Question for Trump supporters: Would this be okay with you?

[Uncensored2008]

Even if that were true, and I'm far from convinced it is, we've seen how well "GOP middle of the road" goes. Even Ronald Reagan ended up giving us a couple of Justices who got to Washington and "evolved".

That could happen, but even Kennedy is no Elena Kagan.

 

[Correll]

Do you really?

Because every time I see these issues breached, the discussion is buried under a pile of screaming hysterical libs.

Who are you talking to that actually responds in a meaningful way?

If you were thinking it was possible to "fix" the world such that there would never be an opposition, with varying levels of screaming hysteria, then I hate to puncture your illusion, but it ain't gonna happen.

And as it happens, on the topic of Donald Trump, YOU are my opposition, and we seem to be communicating meaningfully at the moment.

A fair point, re: there will always be some hysterical libs.

But a world where the Conventional Wisdom and the GOP leadership did not agree with them, does not seem to be too much to hope for.

And yes, we disagree very strongly on the issues, and yet manage to stay on topic.

So it can be done.

Well, conventional wisdom isn't terribly wise, and never will be. And there will always be sellouts. But you're correct that the sellouts should not be the heads of the ostensible "opposition".

The problem that I'm having with the Trump movement - other than Trump himself being a noxious creature - is that it's all anger, and it's the anger of the helpless victim. It's a position of weakness, rather than the righteous rage of the strong. It's all "Burn it down! Smash it!" with not much plan for what happens once you're standing in the rubble and ashes. And it looks for a savior to fix things, rather than everyone moving forward together. It has historical precedents in the French and Russian Revolutions - although not as extreme, since I don't THINK anyone's going to get executed - and as far back as Spartacus' slave revolt.

Well, considering the way that our collective interests have been completely ignored by both sides of the Political Elite and we keep getting fucked one way or another,

in that sense we have been "helpless" to effect the changes we have been wanting for way too long.

Have you considered that even if Trump is defeated, that this portion of the population that has been supporting him, will still be there just getting more and more frustrated with each defeat?

No, we haven't been helpless at all. We've been lazy and apathetic, and gulled into thinking our power lies in getting entrenched bureaucrats and politicians to listen to us, pretty please with sugar on top. How often do we impeach people who are egregious sleazebags? How often do we even vote the stupid fuckers out? How often do we bypass them entirely and pass laws ourselves when they refuse to? Hell, do you know how many states don't even HAVE an effective mechanism for the people to vote in their own laws?

We've completely forgotten that they get their power from us, and we allow them to tell us that we must request power from them. And they ignore us, because we let them.

And yeah, I do know that there are going to be a lot of people who are going to be angry no matter what happens. Have YOU considered that if Trump wins the nomination - or God help us, the election - you're going to have a two-front war, with the liberals on one side and the conservatives on the other, the same conservatives who started all of this with the Tea Party movement?

Yes, I have.

 

[BULLDOG]

OK. Is that the total difference?

If you want more information on how many of your policies trump supports, look it up yourself.

Not my policies. I'm well aware of where we differ or agree. I'm just wondering why the GOP is so hostile to him when he is only saying what they have advocated for a long time.

so you don't push for ethanol?

was that before or after you learned trump supported it

That was when it was made clear that producing ethanol used about as much energy as it produced. We need to develop more efficient energy sources, and subsidizing that development is a good idea. However, every effort won't be successful, and when they aren't, we need to pull back at least some on the less productive ones..

So why does it keep getting money?
why has the left dumped so much into failed solar?
why has the left dumped so much into animal and nature killing wind?

and wtf happened to no corporate welfare?

Is it actually different when it's something you want?

Investing in better energy sources is not corporate welfare. That's how the oil companies first got their subsidies. Continuing those subsidies long after the fledgling businesses develop their resources and no longer need the subsidies is corporate welfare.
Solar and wind still need more development, but they are still viable options. They haven't failed to the extent ethanol has. I know you're going to start whining about Solyndra now. Every effort doesn't pan out and Solyndra was one of those. Here is a link from a couple of years ago about the agency that loaned them the money. Over all it has worked out pretty good.

After Solyndra Loss, U.S. Energy Loan Program Turning A Profit

Overall, the agency has loaned $34.2 billion to a variety of businesses, under a program designed to speed up development of clean-energy technology. Companies have defaulted on $780 million of that — a loss rate of 2.28 percent. The agency also has collected $810 million in interest payments, putting the program $30 million in the black.

 

[BULLDOG]

From what I'm hearing, the GOP establishment is trying to downplay the possibility of a brokered convention. Surely they know it would cause a huge revolt within their own party. And regardless, there's nothing they can do if he gets the required votes.

Also, Trump's supporters have made it pretty clear that they've had it with the GOP and really don't care what it thinks about Trump. Okay.

So here's my question: Would you mind if the "establishment" ran and backed a more moderate Republican, like a Romney or a Ryan or a Rubio, and ran them third party?
.

If Trump goes to the convention with 1237+ delegates he will be the nominee. If he goes with the most delegates but less than 1237 and he is not the nominee. I will not vote for whatever person they nominate.

If they did that wouldn't that be like saying there is no Republican party? and voters really do not count?

They're shitting bricks. It's beginning to look like they'd rather lose the general than back Trump. So outside of just bending over and taking it, this would be their only option.
.

I don't get it. Trump is saying exactly the same things that right wingers have been saying for years. I would think they should love having Trump for the nominee.

No he isn't.

Trump is saying "Build the wall". Not "comprehensive immigration reform" like the GOPe- but specifically "BUILD THE WALL".
He is pushing for "Smart trade" - not "Free trade". He's the only candidate that has the guts to admit that the USA has made lousy, one sided trade deals that have cost a lot of Americans jobs.
He is pushing for tax reform- yes a lot of GOP candidates talk about this, but he is very specific and he addresses corporate inversions as well.
He's the only GOP candidate that talks about fixing the VA by allowing Vets to go to ANY HOSPITAL.
He admits that we fucked up by going into Iraq- No other GOP candidates have the balls to admit this fact. That alone makes him far superior to any of the others
He's not in the pockets of the donor class or big business.

I'm not questioning how he differs from other candidates. I'm asking how he differs from what right wingers and right wing radio has been saying for years. They have advocated each and every one of the things you listed at one time or the other.

 

[bripat9643]

From what I'm hearing, the GOP establishment is trying to downplay the possibility of a brokered convention. Surely they know it would cause a huge revolt within their own party. And regardless, there's nothing they can do if he gets the required votes.

Also, Trump's supporters have made it pretty clear that they've had it with the GOP and really don't care what it thinks about Trump. Okay.

So here's my question: Would you mind if the "establishment" ran and backed a more moderate Republican, like a Romney or a Ryan or a Rubio, and ran them third party?
.

Of course we would. They insisted that Trump support the Republican nominee, whoever he was. Running an independent would be a stab in the back.

The GOP is worried trump is going to cost GOP house members senators and governors who are also up for re election. High voter turn out will not help Republicans.

Actually it will. If more Republican voters turn out, then more Republicans will get elected. It's as simple as that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you want more information on how many of your policies trump supports, look it up yourself.

Not my policies. I'm well aware of where we differ or agree. I'm just wondering why the GOP is so hostile to him when he is only saying what they have advocated for a long time.

so you don't push for ethanol?

was that before or after you learned trump supported it

That was when it was made clear that producing ethanol used about as much energy as it produced. We need to develop more efficient energy sources, and subsidizing that development is a good idea. However, every effort won't be successful, and when they aren't, we need to pull back at least some on the less productive ones..

So why does it keep getting money?
why has the left dumped so much into failed solar?
why has the left dumped so much into animal and nature killing wind?

and wtf happened to no corporate welfare?

Is it actually different when it's something you want?

Investing in better energy sources is not corporate welfare. That's how the oil companies first got their subsidies. Continuing those subsidies long after the fledgling businesses develop their resources and no longer need the subsidies is corporate welfare.
Solar and wind still need more development, but they are still viable options. They haven't failed to the extent ethanol has. I know you're going to start whining about Solyndra now. Every effort doesn't pan out and Solyndra was one of those. Here is a link from a couple of years ago about the agency that loaned them the money. Over all it has worked out pretty good.

After Solyndra Loss, U.S. Energy Loan Program Turning A Profit

Overall, the agency has loaned $34.2 billion to a variety of businesses, under a program designed to speed up development of clean-energy technology. Companies have defaulted on $780 million of that — a loss rate of 2.28 percent. The agency also has collected $810 million in interest payments, putting the program $30 million in the black.

If you think clean energy is so great, how many windmills do you have on your property? What about solar panels? Do you have an electric car and how much is your electric bill?

Oil companies don't get any more subsidies than any other business. They get just about the same tax breaks as the people who make your frozen waffles.

 

[Zander]

From what I'm hearing, the GOP establishment is trying to downplay the possibility of a brokered convention. Surely they know it would cause a huge revolt within their own party. And regardless, there's nothing they can do if he gets the required votes.

Also, Trump's supporters have made it pretty clear that they've had it with the GOP and really don't care what it thinks about Trump. Okay.

So here's my question: Would you mind if the "establishment" ran and backed a more moderate Republican, like a Romney or a Ryan or a Rubio, and ran them third party?
.

If Trump goes to the convention with 1237+ delegates he will be the nominee. If he goes with the most delegates but less than 1237 and he is not the nominee. I will not vote for whatever person they nominate.

If they did that wouldn't that be like saying there is no Republican party? and voters really do not count?

They're shitting bricks. It's beginning to look like they'd rather lose the general than back Trump. So outside of just bending over and taking it, this would be their only option.
.

I don't get it. Trump is saying exactly the same things that right wingers have been saying for years. I would think they should love having Trump for the nominee.

No he isn't.

Trump is saying "Build the wall". Not "comprehensive immigration reform" like the GOPe- but specifically "BUILD THE WALL".
He is pushing for "Smart trade" - not "Free trade". He's the only candidate that has the guts to admit that the USA has made lousy, one sided trade deals that have cost a lot of Americans jobs.
He is pushing for tax reform- yes a lot of GOP candidates talk about this, but he is very specific and he addresses corporate inversions as well.
He's the only GOP candidate that talks about fixing the VA by allowing Vets to go to ANY HOSPITAL.
He admits that we fucked up by going into Iraq- No other GOP candidates have the balls to admit this fact. That alone makes him far superior to any of the others
He's not in the pockets of the donor class or big business.

I'm not questioning how he differs from other candidates. I'm asking how he differs from what right wingers and right wing radio has been saying for years. They have advocated each and every one of the things you listed at one time or the other.

Thanks for the clarification

I can't speak for them, but I imagine that some of conservatives that oppose Trump are blinded by the same empty promises that got us to where we are today. They are still drinking the GOPe Kool-Aid.

Very few conservatives will admit that "W" was a terrible POTUS. Even fewer will acknowledge that invading Iraq was a grave mistake. The so called "conservatives" that we've elected are, generally speaking, milquetoasts who refuse to do the job they were elected to do. That is why Trump is doing so well.

Personally, I want a non-politician. Someone who can afford to run a campaign with his own money. Someone who is not in the back pocket of lobbyists and the donor class. Trump is the only candidate that fits the bill. He will not be bought by anyone.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Now they are trying to pull some stunts here in Ohio with the voting ballot. Can anybody make any sense out of this?

Confusion on Ohio GOP primary ballot; what you need to know

 

[Correll]

Now they are trying to pull some stunts here in Ohio with the voting ballot. Can anybody make any sense out of this?

Confusion on Ohio GOP primary ballot; what you need to know

What kind of fucking game to they think this is?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Now they are trying to pull some stunts here in Ohio with the voting ballot. Can anybody make any sense out of this?

Confusion on Ohio GOP primary ballot; what you need to know

What kind of fucking game to they think this is?

I don't know, but I don't like it. I mean........ yes, I understand how to get my candidate voted on, but how many (who didn't see this article) will F it all up and we end up with undesired results?

 

[S.J.]

That's bullshit. Muddying the waters to open the possibilities of a do-over if they don't get the results they like?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's bullshit. Muddying the waters to open the possibilities of a do-over if they don't get the results they like?

That's what it looks like to me. And I want to add, I don't care for Winner Takes All.

 

[Two Thumbs]

If you want more information on how many of your policies trump supports, look it up yourself.

Not my policies. I'm well aware of where we differ or agree. I'm just wondering why the GOP is so hostile to him when he is only saying what they have advocated for a long time.

so you don't push for ethanol?

was that before or after you learned trump supported it

That was when it was made clear that producing ethanol used about as much energy as it produced. We need to develop more efficient energy sources, and subsidizing that development is a good idea. However, every effort won't be successful, and when they aren't, we need to pull back at least some on the less productive ones..

So why does it keep getting money?
why has the left dumped so much into failed solar?
why has the left dumped so much into animal and nature killing wind?

and wtf happened to no corporate welfare?

Is it actually different when it's something you want?

Investing in better energy sources is not corporate welfare.


I stopped there, since that's a blatant lie.

 

[Cecilie1200]

For clarification, who are these "neo-cons" you're vilifying?

{Established in the spring of 1997 and funded largely by the energy and arms industries, the Project for the New American Century was founded as the neoconservative think tank whose stated goal was to usher in a “new American century”. Having won the cold war and no military threat to speak of, this group of ideologues created a blueprint for the future whose agenda was to capitalize upon our surplus of military forces and funds and forcing American hegemony and corporate privatization throughout the world. In their statement of principles they outline a fourfold agenda:}


Project for the New American Century (PNAC)-All about them

Well, thank you for the definition, but I was rather more looking for specifics, like groups, names, that sort of thing.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Even if that were true, and I'm far from convinced it is, we've seen how well "GOP middle of the road" goes. Even Ronald Reagan ended up giving us a couple of Justices who got to Washington and "evolved".

That could happen, but even Kennedy is no Elena Kagan.

Yeah, and Trump ain't Reagan.

Given the sorts of people he pals around with, I don't even want to contemplate what he might dredge up and think would be great for the Supreme Court. Keep in mind, Bill and Hillary are both lawyers, and his sister is a freaking judge. I shudder to think.

 

[BULLDOG]

Not my policies. I'm well aware of where we differ or agree. I'm just wondering why the GOP is so hostile to him when he is only saying what they have advocated for a long time.

so you don't push for ethanol?

was that before or after you learned trump supported it

That was when it was made clear that producing ethanol used about as much energy as it produced. We need to develop more efficient energy sources, and subsidizing that development is a good idea. However, every effort won't be successful, and when they aren't, we need to pull back at least some on the less productive ones..

So why does it keep getting money?
why has the left dumped so much into failed solar?
why has the left dumped so much into animal and nature killing wind?

and wtf happened to no corporate welfare?

Is it actually different when it's something you want?

Investing in better energy sources is not corporate welfare. That's how the oil companies first got their subsidies. Continuing those subsidies long after the fledgling businesses develop their resources and no longer need the subsidies is corporate welfare.
Solar and wind still need more development, but they are still viable options. They haven't failed to the extent ethanol has. I know you're going to start whining about Solyndra now. Every effort doesn't pan out and Solyndra was one of those. Here is a link from a couple of years ago about the agency that loaned them the money. Over all it has worked out pretty good.

After Solyndra Loss, U.S. Energy Loan Program Turning A Profit

Overall, the agency has loaned $34.2 billion to a variety of businesses, under a program designed to speed up development of clean-energy technology. Companies have defaulted on $780 million of that — a loss rate of 2.28 percent. The agency also has collected $810 million in interest payments, putting the program $30 million in the black.

If you think clean energy is so great, how many windmills do you have on your property? What about solar panels? Do you have an electric car and how much is your electric bill?

Oil companies don't get any more subsidies than any other business. They get just about the same tax breaks as the people who make your frozen waffles.

If you don't know better than that, you should look it up.

 

[BULLDOG]

From what I'm hearing, the GOP establishment is trying to downplay the possibility of a brokered convention. Surely they know it would cause a huge revolt within their own party. And regardless, there's nothing they can do if he gets the required votes.

Also, Trump's supporters have made it pretty clear that they've had it with the GOP and really don't care what it thinks about Trump. Okay.

So here's my question: Would you mind if the "establishment" ran and backed a more moderate Republican, like a Romney or a Ryan or a Rubio, and ran them third party?
.

If Trump goes to the convention with 1237+ delegates he will be the nominee. If he goes with the most delegates but less than 1237 and he is not the nominee. I will not vote for whatever person they nominate.

If they did that wouldn't that be like saying there is no Republican party? and voters really do not count?

They're shitting bricks. It's beginning to look like they'd rather lose the general than back Trump. So outside of just bending over and taking it, this would be their only option.
.

I don't get it. Trump is saying exactly the same things that right wingers have been saying for years. I would think they should love having Trump for the nominee.

No he isn't.

Trump is saying "Build the wall". Not "comprehensive immigration reform" like the GOPe- but specifically "BUILD THE WALL".
He is pushing for "Smart trade" - not "Free trade". He's the only candidate that has the guts to admit that the USA has made lousy, one sided trade deals that have cost a lot of Americans jobs.
He is pushing for tax reform- yes a lot of GOP candidates talk about this, but he is very specific and he addresses corporate inversions as well.
He's the only GOP candidate that talks about fixing the VA by allowing Vets to go to ANY HOSPITAL.
He admits that we fucked up by going into Iraq- No other GOP candidates have the balls to admit this fact. That alone makes him far superior to any of the others
He's not in the pockets of the donor class or big business.

I'm not questioning how he differs from other candidates. I'm asking how he differs from what right wingers and right wing radio has been saying for years. They have advocated each and every one of the things you listed at one time or the other.

Thanks for the clarification

I can't speak for them, but I imagine that some of conservatives that oppose Trump are blinded by the same empty promises that got us to where we are today. They are still drinking the GOPe Kool-Aid.

Very few conservatives will admit that "W" was a terrible POTUS. Even fewer will acknowledge that invading Iraq was a grave mistake. The so called "conservatives" that we've elected are, generally speaking, milquetoasts who refuse to do the job they were elected to do. That is why Trump is doing so well.

Personally, I want a non-politician. Someone who can afford to run a campaign with his own money. Someone who is not in the back pocket of lobbyists and the donor class. Trump is the only candidate that fits the bill. He will not be bought by anyone.

It's your party, and you can vote for anyone you want, but next time, you might want to consider if it is even possible for them to do all the things they promise. The last batch you elected promised you so much crazy shit, knowing it wouldn't happen. Trump fits that pattern too.

 

[strollingbones]

trump seems to be enjoying the show....making his supporters raise their right hand and pledge alliance to him....at this point even he is mocking his followers for being the fools they are

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

From what I'm hearing, the GOP establishment is trying to downplay the possibility of a brokered convention. Surely they know it would cause a huge revolt within their own party. And regardless, there's nothing they can do if he gets the required votes.

Also, Trump's supporters have made it pretty clear that they've had it with the GOP and really don't care what it thinks about Trump. Okay.

So here's my question: Would you mind if the "establishment" ran and backed a more moderate Republican, like a Romney or a Ryan or a Rubio, and ran them third party?
.

If Trump goes to the convention with 1237+ delegates he will be the nominee. If he goes with the most delegates but less than 1237 and he is not the nominee. I will not vote for whatever person they nominate.

They're shitting bricks. It's beginning to look like they'd rather lose the general than back Trump. So outside of just bending over and taking it, this would be their only option.
.

I don't get it. Trump is saying exactly the same things that right wingers have been saying for years. I would think they should love having Trump for the nominee.

No he isn't.

Trump is saying "Build the wall". Not "comprehensive immigration reform" like the GOPe- but specifically "BUILD THE WALL".
He is pushing for "Smart trade" - not "Free trade". He's the only candidate that has the guts to admit that the USA has made lousy, one sided trade deals that have cost a lot of Americans jobs.
He is pushing for tax reform- yes a lot of GOP candidates talk about this, but he is very specific and he addresses corporate inversions as well.
He's the only GOP candidate that talks about fixing the VA by allowing Vets to go to ANY HOSPITAL.
He admits that we fucked up by going into Iraq- No other GOP candidates have the balls to admit this fact. That alone makes him far superior to any of the others
He's not in the pockets of the donor class or big business.

I'm not questioning how he differs from other candidates. I'm asking how he differs from what right wingers and right wing radio has been saying for years. They have advocated each and every one of the things you listed at one time or the other.

Thanks for the clarification

I can't speak for them, but I imagine that some of conservatives that oppose Trump are blinded by the same empty promises that got us to where we are today. They are still drinking the GOPe Kool-Aid.

Very few conservatives will admit that "W" was a terrible POTUS. Even fewer will acknowledge that invading Iraq was a grave mistake. The so called "conservatives" that we've elected are, generally speaking, milquetoasts who refuse to do the job they were elected to do. That is why Trump is doing so well.

Personally, I want a non-politician. Someone who can afford to run a campaign with his own money. Someone who is not in the back pocket of lobbyists and the donor class. Trump is the only candidate that fits the bill. He will not be bought by anyone.

It's your party, and you can vote for anyone you want, but next time, you might want to consider if it is even possible for them to do all the things they promise. The last batch you elected promised you so much crazy shit, knowing it wouldn't happen. Trump fits that pattern too.

Oh, you mean like free college?

Quit being so myopic. Pick a debate......any debate, and do a Google search on that debate with the words Fact Check.

What you'll find is that saying things that may not be true or not possible to put into motion is very typical during debates---not just Trump. Either the Congress will stop him, the Senate will stop him, the cost is way off, there is a Constitutional issue, it's already against the law, or a number of other things.

What we do find out however is the mindset of the candidate.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

so you don't push for ethanol?

was that before or after you learned trump supported it

That was when it was made clear that producing ethanol used about as much energy as it produced. We need to develop more efficient energy sources, and subsidizing that development is a good idea. However, every effort won't be successful, and when they aren't, we need to pull back at least some on the less productive ones..

So why does it keep getting money?
why has the left dumped so much into failed solar?
why has the left dumped so much into animal and nature killing wind?

and wtf happened to no corporate welfare?

Is it actually different when it's something you want?

Investing in better energy sources is not corporate welfare. That's how the oil companies first got their subsidies. Continuing those subsidies long after the fledgling businesses develop their resources and no longer need the subsidies is corporate welfare.
Solar and wind still need more development, but they are still viable options. They haven't failed to the extent ethanol has. I know you're going to start whining about Solyndra now. Every effort doesn't pan out and Solyndra was one of those. Here is a link from a couple of years ago about the agency that loaned them the money. Over all it has worked out pretty good.

After Solyndra Loss, U.S. Energy Loan Program Turning A Profit

Overall, the agency has loaned $34.2 billion to a variety of businesses, under a program designed to speed up development of clean-energy technology. Companies have defaulted on $780 million of that — a loss rate of 2.28 percent. The agency also has collected $810 million in interest payments, putting the program $30 million in the black.

If you think clean energy is so great, how many windmills do you have on your property? What about solar panels? Do you have an electric car and how much is your electric bill?

Oil companies don't get any more subsidies than any other business. They get just about the same tax breaks as the people who make your frozen waffles.

If you don't know better than that, you should look it up.

I already did. Care to see my FactCheck.org piece on it????

I didn't think so.