A President who owes no favors has more freedom to make the right decisions without improper influence.
 
"I don't have time for political correctness" gets them all good and moist. Not being an ####### being a very time-consuming pursuit.
His focus is on getting things done. If feelings get hurt in the process so be it. He doesn't have time to waste worrying about that. I love that attitude from a Presidential candidate. The upside far outweighs the downside. If he can get this country back on track I have no problem sacrificing a few hurt feelings. You may think he's an #######, but does that necessarily mean he couldn't be the best choice to fix some of the major problems our country is facing?
What makes you think Donald Trump is the best choice to fix some of the major problems our country is facing? What are those problems, and what sets Trump apart from others?
Helping our economy flourish: I think his business acumen/experience, and the fact that he won't owe any favors to politicians and/or interest groups cleay separates him from the pack.Illegal immigration: Trump brought this issue to the forefront and it's obviously very important to him. He's the only candidate who would be willing to hurt feelings and potentially offend some people in order to fix the problem. I believe that the rest of the field would be too pc to get anything substantial done, just like the last 30 years.

Terrorism: I believe Trump's responses to terrorist attacks would be stronger and more direct than those of the other candidates, and he would take steps to thwart terrorism, both foreign and donestic, that the other candidates would be afraid to take due to political correctness.
What specifically is off track about the current economy? Also, Trump won't be the CEO of America. He can't just bark orders and get things done or fire those that he doesn't like. He still will have to deal with lobbyists, special interests, and all the other elected officials that a President has to find a way to work with to get anything done.
Same applies for the other candidates. The difference is, Trump won't owe anyone any favors, whereas the other candidates will. This is a huge difference in my opinion, and a key factor when talking about fixing a political machine that many believe is broken. Trump admittedly has been on the other side of this equation. He donated millions to campaigns, then when he needed something in return those politicians owed him a favor. They made decisions based on that, not necessarily what was "right" or best for the country. It's the foundation of corruption. A President who owes no favors has more freedom to make the right decisions without improper influence.
Well what if someone offers Trump something. What if someone says, 'hey Donald support me on this banking bill and I will get you a casino permit in Dallas' or some such deal?

 
Rand's tax plan is just so, so bad. I love the Libertarian lines on government, but he needs some serious economic help.

 
Helping our economy flourish: I think his business acumen/experience, and the fact that he won't owe any favors to politicians and/or interest groups clearly separates him from the pack. He can make decisions based on what's best for the country, not based on who he owes a personal/financial favor to.Illegal immigration: Trump brought this issue to the forefront and it's obviously very important to him. He's the only candidate who would be willing to hurt feelings and potentially offend some people in order to fix the problem. I believe that the rest of the field would be too pc to get anything substantial done, just like the last 30 years.

Terrorism: I believe Trump's responses to terrorist attacks would be stronger and more direct than those of the other candidates, and he would take steps to thwart terrorism, both foreign and donestic, that the other candidates would be afraid to take due to political correctness.
On the economy: His experience is trying to "win" deals. Our economy is not a zero sum game where someone wins and someone loses. A president needs to be able to propose and implement policies that stimulate the entire economy, not produce "wins" for a select few. And, and already pointed out, the president doesn't get to fire people everyone.

Immigration: What is his plan? If the issue is important to him why does he employ illegals domestically and make product overseas? There's no easy answer and he hasn't proposed a plan other than the Great Wall. Is he going to get companies to stop hiring illegals?

Terrorism: His response might be more direct, but that's not necessarily a good thing. Bombing the middle east back to the stone age creates power and economic vacuums that get filled by extremists. And what could he do domestically that other candidates are afraid to based on being politically correct? I suspect the measures you think aren't being taken because of political correctness are actually not being taken because they're unconstitutional.

I get that some people love his directness and the fact that he won't back down. But the issues tend to be a little more complex than he and his supporters believe. He sees every problem as a nail, and his own dooshbag personality as the hammer.

 
In retrospect I will also give Rand Paul more credit - he stood up to Trump twice, once on the 3rd party run issue and again on the Hillary-corruption issue - and he also stood up to Christie. I do think Christie landed points with the 'real life vs ivory tower' argument but I happen to agree with Paul on the NSA issue and at any rate he actually won on that point, the courts agreed. - But aside from that it was like watching a bully beat up a kid at recess and everyone standing around doing nothing, except Paul, which I respect.
Decent article here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/rand-paul-and-chris-christie-clash-on-nsa-spying/400718/

 
"I don't have time for political correctness" gets them all good and moist. Not being an ####### being a very time-consuming pursuit.
His focus is on getting things done. If feelings get hurt in the process so be it. He doesn't have time to waste worrying about that. I love that attitude from a Presidential candidate. The upside far outweighs the downside. If he can get this country back on track I have no problem sacrificing a few hurt feelings. You may think he's an #######, but does that necessarily mean he couldn't be the best choice to fix some of the major problems our country is facing?
What makes you think Donald Trump is the best choice to fix some of the major problems our country is facing? What are those problems, and what sets Trump apart from others?
Helping our economy flourish: I think his business acumen/experience, and the fact that he won't owe any favors to politicians and/or interest groups cleay separates him from the pack.Illegal immigration: Trump brought this issue to the forefront and it's obviously very important to him. He's the only candidate who would be willing to hurt feelings and potentially offend some people in order to fix the problem. I believe that the rest of the field would be too pc to get anything substantial done, just like the last 30 years.

Terrorism: I believe Trump's responses to terrorist attacks would be stronger and more direct than those of the other candidates, and he would take steps to thwart terrorism, both foreign and donestic, that the other candidates would be afraid to take due to political correctness.
What specifically is off track about the current economy? Also, Trump won't be the CEO of America. He can't just bark orders and get things done or fire those that he doesn't like. He still will have to deal with lobbyists, special interests, and all the other elected officials that a President has to find a way to work with to get anything done.
Same applies for the other candidates. The difference is, Trump won't owe anyone any favors, whereas the other candidates will. This is a huge difference in my opinion, and a key factor when talking about fixing a political machine that many believe is broken. Trump admittedly has been on the other side of this equation. He donated millions to campaigns, then when he needed something in return those politicians owed him a favor. They made decisions based on that, not necessarily what was "right" or best for the country. It's the foundation of corruption. A President who owes no favors has more freedom to make the right decisions without improper influence.
Well what if someone offers Trump something. What if someone says, 'hey Donald support me on this banking bill and I will get you a casino permit in Dallas' or some such deal?
Exactly. He openly admitted that he will use the rules of this country to benefit himself even if it costs others money, jobs or is seen as "shady". I would be concerned that if Trump was elected, he was alienate both parties and have nobody to work with to accomplish anything.

 
Terrorism: I believe Trump's responses to terrorist attacks would be stronger and more direct than those of the other candidates, and he would take steps to thwart terrorism, both foreign and donestic, that the other candidates would be afraid to take due to political correctness.
What more do you want to do? Indiscriminate drone strikes killing innocent civilians, spying on all American citizens without warrants, spying on foreign governments, indiscriminately holding people in off-site jails around the world, torture - that's not enough? What else do you want/think Trump will do?

 
"I don't have time for political correctness" gets them all good and moist. Not being an ####### being a very time-consuming pursuit.
His focus is on getting things done. If feelings get hurt in the process so be it. He doesn't have time to waste worrying about that. I love that attitude from a Presidential candidate. The upside far outweighs the downside. If he can get this country back on track I have no problem sacrificing a few hurt feelings. You may think he's an #######, but does that necessarily mean he couldn't be the best choice to fix some of the major problems our country is facing?
What makes you think Donald Trump is the best choice to fix some of the major problems our country is facing? What are those problems, and what sets Trump apart from others?
Helping our economy flourish: I think his business acumen/experience, and the fact that he won't owe any favors to politicians and/or interest groups cleay separates him from the pack.Illegal immigration: Trump brought this issue to the forefront and it's obviously very important to him. He's the only candidate who would be willing to hurt feelings and potentially offend some people in order to fix the problem. I believe that the rest of the field would be too pc to get anything substantial done, just like the last 30 years.

Terrorism: I believe Trump's responses to terrorist attacks would be stronger and more direct than those of the other candidates, and he would take steps to thwart terrorism, both foreign and donestic, that the other candidates would be afraid to take due to political correctness.
What specifically is off track about the current economy? Also, Trump won't be the CEO of America. He can't just bark orders and get things done or fire those that he doesn't like. He still will have to deal with lobbyists, special interests, and all the other elected officials that a President has to find a way to work with to get anything done.
And the guy... man, worst of all: Facing Hillary he pretty much copped to buying politicians, and it seems perfectly legitimate to believe he would or could be bought himself. Hillary's no. 1-2 issue along with untrustworthiness is corruption and when asked point blank what did he buy from Hillary he said she attended his wedding.

Wow, great answer, both dishonest and corrupt.
By copping to buying politicians he showed honesty and exposed what politicians hide. He exposed it so he can change it. With regards to Trump being bought, if he was interested in making more money he wouldn't be running for President. He could be making a heck of a lot more money just sticking to business. He'll lose money running for and potentially being President. I think he's bored with making money and truly wants to be a great President and help our country prosper. And he's willing to spend some of his fortune to do it.
 
Trump had some great applause lines about political correctness, the corruption in the system and the role of the media. He did nothing, however, to convince anybody that he has the qualifications, nuance or temperament to hold office. Rubio indirectly destroyed him on his key issue - illegal immigration....
He did, I thought that response by Rubio about where our immigrants are actually coming from was a great one.
I think that most Americans think that El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala are just parts of "Mexico" so it doesn't really matter to the red meat voters.

 
I must live in a different country than these guys. I thought things have been going pretty well recently. Didn't know that there was so much doom and gloom out there.
Agreed. Everyone I know well is empoyed and doing well. Housing market has roared back. Trump and a few others talk like it is 2008 all over again.
Take a look at government debt to GDP. Not good.
I do all the time. For the most part every president EVER has reduced this number except for times of war and the great depression. That was true since WWII until we hit the "tax cuts pay for themselves" guys, or the "voodoo economics" guys.. And dealing with the "great recession" But don't worry, if you change your perspective a bit, narrow your focus you can find a way to shift the blame and take the credit of others. Of course the problem of paying for tax cuts for three plus decades with surpluses generated by payroll taxes starts to become problematic when those surpluses go away, So the answer last night? More tax and regulatory cuts to grow the economy!
You said everything seems great. I pointed out that is far from the case.

The fact that the policy prescriptions being touted by those in the debate may not help wasn't really the point of discussion. :shrug:

 
Trump had some great applause lines about political correctness, the corruption in the system and the role of the media. He did nothing, however, to convince anybody that he has the qualifications, nuance or temperament to hold office. Rubio indirectly destroyed him on his key issue - illegal immigration....
He did, I thought that response by Rubio about where our immigrants are actually coming from was a great one.
I think that most Americans think that El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala are just parts of "Mexico" so it doesn't really matter to the red meat voters.
Yeah they are all brown and illegal

 
"I don't have time for political correctness" gets them all good and moist. Not being an ####### being a very time-consuming pursuit.
His focus is on getting things done. If feelings get hurt in the process so be it. He doesn't have time to waste worrying about that. I love that attitude from a Presidential candidate. The upside far outweighs the downside. If he can get this country back on track I have no problem sacrificing a few hurt feelings. You may think he's an #######, but does that necessarily mean he couldn't be the best choice to fix some of the major problems our country is facing?
What makes you think Donald Trump is the best choice to fix some of the major problems our country is facing? What are those problems, and what sets Trump apart from others?
Helping our economy flourish: I think his business acumen/experience, and the fact that he won't owe any favors to politicians and/or interest groups cleay separates him from the pack.Illegal immigration: Trump brought this issue to the forefront and it's obviously very important to him. He's the only candidate who would be willing to hurt feelings and potentially offend some people in order to fix the problem. I believe that the rest of the field would be too pc to get anything substantial done, just like the last 30 years.

Terrorism: I believe Trump's responses to terrorist attacks would be stronger and more direct than those of the other candidates, and he would take steps to thwart terrorism, both foreign and donestic, that the other candidates would be afraid to take due to political correctness.
What specifically is off track about the current economy? Also, Trump won't be the CEO of America. He can't just bark orders and get things done or fire those that he doesn't like. He still will have to deal with lobbyists, special interests, and all the other elected officials that a President has to find a way to work with to get anything done.
Same applies for the other candidates. The difference is, Trump won't owe anyone any favors, whereas the other candidates will. This is a huge difference in my opinion, and a key factor when talking about fixing a political machine that many believe is broken. Trump admittedly has been on the other side of this equation. He donated millions to campaigns, then when he needed something in return those politicians owed him a favor. They made decisions based on that, not necessarily what was "right" or best for the country. It's the foundation of corruption. A President who owes no favors has more freedom to make the right decisions without improper influence.
So instead of fixing the system to get money to influence elections less, we should just elect people who already have a ton of money.

 
In retrospect I will also give Rand Paul more credit - he stood up to Trump twice, once on the 3rd party run issue and again on the Hillary-corruption issue - and he also stood up to Christie. I do think Christie landed points with the 'real life vs ivory tower' argument but I happen to agree with Paul on the NSA issue and at any rate he actually won on that point, the courts agreed. - But aside from that it was like watching a bully beat up a kid at recess and everyone standing around doing nothing, except Paul, which I respect.
Decent article here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/rand-paul-and-chris-christie-clash-on-nsa-spying/400718/
Conor Friedersdorf being righteous. And that's great. I support Paul in most every way, and have been quite vocal about it.

Awesome. But Conor still doesn't address the basic functions of gov't, logically. Our Constitution is not the reason governments form. Our Constitution simply hopes it is an edifice to build upon so that the maximization of freedom carries on. Christie's argument is pre-constitutional and Machiavellian, and a good one, sadly.

 
Reince Priebus should be fired, drawn and quartered for letting this happen.

But here's my - this is going to be fun - solution. All 17 of these morons need to work together as one team right now and run together as follows:

Kasich - Presdient (GOP wins Ohio which they desperately need to have any shot)

Rubio - Vice President (GOP most likley grabs Florida and probably eats into the Latino vote a ton wcich they desperately need)

The rest of them get cabinet spots.

SecState - JEB Bush

SecTreasury - Rand Paul

SecDefense - Jim Gilmore

Attorney General - Chris Christie

SecInterior - Ted Cruz

SecAgric - Rick Perry

SecCommerce - Carly Fiorina

SecLabor - George Pataki

SecHHS - Bobby Jindal

SecHUD - Mike Huckabee

SecTrans - Rick Santorum

SecED - Scott Walker

SecVA - Lindsay Graham

SecHomeland - No, I'm not going to put Trump here. Screw that guy. I'd rather have Palin here. In fact, the perfect guy? John McCain

Surgeon Gen - Dr. Ben Carson

There you go. All of you work together and run as one ticket each of you focusing on what you would do for President Kasich in your cabinet position. Done. Oh, Donald Trump, we are going to have a 17 member press conference where each of you say he is a loon of the highest proportions, and formall kick him out of the party and refuse to allow him access to anything with the GOP symbol on it. Done, what's next?

 
I personally liked Kasich. Seemed the most rational. Thoughts on his performance?

Carson was obviously out of his depth. Jeb didn't look well prepared.

 
Reince Priebus should be fired, drawn and quartered for letting this happen.

But here's my - this is going to be fun - solution. All 17 of these morons need to work together as one team right now and run together as follows:

Kasich - Presdient (GOP wins Ohio which they desperately need to have any shot)

Rubio - Vice President (GOP most likley grabs Florida and probably eats into the Latino vote a ton wcich they desperately need)

The rest of them get cabinet spots.

SecState - JEB Bush

SecTreasury - Rand Paul

SecDefense - Jim Gilmore

Attorney General - Chris Christie

SecInterior - Ted Cruz

SecAgric - Rick Perry

SecCommerce - Carly Fiorina

SecLabor - George Pataki

SecHHS - Bobby Jindal

SecHUD - Mike Huckabee

SecTrans - Rick Santorum

SecED - Scott Walker

SecVA - Lindsay Graham

SecHomeland - No, I'm not going to put Trump here. Screw that guy. I'd rather have Palin here. In fact, the perfect guy? John McCain

Surgeon Gen - Dr. Ben Carson

There you go. All of you work together and run as one ticket each of you focusing on what you would do for President Kasich in your cabinet position. Done. Oh, Donald Trump, we are going to have a 17 member press conference where each of you say he is a loon of the highest proportions, and formall kick him out of the party and refuse to allow him access to anything with the GOP symbol on it. Done, what's next?
Great post.

 
Terrorism: I believe Trump's responses to terrorist attacks would be stronger and more direct than those of the other candidates, and he would take steps to thwart terrorism, both foreign and donestic, that the other candidates would be afraid to take due to political correctness.
What more do you want to do? Indiscriminate drone strikes killing innocent civilians, spying on all American citizens without warrants, spying on foreign governments, indiscriminately holding people in off-site jails around the world, torture - that's not enough? What else do you want/think Trump will do?
:lmao:

Seriously.

Maybe Trump could take "stop and frisk" global. :lol:

 
I personally liked Kasich. Seemed the most rational. Thoughts on his performance?

Carson was obviously out of his depth. Jeb didn't look well prepared.
Kasich has been my horse for a year. In fact, I was probably the first in the entire country. I want a deputy cabinet post. Deputy Secretary of DisneyWorld Investigative Services has a nice ring to it.

 
Terrorism: I believe Trump's responses to terrorist attacks would be stronger and more direct than those of the other candidates, and he would take steps to thwart terrorism, both foreign and donestic, that the other candidates would be afraid to take due to political correctness.
What more do you want to do? Indiscriminate drone strikes killing innocent civilians, spying on all American citizens without warrants, spying on foreign governments, indiscriminately holding people in off-site jails around the world, torture - that's not enough? What else do you want/think Trump will do?
Honestly, I don't know exactly. I just think he'd be willing to take steps that politicians aren't without fear of pc backlash.
 
In retrospect I will also give Rand Paul more credit - he stood up to Trump twice, once on the 3rd party run issue and again on the Hillary-corruption issue - and he also stood up to Christie. I do think Christie landed points with the 'real life vs ivory tower' argument but I happen to agree with Paul on the NSA issue and at any rate he actually won on that point, the courts agreed. - But aside from that it was like watching a bully beat up a kid at recess and everyone standing around doing nothing, except Paul, which I respect.
Decent article here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/rand-paul-and-chris-christie-clash-on-nsa-spying/400718/
Great article and it demonstrates once again how Christie tells it like it is like he wishes it was.

 
Seriously, everything about that post is great.
Really? You want Chris Christie to be the AG? Goodbye 4th Amendment.

And why would you want Santorum and Huckabee anywhere near the Cabinet? Or Jindal?
To fit all 17 guys into appropriate executive positions and then to later make an off-handed comment about executive power is remarkable.

Your mileage may vary, but that's one of the most astute comments I've seen here.

I'd trade Paul and McCain just for ####s and giggles, and your point about Christie is good, but to dash that off is pretty remarkable.

 
I personally liked Kasich. Seemed the most rational. Thoughts on his performance?

Carson was obviously out of his depth. Jeb didn't look well prepared.
Kasich did well and seemed to be the adult in the room. Rational and seemed to be the lone moderate amongst all the conservatives, both real and pseudo. Reminded me of Huntsman. In other words, he has no shot.

 
Seriously, everything about that post is great.
Really? You want Chris Christie to be the AG? Goodbye 4th Amendment.

And why would you want Santorum and Huckabee anywhere near the Cabinet? Or Jindal?
To fit all 17 guys into appropriate executive positions and then to later make an off-handed comment about executive power is remarkable.

Your mileage may vary, but that's one of the most astute comments I've seen here.

I'd trade Paul and McCain just for ####s and giggles, and your point about Christie is good, but to dash that off is pretty remarkable.
Fair enough. I wasn't trying to #### on Yankee's post. Just REALLY wouldn't want some of those guys in my government.

 
Question for the Anti-Trump crowd-

Without being insulting, why do you think Trump is leading the polls?

 
Bluntly taking on the media, who, if I'm not mistaken, has polling ratings that are also at historic lows. Taking on Megyn Kelly won't work with the R base, though; she takes on a lot of the stupidity from the left. He lost major points with that, even if she gets her dander up about gender wedge issues a bit.

He plays both to independents that see a problem with basic questions not being answered and aligns nicely with the Republican base in doing so. It's a weird thing, and sort of fortuitous for him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Question for the Anti-Trump crowd-

Without being insulting, why do you think Trump is leading the polls?
There's no way not to be insulting. Look at your post previous to this one where you identify not being stopped by political correctness as being an important quality. There's been a thousand posts in this thread highlighting why the office of POTUS is a complex one that can't be handled with rash Joe-the-plumber platitudes. We have a lot of morons in this country who thinks it's that simple, however.

 
In retrospect I will also give Rand Paul more credit - he stood up to Trump twice, once on the 3rd party run issue and again on the Hillary-corruption issue - and he also stood up to Christie. I do think Christie landed points with the 'real life vs ivory tower' argument but I happen to agree with Paul on the NSA issue and at any rate he actually won on that point, the courts agreed. - But aside from that it was like watching a bully beat up a kid at recess and everyone standing around doing nothing, except Paul, which I respect.
Decent article here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/rand-paul-and-chris-christie-clash-on-nsa-spying/400718/
Great article and it demonstrates once again how Christie tells it like it is like he wishes it was.
Also, didn't CC make the point twice that he was sworn in as US Attorney on 9/10/01? According to this he held the office from 2002 to 2008.

 
Question for the Anti-Trump crowd-

Without being insulting, why do you think Trump is leading the polls?
Because he's a celebrity and an exciting "outsider" at the same time. The exciting outsider always polls strong in the beginning and drops when they actually have to stand for something.

Michael Jordan could announce his candidacy and he'd instantly get 20% just because of name recognition and the people who think "he is the ultimate winner" makes him qualified.

 
Rubio did well for himself, but kind of blew the abortion question. More important than personal positions is how that position will inform their actions as President. Reagan Bush and Bush were pro-life, but did not pursue an amendment or tip the court against Roe v Wade....Huckabee was the only one who really was specific about trying to stop it. The others were just looking to defund Planned Parenthood and that's about all....

 
Question for the Anti-Trump crowd-

Without being insulting, why do you think Trump is leading the polls?
They like that he says what is on his mind. They think we need to do something about illegal immigrants, China and terrorists. They don't know what exactly, but they believe because Trump is so brash that he is the kind of guy that will actually follow through and deliver on his message. Also, there are just a lot of angry people and Trump isn't afraid to get angry about anything. Maybe anger is the defining quality.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In retrospect I will also give Rand Paul more credit - he stood up to Trump twice, once on the 3rd party run issue and again on the Hillary-corruption issue - and he also stood up to Christie. I do think Christie landed points with the 'real life vs ivory tower' argument but I happen to agree with Paul on the NSA issue and at any rate he actually won on that point, the courts agreed. - But aside from that it was like watching a bully beat up a kid at recess and everyone standing around doing nothing, except Paul, which I respect.
Decent article here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/rand-paul-and-chris-christie-clash-on-nsa-spying/400718/
Great article and it demonstrates once again how Christie tells it like it is like he wishes it was.
Also, didn't CC make the point twice that he was sworn in as US Attorney on 9/10/01? According to this he held the office from 2002 to 2008.
Wow. He totally said that. And according to wiki, he was nominated on 12/7/01 and confirmed on 12/20/01.

Wow.

 
Question for the Anti-Trump crowd-

Without being insulting, why do you think Trump is leading the polls?
Because he's a celebrity and an exciting "outsider" at the same time. The exciting outsider always polls strong in the beginning and drops when they actually have to stand for something.

Michael Jordan could announce his candidacy and he'd instantly get 20% just because of name recognition and the people who think "he is the ultimate winner" makes him qualified.
because `Merica is full of dumb people ...just look at the leaders we constantly vote in

 
In retrospect I will also give Rand Paul more credit - he stood up to Trump twice, once on the 3rd party run issue and again on the Hillary-corruption issue - and he also stood up to Christie. I do think Christie landed points with the 'real life vs ivory tower' argument but I happen to agree with Paul on the NSA issue and at any rate he actually won on that point, the courts agreed. - But aside from that it was like watching a bully beat up a kid at recess and everyone standing around doing nothing, except Paul, which I respect.
Decent article here.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/rand-paul-and-chris-christie-clash-on-nsa-spying/400718/
Great article and it demonstrates once again how Christie tells it like it is like he wishes it was.
Also, didn't CC make the point twice that he was sworn in as US Attorney on 9/10/01? According to this he held the office from 2002 to 2008.
Wow. He totally said that. And according to wiki, he was nominated on 12/7/01 and confirmed on 12/20/01.

Wow.
Christie tells it like it is like he wishes it was.

 
I thought I heard somewhere that polling data shows that a significant % of Trump's supporters don't identify as Republican. He is appealing more to a certain type of person that he is a certain political base.

 
I thought I heard somewhere that polling data shows that a significant % of Trump's supporters don't identify as Republican. He is appealing more to a certain type of person that he is a certain political base.
I've said this before here. People never stray too far from their parties or beliefs. Trump is Reform Party, and if I'm not mistaken was a Reform Party guy back in the day. That's why he's so outrageous and outspoken. He taps into that sentiment.

There's nothing surprising about him appealing to modern populists, which is what the Reform Party was.

 
Question for the Anti-Trump crowd-

Without being insulting, why do you think Trump is leading the polls?
At this point he's the most recognizable. He says outrageous stuff that gets a ton of play in the media. There are a ton of people who don't really care that he's an empty suit with exactly nothing specific on anything whatsoever. It's pretty sad that this is what we've come to in this country, actually. Evidently some people are OK with the guy running the country hurling random insults from the Oval Office and doing nothing else. You said it yourself upthread -- "I don't know what he'll do, or even what I want done, but he's not PC and that's enough for me." Seriously?

 
Question for the Anti-Trump crowd-

Without being insulting, why do you think Trump is leading the polls?
As Kasich pointed out, he "stuck a nerve." People are sick of being played by politicians and the media.

What people don't realize is that Trump plays the system to his advantage, as much or more than those he lashes out against.

What makes you think Trump has the character, nuance and temperament to be President. What makes you believe that he will work well with the diverse group of people in congress to reach consensus on a wide range of issues?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top