GOPe scrambling to the Fallout Shelter
- Thread starter ThatNehlenFeelin
- Start date
Yep. They are a seriously divided party at this point. A special meeting was held last week of all the most significant financial donors. They were deciding where to throw their money. They can't fully support Cruz because of his obvious flaws and they had trouble getting behind Rubio.
Remember a couple of months ago when the GOP had Trump sign that pledge, promising to not run as an Independent if he was not the GOP nominee? At this point (after tomorrow), it wouldn't surprise me to see a group of GOP folks trying to throw in a 3rd party candidate, although the most likely result would be to steal votes from Trump and add to the likelihood of the Dems winning the general.
Remember a couple of months ago when the GOP had Trump sign that pledge, promising to not run as an Independent if he was not the GOP nominee? At this point (after tomorrow), it wouldn't surprise me to see a group of GOP folks trying to throw in a 3rd party candidate, although the most likely result would be to steal votes from Trump and add to the likelihood of the Dems winning the general.
If there is anybody that isn't scared shitless by Trump ... well, I don't even know how to finish that sentence.
Everybody should be scared by what we are seeing right now, regardless of which side you're on.
So, what are those money people's intent? Did those folks amass fortunes by being stupid? What is the advantage gained to support someone to oppose Trump and his money and hand the seat to Hillary? Dream on, but it ain't a gonna happen.
That sounds reasonable, but not in the way you are offering. If Hillary gets the seat and continues on the track that she finds as the correct direction(Obama continuation), what kind of future do you see for the country? 2% GDP growth and National Debt growing at a trillion dollars per year. How does the next generation prosper? What does Hillary offer other than more tax and spend? All she has offered thus far is more spending and maybe borrowing. Money will move on to where a reasonable return can be possible. Disposable income is going to be in fewer and fewer hands as she relies on growing socialist programs to feed the indigent.
Let's just sum up succinctly by stating that you are making wildly incorrect assumptions regarding "the way I was offering".
To clarify what I meant by my statement above ... for the most part I think we didn't have more candidates emerge from the Dem side because it was a foregone conclusion that Hilary was going to get the nomination. Then on the GOP side, I think it has basically been reduced down to who they think could beat Hilary and not really who the best candidate is.
It makes me wonder what the GOP race would look like if Hilary hadn't entered the race. I honestly don't think it would be anywhere near the same.
So, here's Kasich, a man that has actually DONE STUFF ... good stuff, and he's just barely hanging on.
It's like when they start talking about the last 4 in and the first 4 out of the tournament and they remove the names of the schools and just put up their credentials. How many have credentials that rival Kasich's? Chair of the Budget Committee the last time we had a balanced budget, was on the Armed Services Committee for 18 years, so he should be good on foreign policy, reversed an $8B deficit to a $2B surplus as Governor of Ohio ... etc. etc. So, he's good fiscally, he's good on foreign policy, he's served in congress and has served as a leader as governor of Ohio.
And he's likely finished after tomorrow. This is what we've become as an electorate.
Then on the Dem side, all of the cards are stacked in Hilary's favor. In the New Hampshire primary (I think), Sanders got 50% more votes, but only got a few more delegates. In the other states, it has been relatively close, but she's leading him in delegates by about 6 to 1.
Like I said on another thread a few days ago. This election isn't about the candidates, but about the voters. And judging from the fact that John Kasich, a fantastic candidate for POTUS, is DOA after tomorrow and Donald Trump is leading the GOP race, it's quite obvious to me that the GOP voters are just f'in stupid. They're sending a message to Washington alright.
And as far as the dems are concerned, this is Hilary's race. Real Clear Politics has her beating Trump by anywhere from 2-5% in virtually every poll. If that happens, GOP can only blame themselves. HC may be the most beatable Dem candidate in a long time.
I can't stand what the country will look like week 2 of his presidency, but when Trump surprises liberals the way he surprised the GOP (and libertarians for that matter), I'm really going to laugh. The "the Dems can only blame themselves" will never get old.
The fact that HC is the leading candidate says that very thing. But again, Kasich is going to be gone in 48 hrs. And will lose to Trump. Pathetic.
Trump is a business man; a person who has made his bones and prides himself on being a negotiator. Business is a give and take game--that's what he knows, that's what he is good at. His book should be read as an indication of how he will lead because that's what he knows and does. If elected, he will be a centrist; he will work with both sides more so than the other GOP candidates would.
During this primary period, he has spoken and used language to evoke emotion, he has deliberately not given lots of details, and he has anchored how the public looks at him by deliberately choosing to make his first negative comment about Rosie O'Donnell. However, he will likely fall back to what he knows and does best (deal making, not authoritarian dominance) should he become CEO of the US. I believe that hard liners and radical supporters of Trump that believe he will follow through with the wall, internment camps, minority exclusion, governmental shut down, etc will be disappointed with the business man/deal maker they get.
During this primary period, he has spoken and used language to evoke emotion, he has deliberately not given lots of details, and he has anchored how the public looks at him by deliberately choosing to make his first negative comment about Rosie O'Donnell. However, he will likely fall back to what he knows and does best (deal making, not authoritarian dominance) should he become CEO of the US. I believe that hard liners and radical supporters of Trump that believe he will follow through with the wall, internment camps, minority exclusion, governmental shut down, etc will be disappointed with the business man/deal maker they get.
This is hilarious.
What came quickly to kind though was Caddyshack. Sadly what also came to mind was Billary essentially renting out the Whitehouse.
So, the man you plan to elect, is nothing like the man that's campaigning? It's purely conjecture on how he would handle being POTUS. Maybe he's done OK in business, but he's failed an awful lot too and has the 4 bankruptcies. He's also terribly childish. One of the things about narcissists is that their outward expressions of being better than everybody and bragging about everything they have and everything they've done actually hides a bit of a fragile ego. That becomes apparent with him anytime he is criticized at all. If people question his wealth, or anything else, he lashes out like a juvenile twit.
Now, picture the scrutiny and criticism the POTUS gets. I don't see any indications that he will be able to handle that well at all, and could perhaps handle it in ways that are terribly dangerous.
He has stated that if you want to destroy terrorists, you have to go after their families. So, here you have a POTUS candidate basically saying that his foreign policy includes WAR CRIMES!!
So, he's being elected because people are thinking he will be totally different than how he's being now? So, how do you know who in the hell you're actually voting for? The one you see, or the one you hope he's going to be?
Meanwhile Kasich gets ignored ... a guy with a good track record actually accomplishing the things in government that people think Trump MIGHT be able to do. Government is entirely different from private business.
I am not endorsing Trump; that is my opinion on what will transpire should he the next President. I don't believe, nor do I hope, he will be the next President.
As I've said before, if all pedophiles wore green belts, I would not wear a green belt--even if I liked green belts.
OK, my apologies (sincerely), I misunderstood your message. Replace all of the "you's" with "Trump endorsers/voters".
I'll bet that brother John gets a real bump when all of these people who will not vote Hillary cast their vote for John. I will certainly join you if that is the way you are going to vote when you get your turn.
And, may we assume that you have never complained about how the parties never work together? A lot openly talk about the "good old days" when they could be adversarial on the floor and then at quit time they go to their favorite watering hole'. This is one of the strong points that Dems brag about when referring to "TIP". Do you really think it is best when they take a strong stance that is "my way or Hiway", or sit down and negotiate a settlement? We see so many people who are willing to negotiate and change their positions.
I'm all for negotiations and work between both sides of the aisle. I do not sense the same from folks who speak openly of refusing to appoint a SC nomination (whoever it is) and those who have shut down the government instead of compromise. My opinion is still the same; those voters who like the fact that "Trump says what we feel" in regard to race and immigration will end up disappointed if he's elected when he governs as a centrist--not the radical persona that fueled his primary fervor.