An Open Letter to Donald Trump...

[BehindBlueI's]

I took my dad out for dinner today and we got to talking politics a bit. He floored me and said he'd leave the president blank on the ballot if it was Trump V Clinton because he couldn't stomach voting for either of them. Dad's voted Republican for president since he was old enough to vote. He said if the primaries mattered by the time they got to Indiana, he'd vote for Kaesich. I'd have guessed he'd have been a "anybody but Hillary" voter.

 

[Cerberus]

I took my dad out for dinner today and we got to talking politics a bit. He floored me and said he'd leave the president blank on the ballot if it was Trump V Clinton because he couldn't stomach voting for either of them. Dad's voted Republican for president since he was old enough to vote. He said if the primaries mattered by the time they got to Indiana, he'd vote for Kaesich. I'd have guessed he'd have been a "anybody but Hillary" voter.

Might as well get used to saying President Clinton again. When a bunch of lowest common denominator voters (very much akin to Obots) throw their little tantrum (along with the media circus) and force 75% of the Republican party into eventually having to choose a fascist over a communist, then don't be surprised if many stay home and let nature take it's course. Another 4 miserable years is exactly what the children deserve.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Troll harder next time. 2014 Party Identification Detailed Tables | Pew Research Center

Perhaps you don't know this, so allow me to fill the void. Voting patterns NEVER EVER correlate with party identification patterns. You clearly in this post:

Or it could just be the gimme, gimme, entitled plebs we have in this country, that can pop out 8 leaches into poverty to perpetuate the cycle over and over again (the democratic voter base).

....and make it clear you're talking about "voters," and then you pull out a chart that only lists party of "identification." So if you call factual information "trolling," perhaps your goats should get off my bridge, read a book, understand the difference, come back to my bridge when the void is filled with knowledge.

You mad bro?

 

[voidsherpa]

that link doesn't say what you think it says.

I understand what it states. Promise "hope and change" and call them out to vote, rally your base. Open the borders/pass some blanket amnesty and gain more constituents. They have it locked down, just because they have lower turnout ( it's clearly because they are disenfranchised, lets get them some obama cars!) does not make the <50k crowd insignificant.

Even if we win the battle, we'll still lose the war.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I understand what it states. Promise "hope and change" and call them out to vote, rally your base. Open the borders/pass some blanket amnesty and gain more constituents. They have it locked down, just because they have lower turnout ( it's clearly because they are disenfranchised, lets get them some obama cars!) does not make the <50k crowd insignificant.

Even if we win the battle, we'll still lose the war.

Negative Ghostrider, you don't... as attributed to you not noticing the lack of correlation between party identification and the small amount of votes it actually translates to. You could really have your eyes opened if you simply chose to look, and inform yourself, rather than post rambling about what you "think," you know.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm sorry to be the one to point it out, but this post embodies the reasons we ( Trump supporters/ non supporters ) talk past each other. One side feels like they point out flaws in Trump and his character that the supporters just don't take seriously.

Then, IMO, you turn and do the same exact thing. When its pointed out that Trump is the ONLY current candidate that carries, its given no credence whatsoever and you jump to the unsupported claim that we will be treated differently by him after the election (which by the way I thought he can't win. You know something something ceiling something brokered convention). We get it that you don't like him. We're not like you. And we don't want to be.

Trump carries? When? I'm finding it difficult to lock down if it's sometimes, or all the time. But he doesn't seem to know either. Though at least I know he carries to be "unpredictable." If this guy is elected, I'm going to have a lot of fun at the expense of those simple-minded enough to vote for him.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Trump carries? When? I'm finding it difficult to lock down if it's sometimes, or all the time. But he doesn't seem to know either. Though at least I know he carries to be "unpredictable." If this guy is elected, I'm going to have a lot of fun at the expense of those simple-minded enough to vote for him.

Fair warning Kut, being right about Obama has not been fun for me at all.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Fair warning Kut, being right about Obama has not been fun for me at all.

Touché

 

[Lowe0]

Or it could just be the gimme, gimme, entitled plebs we have in this country, that can pop out 8 leaches into poverty to perpetuate the cycle over and over again (the democratic voter base).

But those are 8 little lives, and as I'm repeatedly told, all life is precious. Heaven forbid (literally) that we try to keep them from being conceived in the first place.

 

[HoughMade]

Digression:

My most sincere hope is that I am never so full of myself that I feel like the world needs to read an open letter that I have penned.

 

[T.Lex]

Digression:

My most sincere hope is that I am never so full of myself that I feel like the world needs to read an open letter that I have penned.

Isn't that what every INGO post is, ever?

 

[jamil]

Or it could just be the gimme, gimme, entitled plebs we have in this country, that can pop out 8 leaches into poverty to perpetuate the cycle over and over again (the democratic voter base).

Well, contrary to what you believe, the democratic voting base isn't based in poverty (under $20k/year family of 4). Less than half of them vote. Fact check it.

that link doesn't say what you think it says.

Voidsherpa, these guys are correct. The pew poll doesn't really support what you said. First, it doesn't tell us what ratio of democrats are poor, which is one of the statistics needed to say what you're saying. It shows what ratio of the poor are democrats but not what ratio of democrats are poor. There are rich democrats too. Second, it doesn't tell us what percentage of poor democrats vote, which was Kut's point. You could, however, use that data to say that the poorer one is, the more likely one is to lean Democrat. But it doesn't support that the poor whoo pop out 8 leaches into poverty are the democratic base.

The democratic base is shifting. It used to be blue collar/union. Now it's evermore becoming progressive lunatic.

 

[HoughMade]

Isn't that what every INGO post is, ever?

We're an intimate little dysfunctional family.

 

[jamil]

Digression:

My most sincere hope is that I am never so full of myself that I feel like the world needs to read an open letter that I have penned.

Was this an open letter?

 

[chipbennett]

Might as well get used to saying President Clinton again. When a bunch of lowest common denominator voters (very much akin to Obots) throw their little tantrum (along with the media circus) and force 75% of the Republican party into eventually having to choose a fascist over a communist, then don't be surprised if many stay home and let nature take it's course. Another 4 miserable years is exactly what the children deserve.

The real fascists are the Soros-funded goons of MoveOn.org, BLM, Occupy, et al, rioting and violating the rights of of free speech and assembly at Trump rallies. The people supporting those real fascists are the other three stooges in the primary: Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich.

Watching the people calling Trump a fascist, while cheering on actual fascists and blaming their actions on Trump, makes me wonder just how many people failed history.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The real fascists are the Soros-funded goons of MoveOn.org, BLM, Occupy, et al, rioting and violating the rights of of free speech and assembly at Trump rallies. The people supporting those real fascists are the other three stooges in the primary: Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich.

Watching the people calling Trump a fascist, while cheering on actual fascists and blaming their actions on Trump, makes me wonder just how many people failed history.

It's an interesting philosophical dilemma.

 

[jamil]

I'm sorry to be the one to point it out, but this post embodies the reasons we ( Trump supporters/ non supporters ) talk past each other. One side feels like they point out flaws in Trump and his character that the supporters just don't take seriously.

Then, IMO, you turn and do the same exact thing. When its pointed out that Trump is the ONLY current candidate that carries, its given no credence whatsoever and you jump to the unsupported claim that we will be treated differently by him after the election (which by the way I thought he can't win. You know something something ceiling something brokered convention). We get it that you don't like him. We're not like you. And we don't want to be.

As much as you guys like to imagine some silent majority that's going to overwhelm the polls and sweep in the magical era of Trump, I don't regret informing you that most people aren't Trumpers. There is a ceiling.

Thus far Trump's managed to keep a fairly solid 1/3 support of the Republican voters plus or minus a few nuts and bolts from the Democrats. That's nowhere near a majority. Not that I rely on the majority for much of anything, but a wise man once told me, if you think you're the only sane person around, you might want to seek the opinion of a professional to confirm. It seems this concept scales pretty well. Say, up to a third or so. The rest of us think much less highly of Trump.

I have to say that the past several days have me rethinking my plan to hold my nose, close my eyes, cross my fingers, and vote for not-Hillary in the general election. I've had to vote for not-Obama twice. Surely I can muster the gumption to vote for not-Hillary. But each day not-Hillary (Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Kasich) says or does something really stupid that makes me wonder how I could ever vote for any of them. But especially Trump. I'm sorry, the koolaid just doesn't seem to have the same intoxicating effect on me that it has on y'all.

 

[Kutnupe14]

As much as you guys like to imagine some silent majority that's going to overwhelm the polls and sweep in the magical era of Trump, I don't regret informing you that most people aren't Trumpers. There is a ceiling.

Thus far Trump's managed to keep a fairly solid 1/3 support of the Republican voters plus or minus a few nuts and bolts from the Democrats. That's nowhere near a majority. Not that I rely on the majority for much of anything, but a wise man once told me, if you think you're the only sane person around, you might want to seek the opinion of a professional to confirm. It seems this concept scales pretty well. Say, up to a third or so. The rest of us think much less highly of Trump.

I have to say that the past several days have me rethinking my plan to hold my nose, close my eyes, cross my fingers, and vote for not-Hillary in the general election. I've had to vote for not-Obama twice. Surely I can muster the gumption to vote for not-Hillary. But each day not-Hillary (Trump/Cruz/Rubio/Kasich) says or does something really stupid that makes me wonder how I could ever vote for any of them. But especially Trump. I'm sorry, the koolaid just doesn't seem to have the same intoxicating effect on me that it has on y'all.

Write in candidate FTW!

Kut (isn't holding his nose either)

 

[jamil]

The real fascists are the Soros-funded goons of MoveOn.org, BLM, Occupy, et al, rioting and violating the rights of of free speech and assembly at Trump rallies.

That's a rational conclusion, IMHO.

The people supporting those real fascists are the other three stooges in the primary: Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich.

Watching the people calling Trump a fascist, while cheering on actual fascists and blaming their actions on Trump, makes me wonder just how many people failed history.

This, less so. Their primary points over-stressed Trump's involvement, but to deny that Trump played any role at all is not so rational. I hate to admit agreeing with Krauthammer on much of anything, but I think he pretty much nailed it. There are two stories, which kinda echos what I said before about it.

There is the story where a POTUS candidate encouraged his audience to get rough with the protesters and even offered to pay their legal bills. I don't doubt that Trump was surprised when someone in his audience actually did that. But it underscores that a major problem with Trump is that he either doesn't understand how his words carry as a candidate for the most powerful job, or worse, he does understand and he's using it to imply marching orders. Either way, not something that endears me to Trump. I don't want a commander in chief who behaves like a mob boss. That's just another of many major red flags that Trump's behavior raises. To the Trumpers, he comes out stronger than before. To me, I see him even less favorably than before. As I said, his koolaid just isn't that strong.

The second story is the one where the Soros backed Sandernistas hired some Chicago thugs to crash the party. In all of this mess I've only seen one Trumper do any violence. All the rest of the violence has been committed, ironically, by the side that says they're protesting violence. These people are indeed the real fascists, not that Trump isn't behaving a little fascist himself. But what happened in Chicago was an organized uprising to feign grassroots opposition. It wasn't a direct result of Trump's supposed call for violence. Saying that Chicago was Trump's fault is like saying the rape was the woman's fault. But given the first of the two story's, the woman may have been able to prevent it by behaving differently.

 

[chipbennett]

That's a rational conclusion, IMHO.



This, less so. Their primary points over-stressed Trump's involvement, but to deny that Trump played any role at all is not so rational. I hate to admit agreeing with Krauthammer on much of anything, but I think he pretty much nailed it.

Trump had nothing to do with it. The violence was pre-planned, and organized.

There are two stories, which kinda echos what I said before about it.

There is the story where a POTUS candidate encouraged his audience to get rough with the protesters and even offered to pay their legal bills. I don't doubt that Trump was surprised when someone in his audience actually did that. But it underscores that a major problem with Trump is that he either doesn't understand how his words carry as a candidate for the most powerful job, or worse, he does understand and he's using it to imply marching orders. Either way, not something that endears me to Trump. I don't want a commander in chief who behaves like a mob boss. That's just another of many major red flags that Trump's behavior raises. To the Trumpers, he comes out stronger than before. To me, I see him even less favorably than before. As I said, his koolaid just isn't that strong.

And again, the parallels between Trump and Reagan are, at the very least, quite interesting:

[video=youtube;Tt0Mx06GSgM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt0Mx06GSgM[/video]

The second story is the one where the Soros backed Sandernistas hired some Chicago thugs to crash the party. In all of this mess I've only seen one Trumper do any violence. All the rest of the violence has been committed, ironically, by the side that says they're protesting violence. These people are indeed the real fascists, not that Trump isn't behaving a little fascist himself. But what happened in Chicago was an organized uprising to feign grassroots opposition. It wasn't a direct result of Trump's supposed call for violence. Saying that Chicago was Trump's fault is like saying the rape was the woman's fault. But given the first of the two story's, the woman may have been able to prevent it by behaving differently.

The analogy I prefer is blaming Benghazi on a YouTube video.