Trump v GOP

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abynissa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
meltzerboy said:
I don’t think any of us can know for sure one way or the other. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and the country did not have the opportunity to taste, let alone eat, the pudding.
Click to expand...
The question remains and it is certainly a query to which you can venture a guess.
 
When you select a man who thinks people aren’t entitled to food as the standard-bearer of your party’s moral compass, you have derailed.

This Romney charade is ostensibly the result of Republican Party elites who want to stop Donald Trump, but could anything more effectively solidify his support among right-leaning voters than a representative of the party establishment attacking him very publicly? The GOP has to know that, unless they have some backroom deal with Trump and this whole thing is actually a farce, this could push Trump into a third-party run. Which would make a Clinton or Sanders victory even more likely. So what’s the real strategy here?

To cite Trump’s policies as dangerous garbage, but then suggest that Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich offer serious policy proposals to deal with the national challenges we confront is absolutely laughable. Utterly absurd. For one thing, except for building a giant wall between the US and Mexico, the other candidates share the same policy positions as Trump, and, in some cases (health coverage being a big one) are even more extreme than Trump.

I agree with Romney that Trump “has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president.” But on what planet do Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich have the temperament and judgment to be president? This entire Republican primary has been a colossal joke. None of those men running should be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office. Ever.
 
Siegehammer said:
When you select a man who thinks people aren’t entitled to food as the standard-bearer of your party’s moral compass, you have derailed.

This Romney charade is ostensibly the result of Republican Party elites who want to stop Donald Trump, but could anything more effectively solidify his support among right-leaning voters than a representative of the party establishment attacking him very publicly? The GOP has to know that, unless they have some backroom deal with Trump and this whole thing is actually a farce, this could push Trump into a third-party run. Which would make a Clinton or Sanders victory even more likely. So what’s the real strategy here?

To cite Trump’s policies as dangerous garbage, but then suggest that Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich offer serious policy proposals to deal with the national challenges we confront is absolutely laughable. Utterly absurd. For one thing, except for building a giant wall between the US and Mexico, the other candidates share the same policy positions as Trump, and, in some cases (health coverage being a big one) are even more extreme than Trump.

I agree with Romney that Trump “has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president.” But on what planet do Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich have the temperament and judgment to be president? This entire Republican primary has been a colossal joke. None of those men running should be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office. Ever.
Click to expand...
I agree with what you say except for Kasich. I believe he alone among the Republican candidates has the temperament and judgment to be POTUS. But he’s just not exciting enough for the visually-dependent electorate.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
Nope.

I’ve vote in every presidential election since I was 18.

I was displaced for hurricane Sandy, and my husband and I needed to get emergency absentee ballots in order to vote. And we did.

There is no way I can vote for Trump.

His views on abortion, his views on torture, his views on attacking the families of the enemy prevent me from voting for him.

I don’t agree with his views on immigration, I don’t agree with his views of eminent domain.

His remarks about women, his scandalous divorces, the whole thing about Trump University are troublesome to me. His comments regarding the Holy Father even before the visit and plane interview are also troublesome.

I am at a loss to how and why that out of a pool of pretty good candidates, he’s the front runner, basically due to his logorrhea. It is incredible to me.

Sorry.
Click to expand...
Don’t apologize. As I told someone else, supporting or not supporting Trump does not disqualify you from being a Republican.
 
meltzerboy said:
I agree with what you say except for Kasich. I believe he alone among the Republican candidates has the temperament and judgment to be POTUS. But he’s just not exciting enough for the visually-dependent electorate.
Click to expand...
I agree. I hope he stays in and I hope some political miracle turns things his way.
 
Siegehammer said:
When you select a man who thinks people aren’t entitled to food as the standard-bearer of your party’s moral compass, you have derailed.

This Romney charade is ostensibly the result of Republican Party elites who want to stop Donald Trump, but could anything more effectively solidify his support among right-leaning voters than a representative of the party establishment attacking him very publicly? The GOP has to know that, unless they have some backroom deal with Trump and this whole thing is actually a farce, this could push Trump into a third-party run. Which would make a Clinton or Sanders victory even more likely. So what’s the real strategy here?

To cite Trump’s policies as dangerous garbage, but then suggest that Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich offer serious policy proposals to deal with the national challenges we confront is absolutely laughable. Utterly absurd. For one thing, except for building a giant wall between the US and Mexico, the other candidates share the same policy positions as Trump, and, in some cases (health coverage being a big one) are even more extreme than Trump.

I agree with Romney that Trump “has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president.” But on what planet do Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich have the temperament and judgment to be president? This entire Republican primary has been a colossal joke. None of those men running should be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office. Ever.
Click to expand...
So who do you support? Anyone?
 
Siegehammer said:
When you select a man who thinks people aren’t entitled to food as the standard-bearer of your party’s moral compass, you have derailed.

This Romney charade is ostensibly the result of Republican Party elites who want to stop Donald Trump, but could anything more effectively solidify his support among right-leaning voters than a representative of the party establishment attacking him very publicly? The GOP has to know that, unless they have some backroom deal with Trump and this whole thing is actually a farce, this could push Trump into a third-party run. Which would make a Clinton or Sanders victory even more likely. So what’s the real strategy here?

To cite Trump’s policies as dangerous garbage, but then suggest that Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich offer serious policy proposals to deal with the national challenges we confront is absolutely laughable. Utterly absurd. For one thing, except for building a giant wall between the US and Mexico, the other candidates share the same policy positions as Trump, and, in some cases (health coverage being a big one) are even more extreme than Trump.

I agree with Romney that Trump “has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president.” But on what planet do Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich have the temperament and judgment to be president? This entire Republican primary has been a colossal joke. None of those men running should be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office. Ever.
Click to expand...
So you think Hillary is the better option?

If you were dehydrated and walking under a hot sun, would you reject a clean bottle of water just because it was not cold?

When compared to Hillary, all GOP candidates are giants–even Trump, and I do not want Trump to be President.
 
Siegehammer said:
When you select a man who thinks people aren’t entitled to food as the standard-bearer of your party’s moral compass, you have derailed.

This Romney charade is ostensibly the result of Republican Party elites who want to stop Donald Trump, but could anything more effectively solidify his support among right-leaning voters than a representative of the party establishment attacking him very publicly? The GOP has to know that, unless they have some backroom deal with Trump and this whole thing is actually a farce, this could push Trump into a third-party run. Which would make a Clinton or Sanders victory even more likely. So what’s the real strategy here?

To cite Trump’s policies as dangerous garbage, but then suggest that Cruz, Rubio, or Kasich offer serious policy proposals to deal with the national challenges we confront is absolutely laughable. Utterly absurd. For one thing, except for building a giant wall between the US and Mexico, the other candidates share the same policy positions as Trump, and, in some cases (health coverage being a big one) are even more extreme than Trump.

I agree with Romney that Trump “has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president.” But on what planet do Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich have the temperament and judgment to be president? This entire Republican primary has been a colossal joke. None of those men running should be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office. Ever.
Click to expand...
Hardly, the ones that don’t belong in the Oval Office are genocide pushers like Sanders, Obama and Clinton. And on top of that, pushing infertile marriage on the country, abandoning Christians in the middle east, seeing the rise of the worse terrorist groups ever.

I didn’t know the constitution made the government a charity and we live in a nanny state.

The Pope does mind protecting our borders at all:boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2010/10/26/pope_countries_have_a_right_to_defend_borders/
 
Does anybody else regret having voted for mitt Romney just about now?
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
Nope.

I’ve vote in every presidential election since I was 18.

I was displaced for hurricane Sandy, and my husband and I needed to get emergency absentee ballots in order to vote. And we did.

There is no way I can vote for Trump.

His views on abortion, his views on torture, his views on attacking the families of the enemy prevent me from voting for him.

I don’t agree with his views on immigration, I don’t agree with his views of eminent domain.

His remarks about women, his scandalous divorces, the whole thing about Trump University are troublesome to me. His comments regarding the Holy Father even before the visit and plane interview are also troublesome.

I am at a loss to how and why that out of a pool of pretty good candidates, he’s the front runner, basically due to his logorrhea. It is incredible to me.

Sorry.
Click to expand...
If enough people think like you we’d better get ready for President Hillary. Do you think any of the Dems are going to stay home because they don’t agree with all her ideas? It’s going to be a fight to get someone other than her in the White House and while I don’t really like Trump either, at least we have more of a chance of getting things turned around in our country. If you liked Obama’s policies you’ll be happy cause we’ll have a lot more of the same under Hillary’s watch.
 
queenofheartscv said:
Does anybody else regret having voted for mitt Romney just about now?
Click to expand...
No–100% no. I wish he were our President right now! One must remember, Romney is not running for anything, he is not gaining anything by doing the speech and in many ways, he is risking a lot of his own reputation by doing so. He has literally nothing to gain by doing the speech. People should ask themselves, why would Romney do this? He is NOT part of the mythical GOP establishment as so many like to talk about–he knows that he has no chance at ever being President, and he (like Trump) is quite rich. You like to laud the fact that Trump is his own man and he is beholding to no one because of his wealth–well that applies to Romney too.

So–why would he make the speech? Could it be – GASP – that he loves the USA and genuinely believes Trump will lose to Hillary, and that even if he wins, he will be a terrible President? Could he actually have a real and genuine concern?

Romney still has 60% approval ratings among Republicans.
 
I refuse to listen to his speech, did he actually say he was going to run as a write in? He won’t even get 1% of the vote if that’s the case. Heck he couldn’t have won the nomination if he ran this year in the Republican primary. He’s done. I didn’t want him last time and I don’t want him now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top