Donald Trump Presidential Campaign Thread

[estesbob]

This whole discussion about where the Sanders support will go is fascinating. Posters keep stating with confidence where these 18-29 voters will go if (probably when) Sanders endorses Clinton. Some say Clinton, some say Trump.

The fact of the matter is that this will be the first election for many of them and this group is very different from other age groups of years past. Many people pretty much know what Clinton and Trump are all about because the older generations have experienced life and have seen them both in action.

However, first-time voters (and there are a lot of them) do not know these candidates’ history. It is difficult to say whether Millenials will ever pull the switch for Clinton if Sanders endorces her. No one can say for certain if they will pull the lever for Trump. There’s enough of these Millenials to swing the election either way.

There’s evidence on both sides that Millenials will go the route of Clinton or go the route of Trump. Time will tell I suppose. It’s all speculation until Election Day.

I think there is a very strong chance that many of them won’t go anywhere on election day.

 

[philipl]

I’m an intransigent #NeverTrump #NeverHillary type. I find them both utterly unworthy of the office of President of the US. I will vote either third party or write-in. I simply will not vote for one of two evils.

Why is Trump “evil”? We know that Clinton is a crook and corrupt, so her “evil” is well know.

 

[philipl]

Trump is a loose cannon that will hurt a lot of people worldwide.

What can you post to show that Trump will hurt people world wide?

 

[Sy_Noe]

There is article after article talking about Sanders supporters supporting Trump. This isn’t just coming from conservatives/Republicans but mainstream media.

Newsflash. Part of what the media does is to keep stories going. Remember wayyyyyyy back when the media was suggesting the Republicans were going to be in chaos in Cleveland and there could be multiple ballots and Cruz or Kasich could prevail if Donald Trump fell short on the first ballot. Oh wait. On second thought it wasn’t as long ago as it seems now that I come to think about it.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I think there is a very strong chance that many of them won’t go anywhere on election day.

Well in that case since they’re new voters, they’ve never voted before anyway, and Obama still won twice.

 

[GaryTaylor]

In February 2012, all 181 Catholic bishops in the United States publicly denounced the Obamacare mandate as a violation of religious liberty under the First Amendment.

(CNSNews.com) – In a “Special Message” following their annual meeting in Baltimore, Md., the Catholic bishops of the United States said they “stand united” in opposition to the Obamacare rule that requires nearly all health insurance plans to offer contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs without co-pays.

The bishops said the rule, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), violates religious liberty

 

[mary_bobo]

I wonder if by any chance the person whom he’s talking about is Johnson the libertarian candidate. I know the Kristol news was after Johnson won the libertarian nomination.

Kristol has been saying that and trying to make it happen even before Johnson won his party’s nomination. Kristol needs to go back and run his magazine.

 

[Theo520]

I think there is a very strong chance that many of them won’t go anywhere on election day.

I agree, they are very perturbed at Hillary’s lawlessness and pay for play history. They have serious ethical concerns about her, it’s not a religious or policy difference.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Why is Trump “evil”? We know that Clinton is a crook and corrupt, so her “evil” is well know.

He isn’t. He doesn’t smoke, drink or use drugs. He’s brutally honest and tough. What is evil about that? If anyone is evil, it’s Clinton.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Can you give evidence that Elizabeth Warren has no Native American ancestors? I think the evidence is somewhat inconclusive:

archive.boston.com/news/politics/2012/senate/2012/09/15/elizabeth-warren-family-has-mixed-memories-about-heritage/cPMflfaOlndM1jFbimJ4tM/singlepage.html

Wow talk about stretching the truth! But you Democrats are so good at that.

 

[estesbob]

Wow talk about stretching the truth! But you Democrats are so good at that.

In the modern Democrat party if you are a man and say you are a woman you are a woman, if you a Caucasian woman who says she is an African american you are African american so it seems to follow that if you self identify as a native american you must be acknowledged as one.

 

[GaryTaylor]

the modern Democrat party

What is the Democratic Party? Or should we ask what was the Democratic Party? Either way, it is not what it used to be, and many indications seem to show that this party is neither for the people nor for the United States as we know it.

freedomoutpost.com/when-did-the-democratic-party-become-socialist/

The difference between Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren is that Warren flaunts her ideology, thrilling the base by making the leftist case as few other Democrats dare. Ever the Alinskyite, Hillary prefers to achieve leftist ends incrementally, in pragmatic guise. It’s a conflict of means rather than ends, the same conflict that leads many leftists to doubt Obama’s ideological credentials, when in fact the president is as much a man of the left as ever.

Read more at: nationalreview.com/corner/388560/why-hillarys-alinsky-letters-matter-stanley-kurtz

 

[_Abyssinia]

Newsflash. Part of what the media does is to keep stories going. Remember wayyyyyyy back when the media was suggesting the Republicans were going to be in chaos in Cleveland and there could be multiple ballots and Cruz or Kasich could prevail if Donald Trump fell short on the first ballot. Oh wait. On second thought it wasn’t as long ago as it seems now that I come to think about it.

A contested convention was a real possibility. If Ted Cruz had won in the state of Indiana, it’s possible that that could have led to a contested convention, is it not?!

 

[Sy_Noe]

A contested convention was a real possibility. If Ted Cruz had won in the state of Indiana, it’s possible that that could have led to a contested convention, is it not?!

Possible I suppose. Or that’s what I kept hearing the media tell me. Just as it’s possible that by the end of the Democratic convention in Philly and beyond that the Democrats by the fall will unite at least as well as the Republicans have. And in both cases we could be looking back and saying wow remember when the media was focusing first on GOP division and then on Democratic division. I believe their opposition to Hillary Clinton is what has helped unite the Republicans to the degree they have. They have accepted Trump as the only other person with a chance to become President. I just wouldn’t underestimate either though the ability of Donald J Trump to unite Democrats and Democratic leaning voters by the time they vote.

 

[dixieagle]

I wonder if by any chance the person whom he’s talking about is Johnson the libertarian candidate. I know the Kristol news was after Johnson won the libertarian nomination.

I certainly hope not, and don’t think so, as it was a foregone conclusion that the Libertarian Party would already be on the ballot.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I certainly hope not, and don’t think so, as it was a foregone conclusion that the Libertarian Party would already be on the ballot.

Says here Kristol floated Romney, Rubio, and Tom Cotton previously.

newsmax.com/Politics/Kristol-Romney-Rubio-third-party/2016/05/01/id/726669/

Rubio we know has recently said that even though he will not be VP, that he is willing to speak at the convention.

But do you think Romney may be having a change of heart and could jump in? I don’t know where Cotton is on Trump now. Or any chance Jeb? I only know he is not voting for Trump.

 

[Crossbones]

Says here Kristol floated Romney, Rubio, and Tom Cotton previously.

newsmax.com/Politics/Kristol-Romney-Rubio-third-party/2016/05/01/id/726669/

Rubio we know has recently said that even though he will not be VP, that he is willing to speak at the convention.

But do you think Romney may be having a change of heart and could jump in? I don’t know where Cotton is on Trump now. Or any chance Jeb? I only know he is not voting for Trump.

But how? The deadlines are passing in many states for a place on the ballot.

I chalk this up to Kristol doesn’t know what he is talking about.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

In the modern Democrat party if you are a man and say you are a woman you are a woman, if you a Caucasian woman who says she is an African american you are African american so it seems to follow that if you self identify as a native american you must be acknowledged as one.

Yep it all make SO MUCH SENSE!!! NOT!!

 

[Theo520]

Much of the big money raised ends up in the pockets of consultants, like Kristol.

Trump as a candidate is really bad for their pockets.

 

[Thorolfr]

In the modern Democrat party if you are a man and say you are a woman you are a woman, if you a Caucasian woman who says she is an African american you are African american so it seems to follow that if you self identify as a native american you must be acknowledged as one.

It’s not just a matter of “self identity.” Either someone has sub Saharan African ancestors or Native American ancestors or they don’t. There might, of course, be some dispute over how much African or Native American ancestry someone must have to qualify as being African American or Native American. But not that long ago in the South, they applied the “one drop rule” which said that if someone had even one drop of black blood, they were considered to be black no matter what they looked like.

The one-drop rule is a social and legal principle of racial classification that was historically prominent in the United States asserting that any person with even one ancestor of sub-Saharan-African ancestry (“one drop” of black blood)[1][2] is considered black (Negro in historical terms). This concept evolved over the course of the 19th century and became codified into law in the 20th century. It was associated with the principle of “invisible blackness” and is an example of hypodescent, the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union between different socioeconomic or ethnic groups to the group with the lower status.[3]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule