OT: Don't know if Trump's run is coming to an end, but it's been great so far!!

gHost Spartan wrote:Seriously, why do people even ask these types of questions?

NigelUno wrote:

gHost Spartan wrote:Seriously, why do people even ask these types of questions?

I think because David Duke endorsed Trump.

Jethro Bodeen wrote:Give me a break. Did anyone ever ask Omamao to disavow Hugo Chavez or Bill Ayers? We know he never disavowed Reverend Wright, but that was ok, cause it was Obamao and you can't criticize a black guy, cause that's racist!

Ass Dan wrote:

Jethro Bodeen wrote:Give me a break. Did anyone ever ask Omamao to disavow Hugo Chavez or Bill Ayers? We know he never disavowed Reverend Wright, but that was ok, cause it was Obamao and you can't criticize a black guy, cause that's racist!

Right, being endorsed by the KKK just isn't a big deal you guys. Obama is a fuckig dick! Look over here at the thins I'm saying about Obama! God I hate that guy. If HE ever got endorsed by the KKK he DEFINITELY wouldn't denounce them. Ever. Fuck that guy.

LooseGoose wrote:His Dad was in the KKK, he can't disavow his heritage.

Turtleneck wrote:

Automatic default is always "but Bush" or "but Cheney." Never a substantive response to anything. Just right to deflection mode.

CORNER BLITZ wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Automatic default is always "but Bush" or "but Cheney." Never a substantive response to anything. Just right to deflection mode.

literally exactly the same "argument" from both sides

Turtleneck wrote:

LooseGoose wrote:His Dad was in the KKK, he can't disavow his heritage.

His dad was Robert Byrd? Any relation to Russell, Moose?

Floyd Robertson wrote:Is that really going to faze Trump's core constituency?

Jethro Bodeen wrote:Give me a break. Did anyone ever ask Omamao to disavow Hugo Chavez or Bill Ayers? We know he never disavowed Reverend Wright, but that was ok, cause it was Obamao and you can't criticize a black guy, cause that's racist!

Ass Dan wrote:

CORNER BLITZ wrote:

literally exactly the same "argument" from both sides

Not really

CORNER BLITZ wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Automatic default is always "but Bush" or "but Cheney." Never a substantive response to anything. Just right to deflection mode.

Literally not.

literally exactly the same "argument" from both sides

CORNER BLITZ wrote:

Ass Dan wrote:

Not really

Is that a joke? I still hear people talk about Bush. If an R becomes president, stuff that is wrong in 4 years will be Obama's fault.

Both sides say exactly the same thing

Bush is president
Right: ok with ____
Left: not ok with ____
Right: oh yeah, well you were ok with it when Clinton did ____

Obama is president
Left: ok with ____
Right: no ok with _____
Left: oh yeah, well you were ok with it when Bush did _____

tGreenWay wrote: Next, they'll dismantle government.

tGreenWay wrote:The extremists are making their move to usurp total control. I hate it. This country is better off with a healthy GOP, but the Tea Partiers have succeeded in paralyzing Washington. Next, they'll dismantle government. It's worked beautifully for them.

CORNER BLITZ wrote:

tGreenWay wrote: Next, they'll dismantle government.

Turtleneck wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:The extremists are making their move to usurp total control. I hate it. This country is better off with a healthy GOP, but the Tea Partiers have succeeded in paralyzing Washington. Next, they'll dismantle government. It's worked beautifully for them.

I don't think Trump is their guy. For as much as they desire limited government, the tea party crowd has a strong moral streak grounded in Christianity. They would be better off with Ted Cruz. If most of them are lining up behind Trump, they are backing the wrong horse. Trump will not reduce government. He will grow government. His presidency will blow up in their face in the worst way.

tGreenWay wrote:The extremists are making their move to usurp total control. I hate it. This country is better off with a healthy GOP, but the Tea Partiers have succeeded in paralyzing Washington.  Next, they'll dismantle government. It's worked beautifully for them.  

tGreenWay wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I don't think Trump is their guy. For as much as they desire limited government, the tea party crowd has a strong moral streak grounded in Christianity. They would be better off with Ted Cruz. If most of them are lining up behind Trump, they are backing the wrong horse. Trump will not reduce government. He will grow government. His presidency will blow up in their face in the worst way.

You're giving Tea Partiers too much credit. Deep thinking isn't their strong suit. What they do, they've done quite well, but just protesting everything, obstructing everything, saying No to everything, and refusing to compromise on anything isn't exactly critical thinking.

kingstonlake wrote:True, honest debate threads are always more readable on weekends.

Turtleneck wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:The extremists are making their move to usurp total control. I hate it. This country is better off with a healthy GOP, but the Tea Partiers have succeeded in paralyzing Washington. Next, they'll dismantle government. It's worked beautifully for them.

I don't think Trump is their guy. For as much as they desire limited government, the tea party crowd has a strong moral streak grounded in Christianity. They would be better off with Ted Cruz. If most of them are lining up behind Trump, they are backing the wrong horse. Trump will not reduce government. He will grow government. His presidency will blow up in their face in the worst way.

NigelUno wrote:http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/02/28/donald-trump-refuses-to-condemn-kkk-and-marco-rubios-backers-pounce/

Trump was then asked specifically asked if he would disavow the KKK.

“You may have groups in there that are totally fine and it would be very unfair,” he said. “So give me a list of the groups and I’ll let you know.”

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:The extremists are making their move to usurp total control. I hate it. This country is better off with a healthy GOP, but the Tea Partiers have succeeded in paralyzing Washington. Next, they'll dismantle government. It's worked beautifully for them.

I could see the normal (read, sane) republicans just not voting or even supporting Hillary and accepting that they have to go back to the drawing board for 2020. The alternative for them is 8 years of trump or 4 of trump then 4 of a democrat president and a 2024 election against an incumbent democrat. Unless they try to go after an incumbent in their own party in 2020 (if trump won in 16) which I can't imagine would be easy or helpful for them long term.

Seems that if your a republican that really hates trump, and there are a lot, the best option is to bite the bullet for 4 years.

kingstonlake wrote:True, honest debate threads are always more readable on weekends.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:The extremists are making their move to usurp total control. I hate it. This country is better off with a healthy GOP, but the Tea Partiers have succeeded in paralyzing Washington.  Next, they'll dismantle government. It's worked beautifully for them.  

I could see the normal (read, sane) republicans just not voting or even supporting Hillary and accepting that they have to go back to the drawing board for 2020. The alternative for them is 8 years of trump or 4 of trump then 4 of a democrat president and a 2024 election against an incumbent democrat. Unless they try to go after an incumbent in their own party in 2020 (if trump won in 16) which I can't imagine would be easy or helpful for them long term.

Seems that if your a republican that really hates trump, and there are a lot, the best option is to bite the bullet for 4 years.

Blanch32 wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I don't think Trump is their guy. For as much as they desire limited government, the tea party crowd has a strong moral streak grounded in Christianity. They would be better off with Ted Cruz. If most of them are lining up behind Trump, they are backing the wrong horse. Trump will not reduce government. He will grow government. His presidency will blow up in their face in the worst way.

Tea party means taxes enough already. The Christian loons high jacked it cause shrinking government is worst for both parties

Blanch32 wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

I don't think Trump is their guy. For as much as they desire limited government, the tea party crowd has a strong moral streak grounded in Christianity. They would be better off with Ted Cruz. If most of them are lining up behind Trump, they are backing the wrong horse. Trump will not reduce government. He will grow government. His presidency will blow up in their face in the worst way.

Tea party means taxes enough already. The Christian loons high jacked it cause shrinking government is worst for both parties

tGreenWay wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I could see the normal (read, sane) republicans just not voting or even supporting Hillary and accepting that they have to go back to the drawing board for 2020. The alternative for them is 8 years of trump or 4 of trump then 4 of a democrat president and a 2024 election against an incumbent democrat. Unless they try to go after an incumbent in their own party in 2020 (if trump won in 16) which I can't imagine would be easy or helpful for them long term.

Seems that if your a republican that really hates trump, and there are a lot, the best option is to bite the bullet for 4 years.

Yeah, I imagine a lot of Rs are spending time trying to figure out their voting strategies. I could see them letting Trump take on Hillary, and regroup for '20. As I've said before, I'm no fan of HC and I could see her being a one-term president.
Seems like the national GOP has been as lax in preparing electable candidates for POTUS as the Michigan Ds have been preparing qualified candidates for governor. Virg? Feiger? Turrible.

Turtleneck wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I could see the normal (read, sane) republicans just not voting or even supporting Hillary and accepting that they have to go back to the drawing board for 2020. The alternative for them is 8 years of trump or 4 of trump then 4 of a democrat president and a 2024 election against an incumbent democrat. Unless they try to go after an incumbent in their own party in 2020 (if trump won in 16) which I can't imagine would be easy or helpful for them long term.

Seems that if your a republican that really hates trump, and there are a lot, the best option is to bite the bullet for 4 years.

A few ideas about the slow shift to Trump (in the last week he picked up endorsements from two members of the House, Christie and couple of other governors, and now a sitting Senator).

1. They see Trump as more controllable than Cruz. They see Trump as a guy that shares some of their values, will be stedfast in protecting those shared values, but will not be afraid to compromise. Especially within his own party. I really thought Sessions would endorse Cruz. It might just be that they see Cruz as far too rigid and far less willing to compromise even within his own ranks.

2. Second, they are thinking general election. They might have identified Trump as now having the best shot at defeating Clinton. The hate for Clinton is strong. It flows through them, it owns them, the name Clinton keeps them up at night. They would get behind a three legged unicorn if polls suggested it could beat Clinton. Cruz would not be able to beat Clinton. This is weird. All along the guy best equipped to do this was supposedly Rubio.

3. Trump does not have too many endorsement and we are making a big deal out of the ones he does have.

4. People are starting to bandwagon. Nothing more.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

tGreenWay wrote:

Yeah, I imagine a lot of Rs are spending time trying to figure out their voting strategies. I could see them letting Trump take on Hillary, and regroup for '20. As I've said before, I'm no fan of HC and I could see her being a one-term president.
Seems like the national GOP has been as lax in preparing electable candidates for POTUS as the Michigan Ds have been preparing qualified candidates for governor. Virg? Feiger? Turrible.

If you look back, they put a pretty electable Romney (hell this year I might have voted for him) in a tough spot against an incumbent who only republicans really hated. He didn't have a great chance. They would have been much better off giving him his shot in 16 while leading some lamb up for slaughter in 12. Some of them, and I've had this conversation with them, have learned and realize that putting aside the hatred for democrats for a year is a better long term idea.

They still have the house and senate. It's not like Hillary would be able to get all that much done. Which isn't really such a bad thing despite what everyone always says this time every 4 years.