HOLY TOLEDO! New poll has Trump at 32% WhoooooooooooooHoooooooooooooooooo!

[Toro]

I believe he's going to end up running as an Independent.

Well... he'll have to lose the GOP nomination first.

Do you think Trump's going to win?

 

[Slyhunter]

I believe he's going to end up running as an Independent.

Well... he'll have to lose the GOP nomination first.

Do you think Trump's going to win?

Trump is going to kick ass.

 

[ABikerSailor]

He's going to have a campaign event in Iowa at the state fair today.

What crazy crap do you think he's gonna say this time?

 

[Boss]

He's going to have a campaign event in Iowa at the state fair today.

What crazy crap do you think he's gonna say this time?

I kinda think there is a purpose behind all the 'outrageous' things he has said. It's almost as if he is setting up liberals or establishment GOPers... baiting them... saying something so "off the course" that they can't resist running out there and drawing attention to it with their willing accomplice, the media, leading the charge... then *boom* it suddenly turns into political points for him because what he said was true or needed to be said. Meanwhile, he relishes the media attention, isn't afraid of being controversial, and the public is resonating with that.

I had considered writing an OP about "How to beat Trump" a few weeks ago but decided against it... don't want to give away any ideas. The first thing I would suggest NOT doing is drawing attention to him or what he says. Trump is going to beat your brains in if you try to take him down by putting him in the spotlight.

 

[Slyhunter]

<div style='text-align:center'>
<script type='text/javascript' src='https://spshared.5min.com/Scripts/P...=560&height=314&playList=519007953'></script>
<br/>
</div>

My sister found a "aol on" video of Donald taking turns doing his hotel employees jobs. I can't find a version I can paste and copy or a version in youtube

Found it --> Donald Trump Gets Put to Work - AOL On

 

[Montrovant]

He's going to have a campaign event in Iowa at the state fair today.

What crazy crap do you think he's gonna say this time?

I kinda think there is a purpose behind all the 'outrageous' things he has said. It's almost as if he is setting up liberals or establishment GOPers... baiting them... saying something so "off the course" that they can't resist running out there and drawing attention to it with their willing accomplice, the media, leading the charge... then *boom* it suddenly turns into political points for him because what he said was true or needed to be said. Meanwhile, he relishes the media attention, isn't afraid of being controversial, and the public is resonating with that.

I had considered writing an OP about "How to beat Trump" a few weeks ago but decided against it... don't want to give away any ideas. The first thing I would suggest NOT doing is drawing attention to him or what he says. Trump is going to beat your brains in if you try to take him down by putting him in the spotlight.

That's possible, but I think you are attributing planning and calculation to him where it doesn't exist. That is especially true when some of the 'controversial' things he has said certainly did not need to be said; his comments about Megyn Kelly, saying he'll build a wall on the southern border and Mexico will pay for it, saying he has a fool-proof plan to defeat ISIS, these aren't things that needed to be said for any reason pertinent to the presidential race. Is the country better off talking about Megyn Kelly? Is the country better off wondering how Trump could get Mexico to pay for a wall, or defeat ISIS? Are the latter two subjects that were not talked about previous to Trump's comments?

I can certainly agree that he relishes the attention and doesn't mind being controversial. Whether 'the public is resonating with that' is a different question. Do you just mean the voting public? Assuming that you do, wouldn't you think that probably a third or so won't agree with or connect with Trump no matter what he says because he's running GOP? Then there are those polls which place Trump as both the most liked and most disliked candidate among the GOP field. I think Trump is resonating with a segment of the public, one which, perhaps, is growing, but I think he is probably a ways away from having even a majority of the voting public behind him. Obviously as much speculation on my part as yours, just IMO.

 

[Boss]

He's going to have a campaign event in Iowa at the state fair today.

What crazy crap do you think he's gonna say this time?

I kinda think there is a purpose behind all the 'outrageous' things he has said. It's almost as if he is setting up liberals or establishment GOPers... baiting them... saying something so "off the course" that they can't resist running out there and drawing attention to it with their willing accomplice, the media, leading the charge... then *boom* it suddenly turns into political points for him because what he said was true or needed to be said. Meanwhile, he relishes the media attention, isn't afraid of being controversial, and the public is resonating with that.

I had considered writing an OP about "How to beat Trump" a few weeks ago but decided against it... don't want to give away any ideas. The first thing I would suggest NOT doing is drawing attention to him or what he says. Trump is going to beat your brains in if you try to take him down by putting him in the spotlight.

That's possible, but I think you are attributing planning and calculation to him where it doesn't exist. That is especially true when some of the 'controversial' things he has said certainly did not need to be said; his comments about Megyn Kelly, saying he'll build a wall on the southern border and Mexico will pay for it, saying he has a fool-proof plan to defeat ISIS, these aren't things that needed to be said for any reason pertinent to the presidential race. Is the country better off talking about Megyn Kelly? Is the country better off wondering how Trump could get Mexico to pay for a wall, or defeat ISIS? Are the latter two subjects that were not talked about previous to Trump's comments?

I can certainly agree that he relishes the attention and doesn't mind being controversial. Whether 'the public is resonating with that' is a different question. Do you just mean the voting public? Assuming that you do, wouldn't you think that probably a third or so won't agree with or connect with Trump no matter what he says because he's running GOP? Then there are those polls which place Trump as both the most liked and most disliked candidate among the GOP field. I think Trump is resonating with a segment of the public, one which, perhaps, is growing, but I think he is probably a ways away from having even a majority of the voting public behind him. Obviously as much speculation on my part as yours, just IMO.

Well first of all, anything he said about Megyn Kelly was richly deserved. She ambushed him with a biased and hackish question full of no-context remarks he made. Now I think the man has made it clear, respect him and play nice or you're not going to like what happens next. I think the GOP needs those kind of testicles to take on the radical liberal left.

His plan to have Mexico pay for the wall is so very simple and it's, as he says, 100% guaranteed. In fact, he says they will probably just pay for it without any question... but if they don't, we tack on some heavy trade tariffs on their products coming in to the US and they will pay that way. One way or another, they will pay for the wall.... and they should.

And on ISIS... I see nothing wrong with his idea at all... it's what we should have done to begin with and what many were clamoring for us to do... take the damn oil. Stop pussyfooting around with these cats and hit them where it hurts... their oil wells. You can't fund Jihad with sand. Yes... it's a ballsy statement... Much like Reagan vs. Iranian hostage takers... they didn't hesitate to release the hostages as soon as he was sworn in. There is a reason for that.

But again... back to the statements which have drawn so much fire... First it was about illegal immigrants who are mostly criminals flooding across our borders, killing, raping and robbing innocent American citizens. He said what he said, the media ran with it for nearly two weeks, trying their best to smear him... FAIL. His support began to skyrocket. Then his comment about McCain... juxtaposed with his vocal dissatisfaction of how we are treating our veterans like second-class citizens. Again, the media runs with it for a week or so trying to smear him... FAIL AGAIN! He continues to surge in the polls. It's almost as if he has calculated it.... maybe not, but he sure does have a pretty good batting average going on this stuff.

 

[Slyhunter]

Those illegals crossing the border is an act of war. Mexico will either pay to stop the flow or go to war with us.

 

[Montrovant]

He's going to have a campaign event in Iowa at the state fair today.

What crazy crap do you think he's gonna say this time?

I kinda think there is a purpose behind all the 'outrageous' things he has said. It's almost as if he is setting up liberals or establishment GOPers... baiting them... saying something so "off the course" that they can't resist running out there and drawing attention to it with their willing accomplice, the media, leading the charge... then *boom* it suddenly turns into political points for him because what he said was true or needed to be said. Meanwhile, he relishes the media attention, isn't afraid of being controversial, and the public is resonating with that.

I had considered writing an OP about "How to beat Trump" a few weeks ago but decided against it... don't want to give away any ideas. The first thing I would suggest NOT doing is drawing attention to him or what he says. Trump is going to beat your brains in if you try to take him down by putting him in the spotlight.

That's possible, but I think you are attributing planning and calculation to him where it doesn't exist. That is especially true when some of the 'controversial' things he has said certainly did not need to be said; his comments about Megyn Kelly, saying he'll build a wall on the southern border and Mexico will pay for it, saying he has a fool-proof plan to defeat ISIS, these aren't things that needed to be said for any reason pertinent to the presidential race. Is the country better off talking about Megyn Kelly? Is the country better off wondering how Trump could get Mexico to pay for a wall, or defeat ISIS? Are the latter two subjects that were not talked about previous to Trump's comments?

I can certainly agree that he relishes the attention and doesn't mind being controversial. Whether 'the public is resonating with that' is a different question. Do you just mean the voting public? Assuming that you do, wouldn't you think that probably a third or so won't agree with or connect with Trump no matter what he says because he's running GOP? Then there are those polls which place Trump as both the most liked and most disliked candidate among the GOP field. I think Trump is resonating with a segment of the public, one which, perhaps, is growing, but I think he is probably a ways away from having even a majority of the voting public behind him. Obviously as much speculation on my part as yours, just IMO.

Well first of all, anything he said about Megyn Kelly was richly deserved. She ambushed him with a biased and hackish question full of no-context remarks he made. Now I think the man has made it clear, respect him and play nice or you're not going to like what happens next. I think the GOP needs those kind of testicles to take on the radical liberal left.

His plan to have Mexico pay for the wall is so very simple and it's, as he says, 100% guaranteed. In fact, he says they will probably just pay for it without any question... but if they don't, we tack on some heavy trade tariffs on their products coming in to the US and they will pay that way. One way or another, they will pay for the wall.... and they should.

And on ISIS... I see nothing wrong with his idea at all... it's what we should have done to begin with and what many were clamoring for us to do... take the damn oil. Stop pussyfooting around with these cats and hit them where it hurts... their oil wells. You can't fund Jihad with sand. Yes... it's a ballsy statement... Much like Reagan vs. Iranian hostage takers... they didn't hesitate to release the hostages as soon as he was sworn in. There is a reason for that.

But again... back to the statements which have drawn so much fire... First it was about illegal immigrants who are mostly criminals flooding across our borders, killing, raping and robbing innocent American citizens. He said what he said, the media ran with it for nearly two weeks, trying their best to smear him... FAIL. His support began to skyrocket. Then his comment about McCain... juxtaposed with his vocal dissatisfaction of how we are treating our veterans like second-class citizens. Again, the media runs with it for a week or so trying to smear him... FAIL AGAIN! He continues to surge in the polls. It's almost as if he has calculated it.... maybe not, but he sure does have a pretty good batting average going on this stuff.

We're still more than a year away from the election. Trump has been leading the GOP polls I've seen so far, but I have yet to see him winning any polls overall rather than just among GOP candidates. I think saying the public resonates with Trump is a fairly strong exaggeration.

As far as his 'solutions', they sound like so much bluster to me. Mexico will build a wall? Why, because he says so? Of course he's got an out, we'll impose tariffs. Maybe that will work, I don't know the numbers for Mexican importation to the US and the actual cost of building a border wall, particularly an effective border wall. Honestly, I've found the idea of building a wall to be bluster whoever is saying it.

Take ISIS's oil? So we are going to invade some more countries and take over this time? Expansionist, colonialism, whatever you want to call it, we'll just invade Iraq (yet again), Syria, maybe Iran or Jordan or Turkey should ISIS gain a foothold in those countries? And then we'll, what, call them new territories and put up military bases, maybe start shipping over civilians to live there?

Trump seems to be enamored with bold yet simple 'plans', few if any of which are likely to ever occur even should he end up as president. Do we need to talk about things which are probably never going to happen and would likely not have the outcome imagined anyway?

 

[Boss]

Those illegals crossing the border is an act of war. Mexico will either pay to stop the flow or go to war with us.

Nope... no need for war.

I don't know, maybe people are dumb and don't get this but...

Mexico depends on us.

Like, Big Time!

They WILL pay. 100% Guaranteed.

 

[Montrovant]

Those illegals crossing the border is an act of war. Mexico will either pay to stop the flow or go to war with us.

Nope... no need for war.

I don't know, maybe people are dumb and don't get this but...

Mexico depends on us.

Like, Big Time!

They WILL pay. 100% Guaranteed.

That's an easy guarantee to make, considering the unlikelihood of it ever being put to the test.

 

[Boss]

We're still more than a year away from the election. Trump has been leading the GOP polls I've seen so far, but I have yet to see him winning any polls overall rather than just among GOP candidates. I think saying the public resonates with Trump is a fairly strong exaggeration.

As far as his 'solutions', they sound like so much bluster to me. Mexico will build a wall? Why, because he says so? Of course he's got an out, we'll impose tariffs. Maybe that will work, I don't know the numbers for Mexican importation to the US and the actual cost of building a border wall, particularly an effective border wall. Honestly, I've found the idea of building a wall to be bluster whoever is saying it.

Take ISIS's oil? So we are going to invade some more countries and take over this time? Expansionist, colonialism, whatever you want to call it, we'll just invade Iraq (yet again), Syria, maybe Iran or Jordan or Turkey should ISIS gain a foothold in those countries? And then we'll, what, call them new territories and put up military bases, maybe start shipping over civilians to live there?

Trump seems to be enamored with bold yet simple 'plans', few if any of which are likely to ever occur even should he end up as president. Do we need to talk about things which are probably never going to happen and would likely not have the outcome imagined anyway?

Few points...

You're right, we're still a LONG LONG way from election time. Lots can change.

Mexico will build a wall? Why, because he says so?

He didn't say Mexico will build a wall... We'll build it... they'll pay for it.
Why? Because they depend on the United States and our trade dollars.

Honestly, I've found the idea of building a wall to be bluster whoever is saying it.

I don't think Trump is blustering. I think he intends to build the damn wall.

Take ISIS's oil? So we are going to invade some more countries and take over this time?

Nope. Just the oil wells which fund ISIS. We should have taken the oil the last time.

Expansionist, colonialism, whatever you want to call it...

I call it "national security" and defending yourself against an enemy who declared war on you 20 years ago and has been at war with you since.

And then we'll, what, call them new territories and put up military bases, maybe start shipping over civilians to live there?

Maybe so... Shell, Exxon and Mobil will need personnel to pump the oil and stuff. We could rename Iraq... call it Trumpistan!

Trump seems to be enamored with bold yet simple 'plans'

Yes... Bold colors and no pale pastels. Hmmm... who said that again?

Do we need to talk about things which are probably never going to happen and would likely not have the outcome imagined anyway?

Only if you need to further demonstrate your defeatist attitude and cynical negativism. I'm fine either way... we can talk about it or not talk about it. Many of the things Reagan proposed were said to be "impossible" and "could never happen in a million years." In fact, when he walked away from the SALT talks, liberals screamed that he was going to start WWIII by pissing off the Soviets. He ended the Cold War. You see, he didn't believe that bullshit. He wasn't a defeatist. Trump... warts and all, is also not a defeatist.

 

[Skylar]

He said nothing about "continued federal funding for PP." He said he would look at the individual things they do. BTW... Federal funding for PP is something CONGRESS decides, not the President.

What is your point that Congress funds PP and not the president? Presidential candidates take positions on issues that requrie congressional funding all the time. Every presidential candidate has taken a position on this matter. And the 'wall' with Mexicothat Trump speaks of would be funded by Congress, not the President. The 'fines' would have to be assessed by congress.

Making your assertion meaningless gibberish.

“It's like an abortion factory. You can't have it and you shouldn't be funding it and that should not be funded by the government....

....If the time came, I would look at the individual things that they do and maybe some of the things are good, and maybe -- I know a lot of the things are bad,” Trump said. “I would look at the good aspects of it and I would also look because I'm sure they do some things properly and good and good for women.”

Donald Trump Suggests Support of Some Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood - ABC News

But he's not talking about funding when he says he'd look at the individual things that PP does?

Of course he was. This is one of those lovely situations where you can try and spin Trump's words all you like. And all I have to do is quote him directly and you lose. He's clearly expressing support for federal funding PP.

Deny it and I'll just quote him again.

 

[Skylar]

I call it "national security" and defending yourself against an enemy who declared war on you 20 years ago and has been at war with you since.

Going to a foreign land, occupying it indefinitely and stripping it natural resources is 'national security'? Has that ever worked?

And then we'll, what, call them new territories and put up military bases, maybe start shipping over civilians to live there?

Maybe so... Shell, Exxon and Mobil will need personnel to pump the oil and stuff. We could rename Iraq... call it Trumpistan!

Do you understand how expensive this would be? How much more conflict it would cause? How many lives it would cost? How would Iraq care for itself if we strip if of its most valuable natural resources?

It would take a generation to pump all the oil out of that country. And in the meantime, we're responsible for every aspect of its national security, its people, everything. We'd be minting jihadists by the day, with our troops in a 30 year war in foreign land.

And that's just Iraq. You're also insisting we do the same thing to Syria and Iran. You're talking about a 3 or 4 front war that will last a generation or two. And cost hundreds of thousands of lives. Many of them ours. With the people in every region we seize against us.

What would be their motivation for supporting us in anyway? After all, we're merely there to 'take their oil'. They don't see any of the revenue from their own natural resources. With their people held in generations long military occupation. You're begging for massive insurrections.

And all this assumes that NO other country will become involved. Which is fantastically unlikely. Meaning that we'd be facing the troops, or at the very least the weapons of other nations in the region in addition to all the people.

Its the stupidest fucking idea I've ever heard.

Only if you need to further demonstrate your defeatist attitude and cynical negativism.

Or....acknowledge history, consequence, or reality. You don't just occupy 3 countries and then nothing bad ever happens.

Or do you expect the Iraqi's to 'greet us as liberators' as the Bush administration promised. How'd that work out again? And I'm sure the Iranians, a 30 year enemy would just line the streets with rose pedals when we bomb their people and take their oil.

Right?

This is why I don't want a conservative at the helm. They genuinely want *never ending war*. And if we don't have it, they'll gladly start it.

 

[Boss]

He said nothing about "continued federal funding for PP." He said he would look at the individual things they do. BTW... Federal funding for PP is something CONGRESS decides, not the President.

What is your point that Congress funds PP and not the president? Presidential candidates take positions on issues that requrie congressional funding all the time. Every presidential candidate has taken a position on this matter. And the 'wall' with Mexicothat Trump speaks of would be funded by Congress, not the President. The 'fines' would have to be assessed by congress.

Making your assertion meaningless gibberish.

“It's like an abortion factory. You can't have it and you shouldn't be funding it and that should not be funded by the government....

....If the time came, I would look at the individual things that they do and maybe some of the things are good, and maybe -- I know a lot of the things are bad,” Trump said. “I would look at the good aspects of it and I would also look because I'm sure they do some things properly and good and good for women.”

Donald Trump Suggests Support of Some Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood - ABC News

But he's not talking about funding when he says he'd look at the individual things that PP does?

Of course he was. This is one of those lovely situations where you can try and spin Trump's words all you like. And all I have to do is quote him directly and you lose. He's clearly expressing support for federal funding PP.

Deny it and I'll just quote him again.

Please articulate for us, if you can, what are the specific problems you have with Trump's position? I ask this because, to me anyway, it seems like he was being reasonable and rational... we should look at the body of work... consider the benefits PP provides to many women. If you are opposed to that, it's fine, but you need to tell us why.

I don't personally feel our federal tax dollars should fund PP at all... that is my opinion. They may very well provide great services for women but that doesn't mean I think we should all pay for that. We certainly shouldn't be paying for abortions... or worse, parting out fetuses.

And my point about Congress funding things is, the president only signs bills sent by Congress, he doesn't write the legislation. He can talk about what he wants to do or would like to do, but Congress ultimately has the final say... Unless of course, you're Obama.

That said, the people have clearly spoken when it comes to securing the border. If Trump wins, his party will introduce legislation in accordance with his plan and Congress will pass it.

 

[Boss]

Do you understand how expensive this would be? How much more conflict it would cause? How many lives it would cost? How would Iraq care for itself if we strip if of its most valuable natural resources?

It wouldn't be that expensive... oil is pretty valuable.
I'm not concerned about "conflict" as long as Americans are having their heads sawed off.
Also not worried about lives lost or how much it costs... or how Iraq takes care of itself.
I'm only concerned about defeating an enemy who has been at war with us for 20 years.

 

[Skylar]

He said nothing about "continued federal funding for PP." He said he would look at the individual things they do. BTW... Federal funding for PP is something CONGRESS decides, not the President.

What is your point that Congress funds PP and not the president? Presidential candidates take positions on issues that requrie congressional funding all the time. Every presidential candidate has taken a position on this matter. And the 'wall' with Mexicothat Trump speaks of would be funded by Congress, not the President. The 'fines' would have to be assessed by congress.

Making your assertion meaningless gibberish.

“It's like an abortion factory. You can't have it and you shouldn't be funding it and that should not be funded by the government....

....If the time came, I would look at the individual things that they do and maybe some of the things are good, and maybe -- I know a lot of the things are bad,” Trump said. “I would look at the good aspects of it and I would also look because I'm sure they do some things properly and good and good for women.”

Donald Trump Suggests Support of Some Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood - ABC News

But he's not talking about funding when he says he'd look at the individual things that PP does?

Of course he was. This is one of those lovely situations where you can try and spin Trump's words all you like. And all I have to do is quote him directly and you lose. He's clearly expressing support for federal funding PP.

Deny it and I'll just quote him again.

Please articulate for us, if you can, what are the specific problems you have with Trump's position?

\

I have no problems with Trump's position. Its the position of Planned Parenthood itself, which thanked Trump.

No federal funding for abortion. Federal funding for the women's health services that makes up the overwhelming majority of the work that PP does.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

Conservatives on the other hand have taken a view that is much less sympathetic to Planned Parenthood, insisting that all federal funding be cut and that the funds be given to other women's health providers. A stark contrast to Trump's position. So we have conservatives on one side, and Trump on the other.

But Trump is a 'true conservative'?

Um, no. I find it amusing to see how far conservatives will bend their own positions to match whatever comes out of that man's mouth.

 

[Amazon]

I honestly hope that Trump wins the Republican nomination. I was pulling for Sarah Palin's camp for the same reasons.

Chances are, his nomination would result in a landslide victory for the other side, and that would prompt whatever intelligent, responsible Republicans are left to re-evaluate their party.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Those illegals crossing the border is an act of war. Mexico will either pay to stop the flow or go to war with us.

Ooooh, such saber-rattling!!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Skylar]

Do you understand how expensive this would be? How much more conflict it would cause? How many lives it would cost? How would Iraq care for itself if we strip if of its most valuable natural resources?

It wouldn't be that expensive... oil is pretty valuable.

\

We'd have to take care of the nation AND defend it AND fund the military actions to hold the territory in a 30 year war. How much do you think that would cost?

Remembering of course that the people of Syria, Iraq, Iran and all the insurgent groups that we create by invading and occupying their land for at least a generation or two will be against us.

As we're only their to strip their land of natural resources.

I'm not concerned about "conflict" as long as Americans are having their heads sawed off.

I know you're not concerned about conflict. But rational people are. These are actual lives that are lost. These are actual insurgent groups that our conflicts create. And as 911 demonstrated, this shit doesn't stay in the overseas theater. It spills over into neighboring countries and around the world.

This is roughly 100 million people you're talking about holding in military occupation for at least a generation. How do you think they would respond to it? Snuggles and butterfly kisses?

Also not worried about lives lost or how much it costs... or how Iraq takes care of itself.

I get that. But a rational person is. As to do otherwise is an international war crime. In addition to being spectacularly stupid. As you burn good will for the US, damage our relationships with our allies, kill millions of people, and fuels insurgencies against us.

Do you honestly think that telling 100,000,000 people to go fuck themselves and we don't care if they live or die is going to have no consequences? The starving people, the burned cities, the heaping dead are gonna be all over the news. The public outcry is going to be overwhelming both domestically and internationally.

There will almost certainly be war crimes tribunals in the Hague. Which will almost certainly lead to sanctions from foreign countries, including many of our allies. Which in turn will damage our economy.

And of course, its all going to act as recruiting footage for insurgents and radicalized muslims, motivating more attacks and more troops against us. Its a recruitment video created by us for our enemies to use against us.

Meaning more suicide bombings on our troops, more attacks on our allies, more subway bombings, more planes being bombed, more mass shootings on our military facilities, more attacks on our homeland.

And you don't even care, do you?

This is why I don't want a conservative in charge. Not only don't they factor in the consequences of their actions.....they genuinely don't give a shit.