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

[Correll]

Correll, you don't get "just once more." You can go back and read if you wish. Your comments have been racist almost from day one on the Board. Anyone can do so.

Correll is the link for anyone who wants to root through that garbage.

Now the OP is that Trump has the worst negatives of just any candidate.

Indeed, he does.

Exactly as I predicted. YOu make false accusations against people you disagree with and when called on your bullshit, refuse to either defend your vile slander NOR admit that you were wrong. There is a name for people like you, and it rhymes with Tick.

You set a false standard and then pat yourself on the back. The link is above for any who wish to read up on your racism.

You do understand the term?

It's a completely reasonable standard.

You said, "in light of my posts".

I asked you to back that up with an example, and EXACTLY AS I PREDICTED, you refused to defend your vile accusation.

If you can't support your accusation of racism, then you should not be calling people racist.

I can support my accusations of your behavior. In fact you just demonstrated it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You don't get "just once more", Correll, ever.

Trump is going to lose the nomination, I think. So we won't even have to worry about the election.

 

[Correll]

You don't get "just once more", Correll, ever.

Trump is going to lose the nomination, I think. So we won't even have to worry about the election.

It's a completely reasonable standard.

You said, "in light of my posts".

I asked you to back that up with an example, and EXACTLY AS I PREDICTED, you refused to defend your vile accusation.

If you can't support your accusation of racism, then you should not be calling people racist.

I can support my accusations of your behavior. In fact you just demonstrated it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Now you are trolling, Correll, and will be reported if you keep it up.

You have been answered. You don't get "just once more."

Now stay on OP.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And is standard, I addressed each one of your points and you ignore all my replies in favor of empty pronouncements.

You make your points, then refuse to defend them. IF pushed you dismiss your enemy with some vague bullshit about them being "far right" or "racist" or claiming that "you have already proven that".

And that is why you get called an asshole. Because your behavior calls for it.

No, you haven't addressed anything. You deny there is a problem. Marla Maples found out which church Trump belonged to, joined the church and endeavoured to meet him. She became his mistress, got pregnant and became his wife. It seems pretty clear to the rest of us, that this is a situation where a younger, less business savy woman completed outfoxed him.

He less than stellar record as a business negotiator has been recited ad nauseum. But of course that's just a smear campaign.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Jesus Christ, now even Dragon is making more sense than the putatively right-wing Trumpettes. That's gotta be like the first two horsemen of the apocalypse.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Correll cannot prove that Trump was not manipulated into marriage by women as the evidence suggests.

Cecil is the one that brought it up as evidence against Trump. It is on him to prove it.

Correll has given us no reason to believe that Trump really will deport illegals.

Trump could be lying. But at least he does not have a documented record of trying to give the illegals amnesty. IMO, that makes him the most credible.

Correll has not shown how Trump can reverse the Trade Deficit.

I'm not sure HOW he plans to do it. I just note the he is the only Republican pledged to try. The rest are still mired in the ideology of Free Trade.

Correll says he is has been a Free Trader all of his life, without any evidence or support.

??? Wow. That's an incredibly minor point. What "Evidence" of my personal opinion would you expect to see? Magic Brain scans?

Correll is foolish to believe that Trump can handle Putin.

Trump is the only republican who has adjusted to the Cold War being over and who doesn't WANT to "handle" PUtin. That's a big plus in my book.

The article is wrong that Trump “is testing his insults and attacks.” In fact he is floundering. Instead of message testing, he can’t grasp either the media or the message.

He is being buried under a massive propaganda campaign. Far greater men have been destroyed by far less. This in not about what flaws he has, but how completely corrupt the media and the Political Class is.

Trump’s campaign strategy has been expedient and eclectic, and now the opponents are able to handle it without difficulty.

He has crushed all his opponents in the Primaries. The Leadership is desperately trying, not to defeat him, but to get a brokered convention so they can get the decision AWAY from the voters.

Trump’s bad temper and his attempt to intimidate startles the listener who then reacts with ridicule.

Moronic nonsense.

Correll gives Trump a chance on his changing his mind but won’t give it to Cruz.

Cecil asked for an example of another candidate walking it back. I gave one.

Correll says Trump deserves a fair and square chance. My reaction is that the far right reactionaries deserve nothing but a boot rhetorically in the seat of the pants.

If one faction of a group is treated like shit, that faction will not stay for long.

We respected the process when McCain won. Now you moderates owe us the same.

By the way, Mensa Boy, my name is CECILIE, not Cecil. Hard to take you seriously when you can't even read.

No one owes you jack shit. Good to know Trump's managed to bullshit you into an entitlement mentality. Should go down easy when he reverts to his natural liberalism, because you're already prepared to think like one of them.

I've never listened to Trump address this issue at all. My opinion on this is based on my stated reasons, which you did nothing to address, let alone actually challenge.

Chuckles, I didn't bother dignifying your post with a serious, reasoned response for two reasons: one, you weren't addressing me, and two, we already established that you demand specific, detailed answers, and then respond with fucking campaign bumper stickers. I already told you I wasn't going to waste time treating you to respect you have manifestly proven you don't deserve and won't reciprocate.

So yeah, the only point I care about responding to is the last one: "You owe us something". I'll say it again: no one owes you shit. If you chose to cast your vote for a candidate you didn't really want, that's on YOU and no one else. No one held a gun to your head. No one promised you a quid pro quo, where you vote for this candidate and later down the line, we'll let you force a nominee who's batshit insane on us.

You chose it, you assumed, you were wrong. Get the fuck over it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Correll cannot prove that Trump was not manipulated into marriage by women as the evidence suggests.

Cecil is the one that brought it up as evidence against Trump. It is on him to prove it.

Correll has given us no reason to believe that Trump really will deport illegals.

Trump could be lying. But at least he does not have a documented record of trying to give the illegals amnesty. IMO, that makes him the most credible.

Correll has not shown how Trump can reverse the Trade Deficit.

I'm not sure HOW he plans to do it. I just note the he is the only Republican pledged to try. The rest are still mired in the ideology of Free Trade.

Correll says he is has been a Free Trader all of his life, without any evidence or support.

??? Wow. That's an incredibly minor point. What "Evidence" of my personal opinion would you expect to see? Magic Brain scans?

Correll is foolish to believe that Trump can handle Putin.

Trump is the only republican who has adjusted to the Cold War being over and who doesn't WANT to "handle" PUtin. That's a big plus in my book.

The article is wrong that Trump “is testing his insults and attacks.” In fact he is floundering. Instead of message testing, he can’t grasp either the media or the message.

He is being buried under a massive propaganda campaign. Far greater men have been destroyed by far less. This in not about what flaws he has, but how completely corrupt the media and the Political Class is.

Trump’s campaign strategy has been expedient and eclectic, and now the opponents are able to handle it without difficulty.

He has crushed all his opponents in the Primaries. The Leadership is desperately trying, not to defeat him, but to get a brokered convention so they can get the decision AWAY from the voters.

Trump’s bad temper and his attempt to intimidate startles the listener who then reacts with ridicule.

Moronic nonsense.

Correll gives Trump a chance on his changing his mind but won’t give it to Cruz.

Cecil asked for an example of another candidate walking it back. I gave one.

Correll says Trump deserves a fair and square chance. My reaction is that the far right reactionaries deserve nothing but a boot rhetorically in the seat of the pants.

If one faction of a group is treated like shit, that faction will not stay for long.

We respected the process when McCain won. Now you moderates owe us the same.

By the way, Mensa Boy, my name is CECILIE, not Cecil. Hard to take you seriously when you can't even read.

No one owes you jack shit. Good to know Trump's managed to bullshit you into an entitlement mentality. Should go down easy when he reverts to his natural liberalism, because you're already prepared to think like one of them.

I've never listened to Trump address this issue at all. My opinion on this is based on my stated reasons, which you did nothing to address, let alone actually challenge.

Chuckles, I didn't bother dignifying your post with a serious, reasoned response for two reasons: one, you weren't addressing me, and two, we already established that you demand specific, detailed answers, and then respond with fucking campaign bumper stickers. I already told you I wasn't going to waste time treating you to respect you have manifestly proven you don't deserve and won't reciprocate.

So yeah, the only point I care about responding to is the last one: "You owe us something". I'll say it again: no one owes you shit. If you chose to cast your vote for a candidate you didn't really want, that's on YOU and no one else. No one held a gun to your head. No one promised you a quid pro quo, where you vote for this candidate and later down the line, we'll let you force a nominee who's batshit insane on us.

You chose it, you assumed, you were wrong. Get the fuck over it.

Oh, and I also addressed the multiple times you couldn't figure out my name, or apparently, that I'm not a man.

 

[Correll]

Now you are trolling, Correll, and will be reported if you keep it up.

You have been answered. You don't get "just once more."

Now stay on OP.

You "answer" is a refusal to back up your claim, yet you are such a dishonest jerk that you keep repeating your false claim.

YOu are the troll.

I remember when you claimed to "prove" your claims in the past.

I stated and defended a position that you decided was "racist".

When I pointed out that my stated reasons did NOT meet the definition of "racist", you "judged" that, since you disagreed with my reasons, that they were invalid, and thus must NOT be my real reasons.

Thus, in your mind this "proved" that I was a "racist".

AND, now you continue to constantly troll threads I am in, dismissing anything I say that you cannot refute, because you believe that you have "proven" my racism in the past.

YOu are to dim, or self deluding to realize that your "logic" is complete circular bullshit.

And now you threaten to report me because I point out that you are incapable of supporting your vile slander?

Report away. If the site administration considers my behavior wrong and your behavior right, then I do not want to be here.

 

[Correll]

Correll cannot prove that Trump was not manipulated into marriage by women as the evidence suggests.

Cecil is the one that brought it up as evidence against Trump. It is on him to prove it.

Correll has given us no reason to believe that Trump really will deport illegals.

Trump could be lying. But at least he does not have a documented record of trying to give the illegals amnesty. IMO, that makes him the most credible.

Correll has not shown how Trump can reverse the Trade Deficit.

I'm not sure HOW he plans to do it. I just note the he is the only Republican pledged to try. The rest are still mired in the ideology of Free Trade.

Correll says he is has been a Free Trader all of his life, without any evidence or support.

??? Wow. That's an incredibly minor point. What "Evidence" of my personal opinion would you expect to see? Magic Brain scans?

Correll is foolish to believe that Trump can handle Putin.

Trump is the only republican who has adjusted to the Cold War being over and who doesn't WANT to "handle" PUtin. That's a big plus in my book.

The article is wrong that Trump “is testing his insults and attacks.” In fact he is floundering. Instead of message testing, he can’t grasp either the media or the message.

He is being buried under a massive propaganda campaign. Far greater men have been destroyed by far less. This in not about what flaws he has, but how completely corrupt the media and the Political Class is.

Trump’s campaign strategy has been expedient and eclectic, and now the opponents are able to handle it without difficulty.

He has crushed all his opponents in the Primaries. The Leadership is desperately trying, not to defeat him, but to get a brokered convention so they can get the decision AWAY from the voters.

Trump’s bad temper and his attempt to intimidate startles the listener who then reacts with ridicule.

Moronic nonsense.

Correll gives Trump a chance on his changing his mind but won’t give it to Cruz.

Cecil asked for an example of another candidate walking it back. I gave one.

Correll says Trump deserves a fair and square chance. My reaction is that the far right reactionaries deserve nothing but a boot rhetorically in the seat of the pants.

If one faction of a group is treated like shit, that faction will not stay for long.

We respected the process when McCain won. Now you moderates owe us the same.

By the way, Mensa Boy, my name is CECILIE, not Cecil. Hard to take you seriously when you can't even read.

No one owes you jack shit. Good to know Trump's managed to bullshit you into an entitlement mentality. Should go down easy when he reverts to his natural liberalism, because you're already prepared to think like one of them.

I've never listened to Trump address this issue at all. My opinion on this is based on my stated reasons, which you did nothing to address, let alone actually challenge.

Chuckles, I didn't bother dignifying your post with a serious, reasoned response for two reasons: one, you weren't addressing me, and two, we already established that you demand specific, detailed answers, and then respond with fucking campaign bumper stickers. I already told you I wasn't going to waste time treating you to respect you have manifestly proven you don't deserve and won't reciprocate.

So yeah, the only point I care about responding to is the last one: "You owe us something". I'll say it again: no one owes you shit. If you chose to cast your vote for a candidate you didn't really want, that's on YOU and no one else. No one held a gun to your head. No one promised you a quid pro quo, where you vote for this candidate and later down the line, we'll let you force a nominee who's batshit insane on us.

You chose it, you assumed, you were wrong. Get the fuck over it.

The definition of a political party is at odds with the behavior your describe.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Oh, and the GOP leadership? And the moderates? I hope they don't expect to have any further support from us in the future, if they don't reverse course soon.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Correll, you are now trolling. Your minority does not get to select the candidate if you can't get the delegates. Your insipid denials that you are not a racist are confused. You don't get "just once more," not ever.

Stay on OP.

 

[Correll]

Correll, you are now trolling. Your minority does not get to select the candidate if you can't get the delegates. Your insipid denials that you are not a racist are confused. You don't get "just once more," not ever.

Stay on OP.

You make serious and negative claims about me, but refuse to support them, when challenged.

Yet, you insist of repeatedly using them.

You are an asshole.

If anyone wants a post supporting my claim about you, it is right here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Correll has trouble and is confused.

 

[Correll]

Correll has trouble and is confused.

You make another claim, and again do nothing to support your bullshit.

I described your asshole behavior perfectly.

You make serious and negative claims about me, but refuse to support them, when challenged.

Yet, you insist of repeatedly using them.

You are an asshole.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The vacuous statement above about this and that and whatever without proof are simple assertions.

You are now flaming and trolling. Reported.

To the OP: you have done nothing to counter Trump's historic negatives.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Correll cannot prove that Trump was not manipulated into marriage by women as the evidence suggests.

Cecil is the one that brought it up as evidence against Trump. It is on him to prove it.

Correll has given us no reason to believe that Trump really will deport illegals.

Trump could be lying. But at least he does not have a documented record of trying to give the illegals amnesty. IMO, that makes him the most credible.

Correll has not shown how Trump can reverse the Trade Deficit.

I'm not sure HOW he plans to do it. I just note the he is the only Republican pledged to try. The rest are still mired in the ideology of Free Trade.

Correll says he is has been a Free Trader all of his life, without any evidence or support.

??? Wow. That's an incredibly minor point. What "Evidence" of my personal opinion would you expect to see? Magic Brain scans?

Correll is foolish to believe that Trump can handle Putin.

Trump is the only republican who has adjusted to the Cold War being over and who doesn't WANT to "handle" PUtin. That's a big plus in my book.

The article is wrong that Trump “is testing his insults and attacks.” In fact he is floundering. Instead of message testing, he can’t grasp either the media or the message.

He is being buried under a massive propaganda campaign. Far greater men have been destroyed by far less. This in not about what flaws he has, but how completely corrupt the media and the Political Class is.

Trump’s campaign strategy has been expedient and eclectic, and now the opponents are able to handle it without difficulty.

He has crushed all his opponents in the Primaries. The Leadership is desperately trying, not to defeat him, but to get a brokered convention so they can get the decision AWAY from the voters.

Trump’s bad temper and his attempt to intimidate startles the listener who then reacts with ridicule.

Moronic nonsense.

Correll gives Trump a chance on his changing his mind but won’t give it to Cruz.

Cecil asked for an example of another candidate walking it back. I gave one.

Correll says Trump deserves a fair and square chance. My reaction is that the far right reactionaries deserve nothing but a boot rhetorically in the seat of the pants.

If one faction of a group is treated like shit, that faction will not stay for long.

We respected the process when McCain won. Now you moderates owe us the same.

By the way, Mensa Boy, my name is CECILIE, not Cecil. Hard to take you seriously when you can't even read.

No one owes you jack shit. Good to know Trump's managed to bullshit you into an entitlement mentality. Should go down easy when he reverts to his natural liberalism, because you're already prepared to think like one of them.

I've never listened to Trump address this issue at all. My opinion on this is based on my stated reasons, which you did nothing to address, let alone actually challenge.

Chuckles, I didn't bother dignifying your post with a serious, reasoned response for two reasons: one, you weren't addressing me, and two, we already established that you demand specific, detailed answers, and then respond with fucking campaign bumper stickers. I already told you I wasn't going to waste time treating you to respect you have manifestly proven you don't deserve and won't reciprocate.

So yeah, the only point I care about responding to is the last one: "You owe us something". I'll say it again: no one owes you shit. If you chose to cast your vote for a candidate you didn't really want, that's on YOU and no one else. No one held a gun to your head. No one promised you a quid pro quo, where you vote for this candidate and later down the line, we'll let you force a nominee who's batshit insane on us.

You chose it, you assumed, you were wrong. Get the fuck over it.

The definition of a political party is at odds with the behavior your describe.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Oh, and the GOP leadership? And the moderates? I hope they don't expect to have any further support from us in the future, if they don't reverse course soon.

The GOP has always been perfectly willing to lose to the Dems. Where have YOU been? They're actually happier when they're not in control, if I had to make a guess. What they DON'T want is to lose any chance at their cushy, comfy spot as the "principled opposition".

 

[Correll]

The vacuous statement above about this and that and whatever without proof are simple assertions.

You are now flaming and trolling. Reported.

To the OP: you have done nothing to counter Trump's historic negatives.

You cannot support your vile accusations, and yet insist on continuing them, and the fact that I don't just let you get away with lying and smearing me, you consider egregious enough that you think that it is worthy of being reported?!

That is not a simple assertion, that is supported by the fact that you are constantly doing that, as you have just done.

And I have made many comments on the OP. If you could make a post without making vile accusations against me, you might motivate me to repeat them for you.

Or you could review the thread.

Doesn't really matter though. You dismiss anything and everything that you disagree with, and if pressed, resort to personal attacks to derail the conversation.

 

[Correll]

Cecil is the one that brought it up as evidence against Trump. It is on him to prove it.

Trump could be lying. But at least he does not have a documented record of trying to give the illegals amnesty. IMO, that makes him the most credible.

I'm not sure HOW he plans to do it. I just note the he is the only Republican pledged to try. The rest are still mired in the ideology of Free Trade.

??? Wow. That's an incredibly minor point. What "Evidence" of my personal opinion would you expect to see? Magic Brain scans?

Trump is the only republican who has adjusted to the Cold War being over and who doesn't WANT to "handle" PUtin. That's a big plus in my book.

He is being buried under a massive propaganda campaign. Far greater men have been destroyed by far less. This in not about what flaws he has, but how completely corrupt the media and the Political Class is.

He has crushed all his opponents in the Primaries. The Leadership is desperately trying, not to defeat him, but to get a brokered convention so they can get the decision AWAY from the voters.

Moronic nonsense.

Cecil asked for an example of another candidate walking it back. I gave one.

If one faction of a group is treated like shit, that faction will not stay for long.

We respected the process when McCain won. Now you moderates owe us the same.

By the way, Mensa Boy, my name is CECILIE, not Cecil. Hard to take you seriously when you can't even read.

No one owes you jack shit. Good to know Trump's managed to bullshit you into an entitlement mentality. Should go down easy when he reverts to his natural liberalism, because you're already prepared to think like one of them.

I've never listened to Trump address this issue at all. My opinion on this is based on my stated reasons, which you did nothing to address, let alone actually challenge.

Chuckles, I didn't bother dignifying your post with a serious, reasoned response for two reasons: one, you weren't addressing me, and two, we already established that you demand specific, detailed answers, and then respond with fucking campaign bumper stickers. I already told you I wasn't going to waste time treating you to respect you have manifestly proven you don't deserve and won't reciprocate.

So yeah, the only point I care about responding to is the last one: "You owe us something". I'll say it again: no one owes you shit. If you chose to cast your vote for a candidate you didn't really want, that's on YOU and no one else. No one held a gun to your head. No one promised you a quid pro quo, where you vote for this candidate and later down the line, we'll let you force a nominee who's batshit insane on us.

You chose it, you assumed, you were wrong. Get the fuck over it.

The definition of a political party is at odds with the behavior your describe.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Oh, and the GOP leadership? And the moderates? I hope they don't expect to have any further support from us in the future, if they don't reverse course soon.

The GOP has always been perfectly willing to lose to the Dems. Where have YOU been? They're actually happier when they're not in control, if I had to make a guess. What they DON'T want is to lose any chance at their cushy, comfy spot as the "principled opposition".

Before the arguments they made that they were doing what they were doing because they thought it was the best way to win was less obviously bullshit.

I could believe that they believed it.

Hell, Toro seems a reasonable sort, and he still believes that they are pursuing the best chance of victory.

But my point about the definition of what a Political Party is stands.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

 

[Cecilie1200]

By the way, Mensa Boy, my name is CECILIE, not Cecil. Hard to take you seriously when you can't even read.

No one owes you jack shit. Good to know Trump's managed to bullshit you into an entitlement mentality. Should go down easy when he reverts to his natural liberalism, because you're already prepared to think like one of them.

I've never listened to Trump address this issue at all. My opinion on this is based on my stated reasons, which you did nothing to address, let alone actually challenge.

Chuckles, I didn't bother dignifying your post with a serious, reasoned response for two reasons: one, you weren't addressing me, and two, we already established that you demand specific, detailed answers, and then respond with fucking campaign bumper stickers. I already told you I wasn't going to waste time treating you to respect you have manifestly proven you don't deserve and won't reciprocate.

So yeah, the only point I care about responding to is the last one: "You owe us something". I'll say it again: no one owes you shit. If you chose to cast your vote for a candidate you didn't really want, that's on YOU and no one else. No one held a gun to your head. No one promised you a quid pro quo, where you vote for this candidate and later down the line, we'll let you force a nominee who's batshit insane on us.

You chose it, you assumed, you were wrong. Get the fuck over it.

The definition of a political party is at odds with the behavior your describe.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Oh, and the GOP leadership? And the moderates? I hope they don't expect to have any further support from us in the future, if they don't reverse course soon.

The GOP has always been perfectly willing to lose to the Dems. Where have YOU been? They're actually happier when they're not in control, if I had to make a guess. What they DON'T want is to lose any chance at their cushy, comfy spot as the "principled opposition".

Before the arguments they made that they were doing what they were doing because they thought it was the best way to win was less obviously bullshit.

I could believe that they believed it.

Hell, Toro seems a reasonable sort, and he still believes that they are pursuing the best chance of victory.

But my point about the definition of what a Political Party is stands.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

You're literally making no sense whatsoever at this point. This is what happens when you try to make a coherent argument in favor of the universe being beholden to giving you what you want, just because you want it.

 

[Pogo]

By the way, Mensa Boy, my name is CECILIE, not Cecil. Hard to take you seriously when you can't even read.

No one owes you jack shit. Good to know Trump's managed to bullshit you into an entitlement mentality. Should go down easy when he reverts to his natural liberalism, because you're already prepared to think like one of them.

I've never listened to Trump address this issue at all. My opinion on this is based on my stated reasons, which you did nothing to address, let alone actually challenge.

Chuckles, I didn't bother dignifying your post with a serious, reasoned response for two reasons: one, you weren't addressing me, and two, we already established that you demand specific, detailed answers, and then respond with fucking campaign bumper stickers. I already told you I wasn't going to waste time treating you to respect you have manifestly proven you don't deserve and won't reciprocate.

So yeah, the only point I care about responding to is the last one: "You owe us something". I'll say it again: no one owes you shit. If you chose to cast your vote for a candidate you didn't really want, that's on YOU and no one else. No one held a gun to your head. No one promised you a quid pro quo, where you vote for this candidate and later down the line, we'll let you force a nominee who's batshit insane on us.

You chose it, you assumed, you were wrong. Get the fuck over it.

The definition of a political party is at odds with the behavior your describe.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Oh, and the GOP leadership? And the moderates? I hope they don't expect to have any further support from us in the future, if they don't reverse course soon.

The GOP has always been perfectly willing to lose to the Dems. Where have YOU been? They're actually happier when they're not in control, if I had to make a guess. What they DON'T want is to lose any chance at their cushy, comfy spot as the "principled opposition".

Before the arguments they made that they were doing what they were doing because they thought it was the best way to win was less obviously bullshit.

I could believe that they believed it.

Hell, Toro seems a reasonable sort, and he still believes that they are pursuing the best chance of victory.

But my point about the definition of what a Political Party is stands.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Here's the weak link in your premise IMHO:

"If the leadership felt that it's [sic] political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base ...."

The party's base, though, is whoever the party wants it to be. And that base will morph and shift over time, or according to where different factions lead it. You must be aware that the Republican Party has morphed its appeal, several times, over its history. As has the Democratic Party. A political party ultimately exists for the purpose of consolidating power, not for the purpose of representing a fixed ideology.

In fact take a look at the election season of 1912. Some fascinating parallels.

-- Brewing schism in the Republican Party between establishment and reformers...
-- a candidate (from New York) who's derided as a massive egotist, who then wins most of the primaries, usually by large margins (against a candidate from Ohio no less), and then the Party nominates his rival in spite of those primary wins....
-- a candidate from the South with only two years experience in government at any level...
-- a Socialist candidate...
-- a third party Republican split that gives the election to the Democrat who wins less than 42% of the popular vote yet walks away with over 400 EVs to win the Presidency....
-- even a candidate with wild flowing hair.​

 

[Cecilie1200]

I've never listened to Trump address this issue at all. My opinion on this is based on my stated reasons, which you did nothing to address, let alone actually challenge.

Chuckles, I didn't bother dignifying your post with a serious, reasoned response for two reasons: one, you weren't addressing me, and two, we already established that you demand specific, detailed answers, and then respond with fucking campaign bumper stickers. I already told you I wasn't going to waste time treating you to respect you have manifestly proven you don't deserve and won't reciprocate.

So yeah, the only point I care about responding to is the last one: "You owe us something". I'll say it again: no one owes you shit. If you chose to cast your vote for a candidate you didn't really want, that's on YOU and no one else. No one held a gun to your head. No one promised you a quid pro quo, where you vote for this candidate and later down the line, we'll let you force a nominee who's batshit insane on us.

You chose it, you assumed, you were wrong. Get the fuck over it.

The definition of a political party is at odds with the behavior your describe.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Oh, and the GOP leadership? And the moderates? I hope they don't expect to have any further support from us in the future, if they don't reverse course soon.

The GOP has always been perfectly willing to lose to the Dems. Where have YOU been? They're actually happier when they're not in control, if I had to make a guess. What they DON'T want is to lose any chance at their cushy, comfy spot as the "principled opposition".

Before the arguments they made that they were doing what they were doing because they thought it was the best way to win was less obviously bullshit.

I could believe that they believed it.

Hell, Toro seems a reasonable sort, and he still believes that they are pursuing the best chance of victory.

But my point about the definition of what a Political Party is stands.

"A political party is defined as an organised group of people with at least roughly similar political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected to public office."

If the leadership felt that it's political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base that they would rather lose to the Dems, than win with a non establishment approved candidate, then by the act of remaining in the same party as them, they were lying.

By the further act of accepting the aid and support of fellow Republicans, by the definition of POlitical Party, they entered a social contract of mutual support. Which they are now betraying.

Here's the weak link in your premise IMHO:

"If the leadership felt that it's [sic] political aims and opinions were so different from those of the base ...."

The party's base, though, is whoever the party wants it to be. And that base will morph and shift over time, or according to where different factions lead it. You must be aware that the Republican Party has morphed its appeal, several times, over its history. As has the Democratic Party. A political party ultimately exists for the purpose of consolidating power, not for the purpose of representing a fixed ideology.

In fact take a look at the election season of 1912. Some fascinating parallels.

-- Brewing schism in the Republican Party between establishment and reformers...
-- a candidate who's derided as a massive egotist, who then wins most of the primaries, usually by large margins, and then the Party nominates his rival in spite of those primary wins....
-- a candidate who has only two years experience in government on any level...
-- a third party split that gives the election to the Democrat who wins less than 42% of the popular vote yet walks away with over 400 EVs to win the Presidency....
-- even a candidate with wild flowing hair.​

I'm glad YOU understood what the hell he was babbling about. I got that he was still thinking the world owed him something, but that was mostly just because that's what he always thinks. The explanation of why was gibberish to me.