Quote from: Dori on May 09, 2016, 09:14:07 AM
So tell us what you KNOW that Trump will do in office if elected.

Thank you, madame. You have made my point for me entirely. For all of his flaws in style and background, he is an unknown quantity far more than Hill-O-Lies.

Businesspeople are traditionally more pragmatic and adaptable - so they are more capable of changing than career politicians.

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 09, 2016, 11:05:32 AM
Thank you, madame. You have made my point for me entirely. For all of his flaws in style and background, he is an unknown quantity far more than Hill-O-Lies.

Businesspeople are traditionally more pragmatic and adaptable - so they are more capable of changing than career politicians.

So in your mind, having no core values, or understanding of the Constitution, is somehow seen as pragmatic?
Does the term Lib ever enter your mind when viewing Trump?

Quote from: Solar on May 09, 2016, 11:12:54 AM
So in your mind, having no core values, or understanding of the Constitution, is somehow seen as pragmatic?
Does the term Lib ever enter your mind when viewing Trump?

Not at all. That is my point. All I know for sure is my own mind. I cannot read minds. In my view, the greater evidence is that Hill-O-Lies is the greater threat (the one who is less in conformity with the Buckley Rule) than Donald Trump.

Elections are binary decisions there are only two choices. Nuance is not a factor.

There is no way to eliminate all risk from decisions. The only way that a vote for Trump would be no better than a vote for Hill-O-Lies is if there were irrefutable evidence that they are identical ( equally destructive or worse) on all important policy, ideology and character points.

Of course they could be absolutely identically destructive, but I don't think the evidence is that strong yet.

As previously mentioned, if Trump wants to be reelected, he will have to administrate things better than Hill-O-Lies says that she will. Her stated policy positions are guaranteed to destroy the nation (or rather finish the job of that which the Eightball Obama has started) while Trump has at the very least articulated general intentions of taking drastically different directions in several ways, although vague on the details

The devil you know is not better than the devil you only strongly suspect.

The tragedy of this entire situation is how we arrived at this sorry state of affairs with a candidate like Trump.  Now that we are stuck with it, we must make the best of a bad situation.

The trick will be trying to get a better candidate to be ready to challenge Trump and anyone else who runs in either party 2020.

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 09, 2016, 12:44:47 PM
Not at all. That is my point. All I know for sure is my own mind. I cannot read minds. In my view, the greater evidence is that Hill-O-Lies is the greater threat (the one who is less in conformity with the Buckley Rule) than Donald Trump.

Elections are binary decisions there are only two choices. Nuance is not a factor.

There is no way to eliminate all risk from decisions. The only way that a vote for Trump would be no better than a vote for Hill-O-Lies is if there were irrefutable evidence that they are identical ( equally destructive or worse) on all important policy, ideology and character points.

Of course they could be absolutely identically destructive, but I don't think the evidence is that strong yet.

As previously mentioned, if Trump wants to be reelected, he will have to administrate things better than Hill-O-Lies says that she will. Her stated policy positions are guaranteed to destroy the nation (or rather finish the job of that which the Eightball Obama has started) while Trump has at the very least articulated general intentions of taking drastically different directions in several ways, although vague on the details

The devil you know is not better than the devil you only strongly suspect.

The tragedy of this entire situation is how we arrived at this sorry state of affairs with a candidate like Trump.  Now that we are stuck with it, we must make the best of a bad situation.

The trick will be trying to get a better candidate to be ready to challenge Trump and anyone else who runs in either party 2020.

Both are a disaster, neither one is qualified. How to look at the "big picture"? hillery will bring down the dem party even further than obama did. The midterms where the tea party made inroads was no accident, and I will be one of the first to admit it did not go as far as I would have liked but it was a fantastic start and in part we have obama to thank. a hillery president will be a disaster but should help to keep pushing the tea party. A trump president will be a disaster too and the republicans will pay for it. Would it hurt the tea party??? hope not, but trump could ruin all the gains in just four short years.

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 09, 2016, 12:44:47 PM
Not at all. That is my point. All I know for sure is my own mind. I cannot read minds. In my view, the greater evidence is that Hill-O-Lies is the greater threat (the one who is less in conformity with the Buckley Rule) than Donald Trump.

Elections are binary decisions there are only two choices. Nuance is not a factor.

There is no way to eliminate all risk from decisions. The only way that a vote for Trump would be no better than a vote for Hill-O-Lies is if there were irrefutable evidence that they are identical ( equally destructive or worse) on all important policy, ideology and character points.

Of course they could be absolutely identically destructive, but I don't think the evidence is that strong yet.

As previously mentioned, if Trump wants to be reelected, he will have to administrate things better than Hill-O-Lies says that she will. Her stated policy positions are guaranteed to destroy the nation (or rather finish the job of that which the Eightball Obama has started) while Trump has at the very least articulated general intentions of taking drastically different directions in several ways, although vague on the details

The devil you know is not better than the devil you only strongly suspect.

The tragedy of this entire situation is how we arrived at this sorry state of affairs with a candidate like Trump.  Now that we are stuck with it, we must make the best of a bad situation.

The trick will be trying to get a better candidate to be ready to challenge Trump and anyone else who runs in either party 2020.

Instead of me wasting my time trying to convince you Chump is no better better than a Dim, how about you prove Chump's policies are superior to that of the socialist.
One problem, Chump has yet to set any policy in stone since running, add to that when he first started campaigning, he presumably ran to the right, but as time 'Progressed' he became more and more Progressive, leaving one to conclude he's just that, a Progressive.

Quote from: s3779m on May 09, 2016, 01:15:55 PM
Both are a disaster, neither one is qualified. How to look at the "big picture"? hillery will bring down the dem party even further than obama did. The midterms where the tea party made inroads was no accident, and I will be one of the first to admit it did not go as far as I would have liked but it was a fantastic start and in part we have obama to thank. a hillery president will be a disaster but should help to keep pushing the tea party. A trump president will be a disaster too and the republicans will pay for it. Would it hurt the tea party??? hope not, but trump could ruin all the gains in just four short years.

I must very respectfully disagree in all regards. Without doing an exhaustive point-by-point( maybe better done on another thread about "Trump's flaws"), the central disagreement I have is with the use of the term "disaster". A disaster by your definition may be different from my own. I agree that Hill-O-Lies would be a true disaster for a whole slew of reasons based on very strong evidence.  The assumption that Trump will be a disaster is, it seems to me, at best based on a series of extrapolations and suppositions. As far as I know, for instance, Trump's decisions have not resulted in the deaths of four innocent people, nor has he deliberately put the security of the nation at risk by using a private email server in order to do an end run around the rule of law because he has things he wants to conceal from public knowledge.   

But my God, how on Earth did we get into this horrible mess? I have to think that the mis-education system is powerful beyond measure in order for so many people to be so poorly informed on who should rightly be the nation's chief executive.

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 09, 2016, 01:41:35 PM
I must very respectfully disagree in all regards. Without doing an exhaustive point-by-point( maybe better done on another thread about "Trump's flaws"), the central disagreement I have is with the use of the term "disaster". A disaster by your definition may be different from my own. I agree that Hill-O-Lies would be a true disaster for a whole slew of reasons based on very strong evidence.  The assumption that Trump will be a disaster is, it seems to me, at best based on a series of extrapolations and suppositions. As far as I know, for instance, Trump's decisions have not resulted in the deaths of four innocent people, nor has he deliberately put the security of the nation at risk by using a private email server in order to do an end run around the rule of law because he has things he wants to conceal from public knowledge.   

But my God, how on Earth did we get into this horrible mess? I have to think that the mis-education system is powerful beyond measure in order for so many people to be so poorly informed on who should rightly be the nation's chief executive.

they obviously do not learn from here. Your right, disaster might be too strong a word. But with all the changing of policy on the fly, I imagine there will be few benefits for the republicans at the mid terms.

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 09, 2016, 06:59:57 AM
Doctrinaire. Purely. I like you and have the greatest respect for you and this forum, but you have articulated the very thing that the 'Crats have been dreaming of since the day their 2016 campaign began - a divided GOP that refuses to stand united against the 'Crat candidate because of fractious, DOCTRINAIRE divisions in their own ranks.

Sure, it FEELS good to "take a stand" but the strategic effect this indulgence in feelings produces is to hand victory to Hillary Clinton.  I'm voting for Cruz and The Constitution of the United States. I can live with that.  Long ago, before the primary process began, I realized that there was a best scenario and a worst scenario for my candidate. It was Scott Walker first, then Cruz. I decided that I would follow the Buckley Rule regardless of who the nominee was, regardless of my own feelings. I trust the wisdom of the Buckley Rule far more than my own feelings or personal judgment.

I derive my good feelings, my PATRIOTIC feelings, from knowing that I fought the good fight and chose the path that was most likely to win the war, not the path that was the most gratifying to me personally.

You sir can do as you like.  But I will be damn if I will hold my nose and vote for a RINO (Democrat) again.  At some point you need to make a stand.  Vote for A Democrat or vote your core values.  I am not voting for Trump or Hillary.  I can live with voting a Protest Vote.  ("A protest vote (also known as a blank vote or white vote) is a vote cast in an election to demonstrate the caster's dissatisfaction with the choice of candidates or refusal of the current political system.")  I can live with my vote, can you?  Un like b o I have draw a line in the sand and I will not cross it.

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 09, 2016, 01:41:35 PMI agree that Hill-O-Lies would be a true disaster for a whole slew of reasons based on very strong evidence.  The assumption that Trump will be a disaster is, it seems to me, at best based on a series of extrapolations and suppositions. As far as I know, for instance, Trump's decisions have not resulted in the deaths of four innocent people, nor has he deliberately put the security of the nation at risk by using a private email server in order to do an end run around the rule of law because he has things he wants to conceal from public knowledge.   

It's all moot anyway.  If Trump runs against Hillary, he can't win. 

Quote from: Dori on May 09, 2016, 03:22:26 PM
It's all moot anyway.  If Trump runs against Hillary, he can't win.

Dori --

I seem to recall that a similar statement was made about Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Regards,
Russ

Quote from: Solid Right on May 09, 2016, 04:37:04 PM
Dori --

I seem to recall that a similar statement was made about Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Regards,
Russ

Trump is no Reagan.  Those voters aren't in Trumps camp.

Quote from: Dori on May 09, 2016, 04:42:01 PM
1 - Trump is no Reagan. 
2 - Those voters aren't in Trumps camp.

Dori --

1.  That is correct.  Reagan had better manners and more relevant experience.
2.  Well, since that was 36 years ago, I suspect that many of them have moved on to the Big Camp In the Sky.

However, I did not assert either thing.  I was simply pointing out the similarity of statements made.

Regards,
Russ

Quote from: Solid Right on May 09, 2016, 04:51:22 PM
Dori --

1.  That is correct.  Reagan had better manners and more relevant experience.
2.  Well, since that was 36 years ago, I suspect that many of them have moved on to the Big Camp In the Sky.

However, I did not assert either thing.  I was simply pointing out the similarity of statements made.

Regards,
Russ

That's true without question. Times change. I don't think that Ronaldus Maximus could get elected today. He was a statesman and a gentleman - totally unsuited to the "newer cheaper age" ( nods to Hunter Thompson) in which we now live.

Quote from: Late-For-Lunch on May 09, 2016, 05:59:55 PM
That's true without question. Times change. I don't think that Ronaldus Maximus could get elected today. He was a statesman and a gentleman - totally unsuited to the "newer cheaper age" ( nods to Hunter Thompson) in which we now live.

Using that logic, Cruz actually lost in a level playing field. Nothing could be further from reality.

Quote from: Dori on May 09, 2016, 03:22:26 PM
It's all moot anyway.  If Trump runs against Hillary, he can't win.

They said that REPEATEDLY about Obama versus Evil-R-Us.

There are a lot of people who truly, viscerally hate that woman. Don't bet against the Donks handing this to Trump because they hate her worse than the GOP does. Which raises the question, would swapping candidates be a help or a hindrance here?