Trump Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_J said:
Well okay, but you can’t really blame Foxnews, the RNC, or whoever else for what a particular candidate chooses to say.
Click to expand...
I don’t really blame anyone for the spectacle! But still, it is a gutter spectacle, imho.

I actually think Donald Trump might be the best thing that has happened to the Republican Party in decades. That does’t mean I think he should be President.
 
Little_Sheep said:
Hey now, I am all about some Reality TV!!! 🍿:whacky::hypno::ouch:😉
Click to expand...
I am actually quite sickened by this thing about Cruz’ wife and sincerely hope/believe you are too. 🙂 And I say this as a Real Housewives fan. Just because I watch reality TV doesn’t mean I want it in the White House.

At what point do we start to get into mental balance questions with this guy…seriously.
 
Little_Sheep said:
Is that the “beans” Trump was talking about? I listened to Talk Radio while I worked today, but I missed that rumor.

John McCain’s wife sure took a beating or two over her disease of addiction and that struck me as repugnant, but politics seems to be a blood sport these days. I agree with you that threatening to “out” someone for depression is about as cool as threatening to “out” someone for cancer.

But honestly, after witnessing a campaign feature actual penis size talk on national TV, I kinda gave up hope that it would get better from there.
Click to expand...
Every day leads to a new low.
 
I doubt Trump will become the Republican nominee if it comes to a contested convention, and it looks like it well might. I think Cruz will get to 1237 delegates if there is a contested convention.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
I am actually quite sickened by this thing about Cruz’ wife and sincerely hope/believe you are too. 🙂 And I say this as a Real Housewives fan. Just because I watch reality TV doesn’t mean I want it in the White House.

At what point do we start to get into mental balance questions with this guy…seriously.
Click to expand...
I hate it too, FollowChrist. I’m sorry if I came across as flippant.

I do want to point out that Trump reacted from a place of feeling like HIS wife was accosted by Cruz though (that’s why I alluded to the penis talk). Good men defend their wives. I accept that.

I believe that you will see Trump behaving more and more Presidential. That said, I do NOT believe that Trump is Presidential.

Honestly, the only way I really “know” Trump is from the fact that I watched the first two seasons of The Apprentice. And I really enjoyed that show and have always kind of accepted him as a cultural figure. The fact that he is the front runner for the Republican Party in a POTUS election year astonishes me, though!!!

Not one cell of my brain believes that he will win the general election. Since HRC was always my candidate in that race, it hasn’t been difficult for me to say no to Trump’s charms.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
Sure, it’s tasteless and substandard, *but that is just what makes it so cool - political incorrectness rocks! * Teflon Don strikes again.

:bounce:
Click to expand...
Cool? I think it is tasteless, crude and rude, and certainly does nothing to help any interested voter (if there are any left) see the difference in the policies of the candidates. This is a serious time for our country and all this tripe is taking from the real issues.
 
Sy_Noe said:
4 terms of Democratic centrists might indeed be what the GOP needs to figure it out. 👍
Click to expand...
We’re at least four years away from any Democratic centrist occupying the White House, no matter who wins this election.
 
_Abyssinia said:
I doubt Trump will become the Republican nominee if it comes to a contested convention, and it looks like it well might. I think Cruz will get to 1237 delegates if there is a contested convention.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your thoughts on this, but I find it unlikely. There is an outside chance that Trump may not land at 1237.

But let’s say he lands at 1150? Would it then be fair to shutter the nominee that MOST of the Republican electorate wants to see compete in the general? That is just beyond sleazy in my opinion. If the voters choose him leaps and bounds over Cruz (and I believe they will do just that), it would be a travesty for the Party leadership not to back him, however distasteful that might feel.

Would you truly support your Party ignoring what the majority of its voters desire?
 
Daily Beast:
Emory University Students Think Donald Trump Is Out to Kill Them
Click to expand...
After the GOP frontrunner’s name was written in chalk on a campus wall, students said they ‘feared for their lives.’ The school vowed to identify the taggers. But professors at the school are now pushing back.Support for Donald Trump in the form of chalk markings on campus at Emory College sent the university into a tailspin this week, with the administration scrambling to appease students who felt threatened by the sudden scourge of pro-Trump scribblings on school grounds.
Early Monday, students say, they were “attacked” by Trump’s name in large, pastel letters on campus walkways and buildings. “Vote for Trump,” “Trump for Pres,” “Accept the Inevitable: Trump 2016” and more chalk sloganeering for the Republican presidential frontrunner was written all over the most trafficked areas on campus.
“I legitimately feared for my life,” Paula Camila Alarcon, a freshman at Emory who identifies as Latino, told The Daily Beast. “I thought we were having a KKK rally on campus.”
Click to expand...
Word spread quickly among student minorities and activist groups on social media, including the Muslim Student Association, Emory’s NAACP chapter, Black Students at Emory, and LatinAction.
“Some of us started scrubbing the signs,” said Alarcon, who is a member of LatinAction. She noted that writing on school buildings is considered vandalism, irrespective of content. But when other students accused them of censorship, they made “#StopTrump2016” fliers and disseminated them around campus.
“This wasn’t ordinary campaigning,” Jonathan Peraza, another member of LatinAction and a freshman at Emory, said of the chalkings. “It was deliberate intimidation. Some of us were expecting shootings. We feared walking alone.”
Click to expand...
That afternoon, Alarcon and Peraza were among 40 or 50 students who protested the graffitied support for the likely GOP nominee on their campus.
Meanwhile, their emails urging the administration to condemn the pro-Trump messages went unreturned. So the protesters stormed Emory President James Wagner’s office.
“To us, the administration’s silence sanctioned the fact that this Nazi reincarnate is threatening to deport our parents—to put us in concentration camps and kill us,” said Peraza.
Click to expand...
Shootings? Nazi incarnate?
Trump is far from my favorite person but this is ri-[blanking]-diculous. I wonder how they feel when they see a Trump 2016 sign on someone’s lawn.

In some other campus story I read one of the special snowflakes said, “We have a right to feel safe and comfortable.”
 
Little_Sheep said:
I appreciate your thoughts on this, but I find it unlikely. There is an outside chance that Trump may not land at 1237.

But let’s say he lands at 1150? Would it then be fair to shutter the nominee that MOST of the Republican electorate wants to see compete in the general? That is just beyond sleazy in my opinion. If the voters choose him leaps and bounds over Cruz (and I believe they will do just that), it would be a travesty for the Party leadership not to back him, however distasteful that might feel.

Would you truly support your Party ignoring what the majority of its voters desire?
Click to expand...
Romney is waiting in the wings to save the day!
 
Sy_Noe said:
My only concern is that America has had a tendency to swing the pendulum in the past after 2-3 cycles. But then again we live in times that are not exactly comparable to our past. 4 terms of Democratic centrists might indeed be what the GOP needs to figure it out. 👍
Click to expand...
The presidential election will work itself out, but at the state level, Republicans haven’t had as much power as they do now, since the 1920s and Democrats have a significantly weakened position since Obama took office, per these two sources:

According to The Economist, "Republicans now control both chambers in 30 state legislatures, while the Democrats control 11 and eight are split. In 24 states Republican power is unchecked—meaning they control the legislature and the governorship. The party has not had this much clout in the states since the 1920s.

Democrats have lost 900 seats during Obama’s Presidency: politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/
 
I feel sorry for the parents who mortgaged their homes to send these “skulls full of mush” to college. :frighten:
 
Little_Sheep said:
I appreciate your thoughts on this, but I find it unlikely. There is an outside chance that Trump may not land at 1237.

But let’s say he lands at 1150? Would it then be fair to shutter the nominee that MOST of the Republican electorate wants to see compete in the general? That is just beyond sleazy in my opinion. If the voters choose him leaps and bounds over Cruz (and I believe they will do just that), it would be a travesty for the Party leadership not to back him, however distasteful that might feel.

Would you truly support your Party ignoring what the majority of its voters desire?
Click to expand...
There was a time when the party bigwigs decided who their presidential candidate would be. Primary elections were uncommon. When I started working in politics as a Democrat, all delegates were chosen in caucuses. Party regulars were the ones in attendance. County organizations sent delegates to district conventions which sent them to the state convention which sent them to the national convention. The party regulars really did pay attention to what their party’s senators or reps or governors wanted. So the delegates were always “in the pocket” of the major office holders. Does anyone remember all the “favorite son” delegate votes at the national conventions? I was just a kid at the time, but I sure do. The “favorite sons” were party leaders who would then select the actual candidates.

What changed that was the McGovern campaign. McGovern’s people figured out that they could “swarm” the caucuses and elect delegates who paid no attention to the party leaders. And they did. That led to establishment of primaries and to the eventual selection of “rock stars” instead of the best candidates, in my opinion. It also put a premium on advertising, primarily on television, which put a premium on money gathering over grass roots organization.

And so, grass roots party people were shoved aside for media stars. And, since party leaders were no longer beholding to local party people, they didn’t have to “deliver” in office to anyone other than the providers of the big money.

Do I think party control of the parties is better than popular vote control? I sure do. I was a McGovernite myself until I attended some of the organizational meeting in Hyde Park in Chicago. That latter experience was chilling, even for a lefty like I was at the time.
 
Good_Tidings said:
Romney is waiting in the wings to save the day!
Click to expand...
He irrevocably consigned himself to the wings forever, and not for long even for that. As the titular head of the party, he went partisan. Even a county chairman knows you can’t do that and survive politically.
 
Ridgerunner said:
There was a time when the party bigwigs decided who their presidential candidate would be. Primary elections were uncommon. When I started working in politics as a Democrat, all delegates were chosen in caucuses. Party regulars were the ones in attendance. County organizations sent delegates to district conventions which sent them to the state convention which sent them to the national convention. The party regulars really did pay attention to what their party’s senators or reps or governors wanted. So the delegates were always “in the pocket” of the major office holders. Does anyone remember all the “favorite son” delegate votes at the national conventions? I was just a kid at the time, but I sure do. The “favorite sons” were party leaders who would then select the actual candidates.

What changed that was the McGovern campaign. McGovern’s people figured out that they could “swarm” the caucuses and elect delegates who paid no attention to the party leaders. And they did. That led to establishment of primaries and to the eventual selection of “rock stars” instead of the best candidates, in my opinion. It also put a premium on advertising, primarily on television, which put a premium on money gathering over grass roots organization.

And so, grass roots party people were shoved aside for media stars. And, since party leaders were no longer beholding to local party people, they didn’t have to “deliver” in office to anyone other than the providers of the big money.

Do I think party control of the parties is better than popular vote control? I sure do. I was a McGovernite myself until I attended some of the organizational meeting in Hyde Park in Chicago. That latter experience was chilling, even for a lefty like I was at the time.
Click to expand...
Thank you so much for sharing your history with this. I appreciate it deeply. I also appreciate your service to our country.
 
Catholic1954 said:
I feel sorry for the parents who mortgaged their homes to send these “skulls full of mush” to college. :frighten:
Click to expand...
I bet they didn’t have parents that had very much sense, so the apple doesn’t fall to far from the tree!
 
FollowChrist34 said:
Megyn Kelly’s original questions to Trump, 1st debate, August 2015
Click to expand...
Why would anyone who voted for Clinton twice, be perturbed by anything Trump says?

They certainly didn’t give a hoot about anything Clinton did. So, why pretend they’re suddenly morally outraged? God help us, all it amounts to is more fodder for SNL. :juggle:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top