Why Donald Trump is Bad for the Republican Party

[Kutnupe14]

Funny thing, Trump and Carson seemed to be warming up to each other. If Trump were to pick Carson as his VP, I think that would be a very difficult ticket to beat.

 

[JTScribe]

Funny thing, Trump and Carson seemed to be warming up to each other. If Trump were to pick Carson as his VP, I think that would be a very difficult ticket to beat.

I'd be okay with that although I've been hoping for a Trump/Cruz ticket.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'd be okay with that although I've been hoping for a Trump/Cruz ticket.

Stick a fork in Cruz. Nobodys' touching that guy.

 

[bwframe]

Funny thing, Trump and Carson seemed to be warming up to each other. If Trump were to pick Carson as his VP, I think that would be a very difficult ticket to beat.

I'd be okay with that although I've been hoping for a Trump/Cruz ticket.

Stick a fork in Cruz. Nobodys' touching that guy.

IF Trump is getting the nomination for sure, he needs Fiorina as VP for the general election win.

We want Cruz on the Supreme Court. Trump will put him there.

Obviously, Carson needs to be Secretary of Health and Human Services to clean up the Obamacare bull .

What is not discussed much about Trump is his strong ability to pick staff and hold them accountable.
A solid bet would be $ on a large % of those in the debates being in his cabinet.

 

[JTScribe]

If Trump is getting the nomination for sure, he needs Fiorina as VP for the general election win.

We want Cruz on the Supreme Court. Trump will put him there.

What is not discussed much about Trump is his strong ability to pick staff and hold them accountable.
A solid bet would be $ on a large % of those in the debates being in his cabinet.

You're right, I would like Cruz on the SC better. Particularly as a Ginsburg replacement.

 

[bwframe]

You're right, I would like Cruz on the SC better. Particularly as a Ginsburg replacement.

It's not my idea. Tony Katz has been talking it up for a while.

 

[miguel]

Cruz is still my 1A because the GOP Establishment types can't stand him but if Trump's the choice, I'll say what the hell and go for it. At least he actually seems to love his country, unlike what we've had the last 7 years.

Oh, the current POTUS loves his country, his country just ain't the good ole US of A.

 

[indyjs]

Romney lost because of the exact same sentiment. "If I can't get my exact choice nominated, I just won't vote..."

Only Trump is likely to change the direction the country is going. Anybody else is voting for a change in speed. I'll still vote, but it won't be republican in the prez slot.

 

[HoughMade]

Funny thing, Trump and Carson seemed to be warming up to each other. If Trump were to pick Carson as his VP, I think that would be a very difficult ticket to beat.

It would be.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

IF Trump is getting the nomination for sure, he needs Fiorina as VP for the general election win.

We want Cruz on the Supreme Court. Trump will put him there.

Obviously, Carson needs to be Secretary of Health and Human Services to clean up the Obamacare bull .

What is not discussed much about Trump is his strong ability to pick staff and hold them accountable.
A solid bet would be $ on a large % of those in the debates being in his cabinet.

I thought I heard somewhere Trump said he thought his pro-late-term-abortion-sister (or some such relative) would make an excellent SCOTUS nominee.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Would you prefer Bernie of Hillary?

Romney lost because of the exact same sentiment. "If I can't get my exact choice nominated, I just won't vote..."

The same mentality has given us the do nothing Republicans in congress and liberal activists on the Supreme Court. And oh, Obamacare, the war on coal (and electric bills,) etc, etc...

It's simple -
Sitting on your hands is a vote for Hillary.

Stop and think this through. Romney lost because he was not enough different from Obama to make a significant difference with the highlight being that we were asked to punish Obama for ObamaCare by electing the guy who invented it and promised to 'repeal and replace' when we need 'repeal, repeal the asinine limits on where we can buy insurance, and stop using law to foment artificial demand which drives up costs'.

The do-nothing Republicans in congress stand in evidence of what happens when you accept such nonsense. How are we to expect the notion of voting "Anyone but [Democrat on the ballot this time]" to yield anything better than it has been bringing us? How are we supposed to expect it to bring anything but a Democrat next election in response to the total failure of the useless Republican we elect because he is not the Democrat?

Strangely enough, Obama's supreme court apointees seem to be doing as well overall in terms of supporting freedom as do our supposed conservatives with the sole exception of Thomas who seems to be the only true constitutionalist on the court.

Why should I worry about sitting on my hands being a vote for Hillary if she runs against Jeb, and the only real difference between the two is possession or non-possession of a dick?

 

[CountryBoy1981]

I thought I heard somewhere Trump said he thought his pro-late-term-abortion-sister (or some such relative) would make an excellent SCOTUS nominee.

That would be correct. His nomination of choice would be in line with Ginsburg. Didn't he also suggest Oprah as his VP?

Donald Trump's Sister -- Supreme Court Judge? | National Review Online

 

[bwframe]

...Why should I worry about sitting on my hands being a vote for Hillary if she runs against Jeb, and the only real difference between the two is possession or non-possession of a dick?

Same reason you and a LOT of other R's should have thought of it last election:

 

[IndyDave1776]

Same reason you and a LOT of other R's should have thought of it last election:

I could say the same thing about Roberts. I am not endorsing these three, but at the same time how can I in any semblance of intellectual honesty slam them while giving GOP appointees who are little if any better a free pass or suggest that the alternative necessarily would have been better when the results indicate that such an outcome is far from being assured?

 

[bwframe]

I could say the same thing about Roberts. I am not endorsing these three, but at the same time how can I in any semblance of intellectual honesty slam them while giving GOP appointees who are little if any better a free pass or suggest that the alternative necessarily would have been better when the results indicate that such an outcome is far from being assured?

Roberts was unexpected, but these three can be counted before the verdict. It didn't have to be that way for two of them...

 

[IndyDave1776]

Roberts was unexpected, but these three can be counted before the verdict. It didn't have to be that way for two of them...

Yes, but that is always the difference. We always expect R justices to be conservative when in practice we are doing well to hit 30%. By contrast, D justices are ALWAYS liberal. Why is this? My own suspicion is that it has a lot to do with voting "Anyone but [D]" by voting for a marginally different R candidate rather than clearly communicating a point to the RNC that if they continue to shove light-duty liberals down our throats, we will NOT vote for them.

 

[bwframe]

...if they continue to shove light-duty liberals down our throats, we will NOT vote for them.

So you are letting the liberals win to wait for your pure candidate? It won't happen in our grand-kids lives, let alone ours or our kids.

 

[Cygnus]

Funny thing, Trump and Carson seemed to be warming up to each other. If Trump were to pick Carson as his VP, I think that would be a very difficult ticket to beat.

Yeah. That would be a winning ticket. I was thinking it during the debate. Good contrasting styles.
I wonder how they would do against an Uncle Joe/Fauxahontis ticket.

 

[IndyDave1776]

So you are letting the liberals win to wait for your pure candidate? It won't happen in our grand-kids lives, let alone ours or our kids.

It reaches a point, like where we have been for a few elections, where it isn't a matter of whether or not to let liberals win, but to pick which liberals win. If blackface had not been deemed politically incorrect, Romney would have been virtually indistinguishable from Obama. In teh Supreme Court, no one other than Thomas really holds conservative principles. The right end of the court has been bringing us some Second Amendment victories, but we have had to depend on the left end for what support we get for the Fourth Amendment. Both should be coming from the same people if we were working from constitutional principle rather than partisan politics, and by extension, we shouldnot have to choose either/or. In fact, that choice puts us in a position in which we truly have neither. If I have a decent measure of RKBA, but little protection against search and seizure, then my RKBA is effectively nullified. If I have protection against search and seizure, but possess nothing to search and seize, then it also has become irrelevant.

I agree with the problem of waiting for one's dream candidate to head the ticket, but my problem is that when consistently offered the choice of being shot with a Ruger or a Smith & Wesson, I don't consider that much of a choice when I really prefer not being shot.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So you are letting the liberals win to wait for your pure candidate? It won't happen in our grand-kids lives, let alone ours or our kids.

There's a difference between "pure", and Trump. He is not a Conservative. That's why I dislike him. I don't want a Liberal running under the GOP ticket.

There aren't many of the candidates that I'd consider 100% conservative... and that's alright. They're in the 50-90% range. Trump is 2%.