• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP Security Advisers: No Trump

haymarket said:
RealClearPolitics - 2016 Republican Popular Vote

Primary turnout for 2016 high but not quite a record | Pew Research Center

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

There were roughly 125 million votes cast for President in the 2012 election.

In the 2016 GOP primary process, Trump got 13,300,000 votes. What that means is that just over 10% of the number of voters who cast votes for President in 2012, got Trump the nomination in 2016.

Because the pool is much smaller, the process allows a Trump to win even though he is a disaster in the general election with a much smaller electorate.

Consider that some 30 million people voted in the GOP primaries in 2016 and that is less than 25% of the general election voting group. So my "15% or so" was a bit understated. But even taking it up to 23 or 24% - its still true that the smaller body permits a Trump to emerge as the primary winner when he is a disaster in the general when far more people vote.
Click to expand...

Great job! I suspected numbers like these, but I was always too lazy to look them up.
 
haymarket said:
Yes - because the GOP primary electorate is perhaps 15% or so of the November electorate and skews farther right than the normal electorate does.

Its not the same pool at all and permits somebody like Trump to win because the playing field is entirely different.
Click to expand...

Then his detractors have nothing to worry about.
 
MaggieD said:
Then his detractors have nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...

C'mon young lady! ;) There is always something to worry about in politics. Like its often said - anything is possible. But in this case its far from probable, likely or a serious prospect.

The demographic numbers are just so set against Trump that a win for him simply is not at all something on the horizon.

But we can still worry. Woody Allen said he was worried he would not get lucky on his wedding night. ;)
 
tres borrachos said:
And?....Is that something you didn't already know? Remove the problem at the nest and the bees won't sting.
Click to expand...

The 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen with an alleged nesting "queen" in Afghanistan (later found in Pakistan) so we should obviously concentrate our extermination efforts in Iraq. ;)
 
haymarket said:
C'mon young lady! ;) There is always something to worry about in politics. Like its often said - anything is possible. But in this case its far from probable, likely or a serious prospect.

The demographic numbers are just so set against Trump that a win for him simply is not at all something on the horizon.

But we can still worry. Woody Allen said he was worried he would not get lucky on his wedding night. ;)
Click to expand...

Woody Allen was right to worry.
 
And now this to add to the daily defection from Trump

Former GOP EPA heads endorse Clinton: Trump ‘would set the world back decades’ - POLITICO

The EPA Republicans are also deserting this particular sinking ship.

Donald Trump would threaten the environmental legacy of presidents Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush, according to two former Environmental Protection Agency chiefs from their administrations.
“Republicans have a long history of support for the environment dating back to Theodore Roosevelt. Donald Trump threatens to destroy that legacy of respect for the environment and protection of public health,” William D. Ruckelshaus and William K. Reilly said in a statement endorsing Hillary Clinton’s campaign Tuesday.
Click to expand...



Read more: Former GOP EPA heads endorse Clinton: Trump ‘would set the world back decades’ - POLITICO
 
blaxshep said:
Why would this be a surprise? Trump wants to drastically cut regulations. I disagree with Trump on this too.
Click to expand...

The only surprise is that they would come out publicly and endorse Clinton going beyond merely disagreeing with Trump on this issue.

Glad to hear you also disagree with him on this.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Yemen with an alleged nesting "queen" in Afghanistan (later found in Pakistan) so we should obviously concentrate our extermination efforts in Iraq. ;)
Click to expand...

I agree. That was something that the Bush administration uncovered after the Iraq invasion. Bush chose to invade Iraq. Bush's predecessor and a lot of Democrats even believed that Hussein had WMDs and Hussein was behind attacks on the US.

Did i miss in the article where Tom Ridge suggested that Bush invade Iraq? Did I miss any mention of Iraq, or any mention of where Ridge recommended Bush go?
 
tres borrachos said:
I agree. That was something that the Bush administration uncovered after the Iraq invasion. Bush chose to invade Iraq. Bush's predecessor and a lot of Democrats even believed that Hussein had WMDs and Hussein was behind attacks on the US.

Did i miss in the article where Tom Ridge suggested that Bush invade Iraq? Did I miss any mention of Iraq, or any mention of where Ridge recommended Bush go?
Click to expand...

Did I miss his objection? ;)
 
haymarket said:
And now this to add to the daily defection from Trump

Former GOP EPA heads endorse Clinton: Trump ‘would set the world back decades’ - POLITICO

The EPA Republicans are also deserting this particular sinking ship.




Read more: Former GOP EPA heads endorse Clinton: Trump ‘would set the world back decades’ - POLITICO
Click to expand...


The EPA has grown into a monolithic super agency focused on a social justice agenda. Who cares what these pathway pavers think?

It should come as no surprise former EPA heads would be against reigning in the Socialist Progressive agenda the EPA now lords over the citizens.
 
haymarket said:
The only surprise is that they would come out publicly and endorse Clinton going beyond merely disagreeing with Trump on this issue.

Glad to hear you also disagree with him on this.
Click to expand...

You have to remember much of the old Established Republican base is complicit in the liberal globalization agenda, the last thing they need is Trump interfering with their wealth and power. Clinton is money in the bank, in fact she is owned by the banks.
 
ocean515 said:
The EPA has grown into a monolithic super agency focused on a social justice agenda. Who cares what these pathway pavers think?

It should come as no surprise former EPA heads would be against reigning in the Socialist Progressive agenda the EPA now lords over the citizens.
Click to expand...

While true without the EPA we would be living in a toxic sewer, Capitalists only care about one thing, profits. We could get rid of the EPA if we eliminated LLCs and made these greedy rich pricks personally liable for the people they made sick, or maybe a law that states the CEO and board members and their families have to live in the most polluted environments their companies create. Drink the most polluted water they created and breath the most toxic air they created.
 
roughdraft274 said:
How many republicans have to openly admit that Trump isn't capable before it's obvious to everyone?
Click to expand...

The answer to that should be 0. It should have been glaringly obvious to anyone who bothered to rub 2 neurons together that the man is totally unsuited to the job.
 
Gaius46 said:
The answer to that should be 0. It should have been glaringly obvious to anyone who bothered to rub 2 neurons together that the man is totally unsuited to the job.
Click to expand...

He's still better than Hillary.
 
Mycroft said:
Why would anybody listen to a bunch of GOP Elites?
Click to expand...

Because not listening to them simply because you don't like who they are is stupid.

Dismissing them simply because they may have a vested interest one way or the other is idiocy. You have to take the fact that they may have an interest in the outcome into consideration when you consider their argument but dismissing them out of hand is, as I've said, stupid.
 
blaxshep said:
While true without the EPA we would be living in a toxic sewer, Capitalists only care about one thing, profits. We could get rid of the EPA if we eliminated LLCs and made these greedy rich pricks personally liable for the people they made sick, or maybe a law that states the CEO and board members and their families have to live in the most polluted environments their companies create. Drink the most polluted water they created and breath the most toxic air they created.
Click to expand...

It serves no purpose to automatically jump to "eliminate the EPA". That ends any discussion, and I am not aware of anyone who has suggested the EPA be eliminated.

Appeals to emotion, based on fabrication, have no purpose.

I repeat, the EPA has grown to become a super agency focused on a social justice agenda that cloaks it's efforts under the veil of environmental protection. Citizens have little recourse, and it's actions are unilateral.

That needs to change.
 
ocean515 said:
I repeat, the EPA has grown to become a super agency focused on a social justice agenda that cloaks it's efforts under the veil of environmental protection. Citizens have little recourse, and it's actions are unilateral.

That needs to change.
Click to expand...

What exactly have they done that is focused on social justice rather than environmental protection?
 
blaxshep said:
What exactly have they done that is focused on social justice rather than environmental protection?
Click to expand...

You can start here.

https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice

This effort usurps State and Local decision making, and federalizes through regulatory fiat, State and Local planning and execution. This is just one of many efforts currently underway by the EPA.
 
blaxshep said:
While true without the EPA we would be living in a toxic sewer, Capitalists only care about one thing, profits. We could get rid of the EPA if we eliminated LLCs and made these greedy rich pricks personally liable for the people they made sick, or maybe a law that states the CEO and board members and their families have to live in the most polluted environments their companies create. Drink the most polluted water they created and breath the most toxic air they created.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Gaius46 said:
Because not listening to them simply because you don't like who they are is stupid.

Dismissing them simply because they may have a vested interest one way or the other is idiocy. You have to take the fact that they may have an interest in the outcome into consideration when you consider their argument but dismissing them out of hand is, as I've said, stupid.
Click to expand...

Is it stupid to consider the motivations of people who speak publicly?

And yes...I have considered the fact that they have an interest in the outcome. That's the problem. Their interest prompts them to prefer Hillary over Trump. For members of the Republican Party, to do so is outright disloyalty to their own Party.
 
Anagram said:
Hasn't Trump suggested that? Trump says he'd eliminate 'Department of Environment Protection' | Washington Examiner
Click to expand...

No he hasn't.

This is from a transcript of his comments during a debate, which even your link includes a portion of.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/03/the-fox-news-gop-debate-transcript-annotated/

"Department of Environmental Protection. We are going to get rid are of it in almost every form. We're going to have little tidbits left but we're going to take a tremendous amount out."​

That is not elimination. The EPA should be forced back into it's core mission. It never had a social justice mandate. It has grown well beyond it's mission, and represents government regulatory control in it's worst form.
 
ocean515 said:
You can start here.

https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice

This effort usurps State and Local decision making, and federalizes through regulatory fiat, State and Local planning and execution. This is just one of many efforts currently underway by the EPA.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize its had come to this, the EPA has no business in this arena. What a load of horse manure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom