DescentBB

...you just handed the presidency and the next 30 years in the balance of the Supreme Court to the liberal democrats...

http://mashable.com/2016/03/25/trump-ba ... pi92MGZZqM

Donald Trump's poll numbers have plunged to new lows after a month of escalating violence at his rallies.


Clinton is clobbering Trump by double digits in five of the six national polls released this week, up from narrow leads she held for most of the campaign. Trump's slide is being driven by women as the percentage of Americans with an unfavorable opinion of him continues to rise. And pollsters believe the violence at his rallies — not to mention his ongoing misogynistic rhetoric — may be scaring off Republican and independent female voters.

Don't blame Trump supporters for Republican failings. If the party can't capture conservatives then it can't capture conservatives. Should have been an easy thing to do. Your party can't survive a Trump, TB. That's how this should be viewed. So many people spent so much time making fun of or trivializing Trump in an effort to make it so, instead of having an answer to him. It has been an unethical strategy since the first. If in the end it takes them down as a party it's only what they have coming to them.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So many people spent so much time making fun of or trivializing Trump in an effort to make it so, instead of having an answer to him.

What would the 'answer' be? Offer another loudmouthed reality show misogynistic conman with xenophobic tendencies?

they might have taken the approach of debunking his empty promises and hammered away at his lack of substance and changing positons from the get go. Instead, they allowed him to control the airwaves, dictate the news cycles and get so far in front of them as to be laughable. None of that will be available to his campaign should he get nominated, he's marched steadily backwards with women(shockingly) to the point where 72 percent of all women hold a negative view of him(down 4 percent in a month, from already bad numbers). Winning women by 6 or 7 percent wins most US general elections, if not all. Thus, he will not dictate any cycles, nor get much traction in a General against massive negative advertising beating his negatives to death. Having waited so long, I see little hope for anyone in that party advancing, because while Bernie and Hillary talk about real issues, the other side spends far too much time on wives, hand sizes, ridiculous ideas like walls that will NEVER be built and the like.

Nightshade wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:So many people spent so much time making fun of or trivializing Trump in an effort to make it so, instead of having an answer to him.

What would the 'answer' be? Offer another loudmouthed reality show misogynistic conman with xenophobic tendencies?

No doubt it would grant you the misogynistic sucker with xenophobic tendencies vote, but there's no need to go there if you just meet the voters at their concerns instead of always trying to impress the folks on the hill with how polished, up-and-coming, and on-board you are. I think Republicans are out of touch with the conservative aspect of their party, because they've failed to be conservative themselves. What the Republican party needs, but doesn't deserve, is an intelligent, well-rounded candidate who has a good grasp of modern issues through the lens of the truly timeless aspects of conservatism. Someone savvy and forceful enough to be in the arena, but who is honest and still in possession of their soul. Someone who actually believes in the constitution, and limited government, because they understand both, and isn't so "smart" (read broadly educated in many shallowly pursued topics of governing opinion) that they know better than some of the great minds that have had a hand in the formation of the country.

Well Thorne, maybe YOU need to run and I'm not being specious either. I sure as hell don't see anyone out there even remotely coming close what you're describing as the ideal conservative. Liberals need an ideal candidate too, because Hillary is sure as hell not what most liberals really think they want or need either. America is stuck with a bunch of slimy demagogue politicians with either personal agendas or visions of grandiosity and most voters either don't know better, don't care to learn or find it easier to go with what everyone else wants.

tunnelcat wrote:... Hillary is sure as hell not what most liberals really think they want or need either.

Hillary is a Republican.

And Trump is really a Democrat.

tunnelcat wrote:Well Thorne, maybe YOU need to run and I'm not being specious either. I sure as hell don't see anyone out there even remotely coming close what you're describing as the ideal conservative. Liberals need an ideal candidate too, because Hillary is sure as hell not what most liberals really think they want or need either. America is stuck with a bunch of slimy demagogue politicians with either personal agendas or visions of grandiosity and most voters either don't know better, don't care to learn or find it easier to go with what everyone else wants.

Thanks for the vote, TC! You know as dumb as it may sound I've actually had thoughts in that direction (only natural, in a way, when learning about and critiquing the position), and I've often come to the conclusion that I just haven't lived a life adequate to a calling like that. Kind of a sobering thought.

I agree that our choices are terrible. That's one of the reasons I'm personally not terribly anti-Trump. Trump is what he is, and I've never liked him, but sometimes I'm not so sure we could do any worse by letting some ★■◆● like that have 4 years to throw a wrench in the whole orchestrated mess. If I felt sure he wouldn't start any wars, and that he would actually fix trade and bring jobs back to America, I'd probably even vote for him. I'd be concerned that someone who rubs shoulders with the wealthy and has so much of his own wealth (not to mention ego) in the system would tend to play ball anyway, though, and even if he didn't I also tend to think some people have so much power to lose that he dare not be too big of a wrench (getting rid of the federal reserve). I think we owe the relatively small number of assassinations in U.S. history to the control over the outcome that people with that kind of reach enjoy at every level anyway, and to how many ways there may be to skin a cat republic. I try to be mindful of the bigger picture, and plans-within-plans could still find someone as radical, or at least as radical-sounding, as Trump to be just a different tool for a different job.

what's funny about all these "hilliary=leftist" comments is he's actually farther right than even Steven Harper.

Spidey wrote:And Trump is really a Democrat.

Indeed. I hope Woody's paying attention.

vision wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:... Hillary is sure as hell not what most liberals really think they want or need either.

Hillary is a Republican.

She's not a "Republican" and she's not a "Democrat" either. She's a card carrying member of the "Business Party".

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Thanks for the vote, TC! You know as dumb as it may sound I've actually had thoughts in that direction (only natural, in a way, when learning about and critiquing the position), and I've often come to the conclusion that I just haven't lived a life adequate to a calling like that. Kind of a sobering thought.

I agree that our choices are terrible. That's one of the reasons I'm personally not terribly anti-Trump. Trump is what he is, and I've never liked him, but sometimes I'm not so sure we could do any worse by letting some ★■◆● like that have 4 years to throw a wrench in the whole orchestrated mess. If I felt sure he wouldn't start any wars, and that he would actually fix trade and bring jobs back to America, I'd probably even vote for him. I'd be concerned that someone who rubs shoulders with the wealthy and has so much of his own wealth (not to mention ego) in the system would tend to play ball anyway, though, and even if he didn't I also tend to think some people have so much power to lose that he dare not be too big of a wrench (getting rid of the federal reserve). I think we owe the relatively small number of assassinations in U.S. history to the control over the outcome that people with that kind of reach enjoy at every level anyway, and to how many ways there may be to skin a cat republic. I try to be mindful of the bigger picture, and plans-within-plans could still find someone as radical, or at least as radical-sounding, as Trump to be just a different tool for a different job.

You should be anti-Trump. The man fits the definition of a classic bully with the mentality and abrasiveness of a rock. He's not fit to be our nation's president or fit to lead our military. His ego outweighs his bald spot. Since he's never admitted any of his mistakes, he has no humility. He has all the compassion of concrete wall and the brashness of a sour lemon. He pits people against one another as blood sport for his own gain and entertainment. He insults people with pride. He's lies constantly, then blames others for those lies. In fact, he believes he's perfect in every way. He comes up with ideas, but no substance or solutions that would turn those ideas into action. I think we'd be far worse off with a president Trump than we've ever been under Obama, considering we aren't really in the toilet right now anyway. We're just kind of coasting along until we eventually sink. I'd also like to see a radical thinking person get elected. But I'd like to see a smart and substantive radical who's not a mentally unhinged, story telling, misogynistic, lying, bloviating egotist bully who worships his own image and the ground he stands on, who does things only for himself, is not a card-carrying member of the class of people who are the real problem right now and who has a snowball's chance in hell of getting the things done he tells us he wants to get done.

Right now, I'm going to change my party affiliation from Unaffiliated to Democrat, at least for the primary in our state. I'll probably change it back once the primary is over too since I think the Dems have lost their way and I don't really want to be labeled with their stink. Since we don't have an open primary and I don't want to see Hillary get an Oregon win, I'm going to vote for Sanders just to put a stick in her eye.