Re: Not! Jeb!

by **tGreenWay** 2016-02-21, 00:53

SpartanDawgs265 wrote:
tGreenWay wrote:

Off the top of my head and in no particular order:

•He's an outsider. The GOP in particular likes to choose its nominees with a next man in line attitude. Someone who has done the time working from within the Party. Trump has done none of that.

•Trump has repeatedly spoken out against GWB, called him a liar, and not just during this primary. He's said this for years.

•There's semi-recent video of him claiming to be pro-choice. Pro-Life voters won't trust him.

•He's not just an Easterner--he's a New Yorker, fer chrissakes. Trump represents what the heart of the GOP has railed against for decades.

•He hasn't kissed the rings of the biggest of the big money donors, the Adelson, Kochs, DeVos, Friess, et al.

•He has absolutely no economic, domestic, or foreign policy experience -- none -- and he hasn't offered any plans other than to say "Trust me, I have the best people working on it and it's going to be great." Those most likely to vote, the ones who pay closest attention, are only now beginning to make their decisions, forming opinions, and they're realizing that with Trump, it's all puffery. There's no there, there.

There's more I can get into tomorrow if you want, but I've got a lot of wine in me and this Kalamazoo shooting is distracting me.

Are you in the second grade? The anti establishment republicans outnumber the establishment now. Dumb fuck.

I think your mom had the Zika virus when you were born. Seriously, you are mind-numbingly stupid. You're also fsoooo ucking boring. You have no knowledge of party politics. None. You're fucking clueless about the realities of how these things work because you've never been there before. Seriously, just sit back, listen, and observe. Hell, take notes if you have to. Just let the grownups discuss things, because you don't know jack shit.

by Guest 2016-02-21, 01:02

tGreenWay wrote:
SpartanDawgs265 wrote:

Are you in the second grade? The anti establishment republicans outnumber the establishment now. Dumb fuck.

I think your mom had the Zika virus when you were born. Seriously, you are mind-numbingly stupid. You're also fsoooo ucking boring. You have no knowledge of party politics. None. You're fucking clueless about the realities of how these things work because you've never been there before. Seriously, just sit back, listen, and observe. Hell, take notes if you have to. Just let the grownups discuss things, because you don't know jack shit.

Dude, you are the worst poster on the board. All you do is post dumb ass things to turtleneck and travis. You never post anything of substance. You are so fucking stupid if you don't think Trump is winning the nomination. I will offer you free tutoring at my sylvan center since you are dumb as a rock. Just stick to posting ur gay ass little comments with ur three friends on here. You don't know shit. Trump guaranteed to win nomination. Also, lose some weight fatty.

-SD265 OUT

-Trump, Republican Nominee

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-21, 01:08

by **tGreenWay** 2016-02-21, 01:14

SpartanDawgs265 wrote:
tGreenWay wrote:

I think your mom had the Zika virus when you were born. Seriously, you are mind-numbingly stupid. You're also fsoooo ucking boring. You have no knowledge of party politics. None. You're fucking clueless about the realities of how these things work because you've never been there before. Seriously, just sit back, listen, and observe. Hell, take notes if you have to. Just let the grownups discuss things, because you don't know jack shit.

Dude, you are the worst poster on the board. All you do is post dumb ass things to turtleneck and travis. You never post anything of substance. You are so fucking stupid if you don't think Trump is winning the nomination. I will offer you free tutoring at my sylvan center since you are dumb as a rock. Just stick to posting ur gay ass little comments with ur three friends on here. You don't know shit. Trump guaranteed to win nomination. Also, lose some weight fatty.

-SD265 OUT

-Trump, Republican Nominee

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-21, 01:39

Ben Shapiro explaining exactly what I'm saying @ 13:00. Trump gets away with his crap because no one else in the GOP has any balls. They're emasculated little boys.

Hillary will embarrass Donald in a debate.

by **Cameron** 2016-02-21, 05:14

I'm hoping for Trump vs. Sanders. I spent a bit of time at Sylvan when I was younger, they helped prepare me when I skipped 2nd grade.

I think Trump is hilarious, the way he napalms anyone who says anything even remotely non-complimentary of him. I would love for his ignorant, low-information ass to go up against Bernie.

My worst fear is Hillary vs. Trump. Because I think Hillary would win, and I'm an incorrigible misogynist. I want that weird looking bitch to go away.

by **Floyd Robertson** 2016-02-21, 05:25

Cameron wrote:I'm hoping for Trump vs. Sanders. I spent a bit of time at Sylvan when I was younger, they helped prepare me when I skipped 2nd grade.

I think Trump is hilarious, the way he napalms anyone who says anything even remotely non-complimentary of him. I would love for his ignorant, low-information ass to go up against Bernie.

My worst fear is Hillary vs. Trump. Because I think Hillary would win, and I'm an incorrigible misogynist. I want that weird looking bitch to go away.

I'm dead set against Hillary being the 1st woman president. Eventually we'll have one and I don't have a problem with that, but I'd like it to be somebody who has held an elected office where she didn't conveniently take up residence in a state just be elected to the Senate. Somebody who hasn't had a zillion scandals. Somebody who's husband isn't a living ex-president who had a zillion scandals. I'd also like some executive branch experience at balancing budgets. Maybe somebody like Nikki Haley.

by **Dr. Strangelove** 2016-02-21, 07:13

No more Bushes
No more Clintons

There won't be a brokered convention - that is a political wet dream that is peddled every 4 years. Hasn't happened since 52.

Hillary is getting pushed by a 74 year old Socialist.

Hillary can only beat Trump.

Kasich? Are you fucking kidding me?

GOP nom is either Cruz or Rubio. I could vote for either.

GOP short list vp: Nikki Haley, Carly Fiorina, Joni Ernst, Kelly Ayotte. See a pattern here?

by Guest 2016-02-21, 08:08

Dr. Strangelove wrote:GOP short list vp: Nikki Haley, Carly Fiorina, Joni Ernst, Kelly Ayotte. See a pattern here?

I would add Susanna Martinez to this list.

by **Dr. Strangelove** 2016-02-21, 08:10

LooseGoose wrote:
Dr. Strangelove wrote:GOP short list vp: Nikki Haley, Carly Fiorina, Joni Ernst, Kelly Ayotte. See a pattern here?

I would add Susanna Martinez to this list.

I like her too but with Rubio or Cruz on the top line it's a little too spicy for the rank and file.

Hell throw Mia Love in there too

by **Floyd Robertson** 2016-02-21, 08:15

Dr. Strangelove wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

I would add Susanna Martinez to this list.

I like her too but with Rubio or Cruz on the top line it's a little too spicy for the rank and file.

Hell throw Mia Love in there too

Not knowing anything about Love, I checked her wiki page. Mayor with some experience balancing budgets, Plus. Want to cut federal spending and entitlements, Plus. Only 14 months in Congress seems a little light.

by **Jake from State Farm** 2016-02-21, 08:43

Damn, I was hoping for a Bush-Clinton matchup so I would really have a good reason to avoid the voting booth this year.

by **Dr. Strangelove** 2016-02-21, 08:46

Floyd Robertson wrote:
Dr. Strangelove wrote:

I like her too but with Rubio or Cruz on the top line it's a little too spicy for the rank and file.

Hell throw Mia Love in there too

Not knowing anything about Love, I checked her wiki page. Mayor with some experience balancing budgets, Plus. Want to cut federal spending and entitlements, Plus. Only 14 months in Congress seems a little light.

She's a black woman - nuff said and nobody ever voted against a ticket because of the vp. Otherwise Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle and Richard Cheney would never have served in that office. Even Sarah Palin didn't cost McCain the election.

by Guest 2016-02-21, 08:59

Dr. Strangelove wrote:
Floyd Robertson wrote:

Not knowing anything about Love, I checked her wiki page. Mayor with some experience balancing budgets, Plus. Want to cut federal spending and entitlements, Plus. Only 14 months in Congress seems a little light.

She's a black woman - nuff said and nobody ever voted against a ticket because of the vp. Otherwise Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle and Richard Cheney would never have served in that office. Even Sarah Palin didn't cost McCain the election.

After nominating her was the only time he ever led in the polls. If anything she made it closer.

by **Floyd Robertson** 2016-02-21, 09:23

HuffPo reporting that Mitt will endorse Marco

Exclusive: Mitt Romney To Endorse Marco Rubio

by Guest 2016-02-21, 10:06

Dr. Strangelove wrote:No more Bushes
No more Clintons

There won't be a brokered convention - that is a political wet dream that is peddled every 4 years. Hasn't happened since 52.

Hillary is getting pushed by a 74 year old Socialist.

Hillary can only beat Trump.

Kasich? Are you fucking kidding me?

GOP nom is either Cruz or Rubio. I could vote for either.

GOP short list vp: Nikki Haley, Carly Fiorina, Joni Ernst, Kelly Ayotte. See a pattern here?

If anything, Cruz wins with all of Trumps supporters (Which would be fine but not likley). . Marco isn't gunna do shit, name one state where he will ever win? Not gunna happen.

by **CORNER BLITZ** 2016-02-21, 10:42

Trump v Hilary debates would be awful. He'd get her so worked up it would just be two jackasses yelling over each other (not that it isn't normally that, but this would be ratcheted up to 12)

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-21, 12:01

Jake from State Farm wrote:Damn, I was hoping for a Bush-Clinton matchup so I would really have a good reason to avoid the voting booth this year.

There's plenty of good reasons to avoid the voting booth.

by **The_Dude** 2016-02-21, 12:12

xsanguine wrote:
Jake from State Farm wrote:Damn, I was hoping for a Bush-Clinton matchup so I would really have a good reason to avoid the voting booth this year.

There's plenty of good reasons to avoid the voting booth.

No there isn't.

Politicians love people like you who feel there isn't.

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-21, 12:19

The_Dude wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

There's plenty of good reasons to avoid the voting booth.

No there isn't.

Politicians love people like you who feel there isn't.

Yes, politicians love people like me who don't go out there and cast a vote that would potentially put them into ~~offense~~ office (sorry, been toggling between 'victimology' and this thread).

Makes sense.

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-21, 12:36

Actually, Dude, I agree with you on one point that just reared it's head recently; Supreme Court Justice nominees.

If Hillary or Bernie get to put through one of their nominees say hello to a very long upcoming period of lefty authoritarianism. It's gonna be cold, it's gonna be grey, and it's gonna last you the rest of your life.

Beyond that it's just rich people arguing over who gets the gun put in their face. See ya in line in November! Yay!!!

by **Turtleneck** 2016-02-21, 12:47

tGreenWay wrote:
Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Greenway I would like to seriously know why Trump won't get the bid. Seems like to me that people have been discounting him as a real candidate for months now yet here we are.

I like to be edumacated.

Off the top of my head and in no particular order:

•He's an outsider. The GOP in particular likes to choose its nominees with a next man in line attitude. Someone who has done the time working from within the Party. Trump has done none of that.

I am tired of Trump being labeled an outsider. I am tired of Trump calling himself an outsider. He is an elite. While he has never been elected to office, by his own admission he has used some of his billions to give to both parties. This has given him access - he has always been a phone call away - from the so-called "establishment" he is running against.

•Trump has repeatedly spoken out against GWB, called him a liar, and not just during this primary. He's said this for years.

Yes, Bush is popular among Republicans. However, I am not sure hitting Bush on Iraq is that big of deal. It is obviously a place where Bush is weak. Yet now that Jeb is out of the race, this might be less of an issue.

•There's semi-recent video of him claiming to be pro-choice. Pro-Life voters won't trust him.

I agree here. Overall, if you are looking for ideological purity and consistency, Trump is not your guy. However, if you look at the exit polls, he did well across the board. Even among evangelicals.

•He's not just an Easterner--he's a New Yorker, fer chrissakes. Trump represents what the heart of the GOP has railed against for decades.

Cruz dropped his "New York values" following Iowa. It did not gain traction. I'm not sure why, but maybe Trump's brash New York persona is why primary voters are drawn to him.

•He hasn't kissed the rings of the biggest of the big money donors, the Adelson, Kochs, DeVos, Friess, et al.

I suppose this could cost him. I do not see these folks backing Trump. But does he need them?

•He has absolutely no economic, domestic, or foreign policy experience -- none -- and he hasn't offered any plans other than to say "Trust me, I have the best people working on it and it's going to be great." Those most likely to vote, the ones who pay closest attention, are only now beginning to make their decisions, forming opinions, and they're realizing that with Trump, it's all puffery. There's no there, there.

This could cost him in a general election where you have to engage in a more substantive dialogue. You use all kinds of fiery rhetoric in the primaries to lock up base voters. In the general you have to temper your rhetoric in an attempt to win over independents, moderates, and swing voters. Can he do that? At the same time, the "traditional wisdom" in regards to presidential elections has not held up thus far, so I am not sure if it holds up past the primaries.

There's more I can get into tomorrow if you want, but I've got a lot of wine in me and this Kalamazoo shooting is distracting me.

I think Trump's biggest problem is his ceiling. He might have hit his ceiling - in terms of support - quite some time ago. As other candidates fall away, Trump will certainly pick up some of their support, but a majority of that support will go elsewhere. Bush supporters are most likely going to gravitate toward Rubio or Kasich. When Kasich eventually drops, most of his support will go to Rubio. Rubio got a big assist from Jeb, and his campaign should be pressuring Kasich to get out of the race. Rubio has not won a state, but his numbers should go up. Carson might be staying in the race just to stick it to Cruz after Iowa.

The issue with what I said above is whether or not the level of support for Bush, Kasich, and Carson - which has been low - will be enough, after divided between the three remaining candidates to push Cruz or Rubio past Trump.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-02-21, 12:53

xsanguine wrote:Actually, Dude, I agree with you on one point that just reared it's head recently; Supreme Court Justice nominees.

If Hillary or Bernie get to put through one of their nominees say hello to a very long upcoming period of lefty authoritarianism. It's gonna be cold, it's gonna be grey, and it's gonna last you the rest of your life.

Beyond that it's just rich people arguing over who gets the gun put in their face. See ya in line in November! Yay!!!

So you want "righty authoritarianism?"

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-21, 12:55

Turtleneck wrote:
xsanguine wrote:Actually, Dude, I agree with you on one point that just reared it's head recently; Supreme Court Justice nominees.

If Hillary or Bernie get to put through one of their nominees say hello to a very long upcoming period of lefty authoritarianism. It's gonna be cold, it's gonna be grey, and it's gonna last you the rest of your life.

Beyond that it's just rich people arguing over who gets the gun put in their face. See ya in line in November! Yay!!!

So you want "righty authoritarianism?"

Yes.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-02-21, 12:58

xsanguine wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:

So you want "righty authoritarianism?"

Yes.

Well that makes 100% perfect sense.

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-21, 13:07

In all seriousness the only thing I fear is a supreme court justice nominee getting the bid based on the current social environment... which is why I fear the left more right now than I've feared the right. If an R gets into office I'm positive most of my ire will be aimed at them again... just as it was during the Bush years. Both of these groups go to moronic lengths when their guy is in office.

Looking back I'm kind of trying to figure out which laws the righties on the supreme court have implemented/interpreted that initiates force and I'm drawing a blank so far. I can imagine the kinds of things the left would implement that do implement direct force... but I hate to be that guy. I could always google it, but meh... I'm not in serious discussion mode right now so the motivation is just not there.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-02-21, 13:10

xsanguine wrote:In all seriousness the only thing I fear is a supreme court justice nominee getting the bid based on the current social environment... which is why I fear the left more right now than I've feared the right. If an R gets into office I'm positive most of my ire will be aimed at them again... just as it was during the Bush years. Both of these groups go to moronic lengths when their guy is in office.

Looking back I'm kind of trying to figure out which laws the righties on the supreme court have implemented/interpreted that initiates force and I'm drawing a blank so far. I can imagine the kinds of things the left would implement that do implement direct force... but I hate to be that guy. I could always google it, but meh... I'm not in serious discussion mode right now so the motivation is just not there.

No, I think you should continue being largely uninformed. It is so much easier that way.

by **The_Dude** 2016-02-21, 13:10

xsanguine wrote:Actually, Dude, I agree with you on one point that just reared it's head recently; Supreme Court Justice nominees.

If Hillary or Bernie get to put through one of their nominees say hello to a very long upcoming period of lefty authoritarianism. It's gonna be cold, it's gonna be grey, and it's gonna last you the rest of your life.

Beyond that it's just rich people arguing over who gets the gun put in their face. See ya in line in November! Yay!!!

You'll love this article...students at Rutgers holding a group therapy session because a speaker they didn't like came to campus...how fucked are these people?

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/18/rutgers-students-hold-group-therapy-session-after-milo-yiannopoulos-visit/

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-21, 13:16

Turtleneck wrote:
xsanguine wrote:In all seriousness the only thing I fear is a supreme court justice nominee getting the bid based on the current social environment... which is why I fear the left more right now than I've feared the right. If an R gets into office I'm positive most of my ire will be aimed at them again... just as it was during the Bush years. Both of these groups go to moronic lengths when their guy is in office.

Looking back I'm kind of trying to figure out which laws the righties on the supreme court have implemented/interpreted that initiates force and I'm drawing a blank so far. I can imagine the kinds of things the left would implement that do implement direct force... but I hate to be that guy. I could always google it, but meh... I'm not in serious discussion mode right now so the motivation is just not there.

No, I think you should continue being largely uninformed. It is so much easier that way.

Oh, Turtleneck.

Which cases? McDonald v. Chicago? Florida v. Jardines?

Is it really that ridiculous to fear a left-leaning nominee in the current landscape? Sure, fear any nominee by virtue of what the whole thing represents... but sometimes one can be a little more scary depending on how all the pieces have fallen.

by **Tim Wakefield** 2016-02-21, 13:21

xsanguine wrote:

Oh, Turtleneck.

Which cases? McDonald v. Chicago? Florida v. Jardines?

Is it really that ridiculous to fear a left-leaning nominee in the current landscape? Sure, fear any nominee by virtue of what the whole thing represents... but sometimes one can be a little more scary depending on how all the pieces have fallen.

If you don't agree, you're just uninformed.

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-21, 13:23

Tim Wakefield wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

Oh, Turtleneck.

Which cases? McDonald v. Chicago? Florida v. Jardines?

Is it really that ridiculous to fear a left-leaning nominee in the current landscape? Sure, fear any nominee by virtue of what the whole thing represents... but sometimes one can be a little more scary depending on how all the pieces have fallen.

If you don't agree, you're just uninformed.

TN is my personal counter troll to my own trolling efforts.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-02-21, 13:32

Tim Wakefield wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

Oh, Turtleneck.

Which cases? McDonald v. Chicago? Florida v. Jardines?

Is it really that ridiculous to fear a left-leaning nominee in the current landscape? Sure, fear any nominee by virtue of what the whole thing represents... but sometimes one can be a little more scary depending on how all the pieces have fallen.

If you don't agree, you're just uninformed.

No. You're 100% wrong. When a person effectively says "I could do some research but I don't want to bother doing so," that does not sound like an informed person.

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-21, 13:48

Turtleneck wrote:
Tim Wakefield wrote:

If you don't agree, you're just uninformed.

No. You're 100% wrong. When a person effective says "I could do some research but I don't want to bother doing so," that does not sound like an informed person.

This is true... however I was really just pointing out my fear of a far left leaning politician nominating someone (presumably a left-leaning individual) for supreme court and what that might mean in today's climate where the 1st amendment and 2nd amendment, specifically, would be vulnerable.
Yes, right authoritarianism would be just as dangerous. But unless there's cases in recent memory where the right leaning supreme court interpreted laws that would cause me to be nervous going forward... my fears just lie specifically with a nominee that Hillary or Bernie would probably (but not guaranteed) nominate. One of those two will be the Dem candidate so it's not like it's up in the air what sort of regime we'd be looking at.

Really it's Sunday morning and I just wanted to talk shit.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-02-21, 13:49

Florida v. Jardines

You do realize that both of Obama's appointments plus Ginsburg sided with the majority, right? That means they sided with Scalia, who I believe wrote the majority opinion.

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-21, 13:52

Turtleneck wrote:
Florida v. Jardines

You do realize that both of Obama's appointments plus Ginsburg sided with the majority, right? That means they sided with Scalia, who I believe wrote the majority opinion.

I did. My point is I haven't seen a lot of overt fuckery thus far with a righty court.... my fear is that would change with a nominee that Bernie or Hillary would nominate. Mainly Bernie.

Maybe these individuals would interpret laws with freedom and liberty in mind... but I don't have that much faith in anyone. Hence.... my broader political views.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-02-21, 13:52

xsanguine wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:

You do realize that both of Obama's appointments plus Ginsburg sided with the majority, right? That means they sided with Scalia, who I believe wrote the majority opinion.

I did. My point is I haven't seen a lot of overt fuckery thus far with a righty court.... my fear is that would change with a nominee that Bernie or Hillary would nominate. Mainly Bernie.

Maybe these individuals would interpret laws with freedom and liberty in mind... but I don't have that much faith in anyone. Hence.... my broader political views.

I do not believe you.

Also, for not having faith in anyone, you seem to have a lot of faith in who a Republican president might nominate.

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-21, 13:54

Turtleneck wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

I did. My point is I haven't seen a lot of overt fuckery thus far with a righty court.... my fear is that would change with a nominee that Bernie or Hillary would nominate. Mainly Bernie.

Maybe these individuals would interpret laws with freedom and liberty in mind... but I don't have that much faith in anyone. Hence.... my broader political views.

I do not believe.

You caught me. I wasn't looking at it from the perspective of who nominated the justices, just their "leanings".

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-21, 13:54

Turtleneck wrote:
xsanguine wrote:

I did. My point is I haven't seen a lot of overt fuckery thus far with a righty court.... my fear is that would change with a nominee that Bernie or Hillary would nominate. Mainly Bernie.

Maybe these individuals would interpret laws with freedom and liberty in mind... but I don't have that much faith in anyone. Hence.... my broader political views.

Also, for not having faith in anyone, you seem to have a lot of faith in who a Republican president might nominate.

That's an interesting strawman.

by **Turtleneck** 2016-02-21, 13:58

How is it a strawman?

Me: So you want "righty authoritarianism?"
You: Yes

by **xsanguine** 2016-02-21, 13:59

Turtleneck wrote:How is it a strawman?

Me: So you want "righty authoritarianism?"
You: Yes

Turtleneck. Do we have to go through this once again?

It's exactly why I qualified my next post with "In all seriousness".

by Sponsored content