The 2016 Presidential Primary, Conventions, Election, and Aftermath

[Helix]

Hard to believe isn't it?

sadly, not as much as you'd think. it's pretty easy for the choices to suck horribly when you're artificially limited to two, and those two choices get to draw their own districts on their way up the ladder.

 

[AlbqOwl]

You don't think so? How many Republicans have argued for raising taxes since?



And that's why I supported the Tea Party, and will support conservatives down-ticket. I simply won't support Trump, because having him as POTUS candidate means that he gets to take the GOP in the opposite direction of where I want it to go - towards a nationalist, big-government, authoritarian, liberal proto-fascist endpoint.



I would, with relief, happily accept Status Quo at this point. If we could retain the Senate and only see four more years like the last two, I think that would be the best of all plausible outcomes.



:lamo What makes you think this? His lifetime of Crony Capitalism? His tendency to see policy as a way to reward friends and punish allies? His claim that the way to lead is just to make deals deals deals? His instinct towards big government liberalism?

Trump isn't terrifying with power "because he would stop Crony Capitalism and people profiting off of politics" (that's what he's done his entire life). He's scary with power because he is a narcissistic bully with little to no understanding of the proper functions of government, the emotional stability of a toddler, a penchant for violence, and even less respect for the Constitutional restrictions on power than the current White House resident.



Millions and Millions also think that the moon landing was faked, and that George Bush knew about 9/11. Some of them are so nuts they believe in Birtherism, that you have to treat women like ****, and that Bush faked the WMD evidence to lie us into war.

Sorry but I just don't respond to chopped up posts like that--I know lots of people like them but its just a personal thing with me. I like to keep discussions within their full context. But we can amicably agree to disagree.

 

[cpwill]

Sorry but I just don't respond to chopped up posts like that--I know lots of people like them but its just a personal thing with me. I like to keep discussions within their full context. But we can amicably agree to disagree.

I understand - but I feel that I am not fully responding to someone unless I address their arguments directly. Typically when I mass-block-quote someone, they get upset that I didnt' respond to a point that they found telling.

Trump mocks the disabled, argues that we should target the innocent, and acts like a teenage boy, but with less impulse control, sense of personal shame, and civility. Those who vote for him get to own that vote, that they were willing to sign on to that, for as long as there is a conservative movement.

 

[AlbqOwl]

:shrug: if/when you choose to support that for POTUS, then you are at least saying that you are willing to accept these things. You (along with the rest of us conservatives) will indeed be tarred with that brush.


That being said, you wouldn't have to look that hard at all. Not all Trump supporters are white nationalists, but all white nationalists are Trump supporters.

Sorry but I just don't respect those enough who would erroneously tar people with that brush and won't acquiesce to them. One of the surest ways to lose my support is to use that kind of ugly tactic. IMO it is because people are sick and tired of that kind of politics of personal destruction and childish schoolyard calling people names that is making people thumb their nose at it and go for the candidate who also rejects that kind of hatefulness.

Earlier today, Ted Cruz confronted a half dozen or so Trump supporters across the street from where he had a meet and greet event at an Indiana restaurant. Instead of graciously acknowledging them and telling them that Trump wants to do this and so do I. . .here is how I would do it differently. . .or something to that effect, he berated the group with hateful statement after hateful statement about Trump. How could these people possibly support somebody like that? Wrong approach. That's a sure way to make people defensive and dislike you a lot. The news cameras got all miserable seven minutes of it. The Trump supporters came out of it looking a whole bunch better than Cruz did.

Cruz is a brilliant man and a champion debater. But he sure isn't very smart about how to bring people to his side and persuade them to his point of view. He probably would have done a lot better if he had not continually shot himself in the foot that way.

 

[Fiddytree]

Sorry but I just don't respect those enough who would erroneously tar people with that brush and won't acquiesce to them. One of the surest ways to lose my support is to use that kind of ugly tactic. IMO it is because people are sick and tired of that kind of politics of personal destruction and childish schoolyard calling people names that is making people thumb their nose at it and go for the candidate who also rejects that kind of hatefulness.

This is a rather odd sentiment to espouse when expressing support for Trump, don't you think?

 

[reinoe]

I agree with your first paragraph completely. Here's an article directed at Sanders supporters, but the same would hold true with the NeverTrump people as well.

Why it's the duty of every Sanders supporter to vote for Hillary - AMERICAblog News

Elections are selfish. They’re not about the candidates, they’re about us.

lol. It's correct in a way the writer didn't intend. The "US" is the establishment and not the average American worker. Yes it's about "us": who operate in D.C. working hard to enrich themselves. I've never seen an argument so ridiculous as to why the establishment is entitled to the vote despite them actively scorning the American people as a whole.

Bonus lol's go to them misrepresenting where Trump stands on several issues, especially when it comes to jobs and foreign policy: Trump and Sanders have nearly the exact same position.

 

[cpwill]

Sorry but I just don't respect those enough who would erroneously tar people with that brush and won't acquiesce to them. One of the surest ways to lose my support is to use that kind of ugly tactic. IMO it is because people are sick and tired of that kind of politics of personal destruction and childish schoolyard calling people names that is making people thumb their nose at it and go for the candidate who also rejects that kind of hatefulness.

Earlier today, Ted Cruz confronted a half dozen or so Trump supporters across the street from where he had a meet and greet event at an Indiana restaurant. Instead of graciously acknowledging them and telling them that Trump wants to do this and so do I. . .here is how I would do it differently. . .or something to that effect, he berated the group with hateful statement after hateful statement about Trump. How could these people possibly support somebody like that? Wrong approach. That's a sure way to make people defensive and dislike you a lot. The news cameras got all miserable seven minutes of it. The Trump supporters came out of it looking a whole bunch better than Cruz did.

Cruz is a brilliant man and a champion debater. But he sure isn't very smart about how to bring people to his side and persuade them to his point of view. He probably would have done a lot better if he had not continually shot himself in the foot that way.

You vote for it, you get tarred with it. At that point, the person who will have chosen to associate yourself with it isn't anyone else but you.

I neither know nor care whether Cruz was nice to protestors. I didn't vote for him. But I'd like to hear more about how acting abusively or crassly towards people others offends you so egregiously - we could compare Cruz's behavior to that of Trump, in that regard, and see who comes out first.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[clownboy]

You vote for it, you get tarred with it. At that point, the person who will have chosen to associate yourself with it isn't anyone else but you.

I neither know nor care whether Cruz was nice to protestors. I didn't vote for him. But I'd like to hear more about how acting abusively or crassly towards people others offends you so egregiously - we could compare Cruz's behavior to that of Trump, in that regard, and see who comes out first.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Okay. It was a terrible mistake on Cruz's part. There was no way he was going to win that exchange, no way it was going to turn out to be a positive event for him. Pre-desperation, pre flailing mode Cruz would never have done that. He's literally shooting himself in the foot hoping someone will have sympathy for him and vote his way. Another in a line of mistakes he's made this week.

 

[Dittohead not!]

And I don't see either as a con man or a crook.

The one is just what Romney described him to be, a con man and fraud. The other may not be a crook, but we're not sure just yet.

If you were looking for an employee, would you hire either one?

 

[cpwill]

Okay. It was a terrible mistake on Cruz's part. There was no way he was going to win that exchange, no way it was going to turn out to be a positive event for him. Pre-desperation, pre flailing mode Cruz would never have done that. He's literally shooting himself in the foot hoping someone will have sympathy for him and vote his way. Another in a line of mistakes he's made this week.

Because, acting badly towards protestors is.... Bad?....

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[clownboy]

Because, acting badly towards protestors is.... Bad?....

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

No. Because getting into a debate with protestors, and losing is a stupid thing to do the night before a must win election.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

I agree with your first paragraph completely. Here's an article directed at Sanders supporters, but the same would hold true with the NeverTrump people as well.

Why it's the duty of every Sanders supporter to vote for Hillary - AMERICAblog News

 

[JC Callender]

I'll vote for Trump over Hillary. Trump obviously doesn't possess tact, but I do believe he'll work hard for American success. I believe he also may set a trend for more transparent and straightforward politicians in the future. Trump's crassness doesn't really bother me that much because politicians are doing dirty little b.s. things all the time behind closed doors, so most of them may just think worse things than Trump actually says but don't have the nerve to say them.

 

[Chomsky]

Perot got 17% of the vote in 1992. And he didn't force anybody to do anything. We are not going to reform the Democrats or Republicans by any means other than infusing them with people who think differently. They are one huge party of political elites and opportunists who don't really care who the President is. So long as they can stay where they are, they increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth and they only have to throw their various constituents enough bones to keep them complacent. Hillary Clinton is one of them and she won't make even a ripple of positive change.

Trump likely will which is why it terrifies them to think of him having that kind of power.

I agree.

For all the Right's snivels about the socialist Bernie, it's Trump that poses the most danger to the establishment power structure, conservative or otherwise!

There's really not much Bernie could do without Congress and the parties behind him. But Trump seems to be able to define his own independent avenues of power, and of course his huge personal wealth gives him even additional power.

 

[Chomsky]

No. Because getting into a debate with protestors, and losing is a stupid thing to do the night before a must win election.

:lamo

Yeah, WTH was he thinking? He's usually pretty slick. Maybe he's starting to unravel?

Gov Kasich seemed to unravel substantially after being confronted the day after announcing his disastrous Kasich-Cruz partnership, and subsequently Kasich seems to be laying-low remaining under the radar.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I understand - but I feel that I am not fully responding to someone unless I address their arguments directly. Typically when I mass-block-quote someone, they get upset that I didnt' respond to a point that they found telling.

Trump mocks the disabled, argues that we should target the innocent, and acts like a teenage boy, but with less impulse control, sense of personal shame, and civility. Those who vote for him get to own that vote, that they were willing to sign on to that, for as long as there is a conservative movement.

And I don't think Trump does any of those terrible things or the sort of person you describe. Yes, among hundreds of appearances and many thousands of words spoken, he makes one politically incorrect extemporaneous comment that the media takes and blows all out of proportion and then it is repeated again and again and again out of its full context by people on message boards. But it is not at all typical of the way he treats people. I refuse to get drawn into and make a big deal out of that kind of minutiae no matter who says it--not Obama, not Hillary, not Cruz, not Trump, nobody. And I just don't view Trump as negatively as you do. Apparently millions of us don't, and that has absolutely nothing to do with what people once believed about a flat Earth or flying spaghetti monsters or whatever.

 

[AlbqOwl]

This is a rather odd sentiment to espouse when expressing support for Trump, don't you think?

Trump insults those who insult him. That is his MO, has always been his MO, and apparently it is fairly effective because most people don't usually do it to him twice. Is that my style? No. Do I appreciate it? No. But neither does he go digging for dirt on his opponents and speaking bout them with self righteous contempt for them. He simply is not a mean or vindictive person. Get in his face and he doesn't back down. Apologize and you're his friend again. Not your style. Not my style. But it is his style and one of his appealing characteristics is that he marches to nobody's else's requirement or expectations than his own.

 

[Fiddytree]

Trump insults those who insult him. That is his MO, has always been his MO, and apparently it is fairly effective because most people don't usually do it to him twice. Is that my style? No. Do I appreciate it? No. But neither does he go digging for dirt on his opponents and speaking bout them with self righteous contempt for them. He simply is not a mean or vindictive person. Get in his face and he doesn't back down. Apologize and you're his friend again. Not your style. Not my style. But it is his style and one of his appealing characteristics is that he marches to nobody's else's requirement or expectations than his own.

There is not a single candidate, on either party, more responsible for debasing this election than Donald Trump. The sheer apologetics on display here are baffling if not for the multitude of people who are doing it.

 

[AlbqOwl]

You vote for it, you get tarred with it. At that point, the person who will have chosen to associate yourself with it isn't anyone else but you.

I neither know nor care whether Cruz was nice to protestors. I didn't vote for him. But I'd like to hear more about how acting abusively or crassly towards people others offends you so egregiously - we could compare Cruz's behavior to that of Trump, in that regard, and see who comes out first.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

I have been watching both men very closely for some time now. Trump sometimes comes across as almost childishly quick in his retorts when somebody insults him, but he has always been that way and I think his supporters know that is just his MO and accept it. And we see a candidate who really is light hearted, having fun, and enjoying the process.

Cruz on the other hand comes across as moody, dark, sullen, angry, and his kind of insult seems more grown up, yes, but much more mud slinging and petty.

I don't need to compare their behaviors because in that regard I really don't care. But I can see why Trump generates enthusiasm and raises the spirits of people and Cruz doesn't.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The one is just what Romney described him to be, a con man and fraud. The other may not be a crook, but we're not sure just yet.

If you were looking for an employee, would you hire either one?

If I was hiring a strong constitutionalist, a sharp debater with a keen legal mind, and somebody who could interpret the law yes, I would hire Cruz in a heartbeat.

If I was looking for somebody who was a dynamite promoter, could stir up and rally the troops, who could organize and manage a process and see it through to its completion, I would hire Trump in a heartbeat.

The problem is, which is more beneficial to us and the whole country in a President?

On the other side, I would hire Bernie Sanders for any job in which honesty, integrity, and dependability was the primary criteria. But because he has so little understanding of the consequences of his own ideas, I would not want to put him in charge of management or administration.

Hillary, I cannot discern a single observable skill set that would inspire me to hire her for anything.

 

[clownboy]

:lamo

Yeah, WTH was he thinking? He's usually pretty slick. Maybe he's starting to unravel?

Gov Kasich seemed to unravel substantially after being confronted the day after announcing his disastrous Kasich-Cruz partnership, and subsequently Kasich seems to be laying-low remaining under the radar.

I think so. It's been gaffe after gaffe for what has been a well coordinated campaign with a consistent message. His attempts to blame his loses on the media is falling on deaf ears. Lamest time to pull that card. And Kasich, he's running ads in Oregon. Dumbest strategy ever. He's campaigning for Trump's VP. Or he's gone over the edge, who knows.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I agree.

For all the Right's snivels about the socialist Bernie, it's Trump that poses the most danger to the establishment power structure, conservative or otherwise!

There's really not much Bernie could do without Congress and the parties behind him. But Trump seems to be able to define his own independent avenues of power, and of course his huge personal wealth gives him even additional power.

I'm a little more jaded than that perhaps. I think Trump's huge personal wealth puts him in the category of possibly being a true public servant as he most likely is not in it for personal gain. To establish a legacy for himself perhaps. But so long as that legacy is to do an outstanding job and see that great things are accomplished for the country, power to him.

But Trump has an ability to inspire people to be better than they knew they could be, and to promote cooperation to get things done--this is a skill set that I don't see in any other candidate. And he is beholden to no political party and is not bound by any kind of rigid ideology. So we can only hope his heart and desire to be recognized and admired will inspire him to be the best that he can be too. And because that will shake up the establishment as it has not been shaken up in a very long time, he terrifies it.

 

[AlbqOwl]

There is not a single candidate, on either party, more responsible for debasing this election than Donald Trump. The sheer apologetics on display here are baffling if not for the multitude of people who are doing it.

I accept that as your opinion and don't fault you for it. There are millions and millions of us out here who disagree with you though.

 

[clownboy]

There is not a single candidate, on either party, more responsible for debasing this election than Donald Trump. The sheer apologetics on display here are baffling if not for the multitude of people who are doing it.

You can describe it in demeaning terms all you like, but I see it differently. Trump has shown a light and a whole lot of cockroaches are scrambling. He doesn't at all speak like a politician, he speaks a lot like a lot of us do. It's a language most of us understand. His style is in your face. That's just fine with me for a president.

This constant denigration of a man who really didn't have to put his fortune or his time forward. It's not like he was washing out of the business world. He stepped up, and it's been a good thing. People are engaged.

Disagree with him all you want, vehemently if you wish, but his character is good. He's not a racist, he's not a bigot, he's not any more a sexist than any other person of our generation.

 

[Chomsky]

I'm a little more jaded than that perhaps. I think Trump's huge personal wealth puts him in the category of possibly being a true public servant as he most likely is not in it for personal gain. To establish a legacy for himself perhaps. But so long as that legacy is to do an outstanding job and see that great things are accomplished for the country, power to him.

But Trump has an ability to inspire people to be better than they knew they could be, and to promote cooperation to get things done--this is a skill set that I don't see in any other candidate. And he is beholden to no political party and is not bound by any kind of rigid ideology. So we can only hope his heart and desire to be recognized and admired will inspire him to be the best that he can be too. And because that will shake up the establishment as it has not been shaken up in a very long time, he terrifies it.

Actually, I think we have a fair amount of agreement.

But it remains to be seen how he uses his power. However, I too think it will be in a relatively benign manner, being for the people and against the parties.