Why Should Anyone Vote For Trump ?

[KLB]

Or 4. Ya'all can decide for yourself who #5 is.

I was skipping ahead to the general election, but I see your point.

 

[RMC]

I think Trump has the best chance of beating the Liberals. The antics that Kasich and Cruz are pulling are only going to damage those chances while alienating themselves from ever being considered a viable choice in the future. I'm not saying I am a Trump supporter by any means but, without showing unity and strength in the ranks the Republican Party might as well not run anyone for Office.

 

[T.Lex]

... without showing unity and strength in the ranks the Republican Party might as well not run anyone for Office.

My friend, I think that ship has sailed.

There will be no unity in the Republican ranks in November.

Fortunately, there probably won't be much among Dems, either.

Which means this presidency is a total crap shoot. (In the gambling sense, of course.)

 

[AA&E]

I think Trump has the best chance of beating the Liberals. The antics that Kasich and Cruz are pulling are only going to damage those chances while alienating themselves from ever being considered a viable choice in the future. I'm not saying I am a Trump supporter by any means but, without showing unity and strength in the ranks the Republican Party might as well not run anyone for Office.

Valid point, but I personally believe the republican party would rather lose the elections in the short term instead of relinquish control of the party long term. I think that is how they view the current trend leaning toward Trump... and they could be right. They only have themselves to blame, they've brought this storm on themselves.

 

[AA&E]

My friend, I think that ship has sailed.

There will be no unity in the Republican ranks in November.

Fortunately, there probably won't be much among Dems, either.

Which means this presidency is a total crap shoot. (In the gambling sense, of course.)

I agree, I heard a Sanders interview over the weekend where he implied the democratic national committee had preordained Clinton and had acted inappropriately... and perhaps an Independent general candidacy was in his future so the people had an opportunity for their votes to be counted. And politics aside, he is right.

 

[jamil]

I agree, I heard a Sanders interview over the weekend where he implied the democratic national committee had preordained Clinton and had acted inappropriately... and perhaps an Independent general candidacy was in his future so the people had an opportunity for their votes to be counted. And politics aside, he is right.

I'd like to see the two-party monopoly end. I've touted ranked-order voting. Okay, that's a little complicated. But what if we just allowed people to vote for 1 to n-1 candidates?

If there are 23 candidates on the ballot, pick up to 22. The candidate who gets the most votes wins. That eliminates the strategic least of 2 evils voting. Left leaning voters could vote for Bernie, Hillary, whats-his-name from New York, and maybe Kasich, and maybe some green party candidates. Crony capitalists could vote for Hillary, Bush, Kasich, the fat ass pussbag also known as Christie. Conservatives could vote for Cruz, Walker, Carson, Huckster, etcetera.

But short of that, I'd like to see Sanders run as an Independent. Of course he'd probably lose his super-delegate status in the Democratic Party. But he'd sure split the Democratic vote. Trump could probably beat Hillary and Sanders if he were running against both of them.

 

[RMC]

I'd like to see the two-party monopoly end. I've touted ranked-order voting. Okay, that's a little complicated. But what if we just allowed people to vote for 1 to n-1 candidates?

If there are 23 candidates on the ballot, pick up to 22. The candidate who gets the most votes wins. That eliminates the strategic least of 2 evils voting. Left leaning voters could vote for Bernie, Hillary, whats-his-name from New York, and maybe Kasich, and maybe some green party candidates. Crony capitalists could vote for Hillary, Bush, Kasich, the fat ass pussbag also known as Christie. Conservatives could vote for Cruz, Walker, Carson, Huckster, etcetera.

But short of that, I'd like to see Sanders run as an Independent. Of course he'd probably lose his super-delegate status in the Democratic Party. But he'd sure split the Democratic vote. Trump could probably beat Hillary and Sanders if he were running against both of them.

I'm not a fan of the Two-Party system we have either. A 3rd Party in the past has been negated by the media and the Electoral College by not allowing those people to partake in the televised debates. Since the POTUS is supposed to be Executor for the whole of the United States, I see no reason for the need of special interest groups advertising or the candidates to go from State to State making promises at the local levels in which they should have no influence. Why not have a Gov't Televison/Radio Station and hold the debates there and let them air for a week or so without any advertising and don't allow political ads on any published and/or broadcast mediums. That would get the big money out of the picture and keep more of the decision making at the local levels where it should be.

 

[Thor]

But short of that, I'd like to see Sanders run as an Independent. Of course he'd probably lose his super-delegate status in the Democratic Party. But he'd sure split the Democratic vote. Trump could probably beat Hillary and Sanders if he were running against both of them.

Well that would finally be truth in advertising. Let's see, Bern says he's an I, he caucuses with the D's, he votes with the D's, he's running as the D candidate for prez...doesn't sound too I to me.

 

[eldirector]

Valid point, but I personally believe the republican party would rather lose the elections in the short term instead of relinquish control of the party long term. I think that is how they view the current trend leaning toward Trump... and they could be right. They only have themselves to blame, they've brought this storm on themselves.

That has certainly been the GOP's behavior for the last 2 presidential elections. They would rather lose the Whitehouse by running an establishment GOP candidate, than WIN the Whitehouse by running someone outside the inner circle. Looks like it is repeating again this time around.

I have my own issues with Trump. But, the fact that the establishment on BOTH sides seem to be terrified of him kinda gives me the warm-n-fuzzies.

 

[BugI02]

I'd like to see the two-party monopoly end. I've touted ranked-order voting. Okay, that's a little complicated. But what if we just allowed people to vote for 1 to n-1 candidates?

If there are 23 candidates on the ballot, pick up to 22. The candidate who gets the most votes wins. That eliminates the strategic least of 2 evils voting. Left leaning voters could vote for Bernie, Hillary, whats-his-name from New York, and maybe Kasich, and maybe some green party candidates. Crony capitalists could vote for Hillary, Bush, Kasich, the fat ass pussbag also known as Christie. Conservatives could vote for Cruz, Walker, Carson, Huckster, etcetera.

But short of that, I'd like to see Sanders run as an Independent. Of course he'd probably lose his super-delegate status in the Democratic Party. But he'd sure split the Democratic vote. Trump could probably beat Hillary and Sanders if he were running against both of them.

Hasn't the evil left coast taken baby steps in that direction?

California - Open Primaries

 

[CountryBoy1981]

That has certainly been the GOP's behavior for the last 2 presidential elections. They would rather lose the Whitehouse by running an establishment GOP candidate, than WIN the Whitehouse by running someone outside the inner circle. Looks like it is repeating again this time around.

I have my own issues with Trump. But, the fact that the establishment on BOTH sides seem to be terrified of him kinda gives me the warm-n-fuzzies.

How is Trump not with the Establishment? He has been with the Establishment for many years, may not the one receiving the money in exchange for favors but he was the one giving the money in exchange for favors. He is by no means an outsider and knows how to play ball. If I were the Republican Establishment, I would be terrified too if all the sudden Hillary Clinton ran on the Republican ticket and stated she no longer supports national healthcare, abortion, and gun control despite all of her statements to the contrary in the past.

 

[Route 45]

How is Trump not with the Establishment? He has been with the Establishment for many years, may not the one receiving the money in exchange for favors but he was the one giving the money in exchange for favors. He is by no means an outsider and knows how to play ball.

That's not being in the establishment. That is using the establishment for business advantage. We're talking about the political establishment, which Trump has never been a part of.

 

[Webster-dl]

That's not being in the establishment. That is using the establishment for business advantage. We're talking about the political establishment, which Trump has never been a part of.

By "using the establishment for business advantage", do you mean what other people would call "corruption"?


Here is how Donald sees it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...3b9_story.html

Atlantic City Condemnation - Vera Coking - Institute for Justice

He can't get what he wants? He uses the government to bully people out of their rights.

Did Donald Trump?s foundation break the law with a shady contribution to the Florida attorney general? - Salon.com

he gets into trouble. He buys his way out...or tries to.

 

[Tombs]

By "using the establishment for business advantage", do you mean what other people would call "corruption"?


Here is how Donald sees it: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...3b9_story.html

Atlantic City Condemnation - Vera Coking - Institute for Justice

He can't get what he wants? He uses the government to bully people out of their rights.

Did Donald Trump?s foundation break the law with a shady contribution to the Florida attorney general? - Salon.com

he gets into trouble. He buys his way out...or tries to.

It's one thing to hold the power to stop people from exploiting corruption, and knowingly allow it to go on, it's another thing to exploit it for yourself.

If anything, this makes him the most probable person in the race to actually do something about it.

 

[AA&E]

I'd like to see the two-party monopoly end. I've touted ranked-order voting. Okay, that's a little complicated. But what if we just allowed people to vote for 1 to n-1 candidates?

If there are 23 candidates on the ballot, pick up to 22. The candidate who gets the most votes wins. That eliminates the strategic least of 2 evils voting. Left leaning voters could vote for Bernie, Hillary, whats-his-name from New York, and maybe Kasich, and maybe some green party candidates. Crony capitalists could vote for Hillary, Bush, Kasich, the fat ass pussbag also known as Christie. Conservatives could vote for Cruz, Walker, Carson, Huckster, etcetera.

But short of that, I'd like to see Sanders run as an Independent. Of course he'd probably lose his super-delegate status in the Democratic Party. But he'd sure split the Democratic vote. Trump could probably beat Hillary and Sanders if he were running against both of them.

Once again, putting politics aside... I'd like to see Trump & Sanders both lose their parties nomination, and both go independent. And for one of the Independent candidates to emerge the victor. That would leave everything very well shaken. That would be the healthiest event for our political system in generations, possibly of all time.

 

[Denny347]

So, when Trump secures the nomination, will this infighting cease? Or will the divide created be too large to bridge thus allowing Clinton to win?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So, when Trump secures the nomination, will this infighting cease? Or will the divide created be too large to bridge thus allowing Clinton to win?

Who will you vote for, Denny? (Assuming Trump v Clinton).

 

[Tombs]

I like some of the message he brings, but I cannot stand to listen to him. He is the spoiled rich kid that was never taught restraint or manners. I do not understand how anyone can actually watch him and want to support him.

This election is going to bring us a sandwich vs. a oop casserole, with two of the least Presidential people ever running against each other.

It's called standing up and fighting, hard, every single day.

Slinging the dookie is the most effective means to fight with at the current time to win/sway the VAST MAJORITY of voters. And this same process will see hillary decimated in a landslide, just like all the rest he's already shut down.

The average voter doesn't care about intricate policy positions. They care about who demonstrates strength, charisma, and that they feel they might be able to relate to/be included with.

If it was more effective to talk over people's heads detailing endless policy intricacies, that's exactly what he would be doing. Blame the voters, not him, for the fact that this is how the world works today. He's over 50% support now.

So, when Trump secures the nomination, will this infighting cease? Or will the divide created be too large to bridge thus allowing Clinton to win?

That entirely depends on if the republicans decide to focus on defeating hillary or trying to get revenge on Trump.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It's called standing up and fighting, hard, every single day.

Slinging the dookie is the most effective means to fight with at the current time to win/sway the VAST MAJORITY of voters. And this same process will see hillary decimated in a landslide, just like all the rest he's already shut down.

The average voter doesn't care about intricate policy positions. They care about who demonstrates strength, charisma, and that they feel they might be able to relate to/be included with.

If it was more effective to talk over people's heads detailing endless policy intricacies, that's exactly what he would be doing. Blame the voters, not him, for the fact that this is how the world works today. He's over 50% support now.



That entirely depends on if the republicans decide to focus on defeating hillary or trying to get revenge on Trump.

We survived Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, GW Bush, Barak Obama...If we're teetering so close to the edge now Hillary will push us over, then certainly Trump is not the savior we need.

 

[Tombs]

We survived Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, GW Bush, Barak Obama...If we're teetering so close to the edge now Hillary will push us over, then certainly Trump is not the savior we need.

Trump is the savior for the republican party.

He's the wake up call that it's time to start winning elections instead of gaming the process and purposefully losing. Hopefully we'll shed the dead weight that wants to wallow in self pitty and take on a new generation that realizes the republicans actually have a backbone again.