Why Should Anyone Vote For Trump ?

[AA&E]

So why should I vote for Cruze? I do not detect an ounce of sincerity in anything he says. He strikes me as no different than the evangelists on Sunday morning promising that if I send in $100 my children will all live to be 100 years old and have wealth beyond my dreams. He's made a career out of "serving" as a politician which places him squarely into the category with those who have put this country into the situation it is in. If Trump is nothing more than a broomstick tossed into the front spokes of the DC bicycle I'm all for it. Something needs to change.

Yep...
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to phylodog again.

 

[AA&E]

Do you think that there's anyone who would seriously run for President without any thoughts of self-promotion, self-aggrandizement, or without being a political insider of some sort? The only one that even comes close this time around is Ben Carson who I GUARANTEE is into self-promotion (every neurosurgeon believes that are the smartest, most talented thing on earth- and you want them to think that), but he did it in a quiet "aw shucks" manner.

Criticizing ANY candidate for trying to promote themselves and being self-focused DURING A CAMPAIGN seems to miss the truth that the nature of a campaign is asking people to: "Look at me, love me, vote for me." It is particularly odd to claim that this is a problem for Cruz as opposed to Trump who have been yelling: "LOOK AT ME" for 30 years, well before getting into politics (but not before schmoozing the candidates), and who has only increased the volume of his plea in the last few months.

If Trump is the candidate, I'll lie back and think of England and vote for him. However, given the Trump-Cruz choice, I think Cruz would make a better President...though I've never been a huge fan.

The problem isn't just the self promotion, it is the manner of self promotion. He used the threats of government shut downs and refusal to extend the US borrowing limit (resulting in the downgrading of our credit rating) as tools to advance his name. Period. He knew he was going to cave and his posturing wasn't going to accomplish a damn thing... being ACA reversal, etc. It was all for his personal gain and he didn't give a damn what the damage. This is a person that can not be trusted with the power of the presidency. More so then anyone else on the stage.

 

[AA&E]

I don't like Trump. He's a blowhard and from what I've seen, a bully. He doesn't know how to work WITH people, he only knows how to make people work for him. Since there is no legal slavery in this country, though, and people can work elsewhere if they choose, what he knows how to do is to make people *want to* work for him. That is a skill that has been lacking in every national-office politician I've seen so far.

To better explain this, I'll point to Indiana State Rep Jim Lucas. I know Jim, which is to say I met him after he was in office, but I know that he started and continues to run a successful business. He sells a product and if that product doesn't meet expectations, he's held at least partially accountable for that by his customers.

Look at most politicians and tell me which of them have done that. Some, of course. Most, however, have been lawyers, or at least held the degree that allowed them to be such. What business has Hillary conducted? Oh yeah, Whitewater... hmmm... OK, How about Sanders? What's that, crickets? Cruz? Personally, I think he'd be the one of the four of them that would stick closest to the Constitution, which is to say that however far from it he actually operated, the others would be farther still. I don't believe he will get the nomination, though.

This leaves me with Trump. He's not the best person for the job, but let's be clear: One of those four people will be inaugurated in January of 2017. Given that, the fact that they are the four candidates, that Cruz won't be the GOP choice (of the people, that is) and that of the other three, one has views I cannot embrace in any way, shape, or form, and another is a RCH away from being indicted and tried for criminal acts possibly including any of several murders, I am left with but one choice.

He's not the best person for the job, but he's the best candidate we're going to get.

I think I'm going to start a business, selling clothespins sized for noses, so people can hold their noses and vote against the other candidates by pulling the "lever" with Trump's name on it, so to speak.

Blessings,
Bill

I believe these are fair criticisms. Personally, I feel like he has the vocabulary of a ten year old. He speaks as if he is ignorant... lacking any sophistication. Anything that takes us off the path of the norm, and rattles this broken system is a plus IMO. The current leadership has not represented us for a long time. It's time for us to place our support elsewhere.

 

[AA&E]

We can agree to disagree but considering Hillary above Trump is well beyond my comprehension.

Hopefully at least a few of the Obama voters have come to realize the error in their way of thinking. Optimistic I know, shouldn't really expect liberals to understand much.

Exactly, fearing the unknown when you KNOW precisely what Clinton is about is...uhhh.. well, I can't put a word to it without being insulting. So I won't.

 

[AA&E]

Ah - I meant defeat in the political process. Her usual suspects will match up against "our" usual suspects and fight the same gridlocked fights we've had for 8 years. Well, truth be told, more like the same fights for a generation.

To me, that is less risky (although not necessarily preferable) to another narcissistic, self-indulgent amateur.

But, in fairness to your opinion, it is a close call.

You are failing to see the long term cause/effect. If a Clinton gets a few more supreme court nominations, executive orders (think of Obama's EO's) that are currently being halted by the SCOTUSA might be a) ruled constitutional and b) of far more overreach then you ever imagined.

Consider that before you advance the dangerous concept of at least Clinton being the 'devil you know'.

 

[AA&E]

I think I may do the same. . .

Ace Frehley for President.

Let's start a write in campaign. I loved his solo work. Rock Soldier....

 

[AA&E]

Nope. I'm just pointing out when people say he is an entrepreneur, that while he may be one. He is far from the best.

The best? Are you using that standard to qualify anyone else in the field?

 

[jamil]

I apologize, I misspoke, it was Wyoming.

Really, what difference at this point does it make? Montana, Wyoming, both just another Idaho.

 

[seedubs1]

Or just to **** off arrogant pricks who possess an over inflated sense of self importance. There's always that.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I apologize, I misspoke, it was Wyoming.

No apology needed, but for the D delegate count in WY. It's easy to explain. They both received the same number of delegates, yes Sanders won the state but due to rounding they received the same number 7. There are 4 super delegates in WY, those are unbound they can vote for who they wish on the first vote. It is assumed they will vote for Clinton but that is all it is, an assumption. Similar to LA and the Repubs with Trump whining that Cruz received more delegates than he did. Which is false. They both received the same amount, but for a different reason than the Ds in WY. But there are unbound candidates that people assume will vote for Cruz. Along with the delegates that are bound to Rubio, which Trump was claiming would go to Cruz. Which is again false, Rubio's delegates are bound to him and cannot be unbound or transferred through him suspending or withdrawing. They will be unbound same as Trump's or Cruz's after x amount of votes at the national convention.

Here is a link that explains the rounding procedure used in WY.
http://www.wyodems.org/frequently-asked-questions

The problem isn't just the self promotion, it is the manner of self promotion. He used the threats of government shut downs and refusal to extend the US borrowing limit (resulting in the downgrading of our credit rating) as tools to advance his name. Period. He knew he was going to cave and his posturing wasn't going to accomplish a damn thing... being ACA reversal, etc. It was all for his personal gain and he didn't give a damn what the damage. This is a person that can not be trusted with the power of the presidency. More so then anyone else on the stage.

iirc There were many more than him that were involved in it. Over half the House actually, considering they passed several budget bills that the Senate wouldn't consider.

Also that was not the reason for the downgrade, the downgrade came after the bill to raise the debt ceiling passed. Per S&P the reason was that the deal to cut the deficit/raise revenue didn't go far enough. Although the two other credit rating agencies kept the AAA rating. And S&P was about to be investigated by the feds for their roll in 2008 crisis because of their ratings on some of the securities.

The best? Are you using that standard to qualify anyone else in the field?

Depends. If someone is praising someone for something and using that as a reason to vote for them, yes. And in Trump's case about the only success he has had is in real estate. And that is questionable to a degree.

 

[chipbennett]

His apparent disregard for political correctness coupled with the level of panic felt by the establishment at the proposition of him winning are enough for me. I'm not prepared to go along with more of the same. We aren't electing a king and none of the candidates gets to change everything overnight but if he can at least slow the bleeding a bit it's a step in the right direction.

QFT

(Also: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to phylodog again.)

 

[JTScribe]

Brazenly stolen from somewhere else: Trump isn't a candidate; he's a murder weapon aimed directly at the heart of the GOP establishment.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Brazenly stolen from somewhere else: Trump isn't a candidate; he's a murder weapon aimed directly at the heart of the GOP establishment.

Yes, and the weapon of a murder desperately needing to take place.

 

[T.Lex]

You are failing to see the long term cause/effect. If a Clinton gets a few more supreme court nominations, executive orders (think of Obama's EO's) that are currently being halted by the SCOTUSA might be a) ruled constitutional and b) of far more overreach then you ever imagined.

Consider that before you advance the dangerous concept of at least Clinton being the 'devil you know'.

My friend, perhaps more than most, I am familiar with that exact risk. However, in the truly long term, that risk pales in comparison to what I see as the greater risks of having an arrogant, selfish neophyte, surrounded by an echo chamber cult of personality, in the most powerful political position in this great country. For another 4 years or more.

More specifically, the Supreme Court appointments are subject to a formal process of checks and balances. It isn't magic. The people that know the process know how to work it.

Supreme Court appointments are a single battlefield in a much larger war.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

So why should I vote for Cruze? I do not detect an ounce of sincerity in anything he says. He strikes me as no different than the evangelists on Sunday morning promising that if I send in $100 my children will all live to be 100 years old and have wealth beyond my dreams. He's made a career out of "serving" as a politician which places him squarely into the category with those who have put this country into the situation it is in. If Trump is nothing more than a broomstick tossed into the front spokes of the DC bicycle I'm all for it. Something needs to change.

Funny how 2 people can look at the same circumstance and arrive at completely different conclusions.

 

[JTScribe]

Yes, and the weapon of a murder desperately needing to take place.

And the best part is, if they engage in shenanigans to get rid of him and Cruz at the convention, they're pulling the trigger themselves.

 

[AA&E]

Brazenly stolen from somewhere else: Trump isn't a candidate; he's a murder weapon aimed directly at the heart of the GOP establishment.

I'm not sure that is a negative at this point.

 

[AA&E]

My friend, perhaps more than most, I am familiar with that exact risk. However, in the truly long term, that risk pales in comparison to what I see as the greater risks of having an arrogant, selfish neophyte, surrounded by an echo chamber cult of personality, in the most powerful political position in this great country. For another 4 years or more.

More specifically, the Supreme Court appointments are subject to a formal process of checks and balances. It isn't magic. The people that know the process know how to work it.

Supreme Court appointments are a single battlefield in a much larger war.

And you think with the horse and pony show the RNC has put on the past few months, that holding those majorities in both houses of congress is a lock? With every disenfranchised vote they get further and further away from that being the reality.....

 

[T.Lex]

And you think with the horse and pony show the RNC has put on the past few months, that holding those majorities in both houses of congress is a lock? With every disenfranchised vote they get further and further away from that being the reality.....

But that is a different issue. It isn't like the Dems are a bastion of voter solidarity.

I will grant that a Dem Congressional majority and HRC would be the worst case scenario. I haven't looked that deeply into the Senate races, but I don't get the feeling that there are very many in play though. And neither HRC nor Sanders (nor Trump nor Cruz for that matter) will likely have long coattails. At least for this cycle, I see the balance staying relatively unchanged.

If you are saying the RNC needs to get its act together - or some variation of that - we are in agreement. But, I do think this Trump phenomenon reveals fault lines that have been growing for a long time. (As the Sanders Movement does, too, on the other side.) Republicans across society need to figure out what the party is.

 

[Thor]

Just wander by and here are another (sigh) 10 pages of a Trump thread.

I did just read this though...from a CO 'insider'.

Hi. It?s me, Jeff. And I have something to say. | protein wisdom

The CO process wasn't really that hard to understand, unless of course you don't pay attention and only care that you win no matter what the rules are...that have been in place since 1912...really sneaks up on that.

You vote for delegates at your precinct March 1; the delegates you elect vote among themselves for delegates to district and statewide conventions; at the district and statewide conventions, those delegates vote on who goes to Cleveland.

Next up will be CA is stolen! They didn't tell me I had to have delegates selected and approved by May 7th! You commie liars are just trying to put in the 'establishment' candidate! Of course it might have helped in Drumpf had hired this CA campaign manager more than two days ago.