Donald Trump wants to have control over the GOP convention in July

[mule_eer]

Damn, some people vote for or against because of one position - Birth control, minimum wage, etc. This board is going to support or oppose because of one trait that a person is perceived to have. I do not believe that most people on the WV board is so shallow as not to look at the total package. Will normally make a choice based on party, but that is not equivalent to a person who has won a speech contest or selected because they won the congeniality contest. Do yourself and look more deeply than what is reported in a local newspaper.

I don't think people are saying that this is the correct way to go about electing a president, only that it seems like it is a large piece of the overall puzzle when the electorate as a whole looks at the candidates. I don't know that any of it is a defense of that practice. Personally, I look at the stances on the issues, and I try to vote with the folks who I feel best fit my beliefs. I do take certain aspects of how I perceive their character into account as well though. I think you have to.

I'll use Trump as an example. I've never been a Trump fan. He's always come across as a self-important blowhard to me, long before he entered the political arena. I don't tend to like those sorts of folks. His politics never entered my mind. He could stand up there and espouse every political standing I support, and I would think he was a bad candidate. His only hope of being successful is by bullying people, and the ends don't justify the means.

 

[bamaEER]

Same could be said for the Democrats as well, because if the GOP had their **** together, they'd have walked away with election in a landslide.

Down year for the democrats and they know it. For the GOP, this was an opportunity for a guy like Kasich. But no, the GOP voters are more interested in voicing their disgust with the establishment by choosing a blowhard.

 

[mule_eer]

Same could be said for the Democrats as well, because if the GOP had their **** together, they'd have walked away with election in a landslide.

I listen to a radio show that is cohosted by Michael Steele on a fairly regular basis. He's made this same point many times on that show. He's also made some very reasonable arguments for and against different positions that the GOP or candidates running for the GOP nomination hold. I'm not sure if he chose to leave the post of chair of the GOP or he was asked to leave, but the GOP would do well to listen to him now. The guy is level headed, and he argues points logically.

 

[mneilmont]

I don't think people are saying that this is the correct way to go about electing a president, only that it seems like it is a large piece of the overall puzzle when the electorate as a whole looks at the candidates. I don't know that any of it is a defense of that practice. Personally, I look at the stances on the issues, and I try to vote with the folks who I feel best fit my beliefs. I do take certain aspects of how I perceive their character into account as well though. I think you have to.

I'll use Trump as an example. I've never been a Trump fan. He's always come across as a self-important blowhard to me, long before he entered the political arena. I don't tend to like those sorts of folks. His politics never entered my mind. He could stand up there and espouse every political standing I support, and I would think he was a bad candidate. His only hope of being successful is by bullying people, and the ends don't justify the means.

That would be a big area that we have a difference. I would look mainly at the person capable of doing the job. I could swallow my personal feelings in favor of the best person for the job that needs to be done. I think the most important area that needs attention in the coming election is the economy. Trump would get more weight in creating economic factors, followed by Kasich, followed by the governors in no specific order without following research. I give no credibility in that area to Hillary, Ted, Bern and the other incompetents. Would give preference to Republican candidate if they are equal in other concepts. What is attitude toward military? Law and order? WVU football and basketball. Do have some order of personal preference.

 

[mule_eer]

That would be a big area that we have a difference. I would look mainly at the person capable of doing the job. I could swallow my personal feelings in favor of the best person for the job that needs to be done. I think the most important area that needs attention in the coming election is the economy. Trump would get more weight in creating economic factors, followed by Kasich, followed by the governors in no specific order without following research. I give no credibility in that area to Hillary, Ted, Bern and the other incompetents. Would give preference to Republican candidate if they are equal in other concepts. What is attitude toward military? Law and order? WVU football and basketball. Do have some order of personal preference.

I think the character evaluation - as much as that is possible from afar - is part of how capable they are when it comes to the job. What I've seen from Trump is that he views any comments that are not supportive of him or his positions as an attack. That doesn't speak well for dealing with anyone, locally or abroad. That's my personal take, of course. I guess part of my reasoning is that we are electing the head of the executive branch, and that person has to be able to work with the legislative branch in order to get much of anything accomplished. We've seen what happens when those 2 branches can't seem to reach any sort of compromise, and I'm hoping that we can move away from that problem. The way I see it, Trump only stands to amplify that problem. I would add that I'm not too hopeful about Cruz or Clinton in that respect either.

 

[bornaneer]

Baseless? HA!

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/20...business-that-shut-down-laid-off-150-workers/

Looks like Bain made a great business decision. What laws did Mitt break. A big ado about nothing......in fact a baseless political hit......no laws were broken.

 

[bornaneer]

This is on the dumbasses who really do believe in unicorns, leprechauns and 30 foot high walls on our southern border.

You calling yourself a dumbass since you believe the 30 foot high wall would be built? I'm a repub and I don't believe it.

 

[mneilmont]

I think the character evaluation - as much as that is possible from afar - is part of how capable they are when it comes to the job. What I've seen from Trump is that he views any comments that are not supportive of him or his positions as an attack. That doesn't speak well for dealing with anyone, locally or abroad. That's my personal take, of course. I guess part of my reasoning is that we are electing the head of the executive branch, and that person has to be able to work with the legislative branch in order to get much of anything accomplished. We've seen what happens when those 2 branches can't seem to reach any sort of compromise, and I'm hoping that we can move away from that problem. The way I see it, Trump only stands to amplify that problem. I would add that I'm not too hopeful about Cruz or Clinton in that respect either.

Of course I have never sat in on Trump negotiations, but from experience he has not had a take it or leave it approach and have the success he has enjoyed. I think it may behoove us to read his book on negotiations. I feel absolutely certain that the arrogance that has come thru in his political short life has not carried into his business life.

Unless he is operating in a monopoly, he has eaten crow about half the time he has attempted a power play. There are tools you can use to get an advantage if you know the opposition. Money is absolutely an advantage. Can you sweat the opposition. Does he have power to wait? Liquidity?

If you have all the power in a negotiation, you have got to keep your head. There is no advantage in breaking someone if you need them to complete the job to your satisfaction.

With the success Trump has had, I do not believe he is what you think he is. I would say he is quick to analyze the task at hand and negotiate to get the end product he wants. He has probably had a broader history of negotiations than anyone in the field. Speculation is learned and Trump has survived in a rough environment. And I would say his toughest negotiations have been with low on totem pole politicians or gov employees. Donald wins these by playing both sides of politics.