• 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!

Trump Now Leads Polls At 41%

All this fuss and feathers... exactly how many ballots have been cast??? :confused:

I will rue the day polls replace ballots... :peace
 
Rubio was born with Cuban citizenship. According to the intent of the language the founders of the 14th used, and clearly stated it meant, he was not born a citizen.


Please see the following post which contains the proof of what was meant by 14th's wording in regards to citizenship.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-co...rsy-and-14th-amendment-20.html#post1064990957

I have already heard all of this before and elsewhere, seems the GOP disagrees with your interpretation or he would not be in the race.
 
Libs are now begging for Cruz to be the nominee, fearing that Trump will crush Hillary in the general elections. How seriously can she attack him when there are so many photos of them together?

I don't know if Trump will or won't crush Hillary, but I hope it doesn't get that far. Trump might be good at leading businesses, but he's made some comments that should make all Americans sit up and take notice. Hillary might be able to lead - but it will be directly into war. Come on, America -- let's do better.
 
Regardless about how you feel about Trump or the relative intelligence of American conservatism, it is always a great day when a non-establishment politician makes a strong showing in the American electoral system.
 
We (the electorate) keep complaining that there's no forward progress in the congress due to a lack of good deals being made.

Here's a guy that's pretty much specialized in exactly that his entire business career. He did build his real estate empire, and has done lots of deals. Heck he's famous for his deal making, isn't he?

Maybe time to let him try his hand at getting deals done with both parties in congress.

Perhaps Trump's initial bluster on a position is to stake a position from which he can give a bit in order to get and make a deal? I dunno.

Have you read 'The Art of the Deal'? I'd suspect this would be a way to gain greater insight on Trump, his M. O., tactics, strategies and such when looking to make a deal.

If he gets to the general, I would suspect a more moderate Trump would appear. Seems perhaps that's starting to come out already.

For example, a call for moderation?
What do you think of Ted Cruz?

TRUMP: Well, he is -- do you notice he said it behind my back, somebody taped that conversation. He said it behind my back. And that's OK.

Look, I don't think he's qualified to be president.

WALLACE: Why not?

TRUMP: Because I don't think he has the right temperament. I don’t think he’s got the right judgment.

WALLACE: What's wrong with his temperament?

TRUMP: When you look at the way he's dealt with the Senate, where he goes in there like a -- you know, frankly, like a bit of a maniac. You never get things done that way.

Look, I built a phenomenal business. I’m worth many, many billions of dollars. I have some of the greatest assets anywhere in the world. You can't walk into the Senate and scream and call people liars and not be able to cajole and get along with people.

He'll never get anything done. And that's the problem with Ted.
Donald Trump responds to his critics; Kerry: Climate deal lacks penalties because of US Congress - Published December 13, 2015

I think there's a lot more to Trump's than meets the eye.
I think there's a lot more to Trump than what we've seen to date.
 
Uh, no. He's a novelty which is why he's in the lead. I'll vote for him in the general election if he's the candidate because I can't stomach the idea of a Hillary Presidency, but I won't vote for him with any kind of exuberance.

Says it all. Anybody who would vote for a racist, xenophobic demagogue for anything is ...oh hell, I can't think of a description suitable.
 
I don't know if Trump will get involved in Iran's nukes or not.

I believe he has criticized BHO for inking a deal.

However Trump is likely to let the IDF finish off any Iranian reactors with American made smart bombs.

The cat dreams of mice :lamo
 
We (the electorate) keep complaining that there's no forward progress in the congress due to a lack of good deals being made.

Here's a guy that's pretty much specialized in exactly that his entire business career. He did build his real estate empire, and has done lots of deals.

I'm just going to stop you right there. Deal making is inherently impossible in America's presidential system because compromises almost inevitably fail to realize promises made to the voting demographics to which politicians owe their seats. Thus, compromises look and feel negative to the voting public.

There's a reason why we had a Civil War over the South's slave empire instead of working out a compromise.
 
You utterly dodged the point. If he's losing by 10% to Clinton and other candidates are beating her in these hypothetical match-ups why on earth should we back Trump as the standard bearer of the party?

Because he's in favor of upholding the law - little things like borders and illegal entry - which some here claim makes him "insane"
 
I have already heard all of this before and elsewhere, seems the GOP disagrees with your interpretation or he would not be in the race.
Disagrees?
Really?
Please point to a source showing the GOP disagrees with the information I provided.
I am sure you can't.

I am sure that most disagreement stems from a lack of understanding of the issue and a desire to disassociate from that which many have characterized (wrongly) as baseless, crazy, and/or ludicrous.
 
In that hypothetical universe:

I'd urge you to do the sane thing and vote for Hillary.

Punish the GOP for nominating this inexperienced clown.

It's what I'll be doing, and I've had more candidates of interest for the GOP than ever before. It'd be a damn shame if I had to vote for Hillary if I find Cruz or any of the non-politicians in that slot, but I will without hesitation.

I understand, and even resonate with your position here. But you will be punishing more than the GOP voting for Clinton.

Please rethink this carefully before acting.
 
I understand, and even resonate with your position here. But you will be punishing more than the GOP voting for Clinton.

Please rethink this carefully before acting.

Vote third party.
 
Disagrees?
Really?
Please point to a source showing the GOP disagrees with the information I provided.
I am sure you can't.

I am sure that most disagreement stems from a lack of understanding of the issue and a desire to disassociate from that which many have characterized (wrongly) as baseless, crazy, and/or ludicrous.

Ummm, if he were not legally able to be President he would not be allowed in the race by the GOP. A little logic on your part would go a long way.
 
Ummm, if he were not legally able to be President he would not be allowed in the race by the GOP. A little logic on your part would go a long way.

You are apparently not paying attention to what has been said and are deflecting because you can not show where they disagree with the information I provided.

Now please show us where they vetted for such for you to even be able to make such a claim.

I am going to guess that that is another specific which you can not actually show they did.
 
I understand, and even resonate with your position here. But you will be punishing more than the GOP voting for Clinton.

Please rethink this carefully before acting.

Yeah, this is pretty much how I feel. I'm mad at the GOP for not helping Rubio or even Christie or Bush win here in NH, and I've been mad at the GOP for years. But I'm not mad enough at anyone to vote for Hillary Clinton. I'd vote for O'Malley over Trump, and Webb too, if he was still in it. But Hillary? No. And it won't punish the GOP. It will punish the USA.
 
Yeah, this is pretty much how I feel. I'm mad at the GOP for not helping Rubio or even Christie or Bush win here in NH, and I've been mad at the GOP for years. But I'm not mad enough at anyone to vote for Hillary Clinton. I'd vote for O'Malley over Trump, and Webb too, if he was still in it. But Hillary? No. And it won't punish the GOP. It will punish the USA.

I think that either of them are a punishment to the USA. Wonder if Americans are going to punish themselves again, or for once, in large number, think outside the box.
 
You are apparently not paying attention to what has been said and are deflecting because you can not show where they disagree with the information I provided.

Now please show us where they vetted for such for you to even be able to make such a claim.

Please show where they vetted anyone. You can count on the fact that the GOP has looked at his eligibility to run and hold the office, they simply do not feel a need to share that information with you. You can claim he is not eligible due to his parents not being S citizens at the time of his birth in the US but it is obvious that the GOP does not agree with your opinion of the rules.
 
I think that either of them are a punishment to the USA. Wonder if Americans are going to punish themselves again, or for once, in large number, think outside the box.

Americans, think outside the box? Sadly....no. I wish people would vote for 3rd party candidates but I don't like any of them either. I pine for Jon Huntsman.
 
Americans, think outside the box? Sadly....no. I wish people would vote for 3rd party candidates but I don't like any of them either. I pine for Jon Huntsman.

Surely there's somebody over there that stands above Clinton/Trump. Remember, that doesn't have to be that tall.
 
Please show where they vetted anyone. You can count on the fact that the GOP has looked at his eligibility to run and hold the office, they simply do not feel a need to share that information with you.
1. As I did not claim anyone was vetted, let alone properly vetted, it is not my responsibility to show anyone was, especially as the information I provided indicates that person was not appropriately vetted. Duh!
2. You saying they were vetted requires proof that they were. That onus on you.


You can claim he is not eligible due to his parents not being S citizens at the time of his birth in the US but it is obvious that the GOP does not agree with your opinion of the rules.
A lame assumption on your part, especially as you are making a leap in logic. No such thing is obvious.
You first have to show they know the information I provided, and then show they disagree with it, which is something you simply can not do.


And do not think it has gone unnoticed that even you failed to refute the information I provided. D'oh!
 
1. As I did not claim anyone was vetted, let alone properly vetted, it is not my responsibility to show anyone was, especially as the information I provided indicates that person was not appropriately vetted. Duh!
2. You saying they were vetted requires proof that they were. That onus on you.



A lame assumption on your part, especially as you are making a leap in logic. No such thing is obvious.
You first have to show they know the information I provided, and then show they disagree with it, which is something you simply can not do.


And do not think it has gone unnoticed that even you failed to refute the information I provided. D'oh!

Have fun chasing your tail there, Rubio is not going to be disqualified, Carson is road kill, trump is unelectable, so it comes down to a Canadian and Cuba for the GOP nomination. Reality bites but it is what it is.
 
Have fun chasing your tail there, Rubio is not going to be disqualified, Carson is road kill, trump is unelectable, so it comes down to a Canadian and Cuba for the GOP nomination. Reality bites but it is what it is.

Not bad for a party that is constantly being accused of being the party of old white men. Two Hispanics, a black man, an Indian man and a woman.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom