The Republican Primary Race Is Filling Up

[T.Lex]

You hit the nail on the head.

Trump is the most dangerous to our current structure of government, which is light years away from our founding, that's why I voted for him.

Be careful what you wish. If Trump has the power to accomplish what you think the country needs, you then have to ask yourself if has the self-discipline to do it, let alone the morality. The structure established at our founding was done so by tens, maybe hundreds of people, who compromised with each other and diluted the authority of any one person in government.

Trump's personality is not any of that.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Speaking off the cuff, by the seat of your pants, and without softball questions from the media, or advanced screening of those questions, mistakes will happen; he quickly debunked his support of the individual insurance mandate.

I'm sorry, I don't care what the media asks in regards to ObamaCare, I say scrap the whole thing. Maybe Trump doesn't have enough grounded principles to say that and couldn't remember what his policies said on his website.

 

[jamil]

For purposes of this post, I will concede the gun rights argument to your line of reasoning. While gun rights is a very important issue to me, it is not my litmus test. (Although, I remain unconvinced of Trump's future protection of gun rights - like you say, we just don't know. Also, I *know* HRC will not be able to pass any gun control, so at a certain level, the point is moot.)

Based on the information available to me, Trump is far more dangerous to the structure of our government. A populist/nationalist in a democracy is riskier than a bureaucrat - especially a narcissistic, bully populist with a mandate. In those terms, Sanders is close to Trump in that spectrum and HRC is the least dangerous. As I've said before, with HRC, the battle lines will be familiar, as will the results.

Lest that last comment be misunderstood, it is not an endorsement of HRC. It is an indictment of all the candidates.

Oh, I forgot Kasich is still in. (Hey, its easy to do.) He'd be the least dangerous. But, he's also crossed the line into Quixotic by staying in.

I hope you consider the likelihood that Americans will elect bat**** crazy congress critters in opposition to Trump. I would be very surprised if the Republicans keep the Senate and it wouldn't surprise me if they also lost the house. Obama couldn't get gun control done because 1) it wasn't a markee issue when dems controlled both houses and Harry Reid is not all that anti-gun anyway. 2) Republicans controlled both houses. 3) being anti-gun used to be a political career killer. Democrats who weren't from leftist lala land formerly had to pretend to be pro 2A. Even Obama pretended to be pro 2a. Not anymore. The Democratic party feels comfortable enough with the electorate that it's now an official part of the party platform.

Point is, the things that protected gun rights through the Obama administration won't be there for the next administration.

 

[T.Lex]

He reminds me of Obama 2008. No matter what was said or done, the voters made him into what they wanted him to be, and I think that is what is going on with Trump.

I agree. In a sense, they are 2 sides of the same coin. They look different. (<---- understatement alert) But, cut from the same mint.

In fact, Trump could be considered an extension of Obama. Part of the Republican crit of Obama was the lack of experience. Well, look, we beat the Dems at that and have nominated someone with even less experience. Clearly, we win.

 

[T.Lex]

I hope you consider the likelihood that Americans will elect bat**** crazy congress critters in opposition to Trump. I would be very surprised if the Republicans keep the Senate and it wouldn't surprise me if they also lost the house. Obama couldn't get gun control done because 1) it wasn't a markee issue when dems controlled both houses and Harry Reid is not all that anti-gun anyway. 2) Republicans controlled both houses. 3) being anti-gun used to be a political career killer. Democrats who weren't from leftist lala land formerly had to pretend to be pro 2A. Even Obama pretended to be pro 2a. Not anymore. The Democratic party feels comfortable enough with the electorate that it's now an official part of the party platform.

Point is, the things that protected gun rights through the Obama administration won't be there for the next administration.

Couple different things going on there.

First, the LAST thing we need are new, impressionable Congress n00bs with a Trump presidency. That kind of stuff will keep me awake at night. For checks and balances to work, we need people who already know how to use them - not people who are going to learn on the job.

Second, the stuff about pretending/not pretending about 2A stuff doesn't matter. How many times did Obama claim that he wanted gun control passed? At least half a dozen. And it didn't happen. That had nothing to do with SCOTUS. For as much personal distaste I have for the NRA, they are effective at lobbying. Plus, with Heller, our basic 2A right is pretty solid for the foreseeable future.

And again, this may sound odd on a gun forum, but I am less concerned with narrow 2A stuff than larger issues at this point.

 

[jamil]

Be careful what you wish. If Trump has the power to accomplish what you think the country needs, you then have to ask yourself if has the self-discipline to do it, let alone the morality. The structure established at our founding was done so by tens, maybe hundreds of people, who compromised with each other and diluted the authority of any one person in government.

Trump's personality is not any of that.

This is a problem. It's one that we've endured during the Obama administration where he was given a leftist mandate twice! And as I've said, I have my doubts about Trump. I really think he will be the Donald Trump he's always been, rather than the godking Donald Trump that his political supporters believe he is now. But he is what he is.

At this point only one thing is certain, HRC or The Donald will be president. No other candidate third party or otherwise will be. So we have the Hobson's choice.
Another way to look at it, you have to drink a bottle of liquid. You have no choice. One or the other. One bottle has a warning label, "FATAL IF SWALLOWED". The other has a label, "Warning! May be fatal if swallowed." You have to take one. Which one do you take?

 

[chipbennett]

Going to have to explain this new strategy, Chip. We're long past you pretending to not be a Trump guy...

If by "a Trump guy" you mean "voted for Trump" - yes. I stated weeks ago that I would be voting for Trump.

And Trump is now the presumptive nominee. He'll be the one taking on Clinton in November. So, that means that I'll be supporting Trump in that capacity. That means defending his stated platform against specious claims such as the ones to which I was responding.

Do his words not have meaning anymore? Is his website the only thing that matters when it comes to scrutinizing what he says on policy-related questioning?

His stated platform/policy positions are certainly the place to start.

If you're doing this just for argument purposes on INGO... okay. But people here are allowed to criticize the man based on the things he says on policy. When he says he's pro-choice, or against free market, or doesn't like the idea of guns... those things matter just as much as whatever is on his website.

Let's just take one of those: Trump is a CCW holder, who carries. That speaks far more volumes, and is corroborated by his stated position on firearms rights, than wherever that alleged statement that he "doesn't like the idea of guns" does.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm sorry, I don't care what the media asks in regards to ObamaCare, I say scrap the whole thing. Maybe Trump doesn't have enough grounded principles to say that and couldn't remember what his policies said on his website.

Well, here, then; let me quote his website for you:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

But none of these positive reforms can be accomplished without Obamacare repeal. On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare.

...

Congress must act. Our elected representatives in the House and Senate must:

1. Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.

 

[chipbennett]

I agree. In a sense, they are 2 sides of the same coin. They look different. (<---- understatement alert) But, cut from the same mint.

In fact, Trump could be considered an extension of Obama. Part of the Republican crit of Obama was the lack of experience. Well, look, we beat the Dems at that and have nominated someone with even less experience. Clearly, we win.

You know, ironically enough, I remember dealing with the Hope And Change voters in 2008. They used to tell me all about the rainbows and unicorns of Hopenchange, and I would do exactly what I'm doing now: I would point them to Obama's campaign website, which listed his platform/policy positions. I would tell them that Obama had laid out exactly what he intended to do (and, largely, accomplished in doing during his first term).

 

[T.Lex]

This is a problem. It's one that we've endured during the Obama administration where he was given a leftist mandate twice!

But he didn't have a mandate, not in the normal sense. The closest he got was in 2008, when his margin was ~7%. And he had Congress for some of that time and couldn't get gun control done.

I'm not advocating for complacency, just saying that under familiar circumstances, gun rights are unlikely to suffer.

Another way to look at it, you have to drink a bottle of liquid. You have no choice. One or the other. One bottle has a warning label, "FATAL IF SWALLOWED". The other has a label, "Warning! May be fatal if swallowed." You have to take one. Which one do you take?

Except the reality is, we are not forced to choose - yet. That's a marxist/communist/socialist thing - forcing people to vote.

The other thing is, we've tasted the "FATAL IF SWALLOWED" and it wasn't particularly fatal.

 

[MisterChester]

Are you asking me: the guy who voted for Alan Keyes in the first two primaries in which I was eligible to vote?

If so, I have to ask in response: what "real conservative" have we had as a viable option?

Theres always been a more conservative candidate that lost to the more moderate ones.

 

[T.Lex]

You know, ironically enough, I remember dealing with the Hope And Change voters in 2008. They used to tell me all about the rainbows and unicorns of Hopenchange, and I would do exactly what I'm doing now: I would point them to Obama's campaign website, which listed his platform/policy positions. I would tell them that Obama had laid out exactly what he intended to do (and, largely, accomplished in doing during his first term).

Since you mentioned irony, do you find any of it in now having voted for Trump?

 

[nate77]

The other thing is, we've tasted the "FATAL IF SWALLOWED" and it wasn't particularly fatal.

I wouldn't go that far, after 8 years of bailouts, quantitative easing, and near 0% interest rates, along with other FED, and world bank manipulation the bubble is near popping, and when it pops watch out.

 

[T.Lex]

I wouldn't go that far, after 8 years of bailouts, quantitative easing, and near 0% interest rates, along with other FED, and world bank manipulation the bubble is near popping, and when it pops watch out.

Ok.

So when it pops, we'll thank God that we have someone with absolutely no experience in the job of POTUS. But, he has plenty of experience being an authoritarian boss.

Yay us.

 

[jamil]

But he didn't have a mandate, not in the normal sense. The closest he got was in 2008, when his margin was ~7%. And he had Congress for some of that time and couldn't get gun control done.

I'm not advocating for complacency, just saying that under familiar circumstances, gun rights are unlikely to suffer.



Except the reality is, we are not forced to choose - yet. That's a marxist/communist/socialist thing - forcing people to vote.

The other thing is, we've tasted the "FATAL IF SWALLOWED" and it wasn't particularly fatal.

I should have stated it this way. You have to take one or the other bottle. You ave no choice in that. You can vote for which bottle to take, or you can let everyone else decide for you.

And you have not addressed the facts that the political elements that saved us from gun control won't be in place for the next administration. Another one I left off, the most important one, 4) the scotus was in our favor. With Trump there is a question mark. He may nominate a pro-2a justice. He may nominate his sister. Hillary WILL nominate an anti-2a justice.

and if you think we are so isolated from the dangers of Hillary, how would we not be against Trump? It is much less likely that Trump will have an ideologically friendly congress than Hillary. I think I have solid reasoning for pragmatically taking my chances with Trump even though admitting such is at least a little embarrassing.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Well, here, then; let me quote his website for you:

I'm going to take the parental approach here about this new side of you that seems to be devoid of the ability to criticize and scrutinize a candidate for things they say outside of their websites... This, with a cursory look, blind devotion stance you're going with for some reason... which seems to be completely outside of your usual deep-thinking and thorough character.

*ahem*

 

[nate77]

Ok.

So when it pops, we'll thank God that we have someone with absolutely no experience in the job of POTUS. But, he has plenty of experience being an authoritarian boss.

Yay us.

At least we'll go out with a bang of America First, and not limp into the arms of global interests.

 

[Kutnupe14]

At least we'll go out with a bang of America First, and not limp into the arms of global interests.

I'm thinking "boom," nuclear winter, and giant man-eating cockroaches.

 

[CountryBoy1981]

Speaking off the cuff, by the seat of your pants, and without softball questions from the media, or advanced screening of those questions, mistakes will happen; he quickly debunked his support of the individual insurance mandate.

That argument was alrady made by Obama voters in 2008 when he said something wrong.

 

[nate77]

I'm thinking "boom," nuclear winter, and giant man-eating cockroaches.

That could happen even before the election. Have you noticed the US / Russian relations lately?