Trump has the worst negatives of just about any candidate in modern history.

[JakeStarkey]

Correll is saying Dannyboys is not racist.

Correll accuses his enemies as racisats all the time.

Correll is a hypocrite, of course.

 

[Correll]

Correll is saying Dannyboys is not racist.

Correll accuses his enemies as racisats all the time.

Correll is a hypocrite, of course.

YOu're the one that used the Race Card, jerk.

If you want to discuss Trump's possible Court Nominations, try doing it without calling everyone that disagrees with you vile names.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Correll is saying Dannyboys is not racist.

Correll accuses his enemies as racisats all the time.

Correll is a hypocrite, of course.

YOu're the one that used the Race Card, jerk.

If you want to discuss Trump's possible Court Nominations, try doing it without calling everyone that disagrees with you vile names.

You are saying that Dannyboys is not a racist?

Are you saying you are not a racist and that you have not used the race card all the time?

That rank hypocrisy, Correll, of your type on the far right is why Trump will be denied the nomination.

 

[Correll]

Correll is saying Dannyboys is not racist.

Correll accuses his enemies as racisats all the time.

Correll is a hypocrite, of course.

YOu're the one that used the Race Card, jerk.

If you want to discuss Trump's possible Court Nominations, try doing it without calling everyone that disagrees with you vile names.

You are saying that Dannyboys is not a racist?

Are you saying you are not a racist and that you have not used the race card all the time?

That rank hypocrisy, Correll, of your type on the far right is why Trump will be denied the nomination.

And this is the point of the Race Card.

LIke the vile liberal you are, you want to avoid any discussion of ISSUES, to discuss whether or not the conservative/republican in question is a racist.

A debate you can't lose, unlike the ones on the issues, because

1. you will just deny any and everything that anyone says.

2. with enough conversations like that, you create that illusion that conservatives/republicans are racist, without ever actually demonstrating it.

YOu are a vile propagandist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am not a liberal; you are a vile racist far right reactionary, Correll.

You are not a viable conservative Republicans; they don’t support your anti-American agenda.

You can’t win any debate on the merits.

 

[Toro]

The only thing inaccurate about the title of this thread are the words "just about."

 

[Cecilie1200]

Correll and Redfish, you will be happy to know the mods here have nothing to do with rules committee at the GOP convention. If you drivilers of the TPM think that 40% of 21% of the electorate will choose the GOP candidate, you are crazy.

And don't you freeks, who lie and cry and ask why and go "oh my", ever talk about far and square.

You don't play by those rules, you have cheated over and over and over, and you will lose again.

Trump cannot win the national election, so he will not be given a chance to lose.

You know, I don't recall what percentage of the popular vote in the primaries McCain won.

Even though, like then the Anti-frontrunner vote was split among several candidates and probably could have been massaged into such a claim as you are now making.

Because cons know that such games are bullshit and are not dishonest enough to play that game.

37% is not a majority..... Thats what Trump has.

So, your answer is to give it to someone who won even LESS?

My answer would be to give it to someone who appeals to all those people who'd rather eat their own foot - without salt - than vote for Trump.

 

[Correll]

I am not a liberal; you are a vile racist far right reactionary, Correll.

You are not a viable conservative Republicans; they don’t support your anti-American agenda.

You can’t win any debate on the merits.

Yes, you are a liberal. You might be the last liberal Republican, but you are a liberal.

And again you ignore the issue you raised to personally attack me.

 

[Correll]

The only thing inaccurate about the title of this thread are the words "just about."

Nothing like having your own party leadership agreeing with their enemies that their own base is a bunch of bigots and hicks.

You ever think about the long term impact of that?

 

[Correll]

Correll and Redfish, you will be happy to know the mods here have nothing to do with rules committee at the GOP convention. If you drivilers of the TPM think that 40% of 21% of the electorate will choose the GOP candidate, you are crazy.

And don't you freeks, who lie and cry and ask why and go "oh my", ever talk about far and square.

You don't play by those rules, you have cheated over and over and over, and you will lose again.

Trump cannot win the national election, so he will not be given a chance to lose.

You know, I don't recall what percentage of the popular vote in the primaries McCain won.

Even though, like then the Anti-frontrunner vote was split among several candidates and probably could have been massaged into such a claim as you are now making.

Because cons know that such games are bullshit and are not dishonest enough to play that game.

37% is not a majority..... Thats what Trump has.

So, your answer is to give it to someone who won even LESS?

My answer would be to give it to someone who appeals to all those people who'd rather eat their own foot - without salt - than vote for Trump.

And spit in the face of the millions of voters who support him, and who drove record turnout?

Good plan.

I take it you're a democratic strategist?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The only thing inaccurate about the title of this thread are the words "just about."

Well to be fair i dont know presidential history enough to know how hated prior candidates were. Trump is in the shitter to be sure tho

 

[Cecilie1200]

Correll and Redfish, you will be happy to know the mods here have nothing to do with rules committee at the GOP convention. If you drivilers of the TPM think that 40% of 21% of the electorate will choose the GOP candidate, you are crazy.

And don't you freeks, who lie and cry and ask why and go "oh my", ever talk about far and square.

You don't play by those rules, you have cheated over and over and over, and you will lose again.

Trump cannot win the national election, so he will not be given a chance to lose.

You know, I don't recall what percentage of the popular vote in the primaries McCain won.

Even though, like then the Anti-frontrunner vote was split among several candidates and probably could have been massaged into such a claim as you are now making.

Because cons know that such games are bullshit and are not dishonest enough to play that game.

37% is not a majority..... Thats what Trump has.

So, your answer is to give it to someone who won even LESS?

My answer would be to give it to someone who appeals to all those people who'd rather eat their own foot - without salt - than vote for Trump.

And spit in the face of the millions of voters who support him, and who drove record turnout?

Good plan.

I take it you're a democratic strategist?

Right, right, "We love Trump, and only our opinions and feelings matter. How DARE you think your preferences are more important, just because there are more of you? Don't you understand, we're ANGRY?! The world revolves around our pissy tantrum, damn it!" The GOP isn't choosing between genuflecting to Trumpettes or spitting on them, Chuckles. They're choosing between 35% of primary voters (many of whom are less than reliable supporters in a general election), and 65% of primary voters. Believe it or not, there are other people in the GOP world than just you, however much you think you and Trump are the whole frigging universe.

And proudly pointing to "look how many more people came out to cast an uninformed vote based on emotion" is not going to be an arguing point with someone who thinks there are already way more people voting than really should.

 

[Correll]

You know, I don't recall what percentage of the popular vote in the primaries McCain won.

Even though, like then the Anti-frontrunner vote was split among several candidates and probably could have been massaged into such a claim as you are now making.

Because cons know that such games are bullshit and are not dishonest enough to play that game.

37% is not a majority..... Thats what Trump has.

So, your answer is to give it to someone who won even LESS?

My answer would be to give it to someone who appeals to all those people who'd rather eat their own foot - without salt - than vote for Trump.

And spit in the face of the millions of voters who support him, and who drove record turnout?

Good plan.

I take it you're a democratic strategist?

Right, right, "We love Trump, and only our opinions and feelings matter. How DARE you think your preferences are more important, just because there are more of you? Don't you understand, we're ANGRY?! The world revolves around our pissy tantrum, damn it!" The GOP isn't choosing between genuflecting to Trumpettes or spitting on them, Chuckles. They're choosing between 35% of primary voters (many of whom are less than reliable supporters in a general election), and 65% of primary voters. Believe it or not, there are other people in the GOP world than just you, however much you think you and Trump are the whole frigging universe.

And proudly pointing to "look how many more people came out to cast an uninformed vote based on emotion" is not going to be an arguing point with someone who thinks there are already way more people voting than really should.

Not so much.

Just pointing out that in your calculations, you have to consider the price of NOT choosing Trump, as much as you are worried about losing those anti-trump people.

An alternative method would be to start fighting back against the libs on their slander of Trump and to strongly make the case that he is NOT another freaking "hitler" and is nothing to be scared of.

 

[Cecilie1200]

37% is not a majority..... Thats what Trump has.

So, your answer is to give it to someone who won even LESS?

My answer would be to give it to someone who appeals to all those people who'd rather eat their own foot - without salt - than vote for Trump.

And spit in the face of the millions of voters who support him, and who drove record turnout?

Good plan.

I take it you're a democratic strategist?

Right, right, "We love Trump, and only our opinions and feelings matter. How DARE you think your preferences are more important, just because there are more of you? Don't you understand, we're ANGRY?! The world revolves around our pissy tantrum, damn it!" The GOP isn't choosing between genuflecting to Trumpettes or spitting on them, Chuckles. They're choosing between 35% of primary voters (many of whom are less than reliable supporters in a general election), and 65% of primary voters. Believe it or not, there are other people in the GOP world than just you, however much you think you and Trump are the whole frigging universe.

And proudly pointing to "look how many more people came out to cast an uninformed vote based on emotion" is not going to be an arguing point with someone who thinks there are already way more people voting than really should.

Not so much.

Just pointing out that in your calculations, you have to consider the price of NOT choosing Trump, as much as you are worried about losing those anti-trump people.

An alternative method would be to start fighting back against the libs on their slander of Trump and to strongly make the case that he is NOT another freaking "hitler" and is nothing to be scared of.

They're considering the price of not choosing Trump. I don't think YOU are considering the price of choosing him, but I know they are.

An alternative method would be to stop considering telling the truth "slander" and getting your panties in a wad because - HORRORS! - politics is a rough game. This is not news to anyone else. You and your candidate need to butch up and stop thinking it's everyone else's job to accommodate you.

He's A LOT to be scared of.

 

[Correll]

So, your answer is to give it to someone who won even LESS?

My answer would be to give it to someone who appeals to all those people who'd rather eat their own foot - without salt - than vote for Trump.

And spit in the face of the millions of voters who support him, and who drove record turnout?

Good plan.

I take it you're a democratic strategist?

Right, right, "We love Trump, and only our opinions and feelings matter. How DARE you think your preferences are more important, just because there are more of you? Don't you understand, we're ANGRY?! The world revolves around our pissy tantrum, damn it!" The GOP isn't choosing between genuflecting to Trumpettes or spitting on them, Chuckles. They're choosing between 35% of primary voters (many of whom are less than reliable supporters in a general election), and 65% of primary voters. Believe it or not, there are other people in the GOP world than just you, however much you think you and Trump are the whole frigging universe.

And proudly pointing to "look how many more people came out to cast an uninformed vote based on emotion" is not going to be an arguing point with someone who thinks there are already way more people voting than really should.

Not so much.

Just pointing out that in your calculations, you have to consider the price of NOT choosing Trump, as much as you are worried about losing those anti-trump people.

An alternative method would be to start fighting back against the libs on their slander of Trump and to strongly make the case that he is NOT another freaking "hitler" and is nothing to be scared of.

They're considering the price of not choosing Trump. I don't think YOU are considering the price of choosing him, but I know they are.

An alternative method would be to stop considering telling the truth "slander" and getting your panties in a wad because - HORRORS! - politics is a rough game. This is not news to anyone else. You and your candidate need to butch up and stop thinking it's everyone else's job to accommodate you.

He's A LOT to be scared of.

1. Save the rhetoric about "butching up". That is nothing but a popular way, these days, of dismissing arguments that you cannot rebut honestly.

2. He is a lot to be scared of? Quick, off the top of your head, what is the worst case scenario with Trump?

Be concise, be specific. NO rambling please. No filler about, no long lists of adjectives.

Simple and direct.

 

[dannyboys]

Correll and Redfish, you will be happy to know the mods here have nothing to do with rules committee at the GOP convention. If you drivilers of the TPM think that 40% of 21% of the electorate will choose the GOP candidate, you are crazy.

And don't you freeks, who lie and cry and ask why and go "oh my", ever talk about far and square.

You don't play by those rules, you have cheated over and over and over, and you will lose again.

Trump cannot win the national election, so he will not be given a chance to lose.

You know, I don't recall what percentage of the popular vote in the primaries McCain won.

Even though, like then the Anti-frontrunner vote was split among several candidates and probably could have been massaged into such a claim as you are now making.

Because cons know that such games are bullshit and are not dishonest enough to play that game.

37% is not a majority..... Thats what Trump has.

How bad is it when 25% of Sander's supporters are not going to vote for Hillary?????????????? Sander's has just won seven out of seven!
The old Socialist humiliates Hillary with every primary win. Suuuure Hillary will be able to stand her ground with Putin and the Chinese. Suuuure!
She can't even generate enough enthusiasm at home to defeat a 74 year old nut job.
He better be careful. He might decide to commit suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head several times. Just as so many other 'friends' and business partners of the Clinton's have done over the years.
How many Sander's voters are going to vote for Trump out of Spite????
How many DEMs are going to stay home because they can't stomach Hillary?
After Bill told the negroes to shove BLM up their ass are then going to make the effort to vote for Hillary??????
Once Trump is the nomination we will see how many REPs will vote for Trump to guarantee the Clintons can never steal the fucking White house furniture again. You are whistling in the graveyard pal.
How Bad Is Poll That Says 25% of Bernie Sanders Fans Won’t Vote For Hillary?

 

[Redfish]

Trump's negatives

1. not a politician-----------oops that's a positive
2. speaks his mind------------another positive
3. successful in business and life-------------still looking for a negative
4. believes in the constitution------------still looking
5. wants America to win in trade, finance, and wars-----------positive
6. has a hot wife-----------yep
7..sometimes misspeaks-------------ok, negative
8. places women in important jobs with high pay----------oops
9. places Hispanics in important jobs with high pay--------oops again
10. thinks Hillary is a liar and criminal--------positive again
11. thinks Bernie is a clown-------yep
12. said silly things about Cruz, Jebby, and little Marco---------negative, even if true.
13. wants secure borders and viable vetting system for immigrants-----------very positive
14. has the media and the establishment against him------------and still winning, positive.

 

[Redfish]

this thread proves one thing. That the dems, libs, media, GOP establishment, and dem establishment are scared shitless of Donald Trump. Why is that? Because he threatens their power and control and will not hesitate to unmask their corruption and lies.

All the more reason to vote for him. Light the torches, grab the pitchforks--------storm the Bastille!

 

[Cecilie1200]

My answer would be to give it to someone who appeals to all those people who'd rather eat their own foot - without salt - than vote for Trump.

And spit in the face of the millions of voters who support him, and who drove record turnout?

Good plan.

I take it you're a democratic strategist?

Right, right, "We love Trump, and only our opinions and feelings matter. How DARE you think your preferences are more important, just because there are more of you? Don't you understand, we're ANGRY?! The world revolves around our pissy tantrum, damn it!" The GOP isn't choosing between genuflecting to Trumpettes or spitting on them, Chuckles. They're choosing between 35% of primary voters (many of whom are less than reliable supporters in a general election), and 65% of primary voters. Believe it or not, there are other people in the GOP world than just you, however much you think you and Trump are the whole frigging universe.

And proudly pointing to "look how many more people came out to cast an uninformed vote based on emotion" is not going to be an arguing point with someone who thinks there are already way more people voting than really should.

Not so much.

Just pointing out that in your calculations, you have to consider the price of NOT choosing Trump, as much as you are worried about losing those anti-trump people.

An alternative method would be to start fighting back against the libs on their slander of Trump and to strongly make the case that he is NOT another freaking "hitler" and is nothing to be scared of.

They're considering the price of not choosing Trump. I don't think YOU are considering the price of choosing him, but I know they are.

An alternative method would be to stop considering telling the truth "slander" and getting your panties in a wad because - HORRORS! - politics is a rough game. This is not news to anyone else. You and your candidate need to butch up and stop thinking it's everyone else's job to accommodate you.

He's A LOT to be scared of.

1. Save the rhetoric about "butching up". That is nothing but a popular way, these days, of dismissing arguments that you cannot rebut honestly.

2. He is a lot to be scared of? Quick, off the top of your head, what is the worst case scenario with Trump?

Be concise, be specific. NO rambling please. No filler about, no long lists of adjectives.

Simple and direct.

No, honey, that IS the rebuttal when your argument is "They're MEAN!!! Waaaaahhhh!"

Worst-case scenario off the top of my head? He hires people in his administration similar to the way he's hired them in his campaign, thinking he can just get his way by running his mouth, and ends up with Executive Branch corruption and incompetence on a scale to rival Ulysses S. Grant. Congress stonewalls his wackadoodle "policy" du jour and he builds and expands on Obama's executive-order monarchy plan, because his ego just assumes he's too smart and wonderful to need that Constitutional check-and-balance crap and he can just bullshit his way through it by running his gums in the media and firing up his Trump zombies to support him. Or even worse, he returns to collaborating with his old buddies, Bill and Hillary, maybe by bribing them with some sort of appointment, and between them, they manage to convince some of the more unscrupulous Congresscritters to cooperate with him, and he actually starts passing some of his "I thought about it for a whole five minutes" policy decisions. Either way, the economy tanks even more than it already has, federal government encroachment expands, and the nation's slide into a disorganized mishmash of societal chaos progresses.

That's just off the top of my head, though. I could think more specifically, but I really don't require those sorts of nightmares on a nice Sunday.

 

[jillian]

The only thing inaccurate about the title of this thread are the words "just about."

Well to be fair i dont know presidential history enough to know how hated prior candidates were. Trump is in the shitter to be sure tho

they've been pretty clear that no one has ever had his negatives since they've been measuring those things.