Trump

[SB Shock]

Republican platform set to reflect Dick Gephardt's 1988 union-advised policies on trade, tariffs and currency pegs.


Trump's apologists among conservatives who believe they can control him may eventually realize he is the one manipulating the direction of their party's policies.

I can only ready the high level portion of the link - but maybe it time to admit the Republican Party doesn't really represent conservative values - but it is a just a different flavor of Democratic Party and their ideals.

[shockmonster]

Republican platform set to reflect Dick Gephardt's 1988 union-advised policies on trade, tariffs and currency pegs.


Trump's apologists among conservatives who believe they can control him may eventually realize he is the one manipulating the direction of their party's policies.

First of all, I view Trump as a last resort before Hillary. (unfortunately that isn't the worst of it-because) I think that if Hillary wins, the Republican House and Senate
MAY BOTH go Democrat too. I've seen the Democrats in control of the Presidency, House, and Senate a few years ago, and it produced Obama Care. If we don't want to
go that route, Trump needs to win.

Last, if enough Republicans win in the House and Senate, there will be some of a emergency measure on Trump that will control the situation at least some.
If you aren't a Hillary supporter and a liberal believer, this is the best scenario. I don't want to go into the worst case scenarios if Hillary wins, and if the Congress turns
Democrat.

[Play Angry]

I can only ready the high level portion of the link - but maybe it time to admit the Republican Party doesn't really represent conservative values - but it is a just a different flavor of Democratic Party and their ideals.

Certainly trending in that direction.

I guess the real question is - for how long will conservatives be content to let Trump smile, nod and pat our heads as he redirects party policies for the present and the future? If conservatism in the sense we know it is to survive, it may be forced with the difficult decision of whether to separate from the Republican party.

Survival is a strong motivator for elected officials, so I am guessing most conservative Republicans in Congress will capitulate and embrace the strange breed of neonationalism that is transforming the party. We are probably another cycle or two away from a full-fledged divorce.

[Play Angry]

First of all, I view Trump as a last resort before Hillary. (unfortunately that isn't the worst of it-because) I think that if Hillary wins, the Republican House and Senate
MAY BOTH go Democrat too. I've seen the Democrats in control of the Presidency, House, and Senate a few years ago, and it produced Obama Care. If we don't want to
go that route, Trump needs to win.

Last, if enough Republicans win in the House and Senate, there will be some of a emergency measure on Trump that will control the situation at least some.
If you aren't a Hillary supporter and a liberal believer, this is the best scenario. I don't want to go into the worst case scenarios if Hillary wins, and if the Congress turns
Democrat.

Rest assured, if the House turns Democrat this fall (very unlikely given the Republicans' current edge in seats and the advantageous redistricting of recent years) it will be because Trump lost in a landslide defeat to an extent Rubio, Cruz or even Kasich would have never suffered. We are talking a double digit ***** slapping in the popular vote.

People need reasons to vote for Trump. Plenty of people dislike Hillary and are inclined not to vote for her, but your candidate needs to given them a reason to vote for him.

If being "not Hillary" is the best and only reason his supporters can come up with, then he is the weakest major party candidate in history.

[Dave Stalwart]

If being "not Hillary" is the best and only reason his supporters can come up with, then he is the weakest major party candidate in history.

No, he would only be the weakest major party candidate in 7 or 8 years... when at the time, we elected anyone who was "not Bush"

[Play Angry]

No, he would only be the weakest major party candidate in 7 or 8 years... when at the time, we elected anyone who was "not Bush"

Nope.

Obama, for all his many faults and poor performance as President, was an effective campaigner with a generally consistent message. Poor President, yes. Poor candidate for the blue team in a general election? Hardly.

[Dave Stalwart]

Nope.

Obama, for all his many faults and poor performance as President, was an effective campaigner with a generally consistent message. Poor President, yes. Poor candidate for the blue team in a general election? Hardly.

I'll give you that. I was worried you would also go after where I said "bush" because technically he wasn't an option. :)

[shockmonster]

People need reasons to vote for Trump. Plenty of people dislike Hillary and are inclined not to vote for her, but your candidate needs to given them a reason to vote for him.

If being "not Hillary" is the best and only reason his supporters can come up with, then he is the weakest major party candidate in history.

Sadly BOTH candidates BEST arguments for voting for them is to NOT vote for the other guy. And to call Trump MY candidate (and me a supporter) is not to have been paying attention for the past year to what I've been saying.

[Play Angry]

You are trying to shame holdouts into voting for him. He is certainly your candidate now, as frustrating as it may be.

[wu_shizzle]

Trump is polling worse than any losing Republican Presidential campaign in modern history.

I'm fine with the RNC picking a new candidate at the convention, there's really nothing to lose.

[Eric]

Trump is polling worse than any losing Republican Presidential campaign in modern history.

I'm fine with the RNC picking a new candidate at the convention, there's really nothing to lose.

If they want any semblance of a chance at the White House, they wll have to.

[tropicalshox]

Trump is polling worse than any losing Republican Presidential campaign in modern history.

I'm surprised at that. It appears like a close contest to me with plenty of time to go.

[shockmonster]

You are trying to shame holdouts into voting for him. He is certainly your candidate now, as frustrating as it may be.

You don't define me.

It sounds like I'm more pragmatic and you more ideological. To me, Hillary is a much darker gray than Trump. I would prefer several of the other candidates, but they lost and therefore aren't available to me. Kung Wu is your man that will defend Trump. If you prefer Hillary that's your prerogative.

[WstateU]

Trump is polling worse than any losing Republican Presidential campaign in modern history.

I'm surprised at that. It appears like a close contest to me with plenty of time to go.

"The shift in the polls comes after a tough week on the campaign trail for Clinton, who dodged criminal charges from the FBI over her use of a private email server while secretary of state but was criticized harshly by FBI Director James Comey."

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/287504-poll-trump-clinton-close-in-three-swing-states

[Play Angry]

You don't define me.

It sounds like I'm more pragmatic and you more ideological. To me, Hillary is a much darker gray than Trump. I would prefer several of the other candidates, but they lost and therefore aren't available to me. Kung Wu is your man that will defend Trump.

You probably should not hug a cactus if you don't like the needles. You are voting for Trump and advocate for others to do the same. Would you prefer "former-Trump-detractor-turned-certain-voter-who-attempts-to-sway-others-to-also-vote-for-Trump, but-is-not, under-any-circumstances, to-be-labeled-a-Trump-supporter-despite-actually-supporting-him?"

If you prefer Hillary that's your prerogative.

Nope, also despicable.