Trump refuses to support Paul Ryan, John McCain in upcoming Republican primaries

[Perotista]

Traditionally, Libertarians and conservative independents (Perot, et al) have taken votes from the Reps while liberal independents (Nader, etc.) have taken votes away from the Dems. This election seems to be breaking traditional rules all over the place.

This election is so unique that there are no historical models, figures, or anything to go by. Never before has two candidates from the major parties had so low approval or favorable ratings. Clinton is at 39% per Gallup, Trump at 32%.

Trump, Clinton Favorability Back to Pre-Convention Levels

G.H.W. Bush or Bush the elder or Bush the First holds the record back in 1992 for the lowest ever favorable rating of a major party candidate at 46%. So yes, we are in record breaking historical area this election. No other presidential candidate has ever been below 50% or as far back as Gallup has kept track of these things.

Clinton was forced upon us by the DNC in a rigged primary. At least Trump managed to win his way to the nomination. Over lots of objections by the RNC. But that doesn't make him any less disliked by America as a whole. I think this shows, these two being nominate how much our two major parties has lost touch with the rest of America, the larger America outside of political partisan lines. I suppose both major parties expect us to take what they say and do, just roll over and die. But not this guy. A vote for Johnson may be a wasted vote in their view, according to their propaganda. But it is a vote against both candidates and against our two major parties who expect all of us to bend to their will, no questions asked.

 

[Conservative]

For those of us who detest both Trump and Clinton, Johnson is very much a viable alternative. It give us a chance to voice our displeasure against both Trump and Clinton and allows us to vote the down ticket. Those who choose to stay home and not vote at all because they can't stomach both, they are letting their voice in the down ticket candidates go unheard. Those who stay home and don't vote are also letting the two major parties have their say as to whom our choices are in November. A vote for Johnson or Stein or any other third party say, "Whoa, you messed up two major parties, you gave us two candidates that aren't worth choosing between. I am not going to choose putting someone horrible into the Oval Office if only by a matter of degree, because that is who you want.

Funny that you look at a vote Johnson as supporting Hillary. Just yesterday a Hillary supporter told me my vote for Johnson was a vote for Trump. That is propaganda BS. You want my vote along with 21% of all independents who state they will be voting for Johnson, give us a decent candidate other than Trump. Kasich, Rubio, Carson, almost any other Republican would have had mine and probably most of Johnson's Libertarian votes. Libertarians tend not to vote for their own candidate, they usually choose the Republican candidate by about a 2-1 margin. This time it is Republicans, approximately 9% of Republicans choosing the Libertarian Candidate if the polls are to be believed.

By the way, in 2012 I also voted for Johnson. I lost faith in one candidate and didn't trust the other. I do trust Johnson to do what he thinks is best for this country. No so with Trump and Clinton. All you have there is a clash of huge ego's.

What you do is put Hillary in the WH which to me is much worse than the perception you have about Trump. What a great feeling you must have in voting for principle over logic and common sense. Gary Johnson cannot win a general election where the electoral college awards the office. I would love to have a logical explanation from that Hillary supporter who believes a vote for Johnson is a vote away from Hillary?

What it appears to me is that you want another politician in the WH. I don't. It was the politicians that gave us a 19.4 trillion dollar debt, a huge trade deficit, almost open borders, high under employment, stagnant GDP for you see, politicians tell you what you want to hear but join the good old boy's club when they get into the office.

You seem to have a view of Johnson that others do not. I don't know Gary Johnson but here are some good and bad points that Google provided at Reason.com, Gary Johnson's New Mexico record denounced, defended, and debated. He has some good points but still appears to be a big spender not able to do what he promised

 

[Perotista]

What you do is put Hillary in the WH which to me is much worse than the perception you have about Trump. What a great feeling you must have in voting for principle over logic and common sense. Gary Johnson cannot win a general election where the electoral college awards the office. I would love to have a logical explanation from that Hillary supporter who believes a vote for Johnson is a vote away from Hillary?

What it appears to me is that you want another politician in the WH. I don't. It was the politicians that gave us a 19.4 trillion dollar debt, a huge trade deficit, almost open borders, high under employment, stagnant GDP for you see, politicians tell you what you want to hear but join the good old boy's club when they get into the office.

You seem to have a view of Johnson that others do not. I don't know Gary Johnson but here are some good and bad points that Google provided at Reason.com, Gary Johnson's New Mexico record denounced, defended, and debated. He has some good points but still appears to be a big spender not able to do what he promised

I'll take almost anyone over Trump and Clinton, both. They really disgust me. If you guys were so worried about a Hillary Clinton victory in November, you would have nominated someone other than Trump. You wouldn't have nominated someone who has an higher unfavorable rating than Clinton and a much lower favorable rating.

You would have nominated someone who could win. Its not that the Republicans didn't have any idea Trump was a loser to Clinton. In almost every head to head poll against Hillary, Trump was way behind. Rasmussen even had a poll out around Feb or March that stated that 61% of all Americans wanted the Republicans to nominate someone other than Trump. Meanwhile during the primary, poll after poll which showed Kasich, Rubio and even Carson when he was in constantly beating Hillary in head to heads were also ignored. Cruz was tied with her.

Its not like Republicans didn't know they were about to nominate the worst candidate available to go against Clinton. They just ignored the facts. Making a statement was way to important to them than winning in November. So be it. Like I said, if Clinton wins, the Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. It was their choice to make and they made it. Now they have to live with it. The sad part is the rest of us will have to live with their bum choice also. Thanks a lot. All it would have taken was a decent candidate, something it seems beyond the ability of the GOP to handle.

 

[Casper]

What issues are important to you that Trump hasn't addressed?

It is not what he has not addressed, it is what he has addressed.

 

[Casper]

Trump is defeating Trump. Its that simple. I don't want neither, I detest both Trump and Clinton. So I am going to vote for Gary Johnson. I think both Trump and Clinton are very horrible candidates and the two major parties should be disbanded and put on the trash heap of history by giving us these two to choose from.

But I am not biting. I won't vote for the lesser of two evils or the least worst candidate, the less horrible to be president. I will cast a vote against both. If you like Trump, that's fine. Vote for him. But I prefer someone who doesn't act like a 5th grade schoolyard bully or calls people names like an eight year old who hasn't been taught any manners by his parents. I also prefer someone who isn't totally corrupt like Hillary.

We already have the best government money can buy. That isn't about to change regardless of who wins between Hillary and Trump. This year should have been a banner year for the Republicans, they almost had the White House locked up knowing Hillary would be the Democratic Candidate. All they had to do was nominate a decent candidate. They failed to do that. The Republicans accomplished the impossible, they nominated someone more disliked by America than Clinton.

Say what you will about likes and dislikes, but folks usually will not vote for someone they dislike. It is fairly simple.

Well said and I agree 100% and I am sure more than a few Conservatives and Liberals feel exactly the same.

 

[polgara]

I'll take almost anyone over Trump and Clinton, both. They really disgust me. If you guys were so worried about a Hillary Clinton victory in November, you would have nominated someone other than Trump. You wouldn't have nominated someone who has an higher unfavorable rating than Clinton and a much lower favorable rating.

You would have nominated someone who could win. Its not that the Republicans didn't have any idea Trump was a loser to Clinton. In almost every head to head poll against Hillary, Trump was way behind. Rasmussen even had a poll out around Feb or March that stated that 61% of all Americans wanted the Republicans to nominate someone other than Trump. Meanwhile during the primary, poll after poll which showed Kasich, Rubio and even Carson when he was in constantly beating Hillary in head to heads were also ignored. Cruz was tied with her.

Its not like Republicans didn't know they were about to nominate the worst candidate available to go against Clinton. They just ignored the facts. Making a statement was way to important to them than winning in November. So be it. Like I said, if Clinton wins, the Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. It was their choice to make and they made it. Now they have to live with it. The sad part is the rest of us will have to live with their bum choice also. Thanks a lot. All it would have taken was a decent candidate, something it seems beyond the ability of the GOP to handle.

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

I was a Kasich follower from the beginning, and I made no secret of it. Unfortunately, like most people, I only have one vote! :mrgreen: IIRC, he was named by 538 and other poll takers that he and Cruz could win any debate against Hillary, but it wasn't meant to be, I guess. I don't know hard Trump will try, but since he hates losing more than anyone else I can think of, it really will be interesting to see what he does. I suspect those debates will break viewing records by the public, though... if it gets that far. :?:

 

[Conservative]

It is not what he has not addressed, it is what he has addressed.

And what exactly is that which has turned you off Trump? Closing our borders? Balancing the budget? Putting America first around the world? Stop paying money to foreign governments that aren't helping us with our own security? Cutting taxes to businesses to grow businesses? Listen to the actual proposals and not the tone in which they are delivered. Rhetoric doesn't trump substance and it is the substance that defeats Clinton as we all know she can talk

 

[Perotista]

Well said and I agree 100% and I am sure more than a few Conservatives and Liberals feel exactly the same.

My politics is that of a traditional conservative, not to be confused with the neo-cons of today. There is no way I could support Trump even though he is running as the Republican nominee. Trump doesn't represent conservative values and as much at war as he has been with the Republican Party, it looks like he doesn't represent Republican Party values either. I think the only values Trump represents are his, no one else's.

Now there is also no way I could support Hillary Clinton, she is too corrupt for me, even against Trump. A Jim Webb, a Joe Biden, perhaps even Martin O'Malley and I would go as far as considering voting for Sanders against Trump. But no Clinton. Sanders political ideology and philosophy is 180 degrees from mine, but I do think he cares about this this country and would want what he considers best for her. I can't say the same about Trump and Clinton, it seems more of an ego thing to them. I don't think either one has the good of this country in their heart. But it is what it is, hence my vote for Johnson.

 

[Perotista]

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

I was a Kasich follower from the beginning, and I made no secret of it. Unfortunately, like most people, I only have one vote! :mrgreen: IIRC, he was named by 538 and other poll takers that he and Cruz could win any debate against Hillary, but it wasn't meant to be, I guess. I don't know hard Trump will try, but since he hates losing more than anyone else I can think of, it really will be interesting to see what he does. I suspect those debates will break viewing records by the public, though... if it gets that far. :?:

I don't put much stock in debates. I don't want just a good debater in charge of this country. I want a leader, a statesman, someone who has the good of the country in his or her heart. You won't learn any of that from a debate. I never watch them. I research and make up my own mind.

I think what turned me off on the debates was in 1992 when James Stockdale who was Perot's VP choice, a retired three star admiral, Vietnam vet and POW, medal of honor winner and the lousiest debater god ever sat on this green earth. He was a leader, a sound strategist, he loved this country, a good statesmen and would have made a great VP and if later on, perhaps president. But the one thing he couldn't do was debate.

Kasich begins a long list of Republicans that would have had my vote if nominated to face Clinton. Pretty near all of the other 17 would have with the sole exception of Trump. Usually you see Democrats putting down the Republican nominee, Republicans putting down the Democratic nominee, that has been the norm in any election. This is the first election I have ever seen when you have many, many people of all stripes putting down both nominees. Like I said, there is a lot of dislikes out there for both these major party candidates.

 

[trouble13]

What you do is put Hillary in the WH which to me is much worse than the perception you have about Trump. What a great feeling you must have in voting for principle over logic and common sense. Gary Johnson cannot win a general election where the electoral college awards the office. I would love to have a logical explanation from that Hillary supporter who believes a vote for Johnson is a vote away from Hillary?

What it appears to me is that you want another politician in the WH. I don't. It was the politicians that gave us a 19.4 trillion dollar debt, a huge trade deficit, almost open borders, high under employment, stagnant GDP for you see, politicians tell you what you want to hear but join the good old boy's club when they get into the office.

You seem to have a view of Johnson that others do not. I don't know Gary Johnson but here are some good and bad points that Google provided at Reason.com, Gary Johnson's New Mexico record denounced, defended, and debated. He has some good points but still appears to be a big spender not able to do what he promised

If trump wins what.positives do you expect will come from it? Im not saying there will not be any. Im just curious what you think he will be able to get done with both parties and the press all working against him every step of the way.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

I'll take almost anyone over Trump and Clinton, both. They really disgust me. If you guys were so worried about a Hillary Clinton victory in November, you would have nominated someone other than Trump. You wouldn't have nominated someone who has an higher unfavorable rating than Clinton and a much lower favorable rating.

You would have nominated someone who could win. Its not that the Republicans didn't have any idea Trump was a loser to Clinton. In almost every head to head poll against Hillary, Trump was way behind. Rasmussen even had a poll out around Feb or March that stated that 61% of all Americans wanted the Republicans to nominate someone other than Trump. Meanwhile during the primary, poll after poll which showed Kasich, Rubio and even Carson when he was in constantly beating Hillary in head to heads were also ignored. Cruz was tied with her.

Its not like Republicans didn't know they were about to nominate the worst candidate available to go against Clinton. They just ignored the facts. Making a statement was way to important to them than winning in November. So be it. Like I said, if Clinton wins, the Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. It was their choice to make and they made it. Now they have to live with it. The sad part is the rest of us will have to live with their bum choice also. Thanks a lot. All it would have taken was a decent candidate, something it seems beyond the ability of the GOP to handle.

I would not put much stock in polls until they start the debates.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Conservative]

If trump wins what.positives do you expect will come from it? Im not saying there will not be any. Im just curious what you think he will be able to get done with both parties and the press all working against him every step of the way.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I believe Trump will stop the entitlement mentality in this country, stop the open borders, provide support for our police, fight to end sanctuary cities, create a more positive economic growth strategy that will create jobs, and restore US respect in the world by action rather than words meaning cutting off funding for countries that do not support this country.

 

[Conservative]

Come on people, is this really someone you want in the WH?

https://www.youtube.com/embed/BdNHf1g4ivA

 

[Perotista]

I would not put much stock in polls until they start the debates.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I'm not worried about the debates. Let others choose whom they think is the least horrible candidate between Trump and Clinton. I refuse to vote for horrible even if the adjective least is used in front of horrible. I am voting Johnson, against horrible and least horrible or disliked and least disliked, not wanted and least not wanted.

As long as people continue to vote for the lesser of two evils we will always end up with evil in office. It's only a matter of degree.

 

[trouble13]

Say what you will about likes and dislikes, but folks usually will not vote for someone they dislike. It is fairly simple.

I might be the exception to the rule on this but i dont cast my vote for likability. I vote for who i think will make the best leader.

I voted for bush sr, perot, bush jr (2)X, obama, johnson and this time i voted cruz in the primary who i dont like personally. Still undecided who i will vote for in the general. I might just let a coin flip decide it this time lol.

Being a resident of florida i have a lot to think about when it comes to who i vote for. My vote actually matters and can sway an election.


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Perotista]

I might be the exception to the rule on this but i dont cast my vote for likability. I vote for who i think will make the best leader.

I voted for bush sr, perot, bush jr (2)X, obama, johnson and this time i voted cruz in the primary who i dont like personally. Still undecided who i will vote for in the general. I might just let a coin flip decide it this time lol.

Being a resident of florida i have a lot to think about when it comes to who i vote for. My vote actually matters and can sway an election.


Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

What I have found out is most folks when they dislike a candidate don't do much digging if any. It is just a big NO!, in their mind. People vote for various reason, some because of political party, being a R or a D is enough to get their vote regardless of who is the best leader, the most competent, the better qualified etc. Some go on looks, other go on bumper sticker slogans. I have know a few folks who decide whom they will vote for on whom looks the most presidential.

Myself not being a party man, I always ask the question "Will this candidate be good or bad for this country or the office he is running for?" For the presidential race this year, the answer for both the Republican and Democrat the answer was bad for both candidates. I moved on and finally settled on Johnson. There are issues I disagree with Johnson on, but over all I think he would be good for this country, hence my vote.

 

[Conservative]

What I have found out is most folks when they dislike a candidate don't do much digging if any. It is just a big NO!, in their mind. People vote for various reason, some because of political party, being a R or a D is enough to get their vote regardless of who is the best leader, the most competent, the better qualified etc. Some go on looks, other go on bumper sticker slogans. I have know a few folks who decide whom they will vote for on whom looks the most presidential.

Myself not being a party man, I always ask the question "Will this candidate be good or bad for this country or the office he is running for?" For the presidential race this year, the answer for both the Republican and Democrat the answer was bad for both candidates. I moved on and finally settled on Johnson. There are issues I disagree with Johnson on, but over all I think he would be good for this country, hence my vote.

The American electorate in the primaries have spoken, I don't like the outcome but will do everything I can to expose Hillary for the habitual liar and incompetent she is. You believe the same of Trump but to me the choice is clear, more of the same with Hillary or at least a chance of change with Trump

 

[Perotista]

The American electorate in the primaries have spoken, I don't like the outcome but will do everything I can to expose Hillary for the habitual liar and incompetent she is. You believe the same of Trump but to me the choice is clear, more of the same with Hillary or at least a chance of change with Trump

Trump use to be one of the faceless money donors buying favors from the elected officials. Back in 2015 when asked why he gave to both Democratic and Republican candidates and parties, Trump response was, 'I give and they give back." Now he is a face, do you really think that changes things? I don't.

 

[Conservative]

Trump use to be one of the faceless money donors buying favors from the elected officials. Back in 2015 when asked why he gave to both Democratic and Republican candidates and parties, Trump response was, 'I give and they give back." Now he is a face, do you really think that changes things? I don't.

Yes, it changes the focus on the role of the Federal govt. which is to PROMOTE the private sector and to do that is to lower regulations and return that power to the state. What exactly is the role of the Federal Govt? It certainly isn't what Obama and Hillary have done. If Trump is getting something back isn't he getting back what he paid for in the form of tax refunds? Do you realize that the Federal Govt. only gives back what they receive in the form of taxes. We have too big of a Federal Govt. and no one with the experience to cut it back, I believe Trump is the answer to do that.

 

[Perotista]

Yes, it changes the focus on the role of the Federal govt. which is to PROMOTE the private sector and to do that is to lower regulations and return that power to the state. What exactly is the role of the Federal Govt? It certainly isn't what Obama and Hillary have done. If Trump is getting something back isn't he getting back what he paid for in the form of tax refunds? Do you realize that the Federal Govt. only gives back what they receive in the form of taxes. We have too big of a Federal Govt. and no one with the experience to cut it back, I believe Trump is the answer to do that.

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on that. I just view as more of the same, only he came out of the shadows. From the nameless to the named. From a behind the scene manipulator to one out front. I wish you the best and for your sake, I hope you are right.

 

[radcen]

Trump use to be one of the faceless money donors buying favors from the elected officials. Back in 2015 when asked why he gave to both Democratic and Republican candidates and parties, Trump response was, 'I give and they give back." Now he is a face, do you really think that changes things? I don't.

So, we're supposed to believe that Mr Trump, who admits to essentially buying benefits for his business... and is also well-known to be completely self-absorbed and only in it (business) for himself... is going to suddenly do an about-face and eliminate this method of benefit buying, which would negatively affect his own bottom line, just because it's the right thing to do?

That takes a mountain of blind faith to believe.

 

[Conservative]

So, we're supposed to believe that Mr Trump, who admits to essentially buying benefits for his business... and is also well-known to be completely self-absorbed and only in it (business) for himself... is going to suddenly do an about-face and eliminate this method of benefit buying, which would negatively affect his own bottom line, just because it's the right thing to do?

That takes a mountain of blind faith to believe.

Trump buying benefits in the private sector affects the American public exactly how vs. Hillary selling benefits in the public sector? You seem to have a very selective outrage. I am willing to give Trump a try as what we have had since Reagan has been a diaster

 

[radcen]

Trump buying benefits in the private sector affects the American public exactly how vs. Hillary selling benefits in the public sector? You seem to have a very selective outrage. I am willing to give Trump a try as what we have had since Reagan has been a diaster

The only selectiveness is in your mind. I have no obligation to be all-inclusive and point out every single possible nuance when I post something. It is perfectly fine to limit my posts to a single point, and said point can stand alone quite nicely.

It is noted that your defense of Trump was "But but but... Hillary!", which really isn't a defense at all. It is also noted that my previous point re blind faith has been confirmed.

 

[Conservative]

The only selectiveness is in your mind. I have no obligation to be all-inclusive and point out every single possible nuance when I post something. It is perfectly fine to limit my posts to a single point, and said point can stand alone quite nicely.

It is noted that your defense of Trump was "But but but... Hillary!", which really isn't a defense at all. It is also noted that my previous point re blind faith has been confirmed.

My defense is based upon logic and common sense. Regardless of what and others say the choice is between Hillary and Trump. It may not be your choice but that is reality and to point out what Trump did in the private sector and try to equate that to the public sector poor performance and incompetence of Hillary really is irrelevant. Trump vs Hillary, I will be voting for Trump as I don't want Hillary anywhere near the WH. Again and please understand Trump wasn't my choice but was the choice of the primary electorate and the only chance of keeping Hillary out of the WH, A vote for Johnson puts Hillary there because of the mind numb Hillary voters, too many of them to change their minds

 

[radcen]

My defense is based upon logic and common sense. Regardless of what and others say the choice is between Hillary and Trump. It may not be your choice but that is reality and to point out what Trump did in the private sector and try to equate that to the public sector poor performance and incompetence of Hillary really is irrelevant. Trump vs Hillary, I will be voting for Trump as I don't want Hillary anywhere near the WH. Again and please understand Trump wasn't my choice but was the choice of the primary electorate and the only chance of keeping Hillary out of the WH, A vote for Johnson puts Hillary there because of the mind numb Hillary voters, too many of them to change their minds

I couldn't get past the first sentence. :lol:

Sorry, but no, the vast bulk of your defense of Trump has been Hillary comparisons. And when you say things like...

Trump buying benefits in the private sector affects the American public exactly how vs. Hillary selling benefits in the public sector? You seem to have a very selective outrage. I am willing to give Trump a try as what we have had since Reagan has been a diaster

...statements like this are clear and definitive examples of blind faith, or desperate hope, if you will.

For most anti-Trump people, it's not that Hillary is any kind of prize. Phfft, far from it. But, she is the status quo, and Trump would most likely be even worse. Not all of what Trump says he wants to do is necessarily bad, but it is highly questionable that he would be able to actually pull it off. Plus, some of the things he would/could do would be an absolute travesty, primarily in foreign relations, both militarily and trade.

Is that a "lesser of two evils" argument? To a point, sure. But this is not your father's election, either. The idealism of the past simply doesn't apply this time. We had a chance for idealism in the primaries and we effed it up.