trump

[BugI02]

Jamil and Chip, what I was referring to is the first 50 secs or so of the video where Bill says something to the effect of '...scrupulously fair ... yada,yada ... succeeded when both sides are equally mad at you... yada" and i appreciate him declaring up front that if Trump is the nominee he will vote for him because he's better than any Democrat. I watched it all the way through with the expectation that he would raise the valid criticisms of BOTH candidates (to get to that 'both sides equally mad' goal). Instead I pretty much got what he likes about Trump and what he doesn't and how people should challenge Trump to make iron-clad committments to policies that Bill feels are important, the end.

We are admonished to admit our candidate of choice has faults. I'm not seeing the comparable effort to wake up the #notTrump crowd to the fact their candidate raises concerns or has lacks that have us supporting Trump as the least worst candidate who we expect to best pursue the policies that concern us.

I get the distinct impression that to many here on INGO supporting Trump = low information voter and we are summarily dismissed. This criticism is not directed specifically a those I have addressed in this post

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I'm a huge fan of Bill Whittle.t

Do you consider him a Republican?

 

[chipbennett]

Do you consider him a Republican?

No clue. He's a conservative; that's what matters to me.

 

[jamil]

Jamil and Chip, what I was referring to is the first 50 secs or so of the video where Bill says something to the effect of '...scrupulously fair ... yada,yada ... succeeded when both sides are equally mad at you... yada" and i appreciate him declaring up front that if Trump is the nominee he will vote for him because he's better than any Democrat. I watched it all the way through with the expectation that he would raise the valid criticisms of BOTH candidates (to get to that 'both sides equally mad' goal). Instead I pretty much got what he likes about Trump and what he doesn't and how people should challenge Trump to make iron-clad committments to policies that Bill feels are important, the end.

We are admonished to admit our candidate of choice has faults. I'm not seeing the comparable effort to wake up the #notTrump crowd to the fact their candidate raises concerns or has lacks that have us supporting Trump as the least worst candidate who we expect to best pursue the policies that concern us.

I get the distinct impression that to many here on INGO supporting Trump = low information voter and we are summarily dismissed. This criticism is not directed specifically a those I have addressed in this post

Did you notice the date on the video? January 28 was before the Iowa Caucus. Most everyone was still in the race. Why would he single out Ted Cruz? He talked about the divide between Trump and not-Trump because there really wasn't the same kind of vitriol between the other candidates. I mean, just take an honest look at it.

As far as being summarily dismissed, I just have this to say. I've said this all along. There are some things Trump says that I really, really like. And I've noted those things before, and in the cases that I believe Trump was in the right, I stood with you guys in his defense.

But there are some honest concerns about him that I've also talked about. We can disagree on the value you place on the good points, versus the value you place on the bad points, and we can argue the merits and value of those points and both reach different but still reasoned conclusions. But when I see you guys arguing that the bad points even exists when there is objective evidence to the contrary, what should I conclude about that? How much room is there for a reasoned disagreement when it appears you've reached your conclusion because of bias rather than reason? It's like with my sports team. They can do no wrong. They're better than your sports team whether you beat them or not. That's bias. But it's like you guys act the same way about a political team, as if bias in that case is okay.

Now you can call me biased all you want. Dude, at this point I just want Hillary to lose. My guy bowed out months ago. But even when Paul was in the race, I could not support him in the areas where I disagreed with him. And I wasn't so biased that I couldn't criticize him. In fact I did criticize Paul on several occasions. It's okay to criticize your guy when he screws the pooch. But for some of you, I've NEVER seen you criticize Trump. It's as if you're blind to anything he does that is clearly wrong. That should be a clear sign that your passion for your candidate has clouded your ability to discern his faults from his strengths. How can I not dismiss that.

Do you consider him a Republican?

I suspect he doesn't vote Democrat. Ever. Anymore. He says he was once a liberal.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Did you notice the date on the video? January 28 was before the Iowa Caucus. Most everyone was still in the race. Why would he single out Ted Cruz? He talked about the divide between Trump and not-Trump because there really wasn't the same kind of vitriol between the other candidates. I mean, just take an honest look at it.

As far as being summarily dismissed, I just have this to say. I've said this all along. There are some things Trump says that I really, really like. And I've noted those things before, and in the cases that I believe Trump was in the right, I stood with you guys in his defense.

But there are some honest concerns about him that I've also talked about. We can disagree on the value you place on the good points, versus the value you place on the bad points, and we can argue the merits and value of those points and both reach different but still reasoned conclusions. But when I see you guys arguing that the bad points even exists when there is objective evidence to the contrary, what should I conclude about that? How much room is there for a reasoned disagreement when it appears you've reached your conclusion because of bias rather than reason? It's like with my sports team. They can do no wrong. They're better than your sports team whether you beat them or not. That's bias. But it's like you guys act the same way about a political team, as if bias in that case is okay.

Now you can call me biased all you want. Dude, at this point I just want Hillary to lose. My guy bowed out months ago. But even when Paul was in the race, I could not support him in the areas where I disagreed with him. And I wasn't so biased that I couldn't criticize him. In fact I did criticize Paul on several occasions. It's okay to criticize your guy when he screws the pooch. But for some of you, I've NEVER seen you criticize Trump. It's as if you're blind to anything he does that is clearly wrong. That should be a clear sign that your passion for your candidate has clouded your ability to discern his faults from his strengths. How can I not dismiss that.




I suspect he doesn't vote Democrat. Ever. Anymore. He says he was once a liberal.

I can't rep you, but I agree exactly with this.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No clue. He's a conservative; that's what matters to me.

Just curious since he stated he would vote third party rather than Bush or Christie. And from what I've gotten from you anyone that would do that isn't a Repub.

 

[IndyDave1776]

OK, I am going to lighten up the Trump thread a bit. I had this dream last night that I was in Trump's campaign office. They had an interesting piece of custom furniture that was built somewhat like a square corner shelf unit, only more complex in its construction and more stable, and was padded (mostly blue upholstery) in addition to some ornate wood turnings on non-load bearing surfaces. It had three levels from about a foot off the floor to a steep elevation from your chair, and was known as the 'Lying Ted'. It was basically a custom ottoman and when people in the office needed some time to rest or to ponder something, they would roll a chair over to it and put their feet up on the 'Lying Ted' while they relaxed and pondered imponderables.

 

[chipbennett]

Just curious since he stated he would vote third party rather than Bush or Christie. And from what I've gotten from you anyone that would do that isn't a Repub.

I'm not sure he claims to be a Republican. But, even so: has he said he'd vote third party if Hilary Clinton is in the race?

 

[jamil]

I'm not sure he claims to be a Republican. But, even so: has he said he'd vote third party if Hilary Clinton is in the race?

If the fat ass pussbag won the nomination I've said I'd vote 3rd party. The death of Scalia has brought to light that this election for me is about one single issue. SCOTUS nominee. Probably Hillary would nominate another Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg. The fat ass pussbag would most likely nominate a pro-crony PATRIOT Act loving totalitarian like himself. Why even ****ing bother?

 

[BugI02]

Buck up and remember what I told you. The Trump campaign may yet be the only thing that can motivate the GOPe to coalesce behind Cruz.

Yer welcome

 

[BugI02]

And I think a lot of Trump supporters will vote for Cruz if that's the only option (not sure about the 'Reagan Dems'). Still think Cruz should speak to some of the issues Trump has raised

 

[Tombs]

And I think a lot of Trump supporters will vote for Cruz if that's the only option (not sure about the 'Reagan Dems'). Still think Cruz should speak to some of the issues Trump has raised

It'd take a miracle for Cruz to be nominated at this point, be realistic. If it goes to a convention then it's not going to be Trump or Cruz if they're not letting us have Trump. They'll find some other stooge.

 

[jamil]

It'd take a miracle for Cruz to be nominated at this point, be realistic. If it goes to a convention then it's not going to be Trump or Cruz if they're not letting us have Trump. They'll find some other stooge.

I think there is a good chance that Trump won't get the majority of delegates. I think there is almost no chance that Trump won't win at least a plurality of delegates.

There seems to be disagreement in the party over what to do about Trump. Some think that nominating someone who's not in the race would do more damage to the party than running with Trump. Some are convinced that nominating Trump would cause grave damage to the party for many years to come. Just about everyone believes that nominating Trump would not only give Hillary the win, it would likely give back control of the Senate to the Democrats.

I think it's a dilemma no one wants to ponder.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I'm not sure he claims to be a Republican. But, even so: has he said he'd vote third party if Hilary Clinton is in the race?

He didn't mention an opponent. Just that if Bush or Christie got the nomination he would go third party.

 

[pudly]

He didn't mention an opponent. Just that if Bush or Christie got the nomination he would go third party.

Bill Whittle is an excellent spokesman for the Conservative point of view. As Chip mentioned, he is a converted Liberal. I see his info almost daily on pjtv.com. Being unwilling to vote for one or more GOP candidates certainly isn't a unique point of view these days.

 

[chipbennett]

He didn't mention an opponent. Just that if Bush or Christie got the nomination he would go third party.

Sure, I get that. But square that with what he said in the video Pudly posted.

 

[T.Lex]

So, since the FEC rules are based on the idea that money is fungible (and I think chip's interpretation of the FEC stuff is more rightier than the others), where's the disclosures of Trump's loans - both personal and for his businesses? I mean, if he takes out a million dollar loan for a golf course development, that's money he doesn't have to put up.

The reality is, I don't think he has to disclose them - both the business and prior personal loans. He is "self-financing" with money he received prior to starting his campaign. The FEC rules don't really contemplate what he's doing/done, so he is taking advantage of the rules. I'm totally fine with that, but we should recognize it for what it is.

Trump's ability to avoid the same technical situation does not mean he is free from the same strings.

 

[jamil]

Bill Whittle is an excellent spokesman for the Conservative point of view. As Chip mentioned, he is a converted Liberal. I see his info almost daily on pjtv.com. Being unwilling to vote for one or more GOP candidates certainly isn't a unique point of view these days.

Um. I believe I mentioned that.

Sure, I get that. But square that with what he said in the video Pudly posted.

Um, I believe I posted the Bill Whittle video.

 

[chipbennett]

Um. I believe I mentioned that.



Um, I believe I posted the Bill Whittle video.

Sorry: ...video that Jamil posted.

 

[pudly]

Um. I believe I mentioned that.

Um, I believe I posted the Bill Whittle video.

Face it. We all look like Jamil on the Internet.