Trump will most likely be the nominee

[Ron]

- see below -

[Ron]

Between Trump and Hillary, it's not an easy decision. They're both terrible in many ways.

Trump
- Incompetent generally speaking
- NYC liberal who's playing to a crowd
- Terrible person, hostile to individual rights that aren't his.
+ Allegedly pro borders and business. No track record, so might be flat out lies. Or might not be.

HRC
- She's more criminal
- Owned by NYC banks
- Very very very Establishment
- Has no issues letting Americans die in third world countries, then throwing their corpses under the bus
+ I wouldn't say is competent, but she's been a cog in the system for a long time.
+ HRC is probably more sane (at least her public persona is) and generally status quo


Honestly, HRC is sounding slightly more appealing even if I strongly believe she should be in prison.

Gee, shocker, the self described Democrat prefers a Democrat, even if she is a criminal who deserves to be in jail.

[cordex]

Trump
*Snip*
+ Allegedly pro borders and business. No track record, so might be flat out lies. Or might not be.

I don't consider being pro business a plus.  Pro free market would be good, but not so much pro business.

[Ron]

I don't consider being pro business a plus.  Pro free market would be good, but not so much pro business.

The only possible upside to Trump is that HIS interests intersect with my (our) interests.

So the pertinent questions are does he really want to make "America Great Again" by making the best trade deals for us as a nation vs whats best for the multinationals as he says? And is he (as Rev legitimately asks) even competent to affect that kind of change?  

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

How do you imagine trumps interests are yours?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Ron]

How do you imagine trumps interests are yours?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Like I said, possible upside, I'm not sold. Instead of The only possible upside to Trump is that HIS interests intersect with my (our) interests. I should have said The only possible upside to Trump is if HIS interests intersect with my (our) interests.

If his policy positions look good to me AND he surrounds himself with folks that bear out that he's actually going to pursue those policies if elected then I might believe we have intersecting interests.

The fact that he is even promoting a return to national self interest is a good start but that is all it is, a start.

[RevDisk]

Gee, shocker, the self described Democrat prefers a Democrat, even if she is a criminal who deserves to be in jail.

I don't understand. Your statement, minus the gender pronoun, is applicable to either candidate. Both have been Democrats for the majority of their lives. Neither Mr Trump nor Mrs Clinton have been convicted of crimes, but have both been accused more than once of being criminals.

Democrat - 1964? to 1987
Republican - 1987 to 1999
Reform Party - 1999 to 2001
Democrat - 2001 to 2009 
Republican Party - 2009 to 2011
Independent - 2011 to 2012
Republican Party - 2012 to ?

Dem - 31 years (estimated)
Repub - 18 years
Other - 3 years

HRC should be given a fair hearing, but from what I understand, she probably violated law regarding the handling of classified material. Looking over Mr Trump's list of legal activity, I do not see him being morally or ethically superior to Mrs Clinton. In no way am I saying he has committed felonies, but the length and type of legal actions involved say much about the man's character. Whether he broke the law or not as alleged, I can't say but it does not give a good impression. Same with Mrs. Clinton.

[Ron]

I don't understand. Your statement, minus the gender pronoun, is applicable to either candidate. ....

My point was that the Democrat chose the Democrat, really nothing more.

The history of the Clinton machine has the appearance of being much more seedy and nefarious than the Trump Empire. But I suspect all the dirt on Trump hasn't been exposed yet. Still I don't quite hold them equivalent, Trump is the less unsavory character in my eyes, so far.

[TommyGunn]

Between Trump and Hillary, it's not an easy decision. They're both terrible in many ways.

Trump
- Incompetent generally speaking¹
- NYC liberal who's playing to a crowd²
- Terrible person, hostile to individual rights that aren't his.³
+ Allegedly pro borders and business. No track record, so might be flat out lies. Or might not be.

¹  Oh, really?  The guy has built a mega-empire of businesses.....and he's "incompetent."  
    Not sure how you you got where you are from reality.

²  Trump is not an ideological cxreature.  Now, Rush Limbaugh IS that, so is Michael Savage, so is Bernie   Sanders, et al.  What is is someone who knows how to put things together & make them run.   I will note that on gun control he was more liberal but he has "come to God," thanks to his sons who are gun owners and hunters.

³      "Terrible person," huh.  Well, certain aspects of his personality are grating, I will give you that, but I hold the line there and dispute the conclusion you have arrived at.  I tend to withh hold "terrible" for leaders like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Putin, and that ilk.  I doubt that Trump will qualify for the Einsatzgruppen Brigade at the end of his term(s).

HRC
- She's more criminal
- Owned by NYC banks
- Very very very Establishment
- Has no issues letting Americans die in third world countries, then throwing their corpses under the bus
+ I wouldn't say is competent, but she's been a cog in the system for a long time.
+ HRC is probably more sane (at least her public persona is) and generally status quo


Honestly, HRC is sounding slightly more appealing even if I strongly believe she should be in prison.

What to say here?  She IS more criminal....for sure.   "Owned by banks??"  I don't really care ..... I mean given her history.... cattle futures, land deals, Rose Law Firm records, Ben Ghazi blow-up & cover-up, e-mail server scandal.....I don't know why the democrat party chose her save for the fact she is "one of their own."    Not that Trump is a prize catch but, really, they WANT that HARPIE as the head of the party?
"More sane?"   Really?   She insists she WILL NOT BE INDICTED over the e-mail business and here, she is either living in insaneville, or, she knows "the fix is in," and I cannot eliminate that being the case, given she hasn't been caught or punished for any of her prior machinations.
Perhaps more telling is her making gun control and gun bans apparently a centerpoint of her campaign.  We know how well THAT worked for her husband twenty years ago with the AWB and -*SNAP*- there went kongress over to Gingrich.  She can't have forgotten that....and given more recent events many people are now evenb more attuned to 2A issues.  

Gotta love politics.  So we have something worse than a Hobsons choice.... just remember we get the government we so richly deserve.....

 

[RevDisk]

My point was that the Democrat chose the Democrat, really nothing more.

Although the history of the Clinton machine has the appearance of being much more seedy and nefarious than the Trump Empire. But I suspect all the dirt on Trump hasn't been exposed yet. Still I don't quite hold them equivalent, Trump is the less unsavory character in my eyes, so far.

They're both Democrats. One is just registered a Republican temporarily. 

So 'the Democrat' didn't exactly have an alternative choice, but likely will toss away his vote at the Libertarian Party. I respect your opinion. I honestly just haven't made up my mind which of the two is more seedy and nefarious. They're both terrible persons, as well as seedy/nefarious. The question is which Democrat is MORE terrible, seedy and nefarious. That's a question I'm still pondering.

Further compounding the issue is that Trump and the Clintons have been very good and long term friends, add in strong financial ties as well. Until quite recently, of course. They both appear quite willing to throw each other under the bus for political expediency.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

¹  Oh, really?  The guy has built a mega-empire of businesses.....and he's "incompetent."  
    Not sure how you you got where you are from reality.

²  Trump is not an ideological cxreature.  Now, Rush Limbaugh IS that, so is Michael Savage, so is Bernie   Sanders, et al.  What is is someone who knows how to put things together & make them run.   I will note that on gun control he was more liberal but he has "come to God," thanks to his sons who are gun owners and hunters.

³      "Terrible person," huh.  Well, certain aspects of his personality are grating, I will give you that, but I hold the line there and dispute the conclusion you have arrived at.  I tend to withh hold "terrible" for leaders like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Putin, and that ilk.  I doubt that Trump will qualify for the Einsatzgruppen Brigade at the end of his term(s).


What to say here?  She IS more criminal....for sure.   "Owned by banks??"  I don't really care ..... I mean given her history.... cattle futures, land deals, Rose Law Firm records, Ben Ghazi blow-up & cover-up, e-mail server scandal.....I don't know why the democrat party chose her save for the fact she is "one of their own."    Not that Trump is a prize catch but, really, they WANT that HARPIE as the head of the party?
"More sane?"   Really?   She insists she WILL NOT BE INDICTED over the e-mail business and here, she is either living in insaneville, or, she knows "the fix is in," and I cannot eliminate that being the case, given she hasn't been caught or punished for any of her prior machinations.
Perhaps more telling is her making gun control and gun bans apparently a centerpoint of her campaign.  We know how well THAT worked for her husband twenty years ago with the AWB and -*SNAP*- there went kongress over to Gingrich.  She can't have forgotten that....and given more recent events many people are now evenb more attuned to 2A issues.  

Gotta love politics.  So we have something worse than a Hobsons choice.... just remember we get the government we so richly deserve.....

 

You ever read his book?

[TommyGunn]

You ever read his book?

Which book?   And do you really believe  HE wrote it?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Which book?   And do you really believe  HE wrote it?

You think his positions outlined in it are real? Or will you when you read it?.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rcUCLwWCihE

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Trump make up his mind on healthcare? Or find that missing 5 mill he supposedly raised for vets?

http://youtu.be/b3-nohiCetM


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[RoadKingLarry]

I don't understand. Your statement, minus the gender pronoun, is applicable to either candidate. Both have been Democrats for the majority of their lives. Neither Mr Trump nor Mrs Clinton have been convicted of crimes, but have both been accused more than once of being criminals.

Democrat - 1964? to 1987
Republican - 1987 to 1999
Reform Party - 1999 to 2001
Democrat - 2001 to 2009 
Republican Party - 2009 to 2011
Independent - 2011 to 2012
Republican Party - 2012 to ?

Dem - 31 years (estimated)
Repub - 18 years
Other - 3 years

HRC should be given a fair hearing, but from what I understand, she probably violated law regarding the handling of classified material. Looking over Mr Trump's list of legal activity, I do not see him being morally or ethically superior to Mrs Clinton. In no way am I saying he has committed felonies, but the length and type of legal actions involved say much about the man's character. Whether he broke the law or not as alleged, I can't say but it does not give a good impression. Same with Mrs. Clinton.

So how many dead can you lay at Trump's feet? I can list four that I directly tie to her for you on Hillary's side starting with Chris Stevens. Benghazi alone should be enough to keep that "woman" out of the White House.

[HankB]

. . . If I can't decide any other way, I will fall back on gun rights.  I KNOW Clinton is a gun banner.  At this point, Trump is a question mark who I hear has some people close to him that are pro-gun.  We'll see. 

FWIW, a couple of years ago, some lefties attacked Trump because both of his sons went on safari - a HUNTING safari - to Africa.

This was not a staged photo-op like when Kerry, Clinton, etc., allegedly go duck hunting, but an actual hunting trip.

Trump defended his sons, though he said he personally wasn't a hunter. 

Here's what the hysterical lefties made of it:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tod7vW64jcY

So even though this is indirect evidence of being "pro Second Amendment" and is far from conclusive . . . it still puts Trump miles ahead of HRC on this issue. (Ya think Chelsea would do this?    )

[Balog]

If Trump pulls out the nomination, and HRC doesn't get indicted, I'm writing in SMOD for the election.

One small benefit of this election cycle is that my wife is now %100 on board with emigrating. Depending on how the visa/job search goes we should be leaving the country at <1 year of the term of whoever wins next.

I do wonder who would directly order the murder of more of their rivals. The Clintons have an indirect body count in the hundreds counting things like Waco, and maybe what two dozen or so witnesses who got Vince Fostered on their surreptitious orders? Trump will have to work hard to catch up, but I have a feeling he'll manage.

[Hawkmoon]

Which book?   And do you really believe  HE wrote it?

Do you think Hillary wrote hers?

Do you believe ANY politician actually wrote any book with his/her name on it?

[Hawkmoon]

Trump defended his sons, though he said he personally wasn't a hunter. 

Pfft. I'm not a hunter. But I am an NRA life member, certified instructor, and I have carry permits from multiple states.

[cordex]

Trump defended his sons, though he said he personally wasn't a hunter. 

Trump actually defended his own family?!?  How amazing that someone would defend their own spawn against outsider criticism!  Why, we never see that kind of behavior!

[MechAg94]

Do you think Hillary wrote hers?

Do you believe ANY politician actually wrote any book with his/her name on it?

They still have to live with it.

Obama's book pretty much said he was a lefty communist.  It was right. 

[MechAg94]

FWIW, a couple of years ago, some lefties attacked Trump because both of his sons went on safari - a HUNTING safari - to Africa.

This was not a staged photo-op like when Kerry, Clinton, etc., allegedly go duck hunting, but an actual hunting trip.

Trump defended his sons, though he said he personally wasn't a hunter. 

Here's what the hysterical lefties made of it:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tod7vW64jcY

So even though this is indirect evidence of being "pro Second Amendment" and is far from conclusive . . . it still puts Trump miles ahead of HRC on this issue. (Ya think Chelsea would do this?    )

That is what I was referring to.  I heard 3rd hand on the radio that someone talked to his son at Shot Show who says we have nothing to worry about as far as gun rights.  It doesn't make him pro-gun, it just means he is not an enemy of gun rights.  Would he still sign some foolish legislation after an incident like Sandy Hook?  Maybe.  It still puts him solidly ahead of Clinton on that issue. 

It also means I might still be able to sell my surplus AR15 rifles before the election this fall. 

[Perd Hapley]

They still have to live with it.

Obama's book pretty much said he was a lefty communist.  It was right. 

I'm pretty sure calling Obama a communist is racist. I'm pretty sure.

[Ron]

It is quite possible that if Trump is elected he will ignore most all of the social issues. My suspicion is he will leave the so-con issues as they currently stand, no change to the status quo.

It seems to me that what motivates him is status, power and money. His campaign is basically "lets restore the status of the USA and lets get everyone back to work so they can make money".  

I doubt he will go after any of the left or right hot button issues like guns, abortion etc.

You can't make yourself look great by alienating half the people. But if you usher in a raging growing economy where everybody wins you are the hero.

Same thing with foreign policy. It's hard to be a winner sending your countries sons and daughters off to foreign lands to fight wars of aggression that aren't easy to justify. Somebody will always hate you for it. But if you build up a kick ass military and vow only to use it except in obvious defense of the country you can have your cake and eat it too.

Immigration is another one where he will try and have it both ways. I suspect if he becomes president and actually follows through on his rhetoric the overall quality of immigrants will go up due to increased scrutiny. There will still be a lot of them though.

Or he may run our country into the ground further like he has with some of his other projects. Just because he is going to focus on economic issues that doesn't mean he will be successful. He could get elected and the world oligarchs might punish him for trying to disrupt the nice planet size plantation they're building. It could be a national disaster. Although at this point I fail to see how he could be worse than another Democrat administration (or typical Republican for that matter).  

It's bad enough the Democrats are wrong on the economics but they have become unhinged from reality and want to make men more feminine and woman more masculine. They seem to hate traditional masculinity and despise traditional femininity. Every social issue they pursue chips away at masculinity, femininity, family and the cultural institutions developed to support them. The Democrats are hell bent on repressing and outlawing traditional morality; replacing it with government approved nihilistic amorality, by law or force if necessary.

Government neglect of the social issues would be a win for the country.

  

[Perd Hapley]

I found this while time-travelling. (It's from February). Funny stuff, in hindsight.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/01/donald-trump-the-hater-is-now-a-loser.html

It is quite possible that if Trump is elected he will ignore most all of the social issues. My suspicion is he will leave the so-con issues as they currently stand, no change to the status quo.

It seems to me that what motivates him is status, power and money. His campaign is basically "lets restore the status of the USA and lets get everyone back to work so they can make money".  

I doubt he will go after any of the left or right hot button issues like guns, abortion etc.

On social issues, the status quo is creeping galloping madness, and disenfranchisement of anyone that doesn't want to actively participate in gender-bending. Trump is, apparently, not interested in arresting that. Though I guess he might pitch in to shield business owners from the anti-gender-warriors.

The gun issue is similar, in that he won't necessarily do anything, but how open will he be to pressure from either side?