The OFFICIAL Trump/HRC/2016 General Election Thread...

[T.Lex]

No no no, you can't say that... not after equating Democrat victory with the failure of the country. Either GOP members up for reelection win, and prevent Democrats from getting in power... or they lose... giving more power to Clinton/Democrats.

Only have it one way, pick one. If we're playing the black-and-white game like a lot of people here love to do... we're playing it right.

Would Democrats in local-power be good or bad for 2A? Would GOP in local-power be good or bad for 2A?

For the SCOTUS-only Trump supporters, the down card may not be important at all.

I'm not saying that's a good long-term strategy, but if a voter has only 1 litmus test, things get super-simple, super-quick.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

"Better real confusion than false clarity"

I would rather hear the voices of dissent. Who is attacking who really is a frame of reference.

An attacker implies a defender.

Who is who to you?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/785854588654092290

It is so nice that the shackles have been taken off me and I can now fight for America the way I want to.

Disloyal R's are far more difficult than Crooked Hillary. They come at you from all sides. They don’t know how to win - I will teach them!

Trump says they're "disloyal"... so that is the crime: Not being loyal to him. His followers (in the example above) use that as the standard... loyalty.

So let's use disloyalty as the "attack" standard for my question.

 

[RMC]

We've been doing it for decades.

That's a valid point.

 

[RMC]

Tied to my post above... a question for the reasonable Trump supporters:

Does attacking the rest of the GOP candidates up for reelection sound like the actions of someone that has the best of the country in-mind?

Do you support or oppose this sort of behavior? Do you agree that everyone should get in line, or are politicians allowed to have their own opinions on who they support without the threat of repercussions and punishment?

Also, do you think this behavior is the candidate's best way to utilize his time? Especially when attacks on his supposed actual opposition have been lackluster, at best?

I haven't heard or seen any threats but aren't the incumbents at least partly responsible for all we dislike about our Government today?

 

[T.Lex]

If you want action on the important issues this Country and it's People are facing, there can be only one choice this November 9th...Trump/Pence.

I haven't heard or seen any threats but aren't the incumbents at least partly responsible for all we dislike about our Government today?

What about the choices for the other positions? Trump is only running for the top post. What do you recommend for other important positions, like Governor and Senator?

There is no incumbent running for either. (That's totally only technically true, of course.)

 

[RMC]

What about the choices for the other positions? Trump is only running for the top post. What do you recommend for other important positions, like Governor and Senator?

There is no incumbent running for either. (That's totally only technically true, of course.)

To be honest, I haven't decided on those races yet. I tend to lean towards Conservatives but I don't believe they are always the best choice.

I haven't been a resident of Indiana long enough to know much about the candidates other than the mudslinging so I may leave those spaces blank and trust those that know to choose the best person. Then again, I may be better informed by November 9th and choose for myself.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I haven't heard or seen any threats but aren't the incumbents at least partly responsible for all we dislike about our Government today?

I wouldn't say that. I'm a fan of the separation of Federal and State governments. Each state can vary on how well they adhere to the values that their party represents.

A California Republican would be different than, say, a Texas Republican. I don't think either of these people are necessarily responsible for how the party is seen, as a whole.

So... the people up for reelection are important to maintain a congressional majority. With a majority, it's potentially possible to oppose Clinton. Why would Trump and Trump supporters think that going after these people is good for the country? Or is it just spiteful? (We've seen how the unreasonable Trump supporters here attack people, instead of ideas. Dissent being what it is to them.)

Without a majority, Clinton legally does what she wants... doesn't even need questionable Executive Orders... and we keep spinning down that drain.

To be honest, I haven't decided on those races yet. I tend to lean towards Conservatives but I don't believe they are always the best choice.

Definitely a case-by-case basis. There have been non-GOP candidates that I thought would be better than the default GOP options.

 

[RMC]

I also think there should be separation of Federal and State governments. Leave transportation and National Security to the Feds and everything else to the States and local governments.

 

[Alpo]

However, words that hurt nobody, spoken over a decade ago, really don't have the same impact as attempting to put a person that lies to Congress, the FBI, and the American People about her felonious and treasonous activities into our Oval Office.

So, if the Trumpster grabbed your mom's/wife's/daughter's crotch, you'd have no problem with it?

 

[foszoe]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/785854588654092290



Trump says they're "disloyal"... so that is the crime: Not being loyal to him. His followers (in the example above) use that as the standard... loyalty.

So let's use disloyalty as the "attack" standard for my question.

Ok. Was the declaration to support the GOP nominee a loyalty pledge?

Was the big deal if Donald Trump would agree?

Everyone who agreed to that pledge should have thought of the consequences beforehand and the conversation should have been would any of them sign it?

I don't make the habit of signing contracts without considering the full ramifications.

I don't excuse those who do so, especially those who will be negotiating contracts or influencing them on behalf of the country.

Others like to claim a loyalty pledge is a two way street. Well did the pledge have two way language? Did it offer an out?

Here is the text as I found it....

I [name] affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for president of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is. I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party.



So, who attacked whom? That was my question. You gave me a criterion but I am not sure you answered the question directly

 

[printcraft]

So let me see if I have this right.........
#nevertrumpers who have been doing everything, including promising to vote for hitlary clinton to try to bury Trump for the last 6 months are NOW upset that somebody says they won't continue to support their chosen candidates as a result?

[video=youtube;5AYIcTVizM4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AYIcTVizM4[/video]

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Ok. Was the declaration to support the GOP nominee a loyalty pledge?

Was the big deal if Donald Trump would agree?

Everyone who agreed to that pledge should have thought of the consequences beforehand and the conversation should have been would any of them sign it?

I don't make the habit of signing contracts without considering the full ramifications.

I don't excuse those who do so, especially those who will be negotiating contracts or influencing them on behalf of the country.

Others like to claim a loyalty pledge is a two way street. Well did the pledge have two way language? Did it offer an out?

Here is the text as I found it....

I [name] affirm that if I do not win the 2016 Republican nomination for president of the United States I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is. I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party.

We're not talking about the other GOP nominees. They're talking about GOP members, in general, that are up for their own reelection. Be it local, senate, house, etc. A lot more than the other guys that ran for President.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So let me see if I have this right.........
#nevertrumpers who have been doing everything, including promising to vote for hitlary clinton to try to bury Trump for the last 6 months are NOW upset that somebody says they won't continue to support their chosen candidates as a result?

What?

Have to break this down to see what you're talking about...

#nevertrumpers who have been doing everything, including promising to vote for hitlary clinton to try to bury Trump for the last 6 months

... ok... so is this referring to INGO members that don't support Trump, or GOP up for reelection that don't support Trump?

are NOW upset that somebody says they won't continue to support their chosen candidates as a result?

What chosen candidates? This is why I'm confused... If you're talking about "INGO member's chosen candidates"... that's makes no sense. It's either GOP majority, or Democrat majority.

If you're talking about the candidates themselves... that also makes no sense, and doesn't answer my question: Should Trump and Trump supporters be threatening to vote against GOP down-ticket for not supporting Trump... and cause a Democrat majority? Yes or no?

It's a very, very easy scenario. Don't support Trump... then they'll try and get more Democrats in power to spite you. Is that OK?

Can you please answer that without deflecting to the "nevertrump" bogeyman

 

[foszoe]

We're not talking about the other GOP nominees. They're talking about GOP members, in general, that are up for their own reelection. Be it local, senate, house, etc. A lot more than the other guys that ran for President.

I think if the nominees, once they had signed the loyalty pledge, had kept their word once given, much of the divisiveness of the rest of the campaign would have been minimized and down ballot unity would have prevailed.

Can I prove that? no.

Once they popularized vocal dissent, it facilitated it in the rank and file. What they really showed is that they were the politicians we have come to expect.

However, if I was doing a root cause analysis on the problems now, I would trace it right back to that loyalty pledge.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I think if the nominees, once they had signed the loyalty pledge, had kept their word once given, much of the divisiveness of the rest of the campaign would have been minimized and down ballot unity would have prevailed.

Can I prove that? no.

Once they popularized vocal dissent, it facilitated it in the rank and file. What they really showed is that they were the politicians we have come to expect.

However, if I was doing a root cause analysis on the problems now, I would trace it right back to that loyalty pledge.

OK.

Back to my question, though. Should Trump and Trump supporters be going after GOP members that are up for reelection? Which would result in more Democrats in power with Clinton.

 

[RMC]

So, if the Trumpster grabbed your mom's/wife's/daughter's crotch, you'd have no problem with it?

I was talking about verbage, not physical action. I probably shouldn't assume everyone knows the difference.

 

[jamil]

Tied to my post above... a question for the reasonable Trump supporters:

Does attacking the rest of the GOP candidates up for reelection sound like the actions of someone that has the best of the country in-mind?

Do you support or oppose this sort of behavior? Do you agree that everyone should get in line, or are politicians allowed to have their own opinions on who they support without the threat of repercussions and punishment?

Also, do you think this behavior is the candidate's best way to utilize his time? Especially when attacks on his supposed actual opposition have been lackluster, at best?

Trumpers complain that nevertrumpers not voting for their guy will ruin the country by giving Hillary a victory. Hell, she already has it won because they picked the only candidate in the race that can compete with Hillary on character depravity. But for spite they say **** it, let's just sink this mother****er and give Hillary a Democratic led congress. Shameful.

 

[Alpo]

I was talking about verbage, not physical action. I probably shouldn't assume everyone knows the difference.

Oh, I know the difference.

What do you think about the actual physical action? OK by you?

 

[jamil]

So let me see if I have this right.........
#nevertrumpers who have been doing everything, including promising to vote for hitlary clinton to try to bury Trump for the last 6 months are NOW upset that somebody says they won't continue to support their chosen candidates as a result?

How many #nevertrumpers will actually vote for Hillary? Most around INGO have expressed that they'll either vote a write-in, vote for Johnson, or leave that slot blank.

 

[printcraft]

So we are supposed to be shocked and surprised that someone finally replies in kind to the treatment they are receiving?
Really?