# Why Are You Opposed to Trump?



## jwoodie (Apr 22, 2016)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness.  It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.

IF it becomes a Presidential election between Trump and Clinton, what OBJECTIVE standards would you apply in deciding how you would vote?

For me, Trump's direct approaches to immigration, trade, national security, jobs and the economy are favorable factors, as opposed to Clinton's vacillation on these issues.  (In other words, he says what he WILL do, whereas she talks about what she WON'T do.)

Please avoid name calling and explain the specific standards you employ in evaluating these candidates.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury (Apr 22, 2016)

Your basic premise is wrong "_the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness._"

Your other premise, "_It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security_." asks people to as accept racism based on immigration and national security, as somehow not really racism or worse -- justifiable racism.

Supporters of Trump may want to pivot and change the subject. I say good luck with that, and I totally mean that. Good luck

There is not much else constructive to say to you on this subject.


----------



## BULLDOG (Apr 22, 2016)




----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 22, 2016)

jwoodie is so wrong.

Ask Hispanics, women, blacks, disabled, veterans, and LGBT for starters why your statement is so wrong.


----------



## aaronleland (Apr 22, 2016)

It has nothing to do with political incorrectness. That's a narrative Trump supporters created, and ran with. A candidate for the highest office in the country doing something like retweeting a picture suggesting that his opponent's wife is ugly isn't politically incorrect. It's being an asshole. The same man who backed out of a debate because a woman asked him a question he didn't like. The man who threatened to sue over a negative ad. He's a loud-mouthed, thin-skinned pussy.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 22, 2016)

Trump is a jerk, not politically incorrect.  He is also a coward, changing his positions within 24 hours when caught out.


----------



## couch protester (Apr 22, 2016)

BULLDOG said:


>



Straw man fallacy from the librats as usual only showing us what they want us to see and hiding the rest.













Donald Trump Won Hispanic Vote in New York City
Breitbart News‎ - 1 day ago
GOP frontrunner Donald Trump won more than 50 percent of the Hispanic vote in New York ...
Donald Trump gets crushed among Hispanic voters: Poll
Washington Times‎ - 1 day ago
Poll: Latino Voters 'Enthusiastic' to Vote Against Trump
TIME‎ - 23 hours ago
More news for trump hispanic vote
*Donald Trump overwhelmingly wins Hispanic vote in New ...*
www.washingtontimes.com/.../donald-*trump*-over...
The Washington Times
2 days ago - It's an unexpected victory to many political pundits and establishment Republicans who were sure, Mr. Trump would repeal the Hispanic vote ...
*Cardona: Trump's apparent triumph with Nevada Latinos is ...*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/.../cardona-*trumps*-a...
The Washington Post
Mar 1, 2016 - Señor Trump, felicidades! Donald Trump is touting his win with Latino voters in the recent Republican Nevada caucuses. He was up against ...

*Trump took a victory lap for winning the Latino vote. Here's ...*
www.msnbc.com/.../*trump*-took-victory-lap-winning-the-*latino*-*vote*-her...
Feb 25, 2016 - The major shock out of Nevada's GOP caucus results was not thatTrump won the Latino vote by 18 points – it's that he won any Latino support ...

*Entrance poll: Trump wins with Nevada Hispanics | TheHill*
thehill.com/.../270547-entrance-poll-*trump*-wins-with-nevada-*hi*...
The Hill
Feb 24, 2016 - But despite those numbers and the blowback that he's faced, Trump has repeatedly pledged that he would win over Hispanic voters.
*No Joke: Trump Can Win Plenty of Latinos - The Daily Beast*
www.thedailybeast.com/.../no-joke-*trump*-can-win-plent...
The Daily Beast
Feb 12, 2016 - A new poll of Latino GOPers puts Trump ahead. Way ahead. ... However, it will be a cold day in hell if I will vote for Mrs. Clinton. I strongly ...


----------



## aaronleland (Apr 22, 2016)

couch protester said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Latino Republicans. All 12 of them.


----------



## Crixus (Apr 22, 2016)

I looked hard at Trump when all this started, and knew Cruze would be the other choice. Rubio was done when he betrayed those who sent him to washington, and the rest were pretty much retreads and washouts from past primareys. So at this point,I am a Cruz supporter. I can pull up his senate record and see consistency. Not so much with Donald Trump. Donald Trump just bounces around to much for me, and he just doesn't have the temperament for the job. He will also have lots of trouble with Hillery when it comes to who he gave money to in his past as a New York developer. He gave over $600,000.00 to democrats who backed things like gun control as well as unions. I don't hold the union thing against him thoigh. Unions build stuff and he needs them,  but m afraid they are Inot him to deeply. I was able to find all that with a simple Google search. Hillery will bring more with her machine. All that and his behavior, all the winning and crying about the rules, unless they are in his favor, he hasn't complained about the Florida deligates.

So in short, go Ted.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 22, 2016)

aaronleland said:


> couch protester said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Aaron that was a great fight between DD and the Punisher.....they kicked each others asses...


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury (Apr 22, 2016)

Didn't take the supporters of Trump long to enter with insults to other members. see post #7


----------



## aaronleland (Apr 22, 2016)

Harry Dresden said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> > couch protester said:
> ...



Wait.. was this a later episode? I've been busy with work recently, and haven't watched the last few. Their earlier fight was pretty badass though.


----------



## couch protester (Apr 22, 2016)

aaronleland said:


> It has nothing to do with political incorrectness. That's a narrative Trump supporters created, and ran with. The same man who backed out of a debate because a woman asked him a question he didn't like. The man who threatened to sue over a negative ad. He's a loud-mouthed, thin-skinned pussy.



Yeah tolerant liberals, thin skinned, loud mouthed, avoid questions and threatens to sue.

*Clinton, Sanders campaigns join DNC suit over alleged Arizona voter suppression
www.cnn.com/2016/04/14/politics/dnc-lawsuit-arizona/

Hillary Clinton to sue Arizona over voting rights violations
Salon-Apr 14, 2016

Democratic Party, Clinton and Sanders campaigns to sue Arizona ...
Highly Cited-Washington Post-Apr 14, 2016

Clinton and Sanders Campaigns to Sue Arizona Election Officials
In-Depth-New York Times-Apr 14, 2016

Montini: Whoa...Hillary and Democrats suing Arizona over election ...
Opinion-azcentral.com-Apr 14, 2016

Clinton, Sanders and Democratic Party Will Sue Arizona Over ...
In-Depth-VICE News-Apr 14, 2016










































So much for Americans right to vote and having Civil Rights threatened by librats intimidating free speech*


----------



## couch protester (Apr 22, 2016)

aaronleland said:


> Donald Trump Won Hispanic Vote in New York City Breitbart News‎ - 1 day ago GOP frontrunner Donald Trump won more than 50 percent of the Hispanic vote in New York ...
> Latino Republicans. All 12 of them.




Latino Republicans. All 12 of them.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I can tell your education for adding up numbers are moronic as Obama containing ISIS statement. EPIC FAIL!


----------



## Mac1958 (Apr 22, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness.


No one on this board is more virulently anti-PC than me, but the fact that he's "not PC" is not nearly enough.

His behavior is a constant, abject embarrassment, and I question whether he has either the temperament or the intellectual capacity for the position.

He strikes me as one of those people who gets his way by simply mauling people through the sheer force of his personality, not his intellectual agility.  That won't work when dealing with politicians and foreign leaders who can match egos with him.

Where he stands on any given issue is completely overshadowed by the above.  So is comparing him to Obama or anyone else.
.


----------



## Art__Allm (Apr 22, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on....



Trum is really independent, he does not need the money of the banksters, that is the reason why he is so hated by the establishment that is selling America, and that is the reason why Americans see in Trum the last chance to save the country which is going down the drain.


----------



## Indeependent (Apr 22, 2016)

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Your basic premise is wrong "_the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness._"
> 
> Your other premise, "_It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security_." asks people to as accept racism based on immigration and national security, as somehow not really racism or worse -- justifiable racism.
> 
> ...


Yo retard, you DO know the difference between legal and ILLEGAL immigration?
And yeah, let's have more Muslims as that idea is working real well in Europe.


----------



## Care4all (Apr 22, 2016)

I like some of his positions, but NOT the way he presents them or the way he thinks we should go about solving them.  He could have taken up the cross on immigration, and jobs, and trade in a more civil manner, not based on anger, and racism and still accomplished what many citizens want...

Democrats have been hot on this issue of jobs and incentives written in to tax code that is solely for the corporation with no thought to us citizens.  It has been the Republican establishment stance that has thwarted any efforts of Democrats to reign it in...

It has been the Republican stance of not fining and jailing employers till the cows come home on hiring illegals, NOT the Democratic Party's stance...the Chamber of Commerce and the small business association have lobbied Republicans to support the laxer fines and consequences of hiring illegals...which is the sole reason we have so many illegals here....jobs given to them. 

If there were no jobs for them to be hired, they wouldn't come.  Mr. Trump's position is costly and half ass and has not been thought through thoroughly, though admirable that he has gone against the GOP/RNC to take on this crisis...his solution to solving it, is costly and simply does not get to the root of the problem in a realistic financial manner nor in a diplomatic or presidential manner....

The Wall is good in strategic areas as a temporary fix, areas where the big population concentration exists and where border agents can get to those climbing over it quickly, but the wall across dessert and mountainous areas in scarcely populated regions where the illegal is more likely to die before crossing, is a waste of money...money that could be better spent elsewhere on Border control...or better spent on deporting the illegals that have committed felonious crimes here....Money does not grow on trees.

Deporting all those here illegally is an impossible feat....it's is too costly to do, since all of these people being deported according to our laws on the books, are given their day in court, before deporting them....  he says he is a man of laws and we should enforce our laws, yet is ignorant on what the laws really are that he would have to follow...so to me on this topic, he is ALL TALK AND NO ACTION  and can't be taken in the way he implies they could....and lastly, even illegals are human beings, God's children and should not be disparaged by calling most all of them rapists and murders etc...this was extremely unpresidential and unnecessary to accomplish his goal.

His tax plan does what all RNC/GOP tax plans do, while giving the middle class crumbs, the tax cuts benefit the wealthiest the most....and since the wealthiest have already accumulated the most wealth ownership in this Nation per capita with the middle class losing ground, do they truly need even more tax cuts than they have already been given the past 50 years, only to take an even larger share?

He speaks before he thinks.  This is not what I believe makes a good President and could be and would be extremely detrimental to our Nation....he lacks class....and some would say morals as well...though these things can be overcome, he doesn't seem willing to overcome them...he appears to be too narcissistic.

There are a lot of other issues that I agree on the surface with Mr. Trump on, but his mouth always gets in the way of thoroughly thinking these things through and coming up with realistic solutions...maybe if he had a lot of Democratic members in his cabinet, those shortcomings of his could be overcome as well?  Who knows? 

Right now though, he appears ridiculous to me...uncouth, racist, and just plain dumb...all because of his arrogance and ignorance on how the law and congress and our constitution really works....and his foot in mouth disease, is uncontrollable.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Apr 22, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness.  It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.
> 
> IF it becomes a Presidential election between Trump and Clinton, what OBJECTIVE standards would you apply in deciding how you would vote?
> 
> ...



If Trump were an adult in his conduct I would be on board, I think everyone in the country is absolutely tired of the same old bull and it would be great to get someone in that does not play ball with any of the establishment and has the resources to not be bought off. But this isn't the guy to try this with. Again if he were an adult in his mannerisms and speaking and thoughts, different story. But he isn't. Everything out of his mouth is "no one is better than me, at anything". An adult would not have such a thought to begin with, let alone let it slip out of their mouth.


----------



## Boss (Apr 22, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness.  It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.
> 
> IF it becomes a Presidential election between Trump and Clinton, what OBJECTIVE standards would you apply in deciding how you would vote?
> 
> ...



I have numerous problems with Trump on policy. It's true, his stance on illegal immigration is attractive, it's what drew me to him in the beginning, however... he has had some stumbles. When asked about the policy regarding "anchor babies" he says "they have to go." Well... he doesn't tell us HOW this is going to happen. It will take an act of Congress to make that happen, the president can't do anything about it. So when you try to nail him down more specifically on something like this, he says... well maybe we'll have to look at it... take it case by case... Okay, now you're violating equal protection and the 14th Amendment. We can't have "tailor made" law that applies in some circumstances but not others. 

My first inklings of disagreement with Trump was when he began bashing on Ben Carson as "someone who is damaged" and suggested he was equivalent of a child molester. Ironically, a few months later and he is literally defending Carson against "Lyin' Ted!" Trump continues to play the populist in the moment, saying what is popular at any given time then turning on a dime when the heat comes. A great example of this was in Iowa when he came out in support of Ethanol subsidies. Not only did he say he supports them, he said he plans to EXPAND them. This is one of the most wasteful government spending programs and corporate welfare giveaways we have. We would literally do more for energy to just burn the money as fuel. As a fiscal conservative, how are we to reign in runaway government spending if we are going to cave on arguably the most worthless spending program out there? 

On trade... all Trump says is that we're going to negotiate better trade deals. Well how are you going to do that where trade deals already exist? How many trade partners are going to say... okay, let's do away with this sweet deal we have now and make a new deal where we get screwed? Oh yeah... tariffs baby! We're going to slap tariffs on your foreign imports and make you pay! Well, that results in a trade war and ironically, is the exact same policy enacted by Herbert Hoover which prompted the financial collapse which brought us the worst depression in history. 

On national security... Trump says, that's easy... we just take their oil!  Okay... How you gonna do that without massive numbers of boots on the ground and armored vehicles and tanks, etc.? Is NATO going to help in this endeavor or are we on our own? How are other powerful nations going to feel about the US taking control of huge amounts of the world's oil supply? None of this is really addressed by Trump, we are simply assured_ it is going to be *Yuge!* 
_
My "final straw" with Trump was the sleazy way he has gone after Ted Cruz, a strong constitutional conservative who has stood up to the establishment elite, made a strong stand on illegal immigration, trade policy, government waste, etc. Cruz challenges Trump on his many waffling positions and Trump's response is "Lyin' Ted!" Instead of working toward unification of the party, Trump has done everything he can to fracture the party further and create a chasm that can't be recovered from in the general election. It's almost as if he is working on behalf of Hillary Clinton to destroy any chance the Republicans have in November. He REFUSES to debate Cruz one-on-one, even though the party has traditionally held such debates in the past. Trump just decided "we've had enough debates" and that's the end of the story.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 22, 2016)

Now add true conservatives and independent centrists to the women, blacks, Hispanics, veterans, and disabled who are unhappy with Trump and his personality.

He is not presidential.  He will be president.


----------



## guno (Apr 22, 2016)

couch protester said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


very low IQ, Latinos republican are only 11% of the population in nevada and 7 % supported him , some big majority, as to the rest of the country you have to  be taking hill billy heroine to think Latinos in the general population supports trump. Only an ignorant rube in flyover country believes trump will win the Latino vote in the general election


----------



## cereal_killer (Apr 22, 2016)

I find that beta males are opposed to Trump. Most betas despise alpha's simply because they are too 'barbaric' for them.


----------



## cereal_killer (Apr 22, 2016)

Woman (Trump supporter) and man were lying in bed when this happened : 

Man: Honey I support Cruz but I'm leaning towards Kasich now
Woman: I think we both need to start seeing other men


----------



## BULLDOG (Apr 22, 2016)

couch protester said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




Nobody is questioning what he has won. I just question why.


----------



## BULLDOG (Apr 22, 2016)

cereal_killer said:


> I find that beta males are opposed to Trump. Most betas despise alpha's simply because they are too 'barbaric' for them.




You could be right,but don't forget his whole being a spoiled ignorant ass thing he has working against him too


----------



## browsing deer (Apr 22, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness.  It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.
> 
> IF it becomes a Presidential election between Trump and Clinton, what OBJECTIVE standards would you apply in deciding how you would vote?
> 
> ...


opposition to Trump is because he lies, he lied about his position on immigration, on tariffs, on abortion.
He treats people smaller than him like shit, stealing from them under cloak of the law.
He treats the bankruptcy code  as another means to steal
he is a bully and a thug


I never said he is a racist.  he treats all people as fools and suckers, be they white or black or yellow. He is an equal opportunity grifter


----------



## couch protester (Apr 22, 2016)

guno said:


> very low IQ, Latinos republican are only 11% of the population in nevada and 7 % supported him , some big majority, as to the rest of the country you have to  be taking hill billy heroine to think Latinos in the general population supports trump. Only an ignorant rube in flyover country believes trump will win the Latino vote in the general election



Why not just call them wet backs sense you're already insulting them. Just skip the liberal political correctness.






...morons have IQ of 51–70 mostly uneducated democrats vote Obama and democrat, which were a majority of 100 million uneducated welfare voters, ghettos, dropouts, baby mamas, trailer trash, thugs, and illegals. Socialism is geared towards uneducated poor people with low work skills to get handouts.


----------



## JoeMoma (Apr 22, 2016)

cereal_killer said:


> I find that beta males are opposed to Trump. Most betas despise alpha's simply because they are too 'barbaric' for them.


There is a very thin line between alpha and asshole.


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 22, 2016)

I've been pretty clear in my opposition.

Dump is one of the billionaires who donate to political whores in order to get leverage on the competition, and otherwise use big government against those who lack the influence. Like throwing little old ladies out of their house.

I have seen and heard Dump take both sides of issues depending on popular opinion, and not because of any principle. He is a fair weather republicrat, and if the moonbat messiah had been a competent patriot who improved anything, Dump could just as easily run as a democrook.

If he's the nominee I'll vote for him but I won't like it.


----------



## couch protester (Apr 22, 2016)

BULLDOG said:


> Nobody is questioning what he has won. I just question why.



Because Americans has spoken and you're living in your face palm self pity. You think a majority of Americans are just like you but you're living in the past and are now the minority. This is due to your old fashion thinking. You need a upgrade Fred Flintstone. Catch up.

...Harvard poll: Additionally, young Democrats now give Donald Trump in a statistical dead heat, with 20% of voters polled.

www.college.usatoday.com/2015/12/10/harvard-poll-millennials/

Donald Trump represents hard work and a free market economy. A whopping 64 percent of millennials say hard work is the key to success and 40 percent of millennials say that poor life choices and lack of work ethic is what causes poverty, this is the exact opposite view held by most Democrats running for office.

www.theblaze.com/contributions/donald-trump-his-rising-poll-numbers-and-millennials/


----------



## BULLDOG (Apr 22, 2016)

What color is the sky in your world?


----------



## browsing deer (Apr 22, 2016)

BULLDOG said:


> What color is the sky in your world?


Orange with purple polka dots


----------



## Pete7469 (Apr 22, 2016)

couch protester said:


> Why not just call them wet backs sense you're already insulting them. Just skip the liberal political correctness.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Regressive Parasites are also highly educated pieces of shit who long for a socialist collective where they get to call the shots. Such criminally insane totalitarian sociopaths pander to the vacuous masses with entitlement programs that are designed to keep them in poverty.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Apr 22, 2016)

aaronleland said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > aaronleland said:
> ...


epi 2.....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 22, 2016)

cereal_killer said:


> I find that beta males are opposed to Trump. Most betas despise alpha's simply because they are too 'barbaric' for them.


But beta males like Redfish, Correll, Vigilante, Mudwhistle love him.  Explain that, please.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury (Apr 22, 2016)

Indeependent said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> > Your basic premise is wrong "_the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness._"
> ...


Yes. Do you know the difference between those who enter our borders illegally, and those who enter legally and decide to stay past their Visa dates or violate obligations?

The very idea that you are so disgustingly nasty shows how pathetic your opinions are


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury (Apr 22, 2016)

cereal_killer said:


> I find that beta males are opposed to Trump. Most betas despise alpha's simply because they are too 'barbaric' for them.


You believe that crap about beta, alpha males? Think Audie Murphy and other war heroes, none of whom were John  Wayne types.


----------



## cereal_killer (Apr 22, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> > I find that beta males are opposed to Trump. Most betas despise alpha's simply because they are too 'barbaric' for them.
> ...


I don't know those guys. With that said, there's no way they're betas. Betas get offended and upset about things Trump says. They oppose him at every turn, call him stupid, won't vote for him (if they are Republicans) etc etc. The entire community of males in the  #nevertrump movement are betas.


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury (Apr 22, 2016)

cereal_killer said:


> Woman (Trump supporter) and man were lying in bed when this happened :
> 
> Man: Honey I support Cruz but I'm leaning towards Kasich now
> Woman: I think we both need to start seeing other men


When you mention Trump and bedding down a partner...

“How could you sleep next to that flabby, fat piece of s--t and get your rocks off? ... The actor called Melania Trump a "gold digger." He said "I know, I was married to one." - Mickey Rourke - one tough frigging Alpha male​


----------



## cereal_killer (Apr 22, 2016)

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> > Woman (Trump supporter) and man were lying in bed when this happened :
> ...


Micky Rourke was pissed off at him long before he announced he was going to run. Rourke's anger has nothing to do with his  run for the nomination


----------



## jwoodie (Apr 22, 2016)

Martin Eden Mercury said:


> Your basic premise is wrong "_the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness._"
> 
> Your other premise, "_It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security_." asks people to as accept racism based on immigration and national security, as somehow not really racism or worse -- justifiable racism.
> 
> ...



Ironically, there is nothing constructive about your post (other than confirming my premises).


----------



## Martin Eden Mercury (Apr 22, 2016)

cereal_killer said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> > cereal_killer said:
> ...


Ahh, but you introduced bedrooms in a joke.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 22, 2016)

cereal_killer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > cereal_killer said:
> ...


Actually it is the alpha males that oppose him and have no intention about hiding it.  The alpha males oppose Trump.


----------



## Art__Allm (Apr 23, 2016)

cereal_killer said:


> I find that beta males are opposed to Trump. Most betas despise alpha's simply because they are too 'barbaric' for them.



The global puppet masters are opposed to Trump because Trump does not need their money. 

The Globalists need dependant puppets as candidates for the presidential election.

How can you force Trump to obey to the puppet masters who have a globalist agenda and who do not care about the USA a rat's ass?

Well, you cannot be sure about Trump, he is unpredictable, he may destroy the global agenda of the self-elected puppet masters, because Trump cares more about the American voters, than about some global agenda.

Hillary Clinton is the best candidate. She needs the money of her sponsors, she has a lot of skeletons in her cupboard, she can be easily forced to do everything the globalist puppet masters think is good for their globalist agenda, but what will be destructive for America, like new crazy wars that are not in the interests of the USA.

The Globalists (most of them are dual or multiple citizens) created an establishment that does not care a rat's ass about the interests of the European Americans or Europeans in the EU, whose ancestors created all Western countries.

The today western political establishment is a bunch of spineless Cuckolds, a corrupt Mafia that cares only about personal enrichment.

Some of these Cuckolds are Cuckservatives, others are Cuckdemocrats, but all of them support the agenda of the Sovietization of the West and they care only about their personal enrichment.

Trump had threatened that he will put American interests first and that he is not going to support the crazy globalist agenda that is destroying America and other western countries.

That is the reason why the Establishment hates Trump so much, that is why the Talking Heads in all Lame Stream media are spewing hate at Trump and his supporters.

Unfortunately, many Americans had been dumbed down by Hollywood and the sovietized educational system, many Americans have become Zombies that are just repeating the political correct slogans, promoted by the Talking Heads in the media, and do not understand that they are not acting according to their own interests, when they join the hate campaign against Donald Trump.


----------



## Art__Allm (Apr 23, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> Actually it is the alpha males that oppose him and have no intention about hiding it.  The alpha males oppose Trump.



It seems that in your crazy parallel world the corrupt Cuckolds who only care about their own enrichment, who obey to their puppet masters with double citizenship, and who do not care a rat's ass about the interests of Americans are the alpha males.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 23, 2016)




----------



## cereal_killer (Apr 23, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


Romney=beta
Mike Tyson=Alpha
Lindsey Graham=beta
Bruce Willis=Alpha
Ben Shapiro=beta
Christie=Alpha
Pete Rose=Alpha
Ditka=Alpha
Mitch McConnell= beta
Glen Beck= beta


----------



## cereal_killer (Apr 23, 2016)

There's a new conservative movement emerging that is filled with men/women who will no longer be pushed around by the PC police and made to stand at the alter of shame and apologize for their opinions/things they say. To the point and no apologies... "Did what I say hurt your feelings? That's unfortunate, now fuck off" Liberals will recoil in abstract fear as they lay waste to their impotent accusations of racism, bigotry, misogyny and all the other nonsense they toss out.

The cucks and betas who identify as conservatives/Republicans can watch in horror as they are stripped of any relevance.


----------



## browsing deer (Apr 23, 2016)

Trump isn't anti PC.  We saw that this week with the bathroom thing.  he loves PC.  He dislikes good manners and civility.  His attitude toward abortion is very PC.  Go across his attitude on every issue.  He is very PC.  It is kindness  he hates


----------



## JakeStarkey (Apr 23, 2016)

cereal_killer said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > cereal_killer said:
> ...


Those are pretend Alphas, ck.  convicts, losers, ineligibles, other than Ditka, who would slam dunk you for including him in the entire list.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 23, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness.  It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.
> 
> IF it becomes a Presidential election between Trump and Clinton, what OBJECTIVE standards would you apply in deciding how you would vote?
> 
> ...



Objective Standards?

Trump has absolutely no experience in government- legislative or administrative.
Trump has absolutely no experience with foreign policy.
I was and am offended by Trump statements regarding Mexicans and regarding Muslim immigrants..
Trump's statements regarding international trade- especially when it comes to free trade agreements and tariffs display a profound ignorance of both how free trade agreements and tariffs actually are today- and the historic effect of trade barriers. 

Trump's' statements on national security are both bombastic- and unrealistic.
I think that Trump has shown a tendency towards think skinned defensiveness, and attacking anyone who criticizes him that would be detrimental as a President.
While I don't particularly trust Clinton- I absolutely distrust Trump.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 23, 2016)

aaronleland said:


> It has nothing to do with political incorrectness. That's a narrative Trump supporters created, and ran with. A candidate for the highest office in the country doing something like retweeting a picture suggesting that his opponent's wife is ugly isn't politically incorrect. It's being an asshole. The same man who backed out of a debate because a woman asked him a question he didn't like. The man who threatened to sue over a negative ad. He's a loud-mouthed, thin-skinned pussy.



Thank you- the whole issue of Megan Kelly as far as I am concerned is emblematic of why he is not suited to be President.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 23, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness.  It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.
> 
> IF it becomes a Presidential election between Trump and Clinton, what OBJECTIVE standards would you apply in deciding how you would vote?
> 
> ...



I personally am against Trump because I don't trust him. I think he's a liberal in GOP clothing.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 23, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness.  It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.
> ...



Obama had no experience in government-legislative or administrative.
Obama had no experience with foreign policy.
Obama has a profound ignorance free trade agreements, and economics in general.
Obama has his lap dog media attacking anyone who dares criticize him.

It doesn't matter if you were an Obama supporter or not, the point is that Trump cannot be worse.


----------



## browsing deer (Apr 23, 2016)

PredFan said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness.  It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.
> ...






he is more ignorant on the stump than he can possibly be in real life.   A person as dumb as he seems couldn't breathe without assistance


----------



## Art__Allm (Apr 23, 2016)

cereal_killer said:


> There's a new conservative movement emerging that is filled with men/women who will no longer be pushed around by the PC police and made to stand at the alter of shame and apologize for their opinions/things they say. To the point and no apologies... "Did what I say hurt your feelings? That's unfortunate, now fuck off" Liberals will recoil in abstract fear as they lay waste to their impotent accusations of racism, bigotry, misogyny and all the other nonsense they toss out.
> 
> The cucks and betas who identify as conservatives/Republicans can watch in horror as they are stripped of any relevance.



I hope that your prediction will come true!


----------



## Art__Allm (Apr 23, 2016)

PredFan said:


> It doesn't matter if you were an Obama supporter or not, the point is that Trump cannot be worse.



And he cannot be worth than Hillary Clinton, a crazy war monger and a corrupt and ruthless puppet who will sell the interests of Americans for a couple of shekels.


----------



## browsing deer (Apr 23, 2016)

People make the mistake of believing there is any difference between hitlary and Trump.   Hitlary has Trump to pass the election to her, policy wise and personality and every other way they are identical.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 23, 2016)

"Why Are You Opposed to Trump?"

Setting aside the fact that Trump is an ignorant bigot who is wrong on most of the issues…

It’s primarily the people with whom he’d populate his administration – Bush era (both) retreads, for the most part. 

Appointments those Bush era retreads would make to the Federal courts and Supreme Court. 

And the clear propensity for war Trump as demonstrated – the last thing America needs is another failed, illegal war as was the result of the last republican administration.


----------



## alpine (Apr 23, 2016)

Trump is a rich spoiled kid.

If he wasnt running for president, he would be rolling around central park, having people drink his piss and eat his shit for cash.




Hmm, giving it a second thought, he is already doing so i guess...........


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 23, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...



Senator Obama had experience in the legislation both at the State level and at the Federal level.
Senator Obama had no foreign policy experience- just like Trump.  Are you a fan of President Obama's foreign policy?
There is no indication that Senator Obama misunderstood any free trade agreements as Trump does- but presuming that he did- do you think that Trump's ignorance of free trade agreements and the economics of world trade is a good thing?
President Obama is somewhat thin skinned- but the comparison between him and Trump is profound- Trump is extremely think skinned and lashes out at any criticism.

I am presuming from your criticism of President Obama that you are firmly against Trump for his lack of experience.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 23, 2016)

Crixus said:


> I looked hard at Trump when all this started, and knew Cruze would be the other choice. Rubio was done when he betrayed those who sent him to washington, and the rest were pretty much retreads and washouts from past primareys. So at this point,I am a Cruz supporter. I can pull up his senate record and see consistency. Not so much with Donald Trump. Donald Trump just bounces around to much for me, and he just doesn't have the temperament for the job. He will also have lots of trouble with Hillery when it comes to who he gave money to in his past as a New York developer. He gave over $600,000.00 to democrats who backed things like gun control as well as unions. I don't hold the union thing against him thoigh. Unions build stuff and he needs them,  but m afraid they are Inot him to deeply. I was able to find all that with a simple Google search. Hillery will bring more with her machine. All that and his behavior, all the winning and crying about the rules, unless they are in his favor, he hasn't complained about the Florida deligates.
> 
> So in short, go Ted.



As usual the GOP has weak candidates for POTUS.  Trump and Cruz are both serial liars.  I wonder why the republicans can't manage to get real good people to run for prez.  Trump COULD have been the right guy with the right stuff because he seems to be his own man.  If he wasn't such a whiny jerk I would vote for him.  I just can't see the GOP leadership in Congress giving him any support.  He is simply just too abrasive.  His "my way or the highway" personality won't work in a position that requires at least some co-operation and compromise.


----------



## Crixus (Apr 23, 2016)

HUGGY said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > I looked hard at Trump when all this started, and knew Cruze would be the other choice. Rubio was done when he betrayed those who sent him to washington, and the rest were pretty much retreads and washouts from past primareys. So at this point,I am a Cruz supporter. I can pull up his senate record and see consistency. Not so much with Donald Trump. Donald Trump just bounces around to much for me, and he just doesn't have the temperament for the job. He will also have lots of trouble with Hillery when it comes to who he gave money to in his past as a New York developer. He gave over $600,000.00 to democrats who backed things like gun control as well as unions. I don't hold the union thing against him thoigh. Unions build stuff and he needs them,  but m afraid they are Inot him to deeply. I was able to find all that with a simple Google search. Hillery will bring more with her machine. All that and his behavior, all the winning and crying about the rules, unless they are in his favor, he hasn't complained about the Florida deligates.
> ...



It's that attitude that Trump supporters think they will get. Wonder if they will make excuses for him when he eats it.


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 23, 2016)

Crixus said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Crixus said:
> ...



From the way they are talking now I wouldn't be surprised if they started threatening people at Hillary offices.  The Donald will no doubt give them their marching orders.  He doesn't like losing.  The general election will be a HUUUUGE embarrassment for him.  HUUUUGE !  If he was smart and not so damned egotistical he would have groomed a guy with a much better presentation that he could control.  He would be much better off with a president in his pocket than put himself in the white house and take a HUUUUGE pay cut.  He just doesn't get it that most Americans don't want to be represented by a rich buffoon. His appeal is very narrow.  His followers are mostly the stupid ex tea baggers that never figured out they got taken for a ride by Bennett and the Kochs.


----------



## cereal_killer (Apr 23, 2016)

Art__Allm said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> > There's a new conservative movement emerging that is filled with men/women who will no longer be pushed around by the PC police and made to stand at the alter of shame and apologize for their opinions/things they say. To the point and no apologies... "Did what I say hurt your feelings? That's unfortunate, now fuck off" Liberals will recoil in abstract fear as they lay waste to their impotent accusations of racism, bigotry, misogyny and all the other nonsense they toss out.
> ...


It's happening 'as we speak'


----------



## Boss (Apr 23, 2016)

cereal_killer said:


> There's a new conservative movement emerging that is filled with men/women who will no longer be pushed around by the PC police and made to stand at the alter of shame and apologize for their opinions/things they say. To the point and no apologies... "Did what I say hurt your feelings? That's unfortunate, now fuck off" Liberals will recoil in abstract fear as they lay waste to their impotent accusations of racism, bigotry, misogyny and all the other nonsense they toss out.
> 
> The cucks and betas who identify as conservatives/Republicans can watch in horror as they are stripped of any relevance.



The problem is, Trump is very much PC. He takes the politically best position on all issues. That is what it means when they say he is a populist. The transgender restroom issue is the latest example. Who could have imagined the Republican front-runner saying transgenders can use any restroom they feel like using? That's not even a Conservative or Republican thing, that's a common sense thing. Only wacko PC liberals have that view... we expect that on the Democrat side, they're crazy... but the GOP front-runner? 

No, Trump is extremely PC.. and you're going to find out the hard way. What he doesn't believe in is being nice about it.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 23, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Obama's record in the senate is of no shows. He had no experience at all and it shows.

My point remains, we survived Obama, we will survive Trump.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 24, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness.  It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.
> 
> IF it becomes a Presidential election between Trump and Clinton, what OBJECTIVE standards would you apply in deciding how you would vote?
> 
> ...



Let me ask you this.  I apologize in advance if what I’m about to say has any semblance to your real life as I do not know you or your situation.

Lets say that you and your wife/husband (I don’t know your gender) are looking at a house in your neighborhood you’re considering purchasing and you start the tour of the house.  The female in your duo, asks the homeowner  “I’ve lived in this neighborhood for 20 years, and I recall seeing a foundation leveling company out here a few weeks before it went on the market.  Is the foundation sound?”  

The owner refuses to answer directly but another couple is touring the house and asks him “What was that about the foundation?” since they were in proximity when you/your wife asked the question.  He looks at them and says that you/your wife is on her period since she is asking such a question based on a unsubstantiated recollection.  

Lets say that one of you walks with a pronounced limp and when the other couple enters, he mocks your limp when he walks over to them

Would you do business with him?  Would you trust anything else this person of extremely low character has to say?  I wouldn’t.  Much less would I vote for him to run the HOA or school board or whatever. 

Any voter who thinks the President can implement their agenda unfettered is kidding themselves. Especially when the agenda is flat out ridiculous such as building a wall and telling the humorous lie that Mexico will pay for it, you’re going to ban Muslims from entering the nation by asking if they are Muslim, that you’ll deport 11,000,000 people, that you’ll make the already-strongest military apparatus stronger, etc…  The only thing you can do, in my opinion when voting for President, is vote for someone who will share your values and vote single-party to try to get a Congress on the same page.  

Clinton largely shares my values.  So she gets my vote.


----------



## Vigilante (Apr 24, 2016)

My first vote was Goldwater in 1964, and I haven't been satisfied with any of them since then. Even Reagan was taken over the coals by the Socialist/DemoRATS on immigration. Face it, this is NOT 1980 and the subversives have had 35 YEARS to manipulate and mold those college kids into millions of Leftist zombies, or, at least most that go to college. The voting block that brought Reagan into power is DEAD! So what do we do now...go for MORE POLITICIANS that we KNOW LIE, just look at what Congresshas done since Jan. 2015, or some fresh face that can't be bought, BUT hasn't the deep social values that many of us have.

A hard rightest as Cruz has purported to be, will NEVER draw in middle of the road Independents which according to latest estimates are 40% of the public. Yes, Trump is an UNKNOWN quantity, BUT again, according to polls and according to the VOTING in most of the states so far, has the support of 35-40% of the Republicans and he just went over 60% in N.Y. and looks like over 50% in other N.E. states, and California. Cruz is now OUT mathematically. But will stay in, along with "Kasick" to try and kill Trumps chance of winning the required delegates. We see Cruz told "Kasick" to GET OUT after he was mathematically eliminated, BUT the HYPOCRISY of this man when he is OUT HIMSELF, is stunning...I was a big Cruz supporter and had many spirited fights in here about it. Sorry to say, it appears I was wrong and others was right.

Now since Trump is the only one left, don't you think it's time to stand behind him, as his views on many things are similar to Cruz, except for some Social issues...and they can be addressed once he is in office by Cruz and other strong conservatives talking to him. The one thing most don't think of is that Trump has the FINANCIAL ability to KILL any of the Republican or DemoRAT politicians that get in his way.... He simply forms a $20-$40 million OR MORE SuperPac, and has a guy like Roger Stone, go to each person in Congress that is standing in his way and let them know in no uncertain terms that when THEY come up for re-election,Trump's SuperPac will spend a Million OR MORE to help that Congressperson's opponent (that opponent will certainly OWE TRUMP a BIG ONE) in his ouster from his current political position. You KNOW that the only thing Politicians FEAR is LOSING their positions! Just let that sink in for a moment.

I can address all those social issue problems , such as abortion which Trump continually says he supports PRO LIFE but will make the 3 exceptions viable.... Live with it, he will still try to change the law.

I don't need to address them all, unless people really want me to, but consider the ramifications of a Hildebeast presidency. With Chubby Chelsea already saying her mother wants to CHANGE the 2nd. Amendment, and the SCOTUS judges the douchebag  will appoint, and get confirmed because ALL THE REST OF THE SENATE are FECKLESS, scumbags Republicans, it's SURE to make this a third rate Socialist country much like most European countries! I know I won't change your, and others in here minds, but if you honestly look at it, it's the BEST CHANCE WE HAVE!


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 24, 2016)

cereal_killer said:


> Martin Eden Mercury said:
> 
> 
> > cereal_killer said:
> ...



Rourke is a cocaine addled pervert.  I know a friend of his very well.  Mickey's opinion is worthless.  He is much more interested in when and where he can participate in his next cocaine/alcohol binge than the good of America.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 24, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Oh we can certainly survive Trump- our country is stronger than any one President. 

The question is why am I opposed to Trump. I gave my reasons.


----------



## browsing deer (Apr 24, 2016)

You support gay marriage... vote trump
you support abortion till the kid is on the way out  vot trump
you support single payer vote trump
you support freedom and liberty vote cruz


----------



## candycorn (Apr 24, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



On that, I agree.  The republic will survive.  Our mute Constitution is more a threat than any President


----------



## candycorn (Apr 24, 2016)

Art__Allm said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on....
> ...


 
So, let me see if I follow your logic:

You actually think there is a large group of bankers somewhere (i.e. this "establishment") that sits around and "sells" America.  And they don't like Donald Trump based solely on his having enough money to not need theirs in what is almost always a losing proposition (ask those who supported Jeb!)?


----------



## browsing deer (Apr 24, 2016)

They are tired of voting republican, but democratic propositions win.  They are tired of sell outs, so they are willing to burn down the house and destroy the republic because they are tired of loosing


----------



## Crixus (Apr 24, 2016)

Boss said:


> cereal_killer said:
> 
> 
> > There's a new conservative movement emerging that is filled with men/women who will no longer be pushed around by the PC police and made to stand at the alter of shame and apologize for their opinions/things they say. To the point and no apologies... "Did what I say hurt your feelings? That's unfortunate, now fuck off" Liberals will recoil in abstract fear as they lay waste to their impotent accusations of racism, bigotry, misogyny and all the other nonsense they toss out.
> ...



And that's the thkng. Only tiny segment of the American population give cross dressers any thought, and most of those that do are cross dressers. Trump has shown a great willingness to change his stance to the most politically expedient opinion when needed. So if he will change his opinion on something as stupid as this, why wouldn't he change his opinion on say,, a wall on the border? Or his promises to prosicute Hillery or try if he wins? Maybe those great deals with China, Japan, Mexico, Taiwan? Bush was also a populist after he got into office. A slave to the polls. Dont understand why after 16 years of populist screwing up the country we would send another one up there.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 24, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



You did.


----------



## jwoodie (Apr 24, 2016)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen a single post opposing Trump on substance (in comparison with Hillary).  Are you really going to sit on your hands in November and watch America commit national suicide?


----------



## browsing deer (Apr 24, 2016)

I know how he feels


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Apr 24, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen a single post opposing Trump on substance (in comparison with Hillary).  Are you really going to sit on your hands in November and watch America commit national suicide?


You’re wrong.

Below are the substantive issues upon which Trump is wrong, and warrant opposing him:

Trump would appoint justices to the Supreme Court hostile to the privacy rights of women, the equal protection rights of gay and transgender Americans, and the voting rights of minorities.

Trump would pursue the same failed, wrongheaded conservative economic policies as the previous administration, such as cutting taxes while increasing government spending.

Trump would pursue the same failed, wrongheaded conservative foreign policy agenda as the previous administration. 

Trump would waste billions on unnecessary military spending.  

And like most republicans, Trump exhibits a propensity for war, as was the case with the previous administration.  

You stand corrected.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 24, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen a single post opposing Trump on substance (in comparison with Hillary).  Are you really going to sit on your hands in November and watch America commit national suicide?



Then you are blind.

Blinded by your partisanship. 

I gave my reasons which are frankly much more substantive than your objections to Clinton. 

That you refuse to even see them is only your fault.


----------



## jwoodie (Apr 24, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen a single post opposing Trump on substance (in comparison with Hillary).  Are you really going to sit on your hands in November and watch America commit national suicide?
> ...



Oh, really?



Syriusly said:


> Trump has absolutely no experience in government- legislative or administrative.
> 
> Trump has absolutely no experience with foreign policy.
> 
> ...



Where is the "substance" to which you refer?  In contrast, my objections to Clinton were:



jwoodie said:


> For me, Trump's direct approaches to immigration, trade, national security, jobs and the economy are favorable factors, as opposed to Clinton's vacillation on these issues.



Trump's positions on these issues are clear; can you even begin to describe what Clinton's are?


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 25, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness.  It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.
> 
> IF it becomes a Presidential election between Trump and Clinton, what OBJECTIVE standards would you apply in deciding how you would vote?
> 
> ...



To begin, Trump, along with Sanders, are both wrong on trade.  Trump's ideas about China may have been true thirty or forty years ago, but today we are dealing with a global economy.  The main reason Mexico is attracting so many  manufacturing companies is not due to their cheap labor but to their free trade agreements with other countries.  Mexico has free trade agreements with more countries than any other country in the world.  Trump and Sanders are both afraid of free trade and would place massive tariffs on imported products which would drive prices through the roof.  To make matters worse, countries that were affected by this would just retaliate by placing larger tariffs on US goods.  While I was disappointed that Hillary backed away from TPP, I figure she did so because too many people have been sold on the idea that trade is a bad thing.  As for the rest of it, Trump can't tell us how he would do any of the things he says he wants to do.  He just tells us he's going to make America great again, as if he believes he will become King and rule as he pleases once elected.  Bottom line is that Trump is a joke.


----------



## Boss (Apr 25, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen a single post opposing Trump on substance (in comparison with Hillary). Are you really going to sit on your hands in November and watch America commit national suicide?



I raised several key issues on policy... not compared to Hillary because we're still in the primaries. This is when the Republican platform is established. Compare Ted Cruz to Hillary on policy, compare Kasich, compare fucking Jeb Bush!  Any of the 17 people who ran can beat Hillary on policy. My dog could beat Hillary on policy and bark better too! You know who loses to Hillary by double digits at the ballot box in November? Donald Trump.

We have a chance, for the first time since Ronald Reagan, to elect a true principled conservative. We're literally balking at him on the basis of vanity. He looks funny. His voice sounds preachy. He seems creepy.... all these stupid and trite superficial complaints and that man is a rock-rib conservative to the core. He will stand for Conservatism, he will debate it passionately, he will explain and articulate the conservative message we've wanted to hear. No... he's NOT the "Great Communicator" ...he lacks a certain charisma that Reagan had, but he is every bit as committed to conservative principles and will stand strong for them. Can't stop, won't stop... the LION Ted Cruz! 

You want to throw away your vote for 'P.T_rump_. Barnum', I can't help you.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 25, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...



Please try to stay on point. 

Here is what you claimed:
*but I have not seen a single post opposing Trump on substance (in comparison with Hillary)*

*I then accurately pointed out that you must be blind then- since I posted by objections to Trump on substance:*

*
Trump has absolutely no experience in government- legislative or administrative
Trump has absolutely no experience with foreign policy
*

*
I was and am offended by Trump statements regarding Mexicans and regarding Muslim immigrants..

Trump's statements regarding international trade- especially when it comes to free trade agreements and tariffs display a profound ignorance of both how free trade agreements and tariffs actually are today- and the historic effect of trade barriers.

Trump's' statements on national security are both bombastic- and unrealistic.

I think that Trump has shown a tendency towards think skinned defensiveness, and attacking anyone who criticizes him that would be detrimental as a President.

While I don't particularly trust Clinton- I absolutely distrust Trump
My first two points were specifically on substance- experience. *
*Remember- you asked why I am opposed to Trump- I provided substantive reasons why I am opposed to Trump.*

*You just don't agree- so you pretend to believe no one has provided any substantive objections. *


----------



## mak5 (Apr 25, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness.  It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.
> 
> IF it becomes a Presidential election between Trump and Clinton, what OBJECTIVE standards would you apply in deciding how you would vote?
> 
> ...


Because he is as liberal as Clinton, as narcissistic as Obama and has no idea how government works.  We will end up with an authoritarian governing by executive order, raising taxes, killing the economy with tariffs and not building a wall.  He will be unable to handle foreign affairs.  He gives every sign of slipping into dementia.  He is a habitual liar.  He is owned by the banks.  He would, if elected, which won't happen, be an entirely ineffectual President.


----------



## Militants (Apr 25, 2016)

My new believe are Trump as bigger favorite then Sanders then Clinton then Bush new president in the 2020 begins if Trump lose 2016 then Libertainan new Party if Trumps win 2016 against Trump in challenge.
Who are the new political in Libertainan ????


----------



## Militants (Apr 25, 2016)

Obama are maybe good some Sanders and Clinton but he has his eight year in Power.


----------



## jwoodie (Apr 25, 2016)

auditor0007 said:


> Bottom line is that Trump is a joke.



Bottom line is that your opposition is based on emotion, not reason.


----------



## jwoodie (Apr 25, 2016)

Boss said:


> You want to throw away your vote for 'P.T_rump_. Barnum', I can't help you.



Ditto.


----------



## Crixus (Apr 25, 2016)

For me he is all over the place all the time. He tried to come off conservative, but is liberal. He says he is Tough,  but he spends more time complaining about the rules then explaining his policy and how it will make America great again. He says he is anti PC, but acts ultra PC. Na, I'll pass.


----------



## jwoodie (Apr 25, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> *
> 
> Trump has absolutely no experience in government- legislative or administrative
> Trump has absolutely no experience with foreign policy
> ...



LOL, so you are claiming that two of your seven reasons for opposing Trump are based on substance?  CONGRATULATIONS!

P.S.  Even these two points are fundamentally flawed:  (1)  The Presidency is an executive position, not legislative or administrative.  (2) Experience is of value only when it has resulted in success or at least learning.  Which other candidate has this type of experience with foreign policy?  (Certainly not Hillary!)


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 25, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...



Oh- so you really didn't want people to post their reasons why they are opposed to Trump- you just want to argue?

Okay- so let's recap: you claimed no one had replied substantively to your OP- I pointed out that I did.

Were you lying when you said no one had replied substantively- or just blinded by your partisanship?

You have failed to address any of my points.

As I point out- Trump has no experience in government- legislative or administrative- the Executive Branch is called the Administration. 
As I point out Trump has no foreign policy experience. 

Now- why don't you provide the specific substantive issues that lead you to support Trump?


----------



## Crixus (Apr 25, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



At leas. You have reasons. That means you went out and got them and diddnt just jump on the trump wagon because fox news said so.


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 25, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line is that Trump is a joke.
> ...



No response to everything I stated before that?  You're pretty funny.  I gave you a great reason as to why I am opposed to Trump, all based on my valid opposition to tariffs and protectionist economic policies, and this is what you come up with?  Sounds like you are the one basing everything on emotion.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 25, 2016)

auditor0007 said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > auditor0007 said:
> ...



Bingo.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 27, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen a single post opposing Trump on substance (in comparison with Hillary).  Are you really going to sit on your hands in November and watch America commit national suicide?



If you can’t trust a man’s character (It is a fact that Trump insinuates women are on their period, mocks people with birth defects, gives out the personal information on his opponents —i.e. cell numbers, calls other women ugly, etc…), it doesn’t matter what (if any) substance or issues the candidate champions.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 27, 2016)

Syriusly said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Just worth pointing out- Woodie has not been willing to even attempt to provide specific substantive issues that lead him to support Trump.


----------



## Art__Allm (Apr 27, 2016)

candycorn said:


> So, let me see if I follow your logic:
> 
> You actually think there is a large group of bankers somewhere (i.e. this "establishment") that sits around and "sells" America.  And they don't like Donald Trump based solely on his having enough money to not need theirs in what is almost always a losing proposition (ask those who supported Jeb!)?



And what is your take on it?


----------



## Art__Allm (Apr 27, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line is that Trump is a joke.
> ...



This negative emotion is called "hate", isn't it?


----------



## jwoodie (Apr 28, 2016)

[QUO


Syriusly said:


> Just worth pointing out- Woodie has not been willing to even attempt to provide specific substantive issues that lead him to support Trump.





jwoodie said:


> Trump's direct approaches to immigration, trade, national security, jobs and the economy are favorable factors, as opposed to Clinton's vacillation on these issues



Are you blind, or just completely ignorant of Trump's positions on these substantive issues?  Do you need to have them spelled out (again)?

As for your two-for-seven attempts at substance, I simply pointed out how they were fundamentally flawed as to facts and logic.

P.S.  Resorting to name calling is the ultimate concession that one's arguments lack substance.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 29, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness.  It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.
> 
> IF it becomes a Presidential election between Trump and Clinton, what OBJECTIVE standards would you apply in deciding how you would vote?
> 
> ...



A better question would be, "Why WOULDN'T I be opposed to Trump?"

I'll be happy to correct you in your wrongness.  Opposition to Trump is not just about the fact that he's childishly rude and offensive while trying to pass it off as "political incorrectness", although it's certainly an important and valid objection.  Anyone who thinks "ugly loser" is an effective and Presidential debate point is confusing the President of the United States with the president of the grammar school student council, not to put too fine a point on it.  And by the way, why are we supposed to "avoid name-calling" when it's so admired and cheered when Trump does it?  If there's something wrong with it in here, why is there nothing wrong with it in a Presidential campaign?

Trump has no "direct approaches" to any of these issues.  He pretends he does, and people accept that assertion at face value, latch onto whatever he said at a given moment that they liked, and utterly ignore all the times he's said the complete opposite of what they liked.  And that's a very on-point reason to oppose Trump:  if you're not already in the tank for him and are actually paying attention to EVERYTHING he says, and everything he's actually done in the past, you realize very quickly that he has no clear, set approach to any issue, because he doesn't have a single guiding principle to anything he does, other than what's good for Trump at the moment.

Even when you get him to try to make a "Presidential" speech about foreign policy - which apparently requires someone else to write it and a teleprompter so he can read it - it's so vague, fuzzy, and riddled with inconsistencies as to be incomprehensible, which would leave anyone not already in the cult seriously confused and disturbed about what could be expected from his administration.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 29, 2016)

Art__Allm said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on....
> ...



Horsecrap.  Far from "not needing the money of the bankers", Trump is quite heavily in debt to bankers as well as other big-money folks, and "coincidentally" proposed his biggest creditor, Carl Icahn, as Secretary of the Treasury.

Furthermore, most of the money his campaign has spent - and they have apparently spent most of their money at this point - has come from donations, not from Trump.

The reason the "establishment" hates him is the same reason everyone else hates him:  he's a disastrous choice.  I can only assume that the reason any American sees him as "the last chance" is because they watch too many movies.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 29, 2016)

Art__Allm said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter if you were an Obama supporter or not, the point is that Trump cannot be worse.
> ...



He absolutely can be worse than Hillary, or at least as bad.  Don't underestimate him.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 29, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen a single post opposing Trump on substance (in comparison with Hillary).  Are you really going to sit on your hands in November and watch America commit national suicide?



You're wrong.  There have been several posts so far that have opposed Trump on substance, so I can only assume that "I have not seen them" really means "I don't WANT to see them."


----------



## PredFan (Apr 29, 2016)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Doubtful, he'll be worse than Hillary.


----------



## Syriusly (Apr 29, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> [QUO
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> ...



I am just wondering if you have a clue what issues (of substance) you think Trump supports that make you support him- what of 'substance' about Trump leads  you to support Trump.?

You have yet been willing to even attempt to provide specific substantive issues that lead you to support Trump.

Unlike myself- where I have provided substantive reasons why I oppose Trump.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 29, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Art__Allm said:
> ...



That's entirely your opinion.  As far as I'm concerned, the guy is the white-trash Obama, which leaves an absolutely mind-boggling scope for awful.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Apr 29, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness.  It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.
> 
> IF it becomes a Presidential election between Trump and Clinton, what OBJECTIVE standards would you apply in deciding how you would vote?
> 
> ...



I will correct something in your OP and that is Trump company has been fined by the Justice Department in the past for Discrimination, so he has a history with how he deals with minorities in the business world...

" In 1973, the Justice Department sued the Trump Management Corporation for alleged racial discrimination, which Trump's company disputed. The corporation was charged with quoting different rental terms and conditions to blacks and making false "no vacancy" statements to blacks for apartments they managed in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island.[447] In response, Trump sued the government for $100 million, asserting that the charges were irresponsible and baseless.[448] The ensuing countersuit was thrown out of court.[449] The corporation settled out of court in 1975, promising not to discriminate against minorities. In addition, the corporation was required to send a bi-weekly list of vacancies to the New York Urban League, a civil rights group and give them priority for certain locations.[450] In 1978, the Justice Department sued Trump Management in Brooklyn for not satisfying the requirements of the 1975 settlement following allegations of discriminatory housing practices.[451] "

" Trump Plaza was fined $200,000 in 1991 by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission for moving African-American and female employees from craps tables in order to accommodate high roller Robert LiButti, a mob figure and alleged John Gotti associate, who was said to fly into fits of racist rage when he was on losing streaks. "

Donald Trump - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trump has an history and I know who he really is, and no I do not want someone like me as President...


----------



## PredFan (Apr 29, 2016)

Cecilie1200 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Based on what? It's easy enough to say that, backing it up is a lot harder. All I have to do is look at her horrible record as Secretary of State, how she almost single-handedly destabilized the ME, got several people killed, exposed who knows how many of our state secrets. In just foreign policy alone it would be vary difficult for Trump to do worse. Then their is her already divisive talk in race, he completely idiotic proposed policies in economics, and there is very little doubt that Trump would be better.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Apr 29, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness.  It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.
> 
> IF it becomes a Presidential election between Trump and Clinton, what OBJECTIVE standards would you apply in deciding how you would vote?
> 
> ...



Opposition to Trump is from the RNC power brokers and the fools who follow them. They don't like orange clowns taking their power. The race card is always played by the opposition to appeal to the hypersensitive, guilt ridden whites. It's not about policy.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 29, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



I'm sorry, are you asking me the basis for calling him the white-trash Obama, or for saying he has a mind-boggling scope for awful?

You don't have to sell me on how awful Hillary is.  I'd rather be tortured with thumbscrews than tolerate her and her horny hick husband in the White House for four years.  The problem is, how horrible SHE is isn't a mitigating factor on how horrible TRUMP is, and I have an equal preference right now for torture over tolerating HIM in the White House, too.  Sadly, "horrible" is not a zero-sum game in this instance, where there's only so much to go around and the more horrible she has, the less there is available for him to have.


----------



## Chuz Life (Apr 29, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness.  It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.
> 
> IF it becomes a Presidential election between Trump and Clinton, what OBJECTIVE standards would you apply in deciding how you would vote?
> 
> ...




I appreciate this question and how it is being asked. 

I (for one) do not actively *oppose* Donald Trump. I don't like him. I don't like his rhetoric and kneejerk reactive tendencies towards certain lines of questions and basically, I am disappointed that he is the best this nation can come up with as a candidate for the GOP. 

That said, we play the cards we are dealt. 

I would slit my own throat in the voting booth before I would every vote for Hitlary or Sanders. . . . so, it is what it is.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Apr 29, 2016)

Crixus said:


> I looked hard at Trump when all this started, and knew Cruze would be the other choice. Rubio was done when he betrayed those who sent him to washington, and the rest were pretty much retreads and washouts from past primareys. So at this point,I am a Cruz supporter. I can pull up his senate record and see consistency. Not so much with Donald Trump. Donald Trump just bounces around to much for me, and he just doesn't have the temperament for the job. He will also have lots of trouble with Hillery when it comes to who he gave money to in his past as a New York developer. He gave over $600,000.00 to democrats who backed things like gun control as well as unions. I don't hold the union thing against him thoigh. Unions build stuff and he needs them,  but m afraid they are Inot him to deeply. I was able to find all that with a simple Google search. Hillery will bring more with her machine. All that and his behavior, all the winning and crying about the rules, unless they are in his favor, he hasn't complained about the Florida deligates.
> 
> So in short, go Ted.



You say his donations to Dems will hurt him, but the union stuff won't because he needs them to build stuff. My impression is that he gave money to politicians on both sides because buying politicians makes building things easier. He appeared to be politically agnostic when he was strictly a businessman. I don't follow your reasoning.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Apr 29, 2016)

Bruce_T_Laney said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness.  It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.
> ...



His history is of a businessman who acts in what he sees as the best interest of his business. Having customers who are racist does not make you racist? If you have ever owned a business, it should be easy to understand.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Apr 29, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Bruce_T_Laney said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...



Read the first part again and it had nothing to do with customers being racist but the fact his own business was busted for discrimination.

You are discussing the second one of the post which happened in the 1990's.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 29, 2016)

Cecilie1200 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



But our argument is about Trump being worst or at least not as bad as Hillary.

I have provided some points to support my claim that he won't be as bad as Hillary, you disagree. Can you provide something other than disagreement?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 29, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> > I looked hard at Trump when all this started, and knew Cruze would be the other choice. Rubio was done when he betrayed those who sent him to washington, and the rest were pretty much retreads and washouts from past primareys. So at this point,I am a Cruz supporter. I can pull up his senate record and see consistency. Not so much with Donald Trump. Donald Trump just bounces around to much for me, and he just doesn't have the temperament for the job. He will also have lots of trouble with Hillery when it comes to who he gave money to in his past as a New York developer. He gave over $600,000.00 to democrats who backed things like gun control as well as unions. I don't hold the union thing against him thoigh. Unions build stuff and he needs them,  but m afraid they are Inot him to deeply. I was able to find all that with a simple Google search. Hillery will bring more with her machine. All that and his behavior, all the winning and crying about the rules, unless they are in his favor, he hasn't complained about the Florida deligates.
> ...



_Between 1989 and 2010, The Donald gave $314,300 to Democratic groups and candidates and $290,600 to Republicans, according to a Daily Caller analysis of records maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.


But Trump’s donation gap was even larger during the mid-2000s, which saw the end of Republican congressional majorities and the ascendance of the Democratic party.


Overall in the 2006 election cycle, Trump and his son, Donald Trump Jr., donated $77,200 to Democrats versus only $24,250 on Republicans. Looking back to the 2004 cycle, the pair donated $40,500 to Democrats and only $17,250 to the GOP.

Donald Trump Donated Heavily To Democrats, Especially During Election Which Put Reid And Pelosi In Power_

In what universe does that look "politically agnostic"?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 29, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Now that you have clarified, yes.  I can.

Ask yourself this:  which of the two is more likely to get their policies and agendas enacted by Congress?

Hillary Clinton would love to be a continuation of the policies of the Obama Administration, no doubt about it.  But she's not Barack Obama.  She's an ugly shrew with a strident, clunky, massively unlikable personality.  The only reason she's winning the Democrat primaries at all is because they're literally set up to be a coronation procession for whomever the party insiders anoint, with virtually no reference to their rank-and-file at all, because they can be counted on to vote in lockstep however they're told and swear up, down, and sideways that it was all their idea.  She has no charisma or persuasiveness of her own, and no legion of rabid fans.  She does, however, have the capacity to galvanize Republicans and conservatives against her.  So President Hillary would likely face massive gridlock and right-wingers coming out of the woodwork to retain control of Congress to keep it that way.

How likely are Congressional Republicans, who are not the most stalwart of champions under any circumstances, to react that way to a President who wears, however falsely, the label of "Republican"?  Especially with his cult of worshipers screaming at the gates?  And given that he readily and easily flip-flops from right to left on virtually any issue that comes up, how likely is it that Congressional Democrats will feel the need to strongly oppose him?  Hell, he's donated to a lot of them.  What are the chances that we'll see teaming up to neutralize the spaghetti-spined Republicans?

We certainly would not see any movement forward on any truly conservative issues, particularly involving limiting the scope and overreach of the federal government, because Trump's not a conservative and he's also not even remotely the sort of man who would voluntarily limit his own power.  What we WOULD likely see is more of the populist crap he spews on the stump, which the Democrats would be just fine with and the Republicans would be too weak-sistered to resist in the face of his unwashed masses of populist fans.

So basically, we're looking at two people putting forward policies that are ultimately bad for America, and only one of them with a good chance of actually achieving those policies.

Which one do YOU think would be worse?


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 29, 2016)

*Why Are You Opposed to Trump?*

I've always been opposed to self aggrandizing blowhard bullies.

It's what I do.


----------



## Boss (Apr 29, 2016)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Art__Allm said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


*He absolutely can be worse than Hillary, or at least as bad?* I'll go you one better... if elected, he will set back the Conservative movement 40 years. Because everything he does will be tied to Conservatives and The Right. All of us who are vocally not supporting him... we won't matter THEN! The Left will portray Conservatives as _The Party of Trump_ and it's "death by association".  So the Conservative movement, at least in our lifetime, is done if this man gets elected.


----------



## Boss (Apr 29, 2016)

HUGGY said:


> *Why Are You Opposed to Trump?*
> 
> I've always been opposed to self aggrandizing blowhard bullies.
> 
> It's what I do.



You know... I wish there were some way to cull out retarded morons from the threads they have no business in. YOU aren't being asked this question, goofball. The OP is speaking to GOP voters in the midst of our primary... are you planning on being a GOP voter?  .....Now, you really do need to stop worrying about OUR primary... go find the thread discussing the merits of the Trotskyite vs. Leninist in your own damn primary. Stop showing everyone your level of retardation posting in the wrong threads!


----------



## HUGGY (Apr 29, 2016)

Boss said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > *Why Are You Opposed to Trump?*
> ...



The last time I voted for president I voted republican. ..and the time before that and so on and so forth.  I find it interesting that you feel that your opinion should be some factor in who I vote for or what threads I participate in to gather any information I can use to make my decision.

I'm sorry there are no NAZIS running this time.  You obviously need a strong authoritarian to suck up to.  The Donald has been all over the map politically as he has recently given Clinton a huuuuuge pile of cash.  Thankfully I don't have to squish any of you cockroaches to vote, if I choose to.  

The OP asks:
*Why Are You Opposed to Trump?*

Clearly this thread is more aimed at why voting republicans do not support Trump than your sad bully boi opinion.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 29, 2016)

Cecilie1200 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You are operating under the not-so-certain assumption that the GOP will retain power in Congress. Also, you are forgetting that the Congress, now run by the GOP never said no to Obama so why would they say no to Hillary? In addition, you are operating under the false assumption that though Trump is HATED by the GOP right now, suddenly they will like him when he is POTUS.

There is a GIANT hole in your theory. Hillary would be far far worse.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 29, 2016)

Boss said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Art__Allm said:
> ...



I don't give a rat's ass about the GOP, or Conservatives and their future. I care about US, my children and grandchildren's future. Hillary will do immediate and irreversible damage right away. Who gives a shit about winning the White House in 2020 when it's too fucking late?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 29, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



No, I'm really not operating under the assumption that the GOP will retain power.  I actually think he'd be harmful to that particular cause.  Please notice the part I have helpfully bolded.

Why would they say no to Hillary?  Because, again, she has a clunker of a personality and no particular following for them to feel "persuaded" by.  And as I mentioned, she has anti-charisma, where her "charms" actually galvanize people against her.

I never said they would "like" Trump.  Please stop thinking of this on childish student-body-president terms.  I said that they have never had the spine to oppose a charismatic (I don't personally see it in Trump's case, but people keep insisting it's true, and he certainly attracts low-IQ cultists, so . . .) President who can mobilize hordes of screaming followers, and that will only be exacerbated by that President having an (R) behind his name, and the screaming followers are, at least nominally, their own base.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 29, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



What's the point of "winning the White House" with a liberal disaster masquerading as a Republican?  What have you actually won?  Bragging rights?  Whoop de fucking do.


----------



## Boss (Apr 29, 2016)

PredFan said:


> I don't give a rat's ass about the GOP, or Conservatives and their future. I care about US, my children and grandchildren's future. Hillary will do immediate and irreversible damage right away. Who gives a shit about winning the White House in 2020 when it's too fucking late?



Well Pred, if you are of the impression that it's all over for this country and no use in us even trying to restore any semblance of the country we once knew... so we may as well elect a caustic jackhole and be amused while the ship goes down.... yeah, I guess I can see that as being a reason to vote for Trump. 

I think there is still time to recover and bring conservative principles back but if Trump gets elected, he is going to ass things up because he has no idea of what he's doing. The blame is going to the Republicans and Conservatives regardless. Tell your kids and grandkids to get prepared for living in a Socialist country.... that's all I can tell ya.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 29, 2016)

Cecilie1200 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



The point, as I said, is stopping Hillary.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 29, 2016)

Boss said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > I don't give a rat's ass about the GOP, or Conservatives and their future. I care about US, my children and grandchildren's future. Hillary will do immediate and irreversible damage right away. Who gives a shit about winning the White House in 2020 when it's too fucking late?
> ...



Think about it. When in the entire history of the US has an entitlement program if any kind ever been reversed? With Hillary, they will be added, increased, lengthened, and solidified into permanence. Obamacare? It will become single payer and never ever return. You are naive if you think any of the damage she will do can ever be fixed.

Do I believe it's all over? No, but it will be if Hillary is POTUS. That is my whole point.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Apr 29, 2016)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Crixus said:
> ...



I think it is a bit more subtle than simply saying because he donated 10% more to Dems than Reps over a 20 year period he is clearly more democratic. I haven't , nor do I intend to, spend my time analyzing each donation he has made with the idea it will give me some insight to his political leanings. Sounds like somebody is feeling a little butt hurt because her canidate is getting slapped around by an orange clown. Having no dog in the fight can help with objectivity.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Think about it. When in the entire history of the US has an entitlement program if any kind ever been reversed? With Hillary, they will be added, increased, lengthened, and solidified into permanence. Obamacare? It will become single payer and never ever return. You are naive if you think any of the damage she will do can ever be fixed.
> 
> Do I believe it's all over? No, but it will be if Hillary is POTUS. That is my whole point.



Under Trump, entitlement programs are going to be increased and expanded the same as under Hillary. The difference will be the salesman. Trump has gone on record saying he likes single payer. When he tells you he is going to repeal Obamacare and replace it with something better.... that's what he means. Single payer.  Not only will healthcare be government funded, he wants to set it up within the capitalist system so corporatists can screw the government.

You're being sold a bill of goods by a man who thinks you're not that smart. He's a New York liberal and has been his entire life... until he decided to run for president. Now he's like the Pied Piper with all you people following behind, bamboozled into believing he is going to do all these things he has promised... and he wouldn't dare lie to you because, well... he's not a politician!  Yeah right!


----------



## PredFan (Apr 30, 2016)

Boss said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Think about it. When in the entire history of the US has an entitlement program if any kind ever been reversed? With Hillary, they will be added, increased, lengthened, and solidified into permanence. Obamacare? It will become single payer and never ever return. You are naive if you think any of the damage she will do can ever be fixed.
> ...



You continue to criticise Trump because of what you think he might do and you ignore the fact of what Hillary WILL do. I didn't say trump was a saint, nor that he's a true conservative and for your information, I'm a Cruz supporter. 

Trump is the lesser of the two evils, and you don't agree. I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.


----------



## xband (Apr 30, 2016)

Trump Trump Trump.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



I was once on board with Trump but he pushed me off the train. As I said, I don't know that he would be "less evil" than Hillary in terms of the damage he is going to do to the Conservative movement. When he is done, a Republican or Conservative can hang it up... we'll never see one elected again. That's MY fear... that he is going to so damage the brand that we will never recover. 

I am almost to the point of thinking, Hillary would have to battle Congress to get her SCOTUS picks and everything else, while conservatives could still make their case to the American people. I seriously doubt that narcissistic bitch can get through 4 years without getting herself impeached. Meanwhile, we keep control of Congress and in 4 years, run a principled conservative with a principled conservative message. 

If I honestly believed Trump was a Conservative, committed to fundamental Conservative philosophy, I wouldn't have any problem voting for him in the general election.... but I know he is not. And every single thing he does that can be turned into something bad-- will be turned into something deplorable and paraded around by the left as an example of modern Conservatism. Think of how we took it in the shorts for all the Bush mistakes. Conservatives are STILL being blamed for Bush.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 30, 2016)

Boss said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Just like the other person, you assume two incorrect things:
1. That the GOP will retain control of congress.
2. That given that, they won't cow tow to anything Hillary wants just like they did for 0bama.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 30, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



No, that's YOUR point.  MY point is for the country I love to have a good President who will reverse the damage that's been done so that my children can grow up and live in the same United States I did.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 30, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



It's amazing how you can hear something I never said, and then continue to hear it and argue against it despite being told that you're imagining shit.  They have meds for hallucinations like that, you know.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 30, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...



I would consider it extremely helpful if you Trumpwits would make an effort to read and understand more than just the first line of a post before gasbagging your "wisdom" back.

Had you bothered to do so before getting your Trump panties in a ruffle with the need to defend the Orange Messiah, you would have noticed in the third paragraph that during specific election cycles, particularly the one that gave us the wonders of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, Trump's donation balance shifted SIGNIFICANTLY more than 10% difference to the Democrats.

Unless, y'know, the new Common Core math tells us that $77,200 is only 10% more than $24,250 and $40,500 is only 10% more than $17,250.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Just like the other person, you assume two incorrect things:
> 1. That the GOP will retain control of congress.
> 2. That given that, they won't cow tow to anything Hillary wants just like they did for 0bama.



Well nothing can be assumed but I don't know what kind of crystal ball you have that says we will lose Congress. Time and time again, the electorate shows we like balance... A republican president... a democrat congress... and visa versa. So with Democrats continuing their reign in the White House, Republicans are more likely to remain in control of Congress. 

As for Establishment republicans catering to Hillary like they did for Obama... I should think they would have learned their lesson by now. If they continue what they've done, the conservative voice I mentioned earlier won't be running on the GOP ticket... there will be a new party in town.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 30, 2016)

Cecilie1200 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I know what your point is but if you remember, the reason we are having this discussion is because you disagree with MY POINT.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 30, 2016)

Cecilie1200 said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



Ok, you are a fellow conservative so I was trying to be patient and nice. But you have chosen to be an idiot about this.

Dismissed.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 30, 2016)

Boss said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Just like the other person, you assume two incorrect things:
> ...



Unfortunately the GOP Elite has fallen in much the same manner as the Demicrats. They don't really care who wins or loses, they only care about maintaining the status quo. This is why they did nothing to stop 0bama and why they will do nothing to stop Hillary. It is also why the status quo in both sides hates Ted Cruz. He isn't one of them. They DO NOT LIKE THAT.

It isn't that they can't learn a lesson, it's that they won't.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Apr 30, 2016)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



First, if you have ever read any of my post or are capable of remembering them, you will know I am not a Trumpster.

Second, if you think you can accurately chart the political leanings of Donald Trump based on how much money he gave to who and when, then I am guessing that man caused global climate change science also makes sense to you. 

BTW- the 10% figure was based on the numbers you provided-

Between 1989 and 2010, The Donald gave $314,300 to Democratic groups and candidates and $290,600 to Republicans, according to a Daily Caller analysis of records maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.
This shows about $24k difference of around $300k to each party, roughly 10% more to the left than the right over 20 years. Just like I stated earlier. In my opinion, this is not a very significant difference.

I only made a minor point that he has been mostly politically neutral for most of his business career. I stand by that statement. 

Emotion and arrogance can make some people very unpleasant.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Unfortunately the GOP Elite has fallen in much the same manner as the Demicrats. They don't really care who wins or loses, they only care about maintaining the status quo. This is why they did nothing to stop 0bama and why they will do nothing to stop Hillary. It is also why the status quo in both sides hates Ted Cruz. He isn't one of them. They DO NOT LIKE THAT.
> 
> It isn't that they can't learn a lesson, it's that they won't.



You may be right, in which case... we're watching history happen... the demise of a major political party. 

Many of these establishment elites are going to find themselves in heated re-election campaigns. Many of them are going to be sent packing for home. We're going to keep electing principled conservatives like Ted Cruz and eventually, we will regain control of the party. 

SOME of them are seeing the writing on the wall... we see this in how they are now coming to support Cruz over Trump. Believe me, they don't want to support Cruz but they don't have any other choice at this point.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Apr 30, 2016)

Boss said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately the GOP Elite has fallen in much the same manner as the Demicrats. They don't really care who wins or loses, they only care about maintaining the status quo. This is why they did nothing to stop 0bama and why they will do nothing to stop Hillary. It is also why the status quo in both sides hates Ted Cruz. He isn't one of them. They DO NOT LIKE THAT.
> ...



Your analysis makes sense BOSS. It almost seems Cruz is being found guilty by association with the RNC, when the reality is, he is an outsider in the traditional sense. Donald just more outsidered him, and the RNC was so clueless about the anger level. It looks to be too late for him now however.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Your analysis makes sense BOSS. It almost seems Cruz is being found guilty by association with the RNC, when the reality is, he is an outsider in the traditional sense. Donald just more outsidered him, and the RNC was so clueless about the anger level. It looks to be too late for him now however.



But it's really NOT too late. The Trump brigade wants us to think that it's too late, that Cruz has no chance, that if Cruz wins it's a "rigged system" or whatever... those things are only going to serve in dividing us more should Cruz prevail, but this is very much still anybody's race to win. 

In 1860, Lincoln trailed Seward in the delegate count going into the GOP convention.... it wasn't over... it wasn't a rigged system... Seward simply failed to win the nomination on the first ballot and Lincoln eventually secured the delegates to reach a majority and be the nominee. This happened again with Eisenhower.... he trailed the establishment pick, Taft.... same thing, Taft didn't have a majority... only a plurality... he didn't WIN the nomination. 

So this can still go to Cruz in a brokered convention. Or... it could be like the brokered convention in 1976, where Ford goes into the convention with the plurality but not the majority and Ronald Reagan was unsuccessful in securing delegates on subsequent ballots and Ford eventually did. Trump could wield his phenomenal deal-making ability at the convention and win on the second ballot. 

But... It's not "too late" and it is never "over" until someone gets 1,237 delegates locked up.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Apr 30, 2016)

Boss said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Your analysis makes sense BOSS. It almost seems Cruz is being found guilty by association with the RNC, when the reality is, he is an outsider in the traditional sense. Donald just more outsidered him, and the RNC was so clueless about the anger level. It looks to be too late for him now however.
> ...



So at this point, you are suggesting as long as Trump doesn't have 1237 going in, that is the only hope Cruz has left? That's my impression.

Cruz getting enough of the RNC to lean on Pence for the endorsement certainly suggest that Cruz knows he can't let Donny get 1237 before Cleveland. But in all reality, it's a long shot, even if DT doesn't have it before the convention, he has the deeper pockets to move delegates.

I would have to get 5 to 1 odds to bet on Cruz now, and I still probably like the other side of that bet.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 30, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Yes, and MY point is the reason I disagree with YOUR point.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 30, 2016)

Boss said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately the GOP Elite has fallen in much the same manner as the Demicrats. They don't really care who wins or loses, they only care about maintaining the status quo. This is why they did nothing to stop 0bama and why they will do nothing to stop Hillary. It is also why the status quo in both sides hates Ted Cruz. He isn't one of them. They DO NOT LIKE THAT.
> ...



Boehner's comments express the true feelings of the establishment GOP. That party is already done itself in. People have it wrong when they say that Trump is destroying the GOP. They have already done that, Trump is just a symptom, a result of what they have done. The way they treated Cruz before and now is also a symptom. I'm past worrying about the conservative brand and am now only worried about this country and its future.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 30, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



"You have chosen to dislike Donald Trump AND insist that I actually read your posts, instead of just deriding what I want to think you said.  Therefore, I am going to pretend to withdraw the respect I actually never gave you at all."

You stopped being a "fellow conservative" the instant you went in the tank for Trump, and this crap just proves it.

Call me when your balls grow back.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 30, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



It isn't yet too late for Cruz.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 30, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...



First, I have both seen and remembered your posts, and you can try to fool yourself all you like.  If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it doesn't matter if it calls itself a swan.

Second, if you think you CAN'T tell a person's political leanings by who they support financially, then you're kidding yourself about yet another thing.  What it has to do with climate change, I have no clue.

By the way, AGAIN, there was more to the post than the first couple of sentences you skimmed before sallying forth to defend Narcissus-on-Fifth-Avenue's honor.  Am I going to say it for you yet a third time, in the vain hope that you'll FINALLY notice it?  No.

You only made the INCORRECT point that you want to believe he's been politically neutral, and you can "stand by it" all you like.  It's still bullshit.

Ignorance is even more unpleasant.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 30, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...



Claims of inevitability aside, they're both hanging on a slim chance, however much the Trumpettes want to distract from it.

Trump HAS to win on the first ballot.  If he doesn't, he might as well go home at that point, because his delegate count will only go down in subsequent ballots.  "Mr. Dealmaker" has proven that he's a fish out of water when it comes to persuading the delegates themselves.  So if he can't get enough delegates who are forced to vote for him (in other words, on that first ballot), he's out.

Cruz, on the other hand, HAS to stop Trump from winning that first ballot.  If he can do that, then the second ballot is most likely his.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Apr 30, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



I'm am with you on the point that the GOP did themselves in, Trump just came along at the right time.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Apr 30, 2016)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Ok, but why do you find in necessary to be so nasty to those you disagree with? Are you a happy person?


----------



## Vandalshandle (Apr 30, 2016)

Trump supporters are a lot like two year olds who through their vanilla cone away because they wanted chocolate.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 30, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...



I'm not.  I am perfectly capable of being polite to sensible, thoughtful posters . . . as, indeed, I was to you when we first started talking.  But where some people do not suffer fools gladly, I don't suffer them at all.  Ignorance is annoying, and stupidity (ignorance which is proud of itself and determined to continue that way) is infuriating.  I do not offer respect when it is demanded, only when it is earned.  And stupid only earns contempt.

And yes, not that it's any of your business, but I am generally quite happy and good-natured, probably due to the fact that I'm not repressing my true feelings all the time.

My question is, why do people who have no problem with the way Trump acts constantly have their panties in a wad about "nasty", "rude", etc. in anyone who isn't named Donald Trump?  I at least come up with better insults than the rudimentary schoolyard "you're an ugly loser!" crap he spews.


----------



## Chuz Life (Apr 30, 2016)

Boss said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Boss said:
> ...



I diagree with part of your post. 

I think that (if anything) this whole Trump deal will result in a stronger more electable pool of conservative candidates next election cycle. 

Conservatives do not abandon their core beliefs and principles, just because they occasionaly lose on popularity. 

If this election comes down to either Trump or Hitlary being elected. . . The result will be an increasing demand for a more conservative  (in my opinion) to address those principled concerns next tome.


----------



## Boss (Apr 30, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Boss said:
> 
> 
> > BuckToothMoron said:
> ...



I never said it was going to be a cake walk for Cruz. I realize at this point it is a long shot... hence the Fiorina nomination. I think he is banking on this pulling the women's vote out west and giving him a windfall in California to put him over Trump for those massive delegates (possibly).  That, coupled with some other critical wins and Cruz is right back in this thing, not far behind Trump who will not get the 1,237 by the convention. Now... if Cruz loses big in California to Trump... all bets are off... Cruz literally has a snowball's chance in hell. 

But the point is... this ain't over and it's not likely to be over until the last primary in California and possibly not until after the first ballot at the convention. The "fat lady" is still waiting on the limo at her hotel.


----------



## jillian (Apr 30, 2016)

jwoodie said:


> Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness.  It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.
> 
> IF it becomes a Presidential election between Trump and Clinton, what OBJECTIVE standards would you apply in deciding how you would vote?
> 
> ...



he's a bigoted misogynist  populist


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 1, 2016)

jillian said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the current opposition to Trump is primarily based on style and political incorrectness.  It also seems to include a suggestion of racism, even though this inference is derived solely from his positions on immigration and national security.
> ...


He’s also a warmonger, a liar, a fraud, and completely ignorant of sound, responsible governance.


----------



## BuckToothMoron (May 1, 2016)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Sorry, I just find you very caustic. I enjoy debate and discussion, but with you there are always personal attacks. People can disagree without making personal attacks, they can do it with respect and dignity, and not turn it into a contest of who has the best insult. 

I am here to listen to others and express my thoughts, and hopefully learn something along the way. Why are you here?


----------



## BuckToothMoron (May 1, 2016)

Vandalshandle said:


> Trump supporters are a lot like two year olds who through their vanilla cone away because they wanted chocolate.



And Hellary supporters are like the parents who appease that 2 year old by buying him a chocolate cone, because nobody should ever be unhappy.


----------



## Chuz Life (May 2, 2016)

BuckToothMoron said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Trump supporters are a lot like two year olds who through their vanilla cone away because they wanted chocolate.
> ...



Close.

But , more than likely the Hitlary supporterz would take whatever action was needed to force the ice cream vendor to give the child what he wanted and then force him to pay for the clean up of the vanilla cone too.


----------

