Super Tuesday 2.0

[Play Angry]

Last post cut off the final paragraph for some reason.

Re: Buckley and Reagan - conservative ideology since the 60s has been aligned with the belief that minimal government is the best government. Republicans have been drifting away from that tenet since 2000 at an alarming pace. Trump's nomination will signal the final full-scale rejection of the idea of small government.

Reagan believed government involvement was the problem. Trump says the issue isn't overreach but instead is one of implementation. Give him increased power within the executive branch and he can fix all your problems. It's just an authoritarian version of what the left has pitched since the 70s.

[shockmonster]

Kung WU

You are either a big idiot or just ignoring what you don't want to believe. To try to debate Trump as anyone who has values is a losing venture.

-Just for a beginning, he's obviously never seriously attended any church any denomination. Anyone who has, knows that it is not said "One Corinthians Two (it's obviously, First Cor. 2).
-He constantly lies and there too many examples to mention. I don't know how many times, he has said something that can be confirmed publicly in a speech, or even on the debate stage, and when confronted, he said he didn't say that. Then later when asked, he changes his story again, and again later just ignoring the question, like it will go away. Either people like you choose to ignore that he does this or you don't pay attention enough when he does this. Just one example of this is when he accused President Bush of lying about the weapons of mass destruction. He later fumbled around, and said he didn't say this and when pressed, ignored the question.
-He says things like he is in favor of torturing people on the battlefield. He's made so many false statements about the war going on in the middle east, and favoring torture, that a large group of generals like General Keane have refused to back him.
-He encourages his backers to punch out people who disagree with him. When they do, he pays the legal bills instead of denouncing them. He needs to denounce people who on his behalf promote violence and make unequivocal statements that violence is not tolerated.
-He at first denounced David Duke and the KKK, and then he said that he didn't know who Duke was. He needs to unequivocally denounce Duke and his followers, not play both sides.
-I don't think that he believes for a minute that he can deport all of the 11 million or more illegals in the United States, but he takes a hard stand that would require a Nazi operation of the Secret Service to accomplish. However, he promises Americans that he is serious about it. If elected, he will drop that promise in a New York minute. He needs to make promises that he can keep, instead of promises that he has no thought of keeping.

Some, maybe more of his policies, are probably positions I can agree with. (Building a wall to stop people from entering the US is a good idea and he probably would try to do it, Having a legal foreign worker program that works, helping simplify the tax code to help the economy, helping manufacturing workers and bring those jobs back may be a good idea-at least slow down the free trade policies that move goods out and does not help us ship out goods, etc. are policies that I can back). The bottom line is that he needs to begin to act like a PRESIDENT and less like a RUSSIAN THUG.

[SB Shock]

It kills me when the same people who (correctly) attacked the Clintons' morality vacuum for decades play retarded when it comes to Trump's renowned marital infidelities and career.

It's not exactly news that the guy is a piece of ****. If you vote for him in spite of it, that is certainly your right, but just be honest that you are cool with ceding the right's traditional claim to the moral high ground in exchange for a dude who tells you he can stuff done because he's a "winner."

The right is castrating the legacy of Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley in favor of a fearmonger reality star.

You do realize that a majority of voters have said they would rather have somebody other than Trump? But the Republican Party made Trump possible through their lack of leadership and any kind of plan. They have given us McCain and Romney as alternatives for the last two elections - they are hardly conservatives in the likes of Reagan. They pretty much just roll over for the Obama/democrats for the last 8 years.

For this election cycle, they roll out Bush and kaisich. Even when you get a couple good young conservative, the republican party won't support either. You had a tea party candidate in Rubio but he never get party support. Then you have a very strong constitutionlist in Cruz - he gets no support. The republican party freaking sits there and whines, but offers no solution and even have the gall to say they would rather Hillary get elected giving up the next 8 years than offer some type of viable alternative or figure out how to work with Trump. Well the Republican party may have given up, but it clear the common people haven't and they want somebody who at least says he will fight for conservative values.

[SB Shock]

We have to remember that Germany also had a constitutional republic.

Germany at the time of Hitlar was Parliamentary Republic. Much different than our constitutional republic. :abnormal:

Trump may be more into the Germanic authoritarian form of republic.

I see those as who try and say Trump = Hitler is just stupid argument. We hear the no filter, no values, no morals. But he didn't get where he has gotten to if he had no filter, or no values or morals. The better question would be to define in terms of the value and morals he does hold. But that is to much work - and most just go the fear mongering route.

I4WSU asked you the following questions and you have refused to answer, maybe you didn't see them, so let me post them before.

So exactly what is you vision for the country?
How close do you think we are to that vision at the present time?
How close do you believe the current Washington DC can get us to your vision?
Who do you see championing that vision in the future?
What belief(s) or ideal(s) do you consider worth defending?

[shockmonster]

Trump is the main issue and if you guys like him, that is fine.

However, I have stated my views on him.

The Washington Post had a poll that you may want to disregard but

37 percent of the people polled TRUST Hillary
27 percent of the people polled TRUST Trump

He has many unfavorable and may just be unelectable. I'll wait and see.

[Play Angry]

You do realize that a majority of voters have said they would rather have somebody other than Trump?

Are you talking to me here? This doesn't address my post, but you styled it as a rebuke for some reason. If that is how you intended it, please elaborate. I am aware of Trump's standing in primary polls and follow the fluctuations pretty closely because I find the process fascinating, much like you seem to.

But the Republican Party made Trump possible through their lack of leadership and any kind of plan.

I agree. Pretty obvious the RNC is tone deaf and poorly piloted.

For this election cycle, they roll out Bush and kaisich. Even when you get a couple good young conservative, the republican party won't support either. You had a tea party candidate in Rubio but he never get party support. Then you have a very strong constitutionlist in Cruz - he gets no support.

I share your frustration - the failure to unify behind one of the conservative candidates was the fissure in the race that Trump needed in order to emerge.

Well the Republican party may have given up, but it clear the common people haven't and they want somebody who at least says he will fight for conservative values.

This is Trump's most remarkable accomplishment - he has convinced his core of voters that he will stand up for certain values to which his life story has stood in stark contradiction.

Serious advocate for evangelicals? Cruz, Rubio and several other candidates had impressive bona fides here. Trump can't correctly name specific books of the Bible despite it being his second most frequently read book (behind "Art of the Deal" of course) and won't even name a favorite Bible verse. But he says he knows a lot about the Bible and stuff, and the IRS is targeting him because he is such a strong Christian. He has convinced a lot of evangelicals he is in their corner despite bragging about prior affairs and living a life that could give Bill Clinton a run for his money in a libertine competition. Folks who were appalled by Bill in the White House love this fella. Credit to his charisma and his ability to exploit most primary voters' lack of sincere conviction in their beliefs.

Serious and strong approach to foreign policy? No idea who the Quds forces are and sorta admires Putin, openly advocates torture, still claims he will get Mexico to write a check for the wall, and so on. Also loves toeing the line on Farenheit 9/11 level trutherism, dodged the draft by way of an apparently falsified medical deferment for heel spurs, and has trashed John McCain's military service. But hey he projects an alpha image in speeches and compliments his own genital endowment at a debate, so the guy has gotta be tough and knows what he is doing. His rhetorical skills deserve a lot of credit for building the cult of personality that creates this counterfactual perception here.



It will be interesting to see where the intellectual wing of conservatism takes shelter in the coming years if Trump wins. Will its voices continue to reside in an increasingly hostile Republican Party, or will they break away and leave it behind at risk to ideological survival? They are clearly losing the internal fight within the party and that makes me sad.

[SB Shock]

Why won't you answer the questions?

Trump is the main issue and if you guys like him, that is fine.

I don't really hear anybody saying they love Trump, but if Trump wins the nomination I am not just going to concede to Hillary. IMO I have to make choice between Hillary and Trump - it pretty easy choice. Anybody but Hillary.

[SB Shock]

Are you talking to me here? This doesn't address my post, but you styled it as a rebuke for some reason.

It feels like you are rebuking us for Trump success, when most likely the audience of this board based on the Kansas Caucus were against trump and either were going with Cruz or Rubio.

I understand your frustration with the electorate though. But their choices didn't start with Trump, they have been suspect for a decade now.

It will be interesting to see where the intellectual wing of conservatism takes shelter in the coming years if Trump wins. Will its voices continue to reside in an increasingly hostile Republican Party, or will they break away and leave it behind at risk to ideological survival? They are clearly losing the internal fight within the party and that makes me sad.

I think the convention could be very interesting in this regard. I have heard one talking head that he thinks the candidates for both parties is not somebody in the present race.

[shockmonster]

I don't really hear anybody saying they love Trump, but if Trump wins the nomination I am not just going to concede to Hillary. IMO I have to make choice between Hillary and Trump - it pretty easy choice. Anybody but Hillary.

Trump needs to speak to a lot of people he has yet to win over. It is his job to win over those who mistrust him just as it was Mitt Romneys job 4 years ago. Romney didn't get it done.

[SB Shock]

Trump needs to speak to a lot of people he has yet to win over. It is his job to win over those who mistrust him just as it was Mitt Romneys job 4 years ago. Romney didn't get it done.

I agree. But Trump is also not a done deal yet.

So - I'm still waiting for

So exactly what is you vision for the country?
How close do you think we are to that vision at the present time?
How close do you believe the current Washington DC can get us to your vision?
Who do you see championing that vision in the future?
What belief(s) or ideal(s) do you consider worth defending?

[Kung Wu]

It kills me when the same people who (correctly) attacked the Clintons' morality vacuum for decades play retarded when it comes to Trump's renowned marital infidelities and career.

I personally don't know a single thing about his marriages or infidelities.

I really don't even know that much about his career. I know he has owned a ton of businesses, which isn't unusual for a self made billionaire. I know some have failed and some have succeeded, also not unusual. I know he has grown an empire on high end commercial real estate, and somehow pulled it off without ending up with an enormous amount of debt, which is unusual. I think he manages most of the businesses he starts, which is a little unusual, but I am not certain of that.

[jdshock]

I personally don't know a single thing about his marriages or infidelities.

I really don't even know that much about his career. I know he has owned a ton of businesses, which isn't unusual for a self made billionaire. I know some have failed and some have succeeded, also not unusual. I know he has grown an empire on high end commercial real estate, and somehow pulled it off without ending up with an enormous amount of debt, which is unusual. I think he manages most of the businesses he starts, which is a little unusual, but I am not certain of that.

He is hardly self made.

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-youre-probably-better-investing-than-donald-trump/

[Play Angry]

He is hardly self made.

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-yo...-donald-trump/

This article doesn't really address how he got to the $200 million figure in 1982 - Trump inherited $40 million in 1974 in addition to the business loan his father gave him (oft cited erroneously by him in the debates as his sole source of funding). To his credit, his high leverage plays succeeded as his inheritance coincided almost exactly with the nadir of NYC commercial real estate prices. However, since around 1980 (so for the last 3.5+ decades), his returns have mirrored the S&P 500 almost identically, falling just short of the performance for a passive fund mirroring that index.

He killed it for a half dozen years following when he got his hands on a huge sum passed down from daddy warbucks and has been completely and utterly average as a businessman since then. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it certainly is not the image he projects.

[Play Angry]

I personally don't know a single thing about his marriages or infidelities.

That is incredible considering you are a smart guy who is generally well-informed. Do you only read Breitbart and Drudge?

I ask because nearly every other news outlet (including conservative and center-right vehicles like the National Review, Weekly Standard and Wall Street Journal) has harped on it for almost a year now - although it is such a common knowledge part of his biography that it doesn't really grab headlines any more than a revelation that Bill Clinton has cheated on Hillary would. Breitbart has been pretty shameless in its advocacy for Trump so it wouldn't surprise me if they have ignored or deflected that part of his biography entirely.

[Play Angry]

I think the convention could be very interesting in this regard. I have heard one talking head that he thinks the candidates for both parties is not somebody in the present race.

That would be pretty wild just for the historical significance.

It feels like both parties have lost control of the narrative with their base (Democrats are holding on by a string this cycle but the trend is not good, Republican voters are already rejecting their version of the status quo albeit in a somewhat surprising manner by veering mostly towards the center rather than to the right). It makes you wonder if we are approaching a new era where the two party system is about to give way to something more fractured and European - my gut says no just because of how we've structured things like the electoral college in America. The people might feel more at home with 4 or 5 parties representing the spectrum of politics but it just doesn't seem practicable in the U.S.